World Media Watch for July 15, 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//Arabia.com, Jordan--IRAN'S JUDICIARY SUPREMO WARNS IRAQI OPPOSITION AGAINST US 'TRAP' (The head of Iran's judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Shahrudi, warned Iraqi opposition groups seeking to topple President Saddam Hussein against falling into an "American trap."…"All people have a right to self-determination," he added, without specifically saying Iran, which fought a devastating eight-war against Iraq in the 1980s, would be open to helping the opposition oust the Iraqi strongman…"While Saddam's regime does not represent the people and his regime has had terrible consequences in Iraq and the region, we completely reject American intervention (against Iraq) which we would consider an aggression," he said.)

2//The Jordan Times, Jordan--IRAQ WARNS IRAN AGAINST ANY ATTACK ("The Persians should know that they are an important partner of the game," Uday said in clear reference to Washington's threat to oust the Iraqi government…Iraq fears Iran may attack southern Iraqi provinces dominated by Shiite Muslims if Washington launches a military offensive.)

3//Pravda, Russia--ATTACK ON IRAQ: WHAT IF HIS SON WERE TO BEHAVE LIKE HIS FATHER? (However, a new coalition loosely called the "Group of Four" (The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Massoud Barzani, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (Jalal Talabani), the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (linked to Teheran) and the Iraqi National Accord Movement (Iyad Al-Allawi, who ominously has links to the CIA) are hailed as a new political grouping which, like the suspect band of political animals, warlords and drug traffickers currently ruling Afghanistan, could be financed into a viable yes-man administration in this oil-rich nation… The great question lies, as always in Arab politics, in the unity of and credibility among the numerous factions involved and this even includes the standing and credibility of the United States of America. Massoud Barzani (KDP), remembering George Bush Senior's campaign in which the Kurds were instigated to revolt against Saddam Hussein and were subsequently abandoned as thousands were massacred by a Republican Guard which had been spared the rigours of combat, has posed the question of the American President: "What if his son were to behave like his father?")

4//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting, USA--ISRAEL MAY BE GROOMING POSSIBLE ARAFAT REPLACEMENT (Israel may deport Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti to Lebanon and then to exile in Europe. Given that exiling Barghouti will raise his international profile, the Jewish state may be helping to groom him to eventually replace Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.)

5//World Press Review, USA--COMMENTARY/ ISRAEL: THE MYTH OF LEFT-WING MEDIA CONTROL (During the past decade, presentation of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Israeli media has come under attack from the right wing for being biased and manipulative, and for spreading a single, pro-peace message. But contrary to public myth, it is the right wing-not the left-that uses and manipulates the media to disseminate its political message.)

6//Foreign Policy in Focus, USA--THE YELLOW PERIL REVISITED (Against the backdrop of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, key administration officials have been quietly strengthening ties to Taiwan and increasing the risk of a confrontation with China… However, these closer ties are not enough for some hawks close to key policymakers in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney, who want the administration to take an even more confrontational stance toward China. Citing what they see as a major military build-up by Beijing, they want the administration to provide more sophisticated weapons to Taiwan, bolster the U.S. military presence in East Asia, and follow through on proposals to create a new security framework that could act as a kind of proto-alliance among the "democratic states" of the region.

* * *

1//Arabia.com July 14, 2002, 08:13 PM
http://www.arabia.com/afp/news/mideast/article/english/0,10846,246186,00.html

IRAN'S JUDICIARY SUPREMO WARNS IRAQI OPPOSITION AGAINST US 'TRAP'

DAMASCUS (AFP) - The head of Iran's judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Shahrudi, warned Iraqi opposition groups seeking to topple President Saddam Hussein against falling into an "American trap."

"If the Iraqi opposition represents the Iraqi people ... it can benefit from the help of others on condition it does not fall into the American trap," Hashemi-Shahrudi told a press conference in Damascus.

"All people have a right to self-determination," he added, without specifically saying Iran, which fought a devastating eight-war against Iraq in the 1980s, would be open to helping the opposition oust the Iraqi strongman.

"We are worried because the United States wants to exploit (the opposition) to achieve their own interests in the region," he said. Hashemi-Shahrudi also rejected the notion that the United States, which has been key in keeping UN sanctions imposed on Iraq since its 1990 invasion of Kuwait, was seeking to help ordinary Iraqis.

"While Saddam's regime does not represent the people and his regime has had terrible consequences in Iraq and the region, we completely reject American intervention (against Iraq) which we would consider an aggression," he said.

His comments came as Iraqi army officers in exile and opposition leaders capped three days of meetings in London by calling on their country's army to topple Saddam and said they were setting up a war council to do so.

(MORE)

2//The Jordan Times Sunday, July 14, 2002
http://www.jordantimes.com/Sun/news/news11.htm

IRAQ WARNS IRAN AGAINST ANY ATTACK

BAGHDAD (R) - Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's eldest son Uday has warned Iran against taking advantage of any US military assault on Baghdad to launch its own attack.

In a statement handed to reporters on Saturday, Uday urged Iran not to repeat the harm he said it had sought to achieve during the 1991 Gulf War.

Baghdad accused Tehran of backing Shiite dissidents in southern Iraq who rebelled against the Baghdad government during the Gulf War, but Iraqi forces had quashed the rebellion.

"The Persians tried to harm us in 1991. They should understand that they wouldn't able to annex even a foot of Iraqi land to their territory," he said.

"The Persians should know that they are an important partner of the game," Uday said in clear reference to Washington's threat to oust the Iraqi government.

(SNIP)

Iraq fears Iran may attack southern Iraqi provinces dominated by Shiite Muslims if Washington launches a military offensive.

Uday has blamed Iran for an assassination attempt on his life few years ago. Gunmen attacked and severely wounded Uday in Baghdad on Dec. 12, 1996.

Ties between Baghdad and Tehran have improved since they fought the ruinous 1980-88 war. Iraq and Iran agreed to allow Iranian pilgrims to visit Shiite Muslim holy shrines in Iraq.

But relations are still strained over the release of remaining prisoners of war and because each country hosts rebels fighting to overthrow the neighbouring state's government.

3//Pravda 2002-07-13
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/07/13/32412.html

ATTACK ON IRAQ: WHAT IF HIS SON WERE TO BEHAVE LIKE HIS FATHER?
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

As the Iraqi opposition masses in London to plan strategy, senior officials in Washington and London confirm that the plan to oust Saddam Hussein has been given the go-ahead and that the sell-by date has been stipulated at the next six months, January or February being forecast as the most likely dates for an all-out campaign.

It is the scope of the campaign which is at present causing more ink to fly. On one hand there are the military sources stating that a US force of 250,000 troops based in Turkey and Kuwait (possibly also Jordan), together with a 25,000-strong British force and auxiliary Australian and New Zealand special forces is to launch a three-pronged attack while political sources claim that covert operations this time would provide a much greater chance of success with fewer risks being involved.

The military attack currently being planned at US Central Command in Florida, should it come, is expected by experts to be launched next January or February. In the north, US forces based around the Turkish bases of Incirlik and Dujarbakir would link with the Kurdish forces (around 50,000 men under arms) and take Mosul airbase to use as an advanced control centre. This would be used against the 100,000 Iraqi troops stationed in the area, while in the south, an attack could be launched from the Persian Gulf, or the bases of Ali Al-Salem (Kuwait), Muharraq (Bahrain) or Al-Udeid (Qatar), to face a similar force of 100,000 Iraqi army troops. Both army groups would then launch a two-pronged attack from north and south at the 100,000 Republican Guard crack troops stationed around Baghdad.

(SNIP)

However, the question remains open as to whether the rumours of a military campaign are anything more than this. A senior White House source stated recently to the British daily newspaper, The Daily Telegraph, that "American personnel are supporting the Iraqi opposition and working with dissatisfied elements within Saddam's regime, even though he has killed quite a few of these people. Britain is involved too", while at the same time admitting that "The thing people need to remember is in addition to the possibility of another Desert Storm, there are less visible things we can do".

In the London meeting, and outside it, can be seen the forces which would be expected to appear in a post-Saddam scenario in Baghdad, although Hoshyar Zebari, a spokesperson for the Kurdistan Democratic Party, confirmed that "we do not take any of this seriously. It is a big joke", adding that there have been plans to overthrow Saddam Hussein for over a decade, which have all come to nothing. Until now, the two big INCs, the Iraqi National Congress, led by businessman Ahmad Chalabi but which also squandered congressional funds, and the Iraqi National Coalition, led by Generals Tawfiq Al-Yasiri and Saad Ubeidi, have been seen as the main contenders for the throne.

However, a new coalition loosely called the "Group of Four" (The Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), led by Massoud Barzani, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (Jalal Talabani), the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (linked to Teheran) and the Iraqi National Accord Movement (Iyad Al-Allawi, who ominously has links to the CIA) are hailed as a new political grouping which, like the suspect band of political animals, warlords and drug traffickers currently ruling Afghanistan, could be financed into a viable yes-man administration in this oil-rich nation.

This would not be ruling out a US-sponsored monarchy, under Prince Hassan Ibn Talal, the Jordanian brother of ex-King Hussein, or the Crown Prince Adil Mohammed Ibn Faisal, heir to the Iraqi throne but currently in a Moroccan jail.

The great question lies, as always in Arab politics, in the unity of and credibility among the numerous factions involved and this even includes the standing and credibility of the United States of America. Massoud Barzani (KDP), remembering George Bush Senior's campaign in which the Kurds were instigated to revolt against Saddam Hussein and were subsequently abandoned as thousands were massacred by a Republican Guard which had been spared the rigours of combat, has posed the question of the American President: "What if his son were to behave like his father?"

4//Stratfor Strategic Forecasting 12 July 2002
http://www.stratfor.com/fib/topStory_view.php?ID=205257

ISRAEL MAY BE GROOMING POSSIBLE ARAFAT REPLACEMENT

Summary

Israel may deport Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti to Lebanon and then to exile in Europe. Given that exiling Barghouti will raise his international profile, the Jewish state may be helping to groom him to eventually replace Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

Analysis

Israel Army Radio reported July 12 that the Israeli government might deport Marwan Barghouti -- the West Bank leader of Yasser Arafat's militant Fatah faction -- to Lebanon and then on to exile in Europe, in exchange for Israeli prisoners held by the Lebanon-based Hezbollah guerrilla group. The prisoner-swap deal, which is still in the negotiating stages, is being mediated by Germany with support from the United States.

Along with the United States, Israel is looking for a potential replacement for Arafat, and Barghouti is one of several high-profile contenders. His expulsion to Lebanon and exile to Europe would help raise his international profile, giving him access to European diplomatic circles where he could lobby on behalf of the Palestinian cause.

Besides strengthening his international standing, exile will help increase Barghouti's stature among Palestinians and keep him from becoming embroiled in the leadership shake up. Arafat, for instance, recently replaced West Bank security chief and potential challenger Jibril Rajoub. And Barghouti's eventual return would be perceived ultimately as a victory for him and the Palestinian people.

Barghouti is also the leader of the Tanzim militia and a key member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, which has claimed responsibility for numerous shootings and bombing attacks. Accused of directing attacks against Israelis, he has been in Israeli custody since April but has not been charged.

(SNIP)

In short, he has the street credibility necessary for commanding respect within the Palestinian community, supports militant action as a form of resistance and is known to be a tough and savvy leader. According to recent opinion polls, Barghouti already is the second-most popular leader behind Arafat among the Palestinians, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Despite his involvement in militant groups, he also is someone with whom the Israelis think they could hold peace talks. He is considered a pragmatist that supports negotiations as well as militant action, and he recognizes Israel's right to exist.

What is clear is that Barghouti's prominence is growing, he is turning into an international political celebrity and Israel's handling of his trial is boosting his standing. Sending him to Europe, where he can mingle with activists, politicians and other high-profile exiles will only add to his prestige and help him establish contacts abroad that might prove useful later should he return.

5//World Press Review August 2002 (VOL. 49, No. 8)
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/634.cfm

Commentary
ISRAEL: THE MYTH OF LEFT-WING MEDIA CONTROL
David Newman

(The writer is chairperson of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University of the Negev and editor of The International Journal of Geopolitics. He contributes a weekly op-ed column to The Jerusalem Post.)

During the past decade, presentation of the Israel-Palestine conflict in the Israeli media has come under attack from the right wing for being biased and manipulative, and for spreading a single, pro-peace message. But contrary to public myth, it is the right wing-not the left-that uses and manipulates the media to disseminate its political message.

The argument put forward by the right wing goes like this: Since the left controls the media, the Israeli public was never presented with an alternative to the pro-peace, pro-Oslo message of the 1990s, and was duped into blindly supporting attempts to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Until, that is, the violence and terror of the past 20 months brought Israelis face to face with reality.

But even a cursory look at daily newspapers in Israel reveals another truth. With the possible exception of the self-styled liberal newspaper Ha'aretz, truly left-wing newspapers have disappeared.

(SNIP)

Another case in point is the Arutz 7 radio station, set up by the West Bank settler movement in the early 1990s. This station, which has a strong religious component (it closes for the Jewish sabbath and festivals), has tens of thousands of daily listeners. On a typical day, Arutz 7 programming presents a nonstop diatribe against the so-called conspiracy of the left-wing press. Sunday morning features the "Eye on the Media" debate, which dissects the sins of the "left-wing bolshevist" media. The program reserves its most withering attacks for any journalism that dares to turn a critical eye toward Israeli settlers in the occupied territories or promotes a message of peace with Palestinians.

(SNIP)

And then there is The Jerusalem Post, an interesting example of a newspaper which, while attempting to retain a public image as a middle-of-the-road English-language publication, has undergone some major ideological shifts during the past two decades. Until the mid-1980s, it represented the Israeli establishment political elite and was edited by people close to the Labor Party, such as Gershon Agron and Arye Roth, with a moderate, left-of-center orientation in its news analysis and op-ed columns. The paper was then bought by the Hollinger Group, headed by Canadian newspaper mogul Conrad Black (whose media empire includes, among other conservative publications, London's The Daily Telegraph), and it underwent an almost overnight switch in editorial policy with respect to the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Since the buyout, editors such as David Bar Ilan (who later became a media adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu) and the recently appointed Bret Stephens have made no secret of their political preferences. These are reflected in an editorial policy which, though it tolerates some diversity (such as this writer's weekly column), supports Israel's right-wing government, is largely anti-European, and has become more parochial in its focus on the Jewish world at the expense of a broader coverage and analysis of world news.

When it comes to the airwaves, the left-wing Voice of Peace radio station, which started its life as an illegal offshore station and was influential throughout the late 1970s and 1980s, ceased operations after the signing of the Oslo peace accords in 1993. Its only truly ideological content was the pro-peace jingle at the top-of-the-hour news broadcasts, in contrast to Arutz 7, which preaches a consistent, single-mindedly right-wing message. (Supporters of Arutz 7 perceive repeated attempts by legislators to close the station for failing to pay its license fees and receive state authorization as an attempt by media elites to gag alternative political commentary.)

As for the major television channels, the charge that they offer a monolithic political message is unfounded: One only has to tune in to the repetitive chat shows to see a diversity of opinion represented. For more than 10 years, the same six or seven interviewers (veterans such as Dan Margalit on Channel One and Nissim Mishal on Channel Two are the most notable) have interviewed the same 30 or 40 people from the political, academic, and military establishments about the same half-dozen topics. These shows-which typically devolve into disorganized shouting matches-enjoy high ratings, but they serve mostly to entrench each side in its opinions and have done little to advance genuine political debate.

Judging from recent full-page advertisements in Ha'aretz, the right wing appears to have adopted Israel's last bastion of left-wing thought, although the paper's editorial columns remain strongly biased toward the left and are somewhat tedious in their well-worn arguments. The Women in Green movement (a pro-settler, anti-Palestinian movement which took its name from a cynical mirroring of the pro-peace Women in Black organization) seems to have limitless funds to pour into advertising, not only in the right-wing press but also in the media outlets of the "opposition." But while there have been major media exposés concerning European funding for left-wing, pro-peace organizations, we know very little about the sources of right-wing media funding.

The fact that the settlers' umbrella political lobby, the Council of Settlements in Judea/Samaria (YESHA), is a signatory to many right-wing ads and petitions raises serious questions about the use of public-sector funds earmarked for local government authorities (some of which are channeled to YESHA for political activities). It is highly unlikely that the right-wing newspaper Mekor Rishon would run a paid ad in favor of a Palestinian state in the way that Ha'aretz accepts the right-wing ads that now appear regularly on its pages. No doubt, Ha'aretz is living up to its liberal self-definition (though one can't discount the lure of advertising dollars, given the astronomical prices charged by the Israeli media for full-page ads), whereas Mekor Rishon has chosen ideological purity at the expense of profit.

Perhaps this would all be legitimate freedom of expression in a democracy, were it not for the fact that the right wing continues to cry wolf, bemoaning its perceived exclusion from the mainstream media outlets, and persisting in attempts to replace members of state-run media with its own political supporters.

In so doing, the right is deceiving the Israeli public, perpetuating a myth of left-wing domination of the press. It is a cheap weapon in the arsenal of Israeli political debate and serves to subvert the discourse from the serious issues facing the country in its chronic conflict with the Palestinians.

6//Foreign Policy in Focus July 12, 2002
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0207china.html

THE YELLOW PERIL REVISITED
by Jim Lobe and Tom Barry

After September 11, the U.S. welcomed China as an ally in the war against terrorism. China, worried about Muslim dissidents at home, endorsed President Bush's "crusade" against Islamist militancy. While convenient at the time, this alliance and associated easing of U.S.-China tensions will likely be short-lived.

On the right, after almost ten months of biting their collective tongues on the Yellow Peril, the fabled "Blue Team," which favors treating China as Washington's next potential peer rival, is getting restive. Despite President George W. Bush's efforts to embrace Taiwan ever tighter, influential right-wingers close to key policymakers in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney are complaining that the administration has become too complacent about what they see as a growing threat from China.

Another sign that U.S.-China relations may soon become more confrontational is a new report from the bipartisan congressional commission studying China policy. Their message reflects the early Bush administration position that China is not a strategic partner--the position of previous administrations-but rather a strategic competitor. The U.S.-China Review Commission (www.uscc.gov) calls for the White House to toughen its China policy. The near unanimous report--Clinton's undersecretary of commerce is the lone dissenter--revives concerns about China's economic and military ascendancy. Among other things, the report warns that a growing reliance on Chinese imports might eventually "undermine the U.S. defense base."

It's not so much that the Bush administration has gone soft on China. Rather, it's that the political right, economic nationalists, and military hardliners believe that the U.S. should not let down its guard against this economic and potentially military threat of a resurgent China--and that new measures, such as sanctions, are needed to contend with this "strategic competitor."

Against the backdrop of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, key administration officials have been quietly strengthening ties to Taiwan and increasing the risk of a confrontation with China. These military and political links include high levels of military aid, unprecedented levels of intelligence cooperation, and recent visits by Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian and other senior Taiwanese Cabinet officials. These ties reflect the wishes of a small group of administration officials, whose goal of building an anti-China alliance in the region were temporarily derailed by the September 11th attacks.

However, these closer ties are not enough for some hawks close to key policymakers in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney, who want the administration to take an even more confrontational stance toward China. Citing what they see as a major military build-up by Beijing, they want the administration to provide more sophisticated weapons to Taiwan, bolster the U.S. military presence in East Asia, and follow through on proposals to create a new security framework that could act as a kind of proto-alliance among the "democratic states" of the region.

The latest proposals were voiced in this week's Weekly Standard magazine, an influential right-wing publication, by Gary Schmitt, the executive director for the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) (www.newamericancentury.org) an organization whose founding members included both Cheney and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and whose recent calls for dramatic shifts in Mideast policy and "regime change" in Iraq and the Palestinian Authority (PA) have been largely followed by the administration.

(SNIP)

The spy plane imbroglio, however, spurred Rumsfeld to insist that Washington suspend military-to-military ties with the People's Liberation Army (PLA)--ties that have still not been entirely restored, despite the visit late last month of a senior Pentagon official, Peter Rodman, to Beijing, where he met with Defense Minister Gen. Chi Haotian. After September 11th, Pentagon officials have pursued a more quiet--but no less effective--strategy in their efforts to strengthen ties with Taiwan's military and are also contemplating selling sophisticated air-to-air missiles to Taiwan. These growing links are coupled with a strong and vocal pro-Taiwan independence lobby in the Congress that advocates a formal visit to Washington for President Chen and joint military exercises between U.S. and Taiwanese forces. These actions risk giving both Taiwan and China the impression that the Bush administration will support independence for Taiwan, which would be seen as entirely unacceptable by China.

China's official response to these growing ties has been muted to date. "The Chinese have been trying to lie low," according to John Gershman, Asia/Pacific editor for Foreign Policy in Focus. Beijing, he said, has especially avoided strong denunciations of growing U.S. military and political ties with Taiwan, which Chinese leaders consider a renegade province of the mainland, "because they know that that is the issue that could throw a spanner into [their own political] succession," which is to be sealed at the forthcoming party congress later this summer.

China's silence, however, should not be understood in any way as support for or even acquiescence to Washington's recent moves, according to Minxin Pei of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Particularly alarming to Beijing have been Washington's withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, its incipient construction of a national missile defense (NMD) system, its growing military ties with India, and Bush's own promise to do "whatever it took" to help Taiwan defend itself, including selling it top-of-the-line weapons and surveillance systems and increasing military exchanges symbolized by an unprecedented meeting this spring between Taiwan's defense minister and Deputy Pentagon Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

(SNIP)

As with other foreign policy issues, U.S.-China relations are subject to internal administration tensions between the hardliners and the moderates. Rising pressure from the Blue Team--a loose-knit, rightwing network that includes congressional members and staff, think tank analysts, conservative journalists, administration officials, and a handful of academics---aim to ensure that the hardliners and ideologues in the administration gain the upper hand in this policy debate, as they have in others. According to the Washington Post (February 22, 2000), the Blue Team has had considerable success in creating public and congressional pressure for the U.S. government to maintain a hard line with Beijing, particularly over such noneconomic issues as violations of religious freedom, U.S. military support for Taiwan, and the purported military threat from China.

Blue Team members like PNAC's Schmitt will find many of their views captured in the new congressional committee report. The bipartisan Commission includes Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, Roger W. Robinson of the Center for Security Policy, and historian Arthur Waldron, all of whom are long-time hawks on China and members of the so-called Blue Team. The ideological roots of the Blue Team date back to the anti-communist hysteria of the cold war and to those who supported the Nationalists and Chiang Kai-Shek over the Chinese Communist Party during China's civil war. Supporters of closer relations with Taiwan, they opposed normalizing relations with China during the Nixon administration. Always critical of what they perceive as the "realpolitik" inertia that has dominated U.S.-China relations since 1972, the Blue Team is interested in rolling back what they perceive as China's growing power and influence.

* * *

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

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

* * *