Washington News Forum

Sad Story of Bailout and Bush Administration

2008-09-26T18:07:00.002-05:00

Bolivia unveils original 'Che' Guevara diary

2008-07-08T21:55:00.001-05:00

Bolivia unveils original 'Che' Guevara diary

July 8, 2008 - 2:01PM

Source: ABC

Bolivian officials have unveiled journals written by Marxist guerrilla leader Ernesto "Che" Guevara during his failed attempt to spread revolution in the Andean country, where he was killed in 1967.

Guevara was known to be a prolific writer and he regularly kept notes of his travels throughout Latin America. His journals inspired the 2004 hit film The Motorcycle Diaries.

The Bolivian government had kept the documents in a sealed envelope inside a vault at the country's central bank since 1986.

They included a diary that the left-wing icon wrote in two frayed notebooks, along with a logbook and several black-and-white photographs.

"Several transcripts of the diary have been published ... but this is the first time the public will be able to look at the handwritten journals," the country's vice minister of culture, Pablo Groux, said.

Mr Groux said the government planned later this year to publish the diaries, reprinting photographs of every page.

Bolivia recovered the diaries, which disappeared from an army vault in the early 1980s, when they were offered for sale at an auction in London.

The Argentine-born physician played a key role in the guerrilla uprising that helped Fidel Castro seize power in Cuba in 1959.

After holding several government posts there, he set off for the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1965 to spread communism.

His African campaign flopped, and Guevara traveled to Bolivia in late 1966 hoping to spark a revolution there.

He failed to inspire locals to join his cause and was captured and later executed by CIA-backed Bolivian soldiers on October 9, 1967.

His stylised beret-clad image has become a widely recognized symbol of the counterculture movement.

- Reuters

WOLFOWITZ MUST GO

2007-04-15T10:28:00.000-05:00

----- Forwarded Message
From:
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2007 10:29:22 -0400 (EDT)
To:
Subject: Wolfowitz Must Go

CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR APRIL 14, 2007

WOLFOWITZ MUST GO

(Chicago)(April 14, 2007) For almost a decade Paul Wolfowitz was one of the cheerleaders of proposals to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. Then he came to power and helped plan our disastrous adventure in Iraq. I am not sure if he was one of the “piece of cake” types, or the “Mission Accomplished” dreamers, but Wolfowitz failed miserably to properly perceive American interests in the Middle East. His name will live in infamy forever in American history.

As the Iraq invasion and occupation began to implode, Wolfowitz was moved to the World Bank. At the Bank he took with him political cronies and, apparently, a preexisting personal relationship with a senior bank employee.

Since arriving at the Bank, Wolfowitz has run the institution much like a Chicago ward boss or mayor, employing patronage and intimidation to manage the institution. The result has been another round of professional failure for Mr. W.

Now Wolfowitz risks becoming a continuing embarrassment to President Bush, the Republican Party and, of course, to himself. It is time for Wolfowitz to go.

I do not know if the statements attributed to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson this week were pro forma or whether Paulson really believes the U. S. Government can endlessly insult the sensibilities of the world and get away with it. I do know Mr. Paulson is wrong to support Wolfowitz’ continued tenure. Wolfowitz must go.

Mr. Wolfowitz’ “war on corruption” at the Bank has proven to be a one-way street, Wolfowitz Way. Corruption only exists where he wants to see it. Billions have disappeared in countries where Wolfowitz perceives a vital American interest.

Let me explain my bias: I think the World Bank should be abolished or significantly curtailed. It is an international boondoggle. With all of the excess liquidity in world financial markets, credit-worthy projects should have no problem being financed in China or the Middle East.

“Development” lending in my opinion is largely throwing good money after bad. The Bank has always been a U.S.-led entity, and thus one more example of the Pax Americana that is slowly fading across the horizon.

And Wolfowitz is heading into the sunset as well. The sooner the better. Ironically, Wolfowitz is caught in a similar downward spiral to that of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Both men sought to minimize “personnel matters” at their agencies. Both men were less than candid with their initial disclosures, and both men are now suffering from the blowback.

And both men, it seems to me, are victims of the ethical standards established by the Republican Party during the Clinton years. Then Republicans claimed a low tolerance for self-dealing and dissembling. Those standards should also apply to Republicans caught in flagrante delicto. High standards of public morality benefit Republicans; we should not devalue them by tolerating Wolfowitz’ continuation in office.

I know that reasonable people can differ on the role of the World Bank and development lending. I take a more conservative, cautious, skeptical approach; others are more trusting in foreign aid. We can agree to disagree. But on the question of institutional integrity, we do not need Wolfowitz’ shading of the facts and shading of ethics. Wolfowitz must go. He has done enough damage to the U.S.’s long-term interests for multiple lifetimes, let alone this one. Americans will be paying the bill for Mr. Wolfowitz’ errors in Washington for decades; let’s stop him, now, from running the tab any higher.

Wolfowitz must go.

------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world politics with forty years of personal experience. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com; AndyforUSSenator.

The March on the Pentagon

2007-03-17T21:32:00.000-05:00

Introducing the March on the Pentagon

2007-03-16T01:14:00.000-05:00

http://www.marchonpentagon.org

Introducing the March on the Pentagon

Saturday, March 17, 2007

~ 40th anniversary of the historic 1967 march on the Pentagon ~
~ 4th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war ~
~ Where we will assemble on March 17th ~

On March 17, 2007, the 4th anniversary of the start of the criminal
invasion of Iraq, tens of thousands of people from around the country
will descend on the Pentagon in a mass demonstration to demand: U.S.
Out of Iraq Now! 2007 is the 40th anniversary of the historic 1967
anti-war march to the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. The message of
the 1967 march was "From Protest to Resistance," and marked a turning
point in the development of a countrywide mass movement.

In the coming days and weeks, thousands of organizations and
individuals will begin mobilizing for the upcoming March on the
Pentagon. Organizing committees and transportation centers are being
established to bring people to the March on the Pentagon.

We will assemble at 12 noon at Constitution Gardens. Click here for
more information.

Click here to read the full ANSWER statement on why we're marching.

Initial endorsers include:

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General
Maxine Waters, Congresswoman
Alice Walker, Pulitzer prize winning author
Cynthia McKinney, Congresswoman
Cindy Sheehan, co-founder Gold Star Families for Peace, author
Ron Kovic, Vietnam Veteran, author, Born on the 4th of July
Malik Rahim, Founder, Common Ground Collective, New Orleans
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit
Paul Haggis, Director of Crash, 2005 Academy Award for Best Picture
Elias Rashmawi, National Coordinator, National Council of Arab
Americans (NCA)
Howard Zinn, Author, A People's History of the United States
Rev. Luis Barrios, Iglesia de San Romero de las Americas, UCC
Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild
Chaplain James Yee, former Army chaplain, Guantánamo Detention Center
Mahdi Bray, Executive Director, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
Father Roy Bourgeois, Founder, School of the Americas Watch
Leonard Weinglass, Attorney for the Cuban Five
Eric LeCompte, National Office, School of the Americas Watch
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Co-founder, Partnership for Civil Justice
Brian Becker, National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition
Mounzer Sleiman, TV commentator and Vice Chair, National Council of
Arab Americans
Waleed Bader, Vice chair of the National Council of Arab American,
Chair of NCA NY/NJ Chapter, Former President of Arab Muslim American
Federation - NY
Ben Dupuy, Co-Director, Haiti Progres
Juan Jose Gutierrez, Executive Director, Latino Movement USA
Calvin Gipson, Former President, San Francisco LGBT Pride Committee
Rev. Graylan Hagler, Senior Pastor, Plymouth Congregational Church,
Washington D.C
Kay Lucas, Director, Crawford Peace House, Crawford, TX
Iglesia de San Romero - United Church of Christ
Claudia de la Cruz, Director, Dominican Women's Youth Development Center
Chuck Kaufman, Co-coordinator of the Nicaragua Network
Al Garcia, Alliance for a Just & Lasting Peace in the Philippines
Macrina Cardenas, Mexico Solidarity Network
Eugene Puryear, Howard University, student leader
Gloria La Riva, Coordinator, National Committee to Free the Cuban Five
CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities
Nodutdol for Korean Community Development
Iglesia de San Romero - United Church of Christ
Da Urban Butterflies
KAWAN: Korean Americans Against War and Neoliberalism
Justice Committee
Ed Asner, Actor
Shirley Knight, Actor
Debra Sweet, National Coordinator, World Can't Wait -- Drive Out the
Bush Regime
Jennifer Harbury, Human Rights Lawyer, author
United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA)
Jim Lafferty, Director, National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles
James Petras, Professor Emeritus, SUNY Binghamton (State University of
New York)
Mimi Kennedy, Actor (Dharma & Greg)

On Ideology

2006-09-10T12:14:00.000-05:00

by R.M. Haija

The Raging Liberal

Seemingly each society considers those who hold staunchly to the popular (yet seldom followed) ideologies of their respective culture, as the virtuous ones. Though, the more unjust events in this polarized world emerge, the more one begins to question this philosophy.

Obviously there is a narrowness of thinking when one adopts a specific ideology, but in our new world, this type of narrowness is in fact becoming more and more alarming. In this hostile age of polarization, positions are radically becoming unchangeable, and this is ever more dangerous because societies cannot progress when they act along a continuum.

Religious, social, and political ideologies partition groups into “areas” and these demarcated areas become isolated and unconnected. Within these areas develops the social phenomena of “groupthink”. There are those who believe that they straddle these various areas, the so-called centrists, independents, Third-way economists, etc. What these people fail to understand is that these areas create an area in themselves. By grouping oneself into a category, there is just as great a propensity to become as infected with the “groupthink” virus as the polarized areas which one sought to avoid.

It is clear that many people choose not, or maybe even cannot, think for themselves. They align themselves with a particular ideology and then blindly follow its sometimes fatal course. These followers are known as the “base” of any ideology, and exist within each and every social, political, and religious arena. Historically, these people have always existed, and essentially are the most dangerous. They are the ones who perpetuate hate, intolerance, violence, and thus, are the brokers of injustice. In tragic irony, most of these people go about their lives doing this unknowingly, for they are merely the lemmings. Their leaders will arm them, lie to them, and sacrifice them for a cause in which they often stand little or nothing to gain.

As we have seen in our own country with repeated violations of the constitution, blatant lies to send our nation to war, but yet a solid 30% “base” still remains for this current Administration. Regardless of which laws this Administration violates, and the exponentially growing list of falsehoods manufactured and dealt to the American people, this 30% “base” remains. This is because it may be more spiritually devastating for this “base” to admit that all that has been sacrificed or taken from the disenfranchised peoples of the world, all the bloodshed, all the treasure wasted, has been for nothing but a lie - for the amalgamation of capital and power - that they have, at best, been duped -- this is a more dangerous idea to them personally, than it is to continue blind support for their leadership and hope like hell that it all turns out okay. This “base” will follow their leader to utter ruin rather than admit they were wrong.

Though all of this should point to why immovable alignment with a particular ideology is so dangerous and misguided, a majority will still argue this essay’s thesis and tell me that “peril lies when one does NOT take a stand.” This I agree, but taking a stand does not necessarily mean that we must always stand together. With freedom of thought still afforded to us, we must exercise this right. The growing polarization of our society must be placated. If we can slowly ingrain the concept that the most important aspect in seeking truth is criticality, then it may become evident to subsequent generations that just as the future does not run along a continuum, neither does truth. Then maybe, just maybe, a global society of true civility and true equality can begin to emerge.

R.M. Haija writes for The Raging Liberal on social theory and issues related to policy and government

End Funding for the National Endowment for Democracy May 2006

2006-05-11T11:26:00.000-05:00

End Funding for the National Endowment for Democracy May 2006

To: U.S. Congress

WHEREAS, the US Congress is reconsidering the funding needs of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its core institutes – The International Republican Institute (Republican Party), the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (Democratic Party), the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (AFL-CIO), and the Centers for International Private Enterprise (US Chamber of Commerce) – in particular the IRI and NDI, which used up their allotments by April 30th;

WHEREAS, few in the United States are aware of the existence of the NED, established by U.S. Congress and President Reagan in 1983. Although Congress funds the NED using tax dollars to provide at least 95% of its budget, it is officially considered a "private" organization;

WHEREAS, the NED claims to support the development of democracy throughout the world, but has been used by the State Department and US foreign policy to subvert elected governments and popular movements, manipulating elections, funding coup d’états and supporting dictatorships for decades;

WHEREAS, most recently, NED funds have been targeted to undermine the democratically elected governments of Venezuela and Haiti. The NED has also actively intervened in countries in Eastern Europe, Africa, Asia and elsewhere;

WHEREAS, in Venezuela the NED quadrupled its budget leading up to the coup against the elected presidency of Hugo Chavez in 2002, defeated by a popular uprising backed by soldiers loyal to the constitution. NED money was given to the AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center, which only a month before the coup attempt brought together the leadership of a corrupt trade union federation (CTV) with a national alliance of business (FEDECAMERAS), two groups that played a key role in the coup. The NED also funded groups behind the crippling lockout of oil workers later that year, in which children and elderly people died and many people lost their livelihoods. The NED also funded groups, such as "Súmate" ("join up"), that spearheaded the recall referendum against President Chavez in 2004 — which he handsomely defeated despite NED interference;

WHEREAS, in Haiti, the NED through the International Republican Institute (IRI) funded, convened and coordinated organizations behind the overthrow of the elected government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004, including owners of sweatshop industries, former members and associates of death squads and brutal ex-military officers. Since that coup, over 10,000 Haitians have died. The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center has only supported a labor organization that agitated for the ousting of Aristide, while failing to act against or condemn the massive persecution of grassroots Haitians, the majority of whom support Aristide;

WHEREAS, substantial NED funding has gone into Iraq since the invasion - $63 million+, including half of the NED’s current budget. In the name of “democracy building”, the NED funds parties, associations and union centers which are agreeable to conditions that favor US military and corporate interests. Independent union centers, for instance, are outlawed and suppressed, in defiance of the principle of workers’ free choice of representation;

WHEREAS, the NED undermines democracy at home by working against democracy around the world;

THEREFORE, we call upon the US Congress to look out for our interests, which are dependent on the welfare of people around the world. We demand that not one more penny of our money go to help undermine and destroy the hopes, dreams and work of millions of women and men creating a better life for each other and their children.

THEREFORE, we demand the US Congress stop funding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its core institutes, and close it down.

Sincerely,

The Unders

War in Iraq is a continuation of the past

2006-05-10T11:52:00.000-05:00

A Crtique of Joel Rayburn's Article

Tugrul Keskin

The Raging Liberal

In his article, the last exit from Iraq(1), Joel Rayburn argues that the US is not the first country who occupied Iraq and suggests that the US should take a lesson from the British experience. In the context of his analogy, unfortunately it is accurate information; however, he forgets to include a historical analysis of British colonialism at the beginning of this century and its relationship with the American occupation of Iraq. The American occupation of Iraq is a continuation of British colonialism and today is a reflection of the past. Iraq is an artificial state; it has an artificial national identity based on territoriality, as established under British imperialism. However, if we look at the other countries in the region, most of these countries are not different than Iraq. There is no difference between Iraq and Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. The differences between these countries are very similar to differences between Georgia and South Carolina or New York and Washington DC.

What are the causes of British colonialism and American occupation in Iraq? To me, there is a very simple answer to this question: divide and conquer; and exploit them as much as you can; make ethnic groups enemies to each other so that they can be used against each other and further exploited for Western-based capitalism.

The British occupied Iraq in order to weaken and divide the Ottoman Empire and to control its natural resources. Unfortunately, like everywhere else, some Arabs such as Sheik of Mecca and Medina, grand father of King Abdullah II of Jordan, Sharif Hussein Bin Ali(2) collaborated with the occupation forces and fought against their own people, like Iyad Allawi, the president of Iraq today. Lawrence of Arabia and the American colonel Noel were good friends of Hussein. However the first revolt against the Ottomans started in 1916 before the end of WWI, supported and financed by the British. There are many other small revolts that took place in the region between the late 1800 and 1938, such as the Kurdish revolts in 1886, 1924, 1929, 1936 and 1938; and other revolts such as that of the Greeks, Assyrians, Caldenians and Armenians (Christian minorities in the Ottoman territory) revolts.

Britain formed the Iraqi state in 1919 as a part of the League of Nations established under the British Mandate in 1920. Rayburn claims that the British occupation ended in 1932. Actually, the British occupation ended in 1947. In 1957, long before Saddam came to the power, General Kassim claimed that Kuwait is a part of Iraq as Saddam claimed in 1991; however, the British government warned General Kassim not to invade Kuwait. Soon after General Kassim’s claim, two important revolts erupted in Iraq, Kurdish revolt led by Molla Mustafa Barzani, the father of the current Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani, between 1961-63 and 1968-70. These two revolts were also supported and financed by the US and British governments. In 1979, Molla Mustafa Barzani died at the Georgetown hospital. His personal doctor stayed in the US and became a member of the Iraqi National Council led by Chalabi. Today, they are playing a big role in the current puppet government in Iraq.

Occupation is a simple method of imperialism and puppet governments play a key role in the process. Today, the American occupation of Iraq destabilizes the entire region as the British did at the beginning of this century. This process of war is in this sense a continuation of the past. What they have done in Africa and South East Asia is not different than what they are doing in Iraq today. Unfortunately today they have power, but the future will not be bright for all of us in the Middle East. According to American politics, I don’t see any difference between Kerry and Bush, Democrats or Republicans; they are both supportive of the Iraqi occupation in different way, they both want to remove Saddam from power. We should remember Joseph Lieberman who is very progressive “according to some people.” He also supported the war in Iraq. Additionally, presidential candidate John Kerry said that I have a plan for Iraq. One must ask the question of Kerry, regarding what this plan is and involves; killing less people, or using more oil?

Some people argue that the Bush administration has no plan before the occupation of Iraq; therefore, these people are against the Bush administration and criticize him for this reason. If George W. Bush had a plan then does this legitimize the occupation? It is a silly argument; we are talking about the exploitation and enslavement of people in Iraq and they are talking about a strategic plan. I think we live in different dimensions.

Today, to answer the question of why the US is in Iraq, the answer is simple: the exploitation of the Middle East. They use beautiful words, such as democracy, freedom, and human rights; but to me, a person who is coming from the region, I cannot take their definitions of these concepts seriously. To me, democracy, freedom and human rights are equal to exploitation and colonialism, because their understanding and definition of these terms are different than what these terms really mean. In short, Rayburn claims that the US should stay longer In Iraq in order build a stable government and society In comparison to this perspective, I would say quit Mesopotamia, quit Iraq, quit the Middle East, and leave the people alone.

In order to understand the occupation of Iraq today, I would rather suggest to you that you read two articles rather than wasting your time with Joel Rayburn’s argument. The first one is Graham Fuller’s article, Redrawing the World’s Borders(3). And the second article is Daniel Byman’s article, Let Iraq Collapse(4). Imagination is a projection of imperialism. In short, the best description of this war is hidden in Nayna Jhaveri’s article, Petroimperialism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War(5). You will likely enjoy reading the articles, and will find clear examples with which to observe imperialism.

1)Joel Rayburn, The last exit from Iraq, Foreign Affairs, New York: Mar/Apr 2006.Vol.85, Iss. 2; pg. 29.

2)http://www.kingabdullah.jo/homepage.php

3)Graham Fuller, Redrawing the World’s Borders, The World Policy Journal, Spring 1997.

4)Daniel Byman, Let Iraq Collapse, The National Interest, Fall 1996.

5)Nayna Jhaveri, Petroimperialism: US Oil interests and the Iraq War, Antipode, 2004.

Please help me build an alternatve to the Religious Right

2006-04-23T14:34:00.000-05:00

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Rabbi Michael Lerner"
To: washingtonnews-owner@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Please help me build an alternatve to the Religious Right--
before it's too late!

Dear Friend of,

I would like your help in getting word out to the largest email
lists to which you have access (both personal and organizational)
about the Spiritual Activism conference that will be held in
Washington, D.C. May 17-20, 2006. The conference is the first East
Coast appearance for the Network of Spiritual Progressives, co-
chaired by me, Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, and professor of
African American studies and Religion at Princeton U. Cornel West.
I'm sorry I have to reach you through this impersonal note--but I
don't know how else to do this.

The Network of Spiritual Progressives has 3 goals:

1. to challenge the misuse of God and religion by the Religious
Right to justify war and militarism, cuts in programs for the poor
and powerless in order to justify cuts in taxes for the rich,
assaults on human rights and civil liberties, and destruction oaf
the separation of church and state;

2. to challenge the religio-phobia and hostility toward religious
and spiritual people that appears in some sections of liberal and
progressive culture, and to help the Left distinguish
between reactionary forms of religion and the progressives forms
that it took with Martin Luther King, Jr., William Sloan Coffin,
Abraham Joshua Heschel and many others. and to build a new spiritual
progressive politics not only for religious people, but also for
those who do not believe in God but are "spiritual but NOT
religious"

3. to seek a New Bottom Line in the Western world so that
institutions get judged efficient, rational or productive not only
to the extent that they maximize money or power, but also to the
extent that they maximize love and caring, kindness and generosity,
ethically and ecologically sensitive behavior, and enhance our
capacities to respond to other human beings as manifestations of the
sacred and inherently valuable and to be respected, and enhance our
capacities to respond to the universe with awe, wonder and radical
amazement at the grandeur of all that is.

This is the ground floor of building a new kind of paradigm for
progressive politics, and it could have a major impact in making the
liberal and progressive forces far more successful in healing and
transforming American society. As I've shown in my new book The Left
Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right, many
people agree with the Left on specific issues but still end up
feeling that their greatest pain is the deprivation of love, a sense
of meaning in work, and a feeling that they are surrounded by
materialism, selfishness, and moral insensitivity, that their
children are subjected to sexual pressures before they are old
enough to handle them, and that the Left seems oblivious to these
kinds of issues and only addresses economic entitlements and
political rights.

We in the NSP (the Network of Spiritual Progressives) care very much
about eliminating poverty, fighting for equal rights, ending the war
in Iraq and the militarist assumptions that led to it, but that
these important struggles will not be won until the Left also seems
to care about these other "meaning" issues in the lives of many
Americans. Moreover, the Left is only clear on what it is against,
but rarely has it communicated clearly what it is for. That's why we
are taking our demand for a New Bottom Line to the Congress and the
media May 17-20—along with a detailed SPIRITUAL COVENANT WITH
AMERICA that is meant to provide a positive vision of what a
progressive spiritual politics is about (you can read it fully
explicated in The Left Hand of God, which, I'm happy to say, has
become a national best-seller since it was published by Harpers in
February).

The spiritual activism conference will be a unique blending of
progressive religious people with progressive "spiritual but not
religious" people. Among the presenters, besides me, Cornel West and
Sister Joan Chittister: Jim Wallis (progressive Evangelical editor
of Sojourners and author, God's Politics), Cindy Sheehan (mother of
U.S. solider killed in Iraq war), Episcopal ArchDeacon Michael
Kendall, Marie Denis (Fellowship of Reconciliation), Rev. William
Sinkford (national president, Unitarian Universalist Association),
Rev. Joan Campbell (Chautauqua Institute), Harry Knox (Human Rights
Campaign), Rev. Penny Nixon (Metropolitan Church, San Francisco),
Rabbi Brain Walt (national chair, Rabbis for Human Rights), Seyyed
Hossein Nasr (author, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for
Humanity), Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (chair, Progressive Caucus,
U.S. House of Representatives), Shaikh Kabir Helminski (Sufi
teacher), Svi Shapiro (author of Beyond Liberalism and Excellence:
Reconstructing the Public Discourse on Education), Rev. Ama Zenya
(United Church of Christ), John Dear S.J. (Catholic non-violence
activist), Rev. Lennox Yearwood (Progressive Democrats of America),
Robert Thurman (Buddhist teacher and author The Jewel Tree of
Tibet), Jonathan Granoff (chair, American Bar Association committee
on disarmament), Rev. Lynice Pinkard (United Church of Christ), Bill
Meadows (national chair, Wildlife Association), Enola Aird, Katrina
Vanden Heuvel (editor, The Nation), Christopher Hedges (former NY
Times reporter and author: War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning),
Peter Gabel (associate editor of Tikkun and professor of law, New
College of California), Thea Levkowitz (Religion and the
Environment), Rev. Tony Campolo (Evangelical teacher), Holly Near
(progressive music), Michael Bader (psychoanalyst), Michael Posner
(human rights), Arthur Waskow (Shalom Center), Rev. Donna Schaper,
Nanette Schorr, Rabbi Debora Kohn, Barbara Coombs Lee, Enola Aird,
Rev. Bob Edgar (chair, National Council of Churches), Rev. Debora
Johnson, John Seed, Paul Wapner, Mary Darling, Rev. Donna Schapper,
Harvey Cox, Janet Chisholm, Roshi Bernie Glassman, Rev. Glenn Harold
Stassen, Rev. Paul Smith, Çharlene Spretnak, David Abrams
Rev. Robert Hardies & Rev. Louise Green (All Souls Unitarian
church), and many more.

Even if you can't come to the conference, you can join as a dues
paying member the Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP) and help
us out financially, or even help us build a local chapter in your
area. For information on registering for the conference or joining
the NSP: www.spiritualprogressives.org or 510 644 1200 (between 9:30
a.m. and 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time).

I hope you personally will come, or join, and I'd particularly
appreciate it if you'd send this note to everyone you know, and in
your own name urge them to come as well..

Many blessings,

Rabbi Michael Lerner
Editor, Tikkun, rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue in San Francisco, and
author, The Left Hand of God
RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org

A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy By TONY JUDT

2006-04-23T14:33:00.000-05:00

Op-Ed Contributor
A Lobby, Not a Conspiracy

By TONY JUDT

The New York Times
Published: April 19, 2006

IN its March 23rd issue the London Review of Books, a respected
British journal, published an essay titled "The Israel Lobby." The
authors are two distinguished American academics (Stephen Walt of
Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago) who posted
a longer (83-page) version of their text on the Web site of Harvard's
Kennedy School.

As they must have anticipated, the essay has run into a firestorm of
vituperation and refutation. Critics have charged that their
scholarship is shoddy and that their claims are, in the words of the
columnist Christopher Hitchens, "slightly but unmistakably smelly."
The smell in question, of course, is that of anti-Semitism.

This somewhat hysterical response is regrettable. In spite of its
provocative title, the essay draws on a wide variety of standard
sources and is mostly uncontentious. But it makes two distinct and
important claims. The first is that uncritical support for Israel
across the decades has not served America's best interests. This is
an
assertion that can be debated on its merits. The authors' second
claim
is more controversial: American foreign policy choices, they write,
have for years been distorted by one domestic pressure group, the
"Israel Lobby."

Some would prefer, when explaining American actions overseas, to
point
a finger at the domestic "energy lobby." Others might blame the
influence of Wilsonian idealism, or imperial practices left over from
the cold war. But that a powerful Israel lobby exists could hardly be
denied by anyone who knows how Washington works. Its core is the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, its penumbra a variety of
national Jewish organizations.

Does the Israel Lobby affect our foreign policy choices? Of course —
that is one of its goals. And it has been rather successful: Israel
is
the largest recipient of American foreign aid and American responses
to Israeli behavior have been overwhelmingly uncritical or
supportive.

But does pressure to support Israel distort American decisions?
That's
a matter of judgment. Prominent Israeli leaders and their American
supporters pressed very hard for the invasion of Iraq; but the United
States would probably be in Iraq today even if there had been no
Israel lobby. Is Israel, in Mearsheimer/Walt's words, "a liability in
the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states?"
I
think it is; but that too is an issue for legitimate debate.

The essay and the issues it raises for American foreign policy have
been prominently dissected and discussed overseas. In America,
however, it's been another story: virtual silence in the mainstream
media. Why? There are several plausible explanations. One is that a
relatively obscure academic paper is of little concern to
general-interest readers. Another is that claims about
disproportionate Jewish public influence are hardly original — and
debate over them inevitably attracts interest from the political
extremes. And then there is the view that Washington is anyway awash
in "lobbies" of this sort, pressuring policymakers and distorting
their choices.

Each of these considerations might reasonably account for the
mainstream press's initial indifference to the Mearsheimer-Walt
essay.
But they don't convincingly explain the continued silence even after
the article aroused stormy debate in the academy, within the Jewish
community, among the opinion magazines and Web sites, and in the rest
of the world. I think there is another element in play: fear. Fear of
being thought to legitimize talk of a "Jewish conspiracy"; fear of
being thought anti-Israel; and thus, in the end, fear of licensing
the
expression of anti-Semitism.

The end result — a failure to consider a major issue in public policy
— is a great pity. So what, you may ask, if Europeans debate this
subject with such enthusiasm? Isn't Europe a hotbed of anti-Zionists
(read anti-Semites) who will always relish the chance to attack
Israel
and her American friend? But it was David Aaronovitch, a Times of
London columnist who, in the course of criticizing Mearsheimer and
Walt, nonetheless conceded that "I sympathize with their desire for
redress, since there has been a cock-eyed failure in the U.S. to
understand the plight of the Palestinians."

And it was the German writer Christoph Bertram, a longstanding friend
of America in a country where every public figure takes extraordinary
care to tread carefully in such matters, who wrote in Die Zeit that
"it is rare to find scholars with the desire and the courage to break
taboos."

How are we to explain the fact that it is in Israel itself that the
uncomfortable issues raised by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt have
been most thoroughly aired? It was an Israeli columnist in the
liberal
daily Haaretz who described the American foreign policy advisers
Richard Perle and Douglas Feith as "walking a fine line between their
loyalty to American governments ...and Israeli interests." It was
Israel's impeccably conservative Jerusalem Post that described Paul
Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, as "devoutly pro-Israel."
Are we to accuse Israelis, too, of "anti-Zionism"?

The damage that is done by America's fear of anti-Semitism when
discussing Israel is threefold. It is bad for Jews: anti-Semitism is
real enough (I know something about it, growing up Jewish in 1950's
Britain), but for just that reason it should not be confused with
political criticisms of Israel or its American supporters. It is bad
for Israel: by guaranteeing it unconditional support, Americans
encourage Israel to act heedless of consequences. The Israeli
journalist Tom Segev described the Mearsheimer-Walt essay as
"arrogant" but also acknowledged ruefully: "They are right. Had the
United States saved Israel from itself, life today would be better
...the Israel Lobby in the United States harms Israel's true
interests."

BUT above all, self-censorship is bad for the United States itself.
Americans are denying themselves participation in a fast-moving
international conversation. Daniel Levy (a former Israeli peace
negotiator) wrote in Haaretz that the Mearsheimer-Walt essay should
be
a wake-up call, a reminder of the damage the Israel lobby is doing to
both nations. But I would go further. I think this essay, by two
"realist" political scientists with no interest whatsoever in the
Palestinians, is a straw in the wind.

Looking back, we shall see the Iraq war and its catastrophic
consequences as not the beginning of a new democratic age in the
Middle East but rather as the end of an era that began in the wake of
the 1967 war, a period during which American alignment with Israel
was
shaped by two imperatives: cold-war strategic calculations and a
new-found domestic sensitivity to the memory of the Holocaust and the
debt owed to its victims and survivors.

For the terms of strategic debate are shifting. East Asia grows daily
in importance. Meanwhile our clumsy failure to re-cast the Middle
East
— and its enduring implications for our standing there — has come
into
sharp focus. American influence in that part of the world now rests
almost exclusively on our power to make war: which means in the end
that it is no influence at all. Above all, perhaps, the Holocaust is
passing beyond living memory. In the eyes of a watching world, the
fact that an Israeli soldier's great-grandmother died in Treblinka
will not excuse his own misbehavior.

Thus it will not be self-evident to future generations of Americans
why the imperial might and international reputation of the United
States are so closely aligned with one small, controversial
Mediterranean client state. It is already not at all self-evident to
Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans or Asians. Why, they ask, has
America chosen to lose touch with the rest of the international
community on this issue? Americans may not like the implications of
this question. But it is pressing. It bears directly on our
international standing and influence; and it has nothing to do with
anti-Semitism. We cannot ignore it.

Tony Judt is the director of the Remarque Institute at New York
University and the author of "Postwar: A History of Europe Since
1945."

Democracy in the Middle East! by Brett Dillahunt

2006-02-22T00:41:00.000-05:00

Democracy in the Middle East!

(a.k.a. Getting Exactly What We Wished For)

by Brett Dillahunt

The Raging Liberal
http://www.ragingliberal.org/democracy.html

Like it or not, President Bush's dream of democracy in the Middle East
is starting to bear fruit. Several times now, we have seen the photos
on the evening news of women in Iraq sporting the purple finger of
voting power. People upset with the corruption of the Fatah Party in
the Palestinian territories and throngs of people in Egypt recently
went to the polls to also make themselves heard.

Now when I said like it or not, I wasn't speaking of whether or not
liberals like myself have to grudgingly admit that Bush was right when
he went into Iraq to plant the seeds of democracy that would then
overthrow the old autocratic order of Middle Eastern monarchs and
dictators. I was speaking of those who work for the White House and
admire the President's foreign policy as I think they may well have
gotten exactly what they asked for.

Democracy is defined by two principles: universal suffrage and
majority rule. Iraq has held preliminary votes, a Constitutional
referendum and now a full-fledged Parliamentary election successfully,
and with little in the way of violence. Suffrage was mostly universal,
even for Saddam's old buddies (though turnout in the strife-ridden
Anbar Province was abysmal) and, well, the majority ruled. Shia were
elected by the score, including those with a decidedly zealous and
religious worldview, and came just short of winning an absolute majority.

Now, one might say that this is progress that seemingly all segments
of Iraqi society bought into the idea of elections, and showed up to
vote. OK, that's fine. Call it progress if you will and do a little
dance to celebrate. But the other idea they have bought into in Iraq,
at least among the majority Shia, is that now since they have won the
elections, there is little or no need to collaborate and compromise
with the other groups, particularly the hated Sunni minority. It was
as if, after this last election, Shia meant to say "Thanks for getting
rid of Saddam, thanks for introducing democracy, now get the hell out
of my country and let us finish this blood feud." To add insult to
injury, prominent Shia political leaders have now said earlier
statements they made about the Constitution later being open to
amendment and renegotiation, were only made in jest, and the issues of
federalism and the Constitution are not closed. You can stop dancing now.

In recent Palestinian elections, where turnout was also high and
campaigning fierce, the political wing of Hamas won a surprising and
convincing majority of the vote, shocking much of the West, who
apparently thought they had a perfect window into the Arab soul and
knew exactly how they would vote. Democracy wins again, right? Here's
where the Administration starts to awaken from its pipe dream of
American-style democracy in the Middle East.

They elected someone you don't like, who Israel doesn't like, and who
you both have labeled terrorists. Oops. Now what? Well, first I have
to chide the President a little bit… what did you expect?? That
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, after decades of oppression by
America and Israel, would elect a conservative Republican? They
elected a group that they believe speaks for them, that has not backed
down in the face of aggression and one that was not hopelessly corrupt
like the Fatah Party.

Now I'm not defending Hamas, endorsing the tactics of suicide bombers
or saying that this election is a great development in hopes of an
eventual Palestinian State. I am simply saying the results should not
be a surprise.

And what has been our reaction to democracy breaking out across the
Middle East? In Iraq we seem to be merely scratching our heads, out of
ideas for the moment as that country drifts slowly but surely towards
civil war and our allies abandon us. In the case of the Palestinians,
both Israel and the U.S. have, in a shrewd tactic to nurture the very
democracy we have sought to create, cut off all financial aid. Yeah,
cut `em off. I'm sure that will work. Because if history in the Middle
East has proven anything, it's that extreme Islam can hardly survive
in the midst of crushing poverty.

Many of us in America and Europe have been unable to comprehend the
outrage in the Muslim world over recent derogatory cartoons of the
Prophet Mohammed, viewing it as an overreaction or an example of the
inferiority of their culture. I think we should view it as yet another
example of how poorly we understand them, and as a symptom that
reveals the undercurrents of rage against the West that have been
fueled by policies of interventionism, and now in the case of
Palestine, economic isolation.

I made this case to a good conservative friend of mine last week. He
is a well-educated, thoughtful person who often brings me back down to
Earth when I'm off on a leftist rant. He more or less agreed that
Bush's policies in the Middle East have been dismal failures, but his
frustration with constant criticism against the President showed
through. "At least he tried to improve the situation there, instead of
ignoring it." That's something, I suppose. But then again if the best
defense of a foreign policy starts with the words "at least", maybe
it's time to hang it up.

A New Apartheid Regime or Peace?

2006-01-28T21:51:00.000-05:00

Israel/Palestine after the March 2006 Election

Professor Jeff Halper
And
Michael Prior Book Celebration

Sponsored by

Holy Land Research Project
School of Theology, Philosophy and History
St Mary’s College Twickenham
And
Living Stones of the Holy Land Trust, UK

Friday, 17 February 2006, 5-7.30 pm

Lecture Theatre (G7)

St Mary’s College

Chair

Dr Nur Masalha
Director of Holy Land Research Project

Keynote Speaker

Professor Jeff Halper
Michael Prior Book Celebration: 'A Living Stone’
Dr Rev Duncan Macpherson

Chair of Living Stones of the Holy Land Trust and former Principal
Lecturer at St Mary’s College

For further details:
Dr Nur Masalha
St Mary’s College Waldegrave Road
Twickenham TW1 4SX
phone no: 0208 240 4193
email: masalhan@smuc.ac.uk
How to reach St Mary’s College?
For directions by car and public Transport, see
http://www.smuc.ac.uk/about/location.html

Professor Jeff Halper (59) is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against
House Demolitions (ICAHD) and a Professor of Anthropology. He has lived in Israel
since 1973, having emigrated from the US. Besides his years of involvement with the
Israeli peace movement, Jeff has been active on issues of social justice within Israel.

Jeff has taught at Haifa and Ben Gurion Universities in Israel. He is the author of the book Between Redemption and Revival: the Jewish Yishuv in Jerusalem in the
Nineteenth Century (Westview, 1991). His forthcoming book, An Israeli in Palestine:
Reframing the Israel-Palestine Conflict, will be published by Pluto Press. Jeff defines himself as an “engaged anthropologist.” As the Coordinator of ICAHD, Jeff has
forged a new mode of Israeli peace activity based on non-violent direct action and
civil disobedience to the Israeli Occupation authorities, forging a relationship of trust, solidarity and close cooperation with Palestinian organizations. He serves on the Steering Committee of the UN Conference on the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.

Torture, Brett Dillahunt

2005-11-30T12:20:00.000-05:00

Seattlepi.com

Monday, November 14, 2005

OPINION

Letters to the Editor

TORTURE

The fact that we even debate it is troubling
If we are truly a nation that purports to export and encourage democracy and freedom around the globe, then why has the vice president of the United States, Dick Cheney, openly asked the U.S. Senate to approve an exemption for the CIA so people held in captivity can be tortured legally?

And does the fact that there is even debate about this topic make anyone else wonder whether we, as a nation and a people, have wandered too far off the road?

I hope so. And I hope you will call your senators and your president and remind them that this is not who we are. And if torture seems like good democratic practice to our current leadership, then their whole theory of democracy is wrong.

Brett Dillahunt
Zillah

Why elections in Israel are good for the United States, by Andy Martin

2005-11-22T01:45:00.000-05:00

AMERICA’S DAILY BRIEFING FOR NOVEMBER 17, 2005

CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FROM ANDY MARTIN

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS: WHY ELECTIONS IN ISRAEL ARE GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES

(CHICAGO)(November 17, 2005) I’m a Republican who favors less government, lower taxes and more personal freedom. What am I doing in bed with Israeli socialists? Well, here’s what.

It is an unfortunate truth that “conservatives” in Israel are the party of war, occupation, expansionism and endless conflict. All of which blows back on the United States. A few days ago I was a guest at a dinner sponsored by Givat Haviva, an organization started by the kibbutz movement to foster Arab-Israeli peace contacts. My host and good friend said it was a dinner populated by “liberal Jews.” Indeed. But the attendees were all committed to peace, and to a policy ending the state of perpetual hostility through creation of a real Palestinian state.

Last week something happened that highlights the differences between Israel and the Arab world. The Labor Party, which has recently been in bed with Ariel Sharon, held an election and chose an “Eastern” Jew as its leader, Amir Peretz. He promptly called for new elections and peace with Palestinians. Well, what’s not to like?

Will President Bush appreciate the opening for peace which has dropped into his lap? I would like to hope so. But I am very doubtful. As for myself, I am delighted to see Israelis voting. I don’t think much of their proportional representation electoral system, which splinters voters and leads to fringe elements in the Knesset, but Israelis do have elections. Unlike Arab states.

Unlike the Egyptians, who would be a powerful nation and a real leader of the Arab world if they had democracy and freedom. Unfortunately, because of the Mubarek dictatorship Egypt remains a backwater, politically and economically. Back to Israel. There, they take democracy to an extreme. But they vote. They don’t blow each other up, with the notable exception of the right-wing extremists who killed Yitzhak Rabin.

To be sure the Labor Party in the past (and present) has advocated many of the racist policies that have led Israelis (and their American friends) into the current morass. Most notably they have repeatedly lied about the July, 2000 peace meeting with President Clinton, where no “generous offer” was ever made in writing, and thus was never rejected by Palestinian negotiators.

Still, I am convinced that the Israeli left today offers the best—the only—prospect for peace and thus I am very hopeful about the election of Mr. Peretz as Labor Party leader.

Why is Mr. Peretz so special? He is the first “Eastern” Jew to have a realistic chance of becoming prime minister. Israel’s founding history and subsequent narrative have largely been written by European Jews. Unfortunately, they have prolonged the strife and helped to create the enduring controversy with Palestinians.

Over the centuries, while European Jews lived in fear of their Christian neighbors, Eastern Jews lived in Arab and Muslim states in peace and safety. Contrary to the efforts of revisionists, there is no historical hatred between Jews and Muslims. Baghdad itself was twenty-five percent Jewish. The horrible hatreds which exist today were ginned up by successive generations of politicians on both sides who were seeking political advantage from exploitation and extremism.

While European Jews were being slaughtered by the Nazis, Jews in the Arab world were living in peace and often in great prosperity. The King David Hotel in Jerusalem was built in the 1930’s by a wealthy Egyptian Jew. Yet these Jewish residents of the Arab world were sucked up in the hysteria of the creation of the State of Israel, and paid a high price for the dreams of their European brethren and parallel Arab short sightedness.

Instead of retaining their Jewish population, Arab states retaliated for their frustration over the creation of Israel by making life impossible for local Jews. Coupled with Israeli sabotage intended to force Eastern Jews into Israel, a great (and unnecessary) migration took place. But once in Israel the “easterners” were not particularly welcomed and were relegated to the status of virtual untermenchen.

Had Eastern Jews been allowed to remain in Arab lands and continued to be welcomed and lived in peace we would not have the current state of perpetual ignorance, hostility and estrangement. Unfortunately, every mistake that could have been made, was made, on both sides. The result is the deadlock we see now.

The current stalemate has been exacerbated by the Bush Administration’s love affair with Ariel Sharon. Sharon is the greatest song-and-dance man since the demise of vaudeville on Broadway. Bushies are enamored of him. Sharon’s pirouettes over peace among the pro-Israel right in the United States have won him undreamed of support from Bush & Co. Sharon has exploited the “global war on terror” as a tool against Palestinian nationalism. The result has been chaos and misguided policy advice to American leaders.

It is not likely the Bushies are happy at the prospect of Sharon being voted out of office, and he may not be. But for the first time Israelis will have a real choice, and a chance to vote for peace. Peretz is not a former military officer. Even if Sharon is returned with a reduced majority the dynamic will change drastically.

As a contrarian, I see the ascendancy of Peretz as a hopeful sign for the future of American policy.

Ironically, because Eastern Jews have their history and traditions in the Arab and Islamic world, they are among those most likely to be amenable to a settlement with Palestinians. Both Eastern Jews and Palestinians have been the victims of history.

And so, even though I am a loyal Republican at home, I salute the prospect of an Israeli leader who will be genuinely committed to peace because he knows and understands Arabs. Even if he is of the left. Hey, politics makes for strange bedfellows. But I would rather see Arabs and Israelis as bedfellows than see them as belligerents. What’s not to like about that?

ANDY MARTIN is America’s most respected independent foreign policy and intelligence analyst. His independent Contrarian Commentary is read and respected worldwide. He spent part of 2003 living in Baghdad. He is executive editor of Andy Martin’s Worldwide News and Contrarian Commentary, starting January 1, 2006. Martin has been involved in the Middle East for 35 years. Media contact: (312) 440-4124. E-mail: andymart20@aol.com. Andy is a candidate for governor of Illinois.

A New Policy Approach to Human Security in the Sub-Saharan

2005-11-04T10:56:00.000-05:00

by Meir Haija

The Raging Liberal

As the echoes of Rwanda’s now more than decade-old genocide still seem deafening, we seem to mistaken these pleas for a similar sound coming out of Sudan. We are now presented with what may be a comparable Western oblivion or denial, with the crisis in Darfur. While the United Nations (UN) and other Western nations chose to focus on the territorial issues of Rwanda, an estimated one million Tutsi’s were massacred with machetes. Once again the Western response to a Sub-Saharan crisis is too passive and maybe too late.

It was revealed that the $250 million dollars the United States sent in the aftermath of the Rwandan massacre could have been reduced to a sum of $35 million had it been sent twelve-weeks prior, and more importantly possibly thwarted one of the most gruesome 100-day periods in recorded history. Had the United States authorized a peacekeeping force prior to the massacres, this humanitarian catastrophe could have been avoided along with securing $200 million dollars toward critical social needs in the region. However, the protection of people was not within the primary framework of the human security policy toward Rwanda at the time, and the crisis in Darfur does not appear to be a Western priority either. There are great moral ramifications in the commitment to certain expenditures and the denial of others when atrocities and humanitarian crises like this are occurring.

Outside actors, such as the UN and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), must call on Sub-Saharan nations to implement a system where developing Sub-Saharan nations are encouraged to ratify a program developed around making human security the forefront of their governmental policy. This system should be mandated and audited in each region of each respective Sub-Saharan nation, and report to an international platform as to provide a measure of checks and balances. This mission shall be dedicated solely to the proper administration of a directed human security policy. Human security belongs in the hands of the people who are impacted, and an international platform must protect and secure this mission. Human security administered by the many Sub-Saharan leaders often will not focus on the value of human life and essentially amounts to a bankrupt program of political survival. One must be mindful that when determining the best course of action in the Sudan, the issue of human life may not be placed on the back burner as it was in Rwanda. The UN and Western approach to Rwanda was one of reckless nature through its passivity and ill judgment.

A commitment to territories, establishing democracies and sovereignty of nations should not be the immediate focus of human security when dealing with on-going humanitarian crises, such as in Darfur, certain issues must be given precedence. These crucial issues are to be examined in the context of what the securing of territory will do for these particular issues. As in the case of Rwanda, it was apparent that the security of the state was experiencing internal unrest. However, there was clearly no way of preventing what occurred without an external agent acting to protect the security of the people. In many instances, the protection of people and territory can work hand-in-hand; however, the former should never take a supporting role to the latter.

Preventing humanitarian disasters requires the establishment external international agents that work solely toward preventing atrocities through an established platform of representation of each respective citizenry. The inherently snide tendencies of Sub-Saharan leadership to act in their own political and financial self-interest makes for sometimes deadly results and it is the populace underneath the policymakers who bare the brunt of the reckless actions by their leadership. In many cases in the Sub-Saharan the territorial sovereignty of a nation may be in a state of relative security, while the citizenry are beleaguered with dire humanitarian conditions. International bodies such as the UN and some NGOs have only recently begun to take proactive roles on these issues by using the bypass of government. However, many Sub-Saharan leaders are fearful that the presence of these organizations and their “ownership” roles in some regions, are simply a front for Western corporations to exploit resources.

In the case of the UN action in Rwanda, the actions, or lack thereof, cannot be entirely imputed on policy, but rather the unwillingness of member states to abide by their treaty obligations. Generally this is due to the increasing danger and difficulty in assisting to curb these human security issues. The condition of member states to renege on their obligations poses a great difficulty in acting on the policies set forth by the UN and often leaves its decision makers at the mercy of their detached members.

The focus of human security should indeed be the protection of people. The dangers and difficulties of any other issue taking greater importance creates a serious dilemma for the future of any people, just as we are witnessing now in the Sub-Saharan. One might say the only logical approach is establishing a secure territory with a leadership that is supportive to its citizenry. But as history has shown, this too has many pitfalls. The pessimist might say that we have no clear-cut option, but maybe the logical optimist might come to this conclusion as well. Nevertheless, the issue of human security should instill a primary focus on the security of human life, and we cannot count on independent nations to prevent widespread atrocities from occurring in regions where the law is ignored. A wide body of Sub-Saharan citizenry must be given an international platform to report on emerging human security violations, and the international arena must dedicate its most fortified and equipped missions toward maintaining a watchful eye on developments of human security. Preventing all humanitarian violations is a pipe-dream, but within policy, focus, and platform, this dedication toward human security must remain at the forefront.

Meir Haija writes for The Raging Liberal on issues related to policy and government

REMEMBERING 9/11: THIS MORNING, A SATELLITE DISH CARNIVAL

2005-09-11T12:13:00.000-05:00

CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR OUT2.COM BY ANDY MARTIN

REMEMBERING 9/11: THIS MORNING, A SATELLITE DISH CARNIVAL

(NEW YORK)(September 11, 2005) Today is 9/11, a day to remember one of America's worst tragedies, and one of our biggest continuing national embarrassments.

We should be commemorating the dead, the innocents and especially the heroes of 9/11. And we should be celebrating the reconstruction of the new World Trade Center, two new Twin Towers standing proudly in the sky. Unfortunately, only Seven World Trade center has been rebuilt; the new structure looks like a lonely child, searching and waiting for its siblings.

Why have New York State and City failed America? The state and city have been consumed with petty squabbling about how rebuilding should proceed. The answer was simple from day one: rebuild the Twin Towers. But no public official has dared to make the case for reconstruction.

The original WTC plans sit in a Port Authority vault, waiting to be updated and serve as the starting point for a rebuilt WTC. Instead we have been forced to endure an endless series of vapid photo ops, as Governor Pataki and (insert name of public official) wailed away for the cameras and promised a brave new WTC. Unfortunately, all I see is a big hole in the ground.

There have been squabbles about a dance center, a "freedom" center and a bunch of other inane accouterments. All of this nonsense and all of these diversions may have served the needs of campaigning politicians. But the American people have been greatly disserviced by the endless delays in New York.

Here is how I feel, and how I began my journey last evening. I began in Battery Park, where a small eternal flame burns in front of the remnants of the massive sculpture that once stood proudly in the center of the WTC plaza. What a beautiful memorial, I thought. Simple, direct. Poignant and yet not maudlin. And then I wondered, if I had been a victim, what kind of memorial would I want?

I think the Battery Park memorial would have been exactly what I wanted. And I would have wanted my little office in the WTC rebuilt. The best memorial you could have given me is rebuilding the Twin Towers.

It is now 31 years since I became one of the first tenants in Two WTC, Suite 2248. I knew the Twin Towers from the top to the subbasements. They were wonderful structures.

No, they were not luxury buildings. They were utilitarian. They were constructed by a public authority, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. But working within the confines of a public agency's budget, architect Minouru Yamasaki had created beautiful structures.

Of course, many derided the WTC. But I loved the Twin Towers. They were simple. They were as grand as a public authority's finances would permit. They were big, tall, strong. They were New York. It took their loss for America to admit the obvious. They were America.

Now I gaze at a big hole in the ground while the politicians continue to squabble.

After World War II they rebuilt Tokyo. We had leveled the place; the whole city. They rebuilt Berlin. We had leveled that too. And they rebuilt London; the jerries did the damage there. Imagine what the world would be like if reconstruction efforts for those cities had been hindered by insatiable photo op demands by greedy politicians, all pandering to special interests and claiming the dead cites were "sacred ground."

The WTC debris was cleared in record time: eight months later there was an empty hole, a building site ready for a building. But while Seven WTC has been rebuilt with private funds, the Twin Towers remain absent. Instead, we have been forced to endure ridiculous efforts to create a "memorial" to the dead, as if we ourselves can memorialize the victims any more than they already stand memorialized by history itself.

As I walked the perimeter of the WTC late last night, the area was surrounded by TV vans and satellite trucks. In America, it seems, every public event must now come encrusted with the detritus of a satellite dish carnival. Pay attention here! Pray to the uber gods of the satellite dish. In Papua New Guinea "cargo cults" prayed to air dropped supplies in WW II. Today, we have replaced cargo cults with the cult of the satellite dish. And so they were there. Patiently, almost silently awaiting daybreak and the descent of the politicians.

Tourists were there this evening/this morning, with an air of anticipation. Locals were there, quietly going or coming from work. Yes, people work in New York, even on weekends, even late at night.

Fortunately, political correctness did not win all the battles. The signs in front still say "World Trade Center" and the E train subway still runs to the World Trade Center station.

But what we need at the World Trade Center site is true reverence, not political reverie.

If you want to see what a 9/11 remembrance should really be like, stop by Trinity Church or St. Paul's Chapel. There will be services from 8:43 A.M. until 2:00 P.M. at Trinity/St. Paul's. There won't be politicians there making promises that can’t be kept. Stop at Trinity or St. Paul's if you truly want to renew your spirit (see trinitywallstreet.org for details) and remember the helpless, innocent victims of malignant fanatics.

Perhaps only in a dignified Anglican service can we truly memorialize an event that represents religious extremism taken to a level of madness no one believed could consume us.

People who favor rebuilding the WTC will gather at City Hall Park at ll:00 A.M. You can join them if you feel as I do that the time to rebuild the Twin Towers is long overdue.

Shortly after midnight this morning 250 Harley motorcyclists with a police escort descended on Church Street in front of the WTC, to place a wreath on the steel mesh barrier that separates us from the reality of 9/11. It was surreal.

For me, I only wish I could turn back the clock 31 years, and see those Twin Towers as I saw them when I first moved in. Strong civic leadership led the fight to create the World Trade Center. Weak leadership and spineless political manipulation have allowed the unspeakable void in our civic consciousness to endure for four years.

It's time to rebuild the Twin Towers. On this 9/11, it would be nice if someone uttered the obvious truth: the only true memorial to 9/11 is rebuilding the Twin Towers. That, and nothing less.

ANDY MARTIN is Independent Contrarian Columnist and chief national and foreign correspondent for Out2.com, based in Chicago and New York. (Go to Out2.com, register free, and click on Govt & Politics.) He is also an announced candidate for Governor of Illinois. Media contact: (312) 440-4124. Reactions/comments to: andymart20@aol.com.

Politics of Hypocrisy

2005-09-11T00:39:00.000-05:00

by Meir Haija

Raging Liberal

As the world is coming to learn, the mantra of “fighting terror” does not necessarily mean avoiding participation in it. While the Bush Administration has convinced much of the American public that they are the antithesis of terror, a wanted terrorist is now comfortably resting under the bosom of the U.S., even with a sovereign democratic nation requesting his extradition. Fugitive terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, mastermind of the October 6, 1976 Caracas-departed Cuban Airlines bombing that killed 73 now sits on U.S. soil, despite numerous legal requests by the Venezuelan government for his extradition. Thus far the White House has denied each of Venezuela’s political and legal appeals to return Posada Carriles to Caracas to face trial.

One would think that the U.S. would welcome this extradition with fervor; after all, Posada Carriles is wanted for international terrorism and Venezuela has been trying to nab him since he escaped from a national prison in 1985. Unfortunately, this case isn’t so simple. Posada Carriles has a long history of friendly ties with the U.S., most notably with the CIA. In the mid-60s Posada Carriles was a CIA operative in Venezuela while he simultaneously worked for the Venezuelan Secret Service. Throughout his initial CIA tenure he held clandestine positions in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile and Argentina, all the while working as a U.S. operative.

Declassified CIA documents released by the Washington-based, National Security Archive, have directly linked Posada Carriles to the airliner bombing. In these documents it is written that Posada Carriles is overheard by a CIA source as stating, “We are going to hit a Cuban airplane.” Posada Carriles’ made this statement only a few short months before the Cuban Airliner was hit. Despite this forewarning given to the CIA there is also no indication within these declassified files that the U.S. made any attempts to alert Cuban officials of the threat of an attack to one of their civilian airliners. Posada Carriles was a known Castro opponent and many officials in the U.S. dismissed his attack on the Cuban civilian airliner as an act of political resistance rather than an act of terrorism.

Upon his escape from a Venezuelan prison Posada Carriles immediately found refuge and work as a CIA operative in El Salvador, helping channel money and arms to the U.S. backed Nicaraguan Contras, a pet project of the Reagan Administration that led to the Iran-Contra scandal. During the late 1990s Posada Carriles became troubled with the growth of the Cuban tourism commerce and in an effort to damage the industry he began organizing terror attacks on Cuban tourist sites, one which resulted in the death of an Italian tourist. In The New York Times Posada Carriles boasted of his involvement in the attacks and told the reporter that he “slept like a baby” regardless of the damages and death that these attacks caused.

Despite all of this, the U.S. Department of Justice has repeatedly refused to arrest Posada Carriles on charges of terrorism, nor will they extradite him to Venezuela for arraignment. Instead the U.S. has directed the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) to detain Posada Carriles for entering the country illegally, allegedly by sneaking off of a fishing boat. Posada Carriles has requested that he be granted political asylum in the U.S. and for the time being his request is being granted.

An alarming precedent is being set here. While the U.S. and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez are not on ideal terms, Venezuela has made clear their commitment to fighting the war on terror and extraditing Posada Carriles to Venezuela is the only logical, ethical, and moral action for the U.S. to pursue here. Eradicating terrorism can not be achieved through a policy of political opportunism and aggression; it must be done through a system of consistency and universal ideals in cooperation with governments everywhere.

The case of Posada Carriles highlights an important difference between the terror that we justify war with, and the terror that is either tacitly or directly approved of by Washington. The U.S. stance on Posada Carriles is a blatant form of hypocrisy and arrogance that makes fighting all terror that much more difficult to succeed at. To continually surrender the moral high ground because the U.S. approves of some flavors of terror and declares war on others leads us not to victory, but to perpetual war with no clear objective, to a confused and divided world approach to terror issues, and to an alienation of potential allies.

There are means by which we can significantly reduce the incidence of terror that afflicts us, but somehow these strategies continually evade our policies. Terrorism must be defeated by simply avoiding any sort of participation in it. The terrorist ideology cannot be crushed through the show of military might or the favorite U.S. quick fix, pseudo-democracy. What is baffling is that many policymakers remain deaf to this argument. While the response, “fighting terror” seems to be the Bush Administration’s answer to every question, the position taken in the case of Posada Carriles is undermining the U.S. terror policy in a most hypocritical manner.

Meir Haija writes for The Raging Liberal on issues related to policy and government

How Foreign Lobbies Imperil America

2005-08-10T11:50:00.000-05:00

by Christopher Deliso

August 10, 2005
balkanalysis.com

Critics of foreign lobbies in the nation's capital are often dismissed
as either hopelessly naïve, or as cranky isolationist curmudgeons
disinterested in embracing other cultures. Since it is natural for a
country to seek economic and cultural ties with other nations, the
argument goes, what other choice do people with competing interests in
a globalizing, capitalistic world have, in order to make themselves
heard, except banding together to petition those in power?

Obviously foreign lobbying is an age-old practice, and it will never
go away. Still, something must be done to curb the extravagances and
indiscretions of foreign lobbyists in Washington. A failure to do so
can only invite ruin for the United States and its citizens, because
as with everything else in the so-called "indispensable nation,"
lobbyists have simply gone overboard, feeling themselves to be above
the law and beholden to no one.

Now, they are not only continuing the old practice of pouring slop in
the trough of corrupt politicians, they are also endangering America's
national security by serving foreign interests, doing business with
terrorists, and directly targeting American citizens. Unfortunately,
in 2005, we're a long ways away from Thomas Jefferson's ideal of
"peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling
alliances with none."

Cunning, Diversionary Tactics

Perhaps the worst thing of all about the behavior of the nefarious
lobbyists is that they abuse the public trust. Sometimes they manifest
as the type of organization generally considered as being above-board,
in the economic and cultural sphere, in order to disguise criminal
intent. In an Antiwar.com interview last summer, FBI whistleblower
Sibel Edmonds gave a hypothetical example of how such "semi-legitimate
organizations" operate:

"…say, an Uzbek folklore society based in Germany. The stated purpose
would be to hold folklore-related activities – and they might even do
that – but the real activities taking place behind the scenes are
criminal."

The "real activities" of such organizations, says Edmonds, can include
arms and drug smuggling in the area of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The close connection between lobbying and "semi-legitimate" activities
was driven home for me the other week when I met in Skopje with an
American "consultant" representing a businessman in a certain Balkan
country. Apparently, the businessman was eager to do business in
America, but did not have the right connections. How could he go about
getting his foot in the door, he asked? According to the consultant,

"…we advised him to set up a foundation dealing with one of the usual
Balkan issues, arms smuggling, human trafficking, ethnic rights, etc.
Then we could see to it that this topic would come up in a
congressional committee or sub-committee meeting. So he would have a
chance to introduce himself, in his capacity as foundation chair, not
as a businessman. And after the presentation, what if somehow they
decide to talk business? Well, I wouldn't know about that, would I?"

Case Study 1: Larry Franklin and the AIPAC Spies

The scandals that have emerged over the past couple years, largely in
the context of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the Iraq War, show
clearly the extent of the danger America is facing due to
out-of-control foreign lobbyists.

Former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin is currently in the dock for
repeatedly passing top secret intelligence documents pertaining to
Iran, the Khobar Towers bombing and terrorist activities in Central
Asia to his "handlers" in the American-Israeli Public Affairs Council
(AIPAC), an organization that bills itself as "America's pro-Israel
lobby."

Now, two senior AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, have
also been indicted. According to Justin Raimondo, who has been
following the story tirelessly, three Israeli embassy officials are
also mentioned in the indictment.

That the FBI has apparently been investigating this bunch since 1999
sheds light on the enormity of the case; the more we learn, the more
it seems that US foreign policy is under the control of those who wish
to secure the realm – the Israeli one, that is. As the Franklin case
shows, spies within the government willingly (it does not appear that
Franklin wanted pay; he seems to have been doing it out of sheer
devotion) collaborated with Israeli lobbyists, who in turn handed over
sensitive data to their government. But Franklin was not alone; other
American government officials, as yet unnamed, have also been
indicted. Raimondo sums up the lobbyists' role succinctly:

"…What emerges from this indictment is AIPAC's role as an organization
that functioned as a lot more than a mere Washington lobbying group,
but rather one whose primary objective is intelligence-gathering on
behalf of Israel.

"Rosen used AIPAC's resources, both financial and political, to carry
out a sophisticated spy operation inside the Pentagon, involving not
only Franklin but an entire subterranean network of informants and
other assets, government officials who regularly provided information
and pushed Israel's agenda inside the administration. AIPAC
functioned, in effect, as an organized conspiracy on behalf of a
foreign power, a funnel that not only poured money into pro-Israel
candidates in both major parties and lobbied furiously on behalf of
Tel Aviv, but also operated as a virtual clearinghouse of classified
information, laundering it through the media – and, of course,
funneling it back to their Israeli handlers."

Case Study 2: Sibel Edmonds and the Turkish FBI Infiltration

Another dimension of malevolent foreign lobbying has been revealed in
the testimony of Sibel Edmonds, the former FBI employee and
whistleblower. While the government has not allowed her full testimony
to come out, keeping her gagged under the State Secrets Act, enough
has been revealed to cast a light deep into the dark places inhabited
by lobbyists, the politicians they work with, and their spies within
federal law enforcement agencies.

Edmonds' allegations point to another dangerous dimension of the
lobbying phenomenon. Whereas Franklin's crew seem to have been
motivated out of a certain idealism and patriotism to Israel – the
classic state-sponsored brand of spying – the people Edmonds was
tracking as an FBI translator were of another breed. She speaks of a
shadowy world of foreign terrorists, gun runners, drug lords and
politicians, all of whom seem to have had a common meeting place
(lobby groups and other "semi-legitimate organizations," as she calls
them) – like some watering hole where all the wild creatures of the
jungle come out to drink at dusk.

And, according to Edmonds, they were all motivated by a single purpose
– not by ideals or nationalism, but by sheer and simple greed. In the
end, the whole business just "…boils down to a whole lot of money and
illegal activities."

Although I tentatively take credit for breaking the story a year ago,
it has only been since January that the mass media has really focused
on one organization in particular – the American-Turkish Council, an
extremely powerful Washington lobby group chaired by Brent Scowcroft
and supported by all of the biggest American and Turkish business
interests; its "Golden Horn" group of high-end contributors is pretty
heavy on military contractors, such as Boeing, Bechtel International,
BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, General Electric, Northrop Grumman,
Raytheon and United Technologies/Sikorsky.

As the above interview recounts in depth, one of Edmonds' co-workers
in the FBI, Melek Can Dickerson, was a former employee of the ATC who,
with her husband, a US Air Force man in the weapons procurement game,
basically offered her membership in the exclusive organization; the
implication was that Edmonds would be able to profit from sharing FBI
secrets, or, as Dickerson herself was doing, block ongoing FBI
investigations into Turkish nationals suspected of trying to breach
American national security. Edmonds declined, and her resolute refusal
to compromise American security and aid the criminals meant the end of
her job.

According to a new article on whistleblowers in the latest issue of
Vanity Fair,

"…Sibel later told the O.I.G. [Office of the Inspector General] she
assumed that the A.T.C.'s board – which is chaired by Brent Scowcroft,
President George H. W. Bush's national-security advisor – knew nothing
of the use to which it was being put. But the wiretaps suggested to
her that the Washington office of the A.T.C. was being used as a front
for criminal activity."

Yet no matter how high the corruption may have gone within the
organization, it was clear that at least individuals – as well as US
elected officials that Edmonds is not allowed to name – were in on a
major racket. Many of the wiretapped calls she processed at the FBI
disclosed activities that could directly endanger the lives of
American citizens, says the Vanity Fair article:

"…Another call allegedly discussed a payment to a Pentagon official,
who seemed to be involved in weapons-procurement negotiations. Yet
another implied that Turkish groups had been installing doctoral
students at U.S. research institutions in order to acquire information
about black market nuclear weapons. In fact, much of what Edmonds
reportedly heard seemed to concern not state espionage but criminal
activity. There was talk, she told investigators, of laundering the
profits of large-scale drug deals and of selling classified military
technologies to the highest bidder."

Hey, why should anyone care about who's getting their hands on black
market nukes, or passing around American secret military technology?
Share the wealth, right?

Case Study 3: A Bewildering Pakistani Gaffe and Nuclear Nightmares

Another whistleblower, former FBI senior intelligence-operations
specialist John Cole, was also interviewed in the same Vanity Fair
article. After 9/11, this distinguished veteran became the bureau's
national counter-intelligence program manager for India, Afghanistan
and Pakistan. However, he was soon deliberately upstaged by higher-ups:

"…Early in the fall of 2001, Cole was asked to assess whether a woman
who had applied to work as a translator of Urdu, Pakistan's national
language, might pose a risk to security. 'The personnel security
officer said she thought there was something that didn't seem right,'
Cole says. 'I went through the file, and it stuck out a mile: she was
the daughter of a retired Pakistani general who had been their
military attaché in Washington.' He adds that, to his knowledge,
'Every single military attaché they've ever assigned has been a known
intelligence officer.'"

This association "looked especially risky" to Cole, because Pakistan
was a volatile ally at best and its intelligence service, the ISI,
had, after all, created and propped up the Taliban in the first place.
Besides, the article adds, the government "…still contained elements
who were far from happy with President Pervez Musharraf's pro-American
policies."

For discovering the potential security breach, Cole was congratulated
by his superiors. Nevertheless, the Pakistani woman was given a job –
with top-secret security clearance.

"…As of July 2005," reports Vanity Fair, "the woman was still a bureau
translator. Sibel Edmonds said she remembers her well – as the leader
of a group that pressed for separate restrooms for Muslims."

Since 9/11, scores of commentators and analysts have cautioned America
to beware of nuclear-armed "ally" Pakistan. Besides the ISI/Taliban
connection is the disquieting fact that the country's nuclear
godfather, A.Q. Khan, is the world's single greatest black-market
nuclear proliferator. According to The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, who
told the story in detail in March 2004, the shadowy international
trade in black-market nuclear goods that Khan masterminded had
government sanction:

"…a Bush Administration intelligence officer with years of experience
in nonproliferation issues told me last month, 'One thing we do know
is that this was not a rogue operation. Suppose Edward Teller had
suddenly decided to spread nuclear technology and equipment around the
world. Do you really think he could do that without the government
knowing? How do you get missiles from North Korea to Pakistan? Do you
think A.Q. shipped all the centrifuges by Federal Express? The
military has to be involved, at high levels.'"

Seven months later, UPI reported extensively on the global nuclear
free-for-all described in Edmonds' testimony, again using the Khan
case as the centerpiece. Citing a report from the Institute for
Science and International Security, UPI revealed that Khan's supplying
of uranium enrichment centrifuges to Libya and Iran made use of vast
international resources and multiple countries – globalization at its
finest:

According to Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the IAEA,
"…nuclear components designed in one country could be manufactured in
another, shipped through a third, assembled in a fourth, and
designated for eventual turn-key use in a fifth."

It all sounds too much like some big-screen action thriller. But
that's the way it was. According to the article, the centrifuges were
assembled at workshops in Turkey and Malaysia, using parts from Italy,
Spain and elsewhere, smuggled on German-registered ships, diverted to
Dubai, repackaged and sent to Libya under false end-user certificates.

Just as Sibel Edmonds has argued regarding her own case, protecting
"foreign relations" has stymied any serious crackdown on such
criminals. A.Q. Khan's popularity in Pakistan made it impossible for
President Pervez Musharraf to give him anything worse than a slap on
the wrist – a pardon with home confinement. As Hersh reported,
referring to one American diplomat, this result came down to
embarrassment and foreign relations:

"…the United States was unwilling to publicly state the obvious: that
there was no way the Pakistani government didn't know about the
transfers. He said, 'Of course it looks awful, but Musharraf will be
indebted to you.'"

The sheer desperation that seems to drive America's foreign policy
would be understandable if only the stakes weren't so high. One might
understand why the administration would publicly and diplomatically
protect Musharraf from being flayed alive, by quietly looking the
other way in the Khan case. But still, this logic cannot explain why a
covert entity such as the FBI would knowingly breach its own security
standards by hiring someone who, in all likelihood, was passing on
classified information to Islamabad – and who knows where after that.

All things considered, it is very hard to believe that certain US
government officials, businessmen and lobbyists were unaware of the
rogue trade in nuclear goods until Gadhafi spilled the beans. After
all, if this is one of those black industries with profits in the
"hundreds of millions of dollars," as Edmonds described it, one would
hardly expect leaders who are already corrupted and irresponsible
enough to not cash in.

But we shouldn't worry – it's not like the US is provoking a new arms
race in one of the world's most volatile regions by ending a
moratorium and selling Pakistan nuclear-capable F-16s or anything.

A congressional source cited by Reuters said that the Bush
administration's decision, made right before Congress's summer recess,
could help "…blunt any backlash among the friends of India in
Congress, of which there are many."

Indeed, the lobbying race between the two archrivals has ended exactly
where the administration and its defense contractor allies hoped it
would – mutual annihilation:

"…In an attempt to address India's concerns, the Bush administration
is letting Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. compete for a
potential $9 billion market in India for as many as 126 combat
aircraft, as India replaces its fleet of Russian-built MiG-21s."

Case Study 4: Have Gun, Will Travel (to Kill US Citizens, That Is)

A dangerous variation of the Larry Franklin variety of lobbyist (i.e.,
one who is motivated by nationalist ideals) can be found among
different ethnic groups obsessed with whatever national cause they may
have. Larry Franklin may be dangerous as a spy for Israel, but he's
certainly not the sort who would strap on a Kalashnikov and hunt down
Israel's enemies by himself. But there are others who don't share his
reticence.

Take for example the situation in Kosovo, where America is allegedly
worshipped and the legacy of NATO intervention carefully whitewashed
as a "success." Albanian-Americans very successfully lobbied (and
subsidized) the former Clinton regime into bombing Serbia in 1999,
generating implausible sums of money overnight and engaging in
criminal activities to achieve their goal – an independent and
Serb-free Kosovo, which has basically been achieved.

Take Florin Krasniqi, the Albanian whose entire American existence
would seem to be one giant felony: first he smuggled himself illegally
into the country from Mexico, and then started smuggling heavy weapons
on commercial planes to arm his beloved "Kosovo Liberation Army" of
thugs back home.

One might think that a man with such a track record might be laying
low. The truth could not be more opposite: this surprisingly wealthy
roofer from Brooklyn, like his lobbyist peers, is a fixture at
Democratic campaign rallies; a recent documentary shows him writing
out thousand-dollar checks, back-slapping with successfully-lobbied
politicos like John Kerry, Wesley Clark and other Clintonites with the
profligate, self-assured zeal that could only be displayed by a
criminal who has significant political allies.

Now, Krasniqi has had a book and now two documentaries made in his
honor, in which he takes great pride in recounting how easy it is to
procure powerful .50 caliber rifles, and how great America is because
"…with money, you can do amazing things in this country... Senators
and congressmen are looking for donations, and if you raise the money
they need for their campaigns, they pay you back."

Indeed. There's only one problem with this happy little story.
Krasniqi, the inveterate displaced "patriot," has said that Kosovo
must be independent – and that if the UN does not leave, they will be
forced to leave: "…Kosovo is up in the air… we will throw the United
Nations out." As has been clear all along, the timid internationals
will run out with their tails between their legs if the going gets rough.

If there was any question regarding just how such an effort would be
achieved, Krasniqi makes it very clear:

"…We have a team of snipers here in the U.S. ready to be dispatched on
very short notice."

This is something for every American to think about. Currently
thousands of Americans, both soldiers and civilians, are serving in
Kosovo. You may even know one of them. Now Krasniqi's bombastic threat
has been backed up the shadowy "Albanian National Army" which very
recently sent a letter to the UN in Pristina, ordering all foreigners
to leave Kosovo immediately – or else.

For American soldiers and civilians to be killed by the same people
they came to liberate six years ago, and by guns sold in America and
with the blessings of bought-off elected officials in Washington –
folks, this will not just be ironic, it will be criminal. Like all of
the examples recounted above, it will constitute yet another
embarrassment of shortsighted foreign policy, and yet another example
of how government officials are willing to endanger their citizens in
order to profit from self-seeking foreign lobbies. Our third president
is no doubt rolling in his grave.

The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan Independent of Any Individuals or Groups, Governments (T)

2005-07-31T22:39:00.000-05:00

----- Original Message -----
From: "Abdumannob Polat"
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 6:29 AM
Subject: The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan Independent of Any Individuals or Groups, Governments (T)

Statement: The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan
Independent of Any Individuals or Groups, Governments

Press-Center of The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan
07/29/05; Washington, DC

In the last days, claims that certain Uzbek opposition
groups are funded by the wealthy family of Maqsudi,
Uzbek-Afghan-American, former son-in-law and currently
opponent of President Karimov, have been actively
circulated. In this regard, there have been also
attempts to link The Congress of Democratic
Uzbekistan.

Working Board of the The Congress of Democratic
Uzbekistan states that as organization it has not been
in any relations with the Maqsudi family, and
particularly financially it has been totally
independent of this family and any other individuals,
groups or governments.

Some individuals, or some groups may have been in
contact with the Maqsudi family. However, such
relations are their internal matter and The Congress
of Democratic Uzbekistan as group has no connections
to these contacts - even if some of these individuals
appear to be members of The Congress of Democratic
Uzbekistan. Such relations are personal and private
contacts of these individuals.

Based on its major slogan, The Congress of Democratic
Uzbekistan confirms again its intention to cooperate
with all individuals and groups, who are for democracy
and against dictatorship.

Press-Center of The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan

Contacts:

Jahangir Mamatov, formerly member of Uzbekistan's
parliament - jahongir@jahongir.org , 571-203-9225 (h)
, 571.277.0140 (m)

Ambassador Muhammad Bobur Malikov, Former Chairman of
the Supreme Court, Minister of Justice and First
Ambassador Of Uzbekistan to USA -
Babur_Malikov@yahoo.com , 703-591-0294 (h)

Dr. AbduMannob Polat, formerly Chairman of the Human
Rights Society of Uzbekistan and Director, Central
Asian Human Rights Information Network -
AbduMannob@yahoo.com, 703-426-9637 (home/office),
571-344-3013 (cell)

AbduMannob Polat (Po'lat), Independent Consultant

Abdumannob@yahoo.com, AbduMannob@hotmail.com

5606 Eastbourne Drive, Springfield, VA, 22151-1607; Phone/Fax: (1) 703 426-9637 - home office, (1) 571 344-3013 - mobile/cell. Voice mailbox & Fax @ the Union of Councils: (1) 202 237 8262x105; (1) 202 237-2236.

Islamism as a Reactionary Identity

2005-07-20T23:10:00.000-05:00

Tugrul Keskingoren

The Raging Liberal

The purpose of this article is to achieve an understanding of the cultural, economic, and political roots of the increasing trend of religious movements. Particularly one must reach an understanding of Islamic revivalism after the 1980's. There is a direct correlation between religious movements and poverty. Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Algeria, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt have been faced with extremist religious violence since the end of the 1980s. All of these countries also confront economic problems. Economic difficulties have created the gap between rich and poor in these specific countries. Moreover, the unemployment rate has increased dramatically in the last ten years. Education levels have decreased, and foreign investments eliminated the local and traditional work force.

Additionally, globalization has produced a public sphere in which people encounter other cultures. People in these countries are beginning to define their identity by looking at the cultures of the West. This environment has shaped and formed their identity. On the subject Huntington wrote, "while Asians became increasingly assertive as a result of economic development, Muslims in massive numbers were simultaneously turning toward Islam as a source of identity, meaning, stability, legitimacy, development, power, and hope, hope epitomized in the slogan "Islam is the solution." (Huntington, 1997)

People tried to create a cultural, economic and political ideology within the Islamic sphere in reaction to these forces of globalization. As a result of this, Islam becomes an ideology not a religion. Religious fundamentalism is benefiting from this trend. On the other side of this issue, are Western values conflicting with Islam? The question is whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Islam becomes the cultural defense mechanism. Today, in these countries cultural changes are taking place rapidly. But these rapid changes are forming a reactive type of cultural change rather than natural way. Inglehart claims, "cultural change seems to be path dependent. Economic development tends to bring pervasive cultural changes, but the fact that a society was historically shaped by Protestantism, Confucianism or Islam leaves a cultural heritage with enduring effects that influence subsequent development". (Inglehart and Baker, 2000)

The discourse of the conflict is not just based on economic and political differences, but also on cultural differences. Cultural imperialism has also influenced this conflict, because cultural imperialism is a result of the global capitalism. Moreover, Ritzer asserts that "…McDonaldization affects not only the restaurant business, but also education, work, health care, travel, leisure, dieting, politics, the family, and virtually every other aspect of society. McDonaldization has shown every sign of being an exorable process by sweeping through seemingly impervious institutions and parts of the world. (Ritzer, 1996). Tomlinson point out that cultural imperialism is a critique of global capitalism. (Tomlinson, 1992)

According to M. Hakan Yavuz, in his book, Islamic Political Identity in Turkey, the rise of Islamic social movements since the 1980's can be attributed to the tension created by neo-liberal economic policies. Yavuz describes this politicization as a rise of network communities that arose in reaction to and in order to cope with the modern urban conditions of fragmentation and anomie. As the secular nation state created systems of control and standardization, there was an ideological vacuum that was left. Muslims sought to carve out Islamic niches in the public sphere, free from secular state control. Social groups have also used Islam in order to make identity claims and justify entry into political and economic spheres as a result of the politicization of Islamic identity.

The most famous critical author of globalization, Edward Said sees cultural imperialism as an Orientalism that Western countries use to colonize the East and dominate them culturally. He later claims that this environment will have a huge impact on the Eastern societies. There will not only be an economic effect, but also cultural and political consequences will occur in the long term. (Said, 1993)

According to author Jan Nederven Pieterse, there are four currents or forms of collective action that relate specifically to globalization. First there is anti-globalization, then alternative globalization, global reform, and quiet encroachment. For the purpose of this study, his definition of anti-globalization is relevant to the current topic. In particular, Pieterse explores the effects of rapid globalization on populations that are exposed to new global forces, which result in insecurity in people's livelihoods and social realities. Some populations are unprepared to be exposed fully to the effects of globalization and react to it as an enemy force. The author describes this in the following way, "In anti-globalization discourse, globalization is portrayed as an alien juggernaut, a hostile, uncontrolled force" (Pieterse, 31). This view is fed mainly be fear and uncertainty, and its proponents often also hold strong views in opposition to imperialism, neocolonialism and Western capitalism.

Political Islam may be considered as one expression of anti-globalization. Political Islam represents an entire world-view that exists in opposition to globalization with its own historical and geographic arena, its own law, economics, and social policy, science and culture/identity. Political Islam has arisen in reaction to forces of globalization, and created its own structures of meaning in direct opposition to those of globalization and homogeneity. This has taken place according to Pieterse, as a result of anger in the Islamic world over Western double standards and political and social hegemony.

In short, the classical social theorist Mead claims "people's minds and their conceptions of themselves are shaped by their social experiences." (Ritzer, 1996). The social experience has changed dramatically in the Islamic world for the last 20 years. Therefore, religious fanaticism is a result of economic, cultural and political domination by the powerful West.

References:

Huntington, Samuel. 1997.The Clash of Civilizations: Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne E. Baker. Modernization's Challenge to Traditional Values: Who's Afraid of Ronald McDonald? The Futurist (Magazine/Journal), March 1, 2001.

Pierre Hamel, Henri Lustiger-Thaler and Jan Nederveen Pieterse, eds., 2001. Globalizationad and Social Movements. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Ritzer, George. 1996. Classical Sociological Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Said, Edward W.1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York, NY: Vintage.

Tomlinson, John. 1992. Cultural Imperialism. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Yavuz, Hakan M. 2003. Islamic Political Identity in Turkey. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Revival of Crusades: Infantile crusader Tancredo

2005-07-19T12:40:00.000-05:00

Prof. Yuruk Igriboz

IYRI@aol.com

One is indeed surprised to see the recent changes in the
bookshelves of bookstores. Under philosophy and religion,
books on Islam, Sufism and Rumi have significantly increased.
There are a couple versions of The Holy Koran, including the
excellent translation and interpretation by Yusuf Ali first
published in English way back in 1937. This will undoubtedly
ensure that eminent Christian clergyman will no longer have
excuses such as ' I don't know Islam' or 'I don't know Arabic'(1).
Koran does not only contain a good part of the Old Testament
but also treats Muhammed, Jesus, Moses and the other preceding
enlightened at the same level as saints and holy guides directed
by God. Thus a Southern Baptist clergyman's recently claiming
Muhammed as deamonic does not only reveal his ignorance but also
insults all of the teachings and love of Jesus. Similarly, as the
Bishop visiting St.Mary's Chapel in Ephesus complains of lack of
Christians around can not see hundreds of Moslems praying and
burning candles on site. Most recently American Taliban's lawyer
blamed his religion, Islam for his client's derelict criminal
behavior. Bookshelves on history display a different version,
namely versions of blame, discrimination and hate. A book titled
'Jihad' by Paul Fregosi starts by torture of Bragadino after his
defeat by Lala Mustafa Pasa in Cyprus on August 17, 1571 and
ferments it as kindling of terror all the way up to 1980s.
This is a blindfolded vision of history since our history is
glazed with victors of booty. Starting with Asian khans, Huns,
Greeks, Romans, Ottomans and the British, all the victory we
glorify resulting in the so called Empires depended on booty,
a deadly misunderstanding of human success. When it comes to
terror, according to Western sources Moslems learned terror
from Crusaders who cut open living people looking for jewels
and gold (2). Moreover, if we are really honest about terror
and related human sufferage, how are we going decipher our
glorius past related to ages of discovery, exploration and
industrial revolutions.

We can not callously say ' past is past and let us look at
the future' which has been taken granted since Inquisition.
Interestingly, orientalists as well diagnosed by Edward Said (3)
do not go into detail about the power games and accumulation of
wealth during these glorius years of exploitation which
segregated the exploited people all around the world(4). Can
World Wars, holocaust, crimes behind the iron curtain, African
demises and most recently Kosovo where Christians were both
victims and the accused be alibis for our civilization ? Why is
it so that the bulk of underdeveloped and oppressed parts of the
world tend to be Moslem where the oppressors were and are our
close allies ? Are we going to delay answering these questions,
as we delayed revealing the contents of Nag Hammadi and Dead
Sea Scrolls where love of God was considered to be synonymous
with human love and men with women (5)?

History has shown that both Christians and Moslems have
significantly deviated from their founding principles and
slaughtered their very own brethren for political and economic
reasons (e.g., crusades, inquisition, sheriat). However, times
have changed. During all these years, as we have acquired weapons
of mass destruction and considered it as advancement of
technology civilization and thanks to the media, clergy and
education, we have also developed a profound hate against each
other, both of which have proven to be deadly. This hate, not
surpisingly is not only between religions, nations and ethnic
groups but also within our own neighborhoods not overlooking
crimes and the hazardous material we consume. We smuggle people
to slavery. Where do they go to work ? We smuggle drugs. Who
consumes them ? We make arms and sell them. Who dies and who
profits from them ?

Thus attributing terror and human demise to a certain religion
is an open and dishonest discourse, very unintelligently
veiling the etiology of our problems as well as provoking a
revival of crusades which we can only remember with sorrow and
shame. And yet, very unfortunately, this very process is indeed
recently revived and verified by the Colorado Congressman Tom
Tancredo who thought of nuking Mecca as a remedy to stop terrorism(6).

Prof. Dr. Yuruk Iyriboz: Revised & Updated from Turkish Forum July 21,
2002 version

Sources:
1. C-Span 2, Broadcast: Race, Ethnicity & Culture National Conference
for Community Justice Jan. 2,21,2002
2. Crusades. BBC Broadcast 1999
3. Said, E. Covering Islam
4. Wheatherford, J. Savages and Civilization
5. Pagels, E. Gnostic Gospels
6. Tancredo's Interview with Pat Campbell @ News Radio 540WFLA. 7/14/05
(www.540wfla.com/patcampbell.html)

Uzbek Democratic Opposition Leaders Are Establishing Cooperation

2005-07-11T16:07:00.000-05:00

Press-Center of The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan

Washington, DC (10 July, 2005). The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan accomplished first step of its mission. It brought together leaders of the Uzbek opposition who had not been able to cooperate for the last fifteen years.

As activists fighting dictatorship and for democracy, they decided to establish constructive cooperation. A slogan "who can not win themselves, can not win the others" has began to performing its strength.

On 10 July 2005, leaders of the Uzbek democratic opposition and known politicians living in exile Abdurahim Polat, Muhammad Solih, MuhammadBobur Malikov, Jahongir Mamatov, AbduMannob Polat, Avazkhon Mukhtorov, Sulaymon Murod, Farhod Inoghomboyev and a half-dozen other representatives hold a special meeting of the Uzbek democratic opposition in Alexandria, VA and came to conclusion to work together to organize a Congress.

Chairwoman of the "Ezgulik" Human Rights Society Vasila Inoyatova, visiting the US, took part in the meeting and stressed that the constructive cooperation between and holding a Congress of the Uzbek democratic opposition forces reflects desires of democratic opposition members living in the country.

Meeting participants agreed that Congress should bring together representatives of all groups of the Uzbek democratic opposition and on the need to work on common strategy of peaceful struggle for democracy.

The meeting agreed on combined efforts between existing "Davra Kengashi" (Round Table), Democratic Opposition Coalition and Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan - groups created with the aim to unite democratic opposition.

Statements and appeals calling for fair treatment of Uzbek refugees in Kirghistan and other countries in accordance with international human rights norms and not returning them to Uzbekistan due to possible torture and miss-treatment, they may face there and an appeal to free arrested Uzbek democratic and human rights activists had also been agreed.

Press-Center of The Congress of Democratic Uzbekistan

Contacts:

Jahangir Mamatov, formerly member of Uzbekistan's parliament - jahongir@jahongir.org , 571-203-9225 (h) , 571.277.0140 (m)

Ambassador Muhammad Bobur Malikov, Former Chairman of the Supreme Court, Minister of Justice and First Ambassador Of Uzbekistan to USA - Babur_Malikov@yahoo.com , 703-591-0294 (h)

Dr. AbduMannob Polat, formerly Chairman of the Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan and Director, Central Asian Human Rights Information Network - AbduMannob@yahoo.com, 703-426-9637 (home/office), 571-344-3013 (cell)

Farhod Inogambaev, formerly Financial Adviser to Gulnora Karimova, daughter of President Karimov of Uzbekistan - Inogamb@AoL.com, 973-615-9689 (h)

AbduMannob Polat (Po'lat), Independent Consultant

Abdumannob@yahoo.com, AbduMannob@hotmail.com

5606 Eastbourne Drive, Springfield, VA, 22151-1607; Phone/Fax: (1) 703 426-9637 - home office, (1) 571 344-3013 - mobile/cell. Voice mailbox & Fax @ the Union of Councils: (1) 202 237 8262x105; (1) 202 237-2236.

The Al-Rowwad Theater Troupe:don't miss it; by Andy Martin

2005-06-21T09:57:00.000-05:00

AMERICA'S DAILY BRIEFING FOR JUNE 20, 2004

CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR OUT2.COM BY ANDY MARTIN

TWO DAYS LEFT: DON'T MISS THE AL-ROWWAD THEATER TROUPE

(NEW YORK)(June 20, 2005) I was in New York today and saw a performance of the Al-Rowwad Theater Troupe from occupied Palestine. There are two more performances in the New York area. Don't miss this group. {See www.THAWaction.org or e-mail alrowwadny@yahoo.com for details].

These young performers experienced what has become an embarrassing rite of passage for people around the world: being harassed by American immigration officials on arrival at Kennedy airport (more on that obscenity in a later column). But yes, these young people are subversive; they present the Palestinian perspective in a unique and irresistible way. (I may find myself on trial alongside Sami Al-Arian in Tampa for writing this column.)

The performers come from a refugee camp near Bethlehem. They are full of energy and enthusiasm. They tell the Palestinian narrative (invincible) and exemplify the Palestinian spirit (indomitable). I especially encourage supporters of Israel and my Jewish friends to catch this drama.

This Palestinian Cri de Coeur could have as easily been presented by the Yiddish theater on the Lower East Side 75 years ago, "Free my people." Could "Palestinians" (Jews) of 1930 ever have conceived that 75 years later "Palestinians" (Arabs) would be singing the same song in New York City? I don't think so.

David Astor of the London Observer once called the Jews and Palestinians "two wronged peoples." Truer words were never spoken.

Why are there two wronged peoples? The theater performance begins with a dramatic reading of the Balfour Declaration, where Great Britain traded Ottoman Palestine to British Jews for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. Lord Balfour gave away what he did not own--and then after the war betrayed the buyers when he undermined those who had purchased his favor. The perfidiousness of British money-grubbing politics to fund World War I and goad America into the conflict is laid starkly bare. Ouch.

The moral guilt persisted after World War II, when President Harry Truman, desperate for political support to reelect himself, ignored his advisers and betrayed Palestine by selling it a second time, to his American supporters.

Again the Jews were betrayed. Six thousand years of glorious Hebrew history have become bogged down in a gruesome occupation and a soul-deadening litany of human rights abuses. As Golda Meir confessed, "I can forgive you for killing my sons, but I cannot forgive you for forcing me to kill your sons."

While the Al-Rowwad dancing and singing goes on, a montage of archival film reminds us that helpless innocents were slaughtered in 1948, a fact that only recently became widely known and generally admitted in Israel.

There are many organizations committed to peaceful coexistence among the next generation. Givathaviva.org and seedsofpeace.org come quickly to mind. But Al-Rowwad performers live inside occupied Palestine every day. The occupation has been and continues to be their life. The camp is their home.

The obvious question must be presented and confronted: if after almost sixty years of terror, and almost forty years of occupation, Israel has not succeeded in defeating the Palestinian national spirit, when will Israeli leaders admit their tactics have failed and sit down to negotiate a genuine peace, instead of posturing for peace and importuning the support of right-wing extremists in the Bush administration?

Is peace possible? I believe it with my heart. Will it be easy? No way. What are we waiting for? Who is profiting from the delays?

A current German film, "Downfall," portrays the last days of Hitler. The point made is that if Hitler had surrendered earlier, millions of lives could have been saved. Hitler preferred to destroy his nation, and himself, rather than admit defeat.

Ariel Sharon has bludgeoned the Palestinian People for four years; they are stronger today than when Sharon began. Needless blood has been shed on both sides. In retrospect, Sharon will prove to have been the most disastrous leader in Israeli history. He accomplished nothing. He ensured the survival of those whom he most opposed.

But rather than the heavy hand of politics the performers remind us of their loyalty to the drama of Palestinian history. The lighter touch works.

The Al-Rowwad performance ends--too soon--with a stirring song and a glorious display of the Palestinian flag. Don't miss it.

If you support the Palestinians, you will be reminded that a new generation is coming along to carry on the fight for freedom and justice. If you are an Israeli supporter, you will be convinced that peace between two peoples, a generous peace of the brave, and not occupation and tyranny, is the only hope for survival of the Israeli state. Shalom-As Salaam.

Al-Rowwad--only two days left in the New York area (Tuesday and Wednesday, June 21-22).

---------------

ANDY MARTIN is independent Contrarian Columnist and chief national and foreign correspondent for Out2.com (see Govt & Politics), based in Chicago and New York. He has also served as Baghdad Bureau Chief for Out2.com since April 2003. Martin has been involved in the Middle East for 35 years. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web site: andymartin.com; reactions/comments to: andymart20@aol.com

Time Line: Why Franklin Arrest May Be Bigger Than We Know

2005-06-09T22:43:00.000-05:00

by LITBMueller
Thu May 5th, 2005 at 12:00:06 PDT

I thought it might be interesting to put together a timeline of events concerning the arrest of Lawrence Franklin and compare it to when certain Neocons like Feith, Wurmser, Luti, etc. either decided to leave or were shuffled around, and out of the DoD.
By just poking around on the net, I found a lot more than I bargained for! Forgive me if this has been explored before, but, personally, I had no idea that the people uor country has been trusting with top secret intelligence information have had a history of violating that trust. That is why I think the arrest of Franklin may be a sign of bigger things to come.

Below is the timeline I pieced together. * = new update!

Diaries :: LITBMueller's diary :: :: Trackback ::

1970 - An FBI wiretap authorized for the Israeli Embassy picked up Richard Perle, then a Senator's staffer and working on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, discussing with an Embassy official classified information which he said had been supplied to him by a staff member on the National Security Council. An NSC/FBI investigation found the staff member, Helmut Sonnenfeldt, who had been previously investigated in 1967 while a staff member of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, for suspected unauthorized transmission to an Israeli Government official of a classified document concerning the commencement of the 1967 war in the Middle East. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1978 - While working for the Arms Control and Disarmament agency in 1978, Paul Wolfowitz was the subject of an investigation that alleged he had provided a classified document on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government to an Israeli government official via an AIPAC intermediary. However, the probe was eventually dropped. (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040824-102938-1916r.htm)

April 1979 - The Attorney General's office recommends that Dr. Stephen Bryen, then a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, be investigated by a grand jury because he had been overheard in the Madison Hotel Coffee Shop offering classified documents to Israeli Embassy official Zvi Rafiah, the Mossad station chief in Washington, in the presence of the director of AIPAC. The investigation was eventually shut down and Bryen resigned. He then served as Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and provided consulting services to AIPAC. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1981 - Shortly before being appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (ISP), Perle was paid a consulting fee by an Israeli arms manufacturer, Soltam. Shortly after assuming his post, Perle wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Army urging evaluation and purchase of 155 mm. shells manufactured by Soltam. Bryen becomes Deputy to Perle and receives top secret clearances. Wolfowitz, as head of the State Department Policy Planning Staff, hires Michael Ledeen as a Special Advisor. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1982 - Perle hires Douglas Feith to be his Special Counsel (he later becomes Deputy Assistant Secretary for Negotiations Policy). (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html) F. Michael Maloof also becomes an aide to Perle as Foreign Affairs Specialist. (http://www.findaresume.com/1985.html)

1983 - Feith is fired because he had been the object of an inquiry into whether he had provided classified material to an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington. FBI had opened an inquiry into this allegation. (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040824-102938-1916r.htm) Also, on the recommendation of Perle, Ledeen was hired at the Department of Defense as a consultant on terrorism, where his superior first became concerned that he was viewing classified material that he was not cleared to see. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1984 - Ledeen leaves his position in DoD and joins the National Security Council (NSC) as a consultant. He suggests to Oliver North, his new boss at NSC "that Israeli contacts might be useful in obtaining release of the U.S. hostages in Lebanon." (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

August 20, 1985 - Ledeen's Israeli intelligence contacts are used to broker Iran/Contra. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3031803.stm ) He worked with an Iranian named Manucher Ghorbanifar to set up the deal. (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040412&s=dreyfuss). Concerned over his relationship with Israel, NSC downgrades Ledeen's security clearance. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

January 24, 1986 - North writes to John Poindexter of his suspicion that Ledeen, along with Adolph Schwimmer and Ghorbanifar, might be making money personally on the sale of arms to Iran, through Israel. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1986 - Feith leaves ISP to form a law firm in Israel. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html) Maloof becomes Chief of Technology Security Operations and, at the direction of Perle, creates a task force intended to respond to the growth of front companies created for the illegal diversion of technology for conventional and unconventional weapons. Serves in this role until 2000. (http://www.findaresume.com/1985.html)

1987 - After leaving the ISP in 1987, Perle goes to work for Soltam. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1988 - Bryen is the key figures behind the attempted export of "klystrons," small microwave amplifiers that are critical missile components, to Israel. Bryen resigned his post with DoD in late 1988 and worked for several defense technology consulting firms. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1992 - The first Bush Administration launches a broad inter-departmental investigation into the export of classified technology to China. During the investigation, it is discovered that Wolfowitz, as Undersecretary for Policy under Dick Cheney, was promoting the export to Israel of advanced AIM-9M air-to-air missiles. The Joint Chiefs of Staff, aware that Israel had already been caught selling the earlier AIM 9-L version of the missile to China in violation of a written agreement with the U.S. on arms re-sales, cancels the proposed deal. Feith writes in Commentary magazine, "It is in the interest of U.S. and Israel to remove needless impediments to technological cooperation between them. Technologies in the hands of responsible, friendly countries facing military threats, countries like Israel, serve to deter aggression, enhance regional stability and promote peace thereby." (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

1998 - Harold Rhode reportedly had his security clearances at DoD suspended, based on allegations he had given classified information to Israel, according to UPI in 2004. (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040824-102938-1916r.htm)

2001 - As Deputy Defense Secretary, Wolfowitz helped Feith obtain his appointment as Undersecretary for Policy. Feith then appointed Perle as Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html). Rhode was officially assigned to the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, but was later involved in OSP. (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/1448.html)

April 2001 - With the support of Wolfowitz and Sen. Richard Shelby, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appoints Bryen a Member of the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission (his appointment is later extended through December of 2005). The Commission had been created in the last months of the Clinton Administration due to concerns about the continuing transfer of advanced U.S. arms technology to the burgeoning Chinese military program. It is suspected that this position, again, gives Bryen Top Secret clearance. Likewise, Ledeen is appointed to the China Commission and, with the support of Feith, he has also been employed as a consultant for the OSP. Again, both positions involve the handling of classified materials and require high-level security clearances. (http://www.counterpunch.org/green02282004.html)

June 2001 - Rhode meets with Ghorbanifar in Paris and discusses regime change in Iran. He had been introduced to Ghorbanifar by Ledeen, who had maintained his ties with him. (http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0).

September 2001 - Feith and Rhode recruit David Wurmser, the director of Middle East studies for the American Enterprise Institute, to serve as a Pentagon consultant. He helped create the secret Pentagon intelligence unit involved in developing Iraq intelligence. (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/1448.html) Maloof is also assigned to assist with the organization of the unit. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/31/2d_probe_at_the_pentagon_examines_actions_on_i raq?pg=2)

* December 2001 - Rhode, Lawrence Franklin and Ledeen have meetings in Rome with Ghorbanifar and other Iranians and discuss regime change in Iran. White House officials OK'd what they believed was a Pentagon effort to gather info about Iranian terrorist activity in Afghanistan, but they didn't know Ghorbanifar was involved. (http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341 and http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.marshall.html&p1=0)

Early 2002 - Wolfowitz and Feith create an Iraq war-planning unit in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia Affairs section, run by Deputy Undersecretary of Defense William Luti, under the rubric "Office of Special Plans" (OSP), into which the Wurmser-Maloof intelligence unit is folded. Luti had come to DoD by way of Cheney's office. Wurmser becomes senior adviser to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, who was in charge of the State Department's disarmament, proliferation, and WMD office and was actively promoting the Iraq war at State. OSP begins a relationship with Ahmed Chalabi, from whom they receive intelligence. (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/1448.html). Rhode also serves as a liaison between the Defense Department and Ahmad Chalabi. (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040412&s=dreyfuss).

* February 2002 - Stephen Hadley learn about the involvement of Ghorbanifar in the 2001 meetings, and that regime change was on his agenda. They decide further contacts were "not worth pursuing," but Ghorbanifar continues to communicate with Rhode, and sometimes Franklin, by phone and fax five or six times a week (the contacts were not authorized by top Pentagon officials). (http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341 and http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.marshall.html&p1=0)

January 2003 - Maloof meets with a Lebanese-American friend, Imad al-Hage, who had been recruited by Maloof to assist in the War on Terrorism. Hage had met a Syrian intelligence official who had expressed frustration to him about the difficulties Syria faced in communicating with U.S. officials. Maloof arranged for Hage to meet Perle. (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_thwarted_Iraqi_110303.htm)

February 19, 2003 - Hage faxes a 3-page report on his Baghdad trip to Maloof. He indicates that the Iraqis have pledged to (1) cooperate in fighting terrorism; (2) give "full support for any US plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process; (3) give " first priority [to the U.S.] as it relates to Iraq oil, mining rights;" (4) cooperate with US strategic interests in the region; (5) allow "direct US involvement on the ground in disarming Iraq." (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_thwarted_Iraqi_110303.htm)

March 7, 2003 - Hage meets with Perle and Perle tells him he wants to pursue the matter further with people in Washington; a few days later, he tells Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with Habbush or discuss any peace offers. As the month goes by, Hage continues to pass on urgent messages from Iraq to Maloof and others. Perle and others have knowledge of the peace overtures, but no action is taken. (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_thwarted_Iraqi_110303.htm)

May 2003 - Maloof is stripped of his security clearance after the FBI link him to a Lebanese-American businessman under investigation by the FBI for weapons trafficking. A handgun registered to Maloof had been found in the possession of Hage, who is suspected of dealing arms. Investigators begin to seek to learn whether Maloof's alleged contacts with Hage and a hard-line former Lebanese general, Michel Aoun, may have been part of a back-channel effort to destabilize Syria, which has occupied Lebanon for nearly two decades. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/31/2d_probe_at_the_pentagon_examines_actions_on_i raq?pg=2 and http://www.veteransforpeace.org/The_thwarted_Iraqi_110303.htm)

June 2003 - Rhode meets with Ghorbanifar in Paris and discusses regime change in Iran, but his communications with Ghorbanifar end shortly thereafter. The meeting had not been authorized by the Pentagon. (http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3706341&p1=0)

June 26, 2003 - FBI observes Franklin divulging secret information re: Iraq to AIPAC's Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman while having lunch. (http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~24410~2853235,00.html)

June 30, 2003 - FBI find the document Franklin disclosed in his office, pursuant to warrant, and Franklin admits his guilt in an interview. FBI search Franklin's home and find 83 documents of various levels of classification being held illegally. Franklin is stripped of his security clearance. (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/dod/usfrnkln50305cmp.pdf).

September 2003 - Wurmser is moved from State to Dick Cheney's office, under Scooter Libby, as Middle East adviser. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1020-10.htm)

August, 2004 - FBI gets Franklin to pass a fake tip re: a plan by Iran to attack Israeli operations in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. Rosen and Weissman pass the info on, and fall into the trap. FBI raids AIPAC offices. Franklin later stops helping FBI, fires his public defender, and hires a top a D.C. defense lawyer. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0331/dailyUpdate.html)

August 24, 2004: UPI reports that Rhode and Luti are being investigated by FBI for passing classified material to Israel. (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040824-102938-1916r.htm)

August 27, 2004 - CBS reports on the Franklin case, and it becomes public. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml)

December, 2004 - FBI raids AIPAC once more. Grand jury subpoenas are issued to four top staffers: Howard Kohr, executive director; Richard Fishman, managing director; Renee Rothstein, communications director; and Raphael Danziger, research director. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111807178234&a page=1)

January-February 2005 - Several of the above four top AIPAC staffers testify before a federal grand jury convened by U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111807178234&a page=1). AIPAC places Rosen and Weissman on paid leave and Franklin is quietly rehired at the Pentagon, against the FBI's wishes, in a non-sensitive position. (http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/4683.stm).

Late January 2005 - Douglas Feith announces he is leaving his post later this year, (http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050126-054711-1300r.htm), but he will still be involved in setting defense policy. Specifically, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2638-2005Apr19.html)

* February 8, 2005: A "team" that includes CIA search the documents of Sen. "Scoop" Jackson stored at the University of Washington, reportedly to remove any classified materials. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002172910_jacksonpapers07m.html) Besides Perle, Feith is a former Jackson staff member (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/15/201851/101) (Thanks to Miss Devore and the Kos diary of Thistime) March 7, 2005 - Bolton nominated to be next UN Ambassador. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/07/bolton/index.html).

* March 2005: Former Mossad senior official and head of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Israel's Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, Uzi Arad is questioned by FBI in connection with the Franklin probe. He is told that his name came up three times in connection with Franklin. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1115000578317 and http://www.forward.com/main/article.php?ref=nir20050504953) April 16, 2005 - Paul Wolfowitz is announced to be the new head of the World Bank, (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050316-7.html) although he, like Feith, will still be involved in the QDR. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2638-2005Apr19.html)

Late April 2005 - AIPAC dismisses Rosen and Weissman. (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114049938008)

May 3, 2005 - Luti is moved over from DoD to the NSC. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050503-3.html)

Larry Franklin and the Axis of Espionage

2005-05-08T21:08:00.000-05:00

The arrest of a Pentagon analyst who spied for Israel is just the beginning
by Justin Raimondo

You can also find an extensive article about Larry Franklin Case in the American Prospect Magazine

http://www.antiwar.com

May 6, 2005

It was June 26, 2003, and three friends – Naor Gilon, chief of political affairs at the Israeli embassy in Washington; Steve Rosen, longtime policy director and key operative of the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC); and Keith Weissman, AIPAC's senior Iran specialist – were meeting for lunch at the Tivoli restaurant in Arlington, Va., right outside Washington, D.C. The Washington Post describes the Tivoli as a place "where you can talk without clashing with your neighbor's conversation." Privacy and moderate prices are the main attractions on a menu that is "Italian – but not insistently so," as the Post puts it. "The pasta may be a little limp, the sauces may taste oversalted, and the desserts may look like assembly-line products, but it doesn't seem to matter much. The cooking is far from the main attraction at Tivoli."

Espionage isn't on the menu. Then again, it wouldn't be, would it? It wasn't the limp pasta, however, that brought Larry Franklin, a Pentagon analyst working the Iran desk in Douglas Feith's policy shop, to the Tivoli that day. As Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball reported in Newsweek: "Suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, in the description of one intelligence official," Franklin "'walked in' to the lunch out of the blue." He had sensitive information about the possibility of pro-Iranian groups in Iraq, such as the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party, launching attacks on American occupation forces. Franklin, known as a committed ideologue of the neoconservative persuasion, and passionately committed to Israel, divulged [.pdf] the contents of a document marked "top secret" and dated June 25.

The FBI agents who were listening in were shocked: they had the Tivoli bugged that day as part of a larger and long-standing investigation into Israeli covert operations in the U.S. When Franklin barged in unexpectedly on the assembled cabal, he stumbled into a web of espionage in which he was soon ensnared. The FBI put him under surveillance, and, according to Isikoff and Hosenball,

"At one point watched him allegedly attempt to pass a classified U.S. policy document on Iran to one of the surveillance targets, according to a U.S. intelligence official. But his alleged confederate was 'too smart,' the official said, and refused to take it. Instead, he asked Franklin to brief him on its contents – and Franklin allegedly obliged. Franklin also passed information gleaned from more highly classified documents, the official said."

The Feds had a live one on the end of the line, and they slowly but surely reeled him in, gathering plenty of evidence before they confronted him. They were after much bigger fish. After all, as Warren Strobel of Knight Ridder reported last year and again on the occasion of Franklin's arrest, FBI counterintelligence had been watching the Israelis and their American fifth column for "more than two years." "According to officials with direct knowledge," writes Strobel,

"The investigation has been under way since at least 2002, and it has involved FBI interviews with officials in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere in the executive branch."

Nabbing Franklin was the breakthrough they had been waiting for. When the FBI finally went in and searched his office and home, they found a treasure trove of evidence: a total of 83 classified documents. According to the affidavit accompanying the prosecutor's complaint, "approximately 38 were classified 'Top Secret.' 37 were classified 'Secret,'" and "approximately eight" were marked "Confidential." There is no mention of AIPAC, nor even the names of Rosen and Weissman, in the affidavit. All reference to Israel has been scrubbed out of the functional, legalistic, unrevealing prose, but there is one real stunner: "The dates of these documents spanned three decades."

What Franklin was maintaining, in effect, was his own private historical repository of classified and in many cases highly sensitive documents. Israeli officials and their American gofers apparently had unlimited privileges at Franklin's little lending library, and this kind of setup was precisely what the FBI had suspected all along. As the Washington Post reported last year, when the story first broke,

"The counterintelligence probe, which is different from a criminal investigation, focuses on a possible transfer of intelligence more extensive than whether Franklin passed on a draft presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran, the sources said. The FBI is examining whether highly classified material from the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic intercepts of communications, was also forwarded to Israel."

The Franklin affair branches off into so many different separate-but-related investigations – Chalabi's follies, the Niger uranium mystery, the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame – that, as I wrote last year, we might as well merge the scandals breaking out all over into one big Neocon-gate. Franklin's arrest is the first act of that unfolding drama. "It's not legal to out CIA agents," as I wrote last summer, and "feed forgeries to U.S. intelligence" – but even in an administration where every allowance is made for Israel, and such shenanigans are routinely overlooked, one has to draw the line at espionage.

Franklin faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a hefty fine for violating Title 18, Section 793(d) of the Espionage Act, making it a crime to transmit

"Any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

The "special relationship" between Israel and the United States is about to get a thorough examination as the murky doings of the Mossad in the U.S. are exposed to the light of day. That relationship has so far consisted of the U.S. not only paying a good many of Israel's bills, but also of us fighting their wars for them. As Professor Paul W. Schroeder pointed out in a footnote to a piece in The American Conservative, the U.S. going to war with Iraq:

"Would represent something to my knowledge unique in history. It is common for great powers to try to fight wars by proxy, getting smaller powers to fight for their interests. This would be the first instance I know where a great power (in fact, a superpower) would do the fighting as the proxy of a small client state."

That isn't enough for the Israelis, however: they want the U.S. to keep going. On to Damascus! On to Tehran! The war whoops of their amen corner rend the air. As Michael Ledeen, a leading neocon who has called the charges against Franklin "nonsensical," puts it: "Faster, please."

Now there's a slogan I'd like the FBI, and prosecutor Paul McNulty of the eastern district of Virginia, to take to heart as regards this investigation. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 27, but there are several other shoes waiting to drop, including the status of Rosen and Weissman. As Laura Rozen and Jason Vest pointed out in a piece for The American Prospect:

"The FBI is looking into the possibility there's been communication between Israeli elements and U.S. officials, including several who work for Feith and have access to sensitive intelligence on Iran and its nuclear program."

Faster, please!

The trial of Larry Franklin, if it comes to that, will in effect put neoconservatism in the dock. The Franklin affair will go down in history as the neocons' comeuppance, in which the War Party finally paid the price of their hubris. Because they really thought they would get away with it. They could lie us into war, purge their enemies from the government, and commit espionage in the process. They even had a name for their little group, as Seymour Hersh reports:

"They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal – a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, the exile group headed by Ahmed Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivaled both the CIA and the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, as President Bush's main source of intelligence regarding Iraq's possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with al-Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question."

The Pentagon department in which Franklin worked was the operational epicenter of the neoconservative faction in the administration, with the high command over at the office of the vice president. It was in Feith's shop that the Office of Special Plans – the locus of so much of the phony "intelligence" that fueled the drive to war with Iraq – was conceived and staffed. Led by one Abram Shulsky, a scholarly authority on the works of the philosopher Leo Strauss – and longtime protégé of uber-neocon Richard Perle, the operation was presided over by William Luti, a disciple of neoconservative arms guru Albert Wohlstetter and a former aide to Newt Gingrich.

The Israeli connection to the Special Plans group was reported by Julian Borger in the Guardian, and former Pentagon analyst Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.), who worked in the same policy shop as Franklin. Colonel Kwiatkowski reports that Israeli military and other officials had the run of the place and were exempted from signing in as required of all other guests.

The traitor Franklin was a small cog in a very extensive underground machinery, one that pumped top-secret documents and other intelligence out of the U.S. government apparatus while it pumped a continuous stream of propaganda and fabricated "intelligence" in. This circuit of deception, we are beginning to learn, was not just the domestic achievement of a group of American ideologues: its success, to date, would not have been possible without covert aid from Israel. That this aid violated the laws of the United States – and was repaid by the neocons with vital U.S. secrets – would not have stopped the "Cabal" from pursing its course. Like all ideologues who wind up committing treason against the Republic, they believe that their supposedly noble ends justify their decidedly ignoble means. That's what Abu Ghraib was all about.

Israel's fifth column is ready and waiting with a barrage of excuses, alternative stories, tales of "entrapment," and a list of red herrings too long to go into here. There will be plenty of time for that at the trial. Until then, however, I have a few questions, by way of preliminaries.

The writer Edwin Black has been energetically pursuing the angle that Rosen, Weissman, and whomever else winds up being involved were all ensnared in a huge "sting" operation designed by anti-Semites in the FBI's counterintelligence unit. The whole investigation is characterized by him as a reenactment of Kristallnacht, and his pieces are invariably sympathetic to Franklin and AIPAC. Black writes:

"The bureau arranged for Franklin to be placed on administrative leave without pay, and then threatened him with years of imprisonment unless Franklin engaged in a series of stings against a list of prominent Washington targets, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the FBI's actions in the case.

"Terrified, needing to provide for a wheelchair-bound wife and five children, and without the benefit of legal representation, Franklin agreed to ensnare the individuals on the FBI sting list, the sources said. The list may include as many as six names, according to sources."

In Black's account, Franklin comes across not only as a victim, but as an impoverished victim. Well, then, will someone please explain how a broke mid-level Pentagon analyst managed to post $100,000 to stay out of jail?

How is the pauper Franklin paying for his high-class lawyer, John Thorpe Richards, of the firm Trout Cacheris – as in Plato Cacheris? It was Cacheris, you remember, who defended CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames, double agent Robert Hanssen, and Ana Belen Montes, Castro's top spy in the United States. As Ronald Radosh pointed out so perceptively on David Horowitz's Frontpage Web site, Cacheris' firm "seems to be the chosen counsel for most of the recent American spies for foreign powers."

Until a few months ago, Franklin was utilizing the services of a court-appointed lawyer. That ended when his cooperation with the authorities abruptly halted and he hired Cacheris. But that kind of legal counsel doesn't come cheap. Who is paying the bill?

Another question: why no mention of Israel, or AIPAC, in the affidavit showing probable cause? One correspondent put it to me this way:

"Had AIPAC and Israel appeared in the affidavit, that might be grounds to make AIPAC register as a lobbyist for a foreign government, and otherwise affect its legal status. This also prevents people from waving the affidavit, which is a public record, in the face of Congress and others about what AIPAC is up to. Had Franklin been disclosing information to a Muslim charity, what is the probability that its name would be in the supporting affidavit?"

That sounds about right. On May 22-24, a number of political luminaries are slated to show up at a conference sponsored by AIPAC, including Condoleezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, and other leaders and luminaries of both parties. They don't want to have to explain to their constituents – and their consciences – how they can honor an organization that has allowed itself to become an engine of espionage against this country. By not mentioning the name of the country that Franklin handed over U.S. secrets to, the Justice Department is granting them some cover, albeit scanty, to hide the nakedness of their treason.

How long is this charade supposed to go on? It is high time that AIPAC does what all foreign agents must do according to federal law – register with the Department of Justice as agents of a foreign power. That way, when the American people hear their message, they can see plainly who and what they are dealing with. The trial of Larry Franklin, God willing, will bring that point home to them as never before.

The New McCarthyism by Juan Cole

2005-04-23T11:04:00.000-05:00

Salon.com

Friday 22 April 2005

A witch hunt against a Columbia professor, and the New York Times'
disgraceful support for it, represent the gravest threat to academic
freedom in decades.

A member of the U.S. Congress calls for an assistant professor at a
major university to be summarily fired. The right-wing tabloid press
runs a series of vicious attacks on him, often misquoting him and
perpetuating previous misquotes. Opinion pieces attacking "tenured
radicals" and questioning professors' patriotism use him as their
centerpiece. All of these attacks are spurred by a propaganda film
made by an advocacy group, in which anonymous accusations are made and
the professor is not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations.

It is not 1953, the Congress member is not Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and
the professor is not being accused of being a communist. No, it is
2005, the Congress member is Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., and the
professor is being accused of being anti-Israel.

The lesson for academics, and American society as a whole: McCarthyism
is unacceptable except when criticism of Israel is involved.

The targeted professor is Joseph Massad, of the Middle East Languages
and Cultures Department at Columbia University. Massad is the author
of "Colonial Effects: The Making of National Identity in Jordan"
(Columbia University Press, 2001), and of a forthcoming book treating
the sexual depictions of Arabs in colonial literature, "Desiring
Arabs." He is well-published, and his first book received rave reviews
in journals such as Choice and the American Historical Review. His
career would have been no more controversial than that of any academic
historian working on Argentina or Uganda, had he not been a
Palestinian-American teaching about Israel and Palestine in New York
City. Nor, had he been critical of Argentinean or Ugandan policies,
would any eyebrows have been raised in the United States.

The attacks on Massad, and two other professors in the department,
were led by off-campus right-wing Zionist organizations aligned with
Israel's Likud Party - notably a murky Boston-based organization
called "the David Project," which produced the film in which the
accusations were made. (In fact, according to an in-depth report by
Scott Sherman in the Nation, there is no single "film"; at least six
versions exist, and it has never been screened for the public. When
the Nation asked to view it, the David Project refused to make it
available. Its head, Charles Jacobs, also refused to provide details
to the Nation about the group's financial backers or its ties to
professional pro-Israel lobbyists.)

Almost none of the allegations against Massad (anti-Semitism,
mistreatment of students, likening Israel to Nazi Germany) came from
students who had taken his courses. In the most serious case, an
allegation that Massad angrily told a student, "If you're going to
deny the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, then you can
get out of my classroom," the charge was corroborated by one other
student and one auditor, but three other individuals present said they
had no recollection of the episode taking place, and it did not appear
in Massad's teaching evaluations.

Columbia president Lee Bollinger appointed an ad hoc faculty grievance
committee to look into the accusations. After a lengthy investigation,
the committee issued a report. It found Massad not guilty of
anti-Semitism or of punishing pro-Israel students with poor grades.
(Indeed, it singled him out for unequivocably denouncing
anti-Semitism.) In the case of the incident described above, it found
it credible that "Massad became angered at a question that he
understood to countenance Israeli conduct of which he disapproved, and
that he responded heatedly. While we have no reason to believe that
Professor Massad intended to expel Ms. Shanker from the classroom (she
did not, in fact, leave the class), his rhetorical response to her
query exceeded commonly accepted bounds by conveying that her question
merited harsh public criticism." In his response to the report, Massad
denies that this incident took place, pointed out logical fallacies in
the report's reasoning, and criticized it for failing to connect the
charges with the organized political campaign against him.

Although it was little noted in the press, the report did indeed
acknowledge that Massad in particular and the department in general
had been the target of an ongoing campaign of intimidation. It noted
that for several years, after pieces appeared in the tabloid press
blasting the department as anti-Israel, many non-students, clearly
hostile and with ideological agendas, had been attending classes in
the department, interrupting lectures with hostile asides and
inhibiting classroom debate. One individual began filming a class
without permission. Chillingly, the report noted, "Testimony that we
received indicated that in February 2002 Professor Massad had good
reason to believe that a member of the Columbia faculty was monitoring
his teaching and approaching his students, requesting them to provide
information on his statements in class as part of a campaign against him."

Whether the disputed charges against Massad, fomented by outside
groups with obvious agendas, merited a major investigation by Columbia
is a matter of debate. Many students and faculty at Columbia believe
the investigation should never have been launched in the first place.
Having undertaken the inquiry, however, the ad hoc committee
rightfully understood that its charge was narrow - that its mandate
was to investigate "conduct": that is, behavior and "civility," not
views. To prescribe some views and ban others would contravene the
most deeply held values of academic life. As the report noted, "We are
committed, individually and collectively, to the right of all members
of the Columbia community to hold and espouse a range of opinions,
including those that make others uncomfortable. We focused our
attention on conduct, and on the relationship between that conduct and
the obligation for all of us to maintain a civil and tolerant learning
environment."

Even the narrow charge is problematic. The line separating "views" and
"conduct" is difficult to demarcate in any objective way, and the
place of "civility" in university teaching is not self-evident. In the
film "The Paper Chase," John Houseman played the curmudgeonly
Professor Kingsfield, who routinely used personal humiliation of
first-year law students as a pedagogical tool. Whether one agrees that
such a method is useful or valid, it is certainly the case that the
Kingsfield character was modeled on real-life professors, some of whom
inspired great loyalty in their students, who felt well-served by some
sharp words when they were guilty of woolly thinking. The notion of an
ad hoc grievance committee investigating John Houseman for suggesting
that students' heads are full of mush is faintly ridiculous, but it is
the sort of procedure to which Massad was subjected.

From all accounts, Massad is a passionate and outspoken but fair and
dedicated teacher. The Nation quotes a doctoral student in Massad's
department as saying, "In Massad's class, the most prolific
contributors to class discussion were students who disagreed with him,
and many did not hesitate to interrupt him to make their point." The
ad hoc report noted: "Outside the classroom, there can be little doubt
of Professor Massad's dedication to, and respectful attitude towards,
his students whatever their confessional or ethnic background or their
political outlook. He made himself available to them in office hours
and afterwards. One student, critical of other aspects of his
pedagogy, praised his "warmth, dynamism and candor" and his unusual
accessibility and friendliness. One of the group of students who
questioned him regularly and critically in class told us of their
friendly relations outside class where their discussions often
continued. A student who has complained that he was mocked in class by
Professor Massad in the spring of 2001, was still in email contact
with him one year later."

One would have thought that the ad hoc report would have closed the
door on this whole sorry affair. But almost worse than the McCarthyite
accusations was the response of the New York Times. Incredibly, the
Times slammed the ad hoc committee for not being inquisitorial enough.
Not satisfied with an investigation of conduct or classroom civility,
it wanted Massad's views put under the microscope. The Gray Lady
apparently wanted him sent for reeducation, for all the world as
though he were a Right Deviationist during the Chinese Cultural
Revolution and as though America's newspaper of record were a Maoist
inquisitor.

The Times' editorial read, "But in the end, the report is deeply
unsatisfactory because the panel's mandate was so limited. Most
student complaints were not really about intimidation, but about
allegations of stridently pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli bias on the
part of several professors. The panel had no mandate to examine the
quality and fairness of teaching. That leaves the university to follow
up on complaints about politicized courses and a lack of scholarly
rigor as part of its effort to upgrade the department. One can only
hope that Columbia will proceed with more determination and care than
it has heretofore."

The New York Times editorial is among the more dangerous documents
threatening higher education in America to have appeared in a major
newspaper since the McCarthy period, when professors were fired for
their views on economics. (At the University of Michigan in the 1950s,
two professors were fired for belonging or having belonged to the
Communist Party, and one professor was let go for favoring
"Scandinavian economics.") "Quality of teaching" is one thing - no one
defends unqualified teachers or mere propagandists. But no substantive
allegations regarding the poor quality of scholarship, or "lack of
rigor" in the department, have been made against Columbia's Middle
East department - for the simple reason that such claims have no
foundation. The Times' invocation of "scholarly rigor" is really a
thinly veiled demand that professors follow what it defines as an
acceptable, "fair" pedagogical line.

But as soon as the "fairness" of views is made the criterion for
retaining a teacher, the door is opened to witch hunts and chaos. No
two students will agree on what is a "fair" view of a controversial
issue. The substantial Arab-American community of Dearborn, Mich., not
to mention many liberal American Jews, would probably find almost
every course taught in political science departments in the United
States on the Arab-Israeli conflict to be hopelessly biased against
the Arabs and Palestinians. Why are they less worthy arbiters than the
editorial board of the New York Times?

When I have taught the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict at the
University of Michigan, I have had fair numbers of Arab-Americans,
Muslim-Americans and Jewish-Americans in my class. My class
evaluations have overall been good to excellent, but I always have a
handful complaints from both sides. Some Arab-Americans blast me for
naively accepting key claims of Zionism when I argue for Israel's
right to exist. Some Jewish students stridently insist that Jerusalem
belongs solely to Israel and that is that.

The fact is that you will never get agreement on such matters of
opinion, and no university teacher I know seeks such agreement. The
point of teaching a course is to expose students to ideas and
arguments that are new to them and to help them think critically about
controversial issues. Nothing pleases teachers more than to see
students craft their own, original arguments, based on solid evidence,
that dispute the point of view presented in class lectures. That is
why the New York Times editorial is so wrong, and so dangerous.
University teaching is not about fairness, and there is no body
capable of imposing "fair" views on teachers. It is about provoking
students to think analytically and synthetically, and to reason on
their own. In the assigned texts, in class discussion, and in
lectures, the students are exposed to a wide range of views, whether
fair or unfair.

Elected bodies throughout the United States, dominated by the
Christian right, are now considering radical programs such as imposing
the teaching of "intelligent design" in biology classes, or abolishing
academic tenure (the practice of not firing professors for their
views). Even Congress has succumbed to the pressure: The House of
Representatives passed an outrageous bill, HR 3077, mandating that
area studies programs that receive federal money must "foster debate
on American foreign policy from diverse perspectives" - a heavy-handed
attempt to mandate pedagogy that supports the American administration
in power and supports Israeli policies uncritically.

The New York Times is a bastion of liberalism and Enlightenment values
in an increasingly hysterical and intolerant time. But it has lent
this burgeoning movement legitimacy by calling for official oversight
of views in the classroom. Its editors should stop to consider that
any society that censors Joseph Massad's teaching is unlikely to stop
there. The next step will be to censor the newspapers as well.
"Unfair," "liberal" views such as those apparent in many New York
Times articles and editorials may be put under scrutiny by the same
sort of people who want a party line installed at Columbia.

Juan Cole is a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian
history at the University of Michigan and the author of Sacred Space
and Holy War (IB Tauris, 2002).

Andy Martin asks Arizona officials to prosecute pro-Israel psychopath

2005-03-29T00:13:00.000-05:00

ATTENTION: ASSIGNMENT/DAYBOOK EDITORS

“CONTRARIAN COLUMNIST” ANDY MARTIN ASKS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE IN ARIZONA, SAYS STATE IS “FALLING DOWN” IN REFUSING TO PROSECUTE HARASSER WHO MAY BE LINKED TO PRO-ISRAEL EXTREMISTS

ANNOUNCEMENT OF TELEPHONE NEWS CONFERENCE INVOLVING HARASSMENT BY PIMA COUNTY PSYCHOPATH

NEW YORK)(March 28, 2005) Andy Martin, an internet columnist who is widely read around the world because of his military and foreign policy contacts, will hold a New York news conference by telephone Tuesday, March 29th to announce that he has asked the Pima County, Arizona Attorney to reverse the refusal of a subordinate to prosecute an Oro Valley man for nationwide telephone harassment. Martin has also asked the Arizona Attorney General’s office to get involved.

“I am concerned when Arizona authorities state that they are familiar with a chronic telephone harasser, and then refuse to prosecute,” says Martin. “I am concerned when I am contacted by other journalists, who tell me they have also been threatened by the same psychopath. I am concerned when I am told this man is very likely being ‘egged on’ or supported by extremist pro-Israel organizations.

“In this country of ours, we all have a right to express our opinions. But no one has a right to harass, threaten or abuse journalists,” Martin states. “The State of Arizona is falling down in failing to restrain and prosecute psychopaths who are harassing and threatening columnists with whom they disagree.”

Martin has served as Baghdad Bureau Chief for Out2.com, and was among the first independent (non-embedded) investigators to enter Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. His analysis of events in Iraq and throughout the Middle East is read widely in Washington, where he is unpopular in the Bush White House for having predicted substantially all of the policy failures that attended the aftermath of the war. His columns from the past 90 days, which include America’s Daily Briefing and Contrarian Commentary, may be seen at Out2.com (register a city at no charge, then go to Govt & Politics, see Featured Writers). Martin is also active in politics in Illinois, where he resides when he is not traveling.

NEWS CONFERENCE DETAILS:

WHO:Andy Martin, Out2.com Contrarian Columnist

WHERE:Telephone news conference (866) 706-2639

WHEN:Tuesday, 1:00 P.M.

WHAT:Why is Arizona law enforcement allowing a Pro-Israel
psychopath to harass persons nationwide
without taking prosecutorial action?

MEDIA CONTACT:Andy Martin (866) 706-2639

Columbia U. Middle East Professor Censored by NYC

2005-03-08T17:23:00.000-05:00

Prof. Rashid Khalidi's website
http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/regional/mei/khalidi.shtml

N.Y. School Board bans controversial Arab professor

Forward, 24 February 2005.

Rashid Khalidi

A pro-Palestinian professor at Columbia University,
hailed by some Jewish students as a model instructor,
is being barred by the New York City Department of
Education from lecturing public school teachers.

A spokesman for the school board attributed the move
against Rashid Khalidi, the Arab-American director of
Columbia's Middle East Institute, to "past statements"
on the Middle East. Khalidi "should not have been
included" in a 12-week course for public school
teachers on teaching about the Middle East -- and "he
won't be participating in the future," the spokesman
said.

The school board's decision was praised by some New
York lawmakers with ties to the Jewish community, as
well as by the American Jewish Committee. A number of
other organizations and individuals, however, including
Columbia University and the American Jewish Congress,
have questioned the school board's decision.

The school board's decision appeared to be taken in
reaction to an article in The New York Sun, which
pointed to Khalidi's participation in the program and
wrote that Khalidi had "called Israel a 'racist' state
with an 'apartheid system.'"

Khalidi and his supporters reject that characterization
of his views. Free speech experts have said that
whatever Khalidi's political opinions, the school board
may have violated his constitutional rights.

"They made a mistake in saying he can't teach because
of his political views," said Nat Hentoff, a journalist
and free-speech expert. Hentoff has been a strong
supporter of Jewish students at Columbia who have
alleged that they have been subject to intimidation by
several Middle East studies professors. "That is a
clear violation of his free-speech rights, and his
academic freedom rights."

With the concerns the school board had, Hentoff said,
"The school board should have brought in a team teacher
for the course so that it wouldn't be one-sided
indoctrination."
The barring of Khalidi is the latest development to
result from the uproar at Columbia over the student
accusations. Although Khalidi has not been accused of
any wrongdoing by the students, he has occupied a
central position in press reports on the conflict. Many
mention that his chair at Columbia was endowed with a
gift from the United Arab Emirates and named after late
Palestinian intellectual leader Edward Said, and that
he once worked as an adviser to the Palestinian
Liberation Organization.

During the turmoil at Columbia, Khalidi has been held
up as a model teacher by some of the pro-Israel
students who have complained about other Middle Eastern
studies professors.

In a guide to university courses compiled by Columbia
students, known as CULPA (Columbia Underground Listing
of Professor Ability), Khalidi's teaching received a
silver nugget, the second-highest award after the gold
nugget, and one reviewer said, "Not one divisive issue
was polemicized."

The enrichment course that Khalidi was barred from
taking part in is a 12-week program with a different
Columbia professor talking about a different aspect of
the Middle East each week. The course is organized by
the school district, but the professors are paid by
Columbia University as part of their community
outreach. A spokeswoman for Columbia, Susan Brown,
criticized the school board's decision. "The fact that
a respected professor and scholar would be summarily
judged and dismissed, without consultation or
discussion with him, or with us, is an issue of great
concern."

This was Khalidi's second year taking part in the
program, and he had given his contribution this year.
On February 3, in the first lecture of the teacher-
training course, Khalidi provided an overview of the
geography and demography of the region. According to
the teacher who organized the course and was present at
the lecture, Khalidi's talk did not touch on any
sensitive material.

"I am not unaware of the controversy surrounding him,"
said Mark Wilner, assistant principal for social
studies at Brooklyn's Midwood High School, who also
organizes a teacher enrichment course on the Holocaust.
"But I can tell that his session was completely
apolitical. It was basically geographic information."

The school board's decision was immediately hailed last
week by New York mayoral candidate Rep. Anthony Wiener
and by the American Jewish Committee, which issued a
press release saying that Khalidi should not have been
offered the platform given his "record of brazen,
openly biased and distorted statements about Israel."

When asked what statements of Khalidi's had been
problematic, David Harris, executive director of the
American Jewish Committee, declined to point to any
specific statements and said that the problem was
"where he stands on Arab-Israeli issues."

Wiener, when asked to identify objectionable
statements, said, "I am by no means an expert on the
guy's work, but what I have seen anecdotally on the guy
is troubling." The director of legal affairs at the
American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern, said he did not
agree with the tack chosen by these communal leaders
and political officials. "It's not as if we're
rejoicing that Khalidi gets an audience," Stern said.
"But we don't think the way to go about it is by
treating Khalidi as if he is not qualified to teach on
the Middle East."

Greg Lukianoff, a constitutional lawyer for the group
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which
has stood squarely with the Jewish students in the
Columbia melee, said that "the department was under no
obligation to hire him in the first place." But,
Lukianoff said, "rescinding the invite after the fact
does send a bad message."

Khalidi said he has not decided how to respond.
The problem with the whole debate that has sprung up
around Middle Eastern studies, Khalidi said, is that it
has taken professors' views on Israel and used them to
critique their entire body of scholarship.

"The Middle East is not the Israel-Palestine conflict,"
Khalidi said. "It's five millennia of history, and
nearly 400 million people. People need to raise their
noses from this tiny little spot."

The drumbeat against Khalidi has been increasing in a
handful of newspapers since the dispute at Columbia
broke out last October. In November, The New York Daily
News profiled Khalidi in an article titled, "Vile Words
of Hate That Shame Top University," and The New York
Sun compared him to Nation of Islam leader Louis
Farrakhan, whose views have been condemned widely as
anti-Semitic.

The Sun published a column last year by Martin Kramer,
a leader in a campaign against pro-Palestinian
professors, in which he slammed Khalidi for warning
Arab intellectuals against participating in events
organized by the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy, a think tank supported heavily by pro-Israel
donors and now run by former U.S. Middle East envoy
Dennis Ross.

"It's basic function is to spread lies and falsehoods
about the Arab world, of course under an academic,
scholarly veneer," Khalidi was quoted as saying during
a panel discussion broadcast on Al-Jazeera. "Basically,
this is the most important Zionist propaganda tool in
the United States."

The Sun has repeatedly pointed to Khalidi's use of the
words "racist" and "apartheid" in relation to Israel.
It is this characterization, Khalidi said, that most
piques his anger.

"Everything that has been said has misrepresented the
entirety of my work," said Khalidi, who specializes in
Arab nationalism, the early 20th-century history of the
Middle East and great power politics.

On the issue of whether Israel is racist, Khalidi says
there are "scholars who will not talk about these
things without using the word 'racist,' but I am not
one of them." He said, "I do not think Zionism is
racist. When we talk about some of the contemporary
laws, there are policies that I consider racist and
discriminatory."

Khalidi was at the front of an early group of
Palestinian intellectuals calling for a two-state
solution in the Middle East, though he has suggested
recently that Israeli settlement expansion has made
such a plan impossible.

He has defended the right of Palestinians to launch
attacks against Israeli soldiers in the territories,
but condemned Palestinian suicide bombings against
Israeli civilians as "war crimes."

Many who are familiar with his politics said he is not
the extremist that he has been made out to be in press
accounts.

"He is about as virulently anti-Israel as the Likudniks
are anti-Arab," said Arthur Hertzberg, who jointly
taught a course on Zionism and Palestinian national
identity with Khalidi when he was a professor at
Columbia. "Have we decided that we are going to throw
all the Likudniks out of public life?"

"My Arab students never tried to shut me up when I was
teaching Zionism at Columbia," Hertzberg said. "We
ought to be ready to brook disagreements."

Included by permission of Forward. Voices © 2005, IPA,
all rights reserved.
http://www.indypressny.org/article.php3?ArticleID=1945

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

Subject: [News] McCarthyite/Pro-Israel Conference
attacks pro Palestine profs

The attacks on progressive professors goes way beyond
Ward Churchill!

Campus & Citywide Speakout: AGAINST RACISM AND THE NEW
McCARTHYISM AT COLUMBIA

Organised by: Stop McCarthyism at Columbia (SMAC)

When: Sunday, March 6th -1pm
Where: Columbia Univ., 116th & B'way,
sundial located on college walk
For more info: contact_smac@yahoo.com

Join SMAC to defend free speech. Recently, professors
at Columbia University have been the target of a
politically motivated intimidation campaign by right-
wing pro-Israel groups like Scholars for Peace in the
Middle East. Now these same groups are hosting a day-
long conference at Columbia with some of the most
viciously racist, anti-Arab propagandists as guest
speakers.

These include the likes of Martin Kramer, co-founder of
Campus Watch, a website designed to blacklist academics
critical of Israeli and American policies. Also
speaking is Harvard professor, Alan Dershowitz, who is
well-known for advocating torture. Charles Jacobs,
founder of the David Project, will also be there. The
Project, which targets professors sympathetic to
Palestinian human rights, is responsible for funding
Columbia Unbecoming, a filmed collection of
unsubstantiated claims against Columbia professors.

This is the new McCarthyism. Already, Professor Rashid
Khalidi, has been fired from his position at an NYC
Teacher Training Program for criticising Israel's
occupation and racist stance towards Palestinians. This
is part of a larger national campaign to silence
critics of US and Israeli policies in the Middle East.

Free speech is not intimidation. Dissent is not
intimidation. Threatening professors for exercising
their rights, is. It's wrong to scapegoat Arabs,
Muslims, and South Asians. Join us to defend our
professors and speak out against the racist message of
this conference.

Organised by Stop McCarthyism at Columbia (SMAC)
*******************************************************
Stop McCarthyism at Columbia (SMAC) Statement

Recently, professors at Columbia University, in
particular professors at the Middle East and Asian
Languages and Cultures Department (MEALAC), have been
the target of a politically motivated intimidation
campaign. These attacks were sparked by the limited
release of Columbia Unbecoming, a filmed collection of
unsubstantiated claims against professors sympathetic
to Palestinian human rights. The film is funded by the
David Project, an initiative founded in 2002 to silence
thoughtful criticism of Zionism and Israeli policy, and
to squelch dissent. The film systematically excludes a
broad range of views and the perspectives of many
satisfied Columbia students Jewish and non-Jewish
alike.

Columbia University President Lee Bollinger has bowed
to external political pressure from media, outside pro-
Israel lobby groups and local elected officials. His
office is now heading an investigation of targeted
professors. The New York City Council has warned that
if the University investigation "comes up dry", they
will launch their own investigation. As a result of the
negative publicity, one of the most targeted faculty,
Professor Joseph Massad, will not be teaching his
signature course, Israeli and Palestinian Societies and
Cultures, this Spring. Other professors sympathetic to
Palestinian human rights who not were specifically
targeted by Columbia Unbecoming are nonetheless
suffering from this vicious campaign. For instance,
eminent historian and Professor Rashid Khalidi,
director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia, was
recently fired from the New York City Teacher Training
Program on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Development, a
volunteer position he has held for years.

Though the David Project claims political balance,
Columbia Unbecoming is a patchwork of incoherent,
uncorroborated accusations. The Project itself is part
of a larger campaign against critics of the US and
Israel and their roles in the Middle East. This
campaign includes groups like Campus Watch and Scholars
for Peace in the Middle East as well as propagandists
such as Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes. A major
strategy of these groups and individuals is to equate
criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and to use this
charge to silence critical voices. Indeed, the US
government is now considering legislation, HR 3077,
that will increase monitoring of Middle East studies
programs in order to silence critique. These acts draw
from the general rise in discrimination against Arabs,
Muslims, and South Asians within the context of US
militarism. This is the new McCarthyism. Columbia
University is not immune to this climate.

In this time of war and increased repression, we
express our concern for the broader implications and
negative precedent that these unwarranted
investigations are likely to set. For instance, tenured
professor, Ward Churchill, was recently compelled to
resign from the chairmanship of his department at the
University of Colorado for his political views.

We affirm the right of all professors and students to
voice their opinions and dissent, and condemn all forms
of discrimination including anti-Semitism, anti-Arab
racism and Islamophobia.

Therefore, we demand that,

* Columbia University defend its faculty and
immediately drop its baseless and unjust investigation
of the professors under attack. Criticism of Israel is
not intimidation.
* The University issue a public apology for failing to
defend the right of these professors to free and
dissenting speech
* The University, furthermore, issue an affirmative
statement that such attacks and dishonest tactics are
simply unacceptable
* The New York City Council immediately withdraw its
proposed investigation of the attacked professors.

This is about Israel, not anti-semitism

2005-03-06T13:35:00.000-05:00

Powerful War Lobby

This is about Israel, not anti-semitism

Not to speak out against this injustice would not only be wrong. It would ignore the threat it poses to us all

Ken Livingstone
Friday March 4, 2005

Guardian

Racism is a uniquely reactionary ideology, used to justify the greatest crimes in history - the slave trade, the extermination of all original inhabitants of the Caribbean, the elimination of every native inhabitant of Tasmania, apartheid. The Holocaust was the ultimate, "industrialised" expression of racist barbarity.
Racism serves as the cutting edge of the most reactionary movements. An ideology that starts by declaring one human being inferior to another is the slope whose end is at Auschwitz. That is why I detest racism.

No serious commentator has argued that my comments to an Evening Standard reporter outside City Hall last month were anti-semitic. So I am glad that Henry Grunwald, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, accepted on these pages that "Ken is sincere when he states that he regards the Holocaust as the worst crime of the last century".

The contribution of Jewish people to human civilisation and culture is unexcelled and extraordinary. You only have to think of giants such as Einstein, Freud and Marx to realise that human civilisation would be unrecognisably diminished without the achievements of the Jewish people. The same goes for the Jewish contribution to London today.

As mayor, I have pressed for police action over anti-semitic attacks at the highest level, and my administration has backed a series of initiatives of importance to the Jewish community, including hosting the Anne Frank exhibition at City Hall and measures to ensure the go-ahead for the north London eruv.

Throughout the 1970s, I worked happily with the Board of Deputies in campaigns against the National Front. Problems began when, as leader of the Greater London Council, I rejected the board's request that I should fund only Jewish organisations that it approved of. The Board of Deputies was unhappy that I funded Jewish organisations campaigning for gay rights and others that disagreed with policies of the Israeli governmen.

Relations with the board took a dramatic turn for the worse when I opposed Israel's illegal invasion of Lebanon, culminating in the massacres at the Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila. The board also opposed my involvement in the successful campaign in 1982 to convince the Labour party to recognise the PLO as the legitimate voice of the Palestinian people.

The fundamental issue on which we differ, as Henry Grunwald knows, is not anti-semitism - which my administration has fought tooth and nail - but the policies of successive Israeli governments.

To avoid manufactured misunderstandings, the policies of Israeli governments are not analogous to Nazism. They do not aim at the systematic extermination of the Palestinian people, in the way Nazism sought the annihilation of the Jews.

Israel's expansion has included ethnic cleansing. Palestinians who had lived in that land for centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror aimed at ethnically cleansing what became a large part of the Israeli state. The methods of groups like the Irgun and the Stern gang were the same as those of the Bosnian Serb leader Karadzic: to drive out people by terror.

Today the Israeli government continues seizures of Palestinian land for settlements, military incursions into surrounding countries and denial of the right of Palestinians expelled by terror to return. Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, is a war criminal who should be in prison, not in office. Israel's own Kahan commission found that Sharon shared responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila massacres.

Sharon continues to organise terror. More than three times as many Palestinians as Israelis have been killed in the present conflict. There are more than 7,000 Palestinians in Israel's jails.

To obscure these truths, those around Israel's present government have resorted to demonisation. Initial targets were Palestinians, and have now become Muslims. Take the Middle East Media Research Institute, run by a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, which poses as a source of objective information but in reality selectively translates material from Arabic and presents Muslims and Arabs in the worst possible light.

Today the Israeli government is helping to promote a wholly distorted picture of racism and religious discrimination in Europe, implying that the most serious upsurge of hatred and discrimination is against Jews.

All racist and anti-semitic attacks must be stamped out. However, the reality is that the great bulk of racist attacks in Europe today are on black people, Asians and Muslims - and they are the primary targets of the extreme right. For 20 years Israeli governments have attempted to portray anyone who forcefully criticises the policies of Israel as anti-semitic. The truth is the opposite: the same universal human values that recognise the Holocaust as the greatest racist crime of the 20th century require condemnation of the policies of successive Israeli governments - not on the absurd grounds that they are Nazi or equivalent to the Holocaust, but because ethnic cleansing, discrimination and terror are immoral.

They are also fuelling anger and violence across the world. For a mayor of London not to speak out against such injustice would not only be wrong - but would also ignore the threat it poses to the security of all Londoners.

· Ken Livingstone is the London mayor

American Indian Professor the Ward Churchill Academic Freedom Controversy

2005-02-08T01:36:00.000-05:00

1 Prof quits chair over 9/11 (News Story)
2 Text of Ward Churchill's statement
3 Text of Colorado House of Representatives Resolution
4 Text of Governor Owens' letter on Churchill
5 N.Y. college cancels talk (News Story)
6 AAUP Statement on Professor Ward Churchill
Controversy
=======================================
111111111111111111111111111111111111111
Prof quits chair over 9/11
By Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
denverpost.com
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill,
criticized for comparing victims of the September 2001
attack on the World Trade Center to Nazis, resigned
Monday as chair of the school's ethnic-studies
department.
Todd Gleeson, dean of CU-Boulder's College of Arts and
Sciences, accepted the resignation. Churchill will
continue to teach in the department of ethnic studies.
"I believe it is in the best interests of both the
university and professor Churchill that he step away
from his administrative role in the department at this
time," Gleeson said. Churchill's term as department
chair was to expire in June.
His salary will drop to $94,242 from $114,032, said
Pauline Hale, a CU spokeswoman.
In his letter to Gleeson, Churchill said that he is
proud of his administrative accomplishments but that
the present political climate made him a liability in
representing his department and the university as an
administrator.
He had compared the World Trade Center victims to
"little Eichmanns," after Adolf Eichmann, who managed
the Nazi plan to exterminate Jews.
Earlier Monday, Churchill said in a statement issued
through his wife, Natsu Saito, that he hadn't compared
all of the World Trade Center victims to Nazis, just
the "technicians" who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I have never characterized all the Sept. 11 victims as
Nazis. What I said was that the 'technocrats of empire'
working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent
of 'little Eichmanns.' Thus, it was obviously not
directed to the children, janitors, food-service
workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the
9-1-1 attack," Churchill said.
Churchill said he isn't a "defender" of the Sept. 11
attacks but simply pointed out that if U.S. foreign
policy results in massive death and destruction abroad,
"we cannot feign innocence when some of the destruction
is returned."
In the essay "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of
Roosting Chickens," Churchill said the Pentagon was a
military target, "pure and simple."
"As to those in the World Trade Center ... Well,
really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough,
they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a
break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very
heart of America's global financial empire - the
'mighty engine of profit' to which the military
dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved."
Lawrence Pacheco, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Mark Udall,
D-Colo., wasn't satisfied with Churchill's
clarification.
"There were no legitimate targets for the 9/11 attacks.
Thousands of innocent people were killed in New York
City, Washington and Pennsylvania. There is no way to
rationalize those attacks," Pacheco said.
Churchill is scheduled to speak on a panel Thursday at
Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., where his comments
have upset students, residents and relatives of 9/11
victims.
Kathy Trant, whose husband, Dan, died in the attacks,
plans to confront Churchill when he speaks in New York
on Thursday.
Dan Trant was a bond broker at Cantor Fitzgerald, which
lost 658 employees.
"I want to ask him why he feels the way he does," Kathy
Trant said Monday. "It is just hurtful, and I think
this man is looking for attention."
Richard Pecorella, whose fiancée, Karen Juday, was an
administrative assistant at Cantor Fitzgerald, said he
is outraged.
"I feel it is almost defamation of character of these
people," he said Monday. "This is not an ethnic issue
or freedom-of-speech issue. This is someone outright
saying these people deserved to be murdered because
they worked for corporate America. And he compares them
to Nazis; that's outrageous."
Churchill's comments have brought calls for apologies
and demands that he be fired.
He lashed out at recent media coverage of his essay,
saying it had resulted in death threats and defamation
of character.
Shoba S. Rajgopal, an instructor in the ethnic-studies
department, said Churchill's resignation isn't pleasing
everyone.
"He's very sad the whole department is being dragged
down by this," she said. "He did not want the whole
department tarnished. A lot of students are upset about
him stepping down. I suppose there are students who
feel the other way, too."
Speaking Monday night, New York Gov. George Pataki said
he would tell Hamilton College officials they made a
mistake in inviting Churchill.
"I am appalled first that this person with such a
warped sense of right and wrong and of humanity teaches
at a higher education institution anywhere in America,"
the Republican governor said. "But I am equally, or
perhaps even more, appalled that Hamilton College in
this state has invited that person to participate in a
forum. It is wrong. There is a difference between
freedom of speech and inviting a bigoted terrorist
supporter."
Staff writer Dave Curtin and The Associated Press
contributed to this report.
Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at
303-820-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E23827%257E2685148,00.html
==================================================
22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
Text of Churchill statement
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
denverpost.com
Here is the text of a statement distributed to the
media Monday on behalf of University of Colorado
professor Ward Churchill. Spelling and punctuation have
been left unaltered.
-------------------------
Press Release - Ward Churchill January 31, 2005
In the last few days there has been widespread and
grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my
analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has
resulted in defamation of my character and threats
against my life. What I actually said has been lost,
indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope
the following facts will be reported at least to the
same extent that the fabrications have been.
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed
into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most
of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military
interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of
international law since World War II. My point is that
we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our
name, to engage in massive violations of international
law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap
the consequences.
* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but
simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results
in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot
feign innocence when some of that destruction is
returned. I have never said that people "should" engage
in armed attacks on the United States, but that such
attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of
unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting
Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful
change impossible make violent change inevitable."
* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a
U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in
more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying
is that if we want an end to violence, especially that
perpetrated against civilians, we must take the
responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by
the United States around the world. My feelings are
reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech,
where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in
U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my
voice against the violence of the oppressed . . .
without having first spoken clearly to the greatest
purveyor of violence in the world today - my own
government."
* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN
and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute
that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of
economic sanctions, but stated on national television
that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn
the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I
mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than
3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those
who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and
elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the
transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples
still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond
with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can
only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September
11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the
"technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade
Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf
Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with
ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German
industrialists were legitimately targeted by the
Allies.
* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military
target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World
Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense
Department spokespersons have consistently sought to
justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this
placement of an element of the American "command and
control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian
facility converted the Trade Center itself into a
"legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military
doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing,
those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless
killed in the attack amounted to no more than
"collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to
accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied
to other people, they should be not be surprised when
the same standards are applied to them.
* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little
Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as
"technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to
the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen
and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack.
According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the
collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's
my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a
description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or
anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated
in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be
similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and
perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the
U.S. is for American citizens to compel their
government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson
of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but
our obligation. To the extent we shirk this
responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the
1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have
no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the
consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally,
as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
* These points are clearly stated and documented in my
book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which
recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer
Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights.
Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis,
but it presents questions that must be addressed in
academic and public debate if we are to find a real
solution to the violence that pervades today's world.
The gross distortions of what I actually said can only
be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the
real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of
speech and academic debate in this country.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2686093,00.html#
==================================================
33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
NEW TEXT OF HOUSE RESOLUTION ON CHURCHILL
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
denverpost.com
Here is the text of House Joint Resolution 1011,
supporting victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks,
as adopted unanimously Wednesday by the Colorado House
of Representatives. (Capitalization is at it appears in
the resolution).
-------------------------
WHEREAS, The tragedy of September 11, 2001, marked one
of the darkest days in American history;
and WHEREAS, The terrorist attacks cost more than 3,000
innocent people their lives;
and WHEREAS, The pain of the families who lost loved
ones in the September 11, 2001, attacks is
immeasurable;
and WHEREAS, The healing process for those who lost a
family member in the September 11, 2001, attacks is
still ongoing;
and WHEREAS, It is important for the people of Colorado
to aid in and support that healing process;
and WHEREAS, Professor Ward L. Churchill's essay, "Some
People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens"
related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
strikes an evil and inflammatory blow against America's
healing process;
and WHEREAS, Professor Churchill's essay contains a
number of statements and contentions that are
deplorable and do not reflect the values of the people
of the State of Colorado;
and WHEREAS, Professor Churchill's essay, which claims
that the victims at the World Trade Center were not
innocent, states, "As for those in the World Trade
Center, ... well, really, let's get a grip here, shall
we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But
Innocent, Gimme a break." And Professor Churchill goes
on to compare the innocent victims of the September 11,
2001, attacks to Adolph Eichmann, the man who executed
Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews during World War
II;
and WHEREAS, The sentiment of these statements strikes
at the hearts of those who lost a loved one in the
World Trade Center attack;
and WHEREAS, The victims at the World Trade Center were
innocent in every sense of the word and should always
be remembered as innocent victims of an unprovoked
attack on America;
now, therefore, Be It Resolved by the House of
Representatives of the Sixty-fifth General Assembly of
the State of Colorado, the Senate concurring herein:
(1) That the General Assembly expresses its heartfelt
sympathy for the victims of the September 11, 2001,
tragedy and their families; and (2) That the General
Assembly commemorates the lives lost during the
September 11, 2001, attacks.
Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint
Resolution be sent to University of Colorado President
Elizabeth Hoffman, the University of Colorado at
Boulder Chancellor's office, the University of Colorado
Board of Regents, and University of Colorado at Boulder
Department of Ethics Chairman Ward L. Churchill.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E61%257E2688100,00.html#
==================================================
44444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
Text of Governor Owens' letter on Churchill
Tuesday, February 01, 2005 -
denverpost.com
Here is the text of Gov. Bill Owens' letter Tuesday on
the subject of the controversy surrounding University
of Colorado ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill.
The letter was sent to the College Republicans at the
University of Colorado and its president, Isaiah
Lechowit.
-------------------------
February 1, 2005
Dear Friends:
We have come to a teaching moment at the University of
Colorado. I applaud every person on the University of
Colorado campus who has come to speak out against the
indecent, insensitive and inappropriate comments and
writings of Ward Churchill.
All decent people, whether Republican or Democrat,
liberal or conservative, should denounce the views of
Ward Churchill. Not only are his writings outrageous
and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of
history. The thousands of innocent people - and
innocent they were - who were murdered on September 11
were murdered by evil cowards. Indeed, if anyone could
possibly be compared to the evildoers of Nazi Germany,
it is the terrorists of the 21st century who have an
equally repugnant disregard for innocent human life.
No one wants to infringe on Mr. Churchill's right to
express himself. But we are not compelled to accept his
pro-terrorist views at state taxpayer subsidy nor under
the banner of the University of Colorado. Ward
Churchill besmirches the University and the excellent
teaching, writing and research of its faculty.
Ideas have consequences, and words have meaning. If
there is one lesson that we hope that all Coloradans
take from this sad case - and especially our students -
it is that civility and appropriate conduct are
important. Mr. Churchill's views are not simply anti-
American. They are at odds with simple decency, and
antagonistic to the beliefs and conduct of civilized
people around the world. His views are far outside the
mainstream of civil discourse and useful academic work.
His resignation as chairman of the Ethnic Studies
Department was a good first step. We hope that he will
follow this step by resigning his position on the
faculty of the University of Colorado.
Sincerely,
Bill Owens
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E2686241,00.html#
=====================================================
55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
N.Y. college cancels talk
Ward Churchill, who quit as department chair over his
9/11 comments, insists he won't resign as teacher.
By Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writer
denverpost.com
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Hamilton College in New York has canceled the panel
discussion featuring controversial University of
Colorado ethnic- studies professor Ward Churchill,
citing dozens of threats to the college and members of
the panel.
But 9/11 victims' relatives, who decry Churchill's
description of World Trade Center victims as "little
Eichmanns," say their protests were what forced the
school to reconsider.
Vige Barrie, director of media relations for the school
in Clinton, N.Y., said that "more than a hundred"
threats had been received and forwarded to local
police.
The threats came as a result of the controversy that
erupted over an essay Churchill penned the day after
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, comparing workers in the
World Trade Center to Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi whom
Churchill describes as "a technocrat who made sure the
trains ran on time."
Churchill resigned Monday as chair of CU's ethnic-
studies department but will remain as a teaching
professor with a salary of $94,242.
On Tuesday, Gov. Bill Owens suggested that Churchill
resign his teaching post as well.
"Ideas have consequences, and words have meaning,"
Owens said in a written statement. "Mr. Churchill's
views are not simply anti-American. They are at odds
with simple decency. ... His resignation as chairman of
the ethnic-studies department was a good first step."
Churchill made it clear Tuesday that resigning as chair
was as far as he intended to go.
"I didn't want the job (as chair of the department)
anyway, so it's worked out really well," he said,
freeing him to concentrate on what he loves: teaching
and writing. As for the call of Owens, or anyone else
who would urge him to resign, Churchill said
emphatically: "I'm not going anywhere."
"I was doing my job," he said, because the essay is
sparking discourse and debate.
He is being misquoted, he said, and does not advocate
the violence of 9/11. His essay points out that because
the U.S. has a policy, he said, of dominating other
countries, the attacks were inevitable.
Meanwhile, he said, he will continue to do what he
lives for.
"Seeing light bulbs go on and seeing people as a result
of what I do connect the dots, I suppose it's akin to
the birthing process," he said. "I'm almost 60; I'm not
going to be hurtling myself over any barricades."
Tuesday afternoon, a throng of students and reporters
accompanied Churchill between classes on the CU-Boulder
campus. For every student who insulted Churchill as he
passed, more praised him.
"Professor Churchill is a fantastic writer, and I
wanted to be in an atmosphere where normal thought is
challenged," said Shaina Mille, 20, who says she
transferred to CU from New Orleans' Tulane University
because of him.
Other students criticized him.
"I totally support his First Amendment rights," said
Allison Sands, 18, who said she found his comments
"offensive and blasphemous" and that they should not be
supported by CU.
In a statement issued Tuesday, Hamilton College
president Joan Stewart said the school had done its
best "to protect what we hold most dear, the right to
speak, think and study freely. But there is a higher
responsibility that this institution carries, and that
is the safety and security of our students, faculty,
staff and the community in which we live."
Dan English, chief of police in Kirkland, N.Y., said
Hamilton has been compiling e-mails and phone calls.
The department's director of campus safety will be
forwarding them to English's department, the Oneida
County Sheriff's Department or the New York State
Police.
English said he hasn't seen the e-mails or heard the
calls, so he couldn't comment on their nature.
Lt. Tim McGraw of the CU Police Department said CU
detectives are aware of death threats against Churchill
and have taken precautions to protect Churchill and
those around him, including his students.
Some of the 9/11 families believe the real reason the
school canceled the event was because of the pressure
relatives brought on the school.
One critic of Hamilton College is Richard Pecorella,
whose fiancée, Karen Juday, was an administrative
assistant at Cantor Fitzgerald, which lost 658
employees in the attack.
"I believe that the cancellation of Mr. Churchill was
from all the pressure put on your institution by the
families of 9/11, and it was the moral thing to do,"
Pecorella wrote Stewart on Tuesday. "You want to save
face by implying the death threats stopped this."
Staff writer Amy Herdy contributed to this report
Staff writer Howard Pankratz can be reached at
303-820-1939 or hpankratz@denverpost.com.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E23827%257E2686958,00.html#
=====================================================
66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
AAUP Statement on Professor Ward Churchill Controversy
We have witnessed an extraordinary outpouring of
criticism aimed both at Professor Ward Churchill of the
University of Colorado at Boulder, for his written
remarks describing victims of the attacks on September
11, 2001, as "little Eichmanns," and at the invitation
for him to speak at Hamilton College in New York.
Television commentators urged viewers to write to
Hamilton College to condemn what the professor had
written and the college's decision to invite him. More
than 6,000 e-mail messages were sent to Hamilton
College president Joan Hinde Stewart, who described
them as "ranging from angry to profane, obscene,
violent." The governor of New York wrote a letter of
protest to President Stewart and in a dinner banquet
described Professor Churchill as a "bigoted terrorist
supporter." The governor of Colorado called on the
professor to resign from the University of Colorado
and, one day later, called for his dismissal. Professor
Churchill reports that he and his wife have received
more than 100 death threats. The prospect of violence
at Hamilton College led the administration there to
cancel the visit.
The American Association of University Professors,
since its founding in 1915, has been committed to
preserving and advancing principles of academic freedom
in this nation's colleges and universities. Freedom of
faculty members to express views, however unpopular or
distasteful, is an essential condition of an
institution of higher learning that is truly free. We
deplore threats of violence heaped upon Professor
Churchill, and we reject the notion that some
viewpoints are so offensive or disturbing that the
academic community should not allow them to be heard
and debated. Also reprehensible are inflammatory
statements by public officials that interfere in the
decisions of the academic community.
Should serious questions arise about Professor
Churchill's fitness to continue at the University of
Colorado -- the only acceptable basis for terminating a
continuing or tenured faculty appointment -- those
questions should be judged by a faculty committee that
affords the essential safeguards of due process, as
required by the university's and the Board of Regents'
official policies. Special care must be taken, however,
to avoid applying harsher standards in such a case, or
following less rigorous procedures, because of the
statements made by Professor Churchill about the tragic
events of September 11, 2001. While members of the
academic community are free to condemn what they
believe are repugnant views expressed by a faculty
member, any charges arising from such statements must
be judged by the same standards and procedures that
would apply to statements unrelated to the terrorist
attacks and the loss of life on that fateful day. We
must resist the temptation to judge such statements
more harshly because they evoke special anguish among
survivors and families of the September 11 victims. The
critical test of academic freedom is its capacity to
meet even the most painful and offending statements. A
college or university campus is, of all places in our
society, the most appropriate forum for the widest
range of viewpoints.
http://www.aaup.org/newsroom/Newsitems/churchill.htm

UO PROFESSOR, AUTHORS SETTLE DEFAMATION SUIT

2004-12-04T14:45:00.000-05:00

Bill Bishop,

The Register-Guard,

12/2/04

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/12/02/c1.cr.cardsuit.1202.html

A University of Oregon sociology instructor has settled a defamationlawsuit against authors of a column that labeled him anti-Semitic andlisted him as one of six examples of "left-wing extremists" whoindoctrinate students. Douglas Card sued the column's authors: Daniel Pipes, a Middle Eastscholar; and Pipes' research assistant, Jonathan Schanzer, a specialist inradical Islamist movements. Card claimed the pair is wrong about how and what he teaches and theircolumn defamed him. Terms of the settlement are confidential. In a joint statement issued by both parties, Pipes and Schanzer said they"are now convinced that Card does not condone extremism in the classroom." In their 2002 column, published in the New York Post and on several Websites, Pipes and Schanzer accused Card of describing Israel as "a terroriststate" and Israelis as "baby killers" in his course. They also charged thatCard forced students to agree in a final exam with Card's view that Israel"stole land." Pipes and Schanzer said they have reviewed Card's exam, which had been thebasis for their column, and also have considered Card's public condemnationof anti-Semitism and of professors who use their classrooms to promoteanti-Semitism. While Pipes and Schanzer said they still dispute one aspect of Card's exam,they nevertheless agreed to drop their accusation that he espousesextremism in his classroom. In a news release prepared by Card and his lawyer, David Force of Eugene,Card said he was compelled to file the suit to defend his reputation, thereputation of the UO and the concept of academic freedom. The lawsuit seeking $1.1 million, filed in 2003, had been dismissed fromfederal court on what Card described as "procedural grounds." Card wasappealing the dismissal when the case settled out of court. "If Mr. Pipes and I can reach a compromise, there may really be hope forIsrael and the Palestinians to reach a just settlement," Card said. Hedeclined to comment further about the settlement. ALSO SEE: PROFESSOR SETTLES LIBEL SUIT AGAINST PIPES, SCHANZERUniversity of Oregon adjunct sociology professor Dr. Douglas Card hassettled his libel lawsuit against Daniel Pipes and Johathan Schanzer. The lawsuit, filed in Lane County Circuit Court in 2003, was removed to theU.S. District Court in Eugene by the defendants, who then moved to dismissit on procedural grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Hogan granted themotion, and Card appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court ofAppeals. The case was terminated by the recent settlement. All terms of the settlement are confidential, except for the contents of a"joint statement" by the parties. Professor Card said today that he believes the joint statement makes itclear that he did not make the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statementswhich were attributed to him by Pipes and Schanzer in theirwidely-published article entitled "Extremists on Campus." Card said thatsome people had discouraged him from commencing the lawsuit, advising himthat he would never gain any vindication and that he should simply allowthe matter to be forgotten. However the article by Pipes and Schanzerremained on internet web sites they control, and therefore Card said heconcluded that he could not ignore it. "I felt very strongly that if I didnot pursue the case, it would appear that I was acknowledging that I reallysaid and did the things they attributed to me. I decided that I could notallow that to happen. My reputation, the University's reputation, and theconcept of academic freedom, are just too important." Before filing the lawsuit, Card had attempted to obtain a retraction of theallegations against him by Pipes and Schanzer for more than a year. Jewishstudents in his class and leaders of the campus and Eugene Jewish communityhad written to Pipes, urging an investigation of the facts and declaringthat they did not believe that Card was anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. "IfMr. Pipes and I can reach a compromise, there may really be hope for Israeland the Palestinians to reach a just settlement", Card said. Links on the web sites maintained by Pipes and Schanzer, including thesites campus-watch.org, meforum.org, and danielpipes.org, now connectreaders to the joint statement whenever Card's name appears on those sites. "I really want to thanks the leaders of the Interfaith community in Eugene,and my attorney David Force, for standing b y me and supporting me throughthis ordeal,", Card said. "I could not have gone through this alone."

Arafat is the cement that has held Palestinians together

2004-11-06T11:36:00.000-05:00

Ahmad Samih Khalidi*

Saturday November 6, 2004
The Guardian

As Yasser Arafat lies gravely ill in a Paris hospital, the sense of anger and imminent loss felt by Palestinians and their supporters - Arabs, Muslims and hundreds of millions of others around the world - is profound.

Arafat's shameful treatment at the hands of Ariel Sharon and his friends in the west, which must surely have contributed to his condition, will not be forgotten. The unjustified incarceration for the past three years of the democratically elected leader of an oppressed and occupied people is an indelible stain on the record of those who proclaim their faith in democracy while happily propping up assorted despots around the world. Sharon's refusal to grant Arafat dignity in death by denying him burial in Jerusalem symbolises Israel's rejection of both the man and his cause. The west's callousness and indifference towards Arafat has only encouraged Sharon's excesses and nourished his belief that he can act without sanction or restraint.

It is vital at such a critical juncture that those who want to see a just Middle East peace grasp the reasons for Arafat's centrality as leader of the Palestinian national movement over four decades, whatever criticisms Palestinians and others might have over this or that issue. The cliches used to describe him - father of the Palestinian people, symbol of their resistance, supreme decision-maker on their behalf - are well-founded.

But Arafat's most important role has been twofold: first, to lead the Palestinian people out of the state of political concussion that befell them after the loss of their homeland in 1948; and then to lay the foundations for a resolution of the conflict with Israel, based on a Palestinian state living alongside Israel.

Arafat, along with other founder members of the mainstream Palestinian nationalist movement Fatah, played a decisive role in recreating the Palestinians' sense of national identity and reconstructing the shattered remnants of Palestinian political society, pulverised and dispersed as a result of the destruction of their homeland.

The emergence of Fatah marked the transition of the Palestinian cause from a humanitarian issue of destitute refugees into one of a people who had taken their destiny into their own hands. Fatah soon transformed itself - as it took over the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in the late 1960s - into the overarching umbrella encompassing all shades of Palestinian opinion, creed and ideology. Indeed, it became synonymous with the Palestinians themselves. Arafat's importance emerges from this sense that he embodies the national spirit not only within Palestine itself, but - crucially - outside Palestine, too, in the larger diaspora where the majority of Palestinians still live.

His decision to opt for a peaceful settlement and two-state solution in 1988 was the second vital transition for the Palestinian national movement. From the absolutist aims of "liberating all of Palestine", Arafat pushed through a pragmatic programme for statehood that was both realisable and internationally acceptable. This difficult decision paved the way for a settlement of the conflict with Israel; it was the sine qua non for the peace process launched at Madrid in 1991 - which culminated in the Oslo peace accords of 1993 and the return of the PLO to its national soil.

Without Arafat's readiness for a historic compromise - in which the Palestinians agreed to forgo the 77% of their homeland occupied in 1948 in return for a free and independent state in the remaining 23% occupied in 1967 (encompassing the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) - there would never have been a peace process or any prospect for a settlement between Arabs and Jews. This has been ignored by those in the west who have come very late - possibly too late - to endorse the two-state solution, and Arafat's readiness to stake everything in pursuit of this goal is rarely acknowledged.

By formally accepting Israel within the 1948 borders, Arafat demonstrated not only his political courage but his ability to carry the majority of his people with him. Arafat's election by a large majority in 1996 still represents the most important experiment in democracy in the Arab world. Indeed, he remains the only Arab leader to have been so elected. His success has been in capturing the national spirit and a certain instinct for what Palestinians will or will not accept. This served him well when faced with the confused and incomplete offers floated at Camp David in 2000.

But his significance goes beyond that of standing at the point of intersection between the various Palestinian national trends and geographic constituencies. Arafat represents the national cement that has helped the Palestinians maintain a sense of identity and common purpose, despite 37 years of military occupation and the devastation of their homeland, across geographic and social and political boundaries.

Ariel Sharon, who tried to crush Arafat and the PLO on the streets of Beirut 22 years ago, has long known this. By attempting to make Arafat irrelevant he has sought not only to bypass him politically, but to destroy him as the underpinning of the Palestinian national movement. While Arafat has always represented both the Palestinian diaspora as well as those living under occupation - and therefore has had the authority to reach a compromise settlement with genuine national credibility - no local leaders in the West Bank or Gaza command anything like that kind of constituency. With Arafat out of the way, Sharon knows that the Palestinian movement risks coming apart at the seams and falling into itsdisparate and possibly conflicting parts. With Arafat off the scene, not only will there be no effective Palestinian interlocutor, but the chances of reaching a lasting settlement based on partition along the 1967 borders are likely to disappear.

Despite Sharon's talk of a Palestinian state, it is evident that he is determined to avoid any such thing or any significant withdrawal from the vast bulk of the occupied territories, as was made clear by his senior adviser Dov Weisglass last month. With his uncontested legitimacy and mandate, Arafat has been the only credible partner for a sustainable two-state solution. It may be worth recalling that Sharon has threatened to eliminate him on more than one occasion, having told President Bush last April that he could no longer guarantee Arafat's safety. Under any circumstances, Arafat's elimination is going to bring Sharon closer to his goal of destroying the very basis for a lasting peace in the Middle East.

For the Palestinians, the only way to prevent the imposition of the kind of minimalist deals with local leaders in the territories that Israel has always sought is to rebuild political organisation among the Palestinian majority in the diaspora, notably in the refugee camps. The Palestinian movement first emerged, after all, not because of occupation, but out of dispossession. It is vital for the west to understand that only leaders who can legitimately speak on behalf of all sections of the Palestinian people will be able to deliver any kind of viable settlement in the long term.

· Ahmad Samih Khalidi is a former Palestinian negotiator and a senior associate member of St Antony's College, Oxford

aswk@yahoo.com

Special Forces Enter CIA Territory With a New Weapon

2004-10-31T16:12:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon gains the power to let elite troops give millions in cash or arms to foreign fighters.

By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer

Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Moving into an area of clandestine activity that has traditionally been the domain of the CIA, the Pentagon has secured new authority that allows American special operations forces to dole out millions of dollars in cash, equipment and weapons to international warlords and foreign fighters.

Under the new policy, the U.S. Special Operations Command will have as much as $25 million a year to spend providing "support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups or individuals" aiding U.S. efforts against terrorists and other targets. Previously, military units were prohibited from providing money or arms to foreign groups. Pentagon officials said the new capability was crucial in the war on terrorism, enabling America's elite soldiers to buy off tribal leaders or arm local militias while pursuing Al Qaeda operatives and confronting other threats.

But the idea of entrusting soldiers with a job traditionally reserved for spies has raised concerns that the program might lead to abuse. Even those who support it say they worry that it could be used to fund and arm unsavory foreign elements that might later use their U.S.-provided weapons and equipment against American interests.

"In the right circumstances, like Iraq and Afghanistan, this makes sense," said one congressional official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "In the wrong circumstances it could lead us into some pretty bad stuff."

Current and former intelligence officials noted that military units were not subject to the same requirements as the CIA, which typically must secure a presidential directive before providing aid or arms to foreign groups. They also expressed concern that the measure could be a first step toward a more aggressive encroachment on CIA turf by the secretary of Defense and the military.

"If this plugs holes to meet valid national security concerns or problems, that comes first," said Jim Pavitt, who retired in August as director of operations at the CIA.

"If it's the first step in an effort to duplicate what already exists in the [CIA's] clandestine service, I don't think we as a nation need it, and I don't think we can afford it."

The new authority is contained in a little-noticed provision in the Defense Department authorization bill that was signed by President Bush on Friday.

The changes are designed to make Special Forces units less dependent on the CIA in securing the support of — and supplying arms to — individuals and militias, including those not controlled by foreign governments.

The Pentagon had been lobbying for the changes since the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan, where the military's extensive reliance on the CIA became a source of frustration to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and special operations commanders.

Senior military officials praised the changes, saying they would strengthen the U.S. Special Operations Command — known as SOCOM — based at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida.
"We think it's very significant," said one defense official involved in special operations policy. "This would improve SOCOM's ability to carry out one of its key missions: unconventional war."
The new authority is in keeping with Rumsfeld's decision nearly two years ago to give special operations forces the leading role in the military's counter-terrorism mission.

The $25 million set aside for the program is a fraction of the Pentagon's annual budget of about $450 billion. But military officials said the activities envisioned for Special Forces — the elite military units that include Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs — did not require large budgets.

"For the kind of stuff they want to do — buy AK-47s, pickup trucks, stuff like that — this is a lot of money," said retired Army Gen. Wayne Downing, the former commander in chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. "If they can slip someone $100,000 to buy information or buy support [from foreign individuals or groups], then that would be very useful."

Several military officials said such capability would have been particularly useful in Afghanistan, where the CIA passed out an estimated $70 million in cash, equipment and arms to the
Northern Alliance and other allied groups. Special Forces could not do the same. Although CIA officers were often working alongside U.S. commando teams, there were breakdowns when the intelligence agency was not immediately on hand.

Col. Kathryn Stone, who was the senior legal advisor to commanders of the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan during the early part of the war, described one case in which a local warlord was making demands that the military couldn't meet.

The warlord, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, had captured thousands of prisoners at Mazar-i-Sharif, and was willing to let U.S. forces screen them. In exchange, he wanted the U.S. to pay for cold-weather clothing and other gear for his soldiers, and for food for the prisoners.

When a special operations officer asked if the military could cut such a deal, "I had to tell this officer that we didn't have the fiscal authority to do that," Stone said. "I said, 'You need to go find your other government agency and see if they can help you out here.' " The term "other government agency," or OGA, commonly refers to CIA.

Stone said the Special Forces' new authority was "a great tool," but pointed to problems that had cropped up when the United States armed foreign groups in the past. American forces in Afghanistan confronted Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters who had been armed by the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, she said.

Stone warned that warlords would undoubtedly try to double dip — seeking payoffs from the CIA and Special Forces at the same time. She also questioned who would serve as referee in situations when the CIA and special operations commanders disagreed on whether a foreign fighter or irregular militia should get U.S. support.

Michael Vickers, a military analyst who served as a CIA operative and a Special Forces officer, said the new authority would fix a serious flaw in U.S. capabilities. Previously, he said, the only way to get arms to foreign groups was through the CIA or a separate, "ridiculously cumbersome" program managed by the State Department.

"If you send me in to do guerrilla warfare and you have no mechanism to give the guerrillas weapons, you've got a [flawed] system," Vickers said.

However, the history of misdeeds by the CIA, including botched attempts to assassinate foreign leaders dating back 40 years, have fueled concerns.

"The danger is when you're doing this stuff in peacetime — as the CIA does — and you get out ahead of your political masters either in the executive branch or, more importantly, in Congress," Vickers said.

A former overseas CIA officer added a further caution. "If there is a disaster, a dust-up, a whole bunch of people do something really stupid, this will come and bite somebody," he said.
Anticipating concerns, Congress included language in the bill warning that it did "not constitute authority to conduct a covert action," meaning the Pentagon could not use the money for CIA-style operations in which the U.S. sought to deny involvement.

Lawmakers also built in certain safeguards: The authority will expire in September 2007 unless Congress votes to extend it; the Pentagon's request for $50 million a year was cut in half; and the secretary of Defense is required to notify Congress within 48 hours whenever the authority is used.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, Rumsfeld and CIA leaders have frequently praised the cooperation between the military and the agency. But there has also been friction between the two sides, and considerable jostling over resources and assignments.

The Pentagon set up its own intelligence analysis unit when military policymakers became frustrated with CIA assessments that they considered too cautious on Baghdad's ties to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Many of the Pentagon unit's claims have been disputed or discredited.

More recently, the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks recommended that responsibility for covert paramilitary operations should be taken away from the CIA and given to the Defense Department.

CIA officials have opposed the idea, arguing that the CIA's special activities division is more nimble than the military's Special Forces and is designed for covert missions in which the United States never wants to acknowledge a role.

Under Rumsfeld, the Pentagon has coveted the CIA's spying capabilities, with some officials saying that Rumsfeld would like to create his own cadre of overseas spies.

A former U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity said he had seen such ideas outlined in slides during military briefings in recent years. However, when the CIA called attention to the particular slide in the briefing, Pentagon officials downplayed it, quickly moving to the next image.

Rumsfeld's office recently drafted a directive — a copy of which was obtained by The Times — that urged expanding the military's role in intelligence gathering.

The directive called for a "transformation of Defense human intelligence capabilities to provide sustained coverage and deep penetration" in nations where the U.S. might conduct future military operations.

Another stated Pentagon goal was to "reduce the reliance" on the CIA's practice of rapidly deploying case officers to war zones like Afghanistan by developing a similar capability within the military.

Times staff writer Mark Mazzetti in Washington contributed to this report.

Interview with Yusuf Al-Qaradawi

2004-10-31T13:26:00.000-05:00

Reform according to Islam--------- http://english.aljazeera.net/
Thursday 20 May 2004, 16:11 Makka Time, 13:11 GMT

Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi is also an author

Does reform contradict Islamic teachings?

Is Islam capable of introducing its own version of reform without the need for outside interference? What are the conditions that must be made available prior to the implementation of reforms?

Aljazeera.net put these and other questions to renowned Muslim scholar Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the head of the European Council on Fatwa and Research.
Qaradawi was born in Egypt and studied at the famous al-Azhar theological seminary in Cairo.
Also a poet and intellectual, his best known books include The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, The Tyrant and the Scholar, and Laws of the Obligatory Charity.
He is currently the dean of the sharia (Islamic law) college at Qatar University and appears regularly on Aljazeera television, in the highly influential debate and phone-in show, The Sharia and Life.

Aljazeera: How is reform defined in Islam?

Al-Qaradawi: Reform is turning the thing that is corrupt into something upright. It touches every aspect of society.
A person can be reformed, so can a society and even a whole nation. This is why as Muslims we welcome reforms."Muslims are urged to embrace reforms and to discard what is vice"
Muslims are urged to embrace reforms and to discard what is vice. In the Holy Quran, there are many narrations of God punishing nations that brought harm and vice to the world.

Aljazeera: So reform is prescribed as an antidote to corruption. Can you elaborate on this?

Al-Qaradawi: There are various kinds of corruptions which stand opposite to reform.
First there is political corruption, the deceiving of the masses to serve authority; an example would be a journalist who uses his pen to tout for a leader, or an occupier who invades a country and revamps its political structure to serve his interest.
The Quran addresses the issue of economic corruption
You also have economic corruption, a subject that the Quran has addressed as well. Those who misuse public funds for their own purposes while their people are undergoing extreme poverty are an illustration of this.
Moral corruption is another problem that must be confronted and reformed. It can extend to engulf an entire society turning it into a nepotistic, nihilist and morally loose one.
There are also other forms of corruption that would include environmental corruption, the destruction of the beautiful Earth that God has created, and so on.

Aljazeera: So, according to Islam, what is the individual Muslim's duty to combat corruption?

Qaradawi: We Muslims loathe corruption. We are urged to fight vice. This is why we should be the first to embrace reform, starting with ourselves.
We cannot possibly envisage a brighter future if we do not shake off the constraints of corruption that are damaging our societies.

Aljazeera: Is there any reform mechanism that you envision?

Qaradawi: We must be clear on this; there is a crippling feeling of disunity and paralysis that overwhelms Muslim nations.
However, it should be made equally clear that a nation is responsible for reforming itself rather than having others reform it.
"There is a crippling feeling of disunity and paralysis that overwhelms Muslim nations"
If a nation reforms itself, it will do so while keeping its own interests in mind. That is to say, an outsider is only interested in reforms that would further his own agenda.

Aljazeera: The US government has been unyielding in its insistence on implementing reforms in what it now calls the Greater Middle East Initiative. What is your view on this?

Qaradawi: First, any genuine reform should reflect the conscience of a nation, but the nation has to have a conscience to begin with.
We must ask questions, who we are? What is the mission of our civilisation? Are we intruders in this world? Do we have a message, history and value?
If we can only realise the great responsibility that has been entrusted in us and what it takes to fulfil these responsibilities, then we will become very adamant in reforming our nations. But our medicine can only be found in our pharmacy, as prescribed by our own doctors and this, I believe, is the key.

Qaradawi: 'US-envisaged reform will only serve US interests'
The US government wants us to reform ourselves. There is no doubt, however, that an US-envisaged reform will only serve US championed interests.
Is there any doubt that reforming according to the US way would guarantee us a role in the back of the caravan to always trail behind as a nation that is weak, ignorant and fragmented?
The US is seeking Muslims who only know how to say "yes", obedient, unarmed and unable to fend for themselves, whether militarily, politically or culturally.

Aljazeera: But there are those in the Arab and Muslim world who find such reforms, even if US-imposed, justifiable?

Qaradawi: Some Arab and Muslim seculars are following the US government by advocating the kind of reform that will disarm the nation from its elements of strength that are holding our people together.
They want us to embrace a culture that is not ours so that you have a Muslim man who dresses in a traditional gown but underneath the gown he is no longer an Arab.
They seek a Muslim woman who dresses, walks and talks like a westerner, with no regard to her tradition or values, all under the guise of reform and modernisation.

Aljazeera: Are we here talking about limited reform, provisional reform, or an all-encompassing change?

Qaradawi: We call for the revival of Muslim nations who should fight the crippling state we are in. Renewal for us is not only a demanding necessity, it is a religious obligation.
"Renewal for us is not only a demanding necessity, it is a religious obligation"
We are not against the revival of the nation but when we think revival we must ask ourselves in what capacity and to what end?
We can only reform the tools and strategies we use to achieve our objectives, but the objectives themselves must not be reformed.
Some of those who advocate reforms in the Muslim world want to revamp everything indiscreetly. It reminds me of a Muslim intellectual's remark: "They want us to rebuild the Kaaba using European stones."
We must be very clear on this: What we seek is for the nation to be renewed from within, to stand up on its own feet, to carry its own message and achieve its own objectives.
In short, our main goal of reform is to take the nation back to its soul, to feed it the values of virtue, not in a provisional kind of way but in the most fundamental sense.
Reforms shouldn't be a painkiller for a very sick person; you either extract the causes of the ailment altogether, or you don't.
The principles of Islam must beadhered to

Aljazeera: You often advocate that, in order for any reform initiative to be successful, a few prerequisites are imperative. What are some of these conditions?

Qaradawi: First, the principles of Islam, which have been and will always remain the core of any Muslim nation, must not be discarded.
The principles of Islam must be utilised to fulfil and serve the interests of Muslims everywhere, not imported principles forged without the interests of Muslims in mind.
Another condition is that the reform methodology should be inscribed by the Muslim scholars and people of knowledge, who correspond to the pain and needs of their people, not other considerations.
A third is that reform has to be implemented with the will of the people and by the people themselves, because it is them, in the final analysis, who covet reform and have to be satisfied with it once implemented and live up to its demands and responsibilities.
We want reform to start from the people, not to impose reforms on them.
The public must be educatedregarding their rights
This is why we must educate the public about their rights, make the people more aware of their responsibilities and convince them that they and only they have the right to choose, monitor and reprimand their leaders.
A fourth condition is that, as I stated earlier, reforms must come from within, must reflect the people's consciences and correspond to their needs.
A final condition is the need for gradualism while implementing reforms.
God has created the world in six periods. He could have done it in a moment, but he wanted to teach us a lesson of patience and gradualism. Muslims are just as capable of carrying this great message of humanity to the world.
They are equipped with the holy book, the teachings of the prophets and the urgent attention their plight demands.

With Bush, the world is not safer for Americans, Theodore Fuller

2004-10-26T00:28:00.000-05:00

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/12670.html

Fuller is a professor of sociology at Virginia Tech.

The war in Iraq was not necessary and, in fact, has made the world more dangerous for Americans.
Why was the war in Iraq not necessary?
First, President Bush and his administration argued that the war was necessary because Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that he might use against us or give to terrorists.
By now, however, most reasonable people have concluded that Saddam did not have WMDs. Thus, the primary stated basis for the war has turned out to be a false premise.
Second, while Saddam was in power, he actually did little to directly attack the United States or our interests. He did invade Kuwait in 1990. We went to war with him in 1991 and forced him to leave Kuwait.
Then, in 1993, Saddam (unsuccessfully) plotted to assassinate the first President Bush (who had left office but was visiting Kuwait). In retaliation, we destroyed Iraq's intelligence headquarters and sent a message through back channels that if Saddam did anything else against the United States, our response would be far greater.
He apparently took us seriously, and did nothing else against the United States for 10 years - until we attacked Iraq.
Was Saddam a thorn in our side? Certainly. Did he bear close watching? Certainly. We were watching him closely, including having our planes patrol the "no-fly" zone (where his planes were not allowed to fly).
But he didn't attack us, he didn't threaten to attack us, and the primary reason given for the war, the weapons of mass destruction, apparently did not exist.
Why has the war in Iraq made the world more dangerous for Americans?
First, it has diverted resources from the war against al-Qaida, which should be the real war. Al-Qaida was responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and the catastrophic attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
The United States went to war against Afghanistan in 2001 to track down and eliminate al-Qaida. This was, of course, necessary. But then, we scaled back our operations in Afghanistan, removing troops and CIA operatives searching for Osama bin Laden. Three years later, bin Laden is still at large and still a threat to the United States.
As grave as that mistake is, an even bigger reason why the war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous for Americans is that the war has infuriated much of the Muslim world and has been a priceless recruiting tool for al-Qaida.
For many Muslims, their religion is a core aspect of their identity - even more important than nationality. An attack on Muslims anywhere affects Muslims everywhere.
There are about 1 billion Muslims in the world. For the sake of argument, suppose one-tenth of 1 percent of Muslims are so enraged over the war that they are willing to join al-Qaida's military force. That would be 1 million new soldiers for Osama bin Laden.
For the sake of argument, suppose two-tenths of 1 percent of Muslims are so enraged over the war that they are willing to contribute financially to al-Qaida. That would be 2 million new contributors to al-Qaida.
Muslims are angry at the United States? The question is how many and how angry.
Zogby International conducted a poll of public opinion in several Arab countries in 2002 and again in 2004. People were asked whether they have a favorable or unfavorable view of the United States.
In 2002, we were already very unpopular in most, if not all, Arab nations. By 2004, the unfavorable ratings increased in most of these countries. In Jordan, they increased to 78 percent in 2004 from 61 percent in 2002; in Morocco, to 88 percent from 61 percent; in Saudi Arabia, to 94 percent from 87 percent; and in Egypt, to 98 percent from 76 percent.
Not all Muslims live in the Middle East. In fact, Indonesia has the largest number of Muslims. A different survey reported that the number of people in Indonesia viewing the United States favorably plummeted from 61 percent in 2002 to 15 percent in 2004.
When large numbers of people are so angry with us that they are eager to kill us and willing to become suicide bombers in order to do it, then we have to be concerned about what others think of us. In the last two years, we have angered millions of Muslims.
Several recent books have been extremely critical of the decision to go to war with Iraq.
One is "Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror," by Richard Clarke. Clarke was a counterterrorism expert in the first Bush White House, during both of Clinton's terms and in the second Bush White House. Another is "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror," published anonymously by a current counterÂterrorism analyst in the CIA, where he has worked for 22 years. A third is "Where the Right Went Wrong: How Neo-conservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency," by Patrick Buchanan, a well-known Republican.
"Many thought that the Bush administration was doing a good job of fighting terrorism," Clarke wrote, "when, actually, the administration had squandered the opportunity to eliminate al-Qaida and instead strengthened our enemies by going off on a completely unnecessary tangent, the invasion of Iraq."
Clarke wrote, "Rather than seeking to work with the majority in the Islamic world to mold Muslim opinion against the radicals' values, we did exactly what al-Qaida said we would do. We invaded and occupied an oil-rich Arab country that posed no threat to us, while paying scant time and attention to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. We delivered to al-Qaida the greatest recruitment propaganda imaginable and made it difficult for friendly Islamic governments to be seen working closely with us."
President Bush claims that the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. But he fails to understand the cultural reasons why so many Muslims oppose the United States and why so many Muslims support al-Qaida.
Failing to understand the beliefs that provide the foundation for radical Muslims, Bush has taken America in the wrong direction, which has made the world more, not less, dangerous for Americans.

Presentation of the NKR Foreign Minister Ashot Goulian

2004-10-25T17:23:00.000-05:00

"Nagorno Karabakh: Realities and Prospects for Development"
Presentation of the NKR Foreign Minister Ashot Goulian
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
October 19, 2004

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honor for me to address the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), an institution known worldwide for its work on
issues of global concern and particularly on international security.
When contemplating the state of present-day South Caucasus, the
international community, including American policy-makers and policy
analysts, frequently express anxiety about stability and security in our
region. Establishment of normal civilized relations between Nagorno Karabakh
and Azerbaijan is, without a doubt, a necessary condition for the long-term
stability and security in the South Caucasus. For these reasons, the
attention you are granting me and the people of Nagorno Karabakh that I
represent is especially worthwhile. That is even as the entire United States
and much of the world are preparing to hold their breath over the
unnervingly close context in the Presidential elections, just two weeks
away.

The South Caucasus today is region of competing geopolitical and
geo-economic visions and designs. It would seem that the attention accorded
by great power interests would contribute to the region's stability.
However, with the long-running conflicts still unresolved, the region
remains a powder keg and any misstep might risk turning it into an area of
chaos and instability. Any conflict resolution effort in the South Caucasus,
particularly in Nagorno Karabakh, demands careful analysis and consideration
of all local interests.

In the past 15 years, a number of delegations, among them American diplomats
and members of Congress, as well as regional experts, have visited Nagorno
Karabakh, met with its leaders and public in an effort to understand the
conflict and its roots. For our part, it was a pleasure to hear that the
approach we have adopted - to build a statehood based on democratic
institutions and respect for human rights - corresponds to their vision of
what our region should look like.

It can be argued that the violation of human rights and the rights of a
whole nation were and are precisely the factors at the root of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict.

I would like to remind you that the Nagorno Karabakh issue first became an
international problem in 1918 after the fall of the Russian Empire and as
newly independent Armenia and Azerbaijan began to demarcate their borders.
Karabakh was at the time internationally recognized as a disputed area.
But in the end through a decision of a political party organization of a
third state - the Caucasus bureau of the Russian Communist Party - the
overwhelmingly Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh was denied its
natural territorial and national unity and transferred to Soviet Azerbaijan.
Through the entire period of this forced and unnatural incorporation, the
rights of the Karabakh Armenians were systematically violated by the Soviet
Azerbaijani government. In spite of this pressure, the local population
continued to defend its right to free development and preservation of its
unique culture.

A new stage of the movement for Karabakh's freedom began at the end of 1987,
with massive meetings and demonstrations involving tens of thousands of
local people. These actions of the Armenian population were strictly
peaceful and constitutional in nature. Unfortunately in response, the Soviet
Azerbaijani leaders tried to provoke inter-ethnic clashes. Azerbaijan
responded to Karabakh's democratic demands with pogroms and mass murders of
ethnic Armenians throughout Azerbaijan, including in Sumgait, Ganje and
Baku, and a complete blockade of Nagorno Karabakh, which remains in effect
today. An all out war was unleashed in 1991, which continued until 1994,
when in May of that year a cease-fire agreement came into effect and
continues to hold to date.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) began to deal
with the Nagorno Karabakh conflict in 1992, when the present format of the
peace process was established. While giving due credit to the OSCE and its
Minsk Group for all of their efforts towards resolution of this long-running
conflict, I would nevertheless have to note that in seeking a political
settlement of the conflict, the mediators have paid little attention to the
legal aspects of the issue. All through the peace process, Nagorno Karabakh
leaders repeatedly stressed that the basis for our separation from Soviet
Azerbaijan in 1991 was so legally sound that it could provide an important
foundation and support to an eventual political settlement of the conflict.
The establishment of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR) was declared on
September 2, 1991, shortly after Azerbaijan announced its own independence,
in full conformity with basic norms and principles of international law.
Creation of NKR did not contradict the "Declaration of re-establishment of
the state independence of the Azerbaijan republic," since Azerbaijan was
re-established in the framework of the 1918-20 republic, which did not
include Nagorno Karabakh.

NKR's independence was supported by a popular referendum, in which the vast
majority of Karabakh's population voted for complete independence from
Azerbaijan, whose leaders had in turn proclaimed their independence from the
USSR. That referendum was conducted on the basis of the Soviet law "On the
procedure of secession of a Soviet Republic from the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics." Article 3 of that law demanded that should a republic,
such as Azerbaijan, decide to leave the Soviet Union, autonomous entities
and compactly settled national minorities, such the Nagorno Karabakh
Autonomous Region and adjacent Armenian-populated districts, have a right to
decide their own legal and political future through a referendum.
Negotiations with participation of mediators began just as the major
fighting was getting underway. The Nagorno Karabakh leadership participated
in these negotiations from the beginning, pursuing two major goals: to stop
the bloodshed and to convince the international community that subordinating
Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan was impossible. Our principle and position
from day one and to date is that there is no alternative to a peaceful
settlement of this conflict.

As you know, the current stage of the peace process is not marked by
intensive negotiations. Recent meetings between Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, as well as their Foreign Ministers, certainly facilitate the
peaceful dialogue. However, as the most recent meetings in Prague and Astana
confirmed, not much progress has been made in terms of content of these
talks. Moreover, considering the recent unfortunate experience with the
Paris and Key West negotiations, when Azerbaijan disowned principles reached
at those talks, we are not overly optimistic about Azerbaijan sticking to
whatever new approaches we may agree on. A logical question is therefore
should the parties agree to another set of principles, would they share the
fate of Paris and Key West principles.

Regarding our own participation in negotiations, our position is clear -
Nagorno Karabakh cannot remain outside the process of settlement that
relates directly to its own fate. Mediators recognize this quite well and
they continue to insist on Karabakh's participation in the process. Only
with Karabakh's participation, can these negotiations become truly effective
in the way of achieving the soonest and most viable settlement. I would
recall that the May 1994 cease-fire agreement, which marked the most
tangible progress towards resolution of the conflict so far, was achieved
with direct participation of Nagorno Karabakh as a full party to the talks
that undertook and delivered on a set of commitments in terms of
establishment and preservation of the cease-fire regime.

We are also convinced that a successful continuation of the peace process
depends on stability in our region, which in turn is the sum of stable
conditions in all of the regional entities. In the years of independence, we
have succeeded in creating a functioning and politically stable state and
society, which is perhaps one of the most successful in the Caucasus. We now
have an established state institution including a legitimately elected
Parliament and President that enjoy popular confidence and command influence
throughout Karabakh. The Army of Defense of Nagorno Karabakh, which
protected our people from Azerbaijani aggression, today is under civilian
control and serves as the main and real guarantor of the security of our
statehood and our people.

Additionally, Nagorno Karabakh has embarked on the way of reform aiming to
establish a market-based economy. This is in spite of the estimated
multi-billion dollar damage the war caused our infrastructure. Due to
fighting, and especially due to Azerbaijan's indiscriminate aerial and
artillery shelling, close to half of all of Karabakh residents lost their
homes, that is more than 18,000 private houses and apartments; destroyed
also were some 200 schools and kindergartens, about 170 healthcare
facilities, close to 85 percent of our manufacturing capacity and hundreds
of other facilities.

To rebuild and, at the same time, reform our economy, we had to rely mostly
on our own resources, long-term credits from Armenia and humanitarian aid
from our Diaspora. We did not just survive. We have established a legal
system that regulates economic relations, which allows us to make a gradual
and balanced transformation to a market economy. We have completed
privatization of land and small and medium enterprises. Today, Karabakh has
become an attractive place to work for foreign investors, thanks both to our
natural riches and liberal tax laws, as well as our stability and security
of investments.

Just in the past four years, foreign investments in Karabakh have twice
exceeded the size of our budget, resulting in the overall economic recovery
and development. Today, the private sector makes up for 80 percent of our
industrial output, while that figure was only 20 percent in 1999, just five
years ago. Major foreign investment programs have focused on mining (which
we did not even have in Soviet days), agribusiness, communications, tourism
and other services.

Using this opportunity, I would like to again extend our gratitude for the
humanitarian assistance from the United States, which since 1998 has helped
the victims of war in Nagorno Karabakh. This assistance is allocated through
the USAID and its non-government contractors. The first portion of this
assistance in the amount of $20 million has already been spent. The second
stage of the program, worth $15 million, is currently underway. The funded
projects include restoration and construction of pipes for drinking water,
healthcare facilities, micro-financing and de-mining. This assistance has
eased the lives of thousands and I would like to assure you that every
tax-payer dollar allocated by Congress to Karabakh has served its intended
purpose.

Confident of the international community's desire to establish stability and
viable peace in our region and interest in the development of the South
Caucasus, we have always been ready for dialogue to achieve these goals. We
remain committed to this constructive approach today, even though we have
yet to see reciprocity from our counterparts in Azerbaijan. Specifically, a
set of confidence-building measures (CBMs) in the conflict area, which our
leadership proposed in 2001, was rejected by Azerbaijan, even as the U.S.
Congress repeatedly offered to fund such measures. These CBMs are designed
to establish basic cooperation between Azerbaijanis and us, even before the
final settlement of the conflict. One example is water resources sharing
that could potentially benefit both sides and require only modest finances.
Such CBM's remain of utmost importance considering the near total absence of
mutual trust and recently stepped-up militarist rhetoric in Azerbaijan.
The Azerbaijani leadership, while avoiding all contact with Nagorno
Karabakh, goes as far as to try to prevent any contact between
non-government organizations and even individuals. Azerbaijani peace
activists who have visited Nagorno Karabakh have been harassed and assaulted
upon their return to Azerbaijan.

Capitalizing on Nagorno Karabakh's absence from international organizations,
Azerbaijan tries to discredit us through baseless accusations and
insinuations. There is really no limit to their propagandistic zeal. To
believe our opponents, Karabakh is straight out of the Mad Max movies, with
chaos reining, nuclear waste buried from around the world, slaves traded,
terrorists roaming free and illicit drugs plentiful. Even though it is
well-documented that it was Azerbaijan that enlisted the forces of chaos and
xenophobic hatred, such as the international terrorist Shamil Basayev and
radical Afghan mercenaries that later made up the core of the Taliban, in
its war against us in the early 1990s.

We have repeatedly requested that international organizations and
governments, including the United States, send monitoring groups to Karabakh
to study on location the baseless allegations made by Azerbaijani officials.
Not surprisingly, Azerbaijan for its part does all it can to prevent such
visits.

The goal of the Azerbaijani government is to maintain a verbal smokescreen
over Karabakh so that the international community and Azerbaijan's own
citizens remain ignorant of Karabakh's realities particularly that Karabakh
is well ahead of Azerbaijan in terms of democratic development. At the same
time, Azerbaijan also tries to avoid exposure of the baseless nature of its
accusations. In this regard, we would like to see a principled position of
foreign governments and international organizations, which, we are certain,
are interested in objective information out of Karabakh.

The United States, in particular, as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group and
a country playing a leadership role around the world, certainly realizes the
importance of building mutual confidence in the region and are capable of
influencing the Azerbaijani leadership so that it backs off its military
threats, works towards promotion of tolerance within their country and
eventual peace throughout our region.

Today, we are witnessing the formation of an open society in Nagorno
Karabakh. We have the necessary legal framework and political climate for
continued democratic development. Since the declaration of independence in
1991, we have conducted several presidential, parliamentary and local
elections, which were observed and positively evaluated by independent
observers, including monitors from the United States. Most importantly, this
is a reflection of the commitment of our people to democratic principles and
our will to move forward as an independent state.

Our position on the peace process and foreign policy in general is based on
the fact that we are representatives of a democratically elected government
of Nagorno Karabakh, whose purpose is to serve and, most basically, provide
security to our citizens.

Democratically developing Nagorno Karabakh cannot be subordinated to an
Azerbaijani state, with its wholesale violation of the rights of
Azerbaijanis themselves and its history of genocidal policies against
Armenians. The Azerbaijani government, which has made not even a single
positive gesture towards Nagorno Karabakh since this conflict began, makes
it abundantly clear that Nagorno Karabakh's independence from Azerbaijan has
no alternative.

Our position is also based on realities of the world today. We believe that
the international community can serve as a guarantor of Nagorno Karabakh's
existence and security of its population by recognizing Nagorno Karabakh
Republic as a subject of international law. The non-recognition of NKR is
frequently explained by reluctance of setting a precedent. But these
precedents have already been set. New trends in international relations show
that nations that are forcefully incorporated into newly-established states
and suffer from pressure from central - in fact, colonial, - undemocratic
governments, have a natural right for a separate existence. We have seen
this in East Timor and Eritrea. Finally, in Kosovo it took the U.S.
leadership to stop ethnic cleansing and attempted Genocide and to establish
a de-facto independent entity, something, we as a nation succeeded in doing
almost exclusively on our own.

Based on this fundamental right, we will continue to seek international
recognition of NKR's independence. Our demand is legally sound and is
grounded on a simple human desire to live freely in peace and dignity. We do
not want what is not ours but we can not compromise on our basic right to
exist. In this effort we count on the understanding of the international
community, which is, without a doubt, interested in the long-term stability
and security of the South Caucasus. It is by taking into account the rights
and fundamental interests of all nations of our region, including Armenians
in Karabakh, that this important goal can be reached.

Thank you for your attention.

Our War on Terrorism, Howard Zinn

2004-10-24T14:12:00.000-05:00

Thye Progresive Magazine
November 2004

http://www.progressive.org/nov04/zinn1104.html

I am calling it "our" war on terrorism because I want to distinguish it from Bush's war on terrorism, and from Sharon's, and from Putin's. What their wars have in common is that they are based on an enormous deception: persuading the people of their countries that you can deal with terrorism by war. These rulers say you can end our fear of terrorism--of sudden, deadly, vicious attacks, a fear new to Americans--by drawing an enormous circle around an area of the world where terrorists come from (Afghanistan, Palestine, Chechnya) or can be claimed to be connected with (Iraq), and by sending in tanks and planes to bomb and terrorize whoever lives within that circle.

Since war is itself the most extreme form of terrorism, a war on terrorism is profoundly self-contradictory. Is it strange, or normal, that no major political figure has pointed this out?
Even within their limited definition of terrorism, they--the governments of the United States, Israel, Russia--are clearly failing. As I write this, three years after the events of September 11, the death toll for American servicemen has surpassed 1,000, more than 150 Russian children have died in a terrorist takeover of a school, Afghanistan is in chaos, and the number of significant terrorist attacks rose to a twenty-one-year high in 2003, according to official State Department figures. The highly respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London has reported that "over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq."

With the failure so obvious, and the President tripping over his words trying to pretend otherwise (August 30: "I don't think you can win" and the next day: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning"), it astonishes us that the polls show a majority of Americans believing the President has done "a good job" in the war on terrorism.

I can think of two reasons for this.

First, the press and television have not played the role of gadflies, of whistleblowers, the role that the press should play in a society whose fundamental doctrine of democracy (see the Declaration of Independence) is that you must not give blind trust to the government. They have not made clear to the public--I mean vividly, dramatically clear--what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq.

I am speaking not only of the deaths and mutilations of American youth, but the deaths and mutilations of Iraqi children. (I am reading at this moment of an American bombing of houses in the city of Fallujah, leaving four children dead, with the U.S. military saying this was part of a "precision strike" on "a building frequently used by terrorists.") I believe that the American people's natural compassion would come to the fore if they truly understood that we are terrorizing other people by our "war on terror."

A second reason that so many people accept Bush's leadership is that no counterargument has come from the opposition party. John Kerry has not challenged Bush's definition of terrorism. He has not been forthright. He has dodged and feinted, saying that Bush has waged "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Is there a right war, a right place, a right time? Kerry has not spoken clearly, boldly, in such a way as to appeal to the common sense of the American people, at least half of whom have turned against the war, with many more looking for the wise words that a true leader provides. He has not clearly challenged the fundamental premise of the Bush Administration: that the massive violence of war is the proper response to the kind of terrorist attack that took place on September 11, 2001.

Let us begin by recognizing that terrorist acts--the killing of innocent people to achieve some desired goal--are morally unacceptable and must be repudiated and opposed by anyone claiming to care about human rights. The September 11 attacks, the suicide bombings in Israel, the taking of hostages by Chechen nationalists--all are outside the bounds of any ethical principles.

This must be emphasized, because as soon as you suggest that it is important, to consider something other than violent retaliation, you are accused of sympathizing with the terrorists. It is a cheap way of ending a discussion without examining intelligent alternatives to present policy.

Then the question becomes: What is the appropriate way to respond to such awful acts? The answer so far, given by Bush, Sharon, and Putin, is military action. We have enough evidence now to tell us that this does not stop terrorism, may indeed provoke more terrorism, and at the same time leads to the deaths of hundreds, even thousands, of innocent people who happen to live in the vicinity of suspected terrorists.

What can account for the fact that these obviously ineffective, even counterproductive, responses have been supported by the people of Russia, Israel, the United States? It's not hard to figure that out. It is fear, a deep, paralyzing fear, a dread so profound that one's normal rational faculties are distorted, and so people rush to embrace policies that have only one thing in their favor: They make you feel that something is being done. In the absence of an alternative, in the presence of a policy vacuum, filling that vacuum with a decisive act becomes acceptable.

And when the opposition party, the opposition Presidential candidate, can offer nothing to fill that policy vacuum, the public feels it has no choice but to go along with what is being done. It is emotionally satisfying, even if rational thought suggests it does not work and cannot work.
If John Kerry cannot offer an alternative to war, then it is the responsibility of citizens, with every possible resource they can muster, to present such an alternative to the American public.
Yes, we can try to guard in every possible way against future attacks, by trying to secure airports, seaports, railroads, other centers of transportation. Yes, we can try to capture known terrorists. But neither of those actions can bring an end to terrorism, which comes from the fact that millions of people in the Middle East and elsewhere are angered by American policies, and out of these millions come those who will carry their anger to fanatic extremes.

The CIA senior terrorism analyst who has written a book signed "Anonymous" has said bluntly that U.S. policies--supporting Sharon, making war on Afghanistan and Iraq--"are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world."

Unless we reexamine our policies--our quartering of soldiers in a hundred countries (the quartering of foreign soldiers, remember, was one of the grievances of the American revolutionaries), our support of the occupation of Palestinian lands, our insistence on controlling the oil of the Middle East--we will always live in fear. If we were to announce that we will reconsider those policies, and began to change them, we might start to dry up the huge reservoir of hatred where terrorists are hatched.

Whoever the next President will be, it is up to the American people to demand that he begin a bold reconsideration of the role our country should play in the world. That is the only possible solution to a future of never-ending, pervasive fear. That would be "our" war on terrorism.

Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a columnist for The Progressive.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process, Ashot Ghoulian

2004-10-16T12:06:00.000-05:00

-----Original Message-----
From: Emil [mailto:Emil@aaainc.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:01 PM
Subject: Reminder: CSIS event on Nagorno Karabakh

FYI. If you would like to attend RSVP the CSIS
(see contact information below). Their building is at
1800 K Street, NW (18th and K) in Washington,
DC.
-----Original Message----

The Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process
Ashot Ghoulian
Chief Foreign Affairs Representative of Nagorno-Karabakh

CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program
Caucasus Initiative

Tuesday, October 19, 2004
3:00 - 4:00 P.M.
B1-C Conference Room

Dear Colleague:

I would like to invite you to a seminar on October 19 with
Ashot Ghoulian, the chief foreign affairs representative of
Nagorno-Karabakh. After a period of stalled negotiations,
the Foreign Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia held a
series of meetings earlier this year to explore new ways to
resolve the long-standing conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh
region and surrounding territories of Azerbaijan. These talks
have led to discussion of a potential "hybrid" approach that
would incorporate elements from the opposing solutions
proposed by Azerbaijan and Armenia. Mr. Ghoulian's visit
offers a rare opportunity to hear and respond to a perspective
on the conflict resolution process that comes from Nagorno-
Karabakh itself.

Please RSVP to Nancy Lord by October 18th
(email: nlord@csis.org; tel: (202) 775-3259;
fax (202) 775-3199). This invitation is non-transferable.

Sincerely,

Cory Welt, Ph.D.
Fellow
Russia and Eurasia Program
Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS)

Conference: Strategic Engagement in a New Era, Western Policy Center

2004-10-12T21:05:00.000-05:00

----- Original Message -----
From: "Western Policy Center" <WesternPolicyCenter@WesternPolicy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 5:11 PM
Subject: Conference: Unconventional Challenges in the Eastern Mediterranean

The Western Policy Center invites you to attend a conference
UNCONVENTIONAL CHALLENGES IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN:STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT IN A NEW ERA

This is the fifth in a series of Eastern Mediterranean Security Conferences organized by the Western Policy Center.

The conference will examine the unconventional challenges facing the U.S., NATO allies Greece and Turkey, and other allies and partners in the eastern Mediterranean region and throughout its periphery, including the Balkan, Black Sea, Caucasus, Levant, and northern African areas, in an era of militant Islamist terrorism, WMD proliferation, transnational criminal enterprises, and other asymmetrical threats. The conference panelists will be U.S. government officials and distinguished regional analysts. They will tackle the question of future U.S. strategic engagement in the eastern Mediterranean within the context of Washington’s relations with Greece and Turkey, the potential roles of new NATO allies Bulgaria and Romania, and the broader question of trans-Atlantic security in southeastern Europe, where the Western and Muslim worlds converge.

Wednesday, October 27, 20048:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Location: The Willard Inter-Continental Hotel, The Crystal Room1401 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004

Please RSVP by faxing or e-mailing this completed form to Andri Peros at (202) 530-4444 (fax) or peros@westernpolicy.org.

Acceptances only, please.

____ I will attend. NAME: ______________________________
COMPANY: ____________________________
JOB TITLE: __________________________
E-MAIL: _______________________________
PHONE: ____________________________
FAX: __________________________________
Western Policy Center1156 15th Street, N.W. • Suite 500 • Washington, D.C. 20005 • Tel: (202) 530-1425 • Fax: (202) 530-4444

The Interview with Karen Kwiatkowski

2004-09-13T20:08:00.000-05:00

Aydinlik Newspaper and Ulusal Kanal TV

Turkey

Tugrul Keskingoren

Washington
September 8, 2004

Karen Kwiatkowski recently retired from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel. Her final assignment was as a political-military affairs officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under Secretary for Policy, in the Sub-Saharan Africa and Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorates. During Col. Kwiatkowski's time at NESA, she worked the North Africa desk, in the sister office to the Office of Special Plans. Prior to the Office of Secretary of Defense assignment, she served on the Air Force Staff, Operations Directorate at the Pentagon, the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade, Maryland, and served tours in Alaska, Massachusetts, Spain and Italy. Col. Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard, and MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska, and has completed both Air Command and Staff College and the Naval War College seminar programs. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Catholic University in World Politics (ABD), pursuing a dissertation on Overt/Covert War In Angola: A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine. Col. Kwiatkowski has authored two recent books on African issues, African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001) and several papers. She teaches online classes with the University of Maryland University College and American Public University System, and is an adjunct faculty in Political Science with James Madison University. Col. Kwiatkowski lives on a small farm in western Virginia with the husband and four children. She is a regular contributor to LewRockwell.com and Militaryweek.com, and has had articles about her work with the Department of Defense published in the American Conservative and Salon.com, among others.

Keskingoren: Do you think neoconservatives have a different political agenda than the agenda held in the American interest?

Karen Kwiatkowski: Yes, I do. American interests, in terms of foreign policy were last democratically polled in November 2000. At that time, they were evenly split between the trade and peaceful interventionism of candidate Al Gore and the trade and humble non-interventionism offered by candidate George W. Bush. After 9-11, Americans were fearful and many sought retaliation against the perpetrators, considered to be Osama bin Laden, his al Qaeda terrorist network around the world, and the Taliban who were offering bin Laden safe harbor. Initially, George Bush pursued this route, supported and desired by most Americans – while simultaneously listening to his neoconservative advisors insisting that now was the time to strike – not Osma bin Laden, but Saddam Hussein. False statements that made no distinction between 9-11, terrorism against America and Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship were pumped unrelentingly into the mainstream American media by Bush, Cheney, neoconservatives in government, neoconservative thinktanks and a very lazy and unaccountable American media.
Neoconservatives envision a Middle East that is politically divided, ethnically aroused and U.S.-compliant. This kind of Middle East is most susceptible to outside economic and political manipulation, and is thought to pose less of a military or political threat to Israel. On the other hand, most Americans just want to buy oil on competitive market prices (and lots of it), improve our own border security, and to have the worlds’ nations do a better job of policing their own backyards and reducing terrorism. But most Americans are not making American foreign policy. Neoconservatives are, and thus we see a policy that is inconsistent with broader American interests. This inconsistency is part of what is fueling growing political divisiveness in this country, as more and more average American’s realize we have a problem in the path the neoconservatives have chosen.

Keskingoren: I personally believe that there was no relation between the Al Qaeda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein. One is a religious network, the other one is a repressive secular dictatorship. Neoconservatives in Washington disregard American national security interests, and mislead the American people. Can we say that neoconservatives had a plan to invade Iraq long before September 11?

Karen Kwiatkowski: I agree – al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq logically would have had nothing but wariness for each other, to put it mildly. The neoconservative agenda for many years has been marked by a desire for military resolution of international problems. It was this way during the Cold War years, with the Senator Scoop Jackson acolytes, and it is this way now with the same older but no wiser crowd, now associated with the American Enterprise Institute, Center for Security Policy, and the Project for a New American Century, and in the current administration. Neoconservatives have had a serious desire to deal in a substantive (regime changing) way with both Iran and Iraq, and also Syria, but not necessarily a serious plan to do it, in my opinion. Richard Perle and Doug Feith’s “A Clean Break” strategy paper, written by key Bush administration neoconservatives in 1996 for Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud campaign, lays out the neoconservative desires pretty clearly. But they did not have a “plan” to invade Iraq until they arrived in the Bush administration, and were able to access and manipulate intelligence, and mobilize the American military machine as well as mobilize the all too willing George W. Bush.

9-11 did provide a sense of urgency and fear in America that made it easy for the neocons and the President to sell the invasion of Iraq. I do think without 9-11, they would have still pursued this option, because it was about geo-strategic military basing, oil control, and Saddam’s decision to sell oil on the Euro instead of the dollar, as well as a way of shifting US resources more in line with Israeli interests in the region.. 9-11 just made the propaganda campaign at home easier to conduct.

Keskingoren: Most of the pro Iraq war think-tanks in Washington are also pro-Jewish think-tanks, such as JINSA and Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In these think-tanks, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and other influential neoconsrevatives were either fellows or on the board of trustees. Do you think this neoconservative political elite played a crucial role in the Iraq War, and misled American national interests in the Middle East?

Karen Kwiatkowski: It is clear that this group of people played a critical role. Those think tanks, and also the neoconservative Project for a New American Century led by Bill Kristol and Gary Schmitt, had long written about the need for a U.S. friendly Iraq, a toppled Saddam Hussein, and using US military force to do it.. It is interesting to me that the Jewish political elite represented in the Bush Administration seem, to a man, to be pro-Likud, and I think that defines them more than any particular religious adherence. I wonder if we would be talking about this at all, or be in Iraq occupying that country, if they were all pro-Labor Party. Certainly the actions of the Office of Special Plans and guys like former Defense Policy Board Chairman Richard Perle, promulgating lies and exaggerating of Saddam’s capabilities to threaten the US, were purposely done to get the invasion. But Bush himself had his own reasons to want to go after Saddam, and there was indeed some kind of magic between his ambiguity about his father’s own decision to leave Saddam in place in 1991 and the neocon strategic goal.
Did they mislead Americans as to American national interests in the Middle East? I believe they lied and promoted lies (and liars like Ahmad Chalabi) to get their war. But I think for many of these guys truly believe that what is good for Likud is good for America. This is wrong factually, and wrong philosophically, and is probably very close to being treason. But I don’t think many of them really understand that putting the wishes or interests of another country before your own is wrong, as they are so wrapped up in what they perceive to be the needs of Israel, economically, territorially, militarily and in terms of regional security. This is why most of them are still angry and emotional about the Jonathan Pollard case – they really don’t see that his espionage and selling of US secrets to Israel in the late 1980s was criminal.

Keskingoren: Do you think that the recent spy case in the Pentagon opens the old files, such as the Pollard case in 1985, or do you think this is a message to the neoconservatives by the American intelligence community? (No one has been arrested so far, and the American intelligence community basically warned the neoconservative political elite)

Karen Kwiatkowski: The spy case is a complicated set of multiple investigations into the role of key neoconservatives in transferring secrets to third parties, and the examination of Israel’s active work to influence American actions and foreign policies both through lobbying representatives and through contacts with administration officials and employees. It does relate and refer back to old cases of Israeli espionage, and the publicity of the current case reminds people that Israel continues to conduct operations against the United States, and use U.S. officials to further its own aims. The fact that there is an investigation at all (for two years) has already served as a warning of sorts to neoconservatives who may be putting another county’s politics before our own. It is not clear why Larry Franklin’s name was leaked now. I initially thought it was done by a neoconservative who knew about Larry’s cooperation with the FBI as a way of disrupting the investigation, and warning others that arrests were coming soon. It could have been done to send a message of seriousness to the neoconservatives by the security agencies. I have recently read that Attorney General Ashcroft has been less than aggressive in prosecuting the possibly treasonous influence peddling going on in the Pentagon and elsewhere in the administration. It is possible that the leak of Larry’s name was designed to send a message from security agencies -- not to administration appointees who certainly have know about the investigation for months, even years – but to the Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft power center to push it along.

Keskingoren: It is very interesting that most of the people in the recent spy case in the Pentagon are also related with the Turkish lobby in Washington, with people such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Harold Rhode. As far as I remember, in 1992, Perle and Feith opened a lobby firm in Washington and they received $850.000 dolars for lobbying on behalf of Turkey. Do you think neocons manipulate ethnic lobbies in Washington for "third parties," interests as they have been doing for American Foreign Policy?

Karen Kwiatkowski: This is an interesting observation, and my impression of the link to Turkish lobbying was that any work done was on behalf of or in relation to Israel as much as directly Turkish-United States. My assumption reflects my own observations that many of those named (Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith) seem to have merged in their own minds loyalty to Israel with loyalty to the United States. I don’t know if these particular people make a habit of manipulating ethnic or other national lobbies for third party interests – but I believe that when a lobby or a country (like Turkey) hires one of these politically connected people, they are hiring the existing network – and for these particular names, that network centers on Israel.

Keskingoren: Today, Anti-Americanism is an increasing trend all over the world. I was in Turkey last June, and many people, from shcolars to journalists, ordinary citizens to military officials asked me the same question: "Does the US have a secret policy to divide Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria?" How do you answer this question as a retired government offical?

Karen Kwiatkowski: I am aware of no official secret U.S. policy to divide Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Officially, such a policy would be contrary to the published statements and national security strategy of the current American President, George W. Bush. However, the neoconservative position regarding the Middle East includes weakening and destabilizing Israel’s more hostile neighbors militarily, economically, and politically – these hostile countries would include Syria, Iraq and Iran. Various neoconservative thinktanks and pundits have written for many years openly about their goals for the Middle East, using terms like liberation and democracy with simultaneous objectives of creating countries friendly to the United States and Israel. A neoconservative foreign policy could in theory satisfy both aims by lending support to Kurdish independence under a democracy and liberation auspice, and also enjoying the domestic and regional reaction which would consume regional political and possibly military energy from Iran, Iraq and Turkey. Another problem is that “Democracy” and “U.S./Israel-friendly” may not go hand in hand, given past behavior of the United States and Israel which is seen throughout the region as hypocritical and exploitative. It’s clear that democracy, for example the Turkish democracy, in rejecting the request by Washington to utilize Turkish territory to launch the preemptive war on Saddam Hussein, has angered key neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith and Dick Cheney. Yet these same players have been very pleased with the cooperative but non-democratic countries of Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Keskingoren: Additionally, how can we reverse the increasing trend of Anti-Americanism in the Islamic world and regain those people?

Karen Kwiatkowski: I think the Islamic world as well as the rest of the world would appreciate a bit more honesty from America, a bit more of us living up to our own professed values. American values are based on individual liberty, rule of law, freedom of religious expression and a prohibition of a state religion, and constitutional restraints on governmental power. In my opinion, we have betrayed these values at home as well as abroad, with our domestic Patriot Act, the vast increase in the power of the American government to arrest and detain citizens on little evidence, the role of Christian evangelical theory to superficially justify our actions in the Middle East. We have conducted a military adventure in Iraq that was based on false and manufactured evidence (although it was conducted for real geostrategic reasons that had little to do with the professed rationale) and the executive was not restrained by the legislative or judicial parts of our government, effectively setting aside our own Constitution. Until America can behave as a member of a community of nations, guided by the words of Thomas Jefferson, seeking “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none,” then we Americans will not be seen as role models or as trusted friends. It cannot be only sweet words, it must be lived. I believe that George W. Bush squandered a huge opportunity to lead the world by example. Instead he has served as a well-publicized example of ignorance, impulsiveness and arrogance that is not a true part of our national character. Our Founding Fathers certainly warned repeatedly against all three characteristics.

Spies in the Pentagon? by Karen Kwiatkowski

2004-08-31T20:20:00.000-05:00

When I think of spies in the Defense Department, I think of the pitiful debt-ridden Ron Pelton, who worked for 14 years at the National Security Agency, quit in 1979, and began selling secrets to the Soviets until he was arrested in 1986. I heard it was to complete construction on a home he had been building for years and years. Construction projects can be like that. I think of Jonathan Pollard, a case study in poor hiring practices within the federal government and the Defense Department's even poorer supervisory habits. Pollard was also a case study in the delusional and incompetent ideologue who becomes a traitor in the Department of Defense. More recently, I think of the high clearances granted to publicly and at times, rabidly, pro-Likud past and present political appointees with names like Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, and a host of younger Likudniks who march through the halls of the five-sided asylum to a composition unfamiliar to most Americans. I don't think of Larry Franklin, a guy I like and respect. When I was there in 2002 and 2003, Larry was the Iran desk officer with the Defense Under Secretary for Policy, Near East South Asia, moving later to the Office of Special Plans, where ostensibly Iraq policy was made.Larry is an interesting and kind person with a lot of great stories. He came into our cubicle one morning feeling energetic, and demonstrated a Karate kick of some kind that to this day still impresses me. Here's a little guy in a suit, over 50 years in age, and he can do the move. I asked him where he learned to do that. He said he had to learn self-defense because he grew up dirt poor, short and small, in a slum in Baltimore, one of the few white kids in his neighborhood. I believed him. He worked for everything he had, all the way to his Ph.D. Along the way, he got married and had a whole passel of kids, safely ensconced hours away from the superficialities and mean streets of Washington, D.C. The pre-Republican National Convention weekend story is that Larry gave draft Iran policy guidance and other info to AIPAC representatives, in hopes of communicating a level of concern for what was going on in Iraq to his higher ups in the Pentagon, specifically Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. Somehow, having to go outside the system to get the Pentagon brass to show concern about what is really going on in Iraq doesn't surprise me at all. The story of spies in the Pentagon will percolate, no doubt. I have no answers, but perhaps the questions themselves will help explain what is going on in the current administration, and the administration that is sure to come.Was the release of Larry's name at this time politically motivated? And was that to hurt the Bush presidency or to save it, as Laura Rozen muses, with a "controlled burn"?Why would Larry need to give draft documents on policy anywhere in the Middle East to AIPAC, when all the big decisions are already coordinated between Israel and the U.S. at far higher levels? Why is Larry the result of FBI investigational success instead of the names of the Pentagon senior operatives who shared classified information with Ahmad Chalabi regarding American success in reading coded Tehran communications, specifically now as neoconservatives rage for war in Iran? Or instead of the names of senior White House operatives who revealed and destroyed the U.S. security mission of Valerie Plame?Are there any advantages gained in front-page stories on a "spy for Israel" who is not one of the usual suspects? You know, a person with no business dealings dependent upon American (and Israeli) decisions, a person without an openly pro-Israel ideology or someone who was never known as a passionate advocate of U.S. power to promote Israel's security and economic viability? A career-constrained professional rather than fly-by-night political appointees who have written widely and acted most consistently to advance the interests of Israel in American policy towards the Middle East? Cui bono?Could it be, as so wisely noted by Chris Manion recently, that it is time for the neoconservatives to come home? The neoconservative harvest has been plucked from the energies and wealth of an unsuspecting American public – a permanent and costly occupation of Iraq's oil production infrastructure, a ringing of unnecessary military bases from Bosnia and Kosovo, to Uzbekistan to Afghanistan to Iraq, and the domestic acceptance of a siege mentality of national defense reminiscent of Machiavelli's lesser princes, or perhaps the current political state of Israel. The challenge may be simply to properly preserve the harvest – and what better way than to usher in a presidency that will do what Bush can never do – legitimize and normalize American militaristic hegemony, at least for several more years. As Gabriel Kolko writes, Democrats' greater finesse in justifying these policies is therefore more dangerous because they will be made to seem more credible and keep alive alliances that only reinforce the U.S.' refusal to acknowledge the limits of its power. In the longer run, Kerry's pursuit of these aggressive goals will lead eventually to a renewal of the dissolution of alliances, but in the short-run he will attempt to rebuild them and European leaders will find it considerably more difficult to refuse his demands than if Bush stays in power – and that is to be deplored.Dangerous, radically un-American, Machiavellian. It must be exciting these days to be a neoconservative, looking forward to the continued progress under a Kerry Presidency. But to preserve the harvest, sacrifice is required.Predictably, the sacrifice will be as it always is for neoconservative strategists. Whether burned at home or in the desert, the neoconservative sacrifice requires only the lives of those most loyal, dispensable, and disposable.

August 30, 2004

Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

Move Over, Confucius by Joshua Kurlantzick

2004-08-31T09:29:00.000-05:00

The New Republic
Issue date 09.06.04

On a visit to China several years ago, I happened to be in Shanghai after Jiang Zemin announced his theory on how the ruling party should update its ideology, so that Chinese communism would come to represent not only workers but also the country's history, culture, and most productive economic (read: capitalist) forces. This mind-numbingly boring theory, which Jiang called "The Three Represents," dominated discussion at party meetings in Beijing. So I spent my time in Shanghai chatting with acquaintances about the Three Represents. Shanghai has always been China's most urbane city, so surely its intellectuals would be feverishly arguing about Jiang's ideas. But the professors had almost no interest in Jiang's theories. At the city's markets, where sellers have encyclopedic knowledge of bad Chinese action films, reporters found that no one seemed to have heard of the Three Represents. At Shanghai's newest and hippest watering hole--Starbucks--Chinese yuppies' conversation revolved around business deals and new clothes. And only a few blocks from Starbucks, average Shanghainese were paying rapt attention to another theory--actually, a set of imported theories. When I walked into a small structure near Nanjing Lu, a main shopping street, I saw hundreds of Chinese sitting in rows, listening to a man exhorting everyone to love one another, to create grassroots networks, to give themselves over to a power uncontrolled by the party. The audience listened raptly. This scene was hardly unique. In the past decade, millions of Chinese have sought community, philosophy, and spiritual comfort outside the confines of communist ideology and their immediate families. In the first half of its reign, the Chinese Communist Party destroyed the institutions that had undergirded China's society for millennia, replacing them with Mao Zedong's all-destroying totalitarian ideology; and in the second half of its reign, the CCP embraced the very offense with which the chairman used to charge his worst enemies. But capitalism is not a political ideology, and money offers no theories on the nature of man, nor thoughts on death, nor ideas of how to organize a society. The party has scrambled to devise an alternative mass ideology based in part on Chinese nationalism; but judging by the response to the Three Represents, it is not exactly thrilling the population. Instead, average Chinese are desperately seeking an ideology even as Beijing has repressed many of those secular actors--liberal democrats, trade unions, non-governmental organizations--who might have provided alternatives to Marxism or the state's new cult of money. For this reason, many Chinese are looking beyond secular civil society. Across the country, the old opiate of the people has returned, and the masses are mainlining it. China is in the early stages of its own Great Awakening. In fact, the greatest threat to Beijing today may not be George W. Bush or Chen Shui-bian or the Dalai Lama or Harry Wu, but rather an old, old figure who has played a role before in the collapse of venal Chinese regimes. I am referring to Jesus Christ. Communism is about as relevant today in China as it is in Las Vegas. Since 1979, the Chinese government has slashed subsidies to state enterprises, unleashed private entrepreneurs, and exhorted its population that making money is every citizen's new mission. Despite skeptics like myself, who fear that China's breakneck growth disguises a morass of economic problems, China has become the sixth-largest economy on earth. Last year Beijing for the first time welcomed entrepreneurs into the Communist Party, and across China the rawest forms of capitalism now are on display like open wounds. In Shanghai, vendors at markets brusquely grab customers' shoulders to pull them into their stalls, while homeless people beg on the streets. Factories in Guangdong, the region abutting Hong Kong that has become the manufacturing capital of the world, employ workers in Industrial Revolution-style conditions so horrendous that The Economist last year ran an article bearing the headline "Does China have 10 million slaves?" The freeing of China's economy has come with an idolization of capitalism's heroes and an orgy of consumption. Chinese entrepreneurs are lionized the way the country once worshipped working-class heroes such as the peasant soldier Lei Feng. At Chinese universities, majors most conducive to obtaining a business job are increasingly popular, and the allure of the liberal arts is fading. Wealthy Chinese have made the country one of the top markets for luxury cars. When a rebel group devoted to Maoist revolutionary principles several years ago began organizing Nepal's poor in a war against the government, the Chinese government hastily disavowed the Maoists. All this has been placed on top of Beijing's decades-long evisceration of civil society and Chinese tradition, so that the one modern ideology promoted to average Chinese--social Darwinist capitalism--is not buttressed by anything else. No real democratic opening. No social welfare system. No plan for how to ultimately regulate capitalism. No real modernization of Confucianism and other traditional ideologies--the kind of reform that, in Thailand, has created modern Buddhist organizations devoted to socially progressive causes. After coming to power in 1949, the Communists announced that Chinese traditions--including Confucianism and Buddhism--were despicable legacies of feudalism. The worship of traditional gods was discouraged, violators were punished, and Confucianism was banned from the schools. The government created official versions of traditional religions staffed by party hacks. Chinese Catholics who continued to profess loyalty to Rome rather than to the state "patriotic" church were severely punished, as were Protestants who worshipped outside the party-linked church, known as the Three Self Patriotic Movement. Meanwhile, Beijing outlawed independent unions and non-governmental organizations, imprisoned thousands of dissidents, and placed informers in workplaces. In the past decade, Beijing has modernized its methods of control. President Hu Jintao and his colleagues came of age in the time of Tiananmen Square and the collapse of the Soviet Union, two developments that greatly frightened them. Hu and his peers have therefore developed a new, two-pronged style of repression. Rather than uniformly crushing anyone who questions the party, Beijing has tolerated a limited increase in social and political freedoms while at the same time harshly repressing groups that might develop a national following. Beijing has made it easier for average Chinese to get on the Internet, but has simultaneously instituted perhaps the most comprehensive system of Web monitors and firewalls in the world. Some Buddhist temples have been re-opened, but when Falun Gong developed a national following, it was brutalized. In the summer of 2002, Beijing allowed Chinese youths to hold their "Woodstock," a rollicking rock festival in the southern province of Yunnan. But young Chinese who attempt to organize independent labor unions are quickly muzzled. This bipolar style of repression is extremely dangerous. Average Chinese are gaining a measure of freedom and are increasingly unwilling to surrender these gains. Yet when they push against Beijing, the state cracks down harder than in the past. At the same time, the ranks of China's unemployed are swelling as the government privatizes state-owned enterprises. Already there are more than 100 million jobless adults, and that number may more than double in the next decade. Little wonder, then, that the number of labor protests has more than quadrupled in the past decade, and the northeast, China's Rust Belt, makes Detroit look like a thriving metropolis. What's more, precisely because of the CCP's repression, there are few outlets--whether political parties or civil society actors--to channel this anger and this desire for something more fulfilling than cash. The China Democracy Party, a grassroots organization, has been crushed. State churches and temples remain tainted by links to the party. Even hobby clubs that gain a national following risk being targeted by the authorities: in June 2003, Beijing dissolved more than sixty private hobby groups, including the notoriously dangerous China Fisherman's Association. And the old Confucian values--what many Western experts, desperately trying to understand Asia's economic miracle, once called "Asian values"--are long gone. The CCP has tried to reintroduce Confucianism as a national philosophy, but it had so discredited Confucianism during the Maoist period that older Chinese will not embrace Confucius again. Younger Chinese, reared on raw capitalism, see little use for traditional Confucian beliefs. Thus most mainland Chinese have been severed from their past and thrown into a variety of capitalism that lives only for the present. Many are not satisfied believing in nothing but materialism. Younger Chinese, the first to succeed in a newly capitalist economy, are finding themselves spiritually, socially, and politically unfulfilled even after they have made their fortune; as Time recently reported, only "daily pilgrimages" to local religious institutions soothed rich women's feelings of emptiness. Meanwhile, as Linda Jakobson, author of A Million Truths: A Decade in China, has written, "middle-aged and elderly Chinese ... brought up believing that they had a mission in life [to further the goals of communism] ... mourn the loss of an ideology" and seek an all-encompassing replacement for Marxism-Leninism. For their part, China's millions of unemployed are desperately searching for something to convince them that life is still worth living. Even Fu Qingyuan, director of the Research Institute of Marxism-Leninism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the country's most prestigious communism think tank, admitted to Time that "many people in China are facing a crisis of faith." For Qingyuan to make such an admission is like John Paul II telling the Catholic faithful, "Well, maybe Martin Luther was right." Trying to fill the ideological vacuum, average Chinese are turning in staggering numbers to religion. In Jesus in Beijing, David Aikman, a former Time correspondent in Beijing, chronicles China's embrace of Christianity. Since many Chinese Christian groups are highly secretive, Aikman's book contains a wealth of new and important detail. The numbers touted by Aikman, who clearly believes that this Great Awakening will radically transform China for the better, are awe-inspiring. By his estimates, China may have nearly 100 million practicing Christians. Christianity in China is reportedly growing by more than 7 percent annually. Some scholars think that China will have 200 million Christians within two decades, making it perhaps the largest Christian country on earth, though others, such as Jason Kindopp of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, are more skeptical of these growth rates. As Aikman writes, "From the grassroots of the peasantry to high within China's establishment, the country [is] being seeded with believing Christians." Even in Beijing, new churches are being constructed that will hold more than four thousand worshippers each. To be sure, other religions are enjoying revivals as well. When I last visited Kashgar, a city in the western province of Xinjiang, the central mosque was packed with hundreds of Muslim worshippers. Tibetan Buddhism is gaining new seekers; earlier this year The Washington Post reported that a Buddhist center in Sertar, a remote region of western China, has drawn as many as ten thousand pilgrims. Next: The regime's denial of religious freedom only encourages Chinese to join house churches, which may be viewed as not only places of worship but also as ways to resist the government. But Christianity--primarily the Protestant evangelical kind--is spreading like wildfire. In part, this is because evangelical Christianity, flexible enough to tailor its message to different groups of believers, offers the kind of personal empowerment that complements an increasingly individualistic society while offering an all-encompassing ideology for former devotees of communism. In part, it is because Christianity offers impoverished Chinese social welfare and a promise of a new life, since many Chinese associate Christianity with the life-changing miracles highlighted by evangelical groups. In part, it is because Christianity seems foreign--and thus enticing--to many Chinese, but it also has a history in the country and so it is not completely unknown. Christianity probably was first introduced to China in the seventh century. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a wave of missionaries came to China; and in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the number of Chinese Christians grew rapidly. In the mid-nineteenth century one charismatic Chinese Christian, Hong Xiuquan, launched a theocratic revolt against the crumbling Qing Dynasty that became known as the Taiping Rebellion. Though the rebellion was crushed, it fatally weakened China's last royal court. Few Chinese Christians today are joining the state-sponsored churches. Instead, Aikman writes, they become members of either underground evangelical organizations known as "house churches" or underground Catholic churches loyal to the Vatican. The house churches are growing the fastest: even in Beijing there are more than seven hundred. In other provinces, such as Henan in central China and Wenzhou in eastern China, house churches, identified by discreet red crosses, dominate the landscape. Chinese evangelical groups proselytize across the country; Aikman follows the Fancheng Fellowship, a Chinese evangelical organization that now has several million members, as it quietly cultivates new worshippers all over China. The regime's denial of religious freedom only encourages Chinese to join house churches, which may be viewed as not only places of worship but also as ways to resist the government. In the past three years, Beijing has acknowledged that religion has become a permanent part of Chinese society and even contributed some government money to build new state-sponsored churches. Yet in keeping with its bipolar repression, the government has simultaneously eviscerated house churches that were building up their congregations. A remarkable set of secret documents uncovered by Freedom House in 2002 reveals that the Chinese authorities, across twenty-two provinces, tortured young evangelical girls by sticking electric rods in their vaginas and burning their breasts, killed more than one hundred evangelicals, and jailed some twenty thousand believers. One of the "crimes" of which the authorities accused detained evangelicals was "praying for world peace." Aikman also captures the scope of repression against underground churches. His book is poorly organized, flitting from one aspect of Christianity to the next, but its most compelling sections include long profiles of Chinese Christian leaders who have been detained for years. In these compassionate portraits, Aikman shows how the limited opening of Chinese society has not resulted in an easing of pressure on Christian leaders--though in doing so, he may have exposed too much detail about leaders who did not want the state to find them. Many house churches hold enormous fevered meetings that would shock even the most inspired American evangelicals. At some house churches, four thousand worshippers meet in secret locations, where they vigorously attest their ties to Jesus. One house sect, known as "The Shouters," scream "Jesus is Lord!" over and over. Another underground sect has become known as "The Weepers" because it emphasizes prolonged sobbing, which it is convinced has some theological value. Another, known as "The Disciples," reportedly believes that the devil exists in all humans, and that true believers have to physically beat their friends to expunge Satan. But the explosion of Christianity in China is not only an affair of the soul. It could have enormous political consequences, a point that Aikman highlights by subtitling his book "How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power." Aikman argues that the Christianization of China will lead many Chinese to adopt liberal and compassionate views of governance and of international relations. The growth of Christianity, he believes, will come with an acceptance of the "Augustinian sense of international responsibility ... a profound sense of restraint, justice, and order." Though he admits China's house churches are cautious about pushing for political freedom, he believes a Christianized China--especially one catalyzed by evangelical Protestantism, with its focus on individual empowerment--would change the nature of the country, preparing it for reform. And a Christian China would be less likely to see international interactions as a zero-sum affair: it would share with the United States "a common worldview on many thorny questions of international affairs." Aikman even suggests that a Christianized China might become a powerful advocate for Israel, a democracy and a country of obvious importance to evangelical Christians. Other commentators share his sentiments. Ian Buruma, in his book Bad Elements, a study of Chinese rebels, notes that many Chinese dissidents exiled to the United States have turned to evangelical Christianity, in part because they believe that religion will be a force for change in China. Tony Lambert, the author of China's Christian Millions, another book on the country's Great Awakening, argues that, after the Tiananmen massacre, thousands of Chinese intellectuals turned to Christianity because they believed that only a complete spiritual overhaul--which could ultimately lead to a political overhaul--could truly transform China. In this spiritual overhaul, Lambert believes, Chinese Christians are increasingly deciding that, when they have to choose between the state and God, they will come down on the side of God--a defiance of Beijing that ultimately can lead to a wider revolt. "The heart of the house church movement takes a conscious stand on the authority of Scripture and has worked out a biblical view of church-state relations," Lambert writes. "If clashes [between church and state] arise, then they are prepared to say ... 'We must obey God rather than men.'" Unfortunately, Aikman and Lambert, as well as many Christian organizations in the West, which have made China a prime target of evangelism, are too charitable in their interpretations of how this Great Awakening will affect China's political course. Certainly, Christianity could be a threat to the party's brittle rule. Any institution capable of organizing large numbers of people outside of state control has the potential to challenge the party, as happened with Falun Gong. And because Chinese evangelicals already possess a network of churches operating underground but maintaining ties to overseas organizations, they are well equipped to conceal political activities from the government and are prepared to step into any political vacuum. Moreover, Christianity has proven particularly popular in regions of China with some of the highest unemployment rates, like the northeast Rust Belt and increasingly impoverished rural areas. "Is it too speculative to see a connection between the desperate suffering of the people [in certain areas of China] and the subsequent great openness of the peasants to the Christian gospel?" asks Lambert. House churches could provide an organization that united laid-off workers from all over the country, who thus far have mounted numerous but relatively isolated protests. This is not a new idea--the combination of church leadership, subversive Christian theology, and angry unionists and peasants was what made Solidarity successful against communist Poland. And there is some evidence that Chinese Christians are already beginning to direct their attention to the regime. John Pomfret, The Washington Post's Beijing correspondent, found in 2002 that Wenzhou's Communist Party leadership tried to halt all Sunday-school religious instruction, expecting house church pastors to back down meekly. Instead, the pastors organized Christians, including Christian businesspeople, to prevent the closure of Sunday schools; Wenzhou Party officials desisted. Similarly, during last year's SARS crisis, when the government banned all public meetings, many Chinese pastors simply refused to follow orders, holding congregations throughout the SARS epidemic. More aggressively, other house churches have used their pulpits to call for an end to Communist Party rule, have played larger roles in organizing unemployed laborers, and have refused to submit to government orders not to baptize believers. But just because they work against the regime does not mean that these Christian groups are reformers. Many house church leaders are quite conservative and narrowly focused on evangelism. Put down for so long--the church in China was much more harshly suppressed than in Poland--many house church members have little knowledge of the Bible or of liberal, and liberating, theology. Evangelical Christianity is spreading so quickly in China in part because it is so emotional, so experiential. The Bible is used "as a talisman, like Mao's Little Red Book," Richard Madsen, a scholar of Chinese Christianity, has observed. Lambert admits that there are only about twelve hundred students across China engaged in full-time theological training--the kind of education that would help them to teach average Chinese about the textual basis of Christianity, and about the potentially liberal aspects of the faith. There are few well-trained Protestant pastors; Time has reported that in the Chinese countryside there are some fifty thousand believers for every cleric. This lack of training only plays into the hands of the most demagogic and least intellectual evangelical groups. Consequently, while some house church leaders are knowledgeable about textual and traditional Christianity, too many house church worshippers gravitate to the most superficial and most heterodox elements of the religion. Though some house churches, especially those in urban areas, seriously study biblical themes, often house churches focus on the unthinking and the superstitious--miracles, instant salvation, acts of physical transport such as weeping and shouting. Faye Pearson, a foreign teacher of Christianity in China, told Time that seven out of ten converts to Christianity in the country "come to faith through illness": they believe that Christianity has healed them. Even Lambert admits that "Chinese Christians adhere to a robust biblical supernaturalism which believes in a sovereign God who can answer the prayers of his people in remarkable ways." In fact, many Chinese Christians follow what is essentially folk religion with only minor Christian elements. All this is not exactly the basis for the kind of intellectual ferment that produced liberation theology, or Solidarity. Worse, in contrast to the idea that evangelical Christianity will empower worshippers, creating a pool of questioning Chinese who can build an open society, house churches too often simply develop into authoritarian fiefs, with worshippers unknowledgeable about Christian tradition and theology focusing their energy on one charismatic leader. There are many instances of Chinese groups using Christianity to promote individual leaders--groups that essentially turn into cults. Just like the party mandarins, few of these charismatic leaders have much knowledge of or care for liberal democracy, civil society, or the innate rights of non-believers and atheists. And though some house church leaders have made efforts to work with their peers, many of the more charismatic leaders encourage their flock to ignore or attack other churches. Where is Chinese Christianity's John Paul II or Joseph Zens, the democratic reform-minded Catholic bishop of Hong Kong? Instead there are "The Weepers," who inculcate absolute fealty to their leader, Peter Xu. Lambert recounts how a charismatic preacher in Henan convinced gullible peasants to wait all evening for Jesus to appear out of a local river; when the peasants waded into the river, they were all swept away and drowned. There is the South China Church, which demonstrates similar fealty to its leader, Gong Shengliang. There are "The Disciples," a group that gained more than one hundred thousand followers in one province, who were so apocalyptic that they forced local farmers and students to stop working. There are groups such as these in nearly every province in China today. And while these organizations do not comprise the majority of Chinese Christians, they are by far the loudest, and the most intensive recruiters. In a state that makes it difficult for all religious groups, including more moderate house churches, to recruit and to educate, more heterodox groups are likely to gain among the uneducated masses. A total breakdown in social order, meanwhile, is only likely to fuel these fringe groups. In some of the more heterodox organizations, leaders even proclaim that they are the Sons of God. One organization, called Established King, grew up around a peasant farmer who proclaimed himself the messiah and soon drew thousands of followers. (After having sex with hundreds of women, its leader was arrested in the mid-1990s.) In the most extreme case, a sect called Eastern Lightning, which claims hundreds of thousands of members, believes that Jesus has returned to earth and taken on the form of a woman living in central China. Eastern Lightning devotees worship this woman and try to force other Christians to worship her as well; just like the CCP authorities, the group uses brutal methods to get its way, kidnapping members of other churches--and sometimes torturing them--until they pledge allegiance to the cult's Christ-figure. American evangelicals have failed to understand the true nature of many of the house churches. In authoritarian nations, liberal democrats are often thrown in jail; but being thrown in jail in an authoritarian nation does not make you a liberal democrat. Yet the Bush administration, and American evangelical organizations that smuggle Bibles into China and send thousands of missionaries into the country, seem unwilling seriously to probe their counterparts in China. (Indeed, it is hardly surprising that Aikman's relatively positive account of Chinese Christianity was picked up by Regnery, the conservative press that brought us Oliver North's War Stories and Ann Coulter's shrieking nonsense.) In the 1990s, the Chinese founder of Eastern Lightning came to America and appealed for political asylum, claiming that he would be persecuted as a Christian back in China. He apparently was granted asylum without the United States even questioning his background; and as a result America did not discover that Eastern Lightning was a dangerous group known for kidnapping and torturing other Christians. China's Great Awakening is just as likely to result in the kind of tumult that happened in the wake of the Taiping Rebellion--which started with a mix of Christianity and native folk practice--as it is to create a liberal revolution. Back then, a decline in state control; a rise in unemployment, migration and population pressures; and an increase in heterodox, charismatic religious movements created violent political change, in which the state was weakened and ultimately overthrown, only to be replaced by warring interest groups who fought among themselves and against remnants of the old regime. The Taiping Rebellion ultimately resulted in some twenty million deaths. China is a much more populous country today.

Joshua Kurlantzick is the foreign editor at TNR.

FBI espionage probe goes beyond Israeli allegations

2004-08-29T10:58:00.000-05:00

Warren P. Strobel

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - An FBI probe into the handling of highly classified material by Pentagon civilians is broader than previously reported, and goes well beyond allegations that a single mid-level analyst gave a top-secret Iran policy document to Israel, three sources familiar with the investigation said Saturday.
The probe, which has been going on for more than two years, also has focused on other civilians in the Secretary of Defense's office, said the sources, who spoke on condition they not be identified, but who have first-hand knowledge of the subject.
In addition, one said, FBI investigators in recent weeks have conducted interviews to determine whether Pentagon officials gave highly classified U.S. intelligence to a leading Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National Congress, which may in turn have passed it on to Iran. INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has denied his group was involved in any wrongdoing.
The linkage, if any, between the two leak investigations, remains unclear.
But they both center on the office of Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, the Pentagon's No. 3 official.
Feith's office, which oversees policy matters, has been the source of numerous controversies over the last three years. His office had close ties to Chalabi and was responsible for post-war Iraq planning that the administration has now acknowledged was inadequate. Before the war, Feith and his aides pushed the now-discredited theory that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaida.
No one is known to have been charged with any wrongdoing in the current investigation. Officials cautioned that it could result in charges of mishandling classified information, rather than the more serious charge of espionage.
The Israeli government on Saturday strenuously denied it had spied on the United States, its main benefactor on the global scene.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobby that top officials said is suspected of serving as a conduit to Israel for the mid-level analyst, also has denied any wrongdoing.
That analyst, Larry Franklin, works for Feith's deputy, William Luti, and served as an important - albeit low-profile - advisor on Iran issues to Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Franklin, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who lives in West Virginia, could not be reached for comment Saturday.
Investigators are said to be looking at whether Franklin acted with authorization from his superiors, one official said.
Two sources disclosed Saturday that the information believed to have been passed to Israel was the draft of a top-secret presidential order on Iran policy, known as a National Security Presidential Directive. Because of disagreements over Iran policy among President Bush's advisors, the document is not believed to have ever been completed.
Having a draft of the document - which some Pentagon officials may have believed was insufficiently tough toward Iran - would have allowed Israel to influence U.S. policy while it was still being made. Iran is among Israel's main security concerns.
Two or three staff members of AIPAC have been interviewed in connection with the case. In a prepared statement, AIPAC said any allegation of criminal conduct was "false and baseless." It is "cooperating fully," with investigators, AIPAC's statement said.
Israeli officials insisted they stopped spying on the United States after the exposure of Jonathan Pollard, who was arrested in 1985 and sentenced to life in prison for spying for Israel.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to discuss the continuing investigation.
"Obviously any time there is an allegation of this nature, it's a serious matter," he told reporters traveling with Bush in Ohio.
In a statement issued late Friday, the Pentagon said it "has been cooperating with the Department of Justice on this matter for an extended period of time. It is the DoD (Department of Defense) understanding that the investigation within the DoD is limited in its scope."
But other sources said the FBI investigation is more wide-ranging than initial news reports suggested.
They said it has involved interviews of current and former officials at the White House, Pentagon and State Department.
Investigators have asked about the security practices of several other Defense Department civilians, they said.
Franklin's name surfaced in news reports last year when it became known that he and another Pentagon Middle East specialist, Harold Rhode, met in late 2001 with Manucher Ghorbanifar, an Iranian arms merchant who played a role in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said publicly last year that nothing came of the meeting, which reportedly was brokered by former National Security Council official Michael Ledeen.
Rhode could not be reached for comment Saturday.
Feith has long been close to Israel. In 2000, he helped author a paper, "A Clean Break," that advised incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to adopt a much tougher approach to the Palestinians and Israel's Arab neighbors.
A former Feith employee, Karen Kwiatkowski, has described how senior Israeli military officers were sometimes escorted to his Pentagon office without signing in as security regulations required.
---
(Knight Ridder correspondent John Walcott contributed to this report.)

FBI Probe Targets Pentagon Official Analyst Allegedly Gave Data to Israel

2004-08-28T15:17:00.000-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40004-2004Aug27.html

FBI Probe Targets Pentagon OfficialAnalyst Allegedly Gave Data to Israel

By Bradley Graham and Thomas E. Ricks

Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, August 28, 2004;
Page A01

The FBI is investigating a mid-level Pentagon official who specializesin Iranian affairs for allegedly passing classified information toIsrael, and arrests in the case could come as early as next week,officials at the Pentagon and other government agencies said last night.The name of the person under investigation was not officially released,but two sources identified him as Larry Franklin. He was described as adesk officer in the Pentagon's Near East and South Asia Bureau, one ofsix regional policy sections. Franklin worked at the DefenseIntelligence Agency before moving to the Pentagon's policy branch threeyears ago and is nearing retirement, the officials said. Franklin couldnot be located for comment last night. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top Pentagon lawyers were toldof the investigation some time ago. One government official familiar with the investigation said it is notyet clear whether the case will rise to the level of espionage or end upinvolving lesser charges such as improper disclosure or mishandling ofclassified information. The investigation has been underway for some months. Defense SecretaryDonald H. Rumsfeld and top Pentagon lawyers were informed of it sometime ago, officials said. But many other senior Pentagon officialsexpressed surprise at the news when it was first reported last night onCBS. Several Pentagon officials sought to play down Franklin's role inpolicymaking, saying that he was not in a position to have significantinfluence over U.S. policy. "The Defense Department has been cooperating with the Department ofJustice for an extended period of time," the Pentagon said in astatement last night. "It is the DOD's understanding that theinvestigation within DOD is very limited in its scope." Even so, thecase is likely to attract intense attention because the official beinginvestigated works under William J. Luti, deputy undersecretary ofdefense for Near East and South Asian Affairs. Luti oversaw thePentagon's "Office of Special Plans," which conducted some early policywork for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That office is one of two Pentagon offices that Bush administrationcritics have claimed were set up by Defense Department hawks to bypassthe CIA and other intelligence agencies, providing information thatPresident Bush and others used to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. The other office was run by a Luti superior, Douglas J. Feith,undersecretary of defense for policy, and was known as the PolicyCounterterrorism Evaluation Group. Feith reports to Deputy DefenseSecretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in turn reports to Rumsfeld. Neither the House nor Senate intelligence committees, however, foundsupport for allegations that the analysts in the offices collected theirown intelligence, or that their information significantly shaped thecase the administration made for going to war. A law enforcementofficial said that the information allegedly passed by Franklin went toIsrael through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, apro-Israel lobbying organization. The information was said to have beenthe draft of a presidential directive related to U.S. policies towardIran. In addition to Franklin, the FBI investigation is focusing on at leasttwo employees at AIPAC, the law enforcement official said. Last night, AIPAC vigorously denied any wrongdoing and said it is fullycooperating with the investigation. "Any allegation of criminal conduct by the organization or its employeesis baseless and false," spokesman Josh Block said in a writtenstatement. "We would not condone or tolerate for a second any violationof U.S. law or interests." He said he had been traveling and so had noadditional information on the situation. Another AIPAC official said: "Our folks are pretty outraged about this.We've had these kinds of accusations before, and none of them has everproven to be true." David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy, said: "We categoricallydeny these allegations. They are completely false and outrageous." Israel is a close ally of the United States, but espionageinvestigations here involving its government are not unprecedented. In1987, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, Jonathan J. Pollard, admitted toselling state secrets to Israel and was sentenced to life in prison. Franklin's name surfaced in news reports last year that disclosed he andanother Pentagon specialist on the Persian Gulf region had met secretlywith Manucher Ghorbanifar, a discredited expatriate Iranian armsmerchant who figured prominently in the Iran-contra scandal of themid-1980s. That meeting, according to Pentagon officials, took place in late 2001.It had been formally sanctioned by the U.S. government in response to anIranian government offer to provide information relevant to the war onterrorism. Franklin and the other Pentagon official, Harold Rhode, metwith the Iranians over three days in Italy. Ghorbanifar attended thesemeetings. Rumsfeld has said that the information received at themeetings led nowhere.

Staff writer Dan Eggen and researcher Alice Crites contributed to thisreport.

FBI probes DOD office, By RICHARD SALE

2004-08-28T15:00:00.000-05:00

http://about.upi.com/products/perspectives/UPI-20040824-102938-1916R>

FBI probes DOD office

By RICHARD SALE

The FBI has intensified its investigation of seniormembers of what was formerly known as the Pentagon'sOffice of Special Plans on suspicion that one of thempassed highly classified U.S. military information tothe government of Israel, according to federal lawenforcement officials.In some cases, colleagues, former associates andmembers of other government agencies have beeninterviewed as many as four times by teams of FBIagents, FBI officials told United Press International.Two of the people interviewed are Bill Luti, formerchief of OSP, and Harold Rhode of the Near East/SouthAsia office, according to participants in theinvestigation.The OSP, an intelligence unit, was set up by the No. 3man in the Pentagon, Douglas Feith, undersecretary ofdefense for policy, according to retired Lt. Col.Karen Kwiatkowski, who was a staffer in the officefrom June 2002 through March 2003.Luti, a former Navy captain, switched to the Pentagonfrom Vice President Richard Cheney's staff, accordingto a congressional investigative memo.According to other congressional memos, Luti was madedeputy undersecretary and reported directly to Feith.Luti also presided over the NESA office that workedclosely with OSP "with sometimes an interchangeablestaff," according to one congressional memo describedthe OSP "as a loose group of acolytes and hired hands"for Cheney, and (Cheney's chief of staff) I. Lewis"Scooter" Libby, and Deputy Defense Secretary PaulWolfowitz and Feith -- all "performing a mixture ofintelligence, planning and other unspecifiedoperational duties in support of preordained policy."According to Kwiatkowski, Luti was a "name-dropper,who often referred to deadlines and assignments comingfrom 'Scooter.'"Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col Chris Conway, told UPIthat neither Luti nor Rhode had been interviewed orpolygraphed by the FBI nor had their bosses alertedthem that they were the subjects of an investigation.A federal law enforcement official was not surprised.He said, "Any target of an investigation is the lastperson we would talk to. The fact that subjectshaven't been approached is part of normalinvestigative procedure."Rhode, another prominent official of the NESA office,also works for the Office of Net Assessment, Pentagonofficials said.According to one federal law enforcement official,Rhode and Luti and other OSP officials have beenfrequently mentioned in FBI interviews, "chiefly thenature and extent of his contacts with Israel,"according to federal law enforcement officials.A Pentagon spokesman said Rhode has been working forNet Assessment "for the last 10 years."A former very senior CIA official told United PressInternational that Rhode recently had his securityclearances lifted.In an e-mail to UPI, Rhode denied this. "I have neverhad my security clearances revoked or canceled."At least three former CIA officials told UPI that in1998 Rhode had his clearances suspended, based onallegations he had given classified information toIsrael.In the same e-mail, Rhode denied this as well, adding:"Nor have I been informed that I am under any type ofinvestigation."Two former senior U.S. intelligence officials alsostated that Rhode is on administrative leave.However, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Chris Conway saidanswering the question about whether or not Rhode ison administrative leave would violate the privacy actand therefore had no comment.The NESA/OSP office was located on the fourth floor ofthe Pentagon, D ring, 7th corridor, according toKwiatkowski, the former staffer.According to one former senior U.S. intelligenceofficial who maintained excellent contacts withserving U.S. intelligence officials in the CoalitionProvisional Authority in Baghdad, "Rhode practicallylived out of (Ahmad) Chalabi's office."This same source quoted the intelligence official withthe CPA as saying, "Rhode was observed by CIAoperatives as being constantly on his cell phone toIsrael," and that the information that theintelligence officials overheard him passing to Israelwas "mind-boggling," this source said.It dealt with U.S. plans, military deployments,political projects, discussion of Iraq assets, and ahost of other sensitive topics, the former senior U.S.intelligence official said.Other members of OSP are also under scrutiny, butfederal law enforcement officials declined to confirmadditional names furnished them by UPI. Pentagonspokesman Conway said, "We have no knowledge of anyprobe of particular OSP members."Rhode is a close member of an inner circle of seniorBush officials who in the past have had skirmisheswith the FBI over allegations that they providedclassified information to Israel, several serving andformer U.S. intelligence officials said.FBI spokesman, Bill Carter said, "It has been ourlong-standing policy not to comment on matters of thistype or to confirm or deny the existence of anyinvestigation."A great many examples of this was substantiated byStephen Green, a highly respected author of two bookson U.S.-Israeli relations, who, in a February articlein Counterpunch, noted that the Pentagon finallydowngraded Ledeen's security clearances from TopSecret-SCI to Secret in the mid-1980s, after anearlier boss, Noel Koch, the Principal AssistantSecretary for International Security Affairs, hadurged the FBI to begin a probe of Ledeen, then aconsultant on terrorism, for passing classifiedmaterials to a foreign country, believed to be Israel.(Green notes that Ledeen "was carried in Agency filesas an agent of influence of a foreign government:Israel," a fact he confirmed for UPI in an interview.Former agency officials said they knew this to beaccurate.In 2001, Ledeen was hired by Feith to work on contractfor the Office of Special Plans, which involved thehandling of sensitive materials, Green said, a factconfirmed last week to UPI by congressionalinvestigators.Yet according to Green, in March 1983, Feith, then aMiddle East analyst on the National Security Council,was fired by Judge William Clark, who had replacedRichard Allen as national security adviser, becauseFeith "had been the object of an inquiry into whetherhe had provided classified material to an official ofthe Israeli Embassy in Washington" and that the FBI"had opened an inquiry."Former Counterterrorism Chief Vince Cannistraroconfirmed that Feith was fired from the NSC forleaking classified data to Israel.In 1982, Feith went to work for Pentagon officialRichard Perle, according to Green and confirmed byU.S. intelligence sources.Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who anadministration official described as having played a"large role in getting Feith" his current job, wasworking for the Arms Control and Disarmament agency in1978 and was the subject of an investigation thatalleged he had provided "a classified document on theproposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government toan Israeli government official" via "an AIPACintermediary," according to Green. The probe waseventually dropped.In 1981, Wolfowitz, who was working as head of theState Department Policy Planning Staff, hired Ledeenas a Special Advisor, Green said.

U.S. Armenia Hold Defense Talks

2004-08-18T14:45:00.000-05:00

-----Original Message-----
From: Emil [mailto:Emil@aaainc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 9:18 AM
Subject: Armenia This Week - 08/16/04ARMENIA THIS WEEK

Monday, August 16, 2004

U.S., ARMENIA HOLD DEFENSE TALKS; NEW U.S. AMBASSADOR SWORN INThe Armenian Defense Ministry delegation led by Gen. Artur Aghabekianwas in Kansas last week for annual bilateral consultations with theU.S. counterparts led by Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense JamesMcDougall. While in Kansas, Armenian officials also met with stateofficials to discuss the ongoing Armenia-Kansas National Guard StatePartnership program. The program pairs Eastern European countrieswith U.S. states' national guards for civil-military training.Last Wednesday, John Evans, a career foreign service officer, wassworn in as Ambassador to Armenia and is due to depart for Yerevanlater this month.At the ceremony marking the occasion, Deputy Secretary of StateRichard Armitage recalled "the hardship of the people of Armenia"during the energy crisis of 1992, when Armitage coordinated U.S.assistance to former Soviet republics. Armitage added that itwas "heartwarming" for him to see how far Yerevan has come during hismost recent visit last February and said U.S. and Armenia were nowworking to extend the growth from the capital to small towns andrural areas.Last Thursday, Armenian government officials said that they wouldlike to invest new U.S. assistance under the Millennium Challengeprogram in Armenia's rural infrastructure and agricultural sector.
(Sources: Armenian Embassy in U.S. 8-9; www.state.gov 8-11; RFE/RLArmenia Report 8-12)Visit http://www.aaainc.org/ArTW/archive.php to read Armenia This Weekissues since 1997.A

WEEKLY NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED BY THE ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA122 C Street, N.W., Suite 350, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 393-3434FAX (202) 638-4904E-Mail info@a... WEB http://www.aaainc.org

The Interview with Michael Rubin (On Israel, Turkey and War in Iraq)

2004-08-17T10:55:00.000-05:00

Aydinlik Newspaper and Ulusal Kanal TV

Tugrul Keskingoren

Washington
August 15, 2004

Michael Rubin is one of the youngest neoconservative figures to gain prominence within the George W. Bush administration. A Yale graduate whose dissertation focused on modern Iran, Rubin has traveled extensively in Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. Rubin has written one book, Into the Shadows: Radical Vigilantes in Khatami's Iran (2001), and has published numerous articles in such neoconservative publications as the New Republic, Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, Commentary, and Middle East Quarterly. Michael Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, having recently served 18 months in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as an Iraq and Iran advisor, during which time he was also seconded to the Coalition Provisional Authority [CPA] governance team. After his work with OSP and the Provisional Authority, Rubin has returned to the neocon think tank community, resuming his associations with AEI, Middle East Forum, and the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs. He is part of the speakers’ bureau of the neocon public relations agency, Benador Associates, which says that Rubin “speaks widely to both military and non-military audiences in the United States, Europe, and the Middle East.” Rubin sits on the three-member advisory board of the Middle East Quarterly, which is copublished by the Middle East Forum and the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon. He holds Ph.D. from Yale University.

Tugrul Keskingoren: There is a public perception (from Government officials to ordinary citizens) in Turkey that the majority of the Turkish population believes the Jewish lobby and/or Israel supports an independent Kurdish State in Northern Iraq. Do you think this is a reality or a fallacy/conspiracy?

Michael Rubin: The public perception in Turkey is simply wrong. It is based more on
conspiracy and deliberate spin from a few politicians than on fact. The Israelis keep aloof from the Kurds because they value their relations with Turkey too much. The Kurds on the other hand, are so thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian agents that they could not host Israelis without serious consequence. The irony is that the Turkish press, by perpetuating the false rumor, risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, driving Israel
away from Turkey and toward other partners.

Keskingoren: As far as I understand from your response, if I am wrong please correct
me, you are saying the Turkish media is responsible for the tension between Turkey and Israel. How about the American media, such as journalist Seymour Hersh who wrote an article, Plan B on June 30th in the New Yorker Magazine. He says: "Turkish sources confidentially report that the Turks are increasingly concerned by the expanding Israeli presence in Kurdistan and alleged encouragement of Kurdish ambitions to create an independent state." The source of this "confidential report" is Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul.

Michael Rubin: I am saying that the mainstream Turkish media picked up unfounded
allegations that simply were not true. According to the June 24 issue of Cumhuriyet, Gul was the source for Hersh's claim. Most American papers did not follow Hersh's allegations seriously because he did not name sources. When sources insist on annymity, usually they have something to hide. Hersh does not have the credibility in the United
States that he has in Turkey. Most journalists and politicians realize that Hersh makes allegations first, and then tries to find evidence.

Keskingoren: In your article, “Talking Turkey,” you mentioned that, "one prominent AKP member told me, we are a Muslim party and Powell called us a Muslim democracy. We know he chooses his words carefully." Do you think Powell chooses his words carefully? or is this another case of mincing words? Is Turkey an Islamic democracy or is the majority of the population Muslim?

Michael Rubin: In this case, Powell did not choose his words carefully. Powell doesn't
know a lot about Turkey; he depends on State Department speechwriters. Many don't know Turkey either, and try to infuse Powell's speeches with well-meaning platitudes. They simply didn't understand the sensitivity. I've both lived outside the United States, and worked at the heart of the American government. Many non-Americans believe that the U.S. is organized and has a plan, but the reality is that, on a day-to-day level, the U.S.
government is chaotic. This is especially true with this administration because National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice doesn't make sure that the President's policy is carried out. Some National Security Council staffers openly criticize the President.

Keskingoren: Basically, you are saying that the American government does not have an
organized national security structure, and it is very chaotic. I believe that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is a cold war policy maker and she cannot understand the globalization process and national security. This is also the case with other neocons/cold war policy makers. Do you agree that these policy makers see the Islamic world as an enemy of the US?

Michael Rubin: No, it's two different things. From the inside, the American government is always chaotic. The Senate does one thing, the State epartment another, and the Defense Department a third. Not every word is scripted. However, the problem gets worse when the National Security Council doesn't adequately coordinate. Condoleezza Rice is a very smart woman and, while I sometimes thinks she has poor instincts, that doesn't mean she doesn't understand issues. I absolutely disagree that neo-conservative sor other policy makers see the Islamic World as enemies of the United States. If you actually look at what neo-conservatives say, rather than what Yeni Safak says they say, then you'd find that they tend to believe much more in human rights having a role inf oreign policy. But, at the same time, I'd argue that many so-called political Islamists aren't representative of the Islamic World, but more representative of Saudi Arabia.

Keskingoren: You said that neocons tend to believe much more in human rights having a role in foreign policy. In that case, why does the Bush administration support Islam Kerimov(Uzbekistan) or Ilhan Aliyev (Azerbaijan) governments? I think they are the most repressive governments in the world and they have terrible human rights record according to the state department.

Michael Rubin: Why are you assuming that neo-conservatives are on top in the Bush administration?

Keskingoren: Last year in March, the Turkish parliament rejected the US deployment oftroops in Turkey, just before the Iraq War started. After this decision, there was no relation or contact between Pentagon and Turkish General staff for over six months. The 60 year steady relationship/friendship between Turkey and the US was damaged. Since then, Turkey has been looking for another political partner/country to built a military relationship with? (I am not talking about the EU) Do you think the friendship is over or how can it be repaired?

Michael Rubin: First of all, there was a great deal of contact between the Turkish General Staff and the U.S. Defense Department following the vote. I was at the Pentagon at the time and participated in some of the contacts. Most certainly, the friendship between Turkey and the United States continues. Our friendship is based on common notions of democracy, and not conditional on the purchase of airplanes or other commercial deals. I worry, however, that, especially in Turkey, some politicians are attacking the relationship for short-term political gain. The problem is that it takes a lot longer to build relationships than to break them down.

US Winning Najaf Battle, Losing Iraq War by Jim Lobe

2004-08-13T01:20:00.000-05:00

www.antiwar.com

Once again, U.S. armed forces appear on the verge of winning a decisive military victory in Iraq – this time in the holy city of Najaf. And once again, they appear closer to losing the larger wars for a stable and friendly Iraq and for an Islamic world that will cease producing anti-U.S. terrorism.
That is the rapidly growing concern of Middle East and Islamic specialists as U.S. Marines, after a week of fighting, captured virtually all of central Najaf on Thursday, including the home of Mehdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, and launched a final siege of the Imam Ali mosque, which is considered the world's holiest shrine by some 120 million Shi'ite Muslims.
Even as the military commanders and Iraq's interim president, Iyad Allawi, debate whether to wait out Sadr and his armed followers, who are believed to be inside the shrine, or to invade its precincts – preferably with Iraqi troops – the end result is not likely to work in Washington's favor, according to most experts here.
Shi'ites "worldwide are shocked and outraged over what is going on in Najaf," Imam Moustafa Al-Qazwini, a prominent Shi'ite leader based in California, told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. "They consider it an assault on the sanctity of Islam and in particular Shia Islam."
"Any attack on that city will destroy America's future in Iraq completely," said al-Qazwini, who supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 but became disillusioned with the occupation after several months of traveling to the occupied nation earlier this year.
To Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan, the fighting of the past week marks a major setback for Washington's larger political goals.
"The credibility of the Allawi government as an independent Iraqi government has been decisively undermined by this," Cole said adding that while much of the Iraqi public was willing to give the interim leader a chance, "he will now be seen as nothing more than an American puppet or, worse, an American agent."
That impression is strengthened by the reemergence of U.S. troops and aircraft in the fighting over the past week, after a conscious effort since Allawi took over in late June to sharply reduce the visibility of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Cole and others noted that Marines' actions have created serious and potentially fatal strains even within the government. Its Shia vice president, Ibrahim Jaafari, who is also leader of the Dawa Party and generally regarded as Iraq's most popular political figure, on Wednesday denounced the presence of U.S. forces in Najaf, while the deputy governor of Najaf province resigned to protest "all the U.S. terrorist operations that they are doing against this holy city."
In addition, the hard-line Sunni Board of Muslim Clergy issued a fatwa that no Muslims should cooperate with U.S. forces in killing other Muslims, in a move that recalled events in April when Shi'ites rallied to support Sunni fighters besieged by U.S. Marines in Fallujah.
"What's going on right now looks a lot like April 1991, when it was [Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] who was crushing a Shi'ite uprising. But now it's the Marines who are playing the role of the Republican Guard," Cole told IPS, adding that U.S. policy in Iraq was looking increasingly like "Ba'ath-lite," particularly under Allawi.
Although a Shi'ite himself, Allawi was a rising star in the Ba'ath Party when he broke with Hussein in the 1970s. Long favored by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during his exile in London, he has moved to rehabilitate thousands of former party members who were purged during the initial stages of the U.S.-led occupation.
U.S. support for Allawi has clearly stoked fears, particularly among the Shi'ite and Kurdish communities, of a Ba'athist revival, and the past week's offensive against the Mehdi Army has done nothing to lessen them.
Reuel Marc Gerecht, an Iraq expert at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has warned repeatedly over the last several months that the administration should do everything it can to avoid attacking Sadr's militia in Najaf, as opposed to its presence in other strongholds in Baghdad and southern Iraq. Shi'ites make up roughly 60 percent of Iraq's population.
"If we go into Najaf in force, we will lose Grand Ayatollah [Ali] Sistani," by far the most influential Shi'ite cleric in Iraq, Gerecht, a former CIA operative, warned in May, adding that Sistani was much better able to neutralize al-Sadr on his own. Sistani, who has publicly criticized both Washington and Sadr, left the country for medical treatment in Britain just as the U.S. offensive got underway; his office called for a ceasefire late Thursday night.
"The greatest vulnerability we have is to turn the mass of the [Shi'ite] population against the coalition," retired Army Gen. Daniel Christman told USA Today. "We can win every tactical battle but lose the war if we don't put the individual engagements inside a larger political context."
But that appears to be precisely what is taking place, according to Cole, who predicted the most likely result of the current fighting will be a "long-term, low-intensity Shi'ite insurgency in the south, similar to what we have seen in the so-called Sunni Triangle."
In the last two days, for example, the Mehdi Army has engaged against local police and coalition forces in five southern cities, while large-scale demonstrations were mounted in Sadr City, the sprawling Baghdad slum named for Sadr's father, which remains largely in the militia's control.
"People say the south has been quieter [than the Sunni area], but I think that's over now," said Cole. "You can defeat the Mehdi Army militarily; they're just youth gangs with RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], but you can't decisively defeat them. They're from neighborhoods that have been settled by clans from the countryside, and for every one of [their members] who are killed, two or three others will join up."
But the fighting in Najaf has much broader implications, which spell big trouble for the United States beyond Iraq, according to the experts.
"It is vital that Washington understand that it cannot consider the Shi'ites of Iraq to be an independent, national body," warned Youssef Ibrahim, a former New York Times correspondent, in a widely noted column published in June. "Any efforts by the Americans or the new Iraqi government to marginalize or imprison [Sadr] would cause reverberations from Iran to Lebanon to Pakistan."
The attack on Najaf, particularly if it ends in Sadr's death or serious damage to the mosque, will make those reverberations particularly severe, according to Cole, who noted that Iran's government is already under pressure from hardliners and the Revolutionary Guard to take stronger action in defense of Sadr.
"Lebanese Hezbollah will organize, the U.S. naval base in Bahrain [where there is a large Shi'ite community] is likely to be a target," he said. "I think there will be anti-U.S. terror coming out of this, and the American public will again ask, 'Why do they hate us?'"
"It will completely discredit America and make it the new tyrant in the eyes of Shias worldwide," said Al-Qazwini.
(Inter Press Service)

The Goss Nomination

2004-08-13T01:11:00.000-05:00

The New York Sun
Editorial

The Goss Nomination

August 12, 2004

President Bush's choice to be director of central intelligence, Rep. PorterGoss, a Republican of Florida who was chairman of the House Permanent SelectCommittee on Intelligence, has shown precious little evidence so far ofbeing the right man for the job.Some say that Mr. Goss, a former CIA officer, is too close to the CIA toperform the shake-up that the agency badly needs. "He's part of a failedculture," the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen told our LuizaSavage. AEI's Reuel Marc Gerecht,who has been sounding the alarm about theCIA's failures since the publication of his 1997 book "Know ThineEnemy,"derides Mr.Goss as "a water-carrier for the CIA." This isn'tcriticism coming from the anti-CIA hard left, but from men who understandthat America is in a war in which a capable CIA with strongintelligence-gathering and analytic capabilities could be a formidableasset.Mr. Goss's worst policy error was to deride the Iraqi National Congress andits leader, Ahmad Chalabi. Had America listened to Mr. Chalabi's adviceabout the importance of Iraqi participation in the liberation of Iraq andthe need for postwar planning, the current difficulties for American troopsin Iraq could have been avoided. But Mr. Goss disparaged Iraqis who riskedtheir lives to fight Saddam. "It's unspeakable to me that we would beputting any money in the pockets of expatriates who are talking aboutrevolution in the comfortable capitals of Western Europe. Every time you dothat, all the bootmakers and suit-makers in London just cheer," Mr. Gosstold USA Today in 1999. Amid the anonymous and so far unproven smears thisspring of Mr. Chalabi as a leaker of American secrets to the Iranians, Mr.Goss declined to defend the Iraqi patriot, telling USA Today, "I have beenaccurate in my assessment of Chalabi over the years. The thing I admire mostabout him is his tailor."This isn't merely about Mr. Chalabi but a whole CIA culture that deridedShiite Muslims and democrats and took information provided bynon-democratic, Sunni American "friends" in Jordan or Saudi Arabia asgospel.As chairman of the House intelligence committee, Mr. Goss was in charge ofcongressional oversight of the intelligence community. The report of theNational Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States concludedthat the oversight was largely a failure.Mr. Goss's signal achievement on the personnel management front was hiring achief of staff for the House intelligence committee who wound up a sordidsuicide.Recently, and conveniently, Mr. Goss has refashioned himself as one of theCIA's harshest critics. His committee's most recent intelligenceauthorization report includes a scathing critique of the agency's humanintelligence collection efforts. "For too long the CIA has been ignoring itscore mission activities.There is a dysfunctional denial of any need forcorrective action," reads the report. "After years of trying to convince,suggest, urge, entice, cajole, and pressure CIA to make wide-reachingchanges to the way it conducts its HUMINT mission, however, CIA, in theCommittee's view, continues down a road leading over a proverbial cliff."If he's to have any chance of success in the director's job, he will have tokeep in mind the need for corrective action -- both at the agency and in thecourse he himself has chosen.

Colin Powell Confirms Uyghurs Will Not Be Returned to China

2004-08-13T01:06:00.000-05:00

From: "Nury A. Turkel" <nuryturkel@hotmail.com>
For Immediate ReleaseContact: Kevin MilesAugust 12,2004 (202) 349-1494

Colin Powell Confirms Uyghurs Will Not Be Returned to China;UHRP/UAA Hails Decision(Washington, D.C.)

Uyghur Human Rights Project (UHRP) and the Uyghur American Association has learned that US Secretary of State Colin Powell has confirmed that the US government has decided not to return 22 Uyghur detainees, currently held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, back to China. "Uyghurs are a difficult problem, and we are trying to resolve all issues with respect to all detainees at Guantanamo. The Uyghurs are not going back to China," Powell said today in a meeting with journalists in Washington, D.C. Powell added that "Finding places for them is not a simple matter. we are trying to find places for them, and, of course, all candidate countries are being looked at." Powell's remarks come on the heels of unconfirmed reports in June that the US had decided not to return the Uyghurs to China."We are very pleased to receive confirmation of this decision," Nury Turkel, President of the Uyghur American Association, and UHRP Executive Director said. "If these Uyghurs were returned to China, they would have been tortured and most likely executed." Since the 1990s, several Uyghur refugees have been tortured and executed upon being returned to China by foreign governments.According to Turkel, the decision is also critical to maintaining US credibility in the eyes of the Uyghurs, who have been generally sympathetic of the US-led war on terror. "China would have had a propaganda field day, which they would have used to demonize the US to Uyghurs, but instead Uyghurs in East Turkistan have a renewed sense of hope and optimism," Turkel said.Several human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and UHRP, and its parent organization, the Uyghur American Association, had campaigned on behalf of the 22 Uyghur detainees, citing a strong possibility that they would face torture and/or execution if returned to China. According to UHRP, such a return of the detainees would violate US and international law.About UHRP: Founded in 2004 by the Uyghur American Association, UHRP promotes human rights and democracy for the Uyghur people.About UAA: Founded in 1998, UAA is a community membership organization that represents Uyghurs living in the United States and promotes human rights and democracy for the Uyghur people, principally through UHRP.

Perpetual War or Perpetual Peace? by Hikmet Hajizade

2004-08-05T19:16:00.000-05:00

Vice-President of FAR Centre, BakuPublished in "Panorama", Institute of War and Peace Reporting, July 2004

"And how is the Karabakh conflict?" a famous Pakistani journalist asked me at a seminar in a small German town. "Just the same, the conflict continues, there's no peace, no war," I replied. "How interesting," he said with a smile. "The break-up of the USSR began with this conflict. Now the USSR no longer exists and the conflict is still continuing."Yes, on the whole things are pretty much the same. But we can notice some changes which are unfortunately changes for the worse. What I have in mind is Azerbaijani public opinion on the Karabakh issue, which could be described as close to despair. "It's impossible to fight, Russia is behind Armenia, while the West is stubbornly demanding a peace settlement to secure it's investments in Azerbaijani oil. Negotiations, with all possible mediators, have been going on for years and lead to nothing. Oil diplomacy (our oil in return for Western support on the Karabakh issue) has brought no results. People's diplomacy, sponsored by the West, has alsofailed." So there is a growing feeling in society that Azerbaijan isbetrayed and besieged on all sides. Society is close to a frustrationwhich has begun to be expressed in uncontrolled hatred and its desperate manifestations very similar to what is happening in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. "And we understand this despair and hatred," well-known Armenian journalist Mark Grigorian told me several years ago at a conference in Tbilisi. "First it was you who were victorious for a long time (it seems he meant the Armenian-Turkish conflicts of the last thoutsand years) and we it was us who hated you. Now we have defeated you and you are hating us..."I didn't have an answer to this piercing observation, I just felt despair. What is the solution here? If, inshallah, we manage to defeat them, then they will hate us again and we will carry on destroying each other till the end of the world. Are we to have perpetual war? It seems that the question "who, in the end, finally won in history" is one of the main questions, if not the prime question, in theArmenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Of course the issues of protecting therights of national minorities and of individuals are important and so is the role of the super-powers. But "who, in the end, finally won...?" is still more important for us.But of course there will be no final victory here, only perpetual despair and hatred and it is time we all understood this. And generally whichever of the opposing sides "won" a certain round in this millenium-long dispute failed to understand this. Today Armenia has won and it now wants to "cooperate" with us, hoping that cooperation will heal the wounds of defeat. But it is not working: "There can be no cooperation with the occupiers of our land," even new head of state Ilham Aliev said recently and his words reflect public opinion in Azerbaijan. As long as this problem is unsolved no road can lead us to peace. Even if well-intentioned international powers force peace on us, our hatred will only be driven deep inside us and could flare up again. Our mentality, our view of the world and history, have to change. We have to understand that all these "noble historical victories" were nothing but the pillage and violent eviction of neighbours in the era of a battle of all against all for limited resources -- and that now these resources over which we destroyed each other have lost whatever value they once had.Our confrontational mentality can't be changed by "third forces" or written constitutions and ratified European conventions on human rights. It can change only as a result of honest and free discussion conducted by citizens of a free country. So I believe that for perpetual war to be replaced by perpetual peace our countries should become democratic. Or as Kant wrote in his "Perpetual Peace": "The Civil Constitution of Every State (that wants perpetual peace) Should Be Republican".Before beginning negotiations (negotiations with international mediators, bilateral negotiations or negotiations within the framework of people's diplomacy), the parties ought to pay attention to themselves! The parties ought to become republics, free and diverse discussions have to begin in their societies about anything and everything that is of concern to their citizens. The societies have to find the civic courage in themselves to throw off their historical ghosts and discuss the problem of perpetual war and perpetual peace. And if the international community wants to help ourcountries establish Perpetual Peace, it should stop spending money onsenseless "joint projects and research" and help our countries becomehonest and open, help them become democratic. Democracies do not fight one another.As for Azerbaijan, which is sunk in its internal political despair andinternal political apathy, then I have to forecast that Karabakh, which we have desired all this time, won't return until we build a democratic society. Even if Azerbaijan is three times as strong as Armenia, the world won't allow a government which oppresses its citizens to extend its inhuman rule to the Armenian national minority.I don't intend to forget about the influence of third forces or the role of superpowers in fanning the conflict but I believe that first we have to get to grips with ourselves and then it will be clearer what we should do about third forces.Earlier this year I met Mark Grigorian again in Durban, South Africa, at the Third Assembly of the Word Movement for Democracy. Mark had had to leave his country and move to London because he was being persecuted in Armenia for his journalistic work. I was also reluctant to leave the fairytale beauty of Durban to go home to a country which, after the presidential elections at the end of 2003, had suffered a massive crackdown on opposition activists and protestors. It occurred to me later that, without agreeing to do so, neither of usuttered a word about the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict. Mark showed me the wounds left by the exploding grenade which had left 32 pieces of shrapnel in his body which pro-government forces had thrown at him. I told him about torture in our prisons which our citizens who protested against mass vote-rigging in the presidential elections endured. No desire emerged to destroy one another, even in argument. The desireemerged to help one another.

Baku 13 June 2004

Book Launch of The MIssin Place by Dennis Ross

2004-08-05T16:30:00.000-05:00

-----Original Message-----
From: IntlSecurity@csis.org
mailto:IntlSecurity@csis.org
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 5:07 PM
Subject: CSIS Book Launch: The Missing Peace by Ambassador Dennis Ross

You are cordially invited to the book launch of...

THE MISSING PEACE
The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace

Ambassador Dennis Ross

U.S. Envoy to the Middle East, 1988-2000

Center for Strategic & International Studies1800 K Street, NWWashington, DC 20006Conference Room B1 Thursday, September 2nd, 2004
5:00 - 6:30 PM
A reception with a discussion, question and answers,
followed by cocktails and a book signing.

Please RSVP by Monday, August 30th to
Email: isp@csis.org
Telephone: (202) 775-3104

The PKK Factor, Michael Rubin

2004-08-05T16:22:00.000-05:00

http://www.nationalreview.com/rubin/rubin200408051220.asp

By Micheal Rubin

The PKK Factor

Another critical enemy front in the war on terror.

The road was badly pitted, in some places washed away. There had beenno maintenance to the old military road since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, 15 years before. Only local farmers and smugglers used theroad.It was mid-October, 2003. We descended into a valley 20 kilometersnorthwest of Hajji Umran, the northernmost official border crossingbetween Iran and Iraq. Snow remained on the mountains to our northand east, although melting streams descended from the diminishingsnow packs. In the distance, on the ridge marking the border, werelookout posts belonging to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.Some rusted and twisted mortar shells remained on grassy fields,which narrowed and terraced as they approached the Iranian border.Farmhouses were scattered on the narrow plain. Pickup trucks stackedhigh with tomatoes sat beside fields or meandered slowly down thedirt road.As we came around a curve at the foot of the valley, three young menran out of one farmhouse, pointing Kalashnikovs at our convoy of fiveToyota SUVs. They were fighters with the Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan,better known by their acronym, the PKK.We stopped. Ten armed guards got out of our vehicles. Two walked downto meet the PKK fighters. A few minutes later they returned. "It's noproblem. They wanted to know where we were going," one of my guardssaid. "They don't bother people more heavily armed than they are."A bloody legacyMany Iraqi Kurds are not so lucky. The PKK has denuded villages inthe mountains of the "triangle border" where Iran, Iraq, and Turkeycome together. The PKK occupies homes and farms, extorts illegaltaxes, and metes out summary justice to those who do not comply. Onoccasion, the PKK mines roads. In a region where adults and childrenpile into the back of pick-up trucks for transportation, carnage fromPKK mines can be immense.The PKK's terror in northern Iraq stretches more than a decade. In1994, PKK terrorists rained mortars down on the rooftops of themountaintop settlement of Amadya. Touring the ancient town in March2001, residents showed me the damage to their homes.PKK members also sabotaged bridges, cutting off villagers from theirfields and disrupting the local economy. No matter how poor wereMasud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic party and Jalal Talabani'sPatriotic Union of Kurdistan at their nadir, neither cultivated norsmuggled drugs. The same is not true of the PKK, which facilitatesdrug smuggling from Iran through Iraq and Turkey and into Europe.In November 2000, fighting erupted on Qandil mountain between thePatriotic Union of Kurdistan [PUK] and PKK after the PKK sought totake over the nearby town of Rania. More than 400 died in subsequentbattles. Fighting was so severe that PUK television every eveningbroadcast the names of its murdered peshmurga. Municipal governmentsin towns like Darbandikan and Kuysanjaq erected to better accommodatemourners.The PKK's most bloody legacy is in Turkey. In the mid-1980s, the PKKinitiated a violent campaign responsible for over 30,000 deaths inTurkey. The PKK raided villages and executed civilians. More Kurdishcivilians died at the hands of the PKK than at the hands of theTurkish army. On July 18, 2004, I ducked into a teahouse in Konya, alarge town in south-central Turkey. With no empty tables, I joined amiddle-aged man reading a newspaper. Originally from Bursa, he hadtrained as a schoolteacher. Upon graduation, the Turkish governmentsought to assign him to Mardin, a largely Kurdish town insoutheastern Turkey. But, the PKK had begun executing schoolteachers(whom they called state collaborators), and so he, as with of hisclassmates, refused to take their positions. The Turkish economy andeducation system suffered; southeastern Turkey continues to lagbehind the rest of the state. Many Turks blame the PKK insurgency forthe hyperinflation which plagued Turkey until three years ago (oneU.S. dollar is equivalent to over 1.4 million Turkish lira today).Real-estate firms advertise homes costing trillions liras).I spent August 2000 in Diyarbakir, the largest town in southeasternTurkey, waiting for permission to cross into northern Iraq.Diyarbakir was emerging from years of terrorism and insurgency.Hotels were empty and streets deserted at night. Taking a public busto Van, seven hours away near the Iranian border, police stopped usmore than a dozen times to check identity cards and bags, and to makesure there were no PKK among us.Undermining the war on terrorism?The continued PKK presence in northern Iraq is an embarrassment tothe United States. Under terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution1483, the United States assumed legal responsibility as occupyingpower for the territory of Iraq. While our legal responsibility endedwith the June 28, 2004, transfer of authority, moral responsibilitycontinues. That a terrorist group — listed as such by the StateDepartment since such designations were first made — operated withimpunity from an area under U.S. responsibility undercuts the moralauthority of the White House in waging the global war on terrorism.The Bush administration's failure to address the PKK presence in Iraqcreates a dangerous precedent. It legitimizes the Lebanesegovernment's decision to allow Hezbollah to conduct terroristoperations with impunity, for example, despite Lebanon'sresponsibilities under terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 425.U.S. toleration of the PKK threatens to emerge as a hot issue incoming weeks. Since the PKK ended its ceasefire on June 1,southeastern Turkey has suffered a renewed wave of roadside bombs andassassinations. On July 27, PKK fighters killed a Turkish policemanand a soldier in the southeastern province of Bingol. On August 2,Turkish soldiers and PKK fighters clashed in southeastern Turkey.Those incidents that Turkish newspapers report may be the tip of theiceberg. In Konya and Kayseri, Turkish students spoke of a recent PKKexecution of three Turkish conscripts along the Iranian border.Turks contrast Washington's foot-dragging with positive noises comingfrom Iran, long a sponsor and facilitator of PKK terrorism. On July28, following a meeting with Iranian Vice President Muhammad RezaArif, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that Iranwould declare the PKK a terrorist organization and shut them down.The Iranian pledge may be insincere — previous Iranian promises tocrack down on the PKK and al Qaeda were empty — but the perception ofthe Turkish public matters, especially as terrorism-relatedcasualties rise.Bureaucratic divisionsAs the PKK issue threatens to sour further the U.S.-Turkishpartnership, the U.S. government is handicapped by its ownbureaucracy. The problem is not the philosophical divide between theState and Defense Departments, at least at the upper levels.Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman is a former ambassador toTurkey, and both he and his equivalent at the Pentagon,Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith have a long history ofsupporting Turkish-American relations. The current ambassador toAnkara, Eric Edelman, assumed his post after 28 months as PrincipalDeputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs;he receives rave reviews from both Turks and Americans across thepolitical spectrum, especially after the fumbling missteps of hispredecessor.Instead, as with much in the global war on terrorism, the problem isin implementation. President Bush may enunciate a no-nonsenseapproach to policy, but the National Security Council neithercoordinates effectively nor enforces policy discipline. Some NSCstaff members have gone so far as to question the war on terror. Bushrecently promoted a career diplomat who spoke of "Bush's stupidity"among not only American, but also foreign colleagues. A recent NSCappointee has argued that the U.S. should take a more forgivingattitude toward terrorism, whereby "lesser penalties would apply tolesser levels of state sponsorship." Such nuance flies in the face ofBush strategy, since it implies some terror to be permissible.There remains, however, a major problem with clientitis, both at thelower levels of the State Department and at the upper levels of themilitary. The State Department dominated the Coalition ProvisionalAuthority's governance wing. Many U.S. diplomats serving in Baghdadspent their careers in the Arab world. Reading translated Arabicnewspapers and drinking tea with government elites in Beirut,Damascus, and Riyadh takes its toll: Many had adopted the biases ofthe societies in which they served.Among these biases was a cynical distrust and dislike of Turkey. OneU.S. diplomat with recent service in the region scoffed at the ideathat northern Iraq's safe haven originated with Turkish presidentTurgat Ozal. Talking points drawn up by U.S. diplomats often failedto remind Kurdish politicians that it was Turkey's contribution ofIncirlik airbase which made possible for more than a decade the no-fly zone and, by extension, the existence of the Kurdistan regionalgovernment. Few U.S. diplomats reminded the Kurdistan Democraticparty about significant Turkish subsidies that went to the peshmurgaduring the 1990s. American diplomats coming from the Arab worldneither were aware nor appreciated Turkey's democracy. One foreign-service officer described Syrian-occupied Lebanon as more democraticthan Turkey.A sour military relationshipClientitis is greater among U.S. military officers. The problem isexacerbated by the geographic divisions between commands. WhereasU.S. military relations with Turkey fall under the European Command(EUCOM), U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) oversees Iraq and the Arabworld. Many CENTCOM officials interact only with Arab elites. Theylisten to their complaints about U.S. policy and the inapplicabilityof democracy to their region. They fail to realize that it is neitherU.S. policy nor democracy that is the problem, but rather Arab elitesthemselves. "We never had a problem with EUCOM," a senior Turkishmilitary official told me last week. "But CENTCOM was different. Theylooked at Turkey as a banana republic. They thought they coulddictate to our leaders the way they dictate to Arab dictators. Theyforgot we were a democracy."The personal relationship between CENTCOM officers and the Turkishgeneral staff has gone from bad to worse. On July 4, 2003, U.S.forces in Sulaymaniyah detained a Turkish commando force operatingillegally in Iraq. Turkish authorities leaked the incident to thepress. U.S. officials say that the Turkish commandoes had in theirpossession documents indicating that they sought to assassinate aKirkuk political figure; Turkish authorities deny this. One CENTCOMofficial told me they had warned Ankara after previous incidents.During March 2003 negotiations in Ankara, U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzadmade clear that the U.S. would not tolerate Turkish incursions notcoordinated with CENTCOM. While some elements of the Turkish militaryappear at fault, the failure of CENTCOM liaison officers to establishthe close working relations with Turkish general staff that EUCOMpersonnel enjoyed exacerbated the situation.Regardless of the fault or blame, the July 4 incident has had adeeper lasting impact in Turkey than did the dispute over passage ofU.S. troops. Many U.S. officials serving in Baghdad trace CoalitionProvisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer's hardeningattitude — if not antipathy — toward Turkey to the Sulaymaniyahincident.The difficulty with fighting the PKKAs war in Iraq approached, Turkish diplomats and generals both raisedconcern about the presence of the PKK. They have continued to do sosince. American officials respond that Washington takes seriouslyTurkey's concerns. But, a gap remains between U.S. rhetoric andactions, severely straining Washington's credibility. "You guyssimply don't understand how seriously we take this," a long-timeTurkish diplomatic acquaintance told me at an Ankara teahouse lastmonth.According to both Turkish and U.S. sources, CENTCOM has promised toshare with Turkey plans which address the PKK, but consistently failsto deliver. There may be legitimate reasons for planning delays, butCENTCOM leaves the impression that it is filibustering. "I canunderstand their concerns," said a Turkish general, acknowledgingthat rooting PKK out of inhospitable terrain is difficult, "But Ican't understand why they won't be honest with us."CENTCOM also suffers a credibility gap at home. Even as I was stoppedby PKK fighters, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Joint Staffcontinued to claim ignorance of the PKK's exact location. This wasdishonest or disingenuous. As we continued on from the de facto PKKcheckpoint, we could see from the roadside a well-tended PKKgraveyard and also a permanent PKK compound under camouflage, meshnetting. Twice rounding bends beneath high bluffs, we saw automaticweapon-toting PKK fighters over looking the road.The Joint Staff's claims are more troubling given rumors that, lastautumn, apparently without interagency authorization, some members ofthe 101st Airborne met with PKK representatives in Mosul, therebylegitimizing the terrorist group in direct contravention to thepolicy of the commander-in-chief.High StakesWhile I lived in Iraq, every few months I would visit Sidikan, amountainous district northeast of Diana, sometimes spending the nighton a floor of a mud brick farmhouse so as to not have to rush back tothe CPA's hotel in Erbil. Local farmers would complain about the PKK,which extorts taxes and seizes land and property. "All of us knowwhere the PKK is. Any of us could point out where they are, if theU.S. army asked," one old farmer said. It was a sentiment that wasexpressed by various elders in different villages. Karim KhanBradosti, the tribal leader in the area, has repeatedly offeredassistance and cooperation to American forces in the fight againstthe PKK.Ironically, proactive deployment might obviate the need for aconfrontation. Despite the proximity to the unguarded Iranianfrontier, many of the areas occupied by the PKK have no U.S.military, Iraqi military, or peshmurga presence. Villagers, Kurdishofficials, and peshmurga all say that small garrisons of Coalitionforces in valleys and along the Iranian frontier would fill a vacuum,and force the PKK back across the border into Iran which, continuesto provide aid and comfort to the group.One thing should be clear, though. Terrorists exploit a vacuum.Nearly 3,000 Americans would be alive today had the Clintonadministration not left unaddressed a vacuum in Afghanistan. Ourimpotence toward the PKK threatens to undermine our credibility notonly in Turkey, but also in our fight against terrorists and stateslike Lebanon which provide them safe haven. With regard to the PKK,the stakes are higher. Not only is the president's credibility on theline, but so too is a 50-year partnership with one of our mostvaluable allies.