News  Update (1)  - English,  Turkish,  Spanish,  French

[ September 2006 ]

( English - Türkçe - Espańol - Français )


The Fourth High Level Group Meeting, part of the UN-led Alliance of Civilizations initiative to take place on Sept. 5-6 at UN headquarters in New York

  The Fourth High Level Group Meeting, part of the U.N.-led Alliance of Civilizations initiative, will take place on Sept. 5-6 at United Nations headquarters in New York.

  State Minister Mehmet Aydın will represent Turkey at the meeting. Aydın and former UNESCO chief Federico Mayor of Spain will deliver the opening remarks today. Aydın and Mayor will hold a press conference on Wednesday.

  The two Mediterranean countries, Turkey and European Union member Spain, are co-sponsoring the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, which urges national and international action to overcome prejudice, misperceptions and polarization between cultures and civilizations -- particularly between Islam and the West.  

Mehmet Ayudin, right, and Federico Mayor, co-chairs of the  United Nations Alliance of Civilizations briefed journalists after their 2-day meeting  at the offices of the Turkish Mission to the United Nations at the U.N. Headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2006.   (AP Photo/David Karp)
Mehmet Ayudin, right, and Federico Mayor, co-chairs of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations briefed journalists after their 2-day meeting at the offices of the Turkish Mission to the United Nations at the U.N. Headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2006. (AP Photo/David Karp) (David Karp - AP)

 


Alliance of Civilizations meeting makes ‘significant progress’ towards first report

  Co-chairs Mehmet Aydin (R) and Federico Mayor

6 September 2006 Education, youth, immigration, women and media will be the priorities of the first major report by the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative set up by Secretary-General Kofi Annan last year to try to bridge the gap between Islam and the West.

The policies of the integration of immigrants into their new societies will also be examined in the report, following a two-day working meeting in New York of the Alliance’s High-Level Group.

One of the co-chairs of the High-Level Group, Mehmet Aydin, Minister of State of Turkey, told reporters at United Nations Headquarters today that participants in the meeting agreed that the UN and other international organizations should play an even more important role than they do at present in upholding global peace and security.

“There is a general agreement that human rights and commonly shared values in our contemporary world need to be supported, and no concession must be given under no circumstances, as far as these commonly shared values are concerned,” Mr. Aydin said.

The meeting, which concluded today, focused on reviewing the draft of a report that is scheduled to be delivered to Mr. Annan in mid-November in Istanbul.

Mr. Aydin said delegates to the meeting had made “significant progress” towards a final text, and he said the document would have several priority themes – education, youth, immigration, women and media.

The High-Level Group’s other co-chair, Federico Mayor, President of the Culture of Peace Foundation, stressed to journalists that the Alliance is working during “a crucial moment of turbulence” in international relations.

Professor Mayor, a former Director-General of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), said it was therefore vital that Member States show greater support for the world body and its work in reducing global tensions and inequalities.

Participants in the High-Level Group include such renowned international figures as Mohamed Khatami, the former Iranian president; Ali Alatas, Indonesia’s former Foreign Minister; South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the religious historian Karen Armstrong.

The Alliance was proposed by the Prime Ministers of Spain and Turkey and launched by Mr. Annan last year with the brief of trying to tackle the mutual suspicion, fear and misunderstanding that can exist between Western and Muslim communities.


IN NEW YORK, STATE MINISTER AYDIN MEETS WITH KHATAMI UNDER ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS INITIATIVE

State Minister Mehmet Aydin, the Turkish co-chairman of the alliance of civilizations initiative, yesterday met with former Iranian President Khatami in New York under the auspices of the Turkish and Spanish effort. Spanish Co-Chair Federico Mayor was also present at the meeting. Speaking at a joint press conference afterwards, Aydin and Mayor briefed the reporters on the content of a report set to be presented to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Nov. 14. For his part, Aydin said that the initiative’s goal was to end prejudices against various cultures. /Milliyet/  Sept. 11, 2006


Panel on dialogue among civilizations ends debate

Sep 6, 2006

New York - A United Nations panel known as the Alliance of Civilizations ended discussion Wednesday on ways to foster understanding among civilizations, particularly between Western and Moslem nations.

The 15-member panel, which includes former Iranian President Mohamed Khatami, met for two days in closed-door discussion to work out its final recommendations on how to bridge differences among civilizations. It will present the document to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in November.

Khatami refused to address the media during the time he was at UN headquarters to attend the meetings.

The panel's co-chairs, Federico Mayor of Spain and Mehmet Aydin of Turkey, said the group had spent the past two years studying the roots of violence and extremism that have deeply divided the world since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States.

'We can offer mediation to bridge differences and bring about dialogue,' Mayor said.

Both Mayor and Aydin said the recommendations, which were not made public, would include suggestions to strengthen organizations like the UN and support multilateralism as ways to unite the world's civilizations. Other areas that need to be strengthened include education, youth issues, emigration and media, they said.

The 15-member panel includes prominent personalities in politics, religions and education, like British historian Karen Armstrong, former Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Pan Guang, a professor at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences.
© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur


Angry young men against the West

By Linda McQuaig   September 11, 2006

In the days after 9/11, Iranian president Mohammad Khatami condemned the terrorist attack and reached out to the West to fight terrorism together.

Too bad we ignored him. We'd be safer today if we hadn't.

Khatami was a moderate reformer, a popular democratically elected president who had been struggling to limit the power of Iran's reactionary religious leaders, and to open up a dialogue between the West and the Muslim world.

You'd think the West would love a guy like that. But the Bush administration was determined to treat 9/11 as a battle in the “clash of civilizations” — a clash that Khatami was trying to steer the world away from.

So, despite an outpouring of sympathy from Iranians over 9/11 — including a moment of silence at an Iranian soccer match — Washington declared Iran part of the “axis of evil” and dragged the West into a “war on terror” that involved invading Muslim countries.

We're paying the price today with growing anti-Western rage in the Muslim world.

We should have known better. From time immemorial, invading a country has been a sure way to turn the people against the invaders.

It's only Western arrogance that leads us to imagine our invasions will be received differently. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart captured the absurdity of this notion with a spoof on Condoleezza Rice's blithe dismissal of the recent suffering in Lebanon as just part of the “birth pangs of a new Middle East.” In the spoof, an Arab commentator suggests that Middle Easterners willingly accept these birth pangs, just as Americans accept 9/11 as the “birth pangs of a new America.”

Violence somehow feels different when it's directed at you.

What Western commentators dismiss as mere “collateral damage” is experienced by those on the receiving end as the devastating deaths of family members.

British MP George Galloway, in a riveting TV interview last month, berated a British television anchor for her insensitivity to the suffering of Palestinians, noting that she knew the name of every captured Israeli soldier, but not the name of the Palestinian family killed by an Israeli gunboat on a Gaza beach.

Western nations are now battling resistance movements in Iraq and Afghanistan that get fiercer by the day.

We can see why these fronts in the “war on terror” are so hopeless from remarks made last year by Canadian Maj.-Gen. Andrew Leslie. Explaining why Afghanistan could be a 20-year venture, he noted that “every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.”

Yet we cheerfully count the number of Taliban our soldiers killed last week, forgetting about the 15 fresh recruits each of these deaths generates.

Meanwhile, the moderate Khatami has been replaced by Iran's new hard-line president as the “clash of civilizations” heats up.

So are we safer? You bet. Just don't forget to shut the bunker door behind you.

Originally published by The Toronto Star Linda McQuaig's column usually appears every Monday.


Notion of assimilated American Muslim is wrong, too. Story is one of increasing alienation

If only the Muslims in Europe — with their hearts focused on the Islamic world and their carry-on liquids poised for destruction in the West — could behave like the well-educated, secular and Americanizing Muslims in the United States, no one would have to worry.

So runs the comforting media narrative that has developed around the approximately 6 million Muslims in the United States, who are often portrayed as well-assimilated and willing to leave their religion and culture behind in pursuit of American values and lifestyle. But over the past two years, I have traveled the country, visiting mosques, interviewing Muslim leaders and speaking to Muslim youths in universities and Islamic centers from New York to Michigan to California — and I have encountered a different truth. I found few signs of London-style radicalism among Muslims in the United States. At the same time, the real story of American Muslims is one of accelerating alienation from the mainstream of U.S. life, with Muslims in this country choosing their Islamic identity over their American one.

A new generation of American Muslims — living in the shadow of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — is becoming more religious. They are more likely to take comfort in their own communities, and less likely to embrace the nation's fabled melting pot of shared values and common culture.

Part of this is linked to the resurgence Islam over the past several decades, a growth as visible in Western Europe and the United States as it is in Egypt and Morocco. But the Sept. 11 attacks also had the dual effect of making American Muslims feel isolated in their adopted country, while pushing them to rediscover their faith.

From schools to language to religion, American Muslims are becoming a people apart. Young, first-generation American Muslim women — whose parents were born in Egypt, Pakistan and other Islamic countries — are wearing head scarves even if their mothers had left them behind; increasing numbers of young Muslims are attending Islamic schools and lectures; Muslim student associations in high schools and at colleges are proliferating; and the role of the mosque has evolved from strictly a place of worship to a center for socializing and for learning Arabic and Urdu as well as the Koran.

The men and women I spoke to — all mosque-goers, most born in the United States to immigrants — include students, activists, imams and everyday working Muslims.

Almost without exception, they recall feeling under siege after Sept. 11, with FBI agents raiding their mosques and homes, neighbors eyeing them suspiciously and television programs portraying Muslims as the new enemies of the West.

Such feelings led them, they say, to adopt Islamic symbols — the hijab, or head covering, for women and the kufi, or cap, for men — as a defense mechanism. Many, such as Rehan, whom I met at a madrassa (religious school) in California with her husband, Ramy, also felt compelled to deepen their faith.

"After I covered, I changed," Rehan told me. "I felt I wanted to give people a good impression of Islam. I wanted people to know how happy I am to be Muslim." But not everyone understood, she said, recalling an incident in a supermarket in 2003: "The man next to me in the vegetable section said, 'You'd be much more beautiful without that thing on your head. It's demeaning to women.' " But to her the head scarf symbolized piety, not oppression.

A group of young, college-educated women at the Dix mosque in Dearborn, Mich., described the challenges many Muslims face as they carve out their identity in the United States.

I spoke with them in the winter of 2004, after they had been to the mosque one Sunday for a halaqa (a study circle) focused on integrating faith and daily life. They were in their twenties: Hayat, a psychologist; Ismahan, a computer scientist; and Fatma, a third-grade teacher.

Hayat said veiling was easier for her than it had been for her sister, 10 years her senior, because Hayat had more Muslim peers when she reached high school and felt far less pressure to conform to American ways. When she went on to the University of Michigan, she was surrounded for the first time by young Muslims who dared to show pride in their religion in a non-Muslim setting.

Fatma described the mosque as central to her future: "What made me sane during years of public high school," she said, "was coming to the halaqa every Sunday."

Fatma was also quick to distinguish herself from other young Muslim women who embrace American mores. "Some Muslims do anything to fit in. They drink. They date. My biggest fear is that I might assimilate to the American lifestyle so much that my modesty goes out the window."

Imam Zaid Shakir — who teaches at San Francisco's Zaytuna Institute, America's only true madrassa — refers to such young Muslims as the "rejectionist generation." They are rejectionist, he says, because they turn their backs not only on absolutist religious interpretations, but also on America's secular ways. Many of these young American Muslims look to Shakir (and to celebrated Zaytuna founder Hamza Yusuf) for guidance on how to live pious lives in the United States.

I spent several days at one of the institute's "mobile madrassas," this one in San Jose, and watched hundreds of young Muslim professionals sit on cushioned folding chairs and listen intently as Yusuf delivered his lecture. "Everywhere I go, I see Muslims," he told them. "Go to the gas station and the airport. Muslims are present in the United States, and that was not true 20 years ago. There are more Muslims living outside the Dar al-Islam (Islamic countries, or literally the House of Islam) than ever. So we have to be strategic in our thinking, because people who are our enemies are strategic in their thinking."

The "enemies" Yusuf referred to that day were not non-Muslims, but rather those who use Islam as a rationale for violence.

For the students at this madrassa and for many Muslims I interviewed, their strategy focuses on public displays of their faith.

Being ambassadors of Islam is daring behavior when you consider that American Muslims live in a country where so many people are ignorant of — if not hostile to — their faith.

In a Gallup poll this year, when U.S. respondents were asked what they admire about the Muslim world, the most common response was "nothing" (33 percent); the second most common was "I don't know" (22 percent).

Despite contemporary public opinion — or perhaps because of it — Muslim-Americans consider Islam their defining characteristic, beyond any national identity.

In this way, their experience in the United States resembles that of their co-religionists in Europe, where mosques are also growing, Islamic schools are being built, and practicing the faith is the center of life, particularly for the young generation.

In Europe and the United States, young Muslims are unifying around popular imams they believe understand the challenges they face in Western societies; these leaders include Yusuf in the United States and Amer Khaled, an Egyptian-born imam who lives in Britain. Thousands of young Muslims attend their lectures.

In my years of interviews, I found few indications of homegrown militancy among American Muslims. Indeed, thus far, they have proved they can compete economically with other Americans. Although the unemployment rate for Muslims in Britain is far higher than for most other groups, the average annual income of a Muslim household surpasses that of average American households. Yet, outside the workplace, Muslims retreat into the comfort zone of their mosques and Islamic schools.

It is too soon to say where the growing alienation of American Muslims will lead, but it seems clear that the factors contributing to it will endure.

U.S. foreign policy persists in dividing Muslim and Western societies, making it harder still for Americans to realize that there is a difference between their Muslim neighbor and the plotter in London or the kidnapper in Baghdad.

Abdo is the liaison for the Alliance of Civilizations at the United Nations and author of "Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America After 9/11" (Oxford). She can be e-mailed at geneive.abdo@geneiveabdo.com. This article originally appeared in the Washington Post.


Success of Turkey talks 'vital to whole world'
 
By George Parker and Daniel Dombey in Brussels
Financial Times Sept. 8, 2006

The European Union risks sending a dangerous signal to the Muslim world if Turkey membership negotiations collapse, Ankara's chief negotiator with Brussels warned on Thursday.

Ali Babacan said the consequence of a breakdown of negotiations would be "devastating", emphasising that Turkey's membership talks were a crucial event not just for Turkey and the EU "but also for the future of the world".

The issue of Turkish membership of the EU was a test for "this whole idea that the values and ideals of the EU could be shared also by a country which has a Muslim population", he told the FT.

Countries in North Africa, the Middle East and Caucasus were following the pro-gress of Turkey's talks, he said – even though many European diplomats are sceptical about the links between Turkey and the Arab world.

Mr Babacan's comments come amid warnings from Olli Rehn, EU enlargement commissioner, that negotiations with Turkey are heading for a "train crash" over a dispute with Cyprus. Many diplomats worry that in the next few months the issue could plunge Turkey's membership bid into a crisis from which it would not recover.

The EU has demanded that Turkey open up its ports and airports to Cypriot vessels this year. But Ankara refuses to do this while the EU fails to honour its own pledge to reduce the isolation of the Turkish community in the north of the island.

Cyprus, which is an EU member but is not recognised by Turkey, has threatened to block all future progress in the negotiations unless Ankara changes its stance. "Turkey is not going to do anything unilaterally on ports and airports – that is clear," Mr Babacan said.

He said he did not believe Cyprus would bear the responsibility of using its veto to break off EU negotiations with Turkey, but urged the international community to put pressure on Nicosia to step back from the brink.

If the talks were suspended, he warned that Turks would see it as a breach of faith by the EU and that the Cyprus dispute was a smokescreen.

"People would see it as the end," he said. "It's difficult to make people think that Cyprus is the real issue. People will think there are other issues and the whole EU project was simply too good to be true."

Mr Babacan acknowledged that Turkey was failing to win the public relations battle over Europe both at home and abroad.

He said he was open to a Commission initiative to put the Cyprus issue on the backburner by referring the dispute over port access to the European Court of Justice, thus pushing a showdown beyond next year's Turkish elections.

But Cypriot diplomats said on Thursday the idea was "categorically a non-starter".

Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14728620/


Turkey, Germany Bridge West-Islam Gap

IslamOnline.net & News Agencies  http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2006-09/08/06.shtml

"We are just laying the foundation stone here," Gul (R) said of the Turkish-German initiative.

ISANBUL — Turkey and Germany on Thursday, September 7, launched a joint initiative to promote cultural exchanges in a bid to develop stronger ties between the Muslim world and the West.

"We are just laying the foundation stone here," said Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul while launching the initiative with his German counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.

The initiative aims to further cooperation between the media and academic communities and promote exchange programs for students and teachers from both countries.

It also aims to help overcome cultural and religious misunderstandings and to combat extremism.

Gul said that the real burden of achieving the initiative's goals would be on civic organizations.

Spain and Turkey have championed an "Alliance of Civilizations" initiative to promote ties between the West and the Muslim world.

The Turkish-German initiative also underlined the need for the sizeable Turkish minority in Germany to better integrate into German society.

Germany is home to about 3.4 million Muslims, of whom two-thirds are of Turkish origin.

Bridge

By launching the initiative, Turkey hopes to be a bridge between the West and the Muslim world.

"A modern Turkey fully integrated in European institutions and sharing European values will become a strong argument in favor of a world where culture and religion no longer divide," said a joint statement.

Turkey is a predominantly Muslim but secular NATO-member country bidding to join the European Union.

A strategy study by an American think tank has recommended repairing and redefining relations with Turkey to help promote America's ties with the Muslim world.

The venue of the inaugural ceremony for the Turkish-German initiative had also symbolic import as Istanbul straddles the European and Asian shores of the Bosphorus strait, the geographical dividing line between Europe and Asia.

The project was named after Ernst Reuter, the respected German politician and Cold War-era mayor of Berlin who went into exile in Turkey while the Nazis were in power in Germany.

The initiative is also aimed at healing a rift created by Danish cartoons that lampooned Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him).

"The cartoon crisis... revealed an alarming degree of Islamophobic feeling in the West and anti-Western sentiment in the Islamic world," the declaration said.

Last September, cartoons mocking Prophet Muhammad were published by Denmark's mass circulation Jyllands-Posten, sparking furor in the Muslim world.

The insulting drawings were later reprinted by European newspapers on claims of freedom of expression.


Turks Warm to Iran, Jilting Allies, Poll Finds

International Herald Tribune  September 7, 2006

BERLIN, Sept. 6 — Turkey has increasingly warmed toward Iran while cooling toward its NATO allies and the goal of European Union membership, according to a survey of international attitudes published Wednesday.

The survey, Transatlantic Trends, an annual poll of European and American public opinion conducted for the German Marshall Fund of the United States, shows a striking shift in attitudes within Turkey.

The survey found that on a 100-point “thermometer” scale, with 100 being the friendliest feeling, Turkish attitudes toward the United States fell to 20 degrees, from 28 degrees, in the past two years.

Over the same period, feelings toward Iran increased to 43 degrees, from 34 degrees.

Further, in a different part of the survey, while a majority in Turkey continued to see membership in the European Union as a good thing, support for that goal fell to 54 percent, from 73 percent in 2004.

The poll, conducted in each of the past five years, was carried out in the United States and 12 European countries: Britain, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey.

In Turkey, the survey was based on in-person interviews of 1,000 randomly selected adults from June 6 to June 24. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points.


A renewed focus on Turkey is in the United States' self interest.

September 10, 2006 Editorial  New York Times

Turkey at the Tipping Point

After a Kurdish group claimed responsibility for a series of recent bombings in Turkey that killed three civilians and injured many others, the United States appointed a retired Air Force general and former NATO commander, Joseph Ralston, to work with Turkish authorities. General Ralston will be responsible for coordinating American antiterrorist efforts with Iraq and Turkey, both of which have sizable Kurdish minorities — and minorities within those minorities who have resorted to terror.

The Turkish foreign ministry hailed the appointment as a “new opportunity” for cooperation between the United States and Turkey.

The United States would be wise to create many more and varied opportunities to engage with Turkey, a longtime ally, and a uniquely important one. Turkey is a predominantly Muslim, secular democracy, situated between Europe and the Middle East. After years of trying to make amends for having suppressed its Kurdish population, often brutally, Turkey has seen violence resume of late. The United States needs to frankly acknowledge that instability in Iraq, on Turkey’s southeast border, has fomented instability in Turkey. That morally obligates the United States to help with corrective action.

Equally important, a renewed focus on Turkey is in the United States’ self interest. Last week, the nonprofit German Marshall Fund of the United States released the results of its annual survey of public opinion in the United States and 12 countries in Europe, including Turkey. The survey’s most striking finding is the degree to which Turks now question their ties to the United States and Europe, and have warmed to Iran, their neighbor to the east.

The discontent appears anchored in Turks’ overwhelming disapproval of President Bush’s handling of international affairs and growing disapproval of European Union leadership. Both are manifest in waning Turkish support for the institutions that have bound Turkey to the West. Though Turkey has been a staunch NATO member since 1952, only 44 percent of Turks in this year’s survey agreed that NATO was essential for Turkey’s security, versus 52 percent in 2005. Even though Turkey opened official membership talks with the European Union last year — after strenuous efforts to meet the union’s criteria — only 54 percent of Turks now view membership as a good thing, versus 73 percent in 2004.

As Turks see it, their support over decades for the West and for democracy has been rewarded with severe regional tension brought on by the United States, and by a cold shoulder, particularly from France and Austria, ever since Turkey qualified for European Union accession talks.

The appointment of General Ralston may help the United States to re-engage with Turkey, though ending Kurdish violence and tensions requires mainly political solutions. The United States can also help to keep Turkey’s aspiration to join the European Union on track, by advocating more openly for resolution of the division of Cyprus between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

The United States must not ever take Turkey for granted.


Aydın: UN-led initiative aims at introducing action plan:

  ANK - Turkish Daily News  Sept. 8, 2006

  State Minister Mehmet Aydın said yesterday the objective of the High Level Group of the U.N.-led Alliance of Civilizations initiative was to introduce a practical action plan aimed at eliminating threats against security and peace in the world and contributing to harmonization between cultures and religions.

  Aydın and former United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) chief Federico Mayor of Spain held a joint press conference at U.N. headquarters in New York following the Fourth High Level Group meeting, as part of the U.N.-led initiative, whose co-sponsors are Turkey and Spain. 

  The minister said they worked on a report during the group's two-day meeting, adding that the report would be submitted to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in November in Istanbul.

  He said the report would contain a series of recommendations and political analyses, particularly on education, youth, media, women and migrants. “We hope the report and its recommendations will facilitate efforts to alleviate discrimination in the world and to find solutions to problems on the basis of cooperation and a multifaceted outlook,” he said.


UN Chief Annan Arrives in Ankara

Annan arrived in the Turkish capital just as the country's parliament debated a government motion to contribute troops to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL)

Annan visits Ankara as part of his Middle East tour which includes Iran, Egypt, Israel, Palestine, Qatar, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria

2006-09-06  AP

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan arrived in Ankara on Tuesday as the Turkish parliament debated whether to send troops to Lebanon as part of an expanded UN peacekeeping force.

The government is strongly supporting the deployment, and is not expected to face any difficulty in endorsing the mission, despite strong public opposition.

Annan was scheduled to meet with Turkish leaders Wednesday to discuss Lebanon, as well as Iran's controversial nuclear program and stalled efforts to reunify the Mediterranean island of Cyprus.


UN Chief Annan Arrives in Ankara

2006-09-06 www.chinaview.cn 

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Monday he would appoint a secret mediator for the release of two Israeli soldiers
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan speaks at a news conference in Jeddah Sept. 4, 2006. (Xinhua/Reuters photo) 

    ANKARA, Sept. 5 (Xinhua) -- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan arrived in Turkish capital Ankara on Tuesday, the last leg of his Middle East tour aimed at strengthening the truce between Israel and Hezbollah, Turkey's semi-official Anatolia news agency reported.

    Annan is expected to hold talks with Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul on Wednesday, said the report.

    Turkey's possible contribution to the UN peacekeeping force deployed in Lebanon, Cyprus and other international topics are expected to be high on the agenda during his talks with the Turkish leaders.

    Annan arrived in Ankara as the Turkish Parliament was debating the government's motion authorizing the deployment of Turkish peacekeeping troops to Lebanon.

    Annan just wrapped up his visit to Egypt where he suggested Israel to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon within 48 hours.

 


Turkey Debates Cliffhanger Lebanon Decision

Sunday, September 3, 2006
The decision to send troops to Lebanon as part of a multi-national UN peacekeeping force is proving to be controversial in Turkey, which stayed out of the Iraqi quagmire by a parliamentary vote that came at the 11th hour

GÖKSEL BOZKURT ANKARA- TDN Parliament Bureau

  Parliament will convene on Tuesday Sept. 5 to vote on a government resolution for contributing troops to a U.N. force in Lebanon, amid growing opposition to the plan.

  Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan dismissed arguments against the plan as "isolationism, adopted by certain opposition circles, arising from a chronic illness that involves opposing everything the government does or from a failure to comprehend the realities of the world." President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, meanwhile, expressed objections to the government resolution on sending troops at a military reception earlier this week, asserting his opinion that it was not Turkey's responsibility to protect the interests of other nations, especially at a time when Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorism is on the rise. In addition, there are concerns over the rules of engagement proposed by the United Nations, while the mission and location of Turkish troops in Lebanon are yet not clear, critics note.

  Behind most of the preoccupation against sending troops lies the fallout from the U.S. experience in Iraq; Turkey had avoided a contribution to the war in Iraq at the last minute with a parliamentary vote on March 1, 2003. Opponents of Turkish participation in a Lebanon force feel that chaos similar to the state prevailing in Iraq could inundate Turkey and plunge it into a Middle East nightmare.


Turkey Pledges Peacekeepers for Lebanon
By TODD PITMAN  The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; 4:50 AM

BEIRUT, Lebanon -- Turkey on Tuesday became the first Muslim country with diplomatic ties to Israel to pledge troops to an expanding international peacekeeping force that will monitor a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah.

Hundreds of Lebanese army troops rolled into southern villages after Israeli soldiers withdrew from five of them, slow but steady steps toward implementing a U.N.-brokered peace plan agreed last month. In two of the villages, dancing women showered the soldiers with rice and men slaughtered sheep to fete their arrival, witnesses said.

Meanwhile, U.N. chief Kofi Annan said he could get some positive news within two days on a deal to convince Israel to lift its blockade of Lebanon.

Ruling party lawmakers in Turkey voted in favor of the deployment of peacekeeping troops despite objections from opposition parties and street protests by thousands.

While many Turks regard the Lebanon peacekeeping mission as a dangerous venture that could lead to clashes with fellow Muslims, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party insisted on contributing. He argued it would raise Turkey's profile on the international stage. Turkey, which has diplomatic relations with Israel, is aspiring to join the European Union.

The peacekeeping force in Lebanon is expected to swell from 2,000 to 15,000 troops. About 1,250 Italian and French reinforcements have already arrived. Under a U.N. Security Council mandate, the mission known as UNIFIL is deploying throughout the south with an equal number of Lebanese soldiers as Israeli forces withdraw.

Annan's spokesman Ahmad Fawzi told The Associated Press a deal to lift the Israeli blockade was in the works and would entail deploying French, Italian, Greek and German ships to patrol the Lebanese coastline. Such a move could assure Israel its arms embargo on Hezbollah would still be enforced.

Israel has said it would lift the blockade only after protections are in place to prevent the Hezbollah militants from getting more arms. Israel has allowed some commercial flights into Beirut airport and has let some aid in despite the blockade.

Annan "has said time and time again that he calls on Israel to lift the blockade, it is strangling the country. He expects them to cooperate," Fawzi said.

Annan discussed the issue by telephone with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Saniora, Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and French President Jacques Chirac, Fawzi said.

Speaking in Alexandria, Egypt on the last leg of a Mideast tour, Annan said he expected "some constructive and positive news" on the blockade within two days.

Annan stopped afterward in Turkey.


Annan Meets With Leaders of Turkey

By SELCAN HACAOGLU
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 6, 2006; 5:57 AM

ANKARA, Turkey -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Wednesday met with leaders of Turkey, the first Muslim country with diplomatic ties to Israel to pledge troops for the expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in south Lebanon.

Ruling party lawmakers voted in favor of the deployment of peacekeeping troops Tuesday, despite objections from opposition parties and street protests by thousands of people.


U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, left, is welcomed by Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul upon his arrival to the foreign ministry building in Ankara, Turkey, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2006. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan met with Turkish leaders a day after parliament authorized the participation of Turkish soldiers in an expanded U.N. peace mission in Lebanon. The decision makes Turkey the first Muslim country with diplomatic ties with Israel to send troops to Lebanon and is likely to enhance Muslim presence in the task force. (AP Photo/Murad Sezer)

Many Turks regard the peacekeeping mission _ to monitor a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah militants _ as a dangerous venture that could lead to clashes with fellow Muslims. But Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted on contributing troops, arguing it would raise Turkey's profile as it as aspires to join the European Union.

Annan met with Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, and was scheduled to meet with Erdogan and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer to discuss details of Turkey's contribution to the force. Gul said the number of Turkish soldiers is likely not to exceed 1,000.

Turkey's decision to send troops was an important boost to efforts to expand the force from 2,000 to 15,000 members, amid hopes that strong Muslim participation would avert any impression the force is primarily a Christian entity.

Erdogan has said the Turkish force will focus on reconstruction in Lebanon and that Turkish troops would be withdrawn if asked to disarm Hezbollah.

Hundreds of Lebanese army troops rolled into southern villages after Israeli soldiers withdrew from five of them on Tuesday _ slow but steady steps toward implementing the U.N.-brokered peace plan adopted last month. Annan said Tuesday that he could get some positive news within two days on a deal to persuade Israel to lift its blockade of Lebanon.

About 1,250 Italian and French reinforcements have already arrived. Under a U.N. Security Council mandate, the mission known as UNIFIL is deploying throughout the south with an equal number of Lebanese soldiers as Israeli forces withdraw.

Annan's spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that a deal to lift the Israeli blockade was in the works and would entail deploying French, Italian, Greek and German ships to patrol the Lebanese coastline. Such a move could assure Israel its arms embargo on Hezbollah would still be enforced.

Israel has said it would lift the blockade only after protections are in place to prevent Hezbollah militants from getting more arms. Israel has allowed some commercial flights into Beirut airport and has let some aid in despite the blockade.

Speaking in Alexandria, Egypt, Annan said Tuesday that he expected "some constructive and positive news" on the blockade within two days.

The Turkish parliament voted 340-192 in favor of sending troops to Lebanon, with one lawmaker abstaining, after a lengthy debate on the floor. Earlier, thousands protested outside against deployment because of fears the Turkish troops could face hostile fire or clashes with fellow Muslims supporting Hezbollah.


Turkey Agrees To Deploy Troops In South Lebanon

Associated Press
Wednesday, September 6, 2006

ANKARA, Turkey, Sept. 5 -- Turkey agreed Tuesday to send troops to Lebanon to monitor a tense cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, becoming the first Muslim country with diplomatic ties with Israel to do so.

After a lengthy debate, the parliament voted 340 to 192 in favor of sending troops to Lebanon, with one lawmaker abstaining. Earlier, thousands outside protested against deployment because of fears the Turkish troops could face hostile fire or clashes with fellow Muslims supporting Hezbollah.

The number of troops was not specified. Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has said it likely would not exceed 1,000.

The decision provided a boost to efforts to deploy an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force amid hopes that strong Muslim participation would avoid any impression that the force is primarily a Christian entity. The U.N. force is preparing to expand from 2,000 to 15,000 troops and deploy throughout the south with an equal number of Lebanese soldiers as Israeli forces withdraw as part of a cease-fire that took effect Aug. 14.

Turkey is NATO's only Muslim member and one of the few Muslim nations with close ties to Israel. An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said Israel was especially interested in having Turkey in the force because it is a largely Muslim country and a regional power.

The vote also was a victory for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who called Turkey's participation a moral duty that would contribute to regional stability and raise Turkey's profile on the global stage.

The Turkish contribution to the U.N. mission is expected to include a naval task force to patrol the eastern Mediterranean and prevent arms smuggling, as well as officers to train Lebanese army troops. Turkey also would provide sea and air transport in support of other national contingents in the U.N. force.


Parliament gives consent to sending troops to Lebanon

Wednesday, September 6, 2006

The ruling AKP deputies, in defiance of fierce criticism from the opposition and street protests, votes to support a government motion to send peacekeeping troops to Lebanon, as Kofi Annan arrives to give more details to Ankara

ANKARA - TDN Parliament Bureau

  Deputies of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) threw their support behind a government motion to send troops to Lebanon to boost an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force there, voting 340-192 to endorse the plans.

  Taking the floor at Parliament's extraordinary session, opposition deputies slammed the government's plan, saying that it was not in Turkey's interests and warning that the risks were high. Meanwhile thousands of protestors took to the streets in Ankara to chant slogans against the government decision to contribute troops.

  Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül, responding to criticism, insisted that Turkey could not remain indifferent as instability in the region would affect it, too, and reiterated that the U.N. force is not tasked with disarming Hezbollah.

  Opposition parties the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Motherland Party (ANAVATAN) managed to delay the vote by hours by submitting formal proposals to extend the maximum time period allowed for speeches by different political parties.

  The motion requests a one-year authorization to deploy a naval force unit to patrol the waters off Lebanon and help train the Lebanese army. The 11-page document also leaves the door open for a possible deployment of ground troops, saying such forces could be required by Turkey in the future by possible humanitarian aid missions in the region.

  The number of troops has not been specified, but Gül said it would not exceed 1,000 and insisted that it would not be a combat force.

  Details concerning the number, duties, composition and area of deployment of the Turkish troops are expected to become clearer after talks between Turkish leaders and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who arrived in Ankara late yesterday as part of a regional tour. 


Annan sees end soon for Israel's Lebanon blockade
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Tuesday he is hopeful Israel will end its air, land and sea blockade of Lebanon by Thursday. Annan, speaking in Turkey as part of his ongoing Mideast tour, is working with participants to end that blockade and to secure the release of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers, stressing that both events are crucial to shoring up the fragile Israel-Hezbollah truce

Annan: IDF pullout from Lebanon crucial to success of UN mission

 
 
 
 
 
Turkey's Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan speaking to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the entrance to his office in Ankara on Wednesday. (AP)
 

Annan: IDF pullout from Lebanon crucial to success of UN mission

By The Associated Press  06/09/2006  www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759598.html

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan on Wednesday said the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces troops from southern Lebanon was crucial to the success of the UN peacekeeping mission.

"We will have a credible force," he said, adding that "the withdrawal of Israeli forces is equally crucial."

Speaking in Turkey one day after the Muslim nation decided to send troops to Lebanon as part of the UN force, Annan also said he hoped Israel would lift its blockade of Lebanon with 48 hours.

"I am still hopeful that the air, land and sea blockade will be lifted in the next 36 to 48 hours and I'm working on that with the participants," Annan told a joint news conference with Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan.

Earlier Wednesday, the commander of UN peacekeepers in Lebanon said Israel is moving close to lifting its eight-week old a blockade on Lebanon.

"I have the feeling that it is coming closer," Major-General Alain Pellegrini told France's Europe 1 radio when asked when the blockade could be lifted.

A deployment of foreign navies is designed to persuade Israel to lift a blockade of Lebanon's ports that has been in place since the start of the month-long war between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas on July 12.

"I think the United Nations and the contributing countries are able to react very quickly," said Pellegrini, who is head of the UNIFIL peacekeeping force in Lebanon.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy reiterated on Wednesday that France was ready to help monitor the Lebanese coast. "If (the Lebanese government) wants us to help, we can do that," Douste-Blazy told RMC radio.

A Lebanese political source has said the Beirut government had prepared a letter asking the United Nations to help patrol its coast, but would not send it until Israel had lifted its restrictions on flights in and out of Beirut.

Once that happens and the letter has gone, French and Italian naval ships would deploy off the Lebanese coast, meeting an Israeli demand for measures to stop Hezbollah rearming.

Five days later, Israel would lift its sea blockade, the Lebanese source said. Israel has said that the blockade would stay in place until Hezbollah was prevented from rearming.

Israel did not have a problem with a graduated lifting of the restrictions, foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.

"The idea being, however, that when the Lebanese army forces are in place, and reinforced by the international forces, at that particular port of entry, then we could lift restrictions," he said.

"When they are ready, we will be ready. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. We can move on specific places," he said.

Pellegrini said the ceasefire in Lebanon remained fragile.

"It remains fragile as far as there is an Israeli presence in Lebanon because every incident, misunderstanding or provocation can escalate very quickly," he said.

Turkey to send troops to Lebanon
The Turkish parliament on Tuesday voted to send troops to Lebanon, becoming the first Muslim country with diplomatic ties to Israel to pledge troops to an expanding international peacekeeping force that will monitor a fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah.

Ruling party lawmakers voted in favor of the deployment of peacekeeping troops Tuesday, despite objections from opposition parties and street protests by thousands.

Annan was to meet with Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and President Ahmet Necdet Sezer to discuss details of Turkey's contribution to the force. Gul said the number of Turkish soldiers is likely not to exceed 1,000.

The Turkish parliament voted 340-192 in favor of sending troops to Lebanon, with one lawmaker abstaining, after a lengthy debate on the floor. Earlier, thousands protested outside against deployment because of fears the Turkish troops could face hostile fire or clashes with fellow Muslims supporting the Islamic militant group Hezbollah.

The decision was an important boost to efforts to deploy an expanded UN peacekeeping force amid hopes that strong Muslim participation would avoid any impression that the force is primarily a Christian entity.

Erdogan has said the Turkish force will focus on reconstruction in Lebanon and that Turkish troops would be withdrawn if asked to disarm Hezbollah.

While many Turks regard the Lebanon peacekeeping mission as a dangerous venture that could lead to clashes with fellow Muslims, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's party insisted on contributing. He argued it would raise Turkey's profile on the international stage. Turkey, which has diplomatic relations with Israel, is aspiring to join the European Union.

Hundreds of Lebanese army troops rolled into southern villages after Israeli soldiers withdrew from five of them on Tuesday - slow but steady steps toward implementing the UN-brokered peace plan agreed last month. Annan said Tuesday that he could get some positive news within two days on a deal to persuade Israel to lift its blockade of Lebanon.

The peacekeeping force in Lebanon is expected to swell from 2,000 to 15,000 troops. About 1,250 Italian and French reinforcements have already arrived.

Under a UN Security Council mandate, the mission known as UNIFIL is deploying throughout the south with an equal number of Lebanese soldiers as Israeli forces withdraw.

Annan's spokesman, Ahmad Fawzi, said Tuesday that a deal to lift the Israeli blockade was in the works and would entail deploying French, Italian, Greek and German ships to patrol the Lebanese coastline. Such a move could assure Israel its arms embargo on Hezbollah would still be enforced.

Israel has said it would lift the blockade only after protections are in place to prevent the Hezbollah militants from getting more arms. Israel has allowed some commercial flights into Beirut airport and has let some aid in despite the blockade.

Speaking in Alexandria, Egypt on the last leg of a Mideast tour, Annan said Tuesday that he expected "some constructive and positive news" on the blockade within two days.


Israel’s move to lift its blockade of Lebanon will speed up the Lebanese recovery: Annan

6 September 2006 www.un.org Welcoming Israel’s decision to lift its blockade of Lebanon tomorrow, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the move will speed up Lebanese reconstruction efforts after the month of conflict and added he would continue to explore all avenues to ensure full implementation of the Security Council resolution that ended the fighting.

“I am pleased that the Israeli Government has agreed to lift its blockade of Lebanon, effective 6pm Beirut local time tomorrow, Thursday, 7 September 2006,” Mr. Annan said in a statement issued in Spain, where he is on the last leg of his shuttle diplomacy aimed at shoring up support for the cessation of hostilities.

“The lifting of the blockade will enable Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and his Government to accelerate their economic recovery and reconstruction programme. I would like to thank the governments which contributed to making this possible.”

“I will continue to exert every effort to secure the full implementation of Security Council resolution 1701, enabling the Government of Lebanon to extend its authority over its territory and to exercise its full sovereignty.”

Mr. Annan, who has visited Israel, Lebanon, Syria and other regional countries in the last two weeks, has repeatedly called for the blockade against Lebanon to be lifted, warning last week that it risked being seen as “collective punishment” of the Lebanese people.

Before arriving in Spain today, the Secretary-General was in Turkey, where Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul officially informed him that Ankara was willing to contribute troops to a strengthened UN force in southern Lebanon, as stipulated in resolution 1701.

Describing the Turkish move as a “bold and noble decision,” Mr. Annan also held talks with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss further details of the deployment and also met President Ahmed Necdet Sezer.

The meetings in Turkey also covered the issue of the abducted Israeli soldiers and other prisoners and the need to “move forward on reaching a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the region, in particular resolving the root cause of the crisis in the Middle East: the Palestinian problem,” a UN statement said. Cyprus and Iraq were also discussed.

Tomorrow the Secretary-General will hold discussions with Spanish officials before returning to New York, a UN spokesman told reporters today.


Germany welcomes Turkish decision to send troops to Lebanon, says Berlin to decide soon
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006

ISTANBUL, Turkey Germany's foreign minister on Thursday welcomed Turkey's decision to send troops to an expanded U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon and said Germany would soon make a decision about its own contribution.

Frank-Walter Steinmeier said four experts from Germany's customs and border police would travel with him to the Lebanese capital later Thursday to advise the country on how to handle the lifting of Israel's sea and air blockade.

"I was happy to see the Turkish parliament's approval of joining the efforts to enforce the still sensitive cease-fire in Lebanon," Steinmeier said during a joint news conference with Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul. "I hope that ... our parliament and our council of ministers will also be making a decision soon."

Steinmeier was in Istanbul to launch a joint cultural project devoted to increasing understanding between the Christian and Muslim worlds.

Turkey's parliament on Tuesday approved sending an unspecified number of troops to take part in the U.N. mission to solidify the fragile cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Turkish leaders have said the deployment would not exceed 1,000 troops.

A Turkish military delegation led by Brig. Gen. Tahir Bekiroglu was expected to travel to Lebanon on Saturday to make necessary evaluations before the deployment, while a delegation of diplomats was scheduled to fly to New York on Sunday for consultations with U.N. officials over the mission, private NTV television reported Thursday.

Germany has said it could send naval troops to help patrol the coast, but would first require a formal request from the Lebanese government that clearly spells out what the troops' mandate would be. Parliament must also approve the deployment.

Germany is not offering ground troops. German officials, mindful of sensitivities over the Nazi past, have expressed concern about deploying German troops in any situation that might bring them into confrontation with Israeli soldiers.

Steinmeier and Gul later inaugurate the Ernst Reuter Initiative for Intercultural Dialogue and Understanding, a project that will explore ways to ease the integration of Muslim immigrants into Western societies.

It will also aim to increase the number of educational exchange programs, examine school curricula and train religious leaders.

"The aim is to increase and spread understanding between cultures and between faiths," Steinmeier said.

Ernst Reuter was a German politician who fled Nazi Germany and sought refuge in Turkey.

Germany and Turkey have close historical ties, and some 2 million Turkish immigrants live in Germany. Turkey, which is a 99 percent Muslim country and a candidate for EU membership, sees itself as a key player in improving intercultural and interfaith relations.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan frequently refers in speeches to a similar U.N.-backed project with the prime minister of Spain, which aims to defuse Muslim-Christian disputes and misunderstandings and establish an "Alliance of Civilizations."


At Cathedral, Iran's Khatami Urges Dialogue

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 8, 2006

Amid noisy protests and tight security, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami issued a call at the Washington National Cathedral yesterday for leaders in both the West and the Islamic world to launch a historic dialogue to "rescue life from the claws of the warmongers and violence-seekers and ostentatious leaders."

But Khatami, who served as president between 1997 and 2005, signaled that the time is not yet right for direct dialogue between the United States and Iran. He warned that the language of threats needs to end for any negotiation to have a chance -- an indirect reference to U.S. and U.N. pressure to impose new sanctions on Iran because of disputes over its nuclear program.

Khatami said Iran is prepared to discuss the suspension -- both the timing and the scope -- of its uranium enrichment in negotiations.

The former Iranian leader, who was elected on a reform platform but failed to deliver significant change, called the United States a "great" country "with great people, great capacities, and potential" -- language that stood in stark contrast to more than a quarter-century of Iran calling the United States "the Great Satan."

But he also condemned its unilateral foreign policy, and he cautioned at a news conference before last night's speech that Washington would be more effective if it worked alongside other nations.

Khatami, who is a mid-level Shiite cleric and wears the black turban of a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, focused heavily on religious themes and the need for the three Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity -- to work together.

"Jesus is the prophet of kindness and peace. Muhammad is the prophet of ethics, morality and grace. Moses is the prophet of dialogue and exchange," he said. "It's good at the present time, where war, violence and repression is so prevalent across the world, for all of us who are followers of God's religion to pursue all efforts for the establishment of peace and security."

Khatami said he was not concerned about the vitriolic criticism that his five-city speaking tour of the United States has prompted in Iran. "If you want to accept to live in a democratic state, a democratic society, we have to tolerate the voices of dissent," he said.

Critics have charged that Khatami's trip is riddled with hypocritical contradictions since, during his presidency, the Islamic republic was guilty of widespread human rights abuses. Although Iran's hard-line judiciary is widely blamed for the arrest of dissidents, Khatami was unable to restrain political rivals.

Pressed on Iran's abuses, Khatami said he would not deny that his country has serious problems, but he cautioned that democracy is a "process" that cannot reverse centuries of despotic rule overnight. Iran was ruled by various dynasties for some 2,500 years.

As Khatami spoke inside the limestone Gothic cathedral, hundreds of diplomatic security agents, including their own SWAT teams, surrounded the church grounds.

On the other side of Wisconsin Avenue, a crowd of about 200 shouted, "Shame on you," as invitees waited to pass through security and enter the cathedral gates. Khatami spoke before an audience of 1,300.

Many of the protesters waved photographs of victims of Iranian government torture and pictures of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last shah, toppled in the 1979 revolution. Banners urged, "No dialogue, no war, only regime change," and "Free all political prisoners in Iran."

Police cars lined up in front of the crowd and helicopters with searchlights circled overhead, but there were no incidents reported and no noticeable traffic delays from the protest.

Khatami is the highest-ranking Iranian figure to visit Washington since the United States severed ties in 1979, after its embassy in Tehran was overrun by revolutionaries who took 52 hostages and held them for 444 days.

He comes at a time when the United States is pressing for new international sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program, and on a day when officials from the five countries with permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council joined German officials in Berlin to discuss those sanctions.

The visit prompted condemnation not only in some Iranian circles but also from some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

At a news conference yesterday morning organized by Iranian dissidents, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) announced that he planned to mark Khatami's visit by introducing the Iran Human Rights Act, to ensure that the United States supports opposition groups.

The proposal calls for a new U.S. special envoy to coordinate with Iranian opposition groups, authorizes $100 million for new U.S. programs that focus on Iran's human rights practices, and requires more broadcasting into Iran on democracy and human rights issues.

Brownback also called on the State Department to give visas to liberal professors whom the Iranian government this week threatened to purge.

"For too long, the focus on Iran's nuclear program has overshadowed the human rights violations perpetrated by its tyrannical regime," Brownback said. His legislation would make Iran's human rights practices a top priority of U.S. foreign policy.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) criticized the Bush administration for allowing U.S. taxpayers to "subsidize" the former Iranian leader's visit by providing a security detail -- particularly after the treatment of U.S. diplomats in Iran during their captivity. The State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security is in charge of such protection.

A handful of former prisoners, as well as the sister of a student activist who was arrested during Khatami's presidency and died last month in jail, spoke emotionally to reporters about the incarcerations and their opposition to the regime.

"Don't be deceived by his smile," said Roya Tolooei, who said she once thought Khatami would be different. "It didn't take us long to realize he wasn't the one."

Reza Pahlavi urged the international community not to "waste time" on negotiating with Iran since an Aug. 31 deadline has passed for Tehran to comply with a U.N. demand that it stop uranium enrichment.

Before coming to the cathedral, Khatami spoke yesterday in Charlottesville at the University of Virginia, where he excoriated the idea of dividing the world into "us and them."

"This 'us' is a small circle encompassing a few that have the right to arrive at any verdict they please regarding the ones they consider 'the other.' They can force this 'other' to submit to their whims or even eliminate 'the other' altogether," Khatami said.

Staff writer Allan Lengel contributed to this report.


Governor's got it wrong on Khatami

IRAN'S FORMER PRESIDENT, Mohammad Khatami, is scheduled to deliver a lecture this weekend at Harvard University on the topic of ``ethics of tolerance in the age of violence," but Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has criticized Khatami as a ``terrorist" undeserving of the state's security protection during his brief visit.

Romney may have put himself in the national limelight by taking a stand against Khatami, but he is wrong on several accounts.

First, Khatami has been lavishly praised by various world leaders -- including the late Pope John Paul II, former president of Germany Johannes Rau, theologian Hans Kung, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan -- for his role in initiating the idea of ``dialogue among civilizations."

Calling for ``replacing hostility and confrontation with discourse and understanding," Khatami unveiled this idea in his address to the General Assembly in September 1998. Following his advice, the UN adopted the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations and promoted activities aimed ``to strengthen solidarity, respect, and tolerance" in the world.

Far from a cliche or a bygone agenda, both the UN and UNESCO have continued with their efforts in promoting the idea of dialogue. In 2005, Annan appointed Khatami as a member of a high-calibered group of notables called ``Alliance of Civilizations."

To ignore the significance of Khatami's message of tolerance and reciprocal understanding and call him a terrorist, as Romney has done, is an unjustified affront that overlooks Khatami's other legacy as the first Muslim leader who forecefully condemned the ``barbaric" atrocities in New York on Sept. 11, 2001.

Khatami has also spoken against the ``myth of Holocaust" rhetoric from Iran's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and has called the Holocaust a ``tragic historical reality."

A former minister of culture who was forced to resign in 1992 because of his moderate sensibility, Khatami has a remarkable record as president of Iran for eight years. Sure, he did not have much power and was constantly under siege by the more militant factions. However, he did his best to advance the cause of civil society in Iran, by promoting free press, women's rights, and the like.

In retrospect, the ``failure" of reform movement in Iran had much to do with the post-9/11 Iranian security paranoia caused by President Bush's interventionist policies in the region, causing a hard-line backlash against Khatami's perceived politics of appeasement, vis-ŕ-vis the United States. However, Khatami is increasingly playing a leading role in resurrecting the reform movement by setting aside his previous misgivings to get directly involved in party politics -- a good sign for the future of Iran's faction-ridden politics and the prospects for next rounds of parliamentary and presidential elections in Iran.

Finally, in his current tour of the United States, Khatami has reminded people that his administration agreed to suspend the uranium enrichment program and has called for a more conciliatory approach by Iran's nuclear negotiation team. This has caused vehement criticism by militants in Iran, with some calling for his ``defrocking" upon his return.

Unfortunately, Romney's one-dimensional assessment of Khatami, ignoring the protean value of Khatami's message of tolerance and cross-cultural understanding, puts him in company with the voices of intolerance who wish to silence Khatami. Romney may want to take a cue from Khatami's observation: ``The political translation of Dialogue Among Civilizations would mean that culture, morality, and art must prevail over politics."

Khatami deserves a hero's welcome by the governor.

Kaveh Afrasiabi is a former consultant to the UN's Program of Dialogue Among Civilizations and director of the organization Global Interfaith Peace.


Bush, Ahmadinejad to address UN on same day

In what promises to be one of the most interesting foreign policy displays in some time, U.S. President George W. Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are both scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 19. The two leaders' addresses, which will be part of the annual meeting of world leaders at the UN, come as the U.S. is pressing for sanctions against Iran for its refusal to comply with a Security Council demand that it stops enriching uranium.   Financial Times (London)

Bush and Iran's president prepare to duel at UN

By Guy Dinmore in Washington

Published: September 7 2006

The scene is set for a clash of the "Great Satan" and the "axis of evil" at the United Nations this month when presidents George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad address the general assembly on the same day, with the US pressing the world body to impose sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.

The White House confirmed yesterday that the Iranian president would be granted a US visa to go to New York. "This will be the debate," a US official said, referring to Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's challenge to Mr Bush to hold a televised debate.

According to the UN agenda, Mr Bush is due to speak ahead of the Iranian president on September 19, the official noted.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad attended the general assembly last year shortly after his election victory but only after US officials raised questions over his visa application following allegations - never substantiated - that he had played a role in the 1979-81 US embassy hostage crisis in Tehran.

Since then Mr Ahmadi-Nejad has been widely condemned for questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map by Palestinians. However, the White House said that had no bearing on his visa application. The US has never denied a visa to a head of state to attend the UN general assembly, but did once refuse entry to Yassir Arafat, the Palestinian leader.

The US is pressing the UN to impose sanctions on Iran following its refusal to halt uranium enrichment by last week's UN-imposed deadline. China and Russia appear reluctant to move quickly with punitive measures, however, and this year's general assembly is likely to see intense lobbying by all sides.

Mr Ahmadi-Nejad told a cabinet meeting yesterday that the UN visit was a "good chance" for the debate and that the US side, if it wished, could bring advisers, according to his website.

On Tuesday Mr Bush launched a fierce personal attack on Mr Ahmadi-Nejad in a speech that equated what the US president called Shia Muslim extremists in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon (Hizbollah) with the threats presented by Sunni extremists affiliated to the al-Qaeda network. Iran and Iraq both have Shia majorities.

"We will not bow down to tyrants, and the world's free nations will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Mr Bush said, referring to the Iranian president.

Mr Bush first called Iran part of the "axis of evil" in 2002. Iranian leaders habitually refer to the US as the "Great Satan".


World powers meet for Iran talks

BERLIN, Germany (Reuters) -- Senior diplomats from six world powers meet in the German capital on Thursday to discuss what to do with Iran after it ignored a U.N. Security Council deadline to freeze its nuclear enrichment program.

The negotiators from Germany and the five permanent Security Council members -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- were expected to consider the possibility of imposing sanctions on the Islamic republic for continuing to enrich uranium past the August 31 deadline, diplomats said.

Declining to give details about the talks, the first such meeting since the deadline expired, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried told reporters in Berlin he had "no doubt they will be very substantive and very serious."

Diplomats from several countries to be represented at the talks told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the United States hoped to use the meeting to persuade Russia and China that it was time to increase pressure on Iran by preparing to ask the U.N. Security Council to consider sanctions.

"Washington believes it's time to consider sanctions and the EU3 (France, Britain and Germany) also see no signs that Iran is willing to stop enriching uranium. But it's going to be a hard sell for Russia and China," a European Union diplomat said.

Diplomats said Russia and China would probably want to know the outcome of a planned meeting between EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani before discussing possible sanctions.

Referring to U.N. Security Council resolution 1696 passed on July 31, Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph, the top U.S. non-proliferation official, told reporters that the Council had already struck the "fundamental bargain" by agreeing that sanctions should be the next step if Iran continued enriching.

But Russia and China have made it clear that they dislike the idea of sanctions and question whether Tehran really poses a nuclear threat to the world as the United States and EU believe.

Tehran rejects Western accusations that it is trying to develop the capability to produce atomic weapons and insists it only wants nuclear fuel to peacefully generate electricity.

EU-Iran meeting?

The Solana-Larijani meeting was originally planned for Vienna, Austria on Wednesday but was postponed at the last minute, EU diplomats said.

Iranian state television reported that the meeting would take place on Thursday in Spain but Solana's office said he had no plans to travel there.

EU diplomats said the meeting between Larijani and Solana was aimed at finding out if there was a chance Iran might halt enrichment work and begin negotiations on an offer of economic and political incentives the six powers made to Iran in June.

Tehran has said it was willing to discuss the offer but not on condition that it suspend its nuclear fuel program.

Germany, which has been the most reluctant of the Western powers negotiating with Iran to consider economic sanctions, made it clear that Berlin was losing patience with Tehran.

"We won't close the door to negotiations but we the international community won't stand by and watch as Iran harms the rules of the U.N. nuclear authorities," Chancellor Angela Merkel told German lawmakers.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog said in a report last week that Iran has not been fully cooperating with its inspectors and has pressed ahead with enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use in nuclear power plants or atomic weapons.

Merkel made clear that military action against Iran was not an option. Washington has not ruled this out as a last-resort alternative should negotiations or sanctions fail to sway Iran.


Türk askeri 88 yıl sonra Lübnan’da

Uğur ERGAN / ANKARA Turan YILMAZ-Şehriban OĞHAN-Ateş YALAZAN-Ümit ÇETİN-Okan KONURALP-Hasan TÜFEKÇİ

Lübnan’a asker gönderilmesine ilişkin tezkere 192 ret oyuna karşılık 340 evet oyuyla TBMM’den geçti. AKP’den 6 milletvekili ret oyu verdi, biri de çekimser kaldı. Tezkerenin geçmesiyle Türk askerine 88 yıl sonra Lübnan yolu gözüktü.

LÜBNAN’a asker gönderilmesine ilişkin hükümet tezkeresi 192 oya karşılık 340 oyla kabul edildi. 533 milletvekilinin katıldığı oylamada AKP’den 6 kişi ret oyu, 1 milletvekili de çekimser oy kullandı. Oylamaya geç gelen Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan oyunu yazıp kavasla gönderilmesine rağmen geçersiz sayıldı. TBMM’nin aldığı bu kararla Türk askeri, 88 yıl aradan sonra yeniden Lübnan topraklarına gidiyor. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, Birinci Dünya Savaşı’nı kaybettikten sonra 1918 sonbaharında Lübnan’ı, Fransa’ya terk etmişti.

AKP’DEN 8 FİRE

TBMM Başkanı Bülent Arınç, Kırgız Cumhurbaşkanı ile görüşmesi nedeniyle kürsüye çıkamadı. Oturumu Başkanvekili Nevzat Pakdil yönetince AKP’den iki oy eksildi. Sağlık sorunu nedeniyle Akif Gülle, Abdullah Çalışkan ve Vahit Kiler mazeretli olarak oy kullanmadı. Yurt dışında bulunan İsmail Alptekin’e ulaşılamadı. Mustafa Ünaldı ise mazereti olmadığı halde oylamaya katılmadı. Çin’de olan Bayındırlık Bakanı Faruk Özak da oylamada bulunamadı.

BAŞBAKAN DA FİRECİ

Erdoğan, Köşk’teki yemeği yarıda bırakarak gelip oyunu kullanmasına rağmen ismi oylamaya katılmayanlar arasında yer aldı. Meclis Başkanlığı yetkilileri Başbakan’ın pusulasının kendilerine ulaşmadığını belirtirken, AKP Grup Başkanvekili Salih Kapusuz "Gözümle gördüm, pusulasını yazıp bayan kavasa verdi. Bu işte bir yanlışlık var, düzeltilir" dedi.

AKP’den Nurettin Aktaş, Halil Kaya, Sadık Yakut, İbrahim Hakkı Aşkar, Turan Çömez ve Ertuğrul Yalçınbayır tezkereye ret oyu verirken, Mehmet Emin Bilgiç çekimser kaldı.

ÇANTA ATTI

Genel Kurul’da zaman zaman sinirler gerildi. AKP’li Egemen Bağış’ın konuşması sonrasında iktidar ile CHP milletvekilleri arasında gerginlik yaşandı. CHP Milletvekili Halil Tiryaki sinirlenip çantasını AKP’lilere fırlattı. Çantaların karşılıklı havada uçuşmasını yine araya giren milletvekilleri engelledi.

CHP’li Ankara Milletvekili Bayram Meral’in, Kurtuluş Savaşı’na atıfta bulunarak, "Mazallah siz olsaydınız İngiliz, Fransız askerleri karşısında ellerinizi kaldırır teslim olurdunuz" sözleri tansiyonu yükseltti. Başkanvekili, "Böyle bir uslup olmaz" diyerek, Meral’i uyardı.

ABD MEMNUN

ABD Dışişleri Bakanlığı’ndan bir yetkili, "Tezkerenin Türk parlamentosu tarafından onaylandığını anlıyoruz. Türkiye’nin bu hayati göreve katkısına memnun olduk. Bu karar, Türkiye’nin Ortadoğu’daki barış ve istikrara katkısını yansıtıyor" diye konuştu.

Mehmetçik ay sonunda gidiyor

LÜBNAN’a asker gönderme tezkeresinin TBMM’de kabul edilmesi sonrası, hükümet bugün Genelkurmay Başkanlığı’na resmen "hazırlanın" talimatı verme yetkisine sahip oldu. Genelkurmay’ın bundan sonraki çalışmalarında Lübnan’daki görev yeri ve gidecek asker sayısı netleştirilecek. Bu hafta Dışişleri ve Genelkurmay yetkilileri teknik detayları görüşmek üzere bir araya gelecek. Askeri uzmanlar, Türk birliğinin Lübnan’a sevkiyatının bu ay sonunda veya ekimin ilk haftasında gerçekleşebileceğini belirtiyorlar.


Hiçbirinin çocuğu Lübnan’a gitmeyecek
Barut fıçısı Lübnan’a Türk askeri gönderilmesini öngören tezkere dün AKP oylarıyla Meclis’ten geçti

Meclis’in Lübnan’a asker gönderme oylaması için toplanması, siyasilerin çocuklarının askerlik durumlarını gündeme getirdi. CHP İstanbul Milletvekili Berhan Şimşek, Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın yanıtlaması istemiyle AKP’li bakan ve milletvekillerinin çocuklarının askerlik durumunu sordu. Şimşek, “Tezkere konusunda son derece istekli bir parti olarak, Lübnan’a gönderilecek birliğin içinde bu kişilerin çocuklarının yer almasını sağlayabilir misiniz?” sorusunu yöneltti. Şimşek’in soru önergesine Başbakan’ın vereceği yanıt merakla beklenirken, VATAN, siyasilerin çocuklarının askerlik durumunu araştırdı ve şu bilgilere ulaştı:

* BAKAN OĞLU DENİZCİ: Ulaştırma Bakanı Binali Yıldırım’ın iki oğlundan geçen yıl evlenen Bülent Yıldırım İzmir’de asker. Denizci olarak askerliğini yapan Bülent Yıldırım’ın, vatani görevine kısa dönem asker olarak geçen ay başladığı öğrenildi. Ulaştırma Bakanı Binali Yıldırım oğlunun Lübnan’a gitme ihtimalini şöyle değerlendirdi: “Benim çocuğumun diğer evlatlardan ne farkı var? Biz tek bir askerimizin tırnağı bile incinse rahatsızlık duyarız. Şu anda kısa dönem askerlik yapıyor. Onun gidip gitmeyeceğine kurumu, komutanları karar verir. Ama benim ’ya giderse’diye endişem yok. Bizim çocuğumuzun diğer askerlerimizden ayrıcalıklı tutulması konusunda ne bir ricamız olur ne de böyle bir beklentimiz olur. Nerede olursa olsun askerliğini gururla tamamlar.”

* ERDOĞAN’IN ÖZEL KALEMİ: 2002 yılından itibaren Başbakanlık Özel Kalem Müdür Yardımcılığı görevinde bulunan Hasan Doğan, Kars Sarıkamış’ta kısa dönem askerlik yapıyor. Ağustos’ta askere giden Hasan Doğan, Şubat 2007’de tezkere alacak.

* KOÇ’UN OĞLU YENİ TEZKERE ALDI: Kültür ve Turizm Bakanı Atilla Koç’un oğlu Ali Taha Koç. Temmuz-Ağustos döneminde Burdur’da bedelli askerlik yaptı. Burdur 58. Piyade Eğitim Alay Komutanlığı’ndaki yemin törenine babası katılırken, türbanlı olması nedeniyle annesi katılamadı. Ali Taha Koç, askerlik görevini tamamlayarak terhis oldu.

* CHP MİLLETVEKİLİNİN OĞLU: CHP Zonguldak Milletvekili Nadir Saraç’ın oğlu Umut Saraç Ağrı Doğubeyazıd’da muharebe asteğmeni olarak askerliğini yapıyor. 5.5 ay önce askerliğe başlayan Saraç 2.5 ay sonra tezkere alacak. Tezkereye “hayır” oyu kullanan Nadir Saraç ise oğlunun Lübnan’a gönderilmesi ihtimali için şunları söylüyor: “Yan gelip yatmıyor aslanlar gibi askerlik yapıyor. Her gün doğudan şehitler geliyor bu psikolojiyi evladı şehit, gazi olan ya da bölgede askerlik yapan aileler bilir. Benim oğlum askerde ben ilkesel olarak Lübnan’a asker gönderilmesine red oyu veriyorum ancak çocuğu askerde olan ana baba anlar. Ama bu tezkere burdan geçerse ve silah altında olan oğluma da Lübnan’a git derlerse, tabii ki gidecektir.”

* TUNCELİ’DE ASKER: CHP İstanbul Milletvekili Mehmet Ali Özpolat’ın tek oğlu, yaklaşık bir ay önce askere gitti. Askerlik görevini Tunceli’de yapan Özpolat’ın da 6 aylık kısa dönem askerlik yapacağı öğrenildi.

ASKERE GİTMEDİLER
* Başbakan Erdoğan’ın oğulları Burak ve Bilal Erdoğan henüz askerlik görevini yapmadı. Bilgi Üniversitesi’nde okurken, yüksek öğrenimini İngiltere’de sürdüren ve tamamlayan 27 yaşındaki Burak Erdoğan, askere gitmedi. Erdoğan’ın ABD’de yaşayan küçük oğlu Bilal Erdoğan ise kısa bir süre önce master’ını tamamladı ve Dünya Bankası’nda çalışmaya başladı. Askerliğini tecil ettirdiği belirtiliyor.

* Dışişleri Bakanı ve Başbakan Yardımcısı Abdullah Gül’un büyük oğlu Ahmet Münir Gül Bilkent Üniversitesi’nden yeni mezun olduğu için henüz askere gitmedi.

* Sağlık Bakanı Recep Akdağ’ın büyük oğlu Muhammet Akdağ (20) yaşında. Küçük oğlu Ramazan Akdağ (17) bu yıl Bilkent Üniversitesi İşletme Bölümünü burslu kazandı.

* Eski Başbakanlardan eski RP Genel Başkanı Necmettin Erbakan’ın önceki yıl evlenen oğlu Fatih Erbakan, İngiltere’de master yaptığı için askerliğini tecil ettirdi.

* Eski başbakanlardan eski ANAP Genel Başkanı Mesut Yılmaz’ın büyük oğlu Yavuz Yılmaz da henüz askere gitmedi.


Annan Ankara'da

6 Eylul 2006 www.sabah.com.tr

Birleşmiş Milletler Genel Sekreteri Annan, Ankara'da resmi temasları bugün başlıyor.

Annan'ın Ankara ziyaretinde Lübnan'da konuşlanacak yeni BM barış gücüne Türkiye'nin yapacağı katkı ele alınacak. Kıbrıs, İran ve Irak'a ilişkin gelişmelerin de görüşmeler sırasında değerlendirilmesi bekleniyor.

Annan ilk olarak Dışişleri Bakanı Abdullah Gül'le görüşecek. Ardından Annan, Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ve Annan, Başbakanlıktaki görüşmelerinin sonrasında ortak basın toplantısı düzenleyecek.

Erdoğan, Annan onuruna Başbakanlık resmi konutunda öğle yemeği verecek.

Annan ve beraberindeki heyet Çankaya Köşkü'ne çıkarak Cumhurbaşkanı Ahmet Necdet Sezer'in konuğu olacak.
 


Turkey: Thousands protest against joining UNIFIL

 AP

More than 10,000 protesters, chanting slogans against sending Turkish soldiers to Lebanon, gathered Tuesday in Ankara as lawmakers were set to vote on the government's plan to deploy peacekeepers.

Hundreds of riot police were deployed behind a line of armored personnel carriers to stop the protesters from marching toward the parliament building.

A handful of protesters climbed on top of several of the armored police vehicles and briefly waved a Lebanese flag. Crowds of demonstrators sat down in the street in defiance of police efforts to move them. Police used loudspeakers to urge the crowd to disperse.

The protesters carried banners that read: "We won't be the soldiers of the United States and Israel" and "Mehmet's blood is not for sale." Turks affectionately call their soldiers "Mehmet," a common Turkish name.


Mehmetçik Lübnan’a gidiyor

06 Eylül 2006 Çarşamba www.turkiye.com.tr

Asker 1 yıl orada kalacak

MECLİS’ten geçen tezkereye göre, 1000’e yakın Türk askeri yakında Lübnan’a gidecek. Ancak hangi bölgede konuşlanacağı ve hangi tarihte yola çıkacağı daha sonra belirlenecek. Türk timinin içerisinde siviller de yer alacak. Görev süresi bir yıl ile sınırlı bulunan Türk askeri, Hizbullah’ın silahsızlandırılması operasyonlarına katılmayacak, insanî yardım amaçlı görev üstlenecek.

ANKARA - Türkiye’nin Lübnan’a BM Barış Gücü kapsamında asker göndermesini öngören tezkere TBMM’de kabul edildi. Gergin geçen görüşmelerde muhalefet partileri ret oyu kullanırken, tezkere AK Partili milletvekillerinin oyu ile kabul edildi. Yapılan açık oylamada 533 milletvekilli katıldı. Tezkereye 340 kabul, 192 ret, 1 de çekimser oy çıktı.
TBMM Genel Kurulunun dün yapılan olağanüstü toplantısında kabul edilen tezkere ile gereği, kapsamı, zamanı ve süresi hükümetçe belirlenecek şekilde TSK’nın Lübnan’a gönderilmesi ve bununla ilgili gerekli düzenlemelerin yapılması için hükümete 1 yıl süreyle izin veriliyor. Tezkerede, gönderilecek kuvvetin, bölgedeki silahlı unsurların silahtan arındırılması dahil olmak üzere belirtilen taahhütlerin dışında hiçbir görevde kullanılmayacağı bildirildi. Tezkerede, Türkiye’nin Lübnan Barış Gücü’ne; “Doğu Akdeniz’de devriye görevi yapacak deniz görev gücü için yeterli kuvvet tahsisi; taleplerin tek tek değerlendirilmesi kaydıyla dost ve müttefik ülkeler için deniz ve hava ulaşım desteği sağlanması; Lübnan ordusuna eğitim verilmesi” konularında katkı sağlaması öngörülüyor. Tezkerede “Yeterli kuvvetle katılacağımız Deniz Görev Gücü, BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin 1701 sayılı kararının verdiği yetkiye uygun olarak Doğu Akdeniz’de ve Lübnan kıyılarına mücavir bölgelerde deniz kontrolünü sağlamak için keşif ve devriye görevleri icra edecektir” denildi.

Hareket konsepti
BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin kararının, İsrail ve Lübnan hükümetleri ile bu hükümetleri oluşturan tüm koalisyon ortakları ve liderleri tarafından da kabul edildiği belirtilen tezkerede şunlar kaydedildi: “BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin anılan kararlarında yer alan görev yönergesi ve bilahare hazırlanan (harekat konsepti) ve (çatışma kuralları), UNIFIL’in meşru savunma ve çok istisnai durumlar dışında muharip görev üstlenmesini, çatışmalara girmesini öngörmemektedir. Temel amacı, Lübnan ve İsrail arasındaki istikrar ortamının sürmesine katkıda bulunmak olan BM Barış Gücü’nün temel işlevi, Lübnan Hükümeti’nin egemenliğinin tüm ülke sathında tesisinde ve Güney Lübnan’daki güvenlik sorumluluklarını yerine getirmesinde, Lübnan ordusuna yardım etmek olacaktır. Söz konusu kararda ayrıca tüm devletlerin vatandaşları tarafından veya toprakları üzerinden ya da bandıralarını taşıyan gemiler ve uçaklarla Lübnan’a, Lübnan hükümetinin veya UNIFIL’ın yetkilendirmediği her türlü silah, mühimmat veya benzeri maddelerin satışını veya ulaşımını engellemek için gerekli tedbirleri almaları ve bu tür teçhizatın kullanımına ilişkin teknik eğitimin sağlanmasının da engellenmesi istenmektedir.’’
Türkiye’nin, uluslararası barış ve istikrarın korunması konusundaki rolü ve ağırlığına ilişkin beklentilerin yüksek olmasında, TSK’nın, başta Balkanlar ve Afganistan olmak üzere çeşitli ihtilaf bölgelerinde üstün başarıyla yaptığı görevlerin büyük payı olduğu hatırlatılan tezkerede, “Türkiye, bölgesinde istikrar unsuru olan güçlü bir ülkedir. İçinde yaşadığımız bölgede hüküm süren gerginlik ve ihtilafların, Türkiye’nin güvenliği üzerinde olumsuz yansımaları olduğu bir vakıadır. Bu nedenle barış ve istikrarı tehlikeye düşürecek gelişmelere karşı kayıtsız ve ilgisiz kalmayacak olan Türkiye’nin, barış ortamının korunması yönündeki uluslararası çabalara etkin destek vermesi, milli sorumluluğumuzun icabı olarak görülmektedir” denildi.

AK Parti’den 6 ret
Bu arada tezkerenin oylamasında AK Partili Mehmet Emin Bilgiç oylamada çekimser kalırken, Halil Kaya, Sadık Yakut, Turhan Çömez, Ertuğrul Yalçınbayır, İbrahim Hakkı Aşkar, Nurettin Aktaş ret oyu verdi. AK Parti’den Bülent Arınç, TBMM Başkanı sıfatı nedeniyle, Meclis Başkanvekili Nevzat Pakdil ise oturumu yönettiği için oy kullanamadılar. AK Parti’den Vahit Kiler, Akif Gülle, Abdullah Çalışkan, İsmail Alptekin, Mustafa Ünaldı ve Bayındırlık Bakanı Faruk Nafiz Özak mazeretleri nedeniyle oylamaya katılamadılar. Bağımsız milletvekillerinden ise sadece Süleyman Bölünmez kabul yönünde oy kullandı. Öte yandan, Ulaştırma Bakanı Binali Yıldırım, İzmir Poligon’da kısa dönem denizci olarak askerlik yapan oğlu Bülent Yıldırım’ın Lübnan’a gönderilmesinden endişe etmediğini söyledi. Yıldırım, “Ben oğlumu Silahlı Kuvvetler’e teslim ettim. Gitmesi gerekiyorsa gidecektir” dedi. > TBMM BÜROSU

Erdoğan: Hayırlı olsun
ANKARA- Lübnan’a asker gönderilmesine ilişkin tezkerenin kabul edilmesinin ardından Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, “Hayırlı olsun” değerlendirmesini yaptı. Erdoğan, Meclis’ten ayrılırken gazetecilerin tezkerenin kabul edilmesine yönelik düşüncelerini sorması üzerine “Arkadaşlar açıklamalarını yaptı. Bu açıklamalar neticesinde parlamento kararı gördüğünüz gibi tezkere istikametinde olumlu şekilde vermiştir. Hayırlı olsun” dedi. Dışişleri Bakanı Abdullah Gül ise, “Beklediğimiz bir sonuçtu. Çok suni tartışmalar yapıldı” derken, Milli Savunma Bakanı Vecdi Gönül, “Hayırlı olsun” demekle yetindi. CHP Genel Başkanı Deniz Baykal ise, “Muhalefetin anlayışının topluma yansıması bakımından toplantı yararlı olmuştur” dedi.

Lübnan’ı tam 400 yıl yönettik
BEYRUT- Yaklaşık 400 yıl Osmanlı idaresinde kalan Lübnan ile Türkiye arasındaki ilişkiler, son 15 yılda ivme kazandı. Osmanlı Devleti ile o dönemde Suriye’nin bir eyaleti olan Beyrut ve dolayısıyla Lübnan arasındaki ilişkiler, 1517 yılında Yavuz Sultan Selim’in Ridaniye seferiyle başladı. Selim, 25 Ağustos 1516 yılında Halep’e girdi. Arkasından Şam teslim olurken, Lübnan Emirleri de Osmanlı yönetimini kabul ettiklerini açıkladı. Osmanlı döneminde Lübnan’a, yüzlerce yıl boyunca merkezden valiler ve kaymakamlar gönderilmesine rağmen, asıl idare Lübnan Emiri olarak adlandırılan Dürzi derebeyleri tarafından yapılıyordu. Lübnan’da hemen her Osmanlı hükümdarı, kendi dönemini yansıtan eserler bıraktı. 1517 yılından bu yana yapılan eser sayısı 500’ün üzerinde ama kesin rakam tespit edilebilmiş değil. Osmanlı İmparatorluğu, Lübnan’la olan ilişkilerini 1920 yılında sona erdirirken, Lübnan’da bu tarihten itibaren 23 yıl süreyle Fransız manda yönetimi yer aldı. Ülke, 1943 yılında bağımsızlığını kazandı.

Tezkere kolay geçti

 

Tezkere kolay geçti
Laf atmalar nedeniyle sık sık tartışan vekiller oturumun sonlarına doğru birbirine girdi. Karşılıklı çanta fırlatan vekilleri arkadaşları güçlükle ayırdı. FOTOĞRAF: MUSTAFA İSTEMİ
 

Olağanüstü toplanan Meclis'te muhalefet sözcüleri aynı fikirdeydi: 'Bizim Lübnan'da işimiz yok. ABD'nin çıkarları için çalışıyorsunuz.' Dışişleri Bakanı Gül ise 'Halkın kafasını karıştırmayın' dedi

06/09/2006 www.radikal.com.tr

 

'Riskleri azalttık bu güç göstergesi'
Dışişleri Bakanı Gül tezkereyle risklerin en aza indirildiğini savunurken, AKP İstanbul Milletvekili Bağış, 'Bu bir itibar ve kuvvet göstergesidir' dedi

ANKARA - Tezkereyi savunmak için kürsüye AKP'den Dışişleri Bakanı Abdullah Gül, AKP İstanbul Milletvekili Egemen Bağış ve AKP Grup Başkanvekili Salih Kapusuz çıktı. Gül "Riskler en aza indirilmiştir", Bağış "Bu itibar ve kuvvet göstergesi" dedi.

'Hizbullahçı bakanlar da var'
Abdullah Gül: "Türkiye bir Doğu Akdeniz ülkesidir. Doğu Akdeniz'in barış ve istikrarına katkı yapmak bizim de çıkarımızadır. BTC Hattı'nın güvenliği dahi bu kapsamda değerlendirilebilir. Türkiye'nin askeri katkısı tüm taraflarca samimiyetle arzulanmakta, açıkça da desteklenmektedir. Uluslararası toplumun yanı sıra, içinde Hizbullah mensubu iki bakanın da yer aldığı Lübnan hükümeti Türkiye'yi davet etmiştir. Tezkere Türk askerinin karşılaşacağı riskleri en aza indirecek çerçeveye indirilmiştir. Türk askerinin yapacağı ve yapmayacağı işler tezkereye açıkça konulmuştur. Bu konuda halkın kafasını karıştırmaya gerek yok." Gül, muhalefeti yanıtladığı ikinci konuşmasında da tezkerenin siyasi sorumluluğunu üstlenmekten kaçınmayacaklarını söyledi.
Egemen Bağış: "Ortadoğu'da barış olmadıkça dünyada barıştan söz etmek imkânsız. Lübnan'da çok işimiz var, Lübnan'ı kendi halinize bırakırsanız sorun gelir sizin sınırınıza dayanır. Fransa, İngiltere, ABD, İsrail gibi ülkelerin yanı sıra, Hizbullah, Hamas gibi unsurlarla da temas halindeyiz. Bu bir itibar ve kuvvet göstergesidir. Bu ülkelerin liderlerini telefon açtığında bulabilen kaç lider vardır. Biz Başbakanımızdan gurur duyuyoruz, siz de duyun. Sizin hayalleriniz bile yetmez bizim yaptığımız temasları yapmaya. Muhalefet bu dış krizden iç kriz yaratabilmenin yollarını arıyor. AB'nin 22 üyesi ve birçok İslam Konferansı Örgütü üyesi asker gönderirken, Türkiye kayıtsız kalamaz."

'Sınır ötesinde şehit olunur'
Salih Kapusuz: "Hükümet bölgede kan ve gözyaşının durması için gece gündüz çalışıyor. Bir ülkenin menfaati, eğer sınır ötesinde bulunmaksa, orada olunulacak ve şehit olunacaktır. Bu milletten yetki alan hükümet, bu Meclis'ten güvenoyu almıştır. Cumhurbaşkanı ve MGK ile görüşmeler yapıldı. İlgili çevrelerle görüşüldü, bir kanaat ortaya konuldu. Dışişleri Bakanı'ndan bilgi almadan, gazete haberleriyle konuya karşı çıkıyorsunuz."
 

'Süngünün üzerine oturulmaz'

CHP'li Sav: 'Angajman belgesinde süngü çatışmasından söz ediliyor, süngünün üzerine oturmayın.' Anavatan lideri Mumcu: 'Milletin Lübnan'a gönderilecek evladı yok'

ANKARA - TBMM'deki görüşmelerde tezkereye karşı çıkan anamuhalefet partisi CHP'yle DYP ve Anavatan, hükümeti sıkıştırmayı başardı. Muhalefet sözcülerinin görüşleri şöyle:
CHP Genel Sekreteri Önder Sav: Bölge ve İslam ülkeleri görev gücüne katılmıyor. Peki Türkiye'nin Lübnan'da ne işi var? Angajman belgesinde süngü çatışmasından söz ediliyor. Süngülerle çok şey yapılabilir, ama üstüne oturulamaz. Akıllı olun süngünün üzerine oturmayın. Önce teröre karşı başarı sağlayın, Dimyat'a giderken evdeki bulgurdan olmayın. Gücünüzü gariban vatandaşa değil, Kandil'e asker göndererek gösterin. Eski ustanız Erbakan bile sizi uyarıyor. Tarih önünde sorumlu olursunuz. Başbakan tezkereye karşı çıkanları ihanetle suçluyor. Allah siyasi terbiyesi erozyona uğrayanlara sağlık versin.
CHP Grup Başkanvekili Ali Topuz: 'Çıkarsa tezkere, Bilal gitsin askere' sloganlarına kulak verin. Lübnan'a kendi çocuklarınızı gönderin. ABD'nin çıkarları için çalışıyorsunuz
CHP İstanbul Milletvekili Şükrü Elekdağ: Tezkere, Ortadoğu bölgesinde yeni acımasız kıyımlara neden olacaktır. Vebali büyüktür.
CHP Ankara Milletvekili Bayram Meral: Kurtuluş Savaşı sırasında olsaydınız ellerinizi kaldırıp bu memleketi Fransıza, Yunana bırakır giderdiniz. Asker gönderilecekse siz çocuklarınızı gönderin. Biliyorum yüzde 70'iniz bu tezkereye karşı, ama seçimin gözü kör olsun.

'Vicdanınızın sesini dinleyin'
CHP Genel Başkan Yardımcısı Onur Öymen: Orası piknik alanı, izci kampı değildir. Hizbullah'ın silahsızlandırılmasında askerlerimiz kullanılacak, Fransız komutanın emrine girecek. O komutan ne derse onu yapacaklar. Komutan emir verdiğinde 'Biz Başbakanımıza, Dışişleri Bakanımıza bir soralım' mı diyecekler? Sandığın sesini değil vicdanınızın sesini dinleyin. Hiçbir seçim bir askerimizin canından daha değerli değildir.
Anavatan Partisi Genel Başkanı Erkan Mumcu: Belki bir siyasetçiye yakışmayacak, ama 18 yaşında evladı olan bir baba olarak düşündüğümde evladımı Lübnan'a göndermem. Allah TBMM'nin bütün üyelerini böyle bir zilletten korusun. Benim İsrail'in güvenliği için feda edilecek evladım yok. Bu milletin de yok. Siz de 'Evladımı gönderir miydim' diye sorarak oy kullanın.
 

192 ret, 340 kabulle asker Lübnan'a

Hükümete Lübnan'a asker gönderme yetkisi veren tezkere TBMM'de sert tartışmaların ardından kabul edildi. Oylamada 192 'hayır'a karşılık 340 'evet' oyu çıktı. Sadece altı AKP'li tezkereye ret oyu verdi. Başbakan Erdoğan bugün Genelkurmay'a Meclis'ten aldığı yetkiyi devreden direktifi sunacak

ANKARA - Hükümetin Lübnan'da görev yapan Birleşmiş Milletler Görev Gücü'ne katılmak üzere bu ülkeye asker gönderilmesini içeren tezkeresi dün TBMM'deki sert tartışmaların ardından AKP'lilerin oylarıyla kabul
edildi. 533 milletvekilinin katıldığı oylamada 340 milletvekili kabul oyu kullanırken, 'ret' oyları 192'de kaldı. Bir milletvekili de çekimser oy kullandı. Altı AKP'linin tezkereye karşı oy verdiği AKP'de, Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan da 'fireler' arasında yer aldı.
AKP'li Meclis Başkanvekili Nevzat Pakdil'in yönettiği oturumda CHP tam kadroydu. Bir süre önce ayağı kırılan CHP İstanbul Milletvekili Bihlun Tamaylıgil'in koltuk değnekleriyle geldiği oturuma, Ardahan Milletvekili Ensar Ögüt trafik kazasında kırılan kolu ve kaburgaları sarılı halde katıldı. Babası vefat eden İzmir Milletvekili Ahmet Ersin de görüşmelerdeydi.
CHP ile Anavatan görüşmeleri uzatabilmek için içtüzüğün sağladığı olanakları sonuna kadar kullandı. CHP önce usul ardından da Anavatan ile birlikte süre tartışması açtırdı. Görüşmeler saat 18.00 sıralarında başlayabildi.
CHP Ankara Milletvekili Bayram Meral'in, AKP'lileri ihanetle suçladığı konuşması sırasında tepkilerin artması üzerine Pakdil, konuşmayı kesti ve AKP'lilerin alkışları, CHP'lilerin sıra kapaklarına vurmaları arasında birleşime beş dakika ara verdi. Meral bu arada kürsüden ayrılmadı ve birleşim yeniden açıldığında da "Milletvekili olacaksınız da ne olacak, nefesiniz kokuyor, 6,5 milyar maaşla. Gelin tezkereyi reddedin" sözleri tartışma yarattı.
En büyük sürpriz Erdoğan'ın oyunda yaşandı. Elektronik sisteme girmeyen Erdoğan, pusula göndermediği için de tutanaklarda oylamaya katılmayanlar arasında yer aldı.

AKP'de altı ret oyu
AKP'den Turan Çömez, Ertuğrul Yalçınbayır, Nurettin Aktaş, Sadık Yakut, Halil Kaya ve İbrahim Hakkı Aşkar 'ret' oyu verdi.
Böylece AKP'nin beşi mazeretli olmak üzere firelerinin toplamı 16 oldu. Muhalefetten tek kabul oyu bağımsız Süleyman Bölünmez'den geldi. Tezkereye destek veren tek muhalefet partisi SHP'nin Genel Sekreteri Ahmet Güryüz Ketenci oylamaya katılmadı.
Irak'la ilgili 1 Mart tezkeresinin oylamasında AKP 97 fire vermişti. Oylamada 264 kabul, 250 ret ve 19 çekimser oy kullanılmıştı. Lübnan'a asker göndermeyi içeren 5 Eylül tezkeresinin oylamasına katılan 533 milletvekilinden 340'ı kabul, 192 milletvekili 'ret' oyu kullandı. AKP'li Mehmet Emin Bilgiç çekimser oy verdi. TBMM'deki sandalye dağılımıysa şöyle: AKP: 355, CHP: 154, Anavatan: 21, DYP: 4, SHP: 1, HYP: 1, Bağımsız: 10, Boş: 4.
Sonuç için "Hayırlı olsun" diyen Başbakan Erdoğan, "Beklediğiniz sonuç muydu?" sorusu üzerine de "Dün (pazartesi) akşam söylememiş miydim" diyerek, "Sürpriz beklemiyorum" açıklamasına gönderme yaptı.

Baykal: Sürpriz olmadı
Baykal ise, "Sürpriz olmadı. Görüşlerimizi topluma Meclis'ten yansıtmış olduk" dedi.
Başbakan Erdoğan bugün saat 16.00'da Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt'a, TBMM'den aldığı yetkiyi Genelkurmay'a devreden direktifini verecek. Ardından asker sayısı gibi teknik detayları Genelkurmay ve Dışişleri takip edecek. Genelkurmay'ın belirleyeceği sayı ve içerik, yine Erdoğan'ın onayından geçtikten sonra uygulanacak.
Haberler: İsmet Demirdöğen / Nazif İflazoğlu / Zihni Erdem / Ahmet Kıvanç


Erdoğan: Keşke Irak’a gitseydik

7 Eylül 2006 www.hurriyet.com.tr

BAŞBAKAN Tayyip Erdoğan, 1 Mart tezkeresine atıfta bulunarak, "Keşke 1 Mart’ta Irak’a girseydik. Gitmeliydik" dedi. Erdoğan CNN Türk’ten canlı olarak yayımlanan programda Gürkan Zengin’in sorularını yanıtlarken şunları söyledi:

BU TABLO OLMAZDI

"Gitmiş olsaydık. Bugünkü tablo olmazdı, bugün çok daha farklı bir tablo olurdu. Ben bunu açıkça söylüyorum. İnanarak altını çizerek söylüyorum. Şu andaki olumsuz tablo bugün böyle olmayacaktı. Ben bunu savunuyorum, arkasındayım. Irak’ta bize verilecek bölge belli idi. Neresiydi Kuzey Irak. Biz asker göndermedik. Peki Asker göndermediğimiz halde şu anda bizim kaybımız yok mu? Amerika’dan sonra en çok kayıp bizim. İngilizlerden daha fazla kaybımız var. Kim bunlar? Şoförümüz, mühendisimiz, işçimiz, orada çalışanlar maalesef orada iki ateş arasında kalıyorlar.

Erdoğan, "Lübnan’a asker göndermesi konusunda içiniz rahat mı" sorusu üzerine, şöyle dedi:"Sorumluluğun gereği yerine geliyorsa tabii ki rahat olursunuz. Biz şu anda böyle bir sorumluluğun gereğini yerine getirdik."

Erdoğan askerlikle ilgili yaptığı açıklamalara gelen eleştirilere cevap verirken şöyle dedi: Biz yan gelip yatmıyoruz ki, biz de koşuyoruz. Bazı köşe yazarları gazetelerinde ’Başbakanlık yan gelip yatma yeri değil.’ Başbakanın nerede yan gelip yattığını görüyorsun. Bizim gecemiz, saatimiz, o köşesinde yazı yazanların saatleriyle aynı değil. Ölçsün, biçsin bakalım, kaç saat Başbakan yatıyor, kaç saat kendisi yatıyor."

Erdoğan, "BOP’un orjininde belirtilen demokrasi ve barış samimi değildi" sorusunu, "Orada samimi yaklaşımın olmadığını çok açık ve net gördük" şeklinde cevaplandırdı.


Org. Büyükanıt şehit ailelerine destek verdi

'Ne derlerse başımızın üzerinde yeri var'

Genelkurmay Başkanı, şehit cenazelerinde ailelerin verdikleri tepkilerle ilgili olarak, "Ne söylerlerse söylesinler; ellerinden, yanaklarından öperim" dedi

ANKARA 7 Eylül 2006  Milliyet www.milliyet.com.tr


Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt, Lübnan'a Türk askeri gönderilmesine ve Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan'ın "Askerlik yan gelip yatma yeri değildir" sözlerine tepki gösteren şehit ailelerine destek verdi. Orgeneral Büyükanıt, "Onların her türlü tepkisinin bizim başımızın üzerinde yeri var" dedi.
Pakistan Askeri Günü nedeniyle dün Ankara Büyükelçiliği'nde düzenlenen resepsiyona katılan Org. Büyükanıt, gözetecilerin sorularına özetle şu yanıtları verdi:
 

  • LÜBNAN'A ASKER: Türkiye Cumhuriyeti oraya insani yardım amacıyla gidiyor. Ana amaç insani yardım. Gidecek asker sayısı henüz belli değil. Türkiye'nin yapacağı yardımın şekil, muhtevası, miktarı ve yeri de görüşmelerle belirlenecek. Askerimizin Lübnan'a ne zaman gideceğini söylemek şu an için mümkün değil.
  • ÇATIŞMA RİSKİ: Biz Meclis'in çizdiği çerçeve dışında bir iş yapmayacağız. Bunun dışında hiç kimse bizim askerimize emir veremez, hiç kimse de yaptıramaz. Bunu açıkça ifade ediyorum. Verilen yetkinin dışında bir görev istenirse, o görevi bize görev vermeye çalışan yapar, biz yapmayız. Tahsis edilecek deniz gücünün de çatışma riskinin düşük olduğunu düşünüyorum. Yani bir balıkçı teknesi deniz kuvvetine tehlike teşkil eder. Bunun geçmişte örneklerini yaşadık. Sıfır risk hayatta yoktur. Şimdi kafanıza bir göktaşı da düşebilir. Siz diyebilir misiniz ki ben yüzde yüz emniyetteyim. Arızalanan bir uçak gelir buraya düşer, hepimiz gittik. Hayat risklerle dolu. Ama dediğim gibi çok büyük olduğunu sanmıyorum.
  • ŞEHİT AİLELERİNİN TEPKİLERİ: "Allah kimseye böyle bir acı vermesin. Evladını kaybediyor. Onların her türlü tepkisinin bizim başımızın üzerinde yeri var. Ateş düştüğü yeri yakar. Onun için ne söylenirse söylensin o şehit analarının ellerini öperim, o şehit babalarının yanaklarından öperim. Biz onların acılarını en iyi anlayan kimseleriz. Çünkü, biz onlara komutanlık yapıyoruz. Onun için onlar ne derlerse desinler ben onlara saygı duyuyorum. Hepimiz saygı duyuyoruz.

    Başbakanlık'ta bir araya geldiler

    Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, dün Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt'ı Başbakanlık'ta kabul etti. Görüşmenin gündeminde, TBMM tarafından önceki gün kabul edilen BM Barış Gücü'ne asker gönderme tezkeresi ile Lübnan'la ilgili son gelişmeler vardı.
     
  • Tesellisi günde 200 dolar!
    Protestolara rağmen çıkan tezkerenin hazırlıkları başladı. Lübnan’a göndermek için Ermenice ve Arapça bilen askerler seçilecek, barut fıçısı olan bölgeye giden Mehmetçiğe günde 200 dolar ödenecek
    07.09.2006

    Tezkere çalışmaları üç koldan yürütülüyor: Yer pazarlığını Dışişleri Bakanlığı yapıyor. BM’nin, Türk diplomatların öne sürdüğü “şartlar ve hassasiyetler” çerçevesinde, Türkiye’ye görev yapması için “birkaç bölge” önermesi bekleniyor. Türkiye, Litani nehrinin güneyinde, İsrail sınırına yakın ve kıyıda bir bölge istiyor. Böylece, gerek Mehmetçiğin, gerekse yardım görevlileri ve malzemelerinin Türkiye’den gemilerle Güney Lübnan’a intikalinin de, bir kriz anında “tahliyesinin” de kolaylaşacağı hesaplanıyor. Türk gücünün gideceği “olası bölgelerin” belirlenmesinin ardından, Dışişleri ve Genelkurmay’dan bir heyet Güney Lübnan’a gidecek. Buradaki “ihtiyaçlar”, bunların karşılanması için gerekli iş gücü belirlenecek.

    MEHMETÇİK NE YAPACAK
    Dışişleri kaynakları, öncü heyetin önümüzdeki hafta içinde Lübnan’a gidebileceğini belirtiyor. Yine Türkiye’nin “devriye görevi” için göndereceği savaş gemilerinin de Eylül ayı içinde “yeni görev yerine intikal etmesi” bekleniyor. Sivil görevliler ile Mehmetçiğin Güney Lübnan’a ise, “en erken Ekim ayında” gideceği belirtiliyor. Mehmetçik Lübnan’da Türk sivil yardım ve imar görevlilerine koruma görevi yapacak. Bir başka görevi de Lübnan ordusunun eğitimi olacak. Lübnan Barış gücünde görev yapacak Mehmetçiğe günde 200 dolar verilecek. Tüm masrafları BM karşılıyor gibi görünse de, para yine Türkiye bütçesinden karşılanacak. Türkiye, üyesi olduğu BM’ye her sene belli bir miktar “katkıda” bulunacağını bildiriyor. Bu katkı, BM tarafından “genel masraflar” için kullanılıyor. Şimdi BM bu katkıyı, Mehmetçiğin masrafları için kullanacak.

    Lübnan’a gönderilecek askerlerin yabancı dil bilmesi de tercih ediliyor. Geçen hafta Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, tüm birliklere yazı göndererek, Arapça ve Ermenice bilen askerlerin sayısı ve terhis durumlarının bildirilmesini istedi. Özellikle Hatay ve İskenderun bölgesindeki Ortodoks Arap erler ile yine aynı bölgede yaşayan Müslüman Araplardan oluşan bir birliğin oluşturulması için çalışmalar başlatıldı. Bölgedeki Ermeni nüfusla kurulacak ilişkinin sağlanması için Ermenice bilen askerlerin tespitine başlandı. Lübnan’ın eski bir Fransız sömürgesi olması nedeniyle Fransızca bilenler de tespit ediliyor.

    TEZKEREYE DIŞ YORUMLAR
    Türkiye’nin AB ile ilişkileri güçlenecek
    Tezkerenin çıkması, ABD ve AB ülkelerinde memnuniyetle karşılandı. ABD Dışişleri Bakanlığı, Türkiye’nin bu hayati göreve katkıda bulunmasından dolayı memnuniyet duyduklarını söylerken, AB Komisyonu’nun genişlemeden sorumlu sözcüsü Christina Nagy, “Türkiye’nin bu zor görevi AB ordusu ile birlikte gerçekleştirmesi memnuniyet verici” dedi. Dış basının da yorumları aynı yöndeydi. BBC, Reuters ve AP geçtiği haberlerde, “AKP, tezkereyi geçirmeyi başardı. AB üyeliği yolunda ilerleyen Türkiye’nin Lübnan’a barış gücü gönderme kararı Brüksel’de olumlu karşılanacak” yorumunu yaptı.

    KIBRIS’I SONRA KONUŞALIM
    Financial Times’a konuşan üst düzey bir AB Komisyonu yetkilisi ise, “Türkiye, Rumlar’a limanlarını açmadığı için müzakere süreci tamamen çökebilir. Türkiye’ye 2006 sonuna kadar süre verilmişti. Ancak Kıbrıs konusunu Türkiye’deki seçimlerden sonra gündeme getirmek için uğraş veriyoruz” dedi. Bu açıklamanın tezkereden sonra Türkiye’ye ödül anlamına geldiği yorumları yapılıyor...

    SAVAŞ GİBİ TEZKERE PROTESTOSU
    Tezkere çıktı ama tepkiler ve tartışmalar sürüyor. Dün başkentteki protesto eylemi ise savaş alanını andırıyordu. Kurtuluş Kavşağını trafiğe kapatan ve polise taşlı sopalı saldırıda bulunan bir grup eylemci yol kenarındaki kaldırım taşlarını söktü. Polis de Emniyet’in geçen yıl aldığı ve EFE adını verdiği panzerle göstericilere tazyikli su sıktı. Tespit edilen hedefe tazyikli suyla nokta atışı yapan EFE, kaçan göstericileri kovaladı. Gösterilerde 35 eylemci gözaltına alındı.

    Haber: Zeynep GÜRCANLI-Hale GÖNÜLTAŞ  www.vatanim.com.tr  


    Hiç Kimse Emir Veremez


    Hiç kimse emir veremezBüyükanıt: Silahlı kuvvetler, tezkeredeki 4 konu dışında hiçbir görev yapmayacak, hiç kimse emir veremez, hiç kimse de yaptıramaz."

    Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt, Lübnan'da insani yardımın yapılacağı bölge sayısına göre asker sayısının da değişeceğini belirterek, "O sayı belli olduğunda Silahlı Kuvvetler daima olasılıklar üzerinde planlama yapar. Ama durum ortaya çıktığında çok süratli olarak yapılacak yardımların ne kadar kuvvetle sağlanacağını net olarak belirler. Şu anda açık söylüyorum, sayı olarak bana da sorsanız ben de bilemem" dedi.

    Pakistan Silahlı Kuvvetler Günü dolayısıyla Ankara Büyükelçiliği'nde düzenlenen resepsiyona katılan Orgeneral Büyükanıt, gazetecilerin Lübnan'a gönderilecek asker sayısına ilişkin sorularını cevaplandırdı.

    "Daha henüz Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Devleti'nin yapacağı insanı yardımın çapı, yeri, kaç bölgede çalışacağı belli değil" diyen Orgeneral Büyükanıt, "Bu bölge belli olduktan sonra yeterli kuvvet tahsis edilecek. O belli olmadan sayı söylemek mümkün değil" diye konuştu.

    Orgeneral Büyükanıt, insani yardımın yapılacağı bölge sayısına göre asker sayısının da değişeceğine işaret ederek şunları kaydetti:

    "O sayı belli olduğunda Silahlı Kuvvetler daima olasılıklar üzerinde planlama yapar. Ama durum ortaya çıktığında çok süratli olarak yapılacak yardımların ne kadar kuvvetle sağlanacağını net olarak belirler. Şu anda açık söylüyorum, sayı olarak bana da sorsanız ben de bilemem."

    Bir soru üzerine, bölgeye gidecek Karayolları ve DSİ görevlilerini kendilerinin organize etmediğini dile getiren Orgeneral Büyükanıt, "Lübnan'a konuyla ilgili heyetler gitti mi?" sorusuna ise, "Gider, gelir. Şimdiye kadar da gidip geldi. Gidip, bakacaksınız, edeceksiniz. Ama karar verildikten sonra o karara bağlı olarak hazırlıklarımızı biz ne zaman tamamlarsak o zaman gider'' değerlendirmesinde bulundu.

    Büyükanıt, Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan'ın, Türk askerinin Lübnan'da silahsızlandırma faaliyetlerine katılmayacağı yönündeki açıklamalarının hatırlatılması üzerine "Var mı tezkerede bu sorumluluk? Yok. Kimse bunu bizden isteyemez, tezkerede yok. Biz, Meclis'in verdiği çerçevenin dışında hiçbir görevi yapmayacağız. O zaman kimsenin istemesi de söz konusu değil böyle bir şey de olmaz" açıklamasında bulundu.

    Orgeneral Büyükanıt, Lübnan'daki BM Komutanının tezkere dışında Türk askerine görev verip veremeyeceğine ilişkin bir soru üzerine de, "Silahsızlandırma dahil tezkeredeki 4 konu dışında hiçbir görev yapmayacak Silahlı Kuvvetler. Hiç kimse emir veremez, hiç kimse de yaptıramaz. Bunu açıkça ifade ediyorum. Verilen yetkinin dışında bir görev istenirse, o görevi bize görev vermeye çalışan yapar, biz yapmayız" diye konuştu.

    Lübnan'da silahlı çatışma çıkması halinde Türk askerinin kendini savunacağı yönündeki Dışişleri Bakanı Abdullah Gül'ün sözlerinin anımsatılması üzerine de Büyükanıt, evrensel bir hukuk kuralı olarak kendisine saldırılan kuvvetin kendisini savunmak zorunda olduğunu belirtti. Orgeneral Büyükanıt, tezkerenin Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri'ne ne görev verdiği konusunun kamuoyunda henüz tam anlaşılmış olmadığını vurgulayarak, TSK'ya verilen görevlerin şunlar olduğunu söyledi:

    "Birincisi, Doğu Akdeniz'de güvenliğin sağlanması konusunda yasadışı kaçakçılığın kontrol edilmesinde Deniz Kuvvetleri'ne bir gücün tahsisini öngörüyor. İkincisi, dost ve müttefik ülkelerin Lübnan'a insani yardım yapması durumunda hava ve deniz ulaştırılması konusunda destek vermesi. Üçüncüsü, eğer ihtiyaç duyarlarsa Lübnan ordusuna eğitim verilmesi. Bu eğitim Türkiye'de de verilebilir. Dördüncü madde Türkiye'yi doğrudan ilgilendiriyor ve çok önemli. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti oraya insani yardım amacıyla gidiyor. Ana amaç insani yardım."

    Orgeneral Büyükanıt, Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri'nin bu insani yardımın gerekli kılacağı korumayı sağlayacağına işaret ederek, "Yani, oraya gittiğimiz takdirde bizim koruyacağımız insanlar, silahlı unsurlar bizim kendi insanlarımız. Kızılay, Kara Kuvvetleri, DSİ onları korumak" ifadesini kullandı.

    Büyükanıt, Türk askerinin görevleri arasında Lübnan'daki silahlı unsurların silahsızlandırılması olmadığına işaret ederek, "Ayrıca benim saydığım 4 maddenin dışında görev yapmayacaklar. Yani, insani yardım yapacaklar, denizde yardım edecek, havada yardım edecek ve oraya gönderdiğimiz kendi insanlarımızın güvenliğini sağlayacak. Bunları net olarak söylediğimiz zaman tezkerenin ne demek istediğini anlarız. Bu bizim yorumumuz değil, tezkeredeki ifadelerdir bunlar. Silahlı Kuvvetler'e verilen görev budur" değerlendirmesini yaptı.

    (İHA)
    07.09.2006  www.sabah.com.tr


    Tezkere Savaşı

    Başkentte polis, tezkere karşıtı göstericilere müdahale etti. Bir grup, AK Parti İl binasının camlarını kırdı.

    Savaş karşıtı gösteri meydan savaşına döndü

    Tezkereyi protesto için taş ve sopalarla meydana çıkan maskeli göstericileri, gaz maskeli çevik kuvvet polisi tazyikli su, bibergazı ve copla karşıladı.

    BM Genel Sekreteri Kofi Annan'ın başkentteki temasları sürerken Ankara, "tezkere savaşı"na sahne oldu. Lübnan'a asker tezkeresini protesto eden grup ile polis arasında çıkan çatışmada çok sayıda polis ve gösterici yaralandı, 40 kişi gözaltına alındı. "Hak ve Özgürlükler Cephesi" ile "Ezilenlerin Sosyalist Platformu" adıyla Kurtuluş Kavşağı'na gelen göstericiler, kavşağı araç trafiğine kapatarak, kaldırım taşlarını kırmaya başladı. Polis, göstericilere önce "dağılın" uyarısı yaptı, taş atılması üzerine, tazyikli su, biber gazı ve copla müdahale etti. Çoğunluğu maskeli eylemciler ara sokaklara kaçarken, bibergazına karşı maske takan çevik kuvvet ekipleri de yakaladıklarını gözaltına almaya başladı. Ara sokaklarda çöp bidonları vesöktükleri kaldırım taşlarıyla barikat kuran gruptan 18' kadın 38 kişiyi gözaltına alındı.

    AKP'YE DE SALDIRI
    Çatışma ara sokaklarda uzun süre devam ederken kendilerine "Alınteri" adı veren bir grup da Kocatepe'deki AKP Ankara İl Başkanlığı'na taş atmaya başladı. Polis, grubu havaya ateş ederek dağıttı, kaçanlardan 2'sini gözaltına aldı. Yaklaşık 5 bin polis, gösteriyi dağıtmaya çalışırken, polis helikopteri de denetim uçuş yaptı. Bu arada, adli yılın açılışı nedeniyle, fazla mesai ücretlerinin kesilmesini protesto için Adalet Bakanlığı'na yürümek isteyen yargı çalışanları da, tazyikli suyla karşılaştılar ve eylemi sona erdirmek zorunda kaldılar.

    Göksel ÇAĞLAV - Enis YILDIRIM 07.09.2006  www.sabah.com.tr



    Taliban'la çatışan NATO güçleri ağır kayıplar verince üst düzey yetkililer Türk askerinin de savaşa katılması için baskıya başladı

    Bir çağrı da Afganistan'dan


    Kandahar'da işler kritik
    Lübnan tezkeresi yüzünden gerilimli günler yaşayan Türkiye'ye Afganistan'dan davet var. Güneyde komutayı ABD'den devralan NATO yetkilileri Kandahar'da Taliban'la süren çatışmalarda ağır kayıp verince tehlikeli bölgelere gitmeme koşuluyla asker gönderen ülkelere baskıya başladı.
    Müslüman güç isteniyor
    Kâbil'deki üst düzey bir diplomat "Afganistan'daki savaşın kâfirlerin İslam'a karşı savaşı olmadığını anlatabilmek için Türklere ihtiyacımız var" dedi. NATO yetkilileri ülkede görev yapan ancak sıcak çatışmaya katılmayan Almanya, Fransa ve İtalya'yı da cepheye gitmesi için iknaya çalışıyor.

    Büyükanıt: Emir almayız

    ttttttBüyükanıt: Emir almayız
    BM Genel Sekreteri Annan Başbakan Erdoğan ve Dışişleri Bakanı Gül ile bir araya geldi, Türkiye'ye Lübnan'a asker gönderme kararı için teşekkür etti.
    Fotoğraf: Adem Altan


    Türkiye'nin Lübnan'a kaç asker göndereceğini BM Genel Sekreteri Annan açıkladı: Bin. Annan, "BM gücü Hizbullah'ı silahsızlandırmakla yükümlü değil, bu Lübnan'ın işi" dedi.
    Genelkurmay Başkanı Büyükanıt da, "Tezkere dışına çıkmayız. Orada kimseden emir almayız" diye konuştu. Plansa şöyle: 400 denizci, 500 karacı 25 Eylül'den itibaren gidecek.

     

    Annan garanti de verdi asker sayısı da

     

    Annan garanti de verdi asker sayısı da
    BM Genel Sekreteri, Abdullah Gül'e Kerkük'te uzlaşma sağlamak için çalışacağı sözünü verdi. FOTOĞRAF: ADEM ALTAN
     

    Lübnan'da konuşlanacak BM gücünün Hizbullah'ı silahsızlandırmak gibi bir görevinin olmayacağı garantisini veren Annan, Türkiye'nin göndereceği asker sayısını 1000 veya daha fazlası olarak açıkladı

     

    HİLAL KÖYLÜ

    ANKARA - Lübnan'daki Birleşmiş Milletler Barış Gücü'ne (UNIFIL) bölge ülkelerinin katkı vermesi için çıktığı nabız yoklama turu kapsamında önceki gün Ankara'ya gelen BM Genel Sekreteri Kofi Annan, "Hizbullah'ı silahsızlandırma UNIFIL'in değil, Lübnan'ın işidir" dedi. Annan'ın Dışişleri Bakanı Abdullah Gül'le yaptığı görüşmede, tezkerenin kabulü nedeniyle "Huzur içinde uyudum" dediği öğrenildi. Annan, Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan'la yaptığı basın toplantısında Türkiye'nin göndereceği asker sayısını "1000 veya daha fazlası" diye açıkladı.
    Ankara'daki temaslarına dün Bakan Gül'le görüşerek başlayan Annan, Başbakan Erdoğan ve Cumhurbaşkanı Ahmet Necdet Sezer tarafından kabul edildi. Annan, hem görüşmelerde hem de basın toplantısında UNIFIL'in Hizbullah'ı silahsızlandırmak gibi bir işinin olmayacağını vurguladı. Erdoğan bu güvence için "Tezkeremizde yer bulan ve Hizbullah'ın silahsızlandırılmasına karşı olduğumuz yönündeki ifadelerin aynen paylaşılmasından memnun olduk" dedi. Gül'ün de "Hizbullah'ın silahsızlandırılması bölgedeki sorunu çözmez. Bizde de PKK'nın artan terör eylemleri kamuoyunun hassasiyetini yükseltti" dediği öğrenildi. Annan, Erdoğan'la düzenlediği basın toplantısında uluslararası gücün bölgeye konuşlanmasının temel hedeflerinden birinin de Lübnan'daki merkezi hükümet ve ordunun güçlenmesi olduğunu belirtti.
    BM Barış Gücü çerçevesinde 15 bin askerin Güney Lübnan'a yerleştirileceğini anımsatan Annan, 5 bin asker konuşlandığı zaman İsrail'in bölgeden tamamen çekileceğini söyledi.
    Annan, tezkerenin kabulünden duyduğu memnuniyeti de Erdoğan ve Gül'le yaptığı görüşmelerde "Size teşekkür ve takdirlerimi sunuyorum. Bizim beklentimiz de sizin UNIFIL'e güçlü bir katkı yapacağınız yöndeydi. Kutluyorum" diyerek dile getirdi. Annan, Gül'e Ortadoğu temasları hakkında bilgi verirken, Lübnan'a UNIFIL'in konuşlanması konusunda İran, Suriye, İsrail ve Lübnan'ın da hemfikir olduğunu gördüğünü aktardı ve "Tarafların barış yolunda adım atmaya istekli olduklarını görmek beni umutlandırdı. Ankara'da bu umudum daha da arttı. Ortadoğu turum boyunca ilk kez dün akşam (önceki akşam) huzur içinde uyudum" diye konuştu.

    Erdoğan: Barış için gideceğiz
    Başbakan Erdoğan, Lübnan'a gitme amaçlarının 'küresel barış' olduğunu söyledi. Erdoğan, tezkereye tepkiler konusunda da, "Burada gözyaşı varsa, çocuklar, anneler, yaşlılar öldürülüyorsa, burada bir barış tesis edilip korunacaksa bu oturduğunuz yerden olmaz" dedi.

    Kıbrıs, Kerkük, İran da gündemde
    Annan'ın ziyaretinde Lübnan dışındaki konular da ele alındı. Türk tarafı Kıbrıs'ta Rum lider Papadopulos'un 'uzlaşmaz' tavrından yakınırken, Annan da tarafları birlikte çalışmaya teşvik etmek istediğini söyledi.
    Ankara, Annan'a Kerkük'ün statüsünün belirlenmesinin referanduma bırakılmaması gerektiğini, BM'nin devreye girerek bölgede bir uzlaşının sağlanması isteğini de iletti. Annan bu konu üzerinde çalışmak için de söz verdi. Annan, İran konusundaysa, tarafların yeniden masaya oturabilmesi için her çabanın gösterilmesini istedi.

    Büyükanıt: Bize orada kimse emir veremez

    Genelkurmay Başkanı Büyükanıt, 'Meclis'in çizdiği çerçeve dışında bir iş yapmayacağız. Bize orada hiç kimse emir veremez' diye konuştu

    RADİKAL - ANKARA - Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt, Lübnan'a gönderilecek Türk askeri için, "Bize orada kimse emir veremez" dedi. Büyükanıt, Pakistan Askeri Günü nedeniyle dün Ankara Büyükelçiliği'nde düzenlenen resepsiyonda gazetecilerin tezkereyle ilgili sorularını yanıtladı.
    "Biz gitmiyoruz, gönderileniz" diyen Büyükanıt, asker sayısı ve birliklerin gideceği zaman konusunda bilgi vermekten kaçınarak, şöyle konuştu: "Türkiye'nin yapacağı yardımın şekil, muhteva, miktarı ve yeri görüşmelerle belirlenecek. Daha önce bölgeye heyet gidip gelmiştir, bundan sonra da gidip gelecektir. Türk askerinin Lübnan'a ne zaman gideceğini söylemek şu an için mümkün değil. Öncelikle sıraladığım konuların netleşmesi gerekiyor. Biz Meclis'in çizdiği çerçeve dışında bir iş yapmayacağız. Tezkerede bu konular çok açık bir şekilde sıralanmıştır. Bize orada hiç kimse emir veremez. Emri veren, kendisi yapar. İstemediğimiz bir şeyi de yaptıramaz."

    'Sıfır risk diye bir şey yoktur'
    Büyükanıt, asker göndermenin taşıdığı riskleri soran gazetecilere "Ben deniz unsurlarıyla katılmamızın çok düşük bir risk olduğunu düşünüyorum. Ancak unutulmamalıdır ki sıfır risk diye bir şey yoktur. Küçük bir balıkçı teknesi dahi büyük tehlike oluşturabilir" karşılığını verdi. Büyükanıt bir başka soru üzerine de "Barışı en çok asker ister" dedi.
    Türk askerinin Lübnan BM gücünün Fransız komutanı emriyle Hizbullah, ya da başka silahlı güçle silahlı çatışmaya girebileceği iddiası, TBMM'deki önceki günkü tezkere görüşmelerinde CHP Genel Başkan Yardımcısı Onur Öymen tarafından gündeme getirilmişti.
    Büyükanıt, Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan'ın "Askerlik yan gelip yatma yeri değildir" sözünün anısatılaması üzerineyse, "O konuda yorum yapmak istemiyorum" dedi. Büyükanıt, şehit ailelerinin "Hakkımızı helal etmiyoruz" tepkileriniyse şöyle değerlendirdi:

    'Şehit ailesi ne söylese kabulümdür'
    "O insanlar ne söylerlerse söylesinler kabulümdür. Ateş düştüğü yeri yakar, ne büyük acılar çektiklerini anlıyoruz. Ne söylerlerse söylesinler ben o şehit annelerinin elini öperim. Başımın üzerinde yerleri vardır. Biz onların ne dediğini en iyi anlayanlarız. Çünkü biz o şehitlerimizin komutanıyız. Onlar bizim de evlatlarımız."

    Lübnan'a 400 denizci 500 karacı

    TOLGA AKINER

    ANKARA - Lübnan tezkeresinin kabul edilmesinden ve Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan'ın Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt'a direktif vermesinin ardından, teknik detaylar üzerindeki çalışmalara hız verildi. İlk askerin Lübnan'a 25 Eylül'de gönderilmesi hedefleniyor.
    Edinilen bilgiye göre, Lübnan'a gönderilecek Türk birliği yaklaşık 1000 kişiden oluşacak. Bu personelin 400'ünün denizci, 500'ünün karacı, 70 kadarının da sivil olması öngörülüyor. Askerlerden bir bölümünün İngilizce, Almanca veya Fransızca bilenlerden oluşacağı, 35 kadar da Arapça bilen personelin bulunacağı belirtiliyor. Denizci personel özellikle Aksaz Üssü'nden ve Foça Amfibi Deniz Piyade Tugayı'ndan seçilecek. SAT ve SAS unsur-larının yanı sıra Lübnan ve Türkiye'deki limanlarda görev alacak teknik ve lojistik unsurlar da yer alacak.

    İşi olmayan karaya çıkmayacak
    Türk Birliği'nin deniz unsuru bir firkateyn, bir korvet ve muhtemelen bir yolcu gemisinden oluşacak. Konuşlanılacak Beyrut ve Sur limanları haricinde görevli olmayan hiç kimse karaya ayak basmayacak. Denizden kıyı güvenliği sağlanırken, limanlarda da yardım malzemelerinin koordinasyonuna ilişkin faaliyetlerde bulunulacak. Lübnan'da konuşlandırılacak Türk birliğinin 500 kadar karacısıysa Ankara Mamak'ta konuşlu, 'Barış Gücü Tugayı' olarak bilinen 28. Mekanize Piyade Tugayı'ndan seçilecek. Hafif silahlar taşıyacak karacılar, Türk askerlerinin ve konuşlandıkları noktaların güvenliğinden sorumlu olacak.

    Mersin ana üs olabilir
    Lübnan'a asker sevkıyatı, lojistik ve insani yardımlar için kullanıma açılması düşünülen İskenderun, Taşucu ve Mersin limanlarından birinin ana üs yapılması konusunda da değerlendirmeler sürüyor. Ana üs olarak Mersin Limanı ağırlık kazanmış durumda. Türkiye, Lübnan'a asker gönderme konusunda KKTC'yi de kullanmayı düşünüyor.

    07/09/2006 www.radikal.com.tr


    Lübnan Takvimi

    07 Eylül 2006 Perşembe www.turkiyegazetesi.com
     

    Tribünde oturmakla olmaz...
    BM Genel Sekreteri Annan ile Ankara’da görüşen Başbakan Erdoğan, Türkiye’nin bölgesindeki olaylara seyirci kalamayacağını belirterek, “Bu da tribünde oturarak olmuyor, gözyaşının bitmesi için Lübnan’a gidiyoruz” dedi.

    Yücel Kayaoğlu

    ANKARA- TBMM’nin önceki gün kabul ettiği ve hükümete yetki veren tezkere ile Lübnan’a asker gönderilmesi konusunda son dönemece girildi. Hükümet bu aşamada asker gönderilmesine ilişkin iki ayrı kararname hazırlayarak Cumhurbaşkanı Ahmet Necdet Sezer’in onayına sunacak. Hükümet, önceki gün TBMM’den aldığı yetkinin ardından önümüzdeki günlerde çıkaracağı iki ayrı kararname ile asker gönderme hazırlıkları için Genelkurmay Başkanlığı’na, Birleşmiş Milletler ile görüşmelerin yürütülmesi amacıyla da Dışişleri Bakanlığı’na yetki verecek.

    Eylül sonunda
    Kararnamelere dayanarak yetki alacak olan Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, Lübnan’a gidecek Türk birliğinin hazırlıklarını tamamlamak üzere uluslararası barış misyonları için görevlendirilen 28’inci Mekanize Tugayı’na talimat verecek. Dışişleri Bakanlığı da BM ile temasları yürütecek ve bu temasların sonucunda bölgeye gidecek Türk askerinin görev yeri ve asker sayısı gibi teknik konuları belirleyecek. Askeri hazırlıklar sürerken, sivil kuruluşların yapacağı insani yardımlar için bakanlıklarla koordinasyon sağlanacak. Yer tespitinin ardından, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, bölgeye, öncü heyet göndererek, altyapı çalışmalarını tamamlayacak. Bu hazırlıkların tamamlanmasının ardından Eylül ayının sonuna doğru Türk askerinin Lübnan’a gideceği tahmin ediliyor.

    Veto beklenmiyor
    Söz konusu kararnameler daha önce Lübnan’a Türk askerinin gitmesine karşı olduğunu açıklayan Cumhurbaşkanı Sezer’in onayına gidecek olmasına rağmen, Sezer’in bu kararnameleri veto etmesi beklenmiyor. Meclis İç tüzüğü’nün 130. maddesi uyarınca, yurtdışına asker gönderme veya yabancı silahlı kuvvetlerin Türkiye’de bulunmasına belli bir süre için izin veren TBMM’nin söz konusu kararı, onay için cumhurbaşkanına sunulmuyor. “Meclis kararı” olduğu için doğrudan yayımlanması amacıyla Resmi Gazete’ye gönderiliyor. Ancak yine bu maddenin son cümlesinde “Bu kararı Cumhurbaşkanı uygular” hükmü yer aldığından TBMM’nin bu kararından sonra Bakanlar Kurulu’ndan çıkacak ilgili gizli-açık kararların uygulanması için Cumhurbaşkanı Sezer’in onayı gerekecek. Hükümetin, yurtdışına göndereceği asker sayısı ne olursa olsun ‘yürütme’nin başı olan Cumhurbaşkanı Sezer’in onayını alması gerekeceği, benzeri onayın gönderilecek askeri birlik için yapılacak harcamalarla ilgili bir karar için de gerekeceği belirtiliyor.

    İlk toplantı bugün
    Genelkurmay Başkanlığı ve Dışişleri Lübnan’a gönderilecek Türk birliğinin kaç askerden oluşacağı, hangi unsurların birlik bünyesinde görev alacağı, hangi sivil ekiplerin Türk birliği desteğinde altyapı çalışmaları yapacağı konularını görüşmek üzere bugün Dışişleri Bakanlığı’nda bir araya gelecek. Saat 14.00’teki toplantıya Dışişleri Bakanlığı, Genelkurmay Başkanlığı ve Başbakanlık yetkilileri katılacak. Toplantıda Başbakanlık’ın Acil Durum Yönetimi Genel Müdürlüğü’nce temsil edileceği de öğrenildi.

    Tribünde oturmakla olmaz...
    BM Genel Sekreteri Annan ile Ankara’da görüşen Başbakan Erdoğan, Türkiye’nin bölgesindeki olaylara seyirci kalamayacağını belirterek, “Bu da tribünde oturarak olmuyor, gözyaşının bitmesi için Lübnan’a gidiyoruz” dedi.

    Yeni sekreter kadın mı olacak?
    ANKARA- BM Genel Sekreteri Kofi Annan, bir gazetecinin, ‘yeni genel sekreterle ilgili ifadelerinin İngilizcede bir kadını işaret ettiğini’ söylemesi üzerine, buna ilişkin kararı BM’nin vereceğini, yeni sekreterin kadın da olabileceğini söyledi. Annan, şimdiye kadar BM’nin hiç kadın genel sekreteri olmadığını hatırlattı. Annan, BM Güvenlik Konseyinde Yunanistan’ın dönem başkanlığına ilişkin bir soruyu cevaplarken de, Yunanistan’ı zor bir dönemin beklediğini, bu dönemde Lübnan, Darfur, İran’la ilgili nükleer kriz, Kongo Demokratik Cumhuriyeti’ndeki seçimler gibi zorlu konuların ele alınacağını bildirdi.

    ANKARA - Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Lübnan’da aslolanın ne yapılacağı ve yapıldığı olduğunu belirterek, bunun da tribünde durarak, izleyerek, seyrederek konuşmakla olmayacağını söyledi. Erdoğan, gözyaşının bitmesi için Lübnan’a gittiklerini vurguladı. Başbakan Erdoğan ve BM Genel Sekreteri Kofi Annan, Başbakanlık Merkez Bina’da yaptıkları görüşmenin ardından ortak basın toplantısı düzenlediler. Erdoğan, Annan ayrıntılarını değerlendirme imkanı bulduklarını anlattı. Annan ile yararlı bir görüşme gerçekleştirdiklerini belirten Erdoğan, “Özellikle silahsızlandırmaya yönelik olarak tezkeremizde yer bulan ifadelerin, aynen paylaşıldığını görmek bizler için bir memnuniyet ifadesidir” dedi. Erdoğan, bundan sonraki aşamada ateşkesin sağlamlaştırılmasının, barış ve istikrarın kalıcı hale getirilmesinin önem kazandığına dikkati çekerek, “Türkiye olarak biz bu süreçte tarihi ve insani sorumluluklarımızın gereğini yerine getireceğiz. Burada öncelikli hedefimiz, bir barışın korunmasına katkıda bulunmak. Çünkü insanlar ölmesin diyoruz, çocuklar, kadınlar, yaşlı insanlar ölmesin diyoruz. Bölgede barış, huzur egemen olsun istiyoruz. Hedefimiz sadece budur. Küresel barışın hakim olmasıdır” diye konuştu.

    Tutarlı davranıyoruz
    Meclis’te iktidarıyla muhalefetiyle herkesin bu sürece yönelik düşündüklerini ortaya koyduğunu belirten Erdoğan, “Ama bizler çözümden yana olan irademizi bir kez daha Annan’a ifade ettik. Türk tarafının söylemleriyle davranışları arasında bir tutarsızlık olmayacaktır. Önce Orta Ddoğu’da huzurun, barışın sağlanması için el ele dayanışma içerisinde bu süreci hızlandırmamız, katkıda bulunmamız gerekiyor. Çok şey söylenebilir, ama aslolan ne yapılacağıdır, ne yaptığımızdır. Bu da tribünde durarak, izleyerek, konuşmakla olmuyor. Ancak arazide bir şeyler üretmekle oluyor. Bunun da yeri şu anda, bizzat bu bölgenin kendisidir, bu Lübnan’dır, bu Filistin’dir. Buralarda da üzerimize düşeni hep birlikte yapmamızın gereğine inanıyoruz.”
    Yabancı bir basın mensubunun “Türk halkı tezkereye neden bu kadar karşı çıktı’” sorusu üzerine Erdoğan, kendi yaptırdıkları kamuoyu araştırmalarında bu çıkan seslerin diğer kamuoyu araştırmalarıyla örtüşmediğini belirterek, “Orada çok farklı bir netice var. Çünkü halkımızın, bu işte duygusal olmayanı şunu konuşuyor; burada gözyaşı varsa, çocuklar, anneler, yaşlılar öldürülüyorsa, burada bir barış tesis edilecek ve bu barış korunacaksa, bu tabi oturduğunuz yerden bu barış korunmaz. Orada bir şeyler yapmak gerekiyor. Parlamento kararını vermiş, hep birlikte verilmiş olan bu karara saygılı olursak, sahip çıkarsak ve bundan sonraki süreçte tabii ki bu olanlar söylenenleri yalanladıkça, inanıyorum ki, halkımızın bu gücü sahiplenmesi çok daha farklı olacaktır.”

    Bin asker iması
    BM Genel Sekreteri Annan da, Türkiye’nin bölgede yer almasının önemine dikkat çekerek, BM Barış Gücü’nün Lübnan’da Hizbullah’ın silahsızlandırılması için bulunmayacağını, silahsızlandırmanın sadece Lübnan’da uzlaşma sağlanmasıyla mümkün olacağına inandığını söyledi. Annan, asker sayısına dair bir soru üzerine de, Avrupa’nın barış gücüne 7 bin askerle katılacağını, Türk askerleriyle birlikte bu rakamın 8 bin ya da daha fazla olabileceğini belirtti.

    KKTC hatırlatıldı
    Bu arada Dışişleri Bakanlığı Sözcüsü Namık Tan, Annan’ın, Lübnan’a asker gönderme konusunda TBMM’nin aldığı karardan dolayı Türk tarafına takdirlerini ve şükranlarını ilettiğini söyledi. Tan, haftalık basın toplantısında Annan’ın görüşmelerinde Türkiye’nin KKTC konusundaki görüşlerinin bir kez daha yinelemekte yarar gördüklerini ifade etti. Tan, “Annan’ın elbette önümüzdeki dönemde bu konuda bazı çalışmalar yapacağı anlaşılmaktadır” dedi.

    Sinyora’dan teşekkür
    Öte yandan Lübnan Başbakanı Fuad Sinyora, Başbakan Erdoğan’ı telefonla arayarak, tezkerenin kabulünden dolayı teşekkür etti. Sinyora’ya, Lübnan’ın birliği ve bütünlüğü için misafirleri olacaklarını söyleyen Başbakan Erdoğan, teknik detaylarla ilgili çalışmanın da sürdüğünü ifade etti. Sinyora da TBMM’nin aldığı kararın, tarihte çok büyük bir hayırla anılacağını vurgulayarak, ‘’Size ve Türk Milletine teşekkür ediyorum. Kalbimizde yeriniz var’’ dedi.

    Irak’a girmeliydik
    Başbakan Erdoğan dün ayrıca CNN Türk’te katıldığı canlı yayında güncel konulara dair soruları cevapladı. Erdoğan reddedilen 1 Mart tezkeresi konusunda şunları söyledi: “Keşke 1 Mart’ta Irak’a girseydik. Gitmeliydik. Gitmiş olsaydık, bugünkü tablo olmazdı, çok daha farklı bir tablo olurdu. Peki asker göndermediğimiz halde şu anda bizim kaybımız yok mu? Amerika’dan sonra en çok kayıp bizim. Kim bunlar? Şoförümüz, mühendisimiz, işçimiz...” Askerlikle ilgili bir açıklamasının önünü arkasını görmeden sağa sola çekmek isteyenler olduğunu ifade eden Erdoğan, şehit aileleriyle ilgili yaralayıcı bir ifade kullanmadığını kaydetti. Türkiye’de bir etnik azınlık söz konusu olmadığını söyleyen Erdoğan, “Türkiye’de dini azınlık vardır, bunlar da belli. Benim sahip olduğum haklara benim Kürt kökenli, Laz, Arnavut, Boşnak kökenli vatandaşım sahipse, bunların artık dertlenmeye hakları yok’’ dedi.

    Orgeneral Büyükanıt: Lübnan’a insanî yardım için gidiyoruz
    ANKARA - Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt, Türk askerinin Lübnan’a Meclis tezkeresinde belirtildiği gibi insani yardım yapmaya gittiğini söyledi. Pakistan Büyükelçiliği’ndeki Silahlı Kuvvetler Günü’ne kuvvet komutanlarıyla birlikte katılan Orgeneral Büyükanıt, Türkiye-Pakistan ilişkilerini övdü. Basın mensuplarının sorularını da cevaplandıran Orgeneral Büyükanıt, Lübnan’a asker gönderilmesi konusundaki bir soru üzerine şunları söyledi:
    “Bu sorunuza Tezkere’den 5 satır alarak cevap vereyim. Birincisi, Doğu Akdeniz’de güvenliğin sağlanması için Deniz Kuvvetlerinden güç tahsisi isteniyor. İkincisi dost ve müttefik ülkelerin Lübnan’a hava ve deniz ulaştırmasına destek olunacağı belirtiliyor. Üçüncüsü Lübnan ordusunun eğitimine destek verileceği dile getiriliyor. Dördüncüsü çok önemli. Türkiye’nin oraya insani yardım amacıyla gittiğini kaydediyor. Beşincisi ise Lübnan’daki hiçbir grubun silahlardan arındırılmayacağını vurguluyor. Türk birliğinin Lübnan’da bu beş nokta dışında hiçbir görevi olmayacak. Tezkere bunları söylüyor.”

    Görevimiz belli
    Lübnan’a gönderilecek Türk birliğinin sayısının henüz kesinleşmediğini belirten Büyükanıt, Türk birliği ile birlikte sivil unsurların da Lübnan’a gideceğini ve kesin sayının sivil kuruluşlardan gelecek unsurların belirlenmesinden sonra çıkacağını kaydetti. Kimsenin Türk askerinden Hizbullah’ın silahsızlandırılmasını isteyemeyeceğini belirten Büyükanıt, “Bizim tezkere ile Meclis’in verdiği görevin dışında bir şey yapmayız. Hiç kimse tezkerede yer almayan bir konuda bize emir veremez ve yaptıramaz” dedi. Büyükanıt, “Peki Türk birliğine ateş açılırsa, buna cevap verilecek mi?’’ sorusu üzerine, “Bu evrensel bir kuraldır. Saldıranlara, saldırılan kuvvet cevap verir. Ama biz askerler olarak her yerde barış olmasını isteriz. İnsanlar ve çocuklar ölmesin isteriz. Barışı en çok askerler ister. Çünkü askerler barışın teminatıdır” diye konuştu.

    Sıfır risk yok
    Türk birliğinin görev yeri konusunda BM ile temasların sürdüğünü kaydeden Orgeneral Büyükanıt, görevin az da olsa risk taşıdığını kaydetti. Büyükanıt, “Risk düşük ama sıfır risk yok. Örneğin denizde bir balıkçı teknesi büyük tehdit teşkil edebilir. Şu anda burada konuşurken başımıza arızalanan bir uçak düşebilir, bir göktaşı düşebilir. Hayat risklerle dolu” dedi. Orgeneral Büyükanıt, şehit ailelerinin cenaze törenlerinde gösterdikleri tepkiyle ilgili bir soru üzerine şöyle konuştu: “Allah kimseye böyle acı vermesin. Onların her türlü tepkisinin başımızın üzerinde yeri var. Ateş düştüğü yeri yakar. Şehit analarının ellerinden öperim.” Genelkurmay İkinci Başkanı Orgeneral Ergin Saygun da sorular üzerine, hükümetten Lübnan’a asker gönderilmesi konusunda henüz siyasi direktif almadıklarını ancak Dışişleri Bakanlığı ile birlikte çalışmaları sürdürdüklerini söyledi.

    Lübnan’ı görüştüler
    Bu arada Başbakan Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’ın, Genelkurmay Başkanı Orgeneral Yaşar Büyükanıt’ı kabul ederek bir süre görüştü. Kabulde, Lübnan’a asker gönderme konusunun ele alındığı öğrenildi. Görüşmenin son bölümüne Dışişleri Bakanı ve Başbakan Yardımcısı Abdullah Gül’ün de katıldığı bildirildi.

    Çatışma olmayacak
    ANKARA- BM Genel Sekreteri Kofi Annan, bölge turu kapsamında son durak olarak geldiği Ankara’da, Cumhurbaşkanı Ahmet Necdet Sezer ve Dışişleri Bakanı Abdullah Gül ile de görüştü. Annan görüşmede Lübnan’da kurulacak BM Barış Gücü’nün çatışmaya girmeyeceği garantisini verdi. BM Barış Gücü’nün böyle bir görevi ve yetkisi olmadığının altını çizen Annan, BM’nin 1701 sayılı kararının titizlikle uygulanacağını söyledi.

    Kerkük uyarısı
    Dışişleri Bakanı Gül de, son dönemde artan terör olayları sebebiyle Türk halkının Lübnan’a asker gönderme konusuna hassasiyetle yaklaştığını ifade etti. Gül bölgedeki meselelerin temelinde Filistin bulunduğunu bu meseleye çözüm bulunmadan bölgenin istikrara kavuşamayacağını dile getirdi. Görüşmede Gül ayrıca Türkiye’nin Kerkük konusuna ilişkin hassasiyetini de vurgulayarak, Kerkük meselesine BM’nin katkı yapmasını isteyerek, ‘Kerkük adil şekilde çözümlenmezse Irak sorunu ilelebet devam edecektir’ mesajını verdi.

    Kuzu: Onay rutin işlem
    TBMM Anayasa Komisyonu Başkanı AK Parti İstanbul Milletvekili Burhan Kuzu gazetemize yaptığı açıklamada, iç tüzüğün söz konusu hükmünün Sezer’e asker göndermeyi engelleyecek bir yetki vermediğini savundu. Kuzu, “Cumhurbaşkanı devletin başı ve başkomutan sayıldığı için gözetim yetkisi var. Bu semboliktir, icra anlamına gelmez. Buradan yola çıkarak cumhurbaşkanı asker göndermeyi engellemez” dedi. Kuzu, tezkere ile ilgili uygulama kararnamelerinin ise Cumhurbaşkanının onayına sunulacağını hatırlatırken, ‘Ancak bunlar bir atama kararnamesi değil, rutin bir kararname ortada Meclis’in kararı varken, uygulama kararnamelerinde Cumhurbaşkanının güçlük çıkaracağını sanmam. Veto etmez. Milli güvenliğin sağlanmasından Bakanlar Kurulu Meclis’e karşı sorumludur. Yani sorumluluk tamamen Hükümetin üzerindedir. Bugüne kadar tezkere uygulamalarının, hiç birinde bir sıkıntı yaşanmamış, o sebeple uygulamayı engelleme gibi bir şey olmaz” diye konuştu.

    Erdoğan: Keşke 1 Mart tezkeresi de geçseydi

    07.09.2006  PERŞEMBE  www.zaman.com.tr

    Başbakan Tayyip Erdoğan, Lübnan’a asker gönderme konusunda içinin rahat olduğunu söyleyerek, “Keşke 1 Mart’ta Irak’a gitme kararı çıksaydı.” dedi.

    Dün CNN TÜRK’te Lübnan tezkeresi ile ilgili soruları cevaplayan Erdoğan, “Tezkerenin geçmesi son derece olumlu oldu.” dedi. Erdoğan sözü, 3 yıl önce Türk askerinin Kuzey Irak’ta görev yapmasını öngören 1 Mart tezkeresine getirdi: “Keşke 1 Mart’ta Irak’a girseydik. Gitmiş olsaydık bugünkü tablo olmazdı, bugün çok daha farklı bir tablo olurdu. Ben bunu açıkça söylüyorum. İnanarak, altını çizerek söylüyorum. Şu anki olumsuz tablo bugün olmayacaktı. Ben bunu savunuyorum. Irak’ta bize verilecek bölge belliydi. Neresiydi? Kuzey Irak. Biz asker göndermedik. Peki asker göndermediğimiz halde kaybımız yok mu? Amerika’dan sonra en çok kayıp bizim. İngilizlerden fazla kaybımız var. Kim bunlar? Şoförümüz, mühendisimiz, işçimiz. Orada çalışanlar maalesef iki ateş arasında kalıyorlar.”


    Annan lends helping hand to government over Lebanon row

    Thursday, September 7, 2006  ANKARA - Turkish Daily News

      U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan lent a helping hand to the government, which has been battling fierce opposition to its decision to send troops to Lebanon at home, giving assurances that the troops would not be tasked with disarming Hezbollah.

      “The mandate is clear. The troops are not there to disarm Hezbollah. They are there to work with the government of Lebanon and the Lebanese army to extend its authority throughout the territory,” Annan said at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara, his latest stop in a regional tour.

      Annan met with President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, an opponent of sending troops, Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül a day after the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) defied objections from the opposition and voted for troop deployment in Lebanon to contribute to UNIFIL, the U.N. peacekeeping force there.

      “It pleases us that our conditions set out in the motion regarding the disarmament issue are fully shared [by Annan],” Erdoğan told the news conference.

      Indicating that he was told by Turkish leaders that Ankara was to send 1,000 troops, Annan said: “The 7,000 troops that were offered in Brussels does not include the battalion that is going to come from Turkey. Now that Turkey has contributed, we'll probably go to 8,000 or so from this region.”

      Turkey's decision, strongly disapproved of by the opposition parties and a significant part of society, has been welcomed by Annan, who said it was “crucial,” as well as by the United States and France.

      A U.S. State Department official said Washington was “pleased” with the decision, while the French Foreign Ministry said France, a leading contributor to the force, welcomed the Turkish move.


    Annan trying to end blockade
    TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2006

    Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said Tuesday that he had put in motion a plan that could lead to a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Lebanon within two days.

    In an interview on his flight here from Jidda, Annan said he was taking action because regional leaders he met on his current Middle East trip had told him that the blockade was the single biggest impediment to beginning Lebanon's recovery.

    The blockade was imposed by Israel on July 13, when it began its war against Lebanon and has been maintained since the halt in fighting Aug. 14. The stated goal is to block arms going to the Hezbollah militia, with which Israel waged the 34-day conflict.

    Annan is making his 11-day trip to gain backing in the region for the Security Council resolution that halted hostilities and to muster support for the rebuilding of Lebanon after the devastation caused by the war.

    He has argued at every stop thus far - Beirut, Jerusalem, the West Bank, Amman, Damascus, Tehran, Qatar and Jidda - that it is illogical to stop goods from entering Lebanon at the same time as the United Nations is asking people to send help and resources there.

    He met with Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president, and Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the foreign minister, in Alexandria before departing late Tuesday for Ankara, the final leg of his diplomatic journey.

    His meetings there on Wednesday are with Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, and Abdullah Gul, the foreign minister.

    [Turkey agreed Tuesday to send peacekeepers to Lebanon to monitor the cease-fire, becoming the first Muslim country that has relations with Israel to do so, news agencies reported from Ankara.

    [The vote in the legislature was 340 to 192 in favor of sending hundreds of troops to Lebanon, with one lawmaker abstaining, after a lengthy debate on the floor.

    [But before the vote, thousands of protesters took to the streets to oppose the mission. Many in Turkey, a Muslim but secular country, are concerned that the UN force would mainly serve Israeli and U.S. interests and that troops may have to fire at fellow Muslims. The left is also vehemently opposed.

    ["We will not become Israeli soldiers!" and "Murderer U.S.A. get out of the Middle East!" chanted leftists protesting in a street near Parliament. Several demonstrators were arrested by the police.]

    In the interview, Annan described a three-step process that he hoped would begin with an announcement from Jacques Chirac, the president of France, about deploying French ships along the Lebanese coast.

    Under the plan, Chirac's announcement would trigger an immediate dispatch of French, Italian and Greek vessels to patrol the coast for two weeks, until a promised German fleet arrives.

    French diplomats said Tuesday in Paris that the French government had been asked to provide naval forces until a German contingent was ready. They said the deployment was imminent.

    The second step is a formal letter to Annan from Fouad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, formally authorizing the Germans to take up their positions in the Mediterranean off Lebanon.

    They will be part of the expanded United Nations force responsible for guarding southern Lebanon and preventing a recurrence of the hostilities.

    The force, envisioned as 15,000 foreign soldiers, was authorized by the resolution and will join 15,000 Lebanese Army troops sent to the area by Siniora.

    The third and final step that Annan hopes for is an announcement that Israel will lift the blockade.

    Annan said he had coordinated the moves in telephone conversations with Chirac, Siniora and Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, as well as Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state.

    Siniora and Olmert have disagreed on the sequence of events, Annan said, relating that Siniora wants Israel to end its blockade before he authorizes the German assignment and Olmert has said he would lift the embargo only after word that the Germans were officially committed.

    Annan hopes that the temporary presence of French, Italian and Greek ships will provide Israel with the assurances it needs.

    Israel has recently eased the restrictions on commercial flights into Beirut. Lebanon's Middle East Airlines and Royal Jordanian Airlines have been conducting limited service and on Monday a Qatar Airways passenger jet was allowed to land.

    The airline announced it was resuming daily service between Doha and Beirut.

    Vote should please many

    In Ankara, the vote in Parliament on sending troops to Lebanon is expected to please Europe, the United States and Israel, which want to see peacekeepers from Turkey in the UN force in the hopes that strong Muslim participation - particularly from NATO's only Muslim nation, and one of few with ties to Israel - will avert any impression that the force is primarily Christian, The Associated Press reported.

    The decision was a victory for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who called Turkey's participation a moral duty that would contribute to regional stability and raise Turkey's profile in international affairs.

    "We are the children of a nation that has always extended a helping hand to the needy," Egemen Bagis, a lawmaker allied with Erdogan, said after the vote. "We could not remain indifferent to the sufferings of children and women in Lebanon."

    Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said, "It is good for our interests to contribute to the peace and stability in the region."

    Erdogan's government has sought a chance to play a bigger role in the Middle East, a region the Turks ruled for centuries during the Ottoman Empire, and to win favor with the West as it seeks European Union membership.

    But the decision is not expected to be popular with everyone home. Many Turks were outraged by the deadly Israeli strikes on Lebanon during the 34 days of warfare and are wary of the mission they see as a force deployed to protect Israel's interests.

    "We don't think it is right to send Turkey into an adventure with so many unknowns," Erkan Mumcu, chairman of the opposition center-right Motherland Party, said Tuesday. "I have no child to sacrifice for the security of Israel."

    More than 10,000 people took to the streets in the capital on Tuesday in protest. The police blocked streets with armored personnel carriers to prevent the marchers from reaching the Parliament building.

    "We won't be the soldiers of the United States and Israel," their banners read. "Mehmet's blood is not for sale," read others, evoking a nickname Turks affectionately call their soldiers.

    Is the ‘clash of civilizations’ coming true?

    Opinion By Ali GÜNEŞ Saturday, August 12, 2006
    The collapse of the Soviet Union during the period 1991-92 altered the equilibrium of political and international relationships that were half a century old. From the wreckage of the Soviet Union emerged 15 new independent states, bringing to an end the monopoly of power in the Russian mainland. The dissolution of the Soviet Union also ended the Cold War, or the ideological differences and conflict between the communist and capitalist blocs, yet the shift of relationships created a vacuum in the game of world politics when the capitalist bloc lost its rival. There was an urgent need to find new rivalries, not only for filling the vacuum but also for keeping the game on track, a game that would again divide the world into camps and differences intended for the interest of the powerful.

      Just two years after the split of the Soviet Union, American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington made surprising statements in his article, “The Clash of Civilizations,” published in the Foreign Affairs of summer 1993. Huntington predicts that the history of the 21st century will be dominated by struggle, not between ideologies and individual countries but between human cultures and civilizations:

      “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”

      In Huntington's view, the “clash of civilizations” will be between the Islamic and Western civilizations, and he suggests that Islamic culture and religion will threaten and challenge Western values. From Huntington's point of view, in fact, the game is the same game. What he puts forward obviously gives rise to division and categorization in the world politics and relationships when based on the dichotomy of “us” and “them.” As a conservative political scientist, Huntington strives to create, whether imaginary or real, enemies at the border, to keep the world bipolar as in the pre-Soviet Union period, yet what he suggests might lead the world to another bloody conflict like those of the Middle Ages: religious. History is full of such examples, and people have become tired, not only of the discomfort of this way of life but also of this primitive manner. As humankind has witnessed throughout history, what is left behind the wars is just dust and ashes, death, blood and tears. Hence Huntington's view of “us” -- Western civilization -- and the “other” civilization -- Islamic in the post-modern sense -- might derive from the result of attempts to find new enemies or new excuses as in the pre-Soviet Union period to control world politics and relationships in a different way.

      However, the way the world has been heading for more than a decade obviously contradicts Huntington's view of “us” and “them” or “the clash of civilizations” between the Western world and Islamic world because a new relationship, coined as multiculturalism, has for a while been putting hope and excitement into the hearts of many people all over the world. People do not want division and conflict in life any more but rather desire to understand each other and learn about each other's cultures and civilizations. For this very reason, many organizations, particularly the European Union, have launched a number of projects to bridge the gaps between different peoples. The idea is that these projects bring together people from different parts of the world; they talk about themselves, their way of life, views, differences and customs. They share their experiences on education, art and culture as well as other subjects. The more they learn and understand each other, the closer they become. Their prejudices gradually disappear, and they endeavor to construct a new way of life or a new civilization based on mutual respect, understanding and tolerance. In short, these different people make an effort to take advantage of each other's experiences and differences, since they come to realize that they all share a common value: humanity.

      Moreover, multiculturalism might also help resolve several disturbing problems throughout the world: It may help eradicate radical nationalistic tendencies and centralist unified official ideologies or thinking by favoring a diverse, communal and harmonious view of life, despite people's differences. Furthermore, it might also encourage respect for differences between groups, cultures and civilizations, by enthusiastically recommending not homogeneity but heterogeneity in societies. Thus, it enriches and diversifies the way we perceive life, reality and meaning, wiping out conflicts and the “we-and-others” categorization and opposition.

      Nevertheless, recent events in Iraq and Lebanon have disappointed many commonsensical people in both Christian and Muslim countries, giving them an impression that the “clash of civilizations” is coming into being. In a sense, this is accurate but the reality is different. This time it seems that the “clash of civilizations” is not exclusively between the Islamic and Western civilizations but between the bloc in which America and Israel act and the bloc in which responsible people -- Christians, Jews, Muslims and members of nongovernmental organizations -- show their reactions against atrocities, enmity and the killing of innocent people: children and the elderly. We have seen examples that insightful people have defied Huntington's view of the “clash of civilizations” not only in Muslim countries but also in Israel, Europe and even the United States. These reactions are due to the fact that the way the world is heading at the moment is not promising. The powerful crush the weak to keep their interests intact and control the world in the way they wish. But what is strange and upsetting is that all of the actions -- killing, torture, abuse and occupation -- have been carried out in the name of democracy, human rights, peace, justice and modernization, and yet the result is an obvious failure. People all over the world no longer want to see war, conflict, blood and tears; instead, they yearn to live in a world where there is no conflict, killing, division or exploitation but peace, justice democracy, human rights and equality.  

      *Assistant Professor Ali Güneş is with the Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Science and Letters, Kafkas University, Kars. He can be contacted at gunesali1@gmail.com 

    © 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr


    Terrorism and an appeal to reason

    Opinion By J. Michael BARRETT Wednesday, September 13, 2006 

    ...if Islamic moderates ignore the debate within Islam then the radicals will win and there truly will be a global clash of civilizations

      Turkey is a magical land with a people I respect and deeply admire for their love of family and love of country. I first fell in love with it while visiting as a Fulbright Scholar in 1997-98 and in fact just returned from a two-week trip visiting old friends and celebrating as a dear friend announced her engagement. But on my trip I was disturbed by a conversation I had that brought home just how far apart our two countries are with respect to understanding the meaning of the events of that tragic day.

      Although my Turkish is passable in some respects, I was speaking English with a couple who spoke it fluently and were clearly intelligent, well educated and well traveled. Indeed, their daughter had just completed four years of studying American culture, including reading classics of American literature, some of which I haven't even read. The conversation on literature and movies turned to the hit American television show “24,” and then, perhaps inevitably, to my own line of work, which is advising law enforcement and businesses on how to better prepare for the realities of the threats and consequences of terrorism. It was then that they asked me why it was that America allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. It was sad that such good people could know so much about my country but understand so little.

      In the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 I was called to serve in my nation's military. I had a seat in crafting a strategy for dealing with what we believed to be a significant, and potentially existential, threat. It was a proud and noble opportunity to help defend my country, a sentiment a Turkish patriot will well understand. The hatred and vitriol coming out of certain select corners of the Muslim world was rabid in its intensity and, frankly, terrifying in its specificity. These were threats not be taken lightly, plots involving nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. So much so that I moved my family from our home just outside Washington, D.C., to a safer location further away.

      For five years the United States has pursued various policies to deal with these threats, some good, some bad, some too early to tell. For example it is significant, though often overlooked, that the Bush administration was apparently wrong about Iraq still having stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. I say wrong because it is different to believe something and be wrong than to knowingly lie about something you know to be false, which is what the Bush administration is often, but wrongly, accused of. I worked there, I saw the intelligence, and we believed what we were told by multiple sources, which included several senior Iraqi officials.

      But I am not writing to apologize for my government or to try and explain our decisions; these issues can and should be addressed, but not today. Today I am writing to appeal to the intelligentsia of the Turkish people, the rational, right-minded and logical people of a great country I love. I am writing to ask that you apply your critical thinking skills and understand, with 100 percent certitude, that the United States did not somehow fake the attacks of Sept. 11. The Central Intelligence Agency did not know in advance that the attacks would occur. Jews living and working around the twin towers and the Pentagon did not know to avoid coming to work that day. The government had no role in carrying out the attacks. These and other absurd theories have become a prevalent part of the common dialogue on terrorism, but they represent a dangerous departure from reality.

      Such assertions are nonsense, conspiracy theories concocted to fit a pattern some would rather believe -- that an all-powerful America manipulated events to justify wars in the Middle East -- than accept the simple truth that, sadly, five years ago a misguided subset of Islamic radicals were able to hijack not only four airplanes, but also the name of the great religion of Islam. It is a dishonor to the innocent American and non-American victims who died that day to perpetuate such absurd theories. It is also a dishonor to the religion of Islam to deny the clear truth that there is conflict within the broad Muslim community about the proper roles and compatibility of Islam and Democracy. More to the point it is dangerous -- if Islamic moderates ignore the debate within Islam then the radicals will win and there truly will be a global clash of civilizations.

      As a friend and as an ally, I ask you to become more engaged in this debate, to leave behind conspiracy theories and join the rest of the world's secular democracies in ensuring the violent extremists don't win out. Surely Turkey, which suffered three separate attacks during my recent visit, can understand that terrorists do such things. So why can't you accept that a terrorist group would also act the same way, albeit on a much larger scale, here in the United States? If Turkey, a trusted ally that has long been viewed as a shining example of a secular, democratic Muslim nation, can misunderstand America so severely, what does that indicate about the beliefs of the rest of the Islamic world? Please help us to be on the right side of history as we struggle to deal with these significant threats, and to do so in a way that isolates the terrorists from the moderates, not the United States from the rest of the Muslim world. 

      * J. Michael Barrett is the Harbinger/ICx Technologies Fellow in Homeland Security at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism in the United States and a former terrorism analyst for the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. He has been interviewed on numerous U.S. and international television news programs and is co-author of the forthcoming book “Securing Global Transportation Networks” from McGraw Hill (October, 2006).

    © 2005 Dogan Daily News Inc. www.turkishdailynews.com.tr


     
    Washington’s Interests in Israel’s war

    By SEYMOUR M. HERSH  - THE NEW YORKER

    Issue: 2006-08-21

    In the days after Hezbollah crossed from Lebanon into Israel, on July 12th, to kidnap two soldiers, triggering an Israeli air attack on Lebanon and a full-scale war, the Bush Administration seemed strangely passive. “It’s a moment of clarification,” President George W. Bush said at the G-8 summit, in St. Petersburg, on July 16th. “It’s now become clear why we don’t have peace in the Middle East.” He described the relationship between Hezbollah and its supporters in Iran and Syria as one of the “root causes of instability,” and subsequently said that it was up to those countries to end the crisis. Two days later, despite calls from several governments for the United States to take the lead in negotiations to end the fighting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a ceasefire should be put off until “the conditions are conducive.”

    The Bush Administration, however, was closely involved in the planning of Israel’s retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah’s heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel’s security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground.

    Israeli military and intelligence experts I spoke to emphasized that the country’s immediate security issues were reason enough to confront Hezbollah, regardless of what the Bush Administration wanted. Shabtai Shavit, a national-security adviser to the Knesset who headed the Mossad, Israel’s foreign-intelligence service, from 1989 to 1996, told me, “We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America’s requirements, that’s just part of a relationship between two friends. Hezbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time. We had to address it.”

    Hezbollah is seen by Israelis as a profound threat—a terrorist organization, operating on their border, with a military arsenal that, with help from Iran and Syria, has grown stronger since the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon ended, in 2000. Hezbollah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, has said he does not believe that Israel is a “legal state.” Israeli intelligence estimated at the outset of the air war that Hezbollah had roughly five hundred medium-range Fajr-3 and Fajr-5 rockets and a few dozen long-range Zelzal rockets; the Zelzals, with a range of about two hundred kilometres, could reach Tel Aviv. (One rocket hit Haifa the day after the kidnappings.) It also has more than twelve thousand shorter-range rockets. Since the conflict began, more than three thousand of these have been fired at Israel.

    According to a Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of both the Israeli and the U.S. governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah—and shared it with Bush Administration officials—well before the July 12th kidnappings. “It’s not that the Israelis had a trap that Hezbollah walked into,” he said, “but there was a strong feeling in the White House that sooner or later the Israelis were going to do it.”

    The Middle East expert said that the Administration had several reasons for supporting the Israeli bombing campaign. Within the State Department, it was seen as a way to strengthen the Lebanese government so that it could assert its authority over the south of the country, much of which is controlled by Hezbollah. He went on, “The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush wanted both. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the Axis of Evil, and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hezbollah as part of his interest in democratization, with Lebanon as one of the crown jewels of Middle East democracy.”

    Administration officials denied that they knew of Israel’s plan for the air war. The White House did not respond to a detailed list of questions. In response to a separate request, a National Security Council spokesman said, “Prior to Hezbollah’s attack on Israel, the Israeli government gave no official in Washington any reason to believe that Israel was planning to attack. Even after the July 12th attack, we did not know what the Israeli plans were.” A Pentagon spokesman said, “The United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program,” and denied the story, as did a State Department spokesman.

    The United States and Israel have shared intelligence and enjoyed close military coöperation for decades, but early this spring, according to a former senior intelligence official, high-level planners from the U.S. Air Force—under pressure from the White House to develop a war plan for a decisive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities—began consulting with their counterparts in the Israeli Air Force.

    “The big question for our Air Force was how to hit a series of hard targets in Iran successfully,” the former senior intelligence official said. “Who is the closest ally of the U.S. Air Force in its planning? It’s not Congo—it’s Israel. Everybody knows that Iranian engineers have been advising Hezbollah on tunnels and underground gun emplacements. And so the Air Force went to the Israelis with some new tactics and said to them, ‘Let’s concentrate on the bombing and share what we have on Iran and what you have on Lebanon.’ ” The discussions reached the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, he said.

    “The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits,” a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said. “Why oppose it? We’ll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran.”

    A Pentagon consultant said that the Bush White House “has been agitating for some time to find a reason for a preëmptive blow against Hezbollah.” He added, “It was our intent to have Hezbollah diminished, and now we have someone else doing it.” (As this article went to press, the United Nations Security Council passed a ceasefire resolution, although it was unclear if it would change the situation on the ground.)

    According to Richard Armitage, who served as Deputy Secretary of State in Bush’s first term—and who, in 2002, said that Hezbollah “may be the A team of terrorists”—Israel’s campaign in Lebanon, which has faced unexpected difficulties and widespread criticism, may, in the end, serve as a warning to the White House about Iran. “If the most dominant military force in the region—the Israel Defense Forces—can’t pacify a country like Lebanon, with a population of four million, you should think carefully about taking that template to Iran, with strategic depth and a population of seventy million,” Armitage said. “The only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis."

    Several current and former officials involved in the Middle East told me that Israel viewed the soldiers’ kidnapping as the opportune moment to begin its planned military campaign against Hezbollah. “Hezbollah, like clockwork, was instigating something small every month or two,” the U.S. government consultant with ties to Israel said. Two weeks earlier, in late June, members of Hamas, the Palestinian group, had tunnelled under the barrier separating southern Gaza from Israel and captured an Israeli soldier. Hamas also had lobbed a series of rockets at Israeli towns near the border with Gaza. In response, Israel had initiated an extensive bombing campaign and reoccupied parts of Gaza.

    The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. “They’ve been sniping at each other,” he said. “Either side could have pointed to some incident and said ‘We have to go to war with these guys’—because they were already at war.”

    David Siegel, the spokesman at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said that the Israeli Air Force had not been seeking a reason to attack Hezbollah. “We did not plan the campaign. That decision was forced on us.” There were ongoing alerts that Hezbollah “was pressing to go on the attack,” Siegel said. “Hezbollah attacks every two or three months,” but the kidnapping of the soldiers raised the stakes.

    In interviews, several Israeli academics, journalists, and retired military and intelligence officers all made one point: they believed that the Israeli leadership, and not Washington, had decided that it would go to war with Hezbollah. Opinion polls showed that a broad spectrum of Israelis supported that choice. “The neocons in Washington may be happy, but Israel did not need to be pushed, because Israel has been wanting to get rid of Hezbollah,” Yossi Melman, a journalist for the newspaper Ha’aretz, who has written several books about the Israeli intelligence community, said. “By provoking Israel, Hezbollah provided that opportunity.”

    “We were facing a dilemma,” an Israeli official said. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “had to decide whether to go for a local response, which we always do, or for a comprehensive response—to really take on Hezbollah once and for all.” Olmert made his decision, the official said, only after a series of Israeli rescue efforts failed.

    The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel told me, however, that, from Israel’s perspective, the decision to take strong action had become inevitable weeks earlier, after the Israeli Army’s signals intelligence group, known as Unit 8200, picked up bellicose intercepts in late spring and early summer, involving Hamas, Hezbollah, and Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader now living in Damascus.

    One intercept was of a meeting in late May of the Hamas political and military leadership, with Meshal participating by telephone. “Hamas believed the call from Damascus was scrambled, but Israel had broken the code,” the consultant said. For almost a year before its victory in the Palestinian elections in January, Hamas had curtailed its terrorist activities. In the late May intercepted conversation, the consultant told me, the Hamas leadership said that “they got no benefit from it, and were losing standing among the Palestinian population.” The conclusion, he said, was “ ‘Let’s go back into the terror business and then try and wrestle concessions from the Israeli government.’ ” The consultant told me that the U.S. and Israel agreed that if the Hamas leadership did so, and if Nasrallah backed them up, there should be “a full-scale response.” In the next several weeks, when Hamas began digging the tunnel into Israel, the consultant said, Unit 8200 “picked up signals intelligence involving Hamas, Syria, and Hezbollah, saying, in essence, that they wanted Hezbollah to ‘warm up’ the north.” In one intercept, the consultant said, Nasrallah referred to Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz “as seeming to be weak,” in comparison with the former Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak, who had extensive military experience, and said “he thought Israel would respond in a small-scale, local way, as they had in the past.”

    Earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, the U.S. government consultant said, several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, “to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.” The consultant added, “Israel began with Cheney. It wanted to be sure that it had his support and the support of his office and the Middle East desk of the National Security Council.” After that, “persuading Bush was never a problem, and Condi Rice was on board,” the consultant said.

    The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon’s infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon’s large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. The airport, highways, and bridges, among other things, have been hit in the bombing campaign. The Israeli Air Force had flown almost nine thousand missions as of last week. (David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that Israel had targeted only sites connected to Hezbollah; the bombing of bridges and roads was meant to prevent the transport of weapons.)

    The Israeli plan, according to the former senior intelligence official, was “the mirror image of what the United States has been planning for Iran.” (The initial U.S. Air Force proposals for an air attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, which included the option of intense bombing of civilian infrastructure targets inside Iran, have been resisted by the top leadership of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, according to current and former officials. They argue that the Air Force plan will not work and will inevitably lead, as in the Israeli war with Hezbollah, to the insertion of troops on the ground.)

    Uzi Arad, who served for more than two decades in the Mossad, told me that to the best of his knowledge the contacts between the Israeli and U.S. governments were routine, and that, “in all my meetings and conversations with government officials, never once did I hear anyone refer to prior coördination with the United States.” He was troubled by one issue—the speed with which the Olmert government went to war. “For the life of me, I’ve never seen a decision to go to war taken so speedily,” he said. “We usually go through long analyses.”

    The key military planner was Lieutenant General Dan Halutz, the I.D.F. chief of staff, who, during a career in the Israeli Air Force, worked on contingency planning for an air war with Iran. Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem, and Peretz, a former labor leader, could not match his experience and expertise.

    In the early discussions with American officials, I was told by the Middle East expert and the government consultant, the Israelis repeatedly pointed to the war in Kosovo as an example of what Israel would try to achieve. The NATO forces commanded by U.S. Army General Wesley Clark methodically bombed and strafed not only military targets but tunnels, bridges, and roads, in Kosovo and elsewhere in Serbia, for seventy-eight days before forcing Serbian forces to withdraw from Kosovo. “Israel studied the Kosovo war as its role model,” the government consultant said. “The Israelis told Condi Rice, ‘You did it in about seventy days, but we need half of that—thirty-five days.’ ”

    There are, of course, vast differences between Lebanon and Kosovo. Clark, who retired from the military in 2000 and unsuccessfully ran as a Democrat for the Presidency in 2004, took issue with the analogy: “If it’s true that the Israeli campaign is based on the American approach in Kosovo, then it missed the point. Ours was to use force to obtain a diplomatic objective—it was not about killing people.” Clark noted in a 2001 book, “Waging Modern War,” that it was the threat of a possible ground invasion as well as the bombing that forced the Serbs to end the war. He told me, “In my experience, air campaigns have to be backed, ultimately, by the will and capability to finish the job on the ground.”

    Kosovo has been cited publicly by Israeli officials and journalists since the war began. On August 6th, Prime Minister Olmert, responding to European condemnation of the deaths of Lebanese civilians, said, “Where do they get the right to preach to Israel? European countries attacked Kosovo and killed ten thousand civilians. Ten thousand! And none of these countries had to suffer before that from a single rocket. I’m not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo. But please: don’t preach to us about the treatment of civilians.” (Human Rights Watch estimated the number of civilians killed in the NATO bombing to be five hundred; the Yugoslav government put the number between twelve hundred and five thousand.)

    Cheney’s office supported the Israeli plan, as did Elliott Abrams, a deputy national-security adviser, according to several former and current officials. (A spokesman for the N.S.C. denied that Abrams had done so.) They believed that Israel should move quickly in its air war against Hezbollah. A former intelligence officer said, “We told Israel, ‘Look, if you guys have to go, we’re behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later—the longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office.’ ”

    Cheney’s point, the former senior intelligence official said, was “What if the Israelis execute their part of this first, and it’s really successful? It’d be great. We can learn what to do in Iran by watching what the Israelis do in Lebanon.”

    The Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. “The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top—at the insistence of the White House—and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely,” he said. “It’s an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.’s strictures, and if you complain about it you’re out,” he said. “Cheney had a strong hand in this.”

    The long-term Administration goal was to help set up a Sunni Arab coalition—including countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—that would join the United States and Europe to pressure the ruling Shiite mullahs in Iran. “But the thought behind that plan was that Israel would defeat Hezbollah, not lose to it,” the consultant with close ties to Israel said. Some officials in Cheney’s office and at the N.S.C. had become convinced, on the basis of private talks, that those nations would moderate their public criticism of Israel and blame Hezbollah for creating the crisis that led to war. Although they did so at first, they shifted their position in the wake of public protests in their countries about the Israeli bombing. The White House was clearly disappointed when, late last month, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, came to Washington and, at a meeting with Bush, called for the President to intervene immediately to end the war. The Washington Post reported that Washington had hoped to enlist moderate Arab states “in an effort to pressure Syria and Iran to rein in Hezbollah, but the Saudi move . . . seemed to cloud that initiative.”

    The surprising strength of Hezbollah’s resistance, and its continuing ability to fire rockets into northern Israel in the face of the constant Israeli bombing, the Middle East expert told me, “is a massive setback for those in the White House who want to use force in Iran. And those who argue that the bombing will create internal dissent and revolt in Iran are also set back.”

    Nonetheless, some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the Administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should, the former senior intelligence official said. “There is no way that Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this,” he said. “When the smoke clears, they’ll say it was a success, and they’ll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran.”

    In the White House, especially in the Vice-President’s office, many officials believe that the military campaign against Hezbollah is working and should be carried forward. At the same time, the government consultant said, some policymakers in the Administration have concluded that the cost of the bombing to Lebanese society is too high. “They are telling Israel that it’s time to wind down the attacks on infrastructure.”

    Similar divisions are emerging in Israel. David Siegel, the Israeli spokesman, said that his country’s leadership believed, as of early August, that the air war had been successful, and had destroyed more than seventy per cent of Hezbollah’s medium- and long-range-missile launching capacity. “The problem is short-range missiles, without launchers, that can be shot from civilian areas and homes,” Siegel told me. “The only way to resolve this is ground operations—which is why Israel would be forced to expand ground operations if the latest round of diplomacy doesn’t work.” Last week, however, there was evidence that the Israeli government was troubled by the progress of the war. In an unusual move, Major General Moshe Kaplinsky, Halutz’s deputy, was put in charge of the operation, supplanting Major General Udi Adam. The worry in Israel is that Nasrallah might escalate the crisis by firing missiles at Tel Aviv. “There is a big debate over how much damage Israel should inflict to prevent it,” the consultant said. “If Nasrallah hits Tel Aviv, what should Israel do? Its goal is to deter more attacks by telling Nasrallah that it will destroy his country if he doesn’t stop, and to remind the Arab world that Israel can set it back twenty years. We’re no longer playing by the same rules.”

    A European intelligence officer told me, “The Israelis have been caught in a psychological trap. In earlier years, they had the belief that they could solve their problems with toughness. But now, with Islamic martyrdom, things have changed, and they need different answers. How do you scare people who love martyrdom?” The problem with trying to eliminate Hezbollah, the intelligence officer said, is the group’s ties to the Shiite population in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and Beirut’s southern suburbs, where it operates schools, hospitals, a radio station, and various charities.

    A high-level American military planner told me, “We have a lot of vulnerability in the region, and we’ve talked about some of the effects of an Iranian or Hezbollah attack on the Saudi regime and on the oil infrastructure.” There is special concern inside the Pentagon, he added, about the oil-producing nations north of the Strait of Hormuz. “We have to anticipate the unintended consequences,” he told me. “Will we be able to absorb a barrel of oil at one hundred dollars? There is this almost comical thinking that you can do it all from the air, even when you’re up against an irregular enemy with a dug-in capability. You’re not going to be successful unless you have a ground presence, but the political leadership never considers the worst case. These guys only want to hear the best case.”

    There is evidence that the Iranians were expecting the war against Hezbollah. Vali Nasr, an expert on Shiite Muslims and Iran, who is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and also teaches at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, said, “Every negative American move against Hezbollah was seen by Iran as part of a larger campaign against it. And Iran began to prepare for the showdown by supplying more sophisticated weapons to Hezbollah—anti-ship and anti-tank missiles—and training its fighters in their use. And now Hezbollah is testing Iran’s new weapons. Iran sees the Bush Administration as trying to marginalize its regional role, so it fomented trouble.”

    Nasr, an Iranian-American who recently published a study of the Sunni-Shiite divide, entitled “The Shia Revival,” also said that the Iranian leadership believes that Washington’s ultimate political goal is to get some international force to act as a buffer—to physically separate Syria and Lebanon in an effort to isolate and disarm Hezbollah, whose main supply route is through Syria. “Military action cannot bring about the desired political result,” Nasr said. The popularity of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a virulent critic of Israel, is greatest in his own country. If the U.S. were to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Nasr said, “you may end up turning Ahmadinejad into another Nasrallah—the rock star of the Arab street.”

    Donald Rumsfeld, who is one of the Bush Administration’s most outspoken, and powerful, officials, has said very little publicly about the crisis in Lebanon. His relative quiet, compared to his aggressive visibility in the run-up to the Iraq war, has prompted a debate in Washington about where he stands on the issue.

    Some current and former intelligence officials who were interviewed for this article believe that Rumsfeld disagrees with Bush and Cheney about the American role in the war between Israel and Hezbollah. The U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel said that “there was a feeling that Rumsfeld was jaded in his approach to the Israeli war.” He added, “Air power and the use of a few Special Forces had worked in Afghanistan, and he tried to do it again in Iraq. It was the same idea, but it didn’t work. He thought that Hezbollah was too dug in and the Israeli attack plan would not work, and the last thing he wanted was another war on his shift that would put the American forces in Iraq in greater jeopardy.”

    A Western diplomat said that he understood that Rumsfeld did not know all the intricacies of the war plan. “He is angry and worried about his troops” in Iraq, the diplomat said. Rumsfeld served in the White House during the last year of the war in Vietnam, from which American troops withdrew in 1975, “and he did not want to see something like this having an impact in Iraq.” Rumsfeld’s concern, the diplomat added, was that an expansion of the war into Iran could put the American troops in Iraq at greater risk of attacks by pro-Iranian Shiite militias.

    At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on August 3rd, Rumsfeld was less than enthusiastic about the war’s implications for the American troops in Iraq. Asked whether the Administration was mindful of the war’s impact on Iraq, he testified that, in his meetings with Bush and Condoleezza Rice, “there is a sensitivity to the desire to not have our country or our interests or our forces put at greater risk as a result of what’s taking place between Israel and Hezbollah. . . . There are a variety of risks that we face in that region, and it’s a difficult and delicate situation.”

    The Pentagon consultant dismissed talk of a split at the top of the Administration, however, and said simply, “Rummy is on the team. He’d love to see Hezbollah degraded, but he also is a voice for less bombing and more innovative Israeli ground operations.” The former senior intelligence official similarly depicted Rumsfeld as being “delighted that Israel is our stalking horse.”

    There are also questions about the status of Condoleezza Rice. Her initial support for the Israeli air war against Hezbollah has reportedly been tempered by dismay at the effects of the attacks on Lebanon. The Pentagon consultant said that in early August she began privately “agitating” inside the Administration for permission to begin direct diplomatic talks with Syria—so far, without much success. Last week, the Times reported that Rice had directed an Embassy official in Damascus to meet with the Syrian foreign minister, though the meeting apparently yielded no results. The Times also reported that Rice viewed herself as “trying to be not only a peacemaker abroad but also a mediator among contending parties” within the Administration. The article pointed to a divide between career diplomats in the State Department and “conservatives in the government,” including Cheney and Abrams, “who were pushing for strong American support for Israel.”

    The Western diplomat told me his embassy believes that Abrams has emerged as a key policymaker on Iran, and on the current Hezbollah-Israeli crisis, and that Rice’s role has been relatively diminished. Rice did not want to make her most recent diplomatic trip to the Middle East, the diplomat said. “She only wanted to go if she thought there was a real chance to get a ceasefire.”

    Bush’s strongest supporter in Europe continues to be British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but many in Blair’s own Foreign Office, as a former diplomat said, believe that he has “gone out on a particular limb on this”—especially by accepting Bush’s refusal to seek an immediate and total ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. “Blair stands alone on this,” the former diplomat said. “He knows he’s a lame duck who’s on the way out, but he buys it”—the Bush policy. “He drinks the White House Kool-Aid as much as anybody in Washington.” The crisis will really start at the end of August, the diplomat added, “when the Iranians”—under a United Nations deadline to stop uranium enrichment—“will say no.”

    Even those who continue to support Israel’s war against Hezbollah agree that it is failing to achieve one of its main goals—to rally the Lebanese against Hezbollah. “Strategic bombing has been a failed military concept for ninety years, and yet air forces all over the world keep on doing it,” John Arquilla, a defense analyst at the Naval Postgraduate School, told me. Arquilla has been campaigning for more than a decade, with growing success, to change the way America fights terrorism. “The warfare of today is not mass on mass,” he said. “You have to hunt like a network to defeat a network. Israel focussed on bombing against Hezbollah, and, when that did not work, it became more aggressive on the ground. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing and expecting a different result.”



    Reading the Holocaust Cartoons in Tehran
    SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2006

    The news of the exhibition of Holocaust cartoons in Tehran took me back to a moment in my childhood. In 1974, his first year at Tehran's Academy for Visual Arts, my brother mounted an exhibition of his own cartoons. The drawings were a novice's best attempt at political satire, but they were enough to alarm my law-abiding father into sending my brother away to America. Our family was never whole again.

    Back then, I thought my father had made the decision out of fear of Savak, the shah's intelligence agency. Years later, I realized that it was not really fear but gratitude for all that a Jewish man had been able to achieve in Iran that prompted him to send my brother away.

    Born and raised in the largely Muslim town of Khonsar, my father was admitted to university against all odds, got a master's degree, joined the military as a second lieutenant, went back to his village dressed in the first Western-style suit the locals had ever seen, then moved to Tehran to become a leading educator.

    His childhood stories remain the most memorable features of our family gatherings. Once a bad mullah came to Khonsar, intent on making trouble for the Jews; two mischievous Jews drove him out by secretly spraying his prayer mat with liquor. Then there was the time a local fish peddler realized that my father had touched a fish, thereby "dirtying" the whole load. The peddler threw the rest away, providing a feast of free fish to the Jews of the town.

    More than any religious instruction, these stories shaped my understanding of what it meant to be an Iranian Jew. In Persia, the land of Queen Esther, whose virtue overcame evil, one could, by wit or by wisdom, overcome every bigot.

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric about the Holocaust may terrify people who don't know Iran. But those who do, find it, above all, tragic. By resuscitating symbols like the swastika and other Nazi-era relics, he is contaminating the Iranian social realm, where such concepts have scarcely existed. No doubt Jews have been mistreated in Iran throughout their long history, but to a degree incomparable to that suffered by Russian and European Jews.

    Throughout its 2,000-year presence in Persia, the Jewish community has helped shape Iranian identity. Some major Persian literary texts survived the Arab invasion of the seventh century because they had been transliterated into Hebrew. Traditional Persian music owes its continuity to the Jewish artists who kept it alive when Muslims were forbidden to practice it. Yet Iranian Jews have had to hide their identity and restrain its expression.

    Of all the pain that Muslim Iranians have inflicted upon the Jews, the most persistent is obscurity. We have always been admired for being "completely Iranian," the euphemism for being invisible, indistinguishable from Muslims. We speak Persian. We celebrate the Iranian New Year with as much verve as the next Iranian. Our kitchens smell of Persian cuisine. At our Jewish festivities, we dance to Persian music.

    Yet Muslim Iranians, even those who have loved and befriended us, have never known us as Jews: in our synagogues, wrapped in prayer shawls, at our holiday tables recounting the history of our struggles. They lack even the proper vocabulary by which to speak about the Jews: "What shall I call you, 'Kalimi' or 'Johoud?'" they sometimes ask. These words are the Persian equivalents of "Jew" and "kike." And occasionally, as if to inflict punishment, they ask: "Do you consider Iran your real homeland?"

    Iranian Jews remain obscure to non-Iranian Jews, too. Sometimes they are shocked when I say that my generation was on the streets chanting "Death to the shah!" But 1979 was a blissful, egalitarian moment when young people shed everything that defined them as anything but Iranian.

    Four years later, the regime did its best to enact policies hostile to religious minorities. Water fountains and toilets at my high school were segregated, some marked with signs that read "For Muslims Only." But by and large, Iranians were not receptive to such bigotry. We crisscrossed among the stalls until the signs became meaningless.

    The postrevolutionary regime has had the misfortune of ruling a people reluctant to embrace its radical message. That is why Iran remains home to the second-largest community of Jews in the Middle East - second only to Israel.

    These days my father barely ventures out of his apartment in the New York borough of Queens. When my siblings and I scold him for not getting out enough, he says that there is nothing here he wishes to see. "Tell me we're going to Khonsar," he says, "and I'll see you at the door."

    Roya Hakakian is the author of two books of poetry in Persian and the memoir "Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran."


    Battle lines

    The parallel Tehran wants us to see between its Holocaust-themed cartoons and the controversial Danish ones is not actually there.

    August 22, 2006

    An exhibiton of cartoons about the Holocaust has gone on display in a Tehran museum. Organisers say they want to test the west's commitment to free speech after the frenzy over cartoons mocking Muhammad published in a Danish magazine.

    "Why is it acceptable in western countries to draw any caricature of the prophet Muhammad, yet as soon as there are any questions or doubts raised about the Holocaust, fines and jail sentences are handed down?" the head of the Iranian House of Cartoons asked.

    Well, it's a fair question. Is our commitment to free speech as strong as we say it is? The first point to note is that the exhibit opened a week ago, and there are no reports of riots among Jews, Germans or other aggrieved parties; nobody is burning Iranian flags or boycotting Iranian products; no Jewish gunmen have taken over Iranian embassies.

    But the parallel the Iranians want us to see is not really there. The Danish cartoons tended to mock Islam's claim to be a religion of peace while seemingly producing a disproportionate number of terrorists. Iranian cartoonists might aptly retort with cartoons highlighting killings by people or nations that profess Christianity: murders of abortion providers in the US, for example (or, come to think of it, legalised abortion itself, given Islam's view of abortion), or US bombings of Muslim countries, or the German killings of Jews. But the Iranian cartoons do not seem to attack the perpetrators of the Holocaust; instead they mock its victims or raise doubts about whether it happened. A parallel might be Danish, or other European, cartoons mocking Muslim victims of Israeli or US bombs. But we have not seen those.

    If the controversy helps the Iranians see the benefits of free speech and a free press, all well and good. Of course, the test of that will be when they display not anti-semitic cartoons but the Danish ones - or at least allow cartoons mocking the ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to be exhibited at the House of Cartoons.

    Even in the west, too many people think a commitment to free speech somehow requires that newspapers publish such items as the Danish cartoons. But every editor makes judgments every day. Sometimes an editor rejects an article or a cartoon for being badly done, sometimes for not being interesting and sometimes for being offensive. Free speech does not require editors and publishers to be deliberately offensive. There are things that decent people do not want to read or view or publish. And I'd say cartoons mocking the victims of mass murder would fall into that category.

    That's not to say that I would defend the laws in Germany and Austria that make Holocaust denial a crime. People should exercise good judgment and a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. But they should not go to jail when they flout those standards.

    Let the Iranians display their vile cartoons. And let westerners mostly avert their eyes from the vulgar spectacle, as we have been doing for the past week. And let us hope that our "clash of civilizations" can be played out in duelling cartoons, not armies and bombs.


    The Arc of “Ziono-Fascism” Forcing America To Pay and Die for Israel

    By Mohamed Khodr  Al-Jazeerah, August 14, 2006 Opinion Editorials, August 2006

    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do” -Samuel Huntington, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”

    These are the worst of times for our nation, a nation allegedly governed by the consent of the people, yet surrendered its vision, liberty, intellect, and army to pursue the ends of the new world order, the order of “Ziono-Fascism” serving a higher purpose than the divine sanctity of life, America’s pursuit of worldwide friendship, and world peace. Such an order would not be possible without an American government run from within and without by men of greed, men of “Judeo-Christian” warmongers, men of arrogant uncompromising thought, men of singular purpose who take every “Ziono-Fascist” provocation to lie, deceive, demonize, and massacre any nation opposed to their tyranny; men who know the power of propaganda to spin their policies of murder into the spin of democratizing the world, spin death into a necessary sacrifice for liberty.

    Who are these evil men of possessed intellect, evil hearts and blood stained hands?

    “The Arabs are right when they paint America as a great Zionist conspiracy” -- Prof. Doughlas Rushkoff, N.Y. University “Wrestling with Zion” (Grove Press, 2003).

    They are the Parrots of the powerful few “Ziono-Fascist”, who have today and for a long time in the future led this gullible naďve populace to die and pay for Israel; a nation artificially created by lies, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing; a nation that ferments provocations and hopes for more “wars with the Arabs” as Moshe Dayan said, to fulfill its agenda of a “Greater Israel”. Israel’s victory in the six day war of 1967 transformed the former “Anti-Semitic” Christian Fundamentalists into die hard supporters for Israel. For them, supporting Israel arises from their hate of the Jews as ones that must be totally exterminated (exception: 144,000 converted Jews) in the Battle of Armageddon to hasten the return of the ‘Prince of Peace”. A holocaust to save the masses; much like the Bush-Blair genocide of Iraq to save it from Saddam and the “Islamo-Fascists.”

    Who are these “Ziono-Fascists”? The Parroters of the Israel Lobby: Bush, the NeoCongress, the Media, and Christian Fundamentalists.

    The inherently Zionist, dictator wanna be single minded bipolar Bush who couldn’t recall a mistake he’s made, sees no contradiction between his Pro-Life Belief and Pro-Death policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Occupied Palestinian territories.

    This is a man who claims Jesus as his personal “philosopher”; while in reality his DNA’s spiritual guide and philosopher is the “Ziono-Fascist” Natan Sharansky, a human rights advocate who’s never met a Palestinian, Muslim or Christian, worthy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    Bush, the eternally confused, bares his intellectual depravity in this fashion: “I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them."

    But what drives these “Ziono-Fascists” to destroy the Muslim world, a world that will not succumb to precision bombs, abandon its faith, but contains 60% of the world’s oil reserves?

    Buddha had the answer: “They are inflamed by greed, incensed by hate, confused by delusion, overcome by them, and obsessed by mind.”

    No one should ever underestimate what J. J. Goldberg calls “Jewish Power.”

    In fact, the Jewish American Professor Yuri Slezkine’s latest book is entitled: “The Jewish Century”.

    The first sentence in his book’s introduction reads: “The Modern Age is the Jewish Age, and the Twentieth Century, in particular is the Jewish Century.”

    Such power is acknowledged by Americans of all persuasions and vocations, many of them Jews, in addition to worldwide opinion. In fact, a poll found that fully 34% of Americans believe Jews have too much power in this country.

    But that’s not all, such a belief is held by a great majority of Israeli Jews: "When [Israeli public opinion survey company] Hanoch Smith asked his Israeli respondents whether the Jews of America have control of important branches of the American economy, 73 PER CENT replied in the affirmative ... In a non-Jewish society, this would have aroused suspicion of anti-Semitism, but emanating from a Jewish society, it seemed both a matter of pride and bewilderment." --Colin Shindler, Ploughshares into Swords. Israelis and Jews in the Shadow of the Intifada, I. B. Tauris, London, 1991, p. 94-95

    George Washington warned this nation of such a “passionate attachment” to a foreign country lest that country influences, even controls America’s foreign policy to serve its interests and fight its wars. Similarly Thomas Jefferson spoke of the danger of “foreign entanglements”. Woodrow Wilson who lamented the death of the League of Nations as “breaking the world’s heart” spoke of the power of “special interests” on our government as an “invisible empire set up above the forms of democracy”.

    Wilson perhaps prophetically was referring to Washington D.C.’s power broker, Israel’s AIPAC, our capitol’s foreign government, when he said: “A little group of willful men, representative of no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.” Indeed Israel has successfully made America the world’s most contemptible nation.

    Eisenhower warned America of the power of the “military industrial complex” that has rendered the Pentagon a lobbying firm for Corporations of death selling arms, weapons, and technology to the highest bidder including Apartheid Israel, Saddam Hussein, the Shah, Suharto, Somoza, Noriega, Pinochet, China, and most of dictatorial Africa. America sells close to half of the world’s weapons while fighting for “world freedom and peace.” Israel and our government’s worst enemies are true democracies and their best friends are dictators, those who are easily bribed, intimidated, or killed.

    The primary weapon for the “Ziono-Fascists” is the few but all powerful corporate media that formulate, dominate, and ensure popular compliance with domestic and foreign policies that serve Israel, not America. This is possible because our culture unquestionably ingests, regurgitates, is consumed by and lives by the sounds and images of an all powerful media and entertainment indoctrination. Advertising creates the “analytic mind” that chooses a brand of toilet paper or supports wars.

    They advertise, therefore I think.

    Recently I was sitting in a doctor’s office with about 20 patients awaiting my appointment. The television in the room was tuned into MSNBC. The main story was Israel’s total devastation of Lebanon and Hezbollah’s retaliatory strikes. Not one single person was looking at the television set or listening to the news; all were either flipping through magazines, reading local papers, conversing, or avoiding any eye contact. The news then turned to Mel Gibson’s drunken remarks. Suddenly, their minds awakened from a bored slumber, their eyes turned to the television with the keenest of interest, and smiles filled their once morbid faces. Dying children was of no interest to this group, but celebrity news was fascinating.

    Professor Michael Parenti wrote of this disconnect between Americans and their governmental foreign policies for wars of hegemony, wars for wealth, and wars for Israel when he wrote: "The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology."

    How many manufactured wars were started by the “civilized west” that began with lies, propaganda, demonization, slander, and then genocide? Literally, hundreds.

    Alexis de Tocqueville encapsulated America’s intellectual laziness, propensity to unquestionably follow the media and opinion makers---those doctors of murderous spin, and the parroting corrupt politicians when he wrote: “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.” Today’s “ism” is “Ziono-Fascism”, a belief that Israel can do what it must toward the oppressed Palestinians, the pro-western weak Lebanon, the “next stop….Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Gulf”; in essence, the entire impotent Arab Un-Leagued nations, while they must suffer what they must in “quiet”.

    Israel is simply following the “Bush Doctrine” of “Pre-emption” against “Islamo-Fascists”; defined as those who oppose occupation, oppression, injustice, theft of land, resources, and wanton massacres by a “moral” army that does not kill, rape, abuse, burn, torture, starve, besiege, imprisons thousands, prevents free movement, forces pregnant women to deliver at checkpoints, abuse human rights, or disallow, food, water, life saving medicines, or baby formulas to “civilians.”

    Israel gets away with murder because it has the protection of the Israel First Neo-Congress and media advocacy that grows in intensity each time Israel intensifies its killing spree against Arabs and Muslims. H.L. Mencken quipped that "freedom of the press is limited to those who own one". To Israel and America their victims are A.W.O.L.—Arabs With Out Life.

    "International politics are conducted by the media in today's world. Israel must win this war." --Professor Amos Perlmutter

    Underlying the entire history of western colonialism toward the “other” is pure RACISM.

    It is the historical hallmark of “White Anglo Ziono-Fascism”, not of Islam. If Islam sought the total annihilation of Jews there would be no Jews alive today, rather, it was Islam that provided the safety, security, shelter, and opportunity to European Jews escaping the “peaceful” faith of Europe.

    Today’s “Ziono-Fascists” are believers and followers of the mantra of Jules Harmand, the Indo-China French Colonialist (1910)

    “We belong to the superior race and civilization… The basic justification of conquest over native peoples is the conviction of our superiority - not just economic and military but also moral…That quality underlies our right to direct the rest of humanity.”

    Americans are fed up and disgusted by their government’s blind and pandering support of Israel, right or wrong. They’re sick of having their hard earned dollars be quietly siphoned to a powerful rich nation while their children go hungry, homeless and uninsured. They’re furious that American weapons, delivered by Israel courtesy of their taxes, are massacring innocent civilians at will in Palestine and Iraq. Shrapnels removed from the brains of innocent children carry the sign: “Made in America”

    Only Jewish life is Holy in the Holy Land, non-Jews are second class expendable citizens. A recent poll showed 60% of Israelis support ethnically cleansing Israeli Arabs, Muslims and Christians, from Israel proper. America can no longer support or arm the Apartheid racist state of Israel that has never stopped fighting, killing, annexing, ethnically cleansing, and invading Arab nations since its founding. Palestine and America are now occupied territories.

    The brave people of Connecticut dumped the Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman for his support of Bush’s Iraqi killing fields; now the entire nation must dump every Congressman who puts Israel’s interest above our national interest. We must end our quagmire with Israel and in Iraq to liberate our nation from the shackles of the “Ziono-Fascists”.

    “The United States should seek to allay the deep resentment against it that has resulted from the creation of Israel. In the past we had good relations with the Arab peoples…..there was mutual confidence to mutual advantage….Today the Arab peoples are afraid that the United States will back the new state of Israel in aggressive expansion….expansionist Zionism”. --Secretary of State John Foster Dulles while visiting Palestine in 1953. - Donald Neff, “Fifty Years of Israel” pg. 259


    Individuals, Small Groups Cited as Terrorist Threats
    U.S. Strategy Calls Democracy a Weapon

    Bush's "freedom agenda" of promoting democracy a leading long-term weapon against terrorists

    By Karen DeYoung
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, September 6, 2006; A04

    A new counterterrorism strategy released yesterday by the White House describes al-Qaeda as a significantly degraded organization, but outlines potent threats from smaller networks and individuals motivated by al-Qaeda ideology, a lack of freedom and "twisted" propaganda about U.S. policy in the Middle East.

    The National Strategy for Combating Terrorism reflects the intelligence community's latest analysis of the evolving nature of the threats from widely dispersed Islamic extremists who are often isolated and linked by little more than the Internet. It describes President Bush's "freedom agenda" of promoting democracy as the leading long-term weapon against them.

    Attacking terrorist organizations, controlling weapons of mass destruction and protecting the homeland remain U.S. priorities, the document says. But the strategy places new emphasis on the need for training experts in languages and Islamic culture, for enhanced partnerships abroad and with the American Muslim community, and for better information-sharing among domestic counterterrorism agencies.

    What today's extremists have in common, it says, is "that they exploit Islam and use terrorism for ideological ends." But "although al-Qaeda functions as the movement's vanguard . . . the movement is not controlled by any single individual, group or state."

    The document's release came as Bush delivered one of a series of preelection speeches on national security and terrorism. But his address, in contrast to the strategy document, focused heavily on al-Qaeda and the public threats made by its two top leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, both of whom have evaded capture.

    "It's not an either-or phenomenon," said terrorism expert and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman. "There are two processes moving on parallel tracks. You can see the attraction of saying . . . we have weakened al-Qaeda. But that also flies in the face of increasing evidence over the last couple of years that al-Qaeda is still directing and plotting attacks on a grand scale and seems undeterred."

    In a Justice Department briefing, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the changing nature of the enemy reflects victories against al-Qaeda and is "a sign of our success, not our failure."

    Critics of administration policy said the new strategy is an admission that previous policies have failed. It "seems to adopt many of the critiques Democrats made of the old one," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said in a statement. "I hope today's change in rhetoric represents a real change in course."

    Several aspects of the new strategy differ sharply from an earlier version, published in February 2003, just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. That document depicted a structured pyramid with al-Qaeda at the top, directing widespread terrorist cells and worldwide operations with help from sympathetic state sponsors. Its military emphasis called for U.S.-led "direct and continuous action" and warned that "we will not hesitate to act alone . . . including acting preemptively against terrorists."

    It also declared that "finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a critical component to winning the war of ideas," and said that "no other issue has so colored the perception of the United States in the Muslim world."

    The new strategy emphasizes that al-Qaeda has been severely disrupted, with many of its leaders killed or captured, and its operations made "harder, costlier and riskier." It describes the influence of U.S. policy in the Middle East as minimal, portraying the Iraq war and the renewed Arab-Israeli strife as sources of deceptive propaganda for terrorist ideologues. Terrorism, it says, "is not simply a result of hostility to U.S. policy in Iraq . . . Israeli-Palestinian issues . . . [or] our efforts to prevent terror attacks."

    "The terrorism we confront today" springs from several sources, including an "ideology that justifies murder" and that blames "perceived injustices from the recent or sometimes distant past," the strategy says. That ideology, it says, preys upon populations that "see no legitimate way to promote change in their own country" and whose "information about the world is contaminated by falsehoods and corrupted by conspiracy theories."

    "Democracy," the strategy declares, "is the antithesis of terrorist tyranny, which is why the terrorists denounce it and are willing to kill the innocent to stop it."

    The document refers indirectly to "homegrown terrorists," such as the two dozen British citizens arrested in this summer's alleged plot to blow up commercial aircraft. Even in democracies, it says, "some ethnic or religious groups are unable or unwilling to grasp the benefits of freedom otherwise available in the society. . . . Even in these cases, the long-term solution remains deepening the reach of democracy so that all citizens enjoy its benefits."

    "We will continue to guard against the emergence of homegrown terrorists within our own Homeland as well," the strategy says. "Through outreach programs and public diplomacy we will reveal the terrorists' violent extremist ideology for what it is -- a form of totalitarianism following in the path of fascism and Nazism."

    The new strategy mirrors a blueprint written at the National Counterterrorism Center and presented to Bush in June. That classified, 160-page plan proposed a more equitable balance between the military effort emphasized in the 2003 strategy and what it termed the "war of ideas."

    Staff writers Michael A. Fletcher and Dan Eggen contributed to this report.


    Bush Warns Of Enduring Terror Threat
    Words of Bin Laden, Allies Show Their Goals, He Says

    By Michael A. Fletcher
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, September 6, 2006; A01

    President Bush issued a stern warning yesterday about what he called the continuing terrorist threat confronting the nation, using the haunting words of Islamic extremists to support his assertion that they remain determined to attack the United States.

    Abandoning his practice of only rarely mentioning al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, Bush repeatedly quoted him and purported terrorist letters, recordings and documents to make his case that terrorists have broad totalitarian ambitions and believe the war in Iraq is a key theater in a wider struggle.

    "Iraq is not a distraction in their war against America" but the "central battlefield where this war will be decided," Bush said in an address before the Military Officers Association of America.

    Citing the internal communications of terrorists was a dramatic new tactic to advance familiar arguments from Bush in defense of his strategy. The remarks came less than a week before the nation observes the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and two months before midterm elections in which the administration's national strategy and competence promise to be pivotal questions. That debate was underscored by sharp criticism of Bush yesterday by Democratic congressional leaders.

    The president's remarks came hours after the White House released its updated plan for combating terrorism. The document describes many successes in the war on terrorism, but warns that the nation faces an evolving threat from small terrorist networks and al-Qaeda, which is as much an ideology as a terrorist network. The document calls the administration's policy of spreading freedom and democracy the best means of countering that threat over the long haul.

    "America is safer, but we are not yet safe," the document concludes.

    Several top Democrats, acting with the centrist group Third Way, cited their own document charging that U.S. national security has diminished broadly under Bush, for reasons including instability in Iraq and burgeoning nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.

    "The facts do not lie," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.). "Under the Bush administration and this Republican Congress, America is less safe, facing greater threats and unprepared for the dangerous world in which we live."

    At a news conference, Reid accused Bush and Republicans of trying to exploit national security for partisan gains. Likening their tactics to a football team's reliance on a familiar play, he said Republicans scored big yardage in 2002 and 2004, but he predicted that this year they will be stifled at the line of scrimmage.

    In his speech, Bush said terrorist leaders' statements have made plain their goals, which he called the present-day equivalent of the "evil" aims of Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

    "Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?" Bush said, adding that "we're taking the words of the enemy seriously."

    Meanwhile, the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies issued a report saying that although the Bush administration has deprived al-Qaeda of sanctuary in Afghanistan and has prevented more attacks on U.S. soil in the past five years, it has not tracked down bin Laden or created "enduring security in Afghanistan." Moreover, the report said, the administration's attempts at public diplomacy are "undermined by perceived U.S. unilateralism."

    "What is missing from the . . . public discussion of all of this is some explanation of the phenomenon of radicalized Islam," said Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at CSIS and former Clinton administration official. "Why are there so many people out there who want to kill Americans and so many Westerners? Why is this such a durable phenomenon?"

    As Bush spoke in Washington, Pakistan signed a peace accord with pro-Taliban forces in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, agreeing to withdraw its troops from the region in return for the fighters' pledge to stop attacks inside Pakistan. The pact prompted concern that it could allow Islamic extremist groups to operate more freely in the area.

    The president's speech was the latest in a series of addresses aimed at buttressing flagging public support for the war as the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks draws near. Today, Bush is expected to give an address at the White House, in which he will discuss his administration's latest proposal for trying suspected members of al-Qaeda who are being held at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    In June, the Supreme Court struck down the military commissions Bush established to try suspected terrorists. Tomorrow, he is scheduled to again address the subject of terrorism during a visit to Atlanta.

    In his speech at the Capital Hilton in Washington, Bush said the threat posed by al-Qaeda and other Sunni Muslim "extremists" is no different from that posed by Shiite Muslim "extremists," who he said include the leaders of Iran and the group Hezbollah. He quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having said that if the United States wants to have good relations with Iran, it must "bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down."

    "America will not bow down to tyrants," Bush added to loud applause from the audience.

    In their rebuttals, some Democrats renewed their call for the firing of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. White House press secretary Tony Snow said Bush flatly rejects those calls.

    Some Democrats said the reason al-Qaeda remains so dangerous is that the United States is bogged down in Iraq.

    "If President Bush had unleashed the American military to do the job at Tora Bora four years ago and killed Osama bin Laden, he wouldn't have to quote this barbarian's words today," said Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee. "Because President Bush lost focus on the killers who attacked us and instead launched a disastrous war in Iraq, today Osama bin Laden and his henchmen still find sanctuary in the no man's land between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where they still plot attacks against America."


    War Backfiring on U.S., Khatami Says
    Ex-Iranian President Also Calls Strikes Against His Country Unlikely

    By Robin Wright
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, September 6, 2006; A04

    NEW YORK -- On the eve of his first trip to Washington, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami warned that U.S. military action in the Middle East has backfired, producing greater terrorism, imperiling the future of Iraq and damaging America's long-term interests.

    But the danger of even greater instability in the region will ultimately prevent the United States from launching military strikes against Iran over disputes about its nuclear intentions, he predicted. Although an attack on Iran would create "great damage," Khatami said, "prudence and wisdom" are likely to prevail because of the incalculable "detriment and damage" it would cause to both the region and the United States.

    "America will not make the mistake of attacking Iran," he said, adding: "Iran is not Iraq."

    In a wide-ranging interview Monday night, Khatami said Iran is not intent on eliminating Israel and accepts a two-state solution that includes both Israel and a new Palestine -- on terms acceptable to the Palestinians. He basically contradicted the recent angry rhetoric of his hard-line successor, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has denied the Holocaust and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

    "The practical policy of the Islamic republic has never been to eliminate or wipe Israel off the map. And I don't believe that this policy has changed with the change of president," Khatami said in an interview in New York, where he is attending a United Nations conference. "You've never heard me reject the right of anyone to exist," added Khatami, who is scheduled to speak at the University of Virginia and the Washington National Cathedral on Thursday.

    Khatami ran for office as a reformer and served the two-term presidential limit from 1997 until 2005. Many of his proposed domestic reforms -- from press freedoms to limiting the 12-member Council of Guardians' veto powers -- were blocked by hard-liners now in ascendance. Much of Iran's foreign policy, however, is formulated by consensus after intense debate among its disparate political factions.

    Khatami called concern about nuclear proliferation generally "very justified" and insisted that Tehran has not rejected U.S.-backed incentives to end uranium enrichment for its nuclear energy program, a process that can be subverted to develop a nuclear weapon. A U.N. resolution called for Iran to suspend enrichment by Aug. 31 or face punitive action.

    "The package has not been rejected," he said, adding that Iran does not yet trust guarantees from the international community that it will have long-term access to fuel for energy, given past failed promises. "The situation can best be resolved by not going toward action that could exacerbate the situation," he said.

    On Iraq's future, he said all countries should "seriously and steadfastly" strive to prevent a civil war. He blamed the violence on terrorists who claim to act in the name of religion but instead undermine it.

    He warned, however, that Iraq reflects the failure of U.S. policy. "So far, whenever the United States has tried to solve its disputes through military means, it has not achieved its objectives -- and also not solved the problem it meant to solve," he said.

    A Shiite cleric who wears the black turban of a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, Khatami expressed regret that he and President Bill Clinton could not do more after both took tentative steps to heal relations severed by the 1979 U.S. Embassy seizure, when 52 Americans were held for 444 days.

    "The misunderstanding and mistrust between the two sides was so deep that it could not be solved with these simple minor steps," he said. "The pressure that existed on both sides also meant that we had to proceed with caution." Khatami had publicly called for both sides to bring down the wall of mistrust and encouraged cultural exchanges, and Clinton lifted sanctions on carpets, pistachios and caviar from Iran.

    The Bush administration's policies have since deepened tensions between Tehran and Washington, said Khatami, who now heads the International Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations, which is based in Tehran and Geneva. Although Iran favored the Taliban's ouster from Afghanistan and an Iranian-backed Afghan movement worked with U.S. Special Forces to topple it in 2001, Khatami complained that President Bush turned around three months later and labeled Iran a member of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea.

    In Iraq, Khatami said Tehran had also recognized the U.S.-orchestrated transition governments and elections, while not insisting that the Shiite majority inherit power. "Why is it that Iran is still under so much pressure and is attacked so often by the U.S. administration, even though it cooperated in this manner?" he said. "Unfortunately, with these policies, more bricks will only be added to the wall of mistrust."

    The Bush administration has repeatedly charged that Iran has undermined the political transitions in both neighboring countries while also arming and funding some of Iraq's illegal militias. Iran has long been on the State Department's list as the leading state sponsor of extremist groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.

    Khatami said Hezbollah's 34-day war with Israel has produced a surge of popularity throughout the Islamic world for Lebanon's Shiite movement. Most of Hezbollah's weaponry is provided by Iran.

    Khatami's trip has become increasingly controversial since his arrival last Thursday. Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday ordered state agencies to refuse any form of support, including police escort, for Khatami's speech at Harvard on Sunday.

    "State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel," Romney said in a statement released by his office. Romney, a potential Republican presidential candidate, called Harvard's decision to invite Khatami a "disgrace."

    As it does with current and former heads of state visiting the United States, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security is providing protection for Khatami's 13-member entourage, which includes two of his children, during his tour of New York, Chicago, Washington, Boston and Charlottesville.

    In the most unusual stop of his visit, Khatami is scheduled to tour Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home in Charlottesville. Khatami has called Jefferson a "character dear to us all." The third president is particularly popular among Middle Eastern reformers because he wrote extensively about religion and democracy.


    Former Iranian President Met by Protest
    By KEN MAGUIRE  09.10.2006  AP

    On the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami condemned Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings but also defended groups such as Hezbollah for what he characterized as resistance against Israeli colonialism.

    In a 30-minute speech given under tight security at Harvard University, Khatami repeatedly praised the concept of democracy but said American politicians, since World War II, have been infatuated with "world domination."

    Khatami said he was one of the first world leaders to condemn "the barbarous acts" of Sept. 11. Responding to a question from the audience about bin Laden, Khatami said he had two problems with the al-Qaida leader behind the attacks.

    "First, because of the crimes he conducts," he said, "and second because he conducts them in the name of Islam, the religion which is a harbinger of peace and justice."

    Khatami also denied that Iran helps fund the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, but defended the organization's right to exist. "Hezbollah today is a symbol of Lebanese resistance," he said.

    Khatami was met by protesters when he arrived at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Many angrily called on him to stand up for human rights.

    Police estimated that 200 were in the crowd that blamed him for failing to stop government crackdowns on student activists in Tehran during his two terms in office.

    Several human rights organizations say the crackdowns are believed to have been initiated by his rivals and approved by Iran's ruling Muslim clerics.

    "His speech is on ethics and violence. It would be very bizarre if he came here to speak on ethics and violence and did not acknowledge and discuss his own record in Iran," said Eric Lesser, 21, president of Harvard College Democrats, which teamed with their Republican peers for the protest. "Students were arrested and thrown in prison for speaking their mind in the same way we're doing right now."

    Khatami was considered a reformist during his two terms as president that ended last year. His visit to the United States has been criticized by many, particularly amid concerns about Iran's nuclear program.

    The visit angered Joshua Levin, 42. He said, "When someone this evil comes to your city you must oppose him. He's a fascist. He sponsors terror."

    There were no major problems, but police presence was heavy, Cambridge police spokesman Frank Pasquarello said. One man was detained, although it was not immediately clear why.

    Harvard has been criticized for the timing of its invitation to Khatami, who is taking a two-week tour of the United States.

    Harvard professor Graham Allison, who moderated the program, noted that the university officially will commemorate the Sept. 11 attacks and defended the invitation by citing President Bush's remarks in a Wall Street Journal interview.

    "I'm interested in learning more about Iran, the Iranian government and how they think," Allison quoted Bush as saying. "So are we," Allison added.

    Khatami is the most senior Iranian to travel outside New York in the United States since Islamic fundamentalists seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held Americans hostage for 444 days. He was invited to the United States by the U.N.-sponsored Alliance of Civilizations, of which he is a founding member. The group strives to foster cross-cultural understanding between Western and Islamic states.


    Khatami slams Bush during US visit

    Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami criticized President George W. Bush in interviews published Tuesday, as he joined Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu and other leaders at the United Nations for a meeting of a group that promotes understanding between Western and Islamic states.

    Khatami, in the middle of a two-week tour of the United States, refused to speak with the media as he went in and out of the room where the meeting of the Alliance of Civilizations took place at UN headquarters. The event was closed to the media.

    Yet in interviews with CNN and USA Today, Khatami faulted Bush on several counts: He refused, for example, to back off a previous comparison between the American leader and Osama bin Laden. He also said the US was partly to blame for the turmoil in the Middle East.

    "As a result of such wrong policies, such unilateral, violent policies, that is - the voice of logic has decreased and voice of terror and attractiveness of terror unfortunately among youth has increased," CNN quoted him as saying in an interview.

    Khatami will spend a second day at the UN for the event. He spoke in the Chicago area over the weekend, and will attend two Islamic conferences as well as deliver a speech at the National Cathedral in Washington.

    Khatami is the most senior Iranian to travel outside New York in the United States since Islamic fundamentalists seized the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held Americans hostage for 444 days. He and his successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have both addressed the UN General Assembly.

    Khatami reiterated the government's claim that it is not seeking nuclear weapons. The United States insists that it is.

    "Why should they not trust Iran?" CNN quoted him as saying. "See, at this moment, Iran is a signatory to the treaty, has declared many times it has no interest in building the nuclear bomb."

    UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan created the Alliance of Civilizations - headed by Spain and Turkey - last year as a vehicle to overcome the mutual suspicion, fear and misunderstanding between Islamic and Western societies that have been exploited by extremists throughout the world, according to its terms of reference. Khatami is a founding member.

    The group is expected to report to Annan in the second half of 2006 on actions to counter extremism and promote mutual respect between civilizations and cultures.

    Other members include the wife of the emir of Qatar, Sheika Mozza bint Nasser al-Misnid; former prime minister of Senegal Moustapha Niasse; and Rabbi Arthur Schneir, president of the Appeal of Conscience Foundation in New York.

    Khatami distanced himself from comments by Ahmadinejad that Israel should not exist.

    "I personally never said that Israel should be wiped off the map," he told CNN. "I always said and backed fair and equal peace in the region."

    In a separate interview with USA Today, Khatami said US forces should remain in Iraq for the time being.


    U.S. Expects Iran Sanctions Within Weeks
    By GEORGE JAHN The Associated Press  Friday, September 8, 2006; 11:52 AM

    Mehmet Ayudin, right, and Federico Mayor, co-chairs of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations briefed journalists after their 2-day meeting

    Mehmet Ayudin, right, and Federico Mayor, co-chairs of the  United Nations Alliance of Civilizations briefed journalists after their 2-day meeting  at the offices of the Turkish Mission to the United Nations at the U.N. Headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2006.   (AP Photo/David Karp)
    Mehmet Ayudin, right, and Federico Mayor, co-chairs of the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations briefed journalists after their 2-day meeting at the offices of the Turkish Mission to the United Nations at the U.N. Headquarters, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2006. (AP Photo/David Karp) (David Karp - AP)

     

    BERLIN -- The United States expects a Security Council agreement on U.N. sanctions against Iran within weeks unless Tehran agrees at the last minute to freeze uranium enrichment, a senior State Department official said Friday.

    Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns also dismissed suggestions of cracks in the six-power coalition pushing Tehran to give up enrichment.

    Speaking a day after those countries ended confidential discussions in Berlin, Burns said further talks were needed on how harshly to penalize Tehran for its refusal to freeze enrichment, as demanded by the Security Council. But he said a lot of progress was made.

    Outlining the U.S. view of the timetable on Iran in the coming weeks, Burns said the six nations would further consult by phone on Monday and hoped to present a unified approach on sanctions to their foreign ministers by the time the U.N. General Assembly opens Tuesday.

    "It's fair to say we have ... a lot more work to do," he told guests at an event staged by The American Academy in Berlin. "But I believe we will be successful in passing the sanctions resolution shortly" in the Security Council, he added.

    "The American view is that following these discussions on Monday and perhaps some others early next week, we should move this to the Security Council and draft a resolution" on sanctions, he said.

    Thursday's meeting in Berlin came amid efforts by key European nations to enlist world support in pressuring Iran to give up uranium enrichment.

    In a confidential document obtained by The Associated Press and sent to dozens of capitals last week, Britain, France and Germany warned that Tehran's stalling tactics on whether it was ready to meet terms for new nuclear talks were an attempt "to split the international community."

    But there were indications that France, a key U.S. ally in pushing for firm U.N. action against Iran, might be wavering.

    While Iran has expressed a desire for negotiations, the six nations have insisted that Iran suspend enrichment before talks begin. The six countries _ Germany plus Security Council powers Britain, France, China, Russia and the U.S. _ have offered Iran a package of economic, political and strategic rewards to comply with the demand.

    But French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy on Thursday appeared to suggest that demand was negotiable, saying: "The question is to know at what moment this suspension takes place compared to negotiations."

    Burns dismissed suggestions of a split, saying all five permanent Security Council members insist negotiations should not start until Iran suspends enrichment.

    "I have not heard from any government from this group that we should change the basic offer, that hasn't changed," he said, adding: "No one mentioned anything like this" during Thursday's meeting.

    "The Iranians are in a very tough position," Burns said. "At first they thought, let's divide the United States from the EU-3 and that didn't succeed. The Iranians are obviously trying to divide Russia and China from the rest of us, and that hasn't succeeded."

    Still, a diplomat familiar with the U.S. stance said Burns was worried about the French statement, which would weaken what has been a unified stance between the four Western countries in the six-nation coalition for a need to move to sanctions if Iran remains defiant.

    Mohammed Khatami, the two-term former Iranian president, suggested that not only France but Russia and China _ which have been skeptical about sanctions _ were no longer insisting that an enrichment freeze had to precede negotiations.

    "As far as I know, Russia, China and France are interested in pursuing the dialogue even without preconditions," he said Thursday in Washington.

    Burns spoke on the eve of a crucial meeting between senior EU envoy Javier Solana and Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator. An Iranian official told the AP the talks were set for Vienna, with Larijani scheduled to arrive Friday evening.

    The talks are considered a final attempt to find common ground to start negotiations between Iran and the six powers.

    As the Americans and their allies worked at the Berlin meeting to overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to sanctions, the European document appealed to other countries for support.

    The 1 1/2-page paper labeled "In Confidence" summarizes Iran's response to incentives package. The six powers have also asked Iran to consider a long-term moratorium on the technology, which can be misused to make nuclear arms.

    Iran, which insists its nuclear program is meant only to produce fuel, refused suspend enrichment by an Aug. 31 deadline set by the Security Council. Its Aug. 22 response to the rewards offer has been kept confidential. But the United States and its allies have described it as unsatisfactory, primarily because of Tehran's refusal to consider freezing enrichment.

    "The Iranian goal obviously is to split the international community," says the document, drawn up by Britain, France and Germany. While not specifically threatening U.N. sanctions, it says the Security Council will have to consider "further steps" if Tehran continues to defy the council.

    Diplomats familiar with the document said it was drawn up to inform other nations of the substance of Iran's counteroffer and share the Western view that it was inadequate.

    "The reply is along the lines of previous Iranian statements in that typically it neither accepts nor rejects outright" the six-nation proposal, said the document.
     


    Poll: Americans prefer multilateralism
    The American public rallied around their president after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, but at this point they have largely grown tired of his unilateralism "that has created a disaster in Iraq, alienated our allies and allowed the proliferation of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Iran," according to a recent survey of voters. Among those who pay attention to foreign affairs, 60%, prefer to work through the United Nations, compared to the 31% who prefer the Bush administration's unilateralist approach.

    The public does not support unilateralism

    President Bush has traveled full circle.  In 2000, many harbored grave doubts about the foreign policy aptitude of a one-term governor who, by his own admission, could not find Kosovo on a map.  Heading into Election Day, Al Gore enjoyed a yawning 14-point advantage as the candidate better able to deal with foreign affairs.

    Merely by virtue of holding office on September 11th, as a nation under attack rallied around its president, Bush was transformed into a font of foreign policy wisdom. Through the first half of 2002, 70 percent or more of Americans approved of the way he handled foreign affairs.

    Today, with criticism swirling around his handling of Iraq, North Korea, Iran and the Hezbollah War, just 39 percent approve of Bush’s foreign policy.

    Much of this disdain is performance based. It is difficult to approve of failure; tough to find something worthy of approval in a policy that has created a disaster in Iraq, alienated our allies and allowed the proliferation of nuclear weapons to North Korea and Iran.

    However, public dissatisfaction also arises from a principled indictment of the underlying tenets of the president’s foreign policy. 

    Where Bush is an inveterate unilateralist, Americans prefer multilateralism. Where Bush emphasizes force over diplomacy and persuasion, Americans prefer the latter tools whenever feasible. Where Bush abhors admitting mistakes, Americans want him to fess-up to his errors.

    A survey we just completed among voters who pay attention to foreign affairs vividly illustrates public disagreement with the President’s policy.

    Only 31 percent share Bush’s commitment to unilateralism, believing that it is better for the U.S. to “act on its own because we can act more decisively and effectively in our national interest.” Nearly twice as many (60 percent) prefer to “work through the U.N….”

    Americans appreciate the power of multilateralism in confronting terror.  Just 25 percent accept Bush’s view that it is more important “for the U.S. to decide on its own whether and how to hit terrorists and the countries that support them.” Sixty-eight percent put the priority on having other nations “respect us and want to work with us in the war on terror.”

    Just 23 percent say it is more important “for terrorists, and countries that sponsor them, to fear our power,” while 70 percent prioritize enhancing our international standing and working with other countries.

    Voters most attentive to foreign policy understand that Bush has made us weaker, not stronger. They recognize that, in important measure, our power rests on the strength of our example and the cohesion of our alliances. Nearly half (48 percent), say Bush’s foreign policy has made the U.S. weaker, whereas just 28 percent accept the President’s contention that he has made America stronger. The public believes a positive image of America in the world is a strategic asset in the war on terror, but by 61 percent-15 percent, they maintain that image has deteriorated under Bush.

    Voters are sure President Bush has made mistakes abroad and are angry at his refusal to admit it. More believe he is “too stubborn” and “unwilling to compromise” than say he is a “strong leader” or “tough enough to deal with terrorism.”

    Thus, by a 16-point margin, Americans who pay attention to foreign affairs want to change the course of Bush’s foreign policy. Only by acknowledging he is changing course can the President begin to restore the public confidence he has lost.

    My profession lost one of its greatest practitioners last week, Warren Mitofsky. His formidable intellect and encyclopedic knowledge set a standard to which the rest of us merely aspire. I learned more in five minutes listening to Warren than I could in years of trying on my own. Those privileged to know him are better for his friendship and diminished by his passing.

    By Mark Mellman who is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982, including Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004. http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/Pollsters/MarkMellman/090606.html


    Democrats Urge Pentagon Changes
    Letter to Bush Calls for New Iraq Policy, New Defense Officials

    Associated Press
    Tuesday, September 5, 2006; A03

    A dozen leading congressional Democrats have urged President Bush in a letter to consider changing the civilian leadership at the Pentagon, saying that such a move would show he recognizes the problems his policies "have created in Iraq and elsewhere."

    The request comes a week after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned against fascism and appeasement as he defended U.S. policies in Iraq. He told an American Legion convention in Salt Lake City that "it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons," alluding to criticism aimed at the Bush administration's war policies.

    The remarks drew heavy criticism from Democrats. Party leaders on Capitol Hill said last week that they plan to pursue a vote of no confidence in Rumsfeld.

    In their letter, released yesterday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and 10 other congressional party leaders criticize Bush's policies in Iraq, calling them part of a "stay the course" strategy that has not made the United States more secure. The letter suggests several changes long called for by Democratic leaders.

    "While a change in your Iraq policy will best advance our chances for success, we do not believe the current civilian leadership at the Department of Defense is suited to implement and oversee such a change in policy," the lawmakers wrote.

    Others who signed the 850-word letter were Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), Daniel K. Inouye (Hawaii), Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) and Reps. Jane Harman (Calif.), Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), Tom Lantos (Calif.), John P. Murtha (Pa.) and Ike Skelton (Mo.).

    In response, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a statement accusing Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, of calling for retreat from Iraq before the U.S. mission there is completed.

    "The Democrat leadership finally agrees on something -- unfortunately it's retreat. Whether they call it 'redeployment' or 'phased withdrawal,' the effect is the same: We would leave Americans more vulnerable and Iraqis at the mercy of al-Qaeda, a terrorist group whose aim -- toward Iraqis and Americans -- is clear," said McConnell, the Republican whip.


    UN 'to mediate in soldiers row'
    UN Secretary General Kofi Annan
    Mr Annan said the mediator would work discreetly

    UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says Israel and Hezbollah have accepted his offer to mediate in the dispute over two captured Israeli soldiers.

    Hezbollah seized the soldiers during a cross-border raid in July, triggering the recent conflict with Israel.

    The group has called for an exchange of prisoners with Israel.

    Israel has repeated its view that the soldiers must be freed unconditionally and has said the UN will assist, rather than mediate, towards this end.

    An Israeli spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC that Israel viewed the continued detention of the two soldiers as a violation of the ceasefire that ended the fighting, and expected the UN to facilitate their unconditional release.

    The BBC's Jill McGivering in Jerusalem says it is politically awkward for Israel to endorse the idea that the UN is brokering negotiations between Israel and Hezbollah.

    Israel's public position is that it will not negotiate with Hezbollah, which it regards as a terrorist group.

    However, our correspondent says many Israelis accept that a deal - of the kind struck over prisoners in the past - is likely.

    UN resolution

    A special mediator will be appointed but Mr Annan intends to keep his or her name, and the negotiations, secret.

    Man looks at destroyed buildings in Beirut, Lebanon
    Many areas are in ruins following the conflict

    Mr Annan's spokesman said both parties had asked for mediation and that he had agreed "to play a role".

    Mr Annan, his spokesman said, "has not only received a green light from the Israelis but they have also given him a contact point".

    But the Israeli government said Mr Annan's announcement was not in line with its position on the prisoners.

    "A mediator is not needed," an official told the Reuters news agency.

    "The UN resolution determines that soldiers will be released unconditionally. The UN secretary general will assist - and not mediate."

    In August, the UN Security Council passed a resolution backing the ceasefire after the month-long war between Israel and Hezbollah.

    Resolution 1701 called for "a full cessation of hostilities", and for UN and Lebanese troops to replace Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.


    In an interview with Le Monde, Ehud Olmert says
    Israel wants Peacekeepers

    An End to the Israel-Lebanon Conflict in Sight?

    Saturday August 5, 2006 By Jennifer Brea (with translations from Le Monde)

    Le Monde http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-734511,36-800644,0.html?xtor=RSS-3210

    What will be the headline-grabbing quote?

    "We are fighting Hezbollah, whose stronghold is in southern Lebanon. When we succeed, we will leave the region. We want an international force to take over as soon as possible. The moment that that force is deployed, we will leave."

    Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says that a plan for an international peacekeeping force to take over in southern Lebanon is currently being developed in coordination with the United States, France and other countries.

    Israel's Right to Defend Itself

    In the interview, Olmert also affirms that "no one can deprive Israel of the right to defend itself" and says "Israel is in the process of creating a precedent, of making an example for many other societies."

    Iran and Syria

    While Olmert remains tough on Iran and Syria, he affirms that Israel does not want to go to war with Syria and that Iran could be part of the peace process if it gave up the hunt for nuclear and ballistic weapons, something not likely to happen any time soon.

    Olmert also gave interviews today to Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera, The Financial Times, The Times of London, and Al Jazeera.

    Israel's Relationship with the United States and Great Britain

    In the interview with The Times of London, Olmert said of the relationship between Israel, the United States and Great Britain:

    But it is fair to say that the relations between Israel and America are much broader than just a staunch support and a deep commitment from the President himself. Look at the Congress, the House and the Senate.......

    It’s not just the President, it’s the United States of America. And you know what, it’s far beyond even an issue of an immediate interest, it is a commonality of values. It is precisely that which has been emphasised by Tony Blair, which is why I think there is such a deep friendship between America and Great Britain and between these three countries. We all share the same commitment to the basic values of democracy, of equality, of tolerance and that we are ready to fight for these principles.

    Defending the "Proportionality" of Israel's Response to Hezbollah

    Olmert also responds to question from the reporter about "proportionality" - did Hezbollah's actions warrant Israel's hard-hitting response? Olmert replies:

    I think that you are missing a major part. The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately.

    Now we know that for years Hezbollah - assisted by Iran - built an infrastructure of a very significant volume in the south part of Lebanon to be used against Israeli people. The most obvious, simple, way to describe it to the average British person is: can you imagine seven million British citizens sitting for 22 days in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham in Newcastle, in Brighton and in other cities? Twenty two days in shelters because a terrorist organisation was shooting rockets and missiles on their heads? What would have been the British reaction to that? Do you know of a country that would have responded to such a brutal attack on its citizens softer than Israel did? Based on my knowledge of history no country in Europe would have responded in such a restrained manner as Israel did.

    My Reading of the Tea Leaves

    It looks as though Israel is seeking an end to this conflict and expects that it will wind down soon, its goal of routing Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon more or less accomplished.

    Olmert acknowledges Hezbollah will always have a presence in Lebanon, but has no intention of broadening the fight to the rest of the country so long as Hezbollah is not in a position to attack and harm Israeli citizens.

    Olmert, in no uncertain terms, believes that he - and Israel - are in the moral right, and while he regrets the deaths of innocent Lebanese civilians, affirms Israel will do anything it must to protect itself.

    With over 80% of Israelis are in favor of the invasion, a number that increases to well over 90% when Arab Israelis are excluded, Olmert has undoubtedly made himself one of the most popular Prime Ministers in recent history in only a few months' time.

    If Israel ends its military campaign soon and an international peacekeeping force is able to work toward's Israel's ends - keeping Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon - then my assessment would be that this conflict was miraculously short.

    Was it worth it? Time will tell and clearly opinions will differ. Israel may have dealt a fatal blow to Hezbollah, long a threat to Israel and especially Israelis living along the Lebanese border. However, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has claimed that 900 civilians have died in Israeli attacks and some human rights groups claim Israel actually targeted civilians.

    Israel On the Frontlines of a "Clash of Civilizations?"

    What really gets my goat is this passage here, where Olmert talks about the "clash of civilizations" and Israel fighting the good fight. (Which I also discuss here.)

    One thing is for sure. Terrorist, fundamentalist, extremist, and violent movements, seek to destroy the foundations of Western civilization. The civilized world has been attacked by terrorist organizations that have been manipulated by certain countries. Israel is in the process of creating a precedent, of making an example for many other societies. Israel decided to say: "Enough is enough!" If Hezbollah thinks that there are places where we will not go, they are wrong. We can go wherever. We are in a position to take by surprise, to stun, to hit hard.

    Why? Because if the Cold War taught us anything, it's that reducing complex conflicts to a simple battle between good and evil tends to obscure the truth and distort reality. The "good guys" (i.e., the West) do good and do good everywhere while the "bad guys" (the Communists, the terrorists, Muslims, or whoever the devil of the hour happens to be) got what they had coming.

    False. In every war, there is good and evil enough to go around. Every side kills, every side suffers casualties, and every side thinks they are fighting for something worth fighting for. I am young and I learned about the Cold War in my history books. I had thought, or rather hoped, that human beings had gotten over that whole good/evil cowboy thing. Clearly, I was wrong.

    *read full interview*

    Ehoud Olmert : "Il n'y a pas de limite" ŕ l'offensive israélienne
     
    LE MONDE | 03.08.06 |

    Israël est-il en train d'occuper partiellement le Liban ?

    Nous n'avons aucune intention d'occuper le moindre morceau de territoire. Nous combattons le Hezbollah, dont le bastion est au Liban sud. Le jour venu, nous quitterons la région. Nous voulons que la force internationale prenne la relčve le plus vite possible. Dčs la minute oů cette force sera déployée, nous partirons.

    Avant qu'elle n'arrive, cela pourrait prendre encore des semaines…

    J'espčre que cela prendra moins de temps. Une réflexion est menée sur la façon d'accélérer ce déploiement. J'espčre qu'elle portera ses fruits. Cela se prépare, entre ici, Washington, l'Europe, et d'autres pays.

    La France s'oppose ŕ un déploiement international sans cessez-le-feu et accord politique préalables.

    Je pense que l'on peut surmonter ces points de divergence. Je me souviens d'avoir eu une conversation des plus intéressantes avec le président Chirac sur le Liban. Ni le président Chirac, ni le premier ministre de Villepin, ni le ministre des affaires étrangčres, Douste-Blazy, ne veulent que le Hezbollah émerge de cette crise en position de gagnant. Repoussé et maintenu hors d'un large périmčtre de sécurité, le Hezbollah sera privé de l'avantage qu'il avait de pouvoir frapper ŕ sa guise des localités israéliennes. C'est ce ŕ quoi nous voulons parvenir, nous, les Américains, et les Français, et nous y travaillons. Il y a un terrain d'entente.

    Cette campagne militaire a-t-elle pris une dimension ŕ laquelle vous ne vous attendiez pas ?

    Je ne suis pas étonné, pas encore. Personne ne pouvait imaginer sérieusement qu'elle serait de petite ampleur. Le Hezbollah, qui n'est qu'un instrument de l'Iran, a mis en place au Liban des infrastructures ŕ grande échelle, avec des armements sophistiqués. J'avais anticipé dčs le départ que ce serait une bataille difficile. Mais jamais, dans l'histoire contemporaine, un combat contre une organisation terroriste n'aura été aussi efficace que le nôtre.

    Aprčs le bombardement de Cana, vous ętes-vous senti sur la défensive ?

    Nous sommes tristes et désolés de cette terrible tragédie. La Croix-Rouge a compté 28 corps. Nous sommes désolés pour chacun de ces 28corps. Mais je ne formule pas d'excuses. La raison en est que 150 missiles ont été tirés contre des villes israéliennes ŕ partir de ce village. Quand le Hezbollah ou les Palestiniens tuent des Israéliens, ils prennent ça pour un succčs. Nous, quand nous frappons des civils, nous considérons que c'est un échec de notre armée.

    Allez-vous continuer ŕ frapper Beyrouth ?

    Beyrouth n'est pas une cible. Ce qui l'est, et le restera, c'est un seul quartier, celui du Hezbollah. Mais nous n'attaquerons pas Beyrouth. Nous ne combattons pas le gouvernement du Liban. Je n'ai aucun désir de renverser [le premier ministre libanais] Fouad Siniora. Est-ce que je veux voir [le secrétaire général du Hezbollah] Nasrallah ŕ sa place? Certainement pas! Et je n'ai rien contre le peuple libanais. Mais personne ne peut nier le droit d'Israël de se défendre.

    Votre objectif est-il d'atteindre le fleuve Litani? Est-ce la limite fixée ?

    Il n'y a pas de limite. Nous n'allons pas combattre ŕ Beyrouth, je vous l'ai dit. Quant au reste, je ne pense pas avoir ŕ annoncer mes plans.

    Votre décision de vous déployer militairement au Liban sud est-elle liée au fait qu'aucune force internationale n'acceptera d'y entrer en combattant ?

    C'est une des choses que nous avons prises en considération. Mais depuis le premier jour, nous visions la partie sud du Liban. Nous savions que nous allions devoir la nettoyer, car c'était la source des problčmes depuis longtemps. D'abord, nous avons utilisé la force aérienne d'Israël, dans la mesure oů il est possible de l'utiliser pour "adoucir", pour préparer l'opération au sol.

    Maintenant, le moment est venu de l'opération terrestre. Nous n'avons pas l'intention d'occuper du territoire. Nous avons assez [d'expérience] du Liban. Mais nous n'accepterons en rien que la sécurité des habitants d'Israël soit menacée.

    Comment réagissez-vous aux propos de Philippe Douste-Blazy affirmant que l'Iran joue un rôle stabilisateur au Proche-Orient?

    Je crois qu'il a rectifié ces propos. Est-ce vrai ? Lors de mes divers entretiens avec M.Douste-Blazy, j'ai trouvé que je pouvais facilement m'entendre avec lui sur… le football, et sur certaines questions politiques. Il est trčs charmant. Nous sommes tout ŕ fait d'accord sur l'importance des biotechnologies.

    Mais nous divergeons quelque peu sur le rôle que joue l'Iran. Lorsque j'entends le président de l'Iran dire qu'il faut rayer Israël de la carte, et lorsque je vois ses efforts pour obtenir des armes nucléaires, je ne vois pas trčs bien la stabilisation qu'il apporte.

    L'Iran peut-il ętre impliqué dans la recherche d'un rčglement durable ?

    C'est quelque chose qui doit ętre abordé avec précaution. Il ne doit pas y avoir de "troc" entre cette question, et les préoccupations que nous avons concernant la politique de l'Iran en matičre d'armements non conventionnels, notamment ses efforts pour avoir des missiles balistiques stratégiques qui pourraient ętre dirigés contre Israël et certains pays européens. Il ne peut y avoir de quiproquo. Les Iraniens vont devoir oublier leurs projets d'enrichissement d'uranium.

    Faut-il parler ŕ la Syrie?

    Tout le monde sait qu'Israël n'a aucune intention d'entrer en confrontation violente avec la Syrie. J'espčre que les Syriens vont se comporter de façon responsable, et voir les avantages qu'il y a ŕ cela. Ils n'en ont pas encore fourni la preuve.

    Quelle importance historique accordez-vous ŕ cette guerre?

    Une chose est sűre. Des mouvements terroristes, fondamentalistes, extrémistes, violents, cherchent ŕ détruire les bases de la civilisation occidentale. Le monde civilisé est attaqué par des organisations terroristes qui sont manipulées par certains pays. Israël est en train de créer un précédent, de fournir un exemple pour beaucoup d'autres sociétés. Israël a décidé de dire : "Assez, c'est assez!" Si le Hezbollah pense qu'il y a des endroits oů nous n'irons pas, il a tort. Nous pouvons aller n'importe oů. Nous sommes en mesure de le prendre par surprise, le stupéfier, le frapper durement.


    After Qana

    The Arab World, the United States, and Justice in War

    Tuesday August 1, 2006  By Jennifer Brea

    In an excellent roundup, The Washington Post's Jeff Morley surveys Arab media to explain how the massacre in Qana has bolstered Arab sentiment - both Shiite and Sunni - in favor of Hezbollah and against Israel and the United States. He calls Qana a "tipping point," but I think the scales were tipped a long time ago...

    I keep asking myself, what is Israel's endgame and what does the United States think it's doing? If Muslims throughout the region didn't already think they were engaged in a World War against the United States, Israel and the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, Israel's offensive in Lebanon - and the United States's staunch and unquestioning diplomatic and military support - will do little to convince them otherwise.

    Even Pat Buchanan is is criticizing the United States' unquestioning support of the Israeli offensive in the face of hundreds of civilian casualties.

    Proportionality?

    In several of my blogs posts since Israel launched its offensive against Hezbollah, I've been hinting at a concept central to just war theory - proportionality.

    • Proportionality: The overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved. The force used must be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation's claim to justness of a war it initiated.

    And here are some more key words...

    • Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other
    • Discrimination: The acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in circumstances they did not create. The prohibited acts include bombing civilian residential areas that include no military target and committing acts of terrorism or reprisal against ordinary civilians.
    • Minimum force: This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. It is different from proportionality because the amount of force proportionate to the goal of the mission might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish that mission. (Source)

    Buchanan's editorial cites several examples of how Israeli officials seemed to have thrown these concepts out the window.

    "Everyone in southern Lebanon is a terrorist and is connected to Hezbollah," roared Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon on July 27.

    "Every village from which a Katyusha is fired must be destroyed," bellowed an Israeli general in a quote bannered by the nation's largest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth.

    The Israeli paper then summarized what the justice minister and general were saying: "In other words, a village from which rockets are fired at Israel will simply be destroyed by fire." That was Thursday.

    Sunday, in Qana, 57 of Haim Ramon's "terrorists," 37 of them children, were massacred with precision-guided bombs. Apparently, Katyushas had been fired from Qana, near the destroyed building.

    "One who goes to sleep with rockets shouldn't be surprised if he doesn't wake up in the morning," said Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman.

    Over 80% of Israelis are in favor of the invasion, a number that increases to well over 90% when Arab Israelis are excluded.

    Just to be clear, I do not think Israel should have to stand by idly when Hezbollah is launching rockets at its towns. But was this really the way to respond?


    Département de l’information • Service des informations et des accréditations • New York

    POINT DE PRESSE QUOTIDIEN DU BUREAU DU PORTE-PAROLE

    DU SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL DE L’ONU: 5 SEPTEMBRE 2006

    Alliance des Civilisations

    Le Groupe de haut-niveau pour l’Alliance des civilisations poursuivra demain l’examen du projet de rapport qui devrait ętre présenté au Secrétaire général ŕ la mi-novembre. 

    Demain, ŕ 13 heures, les coprésidents du Groupe, Federico Mayor de l’Espagne et Mehmet Aydin de la Turquie, tiendront une conférence de presse sur les travaux de l’Alliance. 


    Alliance des civilisations : 'progrčs significatifs' vers l'élaboration d'un premier rapport

    7 septembre 2006 Education, jeunesse, immigration, femmes et médias seront les priorités du premier rapport de l'Alliance des civilisations, un Groupe de sages créé l'année derničre par le Secrétaire général pour répondre aux divisions croissantes entre le monde musulman et l'Occident, qui s'est réuni pour la troisičme fois cette semaine ŕ New York.

    La question de la politique d'intégration des immigrés dans leurs nouvelles sociétés sera également examinée dans le rapport, a indiqué le ministre turc Mehmet Aydin, qui co-préside le Groupe de haut niveau, lors d'une conférence de presse donnée hier ŕ New York.

    L'élaboration du rapport qui doit ętre remis ŕ Kofi Annan ŕ la mi-novembre était au centre de la réunion de l'Alliance des civilisations qui s'est achevée hier ŕ New York. Le Groupe devra émettre des recommandations concrčtes pour répondre collectivement ŕ la montée de l'intolérance, de l'extrémisme, de la violence et du terrorisme.

    Le ministre turc a affirmé que le Groupe avait fait des « progrčs significatifs » vers un texte final, expliquant que le document couvrirait les questions de l'éducation, de la jeunesse, de l'immigration, des femmes et des médias.

    Les participants ŕ la réunion ont estimé que les Nations Unies et les organisations devaient jouer un rôle plus important dans la préservation de la paix et de la sécurité internationales, a encore rapporté Mehmet Aydin.

    « Il y a un sentiment général que les droits de l'homme et les valeurs partagées communément dans notre monde doivent ętre soutenues, et aucune concession ne doit ętre faite, quelles que soient les circonstances, si ces valeurs communes sont menacées », a-t-il ajouté.

    Coprésidé par l'ancien directeur général de l'UNESCO, l'Espagnol Frederico Mayor, et le ministre et professeur de théologie turc, Mehmet Aydin, le Groupe de haut niveau a tenu sa premičre réunion de travail en novembre dernier ŕ Majorque en Espagne (voir notre dépęche du 28 novembre 2006).

    Parmi les 19 membres du groupe de haut niveau figurent l'ancien président iranien Seyed Mohamed Khatami, l'ancien ministre des Affaires étrangčres français Hubert Védrine et le conseiller spécial du roi Mohammed VI du Maroc André Azoulay (dépęche du 2 septembre 2005).

    Destinée ŕ combattre les divisions entre les cultures, notamment islamiques et occidentales, qui menace de maničre potentielle la paix dans le monde, l'Alliance des civilisations a été lancée par le Secrétaire général le 14 juillet 2005 (dépęche du 14.07.05).

    Le Premier ministre espagnol José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero et le premier ministre turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan sont ŕ l'origine de cette initiative.

    http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr


    Visite aux Etats-Unis de l'ancien président iranien Mohammad Khatami

    NEW YORK (AP) -- L'ancien président iranien Mohammad Khatami va se rendre dans des universités, participer ŕ une réunion aux Nations unies et assister ŕ deux conférences islamiques au cours d'une visite de prčs de deux semaines aux Etats-Unis, a rapporté vendredi un responsable proche de l'ex-chef d'Etat.
    M. Khatami est arrivé jeudi aux Etats-Unis aprčs avoir bénéficié d'un visa accordé mardi par le Département d'Etat qui n'a imposé aucune restriction concernant ses déplacements. "Il n'y a pas de problčme, il est entré aux Etats-Unis", a précisé le responsable au sujet de l'arrivée de M. Khatami dans la capitale américaine.
    L'ancien président iranien a été invité par l'Alliance des Civilisations des Nations Unies, dont il est l'un des membres fondateurs et doit assister ŕ une réunion prévue mardi et mercredi.
    Il projette notamment de se rendre ŕ l'Université Columbia ŕ New York, mais pourrait devoir annuler ce déplacement en raison d'un problčme d'emploi du temps.
    Par ailleurs, M. Khatami doit se rendre ŕ Chicago pour le congrčs annuel de l'Islamic Society of North America au cours du week-end.
    Jeudi, il doit prononcer un discours ŕ l'Université de Virginia sur les rapports entre religion et politique. Puis il regagnera Washington pour une intervention ŕ la Cathédrale nationale. Vendredi soir, il doit aussi s'exprimer devant le Council on American-Islamic Relations ŕ Washington.
    Dimanche 10 septembre, sa visite l'emmčnera ŕ Harvard, dans le Massachusetts oů il doit ŕ nouveau intervenir.
    En pleine crise sur le dossier nucléaire iranien, Mohammad Khatami est le plus haut responsable iranien ŕ se rendre aux Etats-Unis depuis la rupture des relations diplomatiques entre les deux pays aprčs la prise d'otages ŕ l'ambassade américaine ŕ Téhéran en 1979. AP

    http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=etranger/20060901


    Le Pentagone redessine le monde

    « Au-delŕ de ces affrontements se profile un danger majeur, celui du divorce entre les mondes, Orient contre Occident, islam contre chrétienté, riches contre pauvres». A deux reprises en quatre jours, le président Jacques Chirac a exigé d'Israël qu'il lčve le blocus imposé au Liban en violation de la résolution 1701 du Conseil de sécurité, appelé ŕ une relance des efforts diplomatiques pour régler les conflits libanais et israélo-palestinien, ainsi que la crise nucléaire avec l'Iran. A défaut, le président français annonce la reprise de la guerre et un « divorce entre les mondes » entre l'Occident et le monde musulman. On eűt tant aimé la męme clairvoyance et la męme détermination chiraquienne s'agissant de la France et de l'Europe ! Si elle suit des chemins et des buts assez différents, la décomposition du Moyen-Orient va en effet de pair avec celle de l'Europe, au sens notamment oů elle semble servir d'abord les intéręts stratégiques et économiques de la premičre puissance mondiale (Lire La France doit dénoncer la PESC et refuser de payer le chčque britannique et Proche-Orient, la position de la France est en train de s'imposer , de François Asselineau)

    Rappelons qu'au lendemain des attentats de New-York, des spécialistes tels Aymeric Chauprade, avaient exposé comment et pourquoi les Etats-Unis, ayant désormais les coudées franches au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme islamiste, entreprenaient sur plusieurs années un remodelage complet du Proche et Moyen-Orient. Excipant divers prétextes pour convaincre la communauté internationale ŕ les suivre - ou au moins ŕ les laisser faire -, les Américains allaient męme utiliser la puissance militaire pour réaliser cette recomposition, au service de leurs intéręts géostratégiques bien compris. Nous avions repris son analyse au début 2003 (Lire Moyen-Orient : le monde attend la France , appelant le Président Jacques Chirac et son excellent Ministre des Affaires étrangčres Dominique de Villepin, ŕ faire usage du droit de veto français contre la nouvelle guerre d'Irak). Nous résumions ainsi l'enjeu : "Devenus économiquement ultra-dépendants du reste du monde avec un déficit commercial abyssal (450 milliards de dollars), les Etats-Unis sont le consommateur improductif de la plančte. Or, ŕ l'horizon 2015, aura émergé un géant économique : la Chine. Inquiets, ils ont donc entrepris en Asie son encerclement par la Corée du Sud, Taďwan, la Thaďlande, Singapour, les Philippines, le Japon et maintenant l'Asie centrale (depuis le 11 septembre). Ce faisant, ils bloquent ŕ l'Asie nucléaire (Chine, Pakistan, Inde) la route des hydrocarbures de la mer Caspienne, alors męme que les besoins de ces pays vont doubler pour soutenir leur demande intérieure. La mainmise d'aujourd'hui sur l'Irak, préalable au contrôle de l'Iran, s'inscrit naturellement dans ce projet. En d'autres termes, Washington a un intéręt stratégique ŕ contrôler la pompe énergétique qui alimente la croissance asiatique, en particulier la croissance chinoise."

    Décomposer les Etats - frontičres, souveraineté et population - et recomposer la carte sur des critčres régionaux et ethniques discutables et dangereux: telle est la logique de l'intégration supranationale en Europe... comme au Moyen-Orient. Si elle veut éviter le pičge du "divorce des mondes" et du "choc des civilisations", la France, qui ręve d'un monde multipolaire - et on voit mal qui d'autre qu'elle, affranchie des entraves européennes, voudrait et pourrait mener cette résistance - doit gravement se poser la question de savoir s'il faut continuer ŕ laisser les Etats-Unis recomposer la carte du monde.
    En effet, dans la tribune ci-dessous, Pierre Hillard* révčle et commente une carte fort intriguante du Moyen-Orient, publiée par une revue militaire américaine (AFJ : Armed Forces Journal), en juin dernier, c'est ŕ dire peu avant l'intervention Israélienne au Liban. Il s'agit d'une carte, pour l'instant, de politique-fiction, intitulée "Redrawing the Middle East Map" ("Before" et "After", ŕ la suite du présent article) qui recompose le Moyen-Orient sur des critčres ethniques, plus précisément tout ce qui se trouve dans un triangle Turquie-Afghanistan-Yemen, tel que les stratčges américains le souhaitent dans le cadre du fameux projet de remodelage d'un "grand Moyen-Orient" musulman jusqu'au Maroc. L'objectif annoncé : pacifier les "zones chaudes par les frontičres prévues dans le nouveau monde démocratqiue, libéral et bien pensant de Washington" commente Pierre Hillard. Tiens, on croyait que faire la paix imposait d'abolir les frontičres ?... ChB

    La recomposition programmée du Moyen-Orient, par Pierre Hillard

    Le Pentagone redessine le monde
     


     

    Les deux cartes "Redrawing the Middle East Map" publiées par le "Armed Forces Journal" sont visibles en cliquant sur les liens Jpeg ŕ la suite du présent article
     

     

                Les tensions et les violences qui secouent le Moyen-Orient depuis l’intervention israélienne au Liban, le 12 juillet 2006, ne sont que la partie visible d’un immense enjeu politique, économique, religieux et philosophique opposant l’Occident aux Etats islamiques de la région. L’occupation américaine de l’Irak en mars 2003 a permis le lancement d’un projet révolutionnaire en vue de remodeler une vaste zone géographique allant du Maroc au Pakistan: le Grand Moyen-Orient. Derričre cette appellation, c’est une recomposition profonde qui attend ces pays musulmans. Beaucoup de théories et de supputations courent sur les ambitions des Etats-Unis et d’Israël au sujet de la politique poursuivie par leurs dirigeants. Cependant, des signes avant-coureurs apparaissent et permettent d’apercevoir concrčtement les plans en cours. C’est tout l’enjeu des cartes ci-jointes appelant ŕ recomposer le Moyen-Orient.
     

                Ces cartes (« before » : situation en 2006 et « after » : situation aprčs recomposition) sont parues dans une revue militaire américaine, AFJ (Armed Forces Journal), en juin 2006 sous la plume d’un lieutenant-colonel américain ŕ la retraite, Ralph Peters. Ce dernier s’est illustré dans une division d’infanterie mécanisée ŕ partir de 1976 pour, ensuite, poursuivre ses activités dans le renseignement militaire en 1980. Auteur de nombreux ouvrages traitant de la stratégie et des relations internationales, Ralph Peters s’est retiré officiellement de l’armée en 1999. Cependant, ses contacts restent étroits avec ce milieu puisqu’il fait partie de l’équipe dirigeante d’AFJ. Cette revue n’est qu’une partie d’un véritable empire de la presse militaire américaine. Fondé en 1863, ce mensuel s’adresse aux officiers des Etats-Unis traitant de sujets aussi variés comme : la technologie militaire, la logistique, la stratégie, la doctrine ou encore la tactique. En fait, AFJ est coiffé par une maison mčre, Army Times Publishing Company, dont les publications s’articulent autour de trois axes :
     

    1) The Military Times Media Group qui publie: Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times et Marine Corps Times.

     

    2) The Defense News Media Group, groupe mondial des revues de défense et qui publie: Defense News, Armed Forces Journal (AFJ), Training § Simulation Journal et C4ISR Journal (renseignement, surveillance et reconnaissance).

     

    3) The Federal Times, hebdomadaire d’informations traitant des nouvelles technologies et des sujets financiers.

     

                Depuis le 1er aoűt 1997, Army Times Publishing Company est une filiale d’un groupe encore plus puissant, la société Gannett. Fondé en 1906 par Frank Gannett, cet empire de presse et des médias publie aux Etats-Unis prčs de 90 quotidiens dont les plus connus sont USA Today et USA Weekend et contrôle 22 stations de télévision. Ses activités débordent aussi au Royaume-Uni puisque 17 quotidiens sont sous son influence. L’ensemble génčre des revenus financiers colossaux estimés ŕ 7,6 milliards de dollars pour 2005.

                Cette présentation permet de mieux saisir dans quel milieu la revue AFJ évolue et la signification des travaux de Ralph Peters. En effet, les propositions de ce dernier et les appels lancés ŕ un changement radical des frontičres du Moyen-Orient ne sont évidemment pas le résultat des réflexions d’un seul homme soucieux d’occuper son temps. De nombreuses études ont été lancées au sein des instances militaires américaines comme dans de nombreux think tanks appelant ŕ revoir les limites frontaličres de ces Etats. Comme le montre la carte (« after »), les modifications apportées aux frontičres sont le fruit d’une lente mais sűre réflexion intellectuelle dont la publication dans une revue militaire américaine de haut rang n’est pas l’effet du hasard. Le but recherché est aussi de tester les réactions en particulier celles des musulmans de la région. Cela dit, il ne faut pas voir ce document comme définitif. En fait, c’est un prototype susceptible de connaître des changements que certains appelleraient des variables d’ajustement. En réalité, l’intéręt majeur de ces travaux est de révéler que les instances militaires et politiques des Etats-Unis se sont résolument engagées dans un domaine en n’hésitant plus ŕ l’officialiser. En męme temps, cette entreprise doit se faire en adéquation avec Israël concerné au premier chef par ces bouleversements. A l’égard de ce pays, Ralph Peters se définit comme un ami « de longue date » (New York Post, 22 juillet 2006).
     

                L’article de ce militaire américain, intitulé « Frontičres ethniques, que faire pour améliorer le Moyen-Orient », part du principe qu’il faut lever le tabou de la sacro-sainte frontičre inamovible. Pour l’auteur, les nouvelles frontičres doivent se modeler en fonction du critčre ethnique et confessionnel. Męme s’il n’est pas possible de tracer des frontičres respectant la totalité des particularismes en tout genre nombreux et numériquement trčs variables, il faut pour Ralph Peters se rapprocher au maximum de ce concept. Comme il le souligne : « Nous parlons de difformités énormes faites par les hommes qui n’arręteront pas de générer la haine et la violence tant qu’elles n’auront pas été corrigées ». Dans son esprit, il s’agit de remettre radicalement en cause les frontičres nées des Accords Sykes-Picot de 1916 préparant le démantčlement de l’Empire ottoman.
     

                En observant l’ensemble de cette zone en partant de la Péninsule arabique, on constate immédiatement le démantčlement du royaume d’Arabie Saoudite. Les propos de l’auteur sont trčs clairs ŕ l’égard d’un pays qui a bénéficié de la protection américaine suite aux discussions entre le président Roosevelt et le roi Ibn Saoud, le 14 février 1945, ŕ bord du croiseur USS Quincy. Désormais, le royaume d’Arabie Saoudite passe ŕ la trappe. Deux grandes entités territoriales échappent ŕ l’autorité de Riyad. Sur la côte Ouest, il s’agit de créer un « Etat sacré islamique ». Comme le précise Ralph Peters dans des propos lourds de conséquences : « La cause principale de la large stagnation du monde musulman réside dans le traitement réservé ŕ la Mecque et ŕ Médine considérés comme leur fief par la famille royale saoudienne. Les lieux saints de l’Islam soumis au contrôle de la police d’Etat de la part d’un des plus bigots et oppressifs régimes au monde ont permis au Saoud (ndlr : la famille régnante d’Arabie Saoudite) de projeter leur croyance wahhabite ŕ la fois intolérante et disciplinée au-delŕ de leurs frontičres. (...) Imaginez comme le monde musulman se sentirait mieux si la Mecque et Médine étaient dirigés par un Conseil représentatif tournant issu des principales écoles et mouvements de l’Islam dans le monde au sein d’un Etat sacré islamique – une sorte de super Vatican musulman – oů l’avenir de la foi serait débattu au lieu d’ętre arbitrairement fixé ».
     

                Ce point est capital puisqu’il révčle la volonté de réformer l’Islam afin de l’adapter aux principes occidentaux. Une sorte « d’Islam des Lumičres » élaboré au cśur de cet Etat sacré islamique permettrait de rayonner sur l’ensemble du monde musulman et de remodeler les esprits afin qu’ils épousent pleinement la philosophie mondialiste. Il est vrai que contrôler les esprits a toujours permis de contrôler les hommes. C’est d’ailleurs dans le męme ordre d’idée que l’on retrouve ces mesures préconisées par la Fondation Bertelsmann, think tank allemand qui, dans ses travaux débattus dans le cadre des « Discussions de Kronberg » en 2002 et 2003 (Europe, the mediterranean and the Middle East, strengthening responsibility for stability and development et Die Zukunft der europäischen Politik im Nahen Osten nach dem Irak Krieg), relčve l’inadéquation de l’Islam ŕ l’évolution du monde moderne et prône une refonte des mentalités et la remise en cause des frontičres. Ces recommandations allemandes soulignent aussi la convergence des buts ŕ atteindre de part et d’autre de l’Atlantique pour refondre entičrement le Moyen-Orient. Il est vrai aussi que les concepts ethno-confessionnels développés par Ralph Peters cadrent parfaitement avec la vision ethniciste germanique.

    Sur la côte du Golfe persique, c’est la province de Hassa dont la population est majoritairement chiite qui est détachée de l’Arabie Saoudite et intégrée ŕ un « Etat chiite arabe », vestige d’un Irak littéralement explosé. L’application de cette mesure entraînerait la mort économique du royaume car c’est ŕ cet endroit que se concentre l’essentiel de l’extraction des hydrocarbures autour de la triade Dammam-Dharhan-Al-Khobar. L’Etat chiite arabe verrait ses réserves pétroličres et gazičres monter en flčche et deviendrait incontournable car, outre les vastes ressources de Hassa et de la production off-shore, il faudrait ajouter celles de la région de Bassora (ex-Irak) et des provinces arabes iraniennes, détachées de Téhéran, riches en hydrocarbures jouxtant le Chatt el-Arab (Arabes chiites du Khouzistan et Arabes sunnites du Bouchir). De plus, Riyad perdrait ses provinces du Sud (Jizrane, Najran et l’Assir) au profit du Yémen, territoires acquis en 1934 lors du Traité de Taëf, et qui ont conservé leur identité yéménite. Enfin, la curée sera complčte avec l’octroi d’une façade maritime ŕ la Jordanie, Etat pro-occidental, en arrachant ŕ l’Arabie Saoudite les provinces de Tabouk et une partie du Jouf.
     

    La destruction du royaume des Al Saoud affichée par la carte (« after ») de Ralph Peters n’est que la confirmation de projets élaborés au sein de certaines instances américaines. David Rigoulet-Roze, spécialiste du Moyen-Orient, dans son ouvrage « Géopolitique de l’Arabie Saoudite » (Editions Armand Colin) le souligne clairement : « Il y eut notamment la publication le 6 aoűt 2002, par le Washington Post, d’un briefing qui a eu lieu le 10 juillet 2002 au Defense Policy Board (DPB, ndlr : organisme de planification stratégique créé en 1985 par Donald Rumsfeld), alors dirigé par le trčs influent Richard Perle, surnommé le Prince des ténčbres lorsqu’il officiait au Pentagone entre 1981 et 1987 sous l’administration Reagan. Au cours de ce briefing, l’Arabie Saoudite avait été qualifiée par Laurent Murawiec, un analyste du prestigieux centre de recherches stratégiques de la Rand Corporation, de pays ennemi. (…) Pire encore, Murawiec avait évoqué la légitimité de sanctions, dont le gel des avoirs saoudiens, voire … la scission de la province orientale du royaume renfermant ces gisements et ces réserves pétroličres qui font de l’Arabie le maître du quart des réserves d’or noir. (…) Quelques temps seulement aprčs l’affaire Murawiec, c’était au tour d’un think tank proche des néo-conservateurs, le Hudson Institute – dont Perle est membre, et oů officie désormais Murawiec – de reprendre et de développer les idées avancées par le DPB. Etait alors ouvertement évoqué un plan de démantčlement de l’Arabie Saoudite qui, en réalité, existe depuis la fin des années 70, ŕ l’initiative d’Henry Kissinger, alors Secrétaire d’Etat de l’Administration Nixon. (…) C’est également dans le męme ordre d’idées que semble s’inscrire un rapport remontant ŕ la fin de l’année 2002, circulant au plus haut niveau dans les milieux officiels de Washington. Il envisagerait rien moins que le démembrement pur et simple de l’Arabie Saoudite selon le scénario suivant : les Lieux saints de la Mecque et de Médine se verraient confiés aux Hachémites qui, en tant que descendants du Prophčte, bénéficient d’une légitimité qui fait largement défaut ŕ la dynastie des Al Saoud et la province du Hassa serait poussée ŕ faire sécession dans le but de se constituer en Emirat pétrolier ».

    Les révélations de ce spécialiste français continuent sur la męme lancée puisqu’il affirme la volonté des Etats-Unis de favoriser une « recomposition politique radicale du Moyen-Orient qui passerait notamment en Irak męme par une dévolution du pouvoir ŕ la majorité chiite par les grâces d’une démocratie arithmétique ». C’est justement ce que révčle la carte (« after ») de Ralph Peters oů l’Etat irakien a disparu au profit d’un Etat chiite arabe et d’un résidu appelé « Irak sunnite » que le militaire américain propose męme d’unifier ŕ la Syrie qui, entre-temps, a perdu sa façade maritime au profit d’un Grand Liban. Il est męme évoqué sous sa plume la renaissance de l’antique Phénicie (Phoenecia reborn) tandis que l’Etat d’Israël est conservé dans ses frontičres d’avant 1967. Il est étonnant de constater, en raison du véritable chambardement des frontičres au Moyen-Orient, que Ralph Peters conserve le territoire de la Cisjordanie (west bank) au rang de statut indéterminé. Peut-ętre que le statut définitif de Jérusalem, sičge de trois grandes religions, nécessite de ne pas révéler tout de suite l’avenir d’une zone éminemment convoitée.

    En tout cas, la partition de l’Irak sur la carte (« after ») commence ŕ prendre forme sur le terrain. L’ambassadeur britannique ŕ Bagdad, William Patey, et le général américain John Abizaid ont clairement affiché leurs craintes d’une guerre civile suivie d’une division du pays comme l’a révélé un document confidentiel publié par la BBC (Spiegelonline, 3 aoűt 2006). Leurs affirmations ne font que confirmer les propos du journal d’Istanbul, Vatan, qui évoquait les propos tenus ŕ des représentants turques par des responsables américains, début 2006, au sein des think tanks de Washington : « Arrętez de vous soucier de l’intégrité territoriale de l’Irak. En réalité, ce pays est déjŕ divisé ! Vous [les Turcs] feriez mieux de vous préoccuper maintenant de votre Sud-Est [région ŕ majorité kurde]. Essayez d’imaginer quelles seront les répercussions de l’autonomie du Kurdistan irakien dans votre pays » (Courrier International n°805). C’est d’ailleurs le męme son de cloche de la part des dirigeants européistes de Bruxelles qui susurrent ŕ Ankara que « Si la Turquie se séparait de son Sud-Est, elle entrerait plus facilement dans l’Union européenne » (Courrier International n°805). L’ethno-régionalisme prôné par les instances bruxelloises ne ferait qu’accélérer le phénomčne de décomposition de l’Etat turc. Finalement, les propos de Ralph Peters ne font que confirmer ces prises de position puisqu’il ajoute qu’un cinquičme de la partie Est de la Turquie est un « territoire occupé » et qu’un « Kurdistan libre, s’étendant de Diyarbakir jusqu’ŕ Tabriz deviendrait l’Etat le plus occidental entre la Bulgarie et le Japon ».

    La création d’un Etat kurde (Free Kurdistan) construit ŕ partir des territoires Sud-Est de la Turquie, du Nord de la Syrie et de l’Irak, et de l’Ouest de l’Iran aboutirait ŕ l’émergence d’un bloc estimé ŕ environ 30 millions d’habitants. Fort des installations pétroličres de Kirkouk, cet Etat kurde pro-américain serait avec l’Etat chiite arabe les deux grands pôles de la production d’hydrocarbures et de gaz du Moyen-Orient. L’importance de cet Etat kurde serait d’autant plus grande que l’oléoduc BTC évacue le pétrole de la Mer Caspienne ŕ partir de Bakou (Azerbaďdjan), passe par Tbilissi (Géorgie) pour, ensuite, traverser tout le Sud-Est de la Turquie et aboutir ŕ Ceyhan en Méditerranée. Les Kurdes seraient donc les grands maîtres de ce corridor énergétique voulu par les Américains en 1994. En plus du pétrole, il faut ajouter l’autre grande richesse, l’eau. Le « Grand projet anatolien » (GAP) poursuit l’objectif, grâce ŕ 22 barrages, de dompter le Tigre et l’Euphrate qui prennent leurs sources dans les montagnes kurdes. L’achčvement de ce projet qui doit avoir lieu vers 2013, permettant l’irrigation de 1,7 million d’hectares et la production d’électricité, sera une arme redoutable aux mains de l’Etat kurde et pčsera lourdement sur la vie des habitants de tout le Moyen-Orient.
     

    A l’Est des Etats kurdes et chiites, l’Iran est remodelé en fonction des critčres ethniques. Aprčs avoir cédé sa partie kurde, la zone turcophone du Nord est octroyée ŕ l’Azerbaďdjan. En revanche, la province iranienne du Khorasân s’agrandit vers l’Est en acquérant le territoire Ouest de l’Afghanistan, la région de Hérat, en conformité avec la volonté de Ralph Peters de reconfigurer la région selon les critčres ethno-linguistiques. Comme le confirme Bernard Hourcade, directeur au CNRS (équipe de recherche : monde iranien), dans son ouvrage « Iran, nouvelles identités d’une République » (Editions Belin) : « L’immense province de Khorasân, (…) les limites anciennes incluaient les régions de Hérat dans l’actuel Afghanistan et celles de Samarcande et Boukhara en Ouzbékistan ». Enfin, un « Baloutchistan libre » (Free Baluchistan) est créé ŕ partir des deux entités iraniennes et pakistanaises tandis que l’Afghanistan se voit agrandi au dépens du Pakistan jusqu’au fleuve Indus afin d’y rattacher les populations pachtounes. L’Etat pakistanais réduit de prčs de la moitié de sa superficie verrait sa puissance économique fortement amoindrie au point d’ętre incapable de servir d’allié de revers au profit de la Chine face ŕ l’Inde. Sur ce point, les Etats-Unis seraient gagnants. Seuls des Etats comme Oman, le Qatar, les Emirats arabes unis et le Koweďt échappent ŕ ces modifications. Cependant, cette carte (« after ») étant un prototype, rien n’interdit ŕ leurs concepteurs de se rattraper. En tout cas, la finalité américaine est de contrôler tout ce Moyen-Orient par la parcellisation ethnique et religieuse selon le bon vieux principe « diviser pour régner ». Les Etats-Unis, cherchant ŕ s’assurer la production d’hydrocarbures ŕ leur profit, seraient en mesure de priver la Chine, puissance montante et rivale, de l’arme énergétique si nécessaire ŕ son accession ŕ la cour des grands.
     

    L’impression générale qui se dégage du remodelage annoncé par cet auteur comme de la part de nombreux think tanks américains et allemands est celle d’un bouleversement mettant ŕ feu et ŕ sang ces pays du Moyen-Orient. En effet, on ne voit pas ces Etats se laisser charcuter, voire disparaître, sans se laisser faire. Comment réagira, par exemple, le Pakistan qui possčde l’arme nucléaire ? En réalité, l’objectif est d’intégrer ces immenses territoires ŕ la sphčre d’influence occidentale. Le discours de Joschka Fischer ŕ la 40č Conférence de Munich sur la politique de sécurité dans le cadre de l’OTAN, le 7 février 2004, annonçait la volonté du monde occidental de mettre ces pays du Moyen-Orient aux normes euro-atlantistes. Ces mesures furent confirmées par « l’alliance germano-américaine pour le XXIč sičcle » signée, le 27 février 2004, entre le président Bush et le chancelier Schröder ŕ Washington, annonçant la couleur : « Nous devons construire un véritable partenariat qui relie l’Europe et l’Amérique aux Etats du Proche et Moyen-Orient (…) ». Cette immense construction politique et métaphysique doit obligatoirement obéir ŕ des rčgles communes qui sont politiques, économiques et civilisationnelles. Une logique, mais une logique folle, anime les concepteurs de ce projet. C’est le think tank German Marshall Fund (GMF) qui, indirectement, a révélé l’engagement profond des instances atlantistes. En effet, il s’est engagé sous l’égide du trčs influent Bruce Jackson ŕ développer une nouvelle politique en Mer Noire intitulée « A new euro-atlantic strategy for the Black Sea region ». Il s’agit en liaison avec l’Union européenne de créer une eurorégion de la Mer Noire qui doit voir le jour pour 2007 selon les affirmations de Giovanni di Stasi, président du Congrčs des Pouvoirs Locaux et Régionaux d’Europe (CPLRE). Or une « petite » phrase résume tout. Paru en 2004, le rapport du GMF dans sa préface précise que « La Mer Noire est la nouvelle interface entre la communauté euro-atlantique et le Grand Moyen-Orient ». Une « interface » géographique obéit aux lois de la physique. Pour fonctionner et jouer pleinement sa mission de charničre, cette interface doit s’articuler entre deux mondes, le bloc euro-atlantiste d’une part, et le bloc moyen-oriental d’autre part, régis par les męmes lois et les męmes concepts édictés par la philosophie mondialiste. Cela suppose nécessairement une refonte généralisée de cet espace arabo/perse musulman pour qu’il y ait adéquation. Pour réussir cette entreprise, les moyens mis en śuvre risquent d’aboutir ŕ un chaos inimaginable dans cette région et, par ricochet, ŕ l’échelle planétaire. Tout compte fait, les adeptes de cette politique ne font qu’appliquer les fameux vers du počme de Goethe, « l’apprenti sorcier », qui rappelaient : « Les esprits que j’ai réveillés ne veulent plus m’écouter ».
     

    Pierre Hillard, docteur en sciences politiques, B.I n°113 (*) est professeur d'histoire-géographie. Il a publié différents articles dans Le Figaro, Géostratégiques, Conflits Actuels, Intelligence et Sécurité, Balkans-Infos.

     

    Il est notamment l'auteur de "La décomposition des nations Européennes : de l'union euro-atlantique ŕ l'Etat mondial", (éditions Francois-Xavier De Guibert, 2005) ainsi que "Minorités et régionalismes dans l'Europe Fédérale des Régions : Enquęte sur le plan allemand qui va bouleverser l'Europe" (Francois-Xavier De Guibert, 2001)  Acheter en ligne 

    Du męme auteur sur ce site : La géopolitique secrčte de la Constitution européenne
     

    Ci-dessous, les cartes "Redrawing the Middle East map" au format Jpeg :

    Redrawing the Middle East map - BEFORE.jpg  (113.1 KB)
    Redrawing the Middle East map - AFTER.jpg  (125.4 KB)

    http://www.observatoiredeleurope.com/Le-Pentagone-redessine-le-Moyen-Orient_a521.html


    Turkiyenin Sinirlarini Yeniden Cizmek

    Blood borders

    How a better Middle East would look

    By Ralph Peters

    EXCERPT

    The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day.

    The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.

    As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.

    A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.

    A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam's holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.

    While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice — which we might not like — would also give Saudi Arabia's coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.

    Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.

    What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.

    The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate — as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders, as would Oman.

    In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

    Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.

    Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.

    From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely — the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.

    If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.


    Buyuk Ortadogu Projesi Oldugu Sanilan  Harita

    www.turkishforum.com

    Army Times Publishing Company dergisinden alınmış bir harita...... Sag taraftaki iki haritayada bakın (Oncesi-Sonrası) http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

    Dergiyi Cikaran Ortaklarda

     1. The Military Times Media Group     http://www.militarycity.com/

     2. The Defense News Media Group     http://www.defensenews.com/

     3. The Federal Times newsweekly.      http://www.federaltimes.com/

    Bu Harita Uzerinde Cok Konusulan Ve Buyuk Ortadogu Projesine (BOP )Veya Amerikalilarin Deyisi Ile PNAC (Project For The New American Century)  Projesine Kismende olsa Bagli Denilmektedir.

    PNAC Hakkinda Gerekli Bilgileri Ingilizce Olarak Www.Newamericancentury.Org.Htm Web Sitesinde Bulabilirsiniz. Kisaca:

    ABOUT PNAC

    THE PROJECT

    FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY

    http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

    Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.
    Project Directors
        William Kristol, Chairman     Robert Kagan      Bruce P. Jackson     Mark Gerson     Randy Scheunemann

    Project Staff     Ellen Bork, Acting Executive Director    Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow    Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow    Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative   Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director    Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate

    Statement of Principles
    http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm 

    June 3, 1997

    American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

    We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

    As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

    We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

    We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

    Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

    Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

    • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
    responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

    • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

    • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

    • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

    Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

    Elliott Abrams    Gary Bauer    William J. Bennett    Jeb Bush

    Dick Cheney
       Eliot A. Cohen    Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky    Steve Forbes

    Aaron Friedberg
        Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney    Fred C. Ikle

    Donald Kagan
        Zalmay Khalilzad    I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz

    Dan Quayle
        Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen

    Donald Rumsfeld
        Vin Weber    George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz


    Blood borders
    How a better Middle East would look
    By Ralph Peters  http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

    International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

    The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

    While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

    Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

    Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

    Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

    As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

    Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

    Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.

    The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day.

    The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.

    As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.

    A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.

    A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam's holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.

    While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice — which we might not like — would also give Saudi Arabia's coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.

    Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.

    What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.

    The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate — as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders, as would Oman.

    In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

    Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.

    Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.

    From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely — the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.

    If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.

    • • •

    WHO WINS, WHO LOSES

    Winners —

    Afghanistan

    Arab Shia State

    Armenia

    Azerbaijan

    Free Baluchistan

    Free Kurdistan

    Iran

    Islamic Sacred State

    Jordan

    Lebanon

    Yemen

    Losers —

    Afghanistan

    Iran

    Iraq

    Israel

    Kuwait

    Pakistan

    Qatar

    Saudi Arabia

    Syria

    Turkey

    United Arab Emirates

    West Bank


    Kofi Annan salue la participation de la Turquie ŕ la FINUL

    6 septembre 2006Dans la capitale turque Ankara, le Secrétaire général a salué la décision de la Turquie de participer ŕ la Force Intérimaire des Nations Unies au Liban (FINUL), estimant que cette contribution était « un signe de solidarité internationale ».

    Kofi Annan s'exprimait lors une conférence de presse donnée ŕ l'issue d'une rencontre avec le Premier ministre turc Recep Tayyit Erdogan, a indiqué son porte-parole ŕ New York.

    En Turquie, le Secrétaire général a également rencontré le ministre des Affaires étrangčres, Abdullah Gul, et le président, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, avec lesquels il a discuté de l'application de la résolution 1701 du Conseil de sécurité et de la participation turque ŕ la FINUL renforcée.

    Il s'est ensuite envolé pour Madrid, ultime étape de sa tournée oů il doit rencontrer le Premier ministre José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero et d'autres hauts responsables espagnols, avant de rentrer ŕ New York.

    Un premier contingent de 880 soldats italiens est arrivé au Liban ce week-end, indiquait hier la FINUL dans un communiqué publié ŕ Naqoura.

    Le total des troupes composant la FINUL est estimé actuellement ŕ 3 100 soldats.

    La FINUL avait par ailleurs annoncé que les Forces de défense israéliennes s'étaient retirées hier de plusieurs zones du Sud Liban. Le bataillon ghanéen a pu ainsi établir sept nouveaux points de contrôle et effectué d'intenses patrouilles dans la région, confirmant ainsi ce retrait.

    Plus tôt dans la journée, l'armée libanaise était entrée dans Bint Jubayl, une ville située au sud du pays oů elle ne s'était plus rendue depuis trois décennies. Ce retour est intervenu un jour aprčs que les soldats de l'ONU eurent pris position dans la ville évacuée par les forces israéliennes.

    La FINUL rapportait enfin qu'au cours des 24 derničres heures, huit violations de l'espace aérien libanais par Israël avaient été signalées par la FINUL.

    « Je m'attends ŕ ce qu'avant la mi-septembre, nous ayons une force internationale d'environ 5 000 hommes sur le terrain, déployée avec 16 000 soldats libanais dans le sud », a déclaré lundi le Secrétaire général, lors d'une conférence de presse donnée ŕ Jeddah en Arabie Saoudite.

    Un tel déploiement devrait permettre un retrait d'Israël de la région, avait-t-il estimé (dépęche du 05.09.06).

    Selon la résolution 1701, la FINUL pourra compter jusqu'ŕ 15 000 hommes. A Bruxelles le 25 aoűt, Kofi Annan a obtenu des pays européens plus de la moitié des effectifs autorisés.

    ***

    Déplacements du Secrétaire général

    M. Kofi Annan s’est entretenu aujourd’hui, ŕ Ankara, avec le Ministre des affaires étrangčres de la Turquie, Abdullah Gul; le Premier Ministre, Recep Tayyip Erdogan; et le Président Ahmed Necdet Sezer.  Lors de cette rencontre avec les dirigeants turcs, il a évoqué la mise en śuvre de la résolution 1701 du Conseil de sécurité et le déploiement de troupes turques au sein de la Force intérimaire des Nations Unies au Liban (FINUL).

    Lors d’une conférence de presse donnée ŕ la suite de son entrevue avec le Premier Ministre Erdogan, M. Annan s’est réjoui de la décision de la Turquie de rejoindre la FINUL renforcée, notant que cette contribution était la manifestation d’un sens de la solidarité internationale. 

    Le Secrétaire général va se rendre aujourd’hui ŕ Madrid, en Espagne, derničre étape de la tournée dans laquelle il s’est lancé en vue d’accélérer l’application de la résolution 1701.  Il compte rencontrer le Premier Ministre espagnol, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, et d’autres hauts responsables de ce pays.  M. Kofi Annan sera de retour ŕ New York demain, jeudi 7 septembre. 


    Le secrétaire général de l’ONU annonce l’envoi d’un médiateur d’ici ŕ la fin de la semaine pour la libération des soldats israéliens

    De Madrid, Annan se félicite de la décision du gouvernement Olmert 
    Jeudi 07 Septembre 2006
     
     

    Le secrétaire général de l’ONU Kofi Annan s’est félicité hier de la décision du gouvernement israélien de lever le blocus sur le Liban.
    Dans une déclaration faite ŕ Madrid oů il se trouve actuellement, M. Annan a indiqué : « Je suis satisfait du fait que le gouvernement israélien ait accepté de lever son blocus sur le Liban jeudi, ŕ 18h. La levée du blocus permettra au Premier ministre libanais Fouad Siniora et son gouvernement d’accélérer le redressement économique et leur programme de reconstruction. Je voudrais remercier les gouvernements qui ont aidé ŕ rendre cela réalisable. Je continuerai ŕ déployer tous les efforts pour assurer l’application complčte de la résolution 1701, permettant au gouvernement du Liban d’étendre son autorité sur tout son territoire et d’exercer son entičre souveraineté. »
    M. Annan avait poursuivi hier ses efforts – finalement récompensés par l’annonce d’Ehud Olmert – pour obtenir la levée du blocus. En visite ŕ Ankara, oů il s’est entretenu avec le Premier ministre, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, le chef de l’État Ahmet Necdet Sezer (opposé ŕ l’envoi de troupes au Liban) et le ministre des Affaires étrangčres, Abdallah Gül, M. Annan a affirmé qu’il avait « toujours espoir que le blocus aérien, maritime et terrestre soit levé d’ici aux prochaines 36 ŕ 48 heures ». « Je travaille sur ce point avec les parties en question », avait-il notamment dit lors d’une conférence de presse conjointe avec M. Erdogan.
    Par ailleurs, M. Annan a déclaré qu’un médiateur – on parle d’ailleurs de Lakhdar Ibrahimi – sera dépęché cette semaine au Proche-Orient pour évoquer la libération des soldats israéliens enlevés.
    Le responsable onusien a précisé ŕ la presse que le médiateur « sera dans la région d’ici ŕ la fin de la semaine ».
    M. Annan a par ailleurs remercié le gouvernement de M. Erdogan pour sa contribution ŕ la Finul Plus, dont les détails seront arrętés dans les prochains jours.
    « Nous travaillons minutieusement sur les détails techniques » du déploiement turc, a souligné mercredi le porte-parole du ministčre turc des Affaires étrangčres.
    M. Annan a assuré les dirigeants turcs que la Finul n’aura pas pour mission de désarmer le Hezbollah. « Le rôle des militaires de la Finul n’est pas de désarmer le Hezbollah (...), l’objectif est de renforcer et d’élargir la souveraineté du Liban », a-t-il affirmé.
    Kofi Annan s’est ensuite rendu en soirée ŕ Madrid oů il doit rencontrer aujourd’hui les dirigeants espagnols pour discuter notamment de la situation au Liban.
    M. Annan a été accueilli ŕ l’aéroport de Madrid par le chef de la diplomatie espagnole, Miguel Angel Moratinos, qui entamera dimanche une tournée de quatre jours au Proche-Orient.
    Le secrétaire général de l’ONU sera successivement reçu par le roi Juan Carlos, puis par le chef du gouvernement José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero et M. Moratinos.
    La situation au Liban, oů l’Espagne va envoyer un millier d’hommes aprčs le feu vert de son Parlement, attendu aujourd’hui en fin d’aprčs-midi, sera le principal thčme de cet entretien, avec l’évolution du dossier nucléaire iranien.
    La rencontre de M. Annan avec MM. Zapatero et Moratinos sera suivie d’une conférence de presse.
    Le secrétaire général de l’ONU devrait remercier le gouvernement espagnol de sa décision de contribuer ainsi au renforcement de la Finul.
    Auparavant, le secrétaire général de l’ONU avait indiqué au New York Times voir trois étapes pour parvenir ŕ la levée rapide du blocus par Israël au Liban.
    La premičre étape devrait débuter avec la surveillance des côtes libanaises par l’armée française. La deuxičme étape consiste ŕ ce que le Premier ministre Fouad Siniora adresse une lettre ŕ M. Annan autorisant formellement les Allemands ŕ prendre position au Liban (ce qui a été fait hier). La troisičme et derničre étape du plan de M. Annan est une annonce par Israël de la levée du blocus (ce qui a également été fait hier).
    M. Annan a dit espérer que la présence temporaire de navires français, italiens et grecs au large du Liban donnera ŕ Israël l’assurance nécessaire que le trafic d’armes vers le Liban sera bien arręté aprčs la levée du blocus.

    www.lorient-lejour.com.lb/page.aspx?page=article&id=321343


    Les alibis du terrorisme
    Dans sa lutte contre les terroristes, l'Occident doit cesser de prôner la démocratie au Nord tout en soutenant les dictatures corrompues du Sud.
    Par Baali Ali
    Baali Ali est colonel, porte-parole du Maol (Mouvement algérien des officiers libres), organisation clandestine d'officiers dissidents.

    Le ręve démocratique des peuples musulmans a-t-il été enseveli sous les décombres des Twin Towers? La question mérite d'ętre posée. La riposte légitime des Américains et la lutte ŕ l'échelle planétaire contre les réseaux terroristes ne doivent pas ętre un parapluie protecteur pour tous les dictateurs. La condamnation sans réserve de l'acte criminel du 11 septembre et des attentats ne peut dispenser d'une remise en cause totale de la grille de lecture du phénomčne terroriste et de ses causes réelles.

    Le profil des suspects de la tragédie américaine nous montre la fragilité de la thčse selon laquelle la pauvreté et l'illettrisme conjugués ŕ une lecture rigoriste des textes de l'islam sont ŕ l'origine de la dérive terroriste. Le monde occidental a ouvert les yeux sur une réalité terrible: l'universitaire, le pilote et des hommes riches peuvent devenir des soldats au service d'une secte d'assassins! Comment expliquer le lien entre un individu qui vit en Occident, maîtrise la technologie avec un illettré illuminé vivant au Moyen Age, comme le mollah Omar? Le raccourci voudrait qu'on se contente du lien religieux existant entre l'universitaire Mohamed Atta et le fou de Kandahar. Mais ce n'est pas si simple. Et seule une étude approfondie des facteurs historiques, politico-économiques et surtout socio-psychologiques des sociétés musulmanes permettra de décoder ce mystčre. Zarathoustra ne disait-il pas que «chaque peuple parle son langage du bien et du mal que son voisin ne comprend pas. Il s'est inventé le langage de ses coutumes et de ses droits!»

    L'ampleur de la tragédie américaine ne doit ni aveugler les Occidentaux sur leur propre responsabilité, ni dédouaner les musulmans de la leur. Les prophčtes de la «guerre des religions» ou les théoriciens du «choc des civilisations» oublient que l'incompréhension actuelle est le fruit amer de ces deux absurdités qui sont les croisades et le colonialisme. Mais le monde musulman porte une responsabilité énorme dans la dérive meurtričre d'une minorité qui se revendique du radicalisme islamique. La faillite des systčmes «importés» - socialisme de Boumediene en Algérie ou nationalisme autoritaire de Nasser en Egypte -, les défaites successives dans les guerres contre Israël, la dépravation et la corruption des princes de la péninsule arabique et du Golfe, le suivisme des intellectuels ont poussé les masses ŕ se retourner vers un passé mythique. L'émergence dans les années 80 d'un courant politique moralisateur et mobilisateur appelé islamisme a coďncidé avec trois événements majeurs qui vont bouleverser la donne, particuličrement dans le monde musulman:

    1. La révolution populaire en Iran, confisquée par les mollahs, a donné l'illusion aux peuples musulmans qu'aucune puissance ne peut se maintenir au pouvoir face ŕ une révolution religieuse.

    2. L'invasion soviétique de l'Afghanistan a créé le climat favorable ŕ une alliance tripartite: d'un côté, les pétrodollars des princes saoudiens et de leurs alliés du Golfe menacés par la révolution iranienne, de l'autre les religieux wahhabites en quęte de terrain pour le jihad, enfin la CIA motivée par la lutte contre l'expansion du communisme et la position stratégique de l'Afghanistan.

    3. La crise pétroličre a fait prendre conscience aux régimes arabes et ŕ leurs protecteurs que la manne pétroličre ne peut ŕ elle seule acheter la stabilité dans la région.

    La victoire des moudjahidin et de l'allié américain avait précipité la décomposition de l'empire soviétique, alors qu'un vent de liberté soufflait sur les pays de l'Est et certains pays africains. On observait un durcissement des régimes arabes et une vague de répression contre les opposants en général et les islamistes en particulier. Alors que le monde occidental ouvrait grand les bras aux nouveaux venus dans l'espace démocratique, le monde arabe plonge dans une guerre absurde provoquée par le dictateur de Bagdad, la présence en masse des forces américaines dans la région du Golfe et la défaite de Saddam. L'embargo qui a suivi avec son cortčge de morts, de malades et d'affamés, et l'injustice subie par le peuple palestinien ont exacerbé le sentiment antioccidental. Ce sont lŕ les raisons conjoncturelles - mais non exhaustives - de l'émergence de la ligne jihadiste au sein du monde musulman.

    Mais la raison structurelle, c'est l'absence totale de démocratie et de liberté d'expression dans les pays arabes et musulmans. La fenętre offerte par les télévisions du monde via le satellite aux peuples musulmans a conforté une idée qui fait des ravages. A savoir que l'Occident, qui vit dans une certaine opulence et oů liberté d'expression et démocratie sont les deux piliers principaux de la société, soutient des régimes fossilisés sans aucune légitimité, autoritaires et répressifs.

    Comment expliquer ŕ un Algérien - qui voit les soldats américains rétablir le pčre Aristide par la force ŕ son poste de président de Haďti avec la bénédiction des chancelleries occidentales - qu'on applaudisse au męme moment, chez lui, l'arręt d'élections libres et pluralistes par une junte militaire? Que dire ŕ un Soudanais qui se voit accuser ŕ longueur de journée de vivre sous un régime intégriste détestable méritant des sanctions, quand tous les dirigeants du monde occidental se précipitent dans les palais des princes wahhabites, oů la femme n'a męme pas le droit de conduire une voiture! Que pense l'islamiste qui entend Bernard Henry Lévy vendre comme un humaniste éclairé feu le commandant Massoud et l'Alliance du Nord, responsables des hordes sauvages qui ont massacré des civils et violé des femmes lors de la prise de Kaboul? Il pense simplement que les GIA ont alors une chance d'ętre réhabilités!

    L'Occident doit conjuguer sa lutte contre la menace terroriste avec un combat courageux contre ses propres contradictions. Il ne peut ętre partisan de la démocratie au Nord et maintenir au Sud, notamment au nom de ses intéręts économiques, des dictatures qui se distinguent par leur incurie et leur mépris du peuple. L'Amérique a les moyens de débarrasser les peuples musulmans des vrais géniteurs de terroristes qui sont les dirigeants en place dont le rčgne a l'âge de Ben Laden!

    Le mariage illégitime des régimes autoritaires et corrompus avec les intéręts économiques égoďstes des Occidentaux a engendré - et engendrera encore - des générations de terroristes qui nous dévorent. La tragédie du 11 septembre, si on veut qu'elle ne se reproduise pas, doit ętre, au-delŕ de l'indignation et de l'incompréhension, la pierre angulaire du village planétaire démocratique. C'est aussi le prix de la globalisation.


    Miembros de la Alianza de Civilizaciones se reúnen en Nueva York con la presencia de Jatami

    ONU. IRNA. 6 de septiembre de 2006

    Miembros de la denominada Alianza de Civilizaciones se han reunido en la sede neoyorquina de la ONU para debatir los temas más candentes antes de entregarle su informe final al secretario general de este organismo, Kofi Annan.

    Seyyed Mohammad Jatami, ex presidente de Irán y actual presidente del organismo internacional Diálogo de Civilizaciones y Culturas, es una de los 18 miembros de este grupo cada uno de los cuales ha sido elegido a dedo por el secretario general de las Naciones Unidas.

    El objetivo que persigue este grupo, como ya ha anunciado en varias ocasiones Annan, es llevar hacia delante la idea del Diálogo de Civilizaciones, rellenar las brechas y acabar con los prejuicios y malentendidos que han creado, según sus palabras, “un peligro potencial para la paz mundial.”

    La reunión de ayer martes en la ONU tuvo lugar a puerta cerrada y sin la presencia de la prensa, con la que no estuvieron dispuestos a hablar los miembros una vez terminada la sesión.


    onu-alianza de civilizaciones 06-09-2006

    Grupo de Alto Nivel presentara en noviembre su propuesta a Annan

    El Grupo de Alto Nivel de la Alianza de las Civilizaciones presentará sus propuestas al secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, en un acto previsto a principios del próximo noviembre en Estambul.

    El anuncio lo hicieron hoy los copresidentes del Grupo, el ex director general UNESCO el espańol Federico Mayor Zaragoza y el ministro turco de Asuntos Religiosos, Mehmet Aydin, en una rueda de prensa que convocaron en la sede de la ONU en Nueva York.

    Según precisó Mayor Zaragoza, el documento incluirá 'mecanismos' de carácter general para impulsar el entendimiento entre las diferentes culturas, religiones y grupos étnicos mediante la educación, los flujos migratorios y la prensa.

    El ex director general de la UNESCO afirmó que en el texto se apostará por el 'multipolarismo', y subrayó la importancia de las propuestas del Grupo 'en este crucial momento de tensión y de turbulencias internacionales'.

    Destacó la 'independencia' de la instancia y resaltó que una de las conclusiones a la que ha llegado es la necesidad de combatir los 'estereotipos' como germen de discriminación y racismo.

    'Hemos descubierto, por ejemplo, que durante la crisis provocada por las caricaturas de Mahoma, solo un tres por ciento de los musulmanes se manifestaron o reaccionaron de manera violenta. El 97 por ciento la vivió con absoluta normalidad', explicó.

    'Ese resultado es contrario a la imagen que se proyectó en aquellos días de que todos los musulmanes son violentos', dijo.

    Aydin reveló que algunos de los aspectos que han causado mayor debate en el seno del Grupo son 'cómo abordar algunos temas desde la perspectiva de la educación y el análisis político', así como 'el asunto de la terminología'.

    'Han sido sólo dos o tres puntos porque al final de cada jornada de trabajo hemos estado de acuerdo con lo esencial', aseguró el ministro turco de Asuntos Religiosos.

    Mayor Zaragoza y Aydin hicieron el anuncio antes de concluir la cuarta reunión del Grupo, que se prevé concluya esta noche y se inició el martes pasado en Nueva York.

    La cita es la cuarta que celebra la instancia, tras las mantenidos en Palma de Mallorca (Espańa), Doha y Dakar.

    Entre la veintena de miembros del Grupo figuran el ex presidente iraní Mohamed Jatami, el arzobispo sudafricano Desmond Tutu, el principal asesor del Rey Mohamed VI de Marruecos, el judío Andre Azulay, y el ex primer ministro senegalés Mustafa Naumkin.

    La idea de la Alianza de las Civilizaciones fue lanzada por el presidente del Gobierno espańol, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, en la Asamblea General de la ONU en septiembre del 2004, en una iniciativa a la que luego se unió el primer ministro turco, Recep Tayip Erdogan, y que Annan asumió como un proyecto del organismo mundial.
    Terra Actualidad - EFE


    El Líbano advierte de que romperá el bloqueo que le impone Israel si no lo levanta en 48 horas

    06/09/2006 - IBLNEWS, AGENCIAS
    El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores libanés, Fawzi Salloukh, ha advertido de que su país podría romper el bloqueo impuesto a la fuerza por Israel si Tel Aviv no lo levanta en el plazo de 48 horas dado por el secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan.

    "Esperaremos a las 48 horas dadas por Annan, y si la situación se resuelve, le daremos las gracias. Si no, el Gobierno libanés tomará las medidas necesarias y quebrará el bloqueo con todo nuestro poder", dijo Salloukh a los periodistas durante un receso en la reunión de ministros de Relaciones Exteriores árabes en El Cairo (Egipto).

    Israel dijo que podría levantar gradualmente el bloqueo mientras las fuerzas libanesas y de la ONU controlen los puntos de entrada para evitar que las guerrillas de Hizbulá se rearmen, pero no indicó cuándo aliviaría las restricciones.

    Annan dijo el martes a periodistas en el puerto egipcio de Alejandría que esperaba noticias "positivas" dentro de las próximas 48 horas en sus esfuerzos para persuadir a Israel de que levante el bloqueo marítimo y aéreo impuesto al Líbano.

    Hoy, miércoles, Annan ha vuelto a repetir que esperaba que esto sucediera en las próximas 36 a 48 horas. Esta vez lo ha hecho desde Ankara (Turquía), en la última escala de su viaje por Oriente Medio para analizar la aplicación de la resolución 1.701 del Consejo de Seguridad —que establece las condiciones del alto el fuego vigente desde el pasado día 14 en el Líbano— y el despliegue de la fuerza multinacional en el sur de este país.

    El secretario general de Naciones Unidas llegará esta noche a Madrid, donde el jueves se entrevistará con el Rey Juan Carlos y con el presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero.

    Annan rechaza desarmar a Hezbollah a la fuerza

    Por otro lado, desde Turquía, en la última escala del viaje por Oriente Medio de Kofi Annan, dijo en Ankara que "es posible desarmar a un grupo sin usar la fuerza. Ya pasó en Espańa en el caso de ETA. Pues tiene que hacerse del mismo modo en el Líbano. Esa es la dirección en la que nos deberíamos mover".

    En una rueda de prensa conjunta con el primer ministro turco, Recep Tayip Erdogan, Annan, que descartó que se pueda desarmar a Hezbollah por la fuerza, recalcó que las Fuerzas Provisionales de Naciones Unidas en Líbano (FPNUL) no tendrán ese objetivo.

    "Líbano ha aceptado el desarme de todos los grupos armados. Una reconciliación nacional es necesaria para que eso se produzca. El desarme será a través de un acuerdo político y una reconciliación nacional. No creo que el Ejército libanés pueda realizarlo con el uso de la fuerza", aseguró.

    Asimismo, Annan anunció que la semana que viene, Terje Roed Larsen, enviado especial de la ONU a Líbano, viajará a la región para tratar con las autoridades sobre un posible intercambio de prisioneros.

    El Parlamento turco aprobó este martes el envío de tropas a Líbano para unirse a la FPNUL aunque el mandato de la Cámara especifica que los uniformados turcos no participarán en el desarme de los grupos locales.

    Un día después de ser adoptada esta decisión, un grupo de unos 20 manifestantes ha sido arrestado mientras participaba en una marcha de unas 300 personas contra el envío soldados turcos.

    Annan pide a Francia, Italia y Grecia que patrullen las costas de Líbano 

    J. P. VELÁZQUEZ-GAZTELU (ENVIADO ESPECIAL)  -  Ankara

    EL PAÍS  -  Internacional - 06-09-2006

    El secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, redobló ayer sus esfuerzos por lograr el levantamiento del bloqueo israelí marítimo sobre Líbano, al pedir a Francia, Italia y Grecia que patrullen las costas del país durante dos semanas para impedir la llegada de armas a Hezbolá.

    El levantamiento del bloqueo, declaró Annan a los periodistas que lo acompańan en su gira por Oriente Próximo, es esencial para crear "un clima de confianza" y consolidar el alto el fuego en el sur de Líbano, principal objetivo de su viaje.

    A iniciativa del secretario general de la ONU, el Gabinete del primer ministro libanés, Fuad Siniora, ha decidido pedir a Alemania que se haga cargo de la vigilancia de sus costas, con la única condición de que Israel levante antes el bloqueo. Los alemanes, explicó Annan, tardarán en llegar a la zona al menos dos semanas desde que reciban la petición formal libanesa. Para ganar tiempo, el secretario general ha pedido a Francia, Italia y Grecia, que ya tienen buques en la zona, que se encarguen de patrullar en el litoral libanés durante ese periodo de tiempo.

    Annan, que esperaba anoche la respuesta del presidente de Francia, Jacques Chirac, trató también del asunto con Siniora; el primer ministro israelí, Ehud Olmert, y la secretaria de Estado de EE UU, Condoleezza Rice. Israel impide la llegada de aviones y barcos a Líbano desde el pasado 13 de julio, un día después de que milicianos de Hezbolá atacasen un puesto fronterizo del Ejército israelí y secuestraran a dos soldados.

    El secretario general de la ONU, que llegó anoche a Ankara tras entrevistarse en Alejandría con el presidente de Egipto, Hosni Mubarak, y el presidente de la Liga Árabe, Amr Musa, trata de lograr un resultado tangible antes de regresar a Nueva York. Annan se entrevistará hoy con el primer ministro turco, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, y con el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, Abdulá Gül. El Parlamento turco aprobó anoche el envío de tropas a Líbano como parte de la fuerza internacional. El Gobierno contempla desplegar un máximo de mil soldados.

    Desde Ankara, Annan volará hacia Madrid, donde mańana conversará con el rey Juan Carlos y con el presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, a quienes agradecerá la aportación espańola a la fuerza internacional de la ONU.


    Kofi Annan inicia una gira diplomática para acelerar el despliegue de las tropas 

    "Hay una oportunidad para una solución duradera", asegura un portavoz de Naciones Unidas

    J. P. VELÁZQUEZ-GAZTELU (ENVIADO ESPECIAL)  -  Ginebra

    EL PAÍS  -  Internacional - 28-08-2006

    El secretario general de Naciones Unidas, Kofi Annan, emprende hoy en Beirut una frenética gira por ocho países de Oriente Próximo con el objetivo de recabar el mayor apoyo posible al despliegue de la fuerza internacional encargada de velar por el cumplimiento del alto el fuego entre Israel y Hezbolá. Preocupado por el peligro de que los combates se reanuden en cualquier momento, Annan quiere que los cascos azules pisen suelo de Líbano cuanto antes para apoyar al Ejército de este país en la creación de una zona libre de armas en el sur del país.

    Detrás de la ofensiva diplomática de Annan, que visitará también Turquía, Qatar y Espańa, está la sensación de que cuanto más tarde en desplegarse el contingente internacional en el sur de Líbano, mayor será el riesgo de que los soldados israelíes y los milicianos de Hezbolá vuelvan a las hostilidades.

    Antes de partir hacia Oriente Próximo, el portavoz de Naciones Unidas Ahmad Fawzi explicó en Ginebra que el principal objetivo del viaje es garantizar el cumplimiento de la resolución 1701, aprobada el pasado 11 de agosto por el Consejo de Seguridad y que puso fin a 33 días de guerra. Fawzi declaró que Annan tratará también de propiciar el levantamiento del bloqueo aéreo y marítimo con el que Israel sigue castigando a Líbano.

    Jerusalén y la Cisjordania ocupada serán los siguientes destinos de Annan, para quien solucionar el conflicto palestino-israelí sería dar un paso de gigante en la estabilización de todo Oriente Próximo.

    "Tenemos la oportunidad de abrir la puerta a una solución duradera", dijo Fawzi. En Israel, el secretario general de la ONU se reunirá con los familiares de los soldados israelíes capturados en julio pasado por Hezbolá -incidente que desencadenó las hostilidades- y del militar capturado semanas antes en Gaza por radicales palestinos.

    Damasco, etapa clave

    Damasco será una etapa clave de la misión del máximo dirigente de Naciones Unidas, que hará todo el viaje en un avión puesto a su disposición por el Gobierno espańol. Annan tratará de convencer a Siria -principal patrocinador de Hezbolá, junto a Irán- de la necesidad de no poner trabas al trabajo de los cascos azules.

    El presidente sirio, Bachar el Asad, ha amenazado con cerrar los accesos a Líbano si los soldados de Naciones Unidas se despliegan en la frontera, mientras que Israel considera que la vigilancia de esa zona por parte de la fuerza internacional es condición indispensable para retirar sus tropas del sur de Líbano, pues de Siria llegan los cargamentos de armas destinados a Hezbolá.

    El periplo del máximo responsable de la ONU incluye también Jordania, Egipto y Arabia Saudí. El aumento de la popularidad de un movimiento chií como Hezbolá entre la población musulmana de todo el mundo tras la guerra con Israel ha puesto en una situación incómoda a estos países llamados "moderados", aliados de EE UU y de población mayoritariamente suní. Además, los regímenes autoritarios de Ammán, El Cairo y Riad no ocultan su preocupación por el papel cada vez más preponderante de Irán en la zona.

    Precisamente Teherán será otra de las etapas del secretario general de la ONU. Allí pedirá también el apoyo del régimen de los ayatolás a la misión de paz en Líbano y abordará el pulso que Teherán mantiene con los países occidentales a cuenta de su programa nuclear.

    Visita a Madrid

    La gira concluirá con una visita al primer ministro de Turquía, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a quien Annan pedirá que envíe tropas a Líbano. La participación en la misión de paz de Turquía, un país musulmán no árabe con un potente Ejército, daría al contingente internacional la "robustez" tan deseada por el secretario general, pero en vísperas de un ańo electoral, el Gobierno islamista moderado de Erdogan es reticente a enviar soldados a Líbano, especialmente si es bajo mando de un general europeo.

    Antes de regresar a Nueva York, Annan visitará Madrid, donde se entrevistará con el Rey y con el presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, a quien agradecerá la aportación espańola, de unos mil soldados, al esfuerzo pacificador en Líbano.

    [Por otro lado, el secretario general de la ONU mantuvo ayer una conversación telefónica con el primer ministro israelí, Ehud Olmert, para comunicarle que el despliegue de la fuerza internacional se iniciará "de aquí a una semana, aproximadamente", según un comunicado que la oficina del jefe del Gobierno israelí difundió anoche, informa Reuters. "Israel concede una gran importancia al despliegue de una fuerza multinacional en la frontera de Siria con Líbano y en los principales puntos de entrada por mar y por tierra a territorio libanés", precisó el mismo comunicado].


    Zaragoza dice multilateralismo clave en Alianza de Civilizaciones

    El copresidente del Grupo de Alto Nivel para la Alianza de las Civilizaciones, el espańol Federico Mayor Zaragoza, consideró hoy que el multilateralismo es 'esencial' para cerrar la brecha entre sociedades y religiones.


    Mayor Zaragoza participa en la cuarta reunión del Grupo de Alto Nivel que se celebra en la sede de la ONU en Nueva York y que está preparando para antes de fines de ańo un informe con un plan de acción para promover el entendimiento y superar las diferencias entre el mundo occidental y oriental.

    'Lo más importante que hemos discutido en el encuentro es el enfoque de los grandes temas políticos y de las raíces del extremismo y de la violencia', dijo a Efe Mayor Zaragoza.

    Para el ex director general de la UNESCO, el fomento del multilateralismo es 'esencial' para el plan de acción, con recomendaciones concretas, que el grupo prevé presentar.

    En este sentido, declaró que la 'ONU debe tener realmente la autoridad que requiere para intervenir y no estar supeditada a las grandes potencias o a un poder hegemónico como en estos momentos'.

    Mayor Zaragoza se mostró optimista sobre los resultados de la reunión, que concluirá mańana, en la que consideró que se producirán importantes avances en el borrador del informe.

    'Hemos explorado todos los mecanismos que pueden llevar una serie de acciones por parte de los gobiernos, la sociedad civil, los Parlamentos, que permitan actuar muy rápidamente cuando hay un peligro de conflicto, posiciones extremas, así como situaciones que pueden desembocar en una confrontación bélica', agregó.

    Del mismo modo, indicó, existen otra serie de medidas más específicas que se han debatido relativas a la juventud, con el fin de impulsar las asociaciones juveniles de todo el mundo para que sean las que transmitan el mensaje de moderación y de entendimiento entre culturas.

    En la reunión participó el ex presidente de Irán Mohamed Jatamí, así como el arzobispo surafricano Desmond Tutú, que integran el Grupo de Alto Nivel, quienes evitaron dar declaraciones a la prensa.

    'La participación del ex presidente Jatamí representa un llamamiento a la moderación, a la necesidad de que se debe ir con cuidado con lo que uno dice, porque luego puede haber repercusiones, como ha sucedido en el caso de Irán', acotó Mayor Zaragoza.

    Otros participantes en el encuentro son el asesor del rey Mohamed VI de Marruecos, André Azoulay, el rabino Arthur Schneier, y el ex primer ministro de Senegal Mustafá Naumkin.

    Mayor Zaragoza indicó que se requerirán de otras reuniones para concluir el informe, y que espera que ya pueda presentarse oficialmente en la cita que tendrán en Estambul (Turquía), programada para noviembre.

    Las anteriores reuniones plenarias de este Grupo de Alto Nivel, que fue nombrado el pasado diciembre por el secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, tuvieron lugar en Palma de Mallorca (Espańa), Doha (Qatar) y Dakar (Senegal).

    Mayor Zaragoza copreside este grupo de expertos, junto con el ministro turco para Asuntos Religiosos, Mehmet Aydin, quien también estuvo presente en la reunión.

    Espańa y Turquía fueron los dos países que apadrinaron la iniciativa desde que fue propuesta por el presidente del Gobierno espańol, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, en la Asamblea General de la ONU en septiembre del 2004, y luego Annan la asumió como un proyecto del organismo mundial que dirige.
    Terra Actualidad - EFE


    Irán.- Rajoy pide el cese del representante del Gobierno en la Alianza de Civilizaciones por defender los planes de Irán

    MADRID, 4 Sep. (EUROPA PRESS)

       El presidente del PP, Mariano Rajoy, exigió hoy el cese inmediato del representante especial del Gobierno en la Alianza de Civilizaciones, el diplomático Máximo Cajal, quien hace unas semanas negó la "autoridad moral" a Occidente para frenar los planes nucleares de Irán.

       "El embajador de Espańa para la famosa Alianza de Civilizaciones ha dicho que Irán tiene perfecto derecho a seguir con unos experimentos cuyo único objetivo es conseguir la bomba atómica. O el presidente del Gobierno cesa inmediatamente a esta persona o habrá que pensar que apoya esa tesis", advirtió Rajoy en la primera rueda de prensa del nuevo curso político en la sede nacional del PP.

       Para el líder de los 'populares' es "grotesco" nombrar un embajador para la Alianza de Civilizaciones que diga "que le parece muy bien lo que está haciendo Irán" cuando "a todo el mundo le parece muy mal".

    EXPLICACIONES SOBRE GONZALEZ

       Asimismo, el líder del primer partido de la oposición volvió a reclamar que se explique "qué hacía en Irán" el ex presidente del Gobierno Felipe González y qué asuntos abordó en sus reuniones con las autoridades iraníes.

       "żEs que el Gobierno de Espańa no puede decirle que esta reunión es cuanto menos inoportuna?", se preguntó, a la vez que demandó información sobre el significado de las declaraciones de ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, Miguel Angel Moratinos, relativas a que Irán necesita "tiempo y espacio". "Estas cosas hay que explicarlas y el presidente del Gobierno las va a explicar porque yo se las voy a preguntar en el Congreso", agregó.


     
    - El representante de ZP para la Alianza de Civilizations apoya la bomba atómica iraní -
     
    El representante de Zapatero para la iniciativa de la Alianza de las Civilizaciones, el diplomático Máximo Cajal, apoya a capa y espada que Irán se haga con armamento nuclear: «No hay que perder de vista que Irán, como cualquier país de la zona... żpor qué se le va a negar el derecho a tener, incluso me atrevería a decir, armamento nuclear, cuando está rodeado de países que lo tienen?».

    En declaraciones a Radio Nacional de Espańa, Cajal admitió que este principio expuesto por él «quizás no guste desde el punto de vista de la geopolítica occidental», pero hizo hincapié en que la presión internacional contra Irán «choca con la realidad de la India, de Pakistán, de Israel...», países de la región que sí cuentan con el arma nuclear.
    En opinión del amigo de Zapatero, la comunidad internacional mira con especial atención al régimen iraní de los ayatolás, ya que la guerra de Irak «ha provocado un vacío en la zona que ha ocupado, sin mayor problema, Irán con la presencia chií en la región».
    El Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores espańol ha salido al paso rápidamente de estas declaraciones y precisa, a través de una nota, que las palabras de Máximo Cajal sobre Irán y su «derecho» a tener armas nucleares «son a título personal» y no reflejan la posición oficial de Espańa.
    Gabriela Cańas, responsable de información internacional, manifestó a ABC, en llamada telefónica desde Moncloa, la preocupación de Presidencia por el hecho de que las palabras de Cajal fueran sacadas de contexto en las notas de las agencias de prensa. Cańas puntualizó que el diplomático «ha hecho una reflexión sobre la lectura que puedan tener ellos -los iraníes- del mundo occidental y de nuestras reclamaciones. Es simplemente una reflexión que hace».
    Fuentes de la Oficina de Información Exterior aseguraron por la tarde que las declaraciones del representante espańol ante la ONU «son particulares», ya que la versión oficial la ha dado en varias ocasiones el ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, y es que Irán debe aceptar la oferta europea de cooperación en un programa nuclear civil dando garantías suficientes de que no buscará la fabricación del arma nuclear.
    Espańa defiende que esa debe ser la posición a la que llegue Irán y para ello apuesta, junto a otros países europeos, por la negociación diplomática con las autoridades de Teherán. Esas negociaciones tendrán un importante capítulo a finales de este mes cuando la ONU decida sobre la respuesta de Irán a su oferta, que ya ha sido hecha pública y en la que se anuncia que seguirá adelante con su programa de enriquecimiento de uranio.
    «Brecha y fractura»El diplomático espańol, que participa estos días en la Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo, se refirió también a los avances de la iniciativa de la Alianza de las Civilizaciones:
    «Faltan unos meses para terminar la primera fase de reflexión del Grupo de Alto Nivel (GAN)».
    El GAN, presidido por Federico Mayor Zaragoza y el turco Mehmet Aydin, presentará en noviembre al secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, unas recomendaciones para hacer frente «a la brecha y fractura» entre occidente y el islam.

    http://www.noticiaspyme.com/sec/sec.actu/noti_nac.asp?idn=95538&pon=3&ids=25


    El representante de Zapatero en la Alianza de Civilizaciones cuestiona que Irán no pueda disponer de armamento nuclear

    MADRID, 23 Ago. (EUROPA PRESS)

       El representante especial del presidente del Gobierno, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, para la iniciativa de la Alianza de Civilizaciones, el diplomático Máximo Cajal, cuestionó hoy que Irán no pueda disponer de armamento nuclear.

       "No hay que perder de vista que Irán, como cualquier país de la zona... żpor qué se le va a negar el derecho a tener, incluso me atrevería a decir, armamento nuclear cuando está rodeado de países que lo tienen?", indicó en declaraciones a RNE recogidas por Europa Press.

       Cajal admitió que este principio expuesto por él "quizás no guste desde el punto de vista de la geopolítica occidental", pero hizo hincapié en que la presión internacional contra Irán "choca con la realidad de la India, de Pakistán, de Israel", países de la región que cuentan con armas nucleares.

       En su opinión, la comunidad internacional mira con especial atención al régimen iraní de los ayatolás ya que la guerra de Irak "ha producido un vacío en la zona que ha ocupado, sin mayor problema, Irán con la presencia chiíta en la región".

       El diplomático espańol se refirió a continuación a la iniciativa de la Alianza de Civilizaciones. "Faltan unos meses para terminar la primera fase de reflexión del Grupo de Alto Nivel", seńaló en primer lugar.

       El GAN, copresidido por el espańol Federico Mayor Zaragoza y por el turco Mehmet Aydin, presentará a mediados de noviembre al secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, unas recomendaciones para hacer frente "a la brecha y fractura" del mundo occidental y el mundo islámico.

       "Cuando el secretario general (de Naciones Unidas) reciba este informe, presentará en diciembre a la comunidad internacional un plan de acción de medidas concretas y prácticas para tratar de hacer frente a este problema. A partir de enero, se pondrá en marcha la segunda fase, que es la decisiva, de desarrollo, puesta en marcha y seguimiento del plan de acción", explicó Cajal.


    UIMP.- Espańa y Turquía defienden la "urgencia" de la Alianza de Civilizaciones y la búsqueda "valores comunes"

    El ex primer ministro noruego Bondevik propone que no "duplique" otras acciones de la ONU, sino que actúe como "paraguas" de ellas

       SANTANDER, 22 Ago. (EUROPA PRESS) -

       Los representantes especiales de Espańa y Turquía para la Alianza de Civilizaciones coincidieron hoy en la "urgencia" y oportunidad de la puesta en marcha de este proyecto y resaltaron asimismo la necesidad de buscar "valores comunes" en el diálogo entre Oriente y Occidente.

       Para el representante del presidente del Gobierno de Espańa, Máximo Cajal, la Alianza de Civilizaciones es un proyecto con "perfil propio, naturaleza política y vocación de globalidad" que presenta un "valor ańadido" respecto a otras iniciativas ya en marcha y hace un "llamamiento a las voluntades", en contra de los que "practican la intolerancia y la exclusión o alientan el extremismo y el antagonismo".

       El panorama actual y crisis como la de las caricaturas de Mahoma, que podrían repetirse por otras cuestiones que los occidentales consideran "banales", pero no así los árabes, ponen a su juicio de manifiesto las dos caras de la Alianza de Civilizaciones, por un lado la "fragilidad y dificultad de la empresa", y por otro la "urgencia" de ponerla en marcha.

       Según dijo, la propuesta no es el resultado de un análisis académico, ni de una "súbita inspiración", sino la respuesta política a un "acontecimiento dramático", como fueron los atentados del 11-M en Madrid, una respuesta que llevó también a la retirada de las tropas espańolas de Irak al no ser la ONU la garante del proceso de pacificación en la zona.

       Cajal recordó estas bases de la iniciativa porque, desde su punto de vista, esta propuesta "ambiciosa e inédita" no puede entenderse bien si se pierden de vista esos antecedentes. La Alianza de Civilizaciones planteada por el Gobierno espańol y asumida después por las Naciones Unidas supone, en palabras de Cajal, una "opción constante por la legalidad internacional" y responde a los principios que rigen también la política de exteriores espańola.

       El representante del Gobierno espańol recalcó que hoy en día el enemigo "ya no tiene caras" y "no sirven" los ataques selectivos ni las amenazas represivas porque no le "intimidan" y pueden llegar además a ser "contraproducentes". También rechazó la política estadounidense y criticó la situación de la base de Guantánamo, pero también recalcó que esa actitud estadounidense ha "salpicado a todas las democracias europeas", que se han "ensuciado las manos" con asuntos como los secuestros o los vuelos de la CIA.

       Por otro lado, Máximo Cajal se felicitó de la participación de Turquía como co-patrocinador de la Alianza de Civilizaciones junto con Espańa, porque eso da "simetría y credibilidad" al proyecto y a la vez un "simbolismo" al aunar a dos países por los que han pasado distintas culturas en torno al Mediterráneo. Resaltó además las ventajas que supondrá, de materializarse, la adhesión de Turquía a la Unión Europea y advirtió que, de lo contrario, si no se llega a su inclusión será "devastador", no sólo para dicho país, sino por las consecuencias que tendrá para el conjunto del mundo árabe y su visión sobre los países occidentales.

    APORTACIÓN TURCA

       Cajal hizo estas afirmaciones en la Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo (UIMP), donde participó en el curso 'Democracia y diálogo: Occidente y el mundo árabe', organizado por el Club de Madrid, la Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE) y el Gobierno de Cantabria. En su intervención compartió mesa con el representante especial del primer ministro turco para la Alianza de Civilizaciones, Ali Yakital, quien destacó que Turquía "tiene algo que ofrecer" a todos aquellos países que compartan los valores de la Alianza.

       A juicio de Yakital, para avanzar en la convivencia se necesita capacidad de diálogo y la Alianza de Civilizaciones representa un intento de instaurar un "diálogo funcional". En su opinión, los mecanismos para el diálogo empleados hasta ahora han sido "inadecuados" y se precisa "construir algo nuevo", basado en la igualdad, el reconocimiento mutuo y un ejercicio de "comprensión", que no de "persuasión". Para ello, dijo que se requiere "apertura mental" y un "esfuerzo sincero".

       "Estamos viviendo un momento crítico en nuestra historia y la respuesta la tenemos en nuestras manos", agregó el representante turco, quien consideró que la Alianza de Civilizaciones, no sólo se ha planteado en el "momento adecuado", sino que además es un proyecto "atractivo" en su filosofía.

    "PARAGÜAS" DE OTRAS INICIATIVAS

       Por su parte, el ex primer ministro noruego y miembro del Club de Madrid Kjell Magne Bondevik alabó también las bondades de la Alianza de Civilizaciones y seńaló que debe buscar "valores comunes" pero, dada las ideas coincidentes que presenta respecto a otras iniciativas como los Objetivos del Milenio, abogó por evitar "duplicidades" y por que sea un "paraguas" para otras acciones e iniciativas de las Naciones Unidas. En su opinión, esta Alianza es algo "constructivo, positivo" y se espera "mucho" de ella.

       Kjell Magne Bondevik resaltó que el reto en la actualidad es terminar con el terrorismo y los conflictos a través de medio pacíficos y, para conseguirlo, creyó necesario acabar con sus causas, como son la "humillación y la desesperación, alimentadas por situaciones de ocupación e intolerancia". También se requiere afrontar el reto de la diferencia de género, conseguir que la pobreza "pase a la historia" y favorecer la "buena gobernanza, que tiene que ver con la democracia y lo derechos humanos".

       La única visión crítica sobre la Alianza de Civilizaciones la expresó el ex primer ministro sudanés Sadig Al-Mahdi, porque cree que el término civilizaciones es un concepto que marca las diferencias y propuso en cambio crear una agenda para poner en marcha una conferencia a favor de la cooperación global.

       En respuesta a estas afirmaciones, Máximo Cajal matizó que el nombre de la Alianza es un "marca comercial", que no tiene que ver con una "lucha o reconciliación" de civilizaciones, sino por el contrario, con superar esa "fractura" entre Oriente y Occidente y movilizarse contra el "extremismo" y los que propugnan la "exclusión".


    Conflicto de civilizaciones
     
    Lo que acaba de suceder en Londres demuestra una vez más que Occidente tiene un problema. Y me parece que la causa de ese problema es, en gran parte, el conflicto palestino-israelí.

    Mientras no se logre una solución, y los dos pueblos vivan en paz, la Alianza de Civilizaciones no pasará de ser una idea bonita. El problema es encontrar la solución y avanzar. Desde luego, las bombas sobre el Líbano no acercan a nadie a la paz.

    Los ataques israelíes conseguirán radicalizar más a los libaneses, y también a los palestinos, iraníes y sirios. Tampoco los cohetes de Hizbolá ayudan. La violencia nunca es un buen camino.

    żAlianza de civilizaciones?

    Unamuno www.diariodirecto.com/OPINION/LECTORDD5/16082006-Unamuno.html  16/08/06

    Desde luego que no. Occidente no puede aliarse con los musul - manes, y no lo puede hacer no por que no quiera, sino por la razón de que el Norte del islam es la destrucción del modo de vida nuestro.

    No hay un islam moderado y otro salvaje, barbaro y asesino; los dos son iguales. Lo que existe son diferentes estrategias. Es aquello del policía bueno y el malo.

    Si se lee el Coran, entero, no por partes, ni aquello que se nos seńale, se observará sin ningún género de duda, que el objetivo de los musulmanes es destruir a Occidente, matar al infiel, y si para ello el musulman tiene que inmolarse, pues se inmola, su destino es el paraíso.

    Y atención, no son uno ni dos, son miles los descerebrados/as dispuestos a entregar su vida, a matar occidentales, el premio es el paraíso żqué descerebrado musulman no está dispuesto al sacrificio, si el premio es tan magnífico?. Para un occidental, esa manera de comportamiento es mons - truoso, irracional, inentendible. Hay personas de buenas volun - tad que creen poder llegar a un acuerdo con estos seres irracio - nales. Imposible.

    Occidente está cavando su tumba. En la manifestación de ayer en San Sebastián, ondeaban banderas de Palestina y el Líbano żcómo se puede tener una visión tan miope? . Los musulmanes están en guerra a muerte contra nuestra civilización. La integración o la multicultura, es un cuento de hadas. Los musulmanes ni se integran ni es posible la coexis - tencia con ellos. El ejemplo de Inglaterra es nítido, el de Francia, también. Aprender de los errores del vecino es algo sa - ludable. Esconder la cabeza en la tierra, es ir camino del sacrifi - cio, como les ocurrió a los judios al creer las mentiras de los nazis.

    Occidente despierta.


    Islamic Fundamentalism according to Winston S. Churchill III

    http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200608220451

    Editor's note: Seldom I disregard the editorial policy of dealing exclusively with issues of my country. The recent escalation of violence in the Middle East against Israel however merits our attention for the issue goes far beyond a dispute between the Islamofundamentalists of Hezbollah and Israel; it isn't about Israel's future and safety anymore, rather a 'holy war' between deranged people and freedom; between terror and the values and liberties the civilised and rational inhabitants of this world hold dear. Someone sent the following speech -originally published March 03, 2006, which I have decided to post for it couldn't have expressed my feelings on the subject better.

    RALEIGH — Winston S. Churchill III maintains that Islamic fundamentalism is as destructive as the malevolent "isms" of the 20th century: Nazism, Communism and Facism. In a speech on Feb. 10 at the John Locke Foundation's anniversary dinner, the grandson of Winston Churchill urged the West to stay the course in the fight against extremist Islam.

    Here is the text of his speech:

    It is both an honor and a pleasure to be your guest here tonight and to have the privilege of addressing the John Locke Foundation. First and foremost, may I congratulate you for honouring the memory of John Locke, who was very much involved in the establishment of the Governments of the Carolinas and who, most important of all, was one of the great philosophers of the English-speaking world.

    Locke’s message — the vital importance of resisting authoritarianism — is as relevant to the strife-torn times of the world in which we live, as it was in the strife-torn times of the 17th Century. Authoritarianism constantly rears its ugly head, even within our own societies on both sides of the Atlantic, in so many guises and disguises, and in every field, be it religion, government or the military.

    At its most extreme, authoritarianism is exemplified by the isms of the 20th Century — Communism, Fascism and Nazism. The Fascists and Nazis were responsible for the deaths of more than 30 million human beings, while more than 50 million are estimated to have been murdered by Stalin and the Russian Communists, while Mao-Tse-Tung and the Chinese Communists are believed to have accounted for some 80 million.

    But today a new challenge — another ism — confronts us, and that is the challenge of Islamic fundamentalism. Extremist Islam has declared war on the rest of the world, as evidenced by their ruthless attacks across the globe — overwhelmingly targeted at innocent civilians. Beside the outrage of 9/11, the bombings in Madrid, in Bali, in London and, most recently, in Jordan come to mind.

    Those who have declared jihad against the West, and Western values, such as freedom of speech, are doing all in their power to mobilize against us the large Muslim communities living in our midst. In North America, there are an estimated six million Muslims in the USA, plus a further three-quarter million in Canada; while in the European Union, they number an estimated 20 million, including nearly 2 million in Britain. Unlike most other categories of migrant, the Muslims are reluctant to assimilate and, all too often, wish to pursue their own agenda.

    Unbelievably, Washington is urging Europe to admit Turkey to the EU. Were that to happen, the Muslim population of Europe would skyrocket to 100 million — an act, in my view, of consummate folly. Already Judeo-Christian Europe is under siege from a tidal wave of Islamic immigration. The admission of Turkey would hasten its demise. While I have a great regard for the Turks, the only democracy in the Muslim world and stalwart members of NATO, I am firmly opposed to their admission to the EU. I would accord them most-favoured nation status, but not the right to settle in Western Europe and become EU citizens.

    The scale of the problem confronting Europe today is epitomized by France, which has a Muslim community of some 6 million, or 10 percent of its population. But, if you take the population aged 20 and below, the figure rockets to 30 percent, such is the birthrate of the immigrant communities. In other words, within one further generation, France will be a Muslim country — a truly horrifying prospect.

    At the same time it is vital that, in our pursuit of the men and women of terror — we do all we can, not to alienate these large Muslim communities already established among us. For, without the active support of the Muslim communities, we shall never excise this deadly cancer in our midst.

    Intriguingly, the dangers of extremist Islam were foreseen by Winston Churchill all of 85 years ago, as I discovered to my amazement, while compiling my most recent book NEVER GIVE IN! The Best of Winston Churchill’s Speeches.

    Churchill is, of course, well-known for his gift of prescience and, specifically, for being the first to warn of the menace of Hitler and Nazism as early as 1932, and of the Soviet threat in his famous Iron Curtain speech in 1946 in Fulton, Mo. But how many know that he also warned the world of the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism? I certainly did not!

    On 14 June 1921, hard on the heels of the Cairo Conference, at which he had presided over the re-shaping of the Middle East, including the creation of modern day Iraq, he warned the House of Commons:

    A large number of [Saudi Arabia’s King] Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe’s] religious wars.

    The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.

    It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina…

    In Churchill’s day, of course, the viciousness and cruelty of the Wahabis was confined to the Saudi Arabia peninsula, and their atrocities were directed exclusively against their fellow Muslims, whom they held to be heretics for not adhering to the Wahabi creed — but not anymore.

    Today the combination of the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia and the supine weakness of the Saudi royal family which — as the price for not having their own behavior subjected to scrutiny and public criticism by these austere, extremist clerics — has bank-rolled the Wahabi fundamentalist movement, and given these fanatical zealots a global reach to their vicious creed of hatred and extremism.

    The consequence has been that the Wahabis have been able to export their exceptionally intolerant brand of Islamic fundamentalism from Mauritania and Morocco on Africa’s Atlantic shores, through more than two dozen countries including Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, to as far afield as the Philippines and East Timor in the Pacific. This is the stark challenge that today confronts the Western world and I fear it will be with us, not just for a matter of years, but perhaps even for generations.

    Just in the past two weeks the temperature in the Middle East has risen markedly with three significant developments. First, we have seen the wild and furious reaction, whipped up by firebrand clerics throughout the Islamic world, to the publication some five months ago in a Danish newspaper of a cartoon depicting the prophet with a smoking bomb in his turban, as tattered suicide bombers were being greeted at the Muslim pearly gates by a gate-keeper shooing them away and shouting: “Get lost! We’ve run out of Virgins!” The fury that this mild piece of satire engendered, epitomizes the clash of civilizations that is the key factor confronting us today.

    Secondly, the stunning election victory in the Palestinian elections of Hamas — a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel — provided a rude shock to those in Washington who naively imagined that democracy would provide the answer to the problems of the Middle East. For many within the Beltway, free elections have been an article of faith, even though it was in a free election that Hitler first came to power, before establishing his Nazi dictatorship.

    Such is the anger of the Moslem world against the West, inflamed by extremist clerics and fanned by the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia television networks, that truly democratic and free elections would result in the election of fundamentalist governments throughout the Muslim world. It is a frightening fact, that in 50 Muslim countries countless millions of Muslims tell pollsters that they regard Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri as more trustworthy than President Bush.

    The third and by far the most serious development, is the decision of the Iranian government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to remove the U.N. seals from its nuclear research facilities. He it is who not only denies the Holocaust ever happened, but who declares that Israel is a “tumor” that should be “wiped off the map”! Some Western analysts state that the Iranian president doesn’t really mean what he says. There were, of course, many who said just that of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and we saw the result.

    Having reported events — including two wars — in the Middle East over the past 45 years, I think I know the Israelis well enough to say that Israel is not about to wait to find out whether or not the Iranian president means what he says. In 1981 Israel took decisive steps to take out Saddam Hussein’s Osirak nuclear facility with a long-range air strike. I do not see how she can fail to do the same in the case of the even greater threat posed to Israel by a nuclear-armed Iran.

    This time it will not be so easy, as the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear facilities across 16 sites and built them deep underground, making them far more difficult to attack. But with 500 ‘bunker-busting’ bombs from the U.S. and precision-guidance technology they will certainly make a mess of the place. The whole Muslim world will be enflamed with outrage and Iran’s reaction may well be to deploy 100,000 guerrilla fighters to Iraq to fight the Americans and British — not a happy thought.

    But even before these developments, siren voices could already be heard on Capitol Hill, raising the cry: “Bring the Boys home.” I tell you: Nothing could be more disastrous than if, at this juncture, the United States were to cut and run. It would, at a stroke, undermine those forces of moderation we are seeking to establish in power, betray our troops as they fight a difficult, but necessary, battle, and break faith with those of our soldiers who have sacrificed their lives to establish a free Iraq.

    Gravest of all, we should be handing a victory of gigantic proportions to our sworn enemies. Let no one imagine that by pulling out of Iraq, the threat will simply evaporate. On the contrary, it will redouble, it will come closer to home and our enemies will have established in Iraq the very base that, by our defeat of the Taliban, we have denied them in Afghanistan. We shall see a desperately weakened United States, with its armed forces undermined and demoralized, increasingly at the mercy of our terrorist enemies.

    Precipitate withdrawal is the counsel of defeatism and cowardice, which, if it holds sway, will immeasurably increase the dangers that today confront, not just America, but the entire Western world. It is something for which we shall pay a terrible price in the years ahead. When great nations go to war — and they should do so only as a last resort — they must expect to suffer grievous losses and must commit to war with an unconquerable resolve to secure victory.

    In Iraq the United States has lost some 2,200 men and women, Britain just over 100. Compare that to the first day of the Battle of the Somme — 1 July 1916 — when the British Army in a single day, nay, before breakfast, lost 55,000 men killed, wounded or missing in action. Did we talk of quitting?

    What has happened to the mighty United States? Is it going soft? Are the elected representatives of the American people ready to surrender to those who threaten their homeland — indeed their civilian population — with death and destruction? I pray that they are not, and I call to mind the words of my grandfather, addressing the Canadian Parliament on New Year's Day 1941, in which — referring to the British nation dwelling around the globe, but it applies equally to our American cousins today — when he declared:

    We are a tough and hardy people! We have not travelled across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains & across the prairies, because we're made of sugar candy!

    In conclusion, I would remind you — and especially the legislators on Capitol Hill — of Winston Churchill’s words to the House of Commons on becoming prime minister in May 1940, which applies every bit as much to the situation that confronts us today.

    You ask: What is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror. However long or hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

    Provided we have the courage to stay the course, I am convinced that we can, in the end, prevail. Any alternative is too terrible to contemplate. There are no quick, easy solutions; on the contrary it will be a long, hard slog. But more leadership is needed from on high and, above all, more guts and determination if we are to see this through to victory.

    Let us fight the good fight — and let us fight it together! How pleased my grandfather would be to know that — 40 years on from his death — the Anglo-American alliance is still strong and that British and American soldiers stand shoulder-to-shoulder in Iraq and in Afghanistan, confronting the peril of the hour! Long may we stand together! God bless America!


    Common Ground: Media and Muslim dialogue

    OPINION  www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view

    JAKARTA, Aug. 14 2006 (UPI) -- The fluctuating relations between the Muslim and Western worlds are now seemingly more difficult, especially since the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York City on September 11, 2001, popularly known as 9/11. Right after the tragedy which resulted in thousands dead and thousands more injured, condemnation emerged from around the world. Soon after that, Western media began what has been called the "opinion war" which tended to blame Muslims unreservedly for the attacks.

    Through quoting U.S. President George W. Bush extensively, Western media became a funnel for anger toward Islam which, unassailably, was the religion of the bombing suspects. In response, the media in many Muslim countries embarked on counter-attacks by mobilizing negative reactions toward any issue pertaining to the Western world. Suspicion, distrust, anger and hatred were suddenly spreading between these two different civilizations.

    Besides repeatedly presenting news coverage on the one big topic of "Islam and Violence" while employing words such as "Islamic terrorist", "fundamentalist", "extremist", "radical Islam" or "militant Muslim", Western media also became a pivotal means of campaigning for the "Global War on Terror". Meanwhile, massive military "counter" attacks on Muslim countries were launched, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq. Western media also got involved in this scene by sending several journalists to report live on how Western military operations were destroying terrorist networks. Since then, it seems that the former "Holy War" of Muslim against Christian has given way to the war of "Western media against Muslim terrorists."

    As part of the global community, Indonesian media also absorbed Western media news coverage, which increasingly tended to be anti-Islamic. The prejudice and hatred exchanged between Muslims and Westerners in Indonesia became stronger, especially after the first Bali bombing, of Oct. 2002. Even though most Indonesian media tried to present balanced and prudent news, some tried to pump up the anger of Indonesian Muslims toward the West. These kinds of media sources also presented analytical articles which sided with Muslims and criticized Western leaders, interviewed Indonesian Muslim figures who were for the attack and who even supported similar "jihadist" attacks in the future.

    These days are the hardest for the media in Indonesia, finding themselves in a conflict of interest as relating to Islam and the West. It is difficult for the media to present balanced and impartial news and opinions as the majority of the audience in Indonesia is Muslim. Many media sources want to appeal to their Muslim readers and as a result, some Indonesian media deliberately choose to become partisans of Muslim voices.

    When ethnic and religious conflicts broke out in Ambon (1999), Poso (2000), Sampit (2001) and Aceh (1989-2005), some Indonesian media became a strategic means of public communication for Muslim groups. Rather than act as mediators and conflict transformation agents, some media -- both printed and electronic -- actually got involved in the dissemination of provocative ideas and language. The saying of a Bosnian journalist that "the journalist who hides behind pens and microphones to propose wars is actually more wicked than the people who kill each other" rings true and certainly applied to Indonesia at that time.

    By keeping their position independent and at a distance from religious prejudice, media can actually play an important role in encouraging dialogue between the Muslim and Western worlds. By creating balanced public dialogue opportunities, sharing togetherness and broadening the room for tolerance through their news coverage, media can bridge the gap and encourage the common need to live side by side peacefully.

    Just as the public needs an atmosphere of sound dialogue, media needs professional and mature journalists as well. Media and its journalists should obey journalism's code of ethics, maintain information sources accurately, look for competent persons as resources and write their reports using professional news coverage techniques.

    It is interesting to note that recently, an Indonesian newspaper was named by a research institution as the most popular media outlet because of its prudent and anti-violence way of reporting. This newspaper, which is surely reporting on the same Muslim-Western conflict issues in Indonesia, does not present any form of pro-Western or even pro-Muslim coverage. When asked why his paper has chosen this impartial style of reporting, a senior journalist said, "We just try to write with integrity and keep our messages away from prejudice. We run the risk of being labelled cowards, of being accused of not being involved or sometimes even of being anti-Islam by the majority of our readers because we do not show favouritism toward them. We just carry out our belief that media should not be involved in any conflict."

    Perhaps that should be the role of media in the "clash of civilizations" era, as a channel of balanced, constructive and solution-oriented messages between the Muslim and Western worlds. Furthermore, as the relations between the two are volatile, the media should create an honest, equal and transparent dialogue venue for the public. Media should focus not on the conflict itself, but on the creation of peaceful dialogue and the usage of non-violent means to resolve conflict and ease tensions. By doing this, we hope that media will play an important role in encouraging dialogue between Muslims and the West.

    (Eko Maryadi is a freelance journalist for international media outlets and Coordinator of Advocacy in the Indonesian Journalists Alliance.)

    (Distributed by the Common Ground News Service -- Partners in Humanity (CGNews-PiH).)


    The Power of Religion By Ron Fraser - OPINION  www.thetrumpet.com

    As the global political landscape continues to quake in the midst of its current great transition, religion is emerging as a powerful force to be reckoned with.

    “No divisions among men … are as unbridgeable as the chasm between the faithful and those they call infidels, between Jew and gentile, or Christian and pagan” (The Great Ideas—A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World, vol. ii).

    Religion is highlighted as one of the great ideas of man, as perceived by the editors of The Great Ideas series of classics, Mortimer J. Adler and William Gorman. Yet, as they admit in the above statement, of all the ideas that man has generated in the evolution of civilization, religion is the most divisive.

    In Western society, religion, which underpinned the development of its civilization for millennia, became increasingly unfashionable during the 20th century. Godless Marxist-Leninist thought swept like a huge wave over Anglo-American educational institutions, particularly in Britain, where church buildings by the score started to close down and convert into bingo parlors. Many students of the day began to quote Karl Marx’s dictum: “Religion … is the opium of the people.” The church went into general decline. Where it did remain fashionable, such as in the southern U.S., religion took on a corporate, commercialist flavor with the rise of the televangelists.

    As time went on, liberalism penetrated the Roman Catholic Church, particularly in Latin America. It seemed that the seeds of German rationalism sown in the 19th century had germinated and, following the two great world wars, were producing a great harvest of skepticism, materializing into agnosticism and culminating, during the mid-20th century, in an outright rejection of religion in many circles.

    “God is dead,” had declared Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century German philosopher. This became the campus catchcry of many a student from that time up to the 1970s. This pervasive, evolutionary godlessness produced fertile ground for the spread of communism, socialism and left-wing thought in the halls of academia, within the Anglo-American sphere in particular.

    Religion often thrives in a time of great social, economic and political disruption. Such disruption occurred at the transition into the final decade of the 20th century.

    Religion on the Rise

    In the late 1970s the decline of religion was suddenly reversed. Islam, Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism) commenced a resurgence that has continued to this day, and has accelerated, in particular, since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Many reasons have been advanced for this wave of religiosity sweeping the world. But one overwhelming factor contributed to it: the grand failure of secular atheism foisted onto the 20th century by 19th-century modernists who sought to accommodate religion to contemporary thought. As Samuel Huntington, one of the West’s most eminent political scientists, put it, “The most obvious, most salient, and most powerful cause of the global religious resurgence is precisely what was supposed to cause the death of religion: the processes of social, economic and cultural modernization that swept across the world in the second half of the 20th century” (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order).

    The assumption that intellectual elites made during the 19th and 20th centuries was that what they perceived as the rituals, superstitions, myths and the irrational practices of religion would be overridden, in time, by rationalism, pragmatism and scientific method. Their thought was that, in time, a society would arise which, as a result of their theories, would be tolerant, rational, pragmatic, progressive, humanistic and secular.

    They were wrong. As globalism spread economically, industrially, corporately and socially, a strange thing happened: Religion commenced a global revival. The same technologies that accelerated economic, corporate and social globalism worked universally to spread the message of the more powerful religions, in particular Islam and Roman Catholicism.

    Author Gilles Kepel observed, “A new religious approach took shape, aimed no longer at adapting to secular values but at recovering a sacred foundation for the organization of society—by changing society if necessary. Expressed in a multitude of ways, this approach advocated moving on from a modernism that had failed, attributing its setbacks and dead ends to separation from God” (Revenge of God).

    Roman Catholicism’s revival into a mighty religio-political force was triggered by the ascent to the papal throne of perhaps its most political of all popes, John Paul ii, in 1978. He powerfully boosted the cause with his timely appeal to Eastern European nations to “return to your [Catholic] roots,” launching what Kepel called “a second evangelization of Europe” at the time of Soviet disintegration.

    The hibernating power of Islam was unleashed by the rise of fundamentalist ayatollahs and imams (religious leaders), aided by the polarizing factor of the Palestinian cause, and helped in no small way by the collapse of Soviet rule in its western satellite states. Though the ayatollahs and imams taught differing versions of Islam throughout the Muslim nations, one message rang shrilly through their sermons. Rather than heed the goading of the West to modernize Islam from its many practices rooted in the Middle Ages (the time of its birth under its prophet, Muhammad), their call was to “Islamize modernity”—in a sense, a collective Muslim call to return to their roots.

    Another religion given a boost back into prominence by the Soviet Union’s implosion was that of orthodoxy. The Russian, Eastern and Southeastern Orthodox churches, which split from Rome in the 12th century, went into decline for over 70 years under the Soviet Communist regime, as did Russian Jewry. Yet, within five years of the lifting of the Soviet boot off their neck, total active churches in Moscow alone grew from 50 in 1988 to 250 in 1993. By 1994, 30 percent of Russians under 25 years of age declared that they had swung from atheism to belief in God.

    Meanwhile, at the same time that the Slavic nations were witnessing religious revival, Central Asia saw the crescent of Islamic resurgence sweep across that Third World region. At the time of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989, preceding the Soviet implosion, only one Islamic seminary and 160 functioning mosques were evident in Central Asia. Just four years later there were about 10,000 mosques and ten seminaries.

    Religion, Politics and War

    The most articulate historians, political scientists and analysts of current events are tending to agree on one significant phenomenon: During the current decade, most particularly this past year, we moved into unprecedented times. Never in history is there a precedent to match that of a nation of such overwhelming economic and military power as the United States being held to ransom, psychologically, by so few. Over the past ten years, weak, Third World countries such as Rwanda and Somalia have beaten off the power of the U.S. militarily. Two men in a rubber boat have immobilized a U.S. warship in broad daylight. Most recently, 19 men with a few flimsy pieces of steel in their possession changed the whole psychology of America in a matter of moments.

    Religion, politics and war are indivisible in the minds of the extremists who populate the front-line shock troops of terrorist organizations. Be it the Irish Republican Army (ira), the Tamil Tigers, Hamas or Al-Qaeda, all use terror in the name of religion to pursue national or international political power.

    Take al-Qaeda for instance. They see their mission as an international revolution to bring about a global government under Islamic rule. They call it the Khalifa, and its strength is gained via a new universal creed that fuses Leninist revolutionary tenets with the religion of Islam.

    What is intriguing is that many of al-Qaeda’s operatives gained their education on the liberal-socialist campuses of the universities of the West. With middle-class backgrounds, these university-educated converts to militant Islam are the new wave of youthful, bored offspring of a generation which has matured within or under the structure of soft, corrupt elites. Ripe for the plucking, just as the turned-off Western youth of the 1960s and ’70s were to their Marxist-Leninist revolutionary mentors, these young people have been easy meat for brainwashing by fundamentalist mullahs intent on jihad against the West. Nurtured by the widespread Islamic resentment of the power and prosperity of the West, they rationalize the miserable political, social and economic record of Islamic countries by swallowing the neo-Marxist theories that explain Third World poverty as being the result of exploitation by the West.

    The worrying thing is the level of popular support which their murderous actions have garnered, courtesy of their religious teachers. “All the perpetrators [of the September 11 attacks] believed themselves to be pious Muslims fighting in a holy war and headed directly to Paradise; they were given support in this belief by some Muslim clerics; a significant section of Islamic opinion has applauded what they did …” (National Review, Nov. 5).

    One nation stands out, in particular, as employing a fusion of religion and politics to wage terrorist warfare on Western civilization: Iran.

    Iran’s chief long-term foreign-policy goals are the eviction of the U.S. from the Persian Gulf and the marginalization, if not the obliteration, of Israel. Given that Israel and U.S. firepower greatly exceeds that of Iran, the Tehran administration has opted for terrorism as its weapon of choice.

    It was religion in politics that created the terrorist group Hezbollah. Not long after their rise to power, Iran’s ayatollahs created Hezbollah as an instrument of terrorist warfare to menace Israel and to force the U.S. out of Lebanon. To say they enjoyed spectacular success in this effort is an understatement. By bombing the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, Hezbollah put the world’s most powerful nation on the run. The U.S. military simply packed up and withdrew. Ultimately, Israel also abandoned Lebanon.

    Cleverly, the ayatollahs have nurtured terrorist cells in the gulf states and directed them against U.S. targets. The slaughter of 19 U.S. airmen at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia demonstrated how Tehran could avoid the inference of direct involvement by having the act carried out in another country. As one astute commentator has noted, “We should be under no illusions: Despite the fractious nature of Iran’s politics, its foreign-policy machinery is highly centralized, and all key decisions—including the selection of terrorist targets—are approved by the spiritual leader (currently Khamenei). This terrorism is not a rogue operation; it serves national-security interests and represents a cool, calculated state decision” (ibid.; emphasis mine).

    But Iran is not alone in fusing religion, politics and war into an instrument of foreign policy.

    A Case Study

    The past decade witnessed a classic case study of the power of religion in politics within Europe.

    As this magazine has consistently pointed out, the very first foreign-policy initiative enacted by the newly united Germany in 1991 was to recognize, against all global opinion, the Balkan countries of Slovenia and Croatia as nation-states separate from the Republic of Yugoslavia. This commenced the breakup of Yugoslavia, finally completed by the middle of this year with the imposition of an externally administered security force to maintain stability in Macedonia.

    What is not generally highlighted in this scenario is the power and influence of Catholic Germany, under Vatican guidance, in the whole affair.

    “The response of the West was defined by Germany, and the response of Germany was in large part defined by the Catholic connection. The Bonn government came under pressure to act from the German Catholic hierarchy, its coalition partner the Christian Social Union party in Bavaria” (Huntington, op. cit.).

    As author Samuel Huntington observes, the Bavarian media were heavily leaned upon by the “strong, assertive Bavarian Catholic Church which had close connections with the Church in Croatia ….” This led to a very one-sided approach in television coverage of the war with the Serbs.

    The German administration readily embraced former Nazi-sympathizer Franjo Tudjman as Croatia’s leader, considering him “something of a German foreign-policy protégé,” as one German scholar observed in 1995.

    The Vatican laid its political cards clearly on the deck, with Pope John Paul declaring Croatia to be the “rampart of [Western] Christianity,” preceding the Catholic-dominated EU in extending diplomatic recognition to Slovenia and Croatia. In a public ceremony in Zagreb that would have been unthinkable half a century ago, the pope seemingly endorsed the murky World War ii politics of the Vatican by honoring Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, an associate of the fascist Croatian regime which persecuted and murdered Serbs, gypsies and Jews during the war.

    Make no mistake about it: Ethnic and religious roots run deep—very deep. This is particularly the case when it comes to conflict between Muslims, Christians and Jews.

    Revival in the Balkans

    The power of religion, forced underground during the Cold War period, in the Soviet-dominated territories, has undergone a dramatic resurrection since the Soviet collapse. It has quickly penetrated the heart of politics. Witness the effect east of the Balkans: “The Yugoslav wars also produced a virtually unanimous rallying of the Orthodox world behind Serbia. Russian nationalists, military officers, parliamentarians and Orthodox Church leaders were outspoken in their support for Serbia, their disparaging of the Bosnian ‘Turks,’ and their criticism of Western and nato imperialism” (Huntington, op. cit.).

    In the Islamic Balkan country of Bosnia, the resurrection of religious identity in politics has become very evident since the Balkan breakup. The Balkan Peninsula is replete with a cross-section of multiple identities in its population mix. But as Mr. Huntington eloquently points out in his masterful study of the current conflict of civilizations, during war multiple identities fade. The identity which is central to the conflict becomes dominant. Almost always that identity is defined by religion. “Psychologically, religion provides the most reassuring and supportive justification for struggle against ‘godless’ forces which are seen as threatening” (ibid.).

    Communal identities in Bosnia had not been very strong, historically. Muslims, Croats and Serbs lived together in peace, and inter-faith marriages were quite common. Religious identifications prior to the Balkan wars were weak. However, as soon as the Vatican-German initiative began to split the Balkan Peninsula politically, the broader Yugoslav identity collapsed. Religion took on a renewed significance, particularly as fighting intensified in the resultant wars. Each group, Muslim, Croat and Serb, began to identify with its own cultural and ethnic community, defining itself in religious terms.

    When the shakeout occurred in Bosnia, it was the Muslims, though not in the majority, who rose to the surface under the devout Islamic leader Izetbegovic. The pressure of Muslim domination led to the flight of Bosnian Serbs and Croats to more friendly territory. Those who remained found themselves largely disenfranchised from employment in the new Islamic state. “Islam gained greater importance within the Muslim national community, and … a strong Muslim national identity became a part of politics and religion” (ibid.).

    As Huntington declares, Bosnia was transformed, by the conjoining of religion, race and politics, from being the Switzerland of the Balkans to becoming the Iran of the Balkans.

    The recent history of the Balkan Peninsula is a dramatic example of the power of religion, fused with politics, spiced with race (ethnicity), under the pressure of war, to change the whole face of nations.

    A Religious War?

    Many world leaders have gone out of their way to try and sway global opinion to their claim that the terrorist war declared on the U.S. and the West is not a religious war. But if this be the case, why are they trying so hard to convince us? Perhaps there is more to this than meets the electronic eye of TV. It is time we faced the facts that fly in the face of the pope’s declaration that “religion must never be used as a reason for conflict” (Agence France Presse, Sept. 23), the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statement that the war against terrorism is an “issue of justice” and not a confrontation between Christianity and Islam (Daily Telegraph, Nov. 3), the leaders of the ten asean countries’ endorsement of a declaration at their recent conference “rejecting an attempt to link terrorism with any religion or race” (Malaysian News Agency, Nov. 4), and the statements of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George Bush maintaining that the war against terror is not a war on Islam.

    Islamic author Salman Rushdie bluntly declared in a November 3 Guardian article, “Let’s start calling a spade a spade. Of course this is ‘about Islam.’” Rushdie highlighted a fact that the Bush and Blair spin has tried to play down, that there have been “worldwide demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden ….”

    What Salman Rushdie says is right: This is a religious war! It has been declared, loud and strong, by one of its principle antagonists as such. In a videotaped message aired over Arabian television stations, Osama bin Laden said, “This war is primarily a religious war.” Appealing to Muslims worldwide, he said, “Rise in support of your religion. Islam is calling you” (Toronto Star, Nov. 4). This is the opposite message to the one President Bush is seeking to put across to those Muslim states he hopes to retain in the coalition against terrorism.

    Salman Rushdie argued that “paranoid Islam” is the fastest-growing religion in the world today. He rightly maintained that to a vast number of Muslims, Islam stands “not only for the fear of God—the fear more than the love, one suspects—but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include their dietary practices, the sequestration or near-sequestration of ‘their’ women, the sermons delivered by their mullah of choice, a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with [perverted] music, godlessness and sex …” (op. cit., Guardian).

    Herein lies the problem for Anglo-America. While in the general sense it may be true to say that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacks against all humanity and even civilization itself, as many have claimed, there is no doubt that the U.S. was singled out by representatives of Islam as the specific target.

    Generalizing the target of these attacks, in the way that so many have, as being “Western civilization,” or “humanity,” or “the social order,” trivializes the extent to which sheer blind hatred of America is a real part of the equation.

    The United States is a nation hated both for its successes and its excesses, and those who least understand this are U.S. citizens themselves. They have no mind to comprehend it. There is a false morality pervading the whole of American society which is embodied in the U.S. president’s statement in a recent speech: “I’m amazed that people would hate us …. I am like most Americans—I just can’t believe it, because I know how good we are.”

    Is American society indeed “good”? Are American citizens on the whole “good”? Is American culture “good”? Is American music “good”? Is the output that the American entertainment industry, which reaps multiple billions in profit each year, exports to the world “good”?

    What about its legal system? Is the American judiciary wholly just, or is it downright corrupt, open to the influence of financial incentive to win a case, despite the facts, despite the truth? Is not America one of the largest illegal drug-using cultures in the world? Are not its divorce, teenage pregnancy, sexual deviancy, homicide, rape, theft, arson, embezzlement and general crime statistics a great blot on its national character? Where is this goodness in the great United States today?

    To be sure, the nation was founded on the best of human intentions and the best of constitutional principles: “one nation under God.” But that was over 200 years ago. American society today is a far cry from the American society of its Founding Fathers. In fact, an apt description of the state of America today is found in the prophecy of Hosea.

    “Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood” (Hos. 4:1-2).

    Simply put, Islam has a case. Even Hashemi Rafsanjani, former leader of Iran, had a point when he railed against the U.S. for “exporting perversion in the guise of entertainment all over the world.”

    But does this justify the murderous terror tactics of extremist Muslims against the U.S.? Does this justify jihad? It seems so to the fundamentalist Muslims. For theirs is an intolerant religion that labels all unbelievers as infidels and has a history of converting people by force. Islam’s history is a history of war! It is not a pretty picture. Its history is anything but a history of peace!

    Drugs, Guns and Religion

    The terrorist cells of the world are drawn together by a web of religious intrigue woven through the drug- and gun-running cartels of the underground. Stretching from Albania to Algeria, Berlin to Bogotá, from Beijing to Bazra, the drug- and gun-running merchants peddle their wares for profit. In the process, the supply lines of armaments to the czars of terror remain open, oiled by huge profits from illegal drugs.

    Paradoxically, one of the larger suppliers of heroin to the Western markets is the Northern Alliance of Afghanistan, ostensibly an ally of the West in the Afghan conflict. But then again, we should remember that the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army (kla), ally of the West in the conflict against Serbia, had as one of its chief goals in the Kosovo campaign the seizure and control of the drug- and gun-running corridor which runs from Mitteleuropa via the Balkans clear down to Colombia and points beyond.

    It takes a lot of money to run a war. The ira-Sinn Fein alliance found this out quite early and have since largely funded their wicked enterprise through drug-running. Members of the provisional ira turned up recently in Colombia, a chief supplier to the illicit-drug market via its own terrorist cells.

    Small wonder, then, that reports should start to emerge linking the ira, its offshoot the Real ira, the Basque terrorist group eta and al-Qaeda. The revered, Islamically religious bin Laden is known to control huge quantities of raw heroin and opium. It is reported that the Real ira has been laundering cash processed via bin Laden’s drug deals. The laundered cash then goes to purchase guns, bombs and other weaponry for use in the “holy” war.

    “The overnight rise of heroin trafficking through Kosovo—now the most important Balkan route between Southeast Asia and Europe after Turkey—helped also to fund terrorist activity directly associated with al-Qaeda and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Opium poppies, which barely existed in the Balkans before 1995, have become the number-one drug cultivated in the Balkans after marijuana” (Wall Street Journal, Nov. 1).

    This illegal drugs trade, lubricating the passage of illicit arms from as far afield as Iran, China and Russia, is flourishing under the ever-widening religious umbrella of Wahhabi Islam—the puritanical brand of the Muslim religion endorsed by bin Laden, fast becoming the dominant variety of Islam in the Balkan Peninsula.

    Even in the Balkans, the seeds are being sown for the fulfillment of a dramatic biblical prophecy: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over” (Dan. 11:40). Students of biblical prophecy are aware that this “king of the south” is a powerful leader of the Islamic nations. The king of the north refers to a final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire, even now in the advanced stages of reforming in Europe.

    In the not-too-distant future, this European empire will feel the heat of Islam at its southern doors and will move in blitzkrieg fashion, “like a whirlwind,” to overthrow the Muslim nations. That will be some holy war!

    But just as we see the drug- and gun-running activities of these nations being exploited in the interests of Islamic fundamentalist terror, it has its parallel in the Christian world.

    In a clear breach of the arms embargo slapped on all former Yugoslav republics in 1991, under the eye of the Vatican, Catholic countries such as Germany, Poland, Hungary, Panama, Chile and Bolivia channeled arms into Croatia to give it the edge in the northern Balkan wars.

    As the war heated up, Croatia gathered extra military strength from arms exported from Catholic Spain, that old haven of neo-Nazism, ostensibly in a scheme largely controlled by Opus Dei, the secretive and extremist right-wing Roman Catholic organization. (Opus Dei’s modus operandi in Europe is to seek placement of its members in positions of political power so they can progress the papal agenda for a united Catholic Europe.) These armaments were quickly dispersed not only to the Croatian Defense Forces but to the many Catholic volunteers who rallied to the Croatian cause.

    “The Croatian Defense Forces were joined by hundreds and perhaps thousands of volunteers ‘from Western Europe’ who were eager to fight in ‘a Christian crusade against both Serbian communism and Islamic fundamentalism’” (Huntington, op. cit.).

    In the meantime, the Orthodox Church went to work to rally its troops behind Orthodox Serbia. Volunteers from Russia, Romania and Greece flocked to join their fellows of the Orthodox faith to fight what they declared were “Catholic fascists” and “Islamic militants.” As with the Catholics and Croatia, the Orthodox friends of Serbia ignored the arms embargo and opened up corridors of supply to send arms shipments to Serbia.

    Romania, Bulgaria and the Ukraine were prime sources of supply. The Russians also artfully diverted UN supplies to the Serbs. Russian mafiosi aided with the drug deals to help finance the Orthodox war.

    Drugs, guns and religion—the three combine to prosecute and perpetrate the ethnic, religious and terrorist aims of religio-political power groups globally.

    Jihad and Crusade

    President Bush was roundly condemned for his slip in using the word “crusade” to describe the West’s approach to the war on terrorism.

    This war is not, and will not turn into, a “crusade” by Anglo-America against Islam. Anglo-America does not have the heart, the morale, the backbone or the will to crusade for any good that might remain in its decaying culture.

    Millions of Muslims live in Anglo-American countries and practice their religion freely, even engaging in aggressive on-campus evangelizing at Western universities. Yet it was evangelizing for their brand of Christianity, not peddling pornography, that drafted Americans onto death row in Afghanistan.

    Western democracies’ tolerance of Muslims is hardly reciprocated in Muslim nations. In reaction to this situation, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi declared, “We should be confident of the superiority of our civilization, which … guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in Islamic countries” (National Review, Nov. 5).

    Parroting the pope’s own words, Berlusconi urged Europe to “reconstitute itself on the basis of its Christian [Catholic] roots.”

    This response by the prime minister of a Catholic country, within which is domiciled the papal state that rules 1 billion Catholics, shows the clear division between the sides in this war. The initial attacks have been deliberately aimed at the U.S., but Bible prophecy indicates that they will broaden into a far wider theater.

    Berlusconi’s reconstructed Europe, based on its traditional Catholic roots, is emerging rapidly. The push by Islam across European frontiers will only accelerate this trend. As European Commission President Romano Prodi mused, “These events have happened at a crucial point in the building of Europe. … The current crisis favors integration by highlighting the need for more intense action. The events of September 11 oblige us to act resolutely and rapidly …” (Daily Telegraph, Oct. 12).

    A formidable force is gathering to the north. An ancient crusading empire is rising steadily to power into a position of global dominance economically, militarily and religiously. This power will not draw back as America has when it is challenged to jihad by the collective force of the Muslim nations in the future. That prophesied push by the king of the south will attract a retaliatory crusade that will thrust all previous crusades by the Holy Roman Empire into pallid insignificance.

    And it will all consummate in Jerusalem—that troubled, strife-torn city over which Muslim, Orthodox, Christian and Jew have fought for so long.

    As our editor in chief has written, “We can see that religion is shaping both the king of the south and the king of the north. …

    “These prophecies are exploding on the world scene right now at a dizzying pace. This world is about to be plunged into its greatest suffering ever! … It will all begin in the Middle East. Still, there is great hope” (The King of the South).

    In 1994, Pope John Paul ii expressed the hope that at the dawn of the 21st century, “Jerusalem will become the city of peace for the entire world and that all the people will be able to meet there, in particular the believers in the religions that find their birthright in the faith of Abraham” (Parade, April 3, 1994).

    Gerald Flurry commented in The King of the South on that statement by the pontiff: “The pope was very accurate in this statement: ‘Jerusalem will become the city of peace for the entire world,’ but not the way he believes. … The Bible says we are about to see a religious clash that will stagger this world! This prophecy is yet to be fulfilled. … Jesus Christ will be here in the very near future. And He will bring peace to the entire world! … What a glorious future man has. And all of that glory is going to emanate from Jerusalem!”


    OPINION

    First Published 2006-09-06, Last Updated 2006-09-06 09:03:25

    'Who Is Losing from Lebanon?'

     
    'Just about everyone', answers Prof. Paul Sullivan. So it is time to rethink assumptions and take a really hard look at what is real and what is imagined in current strategies.

    Lebanon is a small country, with a small population, and a small economy. However, in recent events, as well as in the past, it has been punching way above its weight in its effects on stability and security in its region and beyond. One of the reasons for this is its geographical position: it is right smack in the middle of one of the most politically heated and disputed areas of the world. It is also a mixed society with most of its people being Shia, but large populations of Sunnis, and various Christian groups. There are also large Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. Lebanon went through a horrific civil war from 1975 to 1991, when over 196,000 people were killed and about 2 million were either internally displaced or left the country. Given that its population today is only about 4 million that is quite a hit. Many Lebanese left the country over many years of violence and displacement. There were billions of dollars of damage, and massive psychological and social traumas inflicted on the Lebanese people. Then there was the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by Israel, with Israel leaving in 2000. Hezbollah came out of the smoke and fires of this invasion, but also found some of its impetus in the battles amongst various groups within the country. It is a Shia group, and like in Iraq, the Shia in Lebanon have often been the downtrodden and the least politically and economically represented. Political representation in many such countries involves more than just being part of the government. It was just in the last few years that the Shia have found such representation growing in the government and also in the “street” and in the informal power networks that dominate over the government in Lebanon.

    Some of that growth has been via Hezbollah. There are members of the Lebanese Parliament who are openly Hezbollah representatives. Many Lebanese leaders will admit clearly and openly that Hezbollah is a significant part of the political life of Lebanon. It is also a source of charity, employment, schooling and more for the Shia communities. Like Hamas, they mix violence and anger with local clinics and jobs programs. Hezbollah has clout in the country, and a considerable following. It is also a violent group that is on the terrorist list in the US, and is held to be directly responsible for the deaths of many Americans – including a very large number of Marines in 1982. In the very bad old days Hezbollah kidnapped Americans. Some never came back. There have been very difficult relations between Hezbollah and the U.S. for many years. Hezbollah also do not recognize Israel, and have as one of their goals to, frankly, destroy Israel. Given Israel’s military and other power in the region Hezbollah’s goals are destabilizing to say the least. For many years they were considered a fringe group in the region. It would have been very rare to hear a Sunni leader, or a Sunni population to voice loudly their support of this Shia group. People like President Mubarak of Egypt, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah of Jordan, and other Sunni leaders have considered groups like Hezbollah to be threats to them as well. Recently, however, some Sunni leaders have been backing down from their previous blanket negative statements about Hezbollah. The Sunni Arab world from the Gulf to Morocco has seen an increase in support in the street for Hezbollah.

    Such support has even stretched to places like Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan. There have been pro-Hezbollah demonstrations in Egypt, where the only Shia you will find are likely tourists of diplomats from Iraq or Iran. In Shia dominated Iraq there have been very large demonstrations in support directed by people like Muqtada Al-Sadr, not exactly a friend of the U.S.

    Interestingly, many of the elected Shia leaders in Iraq lived in South Beirut for some of their time in exile. Of course, many others lived in Iran, one of the major suppliers and supporters of Hezbollah. Ayatollah Sistani, and some other important Ayatollahs were trained in Iran, and even have Iranian citizenship. Ayatollah Sitstani has been critical of the situation in Lebanon. Sunni leaders like Shiekh Gomaa of Egypt and Sheikh al-Qadrawi, now of Qatar, famous for not only his lectures, but also for being often on Al-Jazeera TV, have taken somewhat ambivalent attitudes toward Hezbollah, but still support what they call “the resistance to Israeli aggression”. Both men have a large followings.

    Hamas, a Sunni group, and Hezbollah seem to be getting closer by the day as the violence continues in Lebanon and in the Palestinian areas. Some even think that the kidnapping of the Israeli soldiers by Hamas in the territories was coordinated with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah in the north of Israel. The Sunni-Shia divide is complex, but it also seems to be merging on some issues.

    The Shia of Iraq now pretty much run that country for the first time– even though they were a majority population since they converted to Shiism to counter the what they saw as the brutalities and oppression of the Ottoman Empire so very long ago. The Shia in Lebanon want more political representation. The same could be said for the Shia of Saudi Arabia (who live in the area that has the major oil fields in the northeast), the Shia of Bahrain (a majority of the population), and the Shia found in Kuwait, Qatar, Pakistan and elsewhere. The Shia are only 15 percent of the total population of Muslims in the world, but they are on the ascendance due in large part to the change in power in Iraq. The changes in Iraq have also given much more clout to Iran, the main supporter of the main Shia opposition groups to Saddam Hussein, many who now hold significant power in Iraq. One Iranian intelligence official even said of the happenings in Iraq that it was great that all of the people they supported got into power. Now there is an odd twist of strategic fates.

    The violence, death and trauma of Lebanon have been resonating throughout the world Islamic community, the ummah. It is not just the Arabs from Lebanon’s region who are glued to their TVs and debating angrily in the cafes. This problem has been Islamized and connected directly with the problem of the Palestinians. It has also been connected in places like Egypt, and many others, with the frustrations of the populations over unemployment, lack of political voice, and, most particularly, with what the populations see as the inability of their leaders to solve the chronic, nagging problems of their countries and their regions – like the Palestinian problem, which has such massive weight in the minds of Arabs and many others.

    So after this brief introduction to this pivotal little country lets get to the answer to the question: who is losing from Lebanon? Well, just about everyone. This is another one of those Middle Eastern situations where the lose-lose option seems the only one for some time to come. Clearly the average Israelis, who have had to duck and cover almost every day, sometimes many times, are losing. Those Israelis, who have been killed and injured, and their families and friends are losing. Israeli national security is weaker, not stronger, due to this. The Arab streets, and the Muslim streets across the globe, are even angrier toward the Israelis than ever before. The Palestinian situation is being linked to the Lebanese one. Palestinian refugee camps n Lebanon have taken in Lebanese refugees – refugees in their own country. The Qana events made things much worse. The Israelis have a multi-front war, and they are only using one instrument of power to fight it.

    In the Arab region it could be that these events are yet more straws that may finally break the backs of some of the autocracies in the region. Then if radical groups take charge Israel is in for a very rough time of it. I feel for the average Israeli, and what they may be facing in this increasing radicalizing region. The election of Hamas may be just the start of a trend. Corruption and the inability to solve those chronic problems mentioned above can lead to some rather odd and disturbing electoral results. Many Israelis are likely pining for the old days when Arafat was in charge of the Palestinians. Who else is losing? The biggest losers are the Lebanese, who have striven so hard to rebuild after their civil war, only to see much of the rebuild bombed to rubble. Many have died. Many lives have been shattered. Many homes, and not just the buildings, are destroyed. Lebanon has always been a somewhat fragile place. Now it is broken to pieces once again. The Syrians have lost economically, but their national security is also harmed. The U.S. has them more focused in its sights than ever before. Bashar Al-Assad has called for increased readiness. The Syrians fear a regional war. Iran could be one of the biggest losers in all of this. The extremists in the US who want to attack Iran are gaining strength, if not logic. Our troops in Iraq are having a tough enough time of it. The connections between the Lebanese Shia, the Iranian Shia, and the Iraqi Shia groups, especially the radical ones, may increase the problems that our troops face. Given the increasing tensions in the Iraqi Shia community, and the fact that there are Iranian intelligence operatives throughout Iraq, and given that Iran can order these groups to be kinetic if and when they are attacked, Iraq could become even more of a hornets nest, and incredibly dangerous for our people there. Furthermore, invading Iran, in the light of the recent events in Lebanon, would likely generate an even greater confidence in the minds not only of Shia Muslims, but also Sunni Muslims, that the US is at war with Islam. An invasion of Iran would be one of the best recruiting tools for the radical extremists who want to do us harm. We had better be very careful in our next steps. It is not to the benefit of our great country to become the focal point of a clash of civilizations. We have too much to lose. This is not a stand down to other threats from Iran, but a call to the development of more effective strategies to deal with a very complex country, region and world. They are all connected.

    Indeed, the US has lost from this. The anger directed at us has increased due to what is seen as our unwillingness to put a stop to this quickly. In previous polls by Pew and others one of the few countries in the Arab world where the US had fairly high popularity rating was in Lebanon. I would not expect that to continue after this. We have lost yet another round of the battle of ideas in Lebanon, and in the region. Also, the probability of a Hezbollah attack on US interests was not particularly high before these events. I suggest it is much higher now. It has been a long time since Hezbollah targeted the US. Now all bets are off. The US could also lose due to increasing internal and other pressures on some of its allies in the region. The regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and elsewhere are under considerable heat anyway. The situation in Lebanon has increased the temperature for their leaders, and in their streets. Libya has been oddly quiet during all of this, and the increasing radical threats to its government in the Bengazi area may just increase a bit. Radical groups as far as Morocco may use this situation as a very productive recruiting tool.

    Who is losing from Lebanon: just about everyone. It is time for our leaders and others to get this situation solved before it gets any worse. Don’t be too surprised if events in this tiny country far away bring some further problems to our country. Something like this has happened before. It will happen again. Are we really doing anything to reduce the chances, or are we adding to the problems and the tensions? Will our getting rid of some rockets and some terrorists solve the problems and reduce the threats for the region? Well, that is an open question, and one that is not easy to answer, but I have serious doubts that the metrics of reduced rockets in one group are the best measure of our security.

    It seems so far that every time we go kinetic in the “war on terror” we succeed in breeding more terrorists. We need to rethink our assumptions and take a really hard look at what is real and what is imagined in our strategies. We also need to put the A-team into play, and we need to develop more of the A-team. The A-team are those who speak the languages, have studied and worked in the regions for years, and have open, strategic minds.

    The A-team also includes those that apply all of the instruments of power toward the long run goal of peace and prosperity. By that I mean that we all need to consider the tradeoffs between using the military option, and the medium to long run fallout and blowback from those military options. We also need to consider a more balanced approach to the problem of threats to national security, and terrorism in particular. The military option needs to be complemented with diplomatic, informational, economic, and other activities and efforts. A fully engaged and balanced national grand strategy is what is needed. The military are very effective at many things. However, they are not the only solution to all of these problems. Some of our military leaders would gladly agree with that statement.

    We need full spectrum national as well as multinational A-teams. It will take time to get that up to speed. However, it is clear from the vast problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the complex and excruciating problems the Israelis and others face in the region, that the military option alone can sometimes be part of the problem, rather than the solution. There are deep and complex cultural, religious, political, diplomatic and economic problems that must be faced head-on, and with a clear vision to truly solving the problems, rather than just hammering them down or trying to muffle them with the sounds of ordinance.

    Our country deserves better. The world deserves better. It is time to get really smart about this.

    Professor Paul Sullivan

    National Defense University and Georgetown University (All opinions expressed are those of the author alone.)


    Shared values

    By Tulin Daloglu  Published September 5, 2006

    Women hold the key to the debate over whether Christian and Muslim civilizations can coexist in harmony. Yet the tension between the East and West, between modernity and extreme traditionalism, that feeds radical Islam and Islamic revival is not going away any time soon. And it isn't helped by the fact that ideas and impressions of Western culture and values are spread throughout the world largely through Hollywood.
        Many in the Muslim world form their opinions about the West based on what they've seen in movies and television. It is time to talk about the values that the cultures shared. When it comes to dignity, honor and motherhood, there is no distinction between women of different religions, race and ethnicity.
        Those values, however, are a question even in Turkey -- a Western country whose population is majority Muslim and where an Islamic revival is taking place. One undeniable symbol of it is the increasing number of veiled women. It is crucially important to understand the social norms that lead women behind covers.
        Last month, there were headlines in Turkey about Pinar Altug, a woman who won a beauty contest almost a decade ago and has since become an actress. She played characters that Turks admired, but in real life the ad hominem arguments she creates bring out a ferocious character. The insignificant debate she raised was about her attraction to younger men. Since the Prophet Mohammad's first wife was 15 years older than him, Muslim women should feel comfortable dating younger men. But because Miss Altug is in her early 30s, Turks seem to be having difficulty accepting her attraction. It became a huge subject for debate, particularly as numerous famous Turkish couples have followed suit.
        The real focus of the controversy, however, is that she cheated on her husband, dated another younger man and ended her marriage. She then cheated on that person to date someone even younger, and then someone even younger. Some Turks called Miss Altug's actions "revolutionary." In this patriarchal society, social norms tolerate men who cheat on their wives or girlfriends but don't show the same attitude toward women. That said, there's really nothing revolutionary about her behavior. It is plain unfaithfulness.
        What's more, we all fall into the same trap of loving the celebrities and talking about the details of their lives as if we know them. Paris Hilton and Pinar Altug are, in their spheres, incredibly talked-about women. However, that doesn't mean that either of their societies embraces their lifestyles or their values. When Carl's Jr., a burger franchise mainly on the West Coast, decided to hire Miss Hilton to sell its product, Bill O'Reilly, the famous conservative talk-show host, questioned the wisdom of the decision -- especially when it was claimed that she is an "intriguing cultural icon."
        The bottom line is that for religious and reactionary Turks, Miss Altug represents Westernized women and the erosion of Turkish family values. Fathers and brothers pressure women in their families by saying that western values detract from women's dignity and honor.
        Meanwhile, there are extreme examples in ordinary life. Last month in Turkey, police rescued 24-year-old Meryem Sak after a month of torture by her boss, Mustafa Kivrik. When the police raided the house, they found her chained by the throat, and her hands were handcuffed to the bed. Miss Sak's nails had been pulled out, and her toes and her pubic bone had been crushed with hammer. Why? Kivrik, with the consent of Miss Sak's mother and brother, wanted to teach her a lesson about being a "good woman," because she had male friends. He claimed there was evil inside her. In a sick twist, Miss Sak's mother was having an affair with Kivrik. Now the courts will decide case, and it should be the liberated world's demand that the judge examines the clash between Western and extreme values, as well.
        This example does not represent the norm in Turkish society, despite the many pressures women face. Looking at this case as representing Turkish values would be like saying American men tend to murder their pregnant wives, as in the case of Scott and Laci Peterson.
        It's important to understand that the extreme examples in order to understand the society's tendencies. They constitute evidence about the risks we take over values. The increasing number of women in Turkey who wear headscarves could be seen as a reaction to Western values and lifestyles, and as a way to argue that religiously pious Islamic women have higher morals and ethics than their Western counterparts. Free individuals can dress as they wish, but if dressing makes a statement about societal values, it is important to look at the issues at hand and really begin talking about how each "world" understands the other's culture, values and priorities.
        
        Tulin Daloglu is a freelance writer http://washingtontimes.com


    MIDDLE EAST:  CRADLE OR GRAVEYARD OF EMPIRE?

    Ardeshir Mehrdad | 23.07.2006 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/07/345867.html

    No, the abysmal failures in Iraq have not dissuaded Washington from embarking on yet another adventure. George W. Bush and his warmongering allies are preparing themselves for another major incident in the Middle East. This time Iran is the main challenge in the establishment of the new world order and a direct target.

    Cradle or graveyard of The Empire?

    Ardeshir Mehrdad

    No, the abysmal failures in Iraq have not dissuaded Washington from embarking on yet another adventure. George W. Bush and his warmongering allies are preparing themselves for another major incident in the Middle East. This time Iran is the main challenge in the establishment of the new world order and a direct target.

    The 'Nuclear Crisis' is artificial. The 'war against terror' is total deceit. The fig leaf of 'freedom and democracy' has not fooled anyone. The globe devouring monster is adamant that it can use 'the end of history' to plough the earth. It is determined to make the new century, a new American Century and it has set up its first camp right next to Middle Eastern oil fields. Overwhelmed by illusions of victory, this superpower has no qualms to burn down whatever is left of the countries of this region (1). What can be done to confront this monster? Can one restrain it from engulfing on yet another disastrous adventure in the Middle East? Can one save the world from the dreadful consequences of such an event? Is it futile to seek another horizon? Are such attempts total illusions? This article is an attempt at finding some answers to these questions and it starts with examining the political and theoretical backgrounds.

    The current world situation is the result of a historical conjuncture. The culmination of the structural crisis of capitalism (2) accompanied by an increasing ineffectiveness of the existing world command system (what is left over after the cold war) and an acceleration of the crisis of hegemony between central capitalist states are the key characteristics of the global development in its current stage. All these processes take place in a context of an authoritarian capitalist globalization, an internationally restructured labor force and a highly strung post '11 the September 2001'.This background has allowed the most rabid and dangerous political tendencies of the world capitalism to appear on the scene and get involved in the nitty gritty details of one of the most dangerous eras in human history (3).

    The current occupants of the White House are placed at the head of such currents. On the very day they came to power, these forces announced that one cannot save the world capitalist order form deathly crises unless one used dramatic surgery. They rewrote the strategic national security of the United States on the basis of redrawing the international political map and the establishment of a new world order. They did not hide the fact that they were seeking a hierarchical system of operation in International relations and legal systems, capable of institutionalizing the United State's military and economic superiority into a new Empire. (4)

    The new world order is imposing conditions where the slavery of the global labor force is guaranteed and a model of development capable of globalizing the most barbaric forms of expropriation is established. The new world order aims to sanctify privatization of all public services and establish a model of accumulation by the dispossessed (5) or in the words of George Caffenzis allows 'daylight robbery to replace hidden theft'(4).

    In addition, this policy must guarantee to deliver the domination of US multinationals on world markets and to maintain their control over the main production and exchange circuits as well as on the key reproduction fields. Wherever possible it unilaterally breaches international treaties and agreements, redefines the role of international institutions, abolishes national borders and the right of other nation-states sovereignty. (7)

    For many years the prescribed solutions of neo conservatives for a regeneration of the world political order had evolved from being a mere notion or a declaration. Their executive plans of a 'new American century' (8) was prepared long before neo conservative Republicans took power in the year 2000. In these plans the final aim was what had already been declared by the Nixon administration: complete control of the Middle East and winning the big prize. In a world where guaranteed access to cheap oil is one of the essential preconditions of production and reproduction, any power that controls the Middle East, possesses one of the most essentials levers to control the world. Victory in the cold war placed the United in such a position being able to lay claim to the entire Middle East as war trophy. 11th of September 2001 created a golden opportunity to raise the flag of a 'war on terrorism' and the deployment of the war machine in Afghanistan and Iraq , leading to the occupation of both countries.

    Iran is the next strategic step. The incorporation of this country in the jurisdiction controlled by US's world empire and its reorganization in accordance with Middle East in a new world order (9) is the immediate goal of the current stage. Currently war is the main architect and violence the ultimate weapon (10). Despite all this, the experience of Iraq and Afghanistan will not necessarily be repeated. Not only because these experiences have not achieved the desirable results or that they have incurred colossal costs, but because Iran is a different type of target with its own specific geographic, political and social characteristics. Indications are that the United States has chosen a more complicated route than in the previous two adventures for achieving its aims in Iran. Many scenarios are being followed simultaneously, and the US is operating with considerable flexibility in its choice of tactics. Here it might be useful to point out some of the peculiarities in the tactics used in dealing with Iran.

    First: Use of the military option in Iran will not necessarily mean military occupation (or at least full military occupation). In addition to targeting economic military targets with the aim of weakening the regime's defensive capabilities, military strikes can work as part of a plan supported by certain neo conservative figures close to Cheney and Rumsfeld (lead by Michael Leaden and allies in American Enterprise): carving up Iran into smaller territories, then gradually devouring it piece by piece or taking over some parts of it. No doubt sooner or later the attraction of such plans will tempt other politicians in Washington.

    Undoubtedly such the occupation of the regions bordering Iran's Western border will not only give Washington control of the oil and gas resources of OPEC's second largest oil producer, but it will also be a significant step towards the overthrow of the Islamic Republic Regime. The successful execution of this plan can cause the regime to face serious difficulties regarding essential resources. On the other hand, it would deprive the Iranian regime of one of its most potent weapons, the use of Shia Fundamentalist groups inside Iraqi territories (11). Current reports suggest show that this plan has gone far beyond a mental exercise and practical steps towards its execution are under way (12).

    Second: Following basic principle such as reducing speed, cost and level of operational complexity do not mean that the White House elite will commit the same mistakes they made in Iraq when contemplating an attack on Iran, embarking on a war where "military victory was its start rather than its end" (13). This time regime change is not the only aim. Destruction of independent social resistance as well as total submission of Iran to the new capitalist project following the overthrow of the regime is an important part of this plan. The choice of means and methods is such that the overthrow of the Islamic regime will lead to the coming to power of a subservient, 'desirable' government. Such considerations have leaded the Bush administration to be more cautious and seek diplomatic tricks and the activities of security services and propaganda machinery.

    Today the emphasis on diplomatic solutions is than ever at the forefront. Despite all this, it should be noted that the Bush administration has less use than ever before for diplomacy except where it provides justification for military action and reduces its adverse consequences (14). When it comes to dealing with 'rogue states' diplomacy is merely a lever to force them to the edge of the abyss and bring them down. Diplomacy here does not mean bartering or giving reciprocal guarantees. It is a method for burning the opponent's winning cards, breaking its political and ideological legitimacy (providing it has one) and finally throwing into the paws of the war machine (15).

    One can understand US-Iran relations with such a definition of the current place and role of diplomacy. On the one hand the United States has placed Iran at the heart of the 'axis of evil' and openly declared war against it. On the other hand, when the US deemed it useful for its long term ends, the administration has made contact with rulers of the Islamic Republic regime, notably before military attacks against Afghanistan and Iraq, engaging them in such plans. The aim behind such contacts was principally to seek the support of Iran's Islamic regime to defeat resistance in these countries and to help the establishment of an order favorable to the United States. Whenever the Islamic regime has responded positively to such approaches (usually in secret and through intermediaries) and done whatever was asked of it -- interceding or spying - the ultimate response has been more or less the same: the Iranian regime is aggressive and unmemorable and remains a threat to international security. As long as such a regime exists, it is a danger and a threat, even if they do everything they are told, there will be no "amnesty" (16).

    Moreover when it comes to direct military intervention, it is necessary to seek the diplomatic support of other powerful states and to create an international consensus on this issue. The more widespread the support for US adventurism policies in the Region, the less the political and economic costs of such a venture. This time learning the lesson from Iraq, the US administration is avoiding unilateral military engagement and tries to find new allies. Washington hopes that by amending the 'hub and spoke' relations (17) within the wheel of its international relations, it can find new allies for 'pre-emptive' strikes.

    US support for dialogue and negotiations between European Union states and Iran is in line with such a policy. Washington has approved of negotiations covering a limited agenda of 'Iran's nuclear dossier' and with no other function than conveying the political stance of one side to the other. In the absence of any genuine US security guarantees to the Iranian regime, it was obvious from the beginning that these talks will lead nowhere. As a result, by siding with such discussions the US administration was able to rally its European allies while paving the way for the one way path leading to reporting Iran to the National Security Council, and pressuring the Islamic regime.

    The removal of 'reformists' from the Iranian government circles and their replacement by pseudo-fascist, militarist groups, has no doubt improved the prospects of success for the Bush administration. With Ahmadinejad's government in power, Washington has found an active ally in Tehran. An ally not only capable of precipitating the defeat of such negotiations but prone to create a psychological war-like atmosphere, events that might lead to economic sanctions, limited military strikes and finally total war.

    A two-pronged propaganda was has been unleashed by the White House strategists. Within the US and its allies the obvious task is to create the psychological and political conditions necessary for launching this third direct military intervention in the Middle East. The backbone of the propaganda is, as always, based on fear, the threat of terrorism and Iran's nuclear program. Such statements as "Iran is the biggest threat to world security since the Second World War' (18) and such claims as "Iran's nuclear program poses a threat equal to the dangers posed by the Bolshevik revolution and the coming to power of Hitler' (19) are becoming commonplace and intended at intensifying the pressure.

    The reversal of the relation between 'regime change' and the 'nuclear crisis' is one of the achievements of the propaganda war unleashed by the US and its allies. The obedient mass media must act smartly to manufacture a 'nuclear crisis' from the regime's nuclear program (20). They must also disguise the fact that precipitation towards access to nuclear technology is a reaction of fear and weakness by a regime threatened by an important world power (21).

    Inside Iran the propaganda war follow two separate trajectories: The way is being paved for a 'color revolution' while instigating separatist ethnic movements. The Bush administration tries to use the dissatisfaction and hatred felt by the majority of the population towards Islamic regime, the sense of oppression and injustice imposed by this regime for over 3 decades to pave the way for another 'color revolution'. It is using old colonial methods such as inciting regional, ethnic and religious hatred, to create an atmosphere of despair and lack of political confidence - the old Yugoslav scenario of encouraging the partition of Iran (22).

    A Pentagon-orchestrated revolution is finding a more suitable arena to work in a country where a large gap is developing between the Islamic regime and the majority of the population, whose needs and demands are being ignored, and the regime's resort to militarist repressive solutions to survive. Under such circumstances one can even envisage a scenario where the psychological/political warfare inside Iran will favor military intervention allowing the US administration to appear as a liberator capable of deceiving sections of the population. This plan will carpet bomb the Iranian regime while calling on the majority of the population to join the imperialist project and rise against this regime (23).

    There is no doubt that in advancing its propaganda inside Iran, espionage and intelligence networks have an active role. For many months now intelligence agencies have been active, in alliance with the corporate mass media, on two separate fronts: amongst the political opposition inside and outside Iran as well as amongst Iran's national minorities. American intelligence services have increased their activities in this arena; they have not only encouraged the activities of groups under their influence (from the Mojahedin to separatist regional, national groups) but also dispatched specialist forces to specific regions in the country, setting up military bases (24). It is not surprising that in addition to setting up audio- visual media networks we see waves of sabotage, kidnapping, bombings in Khuzestan and Baluchistan (25).

    Now assuming that the Bush administration has embarked on the third stage of its plan to colonies the Middle East, it should be said that it is deploying more complicated and diverse methods than in the past. Assuming that a future darker than Afghanistan and Iraq awaits the Iranian people we should return to the principle question of this article: Can one stop Bush's attempts to impose sovereignty in the Middle East and stop another disastrous war?
    The peoples of Iran and the Middle East have been placed in a perilous situation. Yet they don't face a blind destiny. One can say this with confidence. Stopping Bush's war machine, defeating his domineering intentions are difficult but not impossible.

    If nothing is done, the Middle East is a scene of eternal tragedy, enslavement and captivity. The principle players are fundamentalists of all shapes and sizes Islamists, Jewish or Christian fundamentalists, nationalist and racist groups, a dozen corrupt dictatorial governments and finally the agents and operators of major oil cartels and arms manufacturers. In such a scenario, the player capable of overthrowing injustice, darkness and dictatorship appears absent. One cannot see a force capable of expressing the wishes and the interests of the masses and this is a serious problem facing the Middle East. The more one avoids confronting this reality, in the name of 'wisdom' or 'realism' the worse the situation will get and the more inevitable the prospect of a major disaster. As long as this shortcoming exists one cannot imagine a Middle East capable of standing up to the US aggression, capable of protecting itself from war, destruction and annihilation.

    One cannot depend on regional states performing miracles. We can obviously set aside the members of the Empire's club, those who in reality act merely as second hand contractors. However, one should not be optimistic about those states that do not fit in this circle. Not only are these states no different from the others in the region when it comes to repression and dictatorship (often they are amongst the worst), but when confronted by imperialist offensives, they have neither the willingness nor the resolution to stand up to it. Nor do they have the necessary popular base and capability needed for such a confrontation. Amongst the regimes of the region, it would be difficult to find a single example that would not sell its independence and all its citizens' belongings and livelihoods, at the offer of an imperialist 'breathing space. Even when such regimes face the abyss and they are forced to defend themselves, they don't give up the hope for deals and negotiations and they do not miss any opportunity for seeking 'diplomatic initiatives' (26). Rather than their anti-imperialist rhetoric, the problem of these regimes is their incompetence and inability at playing a sufficiently useful role as servants of the 'New order'. Iran's Islamic regime is a perfect example of such regimes.

    Even if we assume that the will and intention to resist imperialism exists, a regime such as Iran's Islamic Republic can only confront a major super power, if it possesses sufficient defenses. It would utter folly to rely on the military power of a third world country to stand up to the US war machine. One cannot imagine that military maneuvers, showing off a few old and new military equipment, even the threat of using weapons of mass destruction can create any hesitations in the intentions of the custodians of the new world order (27). Such quixotic gesturing are merely open invitations to Washington to use its most destructive weapons with a vicious, barbaric attack without scruple. Such an invitation will pose no inconvenience to the US war machine. It will not affect their 'neo' consciousness.

    The weapon of suicide bombings or the use of the Iraqi Shiites as a winning card, can itself become a source of encouragement to launch pre-emptive attacks (28). Irrespective of the usefulness of such tactics and irrespective of the capability of the Iranian regime to use them, one cannot ignore the fact that the threat of terrorist attacks or a religious war will only serve as justification for the theory of 'unlimited war on terror' and a cover for the 'clash of civilizations'. Many amongst influential neo conservatives believe that victory against 'jihadist terrorism' can be achieved by destroying their refuges and states supporting them. Many such ideologues are of the opinions that the road to victory in Baghdad passes through Tehran and drying up resistance in Iraq requires an attack against Iran and overthrow of the Islamic regime (29). "Real Men" (a name given by neo conservatives to themselves) have argued such ideas for many years. They believe in closing the 'Iran file'.

    The sole weapon of any government in confronting imperialist powers is solid and powerful popular resistance and mass mobilization. Without such a support it is absurd to talk of resistance by a third world country. The Islamic regime in Iran has no such weapon nor does it possess the ability to gain one. The fundamental problem of the Islamic regime is not just that it has lost its social backing. More importantly it faces a paradox were it to rely on mobilizing its citizens in the event of an imperialist attack. This regime is unable to call on Iranians to defend their sovereignty against imperialist aggression, while for decades under the name of the God and Islam violently depriving them from their right to self-governing. Those in power in Iran will not be able to call on Iranians to defend the 'republic' when in the words of its real leaders (individuals such as ayatollah Messbah Yazdi) there is no such thing as a 'republics' in Islam.

    These rulers don't even have enough confidence in themselves to at least make some temporary conciliatory moves towards their own people in order to reduce the divide between them and the majority of people of country. Indeed, their dictatorial, reactionary nature is so overwhelming that as the crisis deepens they are imposing harsher conditions and alienating large sections of the population. If the Iranian state's initial customary resort to deceit, playing on religious sentiments and demagoguery fails, it has no hesitation to resort to rabid violence and repression.

    The 'ayatollahs' and their military commanders have reached such a situation that they are ready to bribe any 'Satan' and accept any indignity to remain in power. Yet in confronting their own people, they cannot afford to show even the kind of flexibility shown by Saddam Hussein on his last days of rule. If in those days the Baathist dictatorship opened prison gates and turned over arms stocks into peoples homes, the Islamic regime considers the current situation as an opportunity to fill its prisons and embark on a new wave of arrest of workers, women, youths, intellectuals, activists of national and religious minorities in an effort to deprive the masses of the only weapon left to them: protest and collective action.
    Nor can one rely on the intervention of other players on the world stage. There is no doubt that Washington's victory in the Middle East, and especially in Iran, will be a major regional transformation against the interests of some world powers. However one cannot deduce from this that these powers will stand up to the United States. Nor does this mean that they will be able to stop America pursuing its interests. The position of Europe is more or less clear. There is really no reason why they should pursue the policy they had pursued regarding Iraq. They will follow the US either haltingly or running fast behind it.

    Russia and China too, despite their current opposition, are capable of using Iran as a lever to gain certain advantages and gain their share of the war booty. Given the existing relations within the global political power structure, at a time when those in power in the White House have rebelled against common norms of international relations, one cannot imagine that Russia or China's choices will go much beyond non-acceptance and challenging of the US hegemony. Within such limitations, opposition, however serious, does not appear to present an obstacle to Washington's authoritarian tendencies.

    Emphasizing internal differences within ruling circles in the United States is also undoubtedly exaggerated. These differences are real. However they are only directed at reducing the error coefficient, avoiding unforeseen consequences. There is little doubt that amongst the US elite there are no principal objections to military intervention in Iran (30). It should be added that none of the political factions has ruled out military attacks. Differences are essentially limited to the scale and spread of the military operations, the kind of weapons to be used as well as debates on the management of the operation. The questions are more focused on technical issues: is the use of nuclear weapons acceptable? (31) Have all necessary precaution been taken regarding Iran's reaction? Is Donald Rumsfeld capable of managing and leading another military conflict? (32) Within such a framework, although differences can affect the plan for the military operation, its timing or intelligence and diplomatic preparations, it is impossible believe that they will lead to a change in policy and a review of strategic directions.

    Under present circumstances, therefore, there is little point looking for a force capable of reigning in US aggression within the upper echelons of official power. Such a force to oppose the US must be found elsewhere: somewhere within the depth of those movements standing up to it. No force in the world, except the region's destitute and poor -- those already "living in hell" - can save the region from the barbarism that awaits it. It is impossible to end the horror show, whose principle players are forces of death, unless wide-ranging, independent and progressive movements completely overturn the situation; and brings the huge power of the people of labor and toil to become engaged in self liberation, self rule and control of their own destiny.

    Today Iran is the front line. Neither the victory nor the defeat of the peoples of this country in direct confrontation with one of the most powerful enslaving empires of human history is pre-ordained. The destiny of this battle will depend on answers to two essential questions. Will the majority of the Iranian people, those who have nothing but their labor power to live for, be able to overcome the subjective and political obstacles challenging their united, decisive and independent movement? Will they be able rise as a powerful and broad movement against ruling reactionaries and the colonial enslavement, and offer a brighter future for Iran? And can these people rely on the active support and solidarity of the millions in the region, and the support of egalitarian and progressive anti war forces throughout the world in the life and death battle against imperialist aggression and reactionary repression?

    In answering these questions it must be emphasized that in the current situation in Iran the only force capable of halting imperialism's advance must primarily present a radically different political and structural perspective for the majority of the population of this country. First and foremost it must convince the millions of Iranian who over the last 28 years have witnessed nothing but injustice and repression by a religious state to conquer apathy and get involved within the ranks of the anti war movement. An inability to unite the struggle against imperialism with the struggle for political freedom and self rule will condemn this movement to becoming an appendage of the regime, isolated and paralyzed (33).

    It should be noted that without attaining an independent identity, opening an alternative political /structural horizon is impossible. This in itself is dependent on overcoming existing theoretical challenges and defeatist tendencies operating on two opposing fronts and threatens the political space with a clear split. Despite contrary political positions these tendencies share common ideas. In their perspective, the Iranian people presently have neither the capability nor the potential to self-defense and self-emancipation. Neither can they have any role outside the political games being played by the major powers. Thus any possibility of fighting the US while opposing the Islamic regime is rejected, negating either is proof of the other. In choosing between bad and worse, the only political choice presented to the people is to choose between fundamentalist Islamists and imperialism or between sovereignty and freedom.

    At one extreme, there are those who see Bush's aggression against Iran as the main threat and call on the Iranian people to unite behind the religious state. In their view Iran's reactionary regime is the main force against imperialism and not only any attempt at its overthrow should be set aside but even weakening its position is tantamount to aiding and abating imperialism. 28 years ago the advocates of this view were in the forefront of the forces justifying the Islamic government's brutal repression of those who fought for freedom, equality and democracy in Iran. They were instrumental in paving the way for the consolidation of one of the most dictatorial and reactionary regimes of the region (34). These same currents have once again become active. Their position that resistance against imperialism is means we should rally round the Islamic regime has damaged the mobilizing power of anti imperialism. It has deprived it of its liberating and progressive content.

    On the other extreme, the Islamic republic is painted as the greater evil. Here we see tendencies which under the guise of defending freedom, directly or indirectly support US intervention in Iran. In their view a dictatorial and violent regime as the Islamic Republic cannot be overthrown by its people alone. Only foreign intervention and military repression (not unlike Mussolini and Hitler's methods) can crack this regime. Accordingly, in the current world conditions the US government remains the only force willing and capable of bringing about such a change, irrespective of its nature or the specific policies it pursues regarding Iran. In this analysis the opportunity created by the overthrow of the regime through US intervention will allow the Iranian people to participate in politics and take charge of their own destiny.

    The least danger of the hold of these two twin-like tendencies in Iran's political scene, particularly amongst certain leftwing forces, will be to turn the current bipolar position into a permanent situation. The choice between bad and worse simply chokes an independent movement capable of change and liberation. It will close the door on those forces which are capable of breaking down the historic hurdles of enslavement and fear.

    Undoubtedly the threat of colonialism is serious. We must stand up to this threat and mobilize all our forces in this struggle. However, to rely on reactionary religion in order to achieve this is tantamount to ignoring the main question. It is to forget that it is precisely the Islamic republic regime that has created the conditions that allow imperialism to question Iran's national sovereignty and take such bold steps towards colonizing the country. Moreover, confronting imperialism from a reactionary fundamentalist viewpoint (even supposing it does not end up in compromise and a sell out deal -- as it has done in the past) will have no other consequence but to strengthen the religious dictatorship. And this is tantamount to destroying nearly three decades of bloody struggle by workers, students, intellectuals, women, youth and religious and national minorities, groups that have fought for emancipation from this regime.

    Clearly the overthrow of this dictatorship is an urgent necessity. Every day that lengthens the life of this regime, engulfs the majority of the people of Iran in further calamity, forcing them to face harsher political and social conditions. Were such accumulated social and political conflicts to remain unresolved, the outcome can be nothing but destruction and desolation. It should be understood, however, that the consequences will not be the same irrespective of who overthrows the Islamic republic regime. Overthrow of the Islamic regime by Pentagon and the CIA will not bring anything but a continuation of destitution and misery, albeit in other formats.

    Let us not forget that the force that has the greatest role in the political overthrow of the Islamic regime will play a crucial role in determining its successor. What can one expect from an alternative regime that seeks to help the construction of a new Empire engineered through cruise missiles and B52 bombers, a force that has officially moved from the globalization of the Middle East towards colonizing it and promises a new era where instead of a new 'Pax Americana' promises a 'new Holocaust'.

    Under such circumstances where can one find hope for the establishment of a social and political alternative? It is clear that this global power can replace the current regime with a variety of alternatives, but none that might serve the interests of LashkarAbad, ZourAbad, Kouye Tollab (some shantytowns in Iran) or an alternative that will bring about a better prospects for a Tabrizi student, a woman in Khoramshahr, a worker in Sanandaj, a tea plantation worker in Lahijan or a child in Zahedan.

    Effective resistance against the intervention of the most powerful contemporary imperialist country can only be achieved through an independent, widespread movement: A movement capable of dramatically changing the balance of forces; a movement capable of mobilizing huge power of the down trodden masses, those on the margins of society. This is impossible except by a movement capable of struggle for self determination and self rule, a force capable of uniting the struggles for political freedom with social emancipation, one capable of presenting a hopeful alternative regarding the lives of millions of deprived and exploited masses. The least cost in failing to achieve such a perspective will be that pseudo-fascistic military-religious groups will to try and manipulate the wave of despair and distress amongst the deprived, and mobilizing sections of the population, help the repressive state and its war machine protect the current system of terror and fear (35). Under these prospects, uniting in a struggle against neo liberal capitalism and the corporate agenda of global domination can become a force capable of mobilizing a true anti imperialist movement.

    And finally confronting the aggressive policies of the United States towards Iran, necessitates the formation of a movement emerging from the multi ethnic, multi-national and multi-religious solidarity movement that can liberate itself from racial and sexual divisions. A movement that in a country like Iran, riddled with numerous ethnic, religious and gender crises, would be capable of firmly standing up to patriarchy and religious and ethnic hierarchy. Such a movement must be capable of combining the struggles against sexual, national, ethnic and religious discrimination with the struggle against imperialism in order to thwart colonial attempts at misdirecting current disaffections. To call on the peoples of Iran to unite on the basis of collective self rule and regional self determination can create the umbrella organization that recognizes various social movements and unites them in a battle against imperialism (36).

    Progressive and in particular left wing forces, those who believe in socialism, have an undeniable responsibility in taking the first steps towards such a plan. Responding to this necessity depends on the capability of these groups to overcome mental paralysis, short sighted political views and false opinions, so that they are capable of picturing a new world order. These forces must believe in the power of the masses as well as their own ability to achieve political and social emancipation. They must accept that not only is it disastrous to ignore wider horizons, but overlooking scattered and smaller potentials and failing to unite such forces can also be catastrophic. They should not allow the role of the vanguard to be less than the followers, and the anti-imperialist struggle to degenerate into a mere formalistic or moral duty, good for historic documentation.
    The Iranian working class and the toiling masses have both the potential and capability of standing up to US aggression. They can stop their country becoming a protectorate of the US and its citizens slaves of American multinational corporations. However the ultimate defeat of Washington's plans for the Middle East requires the solidarity and coordinated resistance of the peoples of this region and an active international support movement. Such solidarity is necessary even to dissuade the US from following its "Imperial" project on Iran. Such a movement can only rise from within the radical progressive forces of the Middle East.

    We should not have any illusions about religious and ethnic movements. Such movements cannot stop the disaster engulfing the countries of the region one after the other, indeed they play an important role in the creation if this terrible situation. By dividing the peoples of the region to rival religious and ethnic groups (through creating a wall separating religious from non religious people, between secular forces and religious forces) and by encouraging conflict between them, these movements have in practice served the interests of imperialist powers (37). Today in the Middle East, the enforcers of the New Order project are confident that they can rely at all times on the support of one nationality or ethnic group against the other. They can seek the cooperation of one religious group to suppress another group. Most importantly they can rely on religious fatwa against all communists and non believers. Today the main function of major Shiite organizations in Iraq or Kurdish nationalist groups in this country has left no doubt the power of religious and ethnic groups in paving the way for imperialist domination and capitalist exploitation.

    The Middle East requires another movement. One that can challenge religious fundamentalism, ethnic narrow mindedness, tribal rivalry whilst fighting against Imperialism. One that can strengthen genuine solidarity between the deprived, suppressed Arab, Kurdish, Turkish, Fars, Turkmen, Baluchi people and unite their struggles against imperialist pillage and capitalist enslavement. We must create a common language for the Afghani, Iranian, Pakistani, Iraqi, Tajik, Palestinian worker and toiler. This new movement must create an opportunity for the Assyrian, Armenian and Jewish, Zaratostrian and Muslim, believers and non believers in the region to respect each other in order to open the doors to a new world, ending the era of wars, dictatorships, injustice, poverty and inequality.

    The first step is to build an alliance capable of uniting dispersed anti imperialist, anti capitalist struggles. A social forum capable of stopping the isolation of regional struggles and creating a widespread movement. A movement capable of engaging and involving the revolutionary potentials of women, the youth, students, workers and peasants throughout the region. Unity amongst such movements will create the framework for building national unions and creating multinational movements. The formation of nation-wide trade unions, women and student movements can not only become the backbone of a genuine revolutionary/secular social forum in the Middle East, but is itself a genuine qualitative political metamorphosis in the region. Worker activists, together with progressive women, students, accompanied by writers, artists, journalists and many other social groups whose very existence is being challenged under the present conditions can act now. Although the path ahead is exceedingly difficult, it certainly is not a dead end.

    The struggles of the Iranian people and the peoples of the Middle East against Imperialism and reactionary forces are a struggle that will directly influence the destiny of humanity on our planet. In this battle we will either witness the burial of the architects of the New World order of slavery, and their twin allies in the backward religious movements, or the world will succumb to violence and barbarism. There will be few places left in the world that can remain immune to events in the Middle East.

    However it is also true that one can find nowhere on earth where solidarity with the resistance of the peoples of the Middle East will not play a crucial role in the eventual outcome of these events. The anti capitalist movement, anti imperialist movements and especially the international antiwar movement play a vital role in awakening the people and neutralizing the deceptions created by corporate mass media. These struggles and campaigns can also play an important role in mobilizing the protest movement in the centers of world capital, creating despair and division amongst the US elite and their allies.

    However the experience of the last few years has shown that given the complicated political scene in the region, these campaigns can themselves face contradictions and adopt unworkable positions. Capitulation to the bipolar scene in the Middle East (choosing to side with imperialism or the regimes in the region) can paralyze the anti war movement. Within the framework of such an outlook, some tendencies go as far as not only supporting the regimes of the region in the name of anti imperialism, but also denying the existence of any movement that defines itself in opposition to both imperialism and local regimes. They are silent against tyrannical regimes such as Iran's Islamic Republic (arguing that one shouldn't find ideological justification for imperialist intervention). In fact such forces are helping to create the disastrous conditions where the protests against poverty, deprivation and dictatorship are suppressed and independent, progressive anti imperialist movements are paralyzed.

    Last February and March , in the middle of the 'nuclear debacle', at a time when Washington was trying to justify another military intervention in the Middle East, the Islamic regime in Iran embarked on a new wave of terror and repression of various social forces. Unprecedented violence was used to attack gatherings of protesting bus company employees in Tehran. Workers who were demanding pay rises and the right to set up their independent organizations. Thousands were arrested; women and children were held hostage and peaceful protest by women celebrating International women's day were attacked by thugs and club-wielding Islamic militia. Security-military forces opened fire on Kurdish and Arab protesters in Sardasht and Ahvaz and some young protesters were executed. "Voice of America' was quicker than any progressive group at condemning these events, the White House issued non-stop statements. However the silence of some in the anti war movement was not once broken.

    Whatever the excuse for this reluctance, it is difficult to understand how such actions can strengthen the international antiwar movement or how they can strengthen the anti imperialist movement of the Iranian people. Can one imagine any society where setting up workers organizations is a crime, where demanding a fair wage is an offence punished with imprisonment and where protesting against discrimination and deprivation is repressed, being capable of confronting imperialism and capitalist plunder? Can one find a better ground for the advance of US tanks than a country where the society is impoverished, repressed, facing religious, national and sexual repression, where society is sinking in a quagmire of addiction and prostitution? If a repressed population can only find Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney on their side, will they not waver over Washington's adventurous interference in their country?

    There is no doubt that worldwide protests against Bush' war mongering policies have the potential of becoming an influential power capable of changing the course of events in the Middle East. However the realization of such an aim demands that such protests take place not only against imperialism's war efforts but also in protest against the dictatorial, repressive policies of corrupt reactionary regimes in the region (38). Success depends on whether anti war anti imperialist movements themselves can become the support base for the creation of an independent, self emancipating movement. A movement capable of making the cradle of the first Empire of the third Millennium it’s grave. Comment

    About
    Ardeshir Mehrdad is co-Editor of Iran Bulletin - Middle East Forum
    ardeshir_mehrdad@yahoo.co.uk

    Footnotes
    1. A large number of articles have countered the propaganda war unleashed by US administration to justify their aggressive policy against Iran. Among them see: Antony Loewenstein, Spining us to war in Iran. March 08, 2006 http://www.zmag.org/; John Pilger, Iran: the next war, February 13, 2006, New statesman,  http://www.newstatesman.com/; Jorge Hirsch, war against Iran April 2006,  http://www.informationclearinghouse.into/ ; Edward S. Herman & David Peterson, The Iran Crisis as a Prelude to U.S. and / or Israeli aggression, Nov. 2005,  http://www.coldtype.net/ ; Michael T. Klane, Oil, Geopolitics, and the coming war with Iran ,  http://www.commondreams.org/
    2. Here the structural crisis of capitalism is understood as described by István Meszáros: a deep, permanent (unlike cyclical), and intensely destructive crisis where the normal tendencies for development are in turn ruinous. István Mészáros, The Uncontrollability and Destructiveness of Globalizing Capital,  http://www.isf.co.uk/
    3. There have been a number of studies on the ineffectiveness of the present global command system of capitalism, the US hegemony in the capitalist world being questioned or the impossibility of maintaining the superiority and privileges of American monopolies there. See for example: Immanuel Wallerstein, U.S. Weakness and the struggle for Hegemony, Monthly Review, July -- August 2003 ; Peter Goven, U.S. Hegemony Today, Monthly Review, July-August 2003 ; István Mészáros, Socialism or Barbarism , From the American Century to the Crossroads , Monthly Review Press, 2001.
    4. See America's National Security Strategy 2002 & 2006,  http://www.whitehous.gov/ first published in 2002 and reiterated in 2006. I have reviewed the Bush administration's approach to global developments and international relations in Rahe Kargar no 170 Summer-Autumn 2002 (Farsi)
    5. For an elaboration of "accumulation by dispossession" see David Harvey, The New Imperialism , Oxford University Press, 2003; A Conversation with David Harvey, Logos, Winter 2006
    6. See George Caffentzis, From Stealing to Robbing: A Post-Script to "No Blood for Oil! (3/27/2003)
    7. I have elaborated on the unilateralist policies dictated by the US government in the international arena, as well as its isolationalism, especially during the presidency of Bush junior in another article - Another World is Possible Rahe Kargar no 169 Winter 2001 (Farsi).
    8. The Project for New American century  http://www.newamericancentury.org/
    9. From the point of view of the "new order" the Middle East is defined by two characteristics. Firstly its extensive oil and gas deposits resources place the region and its countries within the bounds of "vital interests" of global capital. Secondly the cultural "backwardness" and its political equivalent, namely "irresponsible", "incompetent" or "rogue" States. For the strategists of the "new order" the ultimate solution for such a region is to remove the oil and gas deposits beyond the realm of national sovereignty, and place them under the "mandate" of world capital and its political command headquarters, which is currently situated in the Pentagon. The tasks for the project for restructuring the Middle East and the countries therein is dictated by neo-liberalism: the complete abolition of social welfare, the sale of public resources and state enterprises, deregulation of financial systems, freeing trade, de-regulating and coercive casualisation of the labor force, de-organizing workers and making it impossible for them to organize collective resistance and confrontation with the owners of capital.
    10. There is nothing new warmongering. The history of capitalism, just like previous class based social orders is full of large and small ruinous wars. Nevertheless war and military intervention assume a different place than before within the present objective necessities of imperialism in its current stage of development, namely the implementation of the project of violent and imperious globalization. It has been implemented by the neo-conservative crew in power and facilitated by the more favorable post September 11 conditions. George Bush's government, while extolling the virtues of the miracle of the "invisible hand" chooses war as the main route for fulfilling "national interests", even going so far as to consider using nuclear weapons. The assumption is that the unequivocal military superiority of the US renders any challenge to the hegemonic and leadership role of the US unfeasible. Richard Perle describes the place of war in Washington's foreign policy with rare openness: "(There will be) no stages"“ hesaid "we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war." See John Pilger, The colder war, Mirror, January 29, 2002.
    11. The Beirut-based Daily Star published a widely cited article where it was alleged that the invasion of the oil-rich Khuzestan province would be the first step. The web site Global Security reveals a strategy named "the Khuzestan plan" where US and British forces will try and repeat their success in Iraqi Kurdistan by supporting an ethnic uprising in Iranian Khuzestan and create a protectorate called "Ahwaz" or "Arabestan" with some form of de facto autonomy. See Zoltan Grossman, Khuzestan: The first front in the war on Iran? zmag.org, November 07, 2005
    12. Washington hopes that even if the invasion does not result in complete occupation of the country, by occupying the neighboring provinces its position within Iraq would improve. This will strengthen their hands in controlling the Iraqi Shiites and neutralize them as a winning card in Iranian hands.
    13. I owe this interpretation to Moshe Machover in a speech given to a seminar on Middle East organized by the Jewish Socialist Society in March 2006 in London.
    14. David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between George Bush and Tony Blair "Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning" These discussions took place three weeks before the invasion of Iraq and in them Tony Blair thought the second UN Security Council resolution on the country "was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as an insurance policy against the unexpected". See Don Van Natta Jr., Bush was set on path to war, British Memo says, New York Times, March 27, 2006
    15. In an interesting article Norman Solomon comments on a recent Wall Street Journal headline "U.S. Chooses Diplomacy on Iran's Nuclear Program" thus: "It's a time-honored scam: When you're moving toward aggressive military action, emphasize diplomacy". See Norman Solomon, The Iran Crisis: 'Diplomacy' as a Launch Pad for Missiles
    16. R. Nicolas Burns under Secretary for Political Affairs addressing the House Foreign Affairs Committee called Iran the "central banker of terrorism" and went on to say "Today, the Iranian leadership is actively working against all that the U.S. and our allies desire for the region -- peace in Lebanon, peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and an end to terrorism. In fact, no country stands more resolutely opposed to our hope for peace and freedom in the Middle East than Iran." See R Nicholas Burns, Opening Statement before the House International Relations Committee, March 8
    17. The relationship of the hub and spoke is the relationship of the main capitalist countries (spokes) with the hub (US) in the post second world war period. See Peter Govan footnote 3 ibid
    18. US senator John Maclean in a television interview in early March. See Antony Loewenstein, Spinning us to war in Iran. March 8, 2006  http://www.counterpunch.org/loewenstein03012006.html
    19. See Ghali Hassan, Selling War Against Iran. Propaganda campaign portrays Iran as a pariah state February 7, 2006.
    20. It may be useful to make two points. Firstly Bush is not alone in creating a crisis around the issue of nuclear weapons. Certain powerful circles in Iran, in particular among the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij (a paramilitary organization) are also interested in blowing up the crisis. To transform the nuclear project into a national question allows them to hide behind an incited "patriotic sentiments" of certain sectors of the population. Moreover an accentuation of the crisis speeds up the process of militarization of the state structure and extends the influence of military and quasi-military institutions. Second, although the quest for nuclear energy, even in countries as rich in oil and gas deposits as Iran, may not be mistaken on the long term perspective, long term economic interests of the country is clearly the last thing in the mind of a regime such as the Islamic Republic which is pursuing a nuclear program with such tenacity.
    21. Recent opinion polls show that the propaganda offensives of large news corporations have had some effect in changing public opinion in favor of another military intervention in the Middle East. See Americans would back military action in Iran dispute, Pollsays, Bloomberg, January 27, 2006. And also Ghali Hassan ibid footnotes 19.
    22. Each of these has its advocates among influential neo-conservatives. For example Richard Perle wants a political alliance of Iranian pro-US anti-Islamic regime groups. For him the aim of an attack on Iran is not occupation but creating conditions for a directed popular uprising to topple the regime. See The Richard Perle Interview by John Hawkins, Others who in the past strenuously fought for a "democratic revolution" such as Michael Ledeen appear to have had an about turn in the face of quasi-fascistic military-religious gangs and the populist policies of Ahmadinejad, and are looking at separatist movements and rebellions among the various ethnic groups as a solution to the question of Iran.
    23. The official allocation of 75 billion dollars to establish a media network to serve US propaganda machinery is an overt act in smoothing the political and psychological space inside Iran and to facilitate Washington's multilateral intervention. In his speech to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Nicolas Burns expounds at length on the priorities and uses of this allocation. See footnote 16 ibid.
    24. The Financial Times is explicit: The intelligence wing of the US marines has launched a probe into Iran's ethnic minorities at a time of heightened tensions along the border with Iraq and friction between capitals ... the Pentagon was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the Islamic government, and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone to a violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault lines that are splitting Iraq. US Study probes Iran’s ethnic mix, FT. com site, Feb 23, 2006.
    Seymour Hersh quoting a Bush adviser with close ties with the Pentagon in the New Yorker paints a similar scenario. See Seymour M. Hersh, the Iran Plans, the New Yorker, Issue of 17-04-2006.
    25. Over the last few months the two provinces of Khuzestan and Baluchestan have witnessed a number of bomb attacks on government buildings, oil pipelines, assassination, hostage taking, and such like. There are currently many unanswered questions relating to their nature and source, and it difficult to ignore some level of linkage with Washington's policies in Iran. Hersh's (ibid) quotes Patrick Clawson an Iran specialist and deputy director of research in the Washington Institute for Middle East policy that underground activities and sabotage are part of the US plans in Iran, and are indeed his own preferred option.
    It should also be noted that evidence for the footprints of the Iranian regime has also not been lacking. Throughout its life the regime has never flinched fro the use of terror and sabotage to create the right atmosphere for repression or for factional purges. See for example Hossein Bastani, Rereading a dossier of terror, August 9, 2005 (Farsi)  http://www.emruz.info/
    26. Ahmadinejad's letter to George W Bush is a superb glimpse into the real nature of his so-called anti-imperialist slogans. Putting aside the tone and condescending nature of the advice offered at the core of this "diplomatic initiative" was nothing but an official invitation to open the door for dialogue. One might ask what, other than expediency, has persuaded a president who for 28 years has been calling America the Great Satan and marching under the flag of "death to America" to bashfully invite Bush to talks and deals just at the moment when the ultra-conservative Bush regime is plugging Islamic lands with bombs and rockets and openly declares war on the Islamic Republic by putting it at the top of its list of "rogue states". You can see the real core of the way the Islamic Republic views the "Great Satan" when Ahmadinejad bases his invitation to talks not on shared interests of the two people, or even the two governments, but on shared religious beliefs. That is in order to soften the opponent and arrive at an agreement he places his bets on the conservative and fundamentalist core of the Christian-Zionist ideology of Bush and co. What, other than dimwittedness, can persuade some on the left to mistake this for progressive and anti-imperialist populism?
    27. A week-long military maneuver in April in the Persian Gulf where the regime paraded new weapons to present an image of a regional military power with high defensive and offensive potentials.
    28. Over the last few months the regime has tried to portray itself as capable of hitting US interests anywhere in the world. An official invitation to join the newly created "martyr brigade", videos by a high ranking security official in the Revolutionary Guards (with a pseudonym of Dr Abbasy) threatening the US with revenge terrorist attacks in case of attack on Iran, and other threats by official Revolutionary Guard commanders are examples.
    29. This view is strongly supported by members of the American Enterprise. Michael Ledeen was advocating a military attack on Iran to dry up the roots of Iraqi resistance on the eve of the occupation of the country. Michael A. Ledeen, The War on Terror Won't End in Baghdad, Wall Street Journal, September 4, 2002.
    30. Today the Republican ultra-conservatives have been joined by well known liberal voices in the Democratic Party such as Hillary Clinton in advocating a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
    31. Alongside pressures on Russia to prevent sale of military equipment to Iran, there have been open discussion as to the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the country. The debates have now shifted such that the question is not whether an attack on Iran will take place, but whether it will be with conventional or nuclear weapons. While the aim of airing such issues may possibly be to pressurize Russia, it is not inconceivable that there are those in the Pentagon or the White House who have entered the actual use of nuclear weapons into their calculations. See Seymour Hersh ibid, Saul Hudson, Bush Won't Exclude Iran Nuke Strike, Reuters, April 20, 2006. For an analysis of a nuclear attack on Iran see: Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear war against Iran,  http://www.globalresearch.ca/, January 3, 2006; Aijaz Ahmad, The Imperial nuclear order,  http://www.hinduonnet.com/, Vol: 23, Iss: 09, 19-05-2006
    32. Most of the criticisms of the war, particularly those coming from military or security sources, are directed against the weakness of the non-military leadership of the Pentagon. They are accused of a bunker-mentality giving impractical advice out of touch with reality from behind concrete walls.
    33. Interestingly even when many colleagues holding such views were physically purged in the wave of repression by the Islamic regime in the first years of its existence, they were rarely able to embark on a radical critique of the roots of their beliefs. The result was that a section went on bended knees to the opponent's camp and waxed lyrical over the virtues of capitalism and imperialism. Another section sunk into their shells for over 2 decades, becoming bystanders in the political arena, until today's favorable conditions has given them a chance to move again.
    34. Undoubtedly, acute crisis in foreign relations and the danger of military conflict and war increasingly favor the emergence and growth of religious-military gangs. With the militarization of the government apparatus a condition may well arise when the discredited velate faghih (absolute rule of the supreme religious leader) may give way to the absolute rule of military commanders who are presently hiding behind a cloud of populist slogans. This scenario - whether through force or compromise - is most likely if the regime, confronted with the current storm, were for whatever reason to weather the storm for some time. For this reason the control of the Majles-e Khebregan (Assembly of Experts), which elects the Supreme Leader (or Leadership Council) in the forthcoming elections will be critical. See Ardeshir Mehrdad & Mehdi Kia, New -- conservative, regime crisis and political perspective in Iran, Iran Bulletin Middle East Forum, series II, no. 3, December 2005.
    35. An example is the various Shiite sects in Iraq. One might well ask whether the role of Ayatollah Sistani or Mohammad Bagher Hakim in creating conditions for the occupation of Iraq was less than Saddam Hussein or Taha Yassin Ramadan. If one made it easier to occupy the country, the other gave a fatwa sanctioning Iraq's occupation by America and its allies. In the name of Islam, and for the sake of a morsel of power and a constitution that institutionalized religious and sexual tyranny, they sold of the people of Iraq and their interests to Halliburton, Chevron, Bechtel, and Texaco, if not to Christian-Zionist fundamentalism!
    36. I have expounded in another article the meaning of participatory democracy and self-government as a progressive and liberating alternative to religious and colonial despotism. I wrote "there are only two roads facing the new order: either become liquidated as an independent political unit or restructure the political power in the country in such a way as to enable it to confront this "new order". In the current perspectives facing the world it would be difficult to define an alternative. One can say with confidence that the democratic alternative to the Islamic Republic is that political order which is based on strengthening the people in the depths, and their real participation and self-government." And "the real alternative of the ruling power is that structure of power that is decentralized, organized from below, and based on the self-government and participation of all the sections of society in decision making in all the affairs that effect their life. The more direct this influence, the more direct that participation. This is a structure of power that in distributing political and material resources, ends all geographic, ethnic, religious, and sexual differences. Its basis structure are local and regional self-governing societies, and self-government of both production and distribution", See Ardeshir Mehrdad. Which alternative: Colonial rule or participatory popular sovereignty? Iran bulletin -- Middle East Forum Series II no Zero, Summer 2003  http://www.iran-buletin.org/
    37. In the current conditions of the world, it is difficult to imagine ethnic nationalism culminating in independent nation-states. On the contrary it is clear that they end up as new colonies, protectorates and city-states under tutelage. Today, rather than a force of national or social liberation, warlords and mercenary armies arise from ethnic nationalism.
    38. There is no shortage of voices among the anti-war movement that take an independent and progressive stand. See for example Campaign for Peace and Democracy initiated by Michael Albert, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Frances Fox Piven and many others. Campaign for Peace and Democracy,  http://www.igc.org/
     


    To find additional links to opinions, articles & commentaries on the "Alliance of Civilizations" or "Clash of Civilizations"

    1) Visit www.google.com  and conduct a search using the "SEARCH NEWS" button, after clicking on "NEWS"

    2) Create a Google "ALERT" for these and other topics, after clicking on "MORE"


    For more articles click here

    [ OCTOBER 2006 - Updates ]