War Files

LONDON: Ten days after victory was declared in the Afghan war, real life continues to make a mockery of such triumphalism in the cruelest way. As American B-52 bombers pound Taliban die-hards around Kandahar and Kunduz , tens of thousands of refugees are streaming towards the Pakistani border and chaotic insecurity across the country is hampering attempts to tackle a fast-deteriorating humanitarian crisis.

Aid agencies confirm that six weeks of US bombing - which even the British government concedes has killed hundreds of civilians - has sharply exacerbated what was already a dire situation and Oxfam warned that they were "operating on a precipice".

More than 100,000 people are now living in tents in the Kandahar area alone and the charity has been asked by Pakistan to gear up camps across the border to receive similar numbers in the next few days. After an aid convoy was hijacked by local warlords on the Kabul- Bamiyan road on Tuesday (Nov 20), Oxfam and other agencies argue that only a UN protection force can now prevent widespread starvation outside the main towns and distribution centres.

But, of course, the return of lawlessness and competing warlords was an inevitable and foreseen consequence of Anglo-American support for the long-discredited Northern Alliance, just as the humanitarian disaster has been the widely predicted outcome of the attack on Afghanistan. It was reportedly British advice that led to the decision to rely on the heroin-financed gangsters of the Northern Alliance to drive the Taliban out of Kabul and the north.

If so, it will be a struggle even for Tony Blair to chalk it up as another feather in the cap of his doctrine of international community. The effect of US and British intervention in Afghanistan has been to breathe new life into the members of a 20-year-old civil war and hand the country back to the same bandits who left 50,000 dead in Kabul when they last lorded it over the capital.

What has been hailed in the west as a liberation for women from the Taliban's grotesque oppression is being treated very differently by Afghan women's organizations. The widely praised Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, for example, described the return of the alliance as "dreadful and shocking" and said many refugees leaving Afghanistan have been even more terrified of their "raping and looting" than of US bombing.

British and American politicians have gone out of their way to praise the restraint of their new friends, now absurdly renamed the United Front, even when its soldiers have been filmed maiming and executing prisoners. But then by supporting the alliance so decisively, they are indirectly complicit in what are unquestionably war crimes.

That complicity moved a stage further on Monday, when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced he was determined to prevent thousands of Arab, Pakistani and Chechen fighters in Kunduz from escaping as part of any surrender agreement. He hoped, he said, they would be "killed or taken prisoner", but added that US forces were "not in a position" to take prisoners.

Since Northern Alliance commanders have repeatedly made clear that they will not take foreign volunteers prisoner, the implication of Rumsfeld's remarks was pretty unmistakable.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. The US government appears to be increasingly impatient with any kind of restraint on its use of naked force. In the past week or so, it has repeatedly bombed areas known to be free of Taliban or Al Qaeda forces - such as the town of Gardez, where at least seven civilians were killed in one raid; rocketed the offices of Al-Jazeera, the freest television station in the Middle East; threatened to sink any ship in the Arabian sea that resists being boarded; and ordered the setting up of domestic military tribunals, with powers to try secretly and execute suspected foreign terrorists.

If Osama bin Laden is captured and killed in the next few days, as the US and British military seem increasingly confident will happen, the Afghan campaign will be celebrated as a decisive breakthrough in the war against terror - and the US will move on, turning its attention to Iraq and elsewhere, after mopping up a few foreign jehad enthusiasts.

But in reality it is likely to be nothing of the sort. The war against the Taliban has so dominated the global response to the atrocities of September 11, it is hard to remember that the Kandahar clerics probably had nothing directly to do with them. And even if Osama and his Afghan-based acolytes knew of the attacks in advance, it is highly unlikely that they were involved in the detailed planning, not least because of the intense surveillance he was under and the logistical problems of communication from one of the world's most technologically backward countries.

The case against the Afghan war was never that the Taliban would turn out to be a latterday Vietcong, but primarily that it would lead to large-scale civilian suffering, fail to stamp out anti-western terrorism, create a political backlash throughout the Muslim world and actually increase the likelihood of further attacks.

In the absence of any serious effort to address the grievances underlying anti-US hatred, that argument has been strengthened. It was clear long ago, certainly since the demise of the Soviet Union, that no state could defeat the US in a conventional military confrontation and that only the war of the flea - guerrilla warfare or terrorism - could be effective. The Afghan debacle has hammered that lesson home. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

Hundreds Demonstrate in London Against US Hostilities in Afghanistan

In scenes reminding of the 1970's anti-Vietnam war protests in the west, an estimated 100,000 people marched through the streets of central London on Sunday to protest against the the new US War in Asia. Carrying anti-war banners, the demonstrators expressed their rejection to US hostilities against Afghanistan. The march snaked through London from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square, where anti-war campaigners such as Bianca Jagger and former Labour politician Tony Benn spoke to a cheering, whistling crowd. Benn said people should be putting pressure on British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Washington's main ally in the so-called fight against terrorism, to end the bombing, which was killing thousands of innocent people. A similar demonstration in October attracted 50,000 people according to organisers. An hour after the first protesters ended their march, members of trade unions, socialist and anti-war groups such as CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament) and pro-Palestinian organisations piled into Trafalgar Square. Protesters said despite the fact the U.S.-led coalition appeared to have the upper hand in the fight against the Taliban, there were growing numbers of people opposed to the war in central Asia. Muslims marching for the Just Peace organisation, said thousands of Muslims had come from all over the country at the start of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

11/18/2001
- 11/20/2001

5 Civilians Killed in US Bombings of Kandahar

US aircraft continued to pound Taliban positions around the besieged city of Kunduz, the Taliban's last holdout in northern Afghanistan, and the its last southern bastion of Kandahar. Five civilians were killed and several others in the heavy overnight US bombing of Kandahar. Taliban officials say more than 1,000 civilians have died in the US aerial bombardments on Kandahar and Kunduz in the past week. Kandahar has been under siege for days, with talks between Taliban commanders and local tribal leaders for a peaceful hand over of power showing scant signs of progress. However, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rejected any negotiations for the departure of Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, who is still believed to be inside Kandahar city. Rumsfeld added US commandos inside Afghanistan -- now numbering a few hundred -- have set up roadblocks to block the movement of supplies and trap fleeing Taliban and al-Qaeda troops, and are identifying targets for air bombardment. Central Intelligence Agency operatives also are in the country, and have been "doing a darn good job" in cooperation with the military forces, he said. Although US President George W. Bush said the "net is getting tighter" around Osama bin Laden but he added that his capture was proving difficult and could take a month, a year or longer. In further attempts to confuse the US army, Taliban's ambassador to Islamabad Abdul Salam Zaeef said bin Laden was in Kabul when it fell to the Northern Alliance, but that it had "since then we no longer know if he is in Afghanistan or has left the country". Zaeef confirmed that Mohammed Atef, one of bin Laden's deputies and military commander of his Al-Qaeda network, was killed "close to a Kandahar market". He also blasted as a "political plot" the moves by the United Nations to organize an inter-Afghan conference, probably in Europe, on the future of the war-torn country. Meanwhile, tension remained between the Northern Alliance now controlling most of Afghanistan and the Foreign troops increasingly deploying in the war-ravaged country. The Northern Alliance regional commander based in the western city of Herat, Ahmed Abdul Jimahedm has said no foreigners will be allowed in Afghanistan - either British, American, Pakistani or Arab. His resistance to accepting any foreign presence in the country suggests possible future problems for relations between Northern Alliance forces and the US-led coalition. Recently liberated Herat is a vital transit and goods route and home to one of the largest military airfields in Afghanistan

Journalists suspect US deliberately bombed Al-Jazeera

LONDON, Nov 20: When BBC World Service correspondent William Reeve dived under his desk in Kabul last week to avoid shrapnel from the US missile that had landed next door, some think it marked a turning point in war reporting.

The US had scored a direct hit on the offices of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera, leading to speculation that the channel had been targeted deliberately because of its contacts with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. If true, it opens up a worrying development for news organizations covering wars and conflicts: now they could be targeted simply for reporting a side of the story that one party wants suppressed.

Nik Gowing, a presenter on BBC World, was determined to get the issue raised at last week's News World conference in Barcelona. While news executives spent most of the four-day event beating themselves up over how they had covered the Sept 11 disaster and its aftermath, Gowing and a number of fellow journalists wanted to alert their bosses to what they felt was a disturbing shift in US policy.

Gowing's argument was that Al-Jazeera's only crime was that it was "bearing witness" to events that the US would rather it did not see. Indeed there is no clear evidence that Al-Jazeera directly supported the Taliban - simply that it enjoyed greater access than other stations.

Certainly, Al-Jazeera reflects a certain cultural tradition: but only in the same way that CNN approaches stories from a western perspective.

Gowing demanded that the Pentagon be called to account for the destruction of Al-Jazeera's Kabul office. Journalists now appeared to be "legitimate targets", he said. "It seems to me that a very clear message needs to go out that this must not be allowed to continue."

It has to be stressed that the Pentagon denies the charge. Indeed, few senior news executives were prepared to go on the record and give credence to the theory. But it is not the first time journalists have been deliberately targeted: Serb television was bombed during the Kosovo conflict because it was seen as an agent and advocate of state terrorism.

The situations are somewhat different (although not by much, some would argue). Al-Jazeera is not an agent of a state, and few (except perhaps the US military) would claim that it is an agent of Osama. But the fact that Al-Jazeera has reported in such depth the other side of this conflict is troubling to the authorities. "Al-Jazeera has been providing some material that has been very uncomfortable," Gowing said at News World.

He believes that the western military forces are prepared to target journalists if they get in the way. He said that representatives of the British special forces had told him: "When a war is not declared, journalists are legitimate targets where they are inconvenient."

IMPLICATIONS: Ron McCullagh, of the independent production company Insight News, was another of those exercised by the implications of the incident. Other news organizations, by treating Al-Jazeera in a semi-detached fashion, had not helped: at the start of the war the BBC had described it as a "pro-Taliban broadcaster", McCullagh said. "This was a very dangerous thing to do. It could be used as an excuse for bombing them."

Al-Jazeera certainly believes it was a target. Speaking on the telephone to News World from Qatar, its chief editor, Ibrahim Hilal, said he believed that its Kabul office had been on the Pentagon's list of targets since the beginning of the conflict, but that the US did not want to bomb it while the broadcaster was the only one based in the city. By last week, however, the BBC had reopened its Kabul office under Taliban supervision, with the correspondents William Reeve and Rageh Omar.

On Monday, Al-Jazeera executives in Qatar called their correspondent in Kabul and told him to leave, because they feared for his safety after the Northern Alliance took over. But after assurances from the Alliance that he would be safe, the reporter, Tasir Alouni, decided to stay. He did not tell Qatar of his decision - that night, his office was bombed. At the time, Reeve was being interviewed on BBC World from his bureau in the same street. Pictures of him diving under his desk to avoid fallout from the blast have been widely shown on BBC TV.

Hilal said he believed the attack was deliberate and long-planned. US officials have criticized Al-Jazeera's coverage of the bombing campaign as inflammatory propaganda. The station reaches more than 35 million Arabs, including 150,000 in the US. "I still believe the decision to exclude our office from the coverage was taken weeks before the bombing," Hilal said. "But I don't think they would do that while we were the only office in Kabul."

He claimed that US intelligence forces routinely monitored communications between Qatar and Kabul - a recent videotape of an Osama statement was played out by satellite to Qatar from Kabul, but not broadcast until seven days later. Yet, before it was shown, Washington knew of its existence and demanded the right to broadcast a response.

The US would have known, therefore, that Al-Jazeera had ordered its Kabul correspondent to leave, but would not have realised he was still in the city. If the correspondent had died, there would have been an outcry, and the disaster would have been compounded if Reeve had been seriously injured or killed.

Speaking to the conference from the US military's central command centre in Florida, spokesman Colonel Brian Hoey denied that Al-Jazeera was a target. "The US military does not and will not target media. We would not, as a policy, target news media organisations - it would not even begin to make sense."

He said that the bombing of Serb television in Belgrade during the Kosovo conflict was a different issue - the targets in question "appeared to have government facilities associated with them".

Col Hoey said the Pentagon did not have the location coordinates of the Al-Jazeera office in Kabul even though the broadcaster said it had passed them on, several times, via its partner CNN in Washington.

CONSPIRACY THEORY: The situation is still confused. Al-Jazeera has a conspiracy theory that it cannot prove, but of which it is genuinely convinced. Wars are organized chaos and, however much it likes to suggest that it is capable of precision bombing, it is clear that the US has got little idea of what has and has not been hit in this instance.

What can't be disputed is that Al-Jazeera was hit, and the bomb almost took out the BBC, too. Target or not, the avoidance of the death of an independent journalist by a US bomb appears to be ascribed to a combination of sticky tape on Reeve's window and a large measure of good fortune. -Dawn-Guardian News Service

120,000 children face famine

TERMEZ, Nov 20: The United Nations said on Tuesday it was in a "race against time" to get aid to 120,000 children in Afghanistan threatened with famine, illness and cold.

"We are very concerned about the winter coming," Philippe Heffinck, Central Asia area representative of the United Nations children's fund UNICEF, told a news conference in Termez on Uzbekistan's border with Afghanistan. "If we don't assist, 120,000 children will die. It's a race against time."

He estimated there were up to two million vulnerable people in and around Mazar-i-Sharif.

The World Food Programme says there are no fewer than three million needy, undernourished people in northern Afghanistan targeted by aid delivered from ex-Soviet Central Asia to the north.

Heffinck, who coordinates UNICEF aid via Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, said his agency was particularly concerned about shortages of food, basic drugs, warm clothes and drinking water.

"There is also the quite daunting task of restarting education for girls interrupted four years ago," he said.

The purist Taliban movement, which has lost most strategic strongholds to the Northern Alliance supported by US air strikes, closed schools for girls in the areas it controlled.-AFP

To our Muslim brothers in Pakistan.

I heard with much regret the news of the murder of some of our Muslim brothers in Karachi while they were expressing their rejection of the aggression by America's crusader forces and its allies on Muslim soil in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
We ask God to receive them as martyrs and to place them among prophets and the righteous and martyrs and the pious who are the best of company, and to grant their families solace and bless their children and property and reward them for being good Muslims.
The children that they left behind are my children and I will care for them, God willing.
No wonder the Muslim nation in Pakistan should rise in defense of Islam, for it is considered Islam's first line of defense in this region, as Afghanistan was the first line of defense for itself and for Pakistan against the Russian invasion more than 20 years ago.
We hope those brothers are the first martyrs in the battle of Islam in this age. The new Jewish crusader campaign is led by the biggest crusader Bush under the banner of the cross. This battle is considered one of the battles of Islam...
We incite our Muslim brothers in Pakistan to deter with all their capabilities the American crusaders from invading Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The Prophet, may peace be upon him, had said: He who did not fight or preparer a fighter or take responsibility for the family of the martyr fighter, God will punish him before judgment day - cited by Abu Daoud [a disciple of Mohammad].
I assure you, dear brothers, that we are firm on the road of jihad for the sake of God inspired by His Prophet, may peace be upon him, and with the heroic faithful Afghani people under the leadership of the emir of the faithful Mullah Mohammed Omar and to make him triumph over the infidel forces and the forces of tyranny and to destroy the new Jewish Crusade campaign on the soil of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
"If God helps you, none can overcome you. If He forsakes you, who is there after that, that can help you? In God, then, let believers put their trust." [Verse from the Koran]
Your brother in Islam Osama bin Mohammad bin Laden

US a terrorist state: Chomsky
By Ashraf Mumtaz

LAHORE, Nov 24: Renowned American scholar Dr Noam Chomsky said on Saturday that the United States did not seek authorization for launching air strikes on Afghanistan from the United Nations because the involvement of the world body could have limited its unilateral power to act.

Delivering a lecture and then answering questions from a packed hall at a hotel as well as an on-line audience in Karachi, he said Russia and China were happy because of their own interests.

Hundreds of people had come to listen to the scholar, many of them without invitation with the result that most of them had to sit on the floor. They gave a standing ovation to Prof Chomsky as he stepped into the hall.

Prof Chomsky said that except for standing on the side of the international coalition, Pakistan had few options in the situation - partly because of Islamabad's role in the past, especially its support for the CIA and then the Taliban.

He said the Muslim world as a whole was in serious trouble. Making an obvious reference to the Arab states, he said they were surviving on oil wealth which would not last long. Resources of these countries were being drained to the West and in case the situation remained unchanged, the future of next generations would not be good.

He did not agree with the suggestion that the American people had supported US attacks on Afghanistan, or that the results of the opinion polls in this regard were reflective of their thinking. In fact, he said, the response by the American people depended on the questions put to them. If they were asked whether action should be taken against the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, their response would be in the affirmative. But if they were asked whether innocent people should be targeted, their answer would be quite different. When a questioner tried to support the US action against a 'repressive' regime in Afghanistan, Prof Chomsky said it was not for America to take action against repressive regimes. He said the governments of India and Pakistan were "highly repressive" but this did not mean that they should be destroyed.

In his opinion the US system was most fundamentalist in the world, more fundamentalist than even that of Iran. He said a fundamentalist system could be possible even in a democracy.

Answering a question, the American dissident said that going by the definition of terrorism, the US itself was a terrorist state.

He did not agree with the suggestion that American people were supporting what their government was doing in Afghanistan. He said the media was not portraying the entire picture because of which people were not fully aware of the ground situation. He recalled a UN agency's request that US should withdraw the threat of bombing of Afghanistan as it was obstructing humanitarian assistance in that country and creating danger for starvation of millions of people there. But, he regretted, it was ignored by the media. The paper which carried the report made only a passing remark at the tail of some other story.

In reply to a question about the US establishment's assertion that after Afghanistan they would target more countries, Iraq being one of them, Prof Chomsky said the US had said at the outset that they would go after everyone, every defenceless.

He said the US would not touch countries where its own interests were hurt. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, he added, was one example.

He pointed out that statements by Osama bin Laden and President Bush and Prime Minister Blair were identical, although both sides interpreted them differently. While Osama said he would use force to drive aggressors out of Afghanistan, Bush and Blair meant that they would drive such people from the world.

Prof Chomsky said the US was pressing Afghanistan to "hand over" Osama and not "extradite" him as in the latter case the US would have required the Security Council's sanction.

He said it was strange that war against terrorism was being led by a country which was condemned by the world for terrorism. Referring to American plans for militarization of space, he said no other country was in race with the US and it alone was its competitor.

He was critical of the US support to Israel, saying when an Israeli helicopter killed somebody, it should be taken as an American helicopter because the Jewish state did not manufacture helicopters.

Prof Chomsky paid glowing tributes to Dr Eqbal Ahmad, saying he never wavered from his cause despite reversals and always supported good neighbourly relations between Pakistan and India. He also wanted an end to religious and secular fanaticism in the two states.

The race for nuclear arms between the two countries and cycle of repression was yet another matter of serious concern for Dr Eqbal, Prof Chomsky said.

The lecture was organized by The Friday Times and Eqbal Ahmad Foundation. This was the fourth lecture of the series and the next year's guest speaker will be Prof Edward Said.

Dr Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, Najam Sethi and Jugnu Mohsin also spoke.

Ministers, politicians, diplomats, etc., attended the lecture and the proceedings were also relayed to a hall in Karachi.

26 November, 2001, Latest News
All foreigners prisoners killed mercilessly

By BURT HERMAN,
MAZAR-E-SHARIF, Afghanistan (AP) - Hundreds of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s foreign legion were killedd after staging an uprising with smuggled arms in a northern alliance prison Sunday, officials said. U.S. airstrikes helped quash the daylong insurrection.

There was no immediate word of any American casualties in the battle.

The fighters, about 300 Chechens, Pakistanis and Arabs who surrendered Saturday from the besieged city of Kunduz, had smuggled weapons under their tunics into the Qalai Janghi fortress and tried to fight their way out, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Dan Stoneking said.

The alliance said most of the prisoners were killed.

The uprising began about 11 a.m., witnesses said. Alliance spokesman Zaher Wahadat said the prisoners seized other weapons from their guards and captured an ammunition depot, using its contents to fight the troops sent in to put down the revolt.

Yahsaw, a spokesman for northern alliance commander Mohammed Mohaqik, said the prisoners broke down the doors and tried to escape.

As outnumbered guards perched on the compound's walls fired wildly down at the prisoners, a U.S. special forces soldier could be seen in footage by a Germany television crew using a telephone to call in airstrikes and reinforcements.

``There's hundreds dead here at least,'' the man, who identified himself only as David, can be heard saying on Germany's ARD television network.

``I don't know how many Americans there were. I think one was killed, but I'm not sure,'' the U.S. soldier said in the footage. ``There were two of us at least, me and some other guy.''

The U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Afghanistan, declined comment on whether U.S. forces were in the fortress. Spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Dave Culler said he ``could not give any word at all'' on U.S. casualties.

Stoneking said he said he did not have any information that U.S. military forces were ``anywhere near'' the fortress. Earlier, he said ``it appears all U.S. personnel are accounted for'' and safe.

For several hours the firefight continued between the hundreds of prisoners and what ARD said were only 100 guards.

``There was general pandemonium,'' said Simon Brooks, head of Red Cross operations for northern Afghanistan, who was at the prison to check on the detainees' condition and escaped by climbing onto the roof with northern alliance commanders.

Gen. Rashid Dostum, who controls the compound but was overseeing the surrender at Kunduz when the uprising began, returned several hours later with tanks and machine guns. Stoneking said 500 troops accompanied him.

The airstrikes began about the same time, witnesses said. American warplanes streaked overhead, dropping bombs onto the southern part of the compound, where the prisoners were.

Some fighters limped away from the compound. Brooks said he met up with three seriously wounded fighters making their way toward Mazar-e-Sharif after the airstrikes began and sent them to a hospital. It wasn't clear whether they were escaped prisoners or alliance fighters.

By 6 p.m., Wahadat said, the compound was under control and most of the prisoners were dead.

``They were all killed and very few were arrested,'' Wahadat said.

But Sunday night, explosions could still be heard in the area and gunfire crackled on the streets of Mazar-e-Sharif, 10 miles to the east.

The prisoners had surrendered Saturday outside the nearby city of Kunduz under a deal aimed at ending a two-week siege by the northern alliance. The alliance said they took Kunduz late Sunday.

A senior alliance commander, Gen. Daoud Khan, said the foreign fighters bribed their way out of Kunduz and surrendered to Dostum's forces west of the city on Saturday morning.

Under the surrender deal, all Afghan Taliban in the city were to receive amnesty, and all foreign fighters were to be imprisoned and investigated for ties to bin Laden's al-Qaida network.

The fighters in Mazar-e-Sharif were taken to the compound for interviews on Saturday, and at least one staged a suicide surrender - giving up, then setting off a hand grenade, killing himself and two comrades and injuring an alliance officer.

Some northern alliance fighters had vowed to kill the foreigners rather than let them go on trial, and international human rights groups had urged the alliance to treat them humanely.

When the northern alliance captured Mazar-e-Sharif on Nov. 9, it said it had killed 1,000 Pakistanis and Arabs holed up in a school six miles to the west. The Red Cross later said hundreds of bodies were found in Mazar-e-Sharif but it would not say whether they had been killed in battle or summarily executed.

Pakistan's president Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who broke his country's close ties to the Taliban after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, repeatedly appealed to the U.S.-led coalition to prevent massacres of Pakistani fighters.

But the spokesman for Pakistan's military-led government, Gen. Rashid Quereshi, said Sunday night that it was too early to comment on the uprising.

``We are not even sure whether there were any Pakistanis there,'' he said. ``We don't have any presence in Afghanistan. We have to check the facts first before making any comments.''

Pakistan's state-run television network reported the uprising late Sunday but made no mention of any Pakistanis involved.

o
#BottomAdBanner#
o

#Designright#
o
#Copyright#

27 November 2001 Tuesday 11 Ramazan 1422

US, UK abusing power in 'war', says Chomsky
By Nasir Malick

ISLAMABAD, Nov 26: Prof Noam Chomsky on Monday accused the United States and Britain of being above the international law and using "unlawful force" in their so-called fight against terrorism.

Giving a lecture at a function organized jointly by Dawn Group of Newspapers and Eqbal Ahmad Foundation at Convention Centre in the federal capital, the visiting American scholar gave examples of Sudan, Somalia and Nicaragua where the United States had been involved in the killing of thousands of innocent civilians.

"Terrorism is a weapon of the weak, but mostly used by the strong", the professor told a glittering gathering of around 1,500 politicians, government ministers, intellectuals, scholars, academicians, serving and retired civil and military hierarchy.

The two-hour lecture was followed by a question-answer session during which the American scholar answered questions relating to several current issues.

At the dais, Mr Chomsky was flanked by the Editor of Dawn, Saleem Asmi, and chairperson of Eqbal Ahmad Foundation, Prof Pervez Hoodbhoy. Resident Editor Dawn, Islamabad, M. Ziauddin and Herald's correspondent Zafar Abbass acted as moderators.

The scholar said the US government's military action in Nicaragua was more "devastating" than the Sept 11 terrorist attacks.

This was a reference to 1982 events in Nicaragua when Contras, who were fully supported by the American government, started promoting anti-Sandinista activities and carrying out attacks in which 30,000 people were killed.

Prof Chomsky said Nicaragua was in no position to attack the United States so it followed a legal course by approaching the International Court of Justice, which held the US responsible for the events. Nicaragua then also took its case to the United Nations.

He said instead of taking its case against Osama or other terrorists to the international court of justice or other similar forums, the United States attacked Afghanistan.

"The US should have pursued the same path," Mr Chomsky said. "But the US does not want to establish that it is subordinate to anyone (in the world)." He said President Bush, on the recommendation of his speech writers, was speaking the language of violence by legitimizing the acts of violence in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world.

Agreeing with a questioner that the US superiority had been "partly eroded" by the Sept 11 attacks, the professor said both President Bush and Osama bin Laden were almost speaking the same language.

"While President Bush says they (allied forces) are going to drive out the evil from the land (world), Osama says they (Muslim militants) are going to drive out infidels from the Muslim land," he remarked.

Mr Chomsky regretted that humans were not only engaged in the large-scale destruction of other biological species, but also of their own specie and referred to Sept 11 and later events to prove his point. "This specie has surely developed the capacity to do just that and an extra bit with the cold and calculated savagery assaults on each other," he said. However, he asserted, that there was a need to find out the reasons for this tragedy.

Mr Chomsky said the scale of human catastrophe that had already taken place since Sept 11 and that might follow could only be guessed. But he warned that the projections on which policy decisions were being taken, and commentaries based, were enough to tell us that the world was being directed by its leaders towards a direction that no decent person would like to see.

"The crimes of Sept 11 are in the historic turning point, but not because of their scale, rather because of the choice of targets," he said, adding that it was for the first time since British bombed Washington in 1814 that the American territory had been attacked and threatened.

During the past two centuries, he recalled, the US had remained an invader and annihilated the indigenous population, conquered the Mexico and intervened validly in the surrounding regions, overpowered Philippines and killed hundreds and thousands of Filipinos in the chase.

He said during this period America extended its force throughout the world. "The number of victims of US savagery are huge right upto the present moment," the visiting US scholar said. "For the first time, almost in two centuries, the guns have been pointed in the opposite direction. And it is a historic change."

He said the same was true about the Europeans' past, though Europe had also suffered a murderous destruction during the internal civil wars. "However, the Europeans conquered most of the world, leaving a colossal trail of destruction," he said. "The list of crimes is long and horrendous - it is a change, a dramatic change. And iit is not surprising that Europe must be shocked by these murderous terrorist atrocities of Sept 11."

He said while the Sept 11 incidents would not change the world affairs, these had raised several questions that must be addressed very carefully, if the attacks were to be analysed.

The question to be asked is whether the specie of mankind was on the verge of destruction and whether their intelligence was being tested by the biological error?

"Some of these questions have to do with the immediate events, some with the most fundamental issues and some are combined," he said, adding that the most important questions were "what is terrorism and what is the war that has been declared against it. And what are the dangers to the continuation of the human survival in future."

Another important question, he said, was as to what extent it was easy to proceed against the people who were involved in terror and the war against terrorism. He said there were natural and irrational approaches within the existing institutions and ideological structures. The extent they do danger to all was the main question that must be addressed.

Discussing what the world had learnt from these events about the principles and values that guided the most powerful forces of the world, he said even before Sept 11, most of the Afghan population was relying on the international food aid for their survival. That number, he said, had now risen from 0.5 million to seven million as a direct result of the terrorist attacks in the US.

He said the international media had also reported huge casualties in Afghanistan and the UN itself had appealed to the US to stop bombing so that it could re-start its relief operations inside the war-ravaged country. But, ironically, these appeals were rebuffed by the US without any comment.

Mr Chomsky recalled that only 10 days before the bombing, the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization had warned the world that seven million people would face starvation in Afghanistan if the military action was initiated. He said this warning was repeated after the bombing began and the UN agencies demanded that the US must avoid this action as these would aggravate the human catastrophes.

Citing media reports, he said, the bombing had already destroyed the farm plantation of about 80 per cent of the country, which meant more famine and hunger in Afghanistan next year. He said several months had already been wasted with no food delivered to the Afghans.

"These are the estimates on which civilizations are relying as the coalition forces are making plans to further destroy the hunger-stricken country," he said. "The consequences of their crimes will never be known and they are quite confident about that. And that is the enormous outcome of the crime of the powerful and they don't like to see in the mirror any more than the others do. And they are free in this obligation as a world power they have to carry."

He also referred to the new American threats of extending its war against terrorism to other countries like Somalia and Sudan. "They (Western media) did not mention that in the case of Somalia the US was there not long ago and left hopeless people there by 10,000 US troops," he said. "In the case of Sudan, the US bombed it in 1998, destroying pharmaceutical supplies that a factory produced. The death toll during this attack was not known and nobody cared to investigate the crime. But there had been some investigations by the German embassy in Sudan and their estimates were that several thousand people were killed in that attack on the factory. But we do not know the official figures of casualties.

"So it is quite natural to pick these countries, target them in the war against terror that arouses no comments. And without looking at the world Press you must be confident that they will never discuss these issues in public."

Discussing the term "terrorism", he said it appeared that the term to "wipe out evil from the earth" used by President Bush's speech writers was borrowed from ancient epics about the incarnation of the gods.

"The goal of the civilized world has been clearly announced at many places that we must eradicate the evil, suppress the terrorism," he said.

"To place the enterprise in its right perspective it is useful to recognize that the power to eliminate the plague (of terrorism) is not new. It started from President (Ronald) Reagan and Secretary of State, George Shutlz. Their organizations came into office claiming that their struggle against world terrorism would be the core of their foreign policy and they reacted against this plague by reorganizing campaign against the international terrorism on an unprecedented scale."

Mr Chomsky said that the United States had rejected all moves made by the former Soviet Union to reduce nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Instead, he added, the United States had started manufacturing these weapons at a large-scale.

The US scholar said that the United States itself recognized nuclear weapons as the most important means for mass destruction.

Mr Chomsky said that the US claimed that its missile defence system was not offesnive. However, China, Russia and other world powers have strong reservations about it fearing that the US programme might start another race for achieving nuclear warfare stretching to the boundaries of space by using satellite navigational system.

He also recalled that the United States had opposed a UN resolution, that had defined terrorism, because it excluded freedom-fighters from terrorism. He said since Nelson Mandela was then a "terrorist" in the eyes of the United States, it opposed that resolution and vetoed it.

The visiting American scholar was given a standing ovation by the audience when he finished his lecture.

Later, Editor of Dawn, Saleem Asmi, presented "special issues" of Daily Dawn, which had been brought out in the recent past on special subjects and topics.

"At Dawn, we try to do things in our own humble way to project views of different segments of the society," Mr Asmi said. "We often bring out publications on special topics. I have the honour to present these reports to you. You may not have time even to go through them but just having them received by you would be an honour for our organization."

Mly setup cannot replace elected govt:
Chomsky -DAWN - Top Stories; 27 November, 2001

ISLAMABAD, Nov 26: A military setup can not replace a democratically-elected
government, though it can restore a genuine democracy, Noam Chomsky, a visiting
US scholar, said on Monday.

Speaking at a question-answer session, the scholar, who was asked whether a
military government can restore a genuine democracy, said: "It can happen".
"These are matters of choice, struggle and pressures -- you can't predict," he
said while trying to be on the safe side.

Earlier, during his lecture, Prof Chmosky had said if the country did not go
democratic, dictatorship would eventually get international recognition.

He said the US had supported military regimes for its interests, and in this
regard cited the case of Indonesia. Asked whether the humanity was moving
towards the war of civilizations and how media was paving way towards US
hegemony, the scholar said the Western media was part of the corporate culture
and its role was to ensure that general population was kept informed "but it
does not raise any questions".

He said there was no clash of religions as in the past, the United States had
been training and arming Muslim forces from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia to fight
the Russians in Afghanistan.

"Most extreme Islamic forces (groups) were collected (from all over the world by
the United States)," he recalled. Besides, he said, even Saddam Hussain had been
strengthened by the United States when it supplied arms and weapons to Iraq to
fight against Iran.

Mr Chomsky said the Iraqi president was one of the blue-eyed military dictators
of the United States as Washington had even given him a right to attack a US
ship and then get away with it. The only other country which got away with such
an offence was Israel, he added.

He disagreed that it was a clash of civilizations and asked the questioner:
"Where is the clash of civilizations? Only one side (America) is the sole world
superpower". The scholar said religion had only a marginal effect in this clash.

Regarding nation-state, he said, it had a utility for a limited period, but "it
better disappear now". He mentioned that even Europe was now turning into a
confederation.

In reply to another question, the scholar said the United States and Britain
needed to pay reparations to Afghanistan. "We don't have to wait for the defeat
to pay reparations," he added.

Asked whether Pakistan and India could become good neighbours, he said the two
countries would have to overcome their ideological problems.

He said the two nations had been accusing each other of all the sins under the
sun. "You have to see whether grievances on both sides are legitimate?" he said,
adding that the two states could live like good neighbours provided they
resolved their differences on a long-term basis.

The US scholar, answering another question, said "I partially agree" that the
September 11 incidents were a beginning of an end of the US empire.-NM

[Top of Page] [Back to Front Page]

Amnesty again calls for inquiry

LONDON, Dec 16: The Amnesty International has renewed its call for an inquiry into the massacre at Qila-i-Jangi after unprecedented video footage showed British SAS troops fighting alongside anti-Taliban forces at the time.

The Amnesty described the video - taken by an Afghan cameraman - as alarming and said it strengthened the case for an urgent inquiry into what happened at the fort.

"By blocking an inquiry the U.K. government and others are adding to a suspicion that something seriously untoward took place," a spokesman said. "A proper investigation could clear the air and potentially offer useful lessons on the question of how best to hold and transport prisoners in Afghanistan and also how best to safeguard the lives of both prisoners and prison guard," he added.

Exactly why and how the prisoners' rebellion at the fortress started and was put down has never been explained by the US or Britain.

US special forces are shown in the video using a satellite phone which they used to direct helicopters and aircraft on to targets.

The MoD insists that British forces in the vicinity of the fort near Mazar operated according to international law and followed their own rules of engagement. Mr Hoon has said Britain had told Alliance commanders that it expected them to respect the rights of prisoners according to "applicable international standards".

Shortly after the events at the fort, he told MPs: "After Taliban fighters held at Qala-i-Jangi fort overpowered their armoury, British troops went to the aid of their US colleagues and attempted to recover, under heavy fire, two US personnel apparently captured by the Taliban fighters". But he has declined to answer questions tabled by the Labour MP, Paul Marsden, about which British forces participated in the military action at the fort, and about their activities in Afghanistan. -Dawn-Guardian News Service

Hunt for Osama hits another dead end

ISLAMABAD, Dec 16: The caves of Tora Bora have turned into another dead end in the desperate hunt for Osama bin Laden. Branded as evil by Western leaders, the head of Al-Qaeda has proved devilishly elusive.

Up to Sunday US defence officials had said they believed the Saudi, who has a 25 million dollar price on his head, could still be around Tora Bora mountain, in eastern Afghanistan.

Now it is back to the drawing board. Afghan commander Haji Mohammad Zaman, the military chief in Nangarhar province which includes Tora Bora, admitted that "he (Osama) is not there" as he proclaimed victory over Al-Qaeda in the cave war.

Even before the apparently final battles on the mountain, those who have had contact with Osama in recent weeks said they were certain he has left the warren of caves and tunnels.

"My information is that he is not in Tora Bora. But I don't know whether he is in Pakistan or in the southern part of Afghanistan," said Hamid Mir, editor of Ausaf and the last known journalist to interview Osama.

Mir's newspaper reported at the weekend that Osama had slipped through the tight siege of US and Afghan forces around Tora Bora, close to the Pakistan border.

It said Osama could have taken refuge with a tribe in Paktia province, just south of Tora Bora.

On Friday the Afghan Islamic Press, which has strong contacts with the Taliban, said that Osama bin Laden was no longer in Tora Bora.

The agency said Osama left the cave hideout on Nov 25 or 26 for an unknown base.

US military officials said Osama's escape routes were being closed down. Special forces troops searching the caves had monitored Osama's voice giving orders via shortwave radio, according to US newspaper reports which were not confirmed by the Defence Department. But top US officials from Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, General Tommy Franks, have admitted: nobody really knows where Osama is.

"We think he is there (around Tora Bora). We don't know if he is there and when we find him we will announce it," Rumsfeld said at a press conference in Washington before leaving on a Central Asia tour. But what is certain is that Osama has become even more wanted since the release of a video by the US authorities last week.

US President George W. Bush said the video was proof that Osama is "an incredibly evil man". He added: "I don't know whether we're going to get him tomorrow or a month from now or a year from now. He may hide for a while, but we'll get him."

Western observers in Pakistan and Afghanistan say the chances of finding Osama alive are slim. "If he can get away from those caves, there are enough Osama supporters in Afghanistan and other countries for him to always find a refuge somewhere," said one diplomat in Islamabad.

And Osama has also told associates he would prefer death to capture. He has on numerous occasions been quoted as saying: "My cause will continue after my death."

Videotape: A dissident Saudi religious leader on Sunday described a video tape of Osama bin Laden and released by the United States as a fake and said Washington had no case against him.

Sheikh Hamoud bin Ogla al-Shuaibi, who has angered Saudi officials with edicts denouncing Muslims who back US military strikes on Afghanistan, said his followers had analysed the tape released by the Pentagon on Thursday and found it to be fake.

"This is a dubbed tape and is not real at all," Shuaibi said. "If they had evidence against bin Laden, they wouldn't have come up with this miserable proof which, if anything, shows how silly they are," he added.

Ordinary Arabs have accused the United States of falsifying the tape. But a few Arab officials and analysts who commented on the video have accepted it as damning evidence of Osama's responsibility for the attacks on Washington and New York.

The Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, said the tape "displays the cruel and inhumane face of a murderous criminal who has no respect for the sanctity of human life".

In the amateur video tape, Osama was shown saying that he was the most optimistic of his colleagues about the damage that would be done to the World Trade Center.

Another man seen with Osama in the tape was identified by the United States as Sheikh Sulaiman of Saudi origin. US officials have said they had no information about him.

But the Saudi-owned Asharq al-Awsat newspaper on Sunday identified the man as Khaled Odeh Mohammed al-Harbi. It quoted reliable sources as saying Harbi was an Afghan war veteran who had also fought and been injured in Bosnia.-Reuters/AFP

19122001 Latest Lead Story

Osama could seek refuge in Pakistan: US envoy

New Delhi,(AFP): Accused September 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden could seek refuge in Pakistan as the US steps up its hunt for him in Afghanistan, US special envoy James Dobbins said Tuesday.

"We certainly regard it as likely that bin Laden and certainly other Al-Qaeda elements will try to cross the border into Pakistan as they are pursued," Dobbins told India's Star News channel.

Dobbins, who arrived in the Indian capital late Tuesday for talks with Indian leaders on the situation in the war-torn country and the progress of Washington's war on terrorism, said Pakistan had moved troops to its border with Afghanistan to prevent bin Laden from entering the country.

"Pakistan had moved military units towards the border, garrisoned it more heavily, closed the passes which are likely to be used (by bin Laden and his men)," Dobbins said.

He said Pakistan's Foreign Secretary Inamul Haq had assured him that "these individuals would not escape", Dobbins said.

Washington conceded Sunday that bin Laden's whereabouts remained a mystery, but expressed certainty the terror suspect would be caught now that his al-Qaeda network appeared close to defeat in Afghanistan.

US administration officials also said the battle against the al-Qaeda network would be taken beyond the borders of Afghanistan, saying it could be fought on military or financial fronts.

Bin Laden is accused of masterminding the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington in which more than 3,000 people have been reported dead or missing.

India was one of the first countries to extend support to the US-led coalition in its war against terrorism.

Full Text of Mullaah Umer's Interview With Allah's Name, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.

Asalaamu'alaikum, Umar, the third's interview with BBC on current situation in Afghanistan. Second Umar was Umar Bin Abdul Aziz (May Allah be pleased with him)

Q: What do you think of the current situation in Afghanistan?
A: You (the BBC) and American puppet radios have created concern. But the current situation in Afghanistan is related to a bigger cause - that is the destruction of America. And on the other hand, the screening of Taleban [for those who are or are not loyal] is also in process. We will see these things happen within a short while.

Q: What do you mean by the destruction of America? Do you have a concrete plan to implement this?
A: The plan is going ahead and, God willing, it is being implemented.

Q: But it is a huge task, which is beyond the will and comprehension of human beings.
A: If God's help is with us, this will happen within a short period of time; keep in mind this prediction.

Q: Osama Bin Laden has reportedly threatened that he would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against America. Is your threat related to his?
A: This is not a matter of weapons. We are hopeful for God's help. The real matter is the extinction of America. And, God willing, it [America] will fall to the ground.

Q: During the past few days, you have lost control of several provinces. Are you hopeful to regain the lost territory?
A: We are hopeful that you will see the same kind of change that you saw [losing and regaining territory].

Q: What was the reason for the fast retreat? Why have your troops fled the cities? Is it because you suffered heavily from the US bombings or have your soldiers betrayed you?
A: I told you that it is related to the larger task. The Taleban may have made some mistakes. Screening the Taleban [for loyalty] is a big task. And these problems may serve to cleanse [errant Taleban] of their sins. But there is a big change underway on the other side as well.

Q: Can you tell us which provinces are under your control at the moment?
A: We have four-five provinces. But it is not important how many provinces we have under our control. Once we did not have a single province, and then the time came when we had all the provinces, which we have lost in a week. So the numbers of the provinces are not important.

Q: As your participation in the future government has already been ruled out - if some of your forces decide to join the future government as representatives of the Taleban in general or to moderate Taleban, will you oppose it?
A: There is no such thing in the Taleban. All Taleban are moderate. There are two things: extremism ["ifraat", or doing something to excess] and conservatism ["tafreet", or doing something insufficiently]. So in that sense, we are all moderates - taking the middle path. The struggle for a broad-based government has been going on for the last 20 years, but nothing came of it. We will not accept a government of wrong-doers. We prefer death than to be a part of an evil government. I tell you, keep this in mind. This is my prediction. You believe it or not - it's up to you. But we will have to wait and see.
o
#BottomAdBanner#

US Consolidates "Terror" Alliance With Israel
Palestine Report <http://www.google.com/search?q=Palestine Report>
By Charmaine Seitz
Posted Thursday December 13, 2001 - 08:29:23 AM EST

Jerusalem - ALL DIPLOMATIC avenues have been closed to Palestinians as pressure is applied for the Palestinian Authority to do more. Still, Israel continues air strikes on Palestinian Authority offices and assassinations of Palestinians it accuses of attacking Israelis.
All week, Palestinian and Israeli security officials have met in the presence of Central Intelligence Agency officials and United States envoy Anthony Zinni. Palestinian officials take to these meetings demands that Israel end the closure on Palestinian areas, stop its military aggression and move to negotiations.
In one publicized meeting the night of December 10, as officials tried to work on a 48- hour plan towards calm, West Bank preventive security chief Jibril Rjoub questioned the Israelis as to why they had attempted to assassinate Islamic Jihad activist Muhammed Ayoub Sidr, 26, in Hebron that day. The man isn't even on the list of people you want us to arrest, said Rajoub.
Instead, the Israeli missile attack on the car in which Sidr was riding killed Burhan Al Haymoni, 3, and Shadi Arafeh, 12, and injured 10 other Palestinians. Burhan's father lost his left leg and suffered a punctured lung in the attack. Further, the hospital was barely able to treat the injured.
"If this military blockade continues," said Hebron's director of emergency care, "it will be hard to get the supplies and equipment we need. The hospital is unable to handle more than three critical cases, since we only have three respirators." To add insult to injury, Hebron residents under Israeli control remained under curfew through the religious holiday, Lailat Al Qadr or Night of Destiny, which Muslims commemorate as the day the Quran was first revealed.
Still, Palestinian and Israeli officials continue to meet. Zinni has urged Israel to "act responsibly," and Israel has said it will comply, while reserving the right to "immediate reprisals" and the ability to act against terrorists moving into Israel, reports the Israeli paper Ha'aretz. One of the major sticking points with Israel are the mortars that continue to fly into the Gaza Strip settlements from Palestinian areas, which have so far caused minimal damage. In addition, it wants the Palestinian Authority not only to arrest militants, but to interrogate them and put them on trial.
The European Union added a voice of agreement to this chorus when it demanded that the Palestinian Authority "dismantle terrorist networks." The statement delivered to Arafat in Arabic by EU representative Javier Solana also demanded that Israel withdraw its troops from the occupied territories. Still, Palestinians were stung by the emphasis on its own duties, which they took as a shift in EU policy.
Arafat, too, seems to have had enough of the growing world coalition against him. "Who cares about the Americans?" he told an Israeli interviewer on December 8. "The Americans support you and gave you everything. Who gave you the planes? Who gave you the tanks? Who gave you the money?" Zinni himself had delivered a list of some 30 names of Palestinians that Israel wanted arrested by the Palestinian Authority. Arafat told the press in an uncharacteristic series of interviews that he had arrested 17 from the group. Rjoub says that, in the Authority's eyes, arrests are not to be made on the basis of Israeli demands, but on the need to have only one legitimate authority operating in the Palestinian areas.
"I know that this matter is very painful and sensitive," Rjoub told Voice of Palestine radio. "Personally I feel bitter about the issue of arrests. I am aware of how our people have suffered. However, they [Islamists] should realize that they have now engaged the entire Palestinian people in a cycle of pain." The Palestinian Authority, eager to show that it is doing something to fulfill international demands, issued a statement on December 9 that it had reached an agreement with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fateh to end all confrontations with Israel for seven days, if Israel reciprocated.
The next day, the military wing of Fateh denied the report.
"There is a Palestinian nonnegotiable agreement that the Intifada will continue alongside all other Palestinian actions," Fateh leader in Balata Refugee Camp Jamal Tirawi told Al Jazeera Satellite. "We understand the current political phase and will give the Palestinian leadership some room to move, but only on the grounds of strengthening national unity." Tirawi said that the Palestinian Authority agreement had been crafted with the political leaders of the three movements, not their military arms.
In the meantime, Israel has continued to shell Palestinian security installations and civilian areas. In Khan Younis the morning of December 12, three men were killed and another two Palestinians rendered brain dead after an Israeli missile attack at a national security post in the Gaza Strip town. Israel said the attack was in response to mortar fire at a nearby Israeli settlement. According to press reports, the missile strike occurred as worshippers were leaving the mosques from the early-morning prayer on Lailat Al Qadr. Twenty Palestinians were injured.
The day before, Israeli troops in the Tulkarem area in the northern West Bank shot and killed two Palestinians in a car that Israel said was trying to break through an Israeli checkpoint. Early on the morning of December 9, Israeli helicopters and tanks invaded the Tulkarem-area village of Anabta, killing four members of the Palestinian police with gunfire as they tried to escape in a vehicle, said the villagers. Another Palestinian man was also killed in the raid and tens were arrested.
The recent Israeli invasions and strikes came after a series of air and ground strikes by the Israeli army focusing on Palestinian Authority installations and security offices.
Islamic Jihad claimed a suicide bombing in Haifa injuring 8 Israelis on the morning of December 10.
Speaking at the three month commemoration of the September 11 attacks held at the Israeli prime minister's office, the American ambassador to Israel said that the United States and Israel would cooperate strongly in the "war against terror," a notable change from the first weeks of the United States response. "We will fight against terror on all fronts, and win," he told the gathering.
Palestine Report - "Palestine's Only Independent News Digest" published weekly by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center (JMCC). Full version available by subscription only. To subscribe please visit our website at "http://www.jmcc.org/media/reportonline".
© 2001 Palestine Report. This news item is distributed via Middle East News Online (MiddleEastWire.com). For information about the content or for permission to redistribute, publish or use for broadcast, contact our syndication <http://www.middleeastwire.com/about/syndication.shtml> department.

Two Jewish Rebels Charged In Los Angeles
Oman Daily Observer (Muscat) <http://www.omanobserver.com/>

Posted Friday December 14, 2001 - 10:26:11 AM EST
Los Angeles - US authorities have charged two leaders of a Jewish militant group with plotting to bomb a series of high-profile Islamic or Arab-American targets in Los Angeles.
The plot was thwarted when the chairman of the Jewish Defence League (JDL) Irv Rubin, 56, and another JDL leader Earl Krugel were arrested late on Tuesday in a raid by anti- terrorism officers after an informant alerted investigators. The two were allegedly planning to blow up The King Fahd mosque in the Culver City area, the offices of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles and the offices of Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa, he said.
"The bombing plot developed to the point that explosive powder was delivered to Krugel's house last night," US attorney John Gordon told a press conference.
"At the time the powder was delivered Krugel had in his house the remaining components needed to make the bomb," Gordon said.
Bomb making equipment, including lengths of pipe and explosive powder, and a number of guns were confiscated from 59-year-old Krugel's home in the federal anti-terror swoop.
Rubin and Krugel were each charged with one count of conspiring to destroy a building with explosives and another of possessing a destructive device in relation to a crime of violence.
They were being detained in Los Angeles and were due to appear in court later on Wednesday.
The men had wanted to send a "wake-up call" to Arabs and to show that the JDL was "alive in a militant way," FBI Assistant Director Ronald Iden said, adding that the plot was a "planned violent act of hatred." The militant JDL was founded in 1968 in New York by controversial rabbi Meir Kahane as an armed response to anti-semitism and has lobbied for the punishment of Nazi war criminals and for the release of Jews from the former Soviet Union.
Its members, who have pledged to use "all necessary means" to defend Jewish interests, who have been linked to a number of US bombings, some of them aimed at Soviet targets.
The anti-terrorist swoop was triggered when a police informant involved in the alleged bomb plot, on Tuesday delivered a final consignment of explosives to the men who had marked their targets, Iden said.
"Last night, Rubin and Krugel told the (informant) that the first bombing targets would be the King Fahd mosque ... and an office of Congressman Darell Issa," he told the press conference.
"Recovered during the search of Krugel's residence were all of the required bomb components," he said, adding that plans to blow up the Muslim Public Affairs Council first had been changed at the last minute.
A Republican representative for Southern California Issa, 47, is a grandson of Lebanese immigrants. In October, the Congressman travelled to Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon for talks on terrorism and the Middle East peace process.
^

Mr Rumsfeld's message carried a stark warning

United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has warned that European cities could be targets of terrorist attacks similar to those which struck America on 11 September.
Speaking at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels, Mr Rumsfeld said Europe should be braced for assaults by terrorists using everything from computer hacking to cruise missiles.
We need to face the reality that the attacks of September 11, horrific as they were, may in fact be a dim preview of what is to come
Donald Rumsfeld
He called on his European counterparts to spend more on developing Europe's defence capabilities and to pool their resources and expertise to counter the terrorist threat.
Nato Secretary General George Robertson, meanwhile, said the alliance planned to adjust its forces to allow for missions far beyond its own territory, Europe and North America.
Rumsfeld speech highlights
Called for number of troops serving in Bosnia to be cut by a third to 12,000
Welcomed closer co-operation with Russia, but stressed Nato independence must be retained
Defended US plans to develop a missile defence system
The 11 September attacks could be the tip of the iceberg
The is was the first attended by Mr Rumsfeld since the attacks on New York and Washington. Although it was held behind closed doors, the text of his comments was released to the media.
"We need to face the reality that the attacks of 11 September, horrific as they were, may in fact be a dim preview of what is to come if we do not prepare today to defend our people from adversaries with weapons of increasing power and range," he said.
Widespread threat
"As we look at the devastation they unleashed in the US, contemplate the destruction they could wreak in New York, or London, or Paris, or Berlin with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons."
Mr Rumsfeld stressed that Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, held responsible for the attacks in America, was not the only terrorist group and that Afghanistan was not the only country that harboured terrorists.
We cannot know for certain who will threaten us, or when and where they may strike
Donald Rumsfeld
"It should be of particular concern to all of us that the list of countries which today support global terrorism overlaps significantly with the list of countries that have weaponised chemical and biological agents, and which are seeking nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," he said.
Missile defence
Defending US plans to develop a missile defence system, Mr Rumsfeld said that while the 11 September was fresh in everyone's minds Nato should spend more on military forces and develop defences against "asymmetric threats" from terrorists.
"We cannot know for certain who will threaten us, or when and where they may strike," he said.
Al-Qaeda are not the only threat
Mr Rumsfeld welcomed Nato co-operation with Russia, especially on the war against terror, but stressed that Russia should not be given an automatic say in Nato affairs.
"Our goal should be to find concrete ways for Nato to work together with Russia where our interests coincide while preserving Nato's ability to work independently," he said.
In his speech Mr Rumsfeld also said the time had come to slash the Nato peacekeeping force in Bosnia by at least 6,000 troops.
He suggested instead that an EU-led international police force could ensure security in the Balkan country, where an 18,000 strong Nato force has kept peace for six years.
Military assets
"I believe that the time has come to fashion a new, restructured and smaller force in Bosnia - and to see that stability is preserved by assuring that a replacement capability is ready to take its place," Mr Rumsfeld said.
Mr Rumsfeld wants to cut 6,000 Bosnia peacekeepers
"We should commit to do so no later than 2002," he added.
A senior US defence official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the call for restructuring was not directly related to the US war on terrorism.
But in his speech Mr Rumsfeld did argue that civil security is not an effective use of Nato's military assets at a time of growing demands from the war on terrorism.

Fear, economic gloom dampen Christmas cheer

BETHLEHEM, Dec 24: Deserted streets in the birthplace of Jesus as a new crisis rocks the Middle East, world governments on edge for fear of a repeat of Sept 11, and a deadly cold snap sweeping Europe : the world is facing a bleak Christmas this year.

Despite twinkling lights and tinsel, New York's Christmas celebrations were dimmed by memories of the Sept 11 attacks and in Argentina, economic collapse under a mountain of debt has also put paid to festive cheer.

In Afghanistan, Christmas was making a modest comeback after five years of Taliban rule as the new government set to the task of rebuilding the war-ravaged nation.

Once a magnet for tourists and pilgrims as the cradle of Christianity, Bethlehem was preparing for another joyless holiday after 15 months of bloodletting between Israelis and Palestinians that has cost more than 1,100 lives.

"It's sad and grim, it's not normal," lamented Bethlehem mayor Hanna Nasser, with memories of a deadly 10-day Israeli invasion still fresh in the minds of Palestinian residents.

Photographs of martyrs adorned shop windows full of unsold souvenirs in a town that only two years ago was given a full facelift for Pope John Paul II's jubilee visit.

Israel is banning Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from making his traditional visit to Bethlehem for midnight mass, saying he must first arrest suspected killers of a far-right Israeli cabinet minister.

But a defiant Arafat, marooned in the West Bank town of Ramallah since earlier this month, said he would make the mass even if he had to walk.

Around the world, jittery governments remained on high alert for Christmas terror attacks after an apparent suicide bomber was arrested on a US airliner.

The man was caught on Saturday on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami as he was apparently trying to set alight explosives in his shoes.

"The message is that terrorists are going to hit us again," said Republican senator Richard Shelby.

New Yorkers were still coming to grips with the September tragedy and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in one of the world's most expensive cities.

"People don't forget, not for one second, that this is going to be a very sad Christmas for many families," said one.

The people of Argentina were preparing for Christmas facing economic meltdown that sparked a deadly uprising and new president Adolfo Rodriguez Saa's decision to suspend payment on its towering 132-billion-dollar debt.

"They are saying we are on the edge of the cliff," said Alicia Caeiro, owner of a small Buenos Aires corner store.

And President Vladimir Putin faced bitter complaints from ordinary Russians about poor pay and tough living conditions despite declaring 2001 a successful year.

"One can boldly say that the past year, 2001, was successful for Russia," Putin said in a marathon live phone-in radio and television interview, pointing to robust economic growth of 5.5 percent.

But he had to field questions from angry Russians about their meagre salaries and pensions and problems stretching from corruption to drug abuse.

In South Africa, one AIDS association declared Tuesday a "Black Christmas" to remember the 4.7 million people living with HIV or AIDS in the country.

Festive spirit was in thin supply on European share markets as prices idled during a half-day session steeped in caution over Argentina's debt default and renewed terrorism fears.

Analysts said few investors felt the need to deal on Christmas Eve after a wretched year which has seen equity markets drop between 15 and 25 percent.-AFP

Transcript of Osama bin Laden videotape
December 13, 2001 Posted: 2:25 PM EST (1925 GMT)

The following transcript of a videotape of Osama bin Laden talking with others, translated from Arabic into English, was issued by the U.S. Department of Defense. CNN spells the al Qaeda leader's name Osama bin Laden, but the Defense Department spelling -- Usama bin Laden -- is retained. He is identified as UBL in the transcript.
(Transcript and annotations independently prepared by George Michael, translator, Diplomatic Language Services; and Dr. Kassem M. Wahba, Arabic language program coordinator, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. They collaborated on their translation and compared it with translations done by the U.S. government for consistency. There were no inconsistencies in the translations.)
In mid-November, Usama Bin Laden spoke to a room of supporters, possibly in Qandahar, Afghanistan. These comments were videotaped with the knowledge of bin Laden and all present.
Note: The tape is approximately one hour long and contains three different segments: an original taping of a visit by some people to the site of the downed U.S. helicopter in Ghazni province (approximately 12 minutes long); and two segments documenting a courtesy visit by bin Laden and his lieutenants to an unidentified Shaykh, who appears crippled from the waist down. The visit apparently takes place at a guesthouse in Qandahar. The sequence of the events is reversed on the tape -- the end of his visit is in the beginning of the tape with the helicopter site visit in the middle and the start of the Usama bin Laden visit beginning approximately 39 minutes into the tape. The tape is transcribed below according to the proper sequence of events.
Due to the quality of the original tape, it is NOT a verbatim transcript of every word spoken during the meeting, but does convey the messages and information flow.
EDITOR'S NOTE: 39 minutes into tape, first segment of the bin Laden meeting, begins after footage of helicopter site visit
Shaykh: (...inaudible...) You have given us weapons, you have given us hope and we thank Allah for you. We don't want to take much of your time, but this is the arrangement of the brothers. People now are supporting us more, even those ones who did not support us in the past, support us more now. I did not want to take that much of your time. We praise Allah, we praise Allah. We came from Kabul. We were very pleased to visit. May Allah bless you both at home and the camp. We asked the driver to take us, it was a night with a full moon, thanks be to Allah. Believe me it is not in the country side. The elderly...everybody praises what you did, the great action you did, which was first and foremost by the grace of Allah. This is the guidance of Allah and the blessed fruit of jihad.
UBL: Thanks to Allah. What is the stand of the Mosques there (in Saudi Arabia)?
Shaykh: Honestly, they are very positive. Shaykh Al-Bahrani (phonetic) gave a good sermon in his class after the sunset prayers. It was videotaped and I was supposed to carry it with me, but unfortunately, I had to leave immediately.
UBL: The day of the events?
Shaykh: At the exact time of the attack on America, precisely at the time. He (Bahrani) gave a very impressive sermon. Thanks be to Allah for his blessings. He (Bahrani) was the first one to write at war time. I visited him twice in Al-Qasim.
UBL: Thanks be to Allah.
Shaykh: This is what I asked from Allah. He (Bahrani) told the youth: "You are asking for martyrdom and wonder where you should go (for martyrdom)?" Allah was inciting them to go. I asked Allah to grant me to witness the truth in front of the unjust ruler. We ask Allah to protect him and give him the martyrdom, after he issued the first fatwa. He was detained for interrogation, as you know. When he was called in and asked to sign, he told them, "don't waste my time, I have another fatwa. If you want me, I can sign both at the same time."
UBL: Thanks be to Allah.
Shaykh: His position is really very encouraging. When I paid him the first visit about a year and half ago, he asked me, "How is Shaykh Bin-Ladin?" He sends you his special regards. As far as Shaykh Sulayman 'Ulwan is concerned, he gave a beautiful fatwa, may Allah bless him. Miraculously, I heard it on the Quran radio station. It was strange because he ('Ulwan) sacrificed his position, which is equivalent to a director. It was transcribed word-by-word. The brothers listened to it in detail. I briefly heard it before the noon prayers. He ('Ulwan) said this was jihad and those people were not innocent people (World Trade Center and Pentagon victims). He swore to Allah. This was transmitted to Shaykh Sulayman Al (('Umar)) Allah bless him.
UBL: What about Shaykh Al-((Rayan))?
Shaykh: Honestly, I did not meet with him. My movements were truly limited.
UBL: Allah bless you. You are welcome.
Shaykh: (Describing the trip to the meeting) They smuggled us and then I thought that we would be in different caves inside the mountains so I was surprised at the guest house and that it is very clean and comfortable. Thanks be to Allah, we also learned that this location is safe, by Allah's blessings. The place is clean and we are very comfortable.
UBL: (...Inaudible...) when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse. This is only one goal; those who want people to worship the lord of the people, without following that doctrine, will be following the doctrine of Muhammad, peace be upon him. (UBL quotes several short and incomplete Hadith verses, as follows): "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammad." "Some people may ask: why do you want to fight us?" "There is an association between those who say: I believe in one god and Muhammad is his prophet, and those who don't (...inaudible...) "Those who do not follow the true fiqh. The fiqh of Muhammad, the real fiqh. They are just accepting what is being said at face value."
UBL: Those youth who conducted the operations did not accept any fiqh in the popular terms, but they accepted the fiqh that the prophet Muhammad brought. Those young men (...inaudible...) said in deeds, in New York and Washington, speeches that overshadowed all other speeches made everywhere else in the world. The speeches are understood by both Arabs and non-Arabs-even by Chinese. It is above all the media said. Some of them said that in Holland, at one of the centers, the number of people who accepted Islam during the days that followed the operations were more than the people who accepted Islam in the last eleven years. I heard someone on Islamic radio who owns a school in America say: "We don't have time to keep up with the demands of those who are asking about Islamic books to learn about Islam." This event made people think (about true Islam) which benefited Islam greatly.
Shaykh: Hundreds of people used to doubt you and few only would follow you until this huge event happened. Now hundreds of people are coming out to join you. I remember a vision by Shaykh Salih Al-((Shuaybi)). He said: "There will be a great hit and people will go out by hundreds to Afghanistan." I asked him (Salih): "To Afghanistan?" He replied, "Yes." According to him, the only ones who stay behind will be the mentally impotent and the liars (hypocrites). I remembered his saying that hundreds of people will go out to Afghanistan. He had this vision a year ago. This event discriminated between the different types of followers.
UBL: (...Inaudible...) we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.
Shaykh: Allah be praised.
UBL: We were at (...inaudible...) when the event took place. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-((Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center.
Shaykh: Allah be praised.
UBL: After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it.
Shaykh: I listened to the news and I was sitting. We didn't...we were not thinking about anything, and all of a sudden, Allah willing, we were talking about how come we didn't have anything, and all of a sudden the news came and everyone was overjoyed and everyone until the next day, in the morning, was talking about what was happening and we stayed until four o'clock, listening to the news every time a little bit different, everyone was very joyous and saying "Allah is great," "Allah is great," "We are thankful to Allah," "Praise Allah." And I was happy for the happiness of my brothers. That day the congratulations were coming on the phone non-stop. The mother was receiving phone calls continuously. Thank Allah. Allah is great, praise be to Allah. (Quoting the verse from the Quran)
Shaykh: "Fight them, Allah will torture them, with your hands, he will torture them. He will deceive them and he will give you victory. Allah will forgive the believers, he is knowledgeable about everything."
Shaykh: No doubt it is a clear victory. Allah has bestowed on us...honor on us...and he will give us blessing and more victory during this holy month of Ramadan. And this is what everyone is hoping for. Thank Allah America came out of its caves. We hit her the first hit and the next one will hit her with the hands of the believers, the good believers, the strong believers. By Allah it is a great work. Allah prepares for you a great reward for this work. I'm sorry to speak in your presence, but it is just thoughts, just thoughts. By Allah, who there is no god but him. I live in happiness, happiness...I have not experienced, or felt, in a long time. I remember, the words of Al-Rabbani, he said they made a coalition against us in the winter with the infidels like the Turks, and others, and some other Arabs. And they surrounded us like the days...in the days of the prophet Muhammad. Exactly like what's happening right now. But he comforted his followers and said, "This is going to turn and hit them back." And it is a mercy for us. And a blessing to us. And it will bring people back. Look how wise he was. And Allah will give him blessing. And the day will come when the symbols of Islam will rise up and it will be similar to the early days of Al-Mujahedeen and Al-Ansar (similar to the early years of Islam). And victory to those who follow Allah. Finally said, if it is the same, like the old days, such as Abu Bakr and Othman and Ali and others. In these days, in our times, that it will be the greatest jihad in the history of Islam and the resistance of the wicked people.
Shaykh: By Allah my Shaykh. We congratulate you for the great work. Thank Allah.
Tape ends here
Second segment of Bin Laden's visit, shows up at the front of the tape
UBL: Abdallah Azzam, Allah bless his soul, told me not to record anything (...inaudible...) so I thought that was a good omen, and Allah will bless us (...inaudible...). Abu-Al-Hasan Al-((Masri)), who appeared on Al-Jazeera TV a couple of days ago and addressed the Americans saying: "If you are true men, come down here and face us." (...inaudible...) He told me a year ago: "I saw in a dream, we were playing a soccer game against the Americans. When our team showed up in the field, they were all pilots!" He said: "So I wondered if that was a soccer game or a pilot game? Our players were pilots." He (Abu-Al-Hasan) didn't know anything about the operation until he heard it on the radio. He said the game went on and we defeated them. That was a good omen for us.
Shaykh: May Allah be blessed.
Unidentified Man Off Camera: Abd Al Rahman Al-(Ghamri) said he saw a vision, before the operation, a plane crashed into a tall building. He knew nothing about it.
Shaykh: May Allah be blessed!
Sulayman ((Abu Guaith)): I was sitting with the Shaykh in a room, then I left to go to another room where there was a TV set. The TV broadcasted the big event. The scene was showing an Egyptian family sitting in their living room, they exploded with joy. Do you know when there is a soccer game and your team wins, it was the same expression of joy. There was a subtitle that read: "In revenge for the children of Al Aqsa', Usama Bin Ladin executes an operation against America." So I went back to the Shaykh (meaning UBL) who was sitting in a room with 50 to 60 people. I tried to tell him about what I saw, but he made gesture with his hands, meaning: "I know, I know…"
UBL: He did not know about the operation. Not everybody knew (...inaudible...). Muhammad ((Atta)) from the Egyptian family (meaning the Al Qa'ida Egyptian group), was in charge of the group.
Shaykh: A plane crashing into a tall building was out of anyone's imagination. This was a great job. He was one of the pious men in the organization. He became a martyr. Allah bless his soul.
Shaykh (Referring to dreams and visions): The plane that he saw crashing into the building was seen before by more than one person. One of the good religious people has left everything and come here. He told me, "I saw a vision, I was in a huge plane, long and wide. I was carrying it on my shoulders and I walked from the road to the desert for half a kilometer. I was dragging the plane." I listened to him and I prayed to Allah to help him. Another person told me that last year he saw, but I didn't understand and I told him I don't understand. He said, "I saw people who left for jihad...and they found themselves in New York...in Washington and New York." I said, "What is this?" He told me the plane hit the building. That was last year. We haven't thought much about it. But, when the incidents happened he came to me and said, "Did you see...this is strange." I have another man...my god...he said and swore by Allah that his wife had seen the incident a week earlier. She saw the plane crashing into a building...that was unbelievable, my god.
UBL: The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.
UBL: (...inaudible...) then he said: Those who were trained to fly didn't know the others. One group of people did not know the other group. (...inaudible...) (Someone in the crowd asks UBL to tell the Shaykh about the dream of ((Abu-Da'ud)).
UBL: We were at a camp of one of the brother's guards in Qandahar. This brother belonged to the majority of the group. He came close and told me that he saw, in a dream, a tall building in America, and in the same dream he saw Mukhtar teaching them how to play karate. At that point, I was worried that maybe the secret would be revealed if everyone starts seeing it in their dream. So I closed the subject. I told him if he sees another dream, not to tell anybody, because people will be upset with him. (Another person's voice can be heard recounting his dream about two planes hitting a big building).
UBL: They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient.
UBL: The difference between the first and the second plane hitting the towers was twenty minutes. And the difference between the first plane and the plane that hit the Pentagon was one hour.
Shaykh: They (the Americans) were terrified thinking there was a coup. [Note: Ayman Al-Zawahri says first he commended UBL's awareness of what the media is saying. Then he says it was the first time for them (Americans) to feel danger coming at them.] UBL (reciting a poem): I witness that against the sharp blade They always faced difficulties and stood together... When the darkness comes upon us and we are bit by a Sharp tooth, I say... "Our homes are flooded with blood and the tyrant Is freely wandering in our homes"... And from the battlefield vanished The brightness of swords and the horses... And over weeping sounds now We hear the beats of drums and rhythm… They are storming his forts And shouting: "We will not stop our raids Until you free our lands"...
Bin Laden visit footage complete. Footage of the visit to the helicopter site follows the poem.

^

UK minister slams US right wing
By Our Correspondent

LONDON, Dec 27: The British minister for International Development, Clare Short, has urged Americans to take greater interest in nation-building in failed states like Afghanistan and put greater effort into the quest for a settlement in the Middle East.

Ms Short expressed frustration over some extreme right elements in Washington who, she said, were not interested in the nation-building of failed states such as Afghanistan.

She criticized the approach of those on the "extreme right" in America and said: "that is not a very caring attitude," said Ms Short, arguing countries needed robust governing institutions if they were to avoid being exploited by terrorist organisations such as al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Ms Short also said the United States must do more to help resolve the conflict in the Middle East.

Ms Short says while there is no excuse for the September 11 terror attacks, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - in which the US traditionally gives support to the Israelis - is fuelling resentment against America.

She urged US President George W Bush's administration to put greater effort into the quest for a settlement in the Middle East.

On the Sept 11 attacks, Ms Short stressed: "There is no explanation that legitimises what was done. It is always wrong to deliberately kill civilians. It was wrong, it was wicked, it was evil." But the United States had to think about why it attracted so much criticism around the world, she suggested.

"One major cause is the unresolved conflict in the Middle East. That hurts the hearts of people," she said.

Score on US war objectives: nil
By Terry Jones

LONDON: Osama Bin Laden is looking 'haggard'. A videotape broadcast on al-Jazeera TV showed the Most Wanted Man in the Known World looking haggard. And in case we did not notice how haggard he was looking , the Western media have been pounding us with the word ever since the pictures were released. So George Bush and Tony Blair should be congratulated on the first concrete evidence that their 'War on Terrorism' is finally achieving some of its policy objectives.

Of course, they have done terribly well in bringing chaos to Afghanistan, but that has not been one of the policy objectives. When those planes smashed into the World Trade Centre with the loss of 2,500 innocent lives, nobody's first reaction was: "Well, the sooner we get the Mujahideen and the warlords to take over Kabul the better!" President Bush laid out the policy objectives of his 'War on Terrorism' in measured terms: "We must catch the evil perpetrators of this cowardly act and bring them to justice."

Bringing to justice the people who actually perpetrated the crime was out of the question since they were already dead. They had killed themselves in a typically cowardly fashion. So, President Bush pretty quickly said that he would get whoever egged them on to do it and then he would make them pay for it.

Well, many months later, who has paid for it? US taxpayers have stumped up billions of dollars. They have paid for it. So have the British taxpayers, for some reason which has not yet been explained to them. Uncounted thousands of innocent Afghan citizens have paid for it too - with their lives. It is 'uncounted' because nobody in the West seems to have been particularly interested in counting them. It is pretty certain more innocent people have died and are still dying in the bombing of Afghanistan than on Sept 11, but the New York Times does not run daily biographies of them so they do not count.

People have all paid a considerable amount in terms of those precious civil liberties and freedoms that make their way of life in the Free World so much better than everyone else's. Bit of a conundrum that.

People are all also paying a huge price, all the time, every day, in terms of their daily anxiety quota. They dare not fly in planes or, if they do, they do so in fear and dread. They are constantly fearful of some nameless retribution being visited on them. And it is no good Blair saying this is the terrorists' fault. Of course it is, but then if people had not joined the Americans in bombing Afghanistan they would not all be so scared.

If the objectives of the 'War on Terrorism' were to catch the perpetrators of the Sept 11 attacks, bring them to justice and make the world a safer place, so far the score - on all three objectives - has been nil. People are all jumping around scared that something similar is go going to happen at any moment. No perpetrators have been caught; no perpetrators have been brought to justice.

Mark you, this last is not really surprising. Just think: if the police were setting out to catch a particularly clever and evil murderer, would they go around with loud-hailers announcing where they were going to look for him, pinpoint the areas they intended to search and give him a count of 100 to get away? That is what you do if you are playing hide and seek, not if you want to catch a criminal. The police would have gone to work covertly and tried to find out where he was without his even knowing they were looking for him. That is not a very American way of going about things.

However, finally the 'War on Terrorism' is achieving its policy objectives. Osama bin Laden is looking haggard. He may not have been caught or brought to justice but, at the cost of thousands of innocent Afghan lives, billions of dollars of US citizens' money and the civil liberties of the Free World, the anti-terror war has got him looking haggard.

So keep up the good work, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, let us see if they can continue in this vein and perhaps - at the cost of only another few billion dollars, a lot more innocent lives, many more civil rights, and the stability of the Middle East, India and Pakistan, and perhaps a Third World War.-Dawn/The Observer News Service.

100 die as US bombs Paktia

KABUL, Dec 31: Afghan villagers said on Monday an American air strike killed more than 100 civilians as United States forces combed rugged mountain terrain for Osama bin Laden.

A cameraman in the stricken village in eastern Paktia province said he could see huge craters blasted by bombs. Amid the destruction were scraps of flesh, pools of blood and clumps of what appeared to be human hair.

A US military spokesman said the incident in Qala-i-Niazi, about four kilometres north of the provincial capital Gardez, was under investigation.

One jet, one B-52 bomber and two helicopters took part in the devastating attack. Residents said up to 107 people had been killed, many of them women and children.

Asked about the report, Major Pete Mitchell, a spokesman for US Central Command in Tampa, Florida, said: "We are aware of the incident and we are currently investigating."

Word of the killings came just three days after new Afghan Defence Minister Mohammad Fahim appealed for an end to US bombing raids, which had already been blamed for hundreds, possibly thousands, of civilian deaths.

General Fahim said there was no point in continuing the attacks as Osama had probably fled to Pakistan and his Al Qaeda network of fighters had dispersed.

In Qala-i-Niazi, an official of the local tribal Shura said US troops had been invited to view the destruction. Eyewitnesses saw American troops and Northern Alliance forces en route to the village.

Paktia province borders Pakistan and is southwest of the jagged canyons of Tora Bora, where many Al Qaeda fighters made a last stand.-Reuters

New strategy under study: US senator says Osama is alive

WASHINGTON, Dec 31: The head of the US Senate's select committee on intelligence said on Sunday that fresh intelligence showed "high probabilities" that Osama bin Laden was still alive.

He said a new strategy was being planned for launching another operation to capture Osama.

"The latest intelligence we've had indicates that the high probabilities are that (Osama) bin laden is still alive," Chairman Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat, said on CNN's "Late Edition".

"Where he is, is a question mark. The trail has gone cold as to whether he's still in the caves of Tora Bora or, in fact, has slipped into Pakistan", Graham said, declining to discuss details of the intelligence.

On Friday, President George W. Bush said he had no idea where bin Laden was - or whether he had survived "in a cave with the door shut or a cave

IRAN: Emissaries for Osama bin Laden contacted Iranian agents in the mid-1990s in an effort to form an anti-American terror alliance, the New York Times reported on Monday.

Citing secret US intelligence reports, the newspaper said Osama's representative talked to Iranian intelligence officers in July 1996 about forming a partnership with his Al Qaeda network to strike American targets.

The newspaper said, according to the American intelligence reports, the Iranian agents made clear they were willing to meet with Osama in Afghanistan. But the newspaper said it was unclear if such a meeting ever took place, and if so, whether any agreement was reached.

Just as their intelligence officers were considering whether to meet Osama, the Iranian government was moving to oppose the Taliban movement, which had just gained control of Afghanistan, the newspaper reported.-Reuters

Mandela reviews support for US

JOHANNESBURG, Jan 2: Former South African president Nelson Mandela is to inform US President George W. Bush he has modified his "unreserved support" for the bombings in Afghanistan, his office said on Wednesday.

"We are writing to President Bush to appropriately qualify the view we previously expressed to him," his office said in a statement.

Mandela, 83, expressed support for US-led military operations against Osama bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan during a visit to the United States in November.

"We expressed the opinion that tragic as the war may be, it was justified in this case as it proved the only method available for flushing out the terrorists whom the Taliban government in Afghanistan refused to hand over to the United States," the statement said.

"Subsequent discussions with our family, friends and advisors have convinced us that our view may be one-sided and overstated."

Friends and advisers have voiced concern that Mandela's initial support for the war "gives the impression that we are insensitive to and uncaring about the suffering inflicted upon the Afghan people".

"We (...) regret if the manner in which we stated our position gave any offence to Muslims in South Africa and throughout the world," the statement added.

Mandela plans to meet South African Muslim leaders to convey this message to them. Some 1.5 per cent of the South Africa's 44.5 million people are Muslims.

Last month, Mandela ran into a barrage of protest when he expressed support for US military strikes in Afghanistan during a speech at a mosque in Durban, on the east coast.

While defending military action, he said at the mosque: "I never supported the bombing of the whole of Afghanistan and the killing of innocent (people). I confined myself to bin Laden and his organisation."

Mandela's office said the labelling of bin Laden as the terrorist responsible the September 11 terror attacks in the United States before he had been convicted in court could also "be seen as undermining some of the basic tenets of the rule of law".

His office called on the United Nations to play "a leading role in combating terrorism".

While speaking in Cape Town early in December, Mandela criticised the United States and Britain for acting without a mandate from the UN Security Council and said it was wrong to "act unilaterally and bomb a sovereign country".

On that occasion he warned it would be "a disaster" for the United States and Britain to extend the war on terrorism to bombing Iraq.

On Wednesday his office reiterated its opposition to all forms of terrorism. "We support the stance of our government in joining international efforts to combat and eradicate terrorism," it said. "And we should urgently address the situations of conflict throughout the world as these provide fertile grounds for the growth of terrorism."-AFP

US bombs kill 32 Afghan villagers, 11 wounded

ISLAMABAD, Jan 4: US bombing raids on a suspected al-Qaeda base in eastern Afghanistan have killed 32 civilians in villages located nearby, the Afghan Islamic Press said Friday, citing witnesses in the area.

The news agency said at least 11 others wounded were brought to the Pakistani border town of Miran Shah which lies next to the town of Zhawar where the base is located.

It said local tribal elders had travelled to the Afghan city of Khost to appeal for an end to the bombardment which is aimed at wiping out remaining fighters of Osama bin Laden's network.

"The bombing is very intense and very heavy. Many people have died. The United States should stop bombing. They are all civilians in this area," Tani tribe elder Ghazi Nawaz Tani was quoted as saying.

The witnesses said the raids were continuing on Friday, making it hard to retrieve bodies. They warned the death toll could rise as the worst-affected villages, Kaskai and Khodyaki, were searched.

US officials have confirmed that warplanes launched an attack Thursday on the sprawling al-Qaeda leadership compound and training camp in eastern Paktia province.

SECOND BOMBING RAID: Attacking for the second time in as many days, US warplanes Friday bombed a compound with caves in eastern Afghanistan where al-Qaeda leaders were believed to be regrouping with their followers, US defence officials said in Washington.

B-52 and B-1 bombers, F/A-18 fighters and AC-130 gunships were used to strike the Zawar Kili compound near the Pakistani border for a second straight day, a spokesman for the US Central Command said.

"There was some activity observed and they decided to go in and restrike it," said Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon's chief spokesperson.

US warplanes had attacked the same compound on Thursday after US intelligence detected convoys and other information pointing to the presence of al-Qaeda leaders, Pentagon officials said.

The sprawling facility, which consists of a base camp, training area and a complex of caves, was struck by US cruise missiles in 1998 in a failed bid to kill Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader the US government suspects of masterminding the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

The latest attacks come amid an intense manhunt for bin Laden, who has eluded capture even though US commanders thought they had him cornered with al-Qaeda forces in the Tora Bora mountains south of Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan.

Clarke said US forces may be sent in to the bombed compound to see "what may have surfaced in that."

"Al-Qaeda leadership have used this area in recent weeks as a regrouping and sanctuary area," said Major Bill Harrison, a spokesman for the US Central Command in Tampa, Florida.-AFP

Regimes abuse order to fight terrorism, says UN
By William Orme

UNITED NATIONS: Security Council demands that UN members act against global terrorism are being used by some regimes to justify repression of domestic dissent, UN officials and independent human rights advocates say.

The anti-terrorism campaign has been used by authoritarian governments to justify moves to clamp down on moderate opponents, outlaw criticism of rulers and expand the use of capital punishment.

Compliance with the Security Council requirements "could lead to unwarranted infringement on civil liberties," Bacre Ndiaye, the chief human rights officer at the UN Secretariat, told the council's new counter-terrorism committee. "There is evidence that some countries are now introducing measures that may erode core human rights safeguards."

In an unexpectedly swift response to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Security Council called on UN members on Sept 28 to provide information within 90 days about their legal restrictions on fund raising, financial transfers, arms acquisition and immigration. But there is no agreement on what constitutes terrorist activity, UN experts say, and some governments are presenting what critics contend are police-state measures as part of the UN-endorsed counter-terror campaign.

"In some countries," Ndiaye told the committee at its Dec 13 meeting, "nonviolent activities have been considered as terrorism, and excessive measures have been taken to suppress or restrict individual rights, including the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, freedom from torture, privacy rights, freedom of expression and assembly, and the right to seek asylum."

Ndiaye carefully refrained from identifying those countries, but human rights advocates quickly came up with a long list, from Algeria to Zimbabwe.

In an interview, Ndiaye said he is concerned that the campaign could backfire and undermine UN efforts to promote democracy and the rule of law in Central Europe, Southeast Asia and his native West Africa.

On Dec 20, the Cuban legislature, with President Fidel Castro presiding, unanimously passed a law that state media said expanded the application of capital punishment for crimes defined as terrorism, including the use of the Internet to incite political violence.

A week earlier, the government of Zimbabwe published a proposed new law that would make it a crime to "undermine the authority of or insult" President Robert Mugabe, who is again seeking re-election. Mugabe's aides defended the legislation as necessary to combat terrorists, a category they said includes most of the president's opponents as well as critical journalists.

In Central Asia, the government of Uzbekistan has defended its jailing of moderate Islamist opponents as part of the world campaign against "evil- doers," while Kyrgyzstan has intensified internal travel controls on dissidents.

Robinson, a former president of Ireland, is viewed with suspicion in Washington, Moscow and Beijing because of liberal stands that are widely admired by human rights activists. Russia and China have publicly interpreted the Security Council's counter-terror push as an endorsement of their own armed campaigns against Muslim activists, which have drawn strong criticism at UN human rights forums.

Venezuela, which has been accused of sheltering Colombian terrorists, sent a memo pledging cooperation with the council. The military regime in Myanmar, in an equally terse submission, depicted itself as a victim of global terrorism, pointing to last year's occupation of its embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, by dissidents it labelled "expatriate terrorists."-Dawn/The Los Angeles Times News Service.

Fighting may end, but mines to stay
By Rory Carroll

KABUL: Striding down a road lined with red flags and men in flak jackets and plastic visors, Zabit returned to the home he fled three years ago, taking care not to flinch at the detonations booming across the plain. That was none of his business.

Zabit cared about reclaiming the rubble of his home and making it fit for his parents and four sisters, who would soon follow. He did not care about the men pacing the fields with metal detectors, or the signs about mines, or the patch of grass stained red.

A couple of days ago a youth of 17, Maruf, stepped there and set off a booby-trap intended to wipe out a patrol. The mine cleaners had to collect his remains in a sheet. But Zabit seemed deaf and blind as every few minutes a controlled explosion plumed smoke above the ruins of Dasht Robat, a village on the Shomali plain north of Kabul.

"I don't know anything about mines. These men can play around if they like, but I'm going home."

Three years as a refugee in Pakistan had bred impatience in a young man with the job of putting his family back on its feet, as it had in those neighbours who returned to Dasht Robat this week.

They knew that 23 years of war had left Afghanistan one of the most mined countries in the world. They knew about Maruf and the dangers. They did not care. "I have a house to build. See you later," Zabit said.

The last time refugees returned to Afghanistan in large numbers, in 1998, the little devices planted in doorways, wells, roads and fields claimed 300 casualties a week. This time it is 70 and rising.

Often you see the lucky ones begging on streets, flaunting their stumps. The less lucky are in the graveyards dotting the landscape. Aid agencies are afraid that the stream of refugees will swell a new generation of maimed and dead.

The other day Said Haq, 19, sprawled on a Kabul hospital lawn contemplating life without his right leg, torn off by an anti-personnel mine in front of his house. "I came back to farm the land. I had to take the risk," he said.

It is a familiar refrain, Laurence Desvignes, a mine expert with the Red Cross, said. "I saw shepherds walking through a minefield with their goats and shouted at them to stop, but they ignored me. They knew the danger, but needed the grazing land."

The Shomali plain, a frontline for the Russians, mujahideen, Taliban and Northern Alliance, is one of the most contaminated areas. Less than a mile from Maruf's fatal step lies the carcass of a mini-bus which swerved too far off the paved road five weeks ago.

"Seventeen people died. It was horrible," Abdul Jamil, the mine cleaners' supervisor, said. Another 15 have died since, including Maruf, and the death toll for livestock stands at 50.

"We are working as fast as we can but these people are desperate; they insist on coming back before the areas are cleared," he added. About 200,000 refugees are expected back to Shomali for the planting season before spring.

Jamil is one of 1,200 Afghans employed by the Halo Trust, a British charity which has cleared mines in Afghanistan since 1988. Estimates of the number of mines in the country range from 300,000 to 10 million.

"If the funding continues, we'll be able to clear the high priority areas within a few years. The rest could take decades," Tom Dibbs, a Halo coordinator in Kabul, said.

The US bombing delivered a new menace: cluster bombs. Intended to detonate on impact, the yellow "bomblets" had a 15 per cent failure rate- double the rate claimed by the manufacturer, Dibbs said.

Hundreds of containers, each with 202 bomblets, were dropped on the Shomali plain and, according to villagers, they devastated Taliban positions. Those that failed to detonate lie half-buried, primed to go off.

Reports that hungry Afghans were killed after confusing the bomblets with yellow aid packets were untrue, Dibbs said. "Children and teenagers have been injured after picking them up, but they knew what they were. Throwing them to make them explode is a game."

Ahmad Din, 7, played it two days ago in the village of Syab Quli, hurling a bomblet against the inside wall of a well. A hole in the wall marked the spot and relatives grinned at Ahmad's nerve.

Some found it less funny. Tous Mohammed, 22, said the bomblets had ruined his wheat fields; craters fringed with grass pockmarked the brown earth.

Watched by villagers on a hill, Abdul Haii, the Halo team leader in the village, set a 500gm charge against a bomblet to destroy it. The whizzing of the fragmentation could be heard through the boom.

Mines triggered by foot pressure seldom harm just legs, the Red Cross says. The genitals, arms, chest and face are usually affected, dirt, mud and other debris being driven into exposed tissue by the blast. The further the debris is pushed, the higher the surgeons must amputate.

Ali Mohammed's eye was caught by the glint of a metallic object. When the seven-year-old hit it with a rock it blew off his hands, ripped his brother's leg apart and tore a hole in his sister's abdomen.

Their father, Ghulam Mohammed, was tearful but fatalistic. He did not care which army had planted the mine. "This was an act of God. I cannot blame anyone."-Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

Bush faints seeing TV

WASHINGTON, Jan 14: US President George W. Bush fainted and fell off a couch on Sunday evening after choking on a pretzel while watching a televised football game, but a subsequent medical examination showed he was fine, his doctor said.

The president's physician, Air Force Col. Richard Tubb, said Bush had complained in the last couple of days that he might be coming down with a cold. This condition combined with his having just eaten a pretzel that he did not swallow properly caused his heart rate to slow, and as a result he fainted.

Tubb said Bush, who was at the White House, ended up with an abrasion on his left cheek and a small bruise on his lower lip after hitting his head on the carpeted floor when he fell off the couch.

The incident occurred at 5:35pm EST (3:35am PST) as Bush watched a football game. His wife, Laura, was on the telephone in the next room. When Bush woke up on the floor, he immediately alerted the nurse on duty downstairs at the White House, Air Force Maj. Cindy Wright.

She found Bush's vital signs to be normal and called in Tubb, who gave Bush a series of tests including an electrocardiogram to check his heart. There was no evidence of a heart arrhythmia, heart blockage or heart muscle problems.

Bush's heart, blood pressure and blood sugar were all normal, Tubb said. His blood pressure was 111 over 70. Normal is 120 over 80.

"I did not find anything to indicate it was serious whatsoever," Tubb said.-Reuters

Probe shows pretzel did not come from Afghanistan
By Marjorie Miller

LONDON, Jan 16: Was it an Al Qaeda plot? Was it another bout of drunkenness? Or was it, as President Bush said, just a wayward pretzel that briefly caused him to swoon?

With the only witnesses to the presidential fainting spell two canines, the international press has been left to speculate about what happened and whether Bush can watch TV and chew pretzels at the same time.

Spain's national daily, ABC, reported that after an exhaustive investigation, the FBI, CIA and Secret Service had "rejected [the possibility] that the biscuit in question came from Afghanistan and have certified that it is a genuine American salted pretzel."

George Bush attempted to taste the biscuit with his attention focused on a football game - a combination of actions that, it appears, proved difficult," said the Greek daily To Vima.

The media responded to the pretzel pratfall with jokes, queries about Bush's mental and physical health and detailed explanations of the knotted American-style pretzel. At home, having bored the audience to nauseating scare of Al-Qaeda terror, the media got one diversion away from the global terrorism.

"Though not to everyone's taste, they are not considered a health hazard," London's Independent newspaper informed readers dryly about pretzel.

"Even in his wildest dreams, Osama bin Laden couldn't have managed what one tiny pretzel did this weekend," began a story in the Berliner Zeitung daily. "According to reports from the White House, it not only brought the mightiest man in the world to his knees but flat out on the floor."

True to form, the Germans consulted pretzel experts, the French contemplated Americans' "complicated relationship with food," and the Italians looked to the religious roots of the pretzel. The Saudis worried that the scare will prevent Bush from focusing attention on Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, while Britons offered Bush a few backhanded compliments.

The incident proved Bush is "a man of the people," London's Daily Telegraph said in an editorial. "This is exactly the sort of accident that befalls Homer Simpson, night after night."

The conservative paper noted in its news pages that the president "was not eating something foreign or in any way fancy when he passed out." The paper was cheered by the fact that the leader of the international war on terrorism still has time for Sunday football. "He has shown himself, once again, to be completely in tune with the tastes and instincts of the people he leads," its editorial said.

Of course, most Americans didn't end up prone with facial bruises at the end of the game - at least not from pretzels. The Independent labelled the official story "Hard to Swallow."

"Was he poisoned perhaps? Has the stress of fighting the war on terrorism while fending off inquiries about the collapse of his friend Ken Lay's Enron overwhelmed him? Was there maybe some family tiff?" the paper asked in an editorial. It concluded that "the vanquisher of Al-Qaeda may have met his match."

Germany's mass-circulation Bild, the daily of choice for blue-collar Germans, also asked if there wasn't more to the story: "Has the president's alcohol problem been taken up again?"

Expressing concern for the president's health, Saudi Arabia's English-language Arab News said that while no one believes there is anything seriously wrong with Bush, his pretzel mishap has led to speculation about the impact of an ailing president on the world.

"These are particularly dangerous times internationally. The United States has assumed considerable responsibilities and powers in its campaign against global terrorism. In order to bring together a coalition of support within the Arab world, the White House had to focus its attention more constructively on Israel's oppression of the Palestinians," the paper said in an editorial.

"If, however, Bush's unusual collapse is a symptom of more serious medical problems, we can be absolutely sure that, lacking any clear direction from a troubled White House, Washington's foreign policy will click back on its traditional Zionist track. Palestinians will continue to choke on Israeli aggression while the U.S. president may again choke on a typical Yiddish pretzel," it said.

No, no, said the Italian press as some newspapers delved in the history of the salty snack. The American-style pretzel was invented by a 16th century German monk as a reward for children who memorised their prayers, La Repubblica newspaper said. The word derives from the Latin prex, or prize, it said.

Leave it to the British tabloids to challenge the Italians on Latin. London's Daily Mail declared that the word "pretzel" comes from pretiola-Latin for "little reward." The dough is folded to look like a child's arms in prayer, and the three holes represent Christianity's holy Trinity. And it was German and Dutch immigrants who took the pretzel across the Atlantic when they settled in Pennsylvania in 1710, the paper said.

Pretzel is brezel in Germany, where the Berliner Morgenpost sought out the opinion of a master baker on the safety of the U.S. snack food-and the likelihood that it could have caused the president's swoon.

"I have no reason to doubt the quality of the American pretzel," opined Eberhard Groebel, speculating that Bush's spell was due to his ignoring "the 50-gram rule." That is a German etiquette adage that holds that one should not try to talk with more than 1.75 ounces of food in one's mouth.

Russian newspapers, perhaps reflecting the more sombre tone of the Vladimir V. Putin era, restrained themselves. The daily Komsomolskaya Pravda ran a detailed diagram of Bush's anatomy, with the location of the pretzel blockage marked with a star.

"Bush's organism, although weakened and unconscious, managed to cope with the indisposition," wrote the daily Gazeta. "The organism first rejected the pretzel but later swallowed it and digested without mercy."

Added London's Mirror tabloid: "Attila the Hun survived bloody battles only to die of a nosebleed on his wedding night. Sir Francis Bacon wanted to prove frozen food lasted longer and went outside to stuff a chicken with snow. The experiment was a success, but he died of pneumonia."-Dawn/Lat-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times

Hypocrisy characterizes US human rights policy
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON: Hypocrisy characterized much of US human rights policy during George W. Bush's first year as president, particularly in his "war against terrorism" following the Sept 11 terrorist attacks in the United States , according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). In its 2002 World Report released here on Wednesday, the group charged that Bush's anti-terrorist campaign "risks reinforcing the logic of terrorism unless human rights are given a far more central role."

Bush's support for repressive allies in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, his softening of criticism for Russia's repression in Chechnya, and his relative indifference to violent abuses against civilians in other regions of the world, particularly Africa, showed double standards which only foster resentment abroad, according to the report.

"(A)s seen from Washington, violence becomes intolerable based not on WHETHER civilians are attacked but on WHOSE civilians are attacked and who is doing the attacking," noted the report which added that other western nations tended to follow Washington's lead. "Such a message hardly helps to build broad support for human rights."

Post-Sept 11 curbs on civil liberties here at home - especially Bush's authorization for military commissions to try suspected terrorist leaders and the singling out of young men from the Middle East and North Africa for special attention by law enforcement agencies - undermined Washington's credibility as a force for human rights, HRW said.

The 670-page report, which includes summaries of important human rights developments from November 2000 through November 2001 in 66 countries around the world, stressed that there were major advances in the human-rights field, as well as serious setbacks arising in particular from the ongoing anti-terrorist campaign, during the year.

On the positive side, according to the report, the surrender of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic for trial before the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague; the indictment in Chile of former President Augusto Pinochet; and the judicial decision in Argentina that invalidated country's amnesty laws were among the more positive events in the year.

The report also noted the rapid progress made toward the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), with 47 of the 60 needed countries having ratified the treaty; the entry into force of the protocol outlawing the use of child soldiers; the highlighting of caste-based discrimination at the World Conference Again Racism; and the speed and success with which the international community defused looming ethnic conflict in Macedonia as major achievements in 2001.

It said the demise of the "abysmal" Taliban regime in Afghanistan " creates an opportunity for positive change" but added that the international community must ensure that Western-backed victors in the US-led war break with their own record of past "atrocities" and that those responsible are kept out of power.

The negative side of the ledger was also pretty full, however. Aside from the human rights issues raised by the "war against terrorism," HRW pointed to the slow progress in creating war crimes trials in Cambodia and Sierra Leone; the failure to bring to justice the architects of the 1999 atrocities in East Timor; and the continuing suffering of civilians in civil wars and political violence in Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, and Sudan.

HRW also scored the failure of trade ministers at the World Trade Organisation meeting in Qatar in November to give the protection of labour rights a significant place on the agenda for a new round of global trade negotiations to be launched this year. But the main concern of this year's report was the many impacts of the war against terrorism on respect for human rights.

At the core of any successful fight against terrorism, according to the report, must be strong adherence to fundamental human rights principles, beginning with the rejection of the basic tenet of terrorism itself: that the killing of civilians may be an acceptable political act. "The fight against terror must reaffirm the principle that no civilian should ever be deliberately killed or abused," according to HRW's executive director, Kenneth Roth. "But for too many countries," he added, "the anti-terror mantra has provided a new reason to ignore human rights."

In particular, the war against terrorism has already led to "opportunistic attacks" on civil liberties by many have which enlisted in the US-led " coalition," mainly by touting their own internal struggles as battles against terrorism, according to the report.

Thus, Israel has repeatedly argued that it faces in the 16-month-old Palestinian intifada its own terrorist war which justifies tough retaliation, including selected assassinations against the uprising's suspected leaders.

US failure to rein in Israeli abuse of Palestinians or to restructure UN economic sanctions to minimize suffering of Iraqi citizens suggest to many in the region "that the West's commitment to human rights is one of convenience, to be forsaken when abuses are committed by an ally or in the name of containing a foe," according to the report. -Dawn/InterPress Service.

' Anti-terror campaign' cloaks abuses: HR body

UNITED NATIONS, Jan 16: A major human rights group warned the United States on Wednesday that its "campaign against terrorism" too often inspired allies to revoke civil liberties for political ends, whether in Egypt , Uzbekistan, Russia or even in Europe.

And new restrictions in the United States, such as the proposed military tribunals for suspected terrorists, could compromise Washington's ability to criticize rights abuses in other nations, Human Rights Watch said in its annual 670-page report covering 66 nations.

"Terrorists believe that anything goes in the name of their cause," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of the New York-based group. "The fight against terror must not buy into that logic.

"For too many countries, the anti-terror mantra has provided a new reason to ignore human rights," he said.

Declaring the Sept 11 attacks antithetical to human rights values, the report said too many governments substituted expediency for a firm commitment to human rights, closed channels for dissent and thus encouraged radical groups.

Uzbekistan's government was singled out in the report as particularly repressive and an illustration of the West's selectivity on human rights. The country has no political parties and no independent media. Muslims caught praying outside the state-controlled mosque are tortured and given long prison sentences.

But as a state bordering Afghanistan, and with its own Al Qaeda-linked rebel government, Uzbekistan was an obvious potential military ally of the United States. It also has been kept off the State Department list of countries that repress religious freedom, the report said.

In Europe, Human Rights Watch said, too many countries stepped up anti-immigrant rhetoric and further restricted the rights of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, in the name of fighting terrorism.

Britain has proposed emergency anti-terrorism legislation that would deny some asylum seekers an individual hearing, classify as a "terrorist" any foreigner with ill-defined "links" to terrorist organizations, and allow authorities to indefinitely detain them.

In Hungary, all Afghan refugees were transported to special detention facilities. In Greece, some migrants arriving on ships were denied access to asylum procedures and given fifteen-day expulsion orders.

"In the long term, this trend is counterproductive," Human Rights Watch said. "If the logic of terrorism, not just immediate terrorist threats, is ultimately to be defeated, governments must redouble their commitment to international standards, not indulge in a new round of excuses to ignore them."

In the Middle East, Human Rights Watch said there was a "shameful silence" by the United States and other Western nations of abuses in Saudi Arabia, as well as in Egypt.

"They leave people with the desperate choice of tolerating the status quo, exile or violence. Frequently as political options are closed off, the voices of non-violent dissent are upstaged by a politics of radical opposition," it said. Thus Saudi Arabia and Egypt can credibly portray themselves as bulwarks against extremism because the political centre has been "systemically silenced", the report said.

Since the Sept 11 attacks against the United States, several governments touted their own domestic struggles as fights against terrorism, the report contended.

In Russia, Human Rights Watch accused President Vladimir Putin of embracing the anti-terrorist rhetoric to defend his government's brutal campaign in Chechnya and the West downplaying earlier criticism of Moscow's abuses.-Reuters

Musharraf hopes war will not take place: Armed forces ready to thwart any aggression
By Our Staff Reporter

ISLAMABAD, Jan 18: President Pervez Musharraf said here on Friday that Pakistan desired peace but if war was thrust upon it, the country was ready to defend its sovereignty with full force. However, the president expressed the hope that there would be no war.

Speaking at the inaugural session of the two-day Ulema and Mashaikh Conference here, the president said Pakistan's armed forces and its people were fully prepared to thwart any aggression with full force.

He asked the Indian leaders to stop making provocative statements and declared that Pakistan did not have to show actions to anybody to normalise relations between the two countries.

"We will not allow anyone to sit in judgement as whatever measures we are taking for eliminating terrorism and religious extremism are aimed at reforming our own society and not to appease anyone," he stated.

The president regretted that the Indian leaders, specially their defence minister, were making unfair and provocative statements, which he believed would not help improve relations between the two nations.

"Let me use this forum to say that we will not show any action to please India. This public posturing particularly by the Indian defence minister is like becoming more pious than the pope," the president said.

For the first time he sharply reacted to the demands of the Indian leaders to translate his Jan 11 decisions into actions and said: "We are not here to listen to the dictates of anyone. Therefore, do not spoil the environment to have peace in the region."

Earlier, he said, he believed that there would not be any war with India. But, he pointed out, that when the Indians actually mobilized their troops on borders and developed a capacity to attack it was an opener for Pakistan. "This situation I feel is very dangerous and needs very careful handling of things." "But nobody should have any doubt about our capability and capacity not only to respond but also to strike for which our armed forces have all the will and resolve," he said.

Gen Musharraf said that real guarantee for peace lay in Pakistan's own strength and becoming stronger and stronger. "In case of war our foreign friends may come forward both in terms of providing necessary assistance as well as helping us to conduct dialogue with India, but they cannot guarantee peace and this peace can be guaranteed only when we have a strong defence, will and resolve to fight," he said.

Spelling out the priorities of his government, the president said that the protection of Pakistan's strategic capability and improving economic conditions would continue to receiving all focussed approach of his government. "Kashmir cause and protection of our nuclear assets will receive the highest priority and I would want the people to leave both these issues to the government," he said.

Gen Musharraf pointed out that the enemy wanted to benefit from Pakistan's internal crisis and that was why it had operationalised its forces on borders.

He also said that without eliminating terrorism, hatred and extremism, Pakistan could not progress. Time had come when there should be increased investment and more trade activities so that social conditions could be improved and growing poverty contained, he said.

"There is a restructuring of every department but I would say without any hesitation that poor people continue to suffer and their conditions are not improving which is not a good sign," the president conceded.

"My heart weeps for the poor," he said, adding that his government had launched a Zakat programme for which Rs2 billion had initially been spent by providing up to Rs50,000 to each individual to help him start his own respectable business and get rid of unemployment.

The government, he said, was making efforts to make available Rs20 billion for Zakat during the next three years and for the current financial year Rs5 billion had been allocated for this purpose.

The president said without peace in the region and without creating the feelings of brotherhood, it would be difficult to remove poverty from the society.

He said Pakistan was an Islamic country where over 98 per cent people were Muslims but they were living by adopting different lifestyles. "We have ultra-modern westernised people who live in bigger cities and then we have religious extremists, but they both are on the wrong track and they should adopt middle path which is the teachings of Islam," he said.

Pakistanis needed to become progressive and religious-minded but without imposing their opinion on others, he said, adding that people should preach their point of view but without killing and beating others. He was of the view that religious leaders should set personal examples to bring change to the society.

Gen Musharraf regretted that Pakistan's image abroad was not very good and agreed that performance of ambassadors was questionable. However, he pointed out that unless the country's internal image was improved, Pakistani missions abroad could not do anything effectively to enhance "our prestige and respect".

The president called for spreading education and establishing higher institutions specially in the field of science and technology. "Is it not very sad that our GDP is just $65 billion while smaller countries are ahead of us in all respects," he said, urging the professionals to play their role to make Pakistan economically strong.

He said education and improving the law and order situation were also his government's priorities and in this regard he called for unifying English and Urdu medium of education and at the same time bringing religious schools to the mainstream.

The president also answered various questions put up by the participants and dispelled the impression that the use of loudspeakers had been prohibited in the mosques. He said that loudspeakers could very well be used for Friday sermons and speeches and that there was no ban on it. However, he said, he would look into the complaint that police were stopping the use of loudspeakers on Fridays.

"I also assure you that there would not be any false case against the people of the religious community," he said, urging people to shun their differences. "Let us have a cease-fire now."

The president also called upon the members of the Organization of Islamic Conference to undertake greater political and economic collaboration so that the fruits of development could reach every Muslim state. He stressed the need for establishing educational and technological centres of excellence in OIC states.

Troops to stay on border, says India

NEW DELHI, Jan 20: India on Sunday asserted its formations will remain on Pakistan's border until it has extradited 20 alleged fugitives, and rejected as non-serious a similar counter-demand made by Islamabad to the government in New Delhi.

The strongly worded statement came from Parliamentary Affairs Minister Pramod Mahajan, who is widely seen as Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's main hatchet man.

Mahajan, speaking to Star TV network, appeared to pooh-pooh a crack-down by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf on extremists, as Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes speaking from the US said his army will hold the borders.

India and Pakistan massed almost a million troops on their borders after last month's audacious attack on the Indian parliament which New Delhi blames on Pakistan-based Islamic groups.

Musharraf last week began the clamp-down against Islamic extremists in Pakistan and arrested hundreds, but both Mahajan and Fernandes said a hand-over of some of the 20 most wanted by India would be a pre-condition to the border de-escalation.

On Saturday, Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar surprised India saying Islamabad too had its list of terrorist suspects it wants extradited from India.

"It is stalemate... We cannot take this (Pakistani) list seriously. Pakistan, even as a joke, had never made an allegation that India was sponsoring cross-border terrorism. So how can we take this seriously?" Mahajan said of Sattar's weekend announcement.

Mahajan also rejected any talk between India and Pakistan, as long as Islamabad did not accept New Delhi's demands. India says 14 on its most-wanted list of 20 are its citizens and wanted for attacks including the 1993 serial blasts of Bombay that killed or maimed 300.-AFP

Most Asians oppose US attack: survey

HONG KONG, Jan 21: Most Asians disagree with the US war on Afghanistan and do not want their own countries to get involved in the military action, a survey published on Monday said.

The poll of six countries and territories by the research company Gallup found that in most places, a higher percentage disagreed than agreed with the US military action and many feared the campaign would develop into a broader war against Islam.

Pakistanis and Malaysians were more concerned about the effect of US bombing on Afghan citizens with 56 per cent and 51 per cent respectively citing it as their primary concern about the war.

Four out of six of the countries and territories said they were more worried than not that the war would develop into a broader war against Islam with 58 per cent of Malaysians and 61 per cent of Pakistanis expressing the fear.

Taylor Nelson Sofres Hong Kong, one of the world's leading marketing groups, made the results of the survey available to the public.

India and Japan were the only countries in which more people agreed with the US military action than disagreed with it. In India 70 per cent supported the action and 27 opposed it while in Japan 33 per cent supported it and 26 per cent opposed it.

Elsewhere, opponents outnumbered supporters by 46 per cent to 45 per cent in Hong Kong, 44 per cent to 43 per cent in South Korea, 67 per cent to 13 per cent in Malaysia and 82 per cent to eight per cent in Pakistan.

Only in India did a majority of people agree their country should join in the action, with 85 per cent to 12 per cent in favour of it. Strongest opposition to taking part came in Pakistan and Malaysia where 71 per cent and 77 per cent respectively opposed involvement.

Every one of the countries and territories surveyed believed US foreign policy had a more negative than positive effect on their countries, with the sentiment expressed most strongly in India (65 per cent) and South Korea (55 per cent).-dpa

Bush's hawkish policies making world more dangerous
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON: The hawkish, nationalistic, and unilateralist policies of Bush's administration have raised tensions from Israel to Indonesia, and from Colombia to the Koreas.

Whatever hopes existed in the late 1990s for a new era of global cooperation in combating poverty, disease, and threats to the environment seem to have evaporated.

Much of the foreign-policy establishment was stunned when, after six weeks in office, Bush ostentatiously pulled the plug on visiting South Korean President and Nobel Peace laureate Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy" toward North Korea by announcing that Washington had no intention of continuing high-level talks with Pyongyang aimed at freezing the North's ballistic missile programme. The move caught Powell, who had assured reporters of Bush's full support for Kim just the day before, completely by surprise.

Two weeks later, Bush humiliated Ge. Colin Powell again - and angered visiting German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, as well as other European leaders - when he denounced the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in crudely nationalistic terms. "(W)e will not do anything that harms our economy, because first things first are the people who live in America; that's my priority."

Bush's subsequent withdrawal from the Kyoto negotiations was simply the first among a whole series of moves that demonstrated his administration's contempt for multilateral forums, particularly in the arms-control area.

It subsequently disavowed both the global ban on land mines and the Comprehensive (Nuclear) Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); sabotaged UN negotiations on limiting international commerce in small arms; and walked out of another conference on strengthening the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and later announced that the treaty was "dead" so far as Washington was concerned.

Taking advantage of popular fears created by the Sept 11 attacks and ignoring recent intelligence estimates that found that ballistic missiles were the least likely delivery vehicle to be used by terrorists or "rogue states" to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction, Bush capped the year in December by officially withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, viewed by Russia and most nuclear analysts as "the cornerstone" of international arms control, to accelerate development of NMD.

The unilateralist and surly attitudes behind these decisions should not have been surprising, given the administration's overall make-up. At the Pentagon, in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, and on the National Security Council staff, the hawks and unilateralists - usually in combination - clearly dominate the administration.

Virtually all of them are men, and they have strong likes and dislikes. They see Israel as a strategic ally and are especially fond of right-wing Likud governments there. They consider China, Iraq and Iran to be especially dangerous to US interests in parts of the world where they believe Washington's hegemony should be unchallenged.

As coined by one senior State Department official, the administration has opted for "multilateralism a la carte," meaning that it will co-operate with other countries only to the extent that it serves the US interest and does not compromise Washington's own freedom of action.

That point has been made crystal clear by the conduct of the war in Afghanistan in which the administration not only turned down offers of military help from virtually all of its closest allies except Britain, but deliberately held up the insertion of European-led peace-keeping troops precisely because, in the words of Britain's top commander, that they might get in the way of Washington's "high-tech, Wild West" military operations and "single-minded" hunt for Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

While the US pursued its quarry, vast parts of Afghanistan remained inaccessible to relief convoys as starvation spread with the onset of winter and the country returned to the warlordism, banditry, and anarchy which helped give rise to the Taliban in the first place. Even now, the administration, just as it promised to its right-wing supporters, is resisting the use of US soldiers as peacekeepers to help stabilize the war-torn land and thus boost the authority of its new government, handpicked by the US.

Pentagon hawks have meanwhile been scanning the horizon for new theatres in the anti-terrorism struggle including the Philippines, Indonesia, Yemen, Somalia, the former Soviet Central Asia, Lebanon and, Iraq of course, and maybe even Iran. US involvement in global peacemaking has simply wilted on the vine.

In addition to stopping Korean reconciliation virtually in its tracks last March, Bush - to Powell's clear discomfort - has watched impassively as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was increasingly taken over by extremists on both sides over the past year and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon moved step by step to weaken, humiliate and dismantle Yasser Arafat's Palestine Authority and thus pound the final nail in the coffin of the eight-year-old, US-led Oslo peace process.

The US was conspicuously absent in efforts to keep alive the three-year peace process in Colombia, where there are already several hundred US advisers and to which it is planning to increase aid apparently in anticipation of the collapse of peace efforts. -Dawn/InterPress Service.

U.S. Media Fail to Report Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
(Media Alliance)
09 January 2002 by Marc W. Herold
Marc W. Herold is a Professor at the Departments of Economics and Women's Studies University of New Hampshire Durham.
U.S. Media Fail to Report Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan
The air attack on Afghanistan began at 8:57 p.m. local time on October 7. The following day, Reuters carried an interview with a 16- year-old ice cream vendor from Jalalabad who said he had lost his leg and two fingers in a Cruise missile strike on an airfield near his home: "There was just a roaring sound, and then I opened my eyes and I was in a hospital," said Assadullah, who had been taken across the border to Peshawar for medical help. "I lost my leg and two fingers. There were other people hurt. People were running all over the place."
Multiply this scene by two or three hundred and you begin to approximate the reality on the ground in Afghanistan. A reality that is blithely dismissed by the Pentagon and the compliant U.S. corporate media with the statement, "the claims could not be independently verified." November 24, 2001, seven weeks into the war, Los Angeles Times reporter M.H. Paul Richter could write without shame, "...although estimates are still largely guesses, some experts believe that more than 1,000 Taliban and opposition troops have probably died in the fighting, along with at least dozens of civilians." Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands, as we shall document. In fact, a careful analysis of published reports shows that Afghanistan has been subjected to a barbarous air bombardment, which has killed an average of 60-65 civilians per day since October 7.
When the sun set on November 23, at least 3,006 Afghan civilians had died in U.S. bombing attacks. In tabulating these totals I have relied upon Indian daily newspapers (especially The Times of India, considered the equivalent of The New York Times), three Pakistani dailies, the Singapore News, British, Canadian, and Australian (Sydney Morning Press and Herald Sun) newspapers, the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) based in Peshawar, the Agence France Press (AFP), Pakistan News Service (PNS), Reuters, BBC News Online, al-Jazeera, and a variety of other reputable sources.
Apparently, the only casualty reports considered "real" by the mainstream U.S. press are those either issued by a western enterprise or organization, or "independently verified" by western individuals and/or organizations. In other words, the high levels of civilian casualties reported elsewhere (for example reports by Robert Fisk, Justin Huggler, and Richard Lloyd Parry of The Independent and Tayseer Allouni of al-Jazeera.) are simply written off as "enemy propaganda" and ignored.
For a typical example of minimization consider: "Truth and Lies About Taliban Death Claims" published in a major British newspaper, (The Sunday Telegraph, November 4, 2001. Authors Macer Hall and David Wastell solemnly declare that "far fewer Afghan civilians have been killed by American bombs than is claimed by Taliban propaganda." Citing "an intelligence report obtained by The Sunday Telegraph," which purportedly employed data gathered by satellite and unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, they allege that most Taliban claims are falsehoods and propaganda. They then present a list of Taliban claims and counter it with "the Truth," as per the intelligence report, NOT their own independent research!
I publish below both the Taliban claims and the "truth" as per the intelligence report, followed by my own assessment in the last column. Five bombing incidents that occurred during October 2001 are examined, showing, in my assessment, a civilian death toll of at least 239!
- Date of U.S bombing Taliban `claim' as stated in the `report': - Pentagon/State Department `truth': - My assessment :
***October 11
Bombed Karam village, 200 killed. Hit military base on hillside. While possible civilians killed, Taliban claims are predictably exaggerated
Two jets bomb the mountain village of Karam comprised of 60 mud houses, during dinner after evening prayer time, killing 100-160 in Karam alone.
Reported by: DAWN, the Guardian, the Independent, International Herald Tribune, the Scotsman, the Observer, and BBC News.
***October 13
Missile hits civilian homes in Kabul, killing civilians Pentagon acknowledges a stray missile accidentally struck a populated Kabul area, killing or injuring civilians.
In early a.m., F-18 drops 2'000 lb JDAM bombs upon the dirt-poor Qila Meer Abas neighborhood, 2 kms. south of Kabul airport, killing 4.
Reported in : Afghan Islamic Press, Los Angeles Times, Frontier Post, Pakistan Observer, the Guardian, and BBC News.
***October 21
Bombed Herat hospital, killing 100+ civilians. Pentagon admits missing military barracks, but says hospital is "considerable distance" from where bomb landed and bomb blast unlikely to cause civilian deaths.
F-18 dropped a 1'000 lb cluster bomb on a 200-bed military hospital and mosque, missing the target by 500-1000 meters.
Reported in Afghan Islamic Press, Pakistan News Service, Frontier Post, the Guardian, Times of India, Agence France Presse, and by the U.N.
***October 29
Hit mosque in Kandahar, killing civilians.
Note; I have NOT been able to find this Taliban claim. No air strike in the general area. Claim is a lie.
A pre-dawn bombing raid and 8-9 cluster bombs fell on October 24th on the mosque in the village of Ishaq Sulaiman near Herat, killing 20.
Reported in : Agence France Presse, Reuters, DAWN, the Herald, etc.
***October 31
Red Crescent clinic in Kandahar hit, killing 11.
A military target was hit and a Red Crescent hospital was in vicinity--100s of meters away and was undamaged.
Pre-dawn raid,F-18 drops a 2'000 lb JDAM bomb on the clinic, killing 15-25. The clinic is reduced to a mangled mess of iron and concrete [photo].
Reported in : DAWN, the Times, the Independent, the Guardian, Reuters, and Agence France Presse
Who is lying?
To make the war on Afghanistan appear `just', it becomes imperative to completely block access to information on the true human costs, and the actions of Bush-Rumsfeld-Rice speak eloquently to this effort: For example, calling in all the major U.S. news networks to give them their marching orders, buying up all commercial satellite imagery available to the general public, sending Powell to Qatar to persuade the independent al-Jazeera news network, and, when that fails, targeting the Kabul office of al-Jazeera for a direct missile hit. For the most part, the major U.S. corporate media appear to have obeyed the Pentagon directives and given sparse coverage to the topic of civilian casualties.
When faced with the indisputable "fact" of a civilian hit, the Bush team's standard response was that a nearby military facility was the real target. In almost every case we can document, this turned out to be a long-abandoned military facility. For instance, in the incident where four night watchmen were killed at the offices of a United Nations de-mining agency in Kabul, the Pentagon claimed it was near a military radio tower. U.N. officials, however, say the tower was a defunct medium-and short-wave radio station, situated 900 feet away from the bombed building, and hadn't been in operation for over a decade.
On October 19, U.S. planes circled over Tarin Kot in Uruzgan early in the evening, then returned after everyone had gone to bed and bombed a residential area, two miles away from the nearest Taliban base. Mud houses were flattened and families destroyed. The first round of bombs killed 20, and as some of the villagers were pulling their neighbors out of the rubble, more bombs fell, killing 10 more. One of the villagers recalled: "We pulled the baby out, the others were buried in the rubble. Children were decapitated. There were bodies with no legs. We could do nothing. We just fled."
Richard Lloyd Parry, "Families Blown Apart, Infants Dying. The Terrible Truth of This `Just War'," The Independent (October 25, 2001).
On October 21, planes apparently targeting a Taliban military base- long abandoned-released their deadly cargo on the Kabul residential area of Khair Khana, killing eight members of one family who had just sat down to breakfast. Sayed Salahuddin, "Eight Die From One Family in Kabul Raid," at XTRAMSN (October 22, 2001.
The following day, planes dropped BLU-97 cluster bombs (made by Aerojet / Honeywell) on the village of Shakar Qala near Herat, completely missing the Taliban encampments located five to seven hundred yards away and destroying or badly damaging 20 of the village's 45 houses. "Cluster Bombs Are New Danger to Mine Clearers," The Times (October 26, 2001)
Fourteen people were killed immediately and a 15th died after picking up the parachute attached to one of the 202 bomblets dispersed by the BLU-97. U.N. mine-clearing officials in the region have noted that 10-30% of the missiles and bombs dropped on Afghanistan have not exploded, posing a lasting danger. Pakistan News Service - PSN (October 20, 2001) and Amy Waldman, "Bomb Remnants Increase War Toll," New York Times (November 23, 2001).
On November 26, following days of heavy bombing of Shamshad village in Nangarhar province, there are reports of up to three Afghan children being blown up and at least seven wounded by a cluster bomb while they were collecting firewood and scrap."Afghan Children Killed Amassing Scrap of American Bombs," Pakistan News Service (November 26, 2001), "One dies, six injured as cluster bomb explodes," The Frontier Post (November 27, 2001).
There are several instances of bombs being dropped on areas of no military significance. On October 25, a bomb hit a fully loaded city bus at Kabul Gate, in Kandahar, incinerating 10-20 passengers. Owen Brown, "'Bus Hit' Claim as War of Words Hots Up," The Guardian (October 26, 2001)
Then, on November 18 and 19, U.S. planes bombed the mountain village of Gluco-located on the Khyber Pass and far away from any military facility-killing seven villagers. Phillip Smucker, "Village of Death Casts Doubts over U.S. Intelligence," The Telegraph (November 21, 2001). A reporter for The Telegraph who visited Gluco, noted: "Their wooden homes looked like piles of charred matchsticks.
Injured mules lay braying in the road along the mountain pass that stank of sulphur and dead animals..." Noor Mohamed, a wheat trader who travels the Chaman to Ghazni highway on business, recalls seeing the bombed-out, twisted, and still smoking remains of a 15-lorry fuel convoy just north of Kandahar during the week of November 29. He says he was sickened by the sight of the charred remains of the drivers and all the dozens of unfortunate souls who had bargained for a ride to Chaman. Paul Harris, "Warlords Bring New Terror," The Observer (December 2, 2001).
Upon arriving at a refugee camp on the Pakistan border, Abdul Nabi, told the A.F.P. on October 24 that he had seen two groups of bodies-of 13 and 15 corpses-of civilians near bombed out trucks on the road between Herat and Kandahar.
"UN Says Bombs Struck Mosques, Village as Civilian Casualties Mount," Agence France Presse in Kabul (Oct. 24), cited in The Singapore News (October 24, 2001). Our data reveals that this attack was carried out on October 22, against four trucks carrying fuel oil.
The U.S. Air Force's use of weapons with enormous destructive capability-including fuel air bombs, B-52 carpet bombs, BLU-82s, and CBU-87 cluster bombs (shown to be so effective at killing and maiming civilians who happen to come upon the unexploded "bomblets"} -- reveals the emptiness of its claim that the U.S. has been trying to avoid Afghan civilian casualties.
"Even though civilian deaths have not been the deliberate goal of the current bombing - as they were for the attackers of 9/11--the end result has been a distinction without a difference. Dead is dead, and when ones actions have entirely foreseeable consequences, it is little more than a precious and empty platitude to argue that those consequences were merely accidental." Tim Wise, "Consistently Inconsistent: Rhetoric Meets Reality in the War on Terrorism," at ZNET November 15, 2001)
The U.S. bombing campaign has also directly targeted certain civilian facilities deemed hostile to its war success:
· On October 13, bombs destroyed Kabul's main telephone exchange [Civilian casualties unreported.]
· On October 15, bombs destroyed Kabul's power station, killing 12. Mentioned in BBC News Online (October 23, 2001).
· In late October, U.S. warplanes bombed the electrical grid in Kandahar, knocking out all power, but the Taliban were able to divert some electricity to the city from a generating plant in Helmand province, but that, too, was later bombed. From "Bombing Alters Afghans Views of U.S.," Pakistan News Service-PNS (November 7, 2001).
· On October 31, the U.S. launched seven air strikes against Afghanistan's largest hydroelectric power station adjacent to the huge Kajakai dam, 90 kilometers northwest of Kandahar, raising fears that the dam might break. Richard L. Parry, "U.N Fears `Disaster' Over Strikes Near Hydro Dam," The Independent (November 8, 2001)
· On November 12, a guided bomb scored a direct hit on the Kabul office of the al-Jazeera news agency, which had been reporting from Afghanistan in a manner deemed hostile by Washington. See "U.S Targeting Journalists Not Portraying Her Viewpoint," The Frontier Post (November 20, 2001), at: www.frontierpost.com.pk
· On November 18, planes bombed religious schools (Madrasas) in the Khost and Shamshad areas.
Utilities, news organizations, educational institutions - all seem to be "fair" targets in this war.
Afghan civilians living in proximity to alleged military installations will die - must die - and are part of the "collateral damage" in the U.S. efforts to conduct military operations in the sky and on the ground without U.S. military casualties.
From the point of view of U.S. policy makers and their mainstream media lackeys, the "cost" of a dead Afghan civilian is zero (as long as these civilian deaths are hidden from the public) but the "benefits" of preserving U.S. military lives is enormous, given the U.S. public's aversion to returning body bags in this post-Vietnam era.
The absolute need to avoid U.S. military casualties requires flying high up in the sky, greatly increasing the probability of killing civilians.
As John MacLachlen Gray of The Toronto Globe & Mail writes: "...better stand clear and fire away. Given this implicit decision, the slaughter of innocent people, as a statistical eventuality is not an accident but a priority-in which Afghan civilian casualties are substituted for American military casualties." (`Working the Dark Side,' October 31, 2001.)
It is clear that the military strategists intentionally target missiles and drop bombs upon heavily populated areas of Afghanistan.
A legacy of Afghanistan's 10 years of civil war in the 1980s is that many military facilities are located in urban areas where the Soviet-backed government had placed them for better protection from attacks by the largely rural Mujahideen.
Successor Afghan governments inherited these emplacements. To suggest that the Taliban used "human shields" is more revealing of the historical amnesia and racism of those making such claims,than of Taliban deeds.
Any heavy bombing of these military emplacements must necessarily result in substantial civilian casualties, a reality exacerbated by the admitted occasional poor targeting, human error, equipment malfunction, and irresponsible use of outdated Soviet maps.
The most notable element here, however, is the very low value put upon Afghan civilian lives by military planners and the political elite. Why? I believe race has something to do with it. The Afghanis are not "white," whereas the overwhelming majority of pilots and elite ground troops are.
This "fact" serves to amplify the positive benefit-cost ratio of sacrificing the darker-skinned Afghanis today (like the Indochinese and Iraqis of former wars) so that "white" American soldiers may be saved tomorrow. In other words, when the "enemy" is non-white, the scale of violence used by the U.S. government to achieve its state objectives at minimum cost knows no limits.
One may point out that the mass bombing of Serbia just a couple of years ago, contradicts this view. But the Serbs, it should be noted, were tainted (read "darkened") by their Communist past-at least, in the views of U.S. policymakers and the corporate media-hence were fair game. Otherwise, there is no instance (except during World War II) of a foreign Caucasian state being targeted by the U.S. government.
The Afghan War is anything but a "just war," as James Carroll has adroitly pointed out in an essay in (The Boston Globe November 27, 2001)
Firstly, the disproportionate nature of a response that makes an entire other nation and people "pay" for the crimes of a few is obvious to anyone who seeks out the real "costs" exacted upon the people of Afghanistan.
Secondly, this war does little to impede the cycle of violence of which the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks are merely one manifestation. The massive firepower unleashed by the Americans will no doubt invite similar indiscriminate carnage in the future. Injustices will flower.
Thirdly, calling the U.S. attacks a war, rather than a police action, without providing a justification for war, renders the action unjust. As Carroll writes, "...the criminals, not an impoverished nation, should be on the receiving end of punishment."
It is simply unacceptable for civilians to be slaughtered as a side-effect of an intentional strike against a specified target. There is no difference between the attacks upon the WTC, whose primary goal was the destruction of a symbol, and the U.S.-U.K. coalition's revenge bombing of military targets in populated urban areas. Both are criminal. Slaughter is slaughter. Killing civilians, even if unintentional, is criminal.

Rumsfeld remarks anger UK MPs

LONDON, Jan 23: British politicians reacted angrily on Wednesday to an "insulting" putdown from US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that they were bleating from afar about the treatment of Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners.

Images of detainees shackled and on their knees in cages at Guantanamo Bay - a US base in Cuba - have sparked outrage around the world, not least in Britain.

At a Pentagon briefing on Tuesday, Rumsfeld said it was easy for critics to carp from a "comfortable distance". "It's amazing the insight that parliamentarians can gain from 5,000 miles away," he said in singling Britain out.

British lawmakers, notably from Prime Minister Tony Blair's own party, said they deserved better than sarcasm having stood unflinchingly by the United States when it attacked Afghanistan.

"We've supported the United States. It seems rather crass to dismiss legitimate concerns out of hand," Ann Clwyd, Labour MP, said. "We don't want to be insulted by Donald Rumsfeld."

Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said the "war on terror" was not just about military action in Afghanistan but winning hearts and minds in the Middle East.

"We here in Britain may be 5,000 miles from Cuba. But we are much closer to the Middle East than (Rumsfeld) is in Washington," he said.

Human rights groups say the United States has no right to refuse to categorize the detainees as prisoners of war, a designation that would give them extensive rights under the Geneva Convention.

"It really isn't up to Rumsfeld to decide whether they are prisoners of war," Clwyd said.

US EMBASSY TIRADE: Clwyd, who heads the cross-party parliamentary Human Rights Group, met the number two at the US embassy in London on Wednesday to raise her concerns along with eight other MPs. "There was really a lot of outrage about Mr Rumsfeld's comments," she said.

The government, keen to squash talk of a rift, refused to get involved. Blair's spokesman said he did not speak for Rumsfeld but noted that British officials visiting Guantanamo Bay had reported the prisoners were being well treated.-Reuters

Власти Нью-Йорка приняли резолюцию о закрытии офисов ПА
24 января представитель городского Совета Нью-Йорка Оливер Коппель огласил текст резолюции властей, содержащей призыв немедленно закрыть все без исключения офисы, работающие от имени администрации Палестинской автономии.

В тексте документа сказано, что, поскольку деятельность офисов ПА представляют собой угрозу для безопасности жителей Нью-Йорка, городской Совет считает своим долгом защитить горожан, а посему городские власти просят правительство США в срочном порядке принять решение о закрытии всех офисов, работающих в Нью-Йорке от имени администрации ПА.

Раввин Ави Вайсс, возглавляющий Коалицию AMCHA, организацию, координирующую кампанию по закрытию офисов ПА в Нью-Йорке, также подчеркнул, что аналогичные резолюции будут приняты Ассамблеей штата Нью-Йорк, Палатой представителей Конгресса США и американским Сенатом.
MIGnews <http://www.mignews.com/>

Bush vows to expand war on terrorism: Musharraf's role lauded: State of Union address

By Tahir Mirza
WASHINGTON, Jan 30: In a State of the Union address to Congress that sounded like a war-time speech, US President George Bush on Tuesday night grouped Iran, Iraq and North Korea into what he called an evil axis and said the US would not permit the "world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons".

Emboldened by an unprecedentedly high wave of public approval for his handling of affairs since the Sept 11 attacks, Mr Bush used the occasion of the traditional yearly speech by the president to the US legislature to accuse the three countries of attempting to develop nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, virtually threatening them with pre-emptive action.

He did not specify steps he is likely to take, but said, ominously: "We'll be deliberate, but time is not on our side. I will not wait on events while dangers gather."

Apart from the threats hurled in strong language at Iran, Iraq and North Korea and a commitment to continue the "war against terror", the 48-minute address, which came at the end of Mr Bush's first year in office, was bereft of any references to international issues, such as the Palestine question or the confrontation in South Asia and contained no indication of new US initiatives in tackling global poverty and deprivation.

The portion of the address concerned with foreign affairs was almost entirely devoted to terrorism. Iran is staunchly opposed to the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden, and Mr Bush's harsh language against that country would be seen by observers as specially disturbing.

Watched from the presidential box by Afghan interim leader Hamid Karzai, currently on a visit to the US, Mr Bush said: "Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld - including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Jaish-i-Mohammad - operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centres of large cities. My hope is that all nations will heed our call and eliminate terrorist parasites who threaten their countries and our own."

In this context, Mr Bush praised President Pervez Musharraf, the only foreign leader other than Mr Karzai cited by name in the address. He said: "Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf."

In a generalized comment on how a "common danger" was erasing "old rivalries", Mr Bush said: "America is working with Russia and China and India in ways we never have before to achieve peace and prosperity. In every region, free markets and free trade and free societies are proving their power to lift lives. Together with friends and allies from Europe to Asia, and Africa to Latin America, we will demonstrate that the forces of terror cannot stop the momentum of freedom."

Towards the end of the address, which was repeatedly interrupted by applause, President Bush, implicitly acknowledging reservations in the Muslim countries about the manner in which the military campaign against "terrorism" is being conducted, said: "No people on earth yearn to be oppressed or aspire to servitude or eagerly await the midnight knock of the secret police. If anyone doubts this, let them look to Afghanistan, where the Islamic street greeted the fall of tyranny with song and celebration. Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history, with its centuries of learning and tolerance and progress."

He said America would take the side of those who advocated civil liberties and human dignity, including those in the Islamic world, because the US sought "a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror".

On the domestic front, Mr Bush made no specific allusion to the Enron collapse, which has brought into question the failed energy corporation's ties with the Bush administration, and contented himself by saying the war on recession would also be won like the "war against terrorism".

Democratic members of the two legislative houses remained seated during Mr Bush's remarks on the economy, while Republican Party senators and representatives repeatedly stood up in their seats to give him a standing ovation, sometimes clapping and rising even on simply one sentence, although the speech to outside observers seemed to be stronger on rhetoric than substance.

Also in the presidential box was Afghanistan's minister for women's development, Dr Samia Samar, who is accompanying Mr Karzai on the Afghan leader's visit to the US. Mr Karzai was a sober, dignified figure in his green cape and shalwar-kameez.

US officials struggle to paper over Bush speech
By Our Staff Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Jan 31: Senior US administration officials are attempting to scale down the Caesar-like imperial pronouncements made by President George W. Bush in his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday in which he put Iran, Iraq and North Korea in an "axis of evil" and threatened them with military action.

It is being suggested that the president was merely sending a signal to the three nations and others seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction or seen as abetting terrorism and putting them on notice.

Various officials stressed in briefings on Wednesday that Bush had earlier been saying more or less the same things that he outlined in his speech on Tuesday and said the president was not suggesting imminent military action.

Some officials who had seen the speech before it was delivered were reported to have advised against the strong phraseology employed by the president, but their advice was not heeded.

Bush's "evil axis" remark led to close questioning at the State Department briefing on Thursday, when Spokesman Richard Boucher was asked whether there was evidence of any combined effort between Iran, Iraq and North Korea that justified the term "axis".

Boucher said the word was appropriate because there were relationships between these countries, each of which had weapons programmes that constituted a danger to countries in the region and to the world. But he would not be drawn into discussing what the "relationships" were, saying he would just leave it at that.

Boucher also indicated that the possibility of negotiations on issues of concern to the United States remained open. He said opportunities to explore cooperation were utilized whenever the occasion arose, such as when the Iranian government cooperated with efforts at Bonn for the formation of an interim administration in Kabul. But then, Boucher said, there were concerns about what Iran was doing on the ground in various places in Afghanistan, and this was followed by the arms shipment episode.

On North Korea, he said the US remained prepared to undertake a serious discussion at any time and anywhere on nuclear proliferation issues, and President Bush's speech was a signal to the North Koreans to undertake such discussions.

The US president is due to visit South Korea next month, and Seoul is worried that Bush's speech might have harmed chances of seeking a rapprochement with North Korea and endangered South Korea's "sunshine policy" towards the North.

At the Pentagon, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended his president's speech, saying it had "near perfect credibility" and declaring that despite Iran's offers to help in the war against terrorism, "we know Iran is actively sending terrorists" to threaten Israel and "we also know that they have a very active weapons of mass destruction programme".

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in using the word "axis", Bush meant no comparison to the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan during World War II.

Khamenei calls Bush bloodthirsty

TEHRAN, Jan 31: Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Thursday called US President George W. Bush "blood thirsty" in a speech broadcast in part on state radio.

"The (US President) speaks like a man thirsty for human blood," Khamenei said at a gathering of journalists from various Muslim countries. "The world knows that the United States is the Great Satan."

His comments followed earlier denunciations of Bush's State of the Union address by other Iranian officials, including President Mohammad Khatami.

Bush had said on Tuesday that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were attempting to develop weapons of mass destruction and singled them out as an "axis of evil". He said the United States would not permit those countries to threaten it with such weapons.

US officials have been angered by what they view as Tehran's increasing efforts to interfere in post-Taliban Afghanistan and by Iran's alleged involvement in a recent shipment of weapons to Palestinians fighting Israel.

Khamenei said Iran would continue to support the Palestinian cause without concern for US threats.

"Iran is proud to be at the receiving end of the anger of the most-hated Satanic power of the world," the radio quoted Khamenei as saying.-Reuters

The world must help Palestinians
By Peter Hansen Commissioner General, UNRWA for Palestinians

AFTER 16 months of bloody strife in the Middle East the Palestinian population is showing clear signs of distress. There has been a doubling of stillbirths in the West Bank , in Gaza 65 per cent of the population is now living below the poverty line, school exam results have collapsed and there has been a dramatic upsurge in mental health problems.

The cycle of violence often seems immune to the efforts of mediators or the initiatives of visiting diplomats. Yet hopeless as it might seem, the United Nations is calling on the international community not to give in to the temptations of disengagement.

If there seems to be no immediate remedies on the political front, there remains a very direct impact the world can have on the humanitarian situation in Gaza and the West Bank.

The tragic running total of deaths of course captures most headlines but the conflict has cast a wider shadow of misery across Palestinian society. There are now over 80 permanent military checkpoints in the West Bank and Gaza. Tight restrictions on freedom of movement, in addition to prolonged curfews, fighting in civilian areas, house demolitions and the destruction of agricultural crops, have exacted an alarming toll.

Over and above the loss of life, the strife means factories and farmers cannot get their goods to market; over 100,000 labourers have lost their jobs inside Israel; around 4,500 people have been made homeless and thousands of households have lost their only breadwinner to a disabling injury.

Among the hardest hit have been the 1.5 million innocent and vulnerable Palestinian refugees who live in the territories.

So far, families have been able to survive by tapping their savings, borrowing from relatives, selling jewellery or buying on credit. But after 16 months of crisis the reserves are running dry. Even if peace breaks out tomorrow it will take many years for families to climb out from under the debt and destruction that have come hand in hand with violence.

According to a UN survey in October last year, the conflict has cost the economy of the Palestinian territories as much as $3.2 billion - or nearly 50 per cent of total GDP. In all, 50 per cent of all Palestinian households have seen their already-meagre income halved.

In the third quarter of the year unemployment reached 31.5 per cent in the West Bank and an astonishing 48 per cent in the Gaza Strip where 65 per cent of the population was living in acute poverty. These statistics will only have worsened in recent months.

It hardly needs stating that the prevailing widespread economic, social and psychological distress, with serious consequences on the population's health, is not fertile ground for the seeds of peace. Further deterioration in the living conditions of the Palestinian people - the overwhelming majority of whom have nothing to do with the violence the world sees nightly on its television scenes - can only damage further the chances of an eventual settlement to the crisis.

The UN has a presence on the ground. That means there is an effective tool that the international community can use to immediately mitigate the damage caused by the conflict. Since the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, the UN, in the form of the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), has been the embodiment of the international community's concern for the innocent victims of the conflicts that have blighted the Middle East.

Currently in the Gaza Strip, there are 850,000 UN-registered refugees and in the West Bank there are 607,000. Even in peaceful times, the United Nations delivers health, education and relief services to half the population of the territories.

UNRWA has just launched an appeal which aims to raise $117 million to cover its ongoing emergency work in 2002. The funds will be used for emergency food aid, a job creation programme, medical supplies, trauma counselling for children and other urgent needs like rebuilding demolished homes.

Faced with such a seemingly intractable conflict, growing political uncertainty and increasing instability, donor fatigue and despair are tempting responses. But they would be the wrong ones. Instead the world can act to show its concern for the innocent who have been injured and disabled, the families who have lost their breadwinner or their home and the children who have been traumatized by the everyday violence that blights their lives.

Israel's especially cruel sanction
By John K. Cooley

ATHENS: The Bush administration is weighing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's request to break all ties - and end all American aid - to Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

Washington should also consider the especially cruel nature of Israeli punishments and reprisals - as well as Arab terrorism and resistance to Israeli occupation that lead to these reprisals.

One form of Israeli punishment is the destruction of Muslim and Christian Arab homes with explosives and bulldozers.

During the Palestine Mandate, before Israel's creation in 1948, British military administrators used this weapon against Jews and Arabs - though most often against Arabs, accused or suspected of anti- British terrorism. This odious practice - banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention on the conduct of foreign military occupation - has continued, both in areas under Israeli control and in others temporarily conquered by Israeli forces, as in Syria (in 1967 and 1973-74) and south Lebanon and Beirut's Palestinian outskirts (between 1978 and the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000). I have watched it happen repeatedly since 1965.

Israel's recent air and ground attacks against Palestinians in both the occupied and Palestinian-administered autonomous West Bank and Gaza territories have included this form of punishment. In response to Arab suicide bombings and other attacks, the Israeli Army most recently blasted a strip of homes along the Gaza border with Egypt.

Sharon's spokesmen insist the houses were "mostly uninhabited." Some, they say, concealed tunnels used for smuggling arms from Egypt. UN and relief agencies report hundreds of newly homeless people as a result.

In mid-January, several large, new houses were blown up and bulldozed with little or no warning in or near ethnically Arab East Jerusalem.

Justification: The houses were "illegal" because the owners had obtained no Israeli building permits. The trouble is, no matter how long a Christian or Muslim Arab and his family have lived in East Jerusalem, which Israel wrested from Jordan in 1967 and then formally annexed, they are, in more than 90 per cent of cases, refused a building permit when they apply.

The purpose, as many Jewish observers have said, is simply to further the "Judaization" or Israeli settlement of formerly Arab areas. One consequence is that peaceable people decide to resist the occupation, join the Palestinian intifada - and yes, many of the younger men and some women do become terrorists.

Repeatedly, they begin using guns and bombs against the occupying army and against the Jewish settlers who have encroached on their land, water wells, or have - especially in 1948 and 1967 - taken over their (undamaged) houses.

Between 1920 and Israel's founding, the British authorities continued what had been a rarer pre-World War I Ottoman Turkish practice.

Unless the Bush administration uses its muscle to restrain violence by both sides, a new cease-fire or armistice in this tragic conflict, let alone peace, will be impossible to achieve. Apparently we must await new leadership in both Israel and the promised, but still hypothetical, state of Palestine.

In other words, there must be an American effort to bring about a new state - a new state of mind, in fact - that will make both sides realize that the occupation must end, and that only then, with lots of determined help from the outside, can they reach peace by imposing it on themselves.-Dawn/The Christian Science Monitor News Service.

Wall Street Journal Managing Editor Paul Steiger to the e-mail address that contained the message and photos of missing Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and forwarded to Dawn: The kidnappers call themselves "The National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty".-dpa

КАИР, 4 февраля. /Корр. РИА "Новости" Игорь Марков/. В ночь на понедельник два вертолета израильских ВВС нанесли ракетный удар по металлообрабатывающим мастерским в секторе Газа. По данным израильской разведки, там находился подпольный цех по производству минометных снарядов.
Как передает корреспондент РИА "Новости", по данным палестинских источников, по зданию мастерской, которое загорелось и частично обрушилось, было выпущено до 5 ракет типа "воздух-земля". Данных о раненых и убитых не поступали.
Как отмечается в заявлении командования израильской армии, операция по поражению металлообрабатывающего цеха в Джабалии на севере сектора Газа, используемого для производства снарядов, была проведена ВВС Израиля "в ответ на минометные обстрелы, осуществленные палестинцами в последние несколько дней".
Ранее израильские армейские источники информировали, что в воскресенье 2 снаряда из палестинских минометов были выпущены по расположенному в секторе Газа еврейскому поселению.

US policy in ME dismays Arabs
By Howard Schneider
2/4/2002
CAIRO: If Sept 11 was a turning point in the way the United States deals with terrorism, many in the Arab world hoped it would also change the way America tackles the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Those hopes rose even further when, several weeks later, President Bush spoke of his vision for a Palestinian state.

And so, Qatari Foreign Minister Hamad Bin Jasim al-Thani said in a recent television interview, it is difficult to admit the truth as it is now seen through Arab eyes: Neither lobbying by American allies in the region nor the impact of the terrorist attacks has altered the path of US policy, which seems ever more tilted toward Israel.

There is, he said, only one option. "We have to beg," Hamad said. "The word "beg" disturbs me, but begging is the right word, for the Arabs don't possess the power, and their situation doesn't allow them to exercise any pressure in favour of the Palestinians."

Few have put it so candidly. But Hamad's remarks reflected a broad anxiety that has developed among Arab leaders, analysts and citizens as they have seen US policy evolve since Sept 11. For them, it has moved not toward bridge building with the Arab world, but into neglect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which many in this region view as central to US-Arab relations.

That the United States could live through Sept 11 and not move more forcefully to resolve a dispute that has inflamed suicide bombers and increased the popularity of groups such as Hamas, mystifies even the staunchest Arab allies.

"What people in the West don't seem to realize is that this has an impact, that the US has relinquished its role as honest broker, facilitator," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said in an interview. The Americans "have vanished," Maher said. "People don't know what the US is up to. There is a lot of confusion, and this is no time for confusion. It is very serious."

As the cycle of suicide bombings and Israeli military action continued in recent weeks, the Bush administration followed Israel's lead in placing more of the blame on the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat.

In a climate poisoned by Israeli assassinations and Palestinian suicide bombs, by the destruction of Palestinian homes and the discovery of a shipment of arms bound for Palestinian hands, US envoy Anthony Zinni has suspended his efforts to broker a cease-fire. In Congress, there has also been talk of breaking relations with Arafat's Palestinian Authority.

Arab commentators and officials say it is as if Arafat's marginalization has become a metaphor for the region as a whole. Just as the Palestinian leader has seemingly lost any leverage he may have had with the Israelis, so, it seems, have the Arab states been unable to sway the United States. That is an outcome seen here as contrary to US interests and to efforts to curb the extremism underlying the Sept 11 attacks.

The leaders of states close to the United States, particularly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, have repeatedly appealed for more US intervention. But they have little to show for it except a growing worry that the United States has discarded any hope of working with Arafat, who remains the only Palestinian Arab perceived as capable of delivering a durable peace agreement.

"Arab officials have reached a state where they can't give people justification or tell them `we are working on something," said Hisham Youssef, a spokesman for the Arab League. "This is probably the worst time that we have seen. It has confronted people with their weakness."

Criticism of US bias toward Israel has been a staple of regional politics for decades. However, US influence and relations in the region have grown steadily deeper in spite of it.

Following its US-brokered peace accord with Israel in 1979, Egypt became a major recipient of US foreign aid and arms, and has accepted hundreds of American advisers and contractors to help overhaul its economy, administration and military. However, that took place against the backdrop of steady, if slow, progress toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement and a general belief that, even if the United States was not on the Palestinians' side, it would at least be a reasonably neutral referee.

The United States oversaw such substantive breakthroughs as the post-Gulf War Madrid Conference and was usually at the ready in a crisis with talks or meetings that provided at least the appearance of movement.

If even the pretence of engagement disappears, and the peace process is fully abandoned, Arab officials and analysts say, US relations in the region will enter an uncharted and difficult era. -Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post.

America guilty of terrorism: Chomsky
By Satya Sivaraman
February 04, 2002
PORTO ALEGRE: With his usual biting wit, noted linguist, philosopher and social activist Noam Chomsky gave the audience at his "teach-in", during the second World Social Forum (WSF) here, a strong dose of exactly what they were looking for.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor first defended the anti-globalisation movement, then neatly exposed the motives behind the US government's ongoing "War on Terrorism", and finally trashed the entire rationale the global elite give for the policies of neo-liberalism they push.

"A sane and just form of globalization is what the anti-globalization movement is all about," Chomsky said at his Friday workshop, urging everyone at the WSF to "reject with scorn" the canard that they were opposed to all globalisation per se.

Calling the WSF - which emerged as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum, the annual gathering of the global corporate elite traditionally held in Davos, Switzerland - "the most exciting development in recent times," Chomsky said it is a continuation of the struggle for an integrated world of human beings that has been a part of people's and workers' movements for more than a century.

Speaking on the main theme of his testimonial "A World Without Wars", Chomsky said that the weapons of mass destruction in human possession could currently wipe out the world completely. "Either we have a world without war or we have no world," he warned, pointing out that despite this dire threat there are developed countries, like the United States, that are pursuing research on even more deadly ways of destroying the world.

Chomsky traced the history of modern wars to the rise of the nation-state in Europe several centuries ago, when rising elite used violence to demarcate their boundaries of jurisdiction and interest. The US government's War on Terrorism came in for a particularly strong attack from Chomsky, who said that it is a campaign that only increases the risks of world-wide destruction.

He questioned the US government's moral right to undertake such a war when Washington itself is guilty of promoting and implementing terrorism internationally on many occasions in the past. "If one looked at the official definition of terrorism, it would be identical to the official definition of US foreign policy," Chomsky said to wild cheers from the audience.

The current campaign against terrorism, he pointed out, is being run by US officials who in the mid-1980s were themselves responsible for running an international campaign of terrorism against leftist-run countries in Latin America and the Middle East. In a sarcastic aside, he added that this is "a telling comment on the educated classes of the free and democratic societies."

Referring to the business and political elite who dominate global affairs and are meeting in the World Economic Forum this year in New York, instead of Davos, as the "Masters of the Universe", Chomsky said that globalisation today was entirely designed to suit the needs of that wealthy minority. It is only popular movements like the WSF that can return power and resources back to the ordinary people and build a truly just and democratic world.-Dawn/InterPress Service

Bush's 'go-it-alone' stance alarms EU
By Thomas E. Ricks
2/4/2002
MUNICH: A parade of European security officials expressed alarm Saturday about what they considered an aggressive, go-it-alone stance staked out by President Bush in his State of the Union address last week , especially his warning that the United States was prepared to take pre-emptive action against Iraq or other countries that provided terrorists with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The US delegation to an international security conference here responded to their concerns with bipartisan unity. Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman and a host of other foreign policy heavyweights urged the Europeans to get with the American program and faulted them for their lack of urgency in combating terrorism.

Wolfowitz, who is considered the Bush administration's leading hawk on Iraq, played against expectation. When a panel moderator pointedly asked him to explain Bush's description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" that had sought weapons of mass destruction, Wolfowitz said simply, "Countries must make a choice." But he was followed by McCain, who delivered a fiery speech attacking Iraq and called on countries to decide whether they stood with the United States. "A day of reckoning is approaching," said McCain, a former presidential candidate. "Not simply for Saddam Hussein, but for all members of the Atlantic community (NATO)."

Lieberman, who was his party's most recent nominee for vice president, promptly stood to endorse "everything my colleague and friend has said." "The American speakers - Wolfowitz, McCain, and Lieberman - all had Iraq in the cross hairs," said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank specializing in defence issues.

The biggest surprise of the first session of the 38th annual conference here, which gave US and European officials their first opportunity to assess the impact of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks on both sides of the Atlantic, may have been the clear disconnect between the two sides about the urgency of the situation.

After listening to a dozen European officials vaguely discuss how plans should be made to eventually increase their military budgets, William Cohen, the Clinton administration's last defence secretary, lectured the audience on the need for quicker action. "This in fact poses a threat to civilization as we know it," he said.

But the Europeans expressed qualms about the stated US willingness to act unilaterally if necessary." There is a danger that the Europeans and the Americans in pursuing terrorism may diverge in their points of view," said Karl Lamers, the foreign policy spokesman for Germany's conservative opposition Christian Democratic Party. "We want to participate, which is why I would ask our American friends to bring us along in the formation of strategy, instead of you doing it and asking us to trot along behind."

Similarly, Menzies Campbell, the foreign affairs spokesman for the centrist Liberal Democrats in Britain's Parliament, questioned Bush's threat to attack Iraq, saying that, "Action against Iraq, it seems to me, would require incontrovertible evidence," which he said was lacking.

Some officials said they feared the United States had become so technologically advanced and militarily adept that it no longer believes it has much need to heed the views of its European allies. "We are losing our punch and our political influence," warned Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany's Christian Democrats.

Trying to come to terms with a United States altered by the terrorist attacks, Europeans expressed surprise at the size of the Bush administration's proposed $48 billion increase to the defence budget, at the swiftness of the apparent US victory in Afghanistan and at the willingness of the United States to go it alone if necessary.-Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post.

State terror against Filipino Muslims
By Jonathan Miller& Rob Lemkin
February 04, 2002
BASILAN : Syed Kaing Mabbul was a coconut farmer on this exquisitely beautiful island, the hottest new target in President George W. Bush's global war on terrorism. His misfortune, his mother told us, is that he has the same name as a commander of the Abu Sayyaf.

About 150 Americans, the advance party of a force of about 650, are already in the southern Philippines for a six-month "military" exercise that began formally last Thursday. Their task is to train Filipino soldiers how better to fight Abu Sayyaf, and to rescue kidnapped missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham of Wichita, Kansas, who have been in captivity for eight months.

Syed fled the island last May, and has been living in a lean-to shack on the outskirts of Zamboanga City, Mindanao. Local Muslims took reporters to meet Syed's mother, Azirah Mabhul. She told them he had been betrayed to the army by seven Muslims who had split a bounty of about $20,000.

"They picked up my son at 8am," she told us. "They brought him to Malagutay Brigade Camp, blindfolded him, beat him, stripped him, then hung him upside down for eight hours. They inserted ground-up chilli paste into his rectum to force him to confess to belonging to Abu Sayyaf." Azirah said that when she finally located her son, he still couldn't sit down. "Mum," he said, "I just can't take the pain any more."

In mid-December, Syed Kaing Mabbul was taken, with 79 other terrorist suspects, to a high security jail in the capital, Manila. He has not been heard from since. Muslim community leaders vouched for his innocence.

His case is one of many accounts of harassment, indiscriminate arrest, disappearances, routine torture and killing now producing growing concern over "gross and rampant human rights violations" against Muslim civilians.

Human rights leaders point the finger at the new US ally in its global war, the Philippine armed forces. Since 11 September, they say, incidents of abuse have grown, and there is a palpable climate of fear.

"We are the ones who are living in terror," said the imam of a mosque in a squalid Muslim ghetto on the edge of Zamboanga City. "This war against terror is just the latest campaign in a 400-year crusade against Islam," he said, echoing the convictions of the wider Muslim world.

Syed's case was just one "among hundreds," said Zenaida Sabaani-Lawi, director of Murid, a Muslim organization which provides micro-finance to local women. "There have been killings too. It's been getting worse since Sept 11. It's as if they now have a licence,' she said. "This is state terror."-Dawn/The Observer News Service.

'Pakistan to continue support to Kashmiris'
By Our Reporter

ISLAMABAD, Feb 4: Pakistan will continue its moral, diplomatic and political support to the Kashmiris till they succeed in their just struggle, the minister for Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas, Abbas Sarfaraz Khan, said.

In his message on the eve of Kashmir Solidarity Day, the minister said February 5 was observed in Pakistan and throughout the Islamic World as a day to express unequivocal support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir who were waging a relentless struggle for the achievement of their right to self-determination.

The minister hoped that the world's conscience which had been shaken by continued repression of the Kashmiris would not go unnoticed.

It was on February 5, 1947, when the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for a referendum in the occupied Kashmir to determine the wishes of the people of Kashmir as to which country i.e. India or Pakistan they wanted to join, he said.

He said Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had repeated the Indian promise several times, but, later reneged. Since then the Indian occupation forces have ruthlessly crushed any voice which was raised by the Kashmiris, he added.

The struggle of the Kashmiris for the attainment of right to self-determination continued unabated for five decades, but, since the last decade, the struggle for their rights gained momentum, he said.

Mr Sarfaraz said the international community should focus its attention on the atrocities being committed in the occupied Kashmir. He said international observers, the world press and leaders from every country should direct their attentions to the five decades old issue so that the Kashmiris could live with dignity and honour.

Meanwhile, arrangements have been finalized to observe Kashmir Solidarity Day in a benefiting manner on February 5.

A meeting was held in this regard on Monday which was presided over by the deputy commissioner Islamabad. It was also attended by officials of the police, CDA, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI) and the traders' associations.

The meeting decided that the district administration and the CDA would organize a walk at Jinnah Avenue which was likely to be participated by a large number of people belonging to different walks of life.

The walk will start from China Chowk at 3:30pm and culminate at Parade Ground.

The education minister, Zubaida Jalal, and the population and women development minister, Dr Attiya Inayatullah, will lead the rally. They will also present memorandums at the UN office. Soon after the walk, a Kashmir Solidarity Show will be held at the Parade Ground at 4pm.

Various small rallies will be staged by students of government and private schools, labourers, workers, lawyers, peasants, NGO officials and teachers. These rallies will join the main rally at China Chowk.

The solidarity show, which will be one-hour long, will be televised live by Pakistan Television (PTV). National songs, tableaus and other programmes will be presented by schoolchildren, a source told Dawn.

Both federal ministers and leaders of Muslim Conference, lawyers and traders will deliver speeches on this occasion.

A separate meeting was held here at the ministry of Kashmir Affairs to finalize solidarity programmes to be held throughout the country.

The meeting was presided over by the secretary of Kashmir Affairs ministry. The meeting was informed that President Gen Pervez Musharraf would speak to members of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly on February 5.

It was decided that rallies and other solidarity programmes would be held in all four provinces of the country.

Washington will not blunder, hopes Tehran

TEHRAN, Feb 4: Iran warned the United States on Monday that any attack against it would be an "irreparable mistake" and denied US claims it was harbouring Al Qaeda members.

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi also dismissed President George W. Bush's charge last week that Iran was developing weapons of mass destruction.

"I only hope the Americans will not make such a huge, irreparable mistake," Asefi said while talking to reporters after being asked about the possibility of a US attack on Iran.

"It would be better if American leaders expressed themselves on the basis of real facts and not their imagination, and if they furnished some proof," he said.

"The recent US accusations against Iran are inspired and dictated by the Zionist regime, which shows yet again that the Americans are not sincere when they say they want rapprochement with Iran."

"We deny all reports about the presence of Al Qaeda members in Iran," Asefi said. "As far as we are concerned, our borders are closed and we are blocking all illegal entry."

Government spokesman Abdullah Ramazan-Zadeh was also quoted by the radio as describing Bush's remarks as "fundamentalist and contrary to the ideals of civilization", and comparing the US president to a "Roman gladiator".

Asked about US allegations that Iran was developing weapons of mass destruction, Asefi said, "If you are talking about the Bushehr nuclear plant, it is supervised, monitored and visited by the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran is a signatory of all international conventions in this regard."

Asefi also said Iran was opposed to threatened US strikes against Iraq, with which its relations are still poor after their bitter 1980-88 war. Tehran opposed all attacks against an Islamic state, he added.

Asefi welcomed, however, the stance of the European Union and Russia, which had distanced themselves from the US sabre-rattling. "The world in general has not welcomed these American accusations against Iran," he said.

Several newspapers also underlined Washington's "isolation" on the issue.

Earlier Iran's state news agency IRNA quoted former Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezai as also denying US claims that members of Al Qaeda were in Iran.

Iran's naval chief said on Monday his forces were closely following the situation and would crush any action directed at the country's national interests. "The navy's aircraft, ships and submarines are prepared to defend Iran's territorial integrity and independence," the state news agency IRNA quoted Admiral Abbas Mohtaj as saying.

Former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani predicted that world oil prices would soar above 50 dollars a barrel if Iran were attacked. He also said Washington knows that "a war against us would be extremely dangerous".-AFP

Attack on Iraq is unavoidable: US official's warning

MUNICH, Feb 4: A senior adviser to United States Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld indicated war with Iraq was likely even if Baghdad backs down and allows inspectors back in to hunt for weapons of mass destruction, according to an interview on Monday.

"I don't think there's anything (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein could do that would convince us there's no longer any danger coming from Iraq," said Richard Perle, head of the Defense Policy Board of the US Department of Defence and a top Rumsfeld adviser.

Perle, quoted in an interview with the German edition of the Financial Times at the Munich Security Conference, said the only thing that would convince the US regarding Iraq would be a change of regime.

US President George W. Bush was now on "a very clear path" heading toward war with Iraq, said Perle as quoted by the Financial Times Deutschland.

The newspaper said if Perle was right even Iraq's meeting the US demand for the return of international inspectors would do nothing to prevent American military strikes.

Perle said Afghanistan was a possible model for a war with Iraq. Such a scenario would include massive US air strikes on Iraq, special operations units on the ground and the use of domestic opposition groups to carry the main burden of ground war, said Perle.

"The potential fighting forces would be Kurds in the north and the Shias in the south," he said.

A leadership structure could be the Iraqi National Congress (INC), he added. The INC has long been regarded as weak and divided, the Financial Times Deutschland pointed out.

Perle repeated the view expressed by American officials at the conference that Washington was little concerned over European opposition to a war with Iraq. "If we have to choose between defending the US without our allies and not defending ourselves with our allies we will choose defence," said Perle.

"If the European message is: we accept risks posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and don't (want you) to do anything about it because it makes us nervous, then the European influence will be zero," Perle noted. He added: "Up until now the European recommendations have not been helpful."

The German foreign ministry on Monday warned against a military strike against Iraq by the United States. "There are no signs and no evidence that Iraq is involved in the terrorism that we have been discussing for several months," said Deputy Foreign Minister Ludger Volmer.

The fight against terrorism should not be used to legitimize old enmities and settle old accounts, said Volmer.

Both Volmer and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer are members of the Greens party which serves as junior coalition partner to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats.

Asked about Volmer's comments a foreign ministry spokeswoman, Sabine Sparwasser, said President Bush had assured at talks in Washington on Thursday that there were no plans to attack Iraq.

GERMANY: The German foreign ministry on Monday warned against a military strike against Iraq by the United States. "There are no signs and no evidence that Iraq is involved in the terrorism that we have been discussing for several months," said Ludger Volmer, Assistant Secretary at the Foreign Ministry, on a morning TV programme.

The fight against terrorism should not be used to legitimise old enmities and settle old accounts, said Volmer.

Both Volmer and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer are members of the Greens party.-dpa

Hitler's secretary recalls final days

BERLIN, Feb 4: Traudl Junge witnessed one of the most dramatic scenes of the 20th century - Adolf Hitler's final hours in his fortified bunker under Berlin where the dictator committed suicide in 1945 as the Third Reich collapsed.

Hitler's secretary, who took down the fuehrer's last will and testament, is the focus of a book published this week and a film that debuts at the Berlinale film festival opening on Wednesday.

"The longer I live and the older I become, the greater my feeling of guilt," Junge says in the film "Blind Spot, Hitler's Secretary". "Today I can say that he was a real criminal," she says.

Junge, 82, became Hitler's private secretary in 1942 in the middle of World War Two. She had wanted to work as a ballet dancer, but when she heard about a vacancy in the chancellery she played up her typing and shorthand skills to land the job. "He was a pleasant elder man who welcomed us with real friendliness," she recalled about her first meeting with Hitler at his Prussian Wolf's Lair complex in what is now Poland.

Hitler frequently dined with his secretaries but he shied from controversial topics.

"I thought I would be at the source of all information. But I was really in a blind spot," Junge says in the 90-minute documentary filmed in her Munich apartment. "It was an illusion. That was the big lie."

She said she only once heard the German word for concentration camp in the chancellery, used by SS leader Heinrich Himmler.

"Hitler never expressed himself on the theme with anyone," Junge said. "I never had the sense that he was consciously committing crimes. For him, these were ideals." "Sometimes I think if I had the chance to meet Hitler again, I would ask him if he discovered he had Jewish blood in his family tree, would he have gassed himself?" she said.

ONLY THE SECRETARY SPEAKS: The documentary shows nothing but Junge speaking without any historical footage. The German daily Tagesspiegel said on Monday that the film was originally twice as long and then cut. "But even these 90 minutes seem too long," the paper wrote.

Filmmaker Othmar Schmiderer said he chose the spare style to let Junge tell her story free of distraction. Both he and co-director Andre Heller said the movie deserved to be longer.

"There are details such as that Hitler did not want any cut flowers as they were dead and he did not want any death in his room - this is the largest mass murderer in history," he said.

The film is most engaging when Junge recalls the final days in the bunker as the Red Army neared in late April 1945.

"Hitler lost all hope and withdrew into himself," she says. Hours before he married long-time companion Eva Braun and then killed himself, he summoned Junge to record his testament.

"I thought, now I'll find out what really happened," Junge said. "It was all the old phrases such as the Jews were to blame....It was maddeningly senseless."-Reuters

US-EU differences over foreign aid
By Ken Laidlaw

LONDON: It will be this year's first international test of commitment by the world's richest countries towards helping poorer nations. When finance ministers from the G7 wealthiest countries meet in Ottawa on Feb 8-9 , development aid will be a key issue on the agenda.

But optimism that a major aid effort would be launched to cut world poverty in half by 2015 has been effectively scuppered by the US refusal to accept the need for a huge cash injection for the poorest countries.

In the aftermath of the Sept 11 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York, there is little sign of a burst of generosity from President George W Bush's administration. The US stance is at odds with its G7 partners who accept the urgent need for increased aid, despite an economic slowdown that is putting pressure on government budgets worldwide.

The differences have led to "undignified squabbling over policy and penny-pinching over aid (which) do not augur well for the prospect of building a new compact with the developing world," as London's Financial Times editorialised.

In Ottawa, US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill is expected to make it clear to his fellow G7 finance ministers that the aid path is not one the US intends to follow. He already underlined this position at last November's World Bank-IMF meetings.

"The world has spent an enormous amount in the name of development without much success," O'Neill said.

The US position is a rejection of calls by both British Chancellor Gordon Brown and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to double aid flows - an annual $50 billion increase - to developing countries to achieve the UN goal of halving global poverty by 2015.

The US and Europe have also disagreed while negotiating a draft agreement for the UN Conference for Financing and Development, scheduled for March 18-22 in Monterrey, Mexico. The US argues that the UN aid target of 0.7 per cent of GNP, set in 1969, is outdated. Currently, the budget for Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all government donors is some $50 billion a year.

"Throughout all the negotiations to reach a draft text for Mexico the only issue on which the US and the EU totally differed was on the 0.7 per cent target for ODA," said Belen Vazquez, from the NGO Action Aid. "The US has never endorsed the target therefore it is completely irrelevant to their aid policy."

Instead of increasing aid, the US wants the conference to focus on how poor countries can improve their economic performance through freer markets.

The discord over aid policy comes when the need for action is paramount. A recent World Bank study highlights the staggering increase in global inequality. Research by senior World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, published on Jan 18 in the Economic Journal, says the world's richest 50 million people earn as much as the poorest three billion. Americans are still better off in money terms than two-thirds of the world's population.

The US aims to convince finance ministers in Ottawa that a G7 aid policy needs to be performance-related. Washington insists that development assistance be focussed on measurable results as a pre-condition for increasing aid.

"It seems the US will only tolerate multilateralism a la carte and development, global distribution and the interests of the poor are now off the menu," says Henry Northover of the British-based Catholic Agency for Overseas Development.

In opposition to the US, Britain has taken the lead in advocating increased aid. Britain's priority is Africa, described by Prime Minister Tony Blair as "a scar on the conscience of the world". In a January visit to the continent, British Foreign Minister Jack Straw said: "Africa matters. It matters if you want to produce a stable world. You can't have four continents going forward and one going backwards."

If the UN targets set in 2000 are to be met the poorest countries require a substantial injection of increased aid. With the US unwilling to increase aid, prospects of a major new aid initiative emanating from Ottawa are bleak.-Gemini News

UN diplomats fail to evolve consensus: Definition of terrorism
By Michael J. Jordan

UNITED NATIONS: As President Bush hints at extending the "war on terrorism" to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, the Arab and Muslim world remains at loggerheads with the rest of the globe over a crucial question: Who exactly is a terrorist?

The question has vexed the United Nations for 30 years, and diplomats last week again failed to hammer out a consensus. A definition would be the lynchpin of a comprehensive treaty against terrorism that would compel all 189 UN member-states to crack down on perpetrators.

With diplomats and legal advisers of 100-plus countries participating, the two sides of the debate merely restated long- held positions: the United States, European Union, and many others condemn any targeting of civilians; the 56-member Organization of Islamic Conference insists on exempting "national liberation movements" and "resistance to foreign occupation."

They have Kashmir and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in mind. "The UN must do its duty and differentiate between terrorists and freedom fighters," said Rizwan Khan, a spokeswoman for the Pakistani UN mission. "Isn't that what the UN was made for, to bring peace to the world?" But some critics describe it as an effort to distinguish between "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists.

On Oct 1, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed hope that a renewed push post-Sept 11 would produce the missing link of the puzzle. "I understand and accept the need for legal precision," said Annan, two months before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. "But let me say frankly that there is also a need for moral clarity. There can be no acceptance of those who would seek to justify the deliberate taking of innocent civilian life, regardless of cause or grievance. If there is one universal principle that all people can agree on, surely it is this."

The stalemate dashes the hopes of Annan, who recently said a comprehensive treaty may come within "the next month or so." Now the soonest would be in the fall, when the UN's legal committee, known as the Sixth Committee, reconvenes. But some, in fact, question how necessary an actual definition is. There are already 12 different terrorism "conventions," or treaties, on the books - created piecemeal over the past few decades. They criminalize activities such as aeroplane hijacking, hostage-taking, nuclear terrorism, and assorted bombings. In addition, the UN Security Council established a Counter-Terrorism Committee shortly after Sept 11 to force member-states to harmonize anti-terrorism laws, in areas such as financing.

Since then, more and more countries have ratified the treaties. Still, some countries, some actions, slip through the cracks, observers say.

A comprehensive treaty would collect these laws under one umbrella, close the loopholes, and require countries to prosecute or extradite suspected terrorists and share information with other governments - or face isolation. However, in November the Islamic group rejected an Australian compromise on the terrorism definition, again over the freedom- fighter exemption.

Today, the comprehensive treaty remains one step away. And without a widely accepted definition, parties define terrorism as they see fit.

The Mitchell Commission, for example, assessed the causes of Israeli-Palestinian violence last spring. In a report accepted by both sides, it stated: "Terrorism involves the deliberate killing and injuring of randomly selected noncombatants for political ends. It seeks to promote a political outcome by spreading terror and demoralization throughout a population."

In December, the EU Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs proposed to define terrorism as "offences intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people, with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic, or social structures of a country."

That sparked protests from some 200 lawyers across the EU, who warned of infringement of "fundamental democratic rights" like trade union activity and anti-globalization protests. As for President Bush, he confidently calls them as he sees them.

While the UN debated the definition last week, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was quoted as appealing for funds to feed the Palestinian uprising, which he described as a legitimate act of self-defence.

In his State of the Union address, Bush dubbed Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an "axis of evil" and branded Hamas and Islamic Jihad part of a "terrorist underworld."

A significant segment of the world clearly disagrees with him. Count Pakistan among them. To some, though, "analyze the root cause" is a buzz phrase used to justify violence against civilians as a means to an end. The political context should be discounted and only actions judged, said Tal Becker, legal adviser to the Israeli Mission to the UN.

"If we define terrorism not by what one does, but what one does it for, we legitimate the deliberate targeting of civilians for certain causes," Becker said. A US official agreed. "It's not to say there aren't just causes around the world worth fighting for," the official said. "But we're looking at the acts: blowing up buses, the World Trade Center - nothing justifies the wanton killing of innocent civilians."-Dawn/The Christian Science Monitor News Service.

France slams US unilateralism

PARIS, Feb 6: French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine on Wednesday openly criticized "simplistic" US foreign policy as signs of dissent grew in the ranks of the global coalition against terrorism.

Two days after the United States unveiled plans for the biggest increase in military spending since the Cold War, Vedrine warned that the interests of the world were under threat from US unilateralism.

It was the strongest sign of dissent so far from a senior US coalition ally since President George W. Bush labelled Iran, Iraq and North Korea an "axis of evil" during his State of the Union speech last week.

"Today we are threatened by a simplism that reduces all the problems of the world to the struggle against terrorism and is not properly thought through," Vedrine told France Inter radio.

The United States, he said, acted "unilaterally, without consulting others, taking decisions based on its own view of the world and its own interests ... refusing any multilateral negotiation that could limit their decision-making, sovereignty and freedom of action."

Vedrine also criticized what has become known as the Bush doctrine - the subordination of all foreign policy to the needs of the "war against terrorism" - and of unilateralism in general.

Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw last week said Bush's attack on so-called rogue states was "best understood by the fact there are mid-term congressional elections coming up in November", while German foreign ministry State Secretary Ludger Volmer has said the "terror argument cannot be used to settle old scores" with Iraq.

In Saudi Arabia, an official source quoted by the Arab newspaper Al-Hayatis said Riyadh was opposed to any US military strike on Iraq as part of a future phase of the war.

"The kingdom does not favour a US military operation against Iraq," the source said, adding that Washington "has not broached with Saudi officials the possibility of carrying out a strike against Iraq."

The use of Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base and other military facilities is seen as essential for the success of any US campaign against Iraq.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday said Bush's choice of words to describe the three states was "deserving", but that the United States was not about to invade any of them.

In Iran, South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma also expressed anxiety about the direction of US policy, saying the United States was not the only country determined to wipe out terrorism.

She said on the final day of her three-day trip that "operations must be carried out under the United Nations leadership".

Bush on Monday announced an unprecedented 2.128-trillion-dollar proposed budget for next year, calling for the largest US military buildup since the early 1980s to fight his global war on terror.-AFP

Omar is alive, says CIA chief
By Our Staff Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb 6: Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is alive, according to US Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet.

Replying to questions during testimony before the Senate intelligence committee on Wednesday, Mr Tenet said he believed Mullah Omar was alive, but said he would not discuss in public when it was the last time the US had received intelligence relating to the Taliban leader.

"I don't know," Mr Tenet said when asked whether Osama bin Laden was alive or dead. He deferred replies to further questions on Osama for a closed session that was to following the public hearing of Mr Tenet's testimony.

Finding Osama not the issue, says Bush

WASHINGTON, Feb 6: US President George W. Bush on Tuesday brushed off concerns that Osama bin Laden is still at large.

"Oh, I know, the news media likes to say 'Where's Osama bin Laden'?" Bush told an audience in Pittsburgh. "He's not the issue. The issue is the international terror. "There's no cave deep enough for him to hide.

"He can run, and he thinks he can hide. But we're not going to give up until he and every other potential killer and every other body who hates freedom will be brought to justice."

US government, military and intelligence officials are growing increasingly frustrated, the USA Today newspaper said.

"Every day sometimes every hour, you get a report from someone saying they've seen or heard bin Laden in a different corner of the world," an unnamed intelligence official told the daily.-dpa

3 Afghan civilians die in US strike, says report

ISLAMABAD, Feb 7: Three Afghan civilians were killed by a missile fired by remote control from a pilotless CIA aircraft in the southeast of the country, a Pakistan-based news agency said on Thursday.

US officials in Washington said they believed a tall Al Qaeda leader had been killed in the missile strike leading to speculation about whether the United States may have hit its most wanted man in the war on terrorism - Osama bin Laden. (Osama is believed to be between 6 feet 4 inches and 6 feet 6 inches (193 cm to 198 cm) tall.)

But the private Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) news agency said the missile hit a group of young men in the Zawar Khili area, 35km southwest of Khost town and 15km from the Pakistani border on Tuesday night.

"Two people were killed on the spot and one died on the way to hospital," the AIP said. AIP, citing tribal elders, identified the three dead men as Munir Ahmad, Jehangir Khan and Daraz Khan. -Reuters

US missile killed peasant, says report
By Our Staff Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb 11: The "tall" man who was killed in a missile strike from an unmanned US aircraft last Monday in Zhawar, eastern Afghanistan, and who some suspected could be Osama bin Laden, was reportedly an ordinary peasant.

The peasant, Mir Ahmad, was searching for scrap metal in the detritus of war in the region along with two companions when the missile struck. All three were killed. This is claimed in a Washington Post report investigating civilian deaths in the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan. The report is part of a recent effort by the American media to come out of the patriotic fog of war and look at the collateral damage caused by US actions.

The New York Times on Sunday had said that, contrary to US official statements, "certainly hundreds and perhaps thousands of innocent Afghans have lost their lives during American attacks, a scattering of bodies extraordinarily difficult to tabulate."

The media probing can be traced to a Jan 24 raid when 21 people were killed by US commandos. They were presumed to be Taliban and Al Qaeda men till the interim Afghan administration described the incident as a grievous mistake. In a raid in December, a dozen people in a convoy headed for Kabul from Khost for the inauguration of interim leader Hamid Karzai were killed in a similar mistaken-identity hit.

The Post report, which appeared in the paper's Monday issue, says Zhawar was regularly used as a training base and a transit point for Taliban supporters on their way to and from Pakistan, on the other side of the nearest mountains. "The Americans believe many of those who were at the camp are still in the area. As a result, US forces have continued to bomb the area regularly."

The Post reporter who went to Zhawar to investigate the incident says he was held at gunpoint by US soldiers and prevented from entering the site. In a separate report, the paper has charged that Afghan villagers misidentified by US military claim they were beaten and kicked by their captors and imprisoned in what they described as a wooden-barred cage at an American base in Kandahar before being released. Four of the 27 rounded up described their experiences in US custody, saying the soldiers were beating them on the head and back and ribs. Two men lost consciousness during the beatings while others suffered fractured ribs, loosened teeth and swollen noses, the paper said.

The civilian deaths are part of the problem the US faces as it tries to identify and destroy remnants of "an enemy that has slipped into the rugged hills of Afghanistan, the paper says. Unreliable intelligence may also to be blamed.

PENTAGON CLAIM: The Pentagon said on Monday it was confident a CIA-fired missile hit its intended target in Afghanistan a week ago, despite reports innocent peasants had been killed, not al Qaeda leaders, adds Reuters.

Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said: "Everything we know says it was the target that we expected." She said she had difficulty specifying precisely who or what the target had been because it was picked by the CIA.

Cheney tour seen as prelude to attack on Iraq
By Duncan Campbell

LOS ANGELES, Feb 11: The visit by Vice-President Dick Cheney to the Middle East next month is now seen as a prelude to what could be an attempt by the United States to remove Saddam Hussein by military means.

One scenario being explored is said to be US air strikes coupled with hopes of defections from within the Iraqi armed forces.

Despite the opposition of most of America's allies, the mood within the Bush administration is to enforce the removal of Saddam Hussein by any means. Dick Cheney is to visit the region, including four neighbours of Iraq, in an attempt to persuade them to support the policy.

Even the secretary of state, Colin Powell, who is the most cautious of the US administration, is said to be on board, according to the Los Angeles Times on Sunday. The military option is said to be one of three policies being pursued.

The first would mean a tightening of sanctions through the UN to put pressure on Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to look for evidence of the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The second would require action to be taken by neighbouring states to "tighten the political noose", and the third would mean a military campaign relying heavily on air power and defections from within the Iraqi military.

"There's an evolving consensus that a sizeable US military activity will be required," a source told the LA Times.

Describing the reasons for Mr Cheney's visit, President Bush said last week: "There's nothing like looking somebody in the eye and letting them know that when we say we're going to fight terror, we mean it."

Mr Cheney will visit Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and Kuwait, all of which border Iraq and could be used as bases for US strikes. He will also visit Britain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and Israel, partly in a bid to win support for whatever action the US may take.

There has been strong opposition in the EU to expanding military action in the region.-Dawn/The Guardian News Service

Putin warns US not to go alone on Iraq

WASHINGTON, Feb 11: Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the United States on Monday against undertaking any unilateral military action against Iraq, arguing that the value of international cooperation should never be overlooked.

"We oppose the drawing up of blacklists," Putin told The Wall Street Journal in a wide-ranging interview.

Putin described Iraq as a "problem" that Russia is willing to help solve - but only under the auspices of the United Nations. "Such problems cannot be solved by one country alone," Putin pointed out.

In his State of the Union address last month, US President George W. Bush referred to Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil."

Putin said that Russia and other nations had given the United States a pass in Afghanistan. But he argued the international community would not do so in Iraq or elsewhere where "there is no ground to violate internationally recognized procedures." At the same time, he did not rule out UN-sanctioned military action against Iraq but said this could only be considered as a last resort, the Journal reported.

"There are many ways, and the military option is far from being the sole, universal or best solution," the Russian leader said. "First of all, we need to secure the return of UN monitors to that country."

United Nations weapons inspectors went to Iraq after Baghdad's defeat over Kuwait in 1991. But Iraq withdrew its cooperation with the international teams and UN inspections ended on the eve of a joint US-British military strike in December 1998.

The Bush administration is currently engaged in a major Iraq policy review that may result in massive military action against the government of Iraq, according to US media reports.

The administration expects to complete this review by the time Vice President Richard Cheney makes his Middle East tour next month.

Putin played down any risk of a breakdown of US-Russian relations because of US plans with regard to Iraq. "Our cooperation is the most important factor for stability in the world, and we should never forget that," he asserted.

The Kremlin leader also dismissed concerns expressed by Russian conservatives about a US military buildup in Central Asia and Russia's abandonment of an electronic listening station in Cuba.

"There is nothing dangerous in this," he is quoted by The Journal as saying. "We do not set ourselves the goal of pleasing everybody."

"If we view the US as an enemy, even within the anti-terrorist coalition, we would have to behave differently," Putin continued. "But if we believe that we can be partners and, in the more distant future, even allies, then our behaviour... should not be doubted or obstructed."

The Russian president said that while Russia was opposed NATO's enlargement, it recognized the right of each country "to decide its own security." He said he would like to see world oil prices at between 20 dollars and 25 dollars a barrel.

Putin stressed that Moscow intended to cooperate with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in efforts to stabilize oil prices but would "preserve our independence to carry out our own policies."

Afghan fighters: A senior US diplomat based in Tbilisi alleged in an interview published on Monday fighters linked to Osama bin Laden were hiding in Georgia's mountainous Pankisi gorge, near the border with Russia's rebel Chechnya.

Since the Sept 11 attacks on the United States, Russia has repeatedly linked Osama with Chechan guerillas. "According to our information dozens of Afghan mujaheedin escaped from Afghanistan and came to the Caucasus," US Charge d'Affaires Philip Remler told a Georgian weekly.

"We know that some of them found shelter in the Pankisi gorge and have contacts with an Arab terrorist called Khattab, who is linked to Osama bin Laden," he said.-AFP/Reuters

Bush govt planting seeds of its own undoing
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON: Five months after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, President George W. Bush appears more determined than ever to forge a new world order based on unrivalled US military power.

But a growing number of voices, here and abroad, are expressing concern that his administration has not only failed to think through the implications but may also, by the very aggressiveness with which it pursues its "war on terrorism", be planting the seeds of its own undoing.

That Bush's aim is US hegemony, at least with respect to Eurasia, appears increasingly accepted abroad, if not quite yet at home. It was, after all, the explicit premise of a strategy paper drafted in 1992 by the current Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, and Vice President Dick Cheney's national-security adviser, I. Lewis Libby.

While the paper was substantially toned down after it was leaked to the press ten years ago, there is no evidence that either Wolfowitz or Libby or their bosses, whose influence within the administration has risen sharply over the last three months, have changed their views.

"We all have to start using the 'H' word - hegemony - now to describe US policy," says Michael Klare, a national-security expert at Hampshire College in Massachusetts.

Since Sept 11, the administration has given notice in a number of ways that foreign nations should adjust to a world in which Washington will simply not suffer constraints on its power or freedom of action.

Its withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, widely seen as the cornerstone of nuclear arms control, was only a first step, albeit near-nirvana for the staunch unilateralists on the far right and neo-conservative wings of the Republican Party.

Step two came with the announcement that Washington was ready to deploy, or was already deploying, Special Operations Forces (SOF) units far and wide - to the Philippines, Somalia, and Yemen - to help local forces fight or capture suspected Al Qaeda associates or even local bandits.

Steps three and four came two weeks ago with the release of Bush's proposed 2003 budget and his State of the Union address in which he re-defined the war on terrorism to include the newly-coined "axis of evil" - Iraq, Iran, and North Korea - states alleged to have ties with terrorists and to be building weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Bush's budget called for a virtual freeze on all federal spending in order to finance a whopping 14 per cent increase in defence spending which, at $331 billion this year, was already greater than the combined defence budgets of the next nine most militarily powerful nations. He also made clear that next year's increase would be just the first.

Similarly, Bush's declarations about pre-emptive defence against the new "axis of evil" as the next stage in the war against terror confirmed what had already become clear: in the admiring words of Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, "to seek support for more war - far wider, larger and more risky."

The anti-terrorism war has become an open-ended struggle, presumably justifying - with virtually no public debate to date - military intervention from the Philippines to Somalia, the threat of imminent war from Baghdad to Pyongyang, and record increases in the defence budget that has thrown the federal treasury into deficit. And this is just the beginning, according to the administration.

But the question which is beginning to percolate up into policy circles in Washington is whether this strategy is even remotely sustainable, driven, as it is now, primarily by the lingering trauma of Sept 11, the virtually effortless ouster of the Taliban government, and Bush's stratospheric standing in the public-opinion polls.

For most of the past two decades, those same polls have consistently shown that the public rejects by a substantial margin the notion that Washington should act as the "world's policeman" or even as the "first among equals" in international affairs. In that respect, Bush's policy and the current mood represent a serious aberration.

Remarkably, such views are being expressed less by Democrats, who by and large remain unwilling to take on the president in foreign policy at the moment, than by moderate Republicans who this week began publicly questioning where the administration is taking the country.

Similarly, voices are being raised about the costs of Bush's grand strategy, particularly given evidence of continued weakness in the economy and the projected deficits which increased defence spending will create. "There really is a question of imperial overstretch here," says Klare. "I don't think they've thought through how much this is really going to cost to maintain."-Dawn/InterPress Service.

Just struggles not terrorism: Sattar

ISLAMABAD, Feb 12: Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said in Istanbul on Tuesday labelling self-determination struggles as terrorism was inconsistent with the UN Charter , and called for peaceful resolution of international disputes in "conformity with the principles of justice and international law."

Sattar said: "Some states divert attention from their acts of terrorism by labelling self-determination struggles as terrorist. That is inconsistent with the UN Charter," he told an OIC-EU Joint Forum on "Civilization and Harmony: The Political Dimension."

The two-day meeting, which began in Istanbul on Tuesday, is being participated by around 40 countries from the OIC and the EU, most at the ministerial level.

Sattar said: "The UN Charter affirms the right of self- determination of peoples. "The right of self-determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir has been recognized. India and Pakistan are pledged to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their own destiny in an impartial plebiscite. "That pledge remains sanctified in the resolutions of the Security Council."

The minister said a sagacious approach to a better future for humanity was distilled in the principles of UN Charter. He said: "To save people from the scourge of war, settlement of international disputes should be brought about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law."

He further said: "Civilization is the reverse of a brutish way of life in which physical strength or military power is the arbiter of relations among individuals and states .... A civilized community stresses impartial settlement of disputes."

The Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Sattar said: "represent humanity's dream road to a future better than the past."

RELIGION OF PEACE: He recalled that the OIC countries were one with the rest of the world in condemning the Sept 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. "Islam," he said, "is a religion of peace, of tolerance, of diversity and respect for other faiths."

Terrorism had no sanction in any religion, said the minister. "It is a pernicious phenomenon." "No religion can be held responsible for .... vicious crimes. No cause can justify terrorism," he added.

The minister also emphasized that just ends should be pursued by just means. "Struggle for freedom, self-determination and human rights are intrinsically just." These struggles, he said, had been historically peaceful at the start. If they took to militancy and violence, it was usually in response to violent repression by their rulers, he added.

Sattar said nations were torn by the controversy encapsulated in the phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'.

Bhagat Singh was convicted and hanged in 1931 after he had shot and killed a police inspector of the colonial power and thrown a bomb in the legislative assembly in Delhi. He was immediately proclaimed as "The Great Martyr," he observed.

INTERACTION: Civilized world community, he said, could not allow itself to fall into a verbal trap. "Terrorism must be condemned in all its forms and manifestations."

He called for the need of settling the definition of terrorism in the UN General Assembly to facilitate the early conclusion of the comprehensive convention on terrorism.

The minister lauded the Turkish government for conceiving the idea of holding the joint forum. "It is an idea whose time has come." He further said civilizations had always interacted, and to mutual benefit.

"The influence of the Greeks on sculpture is a part of our rich heritage in Pakistan. That of Muslim Arabs is writ large on architecture in Spain. They contributed to the spread of classical and contemporary knowledge of that period and to the rise of the European civilization."

Knowledge had been the key to the renaissance of human societies, he said, adding: "Read is the first exhortation to Muslims," who had been urged to seek knowledge even if they had to go to the farthest part of the world.-APP

US reproached over civilian deaths
By Ian Traynor and Julian Borger

WASHINGTON: The Pentagon on Monday came under the most intense questioning over civilian casualties since the start of the Afghan war, after allegations that US special forces executed and beat men wrongly suspected of being Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters, and tied up their women relatives.

On at least two occasions in the past month, the US raids were botched and anti-Taliban forces were targeted as a result of bungled intelligence. According to western officials in Kabul, village women were tied up by the Americans and hair samples taken for DNA analysis to try to establish links with Osama bin Laden. In village raids last month south of Kabul, the homes of mistaken Taliban suspects were burnt, the officials said.

The revelations add to the pressure on the Pentagon resulting from the mounting toll of civilian or innocent dead in Afghanistan from the US campaign in the air and on the ground. An investigation into the level of civilian casualties has found that thousands of civilians have died since the US launched its bombardment on Oct 7. While the precise figure remains unclear, experts and informed sources put the total deaths of innocents at between 2,000 and 8,000. "It is definitely in the four figures," said a UN source in Kabul.

US military officials, who had routinely rejected earlier accounts of civilian casualties as enemy propaganda, were forced back on the defensive at a Pentagon press conference on Monday at which every question focused on targeting errors and the treatment of captives. The press grilling came on a day of potentially embarrassing revelations that cast doubt on the accuracy of intelligence used to trigger US attacks and the reliability of the Pentagon.

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has ordered an inquiry into a special forces raid on Uruzgan, central Afghanistan, on Jan 24, in which 21 local men were killed and 27 taken prisoner. Two of the victims were found shot dead with their hands bound behind their backs, fuelling suspicion that they were handcuffed and then executed. The CIA has been distributing compensation of about $1,000 to the bereaved relatives, in what appeared to be the clearest admission so far that something had gone badly wrong. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

Republicans such as Senator Chuck Hagel and Republican Doug Bereuter, and even Papa Bush's foreign-policy guru, Brent Scowcroft, have already begun attacking the younger Bush for what French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine calls a "simplistic" approach to the

ME strongly against Bush's campaign
By Glen C. Carey

CAIRO: The United State's campaign against terrorism has started to generate strong resistance in the Middle East. The shift comes amid new accusations that Lebanon may be harbouring Al Qaeda members and American moves to freeze the assets of militant groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

In the latest salvo of accusations, The London Times reported on Feb 1 that Al Qaeda was trying to move its operations to Lebanon from Afghanistan, where the United States has waged a war aimed at destroying Osama bin Laden and his network.

Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik al-Hariri, dismissed as "pure lies" media reports claiming that Osama's Al Qaeda network was trying to transfer its operations from Afghanistan to Lebanon. "There is no party that feels the burden of this oppressive campaign and its ferocity as Lebanon feels. The Israeli and American newspapers are waging campaigns against Lebanon to tie it to global terrorism," Hariri said in a speech to parliament.

Arab governments oppose the mounting accusations from Washington that radical groups, such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas, as well as Lebanon's Hezbollah, are terrorist. Instead, they are seen in the Arab World as resistance fighters, struggling against Israeli occupation, according to government officials and analysts. "The groups fighting Israel are resistance fighters," Ahmed Khalil, a news stand employee in Cairo, said. "They are defending the Arab people against Israeli aggression."

With popular support for Hezbollah and Hamas throughout the region, it is by no coincidence, then, that as President Bush was pointing his finger at these organisations in his recent State of the Union address and blaming Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat for the on-going Israeli-Palestinian violence, Arab governments were crafting a much different picture. "Fighting terrorism, whatever its source, is a top priority for our country and a duty spelled out by Islam." Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef Saudi Arabia said during a three-day ministerial meeting held in Beirut from Jan 29-31. However, the acts of Palestinian groups against Israel in the occupied territories are a "legitimate struggle in defending land and honour," he added.

Reinforcing these view, Muslim scholars after a six-day conference held in January in Makkah, under the auspices of the Islamic Jurisprudence Academy of the Makkah-based Muslim World League, also defined terrorism as "all acts of aggression committed by individuals, groups, or states against human beings, including attacks on their religion, life, intellect and property."

Instead of targeting Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations, the scholars said "the heinous terrorism perpetrated by Jews in Palestine" constitutes a prime example of state terrorism. "This is the most dangerous terrorism threatening world peace and security, and confronting it is a just defence and Jihad is the way of Allah," the scholars said.

When the US placed Hezbollah on a list of terrorist organizations whose assets should be frozen, the Lebanese government repeatedly said that it considered Hezbollah a legitimate resistance party whose military activities were confined to occupied territories. -Dawn/InterPress Service.

US posing threat to world peace
By George Monbiot

LONDON: Never was victory so bitter. Those liberals who supported the war in Afghanistan, and so confidently declared that their values had triumphed in November, must now be feeling a little exposed.

Precisely who has lost, and what the extent of their loss may be, is yet to be determined, but there can now be little doubt that the dangerous and illiberal people who control the US military machine have won. The bombing of Afghanistan is already starting to look like the first shot in a new imperial war.

In 30 years' time we may be able to tell whether or not the people of Afghanistan have benefited from the fighting there. The murderous Taliban have been overthrown. Women, in Kabul at any rate, have been allowed to show their faces in public, and readmitted into professional life. Some US dollars three billion has so far been pledged for aid and reconstruction. But the only predictable feature of Afghan politics is its unpredictability.

In the absence of an effective peacekeeping force, the tensions between the clan leaders could burst into open warfare when the fighting season resumes in the spring. Iran, Russia and the US are beginning to tussle over the nation's future, with potentially disastrous consequences for its people.

Seven million remain at risk of starvation. Some regions have been made safer for aid workers; others have become more dangerous, as looting and banditry fill the vacuum left by the Taliban's collapse. Already, some refugees are looking back with nostalgia to the comparative order and stability of life under that brutal government. For the Afghan people, the only certain and irreversible outcome of the war so far is that some thousands of civilians have been killed.

Other interests in Afghanistan are doing nicely. On Jan 29, the IMF's assistant director for monetary and exchange affairs suggested that the country should abandon its currency and adopt the dollar instead. This would, he explained, be a "temporary" measure, though, he conceded, "when an economy dollarises, it takes a little while to undollarise".

The day before, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development revealed that part of its aid package to Afghan farmers would take the form of GM seed.

Both Hamid Karzai and Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special envoy, were formerly employed as consultants to Unocal, the US oil company which spent much of the 1990s seeking to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Unocal appears to have dropped the scheme, but smaller companies (such as Chase Energy and Caspian Energy Consulting) are now lobbying for its revival. In October the president of Turkmenistan wrote to the UNpressing for the pipeline's construction.

The temporary US bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Caspian states appear to be putting down roots. US military "tent cities" have now been established in 13 places in the states bordering Afghanistan. New airports are being built and garrisons expanded.

In December, the US assistant secretary of state Elizabeth Jones promised that "when the Afghan conflict is over we will not leave central Asia. We have long-term plans and interests in this region."

This is beginning to look rather like the "new imperium". Already there are signs that confrontation with the "axis of evil" is coming to involve more than just containing terrorism. Writing in the Korea Times last month, Henry Kissinger insisted:

"The issue is not whether Iraq was involved in the terrorist attack on the United States, though no doubt there was some intelligence contact between Iraqi intelligence and one of the chief plotters. The challenge of Iraq is essentially geopolitical."

The men who run the military-industrial complex have shoved aside the government of the Philippines, alarmed Russia and China by scrambling for central Asia, begun developing a new tactical nuclear weapon, and almost declared war on three nations.

The armchair warriors who supported their bombing of Afghanistan cannot understand that these people now present a threat not just to terrorism but to the world. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

Civilizations urged to co-exist in harmony
By Hilmi Toros

ISTANBUL: East and West met at the fabled Bosphorus Straits here meandering between the two continents and, in the first such powwow since Sept 11, found out that the two civilizations need not clash and can easily co-exist - and even co-operate.

But the joviality displayed at the EU-Organization for Islamic Conference (OIC) Joint Forum of some 70 ministers and others showed one needs more than the conciliatory "Spirit of Istanbul" to crack tough impasses: above all, definition of terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate and the now-contested hegemony of the United States in world affairs including how to cope with both the United States and its "Axis of Evil."

In fact, the chief achievement of the two-day Forum that concluded on Wednesday is that it took place at a critical time of re-assessment of each other by the two civilizations, hosted symbolically by a Turkey belonging to both worlds and creating "The Spirit of Istanbul" for such future "Getting-to-know-You" encounters. Rome or Qatar is mentioned as the next venue.

In two days of huddling at the ornate Cirahan Palace , the ministers, scores of academics and civil society leaders rejected the post- Sept 11 phobia that Western and Islamic cultures are on a collision course.

Their key message: "We need to know more about each other. We have a lot in common. Let's have a continuing dialogue." From such process, the world of Islam could have much to gain: its non-violent side could be better known and possibly accepted in the West, while Western ideas and ideals, liked or not, are known across continents.

The Forum also displayed the slow but steady erosion of pro-US sympathy from its apex in the aftermath of Sept 11 2201. As EU ministers, Arab sheiks, Asian and African leaders huddled for two days, there was no visible seconding for President Bush's "Axis of Evil."

In fact, while the United States was not an official participant, Foreign Ministers from Iraq and Iran received attention and treatment befitting equals rather than two-thirds of the axis. Those supporting a possible military campaign against Iraq or its President Saddam were not in evidence.

In another distancing from the official Washington view, the French stance of new political moves to crack the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, including immediate declaration of an independent Palestinian State, received warm support. Yet, Arab nations were dismayed for lack of outright and strong condemnation of Israel for its current crackdown on Palestinians.

The UN, as opposed to the US, was singled out for settling global norms. Also receiving support were efforts by Romania and Bulgaria to join NATO and the recent ginger rapprochement between Greece and Turkey, accompanied by similar moves between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

And, like many a fora a before, there was no agreement on any definition of terrorism, although all spoke against it. In fact, it was Iraq asking for an internationally recognized, rather than imposed, definition. It was, however, pointed out that "terror does not have a religion". The final communique referred to the need to have a common front against terrorism, whatever its source.-Dawn/InterPress Service.

Israeli elite commander, three troops killed: Palestinians blow up high-tech tank

TEL AVIV, Feb 15: Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian in a raid on Friday after an unprecedented bomb attack destroyed an Israeli tank and killed three soldiers on Thursday.

Just after dawn, Israeli forces swept into two Palestinian villages in the northern West Bank, killing one man and arresting six others in what the army said was a sweep for guerillas involved in attacks on Israelis.

Late on Friday night, Israeli war planes launched two air raids on Gaza City and near the town of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, injuring five policemen.

The second attack, which was carried out between Beit Lahia and the Jabaliya refugee camp targeted the public security headquarters.

The Israeli army said a colonel leading an elite commando unit died when a wall collapsed on him after troops demolished a house where a guerilla was holed up. The Islamic Jihad group said the officer was killed during a clash with its activists.

The incursions followed a coordinated attack in the Gaza Strip on Thursday night in which Palestinians ambushed a Jewish settler convoy, apparently to lure an Israeli tank into a trap.

A heavily armoured Merkava-3 tank sent to the scene ran over a bomb, setting off a blast that split it apart and knocked off its turret, Israeli military sources said. Three crew members were killed and one was wounded.

It was the first time Palestinians have destroyed an Israeli-made Merkava-3, an advanced armoured vehicle considered a symbol of the Jewish state's military prowess.

Claimed by a coalition of groups calling itself the Salahudin Brigade, the attack was reminiscent of Hezbollah operations in Lebanon before Israel withdrew in May 2000.

It could force a re-evaluation of tactics by the army, which has deployed tanks in Palestinian areas with impunity during the nearly 17-month-old uprising against Israeli occupation. "This is a new development in resisting Israeli tanks," said Ismail Abu Shanab, a senior official of the Hamas. "The resistance will continue until Israeli troops withdraw from Palestinian lands."

Captain Assaf Liberty, an Israeli army spokesman, called it a "professional bomb" and said the "transfer of knowledge (from Hezbollah) in Lebanon supplied the ability to make it". "We did not know of its existence," he said.

The tank bombing was a new source of alarm for Israelis, already reeling from Palestinians' first use of a relatively primitive rocket capable of reaching Israeli cities.

Early on Friday, tanks raided Palestinian-ruled Saida in the West Bank. The army said its forces came under fire and killed one Islamic Jihad man and arrested five others. Palestinian witnesses said the 28-year-old man was shot dead while fleeing. Troops also entered the village of Jaba and arrested two Islamic Jihad guerillas, the army said.

AIR STRIKE: Meanwhile, a member of the Palestinian security forces, was killed on Friday night in an Israeli air strike on the northern Gaza Strip refugee camp of Jabaliya which also injured another 17, Palestinian security sources said. -Reuters/AFP

Rebels balk as US targets Saddam
By Scott Peterson

TEHRAN: The Bush administration is accelerating development of plans to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. But the leader of one of the few credible armed Iraqi opposition groups says he doesn't want Washington's help.

"There is no need to send troops from outside to Iraq," says the black-turband Ayatollah Mohammad Bakr al-Hakkim, leader of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). "It could be seen as an invasion and could create new problems."

Though courted for months by American diplomats to join in their effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah al-Hakkim - also commander of the 10,000-strong Badr Brigade militia - urges caution in a rare interview. The chief reason is President Bush's declaration that SCIRI'S host and sponsor, Iran, is part of an "axis of evil," as well as the past experience of the Iraqi opposition with "unreliable" US support.

The "Afghan model" of backing proxy forces, as the US did against the Taliban, does not apply to Iraq, al-Hakkim says. One Pentagon option includes a pincer operation toward Baghdad, with 50,000 American troops moving from the south with SCIRI's Shia guerrillas and 50,000 more moving from the north with Kurdish fighters.

Such plans are "very far-fetched" and a "bad idea," al-Hakkim says, his cleric's face framed by a gray beard.

Few doubt growing American resolve against Iraq, though no evidence has emerged that Baghdad was involved in the Sept 11 attacks, or in any terrorist act for the past decade. But Iraq is clearly a target. US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday there are no "plans" to attack North Korea or Iran, but that Iraq was a special case.

Powell said a "regime change" in Iraq, however, "would be in the best interests of the region." He says Bush is considering "the most serious set of options one might imagine."

Vice President Dick Cheney is to make a nine-nation Mideast tour in March to solidify allied support for any moves against Iraq.

Few armed opponents of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein have suffered as much as Iraq's southern Shias. They have seen their religious leaders assassinated, their marshes - both their economic lifeline and hiding place - drained, and their 1991 uprising put down mercilessly with a toxic cocktail of chemical weapons.

So few might be so willing - after spilling blood for years to topple the Iraqi leader - to embrace Washington's growing plans to do just that.

Contacts between SCIRI and US officials outside Iran had warmed during the Afghan campaign, like those between the US and Iran. American diplomats had been increasing contacts for months.

The SCIRI is now warning that US troops in Iraq would be a "mistake." Afghanistan is also a sore point: "Iran had a bad experience at the end of the Afghan war," says Dodge. "They helped, but at the end, the US tried to foist a US-client state on Iran. They are not going to let that happen in Iraq."

On the surface, the aims of SCIRI, Iran, and the US appear to coincide in Iraq. Few dislike Baghdad's rulers more than the Iranians. The Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s was started by Saddam Hussein in the early days of Iran's Islamic Revolution.

Still, Iran and SCIRI - which is overseen by Iranian security forces - are trying to gauge the impact of America's saber- rattling against Iraq, and weigh up their own interests. The bottom line: what is the endgame?

Ayatollah al-Hakkim insists that SCIRI wants to create a democratic regime in Iraq that includes all its ethnic and religious groups. More than 60 per cent of Iraqis share the Shia branch of Islam, along with Iran.

President George Bush Sr. promised Iraqis that the US would support their uprising, but then appeared to change his mind when it was clear that chaos - and possibly a Shia-run state allied to Iran - could result.

Ayatollah al-Hakkim, with a flourish of his hands, says his forces "will use any new chance that comes to hand" to move against Baghdad, though "nobody can speak of the secrets of the (US) administration." He has his own hunch, too, which he delivers with the broadest of smiles: "They say they made mistakes in 1991," al-Hakkim says, laughing out loud. "George W. Bush is trying to correct the mistakes of his father."-Dawn/The Christian Science Monitor News Service.

Bush stance on Iran jolts moderates
By John Ward Anderson

ISTANBUL: US claims that Iran is part of an "axis of evil" supporting international terrorism have damaged the country's fledgling democratic reform movement and ignore the complex battle reformers are waging against religious hardliners , according to political analysts and Western diplomats.

The accusation, levelled by President Bush during his State of the Union address, put Western-leaning officials in Iran on the defensive and forced them to join hands with conservative clerics in condemning the United States and defending their government, political observers in Iran said.

In a remarkable reaction to Bush's comments, tens of thousands of protesters interrupted a speech on Monday by Iranian President Mohammad Khatami with chants of "Death to America!"

That slogan usually is shouted during speeches by hard-line clerics, not during an address by Iran's leading reformist and chief advocate of strengthening ties with the West.

Khatami and his allies control the elected, administrative wings of the Iranian state, and their moderate, conciliatory approach to politics in recent years has largely ended the country's decades of international isolation and repaired its negative image abroad. But they have been locked in a desperate battle against conservative clerics, who under Iran's Islamic theocracy control most of the real power and have blocked Khatami's efforts to enact political, social and religious reforms.

Coming on the heels of Bush's Jan 29 speech and at least partly because of it, analysts said, Iran on Friday rejected Britain's proposed new ambassador, plunging relations between the two countries to their lowest point since they restored official contacts in 1998. The rejection came even though British officials have distanced themselves from Bush's "axis of evil" comment, indicating that Iranian conservatives now have the upper hand over reformists, even in the international arena, analysts said. They said the speech also gave greater impetus to recent efforts by Iran and Iraq to heal their rocky relations.

"This was immensely damaging. It really, really hurt Khatami," said a Western diplomat in Tehran interviewed by telephone. "Iran had been engaging in constructive diplomacy since Sept 11 - as constructive as anyone. Now, the conservatives are all saying, 'See, we told you they'd screw you in the end.' "

Tensions between reformists and conservatives had reached new heights even before Bush's speech. Some analysts have interpreted Bush's remarks as a sign that his administration has written off Khatami and his reform movement as a spent force.

"This really reversed the course of what was happening between the conservatives and reformists," who seemed to be moving toward decisive showdowns on a host of issues, said a political analysts in Tehran.

Diplomats in Tehran said that US policies toward Iran suffer from a lack of understanding about the country and a dearth of reliable information about Iranian politics and society. The two countries severed ties during the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Iranian officials angrily denied Bush's accusations and challenged the United States to produce evidence backing the claims. Despite the denials, many foreign analysts accept that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and has stockpiles of chemical weapons.

Critics of US claims that Iran is behind international terrorism argue for drawing distinctions between the government of Iran and hard-liners who apparently act without the approval or even knowledge of elected officials.

Additionally, many Muslim countries and some US allies say the key reason Iran is blamed for supporting terrorism is because it backs Palestinian groups fighting Israel. Iran and other countries see this as legitimate backing for a national liberation movement.

Analysts say that any official involvement by Iran in terrorism would likely be endorsed in secret by institutions that ultimately fall under the control of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's top political and religious authority. Unelected, conservative clerics under Khamenei control the military and intelligence services, the judiciary, state broadcasting agencies and religious oversight panels that often veto reforms approved by the elected government. The conservatives adamantly oppose normalizing relations with the United States and often have been accused of supporting and exporting terrorism, particularly - but not exclusively - aimed at Israel.

Bush seemed to point to the conservatives in his speech, saying that "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hopes for freedom."

This distinction, some analysts say, may explain recent US charges that Iran helped leaders of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network escape from Afghanistan, that it is fuelling opposition to the interim government by backing independent-minded regional leaders and that it tried to ship 50 tons of weapons, intercepted last month, to Palestinian groups fighting Israel.-Dawn/The Washington Post News Service.

Can the United States be defeated?
By Seumas Milne

LONDON: Those who have argued that America's war on terror would fail to defeat terrorism have, it turns out, been barking up the wrong tree. Ever since President Bush announced his 45 billion dollars increase in military spending and gave notice to Iraq, Iran and North Korea that they had "better get their house in order" or face what he called the "justice of this nation", it has become ever clearer that the US is not now primarily engaged in a war against terrorism at all.

Instead, this is a war against regimes the US dislikes: a war for heightened US global hegemony and the "full spectrum dominance" the Pentagon has been working to entrench since the end of the cold war.

While US forces have apparently still failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, there is barely even a pretence that any of these three states was in some way connected with the attacks on the World Trade Centre. What they do have in common, of course, is that they have all long opposed American power in their regions (for 10, 23 and 52 years, respectively) and might one day acquire the kind of weapons the US prefers to reserve for its friends and clients.

With his declaration of war against this absurdly named "axis of evil", Bush has abandoned whatever remaining moral high ground the US held onto in the wake of Sept 11. He has dispensed with the united front against terror, which had just about survived the onslaught on Afghanistan.

And he has made fools of those, particularly in Europe, who had convinced themselves that America's need for international support would coax the US Republican right out of its unilateralist lager. Nothing of the kind has happened.

When the German foreign minister Joschka Fischer plaintively insists that "alliance partners are not satellites" and the EU's international affairs commissioner Chris Patten fulminates at Bush's "absolutist and simplistic" stance, they are swatted away. Even Jack Straw, foreign minister of a British government that prides itself on its clout in Washington, was slapped down for his hopeful suggestion that talk of an axis of evil was strictly for domestic consumption.

Allied governments who question US policy towards Iraq, Israel or national missile defence are increasingly treated as the "vassal states" the French president Jacques Chirac has said they risk becoming. Now Colin Powell, regarded as the last voice of reason in the White House, has warned Europeans to respect the "principled leadership" of the US even if they disagree with it.

By openly arrogating to itself the prerogative of such leadership - and dispensing with any restraint on its actions through the United Nations or other multilateral bodies - the US is effectively challenging what has until now passed for at least formal equality between nations. But it is only reflecting reality. The extent of America's power is unprecedented in human history.

The latest increases will take its military spending to 40 per cent of the world-wide total, larger than the arms budgets of the next 19 states put together. No previous military empire - from the Roman to the British - had anything like this preponderance, lett alone America's global reach.

US officials are generally a good deal more frank about the situation than their supporters abroad. In the early 1990s, the Pentagon described US strategy as "benevolent domination" (though whether those who have recently been on the receiving end of US military power, from the Middle East to Latin America, would see it that way seems doubtful).

A report for the US Space Command last year, overseen by US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, rhapsodised about the "synergy of space superiority with land, sea, and air superiority" that would come with missile defence and other projects to militarise space. This would "protect US interests and investment" in an era when globalization was likely to produce a further "widening between haves and have-nots". It would give the US an "extraordinary military advantage".

In fact, it would only increase further what became an overwhelming military advantage a decade ago with the collapse of the Soviet Union. But the experience of Bush's war on Afghanistan has rammed home the lessons for the rest of the world. The first is that such a gigantic disproportion of international power is a threat to the principles of self-determination the US claims to stand for on a global scale. A state with less than one 20th of the earth's population is able to dictate to the other 95 per cent and order their affairs in its own interests, both through military and economic pressure.

The issue is not one of "anti-Americanism" or wounded national pride (curiously, those politicians around the world who prattle most about patriotism are also usually the most slavish towards US power), but of democracy. This is an international order which, as the September 11 attacks demonstrated, will not be tolerated and will generate conflict.

Many doubt that such conflict can amount to anything more than fleabites on an elephant, which has demonstrated its ability to crush any serious challenger, and have come to believe US global domination is here for good. That ignores the political and economic dimensions (including in the US itself), as well as the problems of fighting asymmetric wars on many fronts.

In economic terms, the US has actually been in decline relative to the rest of the world since it accounted for half the world's output after the second world war. In the past few years its share has bounced back to nearly 30 per cent on some measures, partly because of the Soviet implosion and Japanese stagnation, and partly because of America's own long boom. But in the medium term, the strain of military overstretch is likely to make itself felt.

More immediately, the US could face regional challenges, perhaps from China or Russia, which it would surely balk at pushing to military conflict. Then there is the likelihood of social eruptions in client states like Saudi Arabia which no amount of military technology will be able to see off. America's greatest defeat was, it should not be forgotten, inflicted by a peasant army in Vietnam. US room for manoeuvre may well prove more limited than might appear.

When it comes to some of America's richer and more powerful allies, the opposite is often the case: they can go their own way and get away with it.-Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

France-US rift widens over 'axis of evil' remarks
By Paul Michaud, Our Correspondent

PARIS, Feb 16: French diplomats in charge of France's relations with the United States can't get over it. It's the first time such a thing has happened in the recent past , and they're trying to determine - at special meetings called this weekend at the Quai d'Orsay - why it happened at all.

Yesterday, not only was French Ambassador to the US Francois Bujon de l'Estang convoked unexpectedly to the State Department to discuss recent positions taken by Paris on US foreign policy, also - and this is where the French think that Washington went too far - the State Department dared make the convocation of Mr Bujon de l'Estang public - in the same way that it makes public its convocations of representatives of the smaller and less important countries, notably those regularly included in its list of "rogue states," indeed those who are presently considered part of its "axis of evil," France's reaction to the matter being apparently at the centre of the controversy.

Never in the recent memory of French diplomats has France, historically the oldest ally of the United States for having been the first country to come to its side when it fought its revolutionary war in 1778, been treated in such a fashion. Says one diplomat familiar with the incident: "Washington's gesture is unusual, unfriendly and unexpected."

For the moment, Paris has decided to mute its reaction, indeed Ambassador Bujon de l'Estang has been asked to play down the matter, saying that as far as he was concerned, the visit with the State Department's Elizabeth Jones, in charge of Europe and Central Asia, was simply a "working visit." Especially as Mrs Jones is expected shortly in Paris where she is to have high-level meetings at the Elysee Palace, Hotel Matignon (Prime Minister's residence) and Quai d'Orsay (the Foreign Affairs Ministry).

Sources at the Quai d'Orsay, however, say that they've learned independently that US Secretary of State Colin Powell, already quite upset with the European Union's often sarcastic comments on President George W. Bush's January 29 "Axis of Evil" speech, is "particularly irked" with French comments on the matter, notably a recent remark by French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine according to which Mr Bush's thinking in the matter was "over-simplistic."

There are also political considerations that have apparently played a role in Washington's action and France's reaction. French Socialists would like nothing better than to provoke a conflict with Washington, as Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, who is to announce shortly his candidacy as a Socialist for Presidential elections to be held on April 21 and May 5, has been chided recently by the leftwing of his party for having been insufficiently docile with regard to America, a criticism that has resulted in a recent spate of speeches in which Mr Jospin takes on an increasingly anti-American stance.

As for Washington, which considers it in its interest to maintain President Chirac in power, as Mr Chirac has not hidden his support, qualified as it may be, for President Bush - although in recent weeks the support has been less spontaneous and forceful - Washington would certainly not mind - in the eyes of one diplomat - ridiculizing a French foreign policy apparatus presently under the control of Mr Vedrine, a staunch political ally of Mr Jospin, who has himself in recent weeks been heard to make increasingly disparaging remarks about Mr Bush and his "Axis of evil."

Then too, Washington, in undertaking such undiplomatic behaviour, specially towards an historically close ally, could very well be thinking in terms of its long-term relations not only with France, but also the European Union, indeed it is not any secret that Washington has had its word to say about the creation of a new British-Italian-Spanish axis that would like for the European Union to espouse a more economically liberal more pro-American point of view, in the face of a Franco-German axis which until now has not hidden its support for greater governmental intervention in economic affairs and not been afraid to let Washington know, as recently in the words of German foreign minister Joschka Fischer, who noted that "we may be allies but they (the US) shouldn't expect for us to become their satellites."

American policy to create instability
By Shibley Telhami

LOS ANGELES: Even if the inclusion of Iran in the "axis of evil" were a function of US policy on Iraq, it is still highly risky. It is likely to increase Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons without changing its policy on terrorism. Moreover, in lumping terrorism with the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the US might be working in opposite directions: One task requires the significant cooperation of states, the other targets them. The US needs differentiated policies.

If there is any logic to Iran's inclusion on the list with Iraq and North Korea, it is derived from a possible war on Iraq. Historically, the United States sought to maintain balance in the Persian Gulf between Iraq and Iran, not allowing either one to dominate. During the Cold War, the United States supported Iran while the Soviets supported Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, our policy was to ensure that neither side won decisively.

After the gulf war in 1991, the United States embarked on the "dual containment" of Iran and Iraq, largely because we worried that the weakening of Iraq and the imposition of sanctions on it could give Iran an opportunity to assert its power in the region. Now, with a potential war on Iraq, which at minimum would significantly weaken it and at maximum lead to its disintegration, the ground also is laid for weakening Iran.

This, Bush administration officials probably hope, also would alleviate the fears of some allies in the gulf who have always seen Iran as a threat and are worried that a diminished Iraq would increase that threat.

It seems then that Saddam Hussein, not the fear of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, is dictating US policy. Indeed, many states that have policy differences with the United States might increase their drive to procure nuclear weapons as the only way to deter American power. Countering this drive through military means alone probably would increase states' sponsorship of terrorism: If they are to be targets anyway, their easiest method of response is terrorism.

The US is capable of destroying many enemies, including Iran, Iraq, North Korea and more, but it does not have the resources to bring stability or the desired outcome in every region after such wars. And instability is where terrorism thrives.

Ugly as some states are, they remain the natural enemies of terrorism by fanatic groups. Weakening and destabilizing these states will not decrease terror. It is easier to deter states than to deter shadowy non-state groups.

The United States has been the target of a single horrific enemy that has viciously attacked and declared war on it: Al Qaeda. Imagine if the anger of many groups and states becomes directed at the US. The recent anti-American demonstrations in Iran are an unfortunate reminder. The horror of last September demonstrated how easy it is to commit large-scale terror in the age of globalization.

Osama bin Laden's horrible message to potential terrorists was not so much a call to join his group but to demonstrate the vulnerability of even the largest power on Earth to the acts of a few men with box cutters. In this he succeeded, even as we have fortunately destroyed much of his power. The danger that remains is too great to allow the US to be blindsided by its obsession with Hussein.

The US is a powerful country and it must use that power to defend its interests against those who threaten it. But the US does not need more desperate enemies. Much of the world, which saw US vulnerability in the September tragedy as a threat to the global order, was buoyed by the recovery of US power after the Afghan success. Now is the time for prudence, not for turning global empathy and admiration into pervasive anger. -Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times.

Bush govt misleading court on terror detainees
By Jonathan Turley

LOS ANGELES: This week, Raissi was released by a British court after five months of incarceration during which the US Justice Department sought his extradition.

The US government now stands accused of misleading the court and withholding exculpatory evidence. In the ultimate reversal of fortunes, the man once identified as the "mastermind" of terrorists has emerged as a sympathetic character.

Raissi was accused of training Hani Hanjour, who is believed to have piloted the aeroplane into the Pentagon.

Extradition should have been a perfunctory matter given the clarity of his alleged involvement and the accommodating stance of English courts.

In its appearances before British Judge Timothy Workman, the US government assured the court that there was a "web of circumstantial evidence" revealing Raissi as a co-conspirator and an Al Qaeda operative.

Workman held six hearings to try to induce the US government to support its claims with this evidence. Finally, the United States admitted that it had no such evidence.

It now appears that the FBI had found no credible evidence to confirm the claims made before Workman. In the initial hearings, for example, the government claimed to have a videotape of Raissi with one of the hijackers and extensive telephone records of calls to the hijackers.

It was later revealed that the videotape was actually Raissi and his cousin at Raissi's apartment and the government mysteriously dropped the claim that it had incriminating telephone records.

Raissi's lawyer produced an affidavit from an FBI agent stating that the FBI had determined that there is "no evidence to suggest that Raissi and Hanjour had ever trained together." A pilot who allegedly flew on a particular day with the two men denied that Hanjour was on the flight with Raissi. Logs indicate that Hanjour flew on a different day than Raissi. Raissi's wife insisted that if Raissi were a religious fanatic, she probably would have noticed since she is a cabaret dancer and a Catholic.

In its misleading statements and its failure to correct the record, the government fulfilled the stereotype of a vengeful nation unhinged from its most fundamental legal principles. A nation of laws is defined not by the ends of justice but by the means used to secure it.

This is why the conduct in Britain deserves investigation to determine if the world's greatest democracy returned to the courts of its ancestors and adopted their cruel practices . -Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) Los Angeles Times.

EU, US differ over HR, terrorism
By Tito Drago

MADRID: An agreement reached on Friday by the EU justice ministers to negotiate a treaty on judicial cooperation with the UStates highlights differences between the EU and US regarding human rights and the fight against terrorism and organised crime.

The justice ministers stressed that the economic and social roots of terrorism and wars must be attacked, and said that every international military operation must be carried out on the mandate of the United Nations, rather than unilaterally.

The justice ministers of the 15 EU countries reached the agreement at a meeting in Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

In recent days, the US policy against terrorism has been questioned by European officials like the EU commissioner of external affairs, Chris Patten, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, and Germany's ministers of foreign relations and defence, Joschka Fischer and Rudolf Scharping.

The justice ministers said they agreed on the need to hash out a "political accord" to negotiate a treaty on extradition and police and judicial cooperation with the United States, but one that would "safeguard European principles and values."

The treaty should contain guarantees of fair trial and safeguards that people extradited to the United States will not be sentenced to death, said Spanish Justice Minister Angel Acebes, who presided over the meeting in Santiago de Compostela.

"Any accord reached with the United States should take into account the limits, in the context of respect for fundamental rights and liberties, set out in the laws and constitutions of the members of the (European) Union, as well as all legal guarantees," said Acebes.

French Defence Minister Alain Richard said Bush's remarks revealed "a maximalist tendency," and Scharping stressed that "the United States will learn that the fight against terrorism is not only a military one, and that in the future it will need friends and partners."

European critics of Washington's foreign policy also referred to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. "We Europeans do not agree with Washington's Middle East policy, and we believe it is an error to support Ariel Sharon's policy of pure repression," said French Foreign Minister Hubert Vidrine.

But what most upsets Europeans is the scarce importance Washington puts on the positions taken by its allies. "Despite all the differences in weight and size, alliances between democracies are not based on follow-the-leader. Partners is one thing, and satellite countries is another," said Fischer.

On Feb 8, Jospin warned the United States not give in to "the strong temptation of unilateralism." Unilateral decisions taken by the United States during the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and Afghanistan this year even ruffled feathers within the NATO, in which the United States and Europe play a predominant role.

NATO Secretary-General George Robertson reacted in irritation to statements by US Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz, according to whom the alliance determines the mission, but does not carry it out. Robertson, a British national, said an ongoing coalition is always better than a provisional one, and added that he was prepared to "reinvent" NATO to keep the United States from applying unilateral decisions.

Acebes noted that the treaty on judicial and police cooperation between the European Union and the United States would be a pioneer agreement, because so far external relations on the legal front have been a question left up to each European member state.-Dawn/InterPress Service.

ICJ ruling major setback to fight against impunity
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON: Human rights groups are attacking a decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a major setback in the global fight against impunity.

The ICJ invalidated on Thursday parts of a Belgian law that gave its courts jurisdiction to prosecute world leaders for genocide and war crimes.

The ICJ, which threw out an international arrest warrant issued by Belgium against a former foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of Congo, ruled that Belgian courts could not deprive the accused, Yerodia Aboulaye Ndombasi, of his diplomatic immunity, even if he was being prosecuted for actions he committed out of office.

International human rights groups reacted with dismay, arguing that the ruling underlined the urgent need for the International Criminal Court, which will be fully empowered to try cases of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes - once it comes into being. "This is a disappointing decision because it effectively shields some state officials from prosecution for atrocities," said Reed Brody, advocacy director for Human Rights Watch.

Amnesty International also deplored the decision, saying it "goes against a growing trend in international law and significant efforts by national jurisdictions to end impunity, including by not giving immunity from prosecution to people suspected of crimes under international law."

"No one should enjoy immunity from crimes under international law, which are so serious that the international community has accepted that it is the responsibility of all states to bring the perpetrators to justice," it said.

So far, only one trial has been held under the 1993 law. In that case, which was completed early last year, a civilian jury found four Rwandans, including two nuns, complicit in the 1994 genocide in that central African nation. Coming so soon after Pinochet was permitted to return to Chile, the trial attracted considerable media attention. The result was a torrent of new lawsuits brought in Belgian courts against various leaders.

So far, the Sharon case has received the most publicity. He was sued last year for his role in the 1982 massacre by Lebanese Falangist militia of hundreds of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut.

The case has made both Israel and Belgium distinctly uncomfortable. Late last year, Belgium's foreign minister denounced the law as "embarrassing" and called on the parliament to amend in a way that would at least provide immunity for serving officials of foreign governments.-Dawn/InterPress Service.

Pentagon considering planting false stories: Proposal under study: paper
By Our Correspondent

NEW YORK, Feb 19: The Pentagon is developing plans to provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations as part of a new effort to influence public sentiment and policy-makers in both friendly and unfriendly countries , said the New York Times on Tuesday.

The plans, which have not received final approval from the Bush administration, have stirred opposition among some Pentagon officials who say they might undermine the credibility of information that is openly distributed by the Defence Department's public affairs officers, the Times said.

The military has long engaged in information warfare against hostile nations for instance, by dropping leaflets and broadcasting messages into Afghanistan when it was still under the Taliban rule. But it recently created the Office of Strategic Influence, which is proposing to broaden that mission into allied nations in the Middle East, Asia and even Western Europe. The office would assume a role traditionally led by civilian agencies, mainly the State Department, the paper said.

Many administration officials worried that the United States was losing support in the Islamic world after American warplanes began bombing Afghanistan in October. Those concerns spurred the creation of the Office of Strategic Influence.

The small but well-financed Pentagon office, which was established shortly after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, was a response to concerns in the administration that the United States was losing public support overseas for its war against terrorism, particularly in Islamic countries.

The paper said that one of the office's proposals calls for planting news items with foreign media organizations through outside concerns that might not have obvious ties to the Pentagon, officials familiar with the proposal said. However, the Times said that "the new office has also stirred a sharp debate in the Pentagon, where several senior officials have questioned whether its mission is too broad and possibly even illegal."

Those critics say they are disturbed that a single office might be authorized to use not only covert operations like computer network attacks, psychological activities and deception, but also the instruments and staff of the military's globe-spanning public affairs apparatus.

Mingling the more surreptitious activities with the work of traditional public affairs would undermine the Pentagon's credibility with the media, the public and governments around the world, critics argue. "This breaks down the boundaries almost completely," a senior Pentagon official told the paper. Moreover, critics say, disinformation planted in foreign media organizations, like Reuters or Agence France-Presse, could end up being published or broadcast by American news organizations.

As part of the effort to counter the pronouncements of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and their supporters, the State Department has already hired a former advertising executive to run its public diplomacy office, and the White House has created a public information "war room" to coordinate the administration's daily message domestically and abroad.

Secretary of Defence Donald H. Rumsfeld, while broadly supportive of the new office, has not approved its specific proposals and has asked the Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. Haynes, to review them, senior Pentagon officials said.

Cheney to discuss Iraq options with ME leaders
By Our Staff Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb 19: Possible US policy options on Iraq will be on top of the list of subjects for discussion during Vice- President Richard Cheney's proposed Middle East tour next month.

Reports here on Tuesday suggested that no decision had been made by the Bush administration so far about how to proceed against President Saddam Hussein, whose displacement from power is now a declared US objective.

President George Bush's remark in his State of the Union address describing Iraq, Iran and North Korea as comprising an "axis of evil" had raised alarms throughout the world that a preemptive strike against Iraq particularly could be imminent. But senior officials are still said to be debating the most feasible course to follow, whether to carry out a military invasion, support a local insurgency, back a coup, or undertake a combination of all three.

A decision may await the Middle East visit of Cheney, for whom it will mark the first major initiative abroad since the Sept 11 attacks and his virtual disappearance from the public scene into forced isolation in a secure location.

Cheney is said to have a rapport with Gulf leaders going back to his tenure as defence secretary during the Gulf War in 1991, and The Washington Post says it is unlikely that someone of the vice-president's stature would visit the region unless he had concrete plans to share.

There has been resistance to the idea of military intervention in Iraq from Arab countries, America's allies in Europe and from Russia, whose leader, Vladimir Putin, Bush is scheduled to meet in May.

India panicking over plague-like disease
By Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI: After a fourth person died of a mysterious illness that has caused panic in Himachal Pradesh and Uttaranchal, medical experts said the disease could be plague.

"Clinically it looks like plague but we are awaiting final identification through molecular characterisation according to World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria," Dr S.K. Sharma, director of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS) at Chandigarh city, said on Monday.

The National Institute of Communicable Diseases (NICD) in New Delhi, which has been tasked with the job of identifying the disease that broke out last week in the Rhoru district of Himachal Pradesh, a known focal point for plague, has not issued its report.

The latest victim, a woman, is one of nine people currently admitted at the PGIMS, and undergoing treatment. Chandigarh, the joint capital of Punjab and Haryana states, is the nearest major city with specialist facilities for people in Himachal Pradesh.

Earlier, union minister for health, C. P. Thakur, himself a qualified doctor, claimed that the disease was under control but admitted that it had "symptoms similar to pneumonic plague". Thakur will have to make an official statement on this soon, and if the disease is in fact plague, his pronouncement is expected to have an impact on industries like tourism.

The symptoms of pneumonic plague, which is spread through the air and therefore considered highly contagious, includes rapid onset of fever, chills, headaches, malaise, prostration and nausea. Victims and doctors treating them are required to wear surgical masks to prevent contagion. Plague, caused by the bacterium Yersinia Pestis, which is carried by the rat flea, also manifests as the bubonic plague in which the lymph glands in the armpits, groin and neck swell, and also as septicaemic plague.

The mysterious disease has so far claimed four lives - two in Himachal Pradesh and two in Uttaranchal. In all, 15 people are now undergoing treatment for plague, including nine admitted at the PGIMS. Tablets of tetracycline, the drug of choice against plague, are being distributed in Rhoru and nearby Jhubal village.

News reports from the two remote Himalayan villages, about a 100kms east of Shimla,, spoke of hundreds of panic-stricken people flocking around public health centres and small medical facilities demanding tetracycline tablets. The Hindu newspaper on Monday cited unnamed public health experts who said Himachal Pradesh, a known focal point for plague, had dismantled a surveillance system for the disease some ten years ago for lack of funds. -Dawn/InterPress Service.

Europe musters courage to confront US with 'one voice'
By Paul Michaud

BRUSSELS, Feb 19: They say it couldn't be done, but Europe will soon be speaking with a single voice, as part of a massive pan-European protest against the US incarceration at Guantanamo of two dozen European "Taliban".

European lawmakers say they are being detained under questionable circumstances. The action is seen as good a rejoinder as any to former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who used to quip that Europe, for him, did not exist as it was so divided that "in a crisis, I never knew," he would say, "whether to call Paris or London or Bonn or Brussels."

Now all of that is to change, paradoxically thanks to the United States and the way it's upset European public opinion with its incarceration of "Taliban" prisoners, notably those who hold European passports.

There are at least 20 such prisoners who are nationals of six European countries: France, Great Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Spain and Belgium.

Part of the conflict concerns indeed the precise number of European Taliban who are being detained at Guanatanamo. After French authorities were informed by the CIA in January that seven of the Taliban detainees were being considered nationals of France because they were heard speaking French, a delegation sent to Guanatanamo by the French foreign affairs ministry determined that in effect only two of the men were holders of French passports.

What is further surprising about the decision to put out a joint position protesting the detention of European nationals at Guanatanamo is that the call for such a protest cuts across the "great divide" that over the past few months has been created across Europe, notably between countries like France and Germany, which favour greater governmental intervention in their economies, and Great Britain, Italy and Spain.

On Feb 15, London and Rome, through the intermediary of their political leaders Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, announced creation of their own axis, which they said would also include Spain, as they felt that the concept of Europe expressed by Paris and Berlin was not necessarily their own.

Blair and Berlusconi let it be known during their meeting in Rome - which strangely enough was conducted in French, neither man speaking the other's language - that they wanted for Europeto be economically more liberal, and not as anti-American as they accused Berlin, and notably Paris, of having become.

But that position has apparently changed somewhat, as the major architect of the joint position on the European prisoners is British Prime Minister Tony Blair who has sent out a questionnaire to the Brussels-based representatives of the six European nations with prisoners at Guantanamo asking them to state their positions on the issue. As far as Blair is concerned, Europe should let it be known, and adamantly so, that any European "Taliban" should be judged in the countries where they hold citizenship, certainly not in America, and this for two reasons that make their trials on US soil of questionable legality: Europe banned capital punishment 20 years ago, and also opposes the use of military tribunals.

Certainly the major reason behind Blair's decision to get the matter moving on a Pan-European basis is the growing impatience being expressed by Britain's Muslim citizens. It's a phenomenon also being experienced in France, which has a Muslim population of at least five million, and which has also forced national leaders to attempt to also bring home for judgment the two French citizens presently held at Guantanamo.

Actions undertaken individually by Britain, which was the first country to send a delegation to Guantanamo to interrogate three British "Taliban", and by France a week later, to persuade Washington to allow the repatriation of their nationals, have been met "by a wall of silence," in the words of one French diplomat, and it was in large part this attitude that decided Tony Blair, as well as French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, to think in terms of jointly undertaking an action on a European basis.

It's those very European elites who have now decided to let Bush know loud and clear that before taking his crusade on the road, he should very well first think about doing away at home with certain practices, like the arbitrary detention of European prisoners at Guantanamo, that have their role to play in fomenting the very terrorism that Washington says it is doing all it can to eradicate.

Blair unmoved by Bush strategy shift
By Hugo Young

LONDON: The word that describes Tony Blair's attitude towards George Bush is insouciant. He seems worried about almost nothing. The main thing is that he remains inside the loop.

The two men talk often. They have most intimate and honest dealings. These conversations underwrite the British claim never yet to have been taken by surprise, in any phase of the campaign against terrorism. They leave Blair very sure of Britain's relations with the US, which have been marked by concerted action as well as words: a lot less crucial than Pakistan's but, as usual, more important than that of any other European.

Blair also accepts the shift that has smoothly taken place in Washington's analysis, carrying the anti-terror targeting far beyond Al Qaeda and into the countries that are producing weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. From global networks to an axis of national evils, in one easy slide.

Not all EU member states are so ready to agree with this, though none of them, apparently, has conveyed as much to the prime minister's office. He feels comfortable on all sides. The stories of transatlantic rifts, in his opinion, are exaggerated. The possibility that the most painful rift might cleave through his own person, as he becomes less a bridge than an illusion linking America to Europe, does not arise.

Behind the scenes, in the ceaseless turmoil of diplomatic activity between London and Washington, things are a little more complicated. The unevenness of leverage is showing, starting in Afghanistan itself, where the British-led peacekeeping force is desperately short of manpower. Though Mr Blair was pleased that, after Christmas, the US offered more resources to rebuild Afghanistan than it had done before, peacekeeping work by soldiers is another matter. A senior British diplomat was sent to Washington last week to press Secretary Rumsfeld to provide an American element for this work, but got an adamantly dusty reply. There will be no US peacekeepers, he was told.

There are also disagreements over Iran, which for the US is becoming a more immediate source of rage than Iraq. Iran's nuclear supplies from Russia, Iran's alleged arms deliveries to the Palestinians, Iran's double-talk about not assisting Al Qaeda operatives on the run have all fired up indignation in Washington, which has not helped Britain's self-appointed role as cultivator of the moderate politicians against the extremist clerics inside the Iranian power elite. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, the hapless exponent of that policy, does not carry much clout with any of the US leadership.

The big challenge is Iraq, the main WMD state, where the escalation of US threats to act is meeting continued British wishful thinking that such action will not happen any time soon. Every relevant politician and official says the same neat thing: that they will be shown a plan if an invasion is to happen, and have so far not been shown one.

The closest they have got to it is the intelligence that several plans have been presented to the president, by the Pentagon and the CIA, and he has rejected all of them, mainly on the grounds that he doesn't yet believe there are indigenous forces on the Iraqi ground who can do the job the Northern Alliance did as US proxies in the takeover of Kabul.

This is a highly relevant point. The stoking-up of the case for regime-change in Baghdad has begun to make it seem inevitable that an attack will be launched. The American press resounds with battle-plans. Colin Powell seems to have come off the fence. The momentum builds. And yet, without credible oppositionist forces in place, the strategy risks getting muddled and therefore very dangerous.

For Bush the stakes in Iraq will be much higher than they have been against Al Qaeda. Any attack against Iraq that allows Saddam Hussein to be spirited into the mountains will be deemed a calamitous failure. If an invasion fail, US voters would destroy the president as soon as they had the chance. This is not a risk he will lightly take, even on the back of his unremitting oratory since Kabul fell. A reading of Blair is that he fervently hopes that such hard-headed assessments of political survival prevail.

Parts of London, maybe including himself, see an Iraqi invasion as a fearful distraction from the defeat of global terror networks, a task that requires, above all, intelligence collaboration from many Islamic states that would be far more opposed than Europe to an invasion plan. Meanwhile, Blair does have options, improbable though it may be that he sees them this way.

If Blair were to express even one-tenth of EU external affairs commissioner Chris Patten's anguished critique of the US , he could have twice the influence. He will doubtless cling to the second option, which is to accept, without any abrupt attempt to shape it, whatever the US decides on. -Dawn/The Guardian News Service.

Media coverage of 'anti-terror war' turns critical
By Howard Kurtz

WASHINGTON: When US soldiers conducted a raid north of Kandahar, on Jan 24, it was initially reported as an American victory. "US Special Forces got into a fight with the Taliban.

Fifteen Afghan fighters were killed and 27 taken into custody," said ABC's Peter Jennings.

"Army Special Forces stormed two Taliban compounds," said NBC's Jim Miklaszewski. Newspapers carried similar stories, adding such caveats as "Defence Department officials said."

Days later, however, a few reporters in Afghanistan began challenging the official accounts, eventually prompting the Pentagon to acknowledge that those captured were not Taliban members after all. On balance, though, some journalists say the news business has been too passive during a war in which the first, often lasting impressions are left by military briefers at the lectern.

"We are the auditors of this operation," said Mark Thompson, Time magazine's defence correspondent. "Sometimes you get the feeling there's a little too much Arthur Andersen going on."

After five months in which the Bush administration drew consistently upbeat coverage for a successful military campaign, the media climate has turned sharply negative. Suddenly, the issues of civilian casualties, military mistakes and the Pentagon's own credibility have been dragged into the national spotlight.

Perhaps there was resentment among journalists over their limited access during the war while Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was hailed on magazine covers like a rock star. Perhaps the tales of innocents slain in remote Afghan villages became too heart-rending to ignore. Perhaps there was a news void as the fighting largely subsided and the Osama bin Laden trail went cold.

Or perhaps it is easier for reporters to raise uncomfortable questions about military blunders now that the Taliban regime has been toppled and the threat to American troops greatly eased.

Whatever the cause, war coverage now resembles a kind of time-lapse photography, with journalists revisiting the scene of past bombing raids for the kind of up-close-and-personal reporting that was all but impossible while the ground war was raging.

On Monday, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and The New York Times reported allegations by some of the 27 Afghans captured in last month's raid that American forces had beaten and kicked them - prompting Rumsfeld to order an investigation. A day earlier, The New York Times ran a lengthy piece on civilian deaths in several raids in Afghanistan. On Wednesday, The Post, The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times examined civilian casualties in a raid in October.

But the Pentagon still controls access in some areas where journalists want to dig for information. One dramatic clash took place last weekend when Washington Post reporter Doug Struck tried to visit the site of the Jan. 24 raid. He was turned away at gunpoint by US soldiers who threatened to shoot him if he went farther.

Struck said from Afghanistan that "the important thing isn't whether Doug Struck was threatened. It shows the extremes the military is going to keep this war secret, to keep reporters from finding out what's going on."

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke defended the department's dealings with the media. "I think it's a reflection of the often confusing and shifting nature of a very unconventional war," she said. "It's always a balance. We want to put out as much information as we can, and we want that information to be as accurate as it can be. We can't always do that as quickly as some reporters would like."

Since the Persian Gulf War, the military and the media have been arguing over the degree to which journalists can accompany battlefield troops without jeopardizing their safety. These complaints grew louder after the United States began bombing Afghanistan on Oct 7 without activating previously designated pools of reporters. At the same time, Rumsfeld threatened to prosecute anyone caught leaking classified information.

Now that journalists are relatively free to invade Afghanistan on their own, the war's latest phase has produced a spate of murky, conflicting accounts of whether US troops sometimes targeted the wrong people.

Thompson said the military itself frequently has incomplete information about the impact of its bombing. "The Pentagon was pretty much as blind as we were," he said. "As painful as it was to watch, the Pentagon has provided us with th their changing assessment as it occurred. Frankly, I don't know how they screwed up so bad."-Dawn/LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post.

US team brushes aside security concern
By Our Staff Reporter

ISLAMABAD, Feb 20: Travel advisory issued to the United States nationals visiting Pakistan is more of an issue of perception rather than a reality, observed members of a US delegation.

"The crime rate in Karachi is lower than the crime rate in my hometown Washington D.C.," Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of OPIC Ross Connelly said at a press conference here on Tuesday.

Mr Connelly, who flew into the federal capital after spending two days in Karachi, said that it was a safe place with wonderful people. However, he stressed that it was a matter of staying on course for changing the perceptions.

The eight-member US delegation, which began its visit from Feb 16, comprised officials of Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Export and Import (EXIM) Bank and Trade Development Agency (TDA).

The high-powered delegation of US agencies concerned with private investment had arrived as a follow-up of the commitment of President Bush to strengthen economic ties with Pakistan, Mr Connelly said.

Media watchdogs savage Pentagon: Planting of false stories

WASHINGTON, Feb 20: US media watchdogs reacted with dismay on Tuesday to news that a little-known Pentagon office was considering influencing international opinion on the war on terrorism , with a broad campaign possibly including planting false stories in foreign media.

Should the proposals offered by the cloistered and well-funded Office of Strategic Influence (OSI) be approved by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, it bodes ill for both US journalists and perception of US operations abroad, several experts said.

"Setting out to deliberately lie or 'spread misinformation' can't have anything but a terrible impact down the road for any nation that claims to be an open and democratic society," said Freedom Forum analyst Paul McMasters.

"The only thing more dangerous than reacting in panic is to set out on a deliberate policy of lying and deception, where it is next to impossible for ordinary people, Americans or otherwise, to know what is the truth and what is a lie."

Air Force General Simon Worden was quietly installed as the head of the OSI established after the Sept 11 attacks, to wage a campaign to shape international opinion, defence officials said Tuesday, confirming a report by the New York Times.

The office envisions its mission as ranging from overt public diplomacy to the covert use of disinformation such as false stories to wage a secret propaganda war, Pentagon officials said.

"This is terrible," said Reed Irvine, the founder of the conservative watchdog Accuracy In Media. "It's true that Winston Churchill said the truth was so precious it should be guarded with a bodyguard of lies, but there is no justification for this. There are great disadvantages in the (US) government copying the communists and the old Soviet Union in the battle of disinformation."

That foreign media outlets are the potential vehicles for deliberate misinformation is not suprising, said Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting analyst Peter Hart, as "foreign media have generally been more skeptical of the war in their coverage." "And it's readily acknowledged by anyone paying attention to this, from the White House point of view, that there is some effort to undo some of that."

Revelations of the existence and function of the Office of Strategic Influence are the latest in the Bush administration's campaign to obfuscate the US war on terror and manipulate media coverage, noted McMasters.

Warnings to news agencies from US officials not to air full interviews with top terror suspect Osama bin Laden; a request from Secretary of State Colin Powell to the emir of Qatar to monitor the Arabic-lanugage Al-Jazeera network; and pressure on federally-funded Voice of America not to air an interview with a Taliban official are all part of the same campaign, he said.

"That, combined with the real, heightened attention to secrecy... at the Pentagon and the unprecedented restrictions on press covering the war... means that essentially, Americans are being asked to trust their government while government at the same time is saying emphatically that it does not trust the American public," he said.

Such policies could also put US journalists in harm's way while they are reporting overseas, "even more than they are now," McMasters added.

"There is already the perception among some abroad that American journalists are instruments of American foreign policy, in league with government agencies," he said, pointing to the kidnap of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl in Pakistan as an extreme example.

Journalists, both American and foreign, either working in the United States or abroad, will have to redouble efforts to ensure that "the integrity of (our) work is more important than any other propaganda campaign," said Hart.

"Journalists in other countries are on notice now, to be even more skeptical of official and unofficial claims coming from American sources," he added.-AFP

Osama in 'Bermuda triangle' of Caucasus?

MOSCOW, Feb 20: If the world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, is indeed hiding in the north of Georgia as some Russian and American reports suggest, his pursuers face an immense task.

The Pankisi gorge by the republic's border with Chechnya is the equivalent in the Caucasus of the Bermuda triangle.

People have for centuries vanished in the mountainous area where abduction and ransom remains a way of life. Beyond the reach of the Georgian police or army, bands of gunmen can move arms, narcotics and wounded fighters from the Chechen conflict in relative safety.

In contrast to the rest of Georgia where the population is Christian, inhabitants of the region are mainly ethnic Chechen Muslims.

Moscow has repeatedly accused the Georgian government of allowing Muslim extremists to hide there.-dpa

Muslim leader arrested in Britain
By Our Correspondent

LONDON, Feb 20: The police have arrested a Muslim religious leader here who allegedly had called for the killing of Jews. Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal, 38, from east London was charged by police with incitement to murder.

Abdullah el-Faisal was detained in a raid on his Ilford home on Monday by anti-terrorist officers.

Ilford is home to a huge Muslim community. He is in a police station in central London where police were granted an extra 24 hours to question him.

Mr Faisal is originally from Jamaica who some time ago had converted to Islam.

Concerns surrounding the activities by Mr Faisal had previously been highlighted in the House of Commons and several MPs had expressed concern over his inciting comments.

It followed claims he had toured the country calling for the killing of Jews and infidels.

The offence with which he has been charged comes under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and has been rarely used in recent years.

Agencies add: Senior Labour MP David Winnick said the Jamaican, who has asked for permission to stay in Britain, should be thrown out of the country.

Christians seek Delhi's help after attacks

NEW DELHI, Feb 20: Leaders of India's tiny Christian community on Wednesday condemned a recent spate of attacks on its members and institutions and appealed to the federal government to intervene.

An official statement by the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) said it had received news of four attacks in the past one month, including one on a church in the southern state of Karnataka last Sunday and an attack on a priest in Chattisgarh state in January.

"We unequivocally condemn the attacks ... We thought the attacks on Church institutions and its personnel had become a thing of the past," Archbishop Oswald Gracias, secretary general of the CBCI, said in the statement.

"We urge the competent authorities to nab the culprits immediately and take lawful action against them," Gracias said.

The CBCI said it would take up the matter with Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani.

"We feel embarrassed when acts of intolerance such as these appear to raise their head again and when the country gets a bad name internationally," Archbishop Vincent Concessao, vice-president of the CBCI said.

Christians account for just two percent of the population of overwhelmingly Hindu India.-AFP

Bush seeks Asian allies in new war
By Ilene R.Prusher & Robert Marquand

TOYKO: President Bush's first trip abroad in the next phase of the "war on terror" has been billed as a low-key, working visit, a time to combine plain talk and praise for the leaders of Japan, South Korea, and China.

But at a time when the Bush team is emphasizing the war on terror above all else, US alliances in Asia are of paramount importance. Sept 11 has only bolstered the Bush team's goals of strengthening US security installations in East Asia and the Pacific Rim.

The next phase of the war on terror further increases the likelihood that Washington will turn to Japan. Southeast Asia - reportedly home to various Al Qaeda cells - is a part of the world where Japan still wields significant power.

Similarly, Japan's maintenance of business and diplomatic ties to Iran can afford Tokyo a role as a conduit to Tehran, potentially opening up a dialogue with a country White House officials say currently "leaves them confused."

But Japan's influence in both regions has been built on its position as a financial powerhouse, a position some say will gradually slip away if Japan does not reform its debt-saddled economy.

Yet Bush faces some fancy footwork in the three Asian nations. Beyond the common thread of anti-terror, the White House faces strains among the very different nations on his itinerary: Rising China and fiscally beleaguered Japan are ratcheting up a quiet but furious competition for Asian preeminence. And the White House itself has raised the stakes here by making the missile- building regime of North Korea a charter member of the "axis of evil," sending a shock to South Korea.

So while Bush is praising China, Japan, and South Korea, and wants help from each in the next phase of the war, some analysts say the best the White House can do in Asia is work diligently to heal divisions and build confidence.

"President Bush's ... Asia sojourn is a 'patch and caulk' operation - no major new initiatives, but rather an effort to repair cracks and fill gaps in the plaster of strained relationships," says Richard Baum, an Asia specialist at UCLA. "This won't be easy, because the gaps and strains are serious."

In South Korea, Bush must resolve his brazen "axis of evil"concept of the North, with the "sunshine policy" of President Kim Dae Jung, which two years ago brought the sides together for the first time in 50 years.

In Japan, Bush has embraced embattled Prime Minister Koizumi - even while advocating reform of Japan's deficit spending, bad bank loans, and bloated state industry.

Bush said he discussed the country's three most pressing needs: regulatory reform, deflation, and non-performing loans. (Bush accidentally referred to devaluation instead, causing the yen to drop.) But the president avoided the traditional dynamic of applying a dose of gaiatsu - or foreign pressure - for domestic consumption as a way to prodd Japan to action.

Some observers say Bush's outlook does not represent a softening on the need for Japanese reform, but a shift in the way the US approaches it.

"The US has a long reputation, left over from the 1980s, of trying to lecture to Japan. And for that reason, I think that the administration felt that if they were to do this, they had to speak softly," says Andrew Horvath, director of the Asia Foundation's Japan office.

South Korean officials close to President Kim - who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 for his "sunshine policy" of opening with the North - hope Bush will moderate his language. They want a speech similar to President Reagan's "tear down that wall" Berlin speech in the mid-1980s, where Bush would call for an end to the wall dividing north and south. They hope he will ask for North Korean troops and weapons to be pulled away from the border, and for the doors of the repressive communist regime to open up.

What Kim reportedly does not want is an uncompromising, hawkish speech that bluntly targets the behaviour of North Korea and further enrages its reclusive leader.

Yet whatever Bush says, the overall White House strategy seems to be to apply the kind of pressure that will itself reveal the dynamics inside the opaque northern regime, sources say. The administration wishes to know whether Kim Jong Il - or his generals - hold the upper decision-making hand in the North. They want to force, or "corner," the North's Kim.

Such an approach is risky, some analysts worry. "North Korea continues to decline, but retains a violent government and weapons of mass destruction," says a former Clinton administration official. "No country in the region - South Korea, Japan, China, or Russia - waants to face the catastrophic financial, refugee, and other problems that a North Korean collapse would bring."

At the same time, however, a Society of Freethinkers in South Korea, made up of some 300 influential citizens, issued a statement this week saying that "a great many Korean people now tend to alienate themselves from the so-called Sunshine Policy," and called the policy "appeasement."-Dawn/The Christian Science Monitor News Service

Over 2.5 million perform Haj: Linking Islam with terrorism unfair: Grand Mufti

ARAFAT, Feb 21: More than 2.5 million Muslims from all over the world, including more than 122,000 Pakistanis, performed Haj on Thursday.

After offering Fajr prayers at Mina, the pilgrims proceeded to the plains of Arafat for the "Waquf", the main rite of the Haj.

The faithful arrived by foot, in buses and in small vehicles and pick-ups from Mina, 12 kilometres away, where they had started the pilgrimage rites on Wednesday.

Under a scorching sun, men clad in a two-piece seamless white cloth and women covered except for the hands and face gathered at the site where Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had delivered his last sermon 14 centuries ago. "Here I am Allah, answering Your call; there is no God but You," they chanted. As the temperature soared above 30 degrees Celsius, thousands of sprinklers sprayed a fine mist to cool off the pilgrims, and authorities distributed free packs of water, juice and fruits among them.

The Hujjaj offered combined Zuhr and Asr prayers at the Nimra Mosque, and listened to the Haj sermon.

In the sermon, Saudi Arabia's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, denounced Israel's terrorism against the Palestinians.

"This is injustice, aggression and terrorism," said Sheikh Abdul Aziz before going on to strongly defend Islam against charges of terrorism made in the West in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States.

"It is unfair to associate Islam with terrorism," Sheikh Abdul Aziz said, urging the world's 1.3 billion Muslims to close ranks and defend their faith against the "enemies of Islam. How can terrorism be linked to a religion which orders respect for human life ... (a religion which advocates) justice and promotes peace rather than war?" he asked.

Special prayers were offered for the unity of the Ummah, supremacy of Islam and liberation of all occupied Muslim lands.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz had earlier reminded pilgrims that demonstrations and political slogans were forbidden during the Haj.

Clutching the holy Quran or other prayer books, the pilgrims, mostly gathered in huge tent camp sites around Mount Arafat, invoked Allah in a deeply spiritual atmosphere.

A large number of pilgrims also visited Jabl-i-Rehmat. They sought Allah's blessings and forgiveness.

After sunset, the pilgrims proceeded to Muzdalifa, where they combined Maghrib and Isha prayers. Here they will spend the night praying to Allah and collecting small stones for the stoning of Satan ritual.

On Friday, the first day of Eid al-Azha, the pilgrims will return to Mina to sacrifice animals and stone three pillars symbolizing Satan - a ritual they will repeat on Saturday and Sunday.

Saudi authorities said the first day of the Haj, which started on Wednesday, was completed without any major incidents. Pilgrims spent the night in 44,000 airconditioned and fireproof tents.- Agencies

Bush fails to win China's backing: 'War on terrorism'

BEIJING, Feb 21: US President George W. Bush failed on Thursday to win assurances from China that it would help curb global terrorism by halting ballistic missile exports and encourage North Korea to restart arms control talks.

The issue of arms controls has moved to the top of Washington's foreign policy agenda since the Sept 11 attacks in the United States.

Bush said at a news conference in Beijing he had asked Chinese President Jiang Zemin to use his influence to entice North Korea back to the negotiating table. He also voiced concerns that China was allegedly selling weapons technology and material to Iraq and Pakistan. But Jiang declined to comment on arms proliferation or whether he would convey Bush's offers of talks to Pyongyang, saying only that he hoped US-North Korea weapons talks would resume.

China's rocky relationship with the Bush administration improved significantly when it backed Washington's military campaign against the Taliban. But Beijing has since joined a growing number of US allies in voicing concern about a potential widening of Bush's "war on terrorism" to include Iran, Iraq and North Korea, which the US president accuses of being part of an "axis of evil".

On Thursday the EU's special representative for Afghanistan, Klaus-Peter Klaiber, said the European Union rejected US charges that Iran was working to destabilize Afghanistan and described Washington's allegations as "unfortunate".

US officials have indicated that Iraq is the most likely first target of future military action. Asked if he could support such action, Jiang urged patience and insisted: "It is important to solve the problems through peaceful means."

On Wednesday, Bush denied any plans to attack North Korea. But he also made clear his personal antipathy for what he called the "despotic regime" in Pyongyang.

South Korean experts said that despite his repeated offer of talks Bush's tone had left little prospect of North Korea returning to the negotiating table, with or without encouragement from China.

In Afghanistan, concern over the country's stability continued to run high with British troops from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) again coming under fire in Kabul.

Jiang serenades Bush: President Jiang Zemin proved to be a Communist Party animal on Thursday at a dinner with President George W. Bush, serenading the visiting leader and his wife - in Italian.

Accompanied by an accordion player, Jiang sang "O Sole Mio" and took to the dancefloor with US First Lady Laura Bush, Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and the wife of the US Ambassador to Beijing, said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.

The leaders supped on soup of foie gras; braised chicken with saffron; grilled muttonchop and stewed veggies; cream of Chinese wolfberry and lily soup; pastries and fruit.

Russia flyover: The US secretary of state's plane has done it. US commercial flights do it all the time. Now US President George W. Bush's Air Force One airplane will fly over Russia without stopping there.

No "Air Force One" has ever sliced through Russian air space unless a US president was on his way to a destination in Russia or the former Soviet Union, according to the White House. But when Bush wings his way home after a week-long trip to Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing, the aircraft will do just that in a manoeuvre that will save the US leader 70 minutes of flight time and two hours of refuelling time.

The luxurious blue and white plane, emblazoned with the words "United States of America", will fly over eastern Russia, the Sea of Okhotsk, Siberia, skim the edge of the Arctic Circle, fly over Alaska and Canada before streaking for Washington.-AFP

Afghanistan is on the brink of chaos: CIA

WASHINGTON, Feb 21: A classified CIA report warns that Afghanistan could fall into violent chaos if measures are not taken to restrain the power struggle among rival warlords and control ethnic tensions, The New York Times said on Thursday.

While the Central Intelligence Agency concludes that the danger of a civil war in Afghanistan is not immediate, it warns that the "seeds of a civil conflict" are still present, a senior US official said.

"The report points out that there are tensions between the central and regional authorities and competitions for power within the regions," a senior official said.

"The basic message is that we can't be complacent. There is a medium-term potential for a renewal of civil conflict and problems out there that need to be addressed," said the official quoted by The New York Times.

The report comes amid US plans to build an army and national police force in Afghanistan, which could be effective in controlling internal tensions but which US officials believe will take many months to complete.

"If it takes six months or more than a year to create a single army, what do we do in the meantime to deter war among the warlords?" a senior official said.

The official said several options were being considered to stabilize Afghanistan in the meantime. These options include expanding the existing security force, asking allied nations to deploy security troops in several Afghan cities, expand the role of the US security forces to deter conflicts among rival warlords, or station international observers in Afghan cities to encourage peaceful resolution of local conflicts.

Partition, occupation: Afghanistan risks being plunged back into war and will consequently disintegrate if Afghans do not rally behind the UN-sponsored interim government, an exiled Afghan politician warned Thursday.

"The present administration should be assisted. The other option is fighting which I am afraid would lead to the disememberment of the country," Qareeb-ur-Rahman Saeed, a former prime ministry spokesman, told AFP from Norway.

"The Russians say they have interests in Afghanistan's northern areas, the Pakistanis claim they need a strategic depth in Afghan Pakhtoon-inhabited southern regions while Iranians are allegedly trying to win over Ismael Khan (in the west)," he said.

Saeed, a prominent figure in the Afghan anti-Soviet 1979-1989 resistance, warned that foreign security forces could manipulate security concerns into maintaining a long-term presence in the country.

He said soon after the murder of Afghan civil aviation and tourism minister Abdul Rahman last week at Kabul airport, there was talk of deploying up to 30,000 foreign troops throughout Afghanistan.

"In case the security deteriorates, they (the foreigners) will be more involved and will try to fish in the troubled water," he said. "Various forces have come and occupied Afghanistan under different names," he said, adding that the only way to end their presence in Afghanistan was "to assist the present administration."

The International Assistance Security Force (ISAF) was deployed here days before interim leader Hamid Karzai's government took over in December, but its strength is expected to peak at around 4,500 troops later this month.

Saeed warned that foreign powers would soon find Afghanistan to be a "headache" if they intended staying put, long-term. "It will be a headache as the problems of the past several days showed and there will be resistance against it and there will eventually be a foreign backing to this resistance," he predicted, inissting that Afghans were capable of ensuring their own security.

He said that the foreign forces will have no excuse to stay when the regime is "stable and there is a parliament chosen through fair and free elections".

British troops, part of the ISAF contingents, came under fire and returned fire Wednesday night in Kabul.

Last week they said they killed one Afghan man and wounded five other people in a western suburb when they came under fire Saturday for the first time since their deployment in Kabul. But the family of the dead man has contested saying no shots were fired at the British troops and 19-year-old Hamayon Yaqob was killed as he drove his pregnant sister-in-law to hospital.

A former member of Afghanistan's Hezb-e-Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar who was granted political asylum Normay in 2000, Saeed said his comments were personal.

Hekmatyar, currently living in exile Iran, sees Karzai administration as a foreign puppet.

"Afghans were punished for an uncommitted guilt," Saeed said, adding that two to three times more "innocent Afghans were killed in the US bombardment of Afghanistan than those in the sad September 11 attacks".-AFP

Russia opposes US role in Georgia

MOSCOW, Feb 21: Russia on Thursday slapped down mounting talk of a US role in helping Georgia oust suspected Al-Qaeda fighters from a gorge near Russia's rebel Chechnya region.

General Anatoly Kvashnin, chief of Russia's military staff, told Interfax news agency on Thursday "Russia and Georgia should destroy this terrorist centre in the Pankisi Gorge together".

He said he saw no US role. "I don't see any need for that at this stage," Interfax quoted him as saying.

A senior US official said on Wednesday Washington was looking to help Georgia rein in the Pankisi gorge, where Islamic militants linked to Chechen rebels are thought to have bases.

The official ruled out seeking Russian help to crush followers of Osama bin Laden thought to be holed up in the area.

Since Russian troops returned to Chechnya in 1999, the gorge has become the focus of kidnapping and drug-running rackets.

The presence of US troops at Russia's border would be highly sensitive. Many in Russia's military establishment are already upset that US servicemen have set up bases in Central Asia as part of the campaign in Afghanistan.

Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has said Moscow was not yet concerned about US bases in Central Asia, but only because it assumed they would close at the end of the Afghan operation.

Russian alarm bells were initially set ringing earlier this month when the US charge d'affaires in Tbilisi told a Georgian weekly the United States wanted to help create an anti-terrorism force within the Georgian Defence Ministry.

The remarks were the first public comment by a US official linking international terrorism to the Pankisi region and suggesting Washington was prepared to help combat it.

Russia's Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper said on Wednesday US military advisers had already arrived in Georgia, and speculated they could be preparing for a larger deployment by the US-led international anti-terrorism coalition.

A US embassy spokeswoman in Tbilisi said there were no US military advisers in the former Soviet republic.-Reuters

Hitler's globe on display

MUNICH, Feb 21: A giant globe on which Adolf Hitler is believed to have outlined his plans for world domination has been put on show in a Munich library, pockmarked with bullet holes and bayonet stabs.

The outsize globe, which has a diameter of 1.15 metres and stands at a height of 1.7 metres, is one of a handful made in 1937 for top Nazis, said Reinhard Horn from the Bavarian State Library.

Its size evokes Charlie Chaplin's anti-Nazi satire "The Great Dictator" in which his parody of Hitler, Adenoid Hynkel, dances around his office playing with a giant globe, enthralled at the prospect of ruling the world.

"I thought at first about putting a photo of Chaplin next to it, but we're a scientific library so I left it," said Horn, who is head of the library's maps and pictures department.

It was found in the Fuehrerbau, the Nazi party headquarters in Munich. "We believe it stood in Hitler's office," Horn said.

One media report said Hitler was believed to have used it to explain his foreign policies to visiting dignitaries.

The globe sustained its injuries when the allies took over Munich at the end of the war.-Reuters

Quiet demise of ABM treaty
By James Schlesinger

WASHINGTON: It's astonishing that there's been so little commentary on the prospective end to the ABM Treaty, which until recently was heralded as "the cornerstone of strategic stability" and the indispensable barrier to a renewed arms race.

The eulogies have been surprisingly few - a few dissents. The dire predictions haven't been forthcoming. The intriguing question, as Sherlock Holmes might say, is: Why didn't the dog bark?

It's really quite simple. Defenders of the ABM Treaty had earlier undermined their own position, and it was just a matter of time before the logical consequences followed.

What have been the reverberations? Scarcely any. Though many in Russia felt bruised by the decision, the Russians issued only the mildest of protests.

The mild Russian reaction deflated the sometimes hysterical protests from the treaty's supporters abroad. European governments, which had denounced President Bush throughout the spring for undermining strategic stability, had the ground cut out from under them. They had been relying on a vehement Russian reaction and the prospect of a renewed arms race to buttress their position. The Chinese will continue in their methodical strategic buildup. Here at home there's been this remarkable silence.

What, as they say, are the "lessons?" Arms control agreements aren't forever. Strategic conditions change. The bipolar world of the 'e '70s and '80s is gone - thus the feared two-sided competition to deploy additional offensive vehicles didn't reappear.

Rather than being "the cornerstone of strategic stability," the treaty turned out to be more like the cornerstone of arms control theology. As the treaty over time became less relevant, it was defended with increasing passion.

Where do we stand now? Striking down the treaty as a barrier to development of necessary technology represents an acknowledgment that the technology for missile defence isn't now in hand. Thus, any deployment remains a considerable distance off. Only time will tell what's feasible. The conviction on which this decision was based - that ballistic missile defences are within reach and that a system that is both effective and cost- effective will be deployed - still remains to be demonstrated.-Dawn/The Washington Post News Service