Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« February 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
BULLETIN
Sunday, 15 February 2004

Les plans d'armes atomiques trouves en Libye viendraient de Chine
LEMONDE.FR | 15.02.04 | 21h49
La Libye mais aussi l'Iran et la Coree du Nord se seraient approvisionnes sur un veritable marche noir international du nucleaire alimente pour partie par la Chine.
Des enqueteurs ont decouvert que des plans d'armes atomiques declares en 2003 par la Libye venaient de Chine, mettant au jour un nouveau maillon d'un reseau d'echange de technologies nucleaires transitant par le Pakistan, rapporte, dimanche 15 fevrier, le Washington Post.
Citant des responsables gouvernementaux et des experts en armements, le quotidien americain indique que les documents remis aux experts par la Libye contiennent des "preuves evidentes" du role joue par la Chine dans le transfert de technologies nucleaires au Pakistan au debut des annees 1980.
Ces plans presumes provenir de Chine ont ensuite ete revendus a la Libye par l'intermediaire d'un reseau pilote depuis le Pakistan, et figurant au c?ur d'une enquete sur le marche noir international du nucleaire, ecrit le journal, citant ces responsables et des experts officiant aux Etats-Unis et en Europe.
Les documents concernes, ou figurent notamment des textes en chinois, contiennent des instructions detaillees pour assembler une bombe nucleaire a implosion susceptible d'etre installee sur un gros missile balistique. Des instructions techniques pour la fabrication des composants necessaires y ont egalement ete decouvertes, ont fait savoir les memes sources au Post.
"C'est exactement le genre de documents que l'on aurait dans une usine. Il vous disent quelle torsion utiliser sur les vis et quelle colle appliquer sur les composants", a explique au journal un expert en armements ayant eu acces aux plans, qu'il a qualifies de "tres, tres vieux" mais "tres bien concus".
Une porte-parole de l'ambassade de Chine a Washington que Reuters a tente de joindre n'a pas pu etre contactee dans l'immediat. La CIA s'est quant a elle refusee a tout commentaire.
Des responsables des services de renseignement americains etaient parvenus a la conclusion, il y a plusieurs annees, que la Chine avait fourni une aide au Pakistan pour l'elaboration de sa premiere arme nucleaire, une collaboration qui semble avoir pris fin dans les annees 1980.
MARCHE NOIR DU NUCLEAIRE
Les experts en armements ayant eu acces aux plans fournis par la Libye ont neanmoins exprime leur etonnement face a cet apparent transfert de technologie nucleaire sensible a un pays tiers, ecrit le quotidien.
Des notes figurant parmi les documents examines par les experts semblent indiquer que la Chine a continue, pendant plusieurs annees, a renseigner les chercheurs pakistanais sur les subtilites de la fabrication des bombes nucleaires, ont indique les sources citees par le journal.
Les activites de Pekin dans ce domaine etaient "irresponsables et imprevoyantes, et soulevent des interrogations sur l'etendue des apports de la Chine au programme nucleaire pakistanais", a declare au Post David Albright, physicien nucleaire et ancien inspecteurs en armements de l'ONU en Irak.
La Libye a remis en novembre ces plans d'armes nucleaires a des responsables americains, son dirigeant Mouammar Kadhafi ayant decide de renoncer a son programme d'armes de destruction massive et d'ouvrir les laboratoires militaires de son pays a des inspections internationales, indique le journal.
Selon le Post, ces plans, arrives en janvier a Washington, ont ete analyses par des experts americains, britanniques et issus de l'Agence internationale de l'energie atomique, agence de l'ONU.
Les experts en armements ont egalement trouve en Libye de grandes quantites de materiel utilises dans l'enrichissement de l'uranium, ingredient indispensable a la fabrication d'armes nucleaires.
Cette decouverte a permis la mise au jour d'un veritable marche noir international du nucleaire qui, selon des responsables, aurait permis l'acquisition de technologies nucleaire et de materiel sensible par l'Iran et la Coree du Nord, en plus de la Libye.
Avec Reuters

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

>> WAITING FOR THE NEW REPORT...
SEE ALSO...http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18252.htm

Syria

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
March 31, 2003
Syria is a republic under a military regime with virtually absolute authority in the hands of the President. Despite the existence of some institutions of democratic government, the President, with counsel from his ministers, high-ranking members of the ruling Ba'th Party, and a relatively small circle of security advisers, makes key decisions regarding foreign policy, national security, internal politics, and the economy. All three branches of government are influenced to varying degrees by leaders of the Ba'th Party, whose primacy in state institutions and the Parliament is mandated by the Constitution. The Parliament may not initiate laws but only assesses and at times modifies those proposed by the executive branch. The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, but security courts are subject to political influence. The regular courts generally display independence, although political connections and bribery may influence verdicts.
The powerful role of the security services in government, which extends beyond strictly security matters, stems in part from the state of emergency that has been in place almost continuously since 1963. The Government justifies martial law because of the state of war with Israel and past threats from terrorist groups. Syrian Military Intelligence and Air Force Intelligence are military agencies, while General Security, State Security, and Political Security come under the purview of the Ministry of Interior. The branches of the security services operated independently of each other and outside the legal system. The security forces were under effective government control. Their members committed serious human rights abuses.
The population of the country was approximately 17 million. The economy was based on commerce, agriculture, oil production, and government services. Economic growth was hampered by the still dominant state role in the economy, a complex bureaucracy, overarching security concerns, endemic corruption, currency restrictions, a lack of modern financial services and communications, and a weak legal system.
The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit serious abuses. Citizens did not have the right to change their government. The Government used its vast powers to prevent any organized political opposition, and there have been very few antigovernment manifestations. Continuing serious abuses included the use of torture in detention; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; prolonged detention without trial; fundamentally unfair trials in the security courts; an inefficient judiciary that suffered from corruption and, at times, political influence; and infringement on privacy rights. The Government significantly restricted freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom of assembly does not exist under the law and the Government restricted freedom of association. The Government did not officially allow independent domestic human rights groups to exist; however, it permitted periodic meetings of unlicensed civil society forums throughout the year. The Government placed some limits on freedom of religion and freedom of movement. Proselytizing by groups it considered Zionist was not tolerated, and proselytizing in general was not encouraged. Violence and societal discrimination against women were problems. The Government discriminated against the stateless Kurdish minority, suppressed worker rights, and tolerated child labor in some instances.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Life
There were no reports of political killings or other killings committed by government forces during the year.
In November 2000, a number of armed clashes occurred between Bedouin shepherds and Druze residents of Suwayda Province that required government military intervention to stop. Local press reported that between 15 and 20 Druze, Bedouin, and security forces personnel were killed (see Section 5). Some members of the security forces committed a number of serious human rights abuses. In its Annual Report, the Syrian Human Rights Commission stated that in 2001 and during the year three individuals died in detention (see Section 1.c.). The Government has not investigated previous deaths in detention.
b. Disappearance
There were no new confirmed reports of politically motivated disappearances during the year. Because security forces often did not provide detainees' families with information regarding their welfare or location, many persons who disappeared in past years are believed to be in long-term detention or to have died in detention. The number of new disappearances has declined in recent years, although this may be due to the Government's success in deterring opposition political activity rather than a loosening of the criteria for detention (see Section 1.d.).
Despite inquiries by international human rights organizations and foreign governments, the Government offered little new information on the welfare and whereabouts of persons who have been held incommunicado for years or about whom little is known other than the approximate date of their detention. The Government claimed that it has released all Palestinians and Jordanian and Lebanese citizens who reportedly were abducted from Lebanon during and after Lebanon's civil war. However, the Government's claim was disputed by Lebanese nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Amnesty International (AI), and other international NGOs, as well as some family members of those who allegedly remain in the country's prisons (see Section 1.d.).
c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Despite the existence of constitutional provisions and several Penal Code penalties for abusers, there was credible evidence that security forces continued to use torture, although to a lesser extent than in previous years. Former prisoners, detainees, and the London-based Syrian Human Rights Organization reported that torture methods included administering electrical shocks; pulling out fingernails; forcing objects into the rectum; beating, sometimes while the victim is suspended from the ceiling; hyperextending the spine; bending the detainees into the frame of a wheel and whipping exposed body parts; and using a chair that bends backwards to asphyxiate the victim or fracture the victim's spine. In 2001 AI published a report claiming that authorities at Tadmur Prison regularly tortured prisoners, or forced prisoners to torture each other. Although it occurs in prisons, torture was most likely to occur while detainees were being held at one of the many detention centers run by the various security services throughout the country, especially while the authorities were attempting to extract a confession or information.
The Government has denied that it uses torture and claims that it would prosecute anyone believed guilty of using excessive force or physical abuse. Past victims of torture have identified the officials who tortured them, up to the level of brigadier general. If allegations of excessive force or physical abuse are to be made in court, the plaintiff is required to initiate his own civil suit against the alleged abuser. Courts did not order medical examinations for defendants who claimed that they were tortured (see Section 1.e.). There were no substantiated allegations of torture during the year.
In 2000 the Government apprehended Raed Hijazi, accused of a terrorist plot targeting American and Israeli tourists in Jordan during the millennium celebrations, and sent him to Jordan to stand trial. According to media accounts of the trial, doctors for both the defense and the prosecution testified that Hijazi's body showed signs of having been beaten, but witnesses, including Hijazi, made contradictory and inconclusive claims regarding whether the alleged abuse occurred while he was in Jordanian or Syrian custody. The Jordanian court has rejected the allegations that Hijazi's confession was coerced. In February the Jordanian authorities sentenced Hijazi to death. He has appealed the decision but remained in custody at year's end pending a decision.
Prison conditions generally were poor and did not meet international standards for health and sanitation. However, there were separate facilities for men, women, and children. Pre-trial detainees, particularly those held for political or security reasons, were usually held separately from convicted prisoners. Facilities for political or national security prisoners generally were worse than those for common criminals.
At some prisons, authorities allowed visitation, but in other prisons, security officials demanded bribes from family members who wished to visit incarcerated relatives. Overcrowding and the denial of food occurred at several prisons. According to Human Rights Watch, prisoners and detainees were held without adequate medical care, and some prisoners with significant health problems reportedly were denied medical treatment. Some former detainees have reported that the Government prohibited reading materials, even the Koran, for political prisoners.
In 2001 the London-based Syrian Human Rights Commission reported that three detainees died in prison and that their remains bore evidence of torture and extreme medical neglect.
The Government did not permit independent monitoring of prison or detention center conditions, although diplomatic or consular officials were granted access in high profile cases.
d. Arbitrary Arrest, Detention, or Exile
Arbitrary arrest and detention were significant problems. The Emergency Law, which authorizes the Government to conduct preventive arrests, overrides Penal Code provisions against arbitrary arrest and detention, including the need to obtain warrants. Officials contend that the Emergency Law is applied only in narrowly defined cases, and in January 2001, the regional press reported that the Information Minister claimed that the authorities had frozen "martial law." Nonetheless, in cases involving political or national security offenses, arrests often were carried out in secret. Suspects may be detained incommunicado for prolonged periods without charge or trial and are denied the right to a judicial determination regarding the pretrial detention. Some of these practices were prohibited by the state of emergency, but the authorities were not held to these strictures. Additionally, those suspected of political or national security offenses may be arrested and prosecuted under ambiguous and broad articles of the Penal Code, and subsequently tried in either the criminal or security courts, as occurred with the 10 civil society activists arrested in August and September 2001. During the year, two were tried and sentenced in criminal court and eight were tried and sentenced in secrecy in the Supreme State Security Court under the Emergency Law's authority. All were initially held incommunicado and in solitary confinement, though the criminal court trials and initial sessions of one of the other trials were open to the press and diplomats.
The Government detained relatives of detainees or of fugitives in order to obtain confessions or the fugitive's surrender (see Section 1.f.). The Government also threatened families or friends of detainees, at times with the threat of expulsion, to ensure their silence, to force them to disavow publicly their relatives, or to force detainees into compliance.
Defendants in civil and criminal trials had the right to bail hearings and the possible release from detention on their own recognizance. Bail was not allowed for those accused of state security offenses. Unlike defendants in regular criminal and civil cases, security detainees did not have access to lawyers prior to or during questioning.
Detainees had no legal redress for false arrest. Security forces often did not provide detainees' families with information regarding their welfare or location while in detention. Consequently many persons who have disappeared in past years are believed to be in long-term detention without charge or possibly to have died in detention (see Section 1.b.). Many detainees brought to trial have been held incommunicado for years, and their trials often have been unfair (see Section 1.e.). In the past, there were reliable reports that the Government did not notify foreign governments when their citizens were arrested or detained.
Pretrial detention may be lengthy, even in cases not involving political or national security offenses. The criminal justice system is backlogged. Many criminal suspects were held in pretrial detention for months and may have their trials extended for additional months. Lengthy pretrial detention and drawn-out court proceedings are caused by a shortage of available courts and the absence of legal provisions for a speedy trial or plea bargaining (see Section 1.e.).
In May 2001, the Government released prominent political prisoner Nizar Nayyuf, who had been imprisoned since 1992 for founding an unlawful organization, disseminating false information, and undermining the Government; he immediately was placed under house arrest. In June 2001, the Government allowed Nayyuf to leave the country for medical treatment. In September 2001, Nayyuf was summoned to appear before an investigating court to respond to a complaint against him filed by Ba'th party lawyers for "inciting confessionalism, attempting to illegally change the Constitution, and publishing false reports abroad." Nayyuf had not returned by year's end. The NGO Reporters Without Borders (RSF) claimed that the Government harassed and intimidated members of Nayyuf's family following the issuance of the summons. The Government reportedly fired two members of his immediate family from their jobs. The municipality threatened to expel members of Nayyuf's family if they did not disavow publicly his statements (see Section 4).
In August 2001, the Government arrested independent Member of Parliament Ma'mun Humsi during his hunger strike protesting official corruption, the excessive powers of the security forces, and the continuation of the Emergency Law. In a departure from previous practice, the Interior Ministry issued a statement justifying Humsi's arrest under Penal Code articles dealing with crimes against state security (see Section 3). In September 2001, the Government detained independent Member of Parliament Riad Seif shortly after Seif reactivated his unlicensed political discussion forum. The principal charge against both individuals was attempting to illegally change the Constitution (see Section 3). In March and April, Humsi and Seif were convicted in criminal court of attempting to change the Constitution illegally and each sentenced to 5 years in prison (see Section 1.e.).
In September 2001, the Government detained prominent political activist and longtime detainee Riad al-Turk for violations of Penal Code articles dealing with crimes against state security, after al-Turk made derogatory public comments about late President Hafiz al-Asad. In June Al-Turk was convicted in closed Supreme State Security Court of attempting to change the Constitution illegally and sentenced to 30 months in prison (see Section 1.e.). On November 16, President Asad ordered Al-Turk released on humanitarian grounds.
In September 2001, the Government detained seven additional prominent human rights activists who had issued statements in support of Humsi, Seif, and al-Turk. The Government reportedly charged the seven activists under Penal Code articles dealing with crimes against state security (see Section 2.a.). Although all of the 10 civil society activists were arrested for Penal Code violations, only Humsi and Seif were tried in criminal court while all the others were tried in the Supreme State Security Court under the authority of the Emergency Law (see Section 1.e.).
At year's end, the leaders of the Turkomen who reportedly were detained without charge in 1996, remained in detention.
In 1999 and 2000, there were reports of arrests of hundreds of Syrian and Palestinian Islamists. Most of those arrested reportedly were released after signing an agreement not to participate in political activities; however, some may remain in detention. At year's end, there were no new reports on those detained. There were no credible reports that the Government arrested Islamists on political charges during the year.
There were no reports of the arrests of minors on political charges during the year.
In January 2001, the Jordanian press reported the release from Syrian jails of six Jordanian prisoners of Palestinian origin, who had been imprisoned for membership in Palestinian organizations. Between May and July 2000, there were unconfirmed reports that a large number of Jordanian prisoners were released. However, according to AI, only three of the Jordanians released in 2000 had been held for political reasons.
In March 2001, Syrian intelligence officials in Lebanon arrested three Syrian Druze men who had converted to Christianity, possibly on suspicion of membership in Jehovah's Witnesses. The men were released after 2 months.
In July and August 2001, there were unconfirmed regional press reports that approximately 500 political detainees were moved from Tadmur Prison to Saydnaya Prison in preparation for the eventual closing of Tadmur. In 2000 the Government also closed the Mazzah prison, which reportedly held numerous prisoners and detainees. In August, AI reported the release of Communist Action Party member Haytham Na'al after 27 years in prison.
In 2000 the Government declared an amnesty for 600 political prisoners and detainees and a general pardon for some nonpolitical prisoners. The highly publicized amnesty was the first time the Government acknowledged detention of persons for political reasons. There were no credible reports of transfers of political prisoners during the year.
Most of those arrested during crackdowns in the 1980s, in response to violent attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood, have been released; however, some may remain in prolonged detention without charge. Some union and professional association officials detained in 1980 may remain in detention (see Sections 2.b. and 6.a.).
The number of remaining political detainees is unknown. In June 2000, prior to the November 2000 prison amnesty, Amnesty International estimated that there were approximately 1,500 political detainees; many of the detainees reportedly were suspected supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and the pro-Iraqi wing of the Ba'th party. There also were Jordanian, Lebanese, and Palestinian political detainees. Estimates of detainees are difficult to confirm because the Government does not verify publicly the number of detentions without charge, the release of detainees or amnestied prisoners, or whether detainees subsequently are sentenced to prison (see Section 1.e.).
Former prisoners were subject to a so-called "rights ban," which begins from the day of sentencing and lasts until 7 years after the expiration of the sentence, in the case of felony convictions. Persons subject to this ban are not allowed to vote, run for office, or work in the public sector; they often also are denied passports.
The Constitution prohibits exile; however, the Government has exiled citizens in the past. The Government refused to reissue the passports of citizens who fled the country in the 1980s; such citizens consequently are unable to return to the country.
There were no known instances of forced exile during the year.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary, but the two exceptional courts dealing with cases of alleged national security violations were not independent of executive branch control. The regular court system generally displayed considerable independence in civil cases, although political connections and bribery at times influenced verdicts.
The judicial system is composed of the civil and criminal courts, military courts, security courts, and religious courts, which adjudicate matters of personal status such as divorce and inheritance (see Section 5). The Court of Cassation is the highest court of appeal. The Supreme Constitutional Court is empowered to rule on the constitutionality of laws and decrees; it does not hear appeals.
Civil and criminal courts are organized under the Ministry of Justice. Defendants before these courts were entitled to the legal representation of their choice; the courts appoint lawyers for indigents. Defendants were presumed innocent; they are allowed to present evidence and to confront their accusers. Trials are public, except for those involving juveniles or sex offenses. Defendants may appeal their verdicts to a provincial appeals court and ultimately to the Court of Cassation. Such appeals are difficult to win because the courts do not provide verbatim transcripts of cases--only summaries prepared by the presiding judges. There are no juries.
Military courts have the authority to try civilians as well as military personnel. A military prosecutor decides the venue for a civilian defendant. There have been reports that the Government operates military field courts in locations outside established courtrooms. Such courts reportedly observed fewer of the formal procedures of regular military courts.
In September a military court charged lawyer and Chairman of the Syrian Human Rights Committee, Haytham al-Maleh, and three of his associates in abstentia for spreading false news outside of the country, belonging to a political association of an international nature without government approval, and publishing material that causes sectarian friction.
The two security courts are the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC), which tries political and national security cases, and the Economic Security Court (ESC), which tried cases involving financial crimes. Both courts operated under the state of emergency, not ordinary law, and did not observe constitutional provisions safeguarding defendants' rights.
Charges against defendants in the SSSC often were vague. Many defendants appeared to be tried for exercising normal political rights, such as free speech. For example, the Emergency Law authorizes the prosecution of anyone "opposing the goals of the revolution," "shaking the confidence of the masses in the aims of the revolution," or attempting to "change the economic or social structure of the State." Nonetheless, the Government contends that the SSSC tries only persons who have sought to use violence against the State.
Under SSSC procedures, defendants are not present during the preliminary or investigative phase of the trial, during which the prosecutor presents evidence. Trials usually were closed to the public. Lawyers were not ensured access to their clients before the trial and were excluded from the court during their client's initial interrogation by the prosecutor. Lawyers submitted written defense pleas rather than oral presentations. The State's case often was based on confessions, and defendants have not been allowed to argue in court that their confessions were coerced. There was no known instance in which the court ordered a medical examination for a defendant who claimed that he was tortured. The SSSC reportedly has acquitted some defendants, but the Government did not provide any statistics regarding the conviction rate. Defendants do not have the right to appeal verdicts, but sentences are reviewed by the Minister of Interior, who may ratify, nullify, or alter them. The President also may intervene in the review process.
Accurate information regarding the number of cases heard by the SSSC was difficult to obtain, although hundreds of cases were believed to pass through the court annually. Many reportedly involved charges relating to membership in various banned political groups, including the Party of Communist Action and the pro-Iraqi wing of the Ba'th Party. Sentences as long as 15 years have been imposed in the past. Since 1997 there have been no visits by human rights NGOs to attend sessions of the SSSC (see Section 4).
The 10 civil society activists arrested in August and September 2001 were tried in criminal and state security courts. In February independent Parliamentarians Mamun Humsi and Riyad Seif were tried in criminal court proceedings that were open, for the first time, to foreign observers and the press. AI noted that their parliamentary immunity was lifted without due attention to the procedures established by law. Humsi and Seif were denied confidential access to their lawyers throughout their detention and observers noted a number of procedural irregularities during the trials. In March and April, respectively, the Government sentenced Humsi and Seif to 5 years' imprisonment each for attempting to change the constitution illegally and inciting racial and sectarian strife.
During the year, the eight other civil society activists arrested in August and September 2001 were tried in secrecy by the Supreme State Security Court under authority of the Emergency Law. Only the first session of former political prisoner Riad al-Turk's trial was open to the media and international observers. Al-Turk was sentenced to 30 months for attempting to change the Constitution illegally but was released by presidential decree in November (see Section 1.d.). Lawyer and member of Seif and Humsi's defense team, Habib Issa, and physician and cofounder of the Syrian Human Rights Society, Walid al-Buni, were each sentenced to 5 years in prison for attempting to change the Constitution illegally. Economist and regime critic Arif Dalila was sentenced to up to 10 years for the same offense. Civil society activist Habib Saleh received a 3-year sentence for opposing the objectives of the revolution and inciting ethnic and sectarian strife. Hassan Sa'dun, physician and member of the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights, Kamal al-Labwani, and engineer Fawaz Tillu were sentenced respectively to 2, 3, and 5 years in prison for instigating armed mutiny against the Government (see Sections 1.d., 2.a., and 3).
The ESC tried persons for alleged violations of foreign exchange laws and other economic crimes. The prosecution of economic crimes was not applied uniformly. Like the SSSC, the ESC did not ensure due process for defendants. Defendants were not provided adequate access to lawyers to prepare their defenses, and the State's case usually was based on confessions. High-ranking government officials may influence verdicts. Those convicted of the most serious economic crimes do not have the right of appeal, but those convicted of lesser crimes may appeal to the Court of Cassation. The Economic Penal Code allowed defendants in economic courts to be released on bail. The bail provision does not extend to those accused of forgery, counterfeiting, or auto theft; however, the amendment is intended to provide relief for those accused of other economic crimes, many of whom have been in pretrial detention for long periods of time. These amendments to the Economic Penal Code also limit the categories of cases that can be tried in the ESC. In November 2001, the Government approved a general pardon for nonpolitical prisoners and a reduction of sentences by one-third for persons convicted of economic crimes, with a provision to commute sentences entirely for persons who return embezzled funds to investors within 1 year of the law's effective date.
At least two persons arrested when late President Asad took power in 1970 may remain in prison, despite the expiration of one of the prisoners' sentences.
The Government in the past denied that it held political prisoners, arguing that although the aims of some prisoners may be political, their activities, including subversion, were criminal. The official media reported that the 600 beneficiaries of the November 2000 amnesty were political prisoners and detainees; this reportedly was the first time that the Government acknowledged that it held persons for political reasons. Nonetheless, the Emergency Law and the Penal Code are so broad and vague, and the Government's power so sweeping, that many persons were convicted and are in prison for the mere expression of political opposition to the Government. The Government's sentencing of 10 prominent civil society and human rights activists for "crimes of state security" represented a retreat from recent modest attempts at political liberalization (see Sections 1.d. and 2.a.).
The exact number of political prisoners was unknown. Unconfirmed regional press reports estimated the total number of political prisoners at between 400 and 600. In April 2001, a domestic human rights organization estimated the number to be nearly 800, including approximately 130 belonging to the Islamic Liberation Party, 250 members and activists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, 150 members of the pro-Iraq wing of the Ba'th Party, and 14 Communists. In its report for the year, the Syrian Human Rights Committee estimated that there were approximately 4,000 political prisoners still in detention.
f. Arbitrary Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence
Although laws prohibit such actions, the Emergency Law authorizes the security services to enter homes and conduct searches without warrants if security matters, very broadly defined, are involved. The security services selectively monitored telephone conversations and fax transmissions. The Government opened mail destined for both citizens and foreign residents. It also prevented the delivery of human rights materials (see Section 2.a.).
The Government continued its practice of threatening or detaining the relatives of detainees or of fugitives in order to obtain confessions, minimize outside interference, or prompt the fugitive's surrender (see Section 1.d.). There have been reports that security personnel force prisoners to watch relatives being tortured in order to extract confessions. According to AI, security forces also detained family members of suspected oppositionists (see Section 1.d.).
In the past, the Government and the Ba'th Party monitored and attempted to restrict some citizens' visits to foreign embassies and cultural centers.
Section 2 Respect for Civil Liberties, Including:
a. Freedom of Speech and Press
The Constitution provides for the right to express opinions freely in speech and in writing, but the Government restricted these rights significantly in practice. The Government strictly controlled the dissemination of information and permitted little written or oral criticism of President Asad, his family, the Ba'th Party, the military, or the legitimacy of the Government. The Government also did not permit sectarian issues to be raised. Detention and beatings for individual expressions of opinion that violate these unwritten rules at times occurred. The Government also threatened activists to attempt to control their behavior. In January 2001, novelist Nabil Sulayman was attacked outside his apartment in Latakia. Some observers believed the attack was a message from the Government to civil society advocates to moderate their pressure for reform. The attack came just after Information Minister Adnan 'Umran publicly criticized civil society advocates.
In a speech in February 2001, President Asad explicitly criticized civil society advocates as elites "from outside" who wrongly claim to speak for the majority and said that openness would only be tolerated as long as it "does not threaten the stability of the homeland or the course of development." The Government required all social, political, and cultural forums and clubs to obtain advance official approval for meetings, to obtain approval for lecturers and lecture topics, and to submit lists of all attendees (see Section 2.b.). During the year, several unapproved forums met, which while technically unhindered, were under government observation.
In January 2001, the regional press reported on a "Group of 1,000" intellectuals that issued a statement calling for more comprehensive reforms than those demanded by a group of 99 intellectuals in September 2000. The group's statement called for lifting martial law, ending the state of emergency that has been in effect since 1963, releasing political prisoners, and expanding civil liberties in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Although the Government did not take action immediately against any of the signatories, in September 2001 it detained seven prominent human rights figures, reportedly charging them under articles in the Penal Code dealing with crimes against state security. A number of those detained were signatories of the "Group of 1,000" petition. The Government tried the 10 civil society and human rights activists in criminal and state security courts and sentenced them to 2 to 10 years in prison for crimes against state security (see Section 1.e.). In December 2000, a local human rights organization published an open letter in a Lebanese newspaper calling for the closure of the notorious Tadmur Prison.
The Emergency Law and Penal Code articles dealing with crimes against state security allow the Government broad discretion in determining what constitutes illegal expression. The Emergency Law prohibits the publication of "false information", which opposes "the goals of the revolution" (see Section 1.e.). Penal Code articles prohibit "attempting to illegally change the Constitution," "preventing authorities from executing their responsibilities," and "acts or speech inciting confessionalism." In August 2001, the Government amended the Press Law to permit the reestablishment of publications that were circulated prior to 1963 and established a framework in which the National Front Parties, as well as other approved private individuals and organizations, would be permitted to publish their own newspapers. However, the same amendments also stipulated imprisonment and stiff financial penalties as part of broad, vague provisions prohibiting the publication of "inaccurate" information, particularly if it "causes public unrest, disturbs international relations, violates the dignity of the state or national unity, affects the morale of the armed forces, or inflicts harm on the national economy and the safety of the monetary system." Persons found guilty of publishing such information were subject to prison terms ranging from 1 to 3 years and fines ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 (500,000 to 1 million Syrian pounds). The amendments also imposed strict punishments on reporters who do not reveal their government sources in response to government requests. Critics claimed that the amendment would increase self-censorship by journalists, and that it strengthened, rather than relaxed, restrictions on the press.
The Government imprisoned journalists for failing to observe press restrictions. Official media reported that journalist Ibrahim Hamidi was arrested on December 23 on charges of "publishing unfounded news," a violation of Article 51 of the 2001 Publication Law. Although the announcement did not specify the violation, it was believed to be a December 20 article in the London-based al-Hayat discussing the Government's contingency planning for possible hostilities in Iraq. At year's end, Hamidi still was detained by authorities and denied contact with his family. State security services were known to threaten local journalists, including with the removal of credentials, for articles printed outside the country. In April and May the Government refused to renew the press credentials and/or residency permits of several journalists for reasons including "ill-intentioned reporting" and "violating the rules for accrediting correspondents and the tradition of the profession of journalism."
The Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Culture and National Guidance censored domestic and imported foreign press. They usually prevent the publication or distribution of any material deemed threatening or embarrassing by the security services to high levels of the Government. Censorship usually was stricter for materials in Arabic. Commonly censored subjects included: The Government's human rights record; Islamic fundamentalism; allegations of official involvement in drug trafficking; aspects of the Government's role in Lebanon; graphic descriptions of sexual activity; material unfavorable to the Arab cause in the Middle East conflict; and material that was offensive to any of the country's religious groups. In addition most journalists and writers practiced self-censorship to avoid provoking a negative government reaction.
There were several new private publications in 2000 and 2001, but only one appeared during this year. In January 2001, the Government permitted publication of the National Progressive Front's (NPF) Communist Party newspaper, The People's Voice. It became the first private paper distributed openly since 1963. In February 2001, the Government permitted publication of the NPF's Union Socialist Party's private newspaper, The Unionist. Also in February 2001, the Government permitted the publication of a private satirical weekly newspaper, The Lamplighter, which criticized politically nonsensitive instances of government waste and corruption. In June 2001, the Government permitted the publication of the private weekly newspaper The Economist, which was critical of the performance of the Government.
In his July 2000 inaugural speech, President Bashar Al-Asad emphasized the principle of media transparency. Since July 2000, both the print and electronic media at times have been critical of Ba'th Party and government performance and have reported openly on a range of social and economic issues. While this relaxation of censorship did not extend to domestic politics or foreign policy issues, it was a notable departure from past practice. Some Damascus-based correspondents for regional Arab media also were able to file reports on internal political issues, such as rumored governmental changes, new political discussion groups, and the possible introduction of new parties to the Ba'th Party-dominated National Progressive Front.
The media continued to broaden somewhat their reporting on regional developments, including the Middle East peace process. The media covered some peace process events factually, but other events were reported selectively to support official views. The government-controlled press increased its coverage of official corruption and governmental inefficiency. A few privately owned newspapers published during the year; foreign-owned, foreign-published newspapers continued to circulate relatively freely.
The Government or the Ba'th Party owned and operated the radio and television companies and most of the newspaper publishing houses. The Ministry of Information closely monitored radio and television news programs to ensure adherence to the government line. The Government did not interfere with broadcasts from abroad. Satellite dishes have proliferated throughout all regions and in neighborhoods of all social and economic categories, and in 2001 the Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade authorized private sector importers to import satellite receivers and visual intercommunication systems.
The Ministry of Culture and National Guidance censored fiction and nonfiction works, including films. It also approved which films may or may not be shown at the cultural centers operated by foreign embassies. The Government prohibited the publication of books and other materials in Kurdish; however, there were credible reports that Kurdish language materials were available in the country (see Section 5).
In 2000 cellular telephone service was introduced although its high cost severely limited the number of subscribers. Internet access and access to e-mail was limited but growing. The Government blocked access to selected Internet sites that contained information deemed politically sensitive or pornographic in nature. The Government also consistently blocked citizens' access to servers that provide free e-mail services. The Government has disrupted telephone services to the offices and residences of several foreign diplomats, allegedly because the lines were used to access Internet providers outside the country.
The Government restricted academic freedom. Public school teachers were not permitted to express ideas contrary to government policy, although authorities allowed somewhat greater freedom of expression at the university level.
b. Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Freedom of assembly does not exist under the law. Citizens may not hold demonstrations unless they obtain permission from the Ministry of Interior. Most public demonstrations were organized by the Government or the Ba'th Party. The Government selectively permitted some demonstrations, usually for political reasons. The Government applied the restrictions on public assembly in Palestinian refugee camps, where controlled demonstrations have been allowed.
During the year there continued to be numerous demonstrations, most of which were permitted or organized by the Government, and some of which were directed against diplomatic missions and international agencies in reaction to the Israeli Government's use of force against Palestinians in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.
In 2000 there were large demonstrations in Suwayda province following violent clashes between Bedouin shepherds and Druze residents of the province (see Sections 1.a. and 5).
The Government restricted freedom of association. During the year, it required private associations to register with authorities and denied several such requests, presumably on political grounds. The Government usually granted registration to groups not engaged in political or other activities deemed sensitive. The Government required political forums and discussion groups to obtain prior approval to hold lectures and seminars and to submit lists of all attendees. Despite these restrictions, during the year several domestic human rights and civil society groups held meetings without registering with the Government or obtaining prior approval for the meetings.
The authorities did not allow the establishment of independent political parties (see Section 3).
The Government sentenced 10 human rights activists who had called for the expansion of civil liberties and organized public dialogue to lengthy prison stays for committing crimes against state security (see Sections 1.d. and 2.a.).
In 1980 the Government dissolved, and then reconstituted under its control, the executive boards of professional associations after some members staged a national strike and advocated an end to the state of emergency. The associations have not been independent since that time and generally are led by members of the Ba'th Party, although nonparty members may serve on their executive boards. At year's end, there was no new information on whether any persons detained in 1980 crackdowns on union and professional association officials remained in detention (see Sections 1.d. and 6.a.).
c. Freedom of Religion
The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice; however, it imposed restrictions in some areas. The Constitution requires that the President be a Muslim. There is no official state religion; Sunni Muslims constitute the majority of the population.
All religions and orders must register with the Government, which monitors fund raising and requires permits for all meetings by religious groups, except for worship. There is a strict separation of religious institutions and the state. Religious groups tended to avoid any involvement in internal political affairs. The Government in turn generally refrained from becoming involved in strictly religious issues.
The Government considers militant Islam a threat and follows closely the practice of its adherents. The Government has allowed many new mosques to be built; however, sermons are monitored and controlled, and mosques are closed between prayers.
In 1999 and 2000, there were large-scale arrests, and torture in some cases, of Syrian and Palestinian Islamists affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic Salvation Party (see Sections 1.c. and 1.d.).
Officially all schools are government run and nonsectarian, although some schools are run in practice by Christian, Druze, and Jewish minorities. There is mandatory religious instruction in schools, with government-approved teachers and curriculums. Religion courses are divided into separate classes for Muslim, Druze, and Christian students. Although Arabic is the official language in public schools, the Government permits the teaching of Armenian, Hebrew, Syriac (Aramaic), and Chaldean in some schools on the basis that these are "liturgical languages."
Religious groups are subject to their respective religious laws on marriage, divorce, child custody, and inheritance (see Section 5).
Government policy officially disavows sectarianism of any kind. However, in the case of Alawis, religious affiliation can facilitate access to influential and sensitive posts. For example, members of the President's Alawi sect hold a predominant position in the security services and military, well out of proportion to their percentage of the population, estimated at 12 percent (see Section 3).
For primarily political rather than religious reasons, the less than 100 Jews remaining in the country generally are barred from government employment and do not have military service obligations. Jews are the only religious minority group whose passports and identity cards note their religion.
There generally was little societal discrimination or violence against religious minorities, including Jews.
For a more detailed discussion see the 2002 International Religious Freedom Report.
d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation
The Government limited freedom of movement. The Government restricted travel near the Golan Heights. Travel to Israel was illegal. Exit visas generally no longer were required for women, men over 50 years old, and citizens living abroad. Individuals have been denied permission to travel abroad on political grounds, although government officials deny that this practice occurs. The authorities may prosecute any person found attempting to emigrate or to travel abroad illegally, or who has been deported from another country, or who is suspected of having visited Israel. Women over the age of 18 have the legal right to travel without the permission of male relatives. However, a husband or a father may file a request with the Ministry of Interior to prohibit his wife or daughter's departure from the country (see Section 5). Security checkpoints continued, although primarily in military and other restricted areas. There were few police checkpoints on main roads and in populated areas. Generally the security services set up checkpoints to search for smuggled goods, weapons, narcotics, and subversive literature. The searches took place without warrants.
The Government has refused to recognize the citizenship of or to grant identity documents to some persons of Kurdish descent. Their lack of citizenship or identity documents restricts them from traveling to and from the country (see Section 5). Emigres who did not complete mandatory military service may pay a fee to avoid being conscripted while visiting the country.
As of June, 401,185 Palestinian refugees were registered with the U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in the country. In general Palestinian refugees no longer report unusual difficulties travelling in and out of the country, as has been the case in the past. The Government restricted entry by Palestinians who were not resident in the country.
Citizens of Arab League countries may enter the country without a visa for a stay of up to 3 months, a period that is renewable on application to government authorities. Residency permits require proof of employment and a fixed address in the country.
The law does not provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status in accordance with the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees or its 1967 Protocol. The Government cooperates on a case-by-case basis with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations in assisting refugees. The Government provides first asylum but is selective about extending protection to refugees; 2,260 persons sought asylum during the year. Although the Government denied that it forcibly repatriated persons with a valid claim to refugee status, it apparently did so in the past. In September there were 3,018 non-Palestinian refugees in the country, all of whom were receiving assistance from the UNHCR, including 1,812 refugees of Iraqi origin.
Section 3 Respect for Political Rights: The Right of Citizens to Change Their Government
Although citizens vote for the President and Members of Parliament, they did not have the right to change their government. The late President Hafiz Al-Asad was confirmed by unopposed referenda five times after taking power in 1970. His son, Bashar Al-Asad, also was confirmed by an unopposed referendum in July 2000. The Government is headed by a Cabinet, which the President has the discretion to change. Political opposition to the President is vigorously suppressed. The President and his senior aides, particularly those in the military and security services, ultimately make most basic decisions in political and economic life, with a very limited degree of public accountability. Moreover the Constitution mandates that the Ba'th Party is the ruling party and is ensured a majority in all government and popular associations, such as workers' and women's groups. Six smaller political parties are permitted to exist and, along with the Ba'th Party, make up the National Progressive Front (NPF), a grouping of parties that represents the sole framework of legal political party participation for citizens. While created to give the appearance of a multiparty system, the NPF is dominated by the Ba'th Party and does not change the essentially one-party character of the political system. Non-Ba'th Party members of the NPF exist as political parties largely in name only and conform strictly to Ba'th Party and government policies. In 2000 there were reports that the Government was considering legislation to expand the NPF to include new parties and several parties previously banned; however, at year's end, there were no new developments.
The Ba'th Party dominates the Parliament, which is known as the People's Council. Although parliamentarians may criticize policies and modify draft laws, the executive branch retains ultimate control over the legislative process. The Government has allowed independent non-NPF candidates to run for a limited allotment of seats in the 250-member People's Council. The allotment of non-NPF deputies was 83, ensuring a permanent absolute majority for the Ba'th Party-dominated NPF. Elections for the 250 seats in the People's Council last took place in 1998.
In March and April, the Government sentenced independent Members of Parliament Ma'mun Humsi and Riad Seif to 5 year prison terms for attempting to illegally change the Constitution (see Section 1.d.).
Persons convicted by the State Security Court may be deprived of their political rights after they are released from prison. Such restrictions include a prohibition against engaging in political activity, the denial of passports, and a bar on accepting government jobs and some other forms of employment. The duration of such restrictions is 7 years after expiration of the sentence in the case of felony convictions; however, in practice the restrictions may continue beyond that period. The Government contends that this practice is mandated by the Penal Code; it has been in effect since 1949.
Women and minorities, with the exception of the Jewish population and stateless Kurds (see Section 5), participated in the political system without restriction. There were 2 female cabinet ministers, and 26 of the 250 members of Parliament were women. No figures of the percentage of women and minorities who vote were available; however, citizens are required by law to vote.
Section 4 Governmental Attitude Regarding International and Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged Violations of Human Rights
The Government did not allow domestic human rights groups to exist legally. Human rights groups have operated legally but ultimately were banned by the Government. The Government's sentencing of 10 civil society leaders this year to lengthy prison sentences stifled the activities of human rights activists and organizations (see Sections 1.d., 1.e., and 2.a.).
In February 2001, Human Rights Watch criticized the Government for restricting civil society groups from meeting. Human Rights Watch claimed that such groups had grown in popularity in the preceding months, but that on February 18, 2001 the Government informed many leaders of such groups that their meetings could not be held without government permission.
The Government has met only twice with international human rights organizations: Human Rights Watch in 1995 and Amnesty International in 1997.
As a matter of policy, the Government in its dealings with international groups denied that it commits human rights abuses. It has not permitted representatives of international organizations to visit prisons. The Government stated that it responds in writing to all inquiries from NGOs regarding human rights issues, including the cases of individual detainees and prisoners, through an interagency governmental committee established expressly for that purpose. The Government usually responds to queries from human rights organizations and foreign embassies regarding specific cases by claiming that the prisoner in question has violated national security laws.
Section 5 Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Disability, Language, or Social Status
The Constitution provides for equal rights and equal opportunity for all citizens. However, in practice membership in the Ba'th Party or close familial relations with a prominent party member or powerful government official can be important for economic, social, or educational advancement. Party or government connections paved the way for entrance into better elementary and secondary schools, access to lucrative employment, and greater power within the Government, the military, and the security services. Certain prominent positions, such as that of provincial governor, were reserved solely for Ba'th Party members. Apart from some discrimination against Jews and stateless Kurds, there were no apparent patterns of systematic government discrimination based on race, sex, disability, language, or social status. However, there were varying degrees of societal discrimination in each of these areas.
Women
Violence against women occurred, but there were no reliable statistics regarding the prevalence of domestic violence or sexual assault. The vast majority of cases likely were unreported, and victims generally were reluctant to seek assistance outside the family. Battered women have the legal right to seek redress in court, but few do so because of the social stigma attached to such action. The Syrian Women's Federation offers services to battered wives to remedy individual family problems. The Syrian Family Planning Association also attempts to deal with this problem. Some private groups, including the Family Planning Association, have organized seminars on violence against women, which were reported by the government press. There are a few private, nonofficial, specifically designated shelters or safe havens for battered women who seek to flee their husbands.
Rape is a felony; however, there are no laws against spousal rape.
Prostitution is prohibited by law, and it was not a widespread problem.
The law specifically provides for reduced sentences in "honor" crimes (violent assaults with intent to kill against a female by a male for alleged sexual misconduct). Instances of honor crimes were rare and occurred primarily in rural areas in which Bedouin customs prevail.
The law prohibits sexual harassment and specifies different punishments depending on whether the victim is a minor or an adult. Sexual harassment was rarely reported.
The Constitution provides for equality between men and women and equal pay for equal work. Moreover the Government has sought to overcome traditional discriminatory attitudes toward women and encourages women's education. However, the Government has not yet changed personal status, retirement, and social security laws that discriminate against women. In addition, some secular laws discriminate against women. For example, under criminal law, the punishment for adultery for a woman is twice that as for the same crime committed by a man.
Christians, Muslims, and other religious groups are subject to their respective religious laws on marriage, divorce, and inheritance. For Muslims, personal status law on divorce is based on Shari'a (Islamic law), and some of its provisions discriminate against women. For example, husbands may claim adultery as grounds for divorce, but wives face more difficulty in presenting the same argument. If a woman requests a divorce from her husband, she may not be entitled to child support in some instances. In addition, under the law a woman loses the right to custody of boys when they reach age 9 and girls at age 12.
Inheritance for Muslims also is based on Shari'a. Accordingly Muslim women usually are granted half of the inheritance share of male heirs. However, Shari'a mandates that male heirs provide financial support to the female relatives who inherit less. If they do not, females have the right to sue.
Polygyny is legal but is practiced only by a small minority of Muslim men.
A husband may request that his wife's travel abroad be prohibited (see Section 2.d.). Women generally are barred from travelling abroad with their children unless they are able to prove that the father has granted permission for the children to travel.
Women participated actively in public life and were represented in most professions, including the military. Women were not impeded from owning or managing land or other real property. Women constituted approximately 7 percent of judges, 10 percent of lawyers, 57 percent of teachers below university level, and 20 percent of university professors.
Children
There was no legal discrimination between boys and girls in education or in health care. The Government provides free, public education from primary school through university. Education is compulsory for all children, male or female, between the ages of 6 and 12. According to the Syrian Women's Union, approximately 46 percent of the total number of students through the secondary level are female. Nevertheless, societal pressure for early marriage and childbearing interferes with girls' educational progress, particularly in rural areas, in which the dropout rates for female students remained high.
The Government provides medical care for children until the age of 18.
Although there are cases of child abuse, there is no societal pattern of abuse against children. The law provides for severe penalties for those found guilty of the most serious abuses against children.
Child prostitution and trafficking in children are rare; incidents that arise mainly involve destitute orphans.
The law emphasizes the need to protect children, and the Government has organized seminars regarding the subject of child welfare.
Persons with Disabilities
The law prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities and seeks to integrate them into the public sector work force. However, implementation is inconsistent. Regulations reserving four percent of government and public sector jobs for persons with disabilities are not implemented rigorously. Persons with disabilities may not legally challenge alleged instances of discrimination. There are no laws that mandate access to public buildings for persons with disabilities.
National/Racial/Ethnic Minorities
The Government generally permitted national and ethnic minorities to conduct traditional, religious, and cultural activities; however, the Government's attitude toward the Kurdish minority was a significant exception. Although the Government contends that there was no discrimination against the Kurdish population, it placed limits on the use and teaching of the Kurdish language. It also restricted the publication of books and other materials written in Kurdish (see Section 2.a.), Kurdish cultural expression, and, at times, the celebration of Kurdish festivals. The Government tacitly accepted the importation and distribution of Kurdish language materials, particularly in the northeast region where most of the Kurds in the country reside. Some members of the Kurdish community have been tried by the Supreme State Security Court for expressing support for greater Kurdish autonomy or independence. Although the Government stopped the practice of stripping Kurds of their Syrian nationality (some 120,000 had lost Syrian nationality under this program in the 1960s), it never restored the nationality to those who lost it earlier. As a result, those who had lost their nationality, and their children, have been unable to obtain passports, or even identification cards and birth certificates. Without Syrian nationality, these stateless Kurds, who according to UNHCR estimates number approximately 200,000, are unable to own land, are not permitted to practice as doctors or engineers or be employed by the Government, are ineligible for admission to public hospitals, have no right to vote, and cannot travel to and from the country. They also encounter difficulties in enrolling their children in school, and in some cases, in registering their marriages.
In November 2000, a number of armed clashes occurred between Bedouin shepherds and Druze residents of Suwayda Province that required government military intervention to stop. Local press reported that between 15 and 20 Druze, Bedouin, and security forces personnel were killed. There were large demonstrations following the deaths (see Sections 1.a. and 2.b.).
In August President Asad became the first president in 40 years to visit Hasakeh province in the northeast, where most Kurds reside. In meetings with regional and Kurdish leaders, he reportedly acknowledged the importance of Kurds to the local cultural heritage and stated his willingness to discuss citizenship problems.
Section 6 Worker Rights
a. The Right of Association
Although the Constitution provides for this right, workers were not free to establish unions independent of the Government. All unions must belong to the General Federation of Trade Unions (GFTU), which is dominated by the Ba'th Party and is in fact a part of the State's bureaucratic structure. The GFTU is an information channel between political decision-makers and workers. The GFTU transmits instructions downward to the unions and workers but also conveys information to decision-makers about worker conditions and needs. The GFTU advises the Government on legislation, organizes workers, and formulates rules for various member unions. The GFTU president is a senior member of the Ba'th Party. He and his deputy may attend cabinet meetings on economic affairs. The GFTU controls nearly all aspects of union activity.
There were no reports of antiunion discrimination. Since the unions are part of the Government's bureaucratic structure, they are protected by law from antiunion discrimination.
The GFTU is affiliated with the International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions.
In 1992 the country's eligibility for tariff preferences under the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences was suspended because the Government failed to afford internationally recognized worker rights to workers.
b. The Right to Organize and Bargain Collectively
The right to organize and bargain collectively does not exist in any meaningful sense. Government representatives were part of the bargaining process in the public sector. In the public sector, unions did not normally bargain collectively on wage issues, but there was some evidence that union representatives participated with representatives of employers and the supervising ministry in establishing minimum wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Workers serve on the boards of directors of public enterprises, and union representatives always are included on the boards.
The law provides for collective bargaining in the private sector, although past repression by the Government dissuaded most workers from exercising this right.
Unions have the right to litigate disputes over work contracts and other workers' interests with employers and may ask for binding arbitration. In practice labor and management representatives settle most disputes without resort to legal remedies or arbitration. Management has the right to request arbitration, but that right seldom is exercised. Arbitration usually occurs when a worker initiates a dispute over wages or severance pay.
The law does not prohibit strikes; however, previous government crackdowns deterred workers from striking. In 1980 the security forces arrested many union and professional association officials who planned a national strike. Some of them are believed to remain in detention, either without trial or after being tried by the State Security Court (see Sections 1.d. and 2.b.). During the year, there were no strikes.
There are no unions in the seven free trade zones. Firms in the zones are exempt from the laws and regulations governing hiring and firing, although they must observe some provisions on health, safety, hours, and sick and annual leave.
c. Prohibition of Forced or Bonded Labor
There is no law prohibiting forced or bonded labor, including that performed by children. There were no reports of forced or bonded labor by children, or forced labor involving foreign workers or domestic servants. Forced labor has been imposed as a punishment for some convicted prisoners.
d. Status of Child Labor Practices and Minimum Age for Employment
The Labor Law provides for the protection of children from exploitation in the workplace; however, the Government tolerated child labor in some instances. Independent information and audits regarding government enforcement were not available. The compulsory age for schooling is 6 to 12 years of age; however, in 2000 the Parliament approved legislation that raised the private sector minimum age for employment from 12 to 15 years for most types of nonagricultural labor, and from 16 to 18 years for heavy work. Working hours for youths of legal age do not differ from those established for adults. In all cases, parental permission is required for children under the age of 16. The law prohibits children from working at night. However, the law applies only to children who work for a salary. Those who work in family businesses and who technically are not paid a salary--a common phenomenon--do not fall under the law. Children under the age of 16 are prohibited by law from working in mines, at petroleum sites, or in other dangerous fields. Children are not allowed to lift, carry, or drag heavy objects. The exploitation of children for begging purposes also is prohibited. The Government claims that the expansion of the private sector has led to more young children working.
The Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs monitored employment conditions for persons under the age of 18, but it does not have enough inspectors to ensure compliance with the laws. The Ministry has the authority to specify the industries in which children 15 and 16 years of age may work.
The Labor Inspection Department performed unannounced spot checks of employers on a daily basis to enforce the law; however, the scope of these checks was unknown. The majority of children under age 16 who work did so for their parents in the agricultural sector without remuneration. The ILO reported in 1998 that 10.5 percent of children under the age of 18 participate in the labor force, which amounts to 4.7 percent of the total work force.
The law does not prohibit forced or bonded labor by children; however, such practices were not known to occur.
e. Acceptable Conditions of Work
The Minister of Labor and Social Affairs is responsible for enforcing minimum wage levels in the public and private sectors. In May the Government increased public sector minimum wages by 20 percent to $69 (3,175 Syrian pounds) per month, plus other compensation (for example, meals, uniforms, and transportation). In August the Government announced a 20 percent increase in private sector minimum wages. The gain in minimum wage levels was largely cancelled out by the increase in prices. These wages did not provide a decent standard of living for a worker and family. As a result, many workers in both the public and private sectors take additional jobs or are supported by their extended families.
The statutory workweek for administrative staff is 6 days of
6 hours each, and laborers work 6 days a week of 8 hours each. In some cases a 9-hour workday is permitted. The laws mandate one 24-hour rest day per week. Rules and regulations severely limit the ability of an employer to dismiss employees without cause. Even if a person is absent from work without notice for a long period, the employer must follow a lengthy procedure of trying to find the person and notify him, including through newspaper notices, before he is able to take any action against the employee. Dismissed employees have the right of appeal to a committee of representatives from the union, management, the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, and the appropriate municipality. Such committees usually find in favor of the employee. Dismissed employees are entitled to 80 percent of salary benefits while the dispute is under consideration. No additional back wages are awarded should the employer be found at fault, nor are wage penalties imposed in cases in which the employer is not found at fault. The law does not protect temporary workers who are not subject to regulations on minimum wages. Small private firms and businesses employ such workers to avoid the costs associated with hiring permanent employees.
The law mandates safety in all sectors, and managers are expected to implement them fully. In practice there is little enforcement without worker complaints, which occur infrequently despite government efforts to post notices regarding safety rights and regulations. Large companies, such as oil field contractors, employ safety engineers.
The ILO noted in 1998 that a provision in the Labor Code allowing employers to keep workers at the workplace for as many as 11 hours a day might lead to abuse. However, there have been no reports of such abuses. Officials from the Ministries of Health and Labor are designated to inspect work sites for compliance with health and safety standards; however, such inspections appear to be sporadic, apart from those conducted in hotels and other facilities that cater to foreigners. The enforcement of labor laws in rural areas also is more lax than in urban areas, where inspectors are concentrated. Workers may lodge complaints about health and safety conditions, with special committees established to adjudicate such cases. Workers have the right to remove themselves from hazardous conditions without risking loss of employment.
The law provides protection for foreign workers who reside legally in the country; but not for illegal workers. There were no credible estimates available on the number of illegal workers in the country.
f. Trafficking in Persons
There are no laws that specifically prohibit trafficking in persons; however, there were no reports that persons were systematically being trafficked to, from, or within the country. Standard labor laws could be applied in the event of allegations of trafficking. The Penal Code penalizes prostitution and trafficking of citizen women abroad.
This site is managed by the Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State.


Posted by maximpost at 11:43 PM EST
Permalink

>> AAHH - THE LIBERAL CANADIANS?

No asylum in Canada for N Korean diplomat
By David Scofield

SEOUL - Canada, one of the world's most generous countries when it comes to immigration and political asylum, has said "no" to the request for refugee status from a defecting North Korean trade official with a high-level posting in China. Still, he won't be deported and might even become a Canadian resident in three years.

Though defector Song-dae Ri, pleading that he wanted freedom for his son, is likely to get a three-year stay and may never have to leave Canada, the case raises serious questions both about humanitarian issues and how to treat defectors who occupied positions of trust and influence in notoriously oppressive regimes.

Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board generated controversy last week by refusing Ri's request for official refugee status, generally known elsewhere as political asylum. His son, now six, was given permission to remain.

"While [Ri] may not have personally committed any atrocities ... I believe that on a balance of probabilities he was aware of the North Korean government's excesses ... and waited 10 years" to leave, said board member Bonnie Milliner in ruling on its behalf.

"He was a high-level North Korean government official with weighty responsibilities," she said, adding that he was "not deserving" of Canada's protection.

China is by far the most important economic and political ally of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Ri was posted to the embassy in Beijing before he defected to Canada with his wife and son in August 2001, saying he wanted to ensure for his child a future free of fear and oppression. He and his wife got out of Beijing using fake South Korean passports that he said he secured through a South Korean businessman.

His wife returned to North Korea and was executed, he said, arguing that he has a well-founded fear of persecution, or execution, if he returns from Toronto. And the Canadian government indicates it agrees that he would probably be executed for treason if he returned; as the case unfolds, Ri may well be eligible for residency in three years.

Those who aid and abet despots not (usually) welcome
Ri's application for political asylum raises issues of eligibility and access that must be addressed by all countries settling the world's legitimate refugees. In Canada the message was clear: non-members of the Pyongyang regime are welcome, but those who aid and abet despots are not - or not usually.

Canada's refugee classifications are among the worlds's most liberal. While helping thousands to acquire new lives free of persecution and fear, immigration officials have also been duped by some who exploited the system for gain or to promote personal, sometimes violent agendas abroad. In 1993, for example, Canadians were stunned to learn that a Somali refugee claimant was sending her US$2,000 monthly welfare allotment back to her husband, a Mogadishu warlord who used the funds to buy weapons and promote violence and instability. It was not the finest hour for Canada's immigration authorities.

The embarrassing incident drove home the necessity of strict adherence to refugee guidelines, specifically those that relate to the handling of former members of unsavory regimes. As a general rule, those who help a regime maintain its grip on power or fortify its ability to oppress its people are not eligible for refugee status. The Somalia example illustrates how well-meaning programs can be perverted into protecting and funding some of the world's most dangerous individuals and reviled leaders.

To some observers, however, Canada's ruling against the North Korean asylum-seeker appeared unnecessarily harsh.

Ri, the trade official, maintains that he was a low-level government functionary, unaware of and unable to counter the injustice and abuse that pervades the system he worked for. His resume, however, suggests otherwise. Ri was a diplomat, a rare find in itself given that North Korea maintains only 16 missions globally. Furthermore, far from functioning on the remote frontiers, Ri was posted to the DPRK's most important trading partner, China.

Within the DPRK foreign-policy arena, his responsibilities were among the most important and his work in "trade" was crucial to North Korea's inner circle. In the case of North Korea, trade might better be described as the acquisition and proliferation of products and services - both legal and illicit - vital for the maintenance of the regime.

Ri's claims risible
Ri declared he was insignificant, a cog in the wheel, merely "number 7 million" in the regime's bureaucratic organization, in which leader Kim Jong-il is No 1. Critics call his statements disingenuous, inviting speculation about what else he might have been less than forthcoming about.

Ri competed to join a government system that classifies at least half the country's population of 26 million as "untrusted" - unreliable or disloyal - but he was awarded an international position of trust within this system that requires an elevated status and party loyalty above reproach. Ri's critics say he personally may not have imprisoned his fellow countrymen in the much-publicized gulags that dot the country, but his 10 years of work, beginning during the most desperate years of North Korea's famine, directly helped his bosses carry out their inhuman policies.

He was - or is - complicit in the system that maintains the DPRK, and it is right that the Canadians acknowledged this, according to Ri's critics. And while these same critics support Canada's rejection of his refugee status application, they deplore the fact that he will remain in Canada, probably for at least three years.

Given Canada's liberal traditions and the Byzantine nature of its citizenship and immigration regulations, there's little chance Ri will be leaving Toronto any time soon. The denial that came from the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) is just the beginning; the next stage is a hearing designed to determine the risk to the applicant upon his return. He, like most seeking political asylum in the West, say they face persecution or death if they return to their native countries.

The IRB has already acknowledged the danger to Ri's life should he return, thus deportation is unlikely.

According to immigration officials, the case will likely end with Ri being granted a three-year stay so that he will remain with his son in Canada. Officially he will be without the benefit of state funds and privileges, though this is a misnomer, as officials agreed that if he demanded health care, for example, he would probably get it. Providing Ri isn't caught associating with the Pyongyang regime, or trying clandestinely to supply his former employers with Canadian secrets, he will be eligible for residency at the end of three years.

Precedent could tempt senior DPRK officials
Observers consider this unfortunate, arguing that the IRB was right to deny his application. If a senior player in the North Korean regime is entitled to refugee benefits, it is very conceivable that others within the regime and perhaps even some of DPRK leader Kim Jong-il's family would avail themselves of their privilege and relative freedom of movement to flee the region. They too could demand refugee status and cite the Ri case as a precedent.

Those with the most blood on their hands are often the most able to flee totalitarian regimes, since the powerful and ignoble are also those with access to the foreign currency and the connections necessary to make good their escape.

The paucity of refugees fleeing North Korea is perverse proof of the integrity of the nation's internal security apparatus and the reluctance of China to allow North Koreans passage through its territory. Well-meaning initiatives like Canada's designed to encourage refugee movement out of the DPRK attract applicants like Ri, the well-heeled minority within the impoverished majority of North Korea. The tragic paradox: the prison-like nature of North Korea ensures that those with the means of arriving on the shores of North America tend to be the oppressors, not the oppressed.

Critics of Canada's denial of asylum contend that the man has a son who already has been admitted legally to Canada. They argue that since Ri's wife reportedly was executed upon her return to North Korea in 2002, to send Ri back would mean the effective orphaning of his son - a reprehensible state of affairs. The only solution, they argue, is to hold their noses and accept a bad situation, not make it worse.

But if his return is virtually impossible, there should not necessarily be any immutable right of people like Ri to asylum in Canada, say critics of Pyongyang and its officials. There are 138 parties to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the treaty underpinning the rights and defining the nature of international refugees, yet a handful of nations accept the vast majority of the world's refugees, legitimate or not.

If settlement in a third country is not possible for Ri, Canada could tap the knowledge and experience of the former North Korean government official - that's what he was - to expose and disseminate the truth about the DPRK. As a condition of settlement in Canada, Ri could be required to travel nationwide to speak at universities, community centers and libraries, educating the people about the ideology, repression and abuses of North Korea.

At the same time, Ri could raise money to help those most deserving of protection - the destitute North Koreans who huddle in constant fear of deportation in the China-DPRK border region. In sharp contrast to the time he spent working to empower the DPRK and its leadership, Ri's time now should be spent working to alleviate the suffering of his countrymen. As a man who benefited greatly from a system that regularly demonstrates depraved indifference to human life, this would seem to be the least he could do.

David Scofield is a lecturer at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University, Seoul.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)


Posted by maximpost at 10:21 PM EST
Permalink

>> PALACE INTRIGUE?

Happy Birthday, Dear Leader - who's next in line?
By Yoel Sano

The scepter in the Hermit Kingdom passed from the Great Leader to the Dear Leader - and will he in turn pass it on to his youngest son, already extolled by some as the Morning Star King?
The lack of fanfare surrounding North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's birthday celebrations this year has much to do with his inauspicious age, 62. It lacks the symbolism of 60, an important Korean milestone, described as hwangap, completing one big circle or life cycle and beginning another. However, as the Dear Leader celebrates his birthday on Monday, it is precisely because of his chronological age that the question of succession must be weighing on his mind, even as it tantalizes Korea watchers.
The Great Leader Kim Il-sung was succeeded by his son, the current and Dear Leader Kim Jong-il, and who will succeed him has Pyongyang watchers watching closely for omens, signs in the heavens, entrails or tea leaves. Could it be the oldest disgraced - and possibly illegitimate - son, the middle son dismissed as "effeminate" by his father, or the younger son now called by some "The Morning Star King." It's far from settled and the family saga is in its early stages.
Because Kim leads a regime long cemented by vested interests, the process of succession should be relatively painless, though regime collapse in an impoverished nation maintained by a brutal hierarchy is possible. Too many concessions to the United States, Japan and South Korea over the nuclear issue could undermine the current regime. Still, Kim assumes - and so do most observers - that he will stay in power. The main issue therefore is not if the regime will survive, but which of his three sons is standing next in line.
Kim inherited power from his own father, the late "Great Leader", Kim Il-sung, and it is inconceivable that any organized succession process will not involve one of Kim Jong-il's own sons. Given the fact that the Dear Leader himself was groomed for the top leadership position for more than 20 years, he will presumably want plenty of time to prepare whichever of his sons he chooses for the role. He has several daughters, but the highly patriarchal nature of the regime and most East Asian societies precludes a female successor.
Kim Jong-il was his father's eldest son and was chosen as successor for this reason. Traditionally, the eldest son is the natural successor in any dynastic succession, so in theory, the identity of Kim Jong-il's successor should be obvious: his eldest son, Kim Jong-nam, born on May 10, 1971, to his second wife, Sung Hye-rim, a leading actress in North Korea.
Eldest 'bad boy' son may be illegitimate
Kim Jong-il's first marriage in 1966 was to Hong Il-chon, with whom he had a daughter, Kim Hye-kyong, in 1967. But within the space of a few years, Kim apparently separated from Hong in favor of Sung. This, however, is where the succession process gets complicated. It is not known whether Kim Jong-il ever actually married Sung, and it has been suggested that his eldest son Kim Jong-nam - the obvious heir-apparent - may have been illegitimate, and not so apparently the next in line.
Evidence seems to point in that direction. According to Kim Jong-il's adopted daughter, Ri Nam-ok - who is actually the daughter of Sung's sister, and who defected to Western Europe in 1997 - Kim Il-sung never knew of his first grandson, and would not have approved of his son's liaison or conjugal partnership with Sung. As such, the senior Kim apparently arranged for young Jong-il to marry a general's daughter, Kim Yong-suk in 1973. This union resulted in the birth of at least one child, a daughter, Kim Sol-song, in 1974. According to some reports, there may have been other offspring, but Kim Sol-song is the only one definitely known. As in many other ruling dynasties, the details of Kim Jong-il's private life are rather sketchy.
In 1980, Kim Jong-il married again. This time to Japanese-born ethnic Korean dancer, Ko Yong-hui, who bore him two sons, Kim Jong-chol in 1981 and Kim Jong-un in 1983. Though Kim Jong-nam may appear to be Kim Jong-il's obvious successor, because of the uncertainty of his legitimacy, over the past three years, attention has turned to the latter of Kim's sons.
And, indeed, while it appears that Kim Jong-nam had initially been in line for the succession - having been appointed to a senior post in the domestic intelligence agency and also placed in charge of North Korea's fledgling information technology industry - he subsequently fell from favor after May 2001. In that month he was very publicly arrested and deported from Tokyo's Narita International Airport, with his son and two female aides, after attempting to enter the country on a false Dominican Republic passport. Adding to the bizarre scenario, he had apparently been seeking to visit Tokyo Disneyland - although it has not been ruled out that he was on a sensitive mission to acquire Japanese technology.
Kim Jong-nam's weakened position became even more apparent in 2002, when he spent much of the year in Russia, tending to his sick mother Sung Hye-rim, who had been living in Moscow after falling out with Kim Jong-il many years earlier. Sung passed away from natural causes in August 2002.
May the best Jong win
Just after his mother's death, another development increased Kim Jong-nam's marginalization. At the end of August 2002, Japan's Jiji Press, citing Chinese diplomatic sources, reported that a hitherto unknown son of Kim Jong-il - named Kim Hyon (also known as Kim Hyon-nam, then aged 30) - had been appointed head of the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the ruling Korean Worker's Party (KWP). Given that Kim Jong-il had himself once headed this department when he began his political ascendancy in the early 1970s, speculation naturally arose that the younger Kim Hyon was being groomed to succeed his father.
However, nothing more has been heard about Kim Hyon, raising doubts about the veracity of Jiji's story.
By early 2003 reports emerged that the Korean People's Army (KPA) had begun a propaganda campaign centering on the personality of Ko Yong-hui - although in typical to North Korean fashion, without actually naming her. A similar campaign had been created for Kim Jong-il's long-deceased mother, Kim Jong-suk, ahead of his succession, and as such, the development points to one of Ko's sons, rather than the bad-behaving and possibility illegitimate Kim Jong-nam or the perceived late entry, Kim-hyon, as the heir-apparent.
Attention naturally turned to the elder of the two brothers, Kim Jong-chol, and Newsweek magazine published a dated and blurred black and white photograph of him during his school days in Switzerland. More recently, though, the emphasis has been on the younger brother, Kim Jong-un (also spelled Kim Jong-woon). The main proponent of this theory is Kim Jong-il's former Japanese sushi chef, Kenji Fujimoto (a pseudonym), who, in his memoir, published in Japan, stated that Kim regards Jong-chol as too effeminate, and Jong-un to be more like his father.
Complicating this complicated picture, however, were reports in October 2003 that Ko Yong-hui had been critically injured in a car accident. Other reports suggested that she was suffering from breast cancer. Her current status is unknown, and any disagreement over the succession could potentially cause problems for the process. Although Ko has no formal role in the process, she presumably wields some influence over Kim Jong-il's decision.
In this regard, Kim Jong-il will be keen to avoid any schisms developing within the ruling family, as happened with his own succession. Kim himself displaced his father's younger brother, Kim Yong-yu, from the position of heir apparent in the early 1970s. Kim Yong-ju subsequently vanished from public life in 1975, and would not reappear until July 1993, only to be appointed one of North Korea's four vice presidents later in that year. This move was said to be aimed at reassuring North Korea's old guard that a massive generational shift would not take place once Kim Jong-il took power.
In addition, it seems that Kim Jong-il had to stave off a challenge from his half-brother, Kim Pyong-il, the oldest son of his hated stepmother, Kim Song-ae. Pyong-il was widely said to have been better leadership material, possessing greater skills and having served as a major general and deputy director of the strategy bureau at the Ministry of People's Security in the 1980s. However, because Kim Jong-il saw him as a rival, and Kim Song-ae favored Pyong-il as successor, he was sent abroad in 1988 as ambassador to Hungary, followed by Bulgaria, Finland, and most recently, Poland, in order to keep him out of Pyongyang politics. Another half-brother, Kim Yong-il, died of cirrhosis of the liver in May 2000 in Germany, where he had been serving as counselor at the North Korean interests office.
Military backing key to smooth succession
One thing that is certain is that whoever succeeds Kim Jong-il will have to win the support of the powerful Korean People's Army. The 1.1 million-strong military is the only institution that can challenge the regime. Indeed, the power and profile of top military leaders has increased substantially under Kim Jong-il, who relies on the armed forces to maintain order and stability in the face of widespread famine and economic decay. While Kim Il-sung was alive, the generals mainly kept out of the limelight. However, senior commanders now accompany Kim Jong-il on virtually all his public appearances, reinforcing the image of a military state.
Kim Jong-il has ruled North Korea exclusively as supreme commander of the army since his father's death in July 1994. Since that time, Kim Jong-il has very skillfully won the backing of the Korean People's Army by waiting for the natural demise of some of the octogenarian veterans of his father's anti-Japanese guerrilla struggle - such as former defense ministers O Jin-u and Choe Kwang - to pass away through natural aging. And he has appointed his own loyalists to key positions. The most important of these are Vice-Marshal Jo Myong-rok, the first vice-chairman of the National Defense Commission (NDC) and head of the KPA's political bureau; Vice-Marshal Kim Yong-chun, the chief of the general staff; and Vice-Marshal Kim Il-chol, the minister of the People's Armed Forces - North Korea's system of defense. More recently, General Ri Myong-Su, the director of the operations bureau of the general staff, and KPA political bureau deputy directors Hyon Chol-Hae and Pak Jae-gyong have gained prominence. These men form the core of Kim Jong-Il's power base in the army.
Kim Jong-il's moves to control the military have been a remarkable success, considering that for many years prior to 1994, it was said that the KPA disliked the Dear Leader so much that it would depose him in a coup immediately after Kim Il-sung left the scene. Kim Pyong-il, with his military background, was often mentioned as a possible military-backed replacement.
However, Great Leader Kim Il-sung gradually phased out senior officers who would pose a threat to his son, Jong-il's succession, and in December 1991 he appointed Jong-il as supreme commander of the army, despite the fact that he had no military experience, except for a brief unconfirmed stint at the East German Air Force Academy in the early 1960s. Kim Jong-il was subsequently elevated to the rank of Marshal of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in April 1992 and then a year later to chairman of the National Defense Commission - a post that he now holds as head of state.
Kim Jong-il has also successfully bound his family to the top ranks of the military structure through his full sister Kim Kyong-hui's husband, Jang Song-taek, who serves as the first vice director of the Korean Workers Party 's organization and guidance department, headed by Kim Jong-il himself. Jang's eldest brother, Jang Song-u, is a KPA vice marshal and commands the Third Army Corps, which surrounds the city of Pyongyang. According to Sin Kyong-wan, a former KWP official, the second-oldest brother, Jang Song-yop, is the vice director of the Kim Il-sung Higher Party School. A younger brother, Jang Song-Gil, is a lieutenant general and tank commander, while the youngest, Jang Song-ho, is a political vice president of the Mangyongdae Revolutionary School - an elite establishment which Kim Jong-il and many top leaders attended.
Kim Jong-il has nurtured the army
In any case, the KPA - which has increased its influence under Kim Jong-il - benefits from his continued rule, adopting a Military First Policy under the banner of "Kangsong Taeguk" - a great and militarily powerful nation. The military's position allows it to guide national policy without having to take administrative blame for North Korea's ongoing economic problems. As such, the KPA has a vested interest in a stable succession, especially since many senior military leaders are developing business interests as heads of military-dominated conglomerates. The largest such enterprise, Chungwoonsan, is headed by Vice Marshal Jo Myong-rok, according to North Korea watcher Selig Harrison.
Although there have been several reports of coup attempts - most notably in 1992, by a group of Soviet-trained perestroika [restructuring]-oriented generals, and again in 1995, by elements of the Sixth Army Corps in remote North Hamgyong province - none has come remotely close to succeeding because of the efficiency of the security apparatus.
There are really only two circumstances in which a military coup would take place. First, if the economy continues to disintegrate, and national survival becomes an issue, "reformist" elements in the Korean People's Army may conclude that North Korea is better off without the Korean Worker's Party and Kim Jong-il. The second scenario involves Kim Jong-il making too many concessions over North Korea's nuclear program to the United States, South Korea, or Japan, and accelerating economic reforms that cause social unrest. The latter situation could lead to a "reactionary" coup of the sort that befell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in August 1991.
Another reason why a second dynastic succession is likely to be upheld is that it is not just the ruling Kim family that benefits from nepotism and connections. While the predominance of a small number of surnames in Korea (North and South) makes it difficult to track family links, it is known that many top leaders are the sons of the revolutionary generation that fought against Japanese imperialism, or have siblings in high positions. For example, Kim Kuk-tae - a senior KWP central committee secretary in charge of cadre affairs - is the son of general Kim Chaek, who served as the KPA's frontline commander during the Korean War, in which he was killed. General O Kuk-ryol, the head of the central committee's special operations department, is the son of a veteran guerrilla, as is Colonel General O Kum-chol, the commander of the air force.
North Korea's titular head of state, Kim Yong-nam, who serves as president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA, or legislature), has two brothers in high positions: General Kim Du-nam, a one-time military adviser to Kim Jong-il, and Kim Ki-nam, a senior central committee secretary. Yang Hyong-sop, the vice president of the SPA Presidium, is married to Kim Jong-Il's aunt. Many others benefit from similar ties.
Not a one-man show, a regime of vested interests
Therefore, North Korea, far from being a one-man show, or even a one-family show, is an entire regime bound together by vested interests, under the leadership of Kim Jong-Il. This should make the succession process easier, provided that the identity of the heir is decided upon without causing fractures in the first family or the army.
Assuming that the regime survives - and it has proved remarkably durable, against all odds - it may still be some years before North Korea formally announces the identity of the successor.
Although Kim Jong-Il's political rise began in the early 1970s, when the official media began to speak of the "Party Center" as a code word for Kim, his actual status as heir apparent did not become clear until the Sixth Korean Worker's Party Congress in 1980, when he was appointed to a number of party posts. Yet, it was not until August 7, 1984, that Pyongyang publicly confirmed Kim Jong-il as successor. Even then, it would be another 10 years before his father died, after which Kim would have to wait three years before being appointed to his father's position as general secretary of the KWP. In September 1998, Kim Jong-il formally took power, but he never assumed the state presidency, instead ruling in his existing position as chairman of the National Defense Commission.
Certainly, the signs are that either Kim Jong-chol or Kim Jong-un is being maneuvered into the succession. The latter is even being referred to as the "Morning Star King", according to South Korean Pyongyang watchers. However, the saga is still in its early stages, and Kim Jong-nam cannot be totally ruled out. His status as first-born son carries considerable weight, and the regime has a habit of re-instating disgraced figures after a suitable period of atonement.
In the meantime, there appears to be very little active opposition to the regime. Unlike Iraq under Saddam Hussein, which spawned dozens of opposition groups in exile, North Korean defectors have created only one such group, the National Salvation Front For Democratic Unification of Chosun, led by former KWP propaganda official Pak Kap-dong. However, the organization has proved as ineffective as it is low profile. The nearest thing North Korea has to an exiled opposition leader is Hwang Jang-yop, a former central committee secretary, who defected in February 1997. Hwang was initially welcomed in South Korea under the presidency of Kim Young-sam, but once Kim Dae-jung's "Sunshine Policy" took effect, Hwang was ignored. Hwang still travels to the US, where he addresses neo-conservative groups that welcome his calls for regime change in Pyongyang. But Hwang is 81 years old, and has limited time left to achieve his goals.
As far back as the 1980s, Korean historian Bruce Cumings, when questioning a Soviet diplomat in Pyongyang on the chances of Kim Jong-il succeeding Kim Il-sung, was told "come back in 2020 and see Kim Jong-il's son succeed him".
As of early 2004, that prediction, seemingly unrealistic only a few years ago, no longer sounds so implausible. Check the omens, the stars, the entrails and the tea leaves.
Yoel Sano has worked for publishing houses in London, providing political and economic analysis, and has been following North Korea, as well as other Northeast Asian developments, for more than 10 years.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

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

Libya Nuke Drawings Likely From Pakistan
By GEORGE JAHN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Drawings of a nuclear warhead that Libya surrendered as part of its decision to renounce weapons of mass destruction are of 1960s Chinese design, but likely came from Pakistan, diplomats and experts told The Associated Press on Sunday.
China is widely assumed to have been Pakistan's key supplier of much of the clandestine nuclear technology used to establish Islamabad as a nuclear power in 1998 and resold to rogue regimes through the black market network headed by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
The drawings appeared to be of a design never used by Pakistan, which went on to develop more modern nuclear weapons, said the diplomats and experts, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Still, they said, they were likely supplied by China as part of the decades-long transfer of technology that Khan used to develop Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
One of them called the drawings "dramatic evidence" of the Chinese-Pakistani nuclear link.
Libya surrendered the drawings in December after volunteering to scrap all research into developing weapons of mass destruction. The blueprints and accompanying documents are now in the United States under the seal of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
One of the experts said the drawing detailed how to build a warhead for a large ballistic missile, using technology developed by the Chinese in the 1960s that triggers a nuclear blast by a small conventional explosion.
While the instructions on the drawing were in English, some other documents surrendered by Libya along with the blueprints were in Chinese, he said.
He said that if built, the warhead would have weighed more than 1,000 pounds. That's too bulky for any delivery system the Libyans possessed but not for the ballistic missiles developed by North Korea and Iran, the other nations said to have been supplied by Khan's network.
While there is no evidence either of those countries were supplied with the same or a similar drawing, "it would be a very nice warhead for those countries," said the expert.
North Korea runs a nuclear weapons program using plutonium. But U.S. officials also believe it has a separate program based on enriched uranium, possibly using technology imported from Pakistan. North Korea has denied the allegation.
Iran denies trying to develop nuclear weapons but suspicions persist because it kept secret attempts to enrich uranium for nearly two decades. Although it agreed to open all aspects of its nuclear activities to IAEA perusal late last year, IAEA inspectors recently found designs of advanced enriching equipment it had kept from them.
As well, critics say that Iran is not fully honoring an agreement to suspend uranium enrichment, something denied by Tehran, which says it is interested in the process not to make weapons-grade uranium but to generate nuclear power.
Pakistan - and Khan - became the focus of international investigation on the basis of information Libya and Iran gave the Vienna-based IAEA about where they covertly bought nuclear technology that can be used to make weapons.
In the nuclear procurement chain that Khan has confessed to heading, hundreds of millions of dollars are thought to have changed hands over the past 15 years with key middlemen positioned in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright said it was his understanding that the drawings found in Libya were "way beyond anything in the public domain" as far as building a warhead were concerned.
President Bush called the leaders of Russia and Italy on the weekend to discuss how to check the spread of dangerous weapons and keep them away from terrorists.
Bush, who last week proposed new ways to halt the illicit nuclear trade, also devoted his radio address to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, telling the American people that "the possibility of secret and sudden attack" with such arms "is the greatest threat before humanity today."

-----------------------------------------------------------------
>> 9/11 WATCH...

Stewardess ID'd Hijackers Early, Transcripts Show
by Gail Sheehy

Hearing the taped voice of a courageous flight attendant as she calmly narrated the doomed course of American Airlines Flight 11 brought it all back. The frozen horror of that September morning two and a half years ago. The unanswered questions. Betty Ong narrated that first hijacking right up to the moment that Mohamed Atta drove the Boeing 767 into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
Twenty-three minutes into her blow-by-blow account, Ong's voice abruptly ceased. "What's going on, Betty?" asked her ground contact, Nydia Gonzalez. "Betty, talk to me. I think we might have lost her."
Emotional catharsis, yes. There was scarcely a dry eye in the Senate hearing room where 10 commissioners are probing the myriad failures of our nation's defenses and response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But answers? Not many. The most shocking evidence remains hidden in plain sight.
The politically divided 9/11 commission was able to agree on a public airing of four and a half minutes from the Betty Ong tape, which the American public and most of the victims' families heard for the first time on the evening news of Jan. 27. But commissioners were unaware of the crucial information given in an even more revealing phone call, made by another heroic flight attendant on the same plane, Madeline (Amy) Sweeney. They were unaware because their chief of staff, Philip Zelikow, chooses which evidence and witnesses to bring to their attention. Mr. Zelikow, as a former adviser to the pre-9/11 Bush administration, has a blatant conflict.
"My wife's call was the first specific information the airline and the government got that day," said Mike Sweeney, the widowed husband of Amy Sweeney, who went face to face with the hijackers on Flight 11. She gave seat locations and physical descriptions of the hijackers, which allowed officials to identify them as Middle Eastern men--by name--even before the first crash. She gave officials key clues to the fact that this was not a traditional hijacking. And she gave the first and only eyewitness account of a bomb on board.
"How do you know it's a bomb?" asked her phone contact.
"Because the hijackers showed me a bomb," Sweeney said, describing its yellow and red wires.
Sweeney's first call from the plane was at 7:11 a.m. on Sept. 11--the only call in which she displayed emotional upset. Flight 11 was delayed, and she seized the few moments to call home in hopes of talking to her 5-year-old daughter, Anna, to say how sorry she was not to be there to put her on the bus to kindergarten. Ms. Sweeney's son Jack had been born several months premature, and she had taken the maximum time off over the previous summer to be with her children. "But she had to go back that fall, to hold the Boston-to-L.A. trip," explained her husband.
American's Flight 11 took off from Logan Airport in Boston at 7:59 a.m. By 8:14 a.m., the F.A.A. controller following that flight from a facility in Nashua, N.H., already knew it was missing; its transponder had been turned off, and the controller couldn't get a response from the pilots. The air-traffic controller contacted the pilot of United Airlines Flight 175, which at 8:14 also left Boston's Logan bound for California, and asked for his help in locating Flight 11.
Sweeney slid into a passenger seat in the next-to-last row of coach and used an Airfone to call American Airlines Flight Service at Boston's Logan airport. "This is Amy Sweeney," she reported. "I'm on Flight 11--this plane has been hijacked." She was disconnected. She called back: "Listen to me, and listen to me very carefully." Within seconds, her befuddled respondent was replaced by a voice she knew.
"Amy, this is Michael Woodward." The American Airlines flight service manager had been friends with Sweeney for a decade, so he didn't have to waste any time verifying that this wasn't a hoax. "Michael, this plane has been hijacked," Ms. Sweeney repeated. Calmly, she gave him the seat locations of three of the hijackers: 9D, 9G and 10B. She said they were all of Middle Eastern descent, and one spoke English very well.
Mr. Woodward ordered a colleague to punch up those seat locations on the computer. At least 20 minutes before the plane crashed, the airline had the names, addresses, phone numbers and credit cards of three of the five hijackers. They knew that 9G was Abdulaziz al-Omari, 10B was Satam al-Suqami, and 9D was Mohamed Atta--the ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists.
"The nightmare began before the first plane crashed," said Mike Sweeney, "because once my wife gave the seat numbers of the hijackers and Michael Woodward pulled up the passenger information, Mohamed Atta's name was out there. They had to know what they were up against."
Mr. Woodward was simultaneously passing on Sweeney's information to American's headquarters in Dallas-Fort Worth. There was no taping facility in his office, because the most acute emergency normally fielded by a flight service manager would be a call from a crew member faced with 12 passengers in first class and only eight meals. So Mr. Woodward was furiously taking notes.
Amy Sweeney's account alerted the airline that something extraordinary was occurring. She told Mr. Woodward she didn't believe the pilots were flying the plane any longer. She couldn't contact the cockpit. Sweeney may have ventured forward to business class, because she relayed the alarming news to Betty Ong, who was sitting in the rear jump-seat. In professional lingo, she said: "Our No. 1 has been stabbed," referring to a violent attack on the plane's purser, "also No. 5," another flight attendant. She also reported that the passenger in 9B had had his throat slit by the hijacker sitting behind him and appeared to be dead. Betty Ong relayed this information to Nydia Gonzalez, a reservations manager in North Carolina, who simultaneously held another phone to her ear with an open line to American Airlines official Craig Marquis at the company's Dallas headquarters.
The fact that the hijackers initiated their takeover by killing a passenger and stabbing two crew members had to be the first tip-off that this was anything but a standard hijacking. "I don't recall any flight crew or passenger being harmed during a hijacking in the course of my career," said Peg Ogonowski, a senior flight attendant who has flown with American for 28 years.
Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney also reported that the hijackers had used mace or pepper spray and that passengers in business class were unable to breathe. Another dazzling clue to the hijackers' having a unique and violent intent came in Betty Ong's earliest report: "The cockpit is not answering their phone. We can't get into the cockpit. We don't know who's up there."
A male colleague of Ms. Gonzalez then comes on the line and makes the infuriating observation: "Well, if they were shrewd, they'd keep the door closed. Would they not maintain a sterile cockpit?"
To which Ong replied: "I think the guys are up there."
Ms. Sweeney told her ground contact that the plane had radically changed direction; it was flying erratically and was in rapid descent. Mr. Woodward asked her to look out the window--what did she see?
"I see water. I see buildings. We're flying low, we're flying way too low," Sweeney replied, according to the notes taken by Mr. Woodward. Sweeney then took a deep breath and gasped, "Oh, my God."
At 8:46 a.m., Mr. Woodward lost contact with Amy Sweeney--the moment of metamorphosis, when her plane became a missile guided into the tower holding thousands of unsuspecting civilians. "So sometime between 8:30 and 8:46, American must have known that the hijacking was connected to Al Qaeda," said Mike Sweeney. That would be 16 to 32 minutes before the second plane perforated the south tower.
Would American Airlines officials monitoring the Sweeney and Woodward dialogue have known right away that Mohamed Atta was connected to Al Qaeda?
"The answer is probably yes," said 9/11 commission member Bob Kerrey, "but it seems to me that the weakness here, in running up to pre-9/11, is an unwillingness to believe that the United States of America could be attacked. Then you're not putting defensive mechanisms in place. You're not trying to screen out people with connections to Islamic extremist groups."
Peg Ogonowski, the widow of Flight 11's captain, John Ogonowski, knew both Betty and Amy very well. "They had to know they were dealing with zealots," she said. "The words `Middle Eastern hijackers' would put a chill in any flight-crew member's heart. They were unpredictable; you couldn't reason with them."
Ms. Ogonowski knew this from her nearly three decades of experience as a flight attendant for American. She and her husband had dreamt of the time in the not-so-distant future when their teenage children would be old enough that the couple could work the same flight to Europe and enjoy layovers in London and Paris together. She had been scheduled to fly Flight 11 on Sept. 13. After Sept. 11, she imagined herself in Sweeney's shoes: "When Amy picked up the phone--she was mother of two very young children--she had to know that, at that point, she might be being observed by another hijacker sitting in a passenger seat who would put a bullet through her head. What she did was incredibly brave."
How, then, could the commission have missed--or ignored--crucial facts that this very first of the first responders communicated to officials on that fateful day?
"It seems amazing to me that they didn't know," said Mrs. Ogonowski. "The state of Massachusetts has an award in Amy Sweeney's name for civilian bravery." The first recipients were John Ogonowski and Betty Ong. A full-court ceremony was held on Sept. 11, 2002, in Faneuil Hall in Boston, with Senators Kennedy and Kerrey and the state's whole political establishment in attendance.
Even the F.B.I. has recognized Amy Sweeney by bestowing on her its highest civilian honor, the Director's Award for Exceptional Public Service. "Mrs. Sweeney is immeasurably deserving of recognition for her heroic, unselfish and professional manner in which she lived the last moments of her life," according to the F.B.I.
What her husband wants to know is this: "When and how was this information about the hijackers used? Were Amy's last moments put to the best use to protect and save others?"
"We know what she said from notes, and the government has them," said Mary Schiavo, the formidable former Inspector General of the Department of Transportation, whose nickname among aviation officials was "Scary Mary." Ms. Schiavo sat in on the commission's hearing on aviation security on 9/11 and was disgusted by what it left out. "In any other situation, it would be unthinkable to withhold investigative material from an independent commission," she told this writer. "There are usually grave consequences. But the commission is clearly not talking to everybody or not telling us everything."
This is hardly the only evidence hiding in plain sight.
The captain of American's Flight 11 stayed at the controls much of the diverted way from Boston to New York, sending surreptitious radio transmissions to authorities on the ground. Captain John Ogonowski was a strong and burly man with the instincts of a fighter pilot who had survived Vietnam. He gave extraordinary access to the drama inside his cockpit by triggering a "push-to-talk button" on the aircraft's yoke (or wheel). "The button was being pushed intermittently most of the way to New York," an F.A.A. air-traffic controller told The Christian Science Monitor the day after the catastrophe. "He wanted us to know something was wrong. When he pushed the button and the terrorist spoke, we knew there was this voice that was threatening the pilot, and it was clearly threatening."
According to a timeline later adjusted by the F.A.A., Flight 11's transponder was turned off at 8:20 a.m., only 21 minutes after takeoff. (Even before that, by probably a minute or so, Amy Sweeney began her report to American's operations center at Logan.) The plane turned south toward New York, and more than one F.A.A. controller heard a transmission with an ominous statement by a terrorist in the background, saying, "We have more planes. We have other planes." During these transmissions, the pilot's voice and the heavily accented voice of a hijacker were clearly audible, according to two controllers. All of it was recorded by a F.A.A. traffic-control center in Nashua, N.H. According to the reporter, Mark Clayton, the federal law-enforcement officers arrived at the F.A.A. facility shortly after the World Trade Center attack and took the tape.
To this writer's knowledge, there has been no public mention of the pilot's narrative since the news report on Sept. 12, 2001. Families of the flight crew have only heard about it, but when Peg Ogonowski asked American Airlines to let her hear it, she never heard back. Their F.A.A. superiors forbade the controllers to talk to anyone else.

Has the F.B.I. turned this critical tape over to the commission?

At the commission's January panel on aviation security, two rows of gray suits filled the back of the hearing room. They were not inspectors general of any of the government agencies called to testify. In fact, said Mary Schiavo, there is no entity within the administration pushing any consequences. The gray suits were all attorneys for the airlines, hovering around while the big bosses from American and United gave their utterly unrevealing testimonies.
Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, finally shot back at the panel with a startling boast.
"We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs--two were hits on our watch list of August 2001," Mr. Bonner testified. "And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn't take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes."
He meant 45 minutes after four planes had been hijacked and turned into missiles. "I saw the sheet by 11 a.m.," he said, adding proudly, "And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists."
How has American Airlines responded? According to the widower Mike Sweeney, "Ever since Sept. 11, AMR [the parent company of American Airlines] just wants to forget this whole thing happened. They wouldn't allow me to talk to Michael Woodward, and five months or so: they let him go." The Families Steering Committee urged the commission to interview Michael Woodward about the Sweeney information, as did Ms. Ong's brother, Harry Ong. A couple of days before the hearing on aviation security, a staffer did call Mr. Woodward and ask a few questions. But the explosive narrative offered by Amy Sweeney in her last 23 minutes of life was not included in the 9/11 commission's hearing on aviation security.
The timeline that is most disturbing belongs to the last of the four suicide missions--United Airlines Flight 93, later presumed destined for the U.S. Capitol, if not the White House. Huge discrepancies persist in basic facts, such as when it crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside near Shanksville. The official impact time according to NORAD, the North American Air Defense Command, is 10:03 a.m. Later, U.S. Army seismograph data gave the impact time as 10:06:05. The F.A.A. gives a crash time of 10:07 a.m. And The New York Times, drawing on flight controllers in more than one F.A.A. facility, put the time at 10:10 a.m.
Up to a seven-minute discrepancy? In terms of an air disaster, seven minutes is close to an eternity. The way our nation has historically treated any airline tragedy is to pair up recordings from the cockpit and air-traffic control and parse the timeline down to the hundredths of a second. But as Mary Schiavo points out, "We don't have an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) investigation here, and they ordinarily dissect the timeline to the thousandth of a second."
Even more curious: The F.A.A. states that it established an open phone line with NORAD to discuss both American Airlines Flight 77 (headed for the Pentagon) and United's Flight 93. If true, NORAD had as many as 50 minutes to order fighter jets to intercept Flight 93 in its path toward Washington, D.C. But NORAD's official timeline claims that F.A.A. notification to NORAD on United Airlines Flight 93 is "not available." Why isn't it available?
Asked when NORAD gave an order for fighter planes to scramble in response to United's Flight 93, the air-defense agency notes only that F-16's were already airborne from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to intercept American's Flight 77. The latter jet heaved into the Pentagon at either 9:40 a.m. (according to the F.A.A.) or at 9:38 a.m. (according to NORAD). Although the F-16's weren't in the skies over Washington until 9:49, the question is: Did they continue flying north in an attempt to deter the last of the four hijacked jets? The distance was only 129 miles.
The independent commission is in a position to demand such answers, and many more. Have any weapons been recovered from any of the four downed planes? If not, why should the panel assume they were "less-than-four-inch knives," the description repeatedly used in the commission's hearing on aviation security? Remember the airlines' first reports, that the whole job was pulled off with box cutters? In fact, investigators for the commission found that box cutters were reported on only one plane. In any case, box cutters were considered straight razors and were always illegal. Thus the airlines switched their story and produced a snap-open knife of less than four inches at the hearing. This weapon falls conveniently within the aviation-security guidelines pre-9/11.
But bombs? Mace or pepper spray? Gas masks? The F.B.I. dropped the clue that the hijackers had "masks" in a meeting with the Four Moms from New Jersey, the 9/11 widows who rallied for this independent commission.
The Moms want to know if investigators have looked into how the pilots were actually disabled. To think that eight pilots--four of whom were formerly in the military, some with combat experience in Vietnam, and all of whom were in superb physical shape--could have been subdued without a fight or so much as a sound stretches the imagination. Even giving the terrorists credit for a militarily disciplined act of war, it is rare for everything to go right in four separate battles.
Shouldn't the families and the American people know whether or not our government took action to prevent the second attack planned for the command-and-control center in Washington?
Melody Homer is another young widow of a 9/11 pilot. Her husband, LeRoy Homer, a muscular former Air Force pilot, was the first officer of United's Flight 93. The story put out by United--of heroic passengers invading the cockpit and struggling with the terrorists--is not believable to Melody Homer or to Sandy Dahl, widow of the plane's captain, Jason Dahl. Mrs. Dahl was a working flight attendant with United and knew the configuration of that 757 like the back of her hand.
"We can't imagine that passengers were able to get a cart out of its locked berth and push it down the single aisle and jam it into the cockpit with four strong, violent men behind the door," said Ms. Homer. She believes that the victims' family members who broke a confidentiality agreement and gave their interpretation of sounds they'd heard on the cockpit tape misinterpreted the shattering of china. "When a plane goes erratic, china falls."
Now, the most disturbing disconnect of all: The F.A.A. and NORAD had at least 42 minutes to decide what to do about Flight 93. What really happened?
At 9:30 a.m., six minutes after receiving orders from NORAD, three F-16's were airborne, according to NORAD's timeline. At first, the planes were directed toward New York and probably reached 600 miles per hour within two minutes, said Maj. Gen. Mike J. Haugen, adjutant general of the North Dakota National Guard. Once it was apparent that the New York suicide missions were accomplished, the Virginia-based fighters were given a new flight target: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The pilots heard an ominous squawk over the plane's transponder, a code that indicates almost an emergency wartime footing. General Haugen says the F-16's were asked to confirm that the Pentagon was on fire. The lead flier looked down and verified the worst.
Then the pilots received the most surreal order of the morning, from a voice identifying itself as a representative of the Secret Service. According to General Haugen, the voice said: "I want you to protect the White House at all costs."
During that time, Vice President Richard Cheney called President George W. Bush to urge him to give the order that any other commercial airliners controlled by hijackers be shot down. In Bob Woodward's book, Bush at War, the time of Mr. Cheney's call was placed before 10 a.m. The Vice President explained to the President that a hijacked airliner was a weapon; even if the airliner was full of civilians, Mr. Cheney insisted, giving American fighter pilots the authority to fire on it was "the only practical answer."
The President responded, according to Mr. Woodward, "You bet."
Defense officials told CNN on Sept. 16, 2001, that Mr. Bush had not given authorization to the Defense Department to shoot down a passenger airliner "until after the Pentagon had been struck."
So what happened in the period between just before 10:00 a.m. and 10:03 (or 10:06, or 10:07)--when, at some point, the United jet crashed in a field in Pennsylvania? Did the President act on Mr. Cheney's advice and order the last and potentially most devastating of airborne missiles brought down before it reached the Capitol? Did Mr. Cheney act on the President's O.K.? Did a U.S. fighter shoot down Flight 93? And why all the secrecy surrounding that last flight?
Melody Homer, the wife of Flight 93's first officer, was at home in Marlton, N.J., the morning of Sept. 11 with their 10-month-old child. Within minutes of seeing the second plane turn into a fireball, Ms. Homer called the Flight Operations Center at John F. Kennedy International Airport, which keeps track of all New York-based pilots. She was told that her husband's flight was fine.
"Whether or not my husband's plane was shot down," the widowed Mrs. Homer said, "the most angering part is reading about how the President handled this."
Mr. Bush was notified 14 minutes after the first attack, at 9 a.m., when he arrived at an elementary school in Sarasota, Fla. He went into a private room and spoke by phone with his national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, and glanced at a TV in the room. Mrs. Homer's soft voice curdles when she describes his reaction: "I can't get over what Bush said when he was called about the first plane hitting the tower: `That's some bad pilot.' Why did people on the street assume right away it was a terrorist hijacking, but our President didn't know? Why did it take so long to ground all civilian aircraft? In the time between when my husband's plane took off [at 8:41 a.m.] and when the second plane hit in New York [9:02 a.m.], they could have turned back to airfield."

In fact, the pilots of Flight 93 are seldom mentioned in news reports--only the 40 passengers. And Mrs. Homer says that hurts. "My husband fought for his country in the Persian Gulf War, and he would have seen his role that day as the same thing--fighting for his country. It's my belief, based on what I've been told by people affiliated with the Air Force, that at least one of the pilots was very instrumental in the outcome of that flight. I do believe the hijackers may have taken it down. But stalling the impetus of the plane so it didn't make it to the Capitol or the White House--that was one of the pilots."
Melody LeRoy later learned from a member of the Air Force who worked with her husband that "a couple of weeks before the incident, they were all sitting around and talking about the intelligence that was filtering through the military that something big was going to happen. For all of this to get ignored," she said as she swallowed a sob, "it's difficult to excuse that."
John Lehman, former Secretary of the Navy and one of the most active interrogators among the commissioners, was told of some of the issues raised in this article. "These are exactly the right questions," he said. "We have to put all these details together and then figure out what went wrong. Who didn't do their job? Not just what was wrong with the existing system, but human beings."
After 14 months of watching while commissioners politely negotiated with a White House that has used every known ruse and invented some new ones to evade, withhold and play peekaboo with the commissioners, the Four Moms and their Families Steering Committee feel frustrated almost to the boiling point.
Who is going to take a long, hard look at the policy failures and the failures of leadership? This seems to be where some members of the 9/11 commission are heading. Commission member Jamie Gorelick, winding up after the two-day hearings in January, said she was "amazed and shocked at how every agency defines its responsibility by leaving out the hard part." She blasted the F.A.A. for ducking any responsibility for the prevention of terrorism. "We saw the same attitude in the F.B.I. and C.I.A.--not to use common sense to evaluate a mission and say what works and what doesn't."
Finally, Ms. Gorelick addressed a pointed question to James Loy, the deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the vast, Brobdingnagian bureaucracy which now lashes together 22 federal agencies that didn't talk to one another before the terrorist attacks.
"Who is responsible for driving the strategy to defeat Al Qaeda and holding people accountable for carrying it out?" Ms. Gorelick demanded.
"The President is the guy," said Mr. Loy. "And the person next to the President, who is the national security advisor."
The widows are furious that Dr. Rice was allowed to be interviewed in private and has not agreed--nor been subpoenaed--to give her testimony, under oath, before the American people.
When 9/11 commission chairman Tom Kean gave his sobering assessment last December that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented, the Bush White House saw the bipartisan panel spinning out of its control. In the President's damage-control interview with NBC's Tim Russert last weekend, Mr. Bush was clearly still unwilling to submit to questioning by the 9/11 commission. "Perhaps, perhaps," was his negotiating stance.
Asked why he was appointing yet another commission--this one to quell the uproar over why we attacked Iraq to save ourselves from Saddam's mythical W.M.D.--the President said, "This is a strategic look, kind of a big-picture look about the intelligence-gathering capacities of the United States of America .... Congress has got the capacity to look at the intelligence-gathering without giving away state secrets, and I look forward to all the investigations and looks."
Congress has already given him a big-picture look--in a scathing 900-page report by the joint House and Senate inquiry into the intelligence failures pre-9/11. But the Bush administration doesn't look at what it doesn't want to see.
"It is incomprehensible why this administration has refused to aggressively pursue the leads that our inquiry developed," fumes Senator Bob Graham, the former co-chairman of the inquiry, which ended in 2003. The Bush White House has ignored all but one or two of the joint inquiry's 19 urgent recommendations to make the nation safer against the next attempted terrorist attack. The White House also allowed large portions of the inquiry's final report to be censored (redacted), claiming national security, so that even some members of the current 9/11 commission--whose mandate was to build on the work of the congressional panel--cannot read the evidence.
Senator Graham snorted, "It's absurd."
You may reach Gail Sheehy via email at: gsheehy@observer.com.

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


Health Care Spending Said $1.7 Trillion
By MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Health Care Spending Said $1.7 Trillion
WASHINGTON (AP) - Health care spending in the United States grew to an estimated $1.7 trillion in 2003 - more than $5,800 for every American - but the pace of growth was slower than in recent years.
Health care also for the first time was projected to make up more than 15 percent of the national economy last year, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Wednesday.
Government spending on Medicaid and Medicare increased last year, but more slowly than in 2002, helping contain the estimated overall increase in spending, CMS said.
The CMS report, released on the Web site of the journal Health Affairs, said that health care spending grew a projected 7.8 percent in 2003, down from 9.3 percent in 2002.
Health care spending, however, is projected to outpace growth in the rest of the economy for the next 10 years, CMS said. By 2013, annual spending on health is expected to reach $3.4 trillion and be more than 18 percent of gross domestic product.
The projections did not include the anticipated effects of the new Medicare prescription drug law, which will offer seniors prescription drug coverage beginning in 2006. CMS officials said they expect a shift in who pays prescription drug bills rather than a significant increase in spending on drugs.
"Our story, with or without the legislation, doesn't change much," said Stephen Heffler, CMS' deputy chief actuary and lead author of the report.
Prescription drug spending, however, will continue to outpace the rest of health care for the next 10 years, Heffler said at a conference about the report.
Dan Crippen, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said that huge changes in health care spending lie just beyond 2013, the end of the period covered in the report, when Baby Boomers start reaching retirement age.
"It will be the beginning of something we haven't seen before," Crippen said.

On the Net:

Health care spending projections: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe

Health Affairs: http://www.healthaffairs.org

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


Universe's Most Distant Known Object Seen
By ANDREW BRIDGES
ASSOCIATED PRESS
PASADENA, Calif. (AP) -
In a discovery that offers a rare glimpse back to when the universe was just 750 million years old, a team of astrophysicists said Sunday they have detected a tiny galaxy that is the farthest known object from Earth.
"We are confident it is the most distant known object," California Institute of Technology astronomer Richard Ellis said of the galaxy, which lies roughly 13 billion light-years from Earth.
The team uncovered the faint galaxy using two of the most powerful telescopes - one in space, the other in Hawaii - aided by the natural magnification provided by a massive cluster of galaxies. The gravitational tug of the cluster, called Abell 2218, deflects the light of the distant galaxy and magnifies it many times over.
The magnification process, first proposed by Albert Einstein and known as "gravitational lensing," produces double images of the galaxy.
"Without the magnification of 25 afforded by the foreground cluster, this early object could simply not have been identified or studied in any detail with presently available telescopes," said astronomer Jean-Paul Kneib, of Caltech and the Observatoire Midi-Pyrenees in France.
The discovery gives a rare glimpse of the time when the first stars and galaxies began to blink on, ending a period that cosmologists call the Dark Ages, said Robert Kirshner, an astronomer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.
"The possibility is here we really are beginning to peek into that time," said Kirshner, who was not connected with the discovery. "People have gone there in their imagination - they've thought about it. Now we are getting the facts."
The Hubble Space Telescope revealed the first glimpse of the galaxy, backed up by observations made with the Keck Observatory's 10-meter telescopes atop Mauna Kea.
The galaxy is just 2,000 light-years across. That's far smaller than the Milky Way, which is roughly 100,000 light-years in diameter.
Cosmologists have predicted that early galaxies contained stars that were different from the ones that came into being much later in the history of the universe. But the astrophysicists' analysis suggests that the type of massive stars the galaxy contains were common after the end of the Dark Ages, Ellis said.
"That's very interesting if it's true," Kirshner said.
No one knows how long the Dark Ages lasted in the wake of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
Word of the discovery came during the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Seattle. Further details appear in a forthcoming issue of the Astrophysical Journal.
On the Net:
http://www.caltech.edu
http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/
http://hubblesite.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------

Posted by maximpost at 8:58 PM EST
Permalink

>> DR. STRANGELOVE CONTINUED...LONDON CALLING?

Briton Key Suspect in Nuclear Ring
Man accused of smuggling parts tells Guardian: 'I was framed'.
By Guardian Newspapers, 2/11/2004
A Middle East-based British businessman has emerged as a key suspect in a secret network supplying Libya, Iran and North Korea with equipment to build nuclear bombs.
Speaking for the first time yesterday, Paul Griffin denied that his company played any part in shipping prohibited material from the Far East.
He told the Guardian: "We have been framed."
His comments came as diplomatic sources and nuclear experts around the world stepped up their warnings of a growing proliferation crisis as atomic technology and expertise is increasingly traded on the black market.
Regulators have warned of a dangerous illegal "supermarket" in atomic know-how, spanning five countries.
Last night President George Bush added his voice to the growing chorus of alarm. He talked of the threat of black market dealers motivated by "greed, or fanaticism, or both".
For the first time Mr Bush publicly accused Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, of being at the centre of a network supplying North Korea with the centrifuge technology that is needed to make highly enriched uranium for atomic bombs.
The names of individuals and companies supposedly involved in Dr Khan's clandestine network - including that of Mr Griffin - have been leaking slowly into the public domain. The US authorities have named a Dubai-based Sri Lankan businessman, BSA Tahir, as a key middle man in the nuclear proliferation network.
Mr Bush last night named Mr Tahir as Dr Khan's deputy and said he ran SMB computers, a business in Dubai. "Tahir used that computer company as a front for the proliferation activities of the AQ Khan network. Tahir ... was also its shipping agent, using his computer firm as cover for the movement of centrifuge parts to various clients."
The CIA director, George Tenet, last week named a Malaysian company, Scomi Precision Engineering, as the firm that manufactured 14 components for a nuclear centrifuge dispatched to Libya last year. The equipment was seized in a high-security operation in October when the container vessel carrying it, the German-owned BBC China, entered the Mediterranean. Intelligence agents persuaded the owners to divert the ship to the southern Italian port of Taranto, where the material was confiscated.
Pleading that it thought the components were destined for the oil or gas industry, Scomi in turn named British-owned and Dubai-based Gulf Technical Industries (GTI) as the company which placed the order.
GTI, which was established in 2000, is run by Mr Griffin and his father, Peter. Its registration form with the Dubai Chamber of Trade and Commerce describes it as trading in "pumps, engines, valves and spare parts". It is listed on another Middle East website as a steel trading company.
"The allegations are totally untrue," Mr Griffin told the Guardian from Dubai. "We trade in engineering products. The first I knew about the press release [from Scomi] was when I was telephoned about it at 7.15am on Tuesday.
"I was asked whether we had really bought $3.5m of equipment from Malaysia.
"It's total nonsense, rubbish. I'm trying to find out myself what [is supposed to have been going on]. I have approached the Malaysian consulate to find out how everything happened. I haven't bought anything from Malaysia at all.
"If I was going to buy high precision parts I would order them from Europe; you know what you are getting from there. I would notice if I had brought some precision-engineered parts. They are not something you go pick up at a supermarket."
Mr Griffin, 40, and originally from south Wales, said he had met Mr Tahir when GTI bought some computers from his company last year. GTI had also asked him to sort out a computer virus on his system. "That was it," Mr Griffin said.
Asked whether he knew Dr Khan, the metallurgist, Mr Griffin said that he had, coincidentally, met him at a wedding in Pakistan "about 18 years ago".
He added: "I went to a friend's wedding and he [Khan] was the local dignitary. I was introduced to him.
"I have never met him in Dubai or since then. I don't even know where he lives. I haven't had any [other] contact with him.
"If we were anything to do with [this smuggling], I would have thought British or US intelligence would have contacted me. The British embassy know me here. I haven't been contacted by the authorities here. If I was doing something dodgy, I would have been picked up."
The bill of lading with the German company, BBC Chartering and Logistic, which owned the BBC China, would show he had nothing to do with the centrifuge order, he said. "They have promised to send me the documentation. They told me they had never heard of us. It's all a mystery. The last time I saw Tahir was eight months ago. These allegations are all a load of bullshit." Mr Griffin, who has lived in Dubai on and off since 1986, said his father, Peter, had now retired to Paris. GTI was still tendering for work with the oil industry in the region.
GTI's registered office is in a low-rise building at the side of the eight-lane Sheikh Zayed Highway on the way to the UAE capital, Abu Dhabi.
On the ground floor, House of Cars sells four-wheel-drives to expatriates and Jebal Arafat Tailors caters to the Arab residents of the building.
Yesterday, the office smelled of paint and appeared to be in the process of being re-let. Mr Griffin lives in a single-storey villa in the smart Jumeirah area of the city, surrounded by palm trees. He told the Guardian his company had moved premises.
Malaysian security authorities said they did not know the whereabouts of Mr Tahir, who allegedly ordered the centrifuge parts from Scomi Precision Engineering, which is controlled by the son of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. A centrifuge is used to concentrate, or enrich, radioactive material. A police spokesman said investigators were keen to speak to him. "He is a crucial part of our ongoing investigation so we are keen to talk to him but we have yet to locate him," the spokesman said.
Mr Bush said that Mr Tahir, who has a Malaysian wife, "is in Malaysia, where authorities are investigating his activities".
Western diplomatic sources in Kuala Lumpur say they would like to see the investigation intensified but in reality it is losing momentum because Scomi has been cleared of any wrongdoing by Malaysian police. A police spokesman said: "Our investigation is still ongoing and we want to get to the bottom of the matter."
The Malaysian police chief, Mohd Bakri Omar, on Sunday absolved Scomi of any participation in the nuclear weapons trade. "So far, no wrongdoing has been committed," he said.
Scomi is continuing its operations. It insists it believed it was making equipment for the oil and gas industry.
A Scomi factory manager, Che Lokman Che Omar, told reporters during a tour of the site last week that the case was being blown out of proportion.
"It is not difficult to make," he said. "It could be one of thousands of parts used by the oil and gas industry. In fact, we have made more complex and difficult parts before." In its latest statement Scomi said it was making "generic items", not "sensitive parts" and that it "never knowingly manufactured" nuclear weapons parts.
The Foreign Office declined to comment about the allegations against GTI or Mr Griffin.
Investigators at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency probing nuclear trafficking networks in at least a dozen countries believe Dubai is the centre for traders and middlemen running the black market.
The Americans hailed the seizure of the BBC China as a triumph for US intelligence that helped to persuade Colonel Muammar Gadafy of Libya to renounce his weapons of mass destruction pro grammes under the deal announced in December.
Other informed sources are convinced that, in fact, the boat was seized after the Libyans informed the CIA about it.
BBC Chartering and Logistic GmbH, the shipping company based at Leer in northern Germany which owns the BBC China, said: "This was a regular container transport from Dubai to Libya. We were surprised by the visits from the secret service and the [German] economics ministry. We're not involved at all in this story."
Rolf Briese, the company's managing director, said: "This is not so simple. We've made a declaration to the economic ministry and we have an agreement not to give any more information about it."
Investigation sources say the shipping company has been cleared of any suspicion in the incident and the BBC China is plying its business as usual.
While the IAEA investigators were denied access to the material on the BBC China by the Americans, the agency's inspectors found similar equipment in Libya during a visit in December.
According to diplomats in Vienna, the equipment bore stickers bearing the name KRL, referring to Khan Research Laboratories, the facility south of Islamabad at the heart of the Pakistani bomb project and named after Dr Khan.
The stickers found on the equipment in Libya explain why Dr Mohammed ElBaradei, the IAEA head, has taken to describing the clandestine nuclear trade as a "supermarket."
The disclosure of Dr Khan's smuggling network has been punctuated by heated claims and counter-claims about whether US and western intelligence agencies penetrated the hidden trade or completely missed its significance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PDF...http://announcements.klse.com.my/EDMS/subweb.nsf/7f04516f8098680348256c6f0017a6bf/e8cf4ae8af7e164748256d09000df628/$FILE/ATT4F3GQ/Scomi-Info%20On%20ScomiGrp%20I%20(560KB).pdf

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Februari 2004
Kenyataan Akhbar Ketua Polis Negara berkaitan tuduhan penglibatan Malaysia dalam membekalkan 'uranium centrifuge components' kepada Libya
Kenyataan akhbar ini adalah bertujuan untuk menjelaskan beberapa persoalan dan kekeliruan yang melibatkan Malaysia berpunca daripada berita-berita media asing berkaitan peranan seorang pakar senjata nuklear dari Pakistan. Pada 10 November 2003, pihak CIA dan M16 telah memaklumkan kepada Cawangan Khas perkara-perkara berikut:-
Bahawa BSA Tahir, seorang rakyat Sri Lanka dan ahli perniagaan yang berpengkalan di Dubai terlibat sebagai orang tengah atau 'middleman' dalam pembekalan komponen-komponen tertentu 'centrifuge' dari Malaysia untuk 'uranium-enrichment programme' oleh Libya; dan
Bahawa pada 4 Oktober 2003, sebuah kapal iaitu BBC China telah diperiksa di Pelabuhan Taranto, Itali di mana sejumlah lima kontena untuk Libya telah dirampas kerana dikatakan mengandungi sebilangan komponen-komponen 'centrifuge'. Komponen-komponen tersebut dikatakan diletakkan dalam kotak-kotak kayu yang mempunyai tanda nama Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn. Bhd. (SCOPE). SCOPE adalah anak syarikat kepada Scomi Group Bhd.
Berasaskan maklumat ini satu siasatan yang rapi telah dijalankan oleh pihak polis ke atas penglibatan BSA Tahir dan juga pihak SCOPE. Siasatan awal mendedahkan bahawa:
Sekitar tahun 2001, BSA Tahir telah menawarkan satu kontrak kepada SCOPE untuk menyediakan komponen yang dikatakannya adalah satu urusniaga yang 'legitimate'; dan
Pihak SCOPE telah menerima tawaran tersebut dan untuk menghasilkan komponen ini sebuah kilang telah didirikan di Shah Alam. Siasatan awal juga menunjukkan bahawa komponen 'centrifuge' yang dirampas daripada kapal BBC China juga boleh digunakan untuk alat-alat 'petro-chemical', 'water treatment' dan kegunaan kesihatan seperti 'molecular biology for protein separation'. Malahan pakar-pakar dalam bidang nuklear juga mendapati sukar untuk memastikan secara positif bahawa komponen-komponen yang dirampas itu adalah merupakan sebahagian komponen untuk unit 'centrifuge'.
Dakwaan yang tersiar dalam beberapa media asing bahawa sebuah kilang di Malaysia mampu mengeluarkan 'centrifuge' adalah satu dakwaan yang tidak berasas. Siasatan setakat ini menunjukkan bahawa tidak ada sebarang syarikat di Malaysia yang mampu mengeluarkan unit 'centrifuge' yang lengkap kerana ini memerlukan keupayaan teknologi dan kepakaran yang tinggi dalam bidang senjata nuklear.
Sehubungan ini juga BSA Tahir dan pihak SCOPE telah dan sedang memberi kerjasama yang sepenuhnya dalam membantu pihak polis untuk penyiasatan ini. Walaupun BSA Tahir sedang di bawah siasatan pihak polis tetapi dia tidak dikenakan tahanan sepertimana yang didakwa oleh media asing.
Penyiasatan rapi masih diteruskan dan pihak berkuasa Malaysia sedang bekerjasama dengan International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), sebuah agensi di bawah Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu (PBB) yang bertanggungjawab menguatkuasakan peraturan-peraturan dan kawalan senjata nuklear di bawah Triti Pencegahan Pembiakan Senjata Nuklear atau Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) bagi memastikan siasatan ini benar-benar 'transparent'.
Kenyataan akhbar yang lengkap akan dibuat sebaik sahaja penyiasatan mengenai perkara ini selesai kelak.
Dikeluarkan oleh Penguasa Perhubungan Awam, Polis Diraja Malaysia
4 Februari 2004, 7.25pm
Disediakan oleh:
Cawangan Perhubungan Awam, Polis Diraja Malaysia, Ibu Pejabat Polis Bukit Aman, 50560 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel: 603 - 2262 6310 Faks: 03 - 2272 2710 Email: rmp@rmp.gov.my
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Sri Lankan link to nuclear deal is free
KUALA LUMPUR, Friday (Reuters) - Officials denied knowledge today of whether a Sri Lankan businessman under scrutiny for helping Libya and Iran to develop nuclear programmes was in Malaysia, but said B.S.A Tahir was free to come and go.
"He's a free man," said an intelligence source who declined to be identified. But he said Tahir -- head of Dubai-based Gulf Technical Industries (GTI) -- was being investigated by Malaysian authorities.
"So far it doesn't warrant any arrest unless you have concrete evidence of breach of law," the source told Reuters.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, whose son Kamaluddin Abdullah is linked to a local firm that supplied centrifuge parts to GTI, bridled after U.S. President George W. Bush suggested a Malaysian link to the nuclear secrets-for-sale scandal.
Bush said Tahir was in Malaysia and described him as a deputy to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's atomic programme who confessed early this month to leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
"I don't know where he got the evidence," Abdullah said on Thursday in reference to Bush's comments. "We are not in any way involved, not at all," he told reporters in the southern state of Johor.
Whether Washington would push for action against Tahir remains unclear, a question U.S. officials in Kuala Lumpur declined to answer today. However, one Western diplomat cited Malaysia's obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which it ratified in 1970.
"It's pretty clear that many people involved in this knew what was going on. The question is how far did it go up?" said the diplomat.
The Malaysian manufacturer, a unit of Scomi Group Bhd, says the relevant parts were ordered for oil and gas work. Police have already said they have found nothing to suggest any wrongdoing by the firm.
Copyright ? 2001 Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No evidence, so Tahir remains free
KUALA LUMPUR -- Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, doubting US intelligence on Malaysia's role in a global nuclear trafficking network, said the man at the centre of the row would not be arrested, for now.
"He is on his feet and free to move around," Mr Abdullah said of Mr B S A Tahir, allegedly a middleman who helped Pakistan's top nuclear scientist sell equipment and know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Mr Abdullah said police have spoken to Mr Tahir and "asked him a lot of questions". The police said they are not detaining Mr Tahir because he has apparently not broken local laws.
US President George W Bush called Mr Tahir the "chief financial officer and money launderer" of the network run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
"We are not involved in any way. I don't know where Bush is getting his evidence from," Mr Abdullah said. -- AP
KUALA LUMPUR -- Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, doubting US intelligence on Malaysia's role in a global nuclear trafficking network, said the man at the centre of the row would not be arrested, for now.
"He is on his feet and free to move around," Mr Abdullah said of Mr B S A Tahir, allegedly a middleman who helped Pakistan's top nuclear scientist sell equipment and know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Mr Abdullah said police have spoken to Mr Tahir and "asked him a lot of questions". The police said they are not detaining Mr Tahir because he has apparently not broken local laws.
US President George W Bush called Mr Tahir the "chief financial officer and money launderer" of the network run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
"We are not involved in any way. I don't know where Bush is getting his evidence from," Mr Abdullah said. -- AP KUALA LUMPUR -- Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, doubting US intelligence on Malaysia's role in a global nuclear trafficking network, said the man at the centre of the row would not be arrested, for now.
"He is on his feet and free to move around," Mr Abdullah said of Mr B S A Tahir, allegedly a middleman who helped Pakistan's top nuclear scientist sell equipment and know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Mr Abdullah said police have spoken to Mr Tahir and "asked him a lot of questions". The police said they are not detaining Mr Tahir because he has apparently not broken local laws.
US President George W Bush called Mr Tahir the "chief financial officer and money launderer" of the network run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
"We are not involved in any way. I don't know where Bush is getting his evidence from," Mr Abdullah said. -- AP
------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer firm in Dubai was hub for black market nuke network
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, February 12, 2004
LONDON - A Dubai-based company in the United Arab Emirates has been cited as the linchpin in the lucrative nuclear weapons black market that has supplied Iran, Libya and North Korea.
The United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency have determined that the UAE company served as the hub for the traffic of nuclear weapons components. Officials said the company coordinated with a range of nuclear suppliers for orders from such countries as Iran, Libya and North Korea.
The Bush administration identified the UAE firm as SMB Computers, a key element in the nuclear weapons black market operated by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. The company was found to have served as a clearinghouse for nuclear components ordered by Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Another UAE company involved in the nuclear black market was Gulf Technical Industries, which worked closely with SMB's Tahir, Middle East Newsline reported. The Dubai-based Gulf Technical, founded by British engineer Peter Griffin, an associate of Khan, contracted with Malaysia's Scomi Group Berhad for the manufacture of centrifuge equipment identified as P-2.
The public confession on Feb. 4 by Khan - the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program - in which he admitted to facilitating the network, has shocked the world and prompted new warnings that terrorists could gain access to weapons of mass destruction.
"The supply network will grow, making it easier to acquire nuclear weapon expertise and materials," IAEA director-general Mohammed El Baradei wrote in the New York Times on Thursday. "Eventually, inevitably, terrorists will gain access to such materials and technology, if not actual weapons."
"Khan and his associates," a White House fact sheet said, "used a factory in Malaysia to manufacture key parts for centrifuges, and purchased other necessary parts through network operatives based in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Libya, Iran, and North Korea were customers of the Khan network, and several other countries expressed an interest in Khan's services."
The company was said to have processed orders for such goods as uranium hexafluoride - used for the centrifuge process that can produce enriched uranium for nuclear bombs - as well as components and complete centrifuges.
The shipments were said to have been disguised and often relabeled in Dubai to avoid detection.
SMB was operated by a deputy of Khan. Officials said the deputy, identified as Bukhari Sayed Abu Tahir, a Sri Lankan native, employed his Dubai company as the front for the nuclear network that sought to provide up to 1,000 centrifuges to Libya.
"Tahir acted as both the network's chief financial officer and money launderer," President George Bush said in a speech on Wednesday. "He was also its shipping agent, using his computer firm as cover for the movement of centrifuge parts to various clients. Tahir directed the Malaysia facility to produce these parts based on Pakistani designs, and then ordered the facility to ship the components to Dubai. Tahir also arranged for parts acquired by other European procurement agents to transit through Dubai for shipment to other customers."
The nuclear network, which was said to have been penetrated by the CIA, contained companies and people from both Western and Third World countries, officials said. They included Belgium, China, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, the UAE and the United Arab Emirates.
Dubai served as the port of destination for these shipments. Officials said Tripoli acquired nuclear weapons components manufactured in Malaysia, shipped and processed in Dubai and then sent to Libya.
"As a result of our penetration of the network, American and the British intelligence identified a shipment of advanced centrifuge parts manufactured at the Malaysia facility," Bush said. "We followed the shipment of these parts to Dubai, and watched as they were transferred to the BBC China, a German-owned ship. After the ship passed through the Suez Canal, bound for Libya, it was stopped by German and Italian authorities. They found several containers, each forty feet in length, listed on the ship's manifest as full of 'used machine parts. In fact, these containers were filled with parts of sophisticated centrifuges."
Bush outlined a new policy to prevent nuclear proliferation by a crackdown on the black market and a ban on the sale of some legal equipment to countries that do not submit to close international supervision.
In 2002 and 2003, officials said, Gulf Technical maintained a representative from Dubai to Malaysia to oversee the production of P-2 for Middle East clients. The P-2, made of maraging steel, has double the uranium enrichment capacity of the earlier model P-1, which is composed of aluminum.
For its part, the IAEA has questioned European businessmen suspected of having helped supply orders from Iran and Libya. They included executives from the German firm Leybold Heraeus, a leading maker of vacuum technology and a unit of the Swiss firm Unaxis AG. The agency cited four former Leybold employees that transferred centrifuge components to Iran and conducted business with other countries interested in nuclear technology, such as Saudi Arabia and Syria.
--------------------------------------------
S M B Computers L.L.C.
Al Musalla Towers,
Khalid Bin Waleed Road,
P.O.Box : 8736 Dubai - UAE.

Phone:
Sales / Support: (00 971 4) 3974744
Fax: (00 971 4)3974743General Inquiries: info@smbcomputers.com
Webmaster : webmaster@smbcomputers.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Bush seeks to restrict nuclear fuel
David E. Sanger/NYT
Thursday, February 12, 2004
WASHINGTON Declaring that terrorists with deadly unconventional weapons pose ``the greatest threat to mankind,'' President George W. Bush announced a new proposal Wednesday to limit the number of nations allowed to produce nuclear fuel.
In an afternoon speech at the National Defense University here, Bush called for a re-examination of what one administration official called the ``basic bargain'' underlying the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: that those states that promise not to pursue nuclear weapons will receive help in producing nuclear fuel for power generation.
The president did indeed call for tougher controls on nuclear fuel production, but he also cited biological and chemical weapons, saying that they along with nuclear weapons constituted a deadly peril.
``In the cold war, Americans lived under the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but believed that deterrence made those weapons a last resort,'' Bush said. ``What has changed in the 21st century is that in the hands of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction would be a first resort, the preferred means to further their ideology of suicide and random murder.
``America and the entire civilized world will face this threat for decades to come. We must confront the danger with open eyes and unbending purpose.''
The president said the global network in nuclear goods set up by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the developer of Pakistan's bomb, exposed huge gaps in accords to stop the spread of nuclear weapons technology. The president noted that the Pakistani government had promised to share all information from its investigation in the affair and has issued assurances that its country will never again become a source of weapons proliferation.
Iran admitted last year that it had cheated on the nonproliferation agreement for 18 years, secretly building uranium enrichment facilities, though the country denied that it intended to produce weapons. North Korea abandoned the treaty last year and declared it was making nuclear arms.
Khan's network secretly sold equipment to both countries, and to Libya, American and Pakistani officials have said. Libya's leader, Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, ``made the right decision'' in agreeing recently to abandon his country's development of deadly weapons, Bush said. Banning weapons of mass destruction can lead to better relations with the United States, he said. But isolation, hardship ``and other unwelcome consequences'' await countries that do not see the light, Bush said.
The president did not call for a reopening of the 1970 treaty. Instead, he appealed to the Nuclear Suppliers Group, 40 countries that sell most nuclear technology, to refuse to sell equipment to any country that is not already equipped to make nuclear fuel, either by enriching uranium or by reprocessing spent fuel for plutonium. The United States is ready to help any country enforce its laws and controls, Bush said. ``The way ahead is not easy, but it is clear,'' the president said.
In a briefing on Tuesday evening, one administration official said Iran and North Korea were examples of ``regimes which have cynically exploited loopholes in the existing treaty'' to build up their capacity to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel.
While experts have long agreed that the treaty is flawed, Bush's proposal is bound to raise protests from developing nations, which say the United States and, by extension, the other declared nuclear states -- Britain, France, Russia and China -- are trying to extend their rights to produce weapons while denying that status to other nations.
In addition to those five, Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and North Korea is believed by American intelligence agencies to have at least two and perhaps several more. Israel is a particularly difficult case for the United States because it has never declared its nuclear ability and has never signed the nonproliferation treaty. Its Arab neighbors and Pakistan have said that any reopening of nuclear regulation should start with forcing Israel to sign the treaty.
In his speech, Bush gave some details of how Khan's network operated. But he refrained from any criticism of President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, portraying Khan, the former head of Khan Research Laboratories, as a rogue scientist.
Bush was applauded when he described the Khan case as a victory for U.S. and British intelligence operations.
The director of central intelligence, George Tenet, made a similar case last week, and administration officials hope the story of the intelligence surrounding the Khan network will be a counterpoint to criticisms of how Iraq's weapons program was misjudged.
The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was asked Wednesday in an interview on NBC's ``Today'' show whether the White House could explain how Musharraf could have pardoned Khan after he admitted giving nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
``What President Musharraf has done is to give us the opportunity now to wrap up and to destroy what is one of the most active networks, the most active as we know it today, of this kind of shadowy underworld of nuclear entrepreneurs who are out there selling knowledge and expertise on the black market,'' Rice said. ``And because of Pakistan's cooperation, because of Pakistan's action based on information that they've been receiving from a number of sources, and because of very good intelligence work by the United States, Great Britain and others, we really now have a chance to wrap up this group. And that's the most important thing.''
Bush identified B.S.A. Tahir, a Sri Lanka-born trader who moved to Dubai as a child, as a key figure in the Khan network. Tahir, who divides his time between Kuala Lumpur and Dubai, negotiated with a Malaysian company called Scomi to produce parts for high-speed centrifuges, which enrich uranium, Scomi officials have said. It was the interception of one such shipment to Libya in October that allowed American intelligence officials to present Pakistan with evidence about Khan.
In recent days, efforts to reach Tahir in Malaysia have been unsuccessful. He owns 49 percent of a computer company, S.M.B. Computers, in Dubai, according to Dubai government documents. Scomi officials have identified him as one of the men who negotiated the deal under which they produced the parts.
Bush's speech marked the first time that Tahir has been publicly identified by the United States as a major player, though intelligence officials have mentioned, on background, what they say was his central role in arranging the transfer of centrifuge components from Malaysia to Dubai and on to Libya.

The New York Times

Copyright ? 2003 The International Herald Tribune


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

Aiseh, man...
Saya akan pastikan bahawa tidak ada tempat dalam pentadbiran saya untuk pemimpin politik yang "cakap tidak serupa bikin" -- Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, 9 Jan 2004, Kuala Lumpur.

Thursday, February 12, 2004
Get Smart, Get BSA Tahir
Again, don't lose sight of this:
The break for American intelligence operatives tracking Abdul Qadeer Khan's nuclear network came in the wet August heat in Malaysia, as five giant cargo containers full of specialized centrifuge parts were loaded into one of the nondescript vessels that ply the Straits of Malacca.
The C.I.A. had penetrated the factory of Scomi Precision Engineering, where one of the nuclear network's operatives -- known to the workers only as Tinner -- watched over the production of the delicate machinery needed to enrich uranium for nuclear bombs. [via The New York Times]
Note that the CIA chose to spy on Scomi -- either through an agent or by bugging the factory -- instead of collaborating with Malaysian police.
One wonders what or who else George Tenet's goons are keeping an eye on here, but Tinner was their man then, a very important man:
... Throughout the work at Scomi Precision, the man known as Tinner, an engineer sent from Dubai by Mr. (BSA) Tahir, was on site overseeing the work, a Scomi official said.
Next item of note: Scomi Precision lets Tinner have the run of the factory, but doesn't even bother to find out his full name.
The question for Malaysians is not who Tinner is, but who Tahir is to Scomi, or to anyone else.
The company obviously so trusted the Sri-Lankan born businessmen with the Malaysian wife that they accepted whoever he brought in for the operation, and whatever he got them to produce, without question:
In a statement, Scomi said the shipments had consisted only of "14 semifinished components." Company officials said they never knew of the intended use of the parts.
A senior Bush administration official disputed the company's account, saying it would be highly unlikely that someone there did not know what they were producing. American and European weapons experts also said that the shipment headed for Libya contained thousands of centrifuge parts.
Scomi probably meant 14 types of semifinished components, not 14 components in total, but it would be good if the company publicly says so itself.
And who said no one there "did not know what they were producing"?
There was Tahir and the mysterious Tinner, who must have lied to the company on the true nature and purpose of the components they were manufacturing.
Scomi is very likely innocent of knowingly supplying centrifuge parts to the Libyans, but it would not be unreasonable to speculate that there are people here who would rather have Malaysians not know so much about Tahir's local wheelings and dealings.
Here's one more of the growing number of facts on Tahir:
Malaysian police have been investigating Tahir, who is married to the daughter of a former Malaysian diplomat, the (Malaysian) official said. [via The Wall Street Journal Online]
Bonds forged by marriage are not only one of the strongest, but indeed one of the most useful, especially if you're in trouble.
In any event, we're upset that we are being unfairly singled out:
... A senior (Malaysian) official, however, accused Bush Wednesday of unfairly singling out this Southeast Asian nation's role in the secret network, insisting the sole known case of Malaysian involvement was the unwitting manufacture of parts seized en route to Libya last year.
"He's overblown Malaysia's role in this, the role of Malaysian companies in this," the official said on condition of anonymity. "Making Malaysia the central conduit to this is misleading."
However, Lim Kit Siang, a veteran opposition politician, called for an independent inquiry, saying Bush's speech made the quick exoneration of the company involved "untenable."
Police say they are still investigating the whole affair, and it should not be too long before that is completed.
After all, the man practically the entire world is accusing of being a lynchpin in the nuclear arms blackmarket is here.
In addition, he can clear our name.
Instead of crying foul at every accusation thrown at us, why don't we get Tahir to make a public confession of his complicity. and of our innocence?
Why haven't we?
Posted at 05:27 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Bigger And Bigger
They're getting bigger and bigger:
Lands and Cooperative Development Minister Tan Sri Kasitah Gaddam has been arrested by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) this morning.
He was seen arriving at the ACA headquarters at 8.55am and was then taken by officers into the building. He was then arrested 10min later.
It was learnt that he was arrested over some shares in a company. He is expected to be charged later this morning.
This is the second high-profile arrest by the ACA in the past few days. [via The Star Online]
Now, how about a major BN figure?
Don't tell me that UMNO (especially), MCA and MIC leaders from the peninsula are entirely clean.
Posted at 09:51 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Our Man BSA Tahir
Malaysia is set to be in the international limelight once more:
In an afternoon speech at the National Defense University (Wednesday) ... (president George) Bush will ... identify B. S. A. Tahir, a Sri Lanka-born trader who moved to Dubai as a child, as the "other major node" in the Khan network.
... In recent days, efforts to reach Mr. Tahir in Malaysia have been unsuccessful. He owns 49 percent of a computer company, S.M.B. Computers, in Dubai, according to Dubai government documents. Scomi officials have identified him as one of the men who negotiated the deal under which they produced the parts.
Mr. Bush's speech will mark the first time Mr. Tahir has been publicly identified by the United States as a major player, though intelligence officials have mentioned, on background, what they say was his central role in arranging the transfer of centrifuge components from Malaysia to Dubai and on to Libya. [via The New York Times]
The Malaysian police say Tahir is not under arrest as he has broken no laws.
Nevertheless, he is being portrayed, rightly or wrongly, as "a major player."
The implications of such an allegation is that he would a "player" who is walking around freely in our own backyard.
That will certainly look bad on the country.
Maybe it's time we provide the media, both local and foreign, access to Tahir, so that he can clear our name.
Oh, and clear his own good name, of course.
That said, the question of why we are so protective of Tahir remains.
Who is this Sri-Lankan, with the Malaysian wife on one arm, and impressive business and political contacts on the other?
Posted at 03:26 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
The Proving Ground
The arrest of former Perwaja Steel managing director Eric Chia marks the beginning of a new phase in Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's fight against corruption, and drive for a higher degree of accountability.
He has displayed, in this instance, the will to back his tough talk with concrete action, as befits a leader that leads by example.
The bold move is also one step along the path towards fulfilling the people's now sky-high hopes of seeing a cleaner, more transparent and democratic Malaysia.
Eric Chia is indeed a sizeable fish, and the Prime Minister has now come to the crunch.
Chia's trial in August needs to be a fair one in the people's eyes. It is certain to be full of drama, as Chia has promised fireworks.
This time, there can be no scapegoating, no whitewash, no witness too high as to avoid subpoena, no expunging of "irrelevant" evidence.
This country cannot afford one more trial of that nature; the people will no longer tolerate a repeat performance.
And neither does it stop there, nor can it be stopped there.
Malaysians know Chia is not the only bottom dweller in the putrefying, oxygen-deprived pond of power abuse, political wrongdoing and corruption.
They know there are other, bigger, fatter fish still swimming around freely.
They will want their heads, too.
With Chia's arrest, Pak Lah has proven that he his committed to the cause.
In the coming weeks, months and years, he will have to prove it again, and again, and again.
Posted at 07:29 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush calls Pak nuclear sales an 'international failure'
Vasantha Arora (IANS)
Washington, February 12
US President George W Bush, speaking publicly for the first time on Pakistan's nuclear black market network, has cited it as a failure of the international safeguard regime.
But he scrupulously avoided comment on the pardon granted by President Pervez Musharraf to Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is said to have been at the centre of it all.
Bush made use of his highly publicised speech on "international action against spread of weapons of mass destruction" at the National Defence University here Wednesday to make his first public comment on the nuclear black market run by Khan.
Bush highlighted ongoing efforts to break up Khan's proliferation network and projected it as a success story of the US and British intelligence, now under attack for their role in the pre-war Iraq.
"For decades, Khan remained on the Pakistani government payroll, earning a modest salary. Yet he and his associates financed lavish lifestyles through the sale of nuclear technologies and equipment to outlaw regimes stretching from North Africa to the Korean peninsula," he said.
Bush said Khan had confessed to his crimes, and his top associates were now out of business. Bush said it points to the need for the nations of the world to come together to deal with a specific threat, just as they have to combat terrorism.
"These regimes and other proliferators like Khan should know: we and our friends are determined to protect our people and the world from proliferation," he said.
He said: "The government of Pakistan is interrogating the network's members, learning critical details that will help them prevent it from ever operating again," and "Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has promised to share all the information he learns about the Khan network and has assured the United States that his country will never again be a source of proliferation".
He made out a strong case for new international efforts to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), saying the most dangerous threat before the world is the potential for terrorists or rogue nations to use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons in a surprise attack.
More must be done, Bush said, to combat the international black market in weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent countries from developing nuclear arms under the guise of building civilian power plants.
He announced seven proposals that would modernise non-proliferation laws, restrict the sale and transport of nuclear technologies and equipment, and stop the sale of nuclear technology to countries that do not agree to vigorous international inspections to ensure their nuclear programmes are for peaceful purposes.
Bush also urged the United Nations Security Council to quickly approve a US-proposed resolution that would require all states to criminalize proliferation, enact strict export controls, and secure all sensitive materials within their borders.
He also proposed to expand efforts to do away with weapons left over from the Cold War.
Bush noted that a former customer of the Khan network, Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, had "voluntarily agreed to end his nuclear and chemical weapons programmes, not to pursue biological weapons, and to permit thorough inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."
Gaddafi "made the right decision, and the world will be safer once his commitment is fulfilled. We expect other regimes to follow his example," Bush said.
The president presented a detailed picture of the Khan network, pieced together over several years by American and British intelligence.
"Governments around the world worked closely with us to unravel the Khan network, and to put an end to his criminal enterprise," Bush said.
He said, "AQ Khan, himself, operated mostly out of Pakistan. He served as director of the network, its leading scientific mind, as well as its primary salesman. Over the past decade, he made frequent trips to consult with his clients and to sell his expertise.
"He and his associates sold the blueprints for centrifuges to enrich uranium as well as a nuclear design stolen from the Pakistani government. The network sold uranium hexafluoride, the gas that the centrifuge process can transform into enriched uranium for nuclear bombs.
"Khan and his associates provided Iran and Libya and North Korea with designs for Pakistan's older centrifuges, as well as designs for more advanced and efficient models. The network also provided these countries with components, and in some cases, with complete centrifuges," he said.
To increase their profits, President Bush pointed out, Khan and his associates used a factory in Malaysia to manufacture key parts for centrifuges. Other necessary parts were purchased through network operatives based in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
These procurement agents saw the trade in nuclear technologies as a shortcut to personal wealth, and they set up front companies to deceive legitimate firms into selling them tightly controlled materials, he said.
He said, "Khan's deputy -- a man named BSA Tahir -- ran SMB computers, a business in Dubai. Tahir used that computer company as a front for the proliferation activities of the AQ Khan network. Tahir acted as both the network's chief financial officer and money launderer.
"He was also its shipping agent, using his computer firm as cover for the movement of centrifuge parts to various clients. Tahir directed the Malaysia facility to produce these parts based on Pakistani designs, and then ordered the facility to ship the components to Dubai.
"Tahir also arranged for parts acquired by other European procurement agents to transit through Dubai for shipment to other customers."
--------------------------------------------------
Wednesday, February 11, 2004 ? Last updated 1:36 p.m. PT

Excerpts of Bush speech on WMD
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Excerpts from President Bush's speech on weapons proliferation, as recorded by the White House:
In the past, enemies of America required massed armies and great navies, powerful air forces to put our nation, our people, our friends and allies at risk. In the Cold War, Americans lived under the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but believed that deterrents made those weapons a last resort. What has changed in the 21st century is that, in the hands of terrorists, weapons of mass destruction would be a first resort, the preferred means to further their ideology of suicide and random murder.
---
A. Q. Khan is known throughout the world as the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. What was not publicly known, until recently, is that he also led an extensive international network for the proliferation of nuclear technology and know-how.
For decades, Mr. Khan remained on the Pakistani government payroll, earning a modest salary. Yet, he and his associates financed lavish lifestyles through the sale of nuclear technologies and equipment to outlaw regimes stretching from North Africa to the Korean Peninsula.
A. Q. Khan himself operated mostly out of Pakistan. He served as director of the network, its leading scientific mind, as well as its primary salesman. Over the past decade, he made frequent trips to consult with his clients and to sell his expertise. He and his associates sold the blueprints for centrifuges to enrich uranium, as well as a nuclear design stolen from the Pakistani government. The network sold uranium hexafluoride, the gas that the centrifuge process can transform into enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. Khan and his associates provided Iran and Libya and North Korea with designs for Pakistan's older centrifuges, as well as designs for more advanced and efficient models. The network also provided these countries with components, and in some cases, with complete centrifuges.
To increase their profits, Khan and his associates used a factory in Malaysia to manufacture key parts for centrifuges. Other necessary parts were purchased through network operatives based in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. These procurement agents saw the trade in nuclear technologies as a shortcut to personal wealth, and they set up front companies to deceive legitimate firms into selling them tightly controlled materials.
Khan's deputy, a man named B.S.A. Tahir, ran SMB computers, a business in Dubai. Tahir used that computer company as a front for the proliferation activities of the A. Q. Khan network. Tahir acted as both the network's chief financial officer and money launderer. He was also its shipping agent, using his computer firm as cover for the movement of centrifuge parts to various clients. Tahir directed the Malaysia facility to produce these parts based on Pakistani designs, and then ordered the facility to ship the components to Dubai. Tahir also arranged for parts acquired by other European procurement agents to transit through Dubai for shipment to other customers.
---
Breaking this network is one major success in a broad-based effort to stop the spread of terrible weapons. We're adjusting our strategies to the threats of a new era. America and the nations of Australia, France and Germany, Italy and Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom have launched the Proliferation Security Initiative to interdict lethal materials in transit. Our nations are sharing intelligence information, tracking suspect international cargo, conducting joint military exercises. We're prepared to search planes and ships, to seize weapons and missiles and equipment that raise proliferation concerns, just as we did in stopping the dangerous cargo on the BBC China before it reached Libya. Three more governments, Canada and Singapore and Norway, will be participating in this initiative.
---
First, I propose that the work of the Proliferation Security Initiative be expanded to address more than shipments and transfers. Building on the tools we've developed to fight terrorists, we can take direct action against proliferation networks. We need greater cooperation not just among intelligence and military services, but in law enforcement, as well.
---
Second, I call on all nations to strengthen the laws and international controls that govern proliferation. At the U.N. last fall, I proposed a new Security Council resolution requiring all states to criminalize proliferation, enact strict export controls, and secure all sensitive materials within their borders.
---
Third, I propose to expand our efforts to keep weapons from the Cold War and other dangerous materials out of the wrong hands. ... We must also prevent governments from developing nuclear weapons under false pretenses. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was designed more than 30 years ago to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beyond those states which already possessed them. Under this treaty, nuclear states agreed to help non-nuclear states develop peaceful atomic energy if they renounced the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But the treaty has a loophole which has been exploited by nations such as North Korea and Iran. These regimes are allowed to produce nuclear material that can be used to build bombs under the cover of civilian nuclear programs. ...

The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants.
---
It is the charge of the International Atomic Energy Agency to uncover banned nuclear activity around the world and report those violations to the U.N. Security Council. We must ensure that the IAEA has all the tools it needs to fulfill its essential mandate. America and other nations support what is called the Additional Protocol, which requires states to declare a broad range of nuclear activities and facilities, and allow the IAEA to inspect those facilities. As a fifth step, I propose that by next year, only states that have signed the Additional Protocol be allowed to import equipment for their civilian nuclear programs.
---
We must also ensure that IAEA is organized to take action when action is required. So, a sixth step, I propose the creation of a special committee of the IAEA Board which will focus intensively on safeguards and verification.
---
And, finally, countries under investigation for violating nuclear non-proliferation obligations are currently allowed to serve on the IAEA Board of Governors. For instance, Iran, a country suspected of maintaining an extensive nuclear weapons program, recently completed a two-year term on the Board. Allowing potential violators to serve on the Board creates an unacceptable barrier to effective action.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Le discours de M. Bush sur la lutte contre les armes de destruction massive
Le pr?sident appelle la communaut? internationale ? intensifier la lutte.
(retour au d?but)
Pendant des dizaines d'ann?es, M. Khan a gard? son emploi de fonctionnaire, touchant un salaire modeste. Cependant, ses complices et lui finan?aient un train de vie de riches gr?ce ? la vente de technologies et d'?quipement nucl?aires ? des r?gime d?voy?s situ?s de l'Afrique du Nord ? la P?ninsule cor?enne.
Pour sa part, M. Khan menait ses activit?s ? partir du Pakistan. Il ?tait le directeur du r?seau, son principal cerveau scientifique, et aussi son principal vendeur. Au cours des dix derni?res ann?es, il s'est d?plac? ? maintes reprises pour avoir des consultations avec ses clients et pour vendre son savoir-faire. Ses complices et lui ont vendu des plans de centrifuges pour enrichir l'uranium ainsi que d'autres plans li?s au nucl?aire appartenant au gouvernement pakistanais. Le r?seau a vendu de l'hexafluorure d'uranium, un gaz que le processus de centrifugation peut transformer en uranium enrichi pour bombes nucl?aires. M. Khan et ses complices ont fourni ? l'Iran, ? la Libye et ? la Cor?e du Nord les plans d'anciennes centrifugeuses pakistanaises, ainsi que les plans de mod?les de centrifugeuses plus sophistiqu?es et plus efficaces. Le r?seau a fourni ? ces pays d'autres ?l?ments de centrifugeuses, et dans certains cas, des centrifugeuses enti?res.
Pour augmenter leurs b?n?fices, M. Khan et ses complices ont eu recours ? une usine en Malaisie pour fabriquer des pi?ces importantes de centrifugeuses. D'autres pi?ces essentielles ont ?t? achet?es par le truchement d'agents attach?s ? des r?seaux situ?s en Europe, au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique. Pour ces interm?diaires, le commerce des techniques du nucl?aire ?tait un moyen de s'enrichir rapidement, et ils ont cr?? des soci?t?s de fa?ade pour amener des entreprises l?gitimes ? leur vendre des mat?riaux ?troitement contr?l?s.
L'adjoint de M. Khan - un homme appel? B.S.A. Tahir - ?tait directeur de la soci?t? SMB computers, une entreprise de Duba?. M. Tahir s'est servi de cette soci?t? d'informatique pour couvrir les activit?s de prolif?ration du r?seau d'A.Q. Khan. M. Tahir ?tait ? la fois le principal responsable financier du r?seau et celui qui blanchissait les fonds. Il ?tait aussi son agent d'exp?dition, utilisant son entreprise d'ordinateurs pour couvrir l'envoi de pi?ces de centrifugeuses ? divers clients. M. Tahir a ordonn? ? l'usine de Malaisie de produire ces pi?ces selon les plans pakistanais, et a ensuite ordonn? ? l'usine d'envoyer les ?l?ments ? Duba?. M. Tahir a aussi fait en sorte que des pi?ces achet?es par d'autres acheteurs europ?ens transitent par Duba? afin d'?tre exp?di?es ? d'autres clients.
Les agents des services am?ricains et britanniques du renseignement ont pris plusieurs ann?es pour reconstituer le puzzle du r?seau Kahn. Nos services du renseignement ont peu ? peu mis ? jour la port?e de ce r?seau et identifi? ses principaux experts, agents et financiers. Des agents ont suivi ses transactions, dress? la carte de ses op?rations. Ils ont surveill? les d?placements d'A.Q. Khan et de ses principaux associ?s. Ils ont suivi des membres du r?seaux aux quatre coins du monde ; ils ont enregistr? leurs conversations ; ils ont infiltr? leurs op?rations ; ils ont mis ? jour leurs secrets. Ce travail implique de grands risques et tous les Am?ricains peuvent ?tre reconnaissants pour la diligence et le d?vouement de nos excellents professionnels du renseignement.
Les gouvernements du monde entier ont oeuvr? en ?troite coop?ration avec nous pour exposer le r?seau Khan et pour mettre fin ? ses agissements criminels. A. Q. Khan a avou? ses crimes et ses principaux associ?s ont d? cesser leurs activit?s. Le gouvernement du Pakistan interroge actuellement les membres du r?seau et recueille aupr?s d'eux des d?tails critiques qui lui permettront de pr?venir toute r?cidive de leur part. Le pr?sident Musharraf a promis de partager tous les renseignements qu'il obtiendra sur le r?seau Khan et nous a assur? que son pays ne serait plus jamais une source de prolif?ration.
M. Tahir est en Malaisie, o? les autorit?s enqu?tent sur ses activit?s. Les autorit?s malaisiennes nous ont assur? que l'usine utilis?e par le r?seau avait cesse de produire des pi?ces pour centrifugeuses. Quant aux autres membres du r?seau encore en libert?, ils seront trouv?s un ? un et il sera mis un terme ? leur carri?re dans le commerce des armements.
Gr?ce ? notre p?n?tration du r?seau, nos services de renseignement et les services de renseignement britanniques ont identifi? un envoi de pi?ces sophistiqu?es pour centrifugeuses provenant de l'usine malaisienne. Nous avons suivi ces pi?ces jusqu'? Duba? et avons observ? leur transbordement sur le BBC China, navire de propri?t? allemande. Apr?s ?tre pass? par le Canal de Suez ? destination de la Libye, il a ?t? arraisonn? par les autorit?s allemandes et italiennes, qui y ont trouv? plusieurs conteneurs d'environ 12 m?tres de long, dont le contenu ?tait d?crit sur le manifeste du navire comme des "pi?ces m?caniques usag?es". En r?alit?, ils contenaient des pi?ces sophistiqu?es pour centrifugeuses.
L'interception du BBC China a eu lieu alors que des repr?sentants des autorit?s libyennes, britanniques et am?ricaines examinaient la possibilit? pour la Libye de mettre fin ? ses programmes d'armes de destruction massive. Les Etats-Unis et le Royaume-Uni ont pr?sent? aux repr?sentants officiels de la Libye ces preuves de l'existence d'un programme nucl?aire actif et illicite. Il y a environ deux mois, le dirigeant de la Libye avait convenu volontairement de mettre fin ? ses programmes d'armements nucl?aire chimiques, de ne pas entreprendre de programmes d'armements chimiques et d'autoriser des inspections compl?tes de l'Agence internationale de l'?nergie atomique et de l'Organisation pour l'interdiction des armes chimiques. Nous oeuvrons maintenant en partenariat avec ces organisations et avec le Royaume-Uni pour aider le gouvernement libyen ? d?manteler ces programmes et ? ?liminer tous les mat?riaux dangereux.
Le colonel Kadhafi a pris la bonne d?cision et le monde sera plus en s?curit? une fois qu'il aura rempli ses engagements. Nous nous attendons ? ce que d'autres r?gimes suivent son exemple. Le renoncement aux programmes d'armements illicites peut mener ? de meilleures relations avec les Etats-Unis et avec les autres nations libres. La poursuite de tels programmes n'apportera pas la s?curit? ni le prestige international ; elle n'am?nera que l'isolement politique, des difficult?s ?conomiques et autres cons?quences ind?sirables.
Nous savons que la Libye n'?tait pas le seul client du r?seau Khan. D'autres pays ont exprim? un vif int?r?t pour les services de ce r?seau. Ces r?gimes et d'autres ?l?ments qui contribuent ? la prolif?ration doivent savoir ceci : nous sommes, nous et nos amis, d?termin?s ? prot?ger notre population et le monde de la prolif?ration.
La destruction de ce r?seau repr?sente un succ?s majeur dans le contexte d'un effort de grande envergure engag? pour enrayer la propagation d'armes terribles. Nous adaptons nos strat?gies aux menaces d'une ?re nouvelle. L'Am?rique et d'autres nations, l'Allemagne, l'Australie et l'Espagne, la France et l'Italie, le Japon et les Pays-Bas, la Pologne, le Portugal et le Royaume-Uni ont lanc? l'Initiative de s?curit? contre la prolif?ration (ISP) pour interdire le transport de mat?riels l?taux. Nos pays partagent les renseignements, surveillent les cargaisons internationales suspectes et proc?dent ? des exercices militaires conjoints. Nous sommes pr?ts ? fouiller les avions et les navires, ? saisir les armes et les missiles et le mat?riel qui suscitent des pr?occupations en mati?re de prolif?ration, comme nous l'avons fait en stoppant l'envoi de la cargaison dangereuse du BBC China avant qu'elle n'arrive en Libye. Trois autres pays, le Canada, Singapour et la Norv?ge, participeront ? cette initiative. Nous continuerons d'?largir le groupe des pays de l'ISP et, ? mesure que celle-ci se d?veloppera, les prolif?rateurs se heurteront ? des difficult?s croissantes dans le commerce des armes illicites.
Il y a un consensus entre les nations sur le fait que la prolif?ration ne peut pas ?tre tol?r?e. Toutefois, ce consensus n'a gu?re d'importance s'il ne d?bouche pas sur un passage ? l'action. Il est de l'int?r?t de toutes les nations civilis?es de pr?venir la propagation des armes de destruction massive. Ces mat?riaux et ces technologies, et les gens qui en font le trafic, traversent de nombreuses fronti?res. Pour stopper ce commerce, les nations du monde doivent se montrer fortes et d?termin?es. Nous devons oeuvrer de concert ; nous devons agir de mani?re efficace. Je pr?sente aujourd'hui sept propositions pour amplifier les efforts mondiaux visant ? enrayer la propagation d'armes meurtri?res.
Premi?rement, je propose que les travaux de l'Initiative de s?curit? contre la prolif?ration soient ?largis pour traiter des activit?s autres que les exp?ditions et les transferts. Nous pouvons, en faisant fond sur les instruments que nous avons ?labor?s pour lutter contre les terroristes, passer ? l'action directe contre les r?seaux de prolif?ration. Il faut pour cela une coop?ration accrue, pas seulement entre les services de renseignement et les forces arm?es, mais aussi avec les forces de police. Les participants ? l'ISP et les autres nations qui y sont dispos?es devraient faire usage d'Interpol et de tous les autres moyens pour traduire en justice ceux qui pratiquent le trafic des armes meurtri?res, fermer leurs laboratoires, saisir leurs mat?riaux, geler leurs avoirs. Nous devons suivre toutes les pistes. Nous trouverons les interm?diaires, les fournisseurs et les acheteurs. Le message que nous adressons aux prolif?rateurs doit ?tre clair : nous vous traquerons et nous n'aurons pas de cesse que nous n'ayons mis fin ? vos activit?s.
Deuxi?mement, j'engage toutes les nations ? renforcer les lois et les contr?les internationaux qui r?gissent les questions de prolif?ration. Aux Nations unies, ? l'automne dernier, j'ai propos? une nouvelle r?solution du Conseil de s?curit? qui exigerait que tous les Etats criminalisent la prolif?ration, adoptent de strictes mesures de contr?le ? l'exportation et assurent la s?curit? de tous les mat?riaux sensibles pr?sents sur leur territoire. Le Conseil de s?curit? devrait adopter cette r?solution promptement. Cela fait, l'Am?rique sera pr?te ? aider les autres gouvernements ? formuler et ? appliquer la nouvelle l?gislation qui nous aidera ? faire face ? la prolif?ration.
Troisi?mement, je propose d'?tendre nos efforts visant ? ?viter que les armes de la guerre froide et les autres substances dangereuses ne tombent dans des mains ind?sirables. En 1991, le Congr?s a adopt? la loi Nunn-Lugar. Le s?nateur Lugar avait une vision claire, ainsi que le s?nateur Nunn, de la fa?on de traiter avec l'ex-Union sovi?tique. Dans le cadre de ce programme, nous aidons les anciens Etats sovi?tiques ? trouver des emplois productifs pour leurs scientifiques sp?cialis?s en armements. Nous contr?lons, nous d?mantelons et nous d?truisons les armes et les mat?riels provenant de l'arsenal sovi?tique d'ADM. Nous avons encore du travail ? faire dans ce domaine.
A la suite des travaux du G-8 de 2002, nous avons convenu d'allouer 20 milliards de dollars sur une p?riode de 10 ans, la moiti? provenant des Etats-Unis, pour appuyer de tels programmes. Nous devrions ?largir le champ de cette coop?ration ? d'autres r?gions du monde. Nous engagerons les scientifiques et les techniciens sp?cialis?s en ADM dans des pays tels que l'Irak et la Libye. Nous aiderons les nations ? mettre un terme ? l'emploi d'uranium ? usage militaire dans les r?acteurs de recherche. J'engage vivement les autres nations ? contribuer ? ces efforts. Les nations du monde doivent faire tout ce qu'elles peuvent pour contr?ler et ?liminer tous les mat?riaux nucl?aires, chimiques, biologiques et radiologiques.
Tout en poursuivant et en d?truisant ces r?seaux, nous devons aussi emp?cher les gouvernements de d?velopper des armes nucl?aires sous de faux pr?textes. Le Trait? de non-prolif?ration nucl?aire a ?t? con?u il y a plus de 30 ans pour pr?venir la propagation des armements nucl?aires au-del? des Etats qui en poss?daient d?j?. En vertu de ce trait?, les Etats nucl?aires ont convenu d'aider les Etats non nucl?aires ? d?velopper l'?nergie atomique ? vis?e pacifique s'ils renon?aient au d?veloppement d'armes nucl?aires. Mais il y a dans le trait? une faille qui a ?t? exploit?e par des pays tels que la Cor?e du Nord et l'Iran. Ces r?gimes sont autoris?s ? produire du mat?riel nucl?aire qui peut servir ? fabriquer des bombes sous le couvert de programmes nucl?aires civils.
Donc aujourd'hui, ? titre de quatri?me mesure, je propose un moyen de rem?dier ? cette carence du trait?. Le monde doit cr?er un syst?me ordonn? et sans danger autorisant la mise en place d'installations nucl?aires ? usage civil sans accro?tre les dangers de prolif?ration des armements. Les principaux exportateurs nucl?aires mondiaux devraient veiller ? ce que les Etats aient acc?s de mani?re fiable et ? des co?ts raisonnables au combustible destin? aux r?acteurs civils, sous r?serve que ces Etats renoncent ? l'enrichissement et au retraitement. L'enrichissement et le retraitement ne sont pas n?cessaires pour les pays qui cherchent ? exploiter l'?nergie nucl?aire ? des fins pacifiques.
Les 40 nations du Groupe des fournisseurs nucl?aires devraient refuser de vendre des ?quipements et des technologies servant ? l'enrichissement et au retraitement ? tout Etat qui ne poss?de pas d?j? des usines d'enrichissement et de retraitement bien ?tablies et en activit?. Cette mesure emp?chera de nouveaux Etats d'acqu?rir des moyens de produire des mati?res fissiles pour fabriquer des bombes nucl?aires. Il faut emp?cher les prolif?rateurs de manipuler le TNP pour se doter de l'?quipement et de l'infrastructure n?cessaires pour produire des armements illicites.
Pour que les normes internationales soient efficaces, il faut qu'elles soient appliqu?es. C'est l'Agence internationale de l'?nergie atomique qui est charg?e de d?couvrir les activit?s nucl?aires interdites dans le monde entier et de signaler les violations au Conseil de s?curit? des Nations unies. Nous devons veiller ? ce que l'AIEA dispose de tous les instruments dont elle a besoin pour s'acquitter de son mandat essentiel. L'Am?rique et les autres nations appuient le Protocole additionnel, comme on l'appelle, qui exige des Etats qu'ils d?clarent une large gamme d'activit?s et d'installations nucl?aires et qu'ils autorisent l'AIEA ? inspecter ces installations.
A titre de cinqui?me mesure, je propose que d'ici l'an prochain, seuls les Etats signataires du Protocole additionnel soient autoris?s ? importer du mat?riel pour leurs programmes nucl?aires civils. Les pays qui entendent s?rieusement lutter contre la prolif?ration approuveront et appliqueront ce protocole. Je l'ai soumis au S?nat et je le prie instamment de consentir imm?diatement ? sa ratification.
Nous devons ?galement veiller ? ce que l'AIEA soit organis?e de mani?re ? lui permettre d'agir quand il le faut. En tant que sixi?me mesure, donc, je propose la cr?ation d'une commission sp?ciale au sein du Conseil de l'AIEA qui concentrera ses travaux intensivement sur les garanties et la v?rification. Cette commission, o? si?geront des repr?sentants de gouvernements en situation r?guli?re avec l'AIEA, renforcera la capacit? de l'agence ? faire en sorte que les nations s'acquittent de leurs obligations internationales
Enfin, les pays faisant actuellement l'objet d'enqu?tes pour violations de leurs obligations en mati?re de non-prolif?ration nucl?aire sont actuellement autoris?s ? si?ger au Conseil des gouverneurs de l'AIEA. C'est ainsi que l'Iran, pays soup?onn? de mener un vaste programme d'armement nucl?aire, vient d'achever son mandat de deux ans. Le fait d'autoriser les transgresseurs ? si?ger au Conseil constitue un obstacle inacceptable qui s'oppose ? une action efficace. Aucun Etat faisant l'objet d'enqu?tes pour violations des dispositions de non-prolif?ration ne devrait ?tre autoris? ? si?ger au Conseil des gouverneurs de l'AIEA, ni ? la nouvelle commission sp?ciale. Et tout Etat y si?geant actuellement et sur lequel une enqu?te est ouverte devrait ?tre frapp? de suspension du Conseil. L'int?grit? et la mission de l'AIEA d?pendent de ce simple principe : il ne faut pas confier ? ceux qui violent activement les r?gles la t?che de les faire respecter.
Dans les actions que nous entreprendrons pour relever ces d?fis, nous consulterons nos amis et alli?s sur tous les nouvelles mesures. Nous ?couterons leurs id?es. Ensemble, nous d?fendrons la s?curit? de toutes les nations et pr?serverons la paix mondiale.
Au cours des deux derni?res ann?es, une grande coalition s'est form?e pour vaincre les terroristes et s'opposer ? la propagation des armes de destruction massive, engagements ins?parables de la guerre contre le terrorisme. Nous avons montr? que l'on peut d?couvrir la prolif?ration et la stopper. Nous avons montr? que les r?gimes qui choisissent une attitude de d?fi s'exposent ? de s?rieuses cons?quences. La voie ? suivre n'est pas facile, mais elle est claire. Nous agirons comme si la vie de nos citoyens d?pendait de notre vigilance, car telle est la r?alit?. Les terroristes et les Etats terroristes sont lanc?s dans une course pour se doter d'armes d'assassinat collectif, une course qu'ils doivent perdre. Les terroristes sont imaginatifs ; nous le sommes davantage. Ils sont d?termin?s ; nous devons l'?tre encore plus. Nous ne nous d?tournerons jamais de notre but et notre r?solution ne fl?chira pas. Nous pers?v?rerons sans rel?che pour assurer la d?fense des nations libres et nous nous montrerons ? la hauteur des dures exigences de ces temps dangereux.

Que Dieu vous b?nisse tous.

(Fin de la transcription)

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

Malaysia questions Bush allegations
AP - Malaysia's leader questioned US intelligence on this country's role in a global nuclear trafficking network, and said the man President George W Bush called its "chief financial officer and money launderer" would not be arrested, for now.
"He is on his feet and free to move around," Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said of BSA Tahir, allegedly a middleman who helped Pakistan's top nuclear scientist sell equipment and know-how to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Malaysia has said Bush was unfairly singling out this South-East Asian country with his assertions about its role in the network run by the scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan.
"There is no such thing as Malaysia's involvement," Abdullah told reporters, when asked to respond to the remarks Bush made in a speech.
"We are not involved in any way. I don't know where Bush is getting his evidence from."
Bush said Khan and his associates used a company in Malaysia to make parts for centrifuges - which can be used to enrich uranium for weapons - and that front companies had been used to "deceive legitimate firms into selling them tightly controlled materials."
The Malaysian company doesn't deny making the parts, but says it didn't know what they were for.
Both US officials and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency say the seized components were clearly for nuclear use, disputing Malaysian police assertions that they could have had other purposes.
Tahir, a Dubai-based Sri Lankan, operated a computer company there to order centrifuge components from a Malaysian factory - using designs from Pakistan - Bush said. Other parts came from Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, he said.
"Tahir acted as both the network's chief financial officer and money launderer," Bush said.
"He was also its shipping agent, using his computer firm as cover for the movement of centrifuge parts to various clients."
In his speech, Bush demanded tougher laws to stop the illicit spread of weapons technology.
The Malaysian-made parts were seized in October in a shipment of items bound for Libya.
The seizure was central to uncovering Libya's now-renounced secret nuclear program, which was allegedly helped by Khan, often considered the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.
The Malaysian company, Scomi Precision Engineering, says it supplied 14 semifinished machine components, ordered by Tahir, to Dubai. It insists that it understood the parts were for use in the oil and gas industry.
The company's parent, Scomi Group, is majority-controlled by Kamaluddin Abdullah, the prime minister's only son, who does not play an official management role in the company.
Malaysia's leader has promised that the current police investigation into the matter will be conducted "without fear or favour." Police say they have found no evidence of wrongdoing by Scomi.
A senior official, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said Bush had "overblown Malaysia's role in this. Making Malaysia the central conduit to this is misleading."
Malaysian police have been investigating Tahir, who is married to the daughter of a former Malaysian diplomat, the official said.
Police say they're not detaining him since he has apparently broken no local laws.
"Malaysian police have spoken to him and asked him a lot of questions," Abdullah said.
Tahir has not been reachable for comment.
Malaysia is cooperating with US authorities and "especially in focusing on Tahir," the official said.
"In questioning him, we're trying to get a bigger picture of the network."
The investigation focuses largely on the deal Tahir struck with Scomi to make the parts, the official said.
The US embassy said information about Tahir was still being gathered.
"We're following the issue closely and we will implement and take action required by relevant laws," said embassy spokesman Frank Whitaker.
"It's still early in the process and we simply haven't reached a conclusion of what would be the appropriate action to take regarding Tahir and Scomi both," Whitaker said.
Malaysia has ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it is unclear whether its laws allow criminal prosecution for nuclear parts trafficking.
Bush urged the United Nations and member states to draw up laws that spell out criminal penalties for nuclear trafficking.
Khan, a national hero in Pakistan for helping create a nuclear deterrent against archrival India, confessed on Pakistani television last week to masterminding a network that supplied rogue states with nuclear technology. President Pervez Musharraf then pardoned him.
Pakistani government and intelligence officials have said Khan used unspecified Malaysian factories to recondition equipment bound for Libya, North Korea and Iran.

?AAP 2004
---------------------------------------------------------

Malaysian Leader OKs Probe of Son's Firm
ROHAN SULLIVAN
Associated Press
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia - Malaysia's prime minister said Thursday authorities will probe "without fear or favor" into a deal involving a company his son controls that allegedly supplied components destined for Libya's nuclear program.
Police revealed they are investigating the deal, part of a widening international inquiry into a global nuclear black market triggered by Pakistan's admission that its top nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Najib Razak, Malaysia's defense minister and the prime minister's deputy, told The Associated Press that Malaysia had no nuclear weapons program and has no ambitions to become a nuclear power. "Absolutely not," he said.
The Malaysian company under investigation, a precision-engineering firm that makes specialized industrial equipment, confirmed some details of the deal but said it didn't know what the components it made were to be used for or that they were headed for Libya.
National police chief Mohamed Bakri Omar said the company, Scomi Precision Engineering, or SCOPE, accepted a contract from a Dubai-based company after negotiating with a middleman, identified as a Sri Lankan, B.S.A. Tahir.
SCOPE's parent company, the Scomi group, confirmed it made "14 semi-finished components" for Gulf Technical Industries and shipped them in four consignments between December 2002 and August 2003, under a deal negotiated by Tahir and worth $3.4 million.
Kamaluddin Abdullah, 35, the only son of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, is Scomi's largest shareholder, although he has no management role. He could not be reached for comment Thursday.
Police said the CIA and Britain's MI6 informed Malaysian authorities last November that wooden boxes marked with SCOPE's name were among items seized the previous month from a ship in Italy headed for Libya.
The foreign intelligence services said the deal between SCOPE and Tahir involved "supplying certain centrifuge components from Malaysia for Libya's uranium enrichment program," the police chief said.
But he said the Malaysia components could also be used in petrochemical, water treatment and health applications such as molecular biology for protein separation.
Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium for a variety of purposes, including weapons production. They are also used in many other industries for non-nuclear purposes.
A Scomi spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the company was never told the "end-use" for the components and that "there's no way we can tell" if it was centrifuges.
Abdullah, who is also home minister responsible for security, said Thursday he wouldn't interfere with the investigation.
"I told them, go ahead, investigate thoroughly without fear or favor," Abdullah said.
Investigations so far had shown that "there is no capability within the country or within the company concerned to produce nuclear bombs or any complete components to make nuclear weapons," Abdullah said.
Malaysia, a mostly Muslim country in Southeast Asia, is a signatory to international nuclear weapons nonproliferation treaties.
In Pakistan, government and intelligence officials indicated they believe Malaysia's involvement may be wider than the deal revealed Thursday.
Khan, whom President Pervez Musharraf pardoned on Thursday after he publicly apologized for leaking nuclear secrets to countries abroad, occasionally ordered "disused equipment" to be sent to Malaysia for reconditioning before it was shipped to Iran, Libya and North Korea, Pakistani officials told AP on condition of anonymity.
The Malaysian involvement was believed to be restricted to the reconditioning at unspecified factories, the officials said.
A Malaysian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told AP that Khan visited Malaysia several times in recent years, including to attend the wedding of Tahir.
Tahir is married to a Malaysian and is not in custody because he has committed no crime here, officials said. Police said that both Scomi and Tahir were cooperating in the investigation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Malaysia probes alleged Libyan nuclear link
Related News ?
* Malaysia denies nuclear link
* Malaysia pledges to help US over nuclear shipments
* US says Musharraf probing nuclear claims, hints 'rogue' scientists to blame
more>>
KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian police are investigating a company controlled by a son of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi over allegations that it was involved in supplying parts for Libya's nuclear weapons programme.
National police chief Bakri Omar said in a statement issued to "clarify several questions and confusion" that the probe was sparked by information provided last November by US and British intelligence services
The CIA and MI-6 told Malaysia's special branch that the company, Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn. Bhd. (SCOPE), was supplying centrifuge components made in Malaysia for Libya's uranium-enrichment program.
SCOPE is a unit of listed oil and gas firm Scomi Group, in which the premier's son, Kamaluddin Abdullah, is the biggest shareholder. Scomi's price dropped on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange Thursday by 0.40 ringgit to 12.90 ringgit (3.4 dollars).
The intelligence revealed that five containers allegedly containing centrifuge components were seized from a ship, BBC China, in Taranto, Italy on October 4.
The containers had a "SCOPE" seal and Malaysian police investigations confirmed that a Dubai-based Sri Lankan businessman, B.S.A. Tahir had in 2001 contracted SCOPE to manufacture the components.
Tahir was named by the intelligence agencies as a middleman apparently used by the founder of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who has admitted selling atomic secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
Bakri said in the statement issued Wednesday night that Tahir and SCOPE were "cooperating fully in helping the police in this investigation", and denied reports in some media that Tahir was in custody.
Centrifuges can be used for enriching uranium used in nuclear reactors or bombs, but Bakri said initial investigations showed that the seized components "can also be used in petrochemical and water treatment equipment and for health purposes such as molecular biology for protein separation."
Scomi said in a statement the contract to manufacture 14 semi-finished components for Gulf Technical Industries LLC (GTI) in Dubai, worth 13 million ringgit (3.42 million dollars), was arranged by Tahir, but it was never told of the end-use of these components.
It had shipped them to GTI in four consignments from December 2002.
Bakri said a full statement would be issued "once investigations into this matter are completed."
- AFP
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Malaysia pledges cooperation on nuclear inquiry
2004-02-13 / Associated Press /
Malaysia pledged yesterday to share with Washington information from its investigation of a man that U.S. President George W. Bush has described as a major player in a vast network trafficking nuclear technology.
But a senior official accused Bush of unfairly singling out this Southeast Asian nation's role in the secret network in a speech Wednesday, insisting that the sole known case of Malaysian involvement was the unwitting manufacture of parts seized en route to Libya last year.
"He's overblown Malaysia's role in this, the role of Malaysian companies in this," the official said on condition of anonymity. "Making Malaysia the central conduit to this is misleading."
However, Lim Kit Siang, a veteran opposition politician, called for an independent inquiry, saying Bush's speech made the quick exoneration of the company involved "untenable."
The seizure of the shipment - which included 14 semi-finished components from Malaysia allegedly for centrifuges to enrich uranium - was central to uncovering Libya's secret nuclear program, which was helped by the network established by the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan.
The seizure figured large in Bush's speech, where he demanded tougher laws to stop the illicit spread of weapons technology.
The parts were ordered by B.S.A. Tahir, a Sri Lankan with business interests in Dubai, from Scomi Precision Engineering, a Malaysian firm that is majority controlled by Kamaluddin Abdullah, the only son of Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
The younger Badawi does not play an official management role. Police said over the weekend that the company had no idea of what the parts would be used for or that they were bound for Libya and said the firm had been cleared, though the investigation continues.
Malaysian police have been investigating Tahir, who is married to the daughter of a former Malaysian diplomat, the official said on condition of anonymity. But they are not detaining him since he has apparently broken no local laws.
Bush accused Tahir of acting as the Khan network's "chief financial officer and money launderer." He was also "its shipping agent, using his computer firm as cover for the movement of centrifuge parts to various clients," Bush said. "Tahir also arranged for parts acquired by other European procurement agents to transit through Dubai for shipment to other customers."
The Malaysian official said, "We're cooperating with the U.S. authorities, especially in focusing on Tahir. In questioning him, we're trying to get a bigger picture of the network."
The investigation is centered largely on the deal Tahir struck with Scomi to machine the parts and has not branched off in other directions because his "involvement here was very focused," the official said.
The U.S. Embassy said information about Tahir was still being gathered.
"We're following the issue closely and we will implement and take action required by relevant laws," spokesman Frank Whitaker said.
"It's still early in the process and we simply haven't reached a conclusion of what would be the appropriate action to take regarding Tahir and Scomi both," Whitaker said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------


>> MALAYSIA BLOG WATCH...
http://www.jeffooi.com/


ANOTHER EVENTFUL WEEK? First, an update of who's the Big Fish to get netted - some say this Monday week - as PM Abdullah Badawi has said the government would continue with the momentum in hauling up high-profile corruptors.
Mingguan Malaysia re-interviewed Dr Rais Yatim to elaborate on the 18 high-profile cases he mentioned a day earlier. The de facto law minister confirmed the involvement of cabinet minister, and there are no new cases except the 18 which are currently being finalised. Their files are all over 18 months old.
Besides the three entities hinted yesterday - Perwaja Steel Sdn. Bhd., Projek Perumahan Rakyat Termiskin, and Malaysia Airlines - Mingguan today added one more name: the Tabung Haji.
However, Rais declined to reveal further details as those were the job for the Public Prosecutor.
Meanwhile, a woman minister has taken the offensive in the midst of intense rumour-mongering about her fate. Via Bernama February 15, 2004 17:24 PM:
International Trade and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz Sunday warned opposition leaders she will sue them if they slander her to their whims.
"If I hear any slander against me, I will sue, that's all I can say. Don't slander me as you like," she told reporters when asked to comment on claims by opposition leaders that she was among the ministers in the Anti-Corruption Agency's (ACA) list to be charged in court for corruption.
A little bird says there is a PDF file floating in the Internet, referring to a minister codified as B1. However, the authenticity has neither been confirmed nor denied.
Leslie Lau of Singapore Sunday Times points to at least one Cabinet minister from Umno who is said to be linked with corrupt practices involving the issuance of commercial vehicle licences.
He quotes ACA director-general Zulkipli Mat Noor as saying: 'There are many rivers and the oceans are vast. Do not tell me we cannot catch any fish?'



US Official: No record of Scomi supplying centrifuge parts
Click here to see how a gas centrifuge works (Source: BBC News)

The Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) today quoted a US official as saying that "they have no records of the (Malaysian) firm, reported to be allegedly prodhttp://www.jeffooi.com/ucing centrifuge parts, being a regular supplier for proliferating states".
The AWSJ quoted the senior official as saying that the Malaysian centrifuge components, intercepted by European security agents on a German vessel bound for Libya last October, were "dual-purpose parts that can be used in any number of applications."
Last night, Bukit Aman issued a media statement saying Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd (SCOPE), a subsidiary of Scomi Group Bhd , and BSA Tahir, a Sri Lankan national and businessman based in Dubai, are now cooperating fully with the police in the investigations.
SCOPE had admitted to manufacturing 14 semi-finished components for Dubai-based Gulf Technical Industries L.L.C (GTI), but maintained it was not informed of the end use of these components.
In Scomi's IPO documents (Page 244), it was disclosed that SCOPE had signed a 2-year material agreement with GTI on Dec 8, 2001.
Nuclear black market? Meanwhile, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said February 3 that its Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has focused international attention on an emerging and sophisticated "nuclear black market" in weapons technology.
Considerable light on the global network has come from the IAEA's ongoing verification of nuclear programmes in Iran and Libya, he said.
However, he stressed that the emerging picture so far has not indicated governments are involved, but rather points to individuals engaged in illicit trafficking of material and equipment.
BBC News reported Feb 5 that ElBaradei had told reporters Abdul Qadeer was "just the tip of the iceberg for us" and that the scientist was "not working alone".
The IAEA Board is scheduled to meet in Vienna March 8.
For context, please read previous blog, the AWSJ (subscription required) and Bernama despatch time-stamped 13:02hr today.
The New York Times Thursday runs a despatch by Raymond Bonner, timelined Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Company Tied to Nuclear Trade Network. Excerpts:
But with the tight control that the Malaysian government has traditionally exercised, many Malaysians and foreign diplomats doubt that a sale of this nature would have been possible without the knowledge of at least some senior government officials, probably in the military.
DPM/Defence Minister Najib Razak today told Rohan Sullivan of Associated Press, which is picked up by Washington Post and The Guardian, that Malaysia had 'absolutely' no ambitions to be a nuclear power.
Posted by jeffooi at February 5, 2004 01:42 PM | TrackBack
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bernama.com
Malaysian National News Agency

Claims That M'sia Produces Nuclear Weapon Components Unfounded
General
February 04, 2004 21:47 PM
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 4 (Bernama) -- Malaysian police investigations reveal that no local companies are manufacturing or capable of manufacturing components for making uranium centrifuge used in producing nuclear weapons.
Refuting foreign media allegations on the production of the components by a local company, Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Mohd Bakri Omar said investigations showed that production of the components needed high technology and expertise in nuclear weapons.
In its media statement on Wednesday, Bukit Aman said police were cooperating closely with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that the investigations were truly transparent.
The investigations began as soon as the Special Branch (Police) was contacted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of the United States (US) and the British Intelligence Agency (MI6) on Nov 10, last year, on the seizure of five containers containing components for making the centrifuge from a ship, BBC China, which was inspected in Taranto, Italy on Oct 4 last year.
It was claimed that the five containers were bound for Libya, and the components were placed in wooden boxes marked Scomi Precision Engineering Sdn Bhd (SCOPE), a subsidiary of Scomi Group Bhd.
Both intelligence agencies had notified BSA Tahir, a Sri Lankan national and businessman based in Dubai, who was involved as the middleman in supplying the centrifuge components from Malaysia for the uranium enrichment programme in Libya.
Preliminary police investigations revealed that "BSA Tahir had offered a contract to SCOPE to prepare the components which was said to be a legitimate transaction," according to the three-page statement.
"SCOPE had accepted the offer and a factory had been built in Shah Alam to manufacture the components," he said.
He said preliminary investigations showed the components for the centrifuge seized from the BBC China could also be used for petrochemicals, water treatment and health applications such as molecular biology for protein separation.
"In fact, nuclear experts also found it difficult to determine positively that the components seized were part of the components for the centrifuge units," he said.
The IGP said investigations so far indicated that no company in Malaysia was capable of manufacturing the complete centrifuge unit as it required high technology and expertise in the field of nuclear weapons.
"As such, BSA Tahir and SCOPE are cooperating fully with the police in the investigations.
"Although BSA Tahir is under police investigations, he is not being detained as claimed by the foreign media," according to the statement, stressing that investigations were still on-going with the cooperation of the IAEA to ensure that the probe was truly transparent.
Mohd Bakri also said a detailed statement would be made as soon as investigations were completed.
Meanwhile Scomi Group Bhd said in a press statement issued here on Wednesday evening that its wholly owned subsidary, SCOPE, was awarded a contract to provide tooling services to Gulf Technical Industries L.L.C (GTI), a corporation based in Dubai.
The contract was arranged by BSA Tahir, who is currently the subject of investigations by Malaysian, American and British intelligence authorities over his alleged involvement in the supply of nuclear technology to Libya, it said.
It said SCOPE, which is involved in the provision of specialised tooling work for third party customers in the oil and gas, automative and general components industry, had manufactured 14 semi-finished components, although the end use of these components was never disclosed to SCOPE.
The company had shipped these components to the GTI in four consignments commencing in December 2002, and "since the delivery of the last consignment in August 2003, the company has not received any new orders from GTI," it said.
The total value of the contract was RM13 million over a period of two years, beginning 2002.
It said: "This accounts for only 3.5 percent of Scomi Group Berhad's consolidated turnover amounting to approximately RM360 million over the same perod (2003 turnover unaudited). The contract with GTI was disclosed accordingly during the listing exercise of Scomi."
Scomi Group, which is involved in the oil and gas services industry and listed on the Second Board of the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange, "has since cooperated fully with the Malaysian police in this investigation," it said.
-- BERNAMA
Copyright ?2004 BERNAMA. All rights reserved.

----------------------------------------------------------
Malaysian net catches sharks - or anchovies
By Anil Netto
PENANG, Malaysia - The arrest on Thursday of a Malaysian cabinet minister on corruption charges marks the second high-profile catch this week in Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's anti-corruption crusade.
The arrests come at a time when the ruling coalition is trying to convince Malaysians that it is serious about wiping out graft ahead of a general election expected in a few months, but some skeptics believe many more heads have to roll.
Police and Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) officers brought Land and Cooperative Development Minister Kasitah Gaddam to the Sessions Court in Kuala Lumpur on Thursday, where he faced two counts of corruption involving share transactions.
Dozens who got wind of the news flocked to the court premises. "It was packed inside the court and there was an air of anticipation," a lawyer who witnessed the proceedings said. "It was standing room only and they had to bring in an extra bench to provide additional seats for reporters. Everyone was fighting for seats to see the minister."
Kasitah pleaded not guilty to abusing his position in 1996 as executive chairman of the Sabah Land Development Board in taking part in the approval of a share transaction in which he had an interest. He was also alleged to have deceived the board by concealing a firm's offer of shares in its proposal for listing on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange.
Kasitah, who is not as high-profile as his other cabinet colleagues, was granted bail of RM1 million (US$263,000). If found guilty, he faces lengthy jail terms, fines or both.
On Monday, ACA officers and police swooped down on another prominent personality, the former head of the ailing state-owned steel giant, Perwaja Steel. Eric Chia Eng Hock, who was hand-picked by former premier Mahathir Mohamad, was charged the next day with fraud - eight years after ACA investigations first began (see Tycoon's arrest boosts corruption crusade, February 11).
Abdullah raised public expectations by declaring a war on corruption soon after he took over from Mahathir last November. This week's arrests appear to boost that campaign, although at the time, skeptics felt he lacked the political base to introduce radical reforms and wipe out money politics and corruption.
The boost to the ruling coalition arising from Chia's arrest was also dampened by news on Wednesday that an opposition politician was offered money to defect to the ruling party, United Malays National Organization. The independent web portal Malaysiakini reported that a youth leader from the opposition Parti Keadilan Rakyat (Keadilan) claimed that he had been offered RM500,000 to switch camps.
In the run-up to general elections, news outlets often publish suspicious reports of mass defections of opposition politicians to the ruling coalition, accompanied by photographs of the defecting politicians handing in their application forms.
Critics say the recent high-profile arrests do not go high enough and they will not be satisfied until the ikan jerong (sharks) are arrested along with the ikan bilis (anchovies).
Abdullah's onetime rival, jailed ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim, hit out from his prison cell near Kuala Lumpur. "There has been no action taken against the hugely corrupt, including cabinet ministers who are involved in hundreds of millions of ringgit in commissions on arms purchase deals and in share allocations," he said in a statement.
Anwar, now serving jail terms totaling 15 years, had lodged a police report against Chia and Mahathir in 1999 over their role in Perwaja, now saddled with RM11 billion ($2.9 billion) in losses.
Abdullah insists that he is willing to go all the way in fighting corruption. "Big or small, we will cast a net," he told visiting regional editors. "I am not thinking about political backlash at all because if we do, we will only get frightened."
Opposition politician Lim Kit Siang noted some similarities between Abdullah's and his predecessor Mahathir's first 100 days in power. "Although 22 years apart, both started with a bang in the revamp of the civil service and the war against corruption."
Lim noted that Abdullah needs "to fully empower the Anti-Corruption Agency and the attorney general to scrupulously follow the simple anti-corruption principles enunciated by Mahathir 22 years ago, but never implemented".
Some also see Kasitah's arrest as linked to the upcoming elections in the northern Borneo state of Sabah across the South China Sea. The term of the current state assembly expires on April 12 and state elections must be held by June 12.
Kasitah's arrest could thus provide a boost for the ruling coalition's campaign in Sabah, given the backdrop of graft and abuse of power in the state.
"In the past 10 years, the ACA in Sabah had initiated countless corruption investigations, as the administration of every chief minister under the two-year rotation system [among ruling-coalition parties] seemed to have spawned an unique set and legacy creating more misgovernment, abuse of power and even corruption," observed Lim.
Some think Abdullah has not yet netted the big fish. They say that Chia was, after all, only prominent as a tycoon in the early 1990s while Kasitah is an almost unknown cabinet minister.
Others feel that if the government is serious about corruption, it has to introduce radical reforms to the legal system and the judiciary and make the ACA more independent. At present, the ACA comes under the prime minister's department.
"One of the main things Abdullah needs to do is to abolish the Official Secrets Act," said Cynthia Gabriel, executive director of human-rights group Suaram, pointing out that the withholding of information has actually strengthened the roots of corruption in society.
"While we laud his moves to fight corruption, they must be accompanied by the opening up of various other institutions and the repeal of laws that facilitate the breeding of corruption in society," Gabriel added.

(Inter Press Service)
-------------------------------------------------------

Libya's black market deals shock nuclear inspectors

Ian Traynor in Vienna
Saturday January 17, 2004
The Guardian
Colonel Muammar Gadafy of Libya has been buying complete sets of uranium enrichment centrifuges on the international black market as the central element in his secret nuclear bomb programme, according to United Nations nuclear inspectors.
The ease with which the complex bomb-making equipment was acquired has stunned experienced international inspectors. The scale and the sophistication of the networks supplying so-called rogue states seeking nuclear weapons are considerably more extensive than previously believed.
The purchase of full centrifuges, either assembled or in parts, marks a radical departure in what is on offer on the black market, sources said. While it is not yet clear where Col Gadafy obtained the centrifuge systems, at least 1,000 machines, believed to have been made in Malaysia, were seized last October by the Italian authorities on a German ship bound for Libya.
Diplomatic sources familiar with the results of a recent visit to Libya by nuclear experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the Gadafy bomb programme differed in crucial respects from nuclear projects in Iran, Iraq or North Korea.
"What was found in Libya marks a new stage in proliferation," said one knowledgeable source. "Libya was buying what was available. And what is available, the centrifuges, are close to turnkey facilities. That's a new challenge. Libya was buying something that's ready to wear."
As the climax to nine months of secret negotiations with British and US intelligence, Col Gadafy announced last month that he was renouncing his weapons of mass destruction programmes after purchasing what sources said were "a few thousand" centrifuges for enriching uranium to weapons grade.
Another well-placed source said: "We all now realise there is this extraordinarily developed and sophisticated market out there enabling anyone to get this centrifuge equipment."
Mohammed El Baradei, the IAEA chief, visited Libya a couple of weeks ago to view the Libyan equipment and take charge of the upcoming effort to dismantle the Libyan bomb programme. He described the experience as "an eye-opener".
A centrifuge is made up of hundreds of separate components. Typically, a country covertly seeking the uranium enrichment technology will seek to cover its tracks by obtaining a design blueprint and then purchasing the varied components separately from different suppliers.
The German ship was seized by Italians after a tip-off from the CIA. Knowledgeable sources said the centrifuges on board were "made-to-order" in Malaysia for Libya, based on designs directly or indirectly from Pakistan.
While US government sources have claimed that the seizure persuaded Col Gadafy to do his deal with Washington and London, diplomats and analysts closely following the nuclear trade are convinced that the ship was impounded because of information provided by the Libyans.
According to this version circulating in Vienna, headquarters of the IAEA, Col Gadafy told the CIA about the shipment as a goodwill gesture to convince the Americans and the British that he was committed to the deal being negotiated.
A Finnish expert leading the IAEA investigations into the Libyan and Iranian nuclear projects has so far been denied access to the equipment impounded by the Italians, apparently because of the tug-of-war between the Americans and the Vienna agency over how to dismantle the Libyan programme.
Senior US and British officials are due in Vienna on Monday to negotiate with Dr El Baradei over how to proceed in Tripoli. The Americans will be led by John Bolton, the hawk in charge of nuclear proliferation issues at the State Department. He has a reputation for scorning the UN agencies and his officials disparaged the El Baradei trip to Tripoli as a publicity stunt.

Posted by maximpost at 6:29 PM EST
Permalink

>> OUR LEADERS, OUR SELVES?


QUERYING KERRY
February 15, 2004 -- IN the more than 250 days until Nov. 2, John Kerry can answer questions that linger in spite of, or because of, all he has said so far. Such as:
Other than denoting your disapproval, what does the adjective mean in the phrase "special interest"? Is the National Education Association a special interest? The AFL-CIO?
You abhor "special tax giveaways for the privileged and special interests." When supporting billions in ethanol subsidies, mostly for agribusinesses, did you think about corn-growing, caucus-holding Iowa?
Is the National Rifle Association a "special interest"? Is "special" a synonym for "conservative"?
When you denounce "lobbyists" do you include those for Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club? Is "liberal lobbyist" an oxymoron?
All the Americans affected by laws you pass - that is, all Americans - refuse to pipe down and mind their own business so that you can mind their business for them. Often they hire lobbyists to exercise their First Amendment right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Can you despise lobbyists without disparaging that right?
You say the rich do not pay enough taxes. In 1979 the top 1 percent of earners paid 19.75 percent of income taxes. Today they pay 36.3 percent. How much is enough?
You say the federal government is not spending enough on education. President Bush has increased education spending 48 percent. How much is enough?
In January 1991, after Iraq extinguished Kuwait's sovereignty, you opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions. Have such sanctions ever undone such aggression?
On Jan. 11, 1991, you said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." Was it not a tad late to deter Iraqi aggression?
The next day you said, "I do not believe our nation is prepared for war." How did unpreparedness subsequently manifest itself?
On Jan. 22, 1991, responding to a constituent opposed to the Gulf War, you wrote "I share your concerns" and would have given sanctions more time. Nine days later, responding to a voter who favored the war, you wrote, "I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis." Did you have a third position?
You say the Bush administration questions "the patriotism" of its critics. You say that as president you will "appoint a U.S. trade representative who is an American patriot." You mean the current representative, Robert Zoellick, is not a patriot?
You strongly praise former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin, who strongly supports NAFTA and free trade. Have you changed your mind about him or about free trade (as you have changed your mind about No Child Left Behind, the 2002 war resolution, the Patriot Act, etc.)?
You oppose immediate termination of U.S. involvement in Iraq, and you opposed the $87 billion to pay for involvement. Come again?
In 1994, the year after the first attack on the World Trade Center, you voted to cut $1 billion from counterterrorism activities. In 1995 you proposed a $1.5 billion cut in intelligence funding. Are you now glad that both proposals were defeated?
You favor civil unions but not same-sex marriage. What is the difference? What consequences of gay marriage worry you? Your state's highest court says marriage is "an evolving paradigm." Do you agree? You say you agree with what Dick Cheney said in 2000: States should have a right to "come to different conclusions" about same-sex marriage. Why, then, were you one of only 14 senators who opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which protects that right? Massachusetts opponents of the same-sex ruling are moving for a referendum to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. How will you vote?
You favor full disclosure of political spending. Organized labor is fighting new regulations requiring full disclosure to union members of the political uses of their mandatory union dues. As president, would you rescind these regulations?
Praising McCain-Feingold restrictions on political contributions, you said: "This bill reduces the power of the checkbook, and I will therefore support it." In December you saved your sagging campaign by writing it a $6.4 million check. Why is your checkbook's unfettered freedom wholesome?
You deny that restricting campaign contributions restricts speech. How much of the $6.4 million did you spend on speech - broadcast messages?
Billionaire George Soros says he will spend whatever is necessary - just a few million so far, but more coming - to defeat Bush. As one who believes - well, who says - there is "too much money" in politics, are you appalled?
There are 28 more questions where these 28 came from.
E-mail: georgewill@washpost.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Beacon Hill Nightmare
Some perspective on John Kerry's mortgage.
The story of Senator John Kerry's mortgaged home in Beacon Hill is worth looking at. What made the papers was the suggestion that his access to it, in usufruct, was threatened by the sheer size of the loan and the attendant obligations of financing it. All of this, of course, in the context of his need for money to finance the ongoing campaign for the presidency.
There are several perspectives one needs in order to evaluate the problem of Mr. Kerry's mortgage. The first, of course, is that if you own a house valuable enough to warrant a loan of $6 million, you are living, by common standards, in an economic stratosphere, the implications of which require adjusting to normal standards of evaluation. If you hock the Hope Diamond for $10 million, attention focuses on your owing $10 million whereas, properly, it should focus on your owning the Hope Diamond.
Senator Kerry's widely publicized point is that he has had to finance his campaign by using his own resources, which are limited. But of course that is Hope Diamond talk. If a bank lends you $6 million, it knows it's going to get the money back.
How? Well, Senator Kerry is not wealthy, but he does have undisclosed assets. That is, assets undisclosed to the public, but not to the bank. All the bank needs is approximately $200,000 per year in interest payments, which is a little more than Senator Kerry's income as a senator. This point is mentioned in the news stories.
Where else would the bankers look, if they thought themselves threatened? Well, of course, to the property on which the loan was made, namely the house on Beacon Hill. There is a difficulty, which is that the house is jointly owned by Mr. Kerry and his wife. She has to be careful, even though she made out a prenuptial agreement with John. If he divorced her, one assumes, she would keep the house, to say nothing of her fortune.
Bear this poignancy in mind, that Mrs. Kerry is not permitted, under the law, to give Mr. Kerry more than $2,000 when he is running for office. Now some may classify this as an example of the problems of the idle rich. But this would be flippant. It is a big enough story of a human plight, to make the press worldwide.
Now pity for Mr. Kerry is immediately evoked by the circumstances of the mortgage. It is not as if he was taking $6 million to buy himself a G-V jet. No, he was using $6 million to pay the staff of his campaign and take out ads, all of this in anticipation of the returns in Iowa and New Hampshire. It added up to this, that returns from his campaign weren't large enough to satisfy his inclination to advance the cause of the campaign by additional advertising.
Now if he had lost out in Iowa, he'd have needed to reduce spending, which would have given his most resolute backers a challenge, namely to continue to support John Kerry at least to the point of giving him back his home on Beacon Hill. But if he did well in Iowa, as indeed he did, everybody could assume that the flow of money would not only continue, but increase. The publicity attached to the mortgage can only have served the cause of alerting his donors to the need to save not only the nation, but the house.
This is because current law denies to a candidate the right to repay past loans from money that comes in after the operative political date (in this case, the national convention in late July). After that, you can only use $250,000 of campaign contributions to repay old debts, and $250,000 comes to only a little over one year's interest on the Beacon Hill loan.
So it has to be cleared up before then, Kerry supporters are being told.
Campaigning for president in l956, Governor Adlai Stevenson crossed his legs while sitting on a chair on the dais, waiting to give his speech and a photographer shot a picture of his shoe. Lo!-there was a hole in his shoe.
That shoe with the hole became a talisman of Stevenson for President. Tiny gold and copper replicas were made to pin on to your handbag or lapel. What it said was: Vote for this man who, though so straitened as not to be able to afford to repair his shoes, walks on day after day, wearing out life's shoe leather, in the cause of America.
Get it?
John Kerry for President devoutly hopes you do.


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

'This won't go away. What happened is much nastier than is being reported'
By Adrian Blomfeld in Nairobi and Andrew Alderson
(Filed: 15/02/2004)

PHOTO
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/15/wus15.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/02/15/ixnewstop.html/news/2004/02/15/wus15.xml

Alex Polier, the twenty-four year old journalist who could end Senator John Kerry's hopes of becoming the next president of the United States is alleged to have had a two-year affair with the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Last night the rumours were in danger of becoming a full-blown scandal.
Alex Polier, 24, is alleged to have had an affair with John Kerry
"This is not going to go away," one American friend of Miss Polier said yesterday. "What actually happened is much nastier than is being reported."
The allegations come at a crucial time for the senator. Polls showed him leading Mr Bush by 52 per cent to 42 per cent, and aides will be anxious to see if the apparent scandal affects his standing among voters.
Miss Polier, a former intern who also spent some time in 1998 doing work experience at the Houses of Parliament in London, is in Kenya staying with Yaron Schwartzman, her fiance and a member of the country's fashionable young set. The couple have refused to make any comment on her alleged links with Senator Kerry, who is married to Teresa Heinz Kerry, an heiress to the food empire.
Senator Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran dubbed the new JFK, has vehemently denied any relationship with Miss Polier, and shrugged off allegations that he had a two-year affair with her from 2001. "I just deny it categorically. It's rumour. It's untrue. Period," he said.
Mr Kerry, 60, has won 12 out of the 14 Democratic primaries and has looked all but certain to seal the nomination to take on President George W. Bush in November's elections.
His aides have blamed a dirty tricks campaign for bringing the allegations about Miss Polier into the public eye; they first surfaced last week on a Right-wing internet site, the Drudge Report, which famously first broke the news of Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Miss Polier's parents, Terry and Donna, from Malvern, Pennsylvania, added fuel to the fire by claiming that Mr Kerry did pursue their daughter.
"I think he's a sleazeball. I did wonder if she didn't get that feeling herself," said Mr Polier. "He's not the sort of guy I'd choose to be with my daughter.
"John Kerry called my daughter and invited her to be on his re-election committee. She talked to him and decided against it."
The Drudge website also quoted retired Gen Wesley Clark, one of Mr Kerry's rivals for the nomination, as having told journalists off the record: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue."
Mr Clark later dropped out of the race and endorsed Mr Kerry.
Miss Polier, a journalist who once worked for Associated Press, is a graduate of Columbia University, New York. She apparently met the senator as she was beginning her media career. Miss Polier and her fiance were believed to be hiding yesterday at the Nairobi home of Mr Schwartzman's parents, who moved to Kenya from Israel.
She appears to have few friends of her own in Kenya: she has never lived in the country and makes only occasional visits. "She seemed perfectly nice, although she was a little cool," said a Schwartzman family friend.
"She didn't seem to be very willing to open up but whether it was because she was aloof or just shy, I couldn't work out."
? Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004
-------------------------------------------------

Dems fret over Kerry's 'Clintonian' response
Privately concerned he didn't flatly deny allegations of affair
Posted: February 13, 2004
8:53 p.m. Eastern
? 2004 News World Communications Inc.

Top Republican and Democrat strategists are curious about Sen. John Kerry's choice of words to radio mega-host Don Imus concerning rumors burning up the Internet and newsrooms about a possible extramarital affair with a young woman.
Painfully similar to former President Bill Clinton's careful parsing of words, Kerry told Imus in a morning interview yesterday the following when asked about an item first revealed in print by Internet guru Matt Drudge:
"Well, there is nothing to report," Kerry told Imus. "So there is nothing to talk about. I'm not worried about it. No."
The failure to issue a flat-out denial that he had an extramarital affair or relationship "is very Clintonian," a top Democratic aide told Insight Online. "It's worrying."
A senior White House aide declined to speak directly on the issue but when pressed, smiled and said: "It was an interesting choice of words."
News organizations have not been able to get responses from Kerry or his campaign on what the senator actually meant with the three-part response to Imus.
Democratic strategists in Washington are worried in private because Kerry lately has been fairly black and white in his answers on important issues. "Why didn't he just say the rumors are false?"
Clinton, when confronted with rumors about Monica Lewinsky, told reporters early on in the scandal that "I've had no sexual relations with that woman. Miss Lewinsky."
The use of a term of art, sexual relations, was subsequently revealed to be a coy way to deflect questions swirling around the former president.
In fact, Clinton had engaged in sexual contact of another nature with the former White House intern as was subsequently revealed.
"Kerry needs to come clean and be absolutely clear about this rumor and other ones now starting to surface," a Senate source close to Kerry told Insight Online. "We need to know flat out if he's [fooled] around with women besides his wife."
Democrats still feel the sting of Clinton's sexual escapade and lying about it and worry that failure to fully dispel rumors involving Kerry will open old wounds and let out steam from the front runner for the party thus far.
"People's memories are not that short to forget the national embarassment Clinton caused and compounded with lies," a top GOP strategist said. "We don't want to touch this one with a ten foot pole but it'll be interesting to see if the press pursues this further."
Thus far, however, Kerry's carefully worded response seems to have quelled immediate press questions about the rumored affair though parents of the former intern have stated they think Kerry's character is less than desirable.
"This is a touchy subject because of Bill Clinton and it needs to be killed right away," the Senate source close to Kerry said. "His answers on the Imus show were less than forthcoming."
Meanwhile, reports that several news organizations are pursuing the alleged fling, and other sexual relations outside of his two marriages are being pursued.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The V-Day Chronicles
Like flowers and chocolates, performances of Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues" have become a Valentine's Day tradition--and controversy is not far behind.
by Rachel DiCarlo
02/13/2004 12:00:00 AM
RATHER THAN SPEND 24 HOURS celebrating love and romance tomorrow, some politically correct feminists would prefer we spend Valentine's Day pondering rape, incest, and domestic violence. Inaugurated in 1998, "V-Day"--the term a coalition of feminist groups use to describe their new version of Valentine's Day--is, according to its organizers, "a palpable energy, a fierce catalyst, . . . a global movement to stop violence against women and girls."
This year V-Day has been promoted as a celebration of the "vagina warriors," with over 2,000 V-Day events scheduled, mostly at colleges. The main attraction of all these events is Eve Ensler's one woman play "The Vagina Monologues." The verbally (and often visually) explicit play consists of 15 vignettes in which women portray their vaginas, and talk about such experiences as rape, genital mutilation, the view that men are innately violent, and lesbian statutory rape.
In one scene, a 24-year-old woman gets a 13-year-old girl drunk and has her way with her. Afterward, the girl says, "if it was rape, it was a good rape. I'll never need to rely on a man." Shouting "vagina"--the word is used over 100 times in the play--is touted as "real" sexual liberation, as well as a way to end violence against women. (By the way, the 24-year-old molester is portrayed as rescuing the 13-year-old from male violence.)
IN 2002, the embarrassment of several university officials over the scene prompted the elimination of the reference to "good rape," and the 13-year-old victim became 16. But the sex scene remains and the girl still concludes that she'll "never need to rely on a man."
Of course, it's likely--in fact, probable--that a storm of outrage would have ensued if the idealization of child molestation in the play had been initiated by a male offender. In this case, the "Vagina Monologues" went on to win the prestigious Obie award. Actresses like Susan Sarandon, Winona Ryder, Swoosie Kurtz, Glenn Close, Kimberly Williams, and Whoopi Goldberg have jumped at the chance to perform in the play, and the New York Times has called Ensler "the Messiah heralding the second wave of feminism."
In past years, protests from conservatives about the play's content have not been taken too seriously. In 2000, for example, Robert Swope, a student at Georgetown University, was fired from his student newspaper, the Hoya, for writing a piece protesting the use of tuition dollars for a production of the play at his school. The editors of the Hoya thought that Swope's repeated criticisms of the Georgetown Women's Center, which sponsored the play, "hurt the newspaper's credibility."
This year the play finds itself surrounded by more controversy. Ensler forgoes all profits made by Valentine's Day performances of her play if the proceeds go to agencies that aid women. Thus, in keeping with its contractual agreements with World/Wide Campaign/V-Day C&C Productions, a tiny theater in New Hampshire has earmarked its proceeds for the Portsmouth Feminist Health Center, which provides first trimester abortions.
There are other examples of controversy. For instance, taxpayer money will help fund a production of the "Vagina Monologues" at Amherst-Pelham Regional High School in Massachusetts, the only high school so far to sponsor a production of the play. The decision has drawn national attention. In 1999, the school board of Amherst refused to allow a production of "West Side Story" because of claims that the musical promotes racial stereotypes toward Hispanics. Controversy over the play, of course, only serves as publicity for the "Vagina Monologues." Which means, sadly, that it's likely the play will be with us for many "V-Days" to come.
Rachel DiCarlo is an editorial assistant at The Weekly Standard.
? Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TALKING TO THEMSELVES?

Gauging the Future of Iraqi Self-Rule
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1677166
?
from All Things Considered, Saturday , February 14, 2004
Difficulties and disagreements remain as the U.S. vies to meet a June 30 deadline to transfer the governing of Iraq to Iraqis. NPR's Steve Inskeep discusses prospects for Iraqi sovereignty with Joost Hilterman of the International Crisis Group, Juan Cole of the University of Michigan and Isam al-Khafaji, of the Open Society Institute.

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1658915
Live from Virginia, It's Alhurra
Later this month, the U.S government launches Alhurra, a new 24-hour, Arabic language TV news channel designed to compete with the Arab world's al-Jazeera. As NPR's Steve Inskeep reports, Alhurra's mission is to present the American perspective to the Arabic world.
Saturday, February 7, 2004


>> QUICK HIDE THE I.G.?
http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/
Operation No Post
Recently, defense reporter John Donnelly discovered a memo on the website of the Defense Department's Inspector General. In the note, the I.G. informed his staff of new restrictions on information that could be posted on the site. Donnelly tells Brooke that the new restrictions are dangerously broad, and explains why the National Press Club has sent the Pentagon a formal letter of protest.



>> CHECHNYA DISPATCH...1

MUG SHOTS AT...

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/article.php?id=2386
Dock for Putin is ready
In response to the calls of European politicians to peace settlement in Ichkeria, Russian leadership was pretending not to hear anything. In reality, the reason for silence was lack of any acceptable arguments for objection, the arguments that would not expose the interest of the Russian leadership in continuing the bloodshed. Maniac Putin has been quiet until the blasts in Moscow occurred. Then he made his statement in the middle of the bloody mess in the Moscow metro, just like Nero did in the middle of burning city of Rome.
The accusations against European parliamentarians with claims that their calls for peace are coordinated with 'acts of terrorism' were designed for Russian consumers. Average citizens will not delve into details, since they have been convinced by the propaganda anyway that Chechen Mujahideen (figthers) are acting by the instructions from the CIA, even though Russian human rights activists, ex-tycoon Berezovsky and Western 'experts' whom he is funding, have been trying to push another idea into the minds of the public: that Chechen Mujahideen are allegedly in conspiracy with the FSB. (Like, Chechens cannot be an independent nation, they must certainly have a 'master').
The export contents of the statement that the Russian president made has another meaning: look who you are offering me to negotiate with!
?The very fact of this kind of calls to negotiations with Maskhadov, after the crimes committed, indirectly confirms Maskhadov's ties to bandits and terrorists?, Putin stated without even explaining how the calls by Europeans to peace between Russia and Ichkeria can confirm ?Maskhadov's ties to terrorists?. Unless the Kremlin's vampire views peace as terrorism.
There is no way Putin did not know about peace initiatives or calls for negotiations that were announced even before the metro blasts. By giving his 'fact', Putin is lying as usual. Just as he lied that the Central Market of Jokhar did not get bombed by tactical missiles. Just as he lied that the hostages in the Moscow theater did not die from gas, that the gas was allegedly harmless. And just as he lied about the 'training exercise' in Ryazan (when the FSB/KGB got cought planting explosives in an apartment buildings to blame the blast on the Chechens).
However, you can agree with Putin that there still is a connection between calls for negotiations and the blast. But the conclusion will not be in favor of the Kremlin's master. First he keeps silence without reacting to the peace proposals, but then he gets paranoid and starts rejecting them, standing on the top of a pile of dead bodies, while these dead bodies are the main and irrefutable evidence of his total political failure, false promises and gravest crimes that he will have to answer for sooner of later.
The time of retribution is drawing near. The dock for the Kremlin's maniac is ready for him to sit on.
Salman Daudov,
for Kavkaz-Center
2004-02-13 00:16:31

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CHECHNYA DISPATCH...2

The country needs a lethal injection
Anything secret sooner or later comes to light. When KGB generals were planning and carrying out the blasts of apartment building in Moscow, when they were planting hexogen from army warehouses, they were figuring no one was going to find out about it. In Russian city of Ryazan the next morning they were assuring us that it was nothing but a 'training exercise'. But the course of the further events and their further actions blew their cover.
The blasts became a perfect pretext for a new invasion of Chechnya. The raiders drove in their tanks and it started... Tortures with electric shock, beatings, cutting off heads, ears and arms, and sales of dead bodies. 'Kindhearted and sympathetic' Russian people showed their true face in Chechnya. The crimes of Stalin, who started a barbaric deportation of Chechens back in 1944 were surpassed. Sadist generals were issuing orders and sick soldiers, contracted servicemen (mercenaries), and professional cutthroats were carrying out the orders with sadistic pleasure: they would surround peaceful villages, shoot the locals, break into the houses and rob and take people away during 'cleansings', so that a few days later the fellow villagers discover their dead bodies with traces of tortures in the woods nearby, only barely covered with soil...
Whichever excuses you can come up with to justify it, still fascism has come to Russia. Bloody terrorist dictatorship, killing without looking at the law, and torturing and maiming anyone who somehow gets in its way. With all of the oaths of sticking to democracy and with all of its curtsies before the West, the bloody crimes of Russian military clique in Chechnya or the totally totalitarian policy of Putin's bureaucrats in Russia can just never be called democratic!...
Many people are guessing: how far the dictatorship can go this time? As far as Stalin's camps with millions of inmates cutting trees for timber industry? As far as Brezhnev's mental facilities with their straight jackets (see NOTE) and aminazine? So far we can see the main crime of this regime in Chechnya: outright genocide of an entire nation. And inside Russia these are the same ethnic cleansings going on: police terror against people from the Caucasus, outright persecution of democratic opposition by the KGB, totally false spy trials, when the poor 'suspects in espionage' are locked up in prisons for years...
Independent mass media have been defeated or shut down, or taken away from their owners and nationalized, - one way or another, there is virtually no free press remaining that would dare openly criticize the authorities like it did back in the '90s during Yeltsin. Russian Orthodox Church is rushing to the government sinecure too: the most reactionary and fundamentalist organization, hostile to the very idea of rights and freedoms (what kind of rights can 'slaves' of God ever have?...), dreaming of making everybody live by its rules and pushing its ideas into schools, hospitals, prisons, army, all over...
Russia of the early 21st century is a goon with a camouflage uniform on, with a black mask on his face and a gun in his hands. This thug just killed a Chechen woman or a Chechen child. He is ready to shoot or kick anybody who dares to say a single word against him - whether in Chechnya or inside Russia. He is a butcher, which says it all. He has no elementary ideas about personal rights, about value of human life or presumption of innocence. Force is the only thing he understands and has respect for. You can't explain to him that he is wrong, that he is a criminal - you can only shoot him.
In Russia there will probably be no need for the new government to be sending millions of inmates to cut down trees. Why do that since everybody is obedient like sheep anyway? ?For them are sheers and slaughter-stall...? And those few who dare resist, come out and protest will most likely face tortures a lot more severe than aminazine or haloperidol in psycho wards of the Brezhnev era. An example is the hard-to-believe case of Eugene Novozhilov from Krasnodar, whom FSB framed and locked up in a loony bin after charging him with violation of Article 207 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (?Deliberately False Report on Act of Terrorism?).
So how else can these poor victims oppose the authorities, other than their personal courage and selflessness? So far a slogan on a sign is the only weapon. Even a megaphone will probably be outlawed, since legal rallies permitted by the authorities are coming to an end at least in Moscow. Only non-sanctioned ones are remaining, with the arrest within the next five minutes, and all sorts of addresses to people in the form of leaflets and samizdat. As well as the Internet, as long as they don't deny the access so far...
The subjects of a totalitarian state are not supposed to have any rights or freedoms: in Russia there have never been any for centuries. There was only a 'right' to die by the fancy of another tyrant while praising the tyrant with your lips. In 1991 in only seemed to us, we only had a happy dream that Freedom had come and that the people finally obtained their legitimate rights. Today that short thaw has come to an end and everything is coming back to where it used to be. Just like it's always been, criticizing the government is automatically equaled to high treason and is punished as far as the death sentence (which will be introduced again, this time really with no irony, ?upon requests by the working people?, who are really asking for it, even demanding).
The blood of the Chechen people is putting an indelible stain on the regime: now the regime has no place to go; now any opposition must be crushed at any cost, under any pretext, - by beatings and violence. Otherwise somebody will have to answer for bombings of Grozny (Jokhar), for all 'cleansings', and for the Moscow blasts of September 1999...
In vain did the human rights activists have gotten into the habit of talking about the need to comply with the law. How naive! Like the country has the force capable of making the FSB officers obediently comply with the laws and human rights!... But who can ever make them do that and how? Maybe human rights activists with their speeches and petitions to the Council of Europe? No, a brute totalitarian force that speaks the language of prisons, concocted criminal charges, tanks and nuclear blackmail to its opponents, cannot be dealt with in such a way.
Democratic mechanisms - elections, referendums, etc. - have been run by this KGB militarist gang for quite a while. No one can be elected anywhere unless the Kremlin power will want to see him elected. During the appearance of maintaining constitutional democratic mechanisms their entire job turned into a profanation. When the entire alternative at the elections is an FSB general or an acting official from the higher strata of Communist bureaucracy, - it make no sense of even going to these elections...
FSB grabbed the throat of freedom with its paws - and it is orchestrating a profanation at the same time. This is one of the most important weapons at the new stage of the existence of our 'millennium Reich'. Really, why execute and drive hundreds and thousands of dissidents and human rights activists to cut down trees, while all you need to do is set up a 'civil forum', for an example, where you can get them domesticated pretty well? Why get the Council of Europe and the entire civilized world outraged about physical retaliations against journalists, when you can quietly and noiselessly organize a 'dispute of two entities' in totally obedient courts? A big show will be put on, everybody will be demonstratively happy, just like after a lobotomy. And those who refuse to undergo this surgery will be executed under some 'financial' or 'espionage' pretext.
But the lives of educated and civilized citizens won't be any easier if millions of voluntary slaves do not get driven to the prison camps this time. You can set up a prison camp right where you reside or work, and drag barbed wire all along the perimeter of the country's borders and thus create a big prison camp - just like we always had actually. They say you can't be running a business here without violating any laws either. But you can pass such laws that will be impossible not to violate at all. And looks like this is what everything is heading for...
Everything must get started all over again, from the very first proclamations, from the experience of the populists, without repeating the mistakes that we already know of, of course. We must give up all hopes that maybe the things will get by and settle down by themselves - and we must stop working with no hopes for success, where there is no other prospect except for a room in a psycho ward. ?Abandon hope, ye who enter here?. You can't be practicing revolution on weekends or in the evening after work, - a revolution can only be an occupation and a calling at the same time. And one must leave for the revolution like leaving for a monastery, while giving up all vain and mundane business and concerns. Revolution is Service, when you bear your cross, and Nechayev was right when he wrote: ?a revolutionary is a doomed man?.
We don't know when there will be a pretty noticeable number of such people in Russia. So far you can count them on the fingers of one hand. Dull dictatorship, described by Russian fiction writer Strugatsky, is triumphing in all directions. ?Masks are thrown off, fascism is coming!? - one communist poet wrote in 1991...
There is only one support that the revolutionaries have in this country: the nations oppressed by the empire, the natives of national 'autonomies'. This is where the percentage of those who do not accept Putin's policies is always higher, let alone the support of Chechnya in Muslim regions of the empire.
If 'patriots' are outraged that 'thieves' were running the country during Yeltsin, - i.e. shy 'little thieves' like Alchen, - now the country is run by shameless KGB, butchers of entire nations, which is a lot worse. It would be better if they were stealing!... After all, money and property come and go. But even the most honorable human rights activist Robles (who from time to time mentions the 'improvement' with human rights in Chechnya) will never bring the dead bodies back to life, which were 'cleansed' to death and buried right at the site of a military base where they were tortured.
The savage country with savage people, who adore a whip and dictatorship with a dictator, is continuing its life after death. What for? Who ever needs it? (I just feel like answering with the words from a popular Russian song: 'No one needs it!') Their children are getting grabbed when the police break into student dorms, they get dragged right out of their beds, get handcuffed and drafted into the army without giving a darn about any postponements, - and they will keep quiet! All 'trial balloons' launched by the authorities are welcomed here by everybody except for a handful of human rights activists, capable of gathering a rally right in Moscow with as much as 100 people participating, and capable of endlessly complaining about the actions of the authorities to obedient courts and prosecutors' offices...
There have never been any freedom or democracy in Russia anyway. And turned out Russia is not genetically predisposed to them at all. Whatever is happening in the country right now is a natural reaction of rejecting an extraneous body by an organism. Freedom and democracy have always been foreign to Russia. And yearning for dictatorship, barracks and whips, which is irrational for any normal person, is quite natural and normal. From Putin's ratings and his actions we can see the power of how the force of rejection is: from genocide of the Chechen people to severe atrocities against new political prisoners in Russia. Whichever crimes are being committed, the rating is persistently stays where it is.
This country needs a revolutionary party like it needs a breath of life. Such a party would have been the only doctor that would be able to finally give a prescribed shot of euthanasia to it. Just to put it out of its misery. We have been walking around the circle for a few centuries in a row, we have been stepping on the same shovel. And we are still trying to start liberal reforms that for some reason always end up with riots against foreigners and bonfires for infidels. (Or even for their holy books first, like it already happened in Yekaterinburg in the Urals). Enough! We got sick of it! Time to get it over with!
They are clamping down on everything real tight! Yeltsin's thaw is becoming a thing of the past. It is too naive to appeal to courts and prosecutors' offices and demand its return. The people must find the power, get up, wipe off this government, place it under arrest and preferably hang it on the light poles...
NOTE: (on straight jackets at Brezhnev's mental facilities) The prisoner would be tightly wrapped from feet to armpits in a wet sheet or strips of canvas. As the material (the straight jacket) dried out, it shrank, inflicting terrible pain on the prisoner, and scorching his body all over. Usually the prisoner would quickly lose consciousness...nurses would loosen the roll-up and tighten it again.
Boris Stomakhin,
for Kavkaz-Center
2004-02-15 00:46:04
--------------------------------------------------------
>> CHECHNYA DISPATCH...3

About level of danger and hypocrisy
UN Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland stated that Chechnya is a territory with the so-called fifth level of danger. It is the highest degree of danger, according to the UN classification. But it has nothing to do with the danger which the entire population of Ichkeria faces each day. This particular UN classification marks the danger for... its personnel present in the country.
Security for UN officials could be viewed as an important issue, if the UN were not called the United Nations or if its duties were not providing people's security.
UN Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs managed to spot some 'positive' changes in the region after visiting Chechnya (meaning return of some of the refugees back to the country). Here he found common terms with the Russian officials, who have been terrorizing the refugees in neighboring Ingushetia in order to have them brought on the territory of even greater terror.
According to the UN official, starting the year 2000 over 0 million has been spent on the implementation of the aid program in the Northern Caucasus. It was not specified how much the refugees actually received. But if this amount of money says nothing to you, it will be interesting to discover that the amount of the UN aid to the Northern Caucasus is equal to the cost of oil pumped out from the territories of Chechen Republic of Ichkeria for the same period of time.
So what was the result of the visit by UN Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs to Chechen Republic of Ichkeria occupied by the Russian troops? Full mutual understanding has been reached with the Russian invaders on bringing Chechen refugees back into the country, which has a positive moment of reducing their number in Ingushetia. The Chechen population found out that the 'fifth level of danger' exists on the territory of Chechnya, and as a result the UN observers cannot be present there and defend their right. Apparently, the level of danger must be reduced for the UN to be present. Then it's not too clear what they will be needed for.
From all of it it follows that the UN doesn't care about what happens to the Chechen population. For the past two years the UN Human Rights Commission blocked the resolution on Chechnya twice. Delegations of Cuba, China, Syria and Lybia were especially distinguished in noting 'positive' changes in Chechnya along with Russia.
This visit of a UN official to the Northern Caucasus did not expect to change anything either. But it's not only the matter of indifference alone. Any attempts to give assistance to Chechen refugees by Islamic charities are being nipped in the bud by Russian authorities. For this purpose they bring absurd accusations against them, like supporting terrorism or abetting separatists.
Inaction of international structures in the middle of ongoing tyranny by the Russian invaders can be regarded as complicity in crimes committed by the Russian regime against the Chechen people. Weak calls to the Russian side to stick to humanitarian standards sound unconvincing and hypocritical after that.
Mockery of people and common sense was contained in the reports about Jan Egeland being impressed with the amounts of payouts (which no one ever saw) to the people who suffered during the war operations in Chechnya, as well as about his response to the question about a possibility of UN mission being set up in Chechnya.
Jan Egeland said that this issue involves the release of the head of MSF mission (Doctors Without Borders) Arjan Erkel, who was captured in the Northern Caucasus a year and a half ago.
Mr. Egeland stressed that his release would be a forcible argument for constant UN presence in the Northern Caucasus.
Considering the unwillingness of the Russian side to have witnesses of their crimes be present in Chechnya, and the direct involvement of FSB in kidnapping Arjan Erkel, Mr. Egeland's statement can be regarded as a friendly step towards the Russian authorities. The longer the doctor is held hostage, the more chances there are Russians won't be bothered with foreign presence.
Sure the US envoy does not care about how many Chechen citizens have been kidnapped and are still missing after the kidnapping of Arjan Erkel, and how many will still have to suffer.
Salman Daudov,
for Kavkaz-Center
2004-02-14 00:36:04

>> OUR FRIENDS IN SOUTH KOREA...

South Korea's Intelligence Targets U.S. Technology
As one of the Four Dragons of East Asia, South Korea has achieved an incredible record of economic growth. Little more than a generation ago, Korea was one of the world's poorest countries. In 1963 its per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of only $100 was comparable to those of other poor countries in Asia and Africa. Today, Korea, with a GDP of $434.5 billion (with a year 2000 estimated purchasing power parity of $764.6 billion) and a per capita GDP of $9,019 (with an estimated purchasing power parity of $16,100 in 2000) boasts the world's eleventh largest economy. Its GDP, now greater than that of India, is on a par with those of the lesser economies of the European Union.1 (See Table 1.)
Korea's leaders are keenly aware of the critical role of science and technology in fostering and maintaining their country's economic development. Science and technology have ``significantly contributed to the improvement of the [Korean] people's quality of life, as well as in social and economic development [and are a] key element of national wealth, industrial competitiveness, and national security.''2 In an effort to join the ranks of the technologically advanced nations, the Korean government has placed a ``special emphasis on strengthening its scientific and technological capacity.''3 An integral part of this ``special emphasis'' is the conduct of economic intelligence collection and technology transfer operations against technologically advanced nations. The late Dr. Ray Cline, a former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, once stated, ``South Korea gets enormous economic benefits from spying.'' The Koreans, he said, have been
179
Edwin S. Cochran is a former United States Army intelligence officer. His career included assignments in the Republic of Korea, Panama, Germany, and the United States. His articles on security matters have been published in The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, and Parameters.
International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 16: 179-201, 2003
Copyright # 2003 Taylor & Francis
0885-0607/03 $12.00 + .00
DOI: 10.1080/08850600390198715
``extremely active trying to get, grab, and steal technology that will benefit their industry.''4 South Korea has developed an aggressive and sophisticated economic intelligence collection program, whose principal target, ironically, is its foremost ally and protector, the United States of America. Both the South Korean government in Seoul and Korean businesses have conducted intelligence operations directed at collecting U.S. proprietary information in a wide variety of technology areas.5 South Korea has been seeking U.S. [scientific and technological] and economic information in an increasingly aggressive fashion [since] the 1990s. Its collection approach features many person-to-person contacts, and the South Koreans also possess a major intelligence presence in the United States. These activities are directed at both U.S. military and civilian targets, and are carried out by a range of South Korean Government entities and private corporations.6
POLICY AND ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK
Policy guidance and direction governing South Korean scientific and technological development, as well as supporting economic intelligence Table 1. Representative Comparisons of GDP, South Korea, and Selected Countries
Country GDP (Billion US$) Per Capita GDP Comments
South Korea1 $434.6 $9,019 2001 estimate
India2 $390 $420
Austria3 $207.96 $25,655 1999 estimate
Belgium4 $266 $25,567 1999 estimate
Greece5 $120.25 $113,305 1998 estimate
The Netherlands6 $406 $25,695 2000 estimate
Spain7 $558.3 $13,203 2000 estimate
Sources:
1 Department of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: South Korea, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=2800.htm#econ.
2 Department of State, Bureau of South Asian Affairs, Background Note: India, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=3454.htm#econ.
3 Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Background Note: Austria, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=3165.htm.
4 Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Background Note: Belgium, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=2874.htm.
5 Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Background Note: Greece, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=3395.htm.
6 Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Background Note: The Netherlands, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=3204.htm.
7 Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Background Note: Spain, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=2878.htm.
180 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
collection programs, is formulated at the highest governmental levels. Primarily responsible for the development and supervision of Korean science and technology policy are the National Science and Technology Council and the Ministry of Science and Technology.
Established in January 1999, the National Science and Technology Council's functions are to ``review and coordinate national S&T policies and [research and development] programs'' and to set priorities for budget allocations. The Council, chaired by the President of the Republic of Korea (ROK), is composed of representatives of government industries and the Korean scientific community, with a supporting secretariat provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology.7
The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) formulates and manages all aspects of national science and technology policy and coordinates the work of other Korean government ministries in this area. Specific functions ascribed to MOST include:
Formulation of ``policies for S&T development and [performance] of technology forecasting.''
Development of ``core technology, future-oriented technology, and large-scale technology.''
Pursuit of ``technological self-reliance for the safe use of nuclear technology.''
Support to ``basic and applied research conducted by government sponsored institutes, universities, and private research institutes.''
Formulation of policies for ``[research and development] investment, human resources development, S&T information, and international S&T cooperation.''8 Policy guidance concerning the conduct of economic intelligence collection in support of Korean scientific and technological development programs originates at the presidential level. In May 1991 the Korean government established the Presidential Advisory Council for Science and Technology (PACST) to ``advise the President about science and technology policy in the Republic of Korea.'' Composed of members drawn from the Korean government, industry, and academia (see Figure 1), the PACST has three primary tasks: (1) development of ``policy strategies for technological innovation and human resources development in Korea;'' (2) provision of ``guidelines for institutional reform'' related to science and technology; and (3) to ``undertake special tasks as requested by the President.'' According to PACST Chairman Chun Soung-Soon, these ``special tasks'' are now playing ``a more critical role'' in Korean scientific and technological development.9
The Secret Service
In December 1997 the Korean Yonhap News Agency reported that newly elected President Kim Dae-Jung was drafting a series of intelligence
181 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
reforms that included an ``intensive buildup of economic informationcollecting capabilities'' against overseas targets. Previous Korean press reporting concerning intelligence service involvement in economic intelligence operations emphasized the collection of foreign scientific and technological information in support of Korean commercial enterprises.10 For its size, South Korea possesses one of the world's most effective intelligence organizations. Its National Intelligence Service (NIS) possesses a cadre of technically proficient intelligence officers supported by enormous financial resources and well-organized agent networks.11
Formally established on 22 January 1999, the NIS is the successor agency to the former Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) and the Agency for National Security Planning. The NIS's organizational chart (Figure 2) suggests that the agency is composed of three operational directives: the First (International Affairs) Directorate, presumably responsible for the collection of foreign intelligence; the Second (Domestic Affairs) Directorate, responsible for internal security issues; and the Third (North Korean Affairs) Directorate. Organizational functions of the NIS include:
``Collection, coordination, and distribution of information'' concerning Korea's security and national security.
Maintenance of classified ``documents, materials, and facilities.'' Figure 1. Presidential Advisory Council on Science and Technology Membership
182 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
Investigation of ``crimes concerning national security'' and those ``related to the missions of the NIS staff.''
``Planning and coordination of information and classified information.''12 In addition to collecting intelligence information concerning those states posing the greatest potential threat to South Korea's security--North Korea, China, and Russia--the NIS and its predecessors have also carried out operations against South Korea's allies. The United States and Japan are the two friendly nations in which South Korean intelligence operatives have been the most active; political, economic, and technological information have all been targets of South Korean intelligence collection operations.13
The ROK's economic intelligence collection program appears to have emerged as a coordinated effort in 1997 with the creation of a ``Science and Technology Foreign Cooperation Committee,'' whose function is to consolidate the separate foreign economic intelligence collection programs of the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, National Defense, and Science. This committee was formed on the basis of a report by the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI--a think tank subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Technology), which found that the coordination of scientific and technological intelligence collection efforts and the integration of collection targets with the requirements of Korean industry constituted a ``bottleneck'' in the country's foreign economic intelligence program. The committee's objectives include the development of a systematic collection strategy in order to better Figure 2. National Intelligence Service Organization. Source: Korean National Intelligence Service, Internet, www.nis.go.kr=english=about=mission_index.html
183 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
coordinate collection operations and prevent duplication of effort. The committee is reportedly composed of groups of specialists organized by geographic regions and a council of working-level personnel drawn from STEPI, the Korean Trade Promotion Agency, national laboratories, universities, and Korean corporations.
This consolidated collection program, intended to counter the ``increasing reluctance of advanced countries to transfer science and technology,'' includes the creation of local ``Korea Centers'' to collect foreign scientific and technological information, and the establishment of overseas branches of Korean government agencies, national laboratories, and companies ``to provide information on foreign S&T.'' In addition, in order to ``strengthen overseas S&T collection'' and build an information system capable of linking Korean organizations to overseas sources of technology, STEPI was to create an ``Overseas Science and Technology Information Center.'' This center would integrate the information collected by ``overseas Korean scientists and engineers associations, Korean diplomatic and consular officers in foreign countries, large Korean trading companies, and the overseas offices of national [laboratories].''14
THE STRATEGIC CONTEXT
South Korea's conduct of intelligence collection against the United States reflects changes within the international environment associated with the end of the Cold War, as well as internal and external policy objectives of the government in Seoul.
While foreign intelligence operations directed against U.S. economic interests are neither unusual nor unprecedented, the international environment in which they now occur is radically different from that of only a decade ago. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the consequent end of the Cold War and the global competition between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies that dominated world politics since the end of World War II, ushered in a ``new world order'' marked by changing perceptions of national power. Historically, military strength has been the gauge of national power. Perhaps the most important change in the international environment after the Cold War has been the seeming shift in the overall relevance of different sources of national power, with military power declining and economic power increasing in importance.15 Many nations, including the United States, have come to equate economic security with national security.
Economic intelligence collection has therefore become of correspondingly greater importance. A 1994 report by the U.S. National Economic Council found that ``economic espionage is becoming increasingly central to the
184 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
operations of many of the world's intelligence services and is absorbing larger portions of their staffing and budget.''16
The United States is the primary target of foreign nations' economic intelligence collection efforts. These consist of both the clandestine and overt collection of classified or sensitive U.S. economic, industrial, technological, or related proprietary or trade secret information, as well as the unlawful acquisition of critical technologies. These operations may be conducted by either a foreign government or a foreign company; while usually targeted against private U.S. firms, they may also be targeted directly against the United States government.17 Strong U.S. capabilities ``in a wide variety of cutting-edge, technical, and scientific fields, and the open nature of the United States'' make it ``the top target of foreign countries in economic [intelligence] collection and espionage.''18 The end of the bipolar international system and increasing national emphasis on economic security have blurred many of the traditional distinctions between ``friendly'' and ``enemy'' states. This has been particularly evident in the area of economic intelligence collection. In February 1996, in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Louis J. Freeh characterized economic intelligence collection ``perpetrated by foreign governments, institutions, instrumentalities, and persons against the United States'' as a ``critical national security issue.''19
Just as foreign military establishments are the primary recipients of U.S. defense-related information gathered by their intelligence services, foreign companies and commercially oriented government ministries are the primary beneficiaries of collected U.S. economic and technological information. In its Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage for 2001, the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive estimated that during calendar year 2000 economic espionage cost the U.S. business community $100-250 billion in lost sales. The greatest losses to U.S. companies involved information concerning manufacturing processes and research and development.20 Foreign economic intelligence collection also has broader implications for U.S. national security. In the United States during the Cold War, the relationship between economics and security was indirect: the economy produced the taxes needed to supply the trillions of dollars dedicated to defense spending.21 In the post-Cold War world, the relationship is more direct. More than ever before, U.S. national security and commerce have become mutually reinforcing; America's defense edge is part and parcel of its economic prowess.22 Foreign economic intelligence collection operations directly target elements of the U.S. defense technology and industrial base, those ``business firms, laboratories, and academic institutions that provide
185 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
products and services to the Department of defense and foreign customers,''23 and which ensure the maintenance of America's continued military-technical superiority over potential adversaries. Key elements of the U.S. defense technology and industrial base include munitions, armored vehicles, shipbuilding, military aircraft, electronics, and defense research and development.24
Foreign nations, Freeh told the Senate Intelligence Committee, ``pose various levels and types of threats to U.S. economic and technological information.'' Freeh also noted:
Some ideological and military adversaries continue their targeting of U.S. economic and technological information as an extension of a concerted intelligence assault on the United States conducted throughout the Cold War.
Other [nations] targeting U.S. economic and technological information are either long time allies of the United States or have traditionally been neutral. These countries target U.S. economic and technological information despite their friendly relations with the United States. In some cases they take advantage of their considerable legitimate access to U.S. information and collect sensitive information more easily than our traditional adversaries. Some countries traditionally considered allies have infrastructures that allow them to easily internalize high-tech information and utilize it in competition against U.S. firms.25
The conduct of economic intelligence collection against the United States is not restricted to foreign intelligence services. Foreign-sponsored nonintelligence personnel, such as industry representatives, students, scientists, researchers, and foreign employees of U.S. companies, may all engage in intelligence collection activities. In addition, the expansion of information technology and increased use of computers and telecommunications systems has widened the environment in which economic intelligence collection occurs to include cyberspace. Many nations have been able to leverage these and other widely available sophisticated technologies to enhance their intelligence collection capabilities.
SEOUL'S PENETRATIONS
South Korea is assessed to be one of five allied nations most actively involved in the conduct of economic intelligence collection operations against the United States.26 These operations are motivated by several factors, including military force modernization objectives, economic competition, and industrial modernization efforts employing technologies with dual-use applications.27 The ROK's economic intelligence collection operations against the U.S. are driven by three specific, interrelated factors: (1) the
186 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
requirement for continued access to advanced technologies to ensure continued economic growth; (2) support for Korea's indigenous arms industry; and (3) wider political considerations related to Korea's foreign policy objectives.
Access to Advanced Technologies
Among the factors that have contributed to Korea's phenomenal economic advancement have been an export-led growth strategy and the adoption of foreign technology.28 Korean industries now produce and export advanced electronic components, computers, telecommunications equipment, automobiles, and a wide range of consumer electronic products to markets around the world.
Japan has traditionally served as Korea's source of advanced technology. Since normalizing relations in 1965, the two countries have developed an extensive relationship focused on mutually beneficial economic activity. But Japan charges high royalties for technology transfer and competes sharply with Korea in the export of high-tech products. Faced with a decline in the competitiveness of its export products, the high cost of buying foreign technology, and the difficulty of developing new technologies through indigenous resources, Korea has developed a system of processes to obtain foreign technology by ``indirect'' means, particularly from U.S. companies.29
Technologies targeted for acquisition from U.S. sources by Korean government research institutes and companies include aerospace, automobiles, bioengineering, computers, communications, electronics, environmental controls, metals and machinery, medical equipment, nuclear power systems, and semiconductors. The Koreans most frequently target those technologies that reflect their own major high-tech export fields: electronics, data communications and processing, and semiconductor technology. Within this most frequently targeted group, the highest priorities for collection include high-speed CD-ROM, ultra-high-resolution monitor design, traffic control systems, flash memory, digital signal processors, application-specific integrated circuits, cable television converters, digital communications, image-data processing, asynchronous transmission mode technology, fiber optics, and audio-video compression technology.30
Support to Korea's Arms Industry
A 1996 report by the General Accounting Office found that a common goal of many economic intelligence collection operations directed against the United States by friendly or allied nations to be the support to their national defense industries:
187 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
Countries seek U.S. defense technologies to incorporate into domestically produced [weapon] systems. By obtaining the technology from the United States, a country can have cutting-edge weapon systems without the cost of research and development. The cutting-edge technologies not only provide superior weapon systems for a country's own use, but also make these products more marketable for exports.31
Since the end of the Korean War, the United States has committed itself to the security of the ROK under the terms of the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty. In support of this commitment, the U.S. maintains approximately 37,000 military personnel in South Korea. In order to ensure compatibility of weapon systems, the U.S. has historically been Korea's primary external source of arms and military equipment.
High levels of military spending and, presumably, a desire to reduce their dependence on the U.S., led South Korea's leaders to establish a domestic arms industry during the 1970s. South Korea's arms manufacturing sector has evolved rapidly over the past 30 years, thanks in large part to the country's prowess in the civilian heavy industry and electronics sectors. Korea is now largely self-sufficient in terms of military production. Whereas military equipment accounted for 4.9 percent of all Korean imports in 1973, that figure had dropped to 0.8 percent by 1990. While driving up overall costs, domestic arms production has significant benefits for Korea. It keeps more money in the country, provides employment for its citizens, provides export opportunities, and results in the acquisition of technology and production techniques from foreign partners.32
South Korea is emerging as an important second-tier arms exporter. In 1997 the ROK exported $58.02 million worth of arms and military equipment. This figure climbed to $147.19 million in 1998, and to $196.3 million in 1999. While the value of Korean military exports fell to $53.37 million in 2000, Korean government sources expected it to exceed $200 million in 2001.33
Korea now produces all small arms, and has developed its own 105mm and 155mm towed artillery pieces and 130mm multiple rocket launcher systems. Korean firms have also built and exported infantry fighting vehicles (the K-200, manufactured by Daewoo Heavy Industries and Machinery), as well as military trucks, mine detection equipment, munitions, parachutes, uniforms, and body armor to countries in Southeast Asia and Africa. Korean companies also design and manufacture a variety of naval weapon systems. These include patrol boats, minesweepers, Po Hang-class corvettes, Ulsanclass frigates, KDX-type destroyers, combat data systems, search radars, 40 mm light naval guns, the K731 heavy torpedo, and undersea countermeasures equipment. Reports from the ROK Ministry of Defense and from within the arms industry itself indicate the development of
188 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
short-range shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, guided or ``smart'' bombs, ship-to-ship missiles, and unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicles.34 According to Lee Pil-Joong, a professor at Korea's National Defense University, South Korea is looking beyond the threat posed by North Korea and is developing the types of weapons needed to safeguard its security in the twenty-first century.35 Many Korean weapon development projects, in fact, appear to have objectives broader than that of the ROK's immediate defense needs. Seoul has sought to use co-production projects to decrease its dependence on foreign suppliers and to enter new export markets. Korea is the leading recipient of offset agreements with U.S. defense manufacturers in the Pacific Rim, and among the top ten recipients worldwide. Many of these agreements represent direct investments in the Korean defense industry. For example, as part of an offset agreement connected to the 1991 sale of F-16 fighter-bombers, the Lockheed Martin Corporation agreed to help South Korea build an indigenous training=light attack aircraft. A beneficial result of such agreements, from the Korean perspective, is the transfer of high technology to local industry.36
Foreign Policy Goals
In addition to the domestic importance of continued economic growth, the ROK's economic intelligence collection program also indirectly supports the accomplishment of broader foreign policy objectives. Economic considerations have a high priority in Korean foreign policy. Korea seeks to build on its economic accomplishments to increase its regional and global role, to include playing an increasingly important role in Pacific Rim political and economic activities. In pursuit of this objective, for instance, Korea was one of the founding members of the Asia Pacific Economic Forum.37
COLLECTION METHODOLOGIES
ROK economic intelligence operations targeted against the United States employ both clandestine and overt collection methodologies. A clandestine intelligence collection operation is one that is ``sponsored or conducted . . . in such a way as to ensure secrecy or concealment.'' Because the fundamental objective of a clandestine operation is to deny one's adversary knowledge of the fact of its existence, the emphasis is on concealment of the operation itself, rather than the identity of the sponsor. An overt operation is one that is ``conducted openly, without concealment.'' While the activities associated with an overt intelligence collection operation may be openly conducted, the true identity of their sponsor may still be concealed.38
189 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
Clandestine Collection
Clandestine collection methodologies employed by South Korea include agent recruitment, physical access, exploitation of private sector organizations, and special technical collection operations. They may also include the recruitment of Korean students and researchers studying and working in the United States.
(a) Agent Recruitment An intelligence collector's best source is a trusted person inside a company or organization whom the collector can task to provide classified or proprietary information. Clandestine human collection ``is another way of saying `espionage,' entailing the use of both human sources and technical devices such as `bugs' emplaced by humans. In other words, it is old fashioned spying, the recruitment of agents and manipulation of people.''39
In a ``classic'' agent recruitment operation, an intelligence officer (a professional employee of an intelligence agency) seeks to recruit an agent (a foreign national) to collect information either in his home country or a third nation.40 Intelligence officers assess potential agents in terms of both their placement within an organization and their access to desired information. Therefore, a foreign intelligence collector's interest in a U.S. company's employees may not be commensurate with their rank in the organization. While corporate executives, key managers, and researchers can all be targets for recruitment, so can support employees such as secretaries, technicians, computer operators, and maintenance personnel. The latter frequently have good, if not often the best, access to sensitive information, and their lower pay and status may provide fertile ground for manipulation.
Recruitment need not be voluntary on the agent's part; foreign intelligence collectors may also identify and exploit a wide range of human weaknesses. This may include the use of prostitutes for sexual blackmail, or the use of a ``swallow'' (an attractive woman) or a ``raven'' (an attractive man) to form a close personal relationship with an employee having knowledge of sensitive information.41 Foreign intelligence collectors may also employ ethnic targeting, which entails the recruitment of U.S. nationals or permanent resident aliens to acquire sensitive information. This may be accomplished through appealing to an individual's sense of ethnic loyalty or patriotism toward his native country, or by threatening the safety of family members still residing in the home country.
Korean agent recruitment operations make extensive use of ethnic targeting. A survey of Korean press reporting conducted by the U.S. National Counterintelligence Centers revealed that ``[s]ubstantial documentation exists on South Korea's interest in exploiting the ethnicity of overseas Koreans to obtain commercial and technological information.''
190 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
Korea's government and private industry operate systems to identify potential recruits who are in a position to transfer high-level technology and who, because of their ethnicity, may be predisposed to accept offers to ``contribute'' their knowledge to the ROK. Korea aggressively targets ``present and former nationals working for U.S. companies and researchinstitutions.'' Often, members of the Korean community in the United States have been manipulated or coerced into participating in intelligence collection operations.42
An example of ethnic targeting and recruitment, albeit for political and military rather than economic intelligence collection, is that of Robert C. Kim, a U.S. Department of the Navy civilian computer specialist assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence. Kim was arrested on 24 September 1996 and charged with passing classified U.S. defense information to Captain Baek Dong-Il, the South Korean Naval attache? in Washington. On 11 July 1997, Kim was sentenced to nine years in jail after pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit espionage. Kim, a native of Korea, became a U.S. citizen in 1974 and had lived in the United States for thirty years. According to investigators, over a five-month period Kim passed dozens of classified documents (including some that were Top Secret) to Captain Baek out of loyalty to his country of birth. The documents included military assessments about North Korea and China, as well as U.S. intelligence assessments of South Korean government officials.43
(b) Physical Access A far simpler means of acquiring sensitive or proprietary information is simply to steal it. Korean intelligence operatives aggressively pursue access to secure or ``closed source'' environments through a variety of means. These include the use of surveillance and reconnaissance to determine the location of sensitive information, surreptitious photography, and the conduct of surreptitious entry (``black bag jobs'') to steal proprietary information from office files and computers.44
(c) Exploitation of Private Sector Organizations The ROK's economic intelligence collection operations often exploit private sector organizations, particularly Korean businesses, both for collection and to provide operational cover for intelligence officers. While intelligence officers assigned overseas are usually posted to South Korean embassies as members of the diplomatic staff, they may also be afforded ``non-official'' cover by one of Korea's industrial conglomerates, such as Hyundai, Samsung, or the Lucky Group. These corporations are at least sometimes aware of the presence of intelligence officers working out of their corporate offices. According to one former Korean intelligence official, ``They would get [a]
191 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
call [from government officials], and it would be arranged easily. Most times, no questions would be asked by them.''45
In addition to operations conducted by the NIS, Korean corporations have learned that their own employees can yield a wealth of competitive intelligence information concerning competitors' plans and technologies. While this type of collection may not necessarily result in technology transfer, it does allow Korean corporations ``to get a pulse on worldwide [research and development] activities'' and to use this information for their own purposes.46
(d) Special Technical Collection Operations Special technical collection operations include computer intrusions, telecommunications targeting and intercept, and exploitation of private-sector encryption weaknesses. These clandestine collection activities by foreign economic intelligence collectors account for the largest portion of sensitive information lost by U.S. companies. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Korean economic intelligence collection operations have included stealing information from computerized databases maintained by the United States government and U.S. companies.47
(e) Recruitment of Students and Researchers According to the National Science Foundation, 115,367 foreign students were enrolled in graduate studies programs at U.S. universities in 1999. Of these, 109,904 were enrolled in science or engineering programs. This large number, especially those studying in technical fields, represents a potentially rich source of information for foreign intelligence collectors. This is particularly true of students from Asian countries. United States institutions of higher learning are a significant source of doctoral education of Asian students; of the approximately 22,853 doctoral degrees awarded in science and technology in the U.S. in 1990, fourteen percent (3,200) were awarded to graduate students from six Asian countries--China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. And because Asian graduate students come to the U.S. primarily for training in science and engineering, they are and will continue to be an integral part of U.S. universities' science and engineering strengths.48
Students may be recruited by their nation's intelligence services either prior to leaving their home countries, possibly as a pre-condition for departure, or after arrival in the United States. Students may be motivated by appeals to their ethnic identity, patriotism, or simply a fear of the intelligence service involved. Foreign students may be targeted against specific research projects, serving as assistants to professors conducting research in specific technology areas, and be ``encouraged'' to seek employment with targeted U.S. companies after graduation.
192 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
Korean students and researchers are often sent abroad to acquire advanced degrees or study specific fields of knowledge. For Korea, however, there is a greater sense of national purpose to these exchanges than for many other countries. The Korean government has tasked its national laboratories to aid domestic industry by providing ``practical'' support for new product development and ``internationalizing their research activities.'' The establishment of ``centers of excellence,'' staffed by leading foreign universities and research institutes, provides Korean researchers with opportunities to ``come into contact'' with high-level scientists and advanced technologies. According to Korean press reporting, the Korean Ministry of Machinery and Metals (subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Technology) sought to establish joint research and development centers at Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to ``acquire leading future technologies.''49
Overt Collection
The South Korean government and Korean corporations have successfully organized and implemented a variety of overt methods for the collection of economic intelligence and the ``indirect'' transfer of technology from U.S. sources. These include international cooperation, direct foreign participation, sponsored research, hiring U.S. scientific and technical personnel, and open source collection.
(a) International Cooperation ``International cooperation'' denotes a range of Korean government and industry programs whose aim is the acquisition of foreign technology. The ROK government has both sanctioned and supported the establishment of ``S&T forums'' to act as a bridge between Korean commercial enterprises and U.S. high-technology companies to facilitate the transfer of technology. The purpose of these state-sponsored ``foundations'' is to ``remedy Korea's weaknesses in key industrial sectors by creating opportunities to interface with scientists working with specific U.S. technologies.''50
The Korean government sponsors a number of programs to foster ``strategic cooperation'' with U.S. firms. In the Korean context, strategic cooperation involves ``identifying gaps in indigenous technology, finding a foreign company that has the technology, and engaging the latter in some kind of cooperative relationship that results in the transfer of the technology to South Korea.''51 Because the initial focus of much of the research developed through strategic cooperation programs is noncommercial, foreign companies are reportedly more willing to share their technology than they would be through more ``conventional'' channels. The Korean government is often involved at different levels of the strategic cooperation process, specifically identifying weaknesses in the national
193 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
scientific and technological infrastructure, finding foreign companies willing to transfer their technology for commercial purposes, and subsidizing the actual transfer. When South Korean companies obtain foreign technology through the development process as part of a transfer agreement, the Korean press describes the transfer itself as ``joint development.''52 The Korean government sponsors a number of these programs in the United States. The Ministry of Information and Communications (MIC), for instance, sponsors the operations of the Information and Communications Venture Support Center (I-park) in California's Silicon Valley. I-park is an information technology ``incubator'' whose function is to facilitate ``strategic cooperation'' with local companies. I-park's Web page identifies facilitating technology transfer as one of the organization's main functions. The site also acknowledges support from the Institute of Information Technology Assessment (IITA); the IITA's Web page also lists technology transfer as one of its main projects. The IITA was founded in 1992 as an affiliate of the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (now a part of MIC), South Korea's state-run telecommunications research facility chartered to disseminate innovative technology to Korean manufacturers. The MIC also sponsors the Korean Venture Center (KVC), a high-tech ``incubator'' in Fairfax County, Virginia. According to the center's director, the KVC's goal is to assist Korean firms in arranging for ``joint research and development'' with U.S. companies.
In late 2001 the Federation of Korean Industries (FKI), a quasi-official organization that serves as an intermediary between Korean companies and government policymakers, announced plans to establish a biotechnology ``liaison center'' near San Diego, California. The proposed ``Korea BioValley'' is intended to serve as a focal point for Korean products into the U.S. market, and to facilitate the acquisition of U.S. biotechnology. FKI's plans reportedly call for the joint participation of large Korean companies, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and biotech startups in establishing this ``bridgehead'' in the ``hub'' of the life sciences industry.
BioValley is part of a larger FKI proposal released in October 2001 titled ``A Plan for Developing the Biotech Industry.'' According to this document, the primary purpose of BioValley is ``to grasp in real time the latest advances in biotechnology and trends in the biotech industry.'' A secondary goal is to promote the introduction of Korean biotech products into the U.S. and adjacent countries ``with a minimum of investment.''53 (b) Direct Foreign Participation Direct foreign participation includes both foreign direct investment (FDI) and participation in foreign scientific, technological, and industrial training programs. All of the major Korean
194 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
corporations have established overseas subsidiaries in an effort to claim markets and take advantage of both lower production costs and local technical expertise. The United States is now the third leading destination of Korean FDI funds; the total value of Korean investments in the U.S. is now estimated to be $790 million.54 Most of these investments are in hightechnology areas. Samsung Electronics, for example, spent $1 million to set up Image Quest Technology in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara, California). Image Quest Technology was built to research and design thin-film technology (TFT) for liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and is staffed primarily by local hires.
Hyundai Electronics's subsidiaries have also been active in the development and assimilation of advanced technology from U.S. courses. Hyundai developed a 10.4-inch TFT LCD at one of its U.S. branches, and brought the technology to Korea for manufacturing. Hyundai Electronics has also set up centers in San Jose, California, and Boston, Massachusetts, for the design of application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs). According to Korean press reporting, heavy machinery, oil refining, and factory automation companies all take advantage of their geographic location in nations with advanced technology. One newspaper reported that the Pohang Iron and Steel Company's subsidiary in Maryland, Posco International Corporation, would use its position to engage in technical information gathering.55
Korean companies regularly send employees abroad for on-site training at overseas companies. This practice exposes Korean technicians to the technology, operations, and practices of a foreign company. For example, Korean firms have regularly sent researchers and technicians to aircraft manufacturers in the United States to introduce them to advanced aerospace technology. Korean Air sent six employees to participate in the Boeing Company's 777 aircraft project in order to accumulate manufacturing design experience. In another instance, Samsung Aerospace sent sixty employees to the United States for technical training, and Halla Heavy Industries sent an eight-person technology training team to study satellite technology.56
(c) Sponsored Research South Korea takes advantage of the favorable research climate in the United States to sponsor research activities at U.S. universities and research centers. Major Korean-owned, U.S.-based research facilities include Samsung Electronics's San Jose Research Institute (85 employees); LG Electronics's San Jose Research Institute (10 employees); LG North American Operations in Chicago, Illinois (15 employees); Hyundai Electronics's SEMR Research Institute in San Jose (29 employees); and LG Semicon in San Diego, California, with 60 people conducting semiconductor technology surveys.57
195 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
(d) Hiring U.S. Personnel ROK companies favor hiring foreign experts for Korean operations as an indirect method of technology transfer. This approach is recommended by Seoul government experts, facilitated by official and semiofficial Korean organizations, and widely practiced in Korean industries. The Korean media has reported that the government will match funds spent by companies recruiting and employing high-level foreign personnel. These funds include salary incentives for qualified and accomplished foreign personnel, at rates well above international standards. According to Korean press reporting, during the early 1990s Samsung Aerospace recruited 140 foreign aeronautical specialists, 40 from the United States and the remainder from Russia and Ukraine. A Samsung mission visiting the United States in June 1993 was able to recruit sixteen general managers of design, nine group leaders, and five senior technicians. Korean companies periodically take out full-page ads in Silicon Valley newspapers to recruit engineers, and have been able to scout out talented personnel. In an effort similar to ethnic targeting for clandestine recruitment, the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology operates a system to recruit scientists and technicians, drawing from the 40,000 ethnic Koreans working overseas in scientific and technical fields, a third of whom are affiliated with the General Federation of Korean Science and Technology Organizations. The purpose of this ``brainpool'' is to provide incentives for overseas Koreans and other foreign scientists to help Korea acquire at an early date the newest science, technology, and know-how in the research and development stage in advanced countries.58
(e) Open Source Collection Foreign economic intelligence collectors routinely exploit the vast amount of competitive information that is legally available in the United States. Commercial databases, trade and scientific journals, computer bulletin boards, freely available government publications and reports, Freedom of Information Act requests for corporate publications, and Internet Web sites--all of these are potentially valuable sources of information in their own right or as tools to identify intelligence gaps and generate leads for clandestine collection. The rapid growth and commercialization of the World Wide Web has made all of this information more freely available, significantly reducing the cost of information acquisition. The Korean government and major Korean corporations have recognized that foreign databases are an excellent and inexpensive source of technological information. ROK government research institutes have provided Korean companies with access to foreign databases containing industrial, scientific, and technological information. Capitalizing on these databases has allowed South Korea to acquire considerable scientific and technological information within a limited time.59
196 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
ONE EXAMPLE AMONG MANY
South Korea provides a clear example of one allied nation's conduct of economic intelligence collection operations against the United States. The Korean government has developed and implemented a structured, systemic approach for the acquisition of sensitive economic information and ``indirect'' transfers of technology from U.S. sources. These efforts are centrally orchestrated, and take place within a policy and organizational framework managed at the highest levels of the Korean government. Most significantly, this framework has allowed the Korean government to coordinate the activities of various government agencies--the National Intelligence Service, the Ministry of Science and Technology and other government ministries, and national laboratories and research institutes-- with those of private industry for the accomplishment of specific collection objectives in support of wider national-level internal and external policy interests.
REFERENCES
1 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: South Korea, September 2001, Internet, www.state.gov=r=pa=ei=bgn=2800.htm; Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook 2001, Internet, www.cia.gov=publications=fact book=inex.html.
2 Korean Ministry of Science and Technology, ``Organization and Legal Framework,'' Internet, www.most.go.kr=index_e.html.
3 Korean Ministry of Science and Technology, ``Science and Technology Policy: A Brief History,'' Internet, www.most.go.kr=index_e.html.
4 Quoted in Peter Schweitzer, Friendly Spies: How America's Allies Are Using Economic Espionage to Steal Our Secrets (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1993), p. 207.
5 Interagency OPSEC Support Staff, Operations Security Intelligence Threat Handbook, May 1996, Internet, www.fas.org=irp=nsa=ioss=threat 96, part 05.htm.
6 Foreign Collection Against the Department of Energy: The Threat to U.S. Weapons and Technology, 1998, p. 19, reproduced in Bill Gertz, The China Threat: How the People's Republic Targets America (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000), p. 223.
7 Korean Ministry of Science and Technology, ``Organization and Legal Framework.''
8 Ibid.
9 Korean Presidential Advisory Council for Science and Technology, ``Mission,'' Internet, www.pacst.go.kr=English=3=3.htm; ``Chairman's Message,'' Internet, www.pacst,go.kr=English=1=1.htm.
10 National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea Informal Technology Acquisitions,'' Counterintelligence News and Developments, Vol. 2, June 1998, Internet, www.ncix.gov=nacic=news=1998.htm#rtoc2.
197 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
11 Peter Schweitzer, Friendly Spies, p. 186.
12 Korean National Intelligence Service, ``Mission,'' Internet, www.nis.gov.kr=English=about=mission.html.
13 Peter Schweitzer, Friendly Spies, p. 186.
14 National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea Informal Technology Acquisitions.''
15 Karl W. Deutsch, The Analysis of International Relations, 2d ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978), p. 23; David Jablonsky, ``National Power,'' Parameters, Vol. 27, No. 1, Spring 1997, p. 43; Samuel P. Huntington, ``America's Changing Strategic Interests,'' Survival, Vol. 33, No. 1, January-February 1991, p. 5.
16 National Economic Council, Report to Congress on Foreign Acquisition and Espionage Activities Against U.S. Critical Technology Companies, 1994, p. 5, cited in John J. Fialka, Statement Before the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress, 17 June 1997, p. 2, Internet, www.fas.org=irp=congress=1997_hr=j970601f.htm.
17 There is no clear operational definition of foreign economic espionage and intelligence collection. The U.S. Attorney General defines economic espionage as ``the unlawful or clandestine targeting or acquisition of sensitive financial, trade, or economic policy information, proprietary economic information, or critical technologies.'' This definition excludes the collection of openly and legally available information that constitutes a significant majority of economic intelligence collection. Aggressive intelligence collection that is entirely open and legal may harm U.S. industry, but it is not espionage. However, it can help foreign intelligence services identify information gaps and in some cases may be a precursor to economic espionage. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 defines industrial espionage as ``espionage conducted by a foreign government or by a foreign company with direct assistance of a foreign government against a private U.S. company and aimed at obtaining commercial secrets.'' This definition does not extend to the activities of private entities acting without foreign government involvement, nor does it pertain to lawful efforts to obtain commercially useful information. While some of these legal activities may be precursors to clandestine collection, they do not constitute industrial espionage.
The definition of foreign economic intelligence collection offered here includes elements of generally accepted definitions of both economic and technical intelligence. See Jeffrey T. Richelson, The U.S. Intelligence Community (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1989), pp. 8-9.
18 National Counterintelligence Center, Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage, 1998, p. 3, Internet, www.nacic.gov=nacic=reports=fy98.htm.
19 Louis J. Freeh, Statement Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information, Hearing on Economic Espionage, 29 February 1996, p. 10, Internet, www.fas.org=irp=congress=1996_hr=s960228f.htm.
198 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
20 Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage, 2001, Internet, www.ncix.gov=pubs=reports=fy01.htm#c.
21 Samuel P. Huntington, ``America's Changing Strategic Interests,'' p. 8.
22 Michael Hirsh, ``The Great Technology Giveaway? Trading with Potential Foes,'' Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 5, September-October 1998, p. 3.
23 Gordon Boezer, Ivars Gutmanis, and Joseph E. Muckerman, II, ``The Defense Technology and Industrial Base: Key Component of National Power,'' Parameters, Vol. 27, No. 2, Summer 1997, p. 26.
24 Ibid., pp. 30-37.
25 Louis J. Freeh, Statement Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Government Information, Hearing on Economic Espionage, 29 February 1996, p. 3.
26 General Accounting Office, Economic Espionage: Information on Threat from U.S. Allies, GAO=T-NSIAD-96-114, 28 February 1996, Internet, www.fas.org=irp=gao=nsi96114.htm. Initially identified by the GAO only as countries ``A'' -``E,'' these states have since been identified in open source literature as Israel, France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea.
27 National Counterintelligence Center, Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage, 1998, p. 2.
28 Central Intelligence Agency; William J. Taylor, Jr. and AbrahamKim, ``The Koreas in the Changing Northeast Region,'' in Dianne L. Smith (ed.), Asian Security to the Year 2000 (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 15 December 1996), p. 25. Other factors have included Korea's highly skilled and educated labor force working at low wages; close relations between government and business, including directed credit, import restrictions, and state sponsorship of specific industries; and the adoption of foreign capital.
29 Department of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: South Korea; National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea: Indirect Technology Transfers,'' Counterintelligence News and Developments, Vol. 2, June 1996, Internet, www.ncix.gov=nacic=news=1996=jun96.htm#rtoc1.
30 National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea: Indirect Technology Transfers.''
31 General Accounting Office, Economic Espionage: Information on Threat from U.S. Allies.
32 Federation of American Scientists, U.S. Arms Clients Profiles--South Korea, Internet, www. fas.org=asmp=profiles=south_korea.htm; ``ROK's Yonhap: Korean Arms Industry, Development, Potential, Shortfalls,'' KPP 20011002000001 Seoul Yonhap in English 0001 GMT 2 October 2001, Internet, groups.yahoo.com=group=arms trade=message=6309.
33 Federation of American Scientists; Korea Herald, ``Seoul to Export $200 Million Worth of Defense Goods,'' 26 March 2001, Internet, www.indg.org=korea.htm.
34 ``ROK's Yonhap: Korean Arms Industry, Development, Potential, Shortfalls.''
35 Ibid.
199 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE
AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
36 Federation of American Scientists, ``Seoul to Export 100 Million Worth of Defense Goods.''
37 Department of State, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Background Note: South Korea.
38 Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, Joint Pub. 1-02, 10 June 1998, pp. 79 and 333. A covert operation, by comparison, is one ``that is so planned and executed as to conceal the identity or permit plausible deniability by the sponsor'' (p. 115).
39 Samuel Halpern, ``Clandestine Collection,'' in Roy Godson (ed.), Intelligence Requirements for the 1980s: The Elements of Intelligence (Washington, DC: National Strategy Information Center, 1983), p. 31.
40 See Jeffrey T. Richelson, The U.S. Intelligence Community, pp. 234-238.
41 Edwin Fraumann, ``Economic Espionage: Security Missions Redefined,'' Public Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 4, July-August 1997, p. 304.
42 National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea: Indirect Technology Transfers,'' Counterintelligence News and Developments, Vol. 2, June 1996, Internet, www.ncix.gov=nacic=news=1996=jun96.#rtoc1; National Economic Council, Report to Congress on Foreign Acquisition and Espionage Activities Against U.S. Critical Technology Companies, 1994, p. 23, cited in Peter Schweitzer, ``The Growing Threat of Economic Espionage,'' Business Forum, Vol. 23, Nos. 1-2, Winter-Spring 1998, p. 2; Peter Schweitzer, Friendly Spies, p. 187.
43 Defense Personnel Security Research Center, Recent Espionage Cases, 1996, Internet, www.dss.mil=training=espionage=1996.htm.
44 Edwin Fraumann, ``Economic Espionage: Security Missions Redefined,'' pp. 304, 306.
45 Peter Schweitzer, Friendly Spies, p. 187.
46 National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea: Indirect Technology Transfers.''
47 Interagency OPSEC Support Staff; Neil Munro, ``South Korea Said to Eye U.S. Technology,'' Washington Technology, 19 May 1994, p. 1.
48 National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies, Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering, 1999, Internet, www.nsf.gov=sbe=srs=nsf01315=dst.htm; Jean M. Johnson, Human Resources for Science and Technology: The Asian Region, NSE 93-3-3 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1993), pp. 1, 5, 9. 49 Department of Commerce, Office of Technology Policy, Korea's Strategy
for Leadership in Research and Development, June 1997, p. 24, Internet, www.ta.doc.gov=Reports=Korea=Korea.pdf; National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea Informal Technology Acquisitions''; National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea: Indirect Technology Transfers.''
50 National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea: Indirect Technology Transfers,'' Department of Commerce, p. 21.
51 Ibid.
200 EDWIN S. COCHRAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENCE
52 Ibid.; and Department of Commerce, ``Korea's Strategy for Leadership in Research and Development,'' p. 26.
53 Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, ``South Korea: Biotech Consortium to Build Tech-Transfer Facility in San Diego,'' 21 December 2001, Internet, www.ncix.gov.
54 Korea Ministry of Finance and Economy, ``China Replaces U.S. as Korea's Investment Destination,'' 8 August 2001, Internet, www.korea.net=kwnews; ``Korean Investment in China Up, U.S. Down,'' Asia Times, 7 February 2002, Internet, www.atimes.com=koreas=DB07Dg01.html.
55 Department of Commerce, ``Korea's Strategy Leadership in Research and Development,'' pp. 19-20.
56 Ibid., p. 18.
57 Ibid., p. 20.
58 Ibid., pp. 29-30.
59 National Counterintelligence Center, ``South Korea: Indirect Technology Transfers,'' Department of Commerce, p. 35.
201 SOUTH KOREA'S INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE VOLUME 16, NUMBER 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted by maximpost at 3:34 PM EST
Permalink
Friday, 13 February 2004

The Lie of Egalitarianism
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2004


Frontpage Interview's guest today is John Kekes, the author of many books, including Against Liberalism, A Case For Conservatism and, the most recent: The The Illusions of Egalitarianism (Cornell University Press, 2003)

Frontpage Magazine: Mr. Kekes, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Let me begin with your argument that the absurdity of egalitarianism is, among many other things, its flawed premise that justice requires overlooking whether individuals deserve what they have and whether they are responsible for what they do not have. Could you talk a bit about this?

Kekes: Egalitarians believe that the obligation of the government is to treat citizens with equal consideration and they interpret that primarily in economic terms. They think that a government that allows substantial differences in wealth is immoral and their policy is to change the existing differences in wealth by taxation. The money collected by taxation is then used to benefit those who have less.
The fundamental objection to this is that the egalitarian policy ignores the crucial question of how people have come to differ in wealth. If they earned their money by legitimate mean, hard work, intelligence, in tough competition, and not being afraid to take risks, then they deserve what they have. To take their money from them in order to benefit those who have made wrong choices, were afraid of taking risks, or lost in a fair competition is unjust because it takes from people what they deserve and use it to benefit those who do not deserve it. To say that a government that does not adopt this unjust policy is immoral is absurd. It is the precise opposite of the truth. and it is this falsehood that egalitarian rhetoric endlessly repeats.

FP: Let's talk a about the impulse behind the egalitarian agenda. Somewhere it is a clear rejection of life and of the world in which humans actually occupy. There is some kind of rage and anger that lies beneath the surface of this disposition. Could you talk a bit about the psychological dimensions that spawn the desire of egalitarians to steal from people who earn wealth and to give it to people who do not?

Kekes: I shall do my best to answer your question, but I must point out that I am not a psychologist and what I say is a guess. One part of the egalitarian motivation seems to me to be an envious resentment of success. Egalitarians seem to mind that some people achieve excellence in some area of life and enjoys the rewards his excellence brings him. In having this attitude, egalitarians forget that human progress was always achieved in the past and will only be achieved in the future by people who have exceptional talent combined with the willingness to work hard to use their talent for some purpose.


Egalitarians tend to forget that everyone benefits from such achievements, not just the person himself. For businesses are profitable, if they sell something that people want to buy; research in science, medicine leads to discoveries that make life better; great works of art teach people about world and respond to their sense of beauty. Such achievements make life worth living, or at least make it less miserable for countless people.


Another part of the egalitarian motivation is pity for those who are at the bottom. This is a noble sentiment, but it easily becomes sentimentalism. For it makes a great difference why people are at the bottom. If they are the helpless victims of misfortune, that is one thing. If their position is their own fault, that is quite another. People who are deprived through no fault of their own should be helped. That is what individual good will and charity are for. But egalitarians want to force good will and charity on people by legislation. And if people have other priorities, then egalitarians are quite willing to force them to do what they don't want to do.

FP: Leftists always dream of "equality" and redistribute resources. Tell us why the very assumptions behind these dreams are flawed.
Kekes: If by some miracle resources were redistributed and everybody would start out with the same amount of money, in no time at all the old differences would emerge. For some would spend their money, others would waste it, and others would invest it, or use it to start a business. People differ, they have different preferences, and what they do with the money they have reflects their preferences.
The dream of equality is to make life such that everybody's preferences would be satisfied. But that is an impossibility because some preferences are criminal, sadistic, stupid, trivial, self-destructive, or otherwise irresponsible. A government must prevent the satisfaction of preferences that interfere with the satisfaction of other people's preferences. Not all preferences are equally acceptable. A government that ignores this violates its most basic obligation. And that is what an egalitarian government would have to do to achieve equality.
FP: You refer to some preferences being "criminal, sadistic, stupid, trivial, self-destructive, or otherwise irresponsible." In other words, Mr. Kekes, evil exists. But egalitarians seem to have a problem with the phenomenon of evil. And I would add to that the notion of original sin and our fall. Could you expand on this? Why do egalitarians have such a difficulty with the existence of evil, and from where does the need to deny its existence emanate?


Kekes: I have much to say about this question in The Illusions of Egalitarianism. One of the fundamental assumptions of egalitarians is that people are basically good. Egalitarians recognize, of course, that there are evil acts, serious crime, and that there is much injustice. But they explain all this as resulting from bad political institutions. These institutions, they suppose, are responsible for the evil that people do because they corrupt them. People become enraged by the injustice, exploitation, discrimination inflicted on them, and their evil acts are the result. The naivite of these views is amazing. For egalitarians refuse to ask the obvious question of why bad political institutions are bad. Surely, if institutions are bad, it is because bad people create and maintain them.


If there is injustice, it is because people are unjust; if there is discrimination, it is because people discriminate. People come first, and the institutions they create and maintain can come only after. So it is the badness of institutions that must be explained by there being evil people, rather than as egalitarians do: explaining evil people by bad institutions. And of course if there are evil people, as there certainly are, as we know from reading the newspapers and watching the news, it would be insane to regard them as equal to those people who live decent lives.


FP: It is clear that egalitarians are ultimately at war with human nature and the human condition. Could you illuminate this phenomenon for us?
Kekes: One basic truth about human nature is that people are individuals: they have different strengths and weaknesses, different talents and shortcomings, different experiences, different upbringing, and different luck in lives. Their actions reflect these differences. And whether their actions succeed or fail depends on these differences. Egalitarians find these differences immoral.but this is simply a failure to accept the human condition, the fact that human beings are different as a result of genetic inheritance and subsequent experiences.
To undo these differences would require forcing people to live and act in the same way, and that would destroy individuality and establish the worst kind of tyranny the world has ever seen. Egalitarians perhaps do not intend this, but whether they intend it or not, this is what they would have to aim at in order to pursue their absurd goal of changing human nature.
FP: Mr. Kekes, you say that egalitarians "perhaps do not intend" the tyranny that emanates from their ideas. But I would argue that in fact they do, that their disposition is actually rooted in a death wish itself and that Stalinism and Pol Pot's killing fields etc. are no coincidences or undesired results. In the heart of the Left, there lurks the impulse for the extinguishment of life itself. And it is precisely why the leftist political pilgrimages to the Soviet Union and China occurred during the most genocidal times - and waned off only after the most terrible mass murdering stopped. The Left loses interest in worshipping a regime when the totalitarian terror recedes. Now this might all be happening subconsciously, but the core instinct is there.
Is this too extreme of an interpretation?
Kekes: I certainly agree that Stalin's Russia and Pol Pot's Cambodia were evil regimes. But it is important to remember that there are evil regimes also on the right, and that many evil regimes are neither clearly leftist nor rightist. It is clear that Idi Amin's Uganda, Khomeni's Iran, Saddam's Iraq, were evil regimes, but it is not clear that they were leftists. I think that looking for a political explanation of evil is a mistake. The explanation of evil is psychological. The sad fact is that there is in human beings a potentialities for evil, just as there is a potentiality for good. Which dominates depends on many factors, among which genetic inheritance, upbringing, economic circumstances, good or bad luck play an important role. All in all, I think that facing evil and trying to explain its causes are among the most important questions we have to face. I merely mention that the book I have just finished is on this question. Its tentative title is The Roots of Evil.

FP: But Mr. Kekes, yes, there are evil "right-wing" regimes, but these regimes are human-made, not necessitated by ideas. What I mean by this is that there is a difference between human evil and institutional evil. Humans can create evil everywhere, but some might not. So one regime that is "right-wing" might be evil, but another one might not, because it depends what kind of human beings run it. But the idea behind the regime does not necessitate evil. In terms of the socialist idea, meanwhile, it necessitates evil. You can never have Marxism experimented anywhere without there being genocide and evil. In other words, what I am saying is that the very impulse of socialism leads to evil necessarily. Whereas, with non-Marxist regimes that do not necessitate totalitarianism, it might just mean what human being is in power. What do you say to this?


Kekes: I don't believe that ideas necessitate anything. I agree that communism tends to lead to evil, but so do racism, fascism, religious extremism. Whether ideas lead to evil depends on the people who hold the ideas and act according to them. Any idea can be misused. Take, for instance, the Constitution. It says that all men are created equal, and goes on the specify that this means that all men have an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You would think that this is clear and not easy to misunderstand. But egalitarians interpret it to mean that what the government is required to do is to provide the means that enable people to be happy. What the Constitution says is that the government should guarantee that there is no interference with people's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, not that the government should finance life, liberty, and the happiness. I mention this to show that you can take very good ideas and misuse them and no one has to accept very bad ideas. If people do evil because of the ideas they hold, it is still they who do evil, not the ideas acting through them. They did not have to accept the ideas or act on them in evil ways.


FP: Sorry, Mr. Kekes, I don't mean to belabor this point, but I think it is crucial to crystallize this theme. You say that you do not "believe that ideas necessitate anything" and that "whether ideas lead to evil depends on the people who hold the ideas and act according to them."


Just a second. I would argue that the Marxist agenda, no matter what people are in power, necessitates oppression and economic destitution. The very ideas inherent in Marxism necessitate terror, and that is precisely why every experiment with it has done so. The notion that there must be a classless society, and that private property must be taken away, and that there can be no multi-party system -- these notions mandate a terrorist component and human corpses if applied to the human situation. In other words, Stalinism was not an aberration of Marxism, but the necessary and inevitable result of it - no matter who was in power. There is no way to collectivize property, for instance, without deadly force. Do you disagree with this?

Kekes: I don't for a moment want to deny that Marxism is a very bad idea and, if it is adopted by people, it leads them to the sort of evil actions that are familiar from the history of the Soviet Union, China, and other countries.


Ideas have consequences, and bad ideas have bad consequences. But ideas don't have to be adopted and acted on. People have a choice about what ideas they hold and act on. It is this possibilities that I have been stressing in my previous replies and I want to continue to stress.


The question is: why do people come to hold ideas that have evil consequences. There are, I think, only three possibilities. One is that they are evil people and the idea gives them some form in which they can express their evil impulses. A second one is that they don't understand that the idea is bad. If they are moderately well educated and read newspapers or watch TV, they cannot fail to understand this. Of course, they may be illiterate and ill-informed. But then they can hardly be said to adopt the idea. They are likely merely to live under it, and be ruled by people who force the idea on them. The third possibility is that they are mentally lazy and pay no attention. Then they are responsible for it because they ought to pay attention to such matters.


I may add that, having lived under both Nazism and Communism, I unequivocally and deeply condemn them. But my interest is in explaining how such regimes become possible. And to explain that merely by saying that bad ideas cause them is not enough because the obvious question about that is why people adopt bad ideas. That is what I have been trying to answer.


FP: Ok, fair enough, and this is truly a crucial and fascinating question. So, in this context, let's talk about how the bad idea of socialism and Marxism was applied repeatedly throughout the 20th century and how it ended up producing 100 million corpses. And yet, despite this genocide, the Marxist idea continues to be as popular as ever in academia and other milieus. The Left is completely unchastened in terms of the horrific consequences of its own ideas. If it has another opportunity to put socialism into practise, even though it will automatically create another Stalin or Pol Pot, it will do it. And it will do it over and over again. How do we explain the Left's refusal to acknowledge the human blood that flows from its ideas - and its insistence to continue reapplying the same ideas over and over again?


Kekes: I'll try to answer the question you pose in a minute, but I want to distinguish first between Marxist and non-Marxist socialism. When I agreed with you about the evil consequences of socialism I meant only the Marxist version. I am strongly opposed to all forms of socialism, but it has to be said that the socialist governments in England or Sweden, for example, were not evil. Their policies were mistaken, in my opinion, but they had nothing to do with the sort of mass murder that Stalin and Mao had perpetrated.


It is, therefore, one question of why some people on the Left sympathize with non-Marxist socialism, and quite another why they sympathize with the Marxist kind. Having said that, it remains true, of course, that many Lefists do sympathize with Marxist socialism, which continues to be popular in academia, and it requires an explanation of how supposedly intelligent, well-informed academics could continue to have that sympathy after the well-known atrocities of the Marxist socialist regimes.


My answer is not simple because I think that the explanation is a complex mixture of several causes. First, these largely American academics do not believe that the atrocities were all that bad. They may concede that a few people have been unjustly murdered, but they refuse to accept that their number ran in the tens of millions. They think that the numbers have been exaggerated by right-wing propaganda. And as to those who have been unjustly murdered, they think that all countries, especially America, have been guilty of worse offenses. Not a word of this is true, of course, but that is what they believe.


So we need to ask how they could continue to hold such beliefs in the face of the readily available evidence to the contrary. Part of the answer is that they are outraged by what they see as the grave defects of their own society. They see poverty, racism, exploitation, and they think that the system that allows such things to happen is so rotten that it must be radically changed. They look around for an alternative to it, and Marxist socialism looks attractive to them from a distance. It lends some plausibility to their position that it is true that bad things have happened in America. It would be dishonest to deny this.


But what they don't see is that our system is set up in such a way that the bad things are publicly identified, acknowledged, great attempts are made to correct them, and are not allowed to continue. Our system is open, both the good and the bad are visible, not kept secret. In Marxist socialist regimes, great efforts were made to hide the bad things from outsiders. This was done by secrecy, deception, propaganda, and reliance on the testimony of people who were either duped or terrorized.


So these American would-be Marxist socialists see the bad here, don't see the awful there, and they arrive at the stupid view that what they are not allowed to see is not there. But this is still not the full answer to your question. For we need to understand the outrage that so often goes with these Leftist political commitments. Why are they so angry? I think this is because of their innocence. They start with the belief that everyone is basically good, that if people did not starve, were not unjustly treated, and so forth, then life would be simple and pleasant.


They don't see that in any complex society conflicts of interests are frequent, that people are motivated not just by love, altruism, sympathy, and kindness, but also by selfishness, greed, aggression, hatred, prejudice, cruelty, and so forth, and the idea of basic human goodness is a sentimental falsification of reality. They refuse to believe these hard truths, partly because is would shatter their illusions, and partly because their implications are frightening. They are outraged because they feel that their illusions are attacked. They passionately feel that the world ought not to be like that. But the world is like that and the rage is a symptom of their refusal to admit it. Most of these Leftists have never lived in a repressive tyrannical society, and they cannot imagine just how bad life could be. Their innocence is due to their ignorance, and their innocence is irresponsible because the knowledge they lack is readily available but they refuse to acquire it. And they refuse it because it would result in the painful loss of their innocence.


FP: Why are laws made in terms of punishing racial hatred but not class hatred? Racial hatred is considered a crime now in many parts of the world. Even articulating something that can be perceived as racial hate can get you charged with a criminal offense. And in many respects, this is because of slavery, the Nazi holocaust, etc. And yet, despite the 100 million lives that were extinguished because of class hatred in the 20th century, class hate is still seen not only as normal, but actually as something admirable in many sectors of our society - especially in academia. How do you explain the demonization and criminalization of racial hatred and the simultaneous toleration and promotion of class hatred?


Kekes: I am not in favor of criminalizing any idea. A free society does not do that. But I am deeply opposed to any form of indoctrination with an idea, especially if it is an undeniably bad one. And I am afraid in academic life such indoctrination is frequent. This is inexcusable. Supporters of leftist causes routinely use the classroom as a political platform and coerce students to listen to the noxious political message these academics are eager to deliver. Intolerance is rampant in academic life. This is a very bad thing, but the solution is not to respond to intolerance with intolerance, and criminalize ideas.


If people want to deny the Holocaust, want to say that women or Blacks are inferior, let them. They should be answered and their stupidity, prejudices, or ignorance should be made plain. The direct answer to your question of why racism is criminalized and the hatred of the successful is not is that Leftists have succeeded in hi-jacking most universities. The damage they have done is enormous. There are voices and organizations speaking out and trying to return to sanity and decency, but they are few. I am not optimistic about their success, although I am on their side.


FP: Will the socialist impulse ever die out in the human race and, one day, be seen as an old worn-out idea? Or will it, like war, exist as long as human beings exist, since inequality is a part of the human condition? In other words, since there will always be inequality, no matter what, there will also be those who dream of building utopia on earth rather than waiting for it in heaven. Right?


Kekes: Yes, and yes again. On this point, we are in complete agreement. If you and I are right about this, then the question arises of what could be done. There are, I think, two things: one public, the other private. The public one is to speak out as forcefully as one can against egalitarianism whenever there is an opportunity. The private one is to create for oneself as good a life as one can under the circumstances. As it has been said, living well is the best revenge. Political statements are needed, but the spectacle of a good life is much more likely to be imitated than a political statements followed.


FP: Mr. Kekes, thank you, we are out of time. It was a pleasure to have you here.


Kekes: It was a pleasure to talk to you Jamie -- and to think about your thoughtful questions. It is wonderful that Frontpagemag.com exists and provides a forum for the expression of views contrary to the Left-Liberal orthodoxy that pervades the media.

*

I welcome all of our readers to get in touch with me if they have a good idea/contact for a guest for Frontpage Interview. Email me at jglazov@rogers.com.


Posted by maximpost at 11:52 PM EST
Permalink

NATO NOTES...
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1744/MR1744.pdf

AMERICAN AVIARY...
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1738/MR1738.pdf

BEYOND HOMELAND WIND...
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1646/

BEYOND MAD COW...CONFIDENCE?
http://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG135/MG135.pdf

OUR FRIENDS IN AFRICA REALLY WANT HELP WITH AIDS...
http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/20040213.shtml
Drugs interview (8:00)
Unscrupulous doctors in Kenya are taking advantage of a government deal on AIDS drugs to make a quick profit from their sick and unwitting patients. Host Lisa Mullins speaks with correspondent Gatonye Gathura of Nairobi newspaper The Nation.



The Advisability of Sabbatical Leaves for Officers
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1752/MR1752.pdf

Abstract
As a competitive employer in the United States, the Department of Defense (DoD) strives to maintain benefits comparable to those of the public and private sector. DoD recently asked the RAND Corporation to explore the greater use of extended leaves as part of the department's strategic human resource plan. The researchers offer recommendations and observations on which extended leave programs would most benefit military officers as well as ideas on how to implement such programs.

In recent years, the Department of Defense (DoD) has focused increasing attention on ways to attract and retain highly skilled personnel at greater rates. Specifically, DoD is seeking to develop management strategies that will improve the quality of life of its officers, thereby competing more effectively with the civilian job market and creating a more flexible personnel system to prepare the military for the future. One area under active consideration is the increased and strategic use of extended leave programs, also known as sabbaticals.

Long a feature of private-sector employment, paid and unpaid leaves of absence enable employees to attend to a family crisis, undertake professional development, work in social service, take time for personal renewal, or even help their company through a financial crisis. Extended leave programs also exist in varying forms in the civilian sector of the U.S. government and in foreign militaries. Within the U.S. military, however, extended leaves are primarily restricted to educational sabbaticals, during which time officers receive only basic pay and certain benefits and after which they must "pay back" one month's service time for every two months away. The services also offer return-to-service programs, with returns contingent on service need. Still, for officers seeking a leave of absence for noneducational reasons and who hope to receive some compensation or maintain their benefits during their time away, no full-scale option exists.

But are the more expansive and flexible extended leave programs offered in the civilian world a viable option given the unique demands of the U.S. military? Would a targeted introduction of new leave options be an advisable -- and cost-effective -- personnel tool for military planners?

Why Should the Military Consider New Extended Leave Programs?
RAND researchers identified three rationales for why the U.S. military might want to implement a more comprehensive range of leave options. First, legal and legislative changes may mandate it. That is, Congress or the President could decide to extend civilian workforce laws (e.g., the Family and Medical Leave Act) to military personnel. Second, the human resources value of specific extended leave options may merit their adoption. In other words, a program might prove the "right thing to do" to keep officers satisfied and motivated and to ensure the military remains competitive with the private sector. Finally, many of these programs, depending on their design, may prove cost-efficient, either through direct savings or by generating a return on investment (ROI) in the form of increased officer retention, which in turn can result in a more experienced force and lower accession and training costs.

Return on Investment: Balancing Size, Target Cohort, Duration, and Cost
Using these rationales, the research team evaluated a wide variety of civilian, foreign military, and existing U.S. military programs for their potential human resource value. Determining whether these programs are ultimately advisable, however, requires an analysis of the third rationale: cost-efficiency. Programs may be legally tenable or mandated and may serve a public relations and morale function, but they may not be cost-effective.

To create a framework that DoD might use to formulate effective programs, the researchers conducted an illustrative ROI analysis to determine the variables that most affect whether a program's benefits outweigh its costs. The purpose was to generate general principles from which to shape and evaluate programs offering a positive, or at least neutral, ROI.

Researchers assessed four sample programs -- two leaves for social service and two for personal growth -- each with varying eligibility, participation, and benefit levels. The process demonstrated that the purpose of the leave has only a minor impact on efficiency. Instead, the characteristics with the greatest impact on ROI are the duration of the leave, the number of participants, the compensation offered, and the likelihood that participants would otherwise have left the service. The researchers also determined that

programs with limited-length leaves resulting in changes in retention behavior in at least 10 percent of participants generally have a positive ROI
programs targeting subpopulations with the highest likelihood of changing retention behavior (e.g., junior officers) are more efficient
programs that are some combination of small, short, and low cost have the more favorable ROI.
All told, program size, duration, and cost must be in balance to achieve the desired effects on retention. For instance, if costs are high, the program should be smaller and offer shorter leaves. With such programs, however, personnel managers must weigh whether the retention needed for favorable ROI can be achieved from a small group of participants taking a short leave. Further, large programs offering full compensation and long leaves may be too costly (if not substituted for other funded programs), but those providing only basic pay or benefits and short leaves may still be feasible despite their size.

Extended Leave Programs, If Well Crafted, Can Provide Desirable Flexibility
ROI analyses indicate that, with a thoughtful weighing of program features, benefits can surpass costs. When one adds in the possible legislative mandates and such qualitative values as morale improvements, these programs could be highly beneficial. Based on these findings, the researchers made the following recommendations:

Implement a Range of Programs Devoted to Personal Leaves, both paid and unpaid, with some open to all occupations and others restricted to critical ones. These programs would acknowledge and accommodate officers' personal responsibilities while allowing flexibility for both officers and personnel managers, permitting them to, for instance, employ leaves as incentives for exemplary performance.

Consider Replacing Some Intermediate Education with More Flexible Educational Sabbaticals. Educational sabbaticals could substitute for the current intermediate program of officer education, allowing some officers more freedom to study areas of individual interest and of value to their service.

Improve Existing Return-to-Service Programs. Currently, these programs do not guarantee that officers can return, even if service needs make a return desirable. Such programs should be revisited in the context of larger service priorities and total accession plans.

Evaluate Personal Growth or Sabbatical Programs for Specific Cohorts. Because target population is a major factor in costeffectiveness, DoD should conduct a cohort-based analysis to assess programs for specific groups in order to evaluate with more precision the possible effects on population size, continuation rates, and retention. Findings could also help community managers steer programs toward those officers most likely to leave (e.g., junior officers).

Leadership Support Will Be Crucial to Successful Implementation
Regardless of which programs are instituted, leadership support will be critical to their success. Such support will help ensure that eligible officers are made aware of their options and also that they are not disadvantaged for making use of them. Indeed, the importance of internal perceptions of both programs and participants should be taken into consideration when formulating program parameters. For instance, merit-based leaves are more likely to meet internal acceptance.

Ultimately, a more comprehensive system of extended leaves carries the promise of greatly enhanced flexibility for individual officers and for the military more largely. These programs can be adjusted, replaced, or eliminated based on different service needs, work-life patterns, private-sector trends, legislative developments, or shifting national priorities. However, they should not be entitlements. Moreover, in addition to the potential for concrete benefits (e.g., improved retention rates), implementing these programs may help reinforce the military's reputation as a competitive and conscientious employer.

This product is part of the RAND Corporation research brief series. RAND research briefs present policy-oriented summaries of individual published, peer-reviewed documents or of a body of published work.

This research brief describes work done for the RAND National Defense Research Institute documented in Officer Sabbaticals: Analysis of Extended Leave Options, by Harry J. Thie, Margaret C. Harrell, and Marc Thibault, MR-1752-OSD, 2003, 97 pages, ISBN: 0-8330-3456-1 (Full Document).

Copyright ? 2004 RAND Corporation

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

RB-7564-OSD (2004)

Posted by maximpost at 11:36 PM EST
Permalink



An Auschwitz in Korea
Jeff Jacoby (archive)
February 9, 2004 | Print | Send
Two words -- "never again" -- sum up the most important lesson that civilized men and women were supposed to have learned from the 20th century. It is forbidden to keep silent, forbidden to look the other way, when tyrants embark on genocide and slaughter -- if Auschwitz and Kolyma and the Cambodian killing fields taught us nothing else, they taught us that.
Or so, at any rate, we like to tell ourselves. As Samantha Power discovered upon returning to the United States after two years as a war correspondent in Bosnia, the lesson of "never again" is invoked far more often than it is applied.
"Everywhere I went," Power recalled in a speech at Swarthmore College in 2002, "I heard 'never again.' Steven Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' had been a smash hit. The Holocaust Museum had opened on the Mall in Washington. College seminars were taught on the 'lessons' of the singular crime of the 20th century. But why, I wondered, had nobody applied those lessons to the atrocities of the 1990s: the systematic murder of 200,000 Bosnian civilians in Europe between 1992 and 1995 and the extermination of some 800,000 Rwandan Tutsi in 1994.
"Did 'never again' simply mean 'never again will Germans kill Jews in Europe between 1939 and 1945?' "
Power went on to write A Problem From Hell, her Pulitzer Prize-winning account of America's failure to intervene in the genocides of the 20th century. The book was hugely and deservedly praised. It made clear, as no previous book ever had, just how much Americans knew about some of the most horrific massacres of the last century even as they were happening, and how little we did to stop them -- or even, in most cases, condemn them.
Which brings us to North Korea.
It is not exactly news that the communist regime of Kim Jong Il has sent millions of North Koreans to early graves. Estimates back in 1998 were that as many as 800,000 people were dying in North Korea each year from starvation and malnutrition caused by Kim's ruthless and irrational policies. World Vision, a Christian relief organization, calculated that 1 million to 2 million North Koreans had been killed by "a full-scale famine" largely of Pyongyang's creation.
Nor is it breaking news that North Korea operates a vicious prison gulag -- "not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century," as NBC News reported more than a year ago. Some 200,000 men, women, and children are held in these slave-labor camps; hundreds of thousands of others have perished in them over the years. Some of the camps are so hellish that 20 percent or more of their prisoners die from torture and abuse each year. The dead can be of any age: North Korea's longstanding policy is to imprison not only those accused of such "crimes" as practicing Christianity or complaining about North Korean life, but their entire families, grandparents and grandchildren included.
And of course it is widely known that Kim is openly pursuing nuclear weapons, has fired missiles capable of reaching Japan, and controls one of the largest military forces on earth.
All of this is hideous enough, and more than sufficient reason for making Kim's ouster -- and his prosecution for crimes against humanity -- an explicit goal of the United States. But now comes something new.
"I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. The parents, a son, and a daughter." The speaker is Kwon Hyuk, a former North Korean intelligence agent and a one-time administrator at Camp 22, the country's largest concentration camp. His testimony was heard on a television documentary that aired last week on the BBC. "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save the kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing."
Like other communist officials, Kwon was not bothered by what he saw. "I felt that they throroughly deserved such a death. Because all of us were led to believe that all the bad things that were happening to North Korea were their fault. . . . Under the society and the regime I was in at the time, I only felt that they were the enemies. So I felt no sympathy or pity for them at all."
Another eyewitness was Soon Ok-lee, who was imprisoned for seven years in a different North Korean camp. She described the use of prisoners as guinea pigs for biochemical weapons.
"An officer ordered me to select 50 healthy female prisoners," she testified. "One of the guards handed me a basket full of soaked cabbage, told me not to eat it, but to give it to the 50 women. I gave them out and heard a scream. . . . They were all screaming and vomiting blood. All who ate the cabbage leaves started violently vomiting blood and screaming with pain. It was hell. In less than 20 minutes, they were dead."
Gas chambers. Poisoned food. Torture. Families murdered en masse. Staggering death tolls. How much more do we need to know about North Korea's crimes before we act to stop them? How many more victims must be fed into the gas chambers before we cry out "never again!" -- and mean it?
?2003 Boston Globe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saudi Payments for Foreign Journalists
Ina column published in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, columnist Abdallah Nasser Al-Fawzan criticizes Saudi payments given to foreign journalists in order to write pro-Saudi media reports. The following are excerpts from the column : [1]
Bribing Journalists - A Rumor or the Sad Truth?
"For quite some time I have been hearing rumors that we [the Saudis] are paying journalists in Arab and non-Arab capitals, and that these payments are not in the hundreds of thousands but in the millions. I did not believe it, because first of all it was in complete contradiction to our ethics, our values and dignity, our self-respect, and our reverence to our nation and country. Secondly, I found nothing in the publications abroad about the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] that justified such practices. [In fact] there has been an Arab regime that used to pay [journalists], and that was manifested clearly in media publications about it. For example, we remember the media festivals organized by Arab media outfits [to hail] this regime and we remember the odd propaganda efforts on its behalf. But when it comes to comparing ourselves with that regime we deserve epic poems of praise ... because we find no evidence to the [bribery] rumors. Furthermore, sometimes we are the target of organized media attacks and we do need support, but no one comes forward to speak up for us, which gives the impression that we don't pay anyone.
"Such was my impression, and that is why the rumors did not sink in and did not leave me any reason for further contemplation. But the rumors persisted, and two days ago I was surprised by a trustworthy Saudi journalist and a media personality with considerable credence, Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, who published an article that changed my mind about the rumors I heard, and made me reconsider them seriously."
The Need for 'a Home-Grown Strong and Honest Media'
"In his regular column 'Meeting,' published last Monday [2] ... he talked about our dire need for a home-grown strong and honest media, free of domestic and social shackles, able to stand up to other provocative and destructive media, rather than having to rely on crippled and suppliant foreign media... Mr. Al-Sudairi went on to say that: 'Having a crippled and suppliant media cannot benefit us,' and he added even more bluntly that 'we have had the most bizarre relationship with newspapers in other Arab countries ... which to this time receive annual payments and subsidies, although they are insignificant in their own countries, let alone in the Arab world...'"
The Price for Silence
"I said at the beginning of this article that for various reasons I used to dismiss what I heard about paying Arab journalists... And although I do not support such payments under any circumstances, it would [be safe to] assume that they were given in exchange for taking certain positions and for defending us from attacks. However, this did not happen. On the contrary, the opposite has sometimes occurred.
"Mr. Al-Sudairi confirms that payments were made, but why haven't we seen the desired effect? Mr. Al-Sudairi provided a heartbreaking answer in his article. He said that those who receive payments from us 'do not write one word to refute Western media campaigns, as if the payments are made to prevent them [too] from writing against us ... i.e. they are the price of their silence.
"So, the problem is far worse than just making annual payments to Arab journalists, because these payments are the 'price of silence...
"Finally Mr. Al-Sudairi said that those who receive bribes to spare us their harm do not have the ability to harm us with their words or to safeguard us with their silence. In the words of Mr. Al-Sudairi himself: 'They are insignificant ingrates ... and some of them even use pseudonyms to publish articles against us.' What a shame... What a tragedy...
"I thank Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi for his obvious patriotic concern and I join him in condemning this sorry affair, and urge everyone to support him. If we are paying the price, as he said, to insignificant ingrate journalists who consider them a price for their silence, and still publish articles against us using pseudonyms, then the matter is truly scandalous and calls for investigation and proper remedies, not just for the end of the payments."
[1] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), January 14, 2004.

[2] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), January 12, 2004.
--------------------------------------------------
The Saudi Separation Fence
By: Yotam Feldner*
Historical Background
Two months ago, the Saudi government began to build a fence along its border with Yemen in an attempt to separate the residents along both sides of the border. The border between the two countries was set out in the 2000 Jeddah border treaty, which included a 20 kilometer-wide neutral zone as a strip of grazing land permitted to both sides. The building of the fence enraged the Shi'ite Wayilah tribe on the Yemenite side, which even before its construction had objected to the location of the border.
The Wayilah tribe owns approximately 200 military vehicles and thousands of rifles, and in the past has waged fierce battles against the Saudi Yam tribe. In 2000, it battled the Yemenite Dahm tribe, which is said to have the support of the Saudi government.
The late Wayilah tribal head Sheikh bin Shag'e, who died in 2002 under mysterious circumstances, had explained that he had in his possession 240 year-old documents proving the tribe's ownership of the lands included in the Jeddah treaty. Saudi Arabia tried to pacify the Wayilah, giving 500 of them Saudi citizenship, but the tribesmen nevertheless rioted on various occasions, including when the Saudi authorities arrested a Shi'ite sheikh of the tribe and shut down his mosque.[1]
The Wayilah Tribe: We Do Not Recognize the Border
When Saudi Arabia began to build the separation fence, the Wayilah tribe announced that if the Saudis did not stop the construction and remove all trace of it from the area, they would "blow everything up," including the Jeddah treaty. The tribe compared the Saudi fence to Israel's separation fence, and claimed that it was being built five kilometers over the border into Yemenite territory.
The Wayilah tribe also claimed that it did not recognize the international borders that crossed their territory and ripped apart their tribal unity, let alone the fence that as far as they were concerned violated their human rights. The tribe said, "The blood of thousands of our tribesmen has been shed in tribal wars against the Saudi Yam tribe for the sake of the border ... and our tribesmen are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the borders of their tribal lands."
The Wayilah claimed that the tribal borders between the Wayilah and Yam were set down in written tribal agreements even before the Saudi and the Yemenite states were established, and that these agreements were officially recognized by the first Saudi monarch Abd Al-'Aziz Aal Saud and by the Yemenite monarchy during the time of the Imam Yahyah Hamid Al-Din.
A communiqu? published by the Wayilah tribe stated: "We are renewing our objection to the agreements that created a barrier between us and our lands and our property. Similarly, we reject the principle of compensation or the division of land or of the tribe... Every new border route will be null and void, and has nothing to do with the tribal border route recognized by the Wayilah and Yam tribes...."[2]
Saudi Government: Most Explosives and Weapons Captured by Saudi Security Forces were Smuggled In by Islamists from Yemen
Saudi officials told the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that the "barrier of pipes and concrete" could in no way be called a "separation fence." Saudi Border Police Commander Talal 'Anqawi said: "What is being built within our borders is a barrier of pipes full of concrete, aimed at deterring infiltration and smuggling... This barrier does not in any way resemble a fence. The site chosen to establish it is located within sovereign Saudi territory."[3]
The Saudi prince of Najran, Mash'al bin Abd Al-'Aziz, also denied that the barrier was a separation fence. According to him, Saudi authorities built a barrier of pipes 95 km-long in an open area between two mountains to block smugglers in cars from infiltrating Saudi lands, north of the region of the agreed upon 20 km-wide strip. According to the Saudis, most of the explosives and weapons captured by Saudi security forces in recent months have been smuggled in by Islamists from Yemen.[4]
Yemen Claims Saudi Arabia has Backed Down
Following the media reports, the regime heads in Saudi Arabia and Yemen denied any crisis. The leaders of the countries tried to solve the problem behind the scenes, and Yemenite President Ali Abdallah Saleh went to Egypt so that it would mediate between the sides. At the same time, a Yemenite delegation visited Saudi Arabia in order to resolve matters. But according to a report in the English-language Yemen Times, the Wayilah tribe was preparing for war:
"A prominent sheik of the Wayilah tribe ... told Yemen Times that up to 3,000 tribesmen are preparing to fight Saudi forces unless Saudi Arabia pulls out of Yemen. The sheik claims that Saudi Arabia has already built a security fence 4 to 7 km beyond the neutral zone inside Yemen, stretching from Jabal Hobash to Jabal Al Fara. 'Saudi Arabia has already built a security fence inside Yemen,' said the sheik, 'and we are ready to fight any time if Saudi Arabia doesn't remove what they have built in our country...'
"Even though tribes are preparing for a conflict, a Yemeni government official told Yemen Times on Tuesday that Saudi authorities did accept to remove the separation fence along its border with Yemen after extensive Egyptian and U.S. efforts paid off in convincing Saudi authorities to do so. 'Both the U.S. and Egypt exerted efforts with Yemen and Saudi Arabia resulting in an agreement to remove all constrictions made by the Saudis,' said the Yemeni official."[5]
* Yotam Feldner is Director of Research at MEMRI.
[1] See http://www.islamonline.net/iol-arabic/dowalia/alhadath2000-oug-29/alhadath7.asp.

[2] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), February 9, 2004.

[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 9, 2004.

[4] Al-Hayat (London), February 10, 2004.

[5] Yemen Times, February 12, 2004.


----------------------------------------------------
Saudis Warned of 'Imminent' Car Bomb Threat
"PA"
Saudi TV has warned residents of Riyadh that there is an imminent threat of a car bomb attack.
Quoting the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the newsreader said, "According to very reliable sources there is an imminent threat of a car packed with explosives ready to be used in a terrorist act."
He directed the warning to "the attention of the locals and residents especially in Riyadh," the capital.
In last night's broadcast on state-run television, monitored by APTN television in London, the newsreader gave a detailed description of the vehicle "to ensure that everyone is alert and extra careful because these terrorists have these types of cars in residential areas."
A picture of a car was broadcast and described in voiceover as "A GMC Suburban, 1991 automatic, the original registration number is DNA 034. Dark grey which may have been changed."
The broadcast went on with minute detail, describing windows tinted except for the driver's side window and the windscreen, a curtain between the front seat and the rest of the car, and a scratch along the side of the car.
"The last time the car was seen was on Alrabwa Street, east of Riyadh," the broadcast said.
The newsreader asked anyone with information to come forward, and said information leading to the arrest of those involved would be rewarded.
The Saudi government has more publicly combated support for extremists in the kingdom since bombings May 12 and November 8 that targeted housing compounds for foreigners in Saudi Arabia. Saudi and US officials have blamed Saudi exile Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terror network.
Since those blasts, authorities have detained hundreds of people in a crackdown on alleged militants and have urged wanted persons to surrender.
In January, the authorities said they had seized nearly 24 tons of explosives in anti-terrorism raids during the past six months.
Still not getting it: FBI sacks translator who reported on pro-terrorist colleagues
The FBI translator who exposed pro-terrorist colleagues has been sacked.
The FBI has sacked a linguist who blew the whistle on some colleagues who cheered the 9/11 terrorist attacks and reportedly sabotaged translations crucial to ongoing terrorism investigations.
The report is the latest instance of high-level political correctness within the FBI, where senior officials have been pandering to Islamist fringe elements who are tied to terrorist groups.
Investigative reporter Paul Sperry reports, "Middle Eastern linguists with top-secret security clearance" at the FBI celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and shouted: "It's about time they got a taste of what they've been giving the Middle East."
Sperry reports that when FBI linguist Sibel Dinez Edmonds reported the incident and other "breaches in security, mistranslations and potential espionage by Middle Eastern colleagues," she was fired "without specified cause."
Edmonds's supervisor, "a naturalized U.S. citizen from Beirut" reportedly told his employees "to take long breaks, to slow down translations, and to simply say 'no' to those field agents calling us to beg for speedy translations so that they could go on with their investigations and interrogations of those they had detained."
Edmonds is said to have detailed these allegations further in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
The Center for Security Policy has warned repeatedly over the last year and a half that the failure of the FBI to acknowledge the nature of certain Islamist groups and individuals, in order not to appear "insensitive," would jeopardize the Bureau's ability to protect against potential terrorist threats.

-----------------------------------------------
February 6, 2004 No.658
Egyptian Government Daily: Suicide Bombings are Legitimate Even if Children Are Killed
An editorial in the Egyptian government daily Al-Masaa praised suicide/martyrdom operations, and called on Palestinian organizations to not publish the names of the bombers so that their families' houses would not be demolished. The article focuses primarily on female suicide bombers, following the debate in the Arab media over Hamas's dispatching of Reem Al-Riyashi, a mother of two, to carry out the January 14, 2004 bombing in Gaza. The following is the translation of the editorial : [1]
"We ask again, why do the various Palestinian organizations insist on publishing the name of everyone who carries out a martyrdom operation against the Zionist entity?
"We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion, [an enemy] who has deadly weapons prohibited by international law, that is not deterred from using them against the defenseless Palestinian people.
"Even if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed - the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi.
"Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation.
"But at the same time, we wonder about the reason for publishing the names of those who carry out the [martyrdom] operations; [this publishing] is a valuable gift that the Palestinian resistance gives the Zionist entity, since as soon as it receives this gift, the armies of the [Zionist] entity hasten to the home of the martyr's family, wounded by the loss of its son, in order to multiply its pain by destroying its home. Moreover, the home of the martyr's family is always destroyed negligently, causing serious damage to or the collapse of the neighbor's home.
"We ask the leaders of these organizations: Give us one good reason for publishing the names of the martyrs whom, it can be assumed, martyred themselves for the religion, the homeland, and the people, and not for any other reason. The Lebanese resistance published [the names of] those who took this path during the years of the Zionist occupation [in Lebanon] without any logical justification. We were surprised that the Palestinian resistance is employing the same method, also without any justification. "This is even though the situation is different, as the Shahids in the case of Lebanon, such as Sanaa Muheidali and other women, lived in territories not under the control of the Zionist occupation, while in the Palestinian case, [they live under Zionist occupation]."
[1] Al-Masaa (Egypt), January 2, 2004.

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


John Kerry: Shredding documents and abandoning veterans
Ben Shapiro (archive)
February 11, 2004 | Print | Send
John Kerry is running as a Vietnam veteran. The Kerry campaign Web site states: "When John Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he joined his fellow veterans in vowing never to abandon future veterans of America's wars. Kerry's commitment to veterans has never wavered and stands strong to this day." But Kerry's resume tells a very different story.
Kerry's actions in Vietnam were heroic, but his actions upon his return were inexcusable. Kerry associated with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a rabid anti-war group that defamed United States soldiers and often protested under the banner of the Viet Cong.
Kerry testified before Congress that American soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs ... poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." He has never named anyone who committed these atrocious acts and admits that he never witnessed these war crimes. Kerry's words certainly contributed to fortifying Viet Cong morale and promoting Viet Cong interests.
Kerry's abandonment of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam wasn't over yet. When he became a senator, Kerry continued to stab Vietnam soldiers in the back. Kerry began pushing normalization of trade with Vietnam. To that purpose, he founded the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs. Kerry became chair of the committee. In order to normalize trade, the Vietnamese government would have to prove that its hands were now clean with regard to POW/MIAs.
Kerry tried to erase the possibility that prisoners of war were still alive in captivity in Vietnam. I spoke Monday evening with Mike Benge, a POW/MIA activist. Benge was a civilian POW held from 1968 until 1973 by the North Vietnamese Army; he spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a "black box," and one year in a cage in Cambodia. Benge accuses Sen. Kerry of shredding key papers documenting "live sightings of POWs in Vietnam and Laos" during the POW/MIA hearings. According to Benge, Kerry attempted to shred all copies to prevent leaks and future declassification of the materials.
John F. McCreary, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst assigned to Kerry's committee, reported knowledge of Kerry's document shredding to Vice Chairman Bob Smith. A memorandum by McCreary explains: "Senator John Kerry ... told the Select Committee members that 'all copies' would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest." On April 9, 1992, McCreary verified that the original document was destroyed, as well as 14 copies. The memo continues: "On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha ... ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, 'Who's the injured party,' and 'How are they going to find out because its classified.'"
On April 16, Kerry stated that the original documents had remained in the Office of Senate Security all along, so nothing wrong had been done. Actually, this was not the case, according to McCreary: "the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April." In a classic CYA maneuver, Kerry had ordered a non-original copy of the document entered into the Office of Senate Security -- but only after protests from staff caused him to rethink complete destruction of the documents. As McCreary stated, this "constitute(d) an act to cover-up the destruction."
Mike Benge also told me that Kerry hung one POW/MIA testifier out to dry. Garnett "Bill" Bell was chief of the U.S. Office of POW/MIA Affairs in Hanoi when he testified before the Senate Select Committee. Benge says that he brokered a deal with Bell: Kerry would grant Bell immunity from retaliation by the Defense Department if Bell testified. Bell testified; the immunity never came. Bell was fired, Benge stated.
Normalization for Vietnam passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, largely due to Kerry's persistence. Kerry's pro-normalization views seem particularly strong when viewed in comparison with Kerry's other foreign-policy positions. Kerry has flip-flopped repeatedly on the war in Iraq, but his support for the Vietnamese government has been unwavering. According to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, in 2002 Kerry blocked the Vietnam Human Rights Act from coming to a vote.
Is John Kerry committed to Vietnam veterans? Perhaps the ones back in the United States. But for the Vietnam soldiers who died because Kerry provided aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, or the POWs who may have lived out their lives in cages, Kerry's lack of commitment had tragic consequences.
?2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2004
With Matt Drudge's recent revelation that John Kerry is as faithful to his second wife as he was to his old Vietnam "brothers," the senator's presidential campaign may depend more than ever on the actions of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. While the mainstream media has thus far overlooked the alleged infidelity, media outlets have also overlooked a far more important story: The former Mrs. John Heinz is also in bed - financially - with the radical Left.
Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a "charity" established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates.
During the years 1995-2001, the Howard Heinz Endowment, which Heinz Kerry chairs, gave Tides more than $4.3 million. The combined Heinz Endowments (composed of the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment) donated $1.6 million to establish the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh office of the San Francisco-based Tides Center. Since that time, the local branch has tirelessly pushed an anti-business agenda in the name of "preserving the environment." However, it is the Tides Foundation's national organization whose connections are most disconcerting.
The Tides Foundation is a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the Left. Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a host of causes; the donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, for a nominal fee. Drummond Pike told The Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with." That becomes understandable when one views the list of Tides grant recipients. And who are the beneficiaries of this money?
The Antiwar Movement
Senator John F. Kerry has gone far with his nuanced view of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He voted for the war resolution but specified a litany of conditions the Bush administration must meet before he would support combat, then proceeded to vote against funding troops already in harm's way - then claimed he had always supported the president when Saddam Hussein was captured. The grant recipients of the Tides Foundation, to which Kerry's wife has steered more than $4 billion in "charitable" funds, understand no such nuance.
Tides established the Iraq Peace Fund and the Peace Strategies Fund to fund the antiwar movement. These projects fueled such hysterical protest organizations as MoveOn.org, the website that recently featured two separate commercials portraying George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler. (Howard Dean, not Kerry, won MoveOn.org's "virtual primary.")
The antiwar movement often boasted that MoveOn.org and the radical website Indymedia provided them "alternate media coverage." Indymedia, an enormous news and events bulletin board with local pages in most of the world's major cities, provided a vital link for radical activists often with violent agendas to coordinate their protests. Indymedia received $376,000 from the Tides Foundation.
The Institute for Global Communications is another leftist communications facilitator that received Tides grant money. IGC, which during the 1990s was the leading provider of web technology to the radical Left, links to "recommended sites" such as the War Resisters League (a group whose purpose is enabling peaceniks to refuse to pay taxes) and the leftist American Friends Service Committee. Most disturbing is the link to Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, which has supported Slobodan Milosevic and North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Il. The IAC is the force behind International ANSWER, which sponsored the major antiwar (and anti-Bush) rallies before the invasion of Iraq. When ANSWER was outed as a Communist organization, United for Peace and Justice, headed by longtime Communist Party member Leslie Cagan was created as a "moderate" alternative. UFPJ is also a Tides grant recipient.The Tides-funded "A Better Way Project," which opposed war in Iraq, also coordinated efforts of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition. The celebrity-laden Win Without War Coalition, along with the Bill Moyers-funded Florence and John Schumann Foundation, ran full-page ads in the New York Times opposing the War on Terrorism. This will not be the last overlapping of far-Left causes.
The Islamist Front
Immediately after 9/11, Tides formed a "9/11 Fund" to advocate a "peaceful national response" to the opening salvos of war. Part of the half-million dollars in grants the 9/11 Fund dispersed went to the New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project to protect the rights of homosexual Arabs. The Foundation replaced the 9/11 Fund with the "Democratic Justice Fund," which was established with the aid of George Soros' Open Society Institute. (Currency speculator and pro-drug advocate Soros is, like Teresa Heinz Kerry, a major contributor to Tides, having donated more than $7 million.) The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States, particularly from countries designated by the State Department as "terrorist nations."
Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations. Ostensibly a "Muslim civil rights group," CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations within the Wahhabi Lobby, with links to Hamas. CAIR regularly opposes and demonizes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming, for instance, that Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in "hate crimes."
CAIR officials have reason to fight Bush's anti-terrorism measures: all too many CAIR officials are on the record supporting terrorism. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad openly stated in 1994, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement." Community Affairs Director Bassem K. Khafagi has been arrested for visa and bank fraud. Randall Royer, a Communications Specialist and Civil Rights Coordinator at CAIR, was arrested along with a group of Islamic radicals in Virginia for allegedly planning jihad. CAIR has defended terrorist "charities" shut down by the Bush administration. Every few months some CAIR campus official is arrested for aiding and abetting terrorism.
The Legal Matrix
The Tides Foundation has funded a number of the pillars of the radical legal establishment. Chief among these is the National Lawyers Guild, which began as a Commnist front organization and is proud of its lineage. At its recent convention last October, the concluding speaker was Lynne Stewart, an indicted terrorist NLG lawyer arrested for helping her client - convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman - communicate with his terrorist cells in Egypt. In her speech, Stewart said she and her NLG comrades were carrying on a proud tradition of their forebears, past and present:
And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents.
More recently, the NLG has endorsed the March 20 call to End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine & Everywhere" organized by International ANSWER, and has posted a petition for "Post-Conviction Relief" for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Tides' Peace Strategies Fund has funneled money to the Center for Constitutional Rights. The CCR was stablished by Sixties radical William Kunstler, defender of the Chicago 8, and Arthur Kinoy. The two also had plans to establish a new Communist Party. Executive Director Ron Daniels has been honored by the Communist Party USA for his work. Daniels also has a long and cordial relationship with racist, anti-Semitic "poet laureate" Amiri Baraka. Since 9/11, CCR has channeled its efforts into fighting every effective Homeland Security measure. They have opposed increasing the government's ability to wiretap Islamists suspected of plotting terrorism and moaned the sequestering of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay was an unexcusable form of "racial profiling." CCR President Michael Ratner has portrayed American soldiers as the offenders, guilty of 9/11 by their Middle East policy and guilty of keeping Islamist killers "shackled, hooded and sedated during the 25 hour flight from Afghanistan." CCR has also defended Lynne Stewart's "innocence" in aiding Sheikh Rahman's Islamic Jihad.
Tides also funds the Alliance for Justice, a group dedicated to stopping Bush judicial appointees (a cause John Kerry can agree wholeheartedly endorse). Other Tides grants have gone to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the Asian Law Caucus.
Environmental Extremism
The Tides Foundation has funded the Ruckus Society, a group of anarchist Greens who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots. The Tides Center of Western Pennsylvania, established in Pittsburgh with Heinz Family funds, advocates for environmentalist measures that have helped put holes in the Rust Belt's economy.
Tides money has also squashed free speech. Thanks to complaints generated by the Tides-funded Environmental Working Group, ABC cancelled a John Stossel piece exposing the misleading nature of environmental advocacy in public elementary schools.
Greenpeace is a well-known Tides grant recipient. Greenpeace is best known for its illegal actions, endangering humans in order to make a point about the environment. Tides gave Greenpeace a quarter of a million dollars over ten years.
Lest one think only Tides' money is going to radicals, not funds directly controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry, remember that Heinz money has repeatedly found its way to the Earth Island Institute. On September 14, 2001, the Institute's website bore the headline "U.S. Responds to Terrorist Attacks with Self-Righteous Arrogance."
Heinz family philanthropic funds have also had some dubious effects on the presidential race. The League of Conservation Voters has recently endorsed John Kerry's presidential campaign. The Heinz Family Foundation gave LCV at least $20,000 and donated almost $250,000 to a member of the LCV board.
Perhaps this circular rotation of cash and endorsements should not surprise anyone. The grant-making institutions of the Left and their feverish recipients ultimately form an amorphous, leftist entity. One never needs to search very far to find connections between a leftist foundation and extreme advocacy groups. Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Bill Moyers and the Ford Foundation fund the Tides Foundation/Center; Tides funds the National Lawyers Guild, CAIR, MoveOn.org and United for Peace and Justice; those organizations then unite in fluid coalitions to protest against their common political enemies (Republicans). Ultimately, their representatives end up on Bill Moyers' PBS programs or active within the Democratic campaigns of their fundraisers. Between now and the election, these organizations will run constant interference for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumably Kerry himself): they will march en masse against the Bush administration again and again; they will file more lawsuits against the administration's Homeland Security measures, decry any effective response to terrorism, claim the United States is guilty of slaughtering Iraqi civilians and petition leftist judges to open America's borders to Islamist terrorists. After they help his election, President Kerry will be indebted to them. And then they will insist he begin implementing their political agenda.
Moreover, they will have a close ally in the East Wing of the White House, an ally more intimately tied to them than she is to her (second) husband. (She only adopted his last name and political party registration less than 18 months ago. "Politically, it's going to be Heinz Kerry," she recently said. "But I don't give a sh-t, you know?") Teresa Heinz Kerry will play a potent role in saving her second husband's presidential campaign now - as Hillary Clinton did in 1992, and again during her husband's impeachment. Like Hillary, in return for her service, Heinz may demand a place at the table for her pet causes. Caveat emptor.
Ben Johnson is Associate Editor of FrontPage Magazine.

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

>> OUR FRIEND KARZAI...

Inviting Terrorism
With Karzai's permission, Iran is establishing terrorist bases in Afghanistan.
Last Saturday, the Iranian government made an extraordinary announcement. The mullahs' Islamic Republic News Agency said that they had completed construction of ten "border outposts" inside the Harat province of Afghanistan. According to the report, these are in addition to others all along the border, inside Nimrouz, Sistan, Baluchestan, and Farah provinces. That the mullahs are doing this at all -- with the apparent consent of the Karzai government and without any objection from us -- is simply astounding. In effect, Karzai has invited them in to foment terrorism and insurgency against our forces and against his struggling government.
Iran is the central terrorist nation. Hezbollah -- the terrorists who operate as functionaries of Syria -- are backed and paid for by Tehran, as are several other terrorist organizations. Iran has admitted that several of the al Qaeda leadership are in Iran, supposedly under arrest, but more likely being given sanctuary and assistance. Iran, already well armed with missiles and WMD, has built several nuclear "research" sites, many of which are well buried to protect them from air strikes. They don't want to be the recipients of a message from Israel like the one that destroyed Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981.
As Undersecretary of State John Bolton explained last November, Iran's nuclear program is -- despite what the Clouseaus of the International Atomic Energy Agency say -- working hard to develop nuclear weapons. Enriched plutonium, which even the IAEA managed to find at one Iranian nuclear site, has no peaceful purpose. More than two years ago one of Iran's leaders, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, said that if the Islamic world can get nuclear weapons it should use them on Israel, because they can destroy Israel while the Islamic world would survive a nuclear counterattack. These are the people Karzai is inviting into his country.
The Iranians are being quite clever, saying that their Afghan outposts will be manned by "special police" for a campaign against poppy cultivation. Iran's interest in poppy production is the same as its interests in nuclear weapons: They don't plan on using nukes on themselves, and they have an active antidrug campaign that works against the heroin traffickers who try to sell their wares in Iran. But others cross Iran from Afghanistan to reach heroin labs in eastern Turkey and in the northern Kurdish region of Iraq. Heroin sales are used to finance terror. Intercepted al Qaeda shipments of heroin prove that well enough. The Iranians' having antidrug cops inside Afghanistan may aid them in stopping some shipments to local drug sellers, but it will also allow them to provide safe conduct for those shipments that are meant for their terrorist allies and operatives.
By allowing the Iranians in, the Afghans are providing them with the best cover they can get: a legal right to operate inside Afghanistan. The Iranians will catch a few "suspect" druggies to show the world that they're good guys. To better achieve their "mission" against poppy growing, Iranian forces will range over large areas of Afghanistan. They will claim that any interference in any of their operations is unlawful and only helps the drug smugglers. If American troops interfere in their terrorist operations, the Iranians will fight. There will be small skirmishes between Iranian "police" and our special-ops troops. But the Iranians don't want an open war against the United States, at least not yet. So they will complain to the Karzai government, which, having trapped itself, will have to ask us to leave the Iranians alone. The whole mess may end up in another drawn-out U.N. debate, which will blame America for helping the drug smugglers. We can't let it get that far.
At this writing, there are still about ten thousand American troops and eight thousand NATO troops in Afghanistan, trying to stabilize the country so that democracy can take hold. Facing them -- or, more accurately, operating in the shadows all around them -- are the resurgent Taliban, al Qaeda, and agents of both the Pakistani and Iranian regimes. Pakistan's military intelligence agency -- the ISI -- was instrumental in the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and is allied with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. Iran is more powerful, and thus more of an immediate threat to Afghanistan. The dozen Iranian outposts are also a direct challenge to the American and NATO forces. They will have to be watched every moment, and movement of people beyond their immediate vicinity will have to be stopped. This will tie up many of our special-ops troops, who are also out chasing the Taliban remnants and bin Laden himself.
The Iranians are setting themselves up to take Afghanistan by stealth, gradually and certainly. They will use their outposts to smuggle al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, as well as weapons and money, in and out of Afghanistan. They must be stopped with whatever force it takes. Otherwise, Iran's presence will grow, and so will its interference in the Afghan government's ability to establish security for its own people. The Iranians are preparing to fight a guerilla war against the Karzai government and the Western forces now in the country. They are readying the battlefield for a coming fight on their terms. We cannot allow this to proceed, and we need to force them out, but before we can we must persuade the Karzai government to reverse itself and deny the Iranians permission to enter Afghanistan.
If Afghanistan is free -- or at least free of the Taliban regime for the time being -- it is to President Bush's credit. But in Afghanistan, like Iraq, the battle is far from over. Karzai must act quickly and withdraw his permission for the Iranians to bring any police or troops into Afghanistan. The Iranians should be told to pack up and get out of town by sundown. If they don't, they should be evicted with whatever force may be required. Closing these outposts will not end infiltration from Iran, but it will make a stealthy invasion much harder.
-- NRO Contributor Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Southwestern Asia And The Middle East
Volume 8 Number 29
Friday, 13 February 2004
previous issue

ISLAMABAD CONCEDES POSSIBLE CROSS-BORDER RAIDS INTO AFGHANISTAN
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf acknowledged on 12 February that Al-Qaeda and neo-Taliban elements might be using Pakistani territory to launch attacks inside Afghanistan, the Karachi-based daily "Dawn" reported the next day. "On the western border [with Afghanistan], certainly everything is not happening from Pakistan, but certainly something is happening from Pakistan," Musharraf said. "Let us not bluff ourselves.... Whatever is happening from Pakistan must be stopped. That is what we are trying to do." "Dawn" called Musharraf's de facto acknowledgment that militants and terrorists have been crossing his country's border into Afghanistan "Pakistan's most explicit admission" to date in the ongoing diplomatic feud over Islamabad's efforts to help curb cross-border insurgency. Western diplomats based in Islamabad have noted that Pakistan appears more willing to rein in the neo-Taliban since the new Afghan Constitution enshrined the rights of Pashtuns, Pakistan's recent allies in Afghanistan, the Karachi daily concluded. Afghan authorities have long asked Islamabad to do more to stop cross-border activities by militants. AT

PAKISTAN ARRESTS TWO SUSPECTED TERRORISTS NEAR AFGHAN BORDER
In a raid on a village near the Afghan border, Pakistani paramilitary troops arrested two suspected members of Al-Qaeda on 12 February, AP reported. The raid took place in the village of Mir Khankhel in Jamrud, 25 kilometers northwest of Peshawar, an area dominated by Afridi Pashtun tribesmen. The suspects are reportedly a Moroccan national, Abdul Rahman, and Adnan Khan Afridi, a local resident who is believed to have been sheltering Abdul Rahman, an unidentified Pakistani intelligence official was quoted as saying. The operation in Jamrud, which lies on a main road connecting Pakistan to eastern Afghanistan, is believed to be the first in the area, AP commented. AT

KABUL PAPER LAMENTS LACK OF SECURITY
The Kabul-based publication "Mosharekat-e Melli" wrote in a commentary on 10 February that insecurity is spreading in Afghanistan. The commentary claimed that while Afghanistan has been an insecure place in which to work and live for the last 25 years, last year marked the first time that international social workers were killed or attacked. "Mosharekat-e Melli" added that UN and other aid agencies have scaled back their activities in Afghanistan because of the surge in terrorist attacks. There are many domestic and foreign factors that "have increased barbarism and insecurity" in the country, the paper added. External factors include the insufficiency of financial contributions, a lack of policy coordination by Western countries, and "unsatisfactory cooperation of the neighboring countries like Pakistan in the eradication of terrorism," the paper said. The commentary listed several domestic problems, including a lack of progress in the disarmament process, the inability of the central government to extend its authority throughout the country, and unemployment. "Mosharekat-e Melli" warned that both Afghanistan and the world "will have to pay a great and heavy compensation" if extremists prevail. AT

TEHRAN REJECTS U.S. NUCLEAR CONCERNS
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi during a 12 January visit to Rome rejected recent comments by U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton about Tehran's nuclear activities, IRNA and RFE/RL reported. "We have decided to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes and we insist on that," Kharrazi said, according to RFE/RL. "This is our right, this is our legitimate right to have access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." Kharrazi added that Iran does not believe nuclear weapons would contribute to its security, and he said Tehran is ready to respond to IAEA inspectors' questions. Referring to reports claiming the discovery of undeclared Iranian nuclear activities (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 12 February 2004), Bolton said the same day, according to RFE/RL, "The information that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] has learned is certainly consistent with the information that we had, and it's not surprising." BS

TEHRAN ACKNOWLEDGES NUCLEAR-CENTRIFUGE 'SUCCESS'
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi said on 13 February that his country "has achieved major success in the technology of nuclear-fuel centrifuge," ISNA reported. International media reports the same day added details to a story about undeclared Iranian nuclear activities -- including a new centrifuge design -- that was broken by the "Financial Times" on 12 February (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 12 February 2004). "The Washington Post," the "Los Angeles Times," and "The New York Times" reported that UN inspectors discovered documents for a sophisticated uranium-enrichment machine referred to as P2 or G2, depending on the source. Tehran had not declared its possession of the technology previously, although it claimed to have been completely forthcoming in an October report to the IAEA (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 27 October 2003). Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center said of the discovery: "This is like saying, 'I prohibited you from having any motorized vehicles, and you declared your motor scooter, and I discovered you had a Ferrari,'" the "Los Angeles Times" reported. BS

COALITION FOR IRAN ANNOUNCES CANDIDATE LIST
Campaigning for Iran's 20 February parliamentary elections began on 12 February, and the Coalition for Iran (Etelaf Bara-yi Iran) announced the same day a list of candidates it backs for Tehran's constituencies, ILNA reported. Coalition members include reformist groups like the Executives of Construction, the Militant Clerics Association (Majma-ye Ruhaniyun-e Mubarez), the Islamic Iran Solidarity Party, and the Shiraz wing of the Office for Strengthening Unity student organization. Normally the list of candidates for Tehran would contain 30 names, but the Guardians Council barred four of the coalition's choices. The better-known names on the list include the speaker of parliament, Hojatoleslam Mehdi Karrubi, as well as other members of the legislature, such as Hojatoleslam Majid Ansari, Elias Hazrati, Mahmud Doai, Ali Hashemi-Bahramani, Jamileh Kadivar, and Soheila Jelodarzadeh. BS

PROMINENT IRANIAN REFORMIST WITHDRAWS FROM PARLIAMENTARY RACE
Tehran parliamentary representative Hojatoleslam Ali Akbar Mohtashami-Pur told ISNA on 13 February that he has withdrawn from this month's parliamentary elections. In addition to being a prominent reformist, Mohtashami-Pur is a member of the Militant Clerics Association (Majma-ye Ruhaniyun-e Mubarez). Seyyed Hadi Pazhuheshi-Jahromi, the Khorasan Province Election Headquarters chief, said on 12 February that 30 candidates for the parliamentary elections pulled out of the race on the first day of campaigning, ISNA reported. He did not explain the withdrawals. Before the withdrawals, the Guardians Council listed 577 candidates in Khorasan Province. BS

UN ADVISER SAYS IRAQIS CLOSE TO CONSENSUS ON ELECTIONS...
A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on 12 February that Annan's adviser on Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, has told the secretary-general that Iraqis are closer to reaching a consensus on a timetable for elections following his weeklong trip there, AP reported. "There is wide agreement that elections must be carefully prepared and that they must be organized in technical, security, and political conditions that give the best chance of producing a result that reflects the wishes of the Iraqi electorate and thus contributes to long-term peace and security," Annan's spokesman Fred Eckhard said. "Everyone expects elections in 2005," Reuters quoted Eckhard as saying. "The question is what can be done before June 30 and, if it can't be elections, what other way can you find to establish a legitimate government." Meanwhile, Brahimi told CNN on 12 February that "what is encouraging is that I think [Iraqis] want to go toward the rule of law, they want to go toward a government that is representative and they all agree that this can best be done through elections. The question is, when are these elections possible?" KR

...AS IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL MEMBERS SCRAPPING CAUCUS IDEA
A number of Iraqi Governing Council members are reportedly moving away from a proposed U.S. plan to hold caucuses in Iraq to elect an interim Iraqi leadership, AP reported on 13 February. Several council members from different factions are now supporting a plan that would expand the Governing Council, which would assume power on the 30 June handover date. Nationwide direct elections would then be scheduled for later this year. The plan has the strongest support among the council's 13 Shi'ite representatives, according to AP. However, Sunni council member Samir Shakir Mahmud told the news agency that the proposal has not been finalized or discussed at length with UN adviser Brahimi. Meanwhile, Shi'ite Governing Council member Muwaffaq al-Rubay'i told AP that Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has pushed for early national direct elections, would support an expanded-council formula. Al-Sistani previously objected to the idea of an expanded council. KR

U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY SAYS ARAB TELEVISION NETWORKS DAMAGED U.S. INTERESTS IN IRAQ
Al-Jazeera on 13 February quoted U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as saying that Arab television networks have damaged U.S. interests in Iraq by continuously broadcasting inaccurate information. "Undoubtedly, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah caused us great damage and harm in Iraq by continuously broadcasting wrong and inaccurate information, impairing what the coalition forces are trying to achieve in Iraq," Rumsfeld was quoted as saying. "Attempts to compete with them in that part of the world is very difficult." Al-Jazeera did not report when or where the defense secretary made the comments. KR

U.S. COMMANDER'S CONVOY ATTACKED IN IRAQ
A convoy carrying U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander General John Abizaid was attacked on 12 February as it approached the headquarters of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) in Al-Fallujah, the Coalition Provisional Authority's website (http://www.cpa-iraq.org) announced the same day. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told reporters during a weekly press briefing in Baghdad that militants fired three rocket-propelled grenades at Abizaid's convoy from nearby rooftops as the convoy approached the ICDC compound. "A local mosque was thought to be harboring the attackers, and [ICDC] soldiers conducted a search of the mosque without result," he said. Asked whether he believed the attackers had any prior knowledge that General Abizaid would be at the compound, Kimmitt said: "Whether we can directly link this attack to any foreknowledge...is a bit of a leap that we're not prepared to make at this time." KR



Posted by maximpost at 10:26 PM EST
Permalink

VALOR, WITHOUT RANCOR
By JOHN PODHORETZ
February 13, 2004 -- THE world is puzzling these days over the incomprehen sible tale of the young John Kerry -- a war hero who never stops invoking his own heroism and who felt no compunction about defaming hundreds of thousands of his fellow American troops by accusing them of committing horrible war crimes in Vietnam that never took place.
So it is beyond fortunate that just at this moment, the writer Harry Stein has come along to remind us there was (and there is) another way to come home from the horrors of battle -- a way that does not involve trashing your country and your compatriots, a way that involves looking to what is best in America and what is best in its people, in its traditions and in its soul.
Stein's wonderful book is called "The Girl Watchers Club," and there's really not been anything like it before. I guess you could call it "Tuesdays With Morrie" meets "Saving Private Ryan," except I wasn't really a fan of either. "The Girl Watchers Club" is moving, funny, powerful and instructive. As its subtitle promises, it teaches "lessons from the battlefields of life."
It's the true story of a group of men in their 70s and 80s who live in and around Monterey, Calif. -- all of them veterans of World War II, all of them changed forever either by the searing experience of battle or the wondrous experience of youthful involvement in a righteous communal cause.
They have been hanging out together for 50 years, and the book chronicles two years in their late lives as they struggle with astonishing good cheer against aging, ailing, family tragedies and death.
They are all very different -- Democrats and Republicans, Northerners and Southerners and Westerners.
Moe Turner, who is Stein's father-in-law, is a classic American eccentric who lives in Collier-Brothers-like overstuffed squalor. Boyd Huff is a quiet and gentle retired professor of history who makes a cheerful way through life despite having lost a son to a horrendous accident and another to schizophrenia. A modest fellow named Gene Cooper, who was instrumental in aiding in the technological development of television, expresses no bitterness that he received a check in 1950 large enough to buy a house with but not another penny for his labors.
What they all have in common is the war that forged them. They do not romanticize their experience in World War II -- they all gripe about what a pain it was to deal with the bureaucracy. And they have a tendency to downplay and push away the horrors to which they were witness.
Harry Handler may rib his buddies by saying that "every time I hear their [war] stories, they get more brave," but he only says it because it's not true. As for Handler himself, he was a 19-year-old second lieutenant in the Pacific theater who was forced to lead his men through the hellish battle to take the island of Okinawa. "Looking at that map was like reading your death warrant," he tells Stein.
Handler survived it. More than just survived, as Stein writes: "Handler is one of those men who will tell you that the war years were his making; that had he not served where and when he did, he'd likely never have acquired the fundamental seriousness of purpose that has shaped his life ever since."
Seriousness of purpose -- that's the real subject of Stein's book. These are men who learned to lead an ethical life. They were and are blessed with good marriages, and long marriages as well, to women from whom they would not cut and run when the going got tough.
The lives they have led since their war days sound ordinary -- building homes, raising children, going to work, playing golf, going to yard sales, retiring -- but in their ordinariness these men have achieved something very close to grace. They acknowledge that all the changes in American life since their youth have brought about great social progress, though they are all disgusted by the parlous state of the education system.
And yet they still possess what Stein calls "an abiding appreciation for the lost standards of the America in which they grew up. Yes, in many ways, some of incalculable importance, life in this country was far worse then. But in this vital way it was better: people didn't look for excuses and certainly weren't offered any; they expected a lot more of themselves."
John Podhoretz's new book is "Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane" (www.bush-country.com). E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com
--------------------------------------------------------------

Ex-Swedish Minister Won't Be Charged
ASSOCIATED PRESS
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Sweden's former migration minister will not face charges for calling President Bush "that damn old man from Texas," an investigator said Friday.
Jan O. Karlsson's comment during a press lunch in May 2003 was protected by free speech laws, Justice Chancellor Goeran Lambertz told the Swedish TT news agency.
The chancellor's office investigates complaints against government officials.
An unidentified person filed a complaint against Karlsson saying his statement was racist and demeaning to the U.S. government, TT reported.
Two days after the press lunch, Karlsson told The Associated Press he could not recall his exact words, but said he had expressed strong opinions about the U.S. policies on AIDS prevention and population control in developing countries.
Karlsson, who left the government in October, was often criticized in Swedish media for being too outspoken.

-----------------------------------------------
Ex-Halliburton Employees Tell of Overbilling
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two ex-Halliburton employees told Democratic lawmakers that Vice President Dick Cheney's old energy company "routinely overcharged" for work it did for the U.S. military, the congressmen said on Thursday.
The Texas oil services giant, which is being examined by the military for possibly overcharging for services, has consistently denied allegations of overbilling.
The two ex-employees, who contacted U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who has been critical of Halliburton, worked for the Texas firm's procurement office in Kuwait. Waxman's office said the two quit for personal reasons.
Waxman and another Democrat, Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, wrote about the "whistle-blowers" in a letter to the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which is already looking into whether one of the company's subsidiaries overcharged for fuel it took into Iraq and for meals served to U.S. troops in the region.
Examples of wasteful spending given by the ex-employees ranged from leasing ordinary vehicles for $7,500 a month to seeking embroidered towels at a cost of $7.50 each when ordinary ones would have cost about a third of the price.
The DCAA confirmed it had received the letter. "The letter is under review. It would be premature to comment at this time," a spokeswoman said.
Halliburton unit Kellogg Brown and Root has a logistics contract with the U.S. military that has so far received more than $3.7 billion in business, mostly in Iraq. It also has contracts worth nearly $4 billion to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.
ONE IDENTIFIED
One of the employees, a field buyer identified as Henry Bunting, was to address a Senate Democratic Policy Committee hearing on Friday about alleged Iraq contracting abuses. Bunting could not be reached for comment.
The other whistle-blower, a procurement supervisor, was not identified by name.
Halliburton said it provides a toll-free hotline where employees can report concerns about business practices and had no record of complaints by Bunting or even anonymous complaints matching his set of facts.
"If he was so concerned about this information, we question why he did not raise the issue by means made available to him in the of the Code of Business Conduct information that he acknowledged receiving," said company spokeswoman Cathy Gist, in an e-mailed statement.
Halliburton is the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and the Pentagon's seventh biggest contractor overall.
The letter said senior Halliburton officials frequently told the employees high prices charged by vendors were not a problem.
"One whistle-blower said that a Halliburton motto was: 'Don't worry about price. It's cost plus," said the letter, referring to the practice of charging for a service and then adding a percentage fee as profit.
Halliburton has come under scrutiny by a number of U.S. government departments during the 2004 election year, leading the company to accuse Democrats of political mudslinging because of the company's former ties to Cheney.
Authorities are looking into a range of issues, from allegedly paying kickbacks in Nigeria to whether the company broke U.S. laws by dealing with Iran via a foreign subsidiary.
The company denies wrongdoing, except in the case of one or two former employees who it said may have paid $6.3 million in kickbacks to a Kuwaiti subcontractor.
Copyright ? Reuters 2004. All rights reserved.

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


Spanish Police Seize 10 Tons of Cocaine
ASSOCIATED PRESS
MADRID, Spain (AP) - Police seized about 10 tons of cocaine on a fishing boat off the Cape Verde Islands and arrested 13 people, authorities said Friday.
Spanish Civil Guards boarded the Belize-flagged boat about 1,000 miles from the island chain off the coast of West Africa, police said.
The cocaine was found wrapped in 215 parcels, each weighing about 55 pounds.
The crew of the "Lugo," all Colombians, were arrested. Six other six people - five Spanish men and a Dominican woman - also were arrested in connection with the seizure in Spain's northwestern region of Galicia, according to the police statement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese Workers Detained After Clashes
By ELAINE KURTENBACH Associated Press Writer
SHANGHAI, China (AP) - Workers at a textile factory in central China were hospitalized and others detained following clashes with police over the planned sale of a state-owned factory to a Hong Kong investor, local officials said Friday.
The protests began Feb. 8 when as many as 2,000 workers and retirees from the Tieshu Textile Factory in Suizhou, a city in Hubei province, blocked a rail line, according to the Hong Kong-based China Labor Bulletin.
It said a "violent confrontation" broke out when police attempted to disperse the crowd and prevent more workers from joining the protest.
At least one worker and two police were hospitalized with head injuries and as many as 20 workers were detained, the group said.
Local officials put the number of protesters at 1,000.
"The workers aren't satisfied with the compensation plan, and there are conflicts over the amount of money raised and the shares given to workers and management," said a senior official in the Suizhou city government, who said his surname was Yu.
"These can still be negotiated, and the government will try its best to make our people better off," Yu said.
Officials would not name the Hong Kong investor.
China has seen rising numbers of labor protests in recent years, with workers and retirees protesting unpaid wages, pensions and other benefits. In many cases, the workers charge that factory managers are selling off state assets for personal profit, denying them fair compensation.
Authorities have responded to such protests by satisfying some demands but also arresting and jailing organizers.
Yu denied that the plan to sell the company's assets amounted to corruption. He said provincial anti-graft officials had investigated and found no signs of malfeasance.
Like many other state-run factories struggling to stay afloat, the textile factory had been suspending production and restructuring over many months.
2004-02-13 18:37:14 GMT

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

>> NYC WATCH...

THE UNION VS. THE KIDS
Fri Feb 13, 3:02 AM ET Add Op/Ed - New York Post
Randi Weingarten and the union she heads have essentially declared war on Mayor Bloomberg.
A United Federation of Teachers advertisement charges that the mayor is going in the "wrong direction" in current contract talks.
"The mayor and chancellor want to take away teachers' ability to do what they do best -- teach," says the ad.
Translation: Bloomberg wants change -- but we think things are just fine.
But things aren't just fine.
Far from it.
The mayor, who won nominal control over the schools two years ago, now seeks to win functional control -- which means wresting it from the UFT.
Ostensibly, there are a lot of seemingly mundane and bread-and-butter topics at issue: Bloomberg seeks a reduction in the number of unused sick days that can be cashed in by retirees; more work days; an exchange of productivity gains for salary hikes; bonuses for teachers working in low-performing schools, and the elimination of sabbaticals.
Weingarten called the offer a "sham."
Which it most certainly is not.
It is about meaningful control.
While other mayors have demanded similar concessions, this is the first mayor who has the statutory authority to integrate them into a coherent management structure.
The point is to give school managers operational command of the school workforce -- a radical notion in New York, to be sure, but necessary if the public schools are ever again to function properly.
Count on one thing, though: When Weingarten yelps, it's because her institutional ox stands to be gored. Everybody believes in tough school standards -- until they start to bite.
So never mind the ads: They are not about the kids.
At the same time, Bloomberg himself needs to be faithful to the reforms he has already made.
He promised "zero tolerance" on school violence.
But when a student who brought a 12-inch knife into his high school earlier this week is welcomed back to class the very next day, as happened this week -- well, what does that say about the new policy?
We'd rather that kids who bring weapons to school be bounced out -- all the way to Rikers Island, if necessary.
As it is the weapons-toters are supposed to be suspended and placed in one of the city's euphemistically named "second-opportunity" schools.
But this knife-wielding thug wasn't.
Why not?
Bloomberg needs to send a message -- that he's serious enough about school safety to fire whoever was responsible for this specific security breakdown.
No teacher can fairly be expected to teach in a climate of fear.
Similarly, no student can be expected to learn in such an environment either.
The upcoming contract negotiations are going to be very tough -- but they have the possibility of being some of the most significant in the city's history.
It's not simply about bargaining over union salary and benefits.
It's about whether New York's children are going to get a real opportunity to learn in the days ahead.
Both Mayor Bloomberg and Randi Weingarten understand what's at stake.
Now they need to rise to the challenge.

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

>> "..."

On Unions and Education

by Deborah Meier
Despite popular impressions and dinner-table gossip, the problems of our schools, and above all of "school reform," are not the result of unions. I speak in part from personal experience over the past thirty-five years in New York City and Boston. The last big project I was involved with in New York, which required real courage on the part of all the major institutional powers, came to a screeching halt because everyone backed down except the teacher's union. We had asked for a "free zone"-constituting no more than 5 percent of New York's student population as an experiment in non-regulation (or at least vastly decreased regulation). The state, the city, and the Board of Education ended up backing away, but at no point did the United Federation of Teachers. Perhaps they would have if and when we really began to operate (except on matters of wages and working conditions) outside of the union contract. They weren't always enthusiastic supporters; they were skeptical from first to last and might have become more so if the idea had caught on. But that's speculation; in fact they never flinched. They saw the project, they said, as an experiment in providing a form of schooling that would produce better results for kids while also empowering classroom teachers.

My experience over the past five years in Boston is similar. The Pilot Schools project-involving at the start no more than 5 percent of Boston's students-was based on an agreement between the Boston Teachers Union and the Boston Public Schools to suspend all the regular contractual agreements as they applied to a dozen or so schools, provide a flexible per capita budget to each school, and allow freedom from other city-mandated requirements with regard to curriculum, scheduling, and staffing. Both the BTU and BPS soon lost their initial enthusiasm for the project-which they probably first saw as an answer to charter schools. But the BTU never went back on the original agreement. Small-scale quarrels between the pilots and the BPS, however, were and are constant as we negotiate each provision anew every year: Which budget item do we have control over and which do they? What voice do we have over state-provided "coaches"? Given the constraints of busing, what freedom do we actually have over scheduling? And so on. Because most of the daily issues relate to freedom from city, not union, rules it is hardly surprising that our frustration is usually focused on the "system." The major worry we hear from the union is whether these less constrained schools actually offer more power to classroom teachers rather than school principals. Both parties also worry that, under the label of autonomy, the Pilot Schools are choosier about which students they accept. Do they, for example, accept fewer troubled students? And both worry about what the consequences would be if the idea really spread-in terms of the impact on system-wide seniority, accountability, and so on.

These are legitimate issues. In a climate of high-stakes testing and increasing competition, many good reforms can turn into monsters. I'm disinclined of late even to call myself a school reformer. Too often it feels like deforming.

When I visited Houston, Texas, recently, I was alarmed at how many teachers came up to me to say that they couldn't speak out as I was doing and hold their jobs in Houston. There was a rule against speaking or writing against district policies. Georgia teachers, meeting with me at a summer institute in Massachusetts, literally whispered about their problems with testing. "Why are you whispering," I asked? "Because we could lose our jobs."
What do these two states have in common? Weak unions with no legal bargaining rights. So there is an eerie internal silence about issues of importance. Of course, the silence is not confined to Georgia and Texas. Even in a union stronghold like New York, much is not discussed that ought to be.

For example, there is no doubt that (some) small and more autonomous schools in New York have become choosier in whom they take, in a setting in which "ability" (and social class and race) tracking has returned with a vengeance. Small schools of choice have often become a kind of parallel "private school-like" network, with the same kind of rank order between the most elite and the least. This was true long before "choice" existed, as neighborhood schools that reflected social class and ethnic differences performed the same function as ability tracking. Similar tendencies could soon affect Boston's citywide schools of choice movement (which originally was instituted as a court-approved response to racial segregation)-especially now that all racial and ethnic categories have been eliminated in the current anti-affirmative action climate.

And the focus on "results"-setting standards as the basis of graduation rather than piling up credits or seat time, presented so powerfully by Ted Sizer in Horace's Compromise and pioneered by schools such as the Central Park East Secondary School that I helped found in 1985-has taken an odd turn. It has too often been used to increase the power of centralized authorities, of both superintendents and principals, and even more ominously of state politicians, with "standards" turning into standardized tests. And then the tests are enforced by state and federal mandates with detailed rewards and punishments for those dotting and not dotting their "i"s appropriately. Indeed, it is often assumed that reform means allowing those at the top of the hierarchy to act decisively-that is, outside of formally bargained rules-in order to get better results. Or it means abandoning the public system entirely for that alternate system of decision making: the free-well, sort of free-market.

But the evidence is pretty clear that although unions are a force to be reckoned with, and by nature conservative, especially in defense of basic teacher protections, they have not been a powerful force in preventing school reforms sought by mayors, governors, and local business coalitions-even those that undermine traditional teacher rights. Yes, of course, opposition or foot-dragging by the American Federation of Teachers or National Education Association makes such reforms harder to enact in states where unions are strong. But it's unlikely that serious reforms can be effective if they are enacted from the top down, without the enthusiastic support of those who must implement them. This is hardly an idea requiring complicated sociological theories. When I was a member of my local school board twenty years ago, we received a petition from 99 percent of the staff of a local junior high expressing their lack of confidence in the principal. I told my colleagues on the board that we really had only two choices if our focus was on teaching and learning: we had to get rid of most of the staff or remove the principal. The case is similar when top-down reforms are resisted by teachers: you can get rid of the teachers or learn to negotiate the reforms.

Yes, most unions-including teachers' unions with their highly educated membership-have a tendency to take on some of the qualities of the management they are counterpoised to. They get caught in their own power plays; they over-react, become rigid, and more. This is especially true when the local union serves a large district in which personal ties are difficult to maintain. And then teachers begin to see their union much as they see the rest of the system-impersonal, capricious, and inflexible, another hurdle to get around. They appreciate the union when they are dealing with a particularly vexatious principal or even with vexatious colleagues; they value it when it comes time to negotiate wages and benefits and to fight back against changes made without due process. But on a day-to-day basis, the union is just one more bureaucracy that has little to do with their working lives. A call to the union office is often just as frustrating as a call "downtown."

In schools where collegiality is high, and principal and teachers work easily together, many teachers feel even more estranged from their union. Teachers in small, successful communal schools often don't make their voices heard within the union; the voices of those who need the protection of rules and regulations are loudest and most powerful-as they should be! But this natural tendency sways the union into a more hostile or skeptical stance toward innovative schools where teachers appear not to need its protection-or where the protection they need may be from city hall, state legislators, the federal government, or from the union itself.

These are issues that won't easily be solved; and reformers-especially those who believe real reform must bring working teachers into greater positions of power over their schools-cannot ignore them. The imposition of greater authoritarian and bureaucratic controls over teachers, in the name of even the best curriculum and pedagogy, won't begin to tackle the decisive intellectual failings of our schools. In fact, it will exacerbate them on every front. It will make teaching less and less attractive to those considering a career-above all where they are most needed, in urban and rural schools serving low-income children, but also in many other places where creative work is taking place that could excite a new generation of teachers. The new authoritarianism is defended in the name of the "underprivileged," in the name of "ordinary" kids, on the theory that truly creative, high quality teaching cannot be brought to scale-so that the vast majority of the least well-off American kids cannot hope for that. At best they must thrive on highly bureaucratized, centralized, scripted mediocrity.

This repeats an old, old story. Democracy is only for the affluent. Indeed, it's partially true, and unions need to acknowledge the partial truth. But it's not the whole truth. You cannot take ordinary underpaid teachers and ordinary underfunded schools and turn them around in the face of only grudging compliance from the staff. Maybe you can't do it even with generous funding. Teachers will resist reforms and will only "comply" under duress, unless they own the reforms and believe in them. Of course, they resist; it is an honorable response to arbitrary power. If teachers didn't resist each new fad, they'd be lobotomized.

The intellectual need of the young, to become "critical thinkers," requires schools that dare tackle stuff worth being critical about; it requires teachers who have the authority and respect to model the critical stance in the company of their peers and to present truly controversial stuff to the young. But at present only the rich can afford such schools-largely in the private sector or in the more affluent suburbs.

Good thinking cannot be passed on to the young by uncritical and compliant teachers. But, some would argue, such qualities are a luxury for the poor-and open to abuse. Let the regular schools first prove themselves on the ABCs and then, someday, they too can get to "critical thinking." There's a certain logic to this, but it will not and cannot lead to high standards (although one can call any score on any test "high standard" or "proficient" if one has the power to do so).

The kind of workplace collaboration required by the graduates of our schools cannot be taught in schools focused only on rote learning or test prep or remediation. It cannot be learned where young people do not see adults serving as models of higher order thinking, but instead only experience adults struggling to follow the script or high-powered test preppers who zero in on what's really important: test scores, test scores, and test scores. We cannot tell kids that what counts is the quality of their language, their ability to think on their feet, to be reliable and responsible, to care about their community, to stand up and be counted, and to work well with others, if none of these in fact "count." In this setting, it is unlikely that children will learn what it takes-or even what it means-to be an effective member of a thoughtful adult society. And surely such schools cannot teach what collaboration, solidarity, and community mean when adults are mostly busy complying.

So, both union and management need to figure out how reform might be enacted with the collaboration of teachers, in a way that provides them with appropriate power over major and minor decisions. It may take longer to see such reforms take hold, but going faster in the wrong direction is no advantage at all! Here is what unions are best at doing-giving those closest to the action a voice, giving them respect and dignity. This is at the heart not only of teacher unions but of all unions everywhere.

Even industrial unions have found increased work-site voice important to the material success of auto plants (for example, the Saturn and Toyota plants), but the argument for its centrality when it comes to schools is far more powerful. It may not matter to the automobile whether it was produced by willing or unwilling workers (although the evidence suggests its users will notice the difference). But students are not automobiles, and the active intelligence of their teachers is central to the development of their own intelligence.

Oddly enough, quality control may matter more to auto-makers than to school-makers these days. Imagine if we were told that we can't afford to worry about whether the cars that come off the assembly line "work"-as we are told about the reforms we know are needed to make schools work. Small schools have proven effective, but they are too expensive, we're told. Not true if one counts the cost per graduate: in fact, they are cheaper if we count that way, at least in our urban communities.

Teachers can help Americans understand what works and doesn't work in our schools. Opinion polls confirm that they are still the most trusted group of public authorities in the country-ranking above mayors, governors, corporate CEOs, doctors, lawyers-and even principals! But when they join together to express their opinions, suddenly they turn into an "interest group" (unlike the Business Roundtable?). Yes, there have been occasions (rare, in fact) when teacher unions acted in ways that did not earn, or deserve, public trust-but compared to what and whom? To the corporate community?

When all is said and done, there's another reason why we need to worry about the public's perception of unions (and our own too). Not only are strong teacher unions critical to the success of teaching and learning, they are critical to the survival of the conditions needed to support teaching and learning. They are critical to the success of the mission of public schools in a democracy: to produce citizens who can effectively rule.

Although there are many folks out there who have a stake in good public schools, the only organized and experienced allies, committed over time and with the necessary expertise and resources, are the teachers' unions. Parents come and go, and given the incredibly busy lives of the women who once led parents' organizations (especially in those communities where the need is greatest), sustaining their political power is almost impossible. They have been effectively weakened-even more than teachers-and are rarely represented on state or national task forces, think tanks, or school boards.

Politically, the parents of the children who are least well served by our schools are precisely the ones who have the least political leverage. They are less likely to be citizens, let alone voters; they are rarely people with the time or skill to make themselves heard. The foundations that try to represent their views are also constrained when it comes to political lobbying, and those on the liberal end are less likely these days to be ideological allies of unions and teachers. So the weakening of union power quickly translates, locally and nationally, into less support for the least well-served students, above all, the urban or rural poor. There may be loud cries for higher test scores, but there will be little concern about the fairness of our school system so long as those most directly affected by its unfairness are politically impotent. It is easier to pass off half-truths to a politically active public that has no direct exposure to how the other half lives-that doesn't, in fact, include the other half!

But it is also important to say that the larger inequities that affect poor children-that depress their test scores and always have-are not directly related to schools. The achievement gap in schools is as nothing compared to the resources gap out of school.

And in correcting such inequities, strong unions-not just teacher unions-are the primary and steady vehicle; they are the only substantial counterpoint to the power of organized greed. In a society in which the income differential is steadily widening, the clamor about decreasing the academic gaps-even if the focus were not solely on standardized test scores-won't be serious until there is an organized and "interested" power bloc whose members stand to gain, in the here and now, from greater equity.

The balance of power in contemporary America is way off, and threatens to get worse, not better. Redressing this imbalance-with the social power of numbers versus resources-has been one of the central functions of trade unions since their inception. They have been the dependable ally of the least advantaged for a hundred years when it comes to issues of wages, safety, health care, retirement, subsidized housing, public transportation, and on and on. Even on issues of racial equality, the unions, although often mirroring the racism of the larger society, have been allies in political fights to expand civil rights for at least half a century. And on issues more removed from everyday working life-issues of civil liberties, prison reform, abortion rights-unions have historically been the allies of reformers. In the current climate, the tenuous and fragile balance that has existed since the New Deal has been decisively shifted, if not altogether shattered. Until it is restored, it isn't just good schooling, but the good life for vast numbers of our fellow citizens that is in jeopardy.

Thus, there are still many reasons why teachers and parents, and their friends and relatives, need to be the allies of their local teacher unions, even on those days when the unions make foolish mistakes, act with the same short-range self-interest as their opponents, and so on. The kind of support that is needed is not uncritical; it is not a matter of falling into line behind union leaders. But first and foremost, it means putting to rest the inaccurate idea that unions are to blame for the difficulties of school reform. Reforms are not always good, and change is not always in the interest of better learning. Healthy resistance is sometimes what we most need, side by side with thoughtful proposals for change-and this is what we will sorely miss if teachers' unions are defeated by the relentless hostility of their many opponents.

Deborah Meier founded the Central Park East schools in New York City and the Mission Hill School in Boston. She is author of The Power of Their Ideas, Will Standards Save Public Education?, and In Schools We Trust.


? 2004 Foundation for Study of Independent Ideas, Inc

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

NBER Reporter: Research Summary Winter 2004

The Economics of Education

Steven D. Levitt(1)


In recent years, I have written a number of papers related to the economics of education. This research agenda has three distinct strands. One set of papers analyzes the impact of school choice on student outcomes. A second line of research investigates teacher and administrator cheating on standardized tests, and explores how such behavior responds to the introduction of high-stakes testing. Third, I have examined Black-White test score differentials and the role that the educational system may play in contributing to those differences. I discuss these three sets of papers in turn.

The Impact of Public School Choice on Student Outcomes

In recent years, school choice has become an increasingly prominent feature of primary and secondary school education. With the passage of new federal legislation (No Child Left Behind), there is little doubt that the trend will continue. School choice comes in a variety of flavors. Vouchers and charter schools are two types of school choice which have received a great deal of both academic and media attention. A third type of school choice, open enrollment, is actually far more prevalent than either vouchers or charter schools. Under open enrollment, students within a public school district are able to attend schools other than their neighborhood school, including specially designated magnet schools. As of 1996, open enrollment was available in more than one in every seven school districts nationally, and in more than a third of large districts. Moreover, No Child Left Behind mandates that students in underperforming schools be provided the option to attend other schools in the district.

Along with co-authors Julie B. Cullen and Brian Jacob, I have written two papers that analyze the impact of open enrollment policies on student outcomes in the Chicago Public Schools (ChiPS). ChiPS represents an excellent laboratory for studying the impact of open enrollment. Chicago has been among the most aggressive cities in implementing this form of school choice, with more than half of the students in the system presently opting out of their neighborhood schools. Thus it may provide a window into what the future holds for other districts that are moving in the same direction. The Chicago data are also exceptionally rich, including not only detailed administrative records on attainment and test scores, but also attitudinal surveys administered periodically to students.

The first of these papers(2) starts with the observation that students who opt out of their local school to take advantage of open enrollment are 7.6 percentage points more likely to graduate from high school than peers who are observationally equivalent in eighth grade -- off of a baseline graduation rate of 50 percent. This increment to graduation is the same order of magnitude as the gap between students at Catholic and non-Catholic schools in previous studies.

There are several competing explanations for why students who opt out of their assigned school outperform those who stay behind. Higher graduation rates among those who opt out may be the result of these students attending better schools or finding a school that better matches their preferences. In either of these cases, the increased graduation rates represent the true benefits of open enrollment. There are, however, scenarios in which the students who take advantage of school choice outperform students who do not, but the differences in outcomes do not actually reflect real benefits of open enrollment. Higher graduation rates among those who opt out may be spurious if those who opt out are better on unobserved dimensions (for example, student motivation, parental involvement). In other words, the students who opt out may have systematically done better than other students, even if they had not left their assigned schools. Also, it is possible that the graduation gap is attributable not to the students who opt out doing better, but rather to the students who remain behind doing worse, since they have less able and motivated peers.

Our results suggest that, with the exception of career academies (that is, vocational schools that focus on practical skills), the benefits of school choice to students who opt out are illusory. There are three primary pieces of evidence supporting this claim. First, in a survey administered in eighth grade that asks students a wide range of questions about their expectations for the future, past educational record, and parental involvement, the responses are strongly correlated with both the likelihood of graduation and with the decision to opt out. This suggests that students who opt out would be expected to do better, even if they had to remain in their local school. The second piece of evidence is that students who live in areas with many nearby schools on average should derive the greatest benefit from the availability of school choice, because distance to nearby schools is a strong predictor of the likelihood that a student will opt out of the assigned school. Empirically, we find that easy access to a career academy is associated with substantial increases in graduation likelihood, but the same is not true for other types of schools, including high-achieving schools. Finally, when we compare student outcomes within a given school (in most schools in ChiPS some students are assigned and some opt in), we find that those opting in do the same as those assigned at career academies, but do much better at other schools. Since all students at a school experience similar peers and teacher quality, the fact that those opting in far outperform those assigned to the school reinforces the idea that those who opt in are systematically better than observationally similar students who make other schooling choices and would outperform them regardless, except at career academies.

Our second paper on this topic(3) exploits the fact that school choice causes desirable schools in ChiPS to be oversubscribed, and many of these schools use randomized lotteries to determine which students gain admission. We analyze data from 194 separate lotteries held to gain access to high school. One drawback of the data is that we only observe student outcomes if they enroll in ChiPS. To the extent that there is selective attrition, the inferences drawn from a simple comparison of outcomes of lottery winners and losers will be misleading. Relative to past studies (for example, the Milwaukee voucher experiment), however, attrition rates are low, with over 90 percent of the students remaining in ChiPS.

Empirically, we find that those students who win the lotteries attend what appear to be substantially better high schools -- for example, schools with higher achievement levels and graduation rates and lower levels of poverty. Nonetheless, consistent with our first paper discussed earlier, we find little evidence that attending these sought-after programs provides any benefit on a wide variety of traditional achievement measures, including standardized test scores, attendance rates, course-taking patterns, credit accumulation, or grades. We do, however, find evidence that attendance at such schools may improve non-traditional outcome measures, such as self-reported enjoyment of school, availability of computers, expectations for college attendance, and arrest rates. This suggests that schools may be influencing children in a variety of ways not generally captured by test scores. To the extent that these non-traditional measures help to predict life outcomes such as college attendance, labor market attachment, wages, and criminal involvement, an exclusive focus on test scores will be misleading.

An important caveat to interpreting the results of both of these papers is that we are only able to evaluate how access to a particular school affects educational outcomes for a student, holding constant the existence of a school choice program. We cannot estimate the overall impact of introducing a system of school choice, which might induce changes in residential location choice or in overall school quality due to increased competition.

Teacher Cheating

High-stakes testing, like school choice, has become an increasingly prominent feature of the educational landscape. Every state in the country, except Iowa, currently administers state-wide assessment tests to students in elementary and secondary school. Federal legislation requires states to test students annually in third through eighth grade and to judge the performance of schools based on student achievement scores.

The debate over high-stakes testing traditionally has pitted proponents arguing that such tests increase incentives for learning and hold schools accountable for their students' performance against opponents who argue that the emphasis on testing will lead teachers to substitute away from teaching other skills or topics not directly tested on the exam. Along with Brian Jacob, I have written two papers that explore a very different concern regarding high-stakes testing -- cheating on the part of teachers and administrators. As incentives for high test scores increase, unscrupulous teachers may be more likely to engage in a range of illicit activities, such as changing student responses on answer sheets, or filling in the blanks when a student fails to complete a section. Our work in this area represents the first systematic attempt to identify empirically the overall prevalence of teacher cheating and to analyze the factors that predict cheating.

To address these questions, we once again turn to data from the Chicago Public Schools, for which we have the question-by-question answers given by every student in grades 3-7 taking the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) over an eight year period. In the first paper,(4) we develop and test an algorithm for detecting cheating. Our approach uses two types of cheating indicators: unexpected test score fluctuations and unusual patterns of answers for students within a classroom. Teacher cheating increases the likelihood that students in a classroom will experience large, unexpected increases in test scores one year, followed by very small test score gains (or even declines) the following year. Teacher cheating, especially if done in an unsophisticated manner, is also likely to leave tell-tale signs in the form of blocks of identical answers, unusual patterns of correlations across student answers within the classroom, or unusual response patterns within a student's exam (for example, a student who answers a number of very difficult questions correctly while missing many simple questions).

Empirically, we find evidence of cheating in approximately 4 to 5 percent of the classes in our sample. For two reasons, this estimate is likely to be a lower bound on the true incidence of cheating. First, we focus only on the most egregious type of cheating, where teachers systematically alter student test forms. There are other more subtle ways in which teachers can cheat, such as providing extra time to students, that our algorithm is unlikely to detect. Second, even when test forms are altered, our approach is only partially successful in detecting illicit behavior. We then demonstrate that the prevalence of cheating responds to relatively minor changes in teacher incentives. The importance of standardized tests in the ChiPS increased substantially with a change in leadership in 1996. Schools that scored low on reading tests were placed on probation and faced the threat of reconstitution. Following the introduction of this policy, the prevalence of cheating rose sharply in classrooms with large numbers of low-achieving students. In contrast, schools with average or higher-achieving students, which were at low risk for probation, showed no increase in cheating.

Our second paper on this topic(5) reports on the results of an unusual policy implementation of our cheating detection tools. We were invited by ChiPS to design and implement auditing and retesting procedures implementing our methods. Using that cheating detection algorithm, we selected roughly 120 classrooms to be retested on the Spring 2002 ITBS. The classrooms retested include not only cases suspected of cheating, but also classrooms that had achieved large gains but were not suspected of cheating, as well as a randomly selected control group. As a consequence, the implementation also allowed a prospective test of the validity of the tools we developed in our first paper on the subject.

The results of the retesting provided strong support for the effectiveness of the cheating detection algorithm. Classrooms suspected of cheating experienced large declines in test scores (on average about one grade equivalent, although in some cases the fall in mean classroom test scores was over three grade equivalents) when retested under controlled conditions. In contrast, classrooms not suspected of cheating a priori maintained virtually all of their gains on the retest. As a consequence of these audits and subsequent investigations, disciplinary action was brought against a substantial number of teachers, test administrators, and principals.

Black-White Test Score Gaps Early in Life and the Contribution of Schools

The Black-White test score gap is a robust empirical regularity. A simple comparison of mean test scores typically finds Black students scoring roughly one standard deviation below White students on standardized tests. Even after controlling for a wide range of covariates including family structure, socioeconomic status, measures of school quality, and neighborhood characteristics, a substantial racial gap in test scores persists.

In a paper joint with Roland Fryer,(6) I revisit this topic with a newly collected data set, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K). The survey covers a sample of more than 20,000 children entering kindergarten in the fall of 1998. The original sample of students has subsequently been re-interviewed in the spring of kindergarten and first grade.

The results we obtain using these new data are informative and in some cases quite surprising. As in previous datasets, we observe substantial racial differences in test scores in the raw data: Black kindergartners score on average .64 standard deviations worse than Whites. In stark contrast to earlier studies (including those looking at kindergartners), however, after controlling for a small number of other observable characteristics (children's age, child's birth weight, a socio-economic status measure, WIC participation, mother's age at first birth, and number of children's books in the home), we essentially eliminate the Black-White test score gap in math and reading for students entering kindergarten. While there are numerous possible explanations for why our results differ so sharply from earlier research, we conclude that real gains by recent cohorts of Blacks are likely to be an important part of the explanation.

Despite the fact that we see no difference in initial test scores for observationally equivalent Black and White children when they enter kindergarten, their paths diverge once they are in school. Between the beginning of kindergarten and the end of first grade, Black students lose .20 standard deviations (approximately .10 standard deviation each year) relative to White students with similar characteristics. The leading explanation for the worse trajectory of Black students in our sample is that they attend lower quality schools. When we compare the change in test scores over time for Blacks and Whites attending the same school, Black students lose only a third as much ground as they do relative to Whites in the overall sample. This result suggests that differences in quality across schools attended by Whites and Blacks is likely to be an important part of the story. Interestingly, along "traditional" dimensions of school quality (class size, teacher education, computer-to-student ratio, and so on), Blacks and Whites attend schools that are similar. On a wide range of "non-standard" school inputs (for example, gang problems in school, percent of students on free lunch, amount of loitering in front of school by non-students, amount of litter around the school, whether or not students need hall passes, and PTA funding), Blacks do appear to be attending much worse schools. Other explanations for the divergence in Black-White test scores, such as a greater "summer setback" for Blacks when school is not in session, or discrimination by teachers against Blacks, find no support in our data.

1. Levitt is a Research Associate in the NBER's Programs on Public Economics, Law and Economics, Children, and Education. He is also a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.

2. J. B. Cullen, B. Jacob, and S. D. Levitt, "The Impact of School Choice on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the Chicago Public Schools," NBER Working Paper No. 7888, September 2000, forthcoming in Journal of Public Economics.

3. J. B. Cullen, B. Jacob, and S. D. Levitt, "The Effect of School Choice on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries," forthcoming as an NBER Working Paper.

4. B. Jacob and S. D. Levitt, "Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating," NBER Working Paper No. 9413, January 2003, and Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117 (August 2003), pp. 843-77.

5. B. Jacob and S. D. Levitt, "Catching Cheating Teachers: The Results of an Unusual Experiment in Implementing Theory," NBER Working Paper No. 9414, January 2003, and Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 2003.

6. R. Fryer and S. D. Levitt, "Understanding the Black-White Test Score Gap in the First Two Years of School," NBER Working Paper No. 8975, June 2002, forthcoming in Review of Economics and Statistics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by maximpost at 5:03 PM EST
Permalink


>> MS. NOONAN...

The Paragraph
Help the White House make the case for re-election.
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
When you are a conservative and tend to support conservatives, it will come as a surprise, and an unwelcome one, when you ding one, as I dinged President Bush the other day about his "Meet the Press" performance. Of those who responded, about 60% disagreed with me, and the rest were more or less in agreement. Many of those who disagreed with me said they thought the president had done well with Tim Russert, that the interview made clear his decency and sincerity. Others said I was kicking the president when he's down and that's the problem with conservative pundits, they can't be trusted. My answer is the obvious one: It is the job of a writer to write the truth as he sees it, and if it's an uncomfortable truth, then so be it.
But here's what was most interesting to me. The letters in disagreement were often passionate and insisted that Mr. Bush will be re-elected. They were so insistent that I realized: They're nervous out there, the Bush people. If they weren't so nervous, they wouldn't have cared about bad reviews. They wouldn't have been so insistent.
So today, in an attempt to harness and refocus the passion of Bush supporters, a contest. Let's go all Deanian and unleash the power of the internet.
It is February 2004. In nine months, the big election. The White House, even as I type, is in the process of preparing a huge and high-stakes campaign. They have a foe to fight, money with which to fight the foe, and loyal troops who will march.
When the president's men gather to come up with the themes and rhetorical approaches of 2004, there's a big question that more often goes unarticulated, and unnoticed. It is: How to make it new.
Mr. Bush has been president three years. He has presided over a time of dense history. Most of the voters in the country have been paying more attention than usual. We know what's happened.
The Bush people have to roll it all into, say, one speech, which can be distilled to one paragraph, which people will distill to a sentence or two to explain to themselves and others why they support the president for re-election.
Just about now they'd be coming up with the paragraph.
But as they do it they have to make it new. To make you look and notice they have to make it fresh, and succinct, something you believe and remember. And it's got to be true. When the paragraph a president's men come up with is not true, they lose. Jimmy Carter's paragraph in 1980 was: We're not so bad, and at least you know us, and Jimmy is a nice man, and by the way that Reagan guy is just too extreme and radical and right-wingy and nutty. People didn't find Ronald Reagan too extreme. And he wasn't too extreme. He seemed like a possible antidote to failure--Jimmy Carter's failure in the world. The paragraph wasn't true. Mr. Carter lost in a landslide.
Is it easy for a White House to come up with paragraph? No. It's hard. There's so much to say, you don't know what to say.
After a while, presidential staffers become so immersed in the sheer grinding dailyness of the White House that it's hard to step out of the thought stream and characterize it in a new way. Years from now they'll do that in their memoirs, capture the big meanings. But it's hard to do it now, when they're immersed.
Another thing. By the end of a first term, White House staffers have been exhausted by history. Every White House is high stress and high stakes 24/7, 365. You get so tired that your ability to judge your fatigue becomes dull, and you don't even know how tired you are. This White House has dealt with more history and drama than many. When I worked in the White House I used to imagine that when I left I'd do what the Broadway producer Leland Hayward used to do after an opening night. He was so sleep-deprived by the time a show was mounted that he'd go to bed and wake up only to drink milk. He'd sleep 10 hours, get up, drink milk, and go back to bed for another 10 hours. He'd do that for days.
In the past, in the White Houses of Kennedy and LBJ and Nixon, it was tense and grueling, and staffers in those days often dealt with the dailyness of the tension by doing the kinds of things people used to do. They smoked and drank and stayed up late and had intense discussions about the tragedy of governance, and then they'd write it all down in drunken sprawls in their diaries. They partied hearty and thought hard. That stopped in the 1980s. The last sort of rocking White House was that of the abstemious Baptist Mr. Carter, whose young aides flocked to the bars of Georgetown. That's how Hamilton Jordan got in trouble for spitting Amaretto at the Egyptian ambassador's wife. Those were the days.
Now things are so clean that the other night I bumped into an aide to the president and asked with concern if the grueling routine was getting to him, and was he trying to get away from the office enough and go for a hike and get time away from things, room to daydream. He thought for a moment and then told me that on those days that he did not begin with prayer, he became tired. But otherwise, no. He told me the president was in the office at 6:45 a.m. and usually leaves at 6 p.m., so everyone got to go home. I found this remarkable. Not that I hadn't heard it before, I had, we all have, but I thought it was spin. I didn't know it was really true. When I worked for Mr. Reagan I was there till 11 p.m. Anyway, what the aide said seemed so sane and moderate I didn't know whether I wanted to compliment him or smack him. He was rather priggish, but it sounded like he was doing everything right.
A final note on a challenge for this particular administration in putting together the re-election paragraph and making it new. Normally White Houses have a built-in fear of their own political base. It's the base that holds a president's feet to the fire. The anxiety a base causes can be inspirational; it keeps you on your toes. George Bush the elder forgot to fear his base; they reminded him why he should have. George Bush the younger has, since 9/11, been very close with his base. But now, for the first time, that base is a little restless--over immigration, high spending, etc. And the vast American middle has yet to be nailed down. Which means the Bush White House is in a challenging time. They are not used to this kind of challenge. They've been through, every day, a bad time from the world, from terror and diplomatic stress. But they have been on a pretty unbroken winning streak in terms of popularity.
They don't know how to be scared. They probably can't wrap their brains around the idea they should be. Or rather in the abstract they know they should be--they read the papers--but in the particular, in their minds and souls, I doubt they have fully wrapped their brains around it. Which is too bad, because fear makes you sharp.
Now for our challenge. What should the Bush paragraph consist of? How to make it new? How to make it memorable, and true? Readers, you are invited to wrap up in one paragraph what the Bush campaign should say as it unveils itself anew. The White House reads this site. They'll see it. Take the floor and tell them how to do it.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "A Heart, a Cross, and a Flag" (Wall Street Journal Books/Simon & Schuster), which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Thursdays.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Polish Company to Be Probed on Iraq Deal
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WARSAW, Poland (AP) - Prosecutors are investigating a Polish company - part of a U.S.-based consortium chosen to equip a new Iraqi army - over allegations it does not have permission to sell weapons abroad, Justice Minister Grzegorz Kurczuk said Friday.
The investigation comes after Polish news reports that Ostrowski Arms is not licensed to export the guns and explosives it is subcontracted to supply for a new Iraq army as part of Nour USA's successful bid.
Polish arms maker Bumar PHZ lost the bid and has asked coalition authorities in Iraq for a detailed explanation of Nour USA's offer. Bumar bid $560 million while Nour USA's winning bid was $327 million. Bumar maintains it would be impossible to meet the technical requirements of the contract for that price.
Poland, which supported the invasion of Iraq and commands nearly 10,000 peacekeepers there, had hoped to be rewarded with an order for the struggling government-owned arms maker.

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

Saddam's Brother-In-Law Refused Asylum
ASSOCIATED PRESS
LONDON (AP) - A brother-in-law of deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein who sought asylum in Britain last year was refused the right to residency, the government said Friday.
British authorities had not previously spoken of the application by Emad Noures, but in response to a question from a local lawmaker, the Department for Constitutional Affairs said the asylum application was turned down in October.
The department also said a court in Stoke-on-Trent, central England, had rejected an appeal of the ruling.
"Adjudicator Kenneth Gillance would like to make it clear that the asylum appeal of Mr. Emad Noures and family was dismissed on both asylum and human rights grounds," said the statement on behalf of the Immigration Appellate Authority.
The department said Noures' wife was the sister of the captured Iraqi dictator's second wife, Samira Shahbandar.
Officials had previously refused to discuss the result of Noures' application, saying the matter was confidential. The government announced the decision after Mark Fisher, a lawmaker who represents Stoke-on-Trent, filed a query in Parliament last month asking to know the outcome of the hearing.
Noures' whereabouts were unknown.

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

Qatari Gov't: Yandarbiyev Assassinated
By JABER AL-HARMI
ASSOCIATED PRESS
DOHA, Qatar (AP) -
Former Chechen President Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev was assassinated in an explosion that destroyed his car Friday, the Qatari government said.
Yandarbiyev's teenage son was critically wounded in the blast, which occurred as he and his father were driving away from a mosque where they had performed Friday prayers, said the Interior Ministry and a local hospital.
"We are collecting evidence in order to reach the perpetrators," Qatar's chief of security, Mubarak al-Nasr, said on the pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera, which is based in the country.
Yandarbiyev, who was acting president of Chechnya in 1996-97, had been linked to the al-Qaida terror group. Russia had been seeking his extradition from Qatar, where he lived for at least three years, accusing him of ties to kidnappers and international terrorists.
Al-Jazeera and fellow Arabic satellite channel Al-Arabiya reported that two people were killed in the explosion. But the Interior Ministry did not confirm this.
An Interior Ministry official said the explosion at 12:45 p.m. killed Yandarbiyev and injured his 13-year-old son, the official Qatar News Agency reported.
A doctor at Hamad General Hospital told The Associated Press that Yandarbiyev died on his way to the hospital. The doctor said his son was in critical condition.
The doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the father and son were the only casualties brought to the hospital.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the blast. Such explosions are almost unheard of in Qatar, a quiet state with tight security.
Last year, the United Nations put Yandarbiyev on a list of people with alleged links to the al-Qaida terrorist group, which is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The U.S. government also put Yandarbiyev on a list of international terrorists who are subject to financial sanctions.
Yandarbiyev was considered a key link in the Chechen rebels' finance network, channeling funds from abroad. He had denied that the Chechen rebels had ties to al-Qaida.
"Yandarbiyev was the main ideologue of the separatists, and therefore of the terrorist organizations bringing Chechnya to such severe consequences," said the president of the Moscow-backed Chechen government, Akhmad Kadyrov.
"He is guilty of everything that has happened," Kadyrov said, according to the Russian news agency Interfax.
The Russian Embassy in Doha had no immediate comment on the killing.
Boris Labusov, a spokesman for Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, a successor to the KGB, said his agency had nothing to do with Yandarbiyev's death, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.
A Russian member of parliament, Nikolai Kovalyov, a former director of the Federal Security Service, told Interfax that the killing was probably a vendetta.
"Knowing the (Chechen) national traditions, I would assume that it must have been the result of a blood feud, as they are never forgotten and passed from generation to generation," Kovalyov said.
Al-Jazeera reported the explosion occurred after Yandarbiyev had prayed at a mosque in the upscale residential area of al-Dafnah, a northern suburb of Doha. He had driven only 300 yards from the mosque when the blast happened.
The channel showed a badly mangled and burned SUV, with only its white fender still recognizable. A body, completely wrapped in white sheet, was loaded into a waiting ambulance.
An hour later, the scene was almost clear of debris. A few workers were picking up the last remnants.
Yandarbiyev, who was born in 1952, became vice president of Chechnya under separatist president Dzhokhar Dudayev. He served as acting president during Chechnya's de facto independence in 1996-97. In 1996, he led the rebel delegation in peace negotiations with Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin.
A poet and author of children's book, Yandarbiyev became one of the most prominent proponents of radical Islam among the Chechen rebels. He came in third in Chechnya's 1997 presidential elections, behind moderate Aslan Maskhadov and the fiery rebel Shamil Basayev.
During the rule of the Islamic militant Taliban in Aghanistan in 1996-2001, Yandarbiyev opened a Chechen Embassy in the Aghan capital, Kabul, and a consulate in the southern city of Kandahar.

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

Barrier Route Change May Have Aided Israel
By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS
JERUSALEM (AP) -
Changes in the proposed route of the West Bank separation barrier could have helped Israel's case before the world court, a government legal adviser said Friday.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said in recent weeks he is considering steps, including route changes, to ease the hardship for Palestinians. Sharon reportedly is ready to move the barrier further westward, closer to Israel, in some areas.
Israel announced Thursday it won't take part in oral hearings before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, saying the judges don't have the authority to rule on the case. The hearings begin Feb. 23.
"If we had changed the route earlier, it could have had an effect (on the hearing). It would have taken the wind out of their (the opponents') sails," said Irit Kahan, head of the international division in Israel's attorney general's office.
"Already some time ago, the government realized that the route of the fence was problematic but they didn't begin to change it in time for the court discussion," Kahan told The Associated Press.
"The issue is not the fence itself, but the route of the fence," Kahan said.
Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat said Israel's decision not to attend the U.N.-mandated court was only the latest instance of Israeli noncooperation with the United Nations.
"They are refusing not only the court of The Hague but many of the United Nations resolutions," he told reporters, in English, at his Ramallah headquarters. "This court of The Hague is according to U.N. resolutions but in spite of that, they are refusing to implement and follow up to it."
Israel says it needs the barrier - a system of fences, trenches and walls that could run for up to 440 miles - to keep out Palestinian attackers.
The Palestinians charge that the barrier constitutes a land grab, since it cuts deep into the West Bank at points to include several Jewish settlements on the "Israeli" side, and it disrupts the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians who can't reach jobs, schools and farmland.
Israel TV's Channel Two reported Thursday that Sharon has decided to shorten the planned route and that three Jewish settlements - Emmanuel, Karnei Shomron and Kedumim - would now be left on the "Palestinian" side of the barrier.
Sharon's office confirmed he is considering changes in the route but would not elaborate.
Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said the barrier is an attempt by Israel to annex Palestinian land. "If Israel wants to build a security fence, it should do it around its own border," Shaath told a news conference in Tokyo on Friday.
Palestinians fear that the barrier, together with an emerging plan by Sharon for a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank, would torpedo their hopes to set up a state in all these areas.
Sharon said he would go ahead with the one-sided move if there is no progress on the U.S. backed "road map" peace plan in the next few months. The plan has ground to a standstill, with both sides not living up to commitments.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States supports the dismantling of settlements. He said U.S. representatives will travel to the region in coming days to "make sure we understand them (Sharon's ideas), and how we can use those ideas and hopefully movement on the Palestinian side in security to get this process moving."
French President Jacques Chirac, meanwhile, criticized the West Bank barrier and said it would hamper chances of a two-state solution to the conflict.
"The current route is not in accordance with international law," Chirac said in an interview published Friday in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot.
"The chosen route ... cuts off thousands of Palestinians from their land and makes life difficult for the Palestinian people who are already suffering on a daily basis," Chirac told Yediot.
In other developments Friday:
- The body of a Palestinian man was found in a bullet-riddled car in a field near the West Bank town of Qabatiya. The army said a patrol had come under fire from a vehicle that tried to flee at high speed. Soldiers gave chase and opened fire after the car refused to stop. Rescue workers said dead man was unarmed.
- Israel said it arrested a 27-year-old Palestinian nurse Feb. 11 on suspicion she acted as a conduit between the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah and a Palestinian militant who had allegedly taken refuge in Arafat's headquarters. Palestinian security officials say the militant and another man were arrested Friday by Palestinian forces at the request of the United States. U.S. officials could not immediately be reached for comment Friday.
- In an Israeli hospital, a Palestinian militant died of wounds sustained in a Feb. 1. firefight with troops in the West Bank town of Jericho.
- In Bethlehem, the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a militia loosely linked to Arafat's Fatah party, said it killed a local man, Khaled Abu Assal, 28, after he allegedly confessed to collaborating with Israel. The body was found dumped in a nearby neighborhood.

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

Ship Sinks As Snowstorm Sweeps Turkey
By ESRA AYGIN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) -
Rescuers battled strong winds Friday in the search for 21 crew members of a cargo ship that sank in the Black Sea as a snowstorm sweeping out of the Balkans disrupted travel across Turkey and Greece.
The storm dumped up to 14 inches of snow in Istanbul, and lesser amounts fell in Athens, blanketing the Acropolis and other ancient monuments. Athens' airport was shut down, as was ferry service to several Greek islands, which also lost power.
Temperatures plunged to 15 degrees in northern suburbs of the Greek capital - a 30-year record, and fell to zero in northern Greece. Istanbul recorded a low of 24 degrees.
The Turkish coast guard searched for the crew of the 592-foot coal freighter Hera, a Cambodian-flagged vessel that sank near the entrance of the Bosporus, said official Baris Tozar. Strong winds were disrupting rescue efforts, he said.
Two other cargo ships collided because of poor visibility, leaving one crew member missing. Two more ships ran aground due to strong winds, as the storm forced officials to close the Bosporus and Dardanelles to traffic for a second day.
Authorities canceled flights at Istanbul's main airport, stranding thousands of passengers. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who visited Turkey on Thursday, was among those stuck in Istanbul, the Anatolia news agency said.
The storm closed roads and schools, knocked out power to some Istanbul neighborhoods and forced city officials turned a sports complex into an emergency shelter for about 100 homeless.
In Greece, hundreds of motorists were stranded by the snow along a main highway, and the military sent armored personnel carriers to help.
"The priority is to free these people before nightfall and before the temperatures drop again," Interior Minister Nikos Alivizatos said. "We're advising people to stay indoors and not use the roads."
Rescuers handed out blankets and dried food to the stuck travelers who were unprepared for the weather, he said.
All planes were grounded at Athens International Airport and flights to the capital were diverted to other cities. Thirteen regional airports were also closed, and ferry services were canceled.
An emergency was declared for three Aegean Sea islands - Tinos, Andros and Syros - which were left without power. Most schools around the country were closed.
Ambulance services were flooded with calls.
The snow disrupted Greece's election campaign, which is in full swing ahead of the March 7 balloting. Candidates canceled appearances and instead donned heavy coats to tour snowbound suburbs and shelters.
Socialist candidate George Papandreou had been due to hand over his portfolio as foreign minister to his deputy, Tassos Giannistis, but the ceremony was postponed.
In Romania, high waves and winds gusting to 50 mph disrupted shipping at three Black Sea ports and halted navigation on parts of the Danube.
Two cargo vessels put out to sea from the port of Constanta-South Agigea to avoid being damaged. Authorities were working to bring the vessels back into port, said Capt. Alexandru Mezei, head of the local naval authority.
Snow and ice slowed road traffic in the country and forced the closure of several mountain roads in northern Romania. Temperatures plunged to 31 below zero in central Romania, while in the capital of Bucharest, a low of 9 below was recorded, making it the coldest day of the year.

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

Venezuela Cautioned on Recall Petitions
ASSOCIATED PRESS
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -
The Organization of American States and the U.S.-based Carter Center cautioned Venezuelan election officials Friday against using technicalities to reject petitions for a recall vote against President Hugo Chavez.
"The signer's will and intention should be privileged over any technicality," said Jennifer McCoy, director of the Carter Center's Americas program, after she and OAS delegate Fernando Jaramillo met with National Elections Council directors.
The OAS and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's Atlanta-based center are observing the verification of more than 3.4 million signatures opposition leaders claim to have turned in to demand the recall. The two organizations have led international peacekeeping efforts in Venezuela since a 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chavez.
McCoy's comments came amid a controversy over what to do with thousands of petition sheets in which staff at sign-up centers filled out basic personal information for citizens - and had signers simply sign their names. Election officials are at odds over whether that procedure violated election rules.
The dispute has delayed the verification process and added to tensions as the council prepares to decide whether to call the vote. Two small protests against the delays turned violent Thursday, with 20 people hurt.
Opponents were planning a march Saturday to the Caracas offices of the elections council, where Chavez sympathizers are camped out, ready for confrontation.
Venezuela is deeply torn between those who accuse Chavez of trampling over democratic institutions and those who consider him a champion of the poor.
McCoy urged Venezuelans to be patient and continue to have faith in the council.
Election officials, who had originally promised to complete the verification Friday, said they would try to finish by the end of the month.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Best Idea Yet for Fund Reform -- 12b-1 Fee Begone: Chet Currier
Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- After six months of wrangling over scandals in mutual funds, a bright new idea has just come to the fore.
Abolish 12b-1 fees, the charges that are collected from the assets of many funds to pay for distribution and marketing. Jettison them! Deep-six them! Send them someplace from which they can never return.
Senator Peter Fitzgerald, an Illinois Republican who is one of those making the suggestion, calls these fees ``disguised loads,'' or sales charges, which are all too often used in ``confusing and misleading'' ways.
That Fitzgerald and his co-sponsors made 12b-1 fees a centerpiece of the fund-reform bill they proposed this week came as something of a surprise. These fees haven't figured directly in any of the misbehavior in the fund business uncovered since last September by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others. Until now they have seldom occupied more than an incidental place in the debate.
Front and Center
It's high time they moved front and center. In the 24 years since they were authorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission, 12b-1 fees have embodied much of what's wrong in the relationship between fund companies and their investors.
Critics never saw much sense in the idea of letting fund management take money from existing shareholders to pay for the costs of bringing in new investors. Why should a fund's owners foot the bill when the benefits of increasing size went not to them but to the managers, in the form of bigger management fees?
Not to worry, 12b-1 fee supporters assured everyone in 1980. They told us existing fund investors would see benefits too, because expenses would be lower per dollar in a larger fund. Well, after two decades, says a white paper published by Fitzgerald this week, ``it does not appear that investors have benefited from economies of scale.''
That's not the only sore point about 12b-1s, which derive their name from a section of basic mutual-fund law. They may look small on paper at, say, 0.25 of 1 percent per year. But over time that money adds up, especially on top of the other costs of fund investing.
Fees Outlive Funds
Fund managers took such a liking to 12b-1s that they sometimes kept charging them even after they closed a fund to new investors. ``That's right,'' the independent fund researcher Morningstar Inc. once observed. ``Funds that are no longer marketing themselves are charging marketing fees.''
The fund scandals of 2003-04 have engendered some bad ideas for reform, including suggestions to regulate the level of fund fees -- as if regulators or legislators were better equipped than the give-and-take of a highly competitive free market to determine a fair price.
The 12b-1 proposal, Fitzgerald takes pains to point out, makes no such judgment. The bill ``does NOT prohibit distribution expenses or sales charges,'' he says. ``Charging a load is fully justified -- but call it a load, make it account-based, and don't disguise it in a permanent asset-based distribution fee.''
In laymen's language, he's urging that investors be told clearly whenever they are being charged for something, and that all investors not be obliged to pay for what might only apply to some.
Where the Devil Lurks
The basic principles of managing money in mutual funds haven't changed much since the first funds began to operate in the U.S. 80 years ago. What has changed much more drastically is the way funds are marketed and sold -- for instance, through discount brokers' fund marketplaces, which may charge what amounts to a listing fee.
Also, a huge part of funds' business is now done through employer-sponsored 401(k) plans. Where mutual funds are concerned, the devil is in the distribution.
The simple old distinction between load and no-load funds has been blurred in many ways. In the midst of that blurry area dwell 12b-1 fees.
``Scandal, cynicism and revolt are inevitable consequences of confusing and opaque cost schemes,'' Fitzgerald says in his white paper.
The 12b-1 fee was a bad idea from the start, and has had 24 years to prove it. There may never be a better time than now to put it to rest.
To contact the writer of this column:
Chet Currier in New York, or ccurrier@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor of this column:
Bill Ahearn in New York, or bahearn@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 13, 2004 00:03 EST
---------------------------------------------------
Scientists Develop New Hydrogen Reactor
By GREGG AAMOT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -
Researchers say they have produced hydrogen from ethanol in a prototype reactor small enough and efficient enough to heat small homes and power cars.
The development could help open the way for cleaner-burning technology at home and on the road.
Current methods of producing hydrogen from ethanol require large refineries and copious amounts of fossil fuels, the University of Minnesota researchers said.
The reactor is a relatively tiny 2-foot-high apparatus of tubes and wires that creates hydrogen from corn-based ethanol. A fuel cell, which acts like a battery, then generates power.
"This points to a way to make renewable hydrogen that may be economical and available," said Lanny Schmidt, a chemical engineer who led the study. The work was outlined in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Hydrogen power itself is hardly a new idea. Hydrogen fuel cells already propel experimental vehicles and supply power for some buildings. NASA has used them on spacecraft for decades.
But hydrogen is expensive to make and uses fossil fuels. The researchers say their reactor will produce hydrogen exclusively from ethanol and do it cheaply enough so people can buy hydrogen fuel cells for personal use.
They also believe their technology could be used to convert ethanol to hydrogen at fuel stations when cars that run solely on hydrogen enter the mass market.
Hydrogen does not emit any pollution or greenhouse gases. But unlike oil or coal, hydrogen must be produced - there are no natural stores of it waiting to be pumped or dug out of the ground.
The new technology holds economic potential for Midwest farmers, who are leaders in the production of corn-based ethanol.
George Sverdrup, a technology manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said he was encouraged by the research.
"When hydrogen takes a foothold and penetrates the marketplace, it will probably come from a variety of sources and be produced by a variety of techniques," he said. "So this particular advance and technology that Minnesota is reporting on would be one component in a big system."
The Minnesota researchers envision people buying ethanol to power the small fuel cell in their basements. The cell could produce 1 kilowatt of power, nearly enough for an average home.

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


With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004
Arnot: NBC Dumped Me for Finding Positive News in Iraq
NBC has refused to renew the contract of Iraq correspondent Dr. Bob Arnot. He says the reason is that he dares to find progress.
"In a 1,300-word e-mail to NBC News president Neal Shapiro, written in December 2003 and obtained by NYTV, Dr. Arnot called NBC News' coverage of Iraq biased. He argued that keeping him in Iraq and on NBC could go far in rectifying that," the New York Observer's Joe Hagan reported today.
"Dr. Arnot included excerpts from an e-mail from Jim Keelor, president of Liberty Broadcasting, which owns eight NBC stations throughout the South. Mr. Keelor had written NBC, stating that "the networks are pretty much ignoring" the good-news stories in Iraq. 'The definition of news would incorporate some of these stories,' he wrote. 'Hence the Fox News surge.'"
Keelor told the Observer: "Of course it's political. Journalism and news is what unusual [events] happened that day. And if the schools are operating, they can say that's usual. My response to that is, 'The hell it is.' My concern there is that almost everything that has occurred in Iraq since the war started is unexpected."
In his letter to Shapiro, Arnot wondered, as has the Bush administration, why the network refused to admit positive developments in Iraq. "As you know, I have regularly pitched most of these stories contained in the note to Nightly, Today and directly to you. Every single story has been rejected."
Arnot told the Observer he knew for "a fact" that Shapiro's problem with his reporting was that "it was just very positive."

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

IRAQ PHASE IV...

TRANSFERRING SOVEREIGNTY
Democracy Delayed
Is Democracy Denied
The sooner elections are held in Iraq the fewer American lives will be lost.
BY HUSSAIN AL-SHAHRISTANI
Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
A U.N. electoral fact-finding team has arrived in Iraq to discuss with local leaders and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) the possibility of holding elections. Iraqis expect the U.N. experts to give advice on the best way to organize elections through which they choose the people they can trust to rule them.
Since the fall of the regime, I have led numerous humanitarian and developmental projects in different regions of Iraq. Village elders, community leaders and professionals tell me of their dreams for a new Iraq. I am struck by the deep-rooted concern and fear felt by these people that the occupying forces will impose a new dictatorship on them that may cost them further hundreds of thousands of lives. Fair and free elections, they insist, are their only guarantee of living as free people.
It was this very pulse of the nation that the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani touched when he first advised the CPA, in June 2003, to prepare for elections where all Iraqis--irrespective of gender, religion, sect or ethnicity--could vote to elect their representatives to a national assembly. Ever since, he has continuously reminded the U.S. that it occupied Iraq to bring democracy, which means free elections, and that it must deliver on that promise.
Iraqis are told by the CPA that the reasons for delaying elections are the absence of voter registration lists and the security situation. However, in mid-2003 the Iraqi Central Bureau of Statistics, the body responsible for preparing voter lists, issued a report concluding that it could prepare lists and arrange for elections before the end of 2003. The CPA and the Transitional Governing Council chose to ignore this report, and together signed an agreement that would allow them to handpick transitional assembly members through a complex caucus process. The Nov. 15 agreement gave no role to the U.N., and set a timetable for a handover of sovereignty to these handpicked Iraqis by June 30, 2004.
Having recognized that this process violates the fundamental principle of a fair election--one person, one vote--Ayatollah Al-Sistani issued an edict, "[T]he mechanism in place to choose members of the Transitional Legislative Assembly does not guarantee true representation of the Iraqi people. Therefore this mechanism must be replaced with one that guarantees the aforesaid, which is elections."
On the Ayatollah's insistence, the U.N. was invited to send a mission to study how it can help prepare for such elections and to assist in the transition of sovereignty to a legitimate Iraqi authority. This is an extremely important opportunity for the U.N. to exercise its mandate to maintain peace and security in this volatile part of the world, and to uphold the right of nations to self-determination.
The current impasse is far more than a showdown between Iraq's most influential leader and the CPA. It raises the disturbing question of whether Washington truly understands the Iraqi reality. National identity and self-determination are strong forces in Iraq. Instead of dismissing them, the U.S. ought to work with the U.N. to start preparation for a national election under U.N. auspices.
CPA head L. Paul Bremer might be right that there is not enough time now to organize elections by June 2004; but surely preparations could have been made over the last nine months--if, indeed, an election was ever a U.S. priority. He also points out that security conditions are not conducive to elections; yet clearly, impeding the legitimate demand for direct and fair elections would further aggravate ethnic and sectarian tensions.
The U.S. administration should not force its agenda onto the Iraqi people, based on a U.S. election timetable. The aim should be the creation of a new Iraqi government that has legitimacy in the eyes of its own citizens, so that in the years ahead, a stable, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge as a responsible member of the world community. If America is genuinely committed to democracy in the Middle East, then it should avoid handpicking rulers for Iraq. Only a very short-sighted policy would orchestrate a process that leaves behind a government that may be friendly, but will not endure. Without a constitutional process, Iraqis cannot be assured that their basic human and political rights are respected. Failing to engage the people in the political process will further destabilize the country and provide fertile grounds for the remnants of Saddam Hussain's security apparatus to recruit zealots to carry out terrorist acts.
Iraqis--Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen; Muslims and Christians; Sunnis and Shias--have lived together for centuries, and can continue to do so. With its rich cultural heritage, gifted people and natural resources, Iraq can be built into a prosperous, progressive and democratic country. It can be both a model and a locomotive for social and political change in the Middle East. To play this role and make a contribution to stability in this region, Iraqis should be encouraged to move to democracy as soon as they desire.
Al-Sistani is perhaps the only person who can realize both the dreams of the majority of Iraqis, and the declared goal of the U.S.: to create a stable democracy that could potentially transform the Middle East. The U.S. should value the role the Grand Ayatollah is taking to lead the Iraqi people away from militancy and toward the international system of democracy. If Washington plays it right, this path that Al-Sistani spearheaded in Iraq could prove to be the most significant victory in a war on terrorism. Let us hope--and pray--that Washington has the wisdom to seize it.
The most practical way to help Iraq now is to allow the U.N. to work with representatives of all constituents of the Iraqi society to develop a formula for early direct elections--an achievable task. Elections will be held in Iraq, sooner or later. The sooner they are held, and a truly democratic Iraq is established, the fewer Iraqi and American lives will be lost.

Mr. Al-Shahristani is chairman of the standing committee of the Iraqi National Academy of Science. He was held in solitary confinement for 10 years under Saddam Hussein.
----------------------------------------------------

http://www.tnr.com/blog/iraqd
What is Iraq'd? Click here to find out.
02.12.04
THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR THE CAUCUSES: U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi announced today that he's behind Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani's plan for direct elections "100 percent because elections are the best means to enable any people to set up a state that serves their interest." He did not say whether or not those elections can be held by June 30, the date set under the November 15 Agreement for the handover of power.
Brahimi's announcement lends Sistani crucial support for getting at least half of what he wants. Sistani objects to the mechanism--the misleadingly named "caucuses"--for establishing an interim government enshrined in the U.S. plan, but not the handover timetable. While Brahimi is going to leave Iraq tomorrow, his team will remain to determine whether the timetable for holding elections is realistic or needs to be delayed. He gave another quote seemingly designed to drag Sistani along for a delay: "We are in agreement with [Sistani] that these elections should be prepared well and should take place in the best possible conditions so that it would bring the results which [Sistani] wants and the people of Iraq and the UN [want]."
It's hard to envision how the caucus plan survives, seeing as the United States implored the United Nations to help resolve its elections standoff with Sistani. Already our favored Iraqis, who had supported the caucus proposal, are backing off from both aspects of the U.S. plan--the caucus and the early timetable. As Brahimi's team was set to arrive in Iraq, Adnan Pachachi of the Governing Council said that the United Nations would only make "recommendations" on elections, implying that the Council could reject them. Today Pachachi sounded resigned to early elections:
Every one wants elections if we can have real elections in the time limits we have. ... We all agree that the best way to choose the members of the interim assembly would be through elections and elections will happen if it's not today then after six months.
Pachachi may be a Sunni, but by and large, the Sunnis don't want direct elections because they fear the numerical superiority of the Shia. In order to build a viable, democratic Iraq, the Sunnis--who have made up the bulk of the insurgency--simply have to feel like stakeholders. The United Nations moving closer to Sistani's position not only doesn't resolve that problem, it inflames it, which makes it even more imperative that any plan adopted for the transfer of power find some mechanism to accommodate the Sunnis. It would be prudent to accept a delay in transferring power in order to figure out how to square the circle. While it's not immediately clear if Sistani would accept a delay, direct elections have been his principal demand, and he's been open to compromise all throughout the U.S. occupation--and even since the November 15 Agreement, when his demands hardened. Now that the United Nations is blessing his plan, it will be easier to persuade him to wait a few months to conduct the elections.
But will it be easier to persuade Washington? Here's The New York Times: "American officials have also said they are willing to accept a compromise solution, though they insist that the White House wants to try to stick to the handover date of June 30." Even if the CPA and the White House scrap the caucus plan, it remains an open question whether they'll move away from the handover deadline and risk keeping the occupation going through the election. To judge from today's briefing by Dan Senor of the CPA, the early answer is no:
We are focused on handover of sovereignty on June 30th, as explicitly outlined in the November 15th agreement between the coalition and the Governing Council.
Senor was actually making this point not about Brahimi's statement, which he professed not to have seen, but about the Zarqawi terrorism memo (which I wrote about below). It seems that the memo has fortified CPA opinion that the handover date is non-negotiable:
We are focused like a laser beam on handover of authority this summer, and Mr. Zarqawi is clearly focused on it as a laser beam--focused like a laser beam on our handover date. We are not moving around that date; Mr. Zarqawi understands that. And it is especially important that in light of the fact--as is evidenced by this memorandum, in light of the fact that Mr. Zarqawi recognizes that one of the greatest bulwarks against his efforts to spread terror in Iraq will be Iraqi control of the government, it is especially important that we stick to our plan and move forward this implementation.
As noted below, the greatest threat to Iraq isn't from Zarqawi, Ansar Al Islam, or Al Qaeda. It's from Sunni-Shia divides over creating the transitional national assembly. Unfortunately, it looks like the United States is focused more on the smaller threat. This is a fast-moving story on a complicated issue, so surely things will change. But for now, the United States appears to be sticking to the handover date.
posted 8:00 p.m.
E-mail Iraq'd
Return to the top of the page.

---------------------------------------------------------
>> ON ZARQAWI...

FALSE COMFORT: The other day I laid out my suspicions about the so-called Zarqawi memo. In response to some e-mails, let me clarify that I don't believe the military or the CPA just made the memo up. What I wonder about is whether Zarqawi is really its author--or, if he is, how connected to bin Laden he in fact is. At yesterday morning's CPA briefing, Christopher Dickey of Newsweek and Paul Martin of The Washington Times attempted, with little success, to get more information about the document's authorship and the circumstances surrounding its capture:
Q. Christopher Dickey with Newsweek. Can you tell us a little bit more about how this document was found? The New York Times has carried now two versions. One says the Americans found it directly. William Safire says it was found by the pesh merga. Who found this thing and how was it found?
GEN. [MARK] KIMMITT: The important thing is that we have this document in our hands. How it was found is not as important as the fact that we have it, we've reviewed it, we understand what it is saying, and we can use it, as Mr. Senor said, to understand the thought process behind the terrorists, so that we can use that in future operations to kill or capture those that would create and conduct anti-coalition and anti-Iraqi operations.
MR. [DAN] SENOR: Yeah. For operational security reasons, and certainly issues related to sources and methods and intelligence gathering, we cannot reveal at this time all the details that were involved in the discovery of the memorandum. But as General Kimmitt has said, it is important to have the opportunity to climb into a mind of an individual who is planning, and we believe executing, a major terror campaign inside Iraq.
Yes?
Q. Paul Martin from Washington Times and the Mirror. Could we ask, first of all, what evidence there is that Zarqawi himself wrote the document? Is his signature on the document? How do we know it's Zarqawi, is the first question.
Secondly, you mentioned the date of the 30th of June. What do you expect both from the IGC side and your own side to change after the 30th of June in terms of your security threats and responses?
GEN. KIMMITT: To answer the first question: we're satisfied that given the initial conditions under which we obtained the document, and follow-on intelligence that has been obtained since we picked up the document, that this can be traced back to Zarqawi.
MR. SENOR: Mr. Zarqawi says in the memo, to your second, Paul--Mr. Zarqawi says in the memo that if the Iraqis assume effective control of their own government, the terrorists, the al Qaeda elements, will lose their quote-unquote, "pretext" to wage terror in this country--and that he says they will literally have to pack up and go somewhere else, find another battle.
We hope he's right, because that's the path we're on; we are on the path towards handing over sovereignty and we are on the path towards defeating these terrorists. The two are inextricably linked.
Senor's comments here are far more worrisome than his reluctance to answer questions about the memo. (Surely it's conceivable that there indeed are sources-and-methods reasons for not revealing either how the document was obtained or how its authorship was verified.) He seems to take a kind of comfort from the memo that the course the U.S. is pursuing in Iraq is the right one:
It is very clear that the terrorist strategy will fail if America continues to show its resolve the coalition has demonstrated over the past 10 months. And the terrorist strategy will fail if we hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June 30th as outlined in the November 15th political agreement.
But let's not forget that Islamist terrorism represents only a fraction of the problems Iraq is facing. In fact, taking the memo at face value indicates precisely that, since its author bemoans the inability of Sunnis to join in the jihad. For months, U.S. military officials have said that they believe the vast majority of violence is attributable to Baathists. Obviously, we need to go on the offensive against whatever terrorists have infiltrated Iraq. But even if we get every last terrorist, we're not going to have resolved either the political or the security problems that Iraq is facing--and if we want to address those vastly more difficult and pressing concerns, the path we're on is, at best, seriously inadequate, and at worst, dangerously counterproductive. Even if we assume that the memo illuminates the terrorists' strategy for the next few months, and we further assume that our strategy is as well configured to thwart the terrorists as Senor says, we'll still be addressing the lesser threat and not the greater one. That should be cause both for alarm and for redrawing our plans--not satisfaction.
Another journalist asked Kimmitt about how well our security strategy is, in fact, configured to deal with potential terror attacks indicated by the memo.
Q. Gavin Mostrom (ph), CNN. You say that you're expecting a spike in violent incidents in the lead up to the June 30 handover and that you are taking all the necessary precautions. If that's the case, why at this very time are we seeing the military essentially roll back to eight bases, for instance in Baghdad, while you're expecting this spike to occur? ...
GEN. KIMMITT: ... With regards to the first question about the coalition forces pulling back from Baghdad, again, this seems to be misinterpreted time after time after time. The U.S. and coalition forces are not pulling out of Baghdad. The sum total of the forces that are providing security inside Baghdad are a combination of the coalition forces and the Iraqi security forces, the Iraq Civil Defense Corps, and the Iraqi police and the new Iraqi army, the Iraqi security forces. There is a net amount of security that is provided by both those organizations.
The intent has been, for a long period of time, to establish and move to a process called local control; which is as the Iraqis are capable of picking up the security responsibility themselves, then it is appropriate for the coalition to reduce their visibility. It's far more effective to have Iraqi security forces walking the streets of Baghdad than to have coalition forces do that.
But that is not to suggest that the coalition forces are moving a thousand miles away nor a hundred miles away, they're moving outside to the outskirts of Baghdad. Much like a fireman--where they have up to this point been like the policemen walking up and down the streets, the Iraqi security forces are now capable of providing that function. The coalition forces will move to the outskirts of the city, like the firemen. Their response time may increase from about five minutes to 15 minutes, but they will be inside their bases still conducting some measure of patrol, but like a good fire department, come out when necessary. The first responder, the first person on the scene will continue to be, and appropriately be, the Iraqi security forces. It is their country moving towards sovereignty and self- sufficiency. But while we're going through that transition period, the coalition will stand by, ready to help, but appropriately move to a less visible position, but nonetheless, still providing the same measure of security. The net effect of security should be the same, and more appropriately, with an Iraqi flag on the left shoulder rather than a coalition flag on the left shoulder.
Huh? To the extent this means anything, Kimmitt is conceding that new word of terrorist attacks isn't influencing our security posture. If "the intent has been, for a long period of time, to establish ... local control," then clearly the calculus for this plan was created before we received what U.S. officials are considering credible warnings of forthcoming attacks. To not permit new information about increased threats to change our security planning is playing with fire.
Second, Kimmitt is relying on the premise that "the Iraqis are capable of picking up the security responsibilities themselves." But we've rushed these Iraqi security forces through training. There's no possible way they can match the capabilities--and certainly not the firepower--of the First Armored Division. Furthermore, as Kimmitt noted, the plan to Iraqify security responsibilities in Baghdad was hatched before we got hold of this memo. If we believe there is an increased likelihood of terror attacks, is this really the time we want to gamble on the unproven abilities of Iraqi security forces?
Finally, thwarting terrorism is nothing like fighting a fire. Kimmitt says "the first responder, the first person on the scene will continue to be, and appropriately be, the Iraqi security forces. It is their country moving towards sovereignty and self-sufficiency." But neither the U.S. nor the Iraqis should be responding to terrorism--we need to prevent it. If we're responding to terrorist attacks, that would testify to our insufficient security capabilities.
One might object that if we increase our military presence in Baghdad (or anywhere else), we play into the hands of the memo's author--assume for a second that the memo is unproblematic--who wants to draw the U.S. into a bloody conflict and have us squander what remains of Iraqi goodwill through heavy-handed tactics. But look what happens when the fragile sense of security in Iraq breaks down: After yesterday's suicide bombings, Iraqis began furiously chanting anti-U.S. slogans, blaming us for being unable to provide safety. Given a choice between Iraqis angry at us because of our inability to prevent attacks and Iraqis angry at us because of our ability to prevent attacks, we should choose the strategy that angers Iraqis while saving lives.
This memo seems to have convinced U.S. officials in Iraq that the course we're on is self-evidently correct. That's not a conceit that we, or Iraqis, can afford.
posted 10:27 a.m.

E-mail Iraq'd

----------------------------------------------------------
Zarkawi's Cry
A terrorist's words of despair.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/zarkawi200402121818.asp
An NRO Primary Document
EDITOR'S NOTE: Earlier this week, Coalition officials discovered a letter believed to have been written by terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to al Qaeda operatives (see Michael Ledeen here). Below is the text of the letter, as translated and distributed by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

1. The foreign Mujahidin: Their numbers continue to be small, compared to the large nature of the expected battle. We know that there are enough good groups and jihad is continuing, despite the negative rumors. What is preventing us from making a general call to arms is the fact that the country of Iraq has no mountains in which to seek refuge, or forest in which to hide. Our presence is apparent and our movement is out in the open. Eyes are everywhere. The enemy is before us and the sea is behind us. Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother; however, they will not allow you to make their homes a base for operations or a safe house. People who will allow you to do such things are very rare, rarer than red sulfur. Therefore, it has been extremely difficult to lodge and keep safe a number of brothers, and also train new recruits. Praised be to Allah, however, with relentless effort and searching we have acquired some places and their numbers are increasing, to become base points for the brothers who will spark war and bring the people of this country into a real battle with god's will.

2. The present and future: there is no doubt that American losses were significant because they are spread thin amongst the people and because it is easy to get weapons. This is a fact that makes them easy targets, attractive for the believers. America, however, has no intention of leaving, no matter how many wounded nor how bloody it becomes. It is looking to a near future, when it will remain safe in its bases, while handing over control of Iraq to a bastard government with an army and police force that will bring back the time of (saddam) Husayn and his cohorts. (headquarters comment: it is not clear to whom "it" is referring, but it appears to mean the united states.) There is no doubt that our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the throat of the Mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the spread of the army and police, our future is becoming frightening.

3. So where are we? Despite few supporters, lack of friends, and tough times, god has blessed us with victories against the enemy. We were involved in all the martyrdom operations -- in terms of overseeing, preparing, and planning -- that took place in this country except for the operations that took place in the north. Praised be to Allah, i have completed 25 of these operations, some of them against the Shi'a and their leaders, the Americans and their military, the police, the military, and the coalition forces. There will be more in the future, god willing. We did not want to publicly claim these operations until we become more powerful and were ready for the consequences. We need to show up strong and avoid getting hurt, now that we have made great strides and taken important steps forward. As we get closer to the decisive moment, we feel that our entity is spreading within the security void existing in Iraq, something that will allow us to secure bases on the ground, these bases that will be the jump start of a serious revival, god willing.

4. Plan of action: after much inquiry and discussion, we have narrowed our enemy to four groups:

A. Americans as you know, these are the biggest cowards that god has created and the easiest target. And we ask god to allow us to kill, and detain them, so that we can exchange them with our arrested shaykhs and brothers.

B. Kurds these are a pain and a thorn, and it is not time yet to deal with them. They are last on our list, even though we are trying to get to some of their leaders. God willing.
C. The Iraqi troops, police, and agents these are the eyes, ears, and hand of the occupier. With god's permission, we are determined to target them with force in the near future, before their power strengthens.

D. The Shi'a in our opinion, these are the key to change. Targeting and striking their religious, political, and military symbols, will make them show their rage against the Sunnis and bear their inner vengeance. If we succeed in dragging them into a sectarian war, this will awaken the sleepy Sunnis who are fearful of destruction and death at the hands of these Sabeans, i.e., the Shi'a. Despite their weakness, the Sunnis are strong-willed and honest and different from the coward and deceitful Shi'a, who only attack the weak. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people and they fear them. If it were not for those disappointing shaykhs, Sufis, and Muslim brothers, Sunnis would have a different attitude.

5. Way of action: As we have mentioned to you, our situation demands that we treat the issue with courage and clarity. So the solution, and god only knows, is that we need to bring the Shi'a into the battle because it is the only way to prolong the duration of the fight between the infidels and us. We need to do that because:

A. The Shi'a have declared a subtle war against Islam. They are the close, dangerous enemy of the Sunnis. Even if the Americans are also an archenemy, the Shi'a are a greater danger and their harm more destructive to the nation than that of the Americans who are anyway the original enemy by consensus.

B. They have supported the Americans, helped them, and stand with them against the Mujahidin. They work and continue to work towards the destruction of the Mujahidin.

C. Fighting the Shi'a is the way to take the nation to battle. The Shi'a have taken on the dress of the army, police, and the Iraqi security forces, and have raised the banner of protecting the nation, and the citizens. Under this banner, they have begun to assassinate the Sunnis under the pretense that they are saboteurs, vestiges of the Ba'th, or terrorists who spread perversion in the country. This is being done with strong media support directed by the governing council and the Americans, and they have succeeded in splitting the regular Sunni from the Mujahidin. For example, in what they call the Sunni triangle, the army and police are spreading out in these regions, putting in charge Sunnis from the same region. Therefore, the problem is you end up having an army and police connected by lineage, blood, and appearance to the people of the region. This region is our base of operations from where we depart and to where we return. When the Americans withdraw, and they have already started doing that, they get replaced by these agents who are intimately linked to the people of this region. What will happen to us, if we fight them, and we have to fight them, is one of only two choices:

1) if we fight them, that will be difficult because there will be a schism between us and the people of the region. How can we kill their cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the Americans start withdrawing? The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority. This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.

2) we can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like it has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. By god, this is suffocation! We will be on the roads again. People follow their leaders, their hearts may be with you, but their swords are with their kings. So i say again, the only solution is to strike the religious, military, and other cadres of the Shi'a so that they revolt against the Sunnis. Some people will say, that this will be a reckless and irresponsible action that will bring the Islamic nation to a battle for which the Islamic nation is unprepared. Souls will perish and blood will be spilled. This is, however, exactly what we want, as there is nothing to win or lose in our situation. The Shi'a destroyed the balance, and the religion of god is worth more than lives. Until the majority stands up for the truth, we have to make sacrifices for this religion, and blood has to be spilled. For those who are good, we will speed up their trip to paradise, and the others, we will get rid of them.

By god, the religion of god is more precious than anything else. We have many rounds, attacks, and black nights with the Shi'a, and we cannot delay this. Their menace is looming and this is a fact that we should not fear, because they are the most cowardly people god has created. Killing their leaders will weaken them and with the death of the head, the whole group dies. They are not like the Sunnis. If you knew the fear in the souls of the Sunnis and their people, you would weep in sadness. How many of the mosques have they have turned in to Shi'a mosques ("husayniyas")? How many houses they have destroyed with their owners inside? How many brothers have they killed? How many sisters have been raped at the hands of those vile infidels?

If we are able to deal them blow after painful blow so that they engage in a battle, we will be able to reshuffle the cards so there will remain no value or influence for the ruling council, or even for the Americans who will enter into a second battle with the Shi'a. This is what we want. Then, the Sunni will have no choice but to support us in many of the Sunni regions. When the Mujahidin would have secured a land they can use as a base to hit the Shi'a inside their own lands, with a directed media and a strategic action, there will be a continuation between the Mujahidin inside and outside of Iraq. We are racing against time, in order to create squads of Mujahidin who seek refuge in secure places, spy on neighborhoods, and work on hunting down the enemies. The enemies are the Americans, police, and army. We have been training these people and augmenting their numbers.

As far as the Shi'a, we will undertake suicide operations and use car bombs to harm them. We have been working on monitoring the area and choosing the right people, looking for those who are on the straight path, so we can cooperate with them. We hope that we have made progress, and perhaps we will soon decide to go public -- even if gradually -- to display ourselves in full view. We have been hiding for a long time, and now we are seriously working on preparing a media outlet to reveal the truth, enflame zeal, and become an outlet for jihad in which the sword and the pen can turn into one. Along with this, we strive to illuminate the hindering errors of Islamic law and the clarifications of Islamic legal precepts by way of tapes, lessons, and courses which people will come to understand.

The suggested time for execution: we are hoping that we will soon start working on creating squads and brigades of individuals who have experience and expertise. We have to get to the zero-hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night and after that by day, god willing. The zero-hour needs to be at least four months before the new government gets in place. As we see we are racing time, and if we succeed, which we are hoping, we will turn the tables on them and thwart their plan. If, god forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die, if god chooses us.

6. What about you? You, noble brothers, leaders of jihad, we do not consider ourselves those who would compete against you, nor would we ever aim to achieve glory for ourselves like you did. The only thing we want is to be the head of the spear, assisting and providing a bridge over which the Muslim nation can cross to promised victory and a better tomorrow. As we have explained, this is our belief. So if you agree with it and are convinced of the idea of killing the perverse sects, we stand ready as an army for you, to work under your guidance and yield to your command. Indeed, we openly and publicly swear allegiance to you by using the media, in order to exasperate the infidels and confirm to the adherents of faith that one day, the believers will revel in god's victory. If you think otherwise, we will remain brothers, and disagreement will not destroy our cooperation and undermine our working together for what is best. We support jihad and wait for your response. May god keep for you the keys of goodness and preserve Islam and his people. Amen, amen.


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

>> ON KERRY...

Kerry Testified of '200,000 a Year Who Are Murdered' By U.S. in Vietnam
by David Freddoso
Posted Feb 10, 2004
On April 22, 1971, asked how a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam would affect the South Vietnamese, a young John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "[Y]es, there will be some recrimination, but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America." (See page 190 of the attached transcript of his entire testimony).
Kerry, who is now a U.S. senator from Massachusetts and the leading Democratic presidential candidate, was then a private citizen testifying two years after his return from naval service in Vietnam, where he had won a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. In the course of his remarks to the committee, he complained of "the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions." (Pages 184-185.)
'A Phony Deal'
The same day Kerry testified, Rep. Sam Johnson (R.-Tex.) was sitting in a cell in the infamous Hanoi Hilton POW camp, where he says he was tortured, underfed, and mostly cut off from correspondence, in violation of the Geneva Convention. Johnson told HUMAN EVENTS that his captors had moved him there recently after 42 months of solitary confinement.
"When [Kerry] testified against the war, his testimony was un-American and untrue, and I think he lost all credibility as a real military man," said Johnson, asked to comment on a full 32-page transcript of Kerry's testimony that was obtained yesterday by HUMAN EVENTS. Johnson, a retired Air Force Colonel, was a prisoner of war for seven years after being shot down in North Vietnam in 1966.
Johnson said the idea that 200,000 Vietnamese were annually "murdered by the United States of America" was "not true. Absolutely not true." He also complained of Kerry's liberal use of his Vietnam service in his presidential campaign, particularly the use of the slogan "band of brothers," a Shakespearean reference to the camaraderie of men who have seen battle together.
"It's a phony deal," he said. "There are Vietnam veterans that you'll see who will call you brother and commiserate with you over experiences over there, but his use of that is totally false, and I don't know how anybody could fall for it."
During the question-and-answer part of his 1971 testimony, Sen. George Aiken (R.-Vt.) asked Kerry if the South Vietnamese army and South Vietnamese people "would be happy to have us withdraw or what?"
"If we don't withdraw," Kerry said, "if we maintain a Korean-type presence in South Vietnam, say 50,000 troops or something, with strategic bombing raids from Guam and from Japan and from Thailand dropping these 15,000 pound fragmentation bombs on them, et cetera, in the next few years, then what you will have is a people who are continually oppressed, who are continually at warfare, and whose problems will not at all be solved because they will not have any kind of representation.
"The war will continue," said Kerry. "So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America."
It is not clear from Kerry's testimony when, where or how he believed these people were, or would be, "murdered by the United States of America."
HUMAN EVENTS provided Sen. Kerry's senatorial office with a copy of the full 32- page transcript and asked if he stood by the above statements or wished to offer some explanation for them. Later in the day, a spokeswoman for the senatorial office said she had forwarded the questions to Kerry's presidential campaign. The campaign had not commented by press time.
The transcript indicates that later in the testimony, under sympathetic questioning from Sen. Clifford Case (D.-N.J.), Kerry drew laughter from the crowd when he dismissed the administration's rationale for the war, to keep Communism at bay. "I think it is bogus, totally artificial," he said. "There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands."
In his testimony before Senators Case, Aiken, William Fulbright (D.-Ark.), Stuart Symington (D.-Mo.), Claiborne Pell (D.-R.I.), and Jacob Javits (R.-N.Y.), Kerry also gave and then quickly retracted testimony that the vast majority of soldiers in Vietnam got high on drugs literally all day, every day.
"A lot of guys, 60, 80 percent stay stoned 24 hours a day just to get through the Vietnam [War]," he said.
When Symington appeared incredulous, Kerry altered his testimony: "Sixty to 80 percent is the figure used that try something, let's say, at one point."
Copyright ? 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------

Kerry's Troubling Consistencies
by David Limbaugh
Posted Feb 13, 2004
While many, myself included, are pointing out the numerous inconsistencies in Senator Kerry's recent positions on the issues, I think we also ought to look at his disturbing consistencies from the Vietnam era to the present.
It is true that Senator Kerry voted to authorize a military attack on Iraq and then later tried to squirm out of his vote. Senator Kerry decried Republicans for criticizing candidate Clinton for avoiding the draft but is now exploiting questions about President Bush's Air National Guard service. Kerry has conveniently retreated from his position against capital punishment for terrorists. He shamelessly attacks the Patriot Act, though he voted for it a few short years ago. And he's all over the board on the gay marriage debate.
While this small sampling of Kerry's many contradictions reveals that he is a rank opportunist, it tells us little about his driving ideology. But we have other evidence from which a clearer picture emerges as to his true ideological rudder, especially with respect to his fitness as a commander in chief.
President Bush is already a tried and tested commander in chief with whom the majority of the public feels secure despite valiant Democratic efforts to tarnish his credibility. Because the War on Terror is foremost on voters' minds, Democrats became desperate to find a candidate qualified to be commander in chief.
What were Democrats to do? Well, a faction of them tried to draft General Wesley Clark to inject instant defense credibility into the party notorious for its softness on national defense. For a number of reasons that was a bust. At the same time, on a parallel track, Senator Kerry began to milk his Vietnam service for all it was worth, which so far has been a successful ploy.
And so the logic has been established: John Kerry was a war hero 30 years ago, and George Bush saw no combat, therefore John Kerry is better equipped to lead the nation at war than George Bush.
But for Democrats to get any traction here, they have to explain the lack of military experience of our other successful commanders in chief. More significantly, they have to explain how military combat experience qualifies one to lead the nation on foreign affairs and national defense. Perhaps this wouldn't be so difficult if the combat veteran in question had not demonstrated such hostility toward the military and national defense, like Senator Kerry has since he returned from Vietnam.
It was then that he first propelled himself into political prominence on the backs of his fellow Vietnam veterans, accusing them of unspeakable atrocities and impugning America for engaging in an immoral war in Vietnam. He made these charges with all the public fanfare he could muster, knowing they would inevitably undermine the morale of our troops. To him, containing Communism was an ignoble cause. He cavorted with the likes of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden in decrying this "barbaric war."
Adding insult to injury, Kerry said in 1970 that he would disperse our troops "through the world, only at the directive of the United Nations," and that he wanted to "almost eliminate CIA activity altogether."
All of this could be more easily written off as the fulminations of an idealistic young man, but for the fact that Kerry is singing from the same hymnal today. He is still trashing our intelligence services; he is saying that we should defer to the United Nations before taking military action against known threats to the United States, and he has implied we were involved in an unjust war in Iraq. He has refused to vote for the $87 billion supplemental appropriation for rebuilding Iraq and supporting our troops there. And throughout his career he has voted against developing some of our most important military technology.
So despite Kerry's many political turnabouts, we see a troubling consistency on these issues that matter the most in America today. He seems to have a visceral aversion to the military he served, a visceral affinity for the United Nations, a propensity to rush to judgment against just causes in which the United States engages and a casual disregard for undermining our troops in combat.
With all due respect, all the war medals in the world shouldn't be enough to enable Kerry to overcome his consistent record as being soft on defense. It is this consistency--more than all of Kerry's political inconsistencies--that should ultimately undo his quest for the presidency, if scandal doesn't do him in first.
Copyright ? 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary's Hopes Helped by 'Kerrygate'
Posted Feb 13, 2004
Will "Kerrygate" provide an opportunity for Hillary Clinton to "save the day" at the Democratic convention? R. Emmett Tyrrell , author of the new book Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House, thinks that at the very least the chances of it happening have gone up -- way up. Quoted yesterday, Tyrrell noted that "the likeliness of Mrs. Clinton potentially grabbing the Democratic nomination in Boston in a 'save the Democratic Party' scenario has increased ten fold."
As pundits consider the Democratic Party's latest scandal, Tyrrell has released his Madame Hillary, shedding new light on the junior New York Senator and her seemingly unstoppable rise in power within her party.
About the developing Kerry scandal, Tyrrell stated that "'Kerrygate' could have a tremendous impact on the number one issue driving the Kerry campaign -- 'electability.' While many analysts and pundits will surely give the windfall to Sen. John Edwards, this could have greater impact on Sen. Hillary Clinton's political future."
Tyrrell went on to say, "It is fascinating that one of the driving forces behind Kerry's scandal is none other than friend of Hillary and recent Democratic Presidential Candidate General Wesley Clark, who Mrs. Clinton encouraged to run."
In a recent Wall Street Journal Op-ed, Tyrrell predicted:
"There are Democrats who want to loosen the Clintons' grip on their party. That grip has always been good for the Clintons but bad for the party. Will frontrunner Mr. Kerry be the next victim of the Clintons' political research teams? Possibly not -- he is the Washington insider that Mr. Dean is not. And it is not clear that he will be sailing into the summer convention with a great deal of brag and bounce. He may be limping in after still more primary battles. Then Hillary will make her grand entrance. With Mr. McAuliffe smiling from the podium her power will be vast."
To purchase Madame Hillary, click here.
Copyright ? 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------

VEEP STAKES...

Kerry's Veep
A short list in the making.
Choosing a running mate will be the most important decision John Kerry makes between now and November -- not only because vice presidents stand a reasonably good chance of becoming presidents, but because they are such a key part of electioneering. Kerry probably won't announce his selection until the summer, but with the Democratic presidential nomination all but clinched, the season of speculation may begin.
The traditional rules of veep selection will apply. Most people base their vote on who sits at the top of the ticket, which means that the vice-presidential nominee is not likely to influence the outcome of the race unless it's close. Moreover, potential running mates must meet the "do no harm" principle -- there should be nothing in their backgrounds that might make them liabilities in the fall.
Kerry himself will have to deal with a few unique conditions. He won't want a running mate from the northeast. He'll probably want someone from outside Washington, D.C., which means he'll choose with a bias against a current member of Congress, especially another senator. His running mate will have to stand on stage next to Dick Cheney and appear credible. Finally, Kerry will face pressure from the Clinton faction of his party not to select a partner who would emerge as a rival to Hillary Clinton in 2008 in the event of a Democratic defeat this year.
Herewith, a look at the contenders:
EVAN BAYH: This senator from Indiana is a hawk on the Iraq war and a rising star in the Democratic party. He might put his home state in play, but his main appeal would be his youth, energy, and New Democrat credentials. His membership on the Senate Intelligence Committee would be an asset. Feminist groups might try to nix him because he's not an abortion-rights absolutist -- or possibly get him to pull a Lieberman and renounce his heresy.
WESLEY CLARK: From the standpoint of expectations, no presidential candidate failed so badly in the primaries as this retired general. At least Howard Dean had to rise before he fell; Clark started out near the top and did nothing but tumble. Perhaps more than any other candidate on this list, the unpredictable Clark violates the "do no harm" principle of veep selection.
HILLARY CLINTON: The media will go through several rounds of talking about Hillary as veep, if only because talking about Hillary is a favorite pastime for pundits. But neither Kerry nor Clinton will want this match. The last thing Kerry needs is another "liberal senator from the Northeast" on his ticket. Hillary has a strong incentive to stay away as well. Some potential running mates would see their careers enhanced by losing with Kerry this year: It would establish them as statesmen on their side of the aisle. Yet Hillary's reputation would suffer and it would hurt her chances in 2008. Also, she has repeatedly promised to serve out her term as senator from New York. Reneging would make her seem -- for lack of a better word -- Clintonian.
HOWARD DEAN: Forget it. The only rationale for a Kerry-Dean ticket would have been a desperate attempt to unify a torn party.
JOHN EDWARDS: Apart from Kerry, no presidential candidate has beaten more expectations this year than the senior senator from North Carolina: Edwards is the only loser who emerges from this year's primaries looking better than he did before getting in. He continues to run a veep-friendly campaign and is already generating some buzz about a Kerry-Edwards ticket. What's more, Kerry will face some pressure to go with a southerner. Yet Edwards hasn't exactly been a Dixie powerhouse -- his single triumph in South Carolina didn't translate into victories in Tennessee and Virginia. Another strike is that he's a fellow senator. There's a chance he would make North Carolina competitive for Kerry, but no guarantee. Odds are he'll appear on Kerry's short list until the bitter end -- but that he won't make the final cut.
HAROLD FORD: Some vice-presidential short lists are compiled for public consumption -- certain names are placed on them to flatter and court particular individuals and constituencies. There's no doubt that Kerry will want to be seen as giving serious consideration to a black running mate, even if he isn't really going to pick one. The most likely politician to fill this role is Harold Ford, a young congressman from Tennessee who is believed to have a bright future on Capitol Hill. Talk of a Kerry-Ford ticket will boost both Kerry and Ford, but it won't happen.
DICK GEPHARDT: The ultimate safe pick. The St. Louis congressman has been vetted enough times to guarantee that there are no surprises lurking in his closet. Although he may be seen as a Democratic dinosaur, he's experienced and gaffe-proof. He would put Missouri in play and might help out in other union-heavy Midwestern states (though his poor performance in the Iowa caucuses may suggest otherwise). A Kerry-Gephardt ticket would mollify the party's protectionist wing, which is skeptical of Kerry's vote for NAFTA a decade ago. Gephardt's modest upbringing also makes him one of several contenders who would nicely balance Kerry's privileged background. His recent endorsement of Kerry is another plus.
BOB GRAHAM: If this Florida senator had been the Democratic veep nominee in 2000, we'd probably be in the midst of a primary battle to pick a GOP challenger to President Gore. Graham's disappointing presidential run hurt his chances in 2004, though he did have the sense to exit before the embarrassment became fatal. Kerry will make a play for Florida this year, but the GOP is better positioned there than it was four years ago. Graham's impact today is probably less than it once would have been. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he does come with foreign-policy credentials.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM: Looks great on paper as an attractive female governor of a swing state (Michigan). Too bad for Kerry that she was born in Canada and isn't eligible for the Oval Office.
JIM HUNT: The other veep candidate from North Carolina. This retired governor has won plenty of elections in his home state, though a 1984 Senate loss to Jesse Helms prevented him from becoming a national figure. He's no spring chicken -- he'll be 67 on Election Day -- but he's a Washington outsider who would play about as well in the south as anybody Kerry might pick.
GARY LOCKE: If Democrats think they need this governor to carry the state of Washington, then they've got some big problems. Going with Locke would generate very good notice in the press (plus lots of headline puns about "Picking Locke") because Locke, an Asian American, would be the first nonwhite candidate on a presidential ticket. But would black and Hispanic loyalists grumble that they were more deserving of the honor?
JANET NAPOLITANO: The governor of Arizona is probably the top female contender for Kerry -- she's not from D.C. and she might put her GOP-friendly home state into question. But Kerry should keep in mind that while Geraldine Ferraro was making history in 1984 as Walter Mondale's running mate, Ronald Reagan was winning the women's vote. Perhaps the politics of the gender gap have changed, but then again maybe not as much as Democrats might hope. Furthermore, Napolitano would have a tough time looking like she's as ready as Dick Cheney to become commander in chief.
SAM NUNN: Worth considering only because the evil genius James Carville mentioned him as a possibility. As a Georgian, he adds a southerner to the ticket -- though it's far from clear that he would provide a significant lift in his home state, which is now solidly Republican. He is viewed as one of his party's elder statesmen on security issues.
BILL RICHARDSON: The governor of New Mexico is often mentioned because he's Hispanic. But don't be fooled: The Hispanic influence on the Electoral College is often misunderstood. If no Hispanics had voted four years ago, the election results in only two states would have changed: Florida would have gone for Gore and New Mexico would have gone for Bush. (Bush would have won the popular vote but Gore would be president -- all because of Cuban Americans.) It's hard to see how Richardson's addition to the Democratic ticket would give Kerry critical advantages anywhere except New Mexico. Picking Richardson makes more sense for Democrats thinking about long-term demographic alignments than it does for Kerry thinking about November. Despite all this, Richardson is one of the best Democratic pols in the country -- a governor with genuine foreign-policy experience as UN ambassador and as a congressman who secured hostage releases around the world. He would probably make Kerry's short list even if his mother hadn't been Mexican.
ROBERT RUBIN: Selecting the former treasury secretary would be compared to Bush's choice of Cheney four years ago -- a decision that has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with boosting credibility. In Rubin's case, it would signal to Wall Street and the investor class that a Kerry presidency is nothing to fear -- and perhaps create fundraising opportunities that otherwise wouldn't exist. It would also seek to remind people of prosperity during the Clinton presidency and give Kerry a very effective surrogate for attacking Bush's economic record. Interesting trivia: A poll for USA Today in 2000 showed a Gore-Rubin ticket outperforming a Gore-Kerry ticket.
TOM VILSACK: The governor of Iowa presumably would go a long way toward securing his home state, which the GOP hopes to capture this year. And it certainly doesn't hurt that Vilsack's wife endorsed Kerry before the caucuses last month, during Kerry's surprising surge. (In a piece for NRO on Monday, David Hogberg explained why he doubts Vilsack will end up on the Democratic ticket.)
FEARLESS PREDICTION: This wouldn't be punditry if it didn't include some guesswork. Much will ride on the question of how optimistic Democrats are feeling this summer: Will Kerry be forced into a bold and strategic choice or can he be more conservative and tactical? My own sense is that the race will be close to the end, with Democrats believing they have a realistic chance of defeating Bush. Kerry will pick Gephardt -- and he'll be glad he did.

http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200402120825.asp



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

Pakistan had case against scientist
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff, 2/13/2004
WASHINGTON -- More than three years ago, Pakistani intelligence agents built a corruption case against Abdul Qadeer Khan, the country's most famous nuclear scientist, but officials under President Pervez Musharraf decided not to pursue it because Khan was a national hero, according to a former Pakistani official.
The former official, who was a case manager at the National Accountability Bureau, the country's leading anticorruption agency, said the dossier prepared by the intelligence officers spanned some 120 pages. It detailed how he reaped massive profits from kickbacks in the procurement of nuclear equipment and amassed seven houses in the wealthiest areas of Islamabad.
Last week, Khan, known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, confessed in a dramatic, televised statement to selling nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran, and Libya in one of the largest cases of nuclear proliferation in history. He was swiftly pardoned by Musharraf after telling the nation that he acted alone and that the government had no knowledge of his dealings over two decades.
Musharraf has said he suspected Khan had been sharing nuclear secrets for three years but did not have evidence.
But the former case manager said investigators in 2000 believed there was sufficient evidence to bring corruption charges against Khan, and there was additional evidence that Khan was making unauthorized deals in the international nuclear black market.
The decision not to bring charges allowed Khan to continue his alleged black-market activities for two and a half more years. Musharraf quietly forced Khan to retire in 2001, but did not curtail his international travel or make public the corruption file against him.
"We said that somehow he is a national hero, the National Accountability Bureau is new, [and] we cannot afford to take on someone of his stature," said the former official. He said he agreed with the determination that Khan was too popular to face national prosecution at that time and had recommended waiting a year.
In Pakistan's five-decade standoff with India, Khan played a vital role in building a nuclear weapon to match that of India. He is so revered in Pakistan that his picture appears in school textbooks along with the nation's founder. His fame extends beyond Pakistan to the rest of the Muslim world.
But the dossier prepared in 2000 told a different story, the official said. It reported Khan held $8 million in several bank accounts and had given a house to General Mirza Aslam Beg, the former commander of Pakistan's army, who supported sharing nuclear technology with other Muslim countries. Beg has told reporters he did not authorize Khan to give nuclear secrets to anyone.
The dossier showed that some in Pakistan's government were worried in 2000 about the lack of oversight over Khan's activities in the underground world of nuclear procurement, including clues that he was buying more materials than were necessary for Pakistan's program alone, the official said.
For example, it showed how Khan had acquired a high-tech wiring system at an extremely high price -- buying far more wire from Indonesia than the nuclear program could have used, according to the official -- "enough for 100 years."
The dossier also detailed Khan's close ties with Haji Abdul Razzak, a Dubai-based Pakistani businessman who is wanted on corruption charges in Pakistan, stating that Khan owned stock in one of Razzak's companies. The document indicated that Khan paid "stipends" to about a dozen journalists who wrote flattering articles about him and financed the Pakistan Observer, a newspaper headed by Zahid Malik, Khan's biographer, according to the official.
The dossier also said that Khan owned a hotel worth about $10 million in Timbuktu, Mali, named after his wife Hendrina and that a Pakistani Air Force C-130 aircraft was used to bring antique Pakistani furniture to the hotel, the official said.
On Monday, Musharraf told The New York Times that he had been suspicious of Khan for at least three years and believed him to be operating with "illegal contacts, maybe suspicions of contacts." Musharraf acknowledged that he was wary about pursuing Khan because of a fear of popular backlash.
Musharraf also said in that interview that he had not been given enough evidence about Khan's proliferation activities to move forward with a case until the fall of 2002.
For decades, specialists in international proliferation have warned that Pakistan's military was not only building a bomb, but assisting other countries to do so.
"They were clearly proliferating," said Larry Pressler, a former US senator who urged that sanctions be imposed on Pakistan in the early 1990s. "The generals were traveling. They were talking to everyone in the region."
According to a special report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Los Angeles-based human rights organization, Khan secretly visited Busheir, Iran's nuclear facility, in 1986 and 1987 and was retained as a consultant by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to study whether the reactor there could produce plutonium.
In the 1992 report, the Wiesenthal Center, better known for its work hunting Nazi war criminals, said that Pakistan signed a secret nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran in 1987 that involved training Iranian nuclear scientists in Islamabad.
Libya is also believed to have signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan and funded part of their program, according to the Wiesenthal report and other nuclear nonproliferation specialists. In the early 1990s, Pakistan's government also bought missile designs from North Korea, but for cash, not in a nuclear barter, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto told the Globe this week.
But the dossier is evidence that beyond whatever trading Khan was authorized to do on behalf of Pakistan's nuclear program, he was also making deals on his own.
"There was no check on him," said the official. The dossier "said that Khan was the only guy who had links with the black market and there was no check" on his international nuclear trading.
The Khan file, which was prepared by an outside intelligence agency and handed to the National Accountability Bureau, was considered so sensitive that officials had to come to the office to read it, and could not make copies, he said. The official studied the file in 2000 and took notes, which he showed to a reporter.
Reached by telephone in Islamabad, the former head of the National Accountability Bureau, Lieutenant General Syed Mohammad Amjad, confirmed that the official was a longtime employee of the bureau and said he had a reputation for honesty.
But Amjad said he could not confirm the existence of a dossier on Khan because he left the bureau before the end of 2000.
Pakistan's secretary of information, Syed Anwar Mahmood, also said he had no personal knowledge of the dossier.
Farah Stockman can be reached at fstockman@globe.com.
? Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.


Posted by maximpost at 3:16 PM EST
Permalink

Newer | Latest | Older