IRAN: THE DEATH OF ILLUSION
By AMIR TAHERI
February 20, 2004 -- 'WE must turn a page and move on." So Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Guide" of the Islamic Republic in Iran, advised his compatriots earlier this week. He was referring to the parliamentary elections held today and prearranged to ensure almost total victory for his own faction within the regime.
Even a month ago, not many would have predicted such an easy victory for the faction of which Khamenei is the figurehead. The rival faction, whose standard-bearer is supposed to be President Mohammad Khatami, was expected to put up a real fight. It did not, because, lacking a popular support base, it didn't have the stomach for a real fight.
The Iranian election experience puts an end to several illusions.
Illusion No. 1: That the mere holding of elections is a sign of democratization. Now we know that, although there can be no democracy without elections, it is possible to have elections without democracy.
The Khomeinist electoral recipe is simple and efficient.
It starts by making sure that all the candidates are handpicked for their total loyalty to the leader. Next, it makes sure that there is no real election campaign. The candidates are not allowed to criticize the leadership. Nor can they offer programs that differ with the essential options of the leadership.
The whole campaign lasts only one week, and no one is allowed to spend more than $10,000 on a campaign. Candidates are denied access to the heavy mass media such as radio and TV, and any material they put out must meet the authorities' approval.
Finally, winning a majority of votes is not enough. A victory must still be confirmed by no fewer than 11 different layers of authority, topped by the Council of the Guardians of the Revolution, which can nullify any or all of the results.
The purpose of such a system of elections is not to challenge the government of the day and to offer alternative policy choices. It is to pay allegiance to the rulers.
Illusion No. 2: That this regime can be reformed from within.
No system can be reformed unless it opens itself to new, especially rival, forces. And that means sharing power with groups and parties that, for one reason or another, have been excluded from decision-making.
Reform does not consist solely of new ways of doing things. It also requires that different people do at least some of those new things. We saw that fact illustrated in the Soviet Union of the late 1980s, when Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to change things while maintaining his Communist Party's monopoly on power.
Illusion No. 3: That Iran has a united domestic opposition force that has a coherent analysis of the nation's situation and a clear vision of its future.
Now we know that the so-called "reformist" camp did not exist except in the imagination of some Western commentators. This election has broken that "camp" into no fewer than 18 different groups, some of which have boycotted the elections while others, although denied the right to field candidates of their own, opposed the boycott in the name of revolutionary solidarity.
The "reformist" camp (which presented absolutely no major reform program in any field) consisted of a crowd as random as that of people at a bus stop who have nothing in common except a desire to get on the next bus.
A credible opposition cannot be made of occasional student riots, farcical sit-ins in the parliament, speeches about Schopenhauer and Hegel and Colgate smiles of the kind President Khatami excels in. Before anything else, it needs to show why the present system is bad and how and with what it should be replaced.
In the past decade or so, Iranian opposition has generated much heat but little light. It has shown a great deal of passion but little thought. Romantic preoccupation with vague generalities has been its wont, while the Khomeinist establishment has focused on the concrete issues of power and its practice.
In other words, the Iranian system is blocked not only because the establishment does not wish to share power (what establishment would?), but also because there is no credible opposition force on the scene.
It is not enough for a majority of the people to be unhappy with a regime for that regime to consent to change and reform. There can be no democratization without an opposition capable of offering clear alternatives to a government's analyses and policies.
WITH the death of these illusions, the Iranians, and others interested in Iran, must review some of their recent assumptions.
The key lesson to Iranians is that the alternative to this regime cannot emerge from within it. It is possible, and to some extent even happening now, that large segments of the establishment drift away from it. But, unless they are absorbed into an opposition, they will amount to nothing but flotsam and jetsam of a turbulent political life.
As the Prophet said: There is always something good in what happens. The Iranian election farce is no exception.
It shows that the present regime's legitimacy does not come from the ballot box but from its ability to impose its will by force if necessary. It obliges Iran's neighbors, and the major powers interested in the region, to abandon their illusions and to either accept the present regime on its own terms or designate it as a foe that must ultimately be brought down.
The death of illusions in Iran also means the death of the European policy of "constructive dialogue," first proposed by the Germans in the 1980s and now most actively pursued by the British. That policy was based on the assumption that the regime could reform itself, peacefully and speedily. It is now clear that it cannot.
Thus the Europeans face a stark choice:
* They can decide to hold their noses and continue dealing with the Iranian regime because they need its cooperation on a number of issues, notably nuclear nonproliferation, Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Or they can orchestrate a set of new diplomatic, economic and even military pressures on the regime as a means of encouraging the emergence of a genuinely democratic internal opposition.
For its part, the Bush administration needs to develop a coherent analysis of the Iranian situation. It must decide whether or not Iran is, in the words of the State Department's No. 2, Richard Armitage, a "sort of democracy," or a despotic regime using religion and violence to remain in power.
Short-term realpolitik may counsel an accommodation with the present regime in Tehran, much as it has determined Washington's China policy. But that would mean the premature death of President Bush's ambitious plan for "a new Middle East." It would also give the Islamic Republic time to assemble an arsenal of nuclear weapons, and other weapons of mass destruction, which the Tehran leadership regards as its best insurance policy.
Today a page is, indeed, turned in Iran's recent history. But it may not have been the same page that Khamenei had hoped for.
E-mail: amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com
NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'I would live in America, no problem'
(Filed: 20/02/2004)
David Blair talks to young Republican Guards in Teheran who defy the official view of the US
The old American embassy in Teheran might have been seared into the world's consciousness as the cradle of Iran's revolution, yet the talk among the young Revolutionary Guards stationed there does not match the murals shouting defiance from battered walls.
"I would live in America, no problem," said one 22-year-old, who added that he associated the country with "love and freedom".
Nearby, "Down with USA" was painted on the wall in garish red and yellow hues.
Another guard, also in his 20s, added: "Our government has one view of America but the people have another.
"Our government tries to show the US as an enemy of our country and of our people. All of the young believe the US is good. Most of the people believe this."
The opinions are in tune with a new generation. More than half of all Iranians were not born when a crowd of thousands, led by the nascent Revolutionary Guards, scaled the embassy walls in November 1979 and stormed the imposing, red-brick building.
Seven months after Ayatollah Khomeini had proclaimed the Islamic Republic, Iranians took revenge on America for having supported the ousted Shah. They occupied the embassy for more than a year and 66 diplomats were taken hostage. The diplomats stayed in captivity until Jimmy Carter's presidency ended in January 1981.
Iran's revolutionary regime sought to milk the coup for all it was worth. The old embassy was turned into a temple of anti-Americanism.
The building houses a museum dedicated to Washington's supposed crimes. A miniature Statue of Liberty planted on the embassy's lawn wears the grotesque face of a skull and bare ribs protrude from her shrunken chest. The bald eagle crest that once adorned the gates has disappeared, defaced by countless hammers and chisels.
But today the museum is virtually defunct. It opens only on selected anniversaries, chiefly for the benefit of foreign visitors.
Some of those who scaled the embassy walls in 1979 are now among the reformist politicians who have been disqualified from contesting today's parliamentary election. About 2,500 candidates have been barred from standing, including 80 sitting MPs.
An official survey suggests that turnout in the election will be about 30 per cent. This compares with the 67 per cent in the last one, in 2000, when reformers won 190 of parliament's 290 seats.
A low turnout would almost certainly allow opponents of reform to retake control of parliament.
Millions of Iranians are grappling with this dilemma. A text message circulating on mobile phones yesterday read: "The ballot boxes are the coffins of freedom. We will not take part in the funeral of freedom."
? Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004
------------------------------------------------
Source Gives Details of Iran Nukes Deal
By ROHAN SULLIVAN
Associated Press Writer
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP)--Rogue Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan sold nuclear weapons-making equipment to Iran for $3 million and had enriched uranium shipped to Libya for its atomic program, police said Friday, citing the alleged financier of an international trafficking network.
In the first insider's account of the black-market nuclear program, Buhary Syed Abu Tahir told Malaysian police that Khan asked him to send two containers of used centrifuge parts from Pakistan to Iran in 1994 or 1995.
Tahir also said Libya received enriched uranium from Pakistan in 2001, police said.
President Bush has called Tahir the ``chief financial officer and money launderer'' of the network run by Khan, who gave the Islamic world its first atomic bomb.
Tahir is in Malaysia and has been questioned by authorities about his connections to Khan in this Southeast Asian country.
A report released by police Friday provides a detailed account of the network headed by Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, who confessed earlier this month to leaking nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Police said the 12-page report on Tahir's Malaysian connections will be given to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Vienna, Austria-based U.N. organization that oversees the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Malaysian authorities say they will cooperate if the IAEA seeks further action.
Tahir told Malaysian authorities he organized the shipment of two containers of centrifuge parts from Dubai to Iran aboard an Iranian merchant ship, the report says. Centrifuges are machines that can enrich uranium for weapons and other purposes.
``Payment for the two containers of centrifuge units, amounting to about $3 million,'' was paid by an unnamed Iranian, the report said.
``The cash was brought in two briefcases and kept in an apartment that was used as a guesthouse by the Pakistani nuclear arms expert each time he visited Dubai,'' the report says, identifying Khan as the arms expert.
Tahir said Khan told him ``a certain amount'' of enriched uranium was flown to Libya from Pakistan on a Pakistani airliner in 2001, and a ``certain number'' of centrifuges were flown to Libya direct from Pakistan in 2001-02, the report said.
Malaysian officials said earlier that Tahir broke no Malaysian laws, but they would keep him under surveillance.
Tahir, 44, is married to a Malaysian and has permanent residency status here.
Tahir vacated his apartment in one of Kuala Lumpur's most exclusive suburbs Wednesday after an Associated Press reporter sought him out for comment on allegations he was a key deputy in the smuggling network.
He is a former business associate of Kamaluddin Abdullah, the son of Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who promised the police investigation would be conducted ``without fear or favor.''
A Malaysian company controlled by Kamaluddin, Scomi Precision Engineering, has acknowledged making 14 ``semifinished components'' _ which may amount to thousands of parts--for a Dubai-based company, Gulf Technical Industries, under a contract negotiated by Tahir. They were seized in October while being shipped from Dubai to Libya.
Authorities say the parts were for centrifuges, but Scomi says it did not know what the parts were for.
The release of the police report comes as the international investigation into Tahir widened to Kazakhstan.
The Kazakh intelligence agency, the National Security Committee, is investigating allegations that an affiliate of a company linked to Tahir, SMB Computers, was dealing with highly enriched uranium, spokesman Kenzhebulat Beknazarov said.
SMB is a Dubai-based company established by Tahir and his brother that Bush alleged Tahir used as a front to organize the clandestine movement of parts for centrifuges.
Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar complained Friday that his nation has been unfairly singled out by Bush in calling for a crackdown on the international nuclear black market.
``Malaysia should not be dragged into the debate of being a country that is involved in the supply of components or otherwise for weapons of mass destruction,'' Sayed Hamid said. ``We have no capability.''
He said most nuclear weapons came from Europe and the United States, ``but nothing has been talked about these people.''
AP-NY-02-20-04 0905EST
Copyright 2004, The Associated Press.
-----------------------------------------
>> TAHIR DOSSIER...
Multinational network aided Pakistan's nuclear help to Libya, report says
Ray Bonner NYT
ISTANBUL Black-market shipments to Libya of nuclear components, including enriched uranium, began with a meeting in Istanbul in 1997 between Libyan officials and the Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, according to the principal middlemen in the operation.
One Turkish company supplied aluminum casting and another contributed electrical cabinets and voltage regulators, the middleman, B.S.A. Tahir, has told the Malaysian police.
But the network included companies and citizens of Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Italy and Britain, as well as Dubai and Malaysia, according to a report by Malaysian investigators that was released on Friday in Kuala Lumpur.
"Some of the suppliers were believed to be aware that these components could be used for uranium enrichment centrifuges," the report says, and others were not.
The report was based on police interrogation of Tahir, 44, a businessman who was a key middleman in the network and who has been under close police scrutiny custody in Malaysia since American authorities alerted the Malaysian police last November to the network to supply Libya.
It wasn't just Libya. On one occasion, Tahir, acting for Khan, arranged for the shipment of two containers of centrifuge units from Pakistan to Iran, on a merchant ship owned by an Iranian company, according to the report. The equipment, which cost about $3 million, was paid for in cash taken in two suitcases to Dubai and kept in an apartment was has used as a guesthouse by Khan when he visited there, the Malaysian report says.
The 12-page report does not mention Khan by name but refers to him as the "Pakistani nuclear arms expert" and "akistani scientist."
After saying that Mr. Tahir visited Pakistan, obtained contracts to sell to "Khan Research Laboratory," which was when he met "the Pakistani nuclear expert," the next two lines of the Malaysian report were blacked out. Two lines are blacked out after the report's statement that visited tained contracts to sell to "Khan Research Laboratory," which was when he met "the Pakistani nuclear expert," the next two lines of the Malaysian report were blacked out.
After the 1997 meeting with Libyan officials in Istanbul, there were meetings in Casablance and Dubai, the report says.
In 2001, "a certain amount of UF 6 [enriched uranium] was sent by air from Pakistan to Libya," the report says. It was shipped on a Pakstiani airliner, but Mr. Tahir could not remember the name,according to the report.
In addition to supplying equipment to Libya, a major undertaking was "Project Machine Shop 1001." This was for the purpose of manufacturing centrifuge components in that could not be obtained outside Libya.
Machines for the workshop came from companies in Spain and Italy, the report says.
This project was supervised by Peter Griffin, Mr. Tahir told the Malaysian police. A British engineer, Mr. Griffin first began working with Mr. Khan in the early 1980s, according to British intelligence, which Mr. Griffin confirmed in a recent telephone interview.
He provided the plan for Machine Shop 1001 and a lathe, the report says. He also arranged for 7 or 8 Libyan technicians to go to the company in Spain, according to the report.
In a separate interview, a Western investigator said that the Spanish company had supplied sophisticated tools that were needed for the repair and maintenance of nuclear centrifuges.
In Dubai, Mr. Griffin set up a company called Gulf Technical Industries, which was partially owned by his son, Paul.
Neither of the Griffinscould be reached for comment Friday but in recent weeks, Paul Griffin has denied that he or his father had ever done anything illegal.
Sometime in 2001, Mr. Tahir, acting on behalf of Gulf Technical Industries, signed a contract with a Malaysian company, Scomi Precision Engineering, to supply centrifuge components.
Scomi officials have said that they did not know the parts were intended for Libya, but thought they were going to be used by an oil and gas company.
To oversee the production at Scomi, Mr. Tahir sent Urs Tinner, a 39-year old Swiss engineer, the Malaysian report says.
Mr. Tinner's father, a mechanical engineer, had dealings with Mr. Khan going back to the early 1980s, according to the report. He owns a Swiss company, PhiTec, which the Malaysian report spells "Cetec."
Mr. Tinner bought machines and services from his father, and brother, Marco, who owns another company, Traco, according to the report.
While working at Scomi, Urs Tinner took measures to protect the blueprints and hide any evidence of his presence, the report says.
Scomi finished making the centrifuge parts in late 2003, and after that Urs Tinner left, the company has said. When he left, he took the hard drive with him that had the drawings, as well as his personnel file, the Malaysian report says. "This gave the impression that Urs Tinner did not wish to leave any trace of his presence there," the Malaysian police concluded.
The Scomi components were on board the BBC China, when it was seized last Oct. That led to the unraveling of the Khan network.
The New York Times
Copyright ? 2003 The International Herald Tribune
-----------------------------------------------------
L'inqui?tant Dr Khan
LE MONDE | 20.02.04 | 14h01 * MIS A JOUR LE 20.02.04 | 16h57
Le p?re de la "bombe islamique" a reconnu sa responsabilit? dans la fuite de technologie nucl?aire. Pr?sent? comme un flambeur m?galomane, il conserve pourtant, au Pakistan, une aura de h?ros national.
Au pied des marches du mausol?e du sultan Mohammad Ghauri, fondateur de l'Empire musulman de Delhi, une r?plique (grandeur nature) du missile qui porte son nom est encadr?e de deux grands portraits peints : ? droite, le sultan, ? gauche, "le h?ros du Pakistan, le Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan". Comme l'indique une plaque, le mausol?e du Sultan, un des h?ros de la conqu?te musulmane de l'Inde, a ?t? "construit par le Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, Hilal-i-Imtiaz -une d?coration pakistanaise-, en 1994-1995".
P?re de la "bombe nucl?aire islamique", directeur du programme de missiles Ghauri, le Dr Khan n'a jamais dout? de son importance, mais son association avec ce sultan v?n?r? est sans doute aussi une fa?on de r?gler ses comptes avec une Inde qu'il a d?finitivement reni?e en 1952. Depuis qu'il a accept? d'assumer seul, le 4 f?vrier, la responsabilit? des fuites de technologie nucl?aire au profit de l'Iran, de la Cor?e du Nord et de la Libye, pendant une quinzaine d'ann?es, Abdul Qadeer Khan a ?t? relev? de toutes ses fonctions et quasiment assign? ? r?sidence dans sa maison de fonction d'Islamabad.
N? le 27 avril 1936 ? Bhopal, aujourd'hui capitale de l'Etat indien du Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Qadeer Khan quitte sa terre natale ? l'?ge 16 ans, apr?s avoir v?cu de pr?s, ? en croire son biographe officiel, les affres de la sanglante partition du sous-continent en 1947. Bhopal a une large population musulmane et re?oit beaucoup de r?fugi?s cherchant ? ?chapper aux massacres g?n?ralis?s. "Je n'ai jamais oubli? comment, alors que je gagnais le Pakistan, un garde-fronti?re indien a arrach? de ma poche le stylo que m'avait donn? mon fr?re pour me r?compenser de mon succ?s aux examens", affirmera-t-il, plus de quarante ans apr?s les faits, sur yespakistan.com, un site de Pakistanais ?migr?s. Il conserve chez lui une grande peinture murale de ce qui se veut le dernier train ? avoir travers? la fronti?re, laissant derri?re lui un cort?ge sanglant.
C'est quatre mois apr?s la premi?re explosion nucl?aire indienne, en mai 1974, qu'il ?crit au premier ministre pakistanais Zulficar Ali Bhutto pour lui offrir ses services. Ce dernier n'a jamais cach? sa volont? de faire jeu ?gal avec l'Inde, et sa comparaison est rest?e c?l?bre : "Si l'Inde construit la bombe, nous mangerons de l'herbe ou des feuilles, nous aurons m?me faim, mais nous en aurons une. Nous n'avons pas d'alternative, bombe atomique contre bombe atomique."
En janvier 1972, quelques mois apr?s son ascension au pouvoir, M. Bhutto convoque, ? Multan, une conf?rence des scientifiques pakistanais avec pour agenda : construire la bombe. Il promet de leur fournir toutes les facilit?s et l'argent n?cessaires pour obtenir ce qu'il appelle d?j? "la bombe islamique". En plein boom p?trolier, les Etats arabes comme l'Arabie saoudite ou la Libye n'h?sitent pas ? mettre la main au porte-monnaie. Dans un discours flamboyant, bien ? son image, le bouillant colonel Mouammar Kadhafi affirme, enthousiaste, ? l'issue du sommet islamique de Lahore, en 1974 : "Nos ressources sont les v?tres."
Abdul Qadeer Khan observe les choses depuis les Pays-Bas. Il a fait du chemin depuis son arriv?e ? Karachi et sa licence de sciences ? l'universit? de la m?me ville. Apr?s avoir appris l'allemand dans le but de poursuivre des ?tudes ? l'?tranger, il est parti ? Berlin, puis a pass? une ma?trise d'ing?nierie ? l'universit? de technologie de Delft, en Hollande, et un doctorat d'ing?nierie en m?tallurgie physique ? l'universit? de Louvain, en Belgique. Il travaille, depuis 1972, avec le consortium anglo-germano-hollandais Urenco, qui g?re une usine d'enrichissement d'uranium ? Almelo, en Hollande.
Son offre tombe ? pic. Zulficar Ali Bhutto tient son homme. Il le fait rentrer et n'h?site pas ? lui donner, en juillet 1976, le contr?le total de l'Engineering Research Laboratory (ERL), laboratoire qui travaille sous la supervision de l'Agence pakistanaise de l'?nergie atomique (PAEC). Mais Abdul Qadeer Khan ne l'entend pas ainsi. Il veut son ind?pendance et n'h?site pas ? d?nigrer par ?crit ses coll?gues, qu'il fait ?carter pour avoir sa propre ?quipe. L'homme d?borde d'ambition, sait ce qu'il veut et comment y arriver. "Il a apport? avec lui une centrifugeuse d?saffect?e, des plans, les noms de compagnies qui fournissent le mat?riel ? Urenco, de la technologie", raconte Shahid-ur Rahman, auteur d'un livre sur le programme nucl?aire pakistanais.
Jusqu'? aujourd'hui, le scientifique refuse de reconna?tre ses "emprunts" ? Urenco, pour lesquels il a ?t? condamn? par contumace aux Pays-Bas, en 1983, ? quatre ann?es de prison, avant que le jugement soit annul? en appel deux ans plus tard pour vice de forme. "Tout juste reconna?t-il avoir apport? quelques composants", affirme M. Rahman. Cette exp?rience lui laisse un go?t amer et il accusera souvent l'Occident de vouloir monopoliser ? son seul profit la technologie nucl?aire. "Ses transferts ? l'Iran, ? la Cor?e du Nord, ? la Libye s'inscrivent sans doute aussi dans sa volont? et son orgueil de prouver ? l'Occident qu'il pouvait briser son monopole", affirme une de ses connaissances. Nationaliste intransigeant, il n'est pas, pour ses amis, un islamiste militant. "Il est mari? ? une ?trang?re, ses filles ne portent pas le voile, et il ne s'est jamais cach? d'appr?cier ? l'occasion un peu d'alcool", assure l'un d'eux.
En 1976, le Dr Khan veut aller vite et ne s'embarrasse pas de scrupules. "Il d?cide d'acheter tout ce qui est possible sur le march? et de ne fabriquer localement qu'en dernier ressort. Ses ?quipes sillonnent le monde pour faire leurs emplettes ; des compagnies ?crans sont cr??es au Proche-Orient, en Extr?me- Orient", raconte encore M. Rahman, qui ajoute : "Quand les ambassades occidentales arr?tent de d?livrer des visas aux scientifiques pakistanais, les directeurs des compagnies europ?ennes ou am?ricaines sont invit?s en Turquie, ? Duba?, ? Singapour ou ? Hongkong pour discuter de contrats lucratifs."
"J'ai pleinement profit? de la volont? des compagnies occidentales de faire des affaires", affirmera un jour le Dr Khan dans une interview. Personne, alors, ne cherche ? savoir comment il op?re. Il a les coud?es d'autant plus franches que son projet avance. En 1980, le laboratoire du Dr Khan a d?j? mille centrifugeuses. Impatient, il accuse une nouvelle fois ses coll?gues de l'Agence atomique (PAEC) de ne pas lui fournir le gaz n?cessaire ? l'enrichissement de l'uranium. "Tous les jours il se rendait chez le g?n?ral Zia ul-Haq pour d?noncer Munir Ahmad Khan -directeur de la PAEC-", raconte M. Rahman.
Le g?n?ral Zia, qui a renvers? Ali Bhutto, est aussi impatient que lui d'avoir la bombe. En 1981, Zia r?compense Abdul Qadeer Khan pour sa premi?re production d'uranium enrichi en donnant au laboratoire, install? ? Kahuta, ? 40 kilom?tres d'Islamabad, le nom de "Khan Research Laboratory" (KRL), qu'il a conserv?. En 1984, le Dr Khan teste ? froid sa premi?re bombe, quelques mois, semble-t-il, apr?s un test similaire op?r? par la PAEC, ? qui le g?n?ral Zia a aussi donn? l'ordre de d?velopper la bombe.
Le Dr Khan, qui jouit d?j? dans l'establishment pakistanais de la plus haute estime - il est le citoyen le plus d?cor? du pays -, continue son ascension avec la production du missile Ghauri. Alors que la PAEC se rend en Chine pour obtenir le missile M. 11, qui deviendra au Pakistan le "Shaheen", Abdul Qadeer Khan va en Cor?e du Nord, o? il obtient le "Nodong", qui devient le "Ghauri". C'est ? cette occasion qu'il aurait livr? des ?quipements et de la technologie nucl?aire ? Pyongyang. "La priorit? est d'avoir un missile, personne ne regarde ? quel prix", affirme un ex-g?n?ral. Le Ghauri, avec une port?e annonc?e de 1 500 km, est test? le 6 avril 1998. Nouvelle heure gloire pour le Dr Khan, quelque sept semaines avant les tests nucl?aires de mai. Depuis, des r?pliques du Ghauri, grandeur nature, fleurissent ? tous les carrefours des villes Pakistanaises.
C'est qu'Abdul Qadeer Khan sait se vendre et d?pense beaucoup pour construire son image. "Il m'a offert de l'argent, des voyages en Europe, une maison, juste pour me faire ?crire sur lui ce qu'il voulait", raconte un journaliste pakistanais qui a refus? l'offre. Certains n'ont pas eu les m?mes scrupules, et aujourd'hui beaucoup sont interrog?s sur les largesses re?ues. Selon un officiel pakistanais cit? par le quotidien The News, le Dr Khan aurait d?pens?, depuis 1988, environ 1 million d'euros pour financer des ?v?nements m?diatiques destin?s ? promouvoir son image de p?re de la "bombe islamique".
Au lendemain des six explosions nucl?aires de mai 1998 - dont cinq (les meilleures selon un sp?cialiste) provenaient de la PAEC et une seulement de KRL -, le professeur Samar Moubarakmand, de la PAEC, est accueilli comme un h?ros. Le Dr Khan, de son c?t?, d?ploie tous ses contacts m?diatiques pour faire revenir sur lui les feux de la rampe. Lors d'une conf?rence de presse mouvement?e, ses aides multiplient les offres d'anecdotes ? la gloire de leur patron. Le "bon Dr Khan" a aussi financ? sans compter des ?uvres charitables, des instituts ?ducatifs et, bien s?r, ses amis. "Sur une simple lettre d'appel ? l'aide, il m'a offert un local ? Islamabad pour abriter mon organisation", raconte un responsable d'une ONG (organisation non gouvernementale) qui n'a aucun lien avec le Dr Khan.
Ce dernier a sa propre ONG, Sachet (Soci?t? pour l'avancement de la sant?, l'?ducation, la formation des communaut?s), qu'il a financ?e largement, si l'on en juge par la taille de son si?ge ? Islamabad. Sachet ?tait, il est vrai, dirig?e par la deuxi?me femme du Dr Khan, Rakhshinda Perveen, dont il a divorc? en octobre 2003. Celle-ci, qui n'a pas pour l'instant r?apparu ? son domicile et qui serait interdite de sortie du Pakistan, avait pour habitude de se rendre tous les mois ? Duba?, raconte une source proche qui veut garder l'anonymat. "C'est l? qu'ils se rencontraient, car le Dr Khan ne venait jamais chez elle ? Islamabad." Le Dr Khan est mari?, depuis son s?jour aux Pays-Bas, ? Hendrina, une N?erlandaise de passeport britannique (parce que n?e en Zambie), dont il a deux filles, Dina et Aisha. Selon les enqu?teurs pakistanais, le Dr Khan se serait rendu quarante-quatre fois ? Duba? en quatre ans. Lors de son interrogatoire, il aurait reconnu poss?der dans l'?mirat un compte en banque sous l'identit? d'un pr?te-nom.
Connues des autorit?s pakistanaises au moins depuis 2000, ? la suite d'un audit effectu? au laboratoire KRL, les irr?gularit?s financi?res du Dr Khan se montent ? plusieurs millions de dollars. "Depuis vingt-cinq ans, le Dr Khan a mani? entre 5 et 10 milliards de dollars, et personne ne lui a demand? de comptes", affirme un connaisseur du programme nucl?aire. "Chacun sait qu'il payait parfois deux fois le prix des ?quipements dont il avait besoin, mais il affirmait que c'?tait la ran?on pour les obtenir, et personne ne disait rien."
Visiblement le Dr Khan ne faisait pas de diff?rence entre l'argent de KRL et son argent personnel. "Il a toujours agi pour le pouvoir, l'argent, la gloire", dit de lui le professeur A. H. Nayyar, physicien. Le pouvoir, il l'avait ? KRL et bien au-del?, tant il s'?tait rendu indispensable. M?galomane, il circulait depuis tr?s longtemps avec une escorte et un convoi plus impressionnant que celui du chef de l'Etat. Invit? d'honneur de multiples galas de charit? et de s?minaires divers, son arriv?e ne passait jamais inaper?ue et il cultivait sa haute silhouette aux cheveux grisonnants.
L'homme est entier, dans ses amiti?s comme dans ses haines. "Pour ses amis, rien n'?tait trop beau, raconte l'un d'eux, et il pouvait m?me vous donner une maison. Mais, de la m?me fa?on, son hostilit? ? l'?gard de ses ennemis ?tait extr?me, et il n'avait de cesse d'essayer de les d?truire", ajoute-t-il. Cette attitude explique pour une large part la duplication tr?s on?reuse du programme nucl?aire pakistanais entre KRL et la PAEC. G?n?reux, l'homme ne s'est toutefois pas oubli? et a su favoriser ses proches. Son ex-gendre, Noman Shah, est devenu par la gr?ce de son union avec Dina - dont il a rapidement divorc? - un tr?s riche associ? des fructueuses affaires de KRL, ce qui risque de lui valoir quelques ennuis.
Le Dr Khan lui-m?me, sur son seul nom, a obtenu des permis de construire pour des terrains normalement inconstructibles, sur les bords du lac Rawal, o? il s'est fait b?tir une villa qui ne manque pas de charme. Il en poss?derait une demi-douzaine d'autres ? Islamabad, bien qu'il soit difficile de d?nouer l'?cheveau de ce qui appartient ? KRL ou ? son fondateur. Le p?re de la bombe serait aussi associ? ? diverses affaires, comme un h?tel, un restaurant chinois, un bowling ? Islamabad. Selon l'enqu?te officielle, il a aussi un h?tel ? Tombouctou, au Mali, qui porte le nom de sa femme, le Hendrina Khan Hotel.
Derri?re les fen?tres de sa maison de fonction, sur les bords des collines de Margalla, ? Islamabad, l'homme m?dite sans doute sur l'ingratitude humaine. "Il souffre, confie une de ses connaissances, d'?tre enferm? comme un paria", lui qui reste, pour l'immense majorit? des Pakistanais - dont le pr?sident Pervez Moucharraf -, un h?ros national. Un h?ros national avec des secrets nationaux qui le prot?gent tout autant qu'ils le menacent.
Fran?oise Chipaux
* ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 21.02.04
-----------------------------------------------
L'Iran cacherait l'ampleur de son programme nucl?aire
LE MONDE | 20.02.04 | 16h51
T?h?ran n'a pas notifi? l'acquisition des plans d'une centrifugeuse du type Pak-2 pour l'enrichissement de l'uranium. Washington reproche ? l'Agence internationale de l'?nergie atomique (AIEA) d'exercer un contr?le trop indulgent.
Vienne de notre correspondante
Le programme nucl?aire iranien est plus que jamais ? l'ordre du jour, deux semaines avant une r?union du Conseil des gouverneurs de l'Agence internationale pour l'?nergie atomique (AIEA), les 8 et 9 mars, qui devra appr?cier la "transparence" dont fait preuve le r?gime islamique de T?h?ran. Aux yeux des chancelleries occidentales, et surtout de Washington, l'Iran reste suspect de vouloir se doter de l'arme nucl?aire. M?me s'il n'est pas exact, selon les informations recueillies par Le Monde, que les experts onusiens auraient trouver les preuves mat?rielles de telles activit?s dans une base militaire iranienne.
Alors que la Libye - o? le directeur g?n?ral de l'AIEA Mohamed ElBaradei se rendra, lundi 23 f?vrier, pour la deuxi?me fois en deux mois - est cit?e en exemple pour sa coop?ration sans r?serve, les diplomates de l'Agence estiment que T?h?ran a fait "peu de progr?s" malgr? des d?buts prometteurs. Fin octobre, sous la pression conjugu?e de l'Union europ?enne et des Etats-Unis, l'Iran a remis une d?claration d?taill?e de son programme, que l'AIEA esp?rait "compl?te et d?finitive". Le 18 d?cembre, il a sign? en outre le protocole additionnel au Trait? de non-prolif?ration nucl?aire (TNP) qui autorise l'Agence a men? des inspections surprises dans tous les endroits o? elle le demande.
Mais ces derniers jours, confront?es ? des documents d?couverts par les experts onusiens, les autorit?s iraniennes ont d? avouer une omission de taille : elles avaient acquis les plans d'une centrifugeuse de type Pak-2 (un mod?le d'origine pakistanaise, calqu? sur un prototype occidental), qui permet d'obtenir plus facilement un uranium de qualit? militaire. Cet aspect inqui?tant du programme iranien sera ?voqu? dans le rapport que M. ElBaradei va remettre, ces jours-ci, aux 35 gouverneurs de l'AIEA. Fabriqu?e avec des aciers sp?ciaux extr?mement r?sistants, la Pak-2 est presque deux fois plus puissante que la Pak-1, avec laquelle l'Iran avait reconnu mener des activit?s d'enrichissement d'uranium. Dans son ?dition du 19 f?vrier, le quotidien USA Today va plus loin, en affirmant que les inspecteurs de l'ONU ont trouv? des composants d'une "machine sophistiqu?e pour enrichir l'uranium", dans la base militaire a?rienne de Doshen-Tappen, au sud-est de T?h?ran. Pareille d?couverte, a soulign?, jeudi, le porte-parole de la Maison Blanche pourrait ?tayer "notre conviction que l'Iran poursuit un programme nucl?aire militaire sous couvert d'un effort civil".
Officiellement, l'Agence s'est refus?e ? tout commentaire sur les r?v?lations de USA Today. En coulisses, on se dit surpris de cette r?f?rence ? une base militaire o? les experts onusiens n'ont "jamais mis les pieds". Exploit? par Washington, l'article du quotidien am?ricain n'apporterait en fait "aucune v?rit? nouvelle".
Du c?t? iranien, on nie farouchement : T?h?ran "n'a pas eu, et n'a pas, d'activit?s nucl?aires ? caract?re militaire". A en croire le ministre des affaires ?trang?res, Kamal Kharrazi, les plans de Pak-2 n'ont jamais servi qu'? un programme de recherche, l'Iran exp?rimentant "tous les nouveaux mod?les dans l'industrie". T?h?ran n'avait pas inclu cet ?l?ment dans sa d?claration, en octobre, "parce que nous n'?tions pas oblig?s de le faire" avant d'avoir sign? le protocole additionnel insiste un diplomate iranien, interrog? par Le Monde. "Nous n'avons jamais import? des pi?ces d?tach?es -de Pak-2-. Il s'agissait d'un plan, un simple dessin, que nous avons achet?, il y a plus de dix ans, et qui prenait la poussi?re au fond d'un tiroir". Des exp?riences ont bien ?t? tent?es "pendant quelques mois, il y a plusieurs ann?es" par un scientifique frais ?moulu de l'universit? mais elles ont rapidement "avort?" et non jamais ?t? reprises.
"POSITION DE FAIBLESSE"
Dans une premi?re version, les responsables iraniens ont essay? de d?montrer qu'ils avaient bel et bien inform? l'Agence sur le fait qu'ils poss?daient les plans d'une centrifugeuse plus perfectionn?e que ce que les limiers du nucl?aire avaient vu jusqu'alors sur les sites iraniens. Toujours selon ce diplomate de T?h?ran, les Etats-Unis montent en ?pingle "une affaire inexistante" dans l'espoir d'obtenir un rapport plus "muscl?" de M. ElBaradei, de la m?me mani?re qu'ils avaient essay?, ? l'automne dernier, d'arracher ? leurs alli?s europ?ens une condamnation de l'Iran, et son renvoi devant le Conseil de s?curit?, "pour nous conduire en position de faiblesse ? la table des n?gociations". De leur c?t? les Etats-Unis ne font pas myst?re de leur d?sapprobation, lorsque, s'agissant de l'Iran, "le ton des rapports de l'AIEA ne correspond pas aux faits d?crits par l'Agence" et que celle-ci arrondit les angles pour donner ? T?h?ran une chance de se rattraper. Cette fois encore, on attend ? Washington de voir "comment les donn?es techniques" r?colt?es ces derni?res semaines seront "?clair?es".
"La question est de savoir si les Iraniens sont pr?ts ? nous offrir "the Full Monty" -la nudit? totale- ou s'ils se livrent ? un strip-tease", r?sume Patrick Clawsen, directeur adjoint de l'Institut de Washington pour la politique au Proche-Orient, interrog? par USA Today. Pour l'agence onusienne, qui utilise un langage plus pudique, des points essentiels du dossier iranien sont loin d'?tre ?claircis : les machines "contamin?es" avec des particules d'uranium hautement enrichi que l'on a trouv?es en 2003 sur le site pilote de Natanz et dans l'usine de Kalaye, ? T?h?ran, l'ont-elles ?t? en dehors d'Iran, c'est-?-dire avant leur importation du Pakistan ? Ou en Iran - ce qui serait l'indice d'un enrichissement pouvant conduire ? l'arme atomique ? Selon une source iranienne, la confirmation de la premi?re version, la plus favorable ? T?h?ran, va "prendre encore du temps".
Jo?lle Stolz
* ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 21.02.04
--------------------------------------------------
CIA chief 'removed for incompetence'
From correspondents in Washington
21feb04
The CIA has reportedly recalled its top officer in Baghdad over doubts about his leadership abilities and closed several offices in Afghanistan amid security concerns.
A Los Angeles Times report, citing US intelligence sources, says the top Central Intelligence Agency officer in Baghdad was replaced in December.
The move came in the face of stepped-up attacks targeting civilians and coalition forces, the daily says.
It is the second time that the CIA chief in Baghdad has been replaced since President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq last May.
The Baghdad office has become the biggest in CIA history, even surpassing the size of its Saigon post at the height of the Vietnam War, the paper says.
There are nearly 500 CIA agents in Iraq.
A lack of Arabic-speaking agents and qualified officers willing to accept dangerous postings has forced the CIA to hire dozens or perhaps even hundreds of the agency's retirees, to rely heavily on translators and to enlist soldiers to fulfill CIA officers' tasks.
Meanwhile, the CIA is being taken to task in the United States, charged with providing the Bush administration with faulty intelligence on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which served as Washington's justification for launching its war.
? The Australian
----------------------------------------
CIA reportedly removes top officer in Baghdad
Fri 20 February, 2004 08:57
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The CIA has recently removed its top officer in Baghdad because of questions about his ability to lead the station there, the Los Angeles Times has reported.
U.S. intelligence sources also told the newspaper on Friday that the spy agency has also closed several satellite bases in Afghanistan because of security concerns.
Some current and former CIA officials, who requested anonymity, told the daily the agency was stretched thin as it searches for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, confronts insurgency in Iraq and tries to cultivate ties to warlords in Afghanistan.
A CIA spokesman could not be immediately reached for a comment on the report.
A senior U.S. official told the Times the CIA station chief in Baghdad was removed in December after deadly attacks against U.S. forces and Iraqi civilian targets.
"There was just a belief that it was a huge operation and we needed a very senior, experienced person to run it," the official told the Times.
According to a U.S. official cited by the daily, the CIA's Baghdad station is now the largest in agency history.
The Times quoted sources as saying that the main problem confronting the Baghdad station was security constraints that affect operatives' mobility.
Other sources said they were concerned the agency has been too focused on troop protection in Iraq, to the detriment of spy recruiting efforts. Such spies were described as critical sources of information as the United States transfers power back to Iraqis later this year.
High turnover among CIA employees in Iraq makes recruiting spies in the country nearly impossible, former CIA case officers told the newspaper.
In Afghanistan, a number of remote CIA bases have been closed in recent month, the Times said, quoting current and former CIA officials.
One former senior CIA official said the bases were closed because of security concerns. But a senior U.S. official told the Times they were closed for several reasons, adding that the number of personnel in Afghanistan was not reduced.
The paper said the closures have alarmed some in the intelligence community because remnants of the deposed Taliban regime appear to be regrouping and preparing attacks ahead of elections scheduled for this summer.
Earlier this month, the U.S. military's top general in Afghanistan expressed optimism that al Qaeda leader bin Laden would be captured this year.
--------------------------------------------
U.S. Freezes Accounts Of Large Saudi Charity
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 20, 2004; Page A02
The Treasury Department ordered banks yesterday to freeze the accounts of the Oregon and Missouri branches of a large Saudi charity that U.S. officials say has been used to finance the al Qaeda terrorist network around the world.
FBI and Internal Revenue Service agents searched a home in Ashland, Ore., that is the U.S. headquarters for the charity, the al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. The search is part of an investigation into allegations that the Oregon branch was involved in money laundering and income tax and currency-reporting violations, Treasury officials said.
Over the past two years, U.S. and Saudi authorities have intensified a joint crackdown on al-Haramain offices around the globe after concluding that they had funneled money, personnel and equipment to al Qaeda. Branches in Bosnia and Somalia were shuttered in 2002, and last December others were closed in Indonesia, Kenya, Tanzania and Pakistan.
U.S. officials continue to investigate the foundation's headquarters in Saudi Arabia. Several weeks ago al-Haramain's chief, Aqeel al-Aqeel, was fired by top Saudi clerical authorities amid growing suspicions about his role at the charity.
Lawrence Matasar, an attorney for the al-Haramain office in Oregon, said charity officials in that state are cooperating with the government in the investigation. "We believe no crimes have been committed," he said.
Al-Haramain's headquarters in Saudi Arabia launched its Oregon office in 1997 by funding the work of an Ashland landscaper, Pete Seda, who had been sending Korans to prison inmates. The two people now mainly under investigation are Seda and Soliman Albuthe, a Saudi citizen who also helped run the Oregon organization.
Officials are investigating numerous financial transactions involving Albuthe and Seda, also known as Pirouz Sedaghaty, including allegations of transporting large sums of undeclared traveler's checks across U.S. borders. Under U.S. law, anyone transporting $10,000 or more in or out of the country must declare it to customs agents.
Agents are looking into $131,000 that was wired by a man in London to the Oregon foundation, which then dispatched Albuthe to transport the funds by traveler's checks to Saudi Arabia. The transaction was not properly reported to U.S. authorities, according to an affidavit filed in court in Oregon. The funds were ultimately destined for Muslim fighters or refugees in Chechnya, it said.
The affidavit also disclosed that a federal grand jury has been investigating al-Haramain's U.S. operations.
The U.S. branch of the charity has mainly distributed Islamic books and videos to Americans, and also helped establish a mosque in Springfield, Mo., with more than $370,000 provided by the Saudi headquarters.
One of the top leaders of that mosque was Kamran Bokhari, a student at Southwest Missouri State University, who was also the U.S. representative of a radical London-based group called al-Mujahiroun, which supports al Qaeda, according to the Site Institute, a terrorism research group.
----------------------------------------------
>> SAUDI WATCH CONTINUED...
U.S. freezes assets of charity in Ashland
Authorities suspect Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation officials helped funnel money to Islamic rebels in Chechnya
02/20/04
LES ZAITZ
Federal officials froze the assets Thursday of an Ashland charity suspected of illegally funding jihad -- Islamic holy war -- in Chechnya.
Treasury Department officials barred Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. from transferring money or property as a federal terrorism investigation continues. Federal officials said their move against the Oregon charity was part of a global drive to stop financing for terrorists.
The order came a day after federal agents searched the charity's Ashland headquarters Wednesday. Authorities suspect that two of the charity's directors funneled $150,000 to Saudi Arabia, where it may have been transferred to Chechen rebels. Federal documents say the two men hid the transaction by saying the money was spent to buy a mosque in Missouri.
No one has been arrested, and Treasury and Justice Department officials were tight-lipped Thursday about the Al-Haramain investigation.
The Oregon operation is part of a global charity with a similar name based in Saudi Arabia. Six of the Saudi charity's foreign branches have been declared supporters of terrorist organizations. U.S. and Saudi governments allege that those branches for years have funded al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
Treasury officials didn't designate the Oregon operation a terrorist organization, but instead used terror-related authority to issue a "blocking order," freezing Al-Haramain's assets and giving Treasury officials time to investigate whether the Ashland branch supported terrorists.
"Looking at the Al-Haramain organization is an effort to uncover and unearth terrorist financing," Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Juan Zarte said Thursday at a Washington, D.C., briefing.
Oregon branch under suspicion
Federal terrorism investigators have made the Saudi charity and its branches a priority because of the global reach of its operations, which once operated on as much as $50 million a year. Investigators suspect the Saudi charity diverted millions from legitimate charitable work to terrorists.
Oregon's branch has been under suspicion as well. The Oregonian reported in November that the foundation and two of its officers -- Pete Seda and Soliman Al-Buthe -- have been on an FBI "watch list" of people involved in transactions that might support terrorism. The Oregon-linked names have been on the list of 300 people and organizations since at least early 2002.
Officials with the Oregon charity said they had nothing to do with terrorism and hadn't engaged in criminal conduct.
"I am a man of peace and have consistently and actively opposed terrorism," said Seda, a former Ashland arborist who helped establish the Oregon charity. "I am certain that once all the facts come out, it will be clear that neither Al-Haramain Oregon nor I have engaged in any criminal activities."
Seda opened Al-Haramain in Oregon in 1997 with money and leadership provided by the parent Saudi charity. Al-Haramain used a rural home just outside Ashland as a prayer house for local Muslims and a distribution center for Islamic books. Some books went to American prisons.
Seda left Oregon for the Middle East last February and issued his statement through an attorney in Washington, D.C.
The Oregonian got no response to messages left Thursday with two American attorneys representing Al-Buthe, a Saudi who is the Ashland charity's treasurer.
Another attorney, Larry Matasar of Portland, said Al-Haramain and its officials have been cooperating with investigators. He said he responded Tuesday to a federal grand jury subpoena with eight boxes of records.
About a dozen agents from the IRS, FBI and Customs conducted Wednesday's search.
Tax fraud alleged
IRS Agent Colleen Anderson outlined allegations of tax fraud in a 33-page affidavit filed in Medford U.S. District Court to get the search warrant.
On several occasions from 1997 to 2001, Al-Buthe brought significant sums of traveler's checks into the United States, according to declarations he made when entering the country, the affidavit said. In 13 trips, he reported bringing in $777,845, of which $206,000 was used to buy the Ashland headquarters in 1997, the affidavit said. But there is no explanation for the balance, Anderson wrote.
In early 2000, an Egyptian doctor wired a $150,000 donation from his London bank account to Al-Haramain's Ashland bank, according to the affidavit. An e-mail from the doctor said the money was meant "to participate in your noble support to our Muslim brothers in Chechnya."
At the time, Russian forces were battling Chechen rebels for control of the region. The fight was considered a jihad, or holy war, by some Muslim factions.
The affidavit said that 11 days after the doctor's donation showed up in Oregon, Al-Buthe traveled to Ashland from Saudi Arabia. He joined Seda at an Ashland bank and the two took out $130,000 -- buying 130 traveler's checks in $1,000 denominations, the affidavit said. A bank clerk suggested it would be easier to issue a cashier's check, the affidavit said.
"Seda said he could not take a cashier's check because the money was to help people and a lot of times these people may not be able to negotiate a cashier's check," the affidavit said.
Seda took an additional $21,000 in a cashier's check, giving that to Al-Buthe, the affidavit said. The check had the notation: "Donations for Chichania Refugees," the affidavit said.
The affidavit said Seda -- using the name Abu Yunus -- signed an agreement with Al-Buthe saying he was relinquishing the money for "brothers and sisters in Chechnya."
Within days, Al-Buthe returned to Saudi Arabia, failing to declare to Customs, as required, that he was taking the traveler's checks out of the United States, the affidavit said. Once back in Saudi Arabia, Al-Buthe cashed the traveler's checks and put the cashier's check into his personal account. The affidavit doesn't say what happened to the money.
The affidavit said Al-Haramain disguised what happened to the Egyptian's donation. It said the foundation's 2000 tax return underreported income by $21,000, underreported grants by $150,000, and overstated the price of a second prayer house that Al-Haramain bought in Missouri.
The tax return shows that "Seda, or one of his associates, improperly listed the $131,300 disbursement to Al-Buthe as funds used to purchase the Springfield prayer house," the affidavit said.
Anderson wrote, "It appears that Seda and Al-Buthe have attempted to conceal the movement of funds to Chechnya." Her affidavit doesn't explain why the money would first come into the United States and then be taken to Saudi Arabia.
The main Al-Haramain charity in Saudi Arabia "strongly supported" the mujahedeen fighters in 1999 and 2000, according to the affidavit. An article on the Saudi charity's Web site included a prayer for the fighters, seeking Allah's help against the Russian soldiers.
"Cripple their limbs and blind their sight, and send upon them an epidemic and calamities," the article said, according to the affidavit.
The Russian Federal Security Service in 2000 wrote in an intelligence assessment on Chechnya that Al-Haramain in 1999 provided $1 million in funding to Chechen rebels. The Russians reported that in 2000 they intercepted an Al-Haramain communication that said the charity "has allocated $50 million specifically for the needs of the mujahedeen."
Jim Barnett of The Oregonian staff contributed to this report. Les Zaitz: 503-221-8181; leszaitz@news.oregonian.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Saudi charity in Ashland on terrorism 'watch list'
An international group kicked out of 10 countries after being suspected of financing terrorism runs its U.S. branch in Oregon
11/09/03
LES ZAITZ
A Saudi Arabian charity shut down in 10 countries for suspected ties to al-Qaida and other terror groups operates in the United States through a branch in Ashland.
Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation is among the leading Saudi charities suspected of funneling millions of dollars to terrorists and is under intense scrutiny by U.S. and Saudi authorities. The Bush administration twice has dispatched high-level delegations seeking Saudi cooperation to shut down Al-Haramain.
The Senate Banking Committee is investigating "all sources of funding" for terrorists, including charities. "The operations, both domestically and abroad, of the Islamic charity Al-Haramain will be included in this examination," Andrew Gray, spokesman for committee chairman Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told The Oregonian on Friday.
The Al Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. in Ashland has not been accused of any crime, and federal officials are reluctant to publicly outline their concerns because it would disrupt ongoing investigations.
But the FBI has placed the Oregon foundation and two of its directors on a "watch list" of more than 300 individuals and organizations with financial transactions that might have supported terrorism. Federal law enforcement sources say investigators are tracking the flow of money through the Oregon charity, including thousands of dollars transferred to Saudi Arabia.
In addition, families of some victims of the Sept. 11 attacks have sued the Ashland foundation saying it funded terrorism and is "specifically linked" to al-Qaida. A second lawsuit filed by insurers claims all four directors of Al Haramain in Oregon also were involved in an international terrorism network. The Saudi charity was named in both suits as well.
The Ashland foundation says it condemns terrorism and is only "loosely affiliated" with the Saudi charity. The two organizations are separate entities but have shared common leadership and funding.
Three of the Ashland foundation's directors are high-ranking officials in the Saudi foundation, one of whom said all of the roughly 50 international offices were under the "tight control" of the main Saudi charity.
Day-to-day operations in Ashland were run by Pete Seda, a local tree trimmer known in Southern Oregon as a peace advocate on behalf of Islam. Acquaintances say he rejected terrorism and urged people to get along.
"We are not aware of any individual in our organization who is involved in terrorist activity and we invite law enforcement agencies to help us find and eliminate anyone who may be involved," Seda told the Associated Press last year after the Saudi foundation's branches in Somalia and Bosnia were designated as terrorist organizations.
Seda and other officials with the Oregon and Saudi foundations didn't respond to telephone and e-mail messages or written questions, and the Oregon foundation's attorneys also declined repeated requests for comment.
When Saudi officials cracked down on Al-Haramain to close some of its international offices, the Saudi foundation's director general was defiant.
"We are like heroes in the Islamic world because America is against us," said Aqeel Abdul Aziz Al-Aqeel.
"We still can do the work in Bosnia and Somalia even if our offices there were closed," Al-Aqeel told the Saudi news media. "We can run the work through preachers. They can close the offices, but they cannot arrest all the preachers."
Until this year, Al-Aqeel also was president of Al Haramain in Oregon.
Charities called link to terrorism Islamic charities such as Al-Haramain of Saudi Arabia are targets in the global hunt for terrorism supporters. U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have compiled detailed but classified portraits of which charities have helped terrorists.
In recent congressional testimony, federal officials and other witnesses said Saudi charities, which raise an estimated $4 billion a year, are a key source of money for terrorist organizations to attract and train recruits, run day-to-day operations and fund terrorist attacks.
"Almost nothing is more important on the battlefield of the war on terror than diminishing the flow of money," David Aufhauser testified in September before recently leaving his post as Treasury Department general counsel.
Aufhauser told Congress that Saudi charities have funded al-Qaida. He estimated al-Qaida operated on $35 million a year before the Sept. 11 attacks and now spends $5 million to $10 million. Investigators estimate the Sept. 11 jetliner attacks cost al-Qaida $500,000.
Lee Wolosky, a former National Security Council executive, told a national commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks that al-Qaida's finances have been disrupted but not destroyed.
"As long as al-Qaida retains access to a viable financial network, it remains a lethal threat to the United States," Wolosky testified.
In an interview with The Oregonian, Wolosky said al-Qaida finances were built "on a foundation of charitable giving that is both highly organized and grass roots." He said some Islamic charities knowingly divert money to support terrorists, while others are unwitting accomplices. Telling which is which is an investigative challenge, he said.
U.S. officials say they have pressed the Saudis to cooperate with investigations. The Saudis say they have.
Nail Al-Jubeir, spokesman for the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C., told The Oregonian, "We are going after those who support terrorists, those who condone it and those who give them religious cover. We have been cracking down big time."
Saudi group's ties studied U.S. officials will say little about Al-Haramain operations in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
Saudi foundation executives have been fending off suspicions, saying no one -- including the U.S. government -- has presented evidence that the Saudi organization is a terrorist sympathizer. But expert witnesses testifying before two Senate committees have pointed to several connections.
For example, an admitted al-Qaida operative in Indonesia told CIA interrogators that a Southeast Asia militant group was funded by money from Al-Haramain's branch in Indonesia. The militant group was later blamed for bombings in Indonesia.
And German authorities tracking al-Qaida activists and connections to the Sept. 11 attacks are investigating al-Qaida ties to a German mosque funded by Al-Haramain. The property is co-owned by Al-Aqeel, the top Al-Haramain official and co-founder of Al Haramain of Oregon.
In March 2002, U.S. and Saudi officials designated Al-Haramain branches in Bosnia and Somalia as terrorist organizations for funding al-Qaida and other groups. The Saudis ordered Al-Haramain to close its offices in those countries.
"We submitted the names of the individuals who worked in those offices to the United Nations as being involved in terrorism," said Adel Al-Jubeir, a Saudi crown adviser speaking at a news conference last summer in Washington, D.C.
Al-Aqeel -- the foundation's leader in Saudi Arabia -- told the Arab news media that Al-Haramain kept "tight control" of its international affiliates.
"The offices' directors are employees who follow the directions of the main office with regards to hiring workers at the offices and making any decisions on cooperation with any party," he said.
In May, the Saudis ordered eight more branches of the Saudi charity closed because of concerns they were involved in terrorism: Albania, Croatia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kenya, Kosovo, Pakistan and Tanzania.
The Saudis acted after U.S. authorities "demonstrated that those offices were perverting the purposes of charity to do violence," Aufhauser told Congress.
"We looked at the other offices of Al-Haramain and we discovered that in many cases, the financial controls were not up to par," said Al-Jubeir, the Saudi adviser. "The individuals working in those offices, the vast majority of them were non-Saudis, about whose background the head organization knew very little."
Al-Aqeel told the Arab news media that Al-Haramain was harassed out of those countries.
"These countries cooperate with America," Al-Aqeel said. "They always accuse us, inspect us, raid us. It disturbed us."
Visible in Oregon after Sept. 11 Al Haramain was nearly invisible in Oregon before the Sept. 11 attacks. The foundation conducted business from a private mail box service. It also ran a prayer house that now sits behind padlocked gates and "No trespassing" signs along a rural highway just beyond the Ashland city limits.
Ashland seems an unlikely place for an international Islamic charity. Most major Islamic charities in the U.S. open in cities with large Muslim populations -- Detroit, Chicago, Houston.
But those cities didn't have Pete Seda, whose work on behalf of Islam apparently caught the attention of Saudi officials half a globe away.
Seda, 45, an Iranian immigrant also known as Perouz Seda Ghaty, came to the United States for an education in the 1970s. In Ashland, he became a skilled arborist known for saving local heritage trees. In a region with few Muslims, friends and acquaintances say Seda was always available to explain Islam at schools, churches and community forums.
In 1989, Seda set up a foundation to hand out Islamic books to prisoners in the United States and Canada, paying for the effort with profits from his tree business.
Raya Shokatfard, a longtime friend, said requests for books piled up. "He was getting 20, 30 letters a day from prisons," she said. "He was cutting trees, working his tail off to buy books."
Saudi representatives of Al-Haramain approached Seda in 1997, according to court records. They proposed setting up an American charity, funded with Saudi money, to hand out Islamic books.
Seda formed the Oregon branch of Al-Haramain with Soliman H. Al-Buthe of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, who was also chairman of the Saudi charity's U.S. Committee. Al-Buthe put up the $187,126 cashier's check that bought the prayer house at Ashland's edge in late 1997, according to IRS records.
Area Muslims, including students recruited overseas for a local English language academy, attended Friday prayers at the property. Schoolchildren visited for what one person called "Islam 101" -- Seda's effort to share his religion. They sat on fat pillows on the floor and made friends with the foundation's camel.
Seda's Ashland attorney, David Berger, said that Seda had to regularly submit his budget and financial requests to the main Saudi foundation for approval.
In June 2000, the Oregon foundation bought a mosque in Springfield, Mo., for $461,542, which area residents proudly declared the first mosque "in the heart of the Bible Belt."
Springfield Muslims had approached Al-Haramain in Saudi Arabia to buy a building for a mosque in their community. But the Saudi charity sent the money to Ashland to buy and hold title to the building, according to Berger and the foundation's tax records.
Seda changed the legal structure of the Oregon foundation in 1999 and won tax-exempt status from the IRS. Medford attorney Doug Gard said Seda and Al-Buthe insisted he rewrite the incorporation papers to include a rejection of terrorism. Gard complied, adding the statement: "Al Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. stands against terrorism, injustice, or subversive activities in any form, and shall oppose any statement or acts of terrorism."
Gard said the two men were troubled that Muslims were blamed for the 1998 bombing attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They wanted to publicly oppose terrorism.
Yet the investigation of the bombings, instead of separating Al Haramain in Ashland from terrorism, yielded a connection.
A card, a connection
A simple business card belonging to one of the directors of Al-Haramain in Saudi Arabia was found among the possessions of Wadih El-Hage, an al-Qaida operative in Kenya.
That business card not only was used by prosecutors to help convict El-Hage, but it also prompted families of the Sept. 11 victims to tie the Oregon Al Haramain to al-Qaida.
The card belonged to Mansour Al-Kadi, a Saudi. The card listed Al-Kadi as deputy director general of the Saudi Al-Haramain and "head" of its Africa Committee. He also was the vice president of the Oregon Al Haramain Foundation.
The Saudi charity's Kenyan operation was under suspicion of being among active "terrorist groups" even before the embassy bombing, according to a State Department report. Authorities had tried to blunt terrorist threats before the 1998 attacks.
That included investigating El-Hage, one-time personal secretary to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. In 1997, investigators searching El-Hage's home found Al-Kadi's card. El-Hage was arrested after the Kenyan bombing and convicted in 2001.
Prosecutors produced Al-Kadi's card along with others to show El-Hage's contacts with associates in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Kenya. Prosecutors portrayed El-Hage as a global emissary for bin Laden.
Al-Kadi was also one of four founding directors of the Ashland Al Haramain, according to incorporation papers. When the IRS asked for proof that foundation leaders had religious training, Al Haramain of Oregon turned in papers for only one -- Al-Kadi.
Because his business card from Kenya was among El-Hage's possessions, attorneys on behalf of Sept. 11 families claimed in a lawsuit that the Oregon foundation was linked to al-Qaida.
The Oregon foundation responded in court filings that it had no connection to any terrorist group. Al Haramain of Oregon complained it had been "dragged" into the mammoth case with approximately 200 other defendants because it was an Islamic organization and it shared directors with the Saudi operation.
In a statement the day after that suit was filed, Seda and Al-Buthe said the foundation had cooperated with law enforcement agents and steadfastly condemned the Sept. 11 attacks.
"On that day, not only was our country attacked, but the Islamic faith as well," they said.
Ashland attorney Susan Saladoff in October 2002 tried to get the Oregon foundation out of the case. She offered to open the Oregon charity's records, and have Seda and Al-Buthe sit for depositions and help the families' lawyers in their case against other defendants.
In return, Saladoff wanted Al Haramain dropped from the lawsuit. The offer went nowhere, and Al Haramain asked a federal judge to dismiss the case because there wasn't "a single scintilla of evidence" connecting the Oregon foundation to the Sept. 11 attacks or any other terrorism.
Earlier this year, the judge dismissed racketeering and negligence claims against the foundation but let stand for trial allegations that Al Haramain was part of an international terrorist conspiracy.
Portland Seven tie The Ashland charity also has a link to Oregon's highest-profile federal investigation.
In January 2002, federal officials arrested Sofiane T. Benziadi, 31, in Seattle on an immigration charge. Benziadi had moved to Portland from Ashland, where he had used the Al Haramain prayer house as his home address on vehicle registration papers. He also used the foundation's private mail box service and was listed for a time as office manager of Seda's tree business.
When arrested, Benziadi told investigators he knew of a failed mission to send Portland-area men to Afghanistan to wage war against U.S. troops. The so-called Portland Seven plot wouldn't become public until nine months after Benziadi's arrest.
Benziadi also said that after the mission failed, he was called by Habis Abdulla al Saoub, the former mujahedeen accused of leading the group. Benziadi said al Saoub kept the conversation general because he feared the FBI was monitoring it.
Benziadi left the country soon after his arrest. And U.S. officials later posted a $5 million reward for al Saoub, who was killed recently in Pakistan as part of an alleged al-Qaida cell attacking U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
By early 2002, Seda, Al-Buthe and the Oregon foundation appeared on an FBI "watch list" related to financial transactions possibly linked to terrorism. Law enforcement agencies and financial institutions were asked to alert investigators if they had information on anyone appearing on the list.
Federal agents now are investigating the Ashland foundation's finances, including the transfer of thousands of dollars to Saudi Arabia.
One person familiar with the Oregon foundation's operations said a $40,000 check was dispatched to Saudi Arabia earlier this year just before Seda left the country. The source said the check went to Al-Buthe, the charity's treasurer who lives in Riyadh.
Law enforcement sources say more money flowed into the Oregon charity from Saudi Arabia than went back, but investigators also are examining donations that came to Ashland from around the United States.
Today, the Oregon foundation's status is uncertain. It maintains a mailbox service and telephone calls are handled by an answering service. The Web site it shared with Al-Haramain of Saudi Arabia is "closed for development."
Seda reportedly now lives in Dubai. He told friends he expects to return to Oregon by the end of the year, but his attorney isn't sure Seda will return.
Berger, Seda's attorney, said Seda told him he is seeking work overseas because his business suffered after the Sept. 11 attacks. He said Seda endured threats while in Oregon.
"He's been terrorized," Berger said. News researchers Kathleen Blythe and Margie Gultry contributed to this report. Les Zaitz: 503-221-8181; leszaitz@news.oregonian.com
------------------------------------------
Plan for Caucuses In Iraq Is Dropped
U.S. to Seek New Transition Process
By Robin Wright and Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 20, 2004; Page A01
The Bush administration is abandoning the core idea of its plan to hold regional caucuses for an Iraqi provisional government and will instead work with the United Nations and Iraqis to develop yet another plan for the transfer of political power by June 30, U.N. and U.S. officials said yesterday.
The decision, forced by rejection of the caucus system by a wide range of Iraqis, means that the Coalition Provisional Authority led by the U.S. administrator, L. Paul Bremer, will instead hand over authority to a caretaker government until direct elections can be held, officials said.
In a meeting at the United Nations yesterday, Secretary General Kofi Annan told a gathering of diplomats with interests in Iraq that the Iraqis themselves should determine the participants and form of a caretaker government that will be credible to Iraq's disparate society, according to U.N. officials who attended.
Annan is prepared to dispatch his special envoy, former Algerian foreign minister Lakhdar Brahimi, back to Baghdad in the coming weeks to help mediate a new formula if the Iraqis and the U.S.-led coalition do not come up with another plan, U.N. diplomats and U.S. officials said.
"We need to find a mechanism to create a caretaker government and . . . help prepare the elections later," Annan told reporters after briefing U.N. members who belong to the world body's 46-nation Friends of Iraq group.
As expected, Annan told the group the United Nations does not believe elections can be held before June 30, the date the U.S.-led coalition has said it will end the occupation. In a report to Annan, U.N. officials say, Brahimi cites broad agreement in Iraq that elections should be in late 2004 or early 2005.
The United States yesterday repeated its determination not to extend the June 30 deadline for ending the occupation.
"There are 133 days before sovereignty returns to an Iraqi government," Bremer said at a Baghdad news conference. "Changes in the mechanism for forming an interim government are possible, but the date holds. And hold it should."
With just more than four months remaining, the United States is effectively back at square one on how to create a provisional government to assume sovereignty. Because Iraqis have rejected other ideas, the challenge for the United States, the United Nations and Iraqi leaders will be to find a formula -- quickly -- that will provide political stability and be regarded as legitimate by the majority of Iraqis.
The Bush administration has essentially given up on the idea of further refining its troubled Iraq transition plan, already twice redesigned. The Nov. 15 plan, which the 25-member Iraqi Government Council initially accepted, called for a complex process culminating in 18 regional caucuses to pick members of a new national assembly, which in turn would pick a government and leadership.
"At the time we did this [plan] in November, it looked like a caucus system for finding a transitional assembly and a transitional government might have worked, but it does not appear that that caucus system has the support needed for it to work," Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said in an interview with ABC Radio. U.S. and U.N. officials say they have no preference on how to select a caretaker government. "We have absolutely no preferred options," Annan told reporters. "We need to have the Iraqis discuss it. They must take ownership, discuss it amongst themselves, and we will try and work with them to find a consensus."
But Annan told a private luncheon for the 15-nation Security Council he is considering a range of ideas, senior diplomats who attended said.
Among the new ideas was a suggestion that Iraq be administered by a government of "technocrats," rather than politicians, until direct national elections are held.
In other options, Annan outlined one proposal to expand the Governing Council and a second idea to appoint a national assembly -- possibly through a national conference -- like the loya jirga used in Afghanistan to select an interim government, U.N. diplomats said.
Expanding the council so that it is a cross section of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups might be the easiest formula, U.S. officials say. But the Bush administration is not certain that transferring sovereignty to an expanded council would earn the approval of Iraq's top Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, whose initial objection to caucuses scuttled the administration's transition plan.
Annan plans to travel to Japan today and is expected to present U.S. and Iraqi leaders with recommendations after he returns on Feb. 25. Annan said the Security Council would probably have to adopt a new resolution in the months ahead to support his plans for political transition.
One issue still to be sorted out is the interim constitution, popularly known as the basic law. It is due to be concluded by Feb. 28 but has snagged on issues of religion and federalism. It was supposed to include provisions for a new provisional government.
To buy time for further negotiations, Annan said a new plan for the political transition did not have to be completed by Feb. 28.
In Baghdad, Bremer said the basic law must be based on secular, democratic principles and not draw on Islam as the sole source for legislation. "We have an obligation as the sovereign power that an appropriate democratic structure is put in place here while we are here so that we can deliver to the Iraqis what they want, which is a democratic, unified, stable country at peace with itself," Bremer said.
Violence continued Thursday as insurgents killed two American soldiers in a roadside bombing near Khaldiyah, 50 miles west of the capital, the U.S. command said.
Lynch reported from the United Nations. Correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Baghdad contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------------
>> NICE PICTURE?
SPIEGEL ONLINE - 20. Februar 2004, 16:11
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,287203,00.html
Image-Politur
"John Kerry rockt"
Von Frank Patalong
Der Mann sieht nicht nur kantig aus, er gilt auch als h?lzern: John Kerry mag Chancen auf die Pr?sidentschaft der USA haben, doch als Temperamentb?ndel gilt er nicht gerade. Vor vierzig Jahren jedoch tr?umte Kerry davon, ein Rockstar zu werden. Jetzt sucht er in sich den John von damals.
REUTERS
Yeah: Neuerdings spielt John Kerry sogar zwischen seinen Wahlkampfauftritten im Flieger zur Entspannung f?r die Fotografen
Aktuelle Umfragen zeigen John Kerry deutlich vor George W. Bush, und man muss sich Fragen, warum. Bushs Schuldenpolitik und seine Leistungen im Realit?ten-Verbiegen zur Rechtfertigung des Irak-Krieges konnten zwar nicht ewig unbemerkt bleiben und haben den noch amtierenden Pr?sidenten Punkte gekostet. Doch Kerry schien vor wenigen Wochen noch die denkbar schlechteste Wahl, den quirligen kleinen Pr?sidenten herauszufordern: Gro? und steif tapst er durch die Fernsehbilder, und wenn er zu einer Rede ausholt, dann aber gaaaaanz gr?ndlich und nicht zu schnell.
"Aaaaaaaai loooooove Neeeeeew Hampshire!" bejubelte Kerry den Sieg in seinem Heimatstaat in Zeitlupe und mit so tiefer wie unbewegter Stimme, dass man am liebsten die Geschwindigkeit heraufgedreht h?tte. Den Polit-Comedian Jon Stewart inspirierte das zu Vergleichen mit einem Frankenstein-Monster: "Braiiiiiin. Eeeeat braiiiiiin!"
Da wirkte das wohl gezielt gestreute Ger?cht, Kerry habe wie dereinst Clinton eine Aff?re mit einer Praktikantin gehabt, schon fast wie ein Weck-Signal, obwohl beide dies strikt leugnen: Sieh an, dachten sich da viele Kommentatoren, der Kerl lebt ja doch.
John Kerry: Nicht lustig?
Bis zu diesem Zeitpunkt hatten sich gerade die Satiriker und Comedians am marionettenhaften Kerry die Z?hne ausgebissen: W?hrend es seit Monaten eine Schwemme von Howard-Dean-Witzen gab, die John Liebermann-Ver?ppelungen ins Kraut schossen und auch John Edwards sein Fett abbekam, war es fast, als w?re Kerry gar nicht im Rennen.
Erst das Aff?ren-Ger?cht sorgte da f?r Munition: "Stimmt es", fragte sich Jay Leno, "dass John Kerry eine Aff?re mit einer Praktikantin hatte wie einst Clinton?"
"Ja!", beantwortete er die Frage selbst, "so ?hnlich. Nur ohne Zigarren!"
Mit einem Mal begann der ach so h?lzerne Kerry, einen Imagewandel zu vollziehen. Die Jungdynamiker unter den W?hlern h?tten sich vielleicht eher Howard Dean gew?nscht, w?hrend sich das linke Spektrum ausgerechnet auf den Vier-Sterne-General a.D. Wesley Clarke eingeschossen hatte. Bei beiden Gruppen k?nnte Kerry nun mit einer Entdeckung punkten, die so passend ans Licht der ?ffentlichkeit kommt, dass es schwer f?llt, an Zufall zu glauben: John Kerry, berichtete Anfang Februar die "Washington Post", tr?umte dereinst davon, ein Rockstar zu werden. Mehr noch: Als erster Pr?sidentschafts-Aspirant ?berhaupt hatte er vor mehr als 40 Jahren eine Platte aufgenommen.
Kerry spielte - da bleibt er seinem Image dann doch wieder treu - den Bass in einer Rockband namens "The Electras". Bassisten sind die netten Menschen, die gern ein wenig im Hintergrund stehen und - nicht selten mit gro?en H?nden - ihrem Instrument tiefe, sonore Einzelt?ne entlocken.
Die Botschaft: Ambition und Zuverl?ssigkeit
Dass kann Kerry bis heute, wie er am letzten Wochenende im gemeinsamen Gig mit dem Musiker Moby bewies. Der stresste den prominenten Politiker allerdings auch nicht und gab ein eing?ngiges Vier-Akkord-Liedchen von Bruce Springsteen zum Besten: So was wummert man auf dem Bass auch noch, wenn man vierzig Jahre nicht ge?bt hat. Doch darauf kommt es ja auch nicht an. Hauptsache, die Show macht Spa?.
Doch nicht so kultig: "Electras"-Scheibe, nach f?nf Tagen noch ohne Gebot
Einmal mehr scheinen sich die Demokraten also anzuschicken, einen Musiker in den Ring zu schicken.
Auf den Saxofonisten Clinton (da denkt man an Jazz, an Clubs, an edlen Schnappes und Zigarrenrauch) folgt der geradlinige Kerry: Der eine spielte ein Instrument, bei dem die Improvisation Pflicht ist, das auch qu?ken und kicksen und sich im Oberton ?berschlagen kann und soll. Der andere spielt Bass, ein Saiteninstrument, das eigentlich der Rhythmus-Sektion zuzurechnen ist: Verl?sslich muss stets der richtige Ton zum pr?zise richtigen Zeitpunkt kommen. Ist es nicht sch?n, was Kerrys Bandtr?ume nicht alles ?ber ihn aussagen?
F?r diesen vergleichsweise wilden Teil von Kerrys Vergangenheit interessieren sich nun viele in Amerika, und zum Gl?ck sind Kerrys ehemalige Band-Mitspieler alle auffindbar und redebereit. "Wir gr?ndeten die Band, um unsere Chancen zu erh?hen, dem anderen Geschlecht etwas n?her zu kommen!", verriet der Band-Pianist Jack Radcliffe der BBC.
Trickreich: Kerry, der Bass-spielende Norweger
Ein Ziel, dass die Jungs recht trickreich angingen: So ist dem Album-Cover zu entnehmen, dass der schlanke, hochgewachsene Bassist John ein waschechter Norweger sei. Das war zwar gelogen, zeigte aber Wirkung, wie Kerry zugibt: "Sie rissen uns nicht gerade die Kleider vom Leib, aber wir haben unseren Spa? gehabt!"
Die "Electras" spielten fast ausschlie?lich instrumental. H?fliche Kritiker bezeichnen die Musik als "rohen, geradlinigen Rock'n' Roll". Allein Jon Prouty, einst Gitarrist der Electras, bringt es ehrlicher auf den Punkt: "Die Platte war schrecklich."
Die BBC hat ein kleines Sound-Sample zu bieten, das der Sender irgendwo ausgegraben hat, und "Newsweek" schaffte es am Donnerstag gar, ein kleines Video zu entstauben: Schon verbl?ffend, wie die Zeugnisse aus dem Jahre 1961 so pl?tzlich wieder auftauchen.
Andererseits h?tte Kerry ja auch fast ein halbes Jahr Zeit gehabt, daf?r zu sorgen, denn bereits im letzten September konfrontierte ihn auf einer Wahlkampf-Veranstaltung ein findiger Plattenlabel-Eigner ?berraschend mit seiner Band-Vergangenheit. Schlagzeilen macht die erst jetzt, p?nktlich zum Endspurt im Bewerbungsrennen um die Pr?sidentschaftskandidatur der Demokraten: Ein Schelm, wer B?ses dabei denkt.
Knallerstory mit leichter Ladehemmung
Doch so richtig "Kult" will die Electras-Geschichte noch nicht werden. Bei eBay wechselt wom?glich an diesem Wochenende bereits die zweite Electras-Scheibe den Besitzer, wenn sich denn ein K?ufer findet. Nachdem ein erstes, vor wenigen Tagen versteigertes Album die Summe von 2500 Dollar brachte, offerierte jemand ein zweites Exemplar zum Startpreis von stolzen 2100 Dollar. Doch nach f?nf Tagen hatte sich noch kein Bieter gefunden - und dass, obwohl man in den wirklich publikumstr?chtigen eBay-Auktionen normalerweise sogar seinen eigenen Schatten verkaufen kann.
Ein Sammlerst?ck ist das Laien-Machwerk allemal: Nat?rlich erschien das erste und einzige Album dieser Electras im Eigenverlag (es gab noch mindestens zwei weitere Bands dieses Namens, die Platten ver?ffentlichten) und mit der Mikro-Auflage von nur 500 St?ck. Mehr konnten sich selbst die betuchten Jungs der Band, die als Sch?ler-Kapelle an der elit?ren St Paul's-Privatschule gegr?ndet worden war, nicht leisten. F?r einen richtigen Plattenvertrag hatte es nie gereicht.
Das allerdings k?nnte sich nun ?ndern: Schon wird ?ber eine Neuauflage der Scheibe gemunkelt, und John Kerry scherzte gegen?ber "Newsweek" jovial ?ber ein m?gliches Comeback der Band: "Wenn die Blues Brothers und Fleetwood Mac wieder vereinigt werden k?nnen, sollte das bei den Electras ein Klacks sein." Seine Vereidigungsfeier sei da ein m?glicher Termin.
Nicht alles Theater
Ob es dazu je kommt, h?ngt aber nicht nur von den amerikanischen W?hlern ab. Perkussionist Andy Gagarin etwa outet sich als "konservativer Republikaner", der "auf keinen Fall" Kerry seine Stimme geben werde. Auch Radcliff betonte, die Mehrheit der ehemaligen Band w?rde es vorziehen, "George Bush Bass-Stunden zu geben, als John Kerry einzusetzen".
Doch selbst so ehrliche Statements wird der scheinbar so h?lzerne Kerry zu seinem Vorteil zu nutzen wissen: Erst diese despektierlichen Unkenrufe machen die Fast-ein-Rockstar-Story glaubhaft.
Die versucht Kerrys Wahlkampf-Team nach Kr?ften zur Image-Politur zu nutzen: Mit einem Mal sieht man Kerry nun auf Fl?gen zwischen Wahlkampfauftritten klampfen, und seine Kampagnen-Website zitiert gen?sslich das Urteil des Plattenmanagers Erik Lindgren, der im September die erste Electras-Platte ausgegraben hatte: "John Kerry rockt!"
Ungl?cklich ?ber die ganze Geschichte d?rfte auch Radcliffe kaum sein: Als einziger der Electras war er vierzig Jahre bei der Musik geblieben und schlug sich als Pianist durch, der "alles von Tschaikowsky bis Jerry Lee Lewis" beherrsche. Zurzeit arbeitet er kr?ftig an seiner Website, verspricht, in K?rze Sound-Samples von den Electras bieten zu k?nnen und ist wohl auch an der Wiederauflage des Albums von 1961 nicht ganz unbeteiligt. Vorteilhaft entwickeln sich eben stets die M?rchen mit einer wahren Wurzel.
? SPIEGEL ONLINE 2004
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielf?ltigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH
-----------------------------------------
Romney rips bid to protect Kerry seat
By Frank Phillips and Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff, 2/20/2004
NORTH ATTLEBOROUGH -- Governor Mitt Romney yesterday denounced a maneuver by Democrats on Beacon Hill to block him from naming an interim replacement if US Senator John F. Kerry wins the presidency and resigns his Senate seat.
"It is clearly partisan," Romney told reporters at a campaign stop for GOP state Senate candidate Scott Brown. "I don't think even the Democratic leadership will get behind that."
"If a Democrat were in the corner office, there would be no discussion about this issue," the governor said. "This is coming up because there is a Republican governor."
Romney, who under current law would fill the vacancy with a temporary appointment, also vowed he would not appoint himself. He said that he would run for reelection in 2006.
"I am planning to be in this position all four years, maybe eight if I am lucky enough to be reelected," Romney said. "I fought long and hard for this job, and I am not going to give it up."
The Globe reported yesterday that the House chairman of the Joint Committee on Election Law, Representative William Straus, is pushing legislation that would require a special election shortly after a vacancy occurred in a US Senate seat. The bill would not permit an interim appointment by Romney.
Straus's proposal is expected to be taken up when House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran and Senate President Robert E. Travaglini meet privately tomorrow to discuss a number of issues, including the battle for a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. A spokesman for Finneran said the House leader had no comment on the issue. Travaglini could not be reached.
If Straus's proposal were to become law and Kerry were to become president, Romney would be blocked from naming an interim senator who would stand for election in 2006 to fill out the term, which expires in January 2009. The seat would instead remain vacant until a special election.
Democrats argue that the interim office holder would have all the advantages of an incumbent. They said it gives too much power to one person -- Romney -- to determine who the state's next US senator should be.
"The voters should have the right to elect US senators, and it should not be left to Governor Romney," said Philip W. Johnston, the state Democratic Party chairman. "As a public policy matter, it is hard to argue that it is not more democratic to allow the voters to chose who will be a US senator than leave it to one person to make this momentous decision."
But Romney scoffed at the notion, saying the law has been in place for 82 years and used by Democratic governors in the past.
"You really don't want to create a monopoly that has so much power it is going to change the law in such a blatantly partisan way and at a time when people are really looking to have fairness and equality on Beacon Hill," Romney said.
? Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
-----------------------------------------
The Coming of Nemesis
Hubris and the law of unintended consequences.
Irony, paradox, hubris, and nemesis are all Greek words. They reflect an early Western fascination with natural, immutable laws of destiny, perhaps akin to something like the eastern idea of karma -- that excess and haughtiness can set off a chain of events that are neither predicable nor welcome.
Take the recent controversy about President Bush's military record. Heretofore, Mr. Kerry had wisely decided to let the sleeping dogs of Vietnam lie, perhaps cognizant of how the "bloody shirt" had once tainted and polluted 50 years of late-19th-century American presidential campaigns. Besides, the Republicans had not looked good in questioning the fine character of Max Cleland, whose service to his country deserved better. In the primaries, the genuinely war-heroic Mr. Kerry seemed to realize that it was not wise to question Howard Dean's skiing in Aspen under the aegis of a medical deferment. After all, most Americans were more interested in talking about winning the present war rather than crying over losing the past one -- and Vietnam was a morass that tarred everyone who lumbered in.
In 1992, Mr. Kerry had, quite soberly, called for an end to recriminations about Mr. Clinton's draft record. And that was wise. From time to time he had gone on record to emphasize how tumultuous the late 1960s and 1970s were -- and that what was said and done then was often a result of passion rather than reason. Kerry seemed to remember -- and for that reason he was rightly cautious -- that many Vietnam veterans against the war at the time had left a paper trail of greater respect for the resisters and draft-evaders who chose not to participate in an "immoral" war than for some of their fellow warriors who went over to serve and "kill." Indeed, up until about 1980, the popular mythology for millions was that a Vietnam veteran deserved less respect than a draft-resister. Of course, we forget that absurdity now in the days of the bloody shirt, but it was nevertheless true and explains the near inexplicable contortions and subsequent reinventions of that generation that we witness today.
So Mr. Kerry rightly sensed that, while his own combat record was beyond reproach, his subsequent strident antiwar activities surely were not -- ranging from confessionals about war crimes to throwing away someone else's medals before the cameras. And Kerry was even wiser in appreciating that while a sort of mytho-history had emerged, asserting that Vietnam-era protesters once attacked the government only, never the soldiers themselves, most Americans of the era remembered a very different reality: Veterans in fact routinely and unfairly were accused of atrocities, and were slandered. Returning GIs were sometimes divided between those who felt that their service was honorable, and those who sought exculpation or popular acceptance from the protest generation by maligning fellow soldiers as agents of immorality.
Thus it was prudent to let all this alone, and not take the bait of thinking a decorated veteran who opposed the war could score points against a supporter of it who did not serve. But the Democrats were not content.
Instead, they floated old accusations that a twenty-something George Bush, who strapped himself into something as dangerous as an obsolete, fire-belching, and occasionally explosive F-102, was somehow near treasonous. Young Bush may have been impetuous and he apparently missed some roll calls, but anyone who rides the stratosphere a few inches above a jet engine is neither a coward nor a man who shirks either danger or responsibility.
Now the Democrats who thought up this low hit on the president will reap what they have sown -- as Kerry's entire (and ever-expanding) record of ancient slips and slurs will unnecessarily go under full scrutiny, the sometimes shameful words of a rash and mixed-up youth unfairly gaining as much attention as once brave deeds. By August the American people will be sick to death of Kerry's pandering to veterans -- or perhaps as indifferent to his medals as they were to the equally stellar record of sometimes-failed candidates like Bob Dole, Bob Kerry, John McCain, or Gray Davis.
The WMD controversy is similar. It is legitimate to question the nature of American intelligence as long as the fate of Saddam's once-undeniable arsenal remains murky. And the Democrats can legitimately score points in alleging that the administration put too much emphasis on a single case for war when there were a dozen other reasons for regime change that were far more compelling.
But they were not content with that fair enough tactic. No, they had to press on with really offensive rhetoric -- Messrs. Gore and Kennedy alleging conspiracies, near treason, and the "worst" diplomatic decision in U.S. history. A sad cast of provocateurs and Vietnam War-era retreads like Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Not in Our Name were more often to be the intellectual godheads of the Democratic response than the ghosts of Harry Truman, JFK, and Scoop Jackson. A Hubert Humphrey would not have let a creepy Abbie Hoffman in the same room with him; Wesley Clark smirks on stage alongside a buffoonish Michael Moore as the latter calls a war-time president a deserter.
Yet the problem with this additional slander is that the war, in fact, has turned out to have a lot to do with WMD -- and will bring dividends that are far more important even than disarming Saddam. Pakistan is now revealing the extent of its nuclear treachery; the developments in Libya are surreal, but inexplicable apart from the removal of Saddam; and a newly energized U.N. inspection team suddenly finds traction with Iran. Thus the more the Democrats allege American fantasies about WMD, the more quite dangerous regimes instead see reality -- and fear that their own arsenals might ensure them a rendezvous with something analogous to the fate of Saddam Hussein.
The same irony is true about the hysteria over the poor Europeans, "unilateralism," and "preemption." The Democrats, soberly and carefully, could have tried to argue that the administration and many of us sympathetic to it were unnecessarily blunt and in need of diplomatic niceties. A fair enough charge that would have received, in turn, a fair enough, unapologetic rebuttal. But the campaigning instead brought bizarre allegations by Clark, Kerry, and Dean that the Bush administration has ruined the trans-Atlantic relationship and that we were now de facto alone in the Western world. In fact, human nature being what it is in respecting strength, action, and military success, the United States finds itself in a position of unique power vis-?-vis both allies and enemies.
Europe, albeit kicking and screaming, is just beginning to appreciate its new enhanced role as "good cop" that warns the likes of Iran and Syria not to upset the "unpredictable" Americans when they should work within their own multilateral auspices. Europeans know better than the Democrats that only American threats of force ever cut any ice in the Middle East. Kofi Annan privately grasps that the belated U.N. effort to return their inspectors to Iraq was possible only because of George Bush's promise to use force -- a threat that had a credible shelf-life of only a few months. Even the U.N. is not so much furious at Mr. Bush as intrigued and scared: intrigued that they might regain credibility if a more harnessed and circumspect America can nevertheless repeat its resolve to enforce U.N. sanctions; and scared that after last autumn's U.N. machinations, hypocrisy, and anti-Americanism, we find them all an embarrassment if not irrelevant altogether.
Europe is also startled and embarrassed that Mr. Bush and Co. yelled out at the NATO parade that the emperor was, in fact, buck naked -- and that a continent with a larger population, economy, and territory than the United States was in no need of massive American military support when its own citizenry had whipped itself into a frenzy of smug and hypocritical ingratitude. Ditto the Koreans. Democrats yell about "imperialism," even as allies worry about our new "isolationism" -- go figure.
Thus just as we witness Democratic hysteria over purported estrangement, the Europeans are far more worried about the future of NATO and their own self-induced severance from the greatest military power in the history of civilization. Only now do they realize that if they don't commit more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan there are simply few reasons for the alliance to exist -- and none at all for tens of thousands of Americans to protect their soil at times of scary things like the Olympics, more terrorists flocking into Europe, and mounting Muslim anger against belated French efforts to stand up to Islamic fundamentalism.
What a strange spectacle then now awaits us in the summer presidential campaign to come. Democrats will plead for more sensitivity to European needs -- even as more neutral observers concede that for the first time in decades a new honesty and maturity is entering the trans-Atlantic relationship precisely because Mr. Bush pulled back the curtain and exposed the hypocrisy of an anti-Americanism so fashionable in the out-of-touch European shire.
No one wishes to occupy a country. But after the instability in Iraq and a cost nearing 400 combat deaths the Democrats are now not merely questioning the tactics of achieving democracy in Iraq, but the entire notion of occupation itself. But once they go down that road they will discover history is not on their side and will be hard put to offer better alternatives to the present course.
For the record, not occupying Germany in 1918 led to the myth that the Prussians were never beaten, but stabbed in the back while occupying foreign territory -- a terrible mistake not repeated with postwar Japan and Germany. It might have been neater and quicker to leave Afghanistan after the Soviets were expelled in the 1980s and to depart Haiti in a flash, but the wages of those exit strategies were the Taliban and September 11 as well as the current mess in the Caribbean. The first Bush administration left the present jumble in Iraq to the second, which to its everlasting credit is determined not to leave it to others. Had Mr. Clinton bombed and then just left the Balkans, rather than the present costly and bothersome peace we would have had the sectarian and tribal sort of ruin that surely will get worse if we run now from Iraq.
Since the Democrats viciously and clumsily have attacked one of the most courageous (and humane) policies of any administration in the last 30 years, the American people will soon come to ask what they in fact will propose instead ("put up or shut up"). Most of us are cognizant that bombing from 40,000 feet gives an "exit strategy," but, without soldiers on the ground, postpones the problem of tyrannical resurgence -- and thus will inevitably leave either another war for another generation or something far worse still on the horizon like September 11.
There were a number of legitimate areas of debate for the fall campaign -- deficits, unfunded security measures at home, moral scrutiny over postwar contracts, more help for Afghanistan, greater control of domestic entitlements, unworkable immigration proposals, and the like. But instead of statesmanship from the opposition, we got slander about Mr. Bush's National Guard service, misrepresentations about intelligence failures that had hampered both previous administrations and the present congress, preference for an unsupportable European position over our own, and stupidity about what to do in Iraq.
The Democrats may have seen some short-term gains from all the attention given to their bluster, but theirs still remain untenable issues. And so nemesis will bite them like they will not believe in the autumn -- and, of course, just when it matters most.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200402200838.asp
------------------------------------------------
French paper: EU panel finds Arafat did not fund terrorism
Herb Keinon Feb. 19, 2004
A week after the German paper Die Weld reported suspicion is growing that money from Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's office was transferred to terrorist organizations, the French daily Liberation reported Wednesday that a report being prepared by the EU's anti-fraud unit (OLAF) will show no financial tie between Arafat and terrorism.
The paper reported that according to its sources the report will show that Arafat did not use financial assistance from the EU to "help in any way to fund terrorist organizations like the Aksa Brigades."
The OLAF report on whether hundreds of millions of euros to the PA was misused is slated to be released in March.
Following the Liberation report, a spokesman for the European Commission said, "We are waiting for OLAF to publish the report."
Following the Die Weld report, which also indicated OLAF investigators had authenticated documents Israel provided the EU linking Arafat to terrorist groups, OLAF released a statement saying it has "not finalized its investigation.
Therefore, any conclusions attributed to OLAF are premature and are not confirmed by evidence."
Ilka Schroeder, a German European Parliament member affiliated with the Green Party, who was among those who pushed for an investigation of how EU money to the PA was being spent, sent an open letter to the three presidents of a "working group" in the European Parliament dealing with the issue on Thursday, discounting the conclusions as reported in Liberation.
"It is known that the Aksa Brigades are closely linked with the Fatah movement of Palestinian President Arafat and that they have committed several suicide bombings against Israelis," she wrote. "It is known that not only school books, but also radio and TV stations, prayers paid by the state [sic], and official newspapers spread hate against Israel and anti-Semitic prejudice. If OLAF shouldn't know this or should not be capable to make the logical conclusions from these facts, then OLAF is simply the wrong institution to investigate this course of events."
Schroeder called on OLAF to immediately release a first "confidential" paper it reportedly wrote on the issue, and suggested "that the European Parliament apologize publicly and admit the fatal role of the European Union in the war against Israel [which will make it easier for victims and the surviving dependants to sue the EU]."
Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, head of Shurat Hadin-Israel Law Center, filed a NIS 100 million suit in the Tel Aviv District Court in May 2002 against the EU on behalf of an Israeli family decimated by a terrorist attack in August 2001.
The law suit alleges that the EU recklessly provided the PA with massive sums of financial aid, while knowing that the money was being diverted from its intended civilian purposes to Palestinian terrorist groups.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1077164219985&p=1006688055060
---------------------------------------------
THEN VISIT...
www.humancost.org
Posted by maximpost
at 3:51 PM EST
Updated: Friday, 20 February 2004 7:49 PM EST
