Guess who's in the driver's seat? Not the US
By Larry Niksch
(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)
See also: Round 2: In search of a US policy
As the second round of the six-party North Korea talks opens on Wednesday in Beijing, guess who's in the driver's seat? It's not Washington - not by a long shot.
A look back to February 2003 can leave one astounded over the diplomatic fortunes of the two chief antagonists. A year ago, North Korea appeared headed toward the status of an isolated international pariah through its brazen actions and threats, self-destructive to the impoverished nation and genuinely menacing and destabilizing to its neighbors and the region.
The United States had seemed to be ascendant. It issued communiques with other concerned neighbors and nations criticizing North Korea's actions. It succeeded in securing six-party talks. At the first six-party meeting in Beijing last August, a US official declared: "We're letting them dig their own grave." The administration of US President George W Bush said North Korea was self-destructing and was alienating the other participants. US officials spoke confidently of securing China's support. Today, US administration officials remain emboldened, citing Libya's decision to give up weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as the example for North Korea to follow.
However, a broader look does not appear to support the Bush administration's optimistic analysis. North Korean diplomacy has placed key items of Pyongyang's agenda at the top of the negotiating agenda: North Korea's proposal for a formal non-aggression security guarantee from the US, and Pyongyang's proposed freeze of its plutonium program. China, South Korea and Russia speak positively of these proposals and declare that the United States must address North Korea's concerns. Japan alone seconds the US position that North Korea must commit first to a "complete, irreversible, verifiable" dismantling of its nuclear programs and take concrete measures toward that end.
Expressions of skepticism about US claims of a secret North Korean highly enriched uranium (HEU) program now come from Chinese, Russian and South Korean officials. North Korea is receiving cash (US$50 million in October) and increased fuel and food from China, economic aid from South Korea, and further economic aid from Russia. Even the Bush administration has offered North Korea "security assurances", which would be more concessionary than the nuclear-security guarantee offered in the 1994 Agreed Framework.
North Korea's successes are the result of a negotiating strategy that plays on the psychological fears of the other parties coupled with a concerted propaganda strategy to advance Pyongyang's agenda.
Pyongyang's skillful negotiating strategy
After each of the Beijing meetings, North Korea criticized the sessions and the US position, warning that it saw no usefulness in the meetings and probably would not participate again. Then after repeated warnings, North Korea made "new" proposals. After the April meeting, North Korea hammered away on its proposal for a formal US-North Korean non-aggression pact. After the August meeting, North Korea proposed a "freeze" of its plutonium nuclear program, while asserting that a non-aggression guarantee was necessary to prevent the Bush administration from staging an "Iraq-like" unilateral attack.
Pyongyang contended that a freeze was a logical "first stage", employing enticing slogans such as "simultaneous actions", "action vs action", "simultaneous package deal", "bold concession" and "non-interference in our economic development". While promoting these proposals, North Korea steadily escalated the denials of any uranium-enrichment program.
Other governments, apprehensive over North Korea's threat to abandon the talks, sought to react positively in order to persuade Pyongyang to agree to future meetings. President Bush acceded to China's overtures to offer multilateral security assurances. China began to press for a freeze as an integral part of any agreement. Public and elite opinions in China and South Korea reacted favorably to North Korea's proposals, clearly influenced by Pyongyang's propaganda. These positive reactions inevitably have led others to question US positions, including the claim of a secret North Korean uranium-enrichment program.
North Korea has been able to exploit weaknesses in US strategy. The Bush administration's unwillingness to offer detailed, comprehensive settlement proposals has given Pyongyang an open playing field to advance its proposals into a dominant position in the talks. Other governments have nothing to respond to - other than Pyongyang's proposals. North Korea is not pressured to make a fundamental policy choice.
The US administration's reliance on China as a partner also has contributed to North Korea's successes. China has worked hard to organize the talks and has urged the United States to issue comprehensive settlement proposals. However, China has tilted toward North Korea on substantive issues. The question of what China wants as an outcome remains unanswered. Is it a complete termination of North Korea's nuclear program or an agreement with more limited obligations? Without a credible answer to this question, the US reliance on China has proved to be an unstable foundation.
Lack of US response strengthens North Korea
The absence of a US response to North Korea's propaganda strategy also has contributed significantly to Pyongyang's strengthened position. The Bush administration rejected North Korea's non-aggression pact and nuclear-freeze proposals but did not challenge their substance so as to bring into the open their negative features and hidden agenda. The administration's response to the non-aggression-pact proposal was to contend that the Senate would not ratify it. Its response to North Korea's denials of an HEU program was that North Korea admitted to it in October 2002.
This creates at best the perception of a "he said she said" dispute. The administration hopes that the alleged confession of Pakistan's Abdul Qadeer Khan will contain the growing skepticism. However, North Korea already charges that Khan's confession was coerced, and the administration offers no evidence of its own of North Korea's alleged HEU program.
North Korea's strengthened position in the six-party talks puts two related outcomes within reach of Pyongyang - continued talks with pressure on the US to accept a nuclear freeze or the eventual collapse of the talks altogether.
One outcome would be an agenda in future meetings that emphasizes pressure from the other governments on the United States to accept an agreement for a limited nuclear freeze - that would be designated as a "first phase" but in reality would stand alone, with other phases to be determined through an undefined diplomatic process. The Bush administration likely would reject such pressure, but the result probably would be an erosion and eventual end of the six-party talks. Public opinion likely would blame the US for the collapse or would perceive "moral equivalency" between the US and North Korea.
This second outcome - collapse of the talks - would free North Korea from the threat of international sanctions, assure continued economic support from China and South Korea, and give North Korea more options in advancing its nuclear and missile programs - including an open demonstration of nuclear capabilities with reduced risk of punitive measures from neighboring states. If growing North Korean confidence transformed itself into overconfidence, North Korea might be tempted to proliferate WMD in high-risk ways.
The big question in the Wednesday meeting is whether the Bush administration can regain a dominant position for the US over the negotiating agenda or whether North Korea will make further progress toward these outcomes.

Larry Niksch (lniksch@crs.loc.gov) is a specialist in Asian Affairs at the US Congressional Research Service. The opinions expressed are his own. This article is used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS.)

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

Six-party talks, Round 2: In search of a US policy
By Alan D Romberg
(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)
See also:Guess who's in the driver's seat? Not the US
On the eve of the second round of six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, reports indicate the the United States will "barely sweeten" the position it took at the first round last August. and it will repeat its mantra: "no rewards for bad behavior" - but it won't do much more.
Senior foreign-policy advisers to President George W Bush reportedly have decided to reject Pyongyang's offer of a freeze on plutonium-related facilities as "woefully inadequate". They point to North Korea's refusal so far to acknowledge, much less commit to eliminate, an alternative highly enriched uranium (HEU) program to produce fissile material.
If accurate, this demonstrates once again that the Bush administration lacks a serious policy for moving the North Korean nuclear issue from its current sorry - and increasingly dangerous - state toward resolution. The administration seems unable to get past the rhetoric of "complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement" of North Korea's nuclear-weapons program so as to develop a workable strategy to achieve that important goal. Rather, as one official recently put it, the objective of the coming talks is simply to tread water, keeping North Korea at the table. "The motto is ' Do no harm,'" he said.
South Korea's ambassador to the United States has taken a more sensible - and potentially productive - approach. He has observed that "the second round of talks can make progress even if North Korea does not admit the existence of a highly enriched uranium program, as long as the North does not bar discussion of that issue". In other words, rather than forcing confession or denial, the next round should leave the door open to progress through negotiation - while the Bush administration seems to view real negotiation without a prior confession by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the role of "diplomacy", therefore, as one official put it, merely as "a placeholder to get us through the [November US presidential] election".
The "father" of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has reportedly confessed to providing elements of a uranium-enrichment program to North Korea. After presenting this evidence to others in the negotiations, it is perfectly reasonable for the United States to confront North Korea with that same information - and insist that inconsistencies between North Korea's denials and Khan's information be cleared up.
US policy simplistic, lacks understanding
But while it may be a good debating point to argue that Pyongyang should simply follow Libya's example (which - in Bush's own words - came only after nine months of intense negotiation) and unilaterally announce a policy reversal, reliance on that line demonstrates once again the lack of any deep understanding of North Korea or a seriousness of purpose about actually resolving the problem.
US officials will reportedly be explicit in their demands of Pyongyang, but far less concrete about what North Korea can expect in return. Why? In part because some believe the DPRK is under unbearable economic stress from sanctions and on the verge of collapse and will have to capitulate. They also argue for US vagueness because even if the uranium-enrichment program is acknowledged, there is disagreement within the US government about what to offer Pyongyang, in what order, on what timetable.
Beyond insistence on "not rewarding bad behavior", some officials argue, for example, that it is not sensible to grant the DPRK's request for security assurances - which takes but a moment - in exchange merely for a commitment to dismantle the nuclear program - by necessity a long-term process. Others note, however, that Pyongyang can argue that once it dismantles its program, it cannot quickly - if ever - reconstitute it, whereas a security assurance can be withdrawn in an instant, so offering such an assurance would cost the US little and yet be a useful inducement.
While Washington dithers, North Korea is proceeding with its nuclear-weapons program at a pace probably slower than Pyongyang claims but perhaps faster than Washington perceives. Recent visitors to the DPRK saw evidence that, at the least, spent fuel previously in safe storage is no longer there - fuel judged sufficient for five or six nuclear weapons. Moreover, the status of the HEU program is totally unknown.
The question is not whether the US is right to seek the total abolition of North Korea's nuclear program, including both its plutonium- and uranium-based components. Obviously it is. The issue is whether Washington has a coherent policy realistically designed to achieve that goal. So far the evidence is not encouraging.

Alan D Romberg is senior associate and director of the East Asia Program at the Henry L Stimson Center in Washington, DC. He can be reached at aromberg@earthlink.net. This article is used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS.
-----------------------------------------

North Korea balks, then agrees to talk. Why now?
By Tom Tobback
BEIJING - "Time is not on the American side," said North Korea's vice foreign minister, Kim Gye-gwan, to Jack Pritchard, the former United States negotiator with North Korea, when he visited the Yongbyon nuclear facilities in North Korea last month. And, Kim added: "As time passes, our nuclear deterrent continues to grow in quantity and quality."
Indeed, time is not on the US side in this nuclear standoff. However, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea's (DPRK's) recent and rather surprising announcement that it has agreed to resume the six-party talks in Beijing on February 25 indicates that time is not entirely on North Korea's side either.
North Korea's leader Kim Jong-il agreed in principle to participate in a second round of six-party talks when China's Number 2 leader, chairman of the standing committee of the National People's Congress Wu Bangguo, visited him in Pyongyang last October. The DPRK had described the first round of talks that took place in Beijing last August as a waste of time.
So to ensure progress in the second round of talks, which involve North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the US, Pyongyang demanded - and has been demanding - agreement on a joint statement before the talks. This proviso was supported by China after US President George W Bush stated he was willing to discuss a written multilateral security guarantee. However, in December Pyongyang announced additional conditions for its proposed first step, a re-freeze of the Yongbyon nuclear facilities that had been under inspection from 1994 to 2002 by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The US accused North Korea of setting preconditions for the talks, and the six-party process seemed to have hit a deadlock. Then suddenly last week the official (North) Korea Central News Agency announced, "The DPRK and the US, the major parties concerned to the six-way talks, and China, the host country, agreed to resume the next round of the six-way talks from February 25 after having a series of discussion."
Officials in Seoul said that the DPRK had not bothered to notify the US or South Korea before announcing this decision.
Pyongyang drops precondition, scope limited
Pyongyang has obviously dropped its demand for a pre-talks joint statement. At the talks, North Korea will expectedly elaborate on its known proposal for "simultaneous actions" and the other parties will then respond. Thus the scope is minimal, and that is probably why the duration of the talks has not yet been announced. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Losyukov warned not to expect any breakthrough, given the disagreement over the proposed joint pre-talks statement.
North Korea has done its best to convince the US of its nuclear deterrent by showing the recent private US delegation reprocessed plutonium at Yongbyon, and DPRK officials reportedly were disappointed when US nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker told them he had seen nothing that convinced him Pyongyang possesses a nuclear deterrent.
On the other hand, Pyongyang assured the delegation it does not have the uranium enrichment program US intelligence claims to know about. Possibly North Korea wants to capitalize on doubts about the Bush administration's use of intelligence. Last week KCNA stated: "Now the Bush administration finds itself in a tight corner as it provoked a war against Iraq after deceiving Americans and the world."
Other recent events might have also have convinced Pyongyang that a continuing crisis does not serve its interests. The US-led international consortium KEDO (Korea Energy Development Organization) responsible for building the two light-water reactors in exchange for the freeze of Yongbyon in 1994, halted work on the project on December 1.
After Libya vowed to dismantle its secret nuclear program on December 22, evidence is emerging of a nuclear black market run by the Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who admitted last week to having passed nuclear secrets to various countries - including the DPRK.
Japan threatens economic sanctions
Other incentives to North Korea are the desperate state of the country's population and its economy. The Japanese parliament's decision last week to allow the government to impose economic sanctions and halt trade between the two neighboring countries could hurt the DPRK's economy severely.
According to the deputy director of the DPRK Finance Ministry, Yang Chang-yoon, Pyongyang does need outside assistance and loans to resuscitate its economy, despite the issuance of state bonds last year. One of North Korea's first demands is to be removed from the US list of terrorism-sponsoring nations and to be allowed to join international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Today the UN World Food Program (WFP) in Beijing warned that its cereal stocks in North Korea are all but depleted, with little donations in the pipeline. "We are scraping the bottom of the barrel," Masood Hyder, the WFP's representative in Pyongyang, told a news conference here. "Over four million core beneficiaries - the most vulnerable children, women and elderly people - are now deprived of very vital rations. It's the middle of the harsh Korean winter and they need more food, not less."
Some observers argue that Pyongyang's decision to resume the six-party talks is the result of external political and economic pressure. On the other hand, having the talks take place during the current uproar over the uses of US intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction might enable Pyongyang to keep its alleged uranium-based nuclear program off the table - at least in this round. However, if Pyongyang is not prepared to make further major concessions at the talks, the six-party process is likely to derail.
After his latest visit to the DPRK's Yongbyon nuclear facilities, US negotiator Jack Pritchard brought up a scenario in which this could exactly be Pyongyang's intention, or at least a realistic option. Pritchard is concerned that the talks will fail and that Pyongyang will withdraw from the diplomatic process. If it then declares it has produced all the nuclear weapons it needs and does not intend to make more, China, South Korea, and Russia might accept this as a status quo, arguing the threat is minimal. This would dissolve the six-party process, and would leave the region a lot less secure.

Tom Tobback is the creator and editor of Pyongyang Square, a website dedicated to providing independent information on North Korea. He is based in Beijing.

http://www.pyongyangsquare.com/

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


>> kcna...
KCNA Blasts U.S. Smear Campaign against DPRK
Pyongyang, February 21 (KCNA) -- The United States is persistently spreading a false rumor about the "transfer of nuclear technology" to the DPRK by a Pakistani scientist in a bid to make the story about Pyongyang's "enriched uranium program" sound plausible. The February 12 issue of the New York Times again carried misinformation that a Pakistani nuclear expert visited the DPRK more than 10 times at the end of the 1990s to help it in the technology of developing nuclear weapons based on enriched uranium. The story about the "enriched uranium program" much touted by the U.S. is nothing but a whopping lie. The US ultra- neo-conservatives fabricated it after having a confab for more than 10 days in the wake of U.S. presidential envoy Kelly's Pyongyang visit in October 2002.
The story is nothing but a poor burlesque orchestrated against this backdrop.
What matters is why the U.S. styling itself "the world's only superpower" has worked so desperately for years to paint the non-existent and unverifiable "enriched uranium program" as truth.
Lurking behind it is an ulterior intention to make the international community believe it, scour the interior of the DPRK on the basis of legitimate mandate in a bid to disarm it just as the U.S. did in Iraq and justify its brigandish demand that Pyongyang scrap its nuclear program first at the upcoming six-way talks.
It is a trite method of the Bush administration to fabricate false information and violate the sovereignty of independent states under that pretext. The U.S. can not exist without plot-breeding and conspiracy. It is clearly proved by the Iraqi war.
It is by no means fortuitous that foreign news reports quoted the parties concerned as saying they have never transferred nuclear technology to the DPRK. According to the British Financial Times, the Pakistani president officially stated that Pakistan purchased missiles, not nuclear technology from the DPRK.
The DPRK's self-reliant nuclear power industry and its nuclear deterrent force for self-defense were indigenously developed and perfected by scientists and technicians of the DPRK.
The DPRK was compelled to change the purpose of its nuclear power industry based on graphite-moderated reactors and possess a nuclear deterrent force for self-defence with a firm determination because the U.S. nuclear threat increased as the days went by and the outbreak of a dangerous war of aggression became imminent.
The U.S. smear campaign once again forced the army and the people of the DPRK to keenly realize what a just measure it took to build a nuclear deterrent force for self-defence by its own efforts.

>> KCNA 5026...
U.S. Moves to Ignite War of Aggression against DPRK Denounced
Pyongyang, February 14 (KCNA) -- The United States worked out the "new operation plan 5026", which indicates that it is making the start of a war of aggression against the DPRK an established fact and frantically pushing forward its preparations, says Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary. The plan is a very dangerous war scenario to realize the bellicose Bush forces' reckless strategy to stifle the DPRK and their brigandish attempt to mount a preemptive nuclear attack as it means a perfect version of their earlier plans for a war against the DPRK, the commentary notes, and goes on: What should not be overlooked is that the U.S. military has already examined the possibility of putting the plan into practice.
The new war scenario suggests that the outcries of the U.S. imperialists that north Korea is the next target after Iraq are not a mere threat but a preliminary declaration of war against the DPRK.
The reality clearly shows what a reckless and dangerous phase the U.S. moves for a war of aggression against the DPRK have reached.
The DPRK has so far made every sincere effort to peacefully settle the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S. However, the U.S. imperialists are hatching a plot to start a war of aggression behind the curtain of a "peaceful solution" to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the U.S., a challenge to the DPRK.
The developments confirm once again that warning is not enough for those lunatics shaking their fists.
The U.S. imperialists must stop acting rashly and drop their reckless plan for aggression against the DPRK at once, properly understanding the determination of the army and people of the DPRK to repel any aggression and defend peace on the Korean peninsula and the security of the nation, pursuant to the invincible Songun policy.
All the Koreans should more valiantly wage the anti-U.S. patriotic sacred struggle to achieve national independence, peace and reunification through national cooperation.
----------------------------------------------------------------
And in Iran, the winner is ... Rafsanjani
By Safa Haeri

PARIS - As expected, given their pre-poll maneuvers to tilt the playing field their way, conservatives dominated the seventh legislative elections in Iran, putting an end to four years of endless, futile disputes more on semantics than the real problems at the heart of the majority of Iran's 70 million people, like jobs and security, that the victors now promise to address promptly.

According to the latest figures released by the Interior Ministry, a little over half of the country's 46 million eligible voters went to the polls on Friday, the lowest level in all elections held in the past 25 years, and candidates considered loyal to the Islamic rulers took at least 149 places in the 290-seat majlis, or parliament, which had been controlled by pro-reform lawmakers since their landslide win four years ago.

In that four years, reformist parliamentary bills were consistently blocked by the Guardians Council (GC), the conservative 12-man watchdog that supervises both legislation and elections. In the run-up to the election, the GC disqualified some 2,500 candidates, mostly reformists, including all the top vote-winners from the 2000 election.

A key result in the polling gives the Coalition of Builders of Islamic Iran, a new grouping comprising lesser-known politicians, scholars, civil servants and Revolutionary Guard officers close to former president Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani all the 30 seats of the majlis allocated to the capital Tehran, the reformists' traditional bastion. Current majlis Speaker Mehdi Karroubi, a reformer closely aligned with President Mohammad Khatami, trailed in 31st place. The Speaker had broken ranks with other reformists by taking part in the ballots. Top of the 30 is Haddad Adel, a scholar and husband of the daughter of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Rafsanjani, who as the chairman of the powerful Assembly for Discerning the Interests of the State (ADIS, or the Expediency Council) sits between a Supreme Leader who has been harmed by the election wrangling and a president who has lost virtually all his popularity and charisma, is considered the real winner of the electoral crisis.

According to most Iranian political analysts, the next majlis will be controlled by "moderate, non-political" candidates "united" under the umbrella of the pragmatic Rafsanjani, who before the elections had predicted that the new parliament would be "more docile and balanced" than the outgoing one that was controlled overwhelmingly by the noisy but ultimately impotent reformists.

In sharp contrast to both Khamenei and Khatami, former president Rafsanjani (1989-97) has expressed regret that the "tragic events before the elections" had created a "sour atmosphere" in bringing the people to "turn their backs" (to the elections), blaming indirectly the GC for the situation. The new parliament is now likely to be a struggle between the more pragmatic conservatives and the more hardline ones, with Rafsanjani playing the role of chief mediator.

Offering an olive branch to the badly lamed president Khatami, Adel, who is head of the minority in the outgoing majlis - and who if confirmed as Tehran's No 1 candidate might become the majlis' first-ever non-turbaned Speaker - said that if Khatami came "back into line" and worked for the betterment of needy people, he would certainly be helped by the next parliament. This should appease those who predict a "difficult" period for Khatami in his relations with a majlis controlled by conservatives in the last months of his presidency. This position is up for re-election in the middle of next year.

Khatami, though, has sided with the Supreme Leader every time the regime has been challenged by people in the streets, as in the student uprisings of July 1999 and 2003. He also had a good working relationship with a legislative controlled by hardliners in the period between his first election to the presidency in 1997 until the parliamentary elections of 2000, when the reformists swept the majority of the majlis' 290 seats

"The best message the voters sent was that there will no longer be a majority or a minority [in the next parliament], but representatives at the service of the people, dedicated to solving their problems," said Ahmad Tavakkoli, a conservative candidate who secured second place in Tehran.

Commented Mohammad Mohsen Sazegara, a former "Islamist revolutionary" now struggling for a "radical change" of the theocracy into a secular democracy based on the power of parliament: "The conservatives blamed their reformist rivals for the situation [political unrest], but in fact the population had made up its mind much before, realizing that under the present political system, there is no way to bring any major or real reform. When Khatami was elected to the presidency thanks to a massive vote from the younger generation, Iranians were happy with the limited reforms he promised. But the system is such that neither he, nor the majlis he controlled, were able to advance one single item of their reforms. As a result, what people are asking now is no more reforms in the constitution, like limiting the powers of the Guardians Council or giving the president some of his constitutional responsibilities, but fundamental structural changes," Sazegara said.

Meanwhile, the conservatives will have to deliver where the reformists failed, especially in the economic arena. Their pre-election slogans all stressed the need to put factional struggles aside to get the nation back to work, especially the thousands of young people pouring onto the job market. This will entail large investment, especially form abroad. For this reason if no other, Iran and its politics cannot remain isolated from the outside world.

Shaky international support
"It's plain for everybody to see that these were from the start flawed elections in which in at least half the constituencies, reformist candidates were not on offer to the electorate," said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, a close contact between Iran and the United States, as he arrived for a meeting of European Union foreign ministers in Brussels earlier in the week.

A draft statement by the ministers called the election a "setback for democracy" in the Islamic republic and in Washington, the State Department's senior spokesman, Richard Boucher, said: "It was not an electoral process that met international standards and I think you've seen other members of the international community say that."

"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 can reform itself, peacefully and speedily. It is now clear that it cannot," wrote veteran Iranian journalist Amir Taheri in the Saudi Arabian English-language newspaper Arab News. "They [EU] can decide to, holding their noses, continue dealing with the Iranian regime because they need its cooperation on a number of issues, notably nuclear non-proliferation, 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."

The administration of US President George W Bush, for its part, 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", Taheri added.

Therein lies the dilemma for the West. Although the EU is likely to continue its so-called "critical dialogue" that was coined by Germany, Iran's main trade partner and political supporter, analysts warn that in the event that the "monopolists" really try to set the clocks back, especially on the social scene, the EU will move closer to the United States in taking a tougher attitude toward Tehran, mostly on the sensitive and controversial issue of Iran's nuclear programs. The conservatives struck a deal with Britain, France and Germany last November to open Iran's nuclear facilities to inspection, much to the concern of the US, which wanted tough sanctions on the suspected rogue nuclear nation.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWS ANALYSIS
Two bombings in three weeks:
Will the Jerusalem fence help?
By Leslie Susser
JERUSALEM, Feb. 23 (JTA) -- The burnt-out hulk of an Israeli bus destroyed by a Palestinian suicide bomber had just arrived at The Hague on Sunday when a second bus blew up at a busy intersection in Jerusalem.
The first bus -- the remains of a Palestinian bomber?s work in Jerusalem on Jan. 29 -- was meant to protest this week?s International Court of Justice hearings on the legality of the security barrier Israel is building to stop the bombers.
The images of the two mangled buses made Israel?s case against terrorism better than words ever could.
But they also raised serious issues for Israel.
The two bombings, which killed 19 Israelis and injured more than 100, occurred in densely populated residential sections of the city within three weeks of each other.
Their proximity raised two key questions: How effective is Israel?s barrier likely to be against would-be Palestinian bombers? And if it is effective everywhere else, will Jerusalem -- with its patchwork of Arab and Jewish neighborhoods -- become the soft underbelly of the system and the main target of Palestinian terrorism?
The barrier, for most of its planned 450 mile-route, is a sophisticated network of wire mesh fences built with electronic sensors, patrol roads, ditches, cameras and watchtowers. In some short spans, the barrier is a concrete wall.
In both bombing cases, the attackers came from the Bethlehem area.
According to Israel?s Shin Bet security services, the bombers infiltrated Jerusalem though gaps in the fence south of the city. Work on the fence there has been held up for weeks in Israeli courts.
Had that southern portion of the barrier been complete, Israeli advocates of the fence system say, the bombings probably would have been prevented. Indeed, they say, the fact that the bombings occurred is a strong argument for speedy completion of the barrier separating Israelis from Palestinians -- in Jerusalem and everywhere else.
The problem with that argument is that the fence in Jerusalem is unlike the fence anywhere else.
Between Israel proper and the West Bank, the fence separates Israelis from Palestinians and serves as a security barrier between would-be suicide bombers and their targets in Israel, even if it does not offer protection for Jewish settlers on the Palestinian side of the fence.
In Jerusalem, however, the fence runs along the city?s outer perimeter, separating it from the West Bank but leaving on the Israeli side most of the city?s 200,000 Palestinians. There is no barrier between them and the city?s buses. They could provide a huge fount of Arab terror against Israel.
Danny Seidemann, an U.S.-born lawyer who has studied the Jerusalem fence and knows virtually every inch of its convoluted route, is convinced that that is precisely what will happen.
Seidemann argues that besides leaving nearly 200,000 Palestinians in the capital city, the fence cuts arbitrarily through Palestinian suburbs, cuts off Palestinians from their natural hinterland in the West Bank and cuts off others from Jerusalem itself.
Given the mixture of Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, he maintains that a rational division of Jews and Arabs simply is not possible.
"In Jerusalem," Seidemann told JTA, "Israelis should defend themselves against terror by other, more sophisticated means."
Seidemann contends that the fence in Jerusalem is counterproductive. He argues that the main reason Jerusalem Arabs have not taken any significant part in terrorist activities until now is because of their relatively high standard of living.
Per capita income for Jerusalem Arabs, Seidemann says, is about $3,500 per year, more than four times as much as in the rest of the West Bank. Until now, Jerusalem Arabs have been unwilling to risk their standard of living by provoking Israeli reprisals and defensive measures that could strangle economic life, Seidemann says.
But the fence threatens to put an end to all that.
Cut off from the West Bank, prices in Arab neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem will rise and standards of living will decrease.
The humanitarian and economic problems created by the fence, Seidemann argues, will increase terror, not reduce it.
Moreover, Palestinians in Jerusalem who decide to turn to terrorism will not be impeded by a barrier, since the fence runs mainly outside the city, not inside it.
Jerusalem could become the prime focus of the terrorists because of its symbolic resonance in both Israeli and Palestinian narratives, and because of the relative ease with which its targets can be reached. That would create a new security problem for Israel?s armed forces and its police, possibly entailing a stronger presence in the eastern part of the city.
Already, there have been 25 suicide bombings in Jerusalem during the three years of intifada, nearly all by bombers from outside the city. These attacks have claimed more than 180 lives, nearly 20 percent of all Israeli casualties of the intifada.
Jerusalem Arabs joining the ranks of the terrorists could have horrific consequences for both sides, Seidemann says.
Blowing up the second bus in Jerusalem seemed to play into Israel?s hands in the public-relations campaign against the proceedings at The Hague, which Israel officially is boycotting on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction in the matter.
On the day the proceedings began this week, Israel?s daily Yediot Achronot led its front-page preview of the court?s hearings with a letter to the 15-judge panel from a woman who was turned into a widow by Sunday?s bombing.
"You are sitting in judgment," wrote Fanny Haim, "and I am burying my husband."
Though the Palestinian Authority condemned the latest bombing, Palestinian spokesmen seemed more concerned about the bad timing of the attack than the bombing itself.
A branch of the Al-Aksa Brigade affiliated with P.A. President Yasser Arafat?s Fatah organization claimed responsibility for the attack. Some Israeli analysts saw this as evidence of chaos on the Palestinian side, since the bombing does not seem to serve the Palestinian Authority?s interests.
Meanwhile, P.A. leaders reportedly have sent messages to terrorist commanders urging them to exercise restraint for the time being.
But whether controlled from above or the result of grass-roots efforts, the attacks against Israeli civilians show few signs of abating soon.
And if the judges at The Hague rule against Israel?s fence -- ignoring the terrorism that prompted its construction -- their ruling could encourage terrorists further.
The bottom line is that whatever happens at The Hague, Israel will go on building its security fence. In Jerusalem, however, that may not be enough.
Leslie Susser is the diplomatic correspondent for the Jerusalem Report.


? JTA. Reproduction of material without written permission is strictly prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Les menaces terroristes prennent de l'ampleur
Ben Laden menace George W. Bush
Oussama Ben Laden choisit le jour m?me o? les forces pakistanaises, appuy?es par un commando am?ricain, l'unit? 121 - celui-l? m?me qui a arr?t? Saddam Hussein - lancent une vaste op?ration pr?s de la ville de Wana (300 km au sud-ouest d'Islamabad) contre les talibans et une cinquantaine des membres de son r?seau Al Qa?da, o? ces derniers auraient ?t? localis?s, pour menacer George W. Bush de nouvelles attaques et sommer Jacques Chirac de revenir sur la loi fran?aise sur le voile. Dans un enregistrement diffus? hier par la cha?ne de t?l?vision Al Djazira, Ayman Al Zaouahari, l'Egyptien, invite le pr?sident am?ricain ? renforcer la s?curit? des Etats-Unis en pr?vision de nouveaux attentats.
? Bush, renforce tes d?fenses et tes mesures de s?curit? parce que la nation musulmane qui t'a envoy? les l?gions de New York et de Washington est d?termin?e ? t'envoyer l?gion sur l?gion, r?solues ? mourir et ? atteindre le paradis ?, d?clare le bras droit du terroriste le plus recherch? au monde, accusant le pr?sident am?ricain de ? raconter ? des mensonges ? ses concitoyens.
? Les all?gations de George Bush selon lesquelles ses soldats ont arr?t? les deux tiers des membres d'Al Qa?da sont enti?rement fausses ?, dit- il. Le pr?sident am?ricain avait estim? dans un entretien, le 8 f?vrier ? la cha?ne de t?l?vision am?ricaine NBC, que les Etats-Unis faisaient ? un tr?s bon travail ? pour ? d?manteler Al Qa?da ?, dont ? les deux tiers des chefs ont ?t? captur?s ou tu?s ?. Al Zaouahari a ?galement r?fut? ? trois autres all?gations de Bush ?. La premi?re : ? ses forces r?pandent la paix et la libert? dans le monde ?. La deuxi?me : ? L'Irak a acc?d? ? la libert? gr?ce aux forces de la coalition ?. La troisi?me : ? La situation en Afghanistan est stable ?. ? Tes forces ne r?pandent pas la paix et la libert?, mais la peur et la d?solation et placent les gouvernants corrompus ?, ajoute-t-il. ? L'Irak ne jouit pas de la libert? et de la s?curit?, mais est pass? de la tyrannie d'un dictateur la?c et ennemi de l'islam () ? celle d'un occupant crois? hostile ?
l'islam, qui tue, torture et vole ce qu'il veut tout en pr?tendant que les forces am?ricaines cherchent des armes de destruction massive illusoires ?, poursuit-il avant d'interpeller Bush sur l'Afghanistan. ? D'o? menons-nous des attaques contre vos forces et vos agents ? D'o? vous envoyons-nous nos messages qui vous d?fient et d?voilent vos mensonges et vos all?gations ? ? lui demande-t-il. Dans un autre document audio diffus? sur la cha?ne Al Arabia, Al Zaouahri fustige la loi fran?aise sur l'interdiction des signes religieux ostensibles ? l'?cole et dans des lieux publics. Le lieutenant de Ben Laden prend le relais des protestations des pays arabes et musulmans, d?clench?es juste apr?s l'adoption de ce texte en premi?re lecture par l'Assembl?e fran?aise le 10 f?vrier dernier, par les islamistes qui l'ont qualifi? d'? islamophobe ?. Il assimile la loi fran?aise ? ? de nouvelles croisades des pays de l'Ouest contre les musulmans ?. Pour lui, ? la d?cision du pr?sident fran?ais de faire voter une loi pour emp?cher les filles musulmanes de recouvrir leur t?te dans les ?coles est un autre exemple de la jalousie des crois?s que nourrissent les Occidentaux ? l'?gard des musulmans ?. ? M?me s'ils se vantent de libert?s, de d?mocratie et de droits de l'homme ?, ajoute-t-il. Pour Al Qa?da, ? l'interdiction du voile en France s'inscrit dans le m?me cadre que l'incendie des villages en Afghanistan, la destruction des maisons sur les t?tes de leurs occupants en Palestine, le massacre des enfants et le vol du p?trole en Irak ?. En d?cidant de ? reprendre ? son b?ton de chef terroriste Ben Laden chercherait-il ? desserrer l'?tau qui se resserre autour de lui et de ses membres ? Probablement. Trois informations au moins le confirment. La premi?re : le communiqu? d'un
? centre d'information taliban ? selon lequel les chefs de l'organisation Al Qa?da, Ben Laden et Al Zaouahiri, sont ? en vie ? et se trouvent ? en Afghanistan occup?s ? planifier des op?rations antiam?ricaines ?. La deuxi?me, les informations des services am?ricains rapportant que des commandos terroristes libanais, membres de ? Ossbat al Anssar ?, une organisation dont le si?ge se trouve au Liban et qui est inf?od? ? Ben Laden, envisagent de frapper les int?r?ts am?ricains et juifs dans plusieurs pays arabes, dont le Maroc. Selon Rabat, ? les autorit?s marocaines ont re?u des informations pr?cises de la part des services secrets concernant l'intention de certains terroristes () d'A?n
El Helweh de frapper les int?r?ts am?ricains et juifs au Maroc et en Tunisie ?. La troisi?me : la mise en uvre par le d?partement d'Etat du ? Plan Sahel Initiative ?, annonc? en octobre 2002. D?sormais, les forces sp?ciales de Mauritanie, du Mali, du Niger et du Tchad seront form?es par les Am?ricains. Ben Laden, qu'un Am?ricain sur cinq se dit pr?t ? payer pour voir en direct sa mise ? mort, r?ussira-t-il avec un coup de pouce des services iraniens de l'exportation de la r?volution islamique ? allumer plusieurs feux ? la fois dans le monde arabe et musulman ?
Djamel Boukrine

Djamel Boukrine
24-02-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------

Le num?ro deux d'Al-Qaida s'en prend ? la France sur la question du voile islamique
LEMONDE.FR | 24.02.04 | 20h31
Av?r?e ou pas, la d?claration attribu?e mardi au num?ro deux d'Al-Qaida, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, tente de faire d'un dossier int?rieur controvers? en France une nouvelle cause de djihad, selon des experts.
Deux semaines apr?s l'adoption de sa loi contre le port de signes religieux ? l'?cole, la France s'est retrouv?e, mardi 24 f?vrier, au c?ur des diatribes d'Al-Qaida. Dans un document sonore diffus? mardi par la t?l?vision satellitaire Al-Arabiya, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, consid?r? comme le bras droit d'Oussama Ben Laden, accuse Paris de participer ? la "croisade" des Occidentaux contre l'islam en interdisant aux jeunes musulmanes de porter leur voile en classe.

La grande majorit? des messages attribu?s ? Al-Qaida se concentraient jusqu'alors sur les pays ayant particip? ?, ou soutenu l'op?ration am?ricaine en Irak, ? laquelle Jacques Chirac s'est fermement oppos? l'hiver dernier. "La France est le pays de la libert? qui d?fend la libert? d'exposer son corps, d'?tre immoral et d?prav?", peut-on entendre sur l'enregistrement, dont la voix et le style sont facilement identifiables.

"En France, on est libre de s'exhiber, mais pas de se v?tir avec modestie (...). Il s'agit l? d'un nouveau signe de la croisade haineuse que les Occidentaux m?nent contre les musulmans tout en se gargarisant de libert?, de d?mocratie et de droits de l'homme", d?plore l'auteur de la diatribe. Si l'authenticit? de la cassette n'a pas pu ?tre ?tablie dans l'imm?diat, la voix ressemble ? celle des pr?c?dents messages d?livr?s par Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Chef de file du mouvement ?gyptien des Fr?res musulmans, il aurait trouv? refuge, de m?me qu'Oussama Ben Laden, dans les "zones tribales" entre l'Afghanistan et le Pakistan.

Aux yeux de l'organisation terroriste, la loi fran?aise interdisant les signes religieux "ostensibles" dans l'enceinte des ?coles ne serait qu'une illustration suppl?mentaire du foss? se creusant entre l'islam et l'Occident.

Les d?put?s fran?ais ont adopt? le projet de loi le 10 f?vrier et le S?nat doit examiner le texte les 2 et 3 mars. Pour le gouvernement fran?ais, qui doit composer avec les plus grandes communaut?s juive et musulmane d'Europe, il s'agit de pr?server l'?cole de tout pros?lytisme religieux. Pour nombre de pays musulmans, la loi vise en fait seulement l'islam et ses prescriptions.

"Il fallait s'attendre ? un retour de b?ton politique", estime Jonathan Stevenson, sp?cialiste de l'antiterrorisme au International Institute for Strategic Studies de Londres. "Al-Qaida a tout le loisir d'interpr?ter (la loi) comme la suppression d'une libert? religieuse. Il est certain que (cette cassette) peut remotiver les terroristes potentiels en France", ajoute-t-il.

CAUSE DE DJIHAD

Av?r?e ou pas, la d?claration attribu?e au num?ro deux d'Al-Qaida tente de faire d'un dossier int?rieur controvers? une nouvelle cause de djihad, selon des experts. S'il ne prononce pas le mot "djihad", celui qui est consid?r? comme le penseur d'Al-Qaida souligne que "l'interdiction du voile en France s'inscrit dans le m?me cadre que l'incendie des villages en Afghanistan, la destruction des maisons sur les t?tes de leurs occupants en Palestine, le massacre des enfants et le vol du p?trole en Irak".

Officiellement, la France refuse de commenter cette d?claration. Au sein des services de renseignement, on estime que le document "replace les Fran?ais dans le camp des crois?s", alors que la France, qui n'a pas particip? ? la guerre en Irak, avait pu sembler m?nag?e lors des derni?res d?clarations attribu?es ? Al-Qaida.

A l'attention exclusive de la France, cette d?claration porte sur le front panislamiste une affaire int?rieure, incitant ? l'action ou la l?gitimant ? l'avance, selon des experts. "C'est en tout cas une incitation ? une action terroriste. Al-Zawahiri, v?ritable cerveau d'Al-Qaida, consid?re que la loi est un moyen de faire des relations publiques vis-?-vis des communaut?s musulmanes en France et en Europe car il a vu que cela int?ressait beaucoup", estime Antoine Sfeir, directeur de la revue Les Cahiers de l'Orient.

L'?laboration du texte sur le port de signes religieux ostensibles ? l'?cole, dont le voile islamique, a suscit? de tr?s vifs d?bats en France. Plusieurs milliers de manifestants ont d?fil? ? plusieurs reprises en France mais aussi ? l'?tranger contre "l'islamophobie" et le projet de loi.

"En proposant cette loi, on a pris ? bras le corps le probl?me de l'id?ologie sectaire dans une soci?t? d?mocratique, ce qui conduit ? un ph?nom?ne de radicalisation. La d?claration d'Ayman Al-Zawahiri est coh?rente : il fallait bien qu'? un moment donn? on aille ? la confrontation", estime Fran?ois G?r?, directeur de l'institut Diplomatie et d?fense.

"Il y a ? travers le voile une volont? d'internationaliser les contradictions et oppositions entre un certain islam et l'Occident : c'est une fa?on d'enfoncer un coin au sein des communaut?s musulmanes des pays occidentaux", poursuit M. G?r? qui parle aussi d'un "appel ? l'action".

La notion de djihad contient l'id?e que l'islam est attaqu? et qu'il faut d?s lors le d?fendre, rappelle un sp?cialiste de la lutte antiterroriste. "Cette loi peut ?tre comprise par des militants islamistes radicaux comme une nouvelle attaque. On peut se demander si la d?claration de Zawahiri n'est pas une justification a priori d'?ventuelles actions".

L'Union des organisations islamiques de France (UOIF), mouvement proche des Fr?res musulmans, tr?s oppos? ? la loi, a qualifi? cette d?claration "d'irresponsable". "L'UOIF refuse cat?goriquement l'internationalisation de la question du foulard et sa r?cup?ration politique ou politico-religieuse", a d?clar? son pr?sident, Lhaj Thami Breze.

Le pr?sident du Conseil fran?ais du culte musulman (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, parle lui de "provocation" ? laquelle "il ne faut pas r?pondre".

MENACES CONTRE LES AM?RICAINS

Quelques heures apr?s la violente diatribe contre la France, la cha?ne Al-Jazira a diffus? un autre enregistrement attribu? ? Ayman Al-Zawahiri dans lequel il conseille aux Etats-Unis de renforcer leur s?curit? en pr?vision de nouveaux attentats. "Al-Qaida m?ne toujours le djihad et brandit la banni?re de l'islam face ? la campagne sioniste-crois?e", d?clare l'auteur de ce message.

"Bush, renforce tes mesures de s?curit? (...), la nation islamique, qui vous a envoy? les brigades de New York et de Washington (r?f?rence aux attentats du 11 septembre 2001), a pris la ferme d?cision de vous envoyer des brigades successives semant la mort et aspirant au paradis", ajoute, ? l'attention du pr?sident am?ricain, la voix du message.

L'enregistrement semble r?pondre ? M. Bush, qui avait estim? d?but f?vrier sur une cha?ne am?ricaine que Washington faisait "un tr?s bon travail" pour "d?manteler Al-Qaida", ajoutant que "les deux tiers" de ses chefs avaient "?t? captur?s ou tu?s".

La voix r?fute ?galement "trois autres all?gations de Bush" selon lesquelles, "ses forces r?pandent la paix et la libert? dans le monde, que l'Irak a acc?d? ? la libert? gr?ce aux forces de la coalition et que la situation en Afghanistan est stable". "Tes forces ne r?pandent pas la paix et la libert?, mais la peur et la d?solation", ajoute la voix, "l'Irak ne jouit pas de la libert? et de la s?curit?, mais est pass? de la tyrannie d'un dictateur la?que et ennemi de l'islam (...), ? celle d'un occupant crois? hostile ? l'islam, qui tue, torture et vole ce qu'il veut".

"Quant ? la situation en Afghanistan, elle ne s'est pas stabilis?e (...). Autrement, d'o? menons-nous des attaques contre vos forces et vos agents ? d'o? vous envoyons-nous nos messages qui (...) d?voilent vos mensonges et vos all?gations ?" demande la voix.

Pour deux activistes islamistes, ce message et ces menaces sont ? prendre au s?rieux. "La menace de nouvelles attaques aux Etats-Unis, qui co?ncide avec des informations de presse sur l'encerclement d'Oussama Ben Laden, est ? prendre au s?rieux", affirme Omar Bakri, le chef du mouvement islamiste Al-Mouhadjiroun, mouvement salafiste bas? ? Londres.

"Jusqu'? pr?sent, Al-Qaida a mis ? ex?cution ses menaces, m?me si la plupart des op?rations men?es depuis le 11 septembre, en Turquie, en Arabie saoudite, en Irak et ailleurs ?taient l'?uvre de groupes locaux qui s'inspirent d'Al-Qaida et partagent son id?ologie", dit-il.

"M?me si Ben Laden ou Zawahiri sont captur?s ou tu?s, d'autres op?rations d'envergure sont attendues", ajoute M. Bakri dont le mouvement pr?ne la cr?ation d'Etats musulmans partout dans le monde, y compris au Royaume-Uni.

Avec AFP et Reuters
------------------------------------------------------

El Baradei unterst?tzt Libyens Wunsch nach ziviler Atomnutzu
24.02.2004 08:58
Tripolis (dpa) - Der Generaldirektor der Internationalen Atomenergieorganisation, Mohammed el Baradei, unterst?tzt den Wunsch Libyens nach ziviler Atomforschung.
Das sei legitim, sagte er nach einem Treffen mit Au?enminister Abderrahman Schalkam in der Hauptstadt Tripolis. Zugleich lobte Baradei die ?hervorragende Zusammenarbeit? mit der Regierung. Libyen hatte im Dezember den Stopp aller Programme zur Entwicklung von Massenvernichtungswaffen angek?ndigt.
----------------------------------------------------------

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 24. Februar 2004, 17:28
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,287831,00.html
9/11-Untersuchung

CIA in Erkl?rungsnot

Von Matthias Gebauer

Die US-Kommission, die Fehler im Vorfeld des 11. Septembers aufkl?ren soll, recherchiert derzeit in Deutschland. Von dort wurden Informationen ?ber die Todes-Piloten bereits 1999 in die USA gekabelt, blieben aber unbeachtet. Auch der missgl?ckte Anwerbeversuch bei Freunden von Atta und Co. wird die CIA in Erkl?rungsnot bringen.



AP
US-Pr?sident Bush mit CIA-Chef Tenet: Anwerbeversuche auf deutschem Boden
Berlin - Die Schlagzeile der "New York Times" vom Dienstag klingt viel versprechend. "CIA bekam Daten ?ber Todes-Piloten weit vor dem 11. September", titelt das angesehene Blatt. Weiter schreibt die Zeitung unter Berufung auf ihre Quellen, die US-Beh?rden h?tten von den deutschen Geheimdiensten bereits 1999 konkrete Informationen ?ber den 9/11-Entf?hrer Marwan al-Schehhi bekommen, der das zweite Flugzeug in das World Trade Center steuerte und vorher lange mit den anderen Terroristen in Hamburg wohnte. Konkret seien der Vorname des sp?teren Todes-Piloten und dessen in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten registrierte Telefonnummer aus Hamburg zur CIA gekabelt worden.
Laut dem Bericht sind die angeblich neuen Erkenntnisse bei den Recherchen der unabh?ngigen Untersuchungskommission ?ber m?gliche Fehler im Vorfeld des 11. Septembers aufgetaucht. Besonders heikel sei, dass die US-Beh?rden die Daten offenbar ignoriert hatten und al-Schehhi sp?ter zur Flugausbildung in die USA einreisen konnte. "Die Vereinigten Staaten scheinen bei der aggressiven Verfolgung dieses Hinweises versagt zu haben", folgern die beiden Washington-Korrespondenten. Laut Aussagen anonymer Offizieller h?tten die US-Beh?rden zwar angenommen, al-Schehhi sei ein "Vertrauter Osama Bin Ladens", ihn jedoch nie gesucht oder weiter recherchiert.

"Bruder Haydar" und sein "Djihad-Reiseb?ro"



SPIEGEL ONLINE
Anwerbebogen von Marwan al-Schehhi: "Komm bald nach Hamburg"
Deutsche Experten reagierten mit Kopfsch?tteln auf die angeblich neuen Erkenntnisse. Innenminister Otto Schily, derzeit in den USA auf Dienstreise, nutzte am Dienstag ein Reporter-Briefing, um einem der beiden "Times"-Autoren seine Sicht der Dinge darzustellen. "Ihr Artikel ist ein bisschen irref?hrend", sagte Schily. Kurz darauf betonte der Minister, zum Zeitpunkt der Informationsweitergabe sei den deutschen Beh?rden die Relevanz der Daten nicht bewusst gewesen. Der Austausch solcher Erkenntnisse sei "reine Routine".
Hierzulande ist die Informations-Weitergabe in die USA seit langem bekannt. So hatten die deutschen Verfassungssch?tzer im Jahr 1999 den Deutsch-Syrer Mohammed Zammar im Visier, der als Rekrutierer der Qaida in Deutschland galt. Tag und Nacht hingen sie an seinem Telefon, um mehr ?ber "Bruder Haydar" und sein "Djihad-Reiseb?ro" herauszufinden. Damals vermuteten die Fahnder, dass Zammar kampfwillige Muslime nach Afghanistan schleuste und sie dort in den Trainings-Camps der Qaida zu Gotteskriegern ausbilden lie?.

Es war am 31. Januar 1999, als die deutschen Beh?rden bei ihren ?berwachungen das erste Mal den Namen "Marwan" h?rten. Der Mann mit der jungenhaften Stimme rief mit einem in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten registrierten Funktelefon bei Zammar an und erkundigte sich nach dessen Wohlbefinden. Zammar beriet dem Anrufer in einigen Studienfragen und bat ihn, schon bald von seinem damaligen Studienort Bonn nach Hamburg zu kommen. Der Anrufer versicherte, dies im Mai 1999 zu tun und legte mit besten W?nschen auf.

Per Kabelbericht direkt nach Langley

Die deutschen Ermittler hatten die potentielle Wichtigkeit des Anrufs durchaus registriert. Obwohl sie bei ihren eigenen Recherchen nicht viel weiter kamen, kabelten sie ihre Erkenntnisse umgehend an die CIA und baten um Sch?tzenhilfe. Bis nach dem 11. September aber h?ren sie nie wieder etwas. Erst Tage nach den Terror-Attacken in den USA kam die von den Ermittlern fast liebevoll genannte "Operation Zartheit" wieder auf den Tisch und interessierte nun auch die US-Fahnder. Still haben wohl auch sie sich eingestanden, dass sie den Tipp aus Hamburg nicht ernst genug genommen haben. Die gleiche Erkenntnis plagt seit den Terror-Attacken auch so manchen deutschen Fahnder.



AP
Verd?chtiger Zammar: Pauschal-Reisen zum Terror-Training
So bitter die sp?te Erkenntnis f?r deutsche und US-Ermittler auch ist, so nah waren sie den sp?teren Todes-Piloten zu diesem Zeitpunkt. Der beobachtete Zammar stand bis zuletzt mit allen Hamburger Terroristen in engem Kontakt. Der bei der ?berwachung aufgefallene Marwan al-Schehhi zog schon kurz nach dem Telefonat an die Elbe, wohnte gemeinsam mit den anderen in der ber?chtigten Terror-WG in der Marienstra?e 54, wo die Endphase der 9/11-Planung lief. Mit einer weiteren ?berwachung, so die d?stere Einsicht der Ermittler heute, h?tte man den 9/11-Plot vielleicht sogar verhindern k?nnen.
Was wusste die CIA ?ber die Hamburger Verd?chtigen?

Selbst wenn die deutsche Beteiligung an der Ermittlungs-Schlappe nicht neu ist, k?nnte die Untersuchung die Pannen in den USA endlich aufkl?ren. Die US-Fahnder m?ssen sich fragen lassen, warum der deutsche Hinweis nicht bearbeitet, "Marwan" nicht identifiziert wurde. Auch warum die CIA die deutschen Daten nicht an das FBI oder die Einreisebeh?rde weiter reichte, d?rfte von Interesse sein. So h?tte die Einreise von al-Schehhi verhindert, vielleicht sogar alle Mitglieder der "Hamburger Zelle" ermitteln werden k?nnen.

Auch der Blick ins Zeitungs-Archiv k?nnte f?r die Kommission hilfreich sein. Interessant, dass sowohl Zammar als auch der ebenfalls verd?chtige Hamburger Gesch?ftsmann Mamoun Darkazanli von der CIA im Jahr 1999 angesprochen wurden. Der CIA-Resident Thomas Volz versuchte damals mehrmals, Darkazanli als Spitzel anzuwerben, da er offenbar als Statthalter f?r einen anderen Verd?chtigen aus den USA agierte. Volz wollte den Verd?chtigen als CIA-Informanten gewinnen, der Einblick in die Strukturen der Qaida geben sollte. Wie bei Zammar aber blitzte er auch bei Darkazanli ab.

"Rambo aus einem Spionage-Thriller"



AFP
CIA-Chef Tenet: Unangenehme Fragen
Ganz offenbar also besa?en die US-Beh?rden konkrete Hinweise ?ber das Umfeld der "Hamburger Zelle". Bisher aber blieb stets unklar - auch f?r die deutschen Ermittler - warum diese nicht weiter recherchiert wurden. Damals, so berichten deutsche Verfassungssch?tzer, sei die Zusammenarbeit mit dem US-Residenten schlecht gewesen. Die Deutschen hielten den CIA-Mann f?r einen "Rambo aus einem Spionage-Thriller", w?hrend der US-Geheimdienstler die Deutschen nicht ganz ernst nahm. Gleichwohl bleibt f?r die Kommission die Frage, was der CIA damals bekannt war und warum den Spuren nicht gefolgt wurde.
Die Aktionen der Kommission gehen jetzt genau in diese Richtung. Vergangene Woche waren mehrere Mitglieder zu einem Geheim-Besuch in Deutschland. Bei mehreren Terminen mit Beh?rden und Beobachtern der Terror-Ermittlungen informierten sie sich ?ber die deutsche Sicht der Dinge. Die Beteiligten der beiden deutschen Terror-Verfahren wurden in die US-Botschaft zu einem Plausch eingeladen. Immer wieder fragten die Kommissions-Mitglieder nach den Vorl?ufen der 9/11-Ermittlung in Deutschland. Die Aktionen der landeseigenen CIA auf deutschem Boden k?nnte ihnen reichlich Stoff f?r unangenehme Fragen liefern.

? SPIEGEL ONLINE 2004
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielf?ltigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet GmbH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL-QAIDA-H?FTLINGE

Erste Guantanamo-Insassen angeklagt

Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi und Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul sind die ersten beiden Terrorverd?chtigen von Guantanamo Bay, gegen die das neue US Milit?rtribunal Anklage erstattet. Beide sollen Vertraute Osama Bin Ladens sein.

Washington - Die USA haben die ersten Terrorgefangenen im US-Lager Guant?namo Bay auf Kuba angeklagt. Sie sollen sich wegen Verschw?rung zu Kriegsverbrechen vor einem Milit?rtribunal verantworten, wie das Pentagon mitteilte. Danach handelt es sich um einen Mann aus dem Jemen und einen Sudanesen, die beide im Verdacht stehen, enge Verbindung zum al-Qaida-Terroristenf?hrer Osama Bin Laden gehabt zu haben.
Die M?nner geh?ren zu rund 650 Gefangenen, die zum Teil schon seit ?ber zwei Jahren auf dem US-St?tzpunkt festgehalten werden, ohne dass ihnen bisher der Prozess gemacht wurde oder ihnen Zugang zu einem Anwalt gew?hrt wurde. Bisher sind neben den beiden Angeklagten nur vier weitere Gefangene f?r sp?tere Milit?rverfahren ausgew?hlt worden. Das Vorgehen der USA hat wiederholt Proteste von Menschenrechtsorganisationen und ausl?ndischen Regierungen ausgel?st.

In einer Pentagon-Erkl?rung hie? es, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul aus dem Jemen werde verd?chtigt, als "f?hrender al Qaida-Propagandist" Videos produziert zu haben, in denen die Ermordung von Amerikanern verherrlicht worden sei. Ziel des fr?heren Leibw?chters Bin Ladens sei es gewesen, Mitglieder der Terrororganisation zu rekrutieren und zu Anschl?gen gegen die USA und andere L?nder anzuspornen.

Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmud al Kosi aus dem Sudan stehe im Verdacht, Finanzgesch?fte der al Qaida abgewickelt und Waffen geschmuggelt zu haben. Nach US-Erkenntnissen sei er seit langem mit Bin Laden verbunden. Beide Angeklagten h?tten sich freiwillig einem kriminellen Unternehmen angeschlossen, dessen Ziel die Ermordung von Menschen und insgesamt Terrorismus sei.