>> ON GERMS...USDA, CLINTON, HEIMAT...PAPERCLIP?

Germs in Our Midst
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/current
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Plum Island lies two miles off of Long Island and 85 miles from New York City, and it houses a U.S. government biological research center where scientists study exotic diseases and viruses. New York lawyer Michael C. Carroll is on the Leonard Lopate Show today to share his concerns that the research facility is dangerously insecure. He thinks that there might even be a link between Plum Island research and outbreaks of Lyme disease and the West Nile virus.
Michael C. Carroll
Michael C. Carroll is the author of Lab 257: The Disturbing Story of the Government's Secret Plum Island Germ Laboratory. It's based on his research of declassified government files and interviews with Plum Island scientists and employees.

? Read more about the book
http://www.ars.usda.gov/plum/


Sarin Nerve Agent Leaks From Ala. Bunker
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANNISTON, Ala. (AP) -
A trace amount of sarin nerve agent leaked from a weapons storage bunker at Anniston Army Depot, but no one was injured.
Workers were conducting routine checks for leaks Tuesday when a monitor detected the agent outside the airtight bunker where the weapons are stored.
Sarin did not escape the area, and the concentration was not enough to hurt anyone, said Cathy Coleman, a spokeswoman Anniston Chemical Activity, which oversees the stockpile.
Tons of munitions are stored in dirt-covered, concrete igloos at the depot 50 miles east of Birmingham.
Since 1982, the Army has found 897 leaking chemical weapons in storage at the depot, where the military is using an incinerator to destroy the aging weapons.

--------------------------------------------------------------
E-Notes
The Strategic Balance in the Middle East: an Israeli Perspective
by Efraim Inbar

February 6, 2004

This essay is based on a talk to the FPRI Sponsors Forum on January 29, 2004. The Forum is regularly hosted by Pepper Hamilton LLP (www.pepperlaw.com). Efraim Inbar is Professor of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and Director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies.

The Middle East has been divided for decades between radical forces challenging the regional status quo and Western influence, pro-Western states, and regional actors whose foreign policy fluctuated in accordance with the regional balance of power. Since September 11 2001, we witness an unprecedented American effort to enhance considerably its influence in the region. The global war on terrorism focuses on the Greater Middle East (from Libya to Afghanistan), which hosts the infrastructure (headquarters and training) of most terrorist organizations. The subsequent American invasion of Iraq was an additional effort to establish a Pax Americana in the region. The main challenges to the attempt to spread democracy and free market values in the region are taking place in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and in Palestine. The success in meeting these regional challenges will clearly affect also Israel's security.

Iraq
In the aftermath of the American victory in Iraq the important question is whether the American military presence in Baghdad constitutes the beginning of a new period in the Middle East or will we see a quick military withdrawal and the dissipation of American influence, similar to what happened after the victory in 1991? Can the Americans westernize and democratize the Arab world, by "Hellenizing" this region in a manner reminiscent of Alexander the Great in the 4th century BCE? Will we see a really new Iraq, with a transformed political culture and with radically new attitudes? Will Baghdad become, once again, a flourishing center of sciences and of belle arte and an agent of change in the Middle East? The answer to those questions depends primarily on two uncertain factors. The first enigma surrounds the ability and the determination of the American polity to play an imperial role; the second set of uncertainties revolves around the Iraqi society and its ability to absorb change and to transform itself into a 21st century socio-political entity.

Despite the bad name acquired by imperialism, there is nothing inherently or morally wrong in bringing peace, prosperity and progress to less blessed regions. The US definitely has the military, economic and political preeminence to exercise its hegemony and export its values to every corner of the world. Its tremendous cultural influence is already omnipresent at every level, facing only quixotic resistance. The universal lingua franca is English (the American variant). American TV series, McDonalds and Cokes abound. Enrollment in the elite American universities is the entry card into the rather cosmopolitan professional and scientific elites of many states. The US is the strongest magnet for those who wish to improve their economic lot or to be freer. American political culture has the potential to reinforce the quest for implanting the American Way elsewhere. It contains a sense of universal mission rooted in biblical motifs.

Yet, America is not known for being patient enough to sustain a long-term commitment needed to this mission. Do we see nowadays a transitory reaction to 9/11 or a decidedly internationalist American outlook based on long-term popular support and a readiness to pay the price for its civilizational role? The route taken by Washington remains to be seen and will be of course affected by the configuration of indigenous forces to which we now turn.

In a limited sense, Iraq is ready for change since anything is better than the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. In a larger sense, it probably has a potential for gradual transformation, primarily because Iraq is a rich country. It has oil, arable land and water. The American presence can bring about a more equitable division of resources. Democratization in Korea or Taiwan shows that an important intervening variable in such a process is higher standards of living. Iraq also has a rather sophisticated middle class (a part of it abroad), which could become under certain circumstances a potent force for progress. Arab political culture does indeed play a negative role in this context, but it is not an insurmountable barrier for change as old traditions often contain modernizing elements. In any case, American-induced change will elicit active resistance by motley groups, such as Islamists, ex-Baathists, and disgruntled tribal leaders, Who might get support from abroad. Indeed, most of Iraq's neighbors have good reasons to fear change in Iraq and will probably meddle in its affairs. While Western democracy in Baghdad is not around the corner, a successful economic and political liberalization process in Iraq will have tremendous ripple effects in the region.

From Jerusalem's perspective, the Iraqi threat during the reign of Saddam Hussein was removed. Saddam Hussein had a record of aggressive behavior and displayed hegemonic ambitions. He was responsible for starting a long war with Iran (1980-88); for invading Kuwait in 1990; and he did not hesitate to use chemical agents in the battlefield and against his own citizens. These traits made his quest for biological and nuclear weapons extremely dangerous, particularly when it came to Israel. Saddam Hussein has never hidden his deep hostility to the Jewish state and his preference for its demise. He has repeatedly threatened Israel with destruction by using his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) arsenal and did not hesitate to launch missiles to Israeli population centers in the winter of 1991.

While the future of Iraq remains unclear, Israel has benefited from the regime change in Baghdad. The new Iraq is busy with domestic problems and will find it difficult to conduct an active anti-Israeli foreign policy. The American presence and an initial dependency upon Washington would cause the new regime to avoid WMD programs. Such a posture in Iraq removes the potential for establishing an Eastern Front against Israel. Noteworthy, such a front is closer to Israel's heartland than potential attacks from the north or south. Indeed, the change in Iraq allows Israel to implement cuts in various items of its defense budget.

Iran
Since the 1979 Islamic revolution Iran has adopted a vocal anti-American foreign policy. Moreover, Iran's quest for nuclear weapons is a direct challenge to the American attempt to impose a non-proliferation regime. An American failure to convince Iran to desist from continuing in its efforts to produce fissionable material (enriching Uranium and/or separating Plutonium) will have dangerous consequences in the Middle East. The prospects of a nuclear Iran would: threaten US, and European security; increase militancy and embolden hard-liners in the region; destabilize the Gulf area; and encourage other states, such as Saudi Arabia and Libya, to follow suit.

The more assertive American position of the current Bush administration on proliferation and its military presence in Iraq do offer some hope in Jerusalem that the Americans might do something about putting an end to the Iranian nuclear program. From an Israeli perspective, Iran has increasingly become a threat to the Jewish State. Iran refuses to recognize Israel and top officials frequently call for the destruction of the Jewish state, calling it the "Small Satan." For example, in December 2001, Rafsanjani called for a jihad campaign against the Jewish State. He noted that one nuclear bomb could finish off Israel, while its nuclear response would cause only bearable damage to the Islamic word. A more recent example occurred during a major military parade on September 22, 2003 when the Islamic republic showed off six of its Shahab-3 missiles, which were decorated with anti-Israeli and anti-US slogans, including one saying Israel should be "wiped off the map." Iran has also consistently opposed the peace process between Israel and the Arab world, which was restarted in 1991, while funding the Hizballah in Southern Lebanon that attacked Israeli targets, not only in Southern Lebanon and in Israel but elsewhere in the world. Tehran has also lent support to Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that are intent to destroy the Jewish state.

Iran's bottomless enmity, coupled with its missile and WMD programs have become an existential challenge to Israel. By the 2003, Iran reached a very advanced stage in the development of the surface-to-surface Shahab-3 missile. It has a 1,300 kms range, putting Israel into its striking distance. This long-range capability made the Iranian nuclear program even more threatening. Therefore, the fruition of the Iranian nuclear program is seen in Jerusalem as an existential threat. Israel's top intelligence official has issued a stark warning regarding the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. In a November 17, 2003 testimony before the Israeli Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Meir Dagan, head of the Mossad, stressed that an Iranian atomic capability would constitute the greatest "threat to the existence of Israel" since 1948. Tehran, according to the intelligence chief, will soon reach a "point of no return" in its nuclear development, after which an Iranian offensive atomic capability would be a virtual certainty. Dagan's assessment follows a recent warning by Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz that "Israel can in no way accept the presence of a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands"-- a thinly-veiled threat that Jerusalem is prepared, if necessary, to neutralize the Iranian nuclear program by force if current international pressure fails to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Turkey
Turkey suffered in November 2003 dozens of fatalities and hundreds of wounded due to terror attacks by the extreme Islamic organizations. Terror has not spared Muslim-populated Turkey. This country, which emphasizes the secular nature of the state and its resolution to be part of the enlightened West, is a major annoyance to the radical Muslims. The enchanting, cosmopolitan city of Istanbul, encompassing both banks of the Bosphorus Straits, the waterway designed as the border between Europe and Asia, symbolizes more than anything the Turkish vision to be part of Western civilization. However, this Kemalist dream is a nightmare for al-Qaida and its ilk. Indeed, their intent is not only hitting Jews (who are associated with Israel) and British nationals, but also creating a political maelstrom that will push Turkey once again towards the fundamentalist Islamic Middle East, with its ingrained anti-modernist and anti-Western outlook from which Turkey so wishes to disconnect itself.

The government of Turkey will probably deal firmly with the phenomenon of terror on its soil. This state is one of the few, which has succeeded, through a determined and uncompromising campaign, in wiping out domestic terror, utterly crushing the Kurdish PKK underground. Turkey's military adjusted its doctrines and tactics to deal with the Kurdish threat and was successful in mobilizing domestic political support and the necessary resources to do the job well. The successful campaign against the PKK in the 1980s and 1990s was carried out, however, on the hills and countryside, as opposed to the present danger-- terrorism against civilians in big urban centers, thus rendering the present challenge by international Islamic terror a much greater one.

The Turkish army will gladly meet the challenge to prove that it is still much needed and that it remains the real guardian of the Turkish state. Turkey also has efficient and professional security services. They have been for years in the forefront of the war against Kurdish and Armenian terrorism and have also acquired much experience in combating radical Islamist elements. Hopefully, cooperation between Turkey and other states, including Israel, in the area of counter-terror, will only grow.

If Turkey fails in its fight against terror, one possible terrible consequence would be a reversal in its historic quest to be part of the West. Snatching Turkey away from the West would be a huge success for the radical Islamist elements because it is so far the only successful example of a Muslim country embracing Western values of democracy and free market. Moreover, its geostrategic location is extremely important. At stake, therefore, it is not only the internal security of Turkish citizens, but the identity of the Turkish state and its society, as well as the security of the West.

For Israel, Turkey current foreign policy orientation is extremely valuable. Since the mid-1990s, we have witnessed an upgrading of bilateral relations reaching an unprecedented degree of strategic partnership. The closer Israeli-Turkish strategic cooperation has a positive effect on the peace process, which amounts to a reluctant acceptance of Israel as a regional actor by most Arab states. It reinforces the notion that Israel is militarily strong and cannot easily be removed from the map. Moreover, this relationship has a moderating effect on Arab ambitions and revanchism, which are still nurtured in the region.

Turkey has continued to maintain good relations despite the prolonged Palestinian armed confrontation with Israel that started in September 2000, and the ascendance of the proto- Islamist party (AKP) to power in November 2002-- an indication of the resilience of Israeli-Turkish relations. Moreover, Ankara increased its diplomatic involvement in the region, a development Israel welcomed. A change of course in Ankara that the recent terrorist attacks in Istanbul served as an alarm call to such an eventuality. An Islamist takeover in Turkey will have most detrimental effect on the strategic balance in the Middle East and on Israel's security.

The Israeli-Palestinian Arena
In September 2000, the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat rejected the incredible concessions offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak in the framework of a comprehensive peace plan. Since then, they have conducted a terror campaign against Israel. After 9/11 it became clearer than before that the Palestinian violence, despite its local motivations and characteristics, is part of a larger phenomenon-- the Muslim rage against the West. The Palestinian national movement, infused with religious motifs from the very beginning, has consistently sided with the anti-Western forces in the Middle East. It supported the Soviet Union; it attempted to topple King Hussein in Jordan; it helped destabilize pro-Western Lebanon; it provided training to most terrorist organization in its camps in Lebanon; it sided with Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003. Fighting Israel, a perceived western post in the Middle East, is part of the Palestinian national ethos. Moreover, the religious elements in the Palestinian national movement, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad have close links to Islamist Iran, as well as to Hizbullah and al-Qaeeda.

The September 1993 Oslo agreement seemed to herald a new era in Israeli-Palestinian relations. These hopes were shattered in September 2000. The Oslo agreements amounted to a de facto partition of the Land of Israel, something most Israelis did not object to in principle. Unfortunately, the Palestinians established an entity that is corrupt, dictatorial and worst of all: unable to meet the main test of modern state-- monopoly over the use of force. The Palestinian Authority allowed the existence of numerous armed militias. The consequence of the Oslo agreement was to give the Palestinian terrorist organizations a territorial base near the heartland of Israel making it easier for them to attack Israeli targets. Indeed, the number of Israeli casualties rose to 898 in the 9/1993-9/2003 period, in sharp contrast to the toll of the previous 15 years-- only 254 casualties.

Slowly, Israel became aware of the magnitude of the new challenge, gradually escalating its military responses. Its freedom of action has been constantly curtailed by the vagaries of the Middle East policies of Washington, and by the democratic character of the Israeli political system (the rule of law and the influence of public opinion). The interim assessment shows that Israel was successful in containing Palestinian violence. Moreover, Israel under Ariel Sharon showed considerable resilience. It was successful in nourishing a good relationship with its ally, the US. More than ever was Israel's foreign policy successful in portraying Yasser Arafat as an obstacle to peace. In contrast, the Palestinians failed to bring about the reversal of the peace treaties between Egypt and Jordan with Israel, and a military involvement of Arab states. All clearly announced their refusal to participate in a wider regional confrontation on behalf of the Palestinians. Arafat also failed to trigger an international military intervention, such as the one in Kosovo. Despite the widespread criticism of Israel's war against the Palestinian terror, particularly in Europe, and the occasional signs of weakness within Israeli society, it is worth remembering that terror is the weapon of the weak and it is not always effective.

Israel has traditionally demanded of the Palestinians peaceful coexistence with little success so far. Since the famous speech of president Bush of June 24, 2002, greater attention was given to the needed internal change within the Palestinian community to make it ripe for living peacefully next to Israel. The US, in line with the imperatives of the pro-democratic ideology, demands more than foreign policy change. The US insists on a change of leadership, democratization of the PA and dismantling the terror infrastructure. The American position suits well Israel.

Conclusion
Israel is in the frontline of the Western attempt to bring about a more stable and peaceful Middle East that is more open to Western ideas, such as democracy and free market. The main challenges for this endeavor are in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. The success of the radical forces in these focal points will affects adversely Israel's security. Israel itself can use its power to curtail some of these challenges but it needs the support of the West.

You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety and attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute. If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.

If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed directly on our mailing lists, send email to FPRI@fpri.org. Include your name, address, and affiliation. For further information, contact Alan Luxenberg at (215) 732-3774 x105.


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


Sharon faces scandal over released captive
By Ed O'Loughlin, Herald Correspondent in Jerusalem
March 4, 2004
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, is again fighting for his political life following revelations yesterday that he had close connections to the family of an Israeli freed from Lebanese captivity in a controversial prisoner exchange in January.
According to a front-page exclusive in the daily Maariv, freed Israeli reserve officer, Elhanan Tannenbaum, is the son-in-law of Shimon Cohen, who for years was the manager of Mr Sharon's ranch in the Negev desert.
The freeing of Lieutenant-Colonel Tannenbaum in a deal with the Lebanese guerilla group Hezbollah proved controversial in Israel, with many wondering why more than 400 Arab prisoners were freed in return for only one living Israeli - Colonel Tannenbaum - and the bodies of three soldiers killed in Lebanon.
Public anger deepened in the aftermath of the exchange when it became known that Colonel Tannenbaum had been kidnapped by Hezbollah while visiting the Arab world under murky circumstances.
Interrogated by the security services immediately on his return to Israel, Colonel Tannenbaum was subsequently and controversially granted immunity from prosecution. He then confessed he left the country to pursue a drug deal, but he also claimed to have been seeking information about Israeli air force navigator Ron Arad, missing in Lebanon since 1987.
The immunity deal has fanned the flames further, especially in view of revelations that the security forces believe Colonel Tannenbaum, a lieutenant-colonel in the Israeli army reserve, may not only have revealed security secrets to Hezbollah under interrogation but could have been prepared to sell them to Israel's enemy.
According to another exclusive report in the Haaretz daily yesterday, Israeli security agents discovered that Colonel Tannenbaum had illegally gained access to masses of secret documents before he left for Dubai in 2000.
Ma'ariv's revelations were followed by calls in the media and from the political left for Mr Sharon's resignation.
His office scrambled to release a statement denying he was aware that his old partner was the father-in-law of the man he had done so much to free, often against advice from the security establishment.
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/03/1078295454149.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Chirac et M. Jupp? freinent les ambitions de M. Raffarin
LE MONDE | 03.03.04 | 14h50
Alors que le premier ministre ne cache pas son intention de remanier son ?quipe minist?rielle et de prendre la pr?sidence de l'UMP apr?s les r?gionales, le chef de l'Etat lui a rappel? que la priorit? du gouvernement demeure la lutte contre la ch?mage.
Plus qu'une bourde, une faute. L'Elys?e n'a pas appr?ci? que Jean-Pierre Raffarin laisse filtrer sa strat?gie pour les mois ? venir : remaniement minist?riel d?s avril, lorsque les nouveaux pr?sidents des conseils r?gionaux, issus des ?lections, seront en place ; acc?l?ration de la candidature du premier ministre pour remplacer Alain Jupp? ? la t?te de l'UMP ; recherche d'un accord avec Nicolas Sarkozy pour ?viter l'implosion ? droite. Ces informations parues dans la presse (Le Mondedat? 29 f?vrier-1er mars) ont mis, mardi 2 mars, Jacques Chirac en fureur. Pour, l'Elys?e, la priorit? du gouvernement doit rester la lutte pour l'emploi. En laissant transpara?tre ses ambitions, le premier ministre donne, selon l'expression d'un proche du chef de l'Etat, l'impression de "faire sa petite tambouille sur son petit r?chaud". Cette col?re de l'Elys?e relayait celle du pr?sident de l'UMP.
D?s le matin, ? l'occasion du d?jeuner hebdomadaire des chefs de la majorit? ? l'H?tel Matignon, le premier ministre a d? s'expliquer sur ce premier accroc entre le chef du gouvernement, qui avait notamment ?t? choisi pour sa "jupp?o-compatibilit?" et le pr?sident du parti chiraquien. Pendant plusieurs minutes, M. Raffarin a pris la parole en premier "pour mettre les choses au point", selon un proche de M. Jupp?. Le premier ministre a tent? de rassurer son interlocuteur sur sa loyaut?, en l'assurant que ses propos avaient ?t? d?form?s. C'est le mot "coll?gialit?" qui est revenu dans la bouche de M. Raffarin ; il a contest? l'existence d'un "ticket" l'alliant ? M. Sarkozy.
En r?ponse, M. Jupp? a rappel? que le calendrier de son d?part n'avait "aucune raison" d'?tre anticip?. L'ancien premier ministre a insist? sur la n?cessit? de respecter les r?gles en vigueur ? l'UMP. Il a, en outre, soulign? qu'en tant que pr?sident du parti, il ?tait le garant des statuts, du processus d?mocratique et de l'expression des militants.
CALMER LES ESPRITS
M. Jupp? a r?it?r?, deux heures plus tard ? l'Assembl?e nationale, ses propos devant les d?put?s du groupe UMP. Enfin, dans la soir?e, il s'est ? nouveau exprim?, devant le bureau politique du parti. En pr?sence d'une trentaine de personnes, dont le principal conseiller du pr?sident de la R?publique, J?rome Monod, la ministre de la d?fense, Mich?le Alliot-Marie, le ministre de la ville, Jean-Louis Borloo, et le secr?taire d'Etat aux transports, Dominique Bussereau, ami du premier ministre, - mais en l'absence des proches de M. Sarkozy -, M. Jupp? a hauss? le ton. "La future ?quipe qui dirigera l'UMP sera ?lue par les 165 000 adh?rents et pas par les cabinets minist?riels", a-t-il proclam?. Sans citer le ministre de l'int?rieur, il a affirm? qu'il n'avait "d'exclusive contre personne". A ses yeux, dans le parti, a-t-il pr?cis? dans un souci d'apaisement, "les meilleurs doivent acc?der aux responsabilit?s auxquelles leur talent leur donne droit".
L'entourage du premier ministre, s'effor?ait, mardi dans la journ?e, de calmer les esprits. "Il n'a jamais ?t? question d'un ticket avec Nicolas Sarkozy", soulignait-on. M. Raffarin n'a jamais prononc? ce mot, dit-on ? Matignon comme au minist?re de l'int?rieur o? l'on pr?cise qu'aucun accord n'a ?t? conclu.
A l'approche des ?lections r?gionales, dont le r?sultat reste incertain, le chef du gouvernement s'applique ? b?tir une nouvelle strat?gie. Pour cela, il ne discute pas qu'avec son num?ro deux, objecte un proche. "Jean-Pierre Raffarin s'entretient tous les jours avec Alain Jupp?, fait-on remarquer dans l'entourage du premier ministre, et il a ?galement abord? les m?mes sujets avec le garde des sceaux, Dominique Perben." Le remaniement, dont "tout le monde sait qu'il aura lieu", ironise un collaborateur de M. Raffarin et la pr?sidence de l'UMP sont un enjeu majeur. "La seule question ? laquelle il faut r?pondre, dit-on ? Matignon, est la suivante : "qui est le meilleur rassembleur ?" Elle ne peut pas ?tre r?gl?e tout de suite."
La succession de M. Jupp? provoque un malaise parmi les d?put?s de la majorit?. "Il serait probablement opportun d'organiser le congr?s avant le mois de novembre", estime Fran?ois Goulard, secr?taire g?n?ral adjoint du parti et d?put? du Morbihan. Selon lui, "Raffarin est le mieux plac? pour remplacer Jupp?, mais pourquoi attendre ?", interroge-t-il. "Sans se pr?cipiter et tout en respectant les statuts, nous pourrions tenir ce congr?s d?s la rentr?e de septembre", sugg?re-t-il. Herv? Mariton, d?put? de la Dr?me partage cet avis : "Le calendrier pr?vu pour l'?lection de la future ?quipe dirigeante du parti est long. Tout en respectant les statuts, je suis pour que l'on raccourcisse ce d?lai." Lui aussi plaide pour l'organisation du congr?s en septembre.
R?LE D?TERMINANT
Mais d'autres parlementaires, ? l'instar de Marc-Philippe Daubresse, d?put? du Nord et secr?taire g?n?ral adjoint du parti chiraquien pr?f?re s'en tenir au respect des statuts. "Les militants n'accepteraient pas que l'on bouscule les choses. L'UMP doit absolument rester soud?", a-t-il estim?. En revanche, pour Christian Estrosi proche de M. Sarkozy, d?put? des Alpes-Maritimes, conseiller politique de l'UMP, "cette question n'a aucune importance. C'est un d?bat sans int?r?t. C'est aux militants qu'il appartient de d?cider".
Toutefois, M. Chirac, dont le r?le reste d?terminant, a r?affirm? clairement ? un proche que le calendrier pr?vu par les statuts de l'UMP, l'?lection du pr?sident ? l'automne par les militants, devait ?tre respect?. Une rencontre - plut?t une explication - est d'ailleurs pr?vue entre le pr?sident de la R?publique, le premier ministre et le pr?sident de l'UMP, mercredi.
L'entourage du chef de l'Etat s'efforce de minimiser l'incident. A l'Elys?e, on affirme qu'il n'"y a pas l'ombre d'un probl?me entre le pr?sident et le premier ministre" et on ne croit pas ? l'existence d'un axe Raffarin-Sarkozy dirig? contre le chef de l'Etat. M. Raffarin peut ?tre maladroit mais il est loyal. Et il sait bien que son avenir politique d?pend en grande partie de M. Chirac.
Yves Bordenave, Pascal Ceaux et B?atrice Gurrey

62 % des Fran?ais d?sapprouvent l'action du premier ministre
Selon un sondage IFOP pour Paris Match, ? para?tre jeudi 4 mars et r?alis? les 26 et 27 f?vrier aupr?s de 1 018 personnes, 51 % des personnes interrog?es approuvent l'action de Jacques Chirac, contre 57 % lors de la pr?c?dente enqu?te des 29 et 30 janvier (- 6 points), et 48 % la d?sapprouvent. L'action de Jean-Pierre Raffarin recueille les faveurs de 38 % des personnes interrog?es (contre 42 % pr?c?demment, - 4) et 62 % sont en d?saccord avec cette politique (+ 4). Plus d'un Fran?ais sur deux (55 %, - 3) consid?re que le premier ministre "dirige bien l'action du gouvernement" et 35 % (- 5) pensent qu'il "m?ne une bonne politique sociale". En cas d'?chec de la droite aux r?gionales, 68 % des sond?s souhaitent "un remaniement important du gouvernement de Jean-Pierre Raffarin" ; 31 % sont d'un avis contraire et 1 % ne se prononcent pas.

* ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 04.03.04

Charm el-Cheikh : la th?se d'une d?faillance du syst?me de pilotage automatique et d'une erreur humaine
LE MONDE | 03.03.04 | 14h10
D'apr?s "Le Figaro", les pilotes du Boeing 737 ne se seraient pas rendus compte que le m?canisme n'?tait pas enclench?. Les enqu?teurs ?gyptiens qualifient cette version de "pure sp?culation".
Une d?faillance du syst?me de pilotage automatique, suivie d'une erreur humaine : c'est le sc?nario d?crit, mercredi 3 mars, par Le Figaro, pour expliquer le tragique accident du Boeing 737 de Flash Airlines, ab?m? au large de Charm el-Cheikh, en Egypte, le 3 janvier, causant la mort de 148 passagers, dont 135 Fran?ais.
D'apr?s le quotidien, "le pilote automatique ne s'est pas mis en service. Plus grave, l'?quipage ne s'en est pas aper?u (...) L'?quipage constate que "quelque chose ne va pas", mais ne comprend pas. Il est "surpris" car il consid?re que l'avion est toujours sous pilote automatique". Le Figaro explique que "lentement mais inexorablement, l'avion passe sur la tranche : le plan des ailes est alors perpendiculaire au sol. Un appareil de voltige peut rester quelques secondes dans cette position, soutenu par son moteur. le Boeing 737 n'en a pas les capacit?s."
"Jusqu'au dernier moment, il n'y a pas de panique", expliquait au Monde, le 6 f?vrier, le directeur du Bureau d'enqu?tes et d'analyses (BEA) de l'aviation civile, Paul-Louis Arslanian, en excluant une panne de d?rive. Jusqu'? la fin, les pilotes pensent ma?triser la situation, confirme Le Figaro. "Notre r?le est de savoir pourquoi l'?quipage est arriv? ? une telle situation", confie M. Arslanian au quotidien.
Le BEA a pourtant vivement r?agi, mercredi, ? la publication de ce sc?nario. "Aucun ?l?ment pr?cis ne permet d'expliquer se qui s'est pass?. Si nous avions un ?l?ment pr?cis, il aurait ?videmment ?t? rendu public", a indiqu? le BEA au Monde. "D?s qu'il y aura des informations, elles seront rendues publiques par les autorit?s ?gyptiennes qui dirigent l'enqu?te sur place", poursuit le bureau. Le chef des enqu?teurs ?gyptiens a qualifi? pour sa part de "pure sp?culation" la th?se d'un pilote qui aurait cru ? tort avoir enclench? le pilotage automatique. En revanche, le pr?sident de l'Association des victimes de Charm el-Cheikh, Marc Chernet, s'est r?joui, mercredi matin, de "cette explication rapide" qu'il "prend tr?s au s?rieux". "Elle avait ?t? ?voqu?e d?s le 31 janvier, en priv?", confie au Monde M. Chernet, qui s'interroge d?sormais pour savoir "si le comportement suppos? des pilotes constitue, en droit, une faute inexcusable".
LETTRE DU PREMIER MINISTRE
C'est en revanche mercredi matin que les familles des victimes de l'accident ont d?couvert ce nouveau sc?nario. M. Arslanian leur avait en effet adress?, le 20 janvier, une lettre pour r?pondre ? ceux qui s'inqui?taient "de la confiance qui -pouvait- ?tre faite aux enqu?teurs ?gyptiens". "Je confirme que les enqu?teurs -fran?ais et am?ricains- (...) ont eu un acc?s complet aux enregistreurs et qu'ils participent de plein droit aux discussions. (...) L'?quipage est conscient d'un probl?me et il tente de le g?rer professionnellement et sans affolement.".
Par ailleurs, dans une lettre dat?e du 1er mars, Jean-Pierre Raffarin ?crivait de son c?t? aux familles des victimes : "M?me si certaines des l?gitimes interrogations qui ont ?t? exprim?es demeurent ? ce jour sans r?ponse, j'esp?re de tout c?ur que -la r?union organis?e avec Dominique Perben, le garde des sceaux, le 31 janvier- aura r?pondu ? vos attentes (...) Je tiens ? vous assurer de la totale mobilisation de l'ensemble des services de l'Etat pour qu'il soit r?pondu ? ces interrogations et pour qu'en particulier les causes et les circonstances de ce drame soient totalement ?claircies". Une phrase qui, mercredi matin, avait un go?t amer pour plusieurs personnes endeuill?es par la mort de leurs proches, le 3 janvier, dans la mer Rouge.
Ariane Chemin

* ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 04.03.04
---------------------------------------------

All? Radovan ? C'est Slobo ? l'appareil
LEMONDE.FR | 03.03.04 | 14h14
"Alors, cet ambassadeur (d'Allemagne) me demande comment cela se fait que les Serbes de Croatie ont des armes. Je lui dis, attends mon gars, les Serbes ont toujours eu des armes, nous en tant que peuple, nous ne restons jamais d?sarm?s. (Rires) Et cet encul? de mes deux, tu sais ce qu'il me dit ? Oui, mais ils auraient ?galement des mortiers. A quoi je lui r?ponds : les mortiers, c'est bien des armes, non ?" Sur ce, les deux interlocuteurs, l'un ? Belgrade et l'autre ? Sarajevo, ?clatent de nouveau d'un long rire.
Ce n'est pas un personnage du cin?aste Quentin Tarantino qui s'exprime ainsi, mais Slobodan Milosevic, chef de l'Etat serbe, ici en ligne avec Radovan Karadzic, leader des Serbes de Bosnie. "Qu'est-ce que ce guignol attend de moi ?, ajoute le pr?sident serbe, visiblement tr?s content de lui-m?me. Que je lui dise que c'est moi qui ai fourni ces mortiers ? Ha, ha, ha..." En ce mois de juillet 1991, les premiers affrontements avaient d?j? ?clat? en Croatie, o? la minorit? serbe, soutenue par des unit?s de l'Arm?e populaire de Yougoslavie, s'appr?tait ? proclamer l'?ph?m?re R?publique autonome de la Krajina.
Cette conversation t?l?phonique fait partie des 245 documents sonores r?cemment vers?s au dossier d'accusation contre Slobodan Milosevic par le Tribunal p?nal international pour l'ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY), o? l'ancien pr?sident est jug? pour son r?le dans les trois grands conflits qui ont d?chir? l'ex-Yougoslavie de 1991 ? 1999 (Croatie, Bosnie, Kosovo). Il s'agit, selon l'agence IWPR (Institute of War and Peace report); qui couvre l'actualit? du tribunal, de conversations t?l?phoniques intercept?es par les services secrets de Sarajevo, qui auraient mis plusieurs hauts responsables serbes bosniaques sur ?coute d?s 1991.
Num?ris?s, tous ces enregistrements peuvent ?tre t?l?charg?s en format MP3 sur le site de l'ONG hollandaise Domovina.net, qui, depuis plusieurs ann?es, travaille ? constituer une base de donn?es sur la guerre en ex-Yougoslavie. Leur ?coute nous renseigne sur l'intensit? des ?changes entre Belgrade et Sarajevo ? la veille de la guerre en Bosnie : certains jours, Radovan Karadzic s'entretient ? plusieurs reprises avec Milosevic, mais aussi, plus sporadiquement, avec des personnages tels que le patron des services secrets serbes, Jovica Stanisic, le directeur des douanes, Mihalj Kertes, le paramilitaire "Arkan" ou Milorad Lukovic, alias "Legija", patron des B?rets rouges de sinistre renomm?e.
Concernant Milosevic, ces conversations "prouvent clairement, selon le TPIY, que l'accus? a pris une part active dans la planification, l'instigation et la pr?paration des crimes d?crits dans son acte d'accusation". Sur la forme, on ne manquera pas de relever le style ? la fois familier, paternaliste et piment? adopt? par le pr?sident d?chu lorsqu'il s'adresse ? son "cher Radovan" beaucoup plus respectueux des convenances et tr?s demandeur en conseils en tout genre. "Slobo" ponctue fr?quemment ses phrases par des jurons fleuris, des interjections et des rires rauques. Plut?t qu'aux hommes politiques croates ou bosniaques, il s'en prend r?guli?rement ? ses propres alli?s, qu'il traite de tous les noms d'oiseaux, tel un Milan Babic, "pr?sident" des serbes de Croatie, qualifi? tour ? tour d'"encul?", "idiot", "bon ? rien", "porc d?bile" et "schizo".
Malgr? des lignes t?l?phoniques en tr?s mauvais ?tat, on entend souvent comme toile de fond le claquement d'assiettes, des verres qui s'entrechoquent et des bruits de mastication. Les protagonistes se parlent souvent de chez eux, en compagnie de membres de leur famille, telle l'?pouse de Karadzic, Liljana, qui est pri?e un soir d'aller "baisser la t?l?". On s'informe poliment de la sant? des uns et des autres, on remercie Dieu si tout le monde va bien, et l'on se remet aux blagues grasses, aux intrigues et autres machinations politiques qui n'en constituent pas moins le pr?lude au plus sanglant conflit qu'ait connu l'Europe depuis la fin de la deuxi?me guerre mondiale.
Ce qui, ? partir de la fin de l'ann?e 1991, ne semble plus ?chapper au pr?sident serbe : "C'est, comme ils disent, la guerre, et nous sommes une des parties en conflit", rappelle-t-il ? un Radovan Karadzic visiblement mal inform?. En public, Slobodan Milosevic n'a jamais cess? de marteler que la Serbie, ? part se d?fendre contre "l'agression" de l'OTAN en 1999, n'a men? aucune guerre sur le territoire de l'ex-Yougoslavie.

Alexandre L?vy

----------------------------------------------------
Sa?f Al-Islam Kadhafi, au nom du p?re
LE MONDE | 03.03.04 | 14h02
Artisan du retour de la Libye au sein de la communaut? internationale, le fils a?n? de la seconde ?pouse du colonel Kadhafi est aussi le dauphin pr?sum? du chef de la Jamahiriya.
L'oeil ?coute, l'oreille s?lectionne. Inconnu il y a quatre ans, Sa?f Al-Islam Kadhafi est d?j? un pro de la communication. En Libye, le fils a?n? de la seconde ?pouse du colonel Kadhafi est un sultan qui chasse au faucon dans le d?sert, ?l?ve des tigres et des pumas. Ici, ? Londres, l'homme a pris l'apparence d'un golden boy de la City.
Blue-jean de grand faiseur, chemise ouverte, large sourire vendeur. Ce matin, dans le salon tr?s anglais de son h?tel particulier d'Hyde Park, le "Glaive de l'islam" - son nom en arabe - la joue modeste, sympa, d?tendu. A l'ext?rieur de l'immeuble, sous l'auvent ? colonnes battu par la pluie, ni plaque ni garde en armes. Discr?tion ?gale tranquillit?. Dans le d?cor gris perle du salon, le secr?taire qui prend des notes est libyen, le ma?tre d'h?tel qui sert le jus d'orange, britannique.
Grand, svelte, ?l?gant, le pr?sident de la Fondation internationale Kadhafi des organisations caritatives est un homme heureux. Les affaires marchent bien. Apr?s vingt ann?es de mise au ban international, la Grande Jamahiriya arabe et socialiste de Libye sort du purgatoire et rentre au pas de course dans le concert des nations. Et c'est en partie gr?ce ? lui. Sur le chemin de Canossa qu'a finalement d?cid? d'emprunter l'impr?visible colonel, Sa?f est l'?claireur, le guide du Guide en quelque sorte. Ou son masque le plus affable, comme on voudra.

Officiellement, ce grand gar?on de 32 ans bient?t n'est rien. A l'instar de son p?re, qui s'est d?fait de tous ses titres il y a des ann?es - ce qui lui permet, sans convaincre ?videmment quiconque, de plaider r?guli?rement l'innocence dans la triste situation libyenne -, le Glaive n'occupe aucune fonction ni ne joue aucun r?le dans les affaires de l'Etat. "Je suis juste un Libyen qui fait ce qu'il peut pour son pays." La presse arabe a senti en lui l'h?ritier d?sign?. Pour elle, il est "le prince de Libye". Les chancelleries suivent et le consid?rent ouvertement comme le dauphin pr?sum?. Les chefs d'Etat qui le re?oivent, Jacques Chirac en t?te, le traitent comme tel.

Mais Sa?f Al-Islam nie toute ?ventualit? de succession. Dans "l'Etat des masses", depuis la "grande r?volution" kadhafienne du 1er septembre 1969, il n'y a pas d'?lections, pas de Constitution, pas de libert? d'association, pas de partis politiques, pas d'information libre. M?me aujourd'hui, o? il est tant question d'ouverture, de r?formes, de privatisations massives, la Libye du Guide, c'est d'abord un grand silence. "Surtout, ne me citez pas, j'aurais de gros ennuis." Avocats, professeurs, ?tudiants, intellectuels, diplomates, hommes d'affaires, nul n'ose encore s'exprimer ouvertement. L'ouverture ? l'ext?rieur est r?elle, le changement strat?gique. Mais nul n'ignore en Libye qu'il suffirait que le Fr?re-Guide de la r?volution se l?ve un jour du mauvais pied pour tout refermer en une seule proclamation.

Les d?tentions au secret, les ex?cutions publiques, les assassinats d'opposants, les brutalit?s et les tortures syst?matiques qui ont ?maill? les trente-quatre ann?es d'existence de la Jamahiriya "tendent ? dispara?tre", note un chercheur. "Mais le long chemin de sang subi par les Libyens a marqu? les esprits pour plusieurs g?n?rations."Ces deux derni?res ann?es, Sa?f Al-Islam a obtenu la lib?ration de plusieurs centaines de d?tenus politiques et, pour la premi?re fois depuis quinze ans, une d?l?gation d'Amnesty International a ?t? autoris?e en f?vrier ? visiter les prisons. Selon l'un de ses membres, il reste "plusieurs centaines"de d?tenus politiques dans les ge?les du colonel.

"Politiques ? Non", se renfrogne le Glaive. Pour lui comme pour son p?re, qui cite ? tout-va l'"exemple" de George Bush et de ses cages de Guantanamo, les islamistes emprisonn?s "ne sont que des terroristes dangereux". Dans ce pays grand comme trois fois la France, mais ? 90 % d?sertique et peu peupl? (5,5 millions d'?mes), les "masses" sont cens?es se gouverner seules, via des comit?s populaires alternativement contr?l?s par les s?ides du colonel - arm?e, police politique, comit?s r?volutionnaires. "Mon p?re est un visionnaire qui n'est ni roi ni pr?sident, affirme le fils du "Berger de Syrte". Il n'a donc aucune charge h?r?ditaire ? transmettre." Il peut ?tre tr?s p?remptoire, l'h?ritier pr?sum?. Mais, dans un texte dat? du 13 d?cembre 2003, sign? de lui et diffus? sur son site Internet (www.gaddaficharity.org), le m?me jure aussi que la Libye "n'a pas ni ne cherche ? obtenir d'armes de destruction massive, nucl?aires, chimiques ou biologiques." Or on sait maintenant, gr?ce aux inspections d?ment autoris?es par le "ca?d" pour parfaire sa rentr?e en gr?ce, que ses programmes atomiques ?taient au contraire tr?s avanc?s. Sa?f Al-Islam est un politique...

Pens?e du d?sert ou d?sert de la pens?e comme on voudra, la "troisi?me th?orie universelle" contenue dans le Petit Livre vert du colonel est toujours d'actualit?. Cens?e d?velopper un syst?me ? mi-chemin entre socialisme et capitalisme, "la th?orie est d?mocratique et superbe", commente le fils pr?f?r?. "C'est sa pratique, affreuse, et sa mise en ?uvre, rat?e, qui doivent ?tre r?form?es."Des groupes d'?tudes "y travaillent", r?p?te-t-il depuis deux ans. Les Libyens pourront-ils un jour choisir librement leurs dirigeants par les urnes ? "Ce n'est pas qu'une question de vote, nous devons trouver le moyen d'ins?rer le peuple dans les m?canismes de d?cision", tranche le dauphin pr?sum?.

Pour l'instant, rien ne presse. Trop contente de pouvoir montrer au moins un dictateur arabe ayant pris suffisamment peur apr?s l'invasion irakienne pour ouvrir ses arsenaux interdits aux inspections, l'administration Bush, qui s'appr?te ? rouvrir son ambassade ? Tripoli, aussi bien que Tony Blair, attendu incessamment dans la capitale libyenne, ne se montrent gu?re regardants sur le chapitre des libert?s publiques. Le clan direct du colonel Kadhafi compte six enfants. Tous sont plus ou moins m?l?s ? l'administration du pays et ? ses plus juteuses op?rations financi?res. Il y a quelques ann?es, ce n'est pas Sa?f, mais son cadet d'un an, Saadi, r?put? proche de la ligne dure de la r?volution, qui semblait promis aux plus hautes destin?es. Et puis, buteur rat?, le cadet semble finalement se contenter de diriger la Ligue nationale de football. Quant ? la s?ur, la belle et blonde A?cha, "la Claudia Schiffer de Libye", dit la presse italienne, on raconte ? Tripoli que la politique lui aurait bien plu. Elle dirige elle aussi une organisation humanitaire. Mais, dans la soci?t? traditionnelle b?douine qu'est largement rest?e la Libye, "les femmes ne peuvent pas encore jouer ce genre de r?le", sourit un journaliste du cru.

Sa?f, lui, a l'oreille du ca?d et, tr?s vite, le p?re lui a donn? les moyens de ses ambitions. Fin 1994, ? peine frais ?moulu de l'universit? Al-Fatah de Tripoli, un dipl?me d'architecte en poche, il est charg? de concevoir un grand complexe immobilier avec h?tel, mosqu?e et logements. Bient?t, les projets se multiplient : villas, complexe sportif, centre de loisirs, etc. En Libye, le Glaive est c?l?bre. A l'ext?rieur, il n'existe pas encore. C'est en ao?t 2000 qu'il entre en pleine lumi?re. La Fondation cr??e trois ans plus t?t, "avec l'aide initiale de -son- p?re", reconna?t-il, s'entremet dans l'affaire des otages du groupe Abou Sayyaf de Jolo (Philippines).

La Jamahiriya, qui a financ? des ann?es durant tous les groupes ind?pendantistes ou s?cessionnistes arm?s de la plan?te, de l'IRA irlandaise aux Canaques n?o-cal?doniens, verse une ran?on estim?e ? 25 millions de dollars. Six otages occidentaux sont lib?r?s. La France remercie et ?voque "l'am?lioration des relations". Le chancelier allemand Gerhard Schr?der souligne que, "sans le colonel Kadhafi et son fils, rien n'aurait ?t? possible". La r?demption de l'"Etat des masses" commence. Aussi calme et pond?r? que son p?re appara?t col?reux, fantasque et violent, Sa?f Al-Islam est le nouveau visage du r?gime, "jeune, dynamique, r?solument moderne", ?crivent les gazettes. Embargo am?ricain, dures sanctions onusiennes : l'?conomie libyenne, au surplus g?r?e n'importe comment, est en lambeaux. Entre 1970 et 2003 la production p?troli?re, unique rente du pays apr?s l'?chec de tous les projets de diversification, a baiss? de moiti?. La Jamahiriya est seule, isol?e, mise au ban.

Le Glaive a vu le jour ? Tripoli, le 25 juin 1972, ? l'int?rieur m?me de la grande caserne militaire de Bal el-Azizya, o? r?side encore le colonel, entre "une maison modeste" et la grande tente b?douine o? il re?oit. Le 15 avril 1986, quand le pr?sident Ronald Reagan fait bombarder le site avec comme objectif d?clar? de tuer "le chien enrag? du Proche-Orient", le futur espoir libyen a 14 ans. Les bombardements ont fait 43 morts, dont la petite derni?re de la famille, un b?b? adopt? de quelques mois. Sa?f n'a pas oubli?. "C'?tait tr?s d?plaisant. Mais l'?v?nement a contribu? ? former ma nouvelle personnalit?, plus m?re. Vous connaissez le proverbe arabe : "Le coup qui ne brise pas ton dos te rend plus fort."" Quinze ans plus tard, il s'activera comme personne pour faire la paix avec l'Am?rique. Passionn?, dit-il, par les grands auteurs allemands, il philosophe : "Il y a un temps pour ha?r et un temps pour la paix."

Financ?e on ne sait trop comment - le FMI commence tout juste ? percer l'opacit? des comptes de la Jamahiriya -, la Fondation Kadhafi, dont on ignore m?me le budget, mais qui joue presque ouvertement le r?le d'un minist?re bisde la diplomatie, s'entremet dans tous les sales dossiers que tra?ne encore le r?gime. C'est elle qui mettra en place le r?glement des affaires Lockerbie (1988) et de l'avion fran?ais d'UTA qui a explos? en 1989 au-dessus du Niger - 270 morts dans le premier attentat, 170 dans le second. Dans les deux affaires, suite ? l'inculpation de plusieurs de ses ressortissants, la Libye reconna?t non pas sa culpabilit?, mais sa "responsabilit?". Et elle paye : autour de 3 milliards de dollars d'indemnit?s pour les familles des victimes. "Le prix de la paix", r?sume Sa?f, qui, comme son p?re, pense qu'il s'agit l? d'une sorte d'extorsion du fort au faible.

Aujourd'hui, alors que toutes les majors p?troli?res am?ricaines reviennent en Tripolitaine, "la r?volution est termin?e", constate le jeune Kadhafi. Avec le monde anglo-saxon en g?n?ral, avec l'Allemagne aussi bien qu'avec l'ancien colonisateur italien, tous les liens sont r?tablis. En deux ans, Silvio Berlusconi a d?j? accompli deux p?lerinages dans la tente du ca?d. Avec la France, "ce n'est pas la lune de miel", confie le fils du chef. "Mais j'ai confiance en Jacques Chirac, ajoute-t-il. L'affaire UTA r?gl?e, nous attendons de voir comment la France va r?agir. Si elle veut sinc?rement et s?rieusement tourner la page, nous r?pondrons."

Anglophone, germanophone et partiellement francophone, Sa?f Al-Islam n'est pas particuli?rement francophile. Dans les ann?es 1990, quand il voulait parfaire son ?ducation universitaire, Paris lui avait refus? un visa d'?tudiant. "Discrimination fond?e uniquement sur mon nom", commente l'int?ress?, qui n'a "pas oubli?"l'affront. Finalement, c'est l'Autriche qui l'accueillera, et c'est l?-bas qu'il obtiendra sa licence en administration des affaires. De ces ann?es heureuses o? le tr?s croyant "serviteur d'Allah" d'aujourd'hui laissera plut?t le souvenir d'un playboy flamboyant menant grand train avec la fortune de papa, notre homme, toujours c?libataire, nouera deux amiti?s importantes. La premi?re avec Choukri Ganem, un Libyen lib?ral form? aux Etats-Unis, alors num?ro trois de l'OPEP ? Vienne et qui est aujourd'hui le chef r?formiste du gouvernement libyen. C'est Sa?f qui a insist? aupr?s du colonel pour qu'il l'engage.

La seconde relation nou?e ces ann?es-l? est plus embarrassante. Il s'agit de J?rg Haider, le chef de la droite populiste autrichienne. Le Glaive ne renie rien : "C'est un ami, nous chassons ensemble, il vient chez moi, je vais chez lui." Cette proximit? n'est- elle pas un peu g?nante ? "Non. Nous avons de bonnes relations avec presque tous les politiciens de la droite extr?me europ?enne. J'ignore pourquoi, mais c'est ainsi."On insiste : "Yeah. Peut-?tre avons-nous quelques points communs, je ne sais pas..."

Patrice Claude

* ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 04.03.04
----------------------------------------------
Venezuela: The Next Cuba
By Paul Crespo
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 3, 2004
As Venezuela's embattled democratic opposition gears up for its planned August referendum against that South American nation's increasingly authoritarian ruler, President Hugo Chavez is consolidating his "Bolivarian Revolution" and subverting what's left of the country's constitutional democracy. Calling the legal referendum on his rule a "mega-fraud," Chavez is doing all he can to thwart the peaceful recall effort. Many fear that he has little intention of allowing a vote. Meanwhile, the migration of frightened Venezuelans to the US continues.
There is no doubt that Chavez - with Fidel Castro's help -- is creating a Cuban-style socialist state in Venezuela. Scholar Maxwell Cameron calls it the world's first "slow-motion constitutional coup." In the process, Chavez also is breathing new life into Fidel Castro's dying and decrepit dictatorship. But what's even more worrisome is the fact that the mercurial Chavez is turning the large, oil rich country into a base for international terrorism.
Sadly, not many people recognize this threat. In my July 2003 American Legion Magazine article -- The Other "Axis of Evil" I described the dangerous and growing alliance between Latin America's two major anti-American rogue states and international terror groups operating throughout the hemisphere.
Focusing on the close and burgeoning partnership between Castro and Chavez, I explored the links both Castro and his new Caracas-based clone have with Latin American communist guerillas, drug dealers and Islamic terrorists. Referring to Castro as an anti-American godfather, "increasingly advising his new alter-ego in Venezuela..." I wrote that Chavez, "with Castro's direction and support - may be turning Venezuela into a new anti-American terrorism hub."
Noting Castro's long history of subversion, espionage and terrorism -- including the October 2001 arrest in Washington, DC of Cuban spy Ana Belen Montes, the former senior Cuba analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) -- my article highlighted Castro's continuing threat to the US. Cuba remains on the US State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. Chavez and Castro are intimately linked, meeting and talking regularly. Chavez has said Cuba and Venezuela are, in effect, "one team."
The partnership is so close that Venezuela's intelligence and security service, known as DISIP, reportedly has come under control of the Cuban intelligence service, the DGI. Because of this, US intelligence agencies have ended their longstanding liaison relationships with their Venezuelan counterparts. Hundreds of Cuban advisors, coordinated by Cuba's military attach? in Caracas, are also in charge of the elite presidential guard who defend Chavez against potential coups or military unrest.
Meanwhile, Chavez has purged and is reorganizing the Venezuelan military, making it personally loyal to him. Thousands of Cuban "teachers, doctors and sports trainers" also have flooded Venezuela. Their real job is to indoctrinate and train fanatically pro-Chavez paramilitary groups known as "Bolivarian Circles" that are part of a new 100,000-person People's Reserve militia recruited from Venezuela's poorest classes. These groups provide alternative armed cadres outside regular military channels loyal to Chavez.
While most of the mainstream media have ignored this growing menace, one major news magazine, US News and World Report, followed my piece with an in-depth investigative report in October 2003, Terror Close to Home: In Venezuela, a volatile leader befriends Mideast, Colombia and Cuba, confirming my exposition and clearly detailing the danger of Chavez's links to Castro and terrorism.
The weekly newsmagazine said that its two-month review, "including interviews with dozens of US and Latin American sources, confirms the terrorist activity," adding that "the oil-rich but politically unstable nation of Venezuela is emerging as a potential hub of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, providing assistance to Islamic radicals from the Middle East and other terrorists."
Most prominent in Venezuela's list of friendly terror groups are the communist FARC guerillas (Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces) who have terrorized Colombia for over 30 years and have killed thousands of people. Gen. Gary Speer, former acting chief of America's Southern Command, who said during a Senate Armed Services committee hearing in March 2002 that "we are very concerned about President Chavez ... the FARC operates at will across the border into Venezuela."
"There are arms shipments originating in Venezuela that get to the FARC and the ELN [National Liberation Army]," he added. "We have been unable to firmly establish a link to the Chavez government, but it certainly causes us suspicions. The company that Chavez keeps around the world, although under the guise of OPEC, certainly causes additional concerns as well." The US News piece details the exact location of FARC camps inside Venezuela where Venezuelan military advisors reportedly train FARC guerillas.
Sadly, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry stated in a February speech in Boston that the murderous FARC guerillas had "legitimate complaints" despite the fact that they have the support of less than three percent of Colombia's citizenry.
Chavez's links to Middle East terrorists may be more indirect but US officials note that Venezuela is providing support--including identity documents--that could prove useful to radical Islamic groups. U.S. News noted that Chavez's government has issued thousands of "cedulas," the equivalent of national ID cards, to people from Cuba, Colombia, and Middle Eastern `countries of interest' like Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and Lebanon that host foreign terrorist organizations.
According to US News, some of these cedulas were subsequently used to obtain Venezuelan passports and even American visas, "which could allow the holder to elude immigration checks and enter the United States." Chavez also was the only western leader to travel to Iraq to visit Saddam Hussein prior to his ouster by the US.
This article provoked an outcry from Chavez and his henchmen. The Venezuelan ambassador to the US, Alvarez Herrera, wrote an angry letter to the editor of US News deriding the article's accusations as "false" and "outrageous."
The ambassador then tried to counter the magazine's first-hand evidence by stating unconvincingly that "the government of Venezuela has ratified the Inter-American Convention Against Terrorism...and has signed multiple UN conventions on terrorism." Yet, the signature of this anti-democratic leftist demagogue on any international treaty hadly confirms his peaceful and lawful intent.
An indignant Chavez also told foreign reporters "I challenge the staff of US News and World Report or its owners to come here and look for one single shred of evidence, to show the world one single shred of proof." Chavez added that, "It is a strategy, to launch an offensive by concocting anything -- an assassination, a coup, an invasion." As a diversion from his terror links, Chavez has begun claiming loudly, and without any substantiation, that the CIA is trying kill him.
Much of the problem with our reaction to Chavez began with former US Ambassador to Venezuela, John Maisto who I briefly served as a military attach? at the US embassy in Caracas. His soft approach to the leftist demagogue was clearly flawed. Early on in Chavez's administration, the U.S. ambassador downplayed the Chavez threat, stating that it was Chavez's actions, not words that really mattered.
Other Clinton administration officials echoed that sentiment and said that we should ignore Chavez's rhetoric. That approach became informally known as the "Maisto doctrine." Yet, Chavez's actions inexorably have matched his rhetoric.
Despite his failure to appreciate the menace of a Chavez-Castro alliance, Maisto was inexplicably picked by the Bush administration to head - until recently -- the Western Hemisphere Affairs section at the National Security Council. He is still influencing Latin America policy as US Ambassador to the Organization of American States.
Fortunately, other members of Bush's National Security team such as Presidential Envoy to Latin America, Otto Reich and Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere Roger Noriega do seem to understand the threat posed by the Chavez-Castro terror nexus.
Given the mischief Castro and Chavez are pursuing, Uncle Sam has his hands full dealing with the two dangers on either end of the Caribbean.
Paul Crespo is a former Marine Corps Officer and military attache at the US embassy in Caracas. An adjunct faculty member in the Political Science Departmnent at the University of Miami, he is also a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (www.DefendDemocracy.org) in Washington, DC.

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

GAO wants acquisition process codified
By Laura M. Colarusso
Times staff writer
The Defense Department should codify a method for acquiring weapon systems that rely heavily on software development, according to a congressional report released Tuesday.
Though the Pentagon has a few success stories, it has wasted billions of dollars trying to evolve software code for various weapons, states the report from General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.
One of the most notable examples is the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor. The service's premier acquisition program has run into numerous schedule delays and millions of dollars in cost overruns because of difficulties in developing the aircraft's software.
GAO blamed the Raptor's problems on managers not adhering to requirements and establishing reliable metrics.
But progress has been made. The Raptor "has been restructured with more oversight and has instituted more realistic controls over software development," the report stated.
Pentagon programs that are relatively successful, like the Navy's F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighter, upgraded and fielded software "incrementally," meaning they took small steps to evolve the code, which made the development process more manageable.
By using metrics -- such as cost, schedule, requirements, defects and quality -- to measure progress, developing complicated software loads would become more manageable, the study said.
The Pentagon should also model its acquisition programs on the best practices of software industry leaders, the report said.



Saddam allies appear ready to abandon fight
By William Cole
The Honolulu Advertiser
HELWE WOSTA, Iraq -- The dozens of former high-ranking Baath Party officials, including three generals and several colonels in Saddam Hussein's army, came to this tomato-and-watermelon-farming village to see one man: Army Lt. Col. Scott Leith.
A rogue's gallery that included murderers and thugs during Saddam's rule, they met with the American battalion commander over mutton and rice.
In doing so, they also sought peace: Partyless and jobless, they told Leith they want to carry the fight against Americans no more.
Tired of being hunted house to house, village to village first by the 4th Infantry Division and more recently Leith's 1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Wolfhounds, more than 20 high-echelon Baath Party officials and many more midranking members from southwest of Kirkuk said Friday they want to end their opposition.
"Several of them that were there spoke to one person, who spoke directly to Saddam," Leith said after the meeting, hosted by a local sheik.
Earlier, Leith, 40, told about 150 of the Sunni Arabs the Baath Party was gone for good, Saddam was a coward, and a new day had come to Iraq.
To reinforce the point, the Hawaii-based soldiers showed up heavily armed, and two Apache attack helicopters flew over mud huts, sheep and gaping Iraqis.
Leith said he was "guardedly enthusiastic" about the Baath members' decision to give up the fight. What coalition commanders will do with them still has to be determined.
"If this is true, these are people with an awful lot of information, and an awful lot of pull," Leith said. "So if they work with the coalition, certainly we can bring peace here quicker."
The day was another in an odyssey that Leith likens to living out an adventure novel. Several hundred villagers and children showed up to get a glimpse of the American soldiers, with the 6-foot-4 Leith leading the way.
He has met with three of the four tribal leaders in the 87-mile east-to- west swath he is responsible for, including the nearly 100,000-population city of Al Huwijah about 40 miles southwest of Kirkuk.
The sheik who hosted Friday's meeting, Mahmoud Azam Turk, is part of the Al Jabori tribe, which extends from Iran through northern Iraq and into Syria.
"The outgoing commander told me they see the commander of the region ... almost as sheiks of the area," Leith said. "It's kind of counter to our culture where I would normally defer to the age and social position of these gentlemen. But I can't. I must come forward with the might of the United States and the coalition."
Sitting cross-legged on a teal-colored carpeted floor in a room whose four walls were lined with sheiks and former Baath Party members, Leith did just that.
"We come asking for nothing. We are not asking for money, we are not asking for resources. We ask for one thing -- and that is your work to make this a peaceful and stable environment," Leith told the crowd. "People should not be dying in your fields. That is my responsibility and that is your responsibility."
In this Sunni Arab section of Iraq, where anti-American feelings still run strong, a few left the meeting room when Leith disparaged Saddam. U.S. soldiers took photos of those who attended, and wrote down their names at the meeting that included Special Forces.
Jasim Yunis Hamed, 30, a member of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, said the sheik Mahmoud has the power to keep the peace in his region. "He can control anything," Jasim said. "All the people here -- he told them to stop anything bad. He can do this."
The overture from the former Baath members is a step in the right direction, said Maj. Jeff Butler, the 1-27 operations officer. "They are wanted because they are high Baath Party members who went into hiding," Butler said. "Some are known to be financiers of terrorist actions against coalition forces."