>> IS THE PRC COMING OUR WAY?


Beijing seeks multilateral Northeast Asian security
By Pang Zhongying
(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)

BEIJING - It's time to promote the establishment of a Northeast Asian regional security mechanism.

The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is of increasing concern to Northeast Asian countries. The two rounds of six-party North Korea nuclear talks brought together key regional governments: China, Russia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the Republic of Korea (ROK), and Japan - as well as the United States. And the discussions have kindled a gleam of hope for the establishment of a multilateral security system in the region.
Many people say that the six-party talks, a special multilateral arrangement aimed at defusing the nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula, could develop into a general system to ensure security in Northeast Asia, if these meetings were to become a systematic and regular event.
The progress already made in the talks demonstrates that a permanent multilateral regional security system could help solve even the most sensitive security problems.
Northeast Asia should not base its security measures on bilateral frameworks any longer, according to many analysts. A multilateral security arrangement would offer a more effective and complementary guarantee of regional peace and stability. The regional security arrangement could coexist with alliance-oriented bilateral security relations.
Constructing a multilateral security framework in Northeast Asia is not a new idea. Countries such as Russia and Japan suggested setting up a Northeast Asian security mechanism after the end of the Cold War. Countries in the region have also conducted security dialogues at various levels with their neighbors. But a systematized regional security arrangement has remained a distant prospect.
The threat of instability in Northeast Asia is very real. The Korean nuclear issue and the Taiwan question remain unresolved, and these two serious issues, if not properly handled, could cause regionwide instability. The ROK and even Japan are exhibiting strong desires to explore more self-reliant foreign policies, while the influence of the "peaceful rise" of China increasingly is being felt. On the other hand, the US has never veiled its worries about the alleged intention of China to recover its traditional centrality in the region.
With regional security issues unresolved and no long-term development plans established, peaceful development in Northeast Asia cannot be brought about through the wishes of any individual country, according to many observers. Regional peace and stability can only be achieved through the collective and objective actions of countries in the region. In other words, neither self-help (China is a good example) nor military alliances are enough to face a changing security environment in the region.
Many common security concerns, despite differences
In the beginning, a Northeast Asian security framework could serve as a multilateral mechanism based upon the common security interests of member states. Although there are huge differences, regional governments still have many common security concerns that make a regional multilateral security framework worth working for.
However, a multilateral security framework built on common interests cannot be easily achieved, since the interests of all countries involved are continuously changing.
Any regional security arrangement in Northeast Asia that did not have US involvement would be unrealistic and impossible to achieve.
Although many people have criticized the unilateralism of President George W Bush's administration, the US will try multilateralism to deal with regional security challenges, as the six-party talks demonstrated. It is not clear whether the US has any interest in establishing a Northeast Asian security mechanism, but an all-inclusive and permanent arrangement for dealing with Northeast Asian security issues is in the interests of all countries - including the United States. Some Americans support the idea of this type of security mechanism. Others worry that it would contravene Washington's regional bilateral security arrangements.

From a Chinese perspective, a Northeast Asian security mechanism would have the following characteristics:

It would include China, and even a denuclearized North Korea.
It would co-exist with US-led bilateral security relations.
It would be justified or legitimized by ongoing cooperative and constructive China-US relations.
It could help solve other regional security problems, including the Taiwan problem.
It would lay the foundation for a future-oriented regional security community.

The prospect of regularized six-party talks has provided an opportunity to revisit the idea of building a regional security mechanism. Thus the efforts of all parties are needed to ensure success. A regional security mechanism should embrace the concept of mutual security. If North Korea were to participate, its reasonable security concerns should be assured and considered. The transformation of the regional security environment in Northeast Asia needs a successful conclusion of the six-party talks.
China increasingly shows interest in a six-party-talks-based regional security arrangement, so it is not impossible that some China-related security problems, such as the Taiwan issue, could be discussed at the regional level rather than just bilaterally. Proper discussions on most such sensitive issues might not only be helpful for the solution of the issue but also could help promote the building of the regional security mechanism.

Pang Zhongying is a Beijing-based analyst of international affairs and director of the Institute of Global Issues, Nankai University, China. He can be reached at pzying@yahoo.com. This article was made available by Pacific Forum CSIS.




-----------------------------------------------------------------
US: From nation-building to religion-building
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - One thing that can be said about United States neo-conservatives is that they do not lack for ambition.
"We need an Islamic reformation," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confided on the eve of the US invasion of Iraq last year, "and I think there is real hope for one".
Echoing those views one year later, another prominent neo-conservative, Daniel Pipes of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF), recently declared that the "ultimate goal" of the war on terrorism had to be Islam's modernization, or, as he put it, "religion-building".
Such an effort needs to be waged not only in the Islamic world, geographically speaking, added Pipes, who last year was appointed by President George W Bush to the board of directors of the US Institute for Peace, but also among Muslims in the West, where, in his view, they are too often represented by "Islamist (or militant Islamic)" organizations.
Pipes is currently seeking funding for a new organization, tentatively named the "Islamic Progress Institute" (IPI), which "can articulate a moderate, modern and pro-American viewpoint" on behalf of US Muslims and that, according to a grant proposal by Pipes and two New York-based foundations, obtained by IPS, can "go head-to-head with the established Islamist institutions".
"Through adroit media activity and political efforts", says the proposal, "advocates for a supremacist and totalitarian form of Islam in the United States - such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations [CAIR], the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA] and the Islamic Circle of North America - have effectively established themselves as the spokesmen for all Muslims in the country."
"This situation is fraught with dangers for moderate Muslims as well as for non-Muslims," the proposal continues, adding, "Islam in America must be American Islam or it will not be integrated; there can be no place for an Islam in America that functions as a seditious conspiracy aimed at wiping out American values, undermining American inter-faith civility, and, in effect, dictating the form of Islam that will be followed in America."
Leaders of the three groups named by Pipes strongly deny his characterizations of their views, and stress that they, like Catholic, Protestant and Jewish groups in the US that promote the interests of their members, are neither more nor less radical or chauvinistic in their political or theological views than their non-Muslim counterparts.
"We are non-sectarian," said Sayyid M Syeed, ISNA's secretary general, who added that his group has had leaders from both the Shi'ite and Sunni currents of Islam and whose current vice president is a woman. "If we were Saudi-oriented, we would never have a Shi'ite president or a woman in such a role," he said, adding that his group is also actively engaged in many "inter-faith partnerships".
CAIR's spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, said his organization strives to represent the views of all US Muslims, and pointed to a new survey of the views of mosque leaders and congregants in Detroit, which has one of the largest Muslim populations in the country, as an example of the fundamental moderation of US Muslims and those of his group.
The survey, carried out by the Michigan-based Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, found that only about eight percent of the leadership and members of Detroit's 33 mosques described themselves as adherents of a fundamentalist, "Salafi" approach to Islam - the kind that is identified with the "Wahhabi", or "Islamist" views of concern to Pipes and other neo-conservatives, who have said that as many as 80 percent of US mosques preach Wahhabism.
The vast majority of both mosque leaders and participants, according to the Detroit survey, were registered to vote and supported active engagement in the political process; wanted to engage in civic and educational activities with people of non-Muslim faiths; and even took part in public school or church events designed to teach others about Islam.
"Detroit mosques are not isolationist ... and very few mosque participants hold Wahhabi views," said Ihsan Bagby, who conducted the survey and teaches Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky.
Pipes, who has written four books on Islam and taught Islamic studies at several leading universities, came to national prominence after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon. While he has long insisted that there is nothing inherently violent about Islam, "moderate Muslims", in his view, have been intimidated by radicals both in the Islamic world and in the US.
"While Muslims in some Muslim-majority countries (like Turkey) have demonstrated a commitment to moderate Islam," he writes in his grant application, "Muslim communities in the United States, Canada and Western Europe are dominated by a leadership identified with Wahhabism and other radical trends, such as the Muslim Brethren and Deobandism ... they seek a privileging of Islam and intimidate their critics."
Within the United States, "all Muslims, unfortunately, are suspect", Pipes wrote in a recent book, which called for the authorities to be especially vigilant towards Muslims with jobs in the military, law enforcement, or diplomacy.
Last year, he cited as evidence of this insight the arrest on suspicion of espionage of Muslim chaplain James Yee at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility that houses hundreds of prisoners from Bush's "war on terrorism". The Yee case later fell apart.
Pipes is also the founder of Campus Watch, a group that monitors university professors of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies and exposes them for alleged anti-American or anti-Zionist views. That effort, which has been denounced by leading Middle East scholars, has become the basis for a far-reaching bill pending in Congress that would provide unprecedented government oversight of regional studies programs in universities.
Pipes has also criticized Bush for meeting with, and thus he argues legitimizing, the leaders of major Islamic organizations, including CAIR and ISNA, which he believes are pursuing radical, if partially hidden, agendas that he attempts tirelessly to expose on his personal website. CAIR has called him "the nation's leading Islamophobe".
Like many of his fellow-neo-conservatives, Pipes has also been an outspoken supporter of positions taken by the governing Likud Party in Israel, to the extent even of opposing the US-backed "road map" designed to lead to an independent Palestinian state.
To encourage "moderation" among Palestinians, he has written, "the Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them".
In his grant proposal, Pipes writes that he is working on launching the Islamic Progress Institute, IPI, with "a group of anti-Islamist Muslims", whom he does not identify. Contacted about the proposal, Pipes told IPS, "I can't confirm anything. MEF doesn't talk about its proposals. We don't talk about projects that have not been announced. We don't talk about internal matters to the press."
In a trip to Cleveland in February, Stephen Schwartz, a writer and former Trotskyite activist who claims to have converted to Islam in the mid-1990s, and Hussein Haqqani, a former Pakistani government official now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, unveiled plans for a new "Institute for Islamic Progress and Peace", of which Schwartz identified himself as executive director.
Schwartz, who has praised Pipes' work and claims to be personally close to Wolfowitz, has published articles in "The Weekly Standard" and other neo-conservative publications, where Pipes' writings also appear regularly. Schwartz was quoted by the "Cleveland Jewish Press" as saying that the new group would serve as a "platform" for "people who view Islam as a private faith".
"This is a unique chance to change the position of the Muslim community in America," he said. "If we don't do it, no one else will." Schwartz and Haqqani also did not return messages left at their offices.
Muslim leaders say they are not worried their membership will desert them for either new group.
"There's a big difference between organizations that emerge organically from a community in response to the demand of their constituencies and one which is manufactured for political reasons by people who dislike what the consensus views of that community are," said Hussein Ibish of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, which has also been a target of Pipes.
"For Mr Pipes to create an organization that purports to represent the community that he makes a living systematically defaming demonstrates an amazing degree of effrontery."
"It's a free country," said Hooper of the Council on Islamic-American Relations. "If Pipes and his friends think they can gain legitimacy in the Islamic community, good luck, but I wouldn't hold my breath."

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

>> MALAYSIA WATCH...

Malaysian media try trial by TV
By Anil Netto
PENANG, Malaysia - Malaysian groups as well as a lawyer representing several alleged Jemaah Islamiya (JI) members have slammed a private television station's screening of "confessions" by several suspected Malaysian militants detained by Indonesian police, saying they amounted to trial by media.
Last Friday, the Malaysian station TV3 screened an "interview" with four alleged JI members that was recorded in Jakarta on March 11. TV3, though private, is one of the most pro-government television stations in Malaysia, and the interview was arranged with the help of Malaysian and Indonesian police.
The four suspects, Nasir Abas, Jaafar Anwarul, Samsul Bahari Hussein and Amran Mansor, admitted in the interview that they were JI members and had links to al-Qaeda. They also said they were repentant over their involvement in the group and no longer subscribed to its fanatical ideologies.
But critics said the interview amounted to trial by media and that the "confessions" were flawed as they were not given in a free environment.
The station's decision to televise the "confessions" was sharply criticized by the Abolish ISA Movement, a coalition of 82 civil-society groups seeking to dissolve Malaysia's draconian Internal Security Act (ISA). But some of the strongest remarks came from Edmund Bon, the lawyer representing several other alleged JI members now being held under the ISA, which allows for detention without trial.
"Firstly, TV3 may have committed contempt of court," Bon said. "The issues covered are sub judice," meaning they are still under judicial consideration. He also said 10 ISA detainees in Malaysia, alleged to be JI members, had filed habeas corpus applications in the Malaysian courts. Though their appeals were dismissed recently by the Kuala Lumpur High Court, their appeals to the Federal Court are still pending.
Among the issues covered in these applications are what the alleged terrorist activities of JI are, and whether there is evidence that JI even exists, Bon said. "It is my view that TV3's program of the 'confessions' would tend to influence the Federal Court to decide against the detainees," he added.
Nasir is said to be the regional JI chief in charge of Sabah, Labuan, North and Central Sulawesi, and Mindanao. Arrested by Indonesian police last April, he is alleged to have trained several top JI leaders in military warfare. These include convicted Bali bombers Ali Imron and Imam Samudera, and Saad Fathurrahman Al Ghozi, the alleged mastermind of bombings in the Philippines in 2000 that killed 22 people.
Nasir is also alleged to have trained lecturers Dr Azahari Husin, who is on the run, and Wan Min Wan Mat, detained in Malaysia in October 2002, in guerrilla warfare.
Amran, from Johor, Malaysia, is alleged to have been directly involved in the Christmas Eve church bombings in Batam, Pekan Baru and Medan in 2000. He has expressed regret over the deaths of innocent people and asked for forgiveness from God and the victims' families.
Nasir claimed there was a fatwa (edict) that was passed on to them by Riduan Isamuddin or Hambali, now in US custody, urging Muslims to defend their religion and to attack Americans who had killed many Muslims around the world.
Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi said the televised confessions proved that terrorists were a major threat in the region. "I hope Malaysians will be able to understand the reality of such a threat after the confessions," he was reported as saying. Abdullah, who is also internal security minister, is responsible for the detentions of some 90 Malaysians under the ISA.
Most of these are alleged militants are said to belong to the Malaysian Militant Group (KMM) and JI. Many of them have already spent more than two years in jail without trial and have had their two-year detention orders extended by another two years. The ISA allows detainees to be held for an initial 60-day interrogation period, and, if they are not released by the end of that period, they can receive renewable two-year detention orders. Most detainees are held in the Kamunting Detention Center in Perak state, north of Kuala Lumpur.
In addition to Abdullah's comments, Defense Minister Najib Razak remarked that although the activities of JI had been crippled, they "can still operate in smaller groups and pose security problems".
Televised "confessions" from detainees are not new in Malaysia. During the communist insurgency, and up until the late 1970s, detainees, including political activists, alleged to be Communist Party members were made to confess on national television and say they had realized the error of their ways.
In the mid-1990s, Ashaari Mohamad, the leader of al-Arqam, a banned "deviationist" Islamic sect with a sizable following, "confessed" on television to spreading deviant religious teachings after a spell in detention.
Regarding the latest "confessions", Bon has made several pertinent observations. "The participants were under the supervision, direction and rule of the police," he said. "There was no escaping. It was a controlled environment."
He said the questions posed were leading, as if the answers were already known. "The answers forthcoming from the participants appear to have been scripted and rehearsed," he said. "They were not full, candid and frank confessions."
Observers are wondering about the timing of the "confessions" as well. "Why this was done is unclear, but one can speculate that the authorities are trying very hard now to justify their allegations of JI terrorist activities and JI's existence," said Bon. "The world knows that they could not do it at the [Abu Bakar] Ba'asyir trial, and he, being the supposed head of JI, is going to be released in April 2004, whereas his poor purported 'followers' in Indonesia, such as the participants and many others in Kamunting [in Malaysia], will linger on in detention."
Even the government-appointed and nominally independent Human Rights Commission of Malaysia has spoken out against the confessions. Its commissioner, Hamdan Adnan, questioned the ethics involved in showing the program and said it amounted to trial by media. "I hope this will not be a trend," he said. "Under what circumstance were they made to confess?" he asked, stressing that people should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that TV3 should not make a mockery of media ethics.
He also warned that the confessions should not implicate others, especially those detained in Malaysia under the ISA for suspected involvement in the similar alleged activities.

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

Indonesia vs Malaysia: The media and democracy
By Ioannis Gatsiounis
KUALA LUMPUR - Neighbors Malaysia and Indonesia are often depicted in opposing lights. Indonesia is the turbulent big brother with deep scars from a brutal dictatorship and a crisis of Islamic militancy on its hands. Malaysia is the rapidly developing "model Islamic democracy", a beacon of hope in the region - a reputation reinforced by the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional's (BN) rout of the Muslim fundamentalist-led opposition in parliamentary general elections last month.
Ironically, though, Indonesia, which just completed what was only its second general election since independence in 1945, has already embraced a more democratic tradition than Malaysia, which purports to have held "free and fair" elections since the 1950s. And the decision of Indonesian president B J Habibie, after the fall of Suharto in 1998, to free up the media is a large reason why.
In Indonesia on Monday, 24 parties contested for parliamentary seats. They may not all have gotten equal media coverage, but there are few if any allegations that a state-organized conspiracy impaired their showing. In Malaysia's elections last month, on the other hand, just two coalitions were represented, and only one received what might be called "fair" coverage.
For those in the BN, the state-controlled media's performance was nothing short of stellar. They not only gave the "moderates" an unfair advantage in the weeks leading up to the election (the leading opposition party's paper cannot publish more than twice a month and distribution is restricted), but in effect, quelled public concern over numerous allegations that the Election Commission and the BN conspired to commit election fraud.
Wong Chun Wai, deputy chief group editor of Malaysia's largest pro-government English-language daily, The Star, bristled at this analysis. He said his paper ran the opposition's advertisements. "The Malaysian media [are] as democratic as [they] can be. There's no need to change [them]." He pointed out that the opposition Chinese-led Democratic Action Party actually gained seats in the March 21 election, and as for other opposition parties that scored poorly, this was because of their stated aims, not because of media coverage.
But others say the power of the media to influence voters, especially during election time, should not be underestimated.
By many accounts the Malaysian media's campaign coverage was slicker and more ambitious than in past elections. At the least, it was unabashed and relentless. One front-page headline called Malaysia's economy "booming" - a description some economists would hardly endorse. Non-disparaging coverage of the opposition was often relegated to the lower corners of inside pages. A frequently run television spot featured Malaysians extolling how tolerant, vibrant and blissful life is in Malaysia. The ad listed no sponsor. But with the BN ruling since the 1950s, the message was implicit enough.
Five months ago there was a twinge of hope that the media situation here in Malaysia might change. That's when Abdullah Badawi was appointed prime minister by his predecessor, the long-ruling strongarm Mahathir Mohamad. Abdullah was seen as the tolerant gentleman determined to stamp out corruption. But optimism waned when Abdullah sacked an editor of an English-language daily for publishing an article that criticized government foreign policy. And it has eroded further, say experts, with the election rout.
With the media's strong showing, "What incentives do [the government] have to open the doors?" asked Eric Paulsen, coordinator of the Voice of People of Malaysia.
One can think of plenty - to develop a knowledge-based economy; to check power and stamp out corruption; to spur public debate on important issues. But getting the government to sign on is a different matter. BN's performance last month was its best since 1955. Why tamper with success?
A number of analysts say mass public mobilization is perhaps the only thing that will pressure the Malaysian government to change. In Indonesia, public protest led to the dictator Suharto's resignation and consequently the repeal of media restrictions. And although the government has since occasionally threatened to curb those freedoms, myriad activists in Indonesia have made clear that the freedoms won't be lifted without a fight.
By contrast, Malaysians historically have shown little affinity for social activism. And times are good for many. The economy is stable; the standard of living here is higher than in Indonesia; Malaysia lacks the sense of desperation that can galvanize action. As well, the government has strict laws preventing public demonstration; the Internal Security Act, which reserves the right to jail offenders without trial, has scared away many would-be activists.
"Barring no meltdown, nothing will change," said Ibrahim Suffian of the Merdeka Center for Opinion Research.
The closest thing to a "meltdown" in Malaysia in recent times came in the late 1990s, when Mahathir jailed his charismatic deputy Anwar Ibrahim on allegations of sodomy and corruption. Public distrust of the government and media, coinciding with the Internet boom, witnessed a proliferation of reformation websites, and thousands taking to the streets.
"Now one or two [reformation] sites - from over a hundred - are left," said Suffian.
During the scandal, the hardline opposition Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) won control of a second state. And while many voters turned to the opposition because they felt betrayed by Mahathir and the BN, the media in no small way helped people and parties mobilize.
Since that election a few credible independent websites have surfaced. (Mahathir promised not to interfere with web-based content.) But generally Malaysians are content taking in the state-controlled press. From food stalls to dentist offices, Malaysians can be found soaking up the state press, even when complimentary copies of international papers are available.
A Merdeka Center poll found that most Malaysians don't believe what they read in the state-controlled press. But then one has to wonder what they're reading "serious" newspapers for if not for "useful" information - to be mindlessly entertained?
Sometimes the public's indifference has led to outright defense of the situation. One hears often enough from Malaysians that they are not mature enough yet for open media, echoing a line left over from the colonial days and milked often by the ruling coalition ever since.
But lawyer Siva Rasa Rasia, a vice president of the opposition Keadilan party, does not blame the public. "It's quite normal not to seek information," Rasia said. "The onus is on us, and we have failed to get to them."
Rasia said that for the opposition to stand any chance in future elections (Malaysia's next parliamentary election isn't until 2009), they will have to rethink how to reach the public. "It's the main obstacle we face," he said. "It's the only way we can break down the [ruling coalition's] blockade.
Opposition leaders say they will tap into the Internet but know it won't be enough. One leader said without irony, "We might have to do what they did in Eastern Europe in the communist era: quietly roam in long coats and sell on street corners."
Indeed, many observers are too pleased with the election results to reflect on its meaning - or simply find the ends justify the means. One editorial writer noted that with this election, "Malaysia demonstrated that the 'green wave' - the tide of political Islam that seems to be engulfing the Muslim world - can be stopped democratically."
M G Pillai, writing on his independent website, sees it differently: "With this general election we have descended firmly into the Third World we had spent years to get out of."
But as long as the state-controlled media are calling the shots, Malaysians will continue to get a more flattering view of themselves. The morning after Indonesia's elections, Malaysia's state-controlled Star newspaper's front-page headline read: "Shortages and confusion over voting card hamper Indonesian elections". That news was hard to find outside Malaysia.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

-------------------------------------------------------------
>> AHEM

The UN's sinking law of the sea
By Alan Boyd

SYDNEY - A conservative revolt that waylaid Washington's latest attempts to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has also set back hopes of a more effective disputes mechanism for contested natural resources in Asia.
Continuing a standoff that has existed since the treaty was enacted in 1982, the United States Senate again declined to debate a Foreign Relations Committee resolution, backed by the administration of President George W Bush, that might have led to recognition of the world's most ambitious forum for conflict resolution.
Another bid is expected to be made through one of six alternate committees that have jurisdiction on the issue, but it is unlikely this will happen before the end of the year, even if the White House liberals behind the initiative can still attract Bush's support.
Ratified by 145 of the UN's 195 independent members, the treaty has never been allowed to realize its full potential because a vocal US lobby argues that it would impinge on the right of Americans to decide how to exploit their natural resources.
The chief point of contention is a provision under the treaty for an International Seabed Authority (ISA) that would regulate the offshore marine environment and rule on sovereignty battles through a multinational court. It would be empowered to levy taxes, issue permits for fishing and mining, impose quotas for the exploitation of gas and oil reserves, fix the prices of marine products, and control research and exploration activities.
Conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation, American Policy Center and the Free Congress Foundation are worried that the ISA will operate outside Security Council jurisdiction, which could leave it open to domination by sectoral interests, especially from the Third World.
"The best thing we can do with this treaty is never to sign it - to sink it. Unfortunately, this is a very difficult task given the fact that there is an element within the Bush administration that wants it and, if they do not succeed in getting it, then there is likely to be a push by succeeding administrations," said Paul M Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation.
Former president Ronald Reagan engineered the original US boycott of the treaty in 1982 by simply ensuring that it never went beyond the committee stages. Likewise, Reagan's successor George H W Bush, stonewalled when he was in office.
Bill Clinton's administration put the issue back on the congressional agenda in 1994, though only after winning substantial concessions from the UN that watered down the ISA's mandate while leaving the treaty's basis intact. But his tenure ended before the revamped resolution could reach the Senate.
In stepped Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar, a Republican senator with strong White House support who is convinced the US has more to lose from staying aloof from the international community. Bush's own sentiments toward the treaty are not clear.
Whether it is in or out, Washington will decide how effective the treaty can be in policing what is potentially the most volatile area of global security. But ratification might at least remove technical ambiguities and encourage the ISA to cut across political sensitivities.
The UN secretariat complained last month that many countries were wrongly applying the treaty, presumably for their own ends, while warning that mediation efforts would not realize their potential unless there was more consistency.
China has been accused by the US of using some statutes to further its economic interests and advance security objectives. These include a requirement for information sharing on sea exploration that would amount to mandatory technology transfers.
Defense adviser Dr Peter M Leitner, a longtime critic of ratification, testified to a congressional committee in March that Beijing had been able to acquire "sensitive technology vital to our national security" through offshore mining permits. Despite Pentagon protests, the technology, which he alleged could be used to bolster China's capability in submarine warfare, had been handed over by government agencies "so as not to undermine the spirit of the treaty".
Beijing has also challenged the Proliferation Security Initiative, an anti-terrorism operation led by the US and the United Kingdom that includes interdiction measures against vessels suspected of aiding in the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
North Korea, a close ally of China, has been a prime target of the sea blockade. But during a recent committee hearing, none of the White House's senior legal aides were able to confirm whether the US would be liable for retaliatory measures if it allowed a ship to be boarded - even if this happened within the economic zone claimed by the US.
All Asian countries other than Cambodia, North Korea, Thailand and East Timor have ratified the treaty. However, it has had virtually no impact on regional tensions due to the widely differing interpretations adopted by signatories.
This is partly because of hazy legal definitions. While the treaty recognizes innocent passage, transit passage, archipelagic sea-lane passage, and high seas as the four types of navigation rights, the specifics are not spelled out.
There are also numerous let-out clauses that allow signatories and non-signatories alike to set the parameters of treaty provisions, usually successfully.
Hence South Korea has been able to assert control over much of the volatile Cheju Strait by contesting its status as a major navigation route on the grounds that ships can use an alternative route closer to the sea.
Taking this process a step further, Seoul has declared an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles that includes a "security zone" of 150 by 75 nautical miles in which most shipping operations are prohibited.
For its part, North Korea has established a 200-mile EEZ with a 50-mile "military zone" that also has limited access rights. Both zones, as well as a separate EEZ maintained by Japan, intrude into waters in the Sea of Japan that are contested by all four countries and Russia.
Japan, China and South Korea could technically be prosecuted by the ISA for blocking navigational rights. But this is not likely to happen until there have been separate rulings on the various national boundaries, and there is little political will to intervene.
One reason for the free-for-all is the impotency of the US, which is understandably loath to help police the statutes, even for the sake of regional stability, as long as it doesn't accept their legitimacy.
"A most fertile source of dispute may be the question of whether or not a non-ratifying state like the United States may avail itself of the [treaty's] provisions governing the various navigational regimes," said Mark J Valencia, a researcher at the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.
"The United States argues that these navigational 'rights' are customary international law, and negotiated an agreement with the former Soviet Union declaring these rights and guaranteeing mutual observance thereof.
"However, some ratifiers like China may not agree, and since the United States is not a party to the treaty, it cannot avail itself of the dispute-resolution provisions. This then leaves the resolution of such disputes purely in the political arena."
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

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

>> AHEM...WHAT THEY DID NOT ASK?

9-11 AND THE SMOKING GUN
Part 1: 'Independent' commission
By Pepe Escobar

"The overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas."
- White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, May 16, 2002

"Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." - CIA's August 6, 2001 briefing memo to President George W Bush

"If you invade Iraq you will create a hundred bin Ladens." - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, January 2003

The 9-11 Commission, according to its own website, is "an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W Bush in late 2002". The commission is "chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks".
A key consequence of the political theater/media circus around former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke's revelations - in his testimony to the commission and in his best-selling book Against All Enemies - was to force the White House to "deliver" National Security Advisor Condoleezza ("Condi") Rice. She is due to testify to the commission on Thursday - just as the Iraq occupation is confronted to the ultimate nightmare: Fallujah as the new Gaza in the Sunni triangle, and an uprising by the millions of angry, destitute followers of firebrand Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
But as far as the 9-11 Commission is concerned, and at least for the moment, the White House got what it wanted. President George W Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney will have a private conversation with the commission as a tandem, not under oath, and behind closed doors. This testimony won't be recorded. The commission will hardly have more than two or three hours to ask crucial questions to both, when it could have at least double the time to ask questions to each of them separately. The arrangement of course prevents them from contradicting each other - a basic premise of any criminal investigation. It makes sure that the all-powerful, all-seeing Cheney is the Praetorian Guard capable of preventing any Bush rhetorical disaster.
Andrew Rice, chair of the 9-11 Commission Committee of the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows organization, is one among millions of terribly frustrated Americans. He believes that as far as this official 9-11 Commission is concerned, the "fix was in" from the beginning. Beverly Eckert, whose husband died on September 11, adds: "We wanted journalists, we wanted academics ... We did not want politicians."
The commission comprises nine men and a woman, five Republicans and five Democrats. They include two former governors, a former navy secretary, a former deputy attorney-general, two former Congressmen, two former senators and a former White House counsel. It's a consummate bunch of establishment arch-insiders, all inter-connected. One wonders how such a body can possibly investigate what's behind the myriad of political, military and intelligence interplay. Even the commission itself has been forced to admit that of the 16 federal agencies covered by its investigation, only the State Department is being "fully cooperative", with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a distant second. This is leading to a growing perception, not only in Washington but in other parts of the world, of a "hidden agenda". "They seem to be interested in putting up a good show as a coverup; and of course they're very worried about damage control," says a diplomat from the European Union.
Independents in conflict
There are devastating cases of conflict of interest in the commission. Chairman Thomas Kean may be the most obvious. The US$1 trillion lawsuit filed in August 2002 by the families of the victims of September 11 includes two of Kean's business partners among the accused: Saudi billionaires Khalid bin Mahfouz (who is Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law, no less), and Mohammed Hussein al-Amoudi. They are key financial players behind al-Qaeda: Mahfouz transferred millions of dollars from a Saudi pension fund to bank accounts in London and New York linked with al-Qaeda. He is a former director of BCCI, the bank in the center of a notorious $12 billion bankruptcy scandal during the presidency of Bush senior.
Kean is director and shareholder of Amerada Hess Corporation, an oil giant involved in a joint venture with Delta Oil of Saudi Arabia - which is owned by the clans of Mahfouz and Amoudi - to explore Caspian Sea oilfields. Amerada Hess severed the joint venture only three weeks before Kean was appointed chairman of the 9-11 Commission by his friend George W Bush.
It's unlikely fellow members at the 9-11 Commission will ask Kean to reveal to what extent he was aware of Mahfouz's links to al-Qaeda; or ask Amerada Hess to open its books and reveal what kind of deals it was cooking up with Mahfouz. After all, Bush himself also had a business connection with Mahfouz, owner of various investments in Houston, Texas. As to the 28 pages of the joint congressional committee detailing Saudi support to al-Qaeda, they also seem to have vanished into thin air.
The commission, for instance, also will not investigate the foreign policy that started it all in the late 1970s and early 1980s: the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA's) full support to the hardcore international Islamic brigades which joined the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan - and then turned against the US after the first Gulf War in 1991. This would mean that the commission would have to seriously investigate Secretary of State Colin Powell and his number two, Richard Armitage, key players in those 1980s proceedings.
Former national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, also one of the key members of the Council on Foreign Relations, was the mastermind behind the building of an Islamic network in Afghanistan - as part of a huge, covert CIA operation. To a large extent, the modern Islamic jihad exists thanks to Brzezinski. There are four members of the Council on Foreign Relations in the commission. There's hardly any chance of them investigating their fellow Brzezinski.
The commission's executive director, Philip D Zelikow, is a crucial player. This is the man who directs all the investigative research of the commission. On October 5, 2001 - two days before the beginning of the bombing of Afghanistan - he was appointed as one of the three members of Bush's foreign intelligence advisory board. Zelikow is the ultimate Bush insider.
Andrew Rice says that Zelikow "worked with these people and now he is defending them". Zelikow also worked for Jim Baker, former secretary of state of Bush senior. He spent three years on Bush senior's National Security Council. He is close to Bush junior, and even closer to Condi Rice: they worked together, and he even co-wrote two books with her.
Commissioner Jamie S Gorelick is very close to CIA director George Tenet. No wonder: she works on the CIA's National Security Advisory Panel, as well as on the president's Review of Intelligence. Tenet is one of the masterminds of the Bush administration "war on terror". This means no chance for the commission to investigate dubious covert operations by the CIA which may foment terrorism instead of fighting it.
Commissioner Fred Fielding is a former White House counsel during Reagan's time, at the time of the Iran-Contra scandal. He is very close to all major players in the Bush administration, in fact one of the White House men in the commission alongside Zelikow.
Commissioner John Lehman was navy secretary under Reagan. He served alongside two of the commission's key witnesses: Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former counterterrorism head Richard Clarke. He is close to all major players in the Bush administration and also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, with very close personal ties to Henry Kissinger. Lehman is Kissinger's man in the commission.
Commissioner Timothy J Roemer is a former member of the Intelligence Committee's task force on Homeland Security and Terrorism and the joint inquiry on 9-11 of the Senate and House. He is very close to Congressman Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham, who co-headed the joint inquiry. Graham and Goss, as we will see on part 2 of this series, have very suspicious links to former Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence director Lieutenant General Mahmoud Ahmad.
If the intellectual masterminds of the "war on terror" in the Council on Foreign Relations won't be investigated, neither will be those members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). PNAC was prophetic in the sense that even before the Bush administration, in a 2000 white paper, their members were betting on "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" so the American people would support their agenda of global politico-military dominance. All neo-conservative superstars - like Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle - are members of PNAC (see Asia Times Online, March 20, 2003, This war is brought to you by ...)
Clarke writes about their obsession on page 30 of his book: "I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq." On page 231, Clarke recalls in vivid detail an April 2001 meeting where Wolfowitz is obsessed with Iraq, while the CIA dismisses the Wolfowitz-peddled notion of Iraqi terrorism and the State Department agrees with Clarke's assessment of al-Qaeda as "a major threat" and "an urgent priority".
Andrew Rice could not but be a serious critic of the commision: "It is not about transparency, it is just there to appease the public. But it won't appease me or many other family members. We need a truly independent commission that is outside the realm of government. The worst case scenario is that I fear this could be a whitewash and a coverup." The final report of the commission won't be published until April 2005 - long after the November presidential election.
Clarke , Condi and the Bush doctrine
Clarke insists that he explicitly warned the Bush administration about al-Qaeda as early as January 25, 2001, five days after the inauguration: "It was very explicit. [Condoleezza] Rice was briefed ... and Zelikow sat in.". Clarke said that he gave Condi Rice a detailed memo on how to fight al-Qaeda, based on CIA briefings and lots of information collected under the Bill Clinton administration. On page 229 of his book, he writes: "... her facial expression gave me the impression she had never heard the term [al-Qaeda] before."
In 2002, the White House had to admit on the record that the August 6, 2001 president daily briefing (PDB) quoted at the start of this article said that al-Qaeda might use hijacked planes in an attack inside the US. A portion of this PDB, written by the CIA, predicted that al-Qaeda would launch an attack "in the coming weeks" and that it "will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning." So Bush knew: he's supposed to have read the PDB while on holiday in Crawford, Texas. But Bush has claimed executive privilege and the White House has refused to release the full text of the PDB.
In her famous May 16, 2002 press conference, Condi Rice said: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Apparently Rumsfeld could have predicted it. Speaking to the 9-11 Commission last month, Rumsfeld said he, personally, didn't know. But he admitted having received "a civil aviation circular that people did know ... They sent it out on June 22, 2001".
Rumsfeld may know much more than he's willing to admit. According to a report on the US army's Internet site, a simulation of a plane crashing on the Pentagon was carried 10 months before September 11. Rumsfeld told the 9-11 Commission, under oath, that "he did not know" about this simulation, which was conducted by the Emergency Management Team at the Pentagon and involved a lot of employees. The simulation could have been just one more in an endless series of coincidences. Or it could be part of the planning for an event the Pentagon - or at least his director - knew was going to happen.
After the outbursts of the Clarke-smearing campaign - brutal even by the standards of the Bush White House - it has emerged that Condi Rice is also contradicted by none other than the all-powerful Dick Cheney. The White House insists that it did know exactly what it was doing before September 11. And Rice said the White House counterterrorism czar was indeed "in the loop". But Cheney said that Clarke was "not in the loop" - the ultimate Washington put-down. So who was outlooped, Clarke or Condi?
Clarke's central accusation is relatively mild. He says that the Bush administration was lost in space as far as al-Qaeda was concerned because of its ideological fixation on Saddam Hussein. This may have generated non-stop character assassination from the Bush camp, but the fact is Clarke has produced no smoking gun. Essentially, the only major difference between Clarke and the neo-cons is that Clarke was obsessed with bin Laden, while the neo-cons were obsessed with Saddam. Both bin Laden and Saddam, as we know, are former CIA assets.
On page 243 of his book, Clarke qualifies as "somewhat off the mark" the critique of Bush as "a dumb, lazy rich kid". But then he crucially adds: "I doubt that anyone ever had the chance to make the case to him that attacking Iraq would actually make America less secure and strengthen the broader radical Islamic terrorist movement. Certainly he did not hear that from the small circle of advisors who alone are the people whose views he respects and trusts." Condi Rice has always been in favor of regime change in Iraq.
In an article she wrote to Foreign Affairs in early 2000, Rice outlined what amounted to be a semi-official Bush foreign policy platform. She lists five key foreign policy priorities. Only the last one made any mention of terrorism. Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, Afghanistan, madrassas in Pakistan, al-Qaeda-style financial networks, Islamist sleeper cells in America, Spain and Germany, none of this is even mentioned. Rice only talks about North Korea, Iraq and Iran - which two years later, in early 2002, would graduate to "axis of evil" status. She is in favor of regime change in Iraq. And her top policy recommendation is national missile defense - aimed at rogue states.
Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI wiretap translator, fluent in English, Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani and with top-secret security clearance, told Salon news publication that she is nothing but outraged: "Especially after reading Condoleezza Rice where she said, 'we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes'. That's an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it's a lie." Edmonds wants the commission to ask real questions to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies later this month: "Like, in April 2001, did an FBI field office receive legitimate information indicating the use of airplanes for an attack on major cities? And is it true that through an FBI informant, who'd been used [by the bureau] for 10 years, did you get information about specific terrorist plans and specific cells in this country? He couldn't say no." Edmonds' recent interviews also raise the fascinating possibility that al-Qaeda penetrated internal security both at the Pentagon and at the State Department. In this case, are the moles still in place?
The Bush administration as a whole took over the media to tell everyone how they had identified the al-Qaeda danger long ago - so they could not be accused of passive responsibility on September 11. But the single evidence of these later allegations was the long build up to the post-September 11 war on Afghanistan. What this actually means is that the war on Afghanistan cannot possibly be described any more as an act of legitimate defense. As to the Bush doctrine of preventive war, which was nothing more than a rhetorical artifact in the first place, it has become a significant casualty of the Clarke-White House shouting match. The doctrine has only lasted enough time to allow the Bush administration to attack Iraq.
It is expected that the 9-11 Commission will keep rolling a huge data bank of unconnected "intelligence failures" and instances of lack of dialogue between FBI and CIA. In the end, it's fair to assume there will be a fall guy to be blamed for all these "intelligence failures". It's also fair to assume it won't be one of the big guns.

TOMORROW: Part 2: A real smoking gun in Pakistan

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


9-11 AND THE SMOKING GUN
Part 2: A real smoking gun
By Pepe Escobar

Part 1: 'Independent' commission

If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.
In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.
A juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham. They were all in Washington together discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001, happened.
Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.
In December 2002, Graham said he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -"the state within the state" - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US.
Get Osama bin Laden
On August 22, 2001, Asia Times Online reported Get Osama! Now! Or else ...
On September 9, the legendary "Lion of the Panjshir", Ahmed Shah Masoud, the key Northern Alliance commander, was assassinated by two suicide bombers posing as journalists in his base in northern Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance tells Washington that the ISI may be involved. Masoud himself had told this correspondent, two weeks before he was killed, of the incestuous link between bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI. A 2002 Asia Times Online investigation would later establish that Masoud was killed as a gift from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, with heavy involvement by Abdul Sayyaf, an Afghan mujahideen commander very close to the ISI and the Saudis. From Washington's perspective, this was also a gift. Masoud was the crucial Afghan nationalist leader, supported by Russia and Iran; after the Taliban being smashed he would never have accepted a feeble, US-sponsored, Hamid Karzai-style government.
On September 10, the Pakistani daily The News reported that the Mahmoud visit to the United States "triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council". If he'd been to the National Security Council, he had certainly met Rice. Mahmoud did meet with his counterpart, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet. Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had been in Islamabad in May, when Tenet had "unusually long" meetings with Musharraf. Armitage for his part has countless friends in the Pakistani military and the ISI. Mahmoud also met a number of high officials at the White House and the Pentagon and had a crucial meeting with Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs. Rice maintains she did not meet Mahmoud then.
On the morning of September 11, Mahmoud was having a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with Graham and Goss. Goss spent as many as 10 years working on numerous CIA clandestine operations. He is very close to Vice President Dick Cheney. It's interesting to note that two weeks ago Goss suggested to the Justice Department to bring perjury charges against the new Cheney nemesis, Clarke. As it is widely known, Graham and Goss were co-heads of the joint House-Senate investigation that proclaimed there was "no smoking gun" as far as President George W Bush having any advance knowledge of September 11.
According to the Washington Post, and also to sources in Islamabad, the Mahmoud-Graham-Goss meeting lasted until the second plane hit Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. Graham later said they were talking about terrorism coming from Afghanistan, which means they were talking about bin Laden.
Pakistani intelligence sources told Asia Times Online that on the afternoon of September 11 itself, as well as on September 12 and 13, Armitage met with Mahmoud with a stark choice: either Pakistan would help the US against al-Qaeda, or it would be bombed back to the Stone Age. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented an ultimatum in the form of seven US demands. Pakistan accepted all of them. One of the demands was for Musharraf to send Mahmoud to Kandahar again and force the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. Mahmoud knew in advance Mullah Omar would refuse. But when he went to Kandahar the Taliban leader said he would accept, as long as the Americans proved bin Laden was responsible for September 11. There was no proof, and Afghanistan was bombed anyway, a policy already decided well in advance.
It's important to remember than on September 13 Islamabad airport was shut down - allegedly because of threats against Pakistan's strategic assets. On September 14, Islamabad declared total support for the US: the airport was immediately reopened. Mahmoud remained in Washington until September 16 - when the war on Afghanistan was more than programmed, and Pakistan was firmly in the "with us" and not the "against us" column.
Million-dollar questions remain. Did Mahmoud know when and how the attacks of September 11 would happen? Did Musharraf know? Could the Bush administration have prevented September 11? It's hard to believe high echelons of the CIA and FBI were not aware of the direct link between the ISI and alleged chief hijacker Mohammed Atta.
On October 7, Mahmoud was demoted from the ISI. By that time, Washington obviously knew of the connection between Mahmoud, Saeed Sheikh and Mohamed Atta: the FBI knew it. The official version is that Mahmoud was sacrificed because he was too close to the Taliban - which, it is never enough to remind, are a cherished creature of the ISI. Two other ISI big shots, Lieutenant-General Mohammed Aziz Khan and Chief of General Staff Mohammed Yousouf, are also demoted along with Mahmoud. Saeed Sheikh was under orders to Khan.
The fact remains that even with this Musharraf-conducted purge of the ISI elite, the bulk of ISI officers remained, and still are, pro-Taliban. Other former ISI directors living in Pakistan, such as the colorful, outspoken Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, did not "disappear" and always renew their support for the Taliban. But as Asia Times Online has reported, Mahmoud did disappear. He lives in near seclusion in Rawalpindi. And he is definitely not talking. Graham and Goss may not be interested in talking to him either. Because he may be the ultimate September 11 smoking gun.
Conclusion
The Karl Rove-designed campaign to re-elect Bush is in essence anchored on September 11. The Republican convention in New York will happen in the first week of September. Bush's speech will be on September 2 - to force the connection with the three-year commemoration of September 11.
This whole affair is not about whether Clarke committed "perjury"; whether Rice was really up to her job; or whether George W Bush knew something and then "forgot" about it. The families of September 11 victims, US public opinion, the demonized Islamic world, the whole world for that matter, all everybody wants to know is what really happened on September 11. The only party that does not seem interested in getting to the bottom of it is the Bush administration. The official fable of 19 kamikaze Arabs turning Boeings into missiles with military precision, armed only with box cutters and a few flight lessons and directed from an Afghan cave by a satellite phone-shy bin Laden simply does not hold. The commission is not asking the really hard questions. Here are just a few - and they are far from being the most embarrassing.

1) The "stand down" order: Why, despite more than an hour's warning that an attack was happening, were no F-16s protecting US airspace? Documents easily available online reveal why the Pentagon could not act: because of bureaucracy. Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) claim it took 25 minutes after the transponder was shut down to learn that Flight 11 - which hit World Trade Center Tower 1 - was hijacked? Why did fighters not take off from Andrews Air Force base just outside Washington to protect the Pentagon?

2) The pre-September 11 suspicious stock option trades in American Airlines and United Airlines were never fully investigated. Who profited?

3) What happened to the FBI investigation into flight schools - when it was proved that at least five of the 19 hijackers were trained in US military schools?

4) Why did Bush keep reading a pet-goat story for more than half an hour after the first WTC hit, and 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him there had been an attack?

5) What really happened to Flight 93? An Associated Press story last August quoting a congressional report said the FBI suspected the plane was crashed on purpose. The FBI has a flight-simulation video of what happened: the video - as well as the black box - remain top secret. And as far as four "indestructible" black boxes are concerned, how come none were found, unlike Mohammed Atta's intact passport lying in the WTC rubble?

6) Why have no scientific experts examined the physical and mathematical evidence that a Boeing 757 could not have possibly "disappeared" without a trace after hitting the Pentagon? For the most exhaustive and practically incontrovertible analysis available on the net, see this report.

7) What remains of the very tight 1980s bin Laden-ISI-CIA connection? How much did the CIA know about what the ISI was up to? And how much did the ISI know about what al-Qaeda was up to?

8) What does Rice really know about the very close relations between Mahmoud and the top echelons of the Bush administration?

The genie - the crucial information - is still in the bottle.

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