>> SOUTH KOREA
U.S. Admonishes South Korea for Furtive Uranium-Enrichment Experiment, but Praises Disclosure
By Barry Schweid The Associated Press
Published: Sep 2, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) - The State Department criticized South Korea on Thursday for conducting a secret uranium-enrichment experiment but praised its ally for working with a U.N. agency to make sure the program is ended.
The disclosure came amid a strenuous effort by the Bush administration to stop Iran from beginning a uranium-enrichment program U.S. officials say could produce four nuclear weapons.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday the administration intends to press for a range of possible U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran: political, economic or diplomatic.
South Korean scientists conducted the secret experiment four years ago, according to U.N. and South Korean officials.
South Korea is in the process of verifying to the International Atomic Energy Agency "that that activity has been eliminated and will not be repeated," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.
"But what they had done in the past was activity that should not have occurred," Boucher said. "It's activity that must be eliminated, and we are glad that South Korea is working in a transparent manner to do that."
The spokesman said the scale of South Korea's enrichment work was much smaller than that of North Korea and Iran. And he called on North Korea to disclose its activity to the U.N. agency.
Libya and South Africa have set a good example by abandoning nuclear weapons projects, Boucher said, and South Korea is following suit. "We hope that other nations would follow it, as well," he said.
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a private research group, said "South Korea needs to make lemonade out of this lemon."
"They not only need to condemn the activity and end the program but they should fully prosecute responsible individuals," Kimball said in a telephone interview.
"This would set the proper example for other states of concern in the region and in the world," he said.
Noting that the source of South Korea's technology had not been disclosed, Kimball said "we cannot afford to have another whitewash."
"This incident should lead to a reevaluation of U.S. export control laws on nuclear technology," Kimball said. "It is possible that this project had links to U.S.-origin technology,"
Boucher said he did not think the South Korean experiment would affect negotiations with North Korea to end its weapons program and to denuclearize the Korean peninsula.
The six nations engaged in the talks - the United States, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia - have agreed to resume negotiations at the end of the month but no date has been announced.
AP-ES-09-02-04 1610EDT
IAEA Probes S. Korean Nuclear Experiment
By SANG-HUN CHOE
Associated Press Writer
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) -- The U.N. nuclear watchdog is investigating a secret uranium-enrichment experiment that South Korean scientists conducted four years ago, U.N. and South Korean officials said Thursday.
The single experiment in early 2000 was revealed in a report South Korea presented last month to the Vienna, Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the Science and Technology Ministry said in a statement.
South Korea reported that its "laboratory scale" experiment "involved the production of only milligram quantities of enriched uranium," the IAEA said in a statement posted on its Web site.
Highly enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear warheads. But South Korea said Thursday it has no intention of building nuclear bombs and remains committed to international efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its weapons development.
There was no immediate reaction from communist North Korea, which says it is building a "nuclear deterrent" to counter what it calls plans by the United States and its South Korean ally to unleash a nuclear war on the divided Korean peninsula.
"The government will take measures to prevent similar things from happening in the future," the statement said, adding that a small group of scientists conducted the experiment on their own initiative.
An IAEA investigating team arrived Sunday in South Korea to conduct a weeklong probe into the program, the ministry said.
The team will report early next week to IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, who in turn will present his findings when the agency's Board of Governors convenes in mid-September.
South Korea said the uranium enrichment took place during experiments using laser technology to separate isotopes. Those experiments were part of the country's research for domestic production of fuel for its nuclear power plants.
The experiment, conducted in a facility dedicated to research into nuclear fuel, involved separating just 0.01 ounces of uranium, the statement said. The experiment was immediately terminated after it was conducted and the equipment scrapped, according to the ministry.
South Korea said the government only recently found out about the unauthorized experiment, when it prepared a report under the terms of a new, tougher safeguard agreement it signed with the IAEA in February that required it to record activities in the fuel research center.
"The fact that we have decided to report this faithfully and transparently to the IAEA reflects our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation," the ministry said. "We are sincerely honoring our obligations for the peaceful use of nuclear energy and nuclear nonproliferation."
South Korea said it remains committed to keeping the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.
The revelation comes as South Korea and five other countries are trying to persuade North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. That crisis arose after the North reportedly admitted in 2002 having a secret nuclear program in violation of international agreements.
South Korea launched a secret nuclear weapons program in the 1970s under military dictator Park Chung-hee, but abandoned the plan after strong U.S. pressure.
Lacking oil and natural resources, South Korea's civilian nuclear program today provides more than 40 percent of the country's energy.
? 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
IAEA Inspection Team Conducting Investigation in South Korea
2 September 2004 | On 23 August 2004, during discussions about the initial declarations of the Republic of Korea (ROK) under the Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement, the ROK informed the IAEA that it had enriched nuclear material in the course of atomic vapour laser isotope separation (AVLIS) experiments that had not been declared to the IAEA. The ROK informed the IAEA that these experiments had been on a laboratory scale and involved the production of only milligram quantities of enriched uranium. According to the ROK, these activities were carried out without the Government?s knowledge at a nuclear site in Korea in 2000, and that the activities had been terminated.
Following receipt of this information, the IAEA dispatched a team of inspectors, headed by the Director of the Safeguards Operations Division responsible for the ROK, to investigate further all relevant aspects of this matter. The inspectors will report to the Director General upon their return to Vienna early next week. The Director General will be informing the Board of Governors of the IAEA?s initial findings at the next meeting of the Board of Governors beginning on 13 September 2004.
Press Contacts
Mark Gwozdecky
Director and Spokesperson
Division of Public Information
[43-1] 2600-21270
[43] 664-154-6989 (mobile)
m.gwozdecky@iaea.org
Melissa Fleming
Alternate Spokesperson
Div. of Public Information
[43-1] 2600-21275
[43] 664-325-7376 (mobile)
m.fleming@iaea.org
South Korea Admits Enriching Uranium to Near Bomb Grade
By REUTERS
Published: September 2, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-korea-iaea.html
Filed at 11:33 a.m. ET
SEOUL/VIENNA (Reuters) - South Korea has admitted that government scientists enriched uranium four years ago to a level that several Vienna diplomats said was almost pure enough for an atomic bomb, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on Thursday.
Although only a minute quantity of uranium was involved, two Western diplomats close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the enrichment was below but ``very close'' to the threshold for bomb-grade uranium.
``It was well beyond the level that would be needed for a civilian program,'' one of the diplomats told Reuters. ``The government says that its program is peaceful and the IAEA is not making any judgments on that issue.''
South Korea said in a statement the U.N. nuclear watchdog was investigating the disclosure. It said the experiments, which involved enriching uranium with lasers, were carried out by a group of scientists without government knowledge and soon ended.
``This is enrichment of uranium,'' a government official told Reuters by telephone. Other government officials had earlier said the experiments did not go as far as enriching uranium.
The IAEA said in a statement that Seoul had told the agency that ``these activities were carried out without the government's knowledge at a nuclear site in Korea in 2000.''
At the same time, a Vienna diplomat said the scientists were government employees working at a government-run facility.
South Korea has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the IAEA's Additional Protocol, which gives inspectors the right to conduct more intrusive, short-notice visits to nuclear sites than normal NPT safeguards permit.
``With the Additional Protocol in force, it would have been difficult for Korea to keep this a secret,'' the diplomat said.
The IAEA said a team of inspectors was now in South Korea and would be returning to Vienna early next week. The agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, would present the inspectors' findings to the IAEA Board of Governors when it meets on Sept. 13.
CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE NPT, DIPLOMATS
The experiments clearly did not constitute a violation of the NPT because they were not an attempt to build nuclear weapons, the South Korean official said.
However, several diplomats on the IAEA's 35-member Board of Governors said that South Korea had clearly violated its obligations under the NPT, which requires that such activities be reported to the IAEA. They said the board had no choice but to report such violations to the U.N. Security Council.
``This will have to be reported to the Security Council, but the board would want that to be with the consent of the South Korean government, similar to what we did with Libya,'' one Western diplomat said on condition of anonymity.
Earlier this year the IAEA board reported Libya to the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, though the report was purely informative and praised Tripoli for coming clean about its past secret atomic weapons program.
Another Western diplomat close to the IAEA said that the agency would naturally want to fulfill its duty as the watchdog of the NPT by conducting a thorough investigation to rule out the possibility that South Korea has a secret weapons program.
The revelation could prove embarrassing to Seoul, which is a key member of six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
U.S. officials said in October 2002 that the North had admitted to running a secret nuclear program based on uranium enrichment technology.
Pyongyang has since denied the claim. It has yet to comment on the latest South Korean disclosure.
South Korea began a secret atomic weapons program in the 1970s under Park Chung-hee, a military dictator who was assassinated in 1979. Park's program is widely believed to have only ended with his death.
The IAEA has made similar discoveries of minute amounts of enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium in Iran, which Washington considers as evidence that Tehran is using its civilian nuclear energy program as a front for developing atomic weapons.
Iran says the United States is wrong and insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity.
The South Korean government learned of the enrichment experiments while drawing up its first report to the IAEA, submitted this month, the Seoul statement said.
The experiments were conducted in January and February 2000 as part of research in producing nuclear fuel in the country, it said. A minute quantity, 0.2 gram, of uranium was successfully enriched. All facilities and the uranium were destroyed immediately after the experiments, the statement added.
>> BBC SPIN
S Korea in 'secret' nuclear trial
By Charles Scanlon
BBC correspondent in Seoul
The South Korean Government has admitted its scientists experimented secretly with nuclear fuel enrichment.
Experts say the technique used could have military implications, but a government official denied any intention to build a weapons programme.
A European based diplomat said the work was a violation of South Korea's international nuclear commitments.
The discovery could lead to calls for South Korea to be referred to the UN Security Council, like North Korea.
It is also likely to cause severe embarrassment to Seoul, and its key ally the US.
A team of inspectors from the IAEA secretly rushed to South Korea last week, after the government revealed that the country had broken its commitments on nuclear proliferation.
According to the ROK (South Korea), these activities were carried out without the government?s knowledge at a nuclear site in Korea in 2000
IAEA statement
Seoul made the admission under the terms of a tougher inspection regime that is just coming into effect.
A South Korean government official told the BBC that the research, which involved the use of lasers to enrich nuclear fuel, was not authorised by the government.
The official said it was a "rogue" operation which ended four years ago, and concerned the production of a tiny amount of highly enriched uranium, which could be used for an atomic bomb.
The official said the research was for the domestic production of nuclear fuel for the country's civil programme.
However, according to analysts, there is no credible civilian use for the technique, which uses lasers to create weapons-grade uranium.
'Same as Iran'
South Korean officials said the government only found out about the experiments in the last few months, and were now investigating the scientists responsible.
A European-based diplomat said their actions were a clear violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and could put South Korea into the same category as Iran.
South Korea abandoned a nuclear weapons programme in the 1970s, under intense pressure from the United States.
It has since committed itself to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, and has been at the forefront of efforts to persuade North Korea to give up its development of atomic bombs.
The finding is likely to cause deep embarrassment to the US, which regards Seoul as a close ally in its attempts to persuade the North to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
According to IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky, the inspectors will leave South Korea early next week, and their findings will be presented to the agency's Board of Governors on 13 September.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> NORTH KOREA
U.S. Moves for Arms Buildup Assailed
Pyongyang, September 1 (KCNA) -- The United States decided to deploy a squadron of Alaska-based F-15E in south Korea under the pretext of staging an exercise aimed to familiarize themselves with terrain conditions in case of contingency on the Korean peninsula. Minju Joson Wednesday in a signed commentary carried in this regard says:
This is an open challenge to the Korean people and the rest of the world people desirous of peace and reunification of Korea.
The U.S. plan to bring the squadron into south Korea at a time when Ulji Focus Lens-04 is at its height there goes to prove that the U.S. moves for a war of aggression against the DPRK have reached a reckless and adventurous phase.
The U.S. moves for a new war should not be overlooked. It is self-evident that should the U.S. ignite a war on the Korean peninsula against the DPRK, it will lead to a nuclear war and then the Koreans in the north and the south will suffer from it.
It is a sheer delusion of the U.S. to try to stifle the DPRK by force of arms. The U.S. would be well advised to properly understand who its rival is and stop such arms buildup and withdraw all its forces of aggression from south Korea.
The south Korean authorities should ponder over the consequences to be entailed by their traitorous act of bringing foreign aggressors with nuclear clubs into south Korea.
Talking Human Rights With North Korea
By Roberta Cohen
Monday, August 30, 2004; Page A23
Whatever would Ronald Reagan think of the six-party talks to get North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program? Although Kim Jong Il's Communist government is the world's worst human rights violator, the United States, Japan and South Korea have managed to exclude all reference to humanitarian and human rights concerns from the discussions. Their fear is that any mention of the 200,000 political prisoners in forced labor camps, the suppression of the population's civil and political freedoms or the punishment meted out to those who try to flee the country would antagonize the North Korean government and jeopardize chances for a nuclear agreement.
This is hard to understand, given that when confronted by the Soviet Union, which had far greater nuclear power and targeted it specifically against the United States, Reagan did not see fit to give up on human rights goals. In fact, he publicly affirmed in 1982 that "the persecution of people" must be "on the negotiating table or the United States does not belong at that table." Similarly, President Jimmy Carter before him negotiated the SALT II arms control agreement with the Soviets while calling attention to human rights concerns.
Reagan and Carter were able to make this link because of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, an East-West agreement that created a multilateral forum for discussing security concerns, economic and scientific issues, and human rights. Moscow signed on for security guarantees -- the acknowledgment of post-World War II borders -- while the West secured a commitment to advance human rights. In fact, one of the lessons of this period was that only in that broad context of strategic, political and economic issues could progress be made on human rights.
Once they resume, the talks with North Korea, which involve the United States, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China, could create a multilateral forum for the Korean Peninsula along the lines of the Helsinki process. The talks already cover nuclear and security issues, and more recently economic questions were added. Human rights and humanitarian issues should be brought in as well. For one thing, foreign investment in a country with forced labor must be linked to human rights standards. Any increase in food aid should go hand in hand with humanitarian principles of unimpeded access and equitable distribution. Nuclear verification and inspections would benefit as well from these openings.
South Korea's support should be sought as a first step toward creating a Helsinki framework. Since 1994 South Korea has gained experience of the Helsinki process through its partnership with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the successor to Helsinki. On the European continent, South Korea promotes democracy and human rights and sends election monitors to the Balkans. But on the Korean Peninsula it looks the other way, fearing that any mention of human rights in the North would trigger turmoil, collapse and an outpouring of refugees.
Yet, since 2001, North Korea has been involved, albeit modestly, in "human rights dialogues" with the European Union and the ambassadors from Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In a note to the United Nations, the North Koreans claim to have allowed the European Union "access to reform-through-labor centers and contact with former inmates."
Using those talks as a springboard, Europe's Helsinki organization could offer to bring North Korea into observer status. This would expose the country to multilateral discussions about democracy, freedom of movement, family reunification and the safeguarding of civil and political freedoms. Within this broader political and security framework, North Korea might be more willing to face up to its international human rights obligations.
China will need to be brought into the process as well. It hosts the six-party talks and is North Korea's primary ally. Between 200,000 and 300,000 North Koreans have fled to China because of famine, lack of work and persecution. There they face the threat of arrest and deportation. Yet promoting fairer food distribution in North Korea and improved human rights conditions would help curb refugee flows into China. A regional forum could also explore burden-sharing with countries willing to resettle North Koreans, such as Russia, where a provincial government has said it would take 200,000, and the United States, where Congress has expressed readiness to accept North Korean refugees.
Finally, a multilateral framework would help reconcile the differences between humanitarian and human rights advocates over how to deal with North Korea. Relief workers delivering food aid to North Korea fear that any overt criticism of the North's human rights record would limit humanitarian access. But mounting concerns over the diversion of international food aid to the army and communist elite -- rather than to the 6.5 million Koreans reported at risk -- have led to the withdrawal of leading nongovernmental organizations and a reduction in donations from governments. A Helsinki process would make food distribution part of the discussion along with human rights issues. As matters stand, a sense of direction is lacking for dealing with the serious human rights and humanitarian problems on the Korean Peninsula. The Helsinki process provided that essential element for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the 1970s and 1980s. Adapted to Asia, it could do the same for North Korea.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution specializing in humanitarian issues. She will answer questions at 2 p.m. on Thursday at www.washingtonpost.com.
? 2004 The Washington Post Company
>> EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW
Four Decades in North Korea
One cold night in 1965, Sgt. Charles Robert Jenkins disappeared from a patrol in South Korea. Forty years later he has resurfaced. In his first interview since leaving North Korea, he tells the Review his story
By Jeremy Kirk/TOKYO
WEB SPECIAL/September 01, 2004
After surviving for nearly four decades in North Korea and spending a month in a Tokyo hospital room, United States Army Sgt. Charles Robert Jenkins wants closure. And to get it, he's ready to tell his story.
In Jenkins' first interview since taking flight from the North Korean regime in July, the alleged defector tells the REVIEW why he intends to turn himself over to the U.S. Army even though he expects to face a court martial. Jenkins reveals how he sought asylum at the Soviet embassy in 1966, endured repeated beatings at the hands of another American defector, and was pressured by North Korean authorities to reject a personal invitation by the Japanese prime minister to leave the country with him. And he describes how his difficult life in North Korea was lifted from misery by a love affair with a Japanese nurse who shared his hatred of the communist regime and eventually helped him and their two daughters escape.
"When I got on the airplane in Indonesia coming to Japan," Jenkins says, speaking in a colloquial English that reflects his seventh-grade North Carolina education and decades spent in a foreign land, "my intentions was to turn myself in to the military for the simple reason I would like to put my daughters with their mother, one thing. Another thing: I'd like to clear my conscience."
Rising from his hospital bed at the Tokyo Women's Medical University, Jenkins greets his visitor with a deferential Korea handshake, briefly makes eye contact and immediately looks away. A graying 64-year-old with a heavily creased face, Jenkins is still restricted in what he says: under the advice of his military lawyer he withholds the circumstances of his alleged desertion to North Korea and many of the details of his life there-information that he intends to offer to the Americans in return for their leniency.
On September 1, Jenkins announced to the press that he would report to U.S. Army Camp Zama, near Tokyo, and "voluntarily face voluntarily the charges that have been filed against me by the U.S. Army." The U.S. charges Jenkins with desertion, aiding the enemy, soliciting others to desert and encouraging disloyalty. In a document seen by the REVIEW that was intially intended to argue his case for an other-than-honourable discharge, Jenkins acknowledges that he is guilty of at least one of the four charges against him or of a lesser included offense, without specifying precisely which offense. The U.S. military informally rejected Jenkins' discharge request. (For more on Jenkins' legal case, see article on page 18).
The U.S., not wishing to send the wrong message to its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, has publicly vowed to prosecute Jenkins. But privately the matter is much more delicate. Jenkins presents a starkly different picture than of a deserter who enjoyed living in North Korea and supported the regime by acting in propaganda movies. It's of a man-and family-who scraped by while North Korean officials watched their every move.
As he talks, Jenkins stares at the floor, absorbed in his solemn past. Frequently on the verge of tears, his voice cracks and wavers when he speaks of his wife and children. A three-pack a day smoker who suffers heart problems and anxiety attacks, Jenkins speaks slowly, in a hoarse North Carolina drawl, deliberately choosing each word as he lucidly recalls dates and events from decades ago.
Jenkins arrived in North Korea already a service veteran. He dropped out of school in North Carolina in the seventh grade, not long after the death of his father, and in 1955, at 15, he entered the National Guard. After an honourable discharge in April 1958, he enlisted in the regular Army. By August 1960 he had begun a 13-month tour in South Korea, during which he was promoted to sergeant; he was returned for a second tour in September, 1964. Then, on a bone-chilling night early the following January, on patrol along the Demilitarized Zone, the 24-year-old sergeant with an unblemished nine-year service record vanished. The U.S. government considers him a deserter, saying that he left behind letters stating his intention to defect; members of his family in the U.S. have said they are convinced that he was captured by the communist state.
From 1965 to 1972, on the other side of the DMZ, Jenkins shared a harsh life with three other alleged U.S. Army defectors: Pfc. James Joseph Dresnok, Pvt. Larry Allen Abshier and Cpl. Jerry Wayne Parrish. "At first the four of us lived in one house, one room, very small, no beds-we had to sleep on the floor," Jenkins says. "There was no running water. We had to carry water approximately 200 metres up the hill. And the water was river water."
The North Koreans played the Americans against each other, Jenkins says. "If I didn't listen to the North Korean government, they would tie me up, call Dresnok in to beat me. Dresnok really enjoyed it."
The diminutive Jenkins, about 1.65 metres tall, describes Dresnok as "a beater, 196 cm tall, weighed 128 kilograms. He's big. He likes to beat someone. And because I was a sergeant he took it out on me. I had no other trouble with no one as far as Abshier and Parrish, but Dresnok, yes."
Abshier died of a heart attack in 1983 and Parrish died of a massive internal infection in 1997, according to Jenkins' discharge request. Dresnok is still living in North Korea.
An August 25 psychiatric report by Tokyo doctors, seen by the REVIEW, says Jenkins suffers from a panic disorder as a result of his treatment. "He had been suspected for espionage and continuously censored. During the first several years, he was forced to live together with three American refugees so as to mutually criticize their capitalistic ideology with physical punishment such as beating on face," the report says.
Jenkins would have had particular trouble erasing his past: He bears a tattoo of crossed rifles-the branch insignia of the infantry-on his left forearm. When he got the tattoo as a teenager in the National Guard, the letters "U.S." were inscribed underneath; the North Koreans cut the letters away.
According to Jenkins' discharge request, which was written on his behalf by his military attorney, Capt. James D. Culp, Jenkins and the three other men tried to escape. "In 1966, Sgt. Jenkins even risked his life to leave North Korea by going to the Russian embassy and requesting asylum. Obviously, the Russian government denied the request."
During the 1960s, according to another revealing passage in the discharge request, Culp writes that contrary to rumours, "Sgt. Jenkins had no interaction of any kind with any American sailor taken captive during the USS Pueblo incident." The January 1968 incident began when the North Koreans seized a U.S. Navy spy ship off the country's coast near Wonsan. One crew member was killed, while 82 others were beaten and threatened with death before being released 11 months later, after an embarrassing apology by the U.S..
Meanwhile, between 1965 and 1980, Jenkins says he was beaten by Dresnok at least 30 times. Then, in 1980, Jenkins met Hitomi Soga, and his life changed. "Approximately 10 o'clock at night she came to my house," he says in the interview. "At that time she was 21 years old. I was 40 years old. Anyway she came to my house, the Korean government told me for me to teach her English so they told me to take a few days rest so that we could get very well acquainted, so after about 15 days I started teaching her English."
Soga had been abducted in 1978 by North Korean agents in Japan, and brought to North Korea. "They wanted a schoolteacher to teach the Korean children Japanese language, Japanese customs in order to turn them into espionage agents," says Jenkins. But the kidnappers made a mistake, he says. "The North Korean government did not have any use for my wife because she was not a school teacher, she was a nurse. Therefore they had nowhere really to put her, so if she's with me they'd know where she's at."
When Soga told Jenkins one week after they met that she had been kidnapped, Jenkins says he couldn't believe it. "I'd been in North Korea at that time approximately 15 years and I never heard of anyone being kidnapped. I never heard anything about any civilian being taken to North Korea by force. I learned that my wife-she didn't like the Koreans for it. I also learned that when my wife was taken, the same night her mother disappeared. Her mother never been heard from again. I felt very, very sorry for her. And she learned that I had been in North Korea for 15 years. She knew that I also did not want to be in North Korea so me and her became much closer than before. So it wasn't long after that I asked her to marry me. She said she must think about it a little bit. Her and I got much, much closer and in the end she said she would marry me. So I notified the Korean government, and they agreed. They didn't care."
Jenkins says "there was no one in the village I lived in that thought that she would ever marry me" because of their age difference. "But after meeting her 38 days later we were married. My wife and I became very close as far as love because she hated the (North) Korean government as well as I, so her and I joined hands in marriage on August 8, 1980. From that time on we lived very, very happy."
The couple's first daughter was born three years later. "I named her Roberta because my name is Robert. My wife I told her to give her a second name. She gave her the name Mika and of course my name is Jenkins. Mika means in Japanese `beautiful.'"
Their second daughter was born in 1985: "We named her Brinda Carol Jenkins. That's B-R-I-N-D-A. The reason, my half sister in America was named Brinda Carol."
While Jenkins was building a family, to the outside world his existence and that of other Americans in North Korea was slipping into legend. Jenkins appeared in a North Korean anti-U.S. propaganda film in the 1980s, but by the 1990s the notion that there were still Americans living in Pyongyang was mostly a rumour. It was not until Jenkins resurfaced in 2002 with his teenage daughters that his presence was confirmed.
That year, in a summit with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il agreed to allow a number of Japanese who had been abducted by North Korea to return home. The issue of abductees had long been an emotional issue for the Japanese public and a major sticking point in relations between the two countries.
Jenkins' wife Hitomi went back to Japan that October, leaving her husband and their two daughters behind and bringing international attention to the family. Soga soon became a national hero in Japan, trailed by the media. And Jenkins showed his face as well, giving a rare interview to a Japanese magazine in North Korea. He was quoted as saying that he had not known until that year that Soga was an abductee; he was also quoted as praising Kim Jong Il.
Now that he's left the country, Jenkins no longer disguises his bitterness at the North Korean regime. His legal defence is based in part on the notion that he learned to feign fealty to a regime he despised to avoid death and keep his family together.
Following Soga's release, the North Korean government sought to convince her to return to her husband and daughters, while others tried to find a way to reunite the family in another country. In May 2004, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi traveled to North Korea a second time. On this visit he won the release of the children of Japanese abductees, and tried personally to persuade Jenkins to come to Japan.
Jenkins says he was told he had 10 minutes with Koizumi, but the meeting lasted nearly an hour. "At that time, my wife had been in Japan for 21 months," he says. "Prime Minister Koizumi had a document signed by Kim Jong Il. He got it that morning." The document said that Jenkins and his daughters could leave with Koizumi.
"But before Prime Minster Koizumi came that day," says Jenkins, "four people came and talked with me what would happen to me if I left North Korea. One was the vice-minister for foreign affairs. The other three I don't know exactly who they were. They come and give me a lecture on not to go to Japan. And I knew if I left that day I would never get to the airport."
Jenkins says he also knew the room he was in with Koizumi and his delegation was bugged. "So I told Prime Minister Koizumi I could not leave North Korea," Jenkins says. "He said, `North Korea will not let [Hitomi] leave if she comes back and she does not wish to come back to North Korea.' He said `Today I would like to take you and your daughters with me to Japan.'"
Jenkins suggests that he feared what would happen if he accepted the invitation. "I knew that if I left the guest house that we met Prime Minister Koizumi in, instead of going right to the airport they'd had went to the left and I would have went right back to the area I lived in before and it may have been the end of my life," Jenkins says, his voice cracking.
Jenkins says he was told later that day that Kim Jong Il was very pleased that he did not go to Japan with his daughters. The North Koreans then told Jenkins they would allow him to travel to a third country to meet his wife and bring her back to North Korea.
"North Korea said, `let's go to China.' I agreed," says Jenkins. "But my wife would not. She said no." Soga, determined not to return, feared that China was too close to North Korea. Instead, a meeting was arranged for July in Jakarta.
"The reason I agreed to go to Indonesia because at one time it was a socialist country for one year-that was under Sukarno," says Jenkins. "The purpose of going to Indonesia was to bring my wife back to North Korea. And they (North Korean officials) thought if I went with my two daughters, that she would follow me. But she would not do so and I had no intentions of going back to North Korea."
That leaves Jenkins to face his next challenge: a possible court martial. His military lawyer, Capt. Culp, says Jenkins can offer the U.S. details about the use of foreign nationals in the North Korean spy programme. The request for a discharge asserts that Jenkins can confirm that "a number of Americans were used, most often unwillingly, by North Korea to arm spies with English-speaking skills so they could target American interests in South Korea and beyond."
Culp writes, "The value of this intelligence about the lives and fates of the fellow Americans who lived for decades in North Korea is immeasurable."
The document suggests that Jenkins can help American intelligence identify possible North Korean spies: "At least three other Americans who are suspected of deserting to North Korea were allowed to marry East European and/or Middle Eastern women who had been brought to and held in North Korea against their will. In two of the cases, the Americans had multiple children who are now young adults who appear to be American or European themselves." Jenkins possesses what he says is an April 2004 photograph, seen by the REVIEW, of an ageing Pfc. Dresnok with 19-year-old Brinda and five other non-Korean looking people.
Jenkins has been at the Tokyo hospital since arriving in Japan. In addition to his chronic health problems, he is recovering from prostate surgery in April in North Korea that left him with an infected post-operative wound. Koizumi, a supporter of Washington in the war in Iraq, has raised Jenkins' case with President George W. Bush, but U.S. officials insist that the two governments have not negotiated over the outcome of the ongoing legal process. Jenkins expresses appreciation to the Japanese government, who made his wife's freedom possible, and eventually took in him and his daughters. "It was not my intention whatsoever for the Japanese government to try to get me out of trouble," Jenkins says. "And I really appreciate the Japanese government for all they have done for me."
What he wants now is an end to a nearly four-decade Odyssey, as he prepares to turn himself over to the Americans. He has no interest in getting a civilian attorney. "The American Army has supplied, assigned a very capable man to me, to help me, bring me to military justice. I don't think I need no civilians. All I want to do is clear myself with the American Army."
For more articles from past issues of Far Eastern Economic Review going back to 1946, search feer.com's archive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's 'S&M' journal goes too far on Korea
By John J Tkacik, Jr
WASHINGTON - China hands in Washington have been abuzz in the past week with rumors that Beijing was preparing a policy shift on North Korea. But American, Korean and Japanese policymakers shouldn't think China is on the verge of altering its unbending support for North Korea simply because recently a well-meaning Chinese economist, Wang Zhongwen, managed to publish a thoughtful piece on Beijing's misguided North Korea policies. Alas, it was not to be, although teasing the truth from the hype takes a little work.
Last week, several Korean and Japanese newspapers pointed to Wang's article entitled "A New Viewpoint to Examine the North Korea Issue and the Northeast Asian Situation" that appeared in the most recent issue, No 4 (July/August 2004), of Strategy and Management Magazine, a Chinese bimonthly diplomatic magazine. [1] "S&M" (as it is affectionately known to Washington's China experts), is considered to be an authoritative periodical that is more provocative than mainstream media, occasionally publishing articles that question government policy. It is seen as a sounding board for controversial policy prescriptions - provided that the policy hasn't already been laid down. Wang's article apparently appeared on the S&M website the week before August 20 and was translated by the US Government's Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) on August 25.
Over the top
But it was clear at first glance that Wang's views were way over the top even for those of us who truly appreciate S&M. I know, because I found myself agreeing with them - a first for me. Wang persuasively argued that the wisest thing Washington could have done in response to North Korea's nuclear weapons was - nothing.
It was entirely possible for the US to take no notice of North Korea's willful development of nuclear weapons and turn a blind eye to it, he reasoned. All the US need do was have neighboring countries or interest-related countries attach importance to it and become anxious. "What was the urgency for the United States?" he asked, "Would this not be a better strategy? And in any case, North Korean nuclear weapons cannot hit the US homeland for the time being." He suggested that, if left alone, nature would have taken its course and the Chinese government would eventually have had to confront Pyongyang and force it to abandon its weapons, if only to ensure China's own security. In fact, Wang wrote, South Korea, Japan and China are the interest-related countries that will be most affected by the North's development of nuclear weapons, not the United States, and therefore China should adhere to its diplomatic idea of non-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and support the United States and the international community in peacefully resolving the North Korea nuclear issue.
Wang suggested that in the end a nuclear North Korea would have sparked demands in Japan for nuclear arms (and, I believe, in Taiwan as well), and Beijing would have been forced to take action - even without US begging. I would agree. I have argued that the mere fact that the US opposes North Korea's nuclear ambitions is the biggest factor in China's support for North Korea. After all, it has been one year since China launched the feckless six-party talks in Beijing and announced that "the American policy towards the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea] - is the main problem we are facing", and since then, there has been precisely zero progress.
Moreover, Wang asserted as fact that "in October 2002, when holding talks with visiting US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly, the DPRK explicitly admitted that it was reviving its nuclear program". This was bold! I am certain that Wang knows the official Chinese position is that Kelly "misunderstood" what the North Koreans had told him. The Chinese foreign ministry maintains public agnosticism, simply noting that "we have no knowledge of DPRK's nuclear program or its capabilities. We do not know if DPRK has a HEU [highly enriched uranium] program. According to our understanding, the Japanese are not completely aware of the situation, either." But according to The Washington Post, Chinese diplomats have said, "China did not believe North Korea had a highly enriched uranium program." [5] Despite information from Pakistan's government that Pakistani nuclear czar Dr A Q Khan provided North Korea with a "complete package", from raw uranium hexafluoride to the centrifuges to enrich it into weapons-grade fissile cores, China dismisses US concerns. By not facing up to Pyongyang's threat, Wang's article implies, Chinese diplomats are being too coy by half.
Damnation of Kim, praise for Bush
Wang's article goes on to blame the entire crisis on North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-il. Wang accuses Kim of the unpardonable sin of "practicing ultra-leftist politics and political persecution in order to maintain dynastic rule". He compounds this lese majeste with the accusation that Kim will "unilaterally develop nuclear weapons heedless of whether [his] people live or die, instead of making efforts to develop the economy and improve the people's living standards." The North Korean leader's move, said Wang, "can only land the DPRK in still more difficulties and in greater isolation", and "China has already done a great deal of work ... to make the DPRK understand this point."
And in case anyone thinks Chinese scholars do not have access to the speeches of American presidents, Wang observed that "the best note on this content was President George W Bush's words when standing at the 38th Parallel in February 2002: 'No state should become a prison for its people', and 'Korean children should not go hungry when a powerful army has food'."
Bravo! Mr Wang, I thought to myself, although I had the uneasy feeling that something was amiss. Wang's article was simply too good to be true.
Recalled and Banned
And indeed it wasn't true, or it didn't last - at least not for long. For, you see, the entire Issue Four of S&M has been removed from its website [3] and, according to an email posting from one subscriber on August 27, [4] "Today, the post office contacted me to say that Issue Four was mispublished, and that it must be recalled [shouhui], otherwise they won't give me the next two issues this year ... but the post office worker was not clear about the precise details. Please, which senior person knows the reason for this?" A few minutes later, another web logger, or blogger, on the S&M website wrote, "In fact, it wasn't mispublished, I suspect that it carried an article that was too sensitive. It is not appropriate for the normal man in the street to know too much, I guess it was the North Korea article."
What could have precipitated the drastic measure of recalling a publication from subscribers' mailboxes? The previous day, a suspiciously well-written polemic blast at Wang's article was posted on the S&M website; it was entitled "Some of our Intellectual Elites Advocate Selling North Korea Down the River" [5]. It said the United States is China's traditional enemy, North Korea is China's friend, and anyone that suggests otherwise is "even more corrupt that the Qing government of over a century ago".
It is important on this first anniversary of the Beijing six-party talks aimed at defusing Pyongyang's nuclear program that US policymakers who have seen Wang's article not get their hopes up. Wang's piece was simply an abortive effort by moderates in China's foreign policy community to inject some realism into Beijing's support for Pyongyang - only to be slapped down firmly by the hardline Chinese Propaganda Ministry, which alone has authority to recall publications that already have been distributed. China's propaganda apparatus and national security agencies are firmly in the hands of China's military commander-in-chief Jiang Zemin and his "Shanghai Faction", and as long as they are in charge, voices of reason and moderation like Wang's will have no place in Beijing's national security policy debates.
Footnotes:
[1] Wang Zhongwen, Yi Xin Shijiao Shenshi Chaoxian Wenti Yu Dongbeiya Xingshi, "Examining the DPRK Issue and Northeast Asian Situation from a New Viewpoint", Beijing, Zhanlue Yu Guanli, [Strategy and Management], Issue Four, July-August, 2004, pp 92-94.
[2] Glenn Kessler, Chinese Not Convinced of North Korean Uranium Effort, The Washington Post, January 7, 2004; Page A16
[3] Strategy and Management Magazine
[4] Strategy and Management Magazine
[5] Strategy and Management Magazine
John J Tkacik Jr, is a research fellow in Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC. He is a retired officer in the US Foreign Service who served in Taipei, Beijing, Hong Kong and Guangzhou and was chief of the China Division in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IRAN
The Iranian bomb
(Washington, D.C.): One could be forgiven, in light of recent headlines and press accounts, for wondering precisely who the enemy is in this war on terror. For some people, it clearly seems that the list should include - if not be headed by - a democratic ally that has been subjected, per capita, to considerably more sustained and deadly terrorist attacks than the United States: Israel.
This argument requires Israel to be seen not for what it is - namely, a longstanding U.S. partner in a strategically vital region of the world where few exist, one that shares America's values and is a bulwark against the rising tide of anti-Western Islamist extremism. Israel must, instead, be portrayed as perfidious, pursuing an international agenda divergent from (if not actually at odds with) that of the United States and a liability, rather than an asset.
Those who would portray Israel in such an unflattering light doubtless are gleeful over leaks claiming the Jewish State surreptitiously obtained state secrets from a U.S. government employee working for the Pentagon. At this writing, no evidence has been provided to support such charges. Nor has anyone been apprehended - although, for several days, the FBI has been described as poised to arrest someone employed by the Defense Department's policy organization. Only time will tell whether anyone actually is taken into custody, the type of charges and whether he is actually found guilty.
A Bonafide Enemy
In the meantime, these leaks have already served to divert attention from a nation that genuinely should head the list of America's foes: the terrorist-sponsoring, nuclear-arming and ballistic missile-wielding Islamist government of Iran. This effect has been all the more ironic insofar as, according to press accounts, the classified information the FBI thinks was improperly purveyed to Israel involved documents shedding light on America's evolving policy towards the Iranian mullahocracy.
Strategic analyst Steven Daskal recently offered a reminder of the peril posed by Iran: "While the Islamic Republic of Iran as a state is technically not at war with the U.S., Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa calling for total war by all Shi'ites, regardless of citizenship, against the 'Great Satan America' remains in effect - it has never been rescinded, and in fact was expanded to include killing Americans as being a necessary part of a defensive jihad to make the world safe for Islam. Khomeini's pioneering pseudo-theology was later picked up by Sunni extremists, including Osama bin Laden."
In a thoughtful article in the August 23rd New York Post, Amir Taheri recounted how Khomeini and his successors have translated that fatwa into a twenty-five-year-long war against the United States - waged asymmetrically, both directly (for example, in attacks against U.S. embassies and personnel) and indirectly (through terrorist proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq and Shi'ite warlords in Afghanistan). Taheri correctly observes that "the Khomeinist revolution defines itself in opposition to a vision of the world that it regards as an American imposition....With or without nuclear weapons, the Islamic Republic, in its present shape, represents a clear and present threat to the kind of Middle East that President Bush says he wants to shape."
Will America Act?
Therefore, for the United States, stopping the Islamist government in Tehran before it obtains the means to carry out threats to attack Americans forces in Iraq and elsewhere should be an urgent priority. For Israel, however, denying the ruling Iranian mullahs nuclear arms is literally a matter of national life and death.
Israel's concern about the growing existential threat from Iran can only be heightened by overtures Senator John Kerry and his running mate have been making lately to Tehran. In remarks Monday [August 30], Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards said a Kerry administration would offer the Iranians a "great bargain": They could keep their nuclear energy program and obtain for it Western supplies of enriched uranium fuel, provided the regime in Tehran promised to foreswear nuclear weapons. According to Sen. Edwards, if Iran did not accept this "bargain," everyone - including our European allies - would recognize the true, military purpose of this program and would "stand with us" in levying on Iran what are described as "very heavy sanctions."
There is just one problem: Based on what is known about Iran's program and intentions - let alone its history of animus towards us - only the recklessly naive could still believe that such a deal is necessary to divine the mullahs' true purposes. While it may be inconvenient to say so, Iran is clearly putting into place a complete nuclear fuel cycle so as to obtain both weapons and power from its reactor and enrichment facilities. And a deal like that on offer from Messrs. Kerry and Edwards failed abysmally in North Korea.
The Bottom Line
If the United States is unwilling to take concrete steps to prevent the Iranian Bomb from coming to fruition, its Israeli ally will likely feel compelled to act unilaterally - just as it did with the 1981 raid that neutralized Saddam Hussein's nuclear infrastructure. At the time, the Reagan Administration joined the world in sharply protesting Israel's attack. A decade later, however, the value of the contribution thus made to American security was noted by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, who said he thanked God every day during Operation Desert Storm that Israel had kept Iraq a nuclear-free zone. If such a counterproliferation strategy becomes necessary once again, it will be in all of our interests to have Israel succeed.
Center for Security Policy
1920 L Street,N.W.
Suite 210
Washington, DC 20036
E-mail the Center
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran arrests people for nuclear spying: report
www.chinaview.cn 2004-08-31 00:19:13
TEHRAN, Aug. 31 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran's Information Minister AliYunessi said Tuesday that several people had been arrested forspying on the country's nuclear program, the official IRNA newsagency reported.
"The information ministry has arrested several spies who weretransferring Iran's nuclear information out of the country,"Yunessi was quoted as saying.
But Yunessi did not reveal when the arrest took place, nor didhe identify the arrestees.
However, he stated that members of the opposition MujahedinKhalq Organization, which Iran dubs as Munafeqin (hypocrites), havepassed the bulk of secrets about Iran's nuclear program to thecountry's enemies.
"Munafeqin have had the leading role in passing informationabout Iran's nuclear facilities and have expressed their pride inspying against Iran," Yunessi said.
"In a news conference which they held once in US, they said theywere proud of passing this information to America and othercountries," he said.
"The information ministry's counter-spying department isequipped with the most advanced devices and acts with power andutmost fluency against infiltration of spy services," he added."We have already arrested tens of spies," he said.Iran has been consistently denying the US accusation that it issecretly developing atomic weapons, asserting that its nuclearresearch is fully peaceful and US accusation is politicallymotivated. Enditem
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> PICTURE...
http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy%2Ddirect/
An interior view of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, southwest of the capital Tehran, Iran, in this undated photo released by Iran's Atomic Energy Organization on Aug. 22. AP Photo/Iran's Atomic Energy Organization
Iran arrests nuclear spies
31-08-2004, 12:23
Iran's Information (Intelligence) Minister Ali Younesi said Tuesday that several people had been arrested for spying on the country`s nuclear program.
"The Information Ministry has arrested several spies who were carrying Iran's nuclear information (out of the country)," he told reporters, according to IRNA. Younesi did not identify those arrested, but stated that members of the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) have passed the bulk of secrets about Iran's nuclear program to foreign countries. (albawaba.com)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UN: Report Reignites Concern Over Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
By Antoine Blua
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/09/838dafd8-4106-4a44-842d-5115b58bfd60.html
Last year, France, Britain, and Germany won concessions from Iran, which agreed to suspend uranium-enrichment activities to defuse the crisis over its nuclear program. But Tehran reversed that position after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in June issued a tough criticism of Iran for its lack of cooperation with IAEA inspectors. A new report issued yesterday by the UN nuclear watchdog confirms that Iran has slid away from its agreement with the European powers by resuming large-scale production of equipment to enrich uranium. RFE/RL asks an analyst about what Europe's next move might be.
Prague, 2 September 2004 (RFE/RL) -- The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report yesterday saying Iran plans to resume large-scale production of material to enrich uranium, a process that can help the development of nuclear weapons.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was quick to react, saying Washington will try to persuade the UN agency to refer Iran to the UN Security Council to try to impose sanctions.
The question is now whether France, Britain, and Germany will adopt the U.S. stance or try to find middle ground.
Shahram Chubin is director of research at the Geneva Center for Security Policy. He said the dilemma facing the three European states is to come up with a policy that is effective without forcing a confrontation between Iran and the Security Council. "The Iranians have moved backwards," he said. "They're slicing away at that program [of suspending uranium enrichment]. They had discussions with the European countries in Paris in July, which are leading nowhere."
Chubin added: "[However] I think that the European countries, by and large, don't share the Americans' belief that Iran is determined to get nuclear weapons. They think there's still time, [and] that Iran hasn't made yet a definite decision. And therefore they're not convinced that the only way to deal with Iran is by confronting it."
Powell told reporters in Washington that the United States believes Iran is taking steps toward developing nuclear weapons and wants the Security Council to impose economic, political, or diplomatic sanctions as a result.
John Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, expressed concern about a statement in the IAEA report that Iran plans to convert 37 tons of "yellowcake" uranium into uranium hexafluoride (UF6), which could be used to build nuclear weapons. Bolton said this is "further strong evidence of the compelling need" to take Iran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council.
However, the UN's nuclear watchdog agency said there is still no evidence that would confirm U.S. allegations that Iran is building a nuclear bomb.
Tehran claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi said the IAEA report is evidence that Iran is cooperating in resolving questions about its nuclear program.
According to Chubin, European countries have not yet determined what might trigger them to take firm steps against Iran at the Security Council. "When you refer something to the Security Council, you have to be sure [the council] is unanimous and is going to take a strong position," he said. "And the strong position in the case of Iran would be naming Iran as a noncompliant state. And as I said, [the European countries are] not sure that's the case yet. The European countries haven't [clearly stated that they have] got a red line that says, 'If you cross that line, we are going to take the sternest measures possible at the Security Council.'"
Chubin notes that the "red line," for the European countries, is uranium enrichment. The Iranians, he said, are moving very slowly toward that line.
The IAEA's board of governors is due to open a meeting to discuss Iran on 13 September.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Plans to Seek Sanctions Against Iran
By GEORGE GEDDA
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Colin Powell says the United States plans to press for a range of possible U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran in response to what he describes as a concerted effort by that country to develop nuclear weapons.
Powell told reporters Wednesday night the United States will urge the United Nations' nuclear watchdog group on Sept. 13 in Vienna to refer the Iranian case to the U.N. Security Council for action.
"We're looking at the range of possible actions of a political, economic, diplomatic nature," Powell said.
He commented while flying home from Panama after attending the inauguration of Panamanian President Martin Torrijos.
In Vienna, the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency said earlier Wednesday that Iran plans to process tons of raw uranium and restart its centrifuges - two activities that could be used to make nuclear warheads.
U.S. diplomats at the meeting said the revelations provided further evidence that Iran's activities pose "a threat to international peace and security."
"Unless there are assurances that the international community can count on, I think it's appropriate that it (the Iran issue) be referred to the Security Council," Powell said.
He said it remains to be seen whether there is a consensus to do that now.
Diplomats said the IAEA report on Iran with the new disclosures was based on information provided by Iran's government. Iran insists its nuclear program is devoted to the peaceful generation of electricity.
Earlier Wednesday, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, the administration's point man on nuclear proliferation threats, said, "We view with great concern" revelations in the IAEA report that Iran is about to convert 37 tons of yellow cake uranium into uranium hexafluoride gas.
Uranium hexafluoride is spun in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium, which in turn can be used to generate power or make nuclear warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment.
The United States will continue to urge other members of the U.N. agency's board of governors "to join with us in this effort to deal with the Iranian threat to international peace and security," Bolton said.
Another senior Bush administration official, in an interview in which his identity was withheld, said Iran was positioning itself to produce 220 pounds of enriched uranium, enough for four nuclear weapons.
U.N. inspectors have been looking for evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Such a finding could be critical to the Bush administration's effort to gain support from the other 34 members of the agency to seek U.N. Security Council action.
Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman, said the report being circulated by the IAEA "continues to document the fact that through the past 18 years Iran has amassed a record of deception and denial about its nuclear activities."
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign criticized the Bush administration for going to war against Iraq on what it called discredited grounds instead of acting sooner to marshal U.S. allies to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
The IAEA report shows "a leading state sponsor of terrorism is yet another step closer to nuclear weapons capability," said Susan Rice, Kerry's senior national security adviser. "Yet the Bush administration has stood on the sidelines while this nuclear program has advanced. ... It is past time for this administration to develop a tough and effective strategy for dealing with Iran."
? 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> SYRIA
U.S. Wants Syria to Withdraw From Lebanon
By EDITH M. LEDERER
Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- The United States is calling for the immediate withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, according to a a draft resolution circulated in the U.N. Security Council late Tuesday.
The new measure also offers support for elections under the current Lebanese constitution, which would rule out a second term for pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud.
The United States decided to press for a resolution - with the support of France, Lebanon's former colonial ruler - after what many saw as a Syrian-engineered move to change the constitution to extend Lahoud's term.
The resolution calls on the council "to consider additional measures," which are not specified, if the Syrians and Lebanese don't comply.
Lebanon accused the United States and France Tuesday of trying to "blackmail" it and Syria, and create trouble between Beirut and Damascus.
U.S. deputy ambassador Anne Patterson said the United States wants the Security Council to vote on the draft resolution "hopefully by Wednesday or Thursday." But the draft is almost certain to face opposition from Algeria, the only Arab nation on the council, and probably from Russia and China, which traditionally oppose council interference in a country's internal affairs.
In Washington, the Bush administration sharply criticized Syria for meddling in Lebanon's politics, and a senior U.S. diplomat was likely to go to Damascus for high-level talks.
But Lebanese Foreign Minister Jean Obeid said Lebanese-Syrian relations are a matter for both countries to decide. He said Lebanon "completely separates between dealing with our internal affairs and international attempts at blackmail with the aim of fomenting a dispute between us and our brothers (in Syria)."
Syria's involvement in Lebanon dates back to 1976, when it sent its troops to Lebanon to help quell a year-old civil war that raged on for another 14 years. The West tolerated its control and even credited Syria with securing stability.
But since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Western nations have been calling for democracy to take hold in the Arab world as a way to fight extremism - and President Bush's administration has repeatedly accused Syria of sponsoring terrorism.
The draft resolution, obtained by The Associated Press, calls for "the strict respect of Lebanon's sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence."
It "demands that Syrian forces withdraw without delay from Lebanon" and declares the Security Council's "support for a free and fair electoral process in Lebanon's upcoming presidential election conducted according to Lebanese constitutional rules devised without foreign interference or influence."
The Lebanese Cabinet last week approved an amendment to the constitution to allow Lahoud to stay in power three more years.
Parliament, instead of voting for a new president for the next six years, will have to vote on an extension to Lahoud's term, which expires Nov. 24. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called late Tuesday for a meeting of the 128-member legislature on Friday to amend the constitution to extend Lahoud's term.
The draft resolution asks Secretary-General Kofi Annan to report on implementation within 30 days. It was not drafted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, so military action would not be an option.
The Lebanese Foreign Ministry said in a letter to the Security Council that U.N. action would be "a dangerous precedent."
? 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria asked to not interfere with election
By Heather J. Carlson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The United States and France are drafting a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Syria to stay out of Lebanon's upcoming presidential election.
The move came after Syria pressured the Lebanese Cabinet last week to amend the constitution to permit pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud to serve an additional three years.
The Cabinet agreed, and a final vote to change the constitution now heads to the parliament, which is dominated by pro-Syrian legislators.
Syria, which is on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, has dominated Lebanese affairs since its troops entered the neighboring country in 1976 to end a 14-year civil war.
"We feel that the Syrian pressure to modify the Lebanese Constitution to permit President Lahoud to remain in office an additional three years is an affront to Lebanon's sovereignty and political independence," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday.
In Lebanon, parliament elects the president, and Mr. Lahoud's term is scheduled to end Nov. 24.
"It is our view, and I think the view of many in Lebanon, that it's about time, 15 years after the Taif Accords, to live up to the spirit of those accords and have all foreign forces removed from Lebanon," Mr. Boucher said Monday.
He was referring to a 1989 agreement signed in Taif, Saudi Arabia, that guaranteed Lebanon's sovereignty.
The proposed U.N. resolution would call for elections under the present constitution and also require Syria to withdraw from Lebanon its remaining 20,000 troops. In addition, it would call on all foreign nations to respect Lebanon's sovereignty.
A U.S. official at the United Nations said the United States is pushing for a vote on the resolution, even if it fails to achieve a consensus among Security Council members. Russia and China have voiced some concerns about the resolution, the official said.
The State Department also is considering sending Assistant U.S. Secretary of State William Burns to Damascus next week to speak directly with Syrian officials about U.S. concerns, Mr. Boucher said.
Even if the U.N. resolution passes, it will do little to change Syria's power-broker status in Lebanon, said Laura King-Irani, an anthropology professor at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, who has written extensively about Lebanon.
"Syria is a baby sitter for the Lebanese, so to get them to leave is not easy, because many Lebanese do not want them to leave," Mrs. King-Irani said.
Syria helped end Lebanon's civil war in 1990 and establish stability, she said. Since then, Syria has wielded strong political and economic influence over its neighbor.
For things to change, Mrs. King-Irani said, the Lebanese would have to be able to maintain order in their country on their own.
"It's not just the Syrians' fault that they're in Lebanon," she said. "It comes down to the Lebanese and their part in this."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria mocks U.S. concern for Lebanon
~~article_author~~ Reuters
Thursday, September 02, 2004
DAMASCUS Syria's state media lashed out on Thursday at U.S. pressure for a United Nations resolution telling Damascus to stop interfering in Lebanon's presidential election.
"No one can believe that the United States can possibly be concerned about Lebanon or any other Arab country," an editorial in the official Tishreen newspaper said. "American policies confirm just the opposite and point out that the present U.S. administration relies on a clear method of antagonism to Arabs."
Despite strong opposition on the UN Security Council, Washington is pushing for a quick resolution that would counter a vote set for Friday in Lebanon's parliament on whether to keep President Emile Lahoud of Lebanon, who is an ally of Syria, in office for three more years.
Syria's official SANA news agency said on Wednesday that Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara had agreed during telephone calls with his Lebanese counterpart and with the Arab League that such a U.S. move was unjustified.
Keeping Lahoud in office requires a constitutional change.
The proposed UN resolution calls for "strict respect of Lebanon's sovereignty" and the withdrawal of some 17,000 Syrian troops from Lebanon.
France and Germany support the resolution, but it has drawn objections from several council members who say that Washington is interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs.
They also say the action is applying a double standard by demanding a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon while ignoring Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.
Copyright ? 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background/Israel's war on Hamas takes a turn, toward Syria
By Bradley Burston, Haaretz Correspondent
In a conflict of blood and irony, it may come as no surprise that Israel's successes in curbing terror by killing or jailing its warlords may now spell even more difficult challenges for the military.
With the top leaders of Hamas in their graves and others on the run, Israel has begin to look north for the men now issuing marching orders to the powerful Islamic militant group.
Israeli officials signaled this week that senior Hamas officials based in Damascus issued the orders for twin suicide bombings that killed 16 Israelis and wounded nearly 100 in Be'er Sheva on Tuesday.
Israeli officials have said that "solid evidence" to that effect has been sent to Washington. Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom left for the Netherlands on Thursday to press the point with his counterparts in the European Union, which is poised to sign economic agreements with the Assad government in the near future.
The attack rocked Israel, not least because it broke a five-month lull in which Israel had foiled hundreds of planned attacks within the state.
In fact, the very success of the Israeli campaign to, in the Pentagon's phrase, decapitate militant organizations may take the next phases of the anti-terrorism campaign in uncharted - and even more dangerous - waters.
"The weakening of the terror organizations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have created a leadership vacuum external bodies are trying to fill. The most obvious are Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas headquarters in Damascus - both of them egged on by Syria," says Haaretz militarey commentator Amos Harel.
According to Harel, intelligence sources told Ya'alon this week that Hezbollah currently funds and directs fully 75 percent of the planned terror attacks mounted from the West Bank.
By contrast, in Hebron, a traditional stronghold of Hamas and the launch point for the Be'er Sheva attack, the fundamentalist organization is in direct contact with the Hamas command in Damascus.
"The assessment in the Central Command is that the struggle against terror has changed face. There is no longer a direct confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians - instead directives come from Iran and Hezbollah with Syrian support," Harel writes in Thursday's paper.
The Israeli assessments begged the question of whether military operations in Syria might be in the offing. Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim's answer was prompt. "The rule that 'anyone who deals in terror against Israel is a target' is a rule that must be stated and one that we must stand behind."
Last October, breaking long precedent in response to a deadly bombing at a crowded seaside Haifa restaurant, Israeli warplanes bombed a suspected terrorist training base near Damascus. It was the first Israeli attack deep inside Syrian territory in more than two decades.
In any case, Boim maintained, Israel would take care not to cause a "conflagration" if it were to attack again on Syrian soil..
"I believe that it is possible to carry out these attacks by correct selection of targets, in the correct 'dosage,' setting out the red lines that must be set out, without thinking in terms of massive conflagration, which is certainly not in our interest," Boim said..
Asked to specify the evidence of a Syrian connection, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom declined to respond directly, but said, in an apparent reference to the Damascus-based Hamas command:
"Syria is involved in terror all the time. Syria is responsible for acts of terrorism and granting patronage for terror, and therefore we view it as responsible the moment that those organizations receive direct orders from their headquarters in Damascus.
"When Syria is responsible, it must of course understand that there are some quite clear results."
Asked about the evidence, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom declined to respond directly, but said, in an apparent reference to the Damascus-based Hamas command:
"Syria is involved in terror all the time. Syria is responsible for acts of terrorism and granting patronage for terror, and therefore we view it as responsible the moment that those organizations receive direct orders from their headquarters in Damascus.
"When Syria is responsible, it must of course understand that there are some quite clear results."
Israeli officials have singled out Damascus-based Hamas . Deputy political bureau head Moussa Abu Marzook, as the senior commander behind the bus bombings. Long on Israel's hit list, Abu Marzouk is also wanted in the United States.
U.S. authorities detained Abu Marzouk in 1995 on suspicion of having set up and used ostensible charities in the United States in order to mobilize financial and political support for Hamas. U.S. authorities deported him to Jordan in 1997. But he was indicted in absentia earlier this year along with two suspected Hamas operatives still living in the United States, for allegedly recruiting and soliticiting funds for a terror organization.
Last year, the U.S. government designated Abu Marzouk as a Special Designated Global Terrorist Entity, along with Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, and Khaled Mashal, freezing their assets and barring financial transactions with them.
The Israeli military assassinated Sheikh Yassin in March, and Rantisi six months later.
Mashal, whom Israeli sources have also linked to the bombings and other terror operations within Israel, remains along with Abu Marzouk near the top of Israel's list of most-wanted terror commanders. Mashal narrowly recovered from a sophisticated, ultimately disastrous Mossad assassination attempt in Amman in the 1990s.
Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan Thursday cautioned Israel that the militant Islamic organization "will not sit idly by" if Israeli forces attempt to assassinate its leaders aboad, Israel Radio reported.
Hamas has said in the past that it would view such an attack as a "green light" to attack Israeli targets overseas.
At least one Israeli figure said that the benefit of military action might outweigh the risk of conflagration. Said senior Likud lawmaker Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the key Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee:
"Sooner or later, Israel will have to set down a red line with respect to the reality in Lebanon. In the past, when the Syrian army tried to move into the south with tanks, artillery and infantry, we attacked and set a red line , such that the Syrian army would not move heavy arms and units south of the Beirut-Damascus line.
In recent years, however, the pro-Iranian Lebanese Hezbollah has been shifting into south Lebanon missiles and rockets capable of reaching Haifa Bay and the Israeli heartland, Steinitz continued.
"Whether by sinking a boat, or [attacking] a truck convoy or by striking storehouses, the time has come for us ? even at the price of the danger of conflagration ? to set down a red line and declare 'This is it. We will not allow heavy surface-to-surface missiles to be deployed in Lebanon, and to pose a significant strategic threat to northern central Israel."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Syria: Israeli threat against Damascus lacks credibility
By Haaretz Service
Syria said on Thursday that Israeli threats to retaliate for Damascus' alleged complicity in Palestinian suicide bombings that killed 16 Israelis in Be'er Sheva on Tuesday lacked credibility.
"The launching of premature Israeli threats against Syria lacks the least degrees of credibility or evidence," the official SANA news agency quoted Foreign Minister Farouq Shara as saying, adding that the threats "exacerbate the deteriorating situation in the region."
Earlier Thursday, Israel and Hamas traded warnings of possible attacks in the wake of the Tuesday bus bombings in Be'er Sheva, as Deputy Defense Minister Ze'ev Boim said Israel should should consider military action against targets within Syria.
Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan Thursday cautioned Israel that the militant Islamic organization "will not sit idly by" if Israeli forces attempt to assassinate its leaders abroad. Hamas has said in the past that it would view such an attack as a "green light" to attack Israeli targets overseas.
Boim, discussing Israel's charges that Damascus bore responsibility for the Tuesday suicide bombings that killed 16 people, said Thursday that "The rule that 'anyone who deals in terror against Israel is a target' is a rule that must be stated and one that we must stand behind."
Israel would in any event take care not to cause a "conflagration" if it were to attack again on Syrian soil, Boim added.
"I believe that it is possible to carry out these attacks by correct selection of targets, in the correct 'dosage,' placing the red lines that must be placed, without thinking in terms of massive conflagration, which is certainly not in our interest," Boim said in remarks broadcast on Israel Radio.
Government sources have fingered Moussa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas official now residing in Damascus who is also wanted by the United States, as the individual behind the bombings. News reports have also mentioned Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, also based in the Syrian capital.
"There is no immunity, and if there is a need, we will act," Boim said.
Israel has provided the U.S. with "concrete evidence" of Syrian involvement in the bombings, Israel Radio reported Thursday. Asked about the evidence, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom declined to respond directly, but said, in an apparent reference to the Damascus-based Hamas command:
"Syria is involved in terror all the time. Syria is responsible for acts of terrorism and granting patronage for terror, and therefore we view it as responsible the moment that those organizations receive direct orders from their headquarters in Damascus.
"When Syria is responsible, it must of course understand that there are some quite clear results."
Less than a year ago, the Israel Air Force attacked targets in Syria in response to a deadly bombing at a popular seaside restaurant in Haifa.
Shalom, who is leaving for Holland for talks with European Union foreign ministers, said "As a matter of principle, in the past we have not rushed to attack Syrian targets. When that it done, it will be done after in our opinion that Syria has crossed the red line."
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Wednesday that "a large portion of the terrorism in the territories" comes from Hamas headquarters in Damascus and Hezbollah in Lebanon. You cannot separate what happened in Be'er Sheva from what is going on in Lebanon."
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also blamed the Be'er Sheva bombing on Hamas headquarters in Damascus, and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon threatened with unspecified reprisals.
"Anyone who is responsible for terrorism against us should not sleep quietly," said Ya'alon, when asked by Knesset reporters how Israel would respond to Tuesday's suicide bombings. "We will deal with all those who support terror, at every level - people in the Palestinian Authority; people in Hezbollah in Lebanon; people in the terrorist headquarters in Damascus, which operate with Syria's permission; and also the financial support and weaponry that is transferred to the terrorist organizations under Iran's auspices."
He declined to give any details of what Israel's response might be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> SPY PROBE...
Breakdown in CIA-Mossad ties: Tenet reduced cooperation following Iraq War, officials say
Intelligence sharing between the United States and Israel has been steadily cut back during the 16 months since the war with Iraq as former CIA Director George Tenet became uneasy with his colleagues in Mossad, according to U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources...
FBI probe of AIPAC said to go beyond alleged mole
By Haaretz Service
In a report that hinted of possible security breaches beyond the allegations that Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin passed information to Israel via AIPAC, the Washington Post reported Thursday that classified intelligence from the National Security may have been passed to the Jewish state.
Quoting unnamed U.S. officials and other sources, the paper said that the FBI had been investigating for more than two years whether the AIPAC pro-Israel lobbying group has been passing classified intelligence data to Israel.
"The counterintelligence probe, which is different from a criminal investigation, focuses on a possible transfer of intelligence more extensive than whether Franklin passed on a draft presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran, the sources said. The FBI is examining whether highly classified material from the National Security Agency, which conducts electronic intercepts of communications, was also forwarded to Israel," the paper said,
Israel responded that the characterization of the probe was speculative. "We are aware of all the speculation, but that is all it is. We have not heard anything official, and U.S.-Israeli relations remain as strong as ever and, as far as we are concerned, it's business as usual," said David Siegel, spokesman of the Israeli Embassy here.
AIPAC has forcefully denied that any of its personnel received classified information.
"National security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, were apprised of the FBI counterintelligence investigation of AIPAC as a possible conduit for information to Israel more than two years ago, a senior U.S. official said late yesterday. That official and other sources would discuss the investigation only on the condition of anonymity because it involves classified information and is highly sensitive," the Post report said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Spy Probe Focuses on Two Lobbyists
NewsMax Wires
Wednesday, Sept. 1, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Two employees of the main pro-Israeli lobbying group are the focus of an FBI investigation into whether a Pentagon employee provided them with classified material about Iran that was passed on to Israel.
U.S. government officials, speaking Wednesday on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, confirmed the identities of the two American Israel Public Affairs Committee employees as director of foreign policy issues Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, an Iran expert.
The FBI interviewed both men on Friday, the same day that news first surfaced about the investigation of the Defense Department analyst, Larry Franklin. Franklin works on issues involving Iran and the Middle East in the office of Defense Department policy undersecretary Douglas Feith.
No charges have been brought or arrests made in the case. Law enforcement officials have said prosecutors are weighing whether to charge anyone involved with the most serious offense of espionage or with lesser counts of mishandling classified documents.
AIPAC attorney Nathan Lewin did not immediately return a telephone call Wednesday about the FBI interviews with the group's two employees. AIPAC officials have said they are cooperating in the probe and have denied any wrongdoing, as has the Israeli government. Franklin has not responded to several telephone calls seeking comment.
The FBI and Justice Department have briefed a number of high-level Pentagon, congressional and White House officials about the investigation. Secretary of State Colin Powell was briefed Sunday over the telephone by Deputy Attorney General James Comey, a State Department spokesman said.
Meanwhile, a West Virginia college where Franklin teaches history courses is not planning any action regarding his status at the school while the investigation continues. For about five years, Franklin has been an adjunct professor of history at Sheperd University while living in nearby Kearneysville, said history department chairman Anders Henriksson.
Franklin "has been a real asset" to the school, Henriksson said. Franklin teaches freshman courses in world history and Asian traditions, he added. The school planned to provide extra security to prevent disruption of his Tuesday night course.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IRAQ
Rebel Cleric Must Be Defeated Before His Militia Regroups, Top U.S. Commander Says
By Jim Krane Associated Press Writer
Published: Sep 2, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The fight with renegade Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is not over and the U.S. military must retake his stronghold in Baghdad's Sadr City slum, a top U.S. commander said Thursday.
Maj. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, commander of the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, said action is necessary before the volatile cleric has a chance to rebuild his Mahdi Mary militia, which was devastated in recent fighting.
"He's decided the best thing for him to do is to go underground and regroup," Chiarelli told The Associated Press. "We're not going to allow that to happen."
The Mahdi Army hasn't launched a significant attack on U.S. troops in two days, Chiarelli said. The rebel leader has not made a public appearance since the remnants of his militia departed Najaf's Imam Ali Shrine after a peace agreement last week.
U.S. military officials believe thousands of al-Sadr's inexperienced fighters were killed in two bouts of battles in Shiite cities in south-central Iraq, as well as in streets of Sadr City in east Baghdad, a district named after the cleric's father. That fighting began in April and flared again last month.
But militiamen remain heavily armed and in control of the northern half of Sadr City, a densely populated district of small alleys filled with booby traps and hidden bombs, he said.
Now, Chiarelli said, his Texas-based division needs to re-establish control over that area before al-Sadr's forces can regroup. The job will take a matter of weeks, Chiarelli said, giving no timetable for the start of an operation.
"Were going to go in and first, make Sadr City safe for the residents. We're going to make it very, very possible for the militia to disarm," Chiarelli said. "As long as there's a militia of any kind working at counter purposes to the government, we have a problem."
On Thursday, U.S. troops in Humvees and Bradley Fighting Vehicles used loudspeakers to call on militants in the slum to turn in their heavy weapons.
"All armed members of the Mahdi Army militia should hand over their heavy weapons as soon as possible, starting tomorrow," the troops said, designating a soccer stadium and the local U.S. headquarters as the drop-off points.
If it comes to a showdown with the U.S. military in Sadr City, no ultra-sensitive Muslim holy places will get in the Army's way, Chiarelli said, harking to how sensitivities over damaging the revered Imam Ali Shrine prevented a full-bore attack on al-Sadr's militia in Najaf.
"We feel very strongly that Sadr City is not Najaf," Chiarelli said. "You have a totally different set of parameters in Sadr City."
Avoiding civilian casualties in the crowded neighborhood, however, poses a difficulty. Some observers contend that U.S. assaults on al-Sadr's forces have only increased his popularity, particularly because he has twice emerged with his militia intact.
Despite a peace deal that ended three weeks of fighting in Najaf last week, many members of al-Sadr's militia are thought to have returned to Sadr City with their weapons.
Chiarelli said the group has laid bomb traps throughout the northern part of the district.
"There's a tremendous amount. I don't even want to venture a guess as to how many are there," Chiarelli said of the makeshift bombs, often fashioned from large artillery shells pilfered from old Iraqi military depots. "We've got to get rid of these, so that people aren't endangered by a 155 mm shell, daisy chained, three or four of them in a row, that blows up."
In a five-day stretch last month, U.S. troops disarmed or were hit by 82 hidden bombs in Sadr City, Chiarelli said.
"They either blew up or we disarmed them," he said.
Soldiers painstakingly removed hidden bombs from the neighborhood's southern section and now patrol the area in armored Humvees, said Chiarelli. But U.S. troops can only enter the north side in Abrams tanks or Bradleys, the general said.
The 1st Cavalry had to lay off most of the 15,000 Iraqis it hired to repair electrical, sewer and water infrastructure in Sadr City, with work stalled until the Army regains control, Chiarelli said.
Meanwhile, U.S. military and the government of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi have balked at al-Sadr's cease-fire overtures that call for U.S. troops to pull out of the neighborhood.
"That allows a very small group of very, very well armed individuals to intimidate the population. We're not going to let that happen," the general said, commending Allawi's stand against al-Sadr and private militias.
"So far the pronouncements of the government have all been in line with what we think needs to be done in Sadr City," he said.
AP-ES-09-02-04 1609EDT
Al-Sadr linked to mass killings
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A U.S. military intelligence report says that followers of radical Shi'ite cleric Sheik Muqtada al-Sadr imprisoned, killed and mutilated Iraqis who opposed his insurrection.
American intelligence officers are now investigating in the town of Najaf, the site of Sheik al-Sadr's bloody standoff with coalition forces. A U.S. military officer told The Washington Times that the command recently acquired photos of 15 to 20 mutilated bodies that appear to be Iraqis lying in a courtyard.
A written U.S. intelligence report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, puts the body count much higher, based on an Iraqi informant, some of whose information was confirmed by local police.
The report said that after last week's truce, Iraqi forces moved into buildings held by the radical cleric's Mahdi's Army militia and found the bodies.
"Inside the court building, Iraqi police found approximately 200 mutilated bodies taken by the Moqtada militia for speaking out against Moqtada al Sadr," said the intelligence report sent to the Pentagon and stamped "secret."
"Some of the prisoners had eyes and ears drilled out and others had their limbs and heads cut off. Some males had genitals cut off and shoved in their mouths. There was evidence of rape to men, women and children," according to the report.
The senior officer, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the number of bodies found is much less than 200. The source said that while it appears certain that the bodies exist, the circumstances of when and where the people were killed, and by whom, remained unknown yesterday.
"We don't have a complete picture of where they came from," the officer said. "We're trying to uncover what really happened before we are able to release information."
The source said that the U.S. command in Baghdad only learned of the deaths Sunday, and later acquired the photographs of mutilated bodies.
"There appears to be a large group of bodies that were uncovered," the officer said.
He said that a military-intelligence unit was in Najaf investigating the deaths, alongside Iraqi police.
Sheik al-Sadr has led several deadly uprisings in southern Iraq, unleashing his rifle-toting, ragtag army on coalition forces and innocent civilians. U.S. Army and Marine units have responded by attacking and killing scores of the fighters.
Sheik al-Sadr holed up in Najaf's main mosque for days before Iraq's leading Shi'ite, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, returned from Britain and helped negotiate a cease-fire on Thursday.
The sheik's aides say that he now may choose to enter politics. But if his Mahdi's Army is tied to the massacre of innocent Iraqis, he could face a criminal investigation.
"The commander of the Sadr movement, leader Muqtada Sadr, announced today in Najaf the end of all fighting in the whole of Iraq and the integration of his movement in the political process," Sheik Naim al-Qaabi said last week.
U.S. military sources have told The Times that Iranian money helped Sheik al-Sadr rise from an obscure cleric during Saddam's rule to an influential rebel who paid a large army, provided social services and opened a rabble-rousing newspaper.
Earlier this year, the coalition shut down the newspaper after it called for the killing of al-Sadr opponents. The U.S.-led allies also began arresting some of his top aides. Looking boxed in, Sheik al-Sadr openly called for a rebellion that touched off a series of urban battles against American soldiers.
The U.S. intelligence report obtained by The Times states that most of Sheik al-Sadr's recruits were criminals that Saddam released from prison weeks before the March 2003 invasion.
The report states, "They slaughtered the innocent people. Most of the al-Mahdi were criminals jailed during the former regime and released by Saddam before his capture."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. military: Reconstruction
of Iraq is behind schedule
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Thursday, September 2, 2004
U.S. military officials said that despite pumping $18 billion into the reconstruction of Iraq, the United States has failed to make a significant dent in either the Shi'ite or Sunni insurgency.
The officials pointed to the Al Qaida-inspired takeover of several Iraqi cities, including Faluja, Ramadi and Samara as well as the endurance of the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army in wake of its month-long showdown with the U.S. military in Najaf.
Ramadi is in the Anbar province near the Syrian border, where nearly 150 U.S. soldiers have been killed in fighting Sunni insurgents.
Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, deputy chief of U.S. Central Command, said that so far the U.S.-led military coalition has not accomplished its major goals in Iraq, Middle East Newsline reported. Smith said this has included the establishment of a democratic Iraq as well as the elimination of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
The assessment by the military came as U.S. officials expect the White House to reduce the American military presence in Iraq in 2005. Currently, Washington has sought to achieve sufficient stability to enable Iraqi national elections in January 2005. Officials said the Bush administration plans to transfer funds allocated for Iraqi reconstruction to the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.
Smith told the Egyptian state-owned Al Ahram daily that the United States has pumped $18 billion into the reconstruction of Iraq. He said this has included the training and organizing of Iraq's military and security forces.
The general said much of the violence in Iraq, including insurgency attacks, stemmed from the lack of legitimate employment. He said the United States would continue to invest to create economic opportunities, particularly for young Iraqis.
Smith said Israel was not helping the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. He denied reports that U.S. special forces were training at military bases in Israel.
The general differentiated between the U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Smith said the United States would leave Iraq as soon as possible, but envisioned a much longer stay in Afghanistan. He cited Iraq's modern orientation and energy resources.
Smith's assessment appeared to echo that of his superiors, including Central Command chief Maj. Gen. John Castellaw. Castellaw acknowledged the slow pace of the U.S.-led effort to stabilize Iraq.
"It never goes as fast as you want to go, but we continue to have successes," Castellaw told a briefing in the Qatari capital of Doha on Aug. 31. "Though we like to run sprints, in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan and other places that we have been, we know that it takes a while to accomplish the objectives."
At the same time, Castellaw refused to disclose a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. He suggested the success of the Iraqi elections would comprise the key to any decision for a coalition withdrawal.
"We want it to be sooner rather than later," Castellaw said. "And we don't want to come up with some date as we are following an event driven schedule."
Gen. Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Sunni Triangle - the area north and west of Baghdad - has remained a major challenge to the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government. At the same time, Myers told an audience in Nashville, Tenn. on Aug. 31 that the long-term prospect in Iraq "is very, very good."
Copyright ? 2004 East West Services, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> PAKISTAN
The al-Qaeda striptease
By B Raman
Act 1: March 2002. Abu Zubaidah, a Palestinian member of al-Qaeda, was arrested in Faislabad in Pakistani Punjab by the Pakistani authorities and handed over to the US's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He was the operational chief of al-Qaeda; his arrest was a major breakthrough, we were told. This is hardly supported by the report of the 9-11 Commission.
Act 2: September 2002. Ramzi Binalshibh was arrested in Karachi and handed over to the FBI. He was the man, we were told. Not Abu Zubaidah. A real breakthrough, it was claimed. He figures frequently in the commission's report, but one does not get the impression that he was as great a cat's whiskers as made out to be.
Act 3: March 2003. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was arrested in Rawalpindi and handed over to the FBI. What a breakthrough, it was said. The real mastermind of September 11. The evil genius of al-Qaeda. Of all the jihadi terrorists, he figures the most frequently in the report. Almost as frequently as Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf. The report does give the impression that KSM was the brain who conceived of the plans for September 11, and orchestrated their execution. He is a Pakistani from Balochistan, who grew up in Kuwait. The plans, which led to the destruction of the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York and to the attack on the Pentagon and which caused the deaths of 3,500 innocent men, women and children, were conceived not by the brain of Osama bin Laden or a Muslim of any other nationality.
They were conceived and executed by the mind of a Pakistani. If KSM was the mastermind and he was the real evil genius, how about those in Pakistan who sheltered and protected him in Karachi from 1998 until September 2002, when he ran away to Quetta when the FBI came to know of his presence in Karachi? How about those who sheltered him in Quetta? How about those in Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) and army who sheltered him in Rawalpindi, right under the nose of Musharraf, when he fled there from Quetta, when the FBI established his presence in Quetta? Are they any the less evil? The commission, which goes into great detail on his activities from Karachi before September 11, is strangely silent on his activities there between September 11 and March, 2003. An American journalist of Indian sub-continental origin, who is a good personal friend of Marianne Pearl, the widow of Daniel Pearl, the US journalist kidnapped and beheaded in Karachi in February, 2002, mentioned in an article in the online journal Salon in October last year that the US intelligence had informed Marianne that it was KSM who had her husband killed. That means, KSM is a good friend of Omar Sheikh, who organized the trap for Daniel. That means, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which was operating Omar Sheikh as a source, must have known of this friendship. That means, the ISI must have known of KSM's presence in Karachi even in 2002, if not before. Why did it not act against him?
The biggest deficiency in the 9-11 Commission's report is that it has restricted its enquiries to what happened before September 11. It has not gone into what happened after September 11 - the kidnapping and beheading of Pearl, the grenade attack in an Islamabad church in March 2002 which killed the wife and daughter of an American diplomat, the attack on French submarine engineers in Karachi thereafter and the car bomb explosion outside the US consulate in Karachi in June 2002. Without going into them, how can one assess what is the threat today and what will be the threat tomorrow?
The reason why the commission did not go into post-September 11 happenings is not difficult to understand. The US intelligence did not want it to. From the sanitized summaries of the interrogation reports shared with the commission, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the FBI excluded all references to post-September 11 developments. If they had shared them too, US public opinion would have been wiser about the continued collusion of the Pakistani intelligence, or at least sections of it, with Omar Sheikh, KSM and others after September 11 too. And if it had become wiser, it might have questioned the wisdom of the trust placed in Musharraf, widely known in Pakistan army circles as Tricky Mush, by the Bush administration. KSM also mentioned one Issa al-Brittani, whom he had sent to the US before September 11 at bin Laden's instance to case possible economic and Jewish targets in the US. The commission did not know anything about the identity of this al-Brittani. At least did the CIA and the FBI know about it?
Act 4: April, 2003. A man projected as a principal suspect in the case relating to the attack on the USS Cole, the US naval ship, at Aden in October, 2002, was arrested in Karachi. His name was initially given as Khalid bin Attash. It was subsequently changed to Walid bin Attash. It hardly matters whether you call him Khalid or Walid. You will be none the wiser. The choice is yours. A great catch, we were told. Musharraf got another pat in the back. From the commission's report, he does not appear to have been such a great catch. Another person was arrested along with bin Attash. A nephew of KSM, we were told. Handed over to the Americans. Disappeared from press headlines. Nobody knows whether he was identified and what happened to him.
Act 5: October 2003. Musharraf sent his troops into South Waziristan, much to the applause of the Americans. To smoke out bin Laden and other dregs of al-Qaeda. For the first time since Pakistan's creation in 1947, its army had ventured into this God forsaken area, we were told. Pakistan television reported the exploits of the army day after day, hour after hour. Al-Qaeda's camps destroyed. Dozens killed and arrested. So we were told. The only confirmed killing so far is that of Hassan Mahsun, an Uighur terrorist. What happened to those arrested? Innocent Pakistani tribals or Arabs? Al-Qaeda or something else? When you are watching a striptease show, you should not ask questions. Just watch.
Act 6: February-March, 2004. The Pakistan army ventured back into South Waziristan. A high-value target surrounded, we were told. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian No 2 to bin Laden, Musharraf told the US officials and media, which lap up whatever he says just as they lapped up everything Ahmed Chalabi told them about Iraq. It turned out to be an Uzbek. Tohir Yuldeshev, leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There would have been some saving grace at least if he had been caught. No. He managed to just drive through a Pakistani army cordon and escape to fight another day. Doesn't matter, said Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Pakistan's Information Minister. The army had caught or killed dozens of other al-Qaeda dregs, he claimed.
Act 7: June. Within a few days of an abortive attempt to kill the Corps Commander of Karachi, Faisal Saleh Hyat, Pakistan's Interior Minister, proudly announced the case had been solved and those responsible arrested. They belonged to an organization called Jundullah (Army of Allah), he said. A new organization, of which the ISI was not aware till then, we were told. Trained in South Waziristan by al-Qaeda, we were further told. South Waziristan had been swarming with Pakistani troops, helicopter gunships and 007s of the US since October, 2003. How come al-Qaeda managed to run training camps right under the nose of the Pakistan army and American 007s just as KSM had managed to live right under the nose of Musharraf in Rawalpindi? Don't ask inconvenient questions. Just watch the show. You have no idea what more is to come. Along with the Jundullah members, one more guy was arrested. A nephew of KSM, we were told. How many nephews does KSM have? As many as the bras that a striptease dancer has. A woman of Karachi filed a habeas corpus in a Karachi court that the man arrested was her husband and not a nephew of KSM. In Pakistan, such fine distinctions are irrelevant. What matters is what Musharraf says. If he says he is a nephew of KSM, so he is.
Act 8: July 25. After an encounter lasting over 12 hours during which no one was killed and not many bullet marks were left anywhere, the ISI announced the arrest of a group of al-Qaeda members at Gujrat in Pakistani Punjab. The leader was a Kenyan national, we were told.
Act 9: July 29. Sorry. He was actually a Tanzanian. That, too, a famous Tanzanian. None other than Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani wanted by the US for his involvement in the explosions outside the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. When was his identity established and announced? Three hours before Senator John Kerry was to make his acceptance speech at the Democratic presidential convention. Investigation revealed that Ghailani had been living at Gujrat for some months. Many local police officers were suspended for not detecting his presence. It is learnt that in their explanations they admitted they were aware of his presence in Gujrat, but said that they had not acted against him because the ISI had brought and kept him there. Ghailani had escaped to Pakistan immediately after the explosions of 1998. How come the ISI was not aware of this all these years and became aware of it only just before the Democratic Party's convention?
Act 10: August. Tom Ridge, the US homeland secretary, announced with great fanfare that US intelligence had come to know of plans of al-Qaeda to blow up US and international economic targets in New York, New Jersey and Washington DC. It had cased those buildings. Heavily armed US security forces personnel took up positions around all these buildings. Barricades were put up. All staff and visitors were checked. Obliging TV channel crews beamed visuals of these all over the world. Many watched it. Including bin Laden, presuming he is still alive, and his boys. They now know the buildings which were not guarded. Someone in the US intelligence tipped off the press that the information was three years old. Sheepishly Ridge and his officers admitted that this was so. They said that this does not mean the danger is any the less. Al-Qaeda plans its operations years in advance. Nobody drew the attention of Ridge to the fact that KSM had reported about the casing of the economic targets by al-Brittani in his interrogation report. Why was the US public not informed of it at that time and why were no security precautions taken? Was it because no Republican Party presidential convention was due last year? Don't ask stupid questions. Watch the show.
Act 11: August. Faced with increasing skepticism, US officials leaked to the media that the information was from a so-called computer wizard of al-Qaeda, a Pakistani by the name of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, arrested in Lahore. The Pakistanis hit the ceiling. They accused the US of blowing a sensitive ongoing operation by revealing the identity of a collaborating detainee. They admitted such an arrest now that the US had blown his cover. It was he who led them to Ghailani, they claimed.
Act 12: August. The British got into the act. They arrested 12 persons - Dhiren Bharot alias Bilal, a Hindu convert to Islam, and 11 others, seven of them of Pakistani origin. Hey presto. Dhiren is none other than al-Brittani. Or, rather, al-Brittani was none other than Dhiren. A key al-Qaeda operative, said some. In fact, the leader of the local al-Qaeda cell, said others. The information came from the Pakistanis, admitted the British, but they had been keeping a watch on Dhiren even earlier. Dhiren and others were planning a terrorist strike against Heathrow airport, said the Pakistanis. No such information, said the British. Bin Laden and his al-Qaeda are very security conscious. How come they trusted Dhiren, a Hindu convert to Islam? Dhiren was known to KSM as al-Brittani and to Noor Khan as al-Hindi. Was he known to anyone else as al-Pakistani or al-Kenyan? His family had migrated to the United Kingdom from Kenya in 1973.
Act 13: August. The so-called nephew of KSM arrested in June back in the headlines. It was he who led the Pakistanis to Noor Khan and it was Noor Khan who led them to Ghailani, we were told.
Act 14: August. Like a magician taking rabbits out of his hat, as the Republican presidential convention and his visit to New York during which he is to meet Bush for another pat in the back approached, Musharraf started finding al-Qaeda dregs all over Pakistan - Arabs, Uzbeks, South Africans and Pakistanis. A plot for simultaneous attacks on Musharraf's palace and the US Embassy in Islamabad, general headquarters in Rawalpindi and other places discovered and foiled. Many more dregs arrested. Al-Qaeda penetrated. The days of its dregs numbered. Claims galore from the interior and information ministers. Pakistani backers of al-Qaeda identified and under watch. Do you know who is the principal backer, according to these ministers? Musharraf? No. Lieutenant-General Ehsanul-Haq, director general of the ISI? No. He is none other than Javed Ibrahim Paracha , a close associate of Nawaz Sharif and a member of Nawaz's faction of the Pakistan Muslim League. Yes sir. You now know how al-Qaeda had remained undetected all these years in Pakistan. Because of the support from Nawaz's Muslim League.
Should one laugh or cry? Don't do either. Keep watching the show. There are more striptease acts to come as the US presidential elections and the deadline for Musharraf to resign as the chief of the army staff (COAS) approaches. Bush and Tricky Mush need each other. And they both need bin Laden. Bush for winning re-election. Mush for getting US support for his planned violation of the Pakistani constitution in order to be able to continue as the COAS after December 31.
There is another striptease going on in Iraq.
Another show, another day.
B Raman is Additional Secretary (retired), Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi, and, presently, director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. Email: corde@vsnl.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CHINA
China's 2 Top Leaders Square Off in Contest to Run Policy
By JOSEPH KAHN
BEIJING, Sept. 1 - As China's leaders prepare to gather for a national planning session, the country's two top officials, Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, are engaged in an increasingly pointed power struggle that has begun to create cracks in the one-party system, Chinese officials and analysts say.
Tension between Mr. Jiang, the country's semiretired senior leader who still heads the military, and Mr. Hu, who replaced Mr. Jiang as Communist Party chief and president nearly two years ago, has begun influencing debates on issues like slowing the overheated economy, fighting corruption and assigning jobs, these people say. The most delicate matters are now often viewed within the party as battles between rival factions.
There are no signs that the political system has become as unstable as it was in 1989, when economic and political disputes, including over how to handle popular protests for democracy, divided the Politburo. Moreover, since the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, China's leaders have at times sparred over power and ideology without threatening one-party rule. Even so, some party officials say the split between Mr. Jiang and Mr. Hu has the potential to grow into a more direct confrontation, and both men are viewed as seeking to rally support ahead of the planning meeting this month in a bid to weaken or even displace the other. At a minimum, divided leadership seems likely to complicate policy making and efforts to carry out policies in a system that relies on clear direction from the top.
Purported differences between the men are often exaggerated in China's rumor-filled political discourse. But people in the government and party hierarchy, including a few who say they were skeptical about the possibility of a power struggle until recent months, say they see signs that the two leaders have associated themselves with opposing schools of thought.
Broadly speaking, Mr. Hu is seen as embracing the idea that China needs to focus more on populist social problems, like corruption, health care, income inequality and environmental pollution, while Mr. Jiang has often spoken about the importance of maintaining a high rate of economic growth as the first priority.
Mr. Jiang is viewed as more supportive of China's private sector and of delegating power to the provinces to control their economies. Mr. Hu and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao have been using central government controls to reduce wasteful state spending, curtail lending to cool the overheated economy, and support the largest state-owed conglomerates.
Several people also said that Mr. Hu and Mr. Jiang have also begun to diverge subtly on foreign policy, with Mr. Hu working to forge closer ties to European nations, especially France and Germany, and Mr. Jiang emphasizing the relatively cordial relationship he built with the United States in the late 1990's.
Mr. Jiang and Mr. Hu regularly appear together in public and do not openly oppose each other. But they have added fuel to speculation about the deteriorating state of their relations by dropping hints or casting aspersions at each other in party meetings, officials said.
Speaking at a ceremony commemorating the 100th anniversary of the birth of Deng Xiaoping last week, Mr. Hu praised Deng, the father of China's market-oriented overhaul, for having given up his party and military positions well before he died in 1997. His speech was widely interpreted as a jab at Mr. Jiang, 78, who has clung to power longer than many expected. "Comrade Deng Xiaoping early on advocated abolishing lifelong tenure for officials and leaders, and he set a personal example," Mr. Hu said, according to a transcript of his remarks released by the official New China News Agency.
He went on to emphasize the importance of completing the transition to younger leadership that began in 2002, when Mr. Hu was given his current positions. "The party's third generation of collective leadership with Comrade Jiang Zemin as its core made tremendous achievements," Mr. Hu said. "We, the new central collective leadership, are striving to unify and lead the whole party and people in continuing to advance this great endeavor."
Mr. Jiang has begun directly criticizing Mr. Hu, several officials said. He recently invited a dozen officials and scholars, including prominent advisers to Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen, to discuss domestic and foreign policy at a hotel in western Beijing. Mr. Jiang repeatedly expressed concerns that Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen had taken dangerous policy gambles that threatened China's social stability and economic growth, according to two people who were told about the meeting.
In another sign of jockeying, this summer Mr. Jiang restored a Communist tradition of holding secretive retreats at the seaside resort of Beidaihe. In doing so, he effectively overturned an edict banning such party perks that Mr. Hu had announced with fanfare last year.
The main source of tension between the two men is now said to be personnel changes that could be discussed at the September meetings, known as the Fourth Plenum, a full meeting of the Communist Party's powerful Central Committee.
People told about plans for the meeting said Mr. Hu intended to put forward a proposal to increase the number of vice chairmen of the Central Military Commission, the top military body, to five from three, potentially loosening Mr. Jiang's grip on the military. Mr. Jiang is now the chairman of the commission and Mr. Hu is one of the three vice chairmen. His proposal is seen as a step toward pressuring Mr. Jiang to retire, with Mr. Hu then taking control of the military.
Mr. Jiang, however, has declined to resign or to set a time for the transition, these people said. Instead, he has proposed elevating his longtime lieutenant, Vice President Zeng Qinghong, to join Mr. Hu as a vice chairman of the military commission, a move that could foreshadow a struggle to succeed Mr. Jiang when he does turn over the reins.
Mr. Jiang has also submitted a proposal to create an American-style national security council that would oversee China's defense and foreign policies. People told about the proposal said they considered it likely that Mr. Jiang would seek to become the first head of that council.
Mr. Hu and Mr. Wen have long been viewed favorably by party elders and reform-minded officials who want to see the party embrace at least modest political openness, and they developed reputations as dedicated, clean officials. But Mr. Wen, in particular, has seen his clout wane recently, even as he has waged a tough campaign to restrict investment and tackle corruption.
Several officials said Mr. Wen was damaged by a report that appeared in early July in the 21st Century Business Herald. The influential newspaper suggested that the prime minister's American-educated eldest son, Wen Yunsong, had garnered a substantial stake in the Ping An Insurance Company shortly before that company went public on the Hong Kong stock market earlier this year.
The report did not name Mr. Wen's son, but it provided details that pointed to him as an operator behind holding companies that had managed to acquire a pre-offering stake in the company, which is now valued at nearly $1 billion.
Chris Buckley contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary: Is China's GDP just an accounting artifact?
Andy Mukherjee Bloomberg News
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Two words of advice for investors who will pore over China's third-quarter gross domestic product data to gauge if the country is succeeding in damping overheated economic growth: "Be careful."
It could be an exercise in futility, as shown by Carsten Holz, an economist at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, who recently attempted to reconstruct a key part of China's $1.4 trillion dollar GDP: private consumption.
Although Holz used official Chinese guidelines on how household spending surveys are to be used to compute consumption GDP, his final figures did not match the ones published by China's National Bureau of Statistics.
Holz drew the following conclusions:
China's published GDP value in any particular year is not comparable to that of any other year.
An official percentage figure for GDP growth in a particular year does not imply that final demand - the sum of consumption, investment and net exports - rose by that percentage from the previous year.
The official GDP statistics may be using wrong population data, overestimating rural population (which consumes less) and underestimating urban population (which consumes more).
Using separately released official population data, one would find that GDP in 2002 was perhaps several percentage points higher than the reported figure of 8.3 percent.
"Real growth in part then is an accounting artifact," says Holz. The National Bureau of Statistics "is unwilling to reveal its actual practices or is incapable of accurately specifying the practices it follows," the researcher says.
Investors should keep Holz's findings in mind as they evaluate third-quarter data next month to ascertain if China's growth has truly cooled from the second quarter's 9.6 percent and last year's 9.1 percent. Both of those will be revised now after the statistics bureau raised its growth estimate for the first half of 2003 by 0.6 percentage point.
The key lesson is that there are two sources of error in China's growth rate. One is inaccuracy of data, which can throw the GDP growth rate off the mark by as much as one percentage point in either direction. Still, if a predictable level of inaccuracy were the only problem with China's GDP, one might be able to live with it.
There's a more dangerous source of error: inconsistencies from year to year in how the Chinese authorities add up their faulty gross domestic product data.
And the inconstancies are utterly unpredictable.
There's "no possibility for me, or probably any outsider," Holz notes, "to evaluate whether there are inconsistencies, and if so, how big they are." The usual double checks, via energy or steel consumption, are invalid, he says.
To be sure, adding up consumption, investments and net exports is one way to calculate GDP. The other method, and the one China uses to compute the official growth rate, is to add up the "output," or the value added in agriculture, manufacturing, mining and services, and compare the tally with the previous year to arrive at a growth figure. Could it be that China measures "output" accurately, and then twists "expenditures" to match?
In other words, could overall GDP, and growth, be accurate, even when the share of household consumption in GDP is not? Holz doesn't think so. It's easier to compile expenditure statistics than it is to collate correct data on output and incomes, where the government "faces such difficult tasks as measuring value-added in the individual-owned catering industry," he says.
Large-scale inconsistencies probably began during the Asian financial crisis of 1998, when China's unemployment problem, already bad because of austerity drives in previous years, got worse. Zhu Rongji, the incoming prime minister, demanded 8 percent growth. With the rural economy in the grips of the country's worst floods in half a century, delivering that growth depended on the creativity of statisticians.
That's when, in the second half of 1998, "statistical falsification, previously confined to minor fudging, occasional gross distortions by specific enterprises or localities, and widespread exaggeration of output in rural collective industry, suddenly blossomed into a massive nationwide phenomenon," a University of Pittsburgh researcher, Thomas Rawski, said in 2000.
If it was crucial to show strong growth in the economy in 1998, at least on paper, then it's equally important to show a gradual deceleration now, when credit curbs have been placed to check overinvestment in industries like steel, motor vehicles and property. Many countries, their fortunes tied to Chinese growth, are waiting to see how the credit tightening works out.
GDP statistics for 2004 will probably show a mild slowdown. When analysts say they're confident of a "soft landing," what they may mean is that Beijing can make any landing look that way.
Bloomberg News
Copyright ? 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China's central banker warns on capital flows
Tian Ying Bloomberg News
Thursday, September 02, 2004
BEIJING The Chinese central bank governor, Zhou Xiaochuan, said Thursday that government efforts to slow the economy were at a key stage, with monetary policy becoming harder to implement because of rising inflows of foreign capital.
"The amount of foreign currency converted to yuan continues to grow at a fast pace, and the central bank is still putting a relatively high volume of base money into circulation," Zhou said in a speech posted on the Web site of People's Bank of China.
The central bank has to print yuan in exchange for foreign currencies to maintain the yuan's peg against the dollar, thus increasing the money supply and hampering efforts to ease the growth in lending. China used 536 billion yuan, or $65 billion, to soak up foreign exchange in the first half of this year, the central bank said in its quarterly report last month.
China's economy, the world's seventh-largest, grew 9.6 percent in the second quarter of 2004, slowing from a 9.8 percent pace in the first three months, after the government ordered banks to restrict lending to industries it has deemed overheated. These include steel, cement and real estate development.
The broad measure of money supply known as M2 grew in China by 15.3 percent in July from the same month last year. That was the smallest gain in two years; July was the second consecutive month that the growth of M2 stayed within the central bank's target of 17 percent. The bank is likely to release August money supply data around Sept. 10.
The government's tightening measures have shown preliminary success, Zhou said in the speech, which he delivered in the northern city of Tianjin. Growth of M1 and M2, as well as new lending, have dropped to a "relatively rational level," he said. But Zhou cautioned that any relaxation of policy may cause investment growth to rebound.
M1 is defined as cash in circulation and cash equivalent. M2 measures cash and liquid assets such as money market funds.
Investment in roads, factories and other fixed assets in China rose 31 percent in the first seven months of this year, the same pace as in the first half. Inflation reached a seven-year high of 5.3 percent in July.
Zhou's comments are the latest by senior leaders suggesting that the clampdown on credit is unlikely to be eased.
Rising exports, foreign direct investment and inflows of speculative capital are fueling demand for the Chinese currency. Exports reached a record $51 billion last month, while foreign direct investment in the first seven months of this year rose 15 percent from a year earlier, according to official data.
Bloomberg News
Copyright ? 2004 The International Herald Tribune | www.iht.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MALAYSIA
Anwar's freedom catches UMNO with pants down
By Ioannis Gatsiounis
KUALA LUMPUR - With the only viable opposition party all but knocked out of the picture and the ruling National Front (BN) promising reform but carrying on its brand of feudalism with impunity - in other words, just when the political climate in Malaysia seemed to reach a new nadir - things got interesting. On Thursday morning in Putra Jaya, a federal court in a 2-1 decision stunned the nation by overturning the sodomy conviction of Malaysia's most famous political prisoner, Anwar Ibrahim.
Anwar in 1998 was sacked as deputy premier by then prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and subsequently jailed on corruption and sodomy charges. The debacle touched off mass protests and gave rise to a reform movement centering on justice and human rights, as many Malaysians believed that Anwar, 57, was framed because he posed a political threat to Mahathir.
Anwar had already served his term for the corruption conviction and was down to his last appeal for his nine-year sodomy sentence when Judge Abdul Hamid Mohamad told the courtroom on Thursday, "We are not prepared to uphold the conviction. We therefore ... set aside the conviction and the sentence."
Now, beneath the euphoria and bewilderment - in a nation in which the courts are reputedly a puppet of the government - two burning questions persist: How will Anwar's release shape Malaysia's political landscape, and second, does it suggest a new dawn of reform in Malaysian politics?
When Mahathir's hand-picked successor Abdullah Badawi took over from the long-ruling Mahathir last October, speculation surfaced as to whether Abdullah might release Anwar. It was just as soon concluded that releasing the charismatic Anwar would be political suicide for Abdullah, who was - some say still is - struggling to form a political base within his United Malays National Organization (UMNO).
On Wednesday, however, Abdullah said he would not meddle in the courts' decisions. And it appears he did not. So stunned was even Anwar at the fact that he went out of his way to say, "I must thank Badawi for the decision."
To some observers such cap-tipping is a priori, as Abdullah had already assured the public that the judiciary was independent and the government would not tamper with court decisions. But, said Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, deputy president of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM), "There's a fundamental defect in making this assurance." He added that while Abdullah deserves some credit for not tampering with a court ruling that just might seal his political fate, "We cannot say the rule of law prevails in Malaysia as of yet."
Added a longtime commentator: "There remain so many problems in the judiciary." Those seeking reform, he said, cannot afford to bask in this decision.
But at least, said the leader of the opposition, Democratic Action Party (DAP) chairman Lim Kit Siang, "It reminds us not to despair in our fight for democracy."
And with Anwar's release, that fight for democracy likely got a major jolt. Anwar assured supporters outside the courthouse: "I'm committed to the struggle with the opposition parties that are committed to reform. I'm starting it right away."
Under Malaysian law, he will need to wait five years to seek political office because of his corruption conviction. But the message is clear: he will not allow himself to be sublated by the party that sought to destroy him.
Whether he links up with Keadilan (Justice Party), the party that was formed in the wake of his ouster, is not known. But it is thought that his release will "breathe new life directly and indirectly into opposition parties", said Hassan Ali of the conservative Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS).
UMNO officials were not immediately available for comment. But most observers say the decision puts UMNO against the wall. "It puts pressure on UMNO to stand up to the issues they promised to address" when Abdullah became premier, Lim said. Among those issues were corruption, transparency, accountability and good governance.
Some say Anwar's release may cause further fissures within UMNO, with some members aligning themselves with Anwar and others behind UMNO Supreme Council member Razaleigh Hamzah, who unsuccessfully challenged Abdullah for the party presidency in July.
At cafes around Kuala Lumpur on Thursday, some Malaysians saw Anwar's release as an omen for Malaysian politics. "Let him stay in jail where he deserves to be," said Mohamad Yusuf Bachok, 52. "His release will only divide."
Indeed, the Anwar debacle embarrassed and exhausted many Malaysians, and finds them averse to change. If Anwar can't reverse this trend, needless to say his political comeback will be over before it gets started.
Columnist M G G Pillai said Anwar's release is nothing to fear. "A realignment of forces is good for Malaysia."
And a realignment is what he foresees. Part of the problem, Pillai said, is that UMNO has become an Islamic party, trying to outduel PAS for that title. "Both have talked up cutting off the hands of thieves - the only difference is UMNO will cauterize it and PAS use the blade directly," he quipped.
While Muslims here, most all Malays, make up 60% of the population, UMNO and PAS have alienated many Malay voters because Malay identity is not exclusively Islamic. It is in some ways distinct, with a unique history that Islam has confused.
By contrast, Keadilan has always played more to Malay rather than Islamic sensibilities. Anwar did spearhead an Islamic revival in Malaysia in the early 1980s, but his appeal has transcended ethnic and religious lines.
As recently as Wednesday, Anwar and his former party were all but forgotten. His final appeal on Thursday was seen as a foregone conclusion, considering the courts' corrupt history; few Malaysians were even tuning in. As well, Keadilan was virtually buried in the March parliamentary elections, with only Anwar's wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail winning a seat in parliament. Anwar's battle back into politics will no doubt be an arduous one.
Anwar, in neck brace and wheelchair, was expected to fly to Munich immediately for treatment for his back, an injury he said was aggravated by a beating inflicted by Malaysia's former police chief after his jailing in 1998. When Anwar appeared in court the next day with a black eye, Mahathir said Anwar beat himself up. The police chief later confessed to the crime.
After his release on Thursday, Anwar told reporters, "I bear no malice against [Mahathir]. Let him retire." Mahathir retired last October. Anwar's plans are a little different.
Ioannis Gatsiounis is a New York native who has worked in Indonesia as a freelance foreign correspondent for various US dailies and co-hosted a weekly political/cultural radio call-in show. He now lives in Malaysia.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Reformasi' a la Malaysia
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20040903.E01&irec=0
The winds of freedom, it seems, are breezing through both Singapore and Malaysia these days. Just one week after newly appointed Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong promised more freedom of expression for Singaporeans, Malaysia decided to release dissident figure Anwar Ibrahim from prison on Thursday.
The decision by the Malaysian Supreme Court to overturn the lower court's conviction of sodomy against Anwar was not totally unexpected. Ever since he took over the reins a year ago, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has shown signs of distancing himself from the more authoritarian policies of his predecessor Mahathir Mohamad. Last month, he launched a campaign against corruption involving people who at one time were close to Mahathir. It was simply a matter of time, therefore, for Badawi to address the question of Anwar Ibrahim's imprisonment six years ago, which was clearly politically motivated.
But most people did not expect the release to come so soon. The Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdict because the allegation of sodomy was not supported by evidence presented in the lower court. While the court reached its decision without any interference from the Prime Minister, there is no doubt that such a ruling would not have been tolerated if Mahathir was still in charge. Everyone, including most Malaysians, knows that Anwar went to prison for challenging Mahathir.
Malaysians have two good reasons to celebrate over the Supreme Court ruling: the release of one of their most colorful and intelligent politicians, and the fact that the rule of law has finally taken root in their country.
The rest of the world, including we in Indonesia, can only rejoice at this positive development.
Malaysia's economic success -- undoubtedly a tribute to Mahathir's leadership -- cannot be sustained unless the country starts building the necessary democratic political foundations: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the rule of law, as well as credible free and fair elections.
The release of Anwar Ibrahim marks the beginning of the "reformasi" era in Malaysia. The next step should be the restoration of his good name and the removal of the restrictions banning him from politics until 2008. Malaysia must go through a period of reconciliation before it can move forward.
There is every reason to be positive.
Badawi is starting Malaysia's process toward democratization when the economy is on solid ground. He is not doing this out of economic pressures or foreign proddings, but more out of his own conviction that now is as good a time as any to do the job. And Malaysia is doing so in phases and with far less fanfare than what we did in Indonesia. Indonesia launched its reform movement at a time when its economy was falling apart in 1998. It was probably the worst time to begin and the country has continued to struggle to this day.
We in Indonesia wish Badawi and the Malaysian people success in their march toward greater democracy and the even greater prosperity that comes with it. The developments in Malaysia and hopefully Singapore too, can only be good for the Southeast Asian region.
Indonesia may be responsible for exporting the haze from our forest fires to Malaysia and to Singapore, but we can also take credit for some of those winds of freedom that have been blowing through Malaysia and Singapore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> GOP
http://www.cato.org/pointstoponder.html
A Reform GOP?
Republicans need to prove that they're still the party of ideas.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Republicans gathered in New York this week will be advertising their accomplishments, and fair enough. Yet if President Bush and the rest of his Grand Old Party want to turn their wispy hold on power into a real governing majority, they'll reassert their ebbing claim as the party of ideas.
Measured in offices held, the GOP hasn't been this strong since the 1920s. Republicans hold the White House and both branches of Congress, albeit narrowly but also by dint of a historic mid-term election victory in 2002. The party also owns 28 of the 50 governorships, including in the large, dynamic states of Texas, Florida and California. With an incumbent President seeking re-election, the GOP has a chance to forge a real mandate to govern.
Yet there is also a sense that the GOP, especially its Congressional wing, has been drifting from the principles that brought it to power. In 2000, Candidate Bush described the GOP as the party of reform--from Social Security to Medicare, greater accountability in education and the "compassionate conservatism" of faith-based charity. Four years later, Americans are left wondering if Republicans still believe in that agenda, or if they're slowly being captured by the inertia of Beltway incumbency.
Granted, this is not the case on national security, where Mr. Bush has united the party behind the assertive use of American power. In a sense, all Republicans are "neoconservatives" now, or at least they are as long as Mr. Bush prevails in November. The party's realist, Brent Scowcroft wing is waiting to reassert itself if he loses--represented by the likes of Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel--but for now those differences are muted.
Under Mr. Bush, the GOP has also become the natural home for cultural traditionalists. Partly this is because the Democrats have so heartily embraced Hollywood and secularism, but it has also been driven by Mr. Bush's heartland instincts. This works to the GOP's political advantage on such issues as guns, where a majority opposes state controls. But it may cost the party on such matters as stem cell research, where science clashes with the party's dominant anti-abortion wing. At least the GOP is debating such vital matters: Democrats long ago banished any anti-abortion dissent.
Perhaps the biggest question is whether the GOP can still rightly call itself the party of smaller government. The GOP Congress--as well as some of its state parties (Ohio, New York)--has seemed only too comfortable acting as the party of the incumbent status quo, dolloping out pork to any interest group that might help it remain in power. The result has been the largest farm bill in history, as well as the largest new entitlement (for prescription drugs) since the 1960s. Huge energy and highway spending bills failed not from principled opposition but from internal squabbling.
If Republicans want to see the perils of this strategy, they might look at the blue (Democratic) patches of the electoral map that are Illinois, New Jersey and Long Island. Once GOP strongholds, those areas all turned left after Republican machines grew corrupt and became little different from tax-and-spend Democrats. It's no accident that the dynamic and growing parts of the GOP are in the South and West, in places like Florida, where Governor Jeb Bush has promoted school reform, or Colorado, where Governor Bill Owens has returned tax surpluses to voters instead of growing the government.
Internal GOP resistance to some of President Bush's pro-growth, reform agenda shows that too much of the party still opposes change. A rump group in the Senate have prevented him from making his tax cuts permanent, though without those tax cuts Republicans would be heading for defeat this fall amid a much poorer economy.
Republicans in the House keep telling Mr. Bush to forget about personal Social Security accounts, despite their appeal to younger voters. And a nativist party faction has stood in way of his farsighted immigration reform that is essential if the GOP is ever going to attract enough Hispanic voters to sustain a majority amid sweeping demographic change.
If voters want to elect the party of the government status quo, they can and probably should turn to the Democrats. Republicans have to stake their claim to govern on individual empowerment and the reform of our unsustainable, New Deal public-sector monopolies. In this information age of global competition and rapid technological change, Americans want a party that will give them more control over their finances and pensions, their health care, and especially their time. We'll be looking for evidence this week that the Republicans want to be that party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Strong Is the Arab Claim to Palestine?
By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 30, 2004
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:
? As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.
? If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.
? If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back.
So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:
? The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:
? The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:
? The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:
? The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:
? The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:
? The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from
? The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:
? The Byzantines, who (nice people--perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:
? The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:
? The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:
? The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:
? The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:
? The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:
? The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:
? The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites.
As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The terroritories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula--including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority--were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history.
The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine.
In any case, today's "Palestine," meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, aeons ago. Major "native" tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17th century. India's caste system reflects waves of fair-skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on.
The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"--the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners--is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States?
Back to the Arabs
I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present?
To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews.
Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted. The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict, and Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67).
The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964--sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred.
Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation. He offers his traditionalist conservative perspective at View from the Right.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bin Laden's Operatives Still Use Dubai
By TAREK AL-ISSAWI
ASSOCIATED PRESS
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -
Osama bin Laden's operatives still use this freewheeling city as a logistical hub three years after more than half the Sept. 11 hijackers flew directly from Dubai to the United States in the final preparatory stages for the attack.
The recent arrest of an alleged top al-Qaida combat coach is the latest sign that suspected members of the terrorist organization are among those who take advantage of travel rules that allow easy entry. Citizens of neighboring Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia can come to Dubai without visas, which other nationalities can get at the country's ports of entry.
Once here, it's easy to blend in to what has become a cosmopolitan crowd.
The Emirates is home to an estimated 4 million people, and nearly 75 percent of them are foreigners. In Dubai, expatriates of all nationalities are catered to, from concerts by top Western musicians to cricket and rugby matches to a German-styled Oktoberfest.
The expatriates, mostly from the Indian subcontinent and the Arab world, are employed in the real estate, insurance, tourism and banking sectors. Westerners, numbering in the tens of thousands, are employed as military advisers and oil specialists.
While the Emirates has taken concrete steps to fight terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001 - including making high-profile arrests, passing an anti-money laundering law, and imposing close monitoring procedures on charity organizations - the characteristics that make it an ideal place for legitimate business also attract militants and others with suspect motives.
In August, Pakistani Qari Saifullah Akhtar, suspected of training thousands of al-Qaida fighters for combat, was arrested in the Emirates and turned over to officials in his homeland, authorities in Pakistan announced.
Emirates authorities have refused to comment on Akhtar's arrest. They were similarly tightlipped in 2002, when the United States announced the arrest of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors.
It was a month before Emirates officials confirmed al-Nashiri had been arrested here. Then they said he had been planning to attack "vital economic targets" in the Emirates that were likely to inflict "the highest possible casualties among nationals and foreigners."
The Saudi-born al-Nashiri, one of six Cole defendants in an ongoing trial in Yemen, is in U.S. custody at an undisclosed location. Besides the Cole attack, he is suspected of helping direct the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. officials say.
With open borders, multiethnic society and freewheeling business rules, the Emirates remains vital to al-Qaida operations, said Evan F. Kohlmann, a Washington-based terrorism researcher.
Dubai still "plays a key role for al-Qaida as a through-point and a money transfer location," Kohlmann said, although he also noted the country could be working to combat such activity with "an aggressive but low-profile intelligence strategy."
Al-Qaida isn't the only organization that has found Dubai useful. The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has acknowledged heading a clandestine group that, with the help of a Dubai company, supplied Pakistani nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Emirates officials refused to discuss the country's latest steps to combat terror.
Dia'a Rashwan, an Egyptian expert on militant groups, said trumpeting developments such as the arrest of al-Qaida suspects could be misread as serving the United States when the Emirates, led by its President Sheik Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, cultivates an image as a champion of Arab causes. The Emirates nonetheless has a close relationship with Washington.
Rashwan said the reticence also could stem from fear that saying too much could cause "panic among the huge expatriate community, which is proportionally the largest in the Gulf."
Kohlmann said if more al-Qaida suspects are arrested in the Emirates, the network might retaliate with a strike here, perhaps on a U.S. mission or military target.
While the country has not been singled out as a target by al-Qaida, the United States issued a warning in June that it had "information that extremists may be planning to carry out attacks against Westerners and oil workers in the Persian Gulf region, beyond Saudi Arabia."
Security is tight in the Emirates, but not visible, and violent crimes are uncommon.
"The United Arab Emirates is considered a safe haven for everybody," said Emirates analyst Abdulkhaleq Abdulla. "It has not yet got entangled in any of the violence that other countries around it have experienced and it wants to keep that image."
Shortly after the Sept. 11, attacks, U.S. authorities said the United Arab Emirates, especially the commercial hub Dubai, was a major transit and money transfer center for al-Qaida.
A new report dated Aug. 21 by the U.S. commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks provided the most detail yet on the extent to which the hijackers used Dubai as a travel hub.
According to the U.S. government, 13 of the 19 hijackers entered the United States between April 23 and June 29, 2001. And 11 of those late-arrivers - who were Saudi citizens and primarily the "muscle" for the hijackings - went through Dubai, according to the report.
The hijackers traveled in groups of two or three, taking off from Dubai and arriving at airports in Miami, Orlando, Fla., or New York City, the report said.
As for the money trail, Bin Laden's alleged financial manager, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hisawi, received at a Dubai bank a transfer of $15,000 two days before the Sept. 11 attacks and then left the Emirates for Pakistan, where he was arrested last year.
Marwan Al-Shehhi, an Emirates citizen and one of the hijackers, received $100,000 via the United Arab Emirates. Another hijacker, Fayez Banihammad, also was from the Emirates.
About half of the $250,000 spent on the attacks was wired to al-Qaida terrorists in the United States from Dubai banks, authorities said. Al-Qaida money in Dubai banks also has been linked to the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by maximpost
at 4:50 PM EDT
