An Auschwitz in Korea
Jeff Jacoby (archive)
February 9, 2004 | Print | Send
Two words -- "never again" -- sum up the most important lesson that civilized men and women were supposed to have learned from the 20th century. It is forbidden to keep silent, forbidden to look the other way, when tyrants embark on genocide and slaughter -- if Auschwitz and Kolyma and the Cambodian killing fields taught us nothing else, they taught us that.
Or so, at any rate, we like to tell ourselves. As Samantha Power discovered upon returning to the United States after two years as a war correspondent in Bosnia, the lesson of "never again" is invoked far more often than it is applied.
"Everywhere I went," Power recalled in a speech at Swarthmore College in 2002, "I heard 'never again.' Steven Spielberg's 'Schindler's List' had been a smash hit. The Holocaust Museum had opened on the Mall in Washington. College seminars were taught on the 'lessons' of the singular crime of the 20th century. But why, I wondered, had nobody applied those lessons to the atrocities of the 1990s: the systematic murder of 200,000 Bosnian civilians in Europe between 1992 and 1995 and the extermination of some 800,000 Rwandan Tutsi in 1994.
"Did 'never again' simply mean 'never again will Germans kill Jews in Europe between 1939 and 1945?' "
Power went on to write A Problem From Hell, her Pulitzer Prize-winning account of America's failure to intervene in the genocides of the 20th century. The book was hugely and deservedly praised. It made clear, as no previous book ever had, just how much Americans knew about some of the most horrific massacres of the last century even as they were happening, and how little we did to stop them -- or even, in most cases, condemn them.
Which brings us to North Korea.
It is not exactly news that the communist regime of Kim Jong Il has sent millions of North Koreans to early graves. Estimates back in 1998 were that as many as 800,000 people were dying in North Korea each year from starvation and malnutrition caused by Kim's ruthless and irrational policies. World Vision, a Christian relief organization, calculated that 1 million to 2 million North Koreans had been killed by "a full-scale famine" largely of Pyongyang's creation.
Nor is it breaking news that North Korea operates a vicious prison gulag -- "not unlike the worst labor camps built by Mao and Stalin in the last century," as NBC News reported more than a year ago. Some 200,000 men, women, and children are held in these slave-labor camps; hundreds of thousands of others have perished in them over the years. Some of the camps are so hellish that 20 percent or more of their prisoners die from torture and abuse each year. The dead can be of any age: North Korea's longstanding policy is to imprison not only those accused of such "crimes" as practicing Christianity or complaining about North Korean life, but their entire families, grandparents and grandchildren included.
And of course it is widely known that Kim is openly pursuing nuclear weapons, has fired missiles capable of reaching Japan, and controls one of the largest military forces on earth.
All of this is hideous enough, and more than sufficient reason for making Kim's ouster -- and his prosecution for crimes against humanity -- an explicit goal of the United States. But now comes something new.
"I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. The parents, a son, and a daughter." The speaker is Kwon Hyuk, a former North Korean intelligence agent and a one-time administrator at Camp 22, the country's largest concentration camp. His testimony was heard on a television documentary that aired last week on the BBC. "The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save the kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing."
Like other communist officials, Kwon was not bothered by what he saw. "I felt that they throroughly deserved such a death. Because all of us were led to believe that all the bad things that were happening to North Korea were their fault. . . . Under the society and the regime I was in at the time, I only felt that they were the enemies. So I felt no sympathy or pity for them at all."
Another eyewitness was Soon Ok-lee, who was imprisoned for seven years in a different North Korean camp. She described the use of prisoners as guinea pigs for biochemical weapons.
"An officer ordered me to select 50 healthy female prisoners," she testified. "One of the guards handed me a basket full of soaked cabbage, told me not to eat it, but to give it to the 50 women. I gave them out and heard a scream. . . . They were all screaming and vomiting blood. All who ate the cabbage leaves started violently vomiting blood and screaming with pain. It was hell. In less than 20 minutes, they were dead."
Gas chambers. Poisoned food. Torture. Families murdered en masse. Staggering death tolls. How much more do we need to know about North Korea's crimes before we act to stop them? How many more victims must be fed into the gas chambers before we cry out "never again!" -- and mean it?
?2003 Boston Globe
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saudi Payments for Foreign Journalists
Ina column published in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, columnist Abdallah Nasser Al-Fawzan criticizes Saudi payments given to foreign journalists in order to write pro-Saudi media reports. The following are excerpts from the column : [1]
Bribing Journalists - A Rumor or the Sad Truth?
"For quite some time I have been hearing rumors that we [the Saudis] are paying journalists in Arab and non-Arab capitals, and that these payments are not in the hundreds of thousands but in the millions. I did not believe it, because first of all it was in complete contradiction to our ethics, our values and dignity, our self-respect, and our reverence to our nation and country. Secondly, I found nothing in the publications abroad about the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] that justified such practices. [In fact] there has been an Arab regime that used to pay [journalists], and that was manifested clearly in media publications about it. For example, we remember the media festivals organized by Arab media outfits [to hail] this regime and we remember the odd propaganda efforts on its behalf. But when it comes to comparing ourselves with that regime we deserve epic poems of praise ... because we find no evidence to the [bribery] rumors. Furthermore, sometimes we are the target of organized media attacks and we do need support, but no one comes forward to speak up for us, which gives the impression that we don't pay anyone.
"Such was my impression, and that is why the rumors did not sink in and did not leave me any reason for further contemplation. But the rumors persisted, and two days ago I was surprised by a trustworthy Saudi journalist and a media personality with considerable credence, Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, who published an article that changed my mind about the rumors I heard, and made me reconsider them seriously."
The Need for 'a Home-Grown Strong and Honest Media'
"In his regular column 'Meeting,' published last Monday [2] ... he talked about our dire need for a home-grown strong and honest media, free of domestic and social shackles, able to stand up to other provocative and destructive media, rather than having to rely on crippled and suppliant foreign media... Mr. Al-Sudairi went on to say that: 'Having a crippled and suppliant media cannot benefit us,' and he added even more bluntly that 'we have had the most bizarre relationship with newspapers in other Arab countries ... which to this time receive annual payments and subsidies, although they are insignificant in their own countries, let alone in the Arab world...'"
The Price for Silence
"I said at the beginning of this article that for various reasons I used to dismiss what I heard about paying Arab journalists... And although I do not support such payments under any circumstances, it would [be safe to] assume that they were given in exchange for taking certain positions and for defending us from attacks. However, this did not happen. On the contrary, the opposite has sometimes occurred.
"Mr. Al-Sudairi confirms that payments were made, but why haven't we seen the desired effect? Mr. Al-Sudairi provided a heartbreaking answer in his article. He said that those who receive payments from us 'do not write one word to refute Western media campaigns, as if the payments are made to prevent them [too] from writing against us ... i.e. they are the price of their silence.
"So, the problem is far worse than just making annual payments to Arab journalists, because these payments are the 'price of silence...
"Finally Mr. Al-Sudairi said that those who receive bribes to spare us their harm do not have the ability to harm us with their words or to safeguard us with their silence. In the words of Mr. Al-Sudairi himself: 'They are insignificant ingrates ... and some of them even use pseudonyms to publish articles against us.' What a shame... What a tragedy...
"I thank Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi for his obvious patriotic concern and I join him in condemning this sorry affair, and urge everyone to support him. If we are paying the price, as he said, to insignificant ingrate journalists who consider them a price for their silence, and still publish articles against us using pseudonyms, then the matter is truly scandalous and calls for investigation and proper remedies, not just for the end of the payments."
[1] Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), January 14, 2004.
[2] Al-Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), January 12, 2004.
--------------------------------------------------
The Saudi Separation Fence
By: Yotam Feldner*
Historical Background
Two months ago, the Saudi government began to build a fence along its border with Yemen in an attempt to separate the residents along both sides of the border. The border between the two countries was set out in the 2000 Jeddah border treaty, which included a 20 kilometer-wide neutral zone as a strip of grazing land permitted to both sides. The building of the fence enraged the Shi'ite Wayilah tribe on the Yemenite side, which even before its construction had objected to the location of the border.
The Wayilah tribe owns approximately 200 military vehicles and thousands of rifles, and in the past has waged fierce battles against the Saudi Yam tribe. In 2000, it battled the Yemenite Dahm tribe, which is said to have the support of the Saudi government.
The late Wayilah tribal head Sheikh bin Shag'e, who died in 2002 under mysterious circumstances, had explained that he had in his possession 240 year-old documents proving the tribe's ownership of the lands included in the Jeddah treaty. Saudi Arabia tried to pacify the Wayilah, giving 500 of them Saudi citizenship, but the tribesmen nevertheless rioted on various occasions, including when the Saudi authorities arrested a Shi'ite sheikh of the tribe and shut down his mosque.[1]
The Wayilah Tribe: We Do Not Recognize the Border
When Saudi Arabia began to build the separation fence, the Wayilah tribe announced that if the Saudis did not stop the construction and remove all trace of it from the area, they would "blow everything up," including the Jeddah treaty. The tribe compared the Saudi fence to Israel's separation fence, and claimed that it was being built five kilometers over the border into Yemenite territory.
The Wayilah tribe also claimed that it did not recognize the international borders that crossed their territory and ripped apart their tribal unity, let alone the fence that as far as they were concerned violated their human rights. The tribe said, "The blood of thousands of our tribesmen has been shed in tribal wars against the Saudi Yam tribe for the sake of the border ... and our tribesmen are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to preserve the borders of their tribal lands."
The Wayilah claimed that the tribal borders between the Wayilah and Yam were set down in written tribal agreements even before the Saudi and the Yemenite states were established, and that these agreements were officially recognized by the first Saudi monarch Abd Al-'Aziz Aal Saud and by the Yemenite monarchy during the time of the Imam Yahyah Hamid Al-Din.
A communiqu? published by the Wayilah tribe stated: "We are renewing our objection to the agreements that created a barrier between us and our lands and our property. Similarly, we reject the principle of compensation or the division of land or of the tribe... Every new border route will be null and void, and has nothing to do with the tribal border route recognized by the Wayilah and Yam tribes...."[2]
Saudi Government: Most Explosives and Weapons Captured by Saudi Security Forces were Smuggled In by Islamists from Yemen
Saudi officials told the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that the "barrier of pipes and concrete" could in no way be called a "separation fence." Saudi Border Police Commander Talal 'Anqawi said: "What is being built within our borders is a barrier of pipes full of concrete, aimed at deterring infiltration and smuggling... This barrier does not in any way resemble a fence. The site chosen to establish it is located within sovereign Saudi territory."[3]
The Saudi prince of Najran, Mash'al bin Abd Al-'Aziz, also denied that the barrier was a separation fence. According to him, Saudi authorities built a barrier of pipes 95 km-long in an open area between two mountains to block smugglers in cars from infiltrating Saudi lands, north of the region of the agreed upon 20 km-wide strip. According to the Saudis, most of the explosives and weapons captured by Saudi security forces in recent months have been smuggled in by Islamists from Yemen.[4]
Yemen Claims Saudi Arabia has Backed Down
Following the media reports, the regime heads in Saudi Arabia and Yemen denied any crisis. The leaders of the countries tried to solve the problem behind the scenes, and Yemenite President Ali Abdallah Saleh went to Egypt so that it would mediate between the sides. At the same time, a Yemenite delegation visited Saudi Arabia in order to resolve matters. But according to a report in the English-language Yemen Times, the Wayilah tribe was preparing for war:
"A prominent sheik of the Wayilah tribe ... told Yemen Times that up to 3,000 tribesmen are preparing to fight Saudi forces unless Saudi Arabia pulls out of Yemen. The sheik claims that Saudi Arabia has already built a security fence 4 to 7 km beyond the neutral zone inside Yemen, stretching from Jabal Hobash to Jabal Al Fara. 'Saudi Arabia has already built a security fence inside Yemen,' said the sheik, 'and we are ready to fight any time if Saudi Arabia doesn't remove what they have built in our country...'
"Even though tribes are preparing for a conflict, a Yemeni government official told Yemen Times on Tuesday that Saudi authorities did accept to remove the separation fence along its border with Yemen after extensive Egyptian and U.S. efforts paid off in convincing Saudi authorities to do so. 'Both the U.S. and Egypt exerted efforts with Yemen and Saudi Arabia resulting in an agreement to remove all constrictions made by the Saudis,' said the Yemeni official."[5]
* Yotam Feldner is Director of Research at MEMRI.
[1] See http://www.islamonline.net/iol-arabic/dowalia/alhadath2000-oug-29/alhadath7.asp.
[2] Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London), February 9, 2004.
[3] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), February 9, 2004.
[4] Al-Hayat (London), February 10, 2004.
[5] Yemen Times, February 12, 2004.
----------------------------------------------------
Saudis Warned of 'Imminent' Car Bomb Threat
"PA"
Saudi TV has warned residents of Riyadh that there is an imminent threat of a car bomb attack.
Quoting the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the newsreader said, "According to very reliable sources there is an imminent threat of a car packed with explosives ready to be used in a terrorist act."
He directed the warning to "the attention of the locals and residents especially in Riyadh," the capital.
In last night's broadcast on state-run television, monitored by APTN television in London, the newsreader gave a detailed description of the vehicle "to ensure that everyone is alert and extra careful because these terrorists have these types of cars in residential areas."
A picture of a car was broadcast and described in voiceover as "A GMC Suburban, 1991 automatic, the original registration number is DNA 034. Dark grey which may have been changed."
The broadcast went on with minute detail, describing windows tinted except for the driver's side window and the windscreen, a curtain between the front seat and the rest of the car, and a scratch along the side of the car.
"The last time the car was seen was on Alrabwa Street, east of Riyadh," the broadcast said.
The newsreader asked anyone with information to come forward, and said information leading to the arrest of those involved would be rewarded.
The Saudi government has more publicly combated support for extremists in the kingdom since bombings May 12 and November 8 that targeted housing compounds for foreigners in Saudi Arabia. Saudi and US officials have blamed Saudi exile Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terror network.
Since those blasts, authorities have detained hundreds of people in a crackdown on alleged militants and have urged wanted persons to surrender.
In January, the authorities said they had seized nearly 24 tons of explosives in anti-terrorism raids during the past six months.
Still not getting it: FBI sacks translator who reported on pro-terrorist colleagues
The FBI translator who exposed pro-terrorist colleagues has been sacked.
The FBI has sacked a linguist who blew the whistle on some colleagues who cheered the 9/11 terrorist attacks and reportedly sabotaged translations crucial to ongoing terrorism investigations.
The report is the latest instance of high-level political correctness within the FBI, where senior officials have been pandering to Islamist fringe elements who are tied to terrorist groups.
Investigative reporter Paul Sperry reports, "Middle Eastern linguists with top-secret security clearance" at the FBI celebrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and shouted: "It's about time they got a taste of what they've been giving the Middle East."
Sperry reports that when FBI linguist Sibel Dinez Edmonds reported the incident and other "breaches in security, mistranslations and potential espionage by Middle Eastern colleagues," she was fired "without specified cause."
Edmonds's supervisor, "a naturalized U.S. citizen from Beirut" reportedly told his employees "to take long breaks, to slow down translations, and to simply say 'no' to those field agents calling us to beg for speedy translations so that they could go on with their investigations and interrogations of those they had detained."
Edmonds is said to have detailed these allegations further in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.
The Center for Security Policy has warned repeatedly over the last year and a half that the failure of the FBI to acknowledge the nature of certain Islamist groups and individuals, in order not to appear "insensitive," would jeopardize the Bureau's ability to protect against potential terrorist threats.
-----------------------------------------------
February 6, 2004 No.658
Egyptian Government Daily: Suicide Bombings are Legitimate Even if Children Are Killed
An editorial in the Egyptian government daily Al-Masaa praised suicide/martyrdom operations, and called on Palestinian organizations to not publish the names of the bombers so that their families' houses would not be demolished. The article focuses primarily on female suicide bombers, following the debate in the Arab media over Hamas's dispatching of Reem Al-Riyashi, a mother of two, to carry out the January 14, 2004 bombing in Gaza. The following is the translation of the editorial : [1]
"We ask again, why do the various Palestinian organizations insist on publishing the name of everyone who carries out a martyrdom operation against the Zionist entity?
"We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion, [an enemy] who has deadly weapons prohibited by international law, that is not deterred from using them against the defenseless Palestinian people.
"Even if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed - the blame does not fall upon the Palestinians, but on those who forced them to turn to this modus operandi.
"Ultimately, we should bless every Palestinian man or woman who goes calmly to carry out a martyrdom operation, in order to receive a reward in the Hereafter, sacrificing her life for her religion and her homeland and knowing that she will never return from this operation.
"But at the same time, we wonder about the reason for publishing the names of those who carry out the [martyrdom] operations; [this publishing] is a valuable gift that the Palestinian resistance gives the Zionist entity, since as soon as it receives this gift, the armies of the [Zionist] entity hasten to the home of the martyr's family, wounded by the loss of its son, in order to multiply its pain by destroying its home. Moreover, the home of the martyr's family is always destroyed negligently, causing serious damage to or the collapse of the neighbor's home.
"We ask the leaders of these organizations: Give us one good reason for publishing the names of the martyrs whom, it can be assumed, martyred themselves for the religion, the homeland, and the people, and not for any other reason. The Lebanese resistance published [the names of] those who took this path during the years of the Zionist occupation [in Lebanon] without any logical justification. We were surprised that the Palestinian resistance is employing the same method, also without any justification. "This is even though the situation is different, as the Shahids in the case of Lebanon, such as Sanaa Muheidali and other women, lived in territories not under the control of the Zionist occupation, while in the Palestinian case, [they live under Zionist occupation]."
[1] Al-Masaa (Egypt), January 2, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerry: Shredding documents and abandoning veterans
Ben Shapiro (archive)
February 11, 2004 | Print | Send
John Kerry is running as a Vietnam veteran. The Kerry campaign Web site states: "When John Kerry returned home from Vietnam, he joined his fellow veterans in vowing never to abandon future veterans of America's wars. Kerry's commitment to veterans has never wavered and stands strong to this day." But Kerry's resume tells a very different story.
Kerry's actions in Vietnam were heroic, but his actions upon his return were inexcusable. Kerry associated with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a rabid anti-war group that defamed United States soldiers and often protested under the banner of the Viet Cong.
Kerry testified before Congress that American soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs ... poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." He has never named anyone who committed these atrocious acts and admits that he never witnessed these war crimes. Kerry's words certainly contributed to fortifying Viet Cong morale and promoting Viet Cong interests.
Kerry's abandonment of U.S. soldiers in Vietnam wasn't over yet. When he became a senator, Kerry continued to stab Vietnam soldiers in the back. Kerry began pushing normalization of trade with Vietnam. To that purpose, he founded the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs. Kerry became chair of the committee. In order to normalize trade, the Vietnamese government would have to prove that its hands were now clean with regard to POW/MIAs.
Kerry tried to erase the possibility that prisoners of war were still alive in captivity in Vietnam. I spoke Monday evening with Mike Benge, a POW/MIA activist. Benge was a civilian POW held from 1968 until 1973 by the North Vietnamese Army; he spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a "black box," and one year in a cage in Cambodia. Benge accuses Sen. Kerry of shredding key papers documenting "live sightings of POWs in Vietnam and Laos" during the POW/MIA hearings. According to Benge, Kerry attempted to shred all copies to prevent leaks and future declassification of the materials.
John F. McCreary, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst assigned to Kerry's committee, reported knowledge of Kerry's document shredding to Vice Chairman Bob Smith. A memorandum by McCreary explains: "Senator John Kerry ... told the Select Committee members that 'all copies' would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest." On April 9, 1992, McCreary verified that the original document was destroyed, as well as 14 copies. The memo continues: "On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha ... ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, 'Who's the injured party,' and 'How are they going to find out because its classified.'"
On April 16, Kerry stated that the original documents had remained in the Office of Senate Security all along, so nothing wrong had been done. Actually, this was not the case, according to McCreary: "the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April." In a classic CYA maneuver, Kerry had ordered a non-original copy of the document entered into the Office of Senate Security -- but only after protests from staff caused him to rethink complete destruction of the documents. As McCreary stated, this "constitute(d) an act to cover-up the destruction."
Mike Benge also told me that Kerry hung one POW/MIA testifier out to dry. Garnett "Bill" Bell was chief of the U.S. Office of POW/MIA Affairs in Hanoi when he testified before the Senate Select Committee. Benge says that he brokered a deal with Bell: Kerry would grant Bell immunity from retaliation by the Defense Department if Bell testified. Bell testified; the immunity never came. Bell was fired, Benge stated.
Normalization for Vietnam passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, largely due to Kerry's persistence. Kerry's pro-normalization views seem particularly strong when viewed in comparison with Kerry's other foreign-policy positions. Kerry has flip-flopped repeatedly on the war in Iraq, but his support for the Vietnamese government has been unwavering. According to Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, in 2002 Kerry blocked the Vietnam Human Rights Act from coming to a vote.
Is John Kerry committed to Vietnam veterans? Perhaps the ones back in the United States. But for the Vietnam soldiers who died because Kerry provided aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, or the POWs who may have lived out their lives in cages, Kerry's lack of commitment had tragic consequences.
?2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Heinz Kerry: Bag Lady for the Radical Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 13, 2004
With Matt Drudge's recent revelation that John Kerry is as faithful to his second wife as he was to his old Vietnam "brothers," the senator's presidential campaign may depend more than ever on the actions of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. While the mainstream media has thus far overlooked the alleged infidelity, media outlets have also overlooked a far more important story: The former Mrs. John Heinz is also in bed - financially - with the radical Left.
Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a "charity" established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes. The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates.
During the years 1995-2001, the Howard Heinz Endowment, which Heinz Kerry chairs, gave Tides more than $4.3 million. The combined Heinz Endowments (composed of the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment) donated $1.6 million to establish the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh office of the San Francisco-based Tides Center. Since that time, the local branch has tirelessly pushed an anti-business agenda in the name of "preserving the environment." However, it is the Tides Foundation's national organization whose connections are most disconcerting.
The Tides Foundation is a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the Left. Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a host of causes; the donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, for a nominal fee. Drummond Pike told The Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with." That becomes understandable when one views the list of Tides grant recipients. And who are the beneficiaries of this money?
The Antiwar Movement
Senator John F. Kerry has gone far with his nuanced view of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He voted for the war resolution but specified a litany of conditions the Bush administration must meet before he would support combat, then proceeded to vote against funding troops already in harm's way - then claimed he had always supported the president when Saddam Hussein was captured. The grant recipients of the Tides Foundation, to which Kerry's wife has steered more than $4 billion in "charitable" funds, understand no such nuance.
Tides established the Iraq Peace Fund and the Peace Strategies Fund to fund the antiwar movement. These projects fueled such hysterical protest organizations as MoveOn.org, the website that recently featured two separate commercials portraying George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler. (Howard Dean, not Kerry, won MoveOn.org's "virtual primary.")
The antiwar movement often boasted that MoveOn.org and the radical website Indymedia provided them "alternate media coverage." Indymedia, an enormous news and events bulletin board with local pages in most of the world's major cities, provided a vital link for radical activists often with violent agendas to coordinate their protests. Indymedia received $376,000 from the Tides Foundation.
The Institute for Global Communications is another leftist communications facilitator that received Tides grant money. IGC, which during the 1990s was the leading provider of web technology to the radical Left, links to "recommended sites" such as the War Resisters League (a group whose purpose is enabling peaceniks to refuse to pay taxes) and the leftist American Friends Service Committee. Most disturbing is the link to Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, which has supported Slobodan Milosevic and North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Il. The IAC is the force behind International ANSWER, which sponsored the major antiwar (and anti-Bush) rallies before the invasion of Iraq. When ANSWER was outed as a Communist organization, United for Peace and Justice, headed by longtime Communist Party member Leslie Cagan was created as a "moderate" alternative. UFPJ is also a Tides grant recipient.The Tides-funded "A Better Way Project," which opposed war in Iraq, also coordinated efforts of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition. The celebrity-laden Win Without War Coalition, along with the Bill Moyers-funded Florence and John Schumann Foundation, ran full-page ads in the New York Times opposing the War on Terrorism. This will not be the last overlapping of far-Left causes.
The Islamist Front
Immediately after 9/11, Tides formed a "9/11 Fund" to advocate a "peaceful national response" to the opening salvos of war. Part of the half-million dollars in grants the 9/11 Fund dispersed went to the New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project to protect the rights of homosexual Arabs. The Foundation replaced the 9/11 Fund with the "Democratic Justice Fund," which was established with the aid of George Soros' Open Society Institute. (Currency speculator and pro-drug advocate Soros is, like Teresa Heinz Kerry, a major contributor to Tides, having donated more than $7 million.) The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States, particularly from countries designated by the State Department as "terrorist nations."
Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations. Ostensibly a "Muslim civil rights group," CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations within the Wahhabi Lobby, with links to Hamas. CAIR regularly opposes and demonizes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming, for instance, that Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in "hate crimes."
CAIR officials have reason to fight Bush's anti-terrorism measures: all too many CAIR officials are on the record supporting terrorism. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad openly stated in 1994, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement." Community Affairs Director Bassem K. Khafagi has been arrested for visa and bank fraud. Randall Royer, a Communications Specialist and Civil Rights Coordinator at CAIR, was arrested along with a group of Islamic radicals in Virginia for allegedly planning jihad. CAIR has defended terrorist "charities" shut down by the Bush administration. Every few months some CAIR campus official is arrested for aiding and abetting terrorism.
The Legal Matrix
The Tides Foundation has funded a number of the pillars of the radical legal establishment. Chief among these is the National Lawyers Guild, which began as a Commnist front organization and is proud of its lineage. At its recent convention last October, the concluding speaker was Lynne Stewart, an indicted terrorist NLG lawyer arrested for helping her client - convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman - communicate with his terrorist cells in Egypt. In her speech, Stewart said she and her NLG comrades were carrying on a proud tradition of their forebears, past and present:
And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents.
More recently, the NLG has endorsed the March 20 call to End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine & Everywhere" organized by International ANSWER, and has posted a petition for "Post-Conviction Relief" for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Tides' Peace Strategies Fund has funneled money to the Center for Constitutional Rights. The CCR was stablished by Sixties radical William Kunstler, defender of the Chicago 8, and Arthur Kinoy. The two also had plans to establish a new Communist Party. Executive Director Ron Daniels has been honored by the Communist Party USA for his work. Daniels also has a long and cordial relationship with racist, anti-Semitic "poet laureate" Amiri Baraka. Since 9/11, CCR has channeled its efforts into fighting every effective Homeland Security measure. They have opposed increasing the government's ability to wiretap Islamists suspected of plotting terrorism and moaned the sequestering of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay was an unexcusable form of "racial profiling." CCR President Michael Ratner has portrayed American soldiers as the offenders, guilty of 9/11 by their Middle East policy and guilty of keeping Islamist killers "shackled, hooded and sedated during the 25 hour flight from Afghanistan." CCR has also defended Lynne Stewart's "innocence" in aiding Sheikh Rahman's Islamic Jihad.
Tides also funds the Alliance for Justice, a group dedicated to stopping Bush judicial appointees (a cause John Kerry can agree wholeheartedly endorse). Other Tides grants have gone to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the Asian Law Caucus.
Environmental Extremism
The Tides Foundation has funded the Ruckus Society, a group of anarchist Greens who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots. The Tides Center of Western Pennsylvania, established in Pittsburgh with Heinz Family funds, advocates for environmentalist measures that have helped put holes in the Rust Belt's economy.
Tides money has also squashed free speech. Thanks to complaints generated by the Tides-funded Environmental Working Group, ABC cancelled a John Stossel piece exposing the misleading nature of environmental advocacy in public elementary schools.
Greenpeace is a well-known Tides grant recipient. Greenpeace is best known for its illegal actions, endangering humans in order to make a point about the environment. Tides gave Greenpeace a quarter of a million dollars over ten years.
Lest one think only Tides' money is going to radicals, not funds directly controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry, remember that Heinz money has repeatedly found its way to the Earth Island Institute. On September 14, 2001, the Institute's website bore the headline "U.S. Responds to Terrorist Attacks with Self-Righteous Arrogance."
Heinz family philanthropic funds have also had some dubious effects on the presidential race. The League of Conservation Voters has recently endorsed John Kerry's presidential campaign. The Heinz Family Foundation gave LCV at least $20,000 and donated almost $250,000 to a member of the LCV board.
Perhaps this circular rotation of cash and endorsements should not surprise anyone. The grant-making institutions of the Left and their feverish recipients ultimately form an amorphous, leftist entity. One never needs to search very far to find connections between a leftist foundation and extreme advocacy groups. Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Bill Moyers and the Ford Foundation fund the Tides Foundation/Center; Tides funds the National Lawyers Guild, CAIR, MoveOn.org and United for Peace and Justice; those organizations then unite in fluid coalitions to protest against their common political enemies (Republicans). Ultimately, their representatives end up on Bill Moyers' PBS programs or active within the Democratic campaigns of their fundraisers. Between now and the election, these organizations will run constant interference for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumably Kerry himself): they will march en masse against the Bush administration again and again; they will file more lawsuits against the administration's Homeland Security measures, decry any effective response to terrorism, claim the United States is guilty of slaughtering Iraqi civilians and petition leftist judges to open America's borders to Islamist terrorists. After they help his election, President Kerry will be indebted to them. And then they will insist he begin implementing their political agenda.
Moreover, they will have a close ally in the East Wing of the White House, an ally more intimately tied to them than she is to her (second) husband. (She only adopted his last name and political party registration less than 18 months ago. "Politically, it's going to be Heinz Kerry," she recently said. "But I don't give a sh-t, you know?") Teresa Heinz Kerry will play a potent role in saving her second husband's presidential campaign now - as Hillary Clinton did in 1992, and again during her husband's impeachment. Like Hillary, in return for her service, Heinz may demand a place at the table for her pet causes. Caveat emptor.
Ben Johnson is Associate Editor of FrontPage Magazine.
---------------------------------------------------------------
>> OUR FRIEND KARZAI...
Inviting Terrorism
With Karzai's permission, Iran is establishing terrorist bases in Afghanistan.
Last Saturday, the Iranian government made an extraordinary announcement. The mullahs' Islamic Republic News Agency said that they had completed construction of ten "border outposts" inside the Harat province of Afghanistan. According to the report, these are in addition to others all along the border, inside Nimrouz, Sistan, Baluchestan, and Farah provinces. That the mullahs are doing this at all -- with the apparent consent of the Karzai government and without any objection from us -- is simply astounding. In effect, Karzai has invited them in to foment terrorism and insurgency against our forces and against his struggling government.
Iran is the central terrorist nation. Hezbollah -- the terrorists who operate as functionaries of Syria -- are backed and paid for by Tehran, as are several other terrorist organizations. Iran has admitted that several of the al Qaeda leadership are in Iran, supposedly under arrest, but more likely being given sanctuary and assistance. Iran, already well armed with missiles and WMD, has built several nuclear "research" sites, many of which are well buried to protect them from air strikes. They don't want to be the recipients of a message from Israel like the one that destroyed Iraq's Osirak facility in 1981.
As Undersecretary of State John Bolton explained last November, Iran's nuclear program is -- despite what the Clouseaus of the International Atomic Energy Agency say -- working hard to develop nuclear weapons. Enriched plutonium, which even the IAEA managed to find at one Iranian nuclear site, has no peaceful purpose. More than two years ago one of Iran's leaders, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, said that if the Islamic world can get nuclear weapons it should use them on Israel, because they can destroy Israel while the Islamic world would survive a nuclear counterattack. These are the people Karzai is inviting into his country.
The Iranians are being quite clever, saying that their Afghan outposts will be manned by "special police" for a campaign against poppy cultivation. Iran's interest in poppy production is the same as its interests in nuclear weapons: They don't plan on using nukes on themselves, and they have an active antidrug campaign that works against the heroin traffickers who try to sell their wares in Iran. But others cross Iran from Afghanistan to reach heroin labs in eastern Turkey and in the northern Kurdish region of Iraq. Heroin sales are used to finance terror. Intercepted al Qaeda shipments of heroin prove that well enough. The Iranians' having antidrug cops inside Afghanistan may aid them in stopping some shipments to local drug sellers, but it will also allow them to provide safe conduct for those shipments that are meant for their terrorist allies and operatives.
By allowing the Iranians in, the Afghans are providing them with the best cover they can get: a legal right to operate inside Afghanistan. The Iranians will catch a few "suspect" druggies to show the world that they're good guys. To better achieve their "mission" against poppy growing, Iranian forces will range over large areas of Afghanistan. They will claim that any interference in any of their operations is unlawful and only helps the drug smugglers. If American troops interfere in their terrorist operations, the Iranians will fight. There will be small skirmishes between Iranian "police" and our special-ops troops. But the Iranians don't want an open war against the United States, at least not yet. So they will complain to the Karzai government, which, having trapped itself, will have to ask us to leave the Iranians alone. The whole mess may end up in another drawn-out U.N. debate, which will blame America for helping the drug smugglers. We can't let it get that far.
At this writing, there are still about ten thousand American troops and eight thousand NATO troops in Afghanistan, trying to stabilize the country so that democracy can take hold. Facing them -- or, more accurately, operating in the shadows all around them -- are the resurgent Taliban, al Qaeda, and agents of both the Pakistani and Iranian regimes. Pakistan's military intelligence agency -- the ISI -- was instrumental in the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan and is allied with terrorist groups such as al Qaeda. Iran is more powerful, and thus more of an immediate threat to Afghanistan. The dozen Iranian outposts are also a direct challenge to the American and NATO forces. They will have to be watched every moment, and movement of people beyond their immediate vicinity will have to be stopped. This will tie up many of our special-ops troops, who are also out chasing the Taliban remnants and bin Laden himself.
The Iranians are setting themselves up to take Afghanistan by stealth, gradually and certainly. They will use their outposts to smuggle al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, as well as weapons and money, in and out of Afghanistan. They must be stopped with whatever force it takes. Otherwise, Iran's presence will grow, and so will its interference in the Afghan government's ability to establish security for its own people. The Iranians are preparing to fight a guerilla war against the Karzai government and the Western forces now in the country. They are readying the battlefield for a coming fight on their terms. We cannot allow this to proceed, and we need to force them out, but before we can we must persuade the Karzai government to reverse itself and deny the Iranians permission to enter Afghanistan.
If Afghanistan is free -- or at least free of the Taliban regime for the time being -- it is to President Bush's credit. But in Afghanistan, like Iraq, the battle is far from over. Karzai must act quickly and withdraw his permission for the Iranians to bring any police or troops into Afghanistan. The Iranians should be told to pack up and get out of town by sundown. If they don't, they should be evicted with whatever force may be required. Closing these outposts will not end infiltration from Iran, but it will make a stealthy invasion much harder.
-- NRO Contributor Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Asia And The Middle East
Volume 8 Number 29
Friday, 13 February 2004
previous issue
ISLAMABAD CONCEDES POSSIBLE CROSS-BORDER RAIDS INTO AFGHANISTAN
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf acknowledged on 12 February that Al-Qaeda and neo-Taliban elements might be using Pakistani territory to launch attacks inside Afghanistan, the Karachi-based daily "Dawn" reported the next day. "On the western border [with Afghanistan], certainly everything is not happening from Pakistan, but certainly something is happening from Pakistan," Musharraf said. "Let us not bluff ourselves.... Whatever is happening from Pakistan must be stopped. That is what we are trying to do." "Dawn" called Musharraf's de facto acknowledgment that militants and terrorists have been crossing his country's border into Afghanistan "Pakistan's most explicit admission" to date in the ongoing diplomatic feud over Islamabad's efforts to help curb cross-border insurgency. Western diplomats based in Islamabad have noted that Pakistan appears more willing to rein in the neo-Taliban since the new Afghan Constitution enshrined the rights of Pashtuns, Pakistan's recent allies in Afghanistan, the Karachi daily concluded. Afghan authorities have long asked Islamabad to do more to stop cross-border activities by militants. AT
PAKISTAN ARRESTS TWO SUSPECTED TERRORISTS NEAR AFGHAN BORDER
In a raid on a village near the Afghan border, Pakistani paramilitary troops arrested two suspected members of Al-Qaeda on 12 February, AP reported. The raid took place in the village of Mir Khankhel in Jamrud, 25 kilometers northwest of Peshawar, an area dominated by Afridi Pashtun tribesmen. The suspects are reportedly a Moroccan national, Abdul Rahman, and Adnan Khan Afridi, a local resident who is believed to have been sheltering Abdul Rahman, an unidentified Pakistani intelligence official was quoted as saying. The operation in Jamrud, which lies on a main road connecting Pakistan to eastern Afghanistan, is believed to be the first in the area, AP commented. AT
KABUL PAPER LAMENTS LACK OF SECURITY
The Kabul-based publication "Mosharekat-e Melli" wrote in a commentary on 10 February that insecurity is spreading in Afghanistan. The commentary claimed that while Afghanistan has been an insecure place in which to work and live for the last 25 years, last year marked the first time that international social workers were killed or attacked. "Mosharekat-e Melli" added that UN and other aid agencies have scaled back their activities in Afghanistan because of the surge in terrorist attacks. There are many domestic and foreign factors that "have increased barbarism and insecurity" in the country, the paper added. External factors include the insufficiency of financial contributions, a lack of policy coordination by Western countries, and "unsatisfactory cooperation of the neighboring countries like Pakistan in the eradication of terrorism," the paper said. The commentary listed several domestic problems, including a lack of progress in the disarmament process, the inability of the central government to extend its authority throughout the country, and unemployment. "Mosharekat-e Melli" warned that both Afghanistan and the world "will have to pay a great and heavy compensation" if extremists prevail. AT
TEHRAN REJECTS U.S. NUCLEAR CONCERNS
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi during a 12 January visit to Rome rejected recent comments by U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton about Tehran's nuclear activities, IRNA and RFE/RL reported. "We have decided to develop nuclear technologies for peaceful purposes and we insist on that," Kharrazi said, according to RFE/RL. "This is our right, this is our legitimate right to have access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes." Kharrazi added that Iran does not believe nuclear weapons would contribute to its security, and he said Tehran is ready to respond to IAEA inspectors' questions. Referring to reports claiming the discovery of undeclared Iranian nuclear activities (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 12 February 2004), Bolton said the same day, according to RFE/RL, "The information that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] has learned is certainly consistent with the information that we had, and it's not surprising." BS
TEHRAN ACKNOWLEDGES NUCLEAR-CENTRIFUGE 'SUCCESS'
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi said on 13 February that his country "has achieved major success in the technology of nuclear-fuel centrifuge," ISNA reported. International media reports the same day added details to a story about undeclared Iranian nuclear activities -- including a new centrifuge design -- that was broken by the "Financial Times" on 12 February (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 12 February 2004). "The Washington Post," the "Los Angeles Times," and "The New York Times" reported that UN inspectors discovered documents for a sophisticated uranium-enrichment machine referred to as P2 or G2, depending on the source. Tehran had not declared its possession of the technology previously, although it claimed to have been completely forthcoming in an October report to the IAEA (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," 27 October 2003). Henry Sokolski of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center said of the discovery: "This is like saying, 'I prohibited you from having any motorized vehicles, and you declared your motor scooter, and I discovered you had a Ferrari,'" the "Los Angeles Times" reported. BS
COALITION FOR IRAN ANNOUNCES CANDIDATE LIST
Campaigning for Iran's 20 February parliamentary elections began on 12 February, and the Coalition for Iran (Etelaf Bara-yi Iran) announced the same day a list of candidates it backs for Tehran's constituencies, ILNA reported. Coalition members include reformist groups like the Executives of Construction, the Militant Clerics Association (Majma-ye Ruhaniyun-e Mubarez), the Islamic Iran Solidarity Party, and the Shiraz wing of the Office for Strengthening Unity student organization. Normally the list of candidates for Tehran would contain 30 names, but the Guardians Council barred four of the coalition's choices. The better-known names on the list include the speaker of parliament, Hojatoleslam Mehdi Karrubi, as well as other members of the legislature, such as Hojatoleslam Majid Ansari, Elias Hazrati, Mahmud Doai, Ali Hashemi-Bahramani, Jamileh Kadivar, and Soheila Jelodarzadeh. BS
PROMINENT IRANIAN REFORMIST WITHDRAWS FROM PARLIAMENTARY RACE
Tehran parliamentary representative Hojatoleslam Ali Akbar Mohtashami-Pur told ISNA on 13 February that he has withdrawn from this month's parliamentary elections. In addition to being a prominent reformist, Mohtashami-Pur is a member of the Militant Clerics Association (Majma-ye Ruhaniyun-e Mubarez). Seyyed Hadi Pazhuheshi-Jahromi, the Khorasan Province Election Headquarters chief, said on 12 February that 30 candidates for the parliamentary elections pulled out of the race on the first day of campaigning, ISNA reported. He did not explain the withdrawals. Before the withdrawals, the Guardians Council listed 577 candidates in Khorasan Province. BS
UN ADVISER SAYS IRAQIS CLOSE TO CONSENSUS ON ELECTIONS...
A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on 12 February that Annan's adviser on Iraq, Lakhdar Brahimi, has told the secretary-general that Iraqis are closer to reaching a consensus on a timetable for elections following his weeklong trip there, AP reported. "There is wide agreement that elections must be carefully prepared and that they must be organized in technical, security, and political conditions that give the best chance of producing a result that reflects the wishes of the Iraqi electorate and thus contributes to long-term peace and security," Annan's spokesman Fred Eckhard said. "Everyone expects elections in 2005," Reuters quoted Eckhard as saying. "The question is what can be done before June 30 and, if it can't be elections, what other way can you find to establish a legitimate government." Meanwhile, Brahimi told CNN on 12 February that "what is encouraging is that I think [Iraqis] want to go toward the rule of law, they want to go toward a government that is representative and they all agree that this can best be done through elections. The question is, when are these elections possible?" KR
...AS IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL MEMBERS SCRAPPING CAUCUS IDEA
A number of Iraqi Governing Council members are reportedly moving away from a proposed U.S. plan to hold caucuses in Iraq to elect an interim Iraqi leadership, AP reported on 13 February. Several council members from different factions are now supporting a plan that would expand the Governing Council, which would assume power on the 30 June handover date. Nationwide direct elections would then be scheduled for later this year. The plan has the strongest support among the council's 13 Shi'ite representatives, according to AP. However, Sunni council member Samir Shakir Mahmud told the news agency that the proposal has not been finalized or discussed at length with UN adviser Brahimi. Meanwhile, Shi'ite Governing Council member Muwaffaq al-Rubay'i told AP that Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has pushed for early national direct elections, would support an expanded-council formula. Al-Sistani previously objected to the idea of an expanded council. KR
U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY SAYS ARAB TELEVISION NETWORKS DAMAGED U.S. INTERESTS IN IRAQ
Al-Jazeera on 13 February quoted U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as saying that Arab television networks have damaged U.S. interests in Iraq by continuously broadcasting inaccurate information. "Undoubtedly, Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah caused us great damage and harm in Iraq by continuously broadcasting wrong and inaccurate information, impairing what the coalition forces are trying to achieve in Iraq," Rumsfeld was quoted as saying. "Attempts to compete with them in that part of the world is very difficult." Al-Jazeera did not report when or where the defense secretary made the comments. KR
U.S. COMMANDER'S CONVOY ATTACKED IN IRAQ
A convoy carrying U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander General John Abizaid was attacked on 12 February as it approached the headquarters of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps (ICDC) in Al-Fallujah, the Coalition Provisional Authority's website (http://www.cpa-iraq.org) announced the same day. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told reporters during a weekly press briefing in Baghdad that militants fired three rocket-propelled grenades at Abizaid's convoy from nearby rooftops as the convoy approached the ICDC compound. "A local mosque was thought to be harboring the attackers, and [ICDC] soldiers conducted a search of the mosque without result," he said. Asked whether he believed the attackers had any prior knowledge that General Abizaid would be at the compound, Kimmitt said: "Whether we can directly link this attack to any foreknowledge...is a bit of a leap that we're not prepared to make at this time." KR
Posted by maximpost
at 10:26 PM EST
