TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far up does the responsibility go?
Issue of 2004-05-10
Posted 2004-04-30
In the era of Saddam Hussein, Abu Ghraib, twenty miles west of Baghdad, was one of the world's most notorious prisons, with torture, weekly executions, and vile living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women--no accurate count is possible--were jammed into Abu Ghraib at one time, in twelve-by-twelve-foot cells that were little more than human holding pits.
In the looting that followed the regime's collapse, last April, the huge prison complex, by then deserted, was stripped of everything that could be removed, including doors, windows, and bricks. The coalition authorities had the floors tiled, cells cleaned and repaired, and toilets, showers, and a new medical center added. Abu Ghraib was now a U.S. military prison. Most of the prisoners, however--by the fall there were several thousand, including women and teen-agers--were civilians, many of whom had been picked up in random military sweeps and at highway checkpoints. They fell into three loosely defined categories: common criminals; security detainees suspected of "crimes against the coalition"; and a small number of suspected "high-value" leaders of the insurgency against the coalition forces.
Last June, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. General Karpinski, the only female commander in the war zone, was an experienced operations and intelligence officer who had served with the Special Forces and in the 1991 Gulf War, but she had never run a prison system. Now she was in charge of three large jails, eight battalions, and thirty-four hundred Army reservists, most of whom, like her, had no training in handling prisoners.
General Karpinski, who had wanted to be a soldier since she was five, is a business consultant in civilian life, and was enthusiastic about her new job. In an interview last December with the St. Petersburg Times, she said that, for many of the Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib, "living conditions now are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn't want to leave."
A month later, General Karpinski was formally admonished and quietly suspended, and a major investigation into the Army's prison system, authorized by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq, was under way. A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating. Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of "sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses" at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski's brigade headquarters.) Taguba's report listed some of the wrongdoing:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.
There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added--"detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence." Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their "extremely sensitive nature."
The photographs--several of which were broadcast on CBS's "60 Minutes 2" last week--show leering G.I.s taunting naked Iraqi prisoners who are forced to assume humiliating poses. Six suspects--Staff Sergeant Ivan L. Frederick II, known as Chip, who was the senior enlisted man; Specialist Charles A. Graner; Sergeant Javal Davis; Specialist Megan Ambuhl; Specialist Sabrina Harman; and Private Jeremy Sivits--are now facing prosecution in Iraq, on charges that include conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty toward prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and indecent acts. A seventh suspect, Private Lynndie England, was reassigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, after becoming pregnant.
The photographs tell it all. In one, Private England, a cigarette dangling from her mouth, is giving a jaunty thumbs-up sign and pointing at the genitals of a young Iraqi, who is naked except for a sandbag over his head, as he masturbates. Three other hooded and naked Iraqi prisoners are shown, hands reflexively crossed over their genitals. A fifth prisoner has his hands at his sides. In another, England stands arm in arm with Specialist Graner; both are grinning and giving the thumbs-up behind a cluster of perhaps seven naked Iraqis, knees bent, piled clumsily on top of each other in a pyramid. There is another photograph of a cluster of naked prisoners, again piled in a pyramid. Near them stands Graner, smiling, his arms crossed; a woman soldier stands in front of him, bending over, and she, too, is smiling. Then, there is another cluster of hooded bodies, with a female soldier standing in front, taking photographs. Yet another photograph shows a kneeling, naked, unhooded male prisoner, head momentarily turned away from the camera, posed to make it appear that he is performing oral sex on another male prisoner, who is naked and hooded.
Such dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, but it is especially so in the Arab world. Homosexual acts are against Islamic law and it is humiliating for men to be naked in front of other men, Bernard Haykel, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at New York University, explained. "Being put on top of each other and forced to masturbate, being naked in front of each other--it's all a form of torture," Haykel said.
Two Iraqi faces that do appear in the photographs are those of dead men. There is the battered face of prisoner No. 153399, and the bloodied body of another prisoner, wrapped in cellophane and packed in ice. There is a photograph of an empty room, splattered with blood.
The 372nd's abuse of prisoners seemed almost routine--a fact of Army life that the soldiers felt no need to hide. On April 9th, at an Article 32 hearing (the military equivalent of a grand jury) in the case against Sergeant Frederick, at Camp Victory, near Baghdad, one of the witnesses, Specialist Matthew Wisdom, an M.P., told the courtroom what happened when he and other soldiers delivered seven prisoners, hooded and bound, to the so-called "hard site" at Abu Ghraib--seven tiers of cells where the inmates who were considered the most dangerous were housed. The men had been accused of starting a riot in another section of the prison. Wisdom said:
SFC Snider grabbed my prisoner and threw him into a pile. . . . I do not think it was right to put them in a pile. I saw SSG Frederic, SGT Davis and CPL Graner walking around the pile hitting the prisoners. I remember SSG Frederick hitting one prisoner in the side of its [sic] ribcage. The prisoner was no danger to SSG Frederick. . . . I left after that.
When he returned later, Wisdom testified:
I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open. I thought I should just get out of there. I didn't think it was right . . . I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, "Look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds." I heard PFC England shout out, "He's getting hard."
Wisdom testified that he told his superiors what had happened, and assumed that "the issue was taken care of." He said, "I just didn't want to be part of anything that looked criminal."
The abuses became public because of the outrage of Specialist Joseph M. Darby, an M.P. whose role emerged during the Article 32 hearing against Chip Frederick. A government witness, Special Agent Scott Bobeck, who is a member of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division, or C.I.D., told the court, according to an abridged transcript made available to me, "The investigation started after SPC Darby . . . got a CD from CPL Graner. . . . He came across pictures of naked detainees." Bobeck said that Darby had "initially put an anonymous letter under our door, then he later came forward and gave a sworn statement. He felt very bad about it and thought it was very wrong."
Questioned further, the Army investigator said that Frederick and his colleagues had not been given any "training guidelines" that he was aware of. The M.P.s in the 372nd had been assigned to routine traffic and police duties upon their arrival in Iraq, in the spring of 2003. In October of 2003, the 372nd was ordered to prison-guard duty at Abu Ghraib. Frederick, at thirty-seven, was far older than his colleagues, and was a natural leader; he had also worked for six years as a guard for the Virginia Department of Corrections. Bobeck explained:
What I got is that SSG Frederick and CPL Graner were road M.P.s and were put in charge because they were civilian prison guards and had knowledge of how things were supposed to be run.
Bobeck also testified that witnesses had said that Frederick, on one occasion, "had punched a detainee in the chest so hard that the detainee almost went into cardiac arrest."
At the Article 32 hearing, the Army informed Frederick and his attorneys, Captain Robert Shuck, an Army lawyer, and Gary Myers, a civilian, that two dozen witnesses they had sought, including General Karpinski and all of Frederick's co-defendants, would not appear. Some had been excused after exercising their Fifth Amendment right; others were deemed to be too far away from the courtroom. "The purpose of an Article 32 hearing is for us to engage witnesses and discover facts," Gary Myers told me. "We ended up with a c.i.d. agent and no alleged victims to examine." After the hearing, the presiding investigative officer ruled that there was sufficient evidence to convene a court-martial against Frederick.
Myers, who was one of the military defense attorneys in the My Lai prosecutions of the nineteen-seventies, told me that his client's defense will be that he was carrying out the orders of his superiors and, in particular, the directions of military intelligence. He said, "Do you really think a group of kids from rural Virginia decided to do this on their own? Decided that the best way to embarrass Arabs and make them talk was to have them walk around nude?"
In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:
I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell--and the answer I got was, "This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done." . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.
The military-intelligence officers have "encouraged and told us, `Great job,' they were now getting positive results and information," Frederick wrote. "CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI's request." At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. "His reply was `Don't worry about it.'"
In November, Frederick wrote, an Iraqi prisoner under the control of what the Abu Ghraib guards called "O.G.A.," or other government agencies--that is, the C.I.A. and its paramilitary employees--was brought to his unit for questioning. "They stressed him out so bad that the man passed away. They put his body in a body bag and packed him in ice for approximately twenty-four hours in the shower. . . . The next day the medics came and put his body on a stretcher, placed a fake IV in his arm and took him away." The dead Iraqi was never entered into the prison's inmate-control system, Frederick recounted, "and therefore never had a number."
Frederick's defense is, of course, highly self-serving. But the complaints in his letters and e-mails home were reinforced by two internal Army reports--Taguba's and one by the Army's chief law-enforcement officer, Provost Marshal Donald Ryder, a major general.
Last fall, General Sanchez ordered Ryder to review the prison system in Iraq and recommend ways to improve it. Ryder's report, filed on November 5th, concluded that there were potential human-rights, training, and manpower issues, system-wide, that needed immediate attention. It also discussed serious concerns about the tension between the missions of the military police assigned to guard the prisoners and the intelligence teams who wanted to interrogate them. Army regulations limit intelligence activity by the M.P.s to passive collection. But something had gone wrong at Abu Ghraib.
There was evidence dating back to the Afghanistan war, the Ryder report said, that M.P.s had worked with intelligence operatives to "set favorable conditions for subsequent interviews"--a euphemism for breaking the will of prisoners. "Such actions generally run counter to the smooth operation of a detention facility, attempting to maintain its population in a compliant and docile state." General Karpinski's brigade, Ryder reported, "has not been directed to change its facility procedures to set the conditions for MI interrogations, nor participate in those interrogations." Ryder called for the establishment of procedures to "define the role of military police soldiers . . .clearly separating the actions of the guards from those of the military intelligence personnel." The officers running the war in Iraq were put on notice.
Ryder undercut his warning, however, by concluding that the situation had not yet reached a crisis point. Though some procedures were flawed, he said, he found "no military police units purposely applying inappropriate confinement practices." His investigation was at best a failure and at worst a coverup.
Taguba, in his report, was polite but direct in refuting his fellow-general. "Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during [Ryder's] assessment are the very same issues that are the subject of this investigation," he wrote. "In fact, many of the abuses suffered by detainees occurred during, or near to, the time of that assessment." The report continued, "Contrary to the findings of MG Ryder's report, I find that personnel assigned to the 372nd MP Company, 800th MP Brigade were directed to change facility procedures to `set the conditions' for MI interrogations." Army intelligence officers, C.I.A. agents, and private contractors "actively requested that MP guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses."
Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis. She stated, "MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick's job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk."
Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, "I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules." Taguba wrote, "Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: `Loosen this guy up for us.'`Make sure he has a bad night.'`Make sure he gets the treatment.'" Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. "The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, `Good job, they're breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They're giving out good information.'"
When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about the abuse, Sergeant Davis answered, "Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing"--where the abuse took place--"belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse."
Another witness, Specialist Jason Kennel, who was not accused of wrongdoing, said, "I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes." (It was his view, he added, that if M.I. wanted him to do this "they needed to give me paperwork.") Taguba also cited an interview with Adel L. Nakhla, a translator who was an employee of Titan, a civilian contractor. He told of one night when a "bunch of people from MI" watched as a group of handcuffed and shackled inmates were subjected to abuse by Graner and Frederick.
General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded. He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International, be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen "who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by `setting conditions' which were neither authorized" nor in accordance with Army regulations. "He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse," Taguba wrote. He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had "received no formal communication" from the Army about the matter.)
"I suspect," Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib," and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.
The problems inside the Army prison system in Iraq were not hidden from senior commanders. During Karpinski's seven-month tour of duty, Taguba noted, there were at least a dozen officially reported incidents involving escapes, attempted escapes, and other serious security issues that were investigated by officers of the 800th M.P. Brigade. Some of the incidents had led to the killing or wounding of inmates and M.P.s, and resulted in a series of "lessons learned" inquiries within the brigade. Karpinski invariably approved the reports and signed orders calling for changes in day-to-day procedures. But Taguba found that she did not follow up, doing nothing to insure that the orders were carried out. Had she done so, he added, "cases of abuse may have been prevented."
General Taguba further found that Abu Ghraib was filled beyond capacity, and that the M.P. guard force was significantly undermanned and short of resources. "This imbalance has contributed to the poor living conditions, escapes, and accountability lapses," he wrote. There were gross differences, Taguba said, between the actual number of prisoners on hand and the number officially recorded. A lack of proper screening also meant that many innocent Iraqis were wrongly being detained--indefinitely, it seemed, in some cases. The Taguba study noted that more than sixty per cent of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib were deemed not to be a threat to society, which should have enabled them to be released. Karpinski's defense, Taguba said, was that her superior officers "routinely" rejected her recommendations regarding the release of such prisoners.
Karpinski was rarely seen at the prisons she was supposed to be running, Taguba wrote. He also found a wide range of administrative problems, including some that he considered "without precedent in my military career." The soldiers, he added, were "poorly prepared and untrained . . . prior to deployment, at the mobilization site, upon arrival in theater, and throughout the mission."
General Taguba spent more than four hours interviewing Karpinski, whom he described as extremely emotional: "What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th MP Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers."
Taguba recommended that Karpinski and seven brigade military-police officers and enlisted men be relieved of command and formally reprimanded. No criminal proceedings were suggested for Karpinski; apparently, the loss of promotion and the indignity of a public rebuke were seen as enough punishment.
After the story broke on CBS last week, the Pentagon announced that Major General Geoffrey Miller, the new head of the Iraqi prison system, had arrived in Baghdad and was on the job. He had been the commander of the Guant?namo Bay detention center. General Sanchez also authorized an investigation into possible wrongdoing by military and civilian interrogators.
As the international furor grew, senior military officers, and President Bush, insisted that the actions of a few did not reflect the conduct of the military as a whole. Taguba's report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.
The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib may have done little to further American intelligence, however. Willie J. Rowell, who served for thirty-six years as a C.I.D. agent, told me that the use of force or humiliation with prisoners is invariably counterproductive. "They'll tell you what you want to hear, truth or no truth," Rowell said. "`You can flog me until I tell you what I know you want me to say.' You don't get righteous information."
Under the fourth Geneva convention, an occupying power can jail civilians who pose an "imperative" security threat, but it must establish a regular procedure for insuring that only civilians who remain a genuine security threat be kept imprisoned. Prisoners have the right to appeal any internment decision and have their cases reviewed. Human Rights Watch complained to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that civilians in Iraq remained in custody month after month with no charges brought against them. Abu Ghraib had become, in effect, another Guant?namo.
As the photographs from Abu Ghraib make clear, these detentions have had enormous consequences: for the imprisoned civilian Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with the growing insurgency; for the integrity of the Army; and for the United States' reputation in the world.
Captain Robert Shuck, Frederick's military attorney, closed his defense at the Article 32 hearing last month by saying that the Army was "attempting to have these six soldiers atone for its sins." Similarly, Gary Myers, Frederick's civilian attorney, told me that he would argue at the court-martial that culpability in the case extended far beyond his client. "I'm going to drag every involved intelligence officer and civilian contractor I can find into court," he said. "Do you really believe the Army relieved a general officer because of six soldiers? Not a chance."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
L'empire Carlyle
LE MONDE | 29.04.04 | 14h11
Pour ?tre inform? avant tout le monde, recevez nos alertes par e-mail. Abonnez-vous au Monde.fr, 5? par mois
Le plus grand investisseur priv? du monde, bien implant? dans le secteur de l'armement, est un groupe discret, qui cultive les accointances avec les hommes influents, dont les Bush, p?re et fils
Il y a un an, le 1er mai 2003, George Bush atterrissait, sangl? dans une combinaison de pilote de chasse, sur le porte-avions USS Abraham-Lincolnau large de la Californie. L'image est devenue c?l?bre. Sous une banderole proclamant "Mission accomplished" (mission accomplie), le pr?sident annon?ait pr?matur?ment la fin des op?rations militaires en Irak et sa victoire.
Le lendemain, de retour sur la terre ferme, il pronon?ait un autre discours martial, non loin de San Diego, dans une usine d'armement d'United Defense Industries.
Cette entreprise est l'un des principaux fournisseurs du Pentagone. Elle fabrique, entre autres, des missiles, des v?hicules de transport et, en Californie, le blind? l?ger Bradley. Son principal actionnaire est le plus grand investisseur priv? au monde. Un groupe discret, baptis? Carlyle.
Il n'est pas cot? en Bourse et n'a de comptes ? rendre qu'? ses 550 investisseurs - milliardaires ou fonds de pension. Carlyle g?re aujourd'hui 18 milliards de dollars, plac?s dans les secteurs de la d?fense et de la haute technologie (biologie notamment), le spatial, l'informatique li?e ? la s?curit?, les nanotechnologies, les t?l?communications. Les entreprises qu'il contr?le ont pour caract?ristique commune d'avoir pour clients principaux des gouvernements et administrations. Comme la soci?t? l'a ?crit dans une brochure : " Nous investissons dans des opportunit?s cr??es dans des industries fortement affect?es par des changements de politique gouvernementale."
Carlyle est un mod?le unique, construit ? l'?chelle plan?taire sur le capitalisme de relations ou le " capitalisme d'acc?s" pour reprendre l'expression du magazine am?ricain New Republic, en 1993. Le groupe incarne aujourd'hui, malgr? ses d?n?gations, le "complexe militaro-industriel" contre lequel le pr?sident r?publicain Dwight Eisenhower mettait en garde le peuple am?ricain en quittant ses fonctions, en 1961.
Cela n'a pas emp?ch? George Bush p?re d'occuper pendant dix ans, jusqu'en octobre 2003, un poste de conseiller de Carlyle. C'?tait la premi?re fois dans l'histoire des Etats-Unis qu'un ancien pr?sident travaillait pour un fournisseur du Pentagone. Son fils, George W. Bush conna?t aussi tr?s bien Carlyle. Le groupe lui a trouv? un emploi en f?vrier 1990, alors que son p?re occupait la Maison Blanche : administrateur de Caterair, une soci?t? texane sp?cialis?e dans la restauration a?rienne. L'?pisode ne figure plus dans la biographie officielle du pr?sident. Quand George W. Bush quitte Caterair, en 1994, avant de devenir gouverneur du Texas, l'entreprise est mal en point.
"Il n'est pas possible d'?tre plus proche de l'administration que l'est Carlyle", affirme Charles Lewis, directeur du Centre pour l'int?grit? publique, une organisation non partisane de Washington. "George Bush p?re a gagn? de l'argent provenant d'int?r?ts priv?s qui travaillent pour le gouvernement dont son fils est le pr?sident. On peut m?me dire que le pr?sident pourra un jour b?n?ficier financi?rement, via les investissements de son p?re, de d?cisions politiques qu'il a prises", ajoute-t-il.
La collection de personnages influents qui travaillent, ont travaill? ou ont investi dans le groupe ferait l'incr?dulit? des adeptes les plus convaincus de la th?orie du complot. On y trouve entre autres : John Major, ancien premier ministre britannique, Fidel Ramos, ancien pr?sident philippin, Park Tae Joon, ancien premier ministre de la Cor?e du Sud, le prince saoudien Al-Walid, Colin Powell, actuel secr?taire d'Etat, James Baker III, ancien secr?taire d'Etat, Caspar Weinberger, ancien secr?taire ? la d?fense, Richard Darman, ancien directeur du budget ? la Maison Blanche, le milliardaire George Soros et m?me des membres de la famille Ben Laden. On peut ajouter ? cette liste Alice Albright, la fille de Madeleine Albright, ancienne secr?taire d'Etat, Arthur Lewitt, ancien pr?sident de la SEC (le gendarme de Wall Street), William Kennard ex-patron de l'autorit? des t?l?communications (FCC). Enfin, il faut ajouter, parmi les Europ?ens, Karl Otto P?hl, ancien pr?sident de la Bundesbank, feu Henri Martre, qui a ?t? pr?sident de l'Aerospatiale, et Etienne Davignon, ancien pr?sident de la G?n?rale de Belgique.
Carlyle n'est pas seulement une collection d'hommes de pouvoir. Il poss?de des participations dans pr?s de 200 soci?t?s et surtout, la rentabilit? annuelle de ses fonds d?passe 30 % depuis une d?cennie. "Par rapport aux cinq cents personnes que nous employons dans le monde, le nombre d'anciens hommes d'Etat est tr?s faible, une dizaine tout au plus, explique Christopher Ullmann, vice-pr?sident de Carlyle, responsable de la communication. On nous accuse de tous les maux. Mais personne n'a jamais apport? la preuve d'une quelconque malversation. Aucune proc?dure judiciaire n'a jamais ?t? lanc?e contre nous. Nous sommes une cible commode pour qui veut s'en prendre au gouvernement am?ricain et au pr?sident."
Carlyle a ?t? cr?? en 1987, avec 5 millions de dollars, dans les salons du palace new-yorkais du m?me nom. Ses fondateurs, quatre juristes, dont David Rubenstein (ancien conseiller de Jimmy Carter), ont alors pour ambition - limit?e - de profiter d'une faille de la l?gislation fiscale. Elle autorise les soci?t?s d?tenues en Alaska par des Eskimos ? c?der leurs pertes ? des entreprises rentables qui payent ainsi moins d'imp?ts. Le groupe v?g?te jusqu'en janvier 1989 et l'arriv?e ? sa t?te de l'homme qui inventera le syst?me Carlyle, Frank Carlucci. Ancien directeur adjoint de la CIA, conseiller ? la s?curit? nationale puis secr?taire ? la d?fense de Ronald Reagan, M. Carlucci compte ? Washington. Il est l'un des amis les plus proches de Donald Rumsfeld, actuel ministre de la d?fense. Ils ont partag? une chambre quand ils ?taient ?tudiants ? Princeton. Ils se sont ensuite crois?s dans de nombreuses administrations et ont m?me travaill?, un temps, pour la m?me entreprise, Sears Robuck.
Six jours apr?s avoir officiellement quitt? le Pentagone, le 6 janvier 1989, Frank Carlucci devient directeur g?n?ral de Carlyle. Il emm?ne avec lui des hommes de confiance, anciens de la CIA, du d?partement d'Etat et du minist?re de la d?fense. Surnomm? "M. Clean" ("M. Propre"), Frank Carlucci a une r?putation sulfureuse.
Ce diplomate ?tait en poste dans les ann?es 1970 dans des pays comme l'Afrique du Sud, le Congo, la Tanzanie, le Br?sil et le Portugal o? les Etats-Unis et la CIA ont jou? un r?le politique douteux. Il ?tait le num?ro deux de l'ambassade am?ricaine au Congo belge, en 1961, et a ?t? soup?onn? d'?tre impliqu? dans l'assassinat de Patrice Lumumba. Il a toujours fermement d?menti. La presse am?ricaine l'a aussi accus? d'?tre impliqu? dans plusieurs trafics d'armes dans les ann?es 1980, mais il n'a jamais ?t? poursuivi. Il a dirig? un temps Wackenhut, une soci?t? de s?curit? ? la r?putation d?testable, impliqu?e dans l'un des plus grands scandales d'espionnage, le d?tournement du logiciel Promis. Frank Carlucci a eu pour mission de faire le m?nage dans l'administration Reagan au moment de l'affaire Iran-Contra et a succ?d? alors au poste de conseiller ? la s?curit? nationale ? John Pointdexter. En entrant en fonctions, il avait pris comme adjoint un jeune g?n?ral... Colin Powell.
Sur son nom, Frank Carlucci attire les capitaux chez Carlyle. En octobre 1990, le groupe s'empare de BDM International qui participe au programme de "guerre des ?toiles", et en fait une t?te de pont. En 1992, Frank Carlucci s'allie avec le groupe fran?ais Thomson-CSF pour reprendre la division a?rospatiale de LTV. L'op?ration ?choue, le Congr?s s'oppose ? la vente ? un groupe ?tranger. Carlyle trouve d'autres associ?s, Loral et Northrop, et met la main sur LTV Aerospace rapidement rebaptis? Vought Aircraft qui participe ? la fabrication des bombardiers B1 et B2.
Dans le m?me temps, le fonds multiplie les acquisitions strat?giques, telles Magnavox Electronic Systems, pionnier en mati?re d'imagerie radar, et DGE qui d?tient la technologie des cartes en relief ?lectroniques pour les missiles de croisi?re. Suivent trois soci?t?s sp?cialis?es dans la d?contamination nucl?aire, chimique et bact?riologique (Magnetek, IT Group et EG & G Technical services). Puis, via BDM International, une firme li?e ? la CIA, Vinnell, laquelle est parmi les premi?res ? fournir ? l'arm?e am?ricaine et ses alli?s des contractants priv?s. C'est-?-dire des mercenaires. Ceux de Vinnell encadrent les forces arm?es saoudiennes et prot?gent le roi Fahd. Ils ont combattu lors de la premi?re guerre du Golfe aux c?t?s des troupes saoudiennes. En 1997, Carlyle revend BDM et surtout Vinnell, trop dangereux. Le groupe n'en a plus besoin. Il est devenu le onzi?me fournisseur du Pentagone en mettant la main la m?me ann?e sur United Defense Industries.
Carlyle sort de l'ombre malgr? lui le 11 septembre 2001. Ce jour-l?, le groupe organise au Ritz Carlton de Washington une r?union avec cinq cents de ses plus importants investisseurs. Frank Carlucci et James Baker III jouent les ma?tres de c?r?monie. George Bush p?re fait un passage ?clair en d?but de journ?e. La pr?sentation est rapidement interrompue, mais un d?tail n'?chappe ? personne. Un des invit?s porte sur son badge le nom de Ben Laden. Il s'agit de Shafiq Ben Laden, un des nombreux demi-fr?res d'Oussama. Les m?dias am?ricains d?couvrent Carlyle. Un journaliste, Dan Briody, ?crit un livre sur la face cach?e du groupe, The Iron Triangle, et s'int?resse notamment aux relations ?troites entre le clan Bush et les dirigeants saoudiens.
Certains s'interrogent sur l'influence de George Bush p?re sur la politique ?trang?re am?ricaine. En janvier 2001, lorsque George Bush fils rompt des n?gociations avec la Cor?e du Nord sur les missiles, les Cor?ens du Sud, constern?s, interviennent aupr?s de son p?re. Carlyle a des int?r?ts importants ? S?oul. En juin 2001, Washington reprend les discussions avec Pyongyang.
Autre exemple, en juillet 2001, selon le New York Times, George Bush p?re t?l?phone au prince saoudien Abdallah m?content des prises de position du pr?sident sur le conflit isra?lo-palestinien. George Bush p?re assure alors au prince que son fils "fait de bonnes choses" et que "son c?ur est du bon c?t?". Larry Klayman, directeur de Judicial Watch, une organisation r?solument conservatrice, demande au " p?re du pr?sident de d?missionner de Carlyle. Le groupe a des conflits d'int?r?ts qui peuvent cr?er des probl?mes ? la politique ?trang?re am?ricaine". Finalement en octobre 2003, George Bush p?re quitte Carlyle. Officiellement, car il approche les 80 ans.
Carlyle a beau mettre fin ? toute relation avec la famille Ben Laden en octobre 2001, le mal est fait. Le groupe devient avec Halliburton la cible des opposants ? l'administration Bush. " Carlyle a remplac? la Commission trilat?rale dans les th?ories du complot", reconnaissait David Rubenstein, en 2003, dans une interview au Washington Post. Pour la premi?re fois, le groupe nomme un responsable de la communication et change de patron. Frank Carlucci devient pr?sident honoraire et Lou Gerstner, dirigeant respect? qui a sauv? IBM, prend officiellement les r?nes. L'op?ration semble surtout cosm?tique. M. Gerstner ne passe pas beaucoup de temps ? son bureau. Mais Carlyle veut devenir respectable.
Le groupe cr?e un site Internet. Il ouvre certains fonds ? des investisseurs apportant "seulement" 250 000 dollars (210 000 euros). Il aurait r?duit sa participation dans United Defense Industries, et affirme que la d?fense et l'a?rien ne repr?sentent plus que 15 % de ses investissements. Mais Carlyle fait toujours un usage intensif des paradis fiscaux et il est difficile de conna?tre son p?rim?tre et le nom des soci?t?s qu'il contr?le.
Carlyle multiplie aussi les efforts en Europe. En septembre 2000, il prend le contr?le du groupe su?dois d'armement Bofors via United Defense. Il tente ensuite, sans succ?s, de mettre la main sur Thales Information Systems et, d?but 2003, sur les parts de France T?l?com dans Eutelsat, qui joue un r?le important dans le syst?me europ?en de positionnement par satellite Galileo - concurrent du GPS am?ricain. De 1999 ? 2002, il g?re une participation dans Le Figaro. En Italie, il fait une perc?e en reprenant la filiale a?ronautique de Fiat, Fiat Avio. Cette soci?t? fournit Arianespace et permet ? Carlyle d'entrer au Conseil de la fus?e europ?enne. Autre coup, en d?cembre 2002 Carlyle ach?te un tiers de Qinetic, la filiale priv?e du Centre de recherche et d?veloppement militaire britannique. Qinetic occupe une position unique de conseil du gouvernement britannique.
"Anticiper sur les technologies du futur et les entreprises qui les d?velopperont est notre premier r?le d'investisseur. Les fonds de pension nous apportent leur argent pour cela. On ne peut tout de m?me pas nous reprocher de chercher ? prendre des positions strat?giques", souligne M. Ullmann.
Eric Leser
* ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 30.04.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 reasons why this picture may not be all it seems
By Anthony France
(Filed: 03/05/2004)
An expert in Army interrogation last night cast serious doubts on the authenticity of pictures published by the Daily Mirror of British troops allegedly torturing an Iraqi prisoner.
In a detailed analysis, Simon Treselyan, who served for 19 years training the SAS in interrogation methods, concludes that the pictures are highly suspicious and could be fake.
The former officer, who raises 13 serious questions about the pictures, said last night: "My conclusion is that someone has faked the photographs. For whatever reason, they set out to deceive.
"I believe these pictures are not of an Iraqi and they were not taken in Iraq.
"They are nothing like the pictures released last week of American troops abusing troops which were genuine and quite rightly caused revulsion around the world."
He raised the following 13 points and gave his expert opinion on each:
1. Why do the pictures appear so static, with no obvious signs that a vicious assault is taking place?
Mr Treselyan said: "Part of my job in the Army was to debrief victims of torture. If you were being attacked or hit in the groin by a rifle, the body goes into a foetal position to protect yourself.
"In one picture, the man's legs are actually wide open and he is making no attempt to stop the attack. Considering what he is going through, I would also expect him to be sweating and be covered in dirt. Why is there no blood?"
2. Why does the soldier appear to be armed with an SA80 Mk1 rifle which was not issued to British troops in Iraq?
"That weapon is no longer issued by the British Army and was certainly not issued to troops in Iraq. They were given the SA80 A2. I think the SA80 Mk1 rifle is now only used by Royal Logistics Corps and the Territorial Army.
"Also the condition of the rifle is odd because it is so shiny. The SA80 is mainly plastic and, as a result, it scratches easily. The ones I had lasted only a week. After that they looked like they had been in service 30 years.
"I think the weapon in the pictures is a reproduction weapon, possibly bought through battle orders in the UK."
3. Why is there no serial number on the rifle's foregrip?
"Every soldier has an identifying number given to him by the armoury which is painted on to the foregrip of the rifle in yellow paint. This is so the soldier can identify his own weapon very quickly without having to look at the engraved serial number."
4. Why has the soldier's webbing, where he would store ammunition for the rifle, been left open - against Army regulations?
"That is one of the worst things you could do. If he was to jump out of a vehicle and run in battle, all of his ammunition would fall out of his webbing.
"From day one, if you are ever caught with your pouch open, you would get hauled up and fined. This tells me the person in the pictures is not a soldier.
"Also, why are his ammunition pouches empty if he is an operational soldier? Normally, he would have three ammunition magazines in each pouch and you could see the bulge."
5. Why has the barrel of the rifle been left uncovered?
"That certainly does not happen in desert conditions. Sand is an abrasive. If it gets inside your rifle barrel, the damage makes shots less accurate.
"If the armourer caught you doing this, you would be court martialled. Every soldier I know uses either an issue barrel cover - like a pen top - or a condom to stop sand and moisture getting inside."
6. Why do the pictures appear to have been taken in the back of a type of Bedford truck that was never deployed in Iraq?
"It does not look like the standard four-ton vehicle that was in operation in Iraq. Another thing I noticed is how clean the truck is for one being used on the front line."
7. Why are the soldier's boots laced in a criss-cross fashion?
"British Army soldiers lace their boots straight, not diagonally. It has always been so.
"Any Second World War veteran will tell you that during the campaign in the Far East, they used to creep up on sentries and feel their lacing to find out if they were Japanese. If it was criss-cross, they would kill them. If they were straight they were British."
8. Why is the alleged torture victim wearing a potato sack made of hessian over his head?
"The British Army has set procedures for interrogating suspects. The hood is to disorientate the prisoner.
"You would never use a hessian sack because it is made out of a woven material which allows the suspect to see through it. The British Army use hoods made out of the same black material as darkroom curtains."
9. Why is the prisoner wearing a T-shirt with the Syrian flag on the front?
"According to the Daily Mirror's report, the torture victim comes from the Shia stronghold of Basra.
"He would be killed within two minutes on the streets of Basra wearing a T-shirt which would show support for the hated Ba'ath party. It's a bit like wearing a British National Party shirt in Brixton, the heart of black Britain.
"Why is he wearing underpants? Most Iraqis I met didn't wear any. I notice the prisoner is not as hairy as I would expect him to be and he appears well-fed for an Iraqi."
10. Why is the soldier wearing a floppy hat?
"These hats are not used operationally in Iraq. Soldiers wear either helmets or berets - especially if they are working outdoors. I never saw any colleagues wearing a floppy hat in operation."
11. Why is the soldier's face not visible?
"The idea of a trophy picture is to have something that you can keep for ever. In the ones I saw from the Falklands, in which people took pictures of themselves with decapitated Argentinians, their faces could clearly be seen. The pictures which came out of America last week were classic trophy pictures."
12. Is the picture where the soldier puts a rifle to the prisoner's head against normal procedure?
"You never, ever let your weapon get that close to a prisoner. It is standard procedure that no weapon goes within 3ft of a prisoner. Remember, these guys are suicidal and wouldn't think twice about making a grab for it."
13. Why does the soldier have clean hands and clothes?
"The soldier's hands are very soft - like an office worker. Why, if he has been in combat, are his hands and fingernails not covered in dirt?"
Mr Treselyan, 45, was a warrant officer in the British Army's Intelligence Corps until he took voluntary redundancy in October 1994. During his career he trained the SAS and America's CIA in interrogation techniques and specialised in the debriefing of torture victims.
Last night Col Bob Stewart, who commanded British forces in the Balkans, also raised doubts about the authenticity of the pictures.
He voiced concerns at the effect the pictures would have in the Arab world. "What happens to the next British soldier taken hostage?"
Related reports
Torture photo doubts
? Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MEANWHILE IN THE NAVY...
Camera found in women's shower stall
Times staff
http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2876274.php
Navy investigators are searching for whoever is responsible for hiding a wireless video camera in a shower stall for female sailors.
The camera was found aboard the San Diego-based command ship Coronado on April 14.
A Navy spokesman says the camera's battery was dead and a search of nearby compartments didn't turn up its receiver.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Navy's Seventh Fleet have interviewed several sailors and civilians aboard the ship. Coronado is 7th Fleet's flagship.
In March, a non-operational camera was found in the women's showers on the cruiser Monterey, which is homeported in Norfolk, Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Accused soldier says command was vague about prisoner-treatment rules
By David Dishneau
Associated Press
Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick is shown in a photo taken when he had just entered Kuwait in 2003. Frederick, who is accused of abusing Iraqi war prisoners, kept a diary describing tough conditions at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. -- AP / Family photo
HAGERSTOWN, Md. -- A soldier facing a court-martial for his role in the alleged abuse of Iraqi war prisoners says commanders ignored his requests to set out rules for treating POWs and scolded him for questioning the inmates' harsh treatment.
Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick wrote that Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad lacked the humane standards of the Virginia state prison where he worked in civilian life, according to a journal he started after military investigators first questioned him in January.
The Iraqi prisoners were sometimes confined naked for three consecutive days without toilets in damp, unventilated cells with floors 3 feet by 3 feet, Frederick wrote in materials obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.
"When I brought this up with the acting BN (battalion) commander, he stated, `I don't care if he has to sleep standing up.' That's when he told my company commander that he was the BN commander and for me to do as he says," Frederick wrote.
The writings were supplied by Frederick's uncle, William Lawson, who said Frederick wanted to document what was happening to him. Lawson and Martha Frederick, the sergeant's wife, said Frederick was being made a scapegoat for commanders who gave him no guidance on managing hundreds of POWs with just a handful of ill-trained, poorly equipped troops.
Lt. Cmdr. Nicholas Balice, spokesman for the Central Command, which is in charge of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, said he couldn't comment on Frederick's writings, but that the allegations against him were appropriately investigated.
Frederick is one of six members of the 800th Military Police Brigade facing courts-martial for allegedly humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Charges include dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another person.
CBS's "60 Minutes II" broadcast pictures of the alleged abuse and an interview with Frederick on Wednesday. Some of the soldiers were smiling in the photographs obtained by CBS, which showed naked prisoners stacked in a human pyramid and being forced to simulate sex acts.
Lawson, of Newburg, W.Va., said his nephew was being portrayed "as a monster."
"He's just the guy they put in charge of the prison," he said.
Martha Frederick, of Buckingham, Va., said her husband, in Iraq since April 2003, told her his unit wasn't given proper training and equipment.
"I feel like things are being covered up. What has come to light has fallen on the burden of my husband," she said.
Seventeen members of the 372nd Military Police Company were temporarily suspended from their posts after the investigation at the prison, Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a military spokesman in Baghdad, told The (Baltimore) Sun.
Military officials said Frederick, 37, is among the 14 of 17 people under investigation from the unit of the 800th based in Cresaptown, in western Maryland.
The Sun's Friday editions identified two other soldiers facing court-martial. The newspaper cited unidentified Army officials in naming Sgt. Javal S. Davis, 26. His wife, who also spoke to the newspaper, defended her husband.
"We really don't know how those prisoners are behaving," said Zeenithia Davis, who is in the Navy in Mississippi. "There's a line between heinous war crimes and maintaining discipline."
A Sun reporter on Thursday showed a photo of one of the nude prisoner scenes to Terrie England, who recognized her daughter, reservist Lynndie R. England, 21, standing in the foreground with her boyfriend.
"Oh, my God," she told the newspaper from the stoop in front of her Fort Ashby, W.Va., trailer home. "I can't get over this."
The alleged abuses of prisoners were "stupid, kid things -- pranks," Terrie England said. "And what the (Iraqis) do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, does that apply to everybody or just us?"
Her family said Lynndie England is detained on a U.S. base, but declined to say where.
Army officials said the investigation began in January when an American soldier reported the abuse and turned over evidence that included photographs. In addition to the criminal charges, the military has recommended disciplinary action against seven U.S. officers who helped run the prison, including Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, commander of the 800th Brigade.
Frederick's civilian lawyer, Washington-based Gary Myers, said he has urged the commanding general in Iraq to treat the case as an administrative matter, like those of the seven officers.
"I can assure you Chip Frederick had no idea how to humiliate an Arab until he met up" with higher-ranking people who told him how, Myers said.
Myers said Frederick has had his Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding. Myers said he will next request a change of venue because "you can't try a case of this magnitude in a hostile war zone environment."
In civilian life, Frederick has been a correctional officer for six years at the Buckingham Correctional Center in Dillwyn, Va., his wife and a state agency spokesman said.
He wrote that he questioned the inmates' treatment and asked for standard operating procedures when his unit relieved the 72nd Military Police Company at the prison last fall. His requests were ignored until Jan. 19, five days after his first visit from investigators, when he found the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war on the Internet, Frederick wrote.
AP writer Bill Baskervill in Richmond, Va., contributed to this story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S?vices inflig?s ? des prisonniers irakiens : MM. Bush et Blair dans l'embarras
LEMONDE.FR | 01.05.04 | 19h10 * MIS A JOUR LE 02.05.04 | 13h11
Les annales et corrig?s du baccalaur?at depuis 1995.
Abonnez-vous au Monde.fr, 5? par mois
Le pr?sident am?ricain a r?affirm? samedi que les Etats-Unis allaient "terminer" leur "travail en Irak". Mais aux Etats-Unis et en Grande-Bretagne, la presse indique que les services de renseignement auraient encourag? les s?vices inflig?s par des soldats am?ricains ? des prisonniers irakiens. Des soldats britanniques ont eux aussi ?t? confondus, suscitant ? Londres une pol?mique accrue par la publication d'informations selon lesquelles Tony Blair s'appr?terait ? envoyer 4 000 hommes ? Najaf.
George W. Bush entend "terminer le travail". Un an jour pour jour apr?s avoir d?clar? "la fin des combats majeurs" en Irak, le pr?sident am?ricain a r?affirm? samedi que les Etats-Unis allaient y "terminer (leur) travail, car les enjeux sont cruciaux pour notre pays et le monde".
"Le succ?s de la d?mocratie irakienne enverra le message, de Damas ? T?h?ran, que la libert? peut ?tre l'avenir de chaque pays. Et la d?mocratie va vaincre en Irak, parce que notre coalition est forte, parce que notre d?termination est enti?re et parce que le peuple irakien d?sire et m?rite de vivre libre", a-t-il ajout? dans son allocution radio-diffus?e hebdomadaire.
"Malgr? de nombreux d?fis, la vie des Irakiens est ? des ann?es lumi?res de la cruaut? et la corruption du r?gime de Saddam", a-t-il ajout?. La vie quotidienne s'am?liore. L'?lectricit? est d?sormais plus accessible qu'avant la guerre. L'Irak a une monnaie stable et les banques prosp?rent. Les ?coles et cliniques ont ?t? r?nov?es et rouvertes, et les centrales ?lectriques, les h?pitaux, les infrastructures d'eau et d'assainissement, les ponts ont ?t? r?habilit?s, tandis que l'industrie p?troli?re produit environ 2,5 millions de barils par jour".
D?taillant la strat?gie am?ricaine, M. Bush a averti que "nous pourrions voir un accroissement de la violence de la part des groupes oppos?s ? la libert?" au fur et ? mesure que s'approchera le transfert de souverainet? du 30 juin. "Nous ne serons pas intimid?s", a-t-il r?affirm? en ajoutant que, "au 1er juillet, et ensuite, notre engagement militaire et pour la reconstruction se poursuivra". M. Bush s'est exprim? alors que les Am?ricains se montrent de plus en plus circonspects, selon les sondages, sur sa politique irakienne, l'un des dossiers sur lesquels il joue sa r??lection le 2 novembre.
Les d?mocrates critiquent la conduite de la guerre par M. Bush. Le Parti d?mocrate a r?pondu samedi ? l'adresse radiodiffus?e du pr?sident, George W. Bush, par le t?moignage d'un v?t?ran de la guerre en Irak critiquant des manquements criants dans la pr?paration mat?rielle et politique de l'op?ration militaire. "M. le Pr?sident, notre mission n'est pas accomplie !", a affirm? le lieutenant Paul Rieckhoff, qui a servi dix mois en Irak ? la t?te d'une groupe de 38 soldats am?ricains jusqu'en f?vrier. Dans son intervention, pay?e sur le budget de campagne du candidat d?mocrate John Kerry, Paul Rieckhoff raconte que, "d?s notre arriv?e ? Bagdad, nous devions rapidement d?couvrir que les personnes qui avaient pr?par? cette guerre n'?taient pas pr?tes. Il n'y avait pas assez de v?hicules, pas assez de munition, pas assez de mat?riel m?dical, pas assez d'eau". Au moment de la chute de Bagdad, les responsables am?ricains n'avaient pas de plan pr?cis pour la suite des op?rations, selon lui. "Ma question ? M. Bush est la suivante : quand allez-vous assumer la responsabilit? pour les d?cisions prises en Irak et r?aliser que les choses ne sont pas ce qu'elles devraient ?tre ?", a conclu M. Rieckhoff.
S?vices inflig?s ? des prisonniers irakiens : le renseignement militaire am?ricain incrimin?. Apr?s la diffusion mercredi par la cha?ne am?ricaine CBS de photos montrant des d?tenus irakiens de la prison d'Abou Gharib, pr?s de Bagdad, maltrait?s par des soldats am?ricains, et l'inculpation de six d'entre eux pour actes de cruaut? et conduite obsc?ne envers une vingtaine de prisonniers, en novembre et d?cembre 2003, deux journaux rapportaient samedi que ces s?vices ont peut-?tre ?t? plus cruels que ce qui a ?t? dit, et qu'ils auraient ?t? ordonn?s par les services de renseignement militaires.
L'officier en charge du syst?me p?nitentiaire militaire am?ricain en Irak, fustig? apr?s la diffusion de photos montrant des d?tenus humili?s, a affirm? que le quartier de haute s?curit? ?tait sous le contr?le du renseignement militaire, a rapport? samedi le New York Times. Le g?n?ral de r?serve Janis Karpinski a d?clar? au journal que ce quartier de l'immense prison d'Abou Gharib, ? l'ouest de Bagdad, ?tait sous le contr?le direct d'officiers du renseignement militaire, qui pourraient avoir encourag? ces violations des droits des d?tenus, et non pas des r?servistes sous ses ordres. Auparavant, le magazine New Yorker rapportait que les s?vices inflig?s aux d?tenus pourraient avoir ?t? ordonn?s par les services de renseignements militaires. Le g?n?ral Karpinski, qui a ?t? a ?t? suspendue de son commandement de la 800e brigade de la police militaire et fait l'objet d'une enqu?te, tandis que six autres officiers sont vis?s par une proc?dure administrative, a indiqu? penser que la hi?rarchie militaire tentait de faire porter toute la responsabilit? aux r?servistes, dont elle, pour prot?ger les officiers du renseignement encore en Irak. Elle a pr?cis? que le quartier de haute s?curit?, baptis? 1 A, comprenait une vingtaine de b?timents de cellules et que son acc?s ?tait interdit aux soldats non impliqu?s dans les interrogatoires, dont pratiquement toute la police militaire sous son commandement, selon le journal. Elle a ajout? que des emply?s de la CIA participaient souvent aux interrogatoires ? Abou Gharib.
Le magazine New Yorker, citant un rapport confidentiel de l'arm?e am?ricaine, r?dig? par le g?n?ral Antonio Taguba en f?vrier, ?crit que les prisonniers ont re?us des coups de balais ou de chaises, ont ?t? asperg?s d'eau froide ou de liquide phosphorique et menac?s de viol. Le rapport raconte ?galement, selon le journaliste Seymour Hersh, que la police militaire a ?t? autoris?e ? recoudre les blessures d'un prisonnier, qui avait ?t? pouss? contre les murs, et a sodomis? un d?tenu. M. Hersh, cite aussi une lettre du sergent Ivan Frederick, l'un des six militaires am?ricains inculp?s, ?crite en janvier ? sa famille : Il disait avoir "pos? des questions sur certaines choses" qu'il avait vues dans la prison. "La r?ponse qui m'a ?t? donn?e ?tait 'c'est comme ?a que les renseignements militaires veulent que ce soit fait'", poursuivait le sergent. D'apr?s le magazine, le sergent Frederick expliquait aussi que des officiers des services de renseignement militaires l'avait f?licit?, ainsi que d'autres soldats, sur le "bon travail" effectu? avec les prisonniers.
Des soldats britanniques ? leur tour accus?s. La pol?mique restait vive dimanche au Royaume-Uni o? la presse britannique revenait abondamment sur les s?vices inflig?s ? des prisonniers irakiens par des soldats du Queen's Lancashire Regiment, bas? dans le sud de l'Irak. Des photos d?gradantes avaient ?t? publi?es samedi par le Daily Mirror, suscitant la col?re de Downing Street, de la hi?rarchie militaire et l'ouverture d'une enqu?te. Selon le Sunday Telegraph, la police militaire va placer sous mandat d'arr?t six soldats du r?giment incrimin? qui ont ?t? interrog?s ? Chypre. Ceux-ci risquent la cour martiale et des peines de prison, pr?cise le quotidien. Pour l'Observer, "les photos de tortures et d'abus sur des prisonniers ne sont pas seulement profond?ment choquante, leur nature incendiaire met gravement en p?ril les espoirs de paix dans la r?gion". Certains journaux ?mettent toutefois des doutes sur l'authenticit? des photos publi?es par le Daily Mirror, un tablo?d pro-travailliste mais tr?s oppos? ? la guerre en Irak, deux jours apr?s la mise en cause de Marines am?ricains pour des faits semblables. Dans son ?dition de samedi, une seule photo, noire et blanc, occupait la Une du journal : un prisonnier irakien est assis ? l'arri?re d'un camion militaire, le torse partiellement nu, la t?te recouverte d'un sac en toile de jute. Debout devant lui, de dos, un soldat britannique lui urine sur le corps. En pages int?rieures, d'autres photos, toujours en noir et blanc, illustrent dans le d?tail le calvaire de ce prisonnier d'une vingtaine d'ann?es, arr?t? pour vol. Sur l'une d'entre elles, l'homme est frapp? ? coups de crosse de fusil dans les parties g?nitales. Sur deux autres photos, il semble recevoir des coups de pied en pleine t?te. "Soyons clair, si ces actes ont r?ellement eu lieu, ils sont totalement et absolument inacceptables", avait plaid? le premier ministre, Tony Blair, samedi apr?s-midi.
Si les troupes britanniques sont globalement lou?es pour leur comportement mesur? en Irak, certaines accusations de torture et de s?vices les concernant avaient d?j? ?merg? depuis le d?but de la guerre. Mais aucune photo n'avait encore ?t? publi?e. D?s mai 2003, un soldat de la 7e brigade blind?e britannique, h?riti?re des fameux "Rats du d?sert" du mar?chal Montgomery, avait ainsi ?t? arr?t? en possession de photos compromettantes. Sur un clich?, un prisonnier irakien, baillonn? et ligot?, ?tait exhib? dans un filet suspendu aux fourches d'un chariot ?l?vateur. Sur un autre, des soldats britanniques ?taient montr?s en train de se livrer ? des actes sexuels pr?s de prisonniers. La police militaire britannique a ?galement ouvert une enqu?te concernant les d?c?s suspects de deux Irakiens, toujours en mai, alors qu'ils ?taient sous la garde des soldats du Black Watch Regiment. De m?me une autre enqu?te a ?t? lanc?e dans le cas du d?c?s de Baha Al-Maliki, un prisonnier irakien qui aurait ?t? battu ? mort par d'autres soldats du Queen's Lancashire Regiment, en septembre, ? Bassora.
Londres d?ment ?tre sur le point d'envoyer 4 000 hommes ? Najaf. Le gouvernement britannique a d?menti dimanche avoir pris la d?cision d'envoyer jusqu'? 4 000 hommes suppl?mentaires ? Najaf, en Irak, comme l'affirme le Sunday Telegraph. Londres a indiqu? il y a plus d'une semaine envisager l'hypoth?se d'envoyer des troupes pour remplacer les 1 300 militaires espagnols qui se sont retir?s de la ville sainte chiite, mais il souligne qu'aucune d?cision n'a ?t? prise. Le Sunday Telegraph ?crit au contraire, citant un responsable du minist?re de la d?fense anonyme, que la d?cision a ?t? prise pour marquer le fait que Londres reste impliqu? aux c?t?s de ses partenaires dans la chaotique situation irakienne. Le contingent britannique, qui occupe le sud de l'Irak, totalise actuellement 7 900 hommes. Le premier ministre, Tony Blair, aurait pris la d?cision apr?s s'?tre entretenu avec le pr?sident am?ricain, George W. Bush, ? la Maison Blanche il y a deux semaines, indique le journal. "Il est difficile de pr?dire combien de temps ces troupes devront rester en Irak, mais cela ne sera pas pour moins de deux ans", a ajout? la m?me source. Selon ce responsable, aucune d?cision n'a ?t? prise sur l'importance num?rique de ces renforts, mais "les unit?s ont ?t? d?j? pr?venues de se pr?parer ? partir en op?ration".
Lib?ration d'un otage am?ricain. L'otage am?ricain Thomas Hamill est libre, trois semaines apr?s qu'eurent ?t? diffus?es des images le montrant entre les mains d'hommes arm?s, ? la suite de l'attaque d'un convoi en Irak, a annonc? dimanche l'arm?e am?ricaine.
Quatre soldats am?ricains tu?s ? Bagdad et Amara. Quatre soldats am?ricains et deux membres de la d?fense civile irakienne ont trouv? la mort dans des attaques men?es par des insurg?s ? Bagdad et pr?s de la ville d'Amara, dans le sud du pays, a fait savoir dimanche un haut responsable de l'arm?e. Deux soldats am?ricains et deux membres de la d?fense civile ont ?t? tu?s dimanche matin au nord-ouest de Bagdad, a-t-il pr?cis?. Deux autres soldats am?ricains ont ?t? tu?s samedi pr?s d'Amara, o? leur convoi a ?t? la cible de tirs ? l'arme l?g?re et au lance-grenades. Ces d?c?s portent selon Reuters ? 545 le nombre de soldats am?ricains tu?s au combat en Irak depuis l'invasion du pays par les forces sous commandement am?ricain, en mars 2003.
D?buts de la brigade irakienne ? Fallouja. L'accord pour la cr?ation de cette brigade irakienne a ?vit? une attaque des Marines dans la ville rebelle, a indiqu? samedi le g?n?ral am?ricain James Conway. Il a pr?cis? que celle-ci devrait assurer la s?curit? d'un premier convoi am?ricain qui doit traverser dans les prochains jours la ville. Les Marines ont quitt? vendredi certaines de leurs positions dans le sud de la ville, tout en avertissant qu'ils n'avaient pas l'intention de s'?loigner de Fallouja. Le g?n?ral Mark Kimmitt a pour sa part pr?cis? que la coalition conduite par les Etats-Unis et le minist?re irakien de la d?fense n'ont pas encore donn? leur approbation finale ? la nomination du g?n?ral irakien Jassem Saleh ? la t?te de cette brigade, dans l'attente de r?ponses sur sa participation ou non ? des crimes de l'ancien r?gime. Les habitants de Fallouja se sont, eux, r?jouis de la cr?ation de cette brigade irakienne.
Lemonde.fr, avec AFP et Reuters
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Les mauvais traitements inflig?s ? des prisonniers irakiens suscitent l'indignation g?n?rale
LEMONDE.FR | 30.04.04 | 19h51 * MIS A JOUR LE 01.05.04 | 10h51
Les archives du "Monde" : plus de 800 000 articles ? consulter. Abonnez-vous au Monde.fr, 5? par mois
La pol?mique a rebondi samedi apr?s la publication par le "Daily Mirror" de cinq photos montrant des soldats britanniques battant et humiliant un d?tenu.
George W. Bush a exprim?, vendredi 30 avril, son "profond d?go?t" pour les mauvais traitements inflig?s ? des prisonniers irakiens par des militaires am?ricains, r?v?l?s par des photos diffus?es mercredi sur la cha?ne CBS. "Nous ne pouvons tol?rer cela", avait d?clar? un peu avant la prise de parole du pr?sident am?ricain le porte-parole de la Maison Blanche.
"Les militaires ont agi fermement contre les individus responsables de ces actes m?prisables", a-t-il ajout?. M. Bush est au courant de ces accusations "depuis un moment", et il s'attend ? ce que "des mesures appropri?es soient prises ? l'encontre des individus" mis en cause, avait-il ?galement averti.
Les photos diffus?es par la cha?ne am?ricaine ont provoqu? une vague d'indignation dans le monde, notamment en Grande-Bretagne et dans les pays arabes. Le g?n?ral Mark Kimmitt, chef adjoint des op?rations militaires en Irak, avait annonc? mercredi la mise en cause de six militaires, actuellement traduits en cour martiale pour avoir maltrait?s des prisonniers. Un g?n?ral am?ricain qui ?tait charg? des centres de d?tention en Irak a ?galement ?t? suspendu de ses fonctions apr?s la r?v?lation de ces cas pr?sum?s de mauvais traitements ? l'encontre de prisonniers irakiens.
Interrog? sur la r?percussion ? l'?tranger de ces images, M. McClellan a d?clar? qu'"elles ne repr?sentent pas ce que nous d?fendons". "Les militaires ont indiqu? tr?s clairement qu'ils allaient poursuivre ces individus, aussi s?v?rement que le permet le droit", a-t-il ajout?.
Vendredi, les bulletins d'information de la cha?ne satellitaire qatarie Al-Jazira, tr?s suivie dans le monde arabe, ont consacr? leur ouverture aux photos des prisonniers irakiens. La t?l?vision, qui fait l'objet de critiques s?v?res de la part des Etats-Unis pour sa couverture de l'Irak, a diffus? quelques-unes de ces photos montrant des soldats am?ricains maltraitant des prisonniers irakiens dans la prison d'Abou Gharib, pr?s de Bagdad. "Nous diffusons quelques-unes de ces photos qui montrent les agissements amoraux et inhumains" des soldats am?ricains, a indiqu? le pr?sentateur de la cha?ne, en soulignant que les militaires am?ricains ?taient actuellement traduits en cour martiale.
La cha?ne Al-Arabiya, bas?e ? Duba?, a elle aussi montr? ces photos, mais pas ? l'ouverture des bulletins d'information. "Des photos d?gradantes, diffus?es par les cha?nes de t?l?vision am?ricaines (...) et montrant la sauvagerie des soldats am?ricains qui ont ?t? suspendus de l'arm?e", a comment? la pr?sentatrice.
APPEL AU CH?TIMENT
La Ligue arabe a "vivement d?nonc?" ces mauvais traitements et appel? ? "ch?tier" tous ceux qui ont ?t? impliqu?s "dans ces actes sauvages". "Nous d?non?ons vivement ces mauvais traitements et l'humiliation" subis par des prisonniers irakiens "qui sont contraires aux droits de l'homme et aux conventions internationales concernant la protection de la population civile sous occupation", a d?clar? un porte-parole.
En Grande-Bretagne aussi, la diffusion des photos-chocs a tant scandalis? le pays que le premier alli? des Etats-Unis, Tony Blair, se trouve ? nouveau plac? dans une position embarrassante. "Le porte-parole de l'arm?e am?ricaine a dit ce matin qu'il ?tait scandalis?, que les personnes responsables ont d??u leurs camarades soldats, et ce sont des opinions auxquelles nous associons le gouvernement britannique", a fermement d?clar?, vendredi, le porte-parole du premier ministre.
Quinze jours plus t?t, Tony Blair avait affich? ? Washington sa d?termination ? maintenir, au c?t? de son alli? am?ricain George W. Bush, un front ferme face ? la crise en Irak. Essuyant, comme toujours, une nu?e de fl?ches de ses d?tracteurs, l'accusant d'un trop grand suivisme de son alli? am?ricain, adepte r?cemment de m?thodes muscl?es en Irak. Et toute cette semaine, la vie politique britannique s'est centr?e autour de la lettre de 52 ex-diplomates britanniques d?non?ant l'alignement de Londres sur la politique de Washington, cette fois au Proche-Orient.
Vendredi, trois journaux britanniques ont mis ? la "une" la photo d'un prisonnier irakien cagoul?, des fils ?lectriques attach?s aux poignets, r?servant aux pages int?rieures des photos de prisonniers irakiens nus dans des positions sexuelles plus humiliantes encore. CBS avait diffus? ces photos mercredi soir, en affirmant qu'une enqu?te de l'arm?e avait r?v?l? qu'il s'agissait d'une pratique r?pandue. Le g?n?ral Janis Karpinski, charg? des centres de d?tention en Irak, a ?t? suspendu de ses fonctions fin janvier apr?s que six militaires eurent ?t? accus?s de maltraiter des d?tenus dans la prison d'Abou Gharib.
Les m?dias am?ricains restaient en revanche tr?s discrets, vendredi, sur les accusations de mauvais traitements. Les photos accusatrices n'?taient visibles qu'en pages int?rieures du quotidien Washington Post. A l'exception de CBS, les autres cha?nes de t?l?vision n'en ont fait qu'assez peu de cas. Vendredi matin, CNN a toutefois ?voqu? l'indignation que ces images ont provoqu? dans le monde, pr?cisant que les responsables de la cha?ne n'avaient pas pu en v?rifier l'authenticit?.
Le Baltimore Sun de vendredi choisissait, lui, de donner la parole ? l'?pouse de l'un des militaires mis en cause, en soulignant que la situation des soldats ?tait "tr?s stressante" et qu'"on ne peut pas savoir comment se conduisent les prisonniers".
VIOLATION DES CONVENTIONS DE GEN?VE
La presse britannique a publi? samedi des photos d'un prisonnier irakien maltrait? par des soldats britanniques. Le Daily Mirror a publi? cinq photos qu'il dit avoir re?ues de deux soldats non identifi?s du Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Elles montrent un prisonnier arr?t? pour des soup?ons de vol, encapuchonn?, battu et sur lequel un soldat urine. "Les gars se relayaient pour le passer ? tabac, le frapper au visage avec des armes et l'?touffer", rapporte l'un de ces deux soldats cit?s par le journal. Le prisonnier aurait ensuite ?t? extrait d'un camp de Bassora et jet? de l'arri?re d'un camion. Quelques semaines plus tard, des hommes du m?me r?giment auraient battu ? mort un autre d?tenu, selon le Daily Mirror.
Le minist?re de la d?fense britannique a annonc? vendredi avoir ouvert une enqu?te. "Je suis au courant des all?gations qui ont ?t? faites aujourd'hui sur le mauvais traitement de prisonniers par des soldats britanniques en Irak", a d?clar? le g?n?ral Sir Michael Jackson, officier le plus grad? de l'arm?e britannique. Dans un communiqu?, il a fait savoir que si les faits incrimin?s ?taient confirm?s, "une conduite aussi consternante est non seulement ill?gale mais contrevient de fa?on flagrante aux crit?res ?lev?s de l'arm?e britannique". Les responsables de ces actes "sont indignes de porter l'uniforme de la reine, ils ont souill? la r?putation et l'honneur de l'arm?e", ajoute-t-il.
Ces actes "sont en contradiction directe avec toutes les r?gles pr?conis?es au sein de la coalition" en Irak, avait d?clar? vendredi le porte-parole de Tony Blair. "Dans le m?me temps, nous nous associons ? l'opinion du porte-parole de l'arm?e am?ricaine pour dire que cela n'est pas repr?sentatif [du comportement] des 150 000 soldats pr?sents en Irak", avait-il temp?r?. Downing Street a rappel? au passage que "le pr?c?dent r?gime sous Saddam perp?trait des actions similaires dans le cadre de sa politique".
L'envoy?e sp?ciale britannique pour les droits de l'homme en Irak, Ann Clwyd, s'est ?galement d?clar?e "choqu?e", vendredi, par ces informations. Il s'agit d'"un petit nombre de cas, horribles certes, [mais] on ne peut pas les comparer avec les dizaines de milliers de gens que Saddam Hussein a fait torturer et ex?cuter", a n?anmoins insist? cette militante travailliste des droits de l'homme, qui a d?nonc? pendant des ann?es les exactions de l'ancien pr?sident irakien.
"Amnesty International a recueilli de nombreux t?moignages d'Irakiens [faisant ?tat] de torture pr?sum?e ? la prison d'Abou Gharib et dans d'autres [lieux] o? ils sont d?tenus au secret et sans inculpation", a pr?cis? pour sa part vendredi Kate Allen, directrice en Grande-Bretagne de l'organisation de d?fense des droits de l'homme, qui s'est dite "choqu?e" mais "pas surprise".
Le secr?taire g?n?ral de l'ONU, Kofi Annan, s'est dit "profond?ment troubl?", esp?rant qu'il s'agissait d'un "incident isol?". L'envoy? sp?cial de l'ONU en Irak, Lakhdar Brahimi, a quant ? lui qualifi? de "tr?s inqui?tants" et "totalement inadmissibles" ces agissements.
Le Comit? international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR) a jug?, pour sa part, "troublantes et inqui?tantes" les photos des prisonniers, a d?clar? vendredi un porte-parole, rappelant que les conventions de Gen?ve interdisent les traitements humiliants et d?gradants. Le porte-parole a rappel? que les conventions de Gen?ve de 1949, qui s'appliquent juridiquement ? la situation actuelle de l'Irak, "interdisent tr?s clairement la torture et les mauvais traitements", et pr?voient que les prisonniers soient trait?s "avec humanit?".
"Les conventions de Gen?ve disent tr?s clairement qu'on ne peut pas utiliser la pression physique pour obtenir des informations et que les traitements humiliants ou d?gradants sont interdits", a-t-il ajout?. L'un des clich?s diffus?s par CBS montre des d?tenus nus et entass?s, avec sur le corps de l'un une insulte en anglais.
Avec AFP et Reuters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anniversaire embarrassant pour George W. Bush
Le pr?sident am?ricain, George W. Bush, a d?fendu vendredi le discours qu'il avait prononc?, il y a un an, le 1er mai 2003, dans lequel il d?clarait la fin des combats majeurs et qualifiait l'invasion de l'Irak de "victoire" contre le terrorisme. "J'ai aussi affirm? ce jour-l? que nous avions encore une rude t?che devant nous. Et nous faisons face ? un contexte difficile en Irak", a-t-il dit. Avril a ?t? le mois le plus meurtrier pour les Am?ricains en Irak : selon le Pentagone, 128 soldats am?ricains y ont ?t? tu?s, soit davantage qu'au cours des six semaines de combats qui ont suivi le d?clenchement de la guerre, le 20 mars 2003.
Le journaliste am?ricain Ted Koppel a consacr? vendredi soir l'int?gralit? de son ?mission t?l?vis?e "Nightline" sur ABC ? diffuser les noms et photographies de 721 soldats am?ricains tu?s en Irak, suscitant la col?re des milieux conservateurs qui l'accusent de propagande anti-guerre. Koppel a au contraire affirm? que son ?mission, exceptionnellement rallong?e ? 40 minutes au lieu de sa demi-heure habituelle, visait ? saluer sans aucune arri?re pens?e politique la m?moire des soldats tomb?s en Irak. L'?mission de Koppel s'est notamment inspir?e d'une ?dition du magazine Life en juin 1969, dans laquelle ?taient publi?s les noms et les portraits de tous les soldats am?ricains morts en une seule semaine de combats pendant la guerre du Vietnam.
Les Etats-Unis font toujours face ? une situation confuse, notamment ? Najaf, o? est retranch? le chef chiite radical Moqtada Al-Sadr. A Fallouja, apr?s une nuit relativement calme, le premier bataillon de la force irakienne charg? de prendre le relais des soldats am?ricains dans la ville ? commenc? ? se d?ployer. Un haut responsable du Pentagone a indiqu? vendredi ne pas ?tre s?r de pouvoir faire confiance ? l'homme qui commande ce bataillon, un g?n?ral de l'ancienne arm?e de Saddam Hussein, mais a laiss? entendre qu'il n'y avait gu?re d'autre solution satisfaisante pour mettre fin ? pr?s d'un mois d'impasse dans ce bastion sunnite irakien. - (AFP, Reuters.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S., U.N. Gird for Major Effort to Pick Iraqi Leaders
With Handover Looming, Factions and Instability Present Challenges as Envoys Consider Candidates
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page A27
Top U.N. and U.S. envoys will launch the last big push this week to form a new Iraqi government, following secret discussions at the United Nations late last week to help expedite the filling of the four leadership jobs and 25 cabinet posts, according to U.S. officials.
Favorite candidates for the top four jobs have emerged, with particular focus on two emerging Shiite politicians for prime minister and veteran Sunni politician Adnan Pachachi as the possible president, U.S. and coalition officials say.
With only two months before the handover of power on June 30, the U.S.-led coalition is cautiously optimistic that a new government can be named within 10 days.
When U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi "goes in, he's almost ready to start naming names. He's ready to start pulling things together. He's into the end game. He's created a structure," said a State Department official familiar with the Iraq talks. "We could go from political anarchy to the end game in a few days."
U.S. and U.N. officials also warn, however, that identifying new leaders and balancing disparate ethnic and religious communities -- plus coping with the anticipated backlash from excluded parties, including key members of the Iraqi Governing Council -- could eat up the entire month. Iraq's volatility could also complicate or defer consultations.
"Brahimi wants to finish it on this trip, if he can. But there may be other complications, like Fallujah on his last trip," said Ahmed Fawzi, Brahimi's spokesman.
But much of the political legwork has quietly been done over the past two weeks in Baghdad and Washington as well as the United Nations. Names of candidates for the four senior positions have already begun to circulate in Washington and New York, despite categorical denials from the United Nations and the Bush administration that final decisions have been made.
"Brahimi doesn't have definite plans. He's going in with an open mind having launched his sketchy ideas two weeks ago. He'll see how things will play out. We don't have a handbook that says, 'Instructions, here's how we do it,' " Fawzi added.
During talks in Baghdad last month, Brahimi asked several parties -- from a panel of Iraqi judges and the Governing Council to the U.S.-led coalition ruling Iraq -- to come up with slates of candidates. From these, he hopes to find common ground and then name a slate of candidates, U.S. and U.N. officials say.
As prime minister, a favorite of the U.S.-led coalition in Baghdad is Planning Minister Mahdi Hafez, the Shiite minister of planning who met Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other senior U.S. and U.N. officials during a quiet visit to the United States last week, U.S. officials said. Hafez, a former communist who became a moderate, is considered a capable technocrat who could lead a caretaker government until elections are held early next year, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.
"People think he's honest and not corrupt, which is rare," said a senior U.S. official who served in Iraq. Added a Kurdish official: "He's a solid compromise candidate. No one is likely to feel threatened by him."
But U.S. officials are also concerned that U.S. and British news reports naming Hafez last week, before Brahimi and National Security Council Iraq troubleshooter Robert D. Blackwill get to Baghdad, could taint or doom his potential candidacy.
The other politician cited by many is Ibrahim Jafari, the Shiite leader of the Islamic Dawa Party and one of 25 members on the council that is likely to be dissolved and replaced by the interim government. Among Iraq's many political parties, Dawa had the highest support, at 14 percent, in an ABC News poll in mid-March.
Jafari also held talks with the United Nations and the Bush administration last week about forming a new government. "There needs to be consensus on the interim government," Jafari told reporters in Washington. "It may not reflect what I want as it's not elected, but it should be close to it."
He also pledged to work with the Brahimi-Blackwill mission. "We have to work with them so they succeed," Jafari said.
But Brahimi and Blackwill could face serious opposition from other Iraqis. Muhammed Bahr Uloum, a prominent Shiite member of the Governing Council, rejected Brahimi's mediation and warned Friday that Iraqis would rise up if the United Nations is allowed to pick the new government.
"We are not under age in need of a guardian. Iraqis are not a herd of 27 million people to be directed by Brahimi and the coalition," Uloum said. "Iraqis will take to the streets if Brahimi insists on his view."
The position of Shiite politicians is important because Shiites make up more than 60 percent of Iraq's population. The coalition is also scrambling to develop a political exit strategy because Iraq's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, rejected two handover plans. One of the biggest uncertainties over the next two months is how Sistani will react either to the U.N. plan or the Iraqis selected as caretakers, U.S. officials said.
Shiites are also expected to assume two of the top four posts and the largest share of cabinet positions. The prime minister is expected to be a Shiite, while the largely ceremonial presidency would be a Sunni and the two vice presidents would be a Shiite and a Kurd, U.S. and U.N. officials said.
The two Kurds mentioned by U.S. officials as possible vice presidents are Barham Salih of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and Rowsch Shaways of the Kurdish Democratic Party. But Kurds have their own concerns.
After talks with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Brahimi on Friday, Iraqi Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani insisted that political parties must be at the center of the transition. He pressed for the Governing Council to be retained and expanded from 25 to 50 or 75 people. Talabani is also on the council.
"This would be in parallel to the caretaker government," said Salih, who accompanied Talabani. It "would act like a senate or a national conference."
Under Brahimi's tentative plan, a national gathering of 1,000 to 1,500 Iraqis would meet, probably after June 30, to select a body of 100 to 200 people to act as an advisory council to the caretaker government.
Although Brahimi will take the lead, Blackwill has become his partner in the process and is likely to remain in Baghdad until a government is named, U.S. officials said. But unlike earlier efforts, the United States will keep a low profile.
"It's important that the U.N. be seen as an independent entity out there," the senior administration official said. "If he's seen as an instrument of the United States, it would undermine the outcome we wish to have."
Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.
? 2004 The Washington Post Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Command Errors Aided Iraq Abuse, Army Has Found
By JAMES RISEN
n internal Army investigation has found that key military intelligence officers and civilian employees in Iraq may have spurred acts of abuse and humiliation by American enlisted personnel against Iraqi detainees at an overcrowded prison outside Baghdad.
A report on the investigation, seen Sunday by The New York Times, as well as other documents seen by The Times, also reveal a much broader pattern of command failures than initially acknowledged by the Pentagon and the Bush administration in responding to outrage over the abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison.
Officials said Sunday that the Army had opened two new investigations into the abuse allegations. One inquiry just under way by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, the incoming deputy commander of Army intelligence, is examining the interrogation practices of military intelligence officers at all American-run prisons in Iraq and not just the Abu Ghraib prison 20 miles west of Baghdad, where the worst abuses occurred.
The second review was ordered on Saturday by Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, head of the Army Reserve, to assess the training of all reservists, especially military police and intelligence officers, the soldiers most likely to handle prisoners. Six members of an Army Reserve military police unit assigned to Abu Ghraib face charges of assault, cruelty, indecent acts and maltreatment of detainees.
The main Army investigation of abuse, first reported in the new edition of The New Yorker, has found that key military intelligence officers and civilian employees may have actively encouraged acts of abuse and humiliation by American enlisted personnel against Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.
The investigation, led by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, identified two military intelligence officers and two civilian contractors for the Army as key figures in the abuse cases at Abu Ghraib. In his internal report on his findings in the investigation, General Taguba said he suspected the four were "either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and strongly recommended disciplinary action."
The Pentagon and Bush administration have called the abuse an isolated case as they have sought to respond to the widespread condemnation of photographs released last week that show American soldiers abusing and sexually humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib late last year.
So far, six enlisted personnel from a reserve military police unit have been charged in the military abuse cases. The Taguba report found that they were never properly trained or supervised and that they had done the bidding of secret interrogators from the intelligence community. It found that in effect, the military police were told to soften up the prisoners so they would talk more freely in interrogations conducted by intelligence officials.
The Taguba report states that "military intelligence interrogators and other U.S. Government Agency interrogators actively requested that M.P. guards set physical and mental conditions for favorable interrogation of witnesses." The report noted that one civilian interrogator, a contractor from a company called CACI and attached to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, "clearly knew his instructions" to the military police equated to physical abuse.
The report and other documents reveal that Army investigators found a virtual collapse of the command structure in the prison, allowing midlevel military intelligence officers to skirt the normal chain of command to issue questionable orders to enlisted personnel from the reserve military police unit handling guard duty there.
Gary Myers, a lawyer for Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, one of the enlisted men charged in the case, requested this weekend that the Army open a court of inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, a move that would broaden the investigation beyond the six enlisted personnel to look at the broader command failures.
In addition to the Army documents, The Times has obtained, from people close to the case, a series of photographs taken by American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, showing acts of sexual humiliation and other abuses.
Some of the photographs have been broadcast and published in recent days, since the CBS News program "60 Minutes II" first broadcast them Wednesday. One photo shows a naked Iraqi man kneeling in front of another naked Iraqi man, who is standing over him with a bag over his head, while another shows a female American soldier pointing as an Iraqi man with a bag over his head is masturbating.
Another photo shows an American soldier sitting on top of a naked Iraqi man, who is straining to look up, and still more photos show naked Iraqi men in a human pyramid.
The photographs, some included in evidence in the Army's investigation, support the conclusions of the Taguba report, which found that "between October and December, 2003, at the Abu Ghraib Confinement Facility, numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees" by members of the 800th Military Police Brigade. "This systemic and illegal abuse of detainees was intentionally perpetrated by several members of the military police guard force in Tier 1-A of the Abu Ghraib Prison."
In addition, the report said, "there were also abuses committed by members of the 325th Military Intelligence Battalion, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, and the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center."
Documents from an April 2 military court hearing in Iraq for Sergeant Frederick provide new details about the abuse. The documents show that Specialist Matthew Carl Wisdom, of the 372nd Military Police Company at Abu Ghraib, appeared in the hearing and described some of the acts of abuse he saw committed by other military police.
"I went down to Tier 1 (the cellblock where much of the abuse is said to have occurred) and when I looked down the corridor, I saw two naked detainees, one masturbating to another kneeling with its mouth open," he is quoted as saying in the documents. "I thought I should just get out of there. I didn't think it was right, as it seemed like the wrong thing to do. I saw SSG Frederick walking towards me, and he said, `look what these animals do when you leave them alone for two seconds.' "
Some of the graphic photos of abuse were entered into evidence in the court hearing, and individual soldiers involved in them were identified. One photo shows a Pvt. Lynndie R. England standing next to an Iraqi man masturbating. The court documents state that she told investigators that SSG Frederick "motioned the detainee's hands back and forward on its penis to coax the detainee to masturbate himself," the court documents state. "He then made Pfc. England pose in a picture next to the detainee. She said she didn't want to pose, but she did it anyway," the court document states.
The Taguba report reserves its sharpest criticism for the officers in charge of the military police and military intelligence units in the prison.
"There is abundant evidence in the statements of numerous witnesses that soldiers throughout the 800th M.P. Brigade were not proficient" in basic skills needed to operate the prison, the report found.
A crucial problem, the report found, was the bad relationship between the commanders of the military police unit and the military intelligence officers. The report found that there "was clear friction and lack of effective communication" between Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of the accused soldiers, and military intelligence officials operating in the prison.
"There was no clear delineation of responsibility between commands, little coordination at the command level, and no integration of the two functions," the report said. "Coordination occurred at the lowest possible levels with little oversight by commanders."
The report said the "ambiguous command relationship" in the prison was made worse by orders that seemed to give military intelligence officials broad authority inside the prison.
The orders from occupation commanders in Iraq effectively made a military intelligence officer, rather than an M.P. officer, responsible for the M.P. units, the report said. This arrangement was not supported by GeneralKarpinski, the report added, and "is not doctrinally sound due to the different missions and agendas assigned to each of these respective specialties."
But while the Taguba report criticizes military intelligence's role in the abuse, it does not spare General Karpinski. During interviews with the Taguba investigation, she "was extremely emotional during much of her testimony," the report found. "What I found particularly disturbing in her testimony was her complete unwillingness to either understand or accept that many of the problems inherent in the 800th M.P. Brigade were caused or exacerbated by poor leadership and the refusal of her command to both establish and enforce basic standards and principles among its soldiers."
The report adds that "she blames much of the abuse that occurred in Abu Ghraib on military intelligence personnel and stated that M.I. personnel had given the military police "ideas" that led to the abuse.
The Taguba investigation recommended that General Karpinski be relieved of command and reprimanded for a series of command failures related to the abuse.
General Karpinski said Saturday that she was sickened by the photos of the abuse.
The report also states that an Air Force psychiatrist, Dr. Henry Nelson, has determined "that there was evidence that the horrific abuses suffered by the detainees at Abu Ghraib were wanton acts of select soldiers in an unsupervised and dangerous setting."
"There was a complex interplay of many psychological factors and command insufficiencies," he added.
Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An All-Investor Nation
Time to transform Social Security into a wealth-creating vehicle.
By Larry Kudlow
Imagine if every worker in the United States had the opportunity to become an investor. Well, that dream has a shot at reality.
In his 2004 State of the Union address President Bush suggested that workers be given the ability to redirect a portion of their payroll taxes into individual retirement accounts. That was a big statement. It means there's now a legitimate chance of transforming Social Security from a financially bankrupt system into a source of real ownership and prosperity for all Americans.
Many Americans are investors, but not all. According to the Federal Reserve, 31.6 percent of households owned stock either directly or indirectly in 1989. By 2001 that number was 51.9 percent.
Since the Reagan presidency the country has made great strides toward democratizing capitalism by reducing marginal tax rates, deregulating the financial-services industry, and creating savings vehicles like IRAs and 401(k)s. Bush's latest proposal to create Lifetime Savings Accounts is another step in this right direction.
That said, the greatest impediment to saving, investing, creating wealth, and retiring prosperously is still the payroll tax -- which is presently 12.4 percent. Each payday workers see half of that go to today's retirees as well as many government programs. This depletes household savings and diminishes wealth, leaving too many Americans dependant on the government for retirement income.
When discussing even the idea of personal retirement accounts skeptics always point to the volatility of the stock market. What they fail to realize is that Social Security is a riskier scheme than the market will ever be. The government can at any time raise taxes or cut benefits. Moreover, workers born after 1960 are expected to receive a real rate of return on their payroll-tax contributions of less than 2 percent. Alan Greenspan stated this in 1999; his estimate was likely generous.
This measly rate of return (which is actually negative for African-Americans, a group with high mortality rates) is not a fair deal for retirees -- today or in the future. Even workers who put their money in standard government-insured savings accounts will earn higher rates of return than what the current Social Security system can provide.
But there's an alternative. According to a study by the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, a worker with a large personal retirement account can expect a return that's 60 percent greater than what's promised under the current system. As a Cato Institute study has shown, even during the worst twenty-year period for stocks, 1929 to 1948, the market's average rate of return was 3.36 percent -- a better return than Social Security promises today.
Dissenters also point to the collapse of Enron as further evidence the stock market is a "risky scheme." To the contrary, the Dow Jones closed at 9,736 the day after Enron's bankruptcy was announced in December 2001. Today it hovers above 10,400. Investors, who account for two out of three of all voters, have demonstrated by perseverance amid short-term shocks that they know the market is an immense source of long-run wealth. The investor class can vouch for the common sense of personal retirement accounts.
It's interesting that many who adamantly oppose personal retirement accounts already have their personal pensions in the stock market. In fact, state and local governments have been investing pension money in private stocks and bonds for generations. Members of Congress and other federal workers also have the option to invest in private markets. Why can't ordinary people have this opportunity?
The truth is they should. Individual retirement accounts are not a risk, but an historic opportunity to increase prosperity for all.
The question remains "How?" -- but the Alliance for Retirement Prosperity has an excellent answer. This group -- led by former congressman and HUD Secretary Jack Kemp, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, and former Social Security Commissioner Dorcas Hardy -- is devoted to enacting legislation that will enable all Americans to invest at least half of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts.
Under their scheme, the government, in effect, becomes the plan sponsor, putting the appropriate funds on the table and guaranteeing something akin to a death benefit should individuals lose money over forty years. In the unlikely event that market performance falls below promised Social Security benefits, government fills in the difference. In the likelier scenario that investment-market performance exceeds Social Security returns, investors pocket the gain.
This plan -- vacant of draconian tax increases or benefit cuts -- is on the money. Today there's a small window of opportunity for transforming Social Security into a vehicle that creates wealth and retirement prosperity for individuals, households, and communities. All Americans can have the chance to realize the American Dream if every American becomes an investor and every worker an owner.
-- Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is CEO of Kudlow & Co. and host with Jim Cramer of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
On Liberty & Lawyers
The Supreme Court hears arguments in the enemy combatant cases.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
In a very real way, listening to the Supreme Court of the United States spend two days poring over the implications of detaining enemy combatants during wartime should fill any American with a deep sense of pride. One is reminded how singular a privilege it is to live in a nation that so venerates liberty it will bestir itself to agitate even over the liberty of those trying to annihilate us -- not so much because of what it means to them as what it says about us.
It is, though, a tempered pride. "Liberty" so readily evanesces from a concrete circumstance to a lofty universal aspiration to a propagandist's jingo. As it makes that warped transition, it increasingly resides in a vacuum, ever more remote from the real world, where it must compete with other facts on the ground. Facts like this one: It's no longer September 10, 2001. That old world is gone forever.
The dismaying part about the arguments in the three combatants' cases the Court is grappling with -- one heard last week concerning foreign combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay and two on Wednesday dealing with American citizens held in military brigs here at home -- is that it's principally Liberty the Jingo that is at issue. We are breathlessly warned that the Constitution is under assault; George W. Bush has torn it asunder by declaring the right to lock up anyone -- meaning any American, in any place, at any time -- and hold him indefinitely, or until the end of the vaporous "War on Terror," which could take, as Justice O'Connor speculated, 25 to 50 years. At Guantanamo Bay, moreover, the President is claimed to have erected a lawless black hole, away from the watchful eyes and jurisdiction of federal judges, for encaging foreigners on the mere suspicion of being Mulsim. Liberty, the scaremongers wail, is besieged.
How far is the propaganda from the reality? Well, the war is now over 30 months old. During that time, in a nation of about 300 million American citizens, the president has designated exactly three -- three -- American citizens as enemy combatants. One, Jose Padilla (a.k.a. "Abdullah al Muhajir"), who trained with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and urged a post-9/11 mission involving the detonation of a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a major American city, is said to have been dispatched here by al Qaeda's operational leaders to conduct massive attacks on dense residential areas and industrial infrastructure. Another, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, is alleged to have been part of a sleeper cell activated post-9/11 in the U.S. for a second wave of attacks (the government has tied him by phone records to a suspected 9/11 financier, whose number, in the run-up to the suicide hijackings, was also called by ringleader Mohammed Atta). The third, Yasar Esam Hamdi, was captured while armed on the battlefield fighting on behalf of enemy forces that even today -- as Army Ranger Pat Tillman's combat death in Afghanistan just last week poignantly reminds us -- continue hunting and killing Americans.
It is in light of these cases that the shock troops of the civil liberties jihad want you to think George Bush is coming for you, too.
But the caterwauling about the purported liberty interests of terrorists has nothing to do with the reality of liberty for you. Unless there's a colorable case that you are on the verge of indiscriminate mass homicide or are about to tote your AK-47 through Kandahar any time soon, your liberty is safe -- and your security to enjoy it is better assured because the people who want to kill you are in the brig.
And what of Guantanamo Bay? These are enemy fighters captured on the battlefield. There is, it bears repeating, a war going on. We could have killed them. Instead, we took the lesser measure of capturing them. As the Defense Department has recently announced, over 10,000 people -- enemy forces and their sympathizers -- have been removed from theaters of combat in Afghanistan. They were not all shunted off to Gitmo. They were, instead, initially screened to determine whether they were actually enemy combatants, whether they posed a continuing threat to our forces, and whether interrogating them extensively would likely yield intelligence that could help defeat the enemy, save lives, and end hostilities more promptly. Of the roughly 10,000, less than eight percent, or a little under 800, were shipped to Gitmo, where they have been humanely held and interrogated.
Contrary to the bombast, the military does not have a great incentive to hold captives endlessly. Once their intelligence value is exhausted, detaining them is burdensome, and makes sense only insofar as they pose a mortal threat. As a result, of the original 800 Gitmo detainees, scores have already been released -- to the point where we are now holding perhaps 650 prisoners, the ones believed to be most dangerous. And, as Newsweek reports this week, releasing many of these may have been a profound mistake -- and one made with an eye toward appeasing critics who, we should know by now, will never be mollified as long as even one terrorist's exertions are being impeded. The released detainees are, predictably, rejoining the battle, taking up arms once again against America.
At too many times during the arguments, in the remove and grandeur of a courtroom far, far from the smolder of the battlefield, Liberty the Jingo seemed awfully weighty as it jousted with these and other new world facts. Our nation has been viciously attacked. Three thousand of our fellow citizens were slaughtered. The enemy demolished a staunch symbol of the economy that is the backbone of our free society, while simultaneously striking at the seat of our military might. We are in a state of war, and it is anything but technical. Nearly 150,000 of our armed forces are in harm's way, lining hot battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are still being shot at, wounded and killed. Further, the enemy brayed to the world only days ago that it was working, ever working, to plot attacks during 2004 that promise to dwarf those of 9/11 -- even as the carnage of the last three years still stuns Madrid, Baghdad, Riyadh, Istanbul, Bali, Casablanca, Djerba, and other victims of militant Islam.
Despite all that, it was not the combatants' counsel but the government that was pressed hardest by the Supreme Court, some of whose members were viscerally disturbed about the seeming "indefinite[ness]" of the detentions. No one quibbled with the President's undoubted power to round up combatants in the first hours or days after the 9/11 attacks, but, for goodness sake, it's been two-and-a-half years now, and how are we to know how long these people will be held without trial?
It's the kind of abstraction closest to a lawyer's heart: the argument based on some hypothetical abuse peculiarly detached from the facts on the ground. Thirty months would indeed be a long time if the last shots had been fired long ago. As it happens, there is a very live war going on. It is a war that will destroy all of our liberties if we don't win. But part of the Court plainly wants the government to pick a number out of the air -- 30 months? three years? five? Some arbitrary time, unrelated to the progress of the war, when it would somehow feel like justice to say: You've held them long enough -- charge them with crimes or let them go.
This misses two core points. First, as already noted, letting them go while hostilities rage means letting them go shoot at our troops or terrorize our homeland. The idea here is to defeat the enemy, not send it reinforcements. Second, the arguments seemed devoid of any sense of how harmful court proceedings could be to an ongoing war. Justice Breyer opined that we use the court system all the time to neutralize bad guys -- as if Congress had authorized the President after 9/11 to fight the Latin Kings or the Bonanno Family. At least twice, Justice Ginsberg matter-of-factly asserted that the combatants must be presumed innocent. Well, with due respect, no. They are not criminal defendants -- at least not now.
They are enemy combatants. Upon being confronted by our troops on the battlefield, they are not presumed innocent; they are attacked, killed, or captured. Capturing them is part of the war effort, not a conversion into a court case. We are not trying to convict them; we are trying to defeat them. And we would decidedly not be advancing the urgent national cause of defeating them if we brought them to court, armed them with all the rights of criminal defendants, and had trial judges instruct jurors that they should presumptively be walked out the courthouse door unless the government has produced compelling quanta of proof -- evidence the publication of which, through our very public criminal process and generous discovery rules, would arm the enemy, in the midst of the war, with a trove of intelligence about our information, our sources of it, our methods of obtaining it.
Further lawyering the war process, some members of the Court, Justice Souter in particular, factitiously parsed the sweeping use-of-force authorization Congress extended to the president a week after the 9/11 attacks. The government argues, based on the Civil War-era Prize Cases, that the president is independently vested with power to repel threats against the U.S., and that, when that power is enhanced by a congressional authorization, the executive stands at the apex of his constitutional warrant. In this instance, America was brutally attacked, and Congress reacted within days with a joint resolution exhorting the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" that either carried out the attacks, harbor those who did, or are planning future attacks. It could not be clearer that Congress did not distinguish between Americans and non-Americans -- and it was already well known in 2001 that some al Qaeda affiliated terrorists were Americans, and that some of its cells operated domestically; we had established that during the terrorism trials of the 1990's.
But Justice Souter -- seeming oddly insulated from both al Qaeda's recent threats and its onslaught of international atrocities -- appeared to think the president's own authority to meet and defeat threats on the U.S. had petered out within a few days of 9/11. That left the congressional resolution, about which he and others brainstormed that perhaps it didn't really mean what it says. Does the use of force -- which indisputably includes killing -- really include the less drastic measure of capturing and holding? And, sure, Congress said all "persons" but did it really mean American citizens and those captured on American soil?
This, a friend of mine has jibed, is why people hate lawyers. And it's hard to argue with that. As Justice Kennedy wisely observed, historically declarations of war are simply not written to contemplate every conceivable contingency. But at times, listening to the justices, one imagined future declarations: monstrosities that would look more like the tax code or the federal sentencing guidelines than timely, clear, unadorned directions to do the things that for centuries have been done by nations to vanquish aggressive belligerents.
This also brings front and center a reason why conservatives so often complain about the Court's imperiousness. Even the justices most manifestly troubled did not seem to doubt that Congress could authorize, and the president execute, the use of even overwhelming deadly force. Nor was there real dispute that the power to do the greater necessarily includes the power to do the lesser -- that it is appropriate merely to capture and detain those you are empowered to kill. Nor, really, could it thus be credibly questioned that the authorization, as written here, could easily be construed to permit the detention of all enemy combatants until the end of hostilities. But rather than leave it at that, some of the justices want more -- a positive statement that the facts of these specific cases were within the ambit of legislative contemplation, as well as a certain date when, regardless of what impact it might have on national security, we can either begin jury selection or open the jailhouse doors.
Of course, even if Congress gave them all that, there would be another case tomorrow with new facts unexpressed in the revised resolution, and the merry-go-round would start anew. More to the point, the give-us-more methodology bespeaks a lack of faith in the political process and ignores that Congress often speaks by not speaking. Maybe there's no new resolution because there's no popular perception of a problem. If the American people were up in arms about the detention of three American terrorists and 650 foreign enemy troops who belong to forces that have thus far killed over 700 of our military and thousands of our civilians, there would be little reason to fear. There would quickly be a plethora of legislation calling for release, or at least greater scrutiny of the administration's actions. If broad coalitions in Congress thought for a second that the president's actions had breached the confines of the post-9/11 resolution, there would be a new resolution, cabining executive action where it had heretofore been excessive. That this has not happened is eloquent testimony to the measure, reasonableness, and humanity-indeed, the American-ness -- with which we have met our foes, even as they pursue their holy war.
It is difficult to predict how the combatant cases will be resolved. Oral argument is not always a good barometer of where judges stand on a dispute; sometimes their questions convey a view, sometimes they are merely meant to provoke and challenge, the better to sharpen the debate. In the Guantanamo case, the Court should stay out of it and let the branch responsible for fighting the war -- which has done it thus far to great effect and with dignity -- decide whom to kill, whom to capture, and whom to hold, without judicial second-guessing. But even if the Court flexes its muscles by seizing unprecedented review power, it is likely to exercise that power deferentially, approving the military's actions and giving our enemies scant reason for hope -- although potentially bogging the war effort down in legal process.
The American enemy combatants are a more worrisome call. It would be nice if the Court reaffirmed its World War II era ruling in Ex Parte Quirin that being an American does not inoculate an enemy from unlawful combatant treatment; but even if the Court were to lay groundwork for future, periodic judicial scrutiny to ensure that detention remains warranted, it is hard to believe the justices will look past the continuing al Qaeda peril and swing open the door to civilian trials, and all the damage they could wreak, in the middle of a war.
All that, however, is almost secondary. What these cases best display is that liberty, as both an ideal and a reality, is alive and well. For all the pernicious atmospherics, our government has been a model of restraint, and these essential detentions do not foreshadow tyrannical abuse.
-- Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, is an NRO contributor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A Call for Kerry to Diversify His Assets
By Dana Milbank
Sunday, May 2, 2004; Page A05
Que pasa, Se?or Kerry?
Charges of a whitewash continue to dog the Democratic challenger to President Bush. The National Council of La Raza, a powerful Hispanic political organization, sent a letter to John F. Kerry last week protesting the "remarkable and unacceptable absence of Latinos" in his campaign.
Pointing to an April 16 Kerry news release about 28 "senior staff" appointments, NCLR President Raul Yzaguirre wrote: Not "a single one of your senior staff is Latino. Quite frankly we find this deeply troubling and raise questions about the seriousness of your commitment to diversity."
Nor was the Hispanic group placated by an April 22 follow-up announcement by Kerry of various "community outreach" workers, many of whom are Latino. This "only reinforces perceptions that your campaign views Hispanics as a voting constituency to be mobilized, but not as experts to be consulted in shaping policy," Yzaguirre wrote.
This comes after similar complaints from African Americans. Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) told the Associated Press that he was "concerned" and suggested that "the senator should remedy this very quickly."
The Kerry campaign has moved hastily to address its lack of black talent, announcing last week that two African Americans had been named to senior positions.
But what about the Hispanics?
"Latinos are involved at all levels of this campaign in all departments -- including the top echelon," Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in a statement. "Additionally, it is important to note that the hiring -- much like the campaign -- has just begun." She named senior political adviser Paul Rivera, director of Hispanic outreach Luis Elizondo-Thomson, regional political director Lisa Garcia, deputy press secretary Dag Vega and director of Internet operations Luis Miranda.
And don't forget Vice President Bill Richardson.
"Oh, that's a secret," Cutter replied.
Dem Panic Watch, Part III
Plus, how to restructure Kerry's campaign.
By Mickey Kaus
Updated Sunday, May 2, 2004, at 2:34 AM PT
Dem Panic Watch 3: Brazile ... Edwards ... Rendell ... "one senior Democratic official" ... maybe Carter Eskew too! ... P.S.: Is it a horrible disadvantage--as the NYT's Nagourney, following the WashTimes' Lambro, suggests--that Kerry doesn't yet have an Ohio campaign director or a "full-fledged campaign 'war room'" six months before the election? Not even anti-Kerry RealClearPolitics thinks this is a big deal. ... Vain, pompous, dissembling candidate--important! Delay in fully-staffing 'war room'--not important! .... P.P.S.: Nagourney argues that a robust war room would have improved the Kerry response in the "medals" controversy--apparently by marshaling "surrogates" to rebut Good Morning America's charge instead of having Kerry go on the show and fight with Charlie Gibson. Hmmm. Wasn't that the sort of charge a candidate would normally be expected to answer himself? If a surrogate (or friendly foe like McCain) can handle that question, maybe surrogates can handle the candidate's other tasks too, like developing a "message"! ... Maybe the candidate can stay out of the public eye entirely for six months while the surrogates do the actual campaigning for him!... Maybe the Kerry campaign could streamline its problematic organizational structure by eliminating the candidate and running a group of these more appealing surrogates instead! ... Nagourney may be on to something here. ... 1:38 A.M.
Faster Iraq Watch: George Will joins the are-we-really-going-to-try-to-wait-until-January-to-have-elections-in-Iraq camp. Count me in. It would be great if months could be spent lovingly building the supportive intermediary institutions of civil society, but this is a luxury we don't seem to have. ... 5:13 P.M.
Dem Panic Watch 2: Coelho (who may have an ax to grind from 2000) and Brazile! ... 2:31 P.M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Westerners in Saudi packing their bags
Reuters News Service
YANBU, Saudi Arabia -- American and European families packed their bags today after Saturday's deadly attack on foreigners.
Gunmen killed four and wounded two Houston-based workers of an international engineering company Saturday. Six Westerners were killed in all, and more than two dozen Saudis were wounded.
The 90 employees of ABB-Lummus in Yanbu and their families all decided to leave within days, company spokesman Bjorn Edlund told The Associated Press. Most of the employees are Americans, but they also include Britons, Australians, Filipinos and Indians.
"Not surprisingly, everyone wanted to go home," Edlund said.
Many expatriates in Yanbu said it was too soon to decide whether to leave. "It's been a shock," said one. "There's been no panic but everyone is concerned and they will have to decide what steps to take."
U.S. government advice was unambiguous: "Last night we sent a message to all Americans," an embassy spokeswoman said. "Our advice stands. Americans should not travel to Saudi Arabia and those that are here should depart."
The U.S. Embassy in Riyadh issued a message today saying its staff would leave diplomatic compounds only for essential business "until further notice." It canceled all social events involving guests at the embassy or at the U.S. consulates in Jiddah and Dhahran.
Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, the U.S. consul general, advised Americans to leave the kingdom.
Britain's ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Sherard Cowper-Coles, visited Yanbu, 220 miles north of Jiddah, to insist that the attack would not cause "a mass exodus" of foreigners.
But behind closed doors, dozens of Westerners prepared to leave.
"It's not safe here anymore. I don't think I can stay any longer," said a Canadian engineer, walking inside a foreigners' compound with his young daughter. Like many Westerners, he refused to give his name out of concern for his safety.
Families of Americans walked quietly through the Radhwa housing compound, across the street from the Holiday Inn, but wouldn't speak to reporters. Many Westerners were visibly nervous.
"It's a little freaky out here," said Nick Dockett, a 36-year-old engineer from London. He quit his job with ABB in Yanbu two weeks ago and was preparing to move to Thailand when the attack occurred. "I guess I made the move at the right time," he said.
Saudi police beefed up security in the city, home to a large foreign business community, erecting checkpoints and roadblocks, after Saturday's attack. The four gunmen were later killed in clashes with police. Two officers also died and 18 were injured.
Crown Prince Abdullah said "foreign elements" were behind the killing and Saudi Ambassador to Britain Turki al-Faisal said he believed al-Qaida was responsible.
State oil firm Saudi Aramco has vowed to guard vital oil assets and protect employees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panel Seeks Steps for Cuba Regime Change
51 minutes ago
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A government commission is recommending to President Bush (news - web sites) a series of measures to cut U.S. dollar flows to Cuba as part of a broader policy to hasten the end of the country's communist system, an administration official said Sunday night.
AP Photo
A commission report, in preparation for six months and overseen by Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), also calls for steps to overcome Cuban jamming of U.S.-government sponsored radio and television broadcasts to Cuba, the official said.
The official, asking not to be identified in advance of the report's public release, said it urges increased support for Cuban dissidents and families of political prisoners and also calls for measures to encourage foreign governments to distance themselves from the Cuban regime.
Last October, Bush announced the creation of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba and set a May 1 deadline for completion of a report. The concept and the timing appeared to be linked to maintaining in the November elections the solid support Bush received in 2000 from Cuban-Americans in Florida. Without their backing, the election would have gone to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites).
Four of the five chapters in the 500-page report deal with ways to assist a post-Castro government that seeks to establish democracy. The other chapter focuses on ways to end Castro's government.
Until now, the administration's policy has been to hasten a democratic transition in Cuba. The commission report goes a step further in recommending what amounts to regime change. Bush is expected make a final decision on the report later in the week. Some details in the report were disclosed in Sunday's editions of The Miami Herald.
Cuban officials have been awaiting the commission's recommendations with intense interest, warning citizens that U.S. military action could not be ruled out.
In a May Day speech on Saturday, Castro said Cuba would defend itself "to the last drop of blood," against possible U.S. aggression. Administration officials should be "calmer, more sensible, wiser and more intelligent" than they have been in the past in their policy toward Cuba, Castro said.
Bush has thwarted efforts by Congress to ease the U.S. embargo against Cuba but has disappointed some in the Cuban-American community for not doing more to bring about Castro's demise.
Still unresolved, according to the administration official, was a decision on whether to recommend a cut in the legal limit of $1,200 a year that Cuban-Americans are allowed to send to friends and relatives on the island. Much of the money ends up in government coffers.
Some officials are advocating that remittances be eliminated altogether to deprive Castro of an important source of income. Others recommend that the current limit be retained for humanitarian reasons. The official predicted that the final decision would be somewhere in between.
Another target is revenue that Cuba reaps from overweight baggage fees paid by Cuban-Americans who fly to Cuba with medicine and other items. The official said the report recommends that passengers departing for Cuba adhere to the 40-pound weight limit to avoid overweight fees on arrival.
------------------------------------------------------
Most believe Saddam is guilty of atrocities, will be put to death
Fri Apr 30, 6:24 AM ET
By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
Iraqis expect Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to be put on trial this year, found guilty and sentenced to death for murdering Iraqi civilians, a new poll shows.
The Iraqi judicial system should "tell the world about his atrocities," says Ala Maki, an official of the Iraqi Governing Council. "That is the only way to learn the lesson of such a brutal dictatorship."
A USA/CNN/Gallup national poll of Iraqis shows a majority of all religious and ethnic groups believe the former dictator ordered torture, killing and the use of poison gas on Iraqi civilians.
Even Saddam's fellow Sunni Muslims, by greater than 60%, say he ordered the deaths of Iraqis. A plurality of them call for the death penalty. The majority Shiite Muslims and minority Kurds, both of whom were oppressed by Saddam, are virtually unanimous in their opinion that he is guilty of murdering Iraqis.
Saddam has been in U.S. custody since he was captured near Tikrit in December. Two months before the U.S. turnover of sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government, it's not clear when or how a trial for Saddam would be held, or by what method his execution would be carried out. U.S. authorities have said that Saddam will be turned over to Iraqis to face justice.
The poll also shows many Iraqis aren't sure he'll get a fair trial. A quarter of the people say a fair trial is not likely. Among the doubters, Sunnis say he'll get convicted whether he's guilty or not. Shiites say he could be found innocent even though he's guilty.
The Red Cross recently visited Saddam and said he was treated properly and was in good health.
--------------------------------------------------------------
>> MALAYSIA WATCH
Nuke Rules
We don't want to, but it looks like now we'll have to:
The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Wednesday requiring all 191 U.N. member-states to pass laws to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists and black marketeers.
...International treaties now target weapons proliferation by governments - but there are no laws to prevent "non-state actors" such as crooked scientists, black marketeers and terrorists from obtaining such weapons.
...The resolution requires all U.N. member states to adopt laws to prevent "non-state actors" from manufacturing, acquiring or trafficking in nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the materials to make them, and the missiles and other systems to deliver them.
It also requires all countries to take measures to account for, and secure, all banned weapons, missiles and weapons material and to develop border controls and step up law enforcement efforts "to detect, deter, prevent and combat ... the illicit trafficking and brokering in such items."
All countries are required to submit a report on their implementation of the resolution within six months to a new committee. It will remain in existence for "no longer than two years." [Associated Press via The Wall Street Journal Online]
Malaysia has all along been hesitant to introduce such laws; the latest case being one related to the Scomi affair.
With this resolution, we can be forced to do so:
The resolution was adopted under a chapter of the U.N. Charter which allows military enforcement if necessary. The Non-Aligned Movement, representing 116 mostly developing nations, objected, but Cunningham said the U.S. decided to keep the resolution under that chapter because it addresses "a threat to international peace and security."
The final draft makes clear, however, that there will be no unilateral enforcement. It expresses the Security Council's "intention to monitor closely the implementation of this resolution and, at the appropriate level, to take further decisions which may be required to this end."
I have argued that we, of our own volition and without anyone telling us to, should have introduced tighter controls, especially after the Scomi-BSA Tahir scandal.
Now we have no choice.
BTW Whatever happened to BSA Tahir?
Posted at 11:50 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Treaty-ing It Lightly
Presumably, the term "confidence building measures" does not hold much significance in these parts:
Malaysia is not keen to sign additional protocols to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the country lacks the capacity to fulfil the obligations required.
Director-general of the Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology Research (MINT) Datuk Dr Ahmad Sobri Hashim said the additional protocol regulates the import-export movement of components used in nuclear development.
These include centrifuge parts used for uranium enrichment.
If Malaysia signs the additional protocol, its "frontliners" like Customs officials, must be able to identify and report those parts to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
... As components like centrifuge parts can have multiple uses, it is often difficult even for experts to tell if they are meant for nuclear weapons development.
"The additional protocol contains a very subjective description of items. If trained nuclear scientists find it difficult to identify, how much more for frontliners like Customs officials? At the moment we lack the capacity at that level," he said. [via The New Straits Times Online]
We uncover a nuclear arms blackmarketeer and his activities in the country, but leave him unpunished.
We know certain safeguards would help prevent a recurrence of this embarrassing -- at the very least -- episode, but refuse to adopt them because it's supposedly too hard.
Should we be surprised at the insinuations thrown at us?
Sobri is right when he says that at the moment we lack the capacity. But the key phrase here is "at the moment."
We will never have the capacity if we don't start. And who says it's not doable?
We are more concerned about the export of such items, rather than imports, because Malaysia does not harbour nuclear arms ambitions.
So, we get every company and facility involved in producing materials and items that could be used in the production of nuclear weapons to declare in detail their capabilities in that area, open up their plants for monitoring and regular inspection, and allow our nuclear experts to examine every export-bound consignment of dual-use items at the production facility itself.
The onus would be on the producers and exporters to prove that they have complied with the law.
The state of our international standing should be important enough to justify the cost and effort to build up our capabilities in the areas that Sobri claims we are lacking.
Let's stop making lame excuses.
ONE MORE THING. When it comes to international treaties, shouldn't the Cabinet be the one to decide what we do or do not sign, and not the director-general of a government agency?
Posted at 12:27 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N Korea train blast cannot drive nuke talks
By Kosuke Takahashi
TOKYO - The ferocious train explosion in North Korea last week, the request for aid and the outpouring of international assistance has prompted speculation that just maybe the Hermit Kingdom will humanize a bit, open up a bit, recognize that it needs the outside world and cooperate in forthcoming working-level talks on defusing the Pyongang nuclear crisis.
The first six-party working-level talks on defusing the North Korean nuclear crisis will be held May 12 in Beijing in advance of a formal session yet to be scheduled this summer. Is there a rail link between Thursday's announcement of the talks and last week's devastating train explosion in North Korea, accompanied by an outpouring of international aid? Probably not.
Informed observers say the explosion, the details of which are still not known, will have little or no bearing on the first working-level talks scheduled in advance of formal six-party talks expected, but not yet scheduled for this summer. The parties are North Korea and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the United States, all but Pyongyang trying to put a permanent end to North Korea's nuclear programs in return for cheap energy, security guarantees and economic assistance.
The reasons are twofold: One, Pyongyang's response to the disaster hasn't revealed any change in North Korea's hostile attitudes toward the international community. Two, the United States is far more concerned with Iraq and the fighting in Fallujah than with North Korea - and it doesn't score points with voters by accommodating Pyongyang in any way.
"Despite the setup of the working group meeting on May 12, unfortunately the [US President George W] Bush administration is tied up with Iraqi issues, especially about [fighting insurgents in] Fallujah," said Douglas Ramsey, a consultancy manager with Jane's Information Group, affiliated with Jane's Defense Weekly. Ramsey is a commentator on security and defense issues, including Asia.
"The North's nuclear issue has become the back-burner issue at the Bush administration," Ramsey said in an interview with Asia Times Online. "Six-party talks will see no progress, unless some event drives it. Event-driven. But the train explosion is not big enough to drive it," said Ramsey, who is visiting Tokyo.
The impasse is likely to continue, but so will talks, at least that much is clear from Kim Jong-il's train trip to Beijing to meet Chinese leaders. He passed through the Ryongchon train station just eight or nine hours before it was flattened by an explosion last weekend. More than 160 people were killed, about half of them children; 1,300 were injured and more than 8,100 homes and 30 public buildings were destroyed, including an elementary school. Key manufacturing and industrial infrastructure, important to the failing economy, also were destroyed or damaged.
It's tempting to think that North Korea, which had refused international assistance in the past in disasters and famine, was revealing a new spirit of openness this time. Pyongyang, however, has been highly selective, refusing doctors, medicine, medical equipment, food, water and reconstruction teams from South Korea. It rejected the swift transport of supplies from south to north by road. This is the same old Pyongyang, observers say, that allows its people to suffer, and instead, requests color television sets, concrete and diesel fuel from the international community. The official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reports that stricken victims rushed back into burning buildings in order to "rescue" portraits of the "Dear Leader", Kim Jong-il. That speaks volumes about rigid ideology but says little about a new attitude in Pyongyang toward the international community.
So, this time again it is thinking about its regime's well-being first, before that of treatment-needy children. "Color televisions are not [the] answer for those children," said Ramsey. This type of request speaks volumes about the regime and its lack of sensibilities to the international perception," he said.
A week after the scourge of the massive rail explosion near the Chinese border, details of its damage are trickling out from the Hermit Kingdom. The Stalinist nation took the unusual step - for Pyongyang - of officially announcing the domestic catastrophe and welcoming aid workers to the site just two days after the explosion. Even in the "great famine" of the 1990s, in which millions of people died of starvation, North Korea did not seek aid from the international community. This also speaks volumes about the gravity of the explosion.
North Korea has refused any sort of external influence since its birth at the conclusion of World War II and has always avoided showing any weakening of internal control. It never wants to open the door because that would admit too many unwanted influences and the regime might come apart.
What really blew up?
Was it a nitrate explosion or a propane explosion? Details of the cause of the accident are still unknown, but eventually this too will trickle out in coming weeks and reveal a lot about North Korea's current energy and cash situation. Early reports said it was caused by the crash of two trains, one carrying fuel oil and the other liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), or some sort of chemicals, during the shunting of cargo. But later on, KCNA said two rail wagons, believed to be loaded with ammonium nitrate used for fertilizer, blew up during a shunting operation with fuel oil wagons. The information has been complicated and confusing at best.
"We are not sure about the cause," John Sparrow, the Red Cross' representative in Beijing, said in a telephone interview on Thursday with Asia Times Online. "There are many versions of what happened. In the first stage, some even said it [was] caused by dynamite."
Photographs and video footage from the site apparently showed the explosion of some combustible products. The explosion scattered debris over two kilometers of damage radius and left children injured by a wave of glass, rubble and blasts of hot air.
The Customs General Administration of China has been presenting intriguing and puzzling data to oil market players in Asia, possibly relating to the tragedy. Surprisingly, in light of its own chronic energy shortages, North Korea recently has been exporting LPG, commonly known as propane, to China. For example, the latest data showed it exported to China 1,225 tonnes of propane in January, and 608 tonnes last November, while Japan only exported to China 814 tonnes and 3 tonnes during the same respective periods.
China is also suffering an energy shortage and needs more fuel for its super-heated economy. Does it aim to bolster Pyongyang's desperately weak economy by providing hard currency for the gas? Or is it just to give North Korea some "carrots" in order to win some political compromise in the stalled six-party talks?
The explosion occurred very close to the North Korean border with China. Traded propane could well be related to the blast. Even if propane was not the cause, the world might want to know how many tons of ammonium nitrate, which Pyongyang cited as the combustible material, exploded, because this also has a bearing on the North's cash and energy situations.
Some medical aid workers saw parallels between the fiery train blast and the 1986 nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, Ukraine, that pushed the old Soviet Union to reform and finally collapse. But North Korea still represents the regime and personality cult built on mistrust of all outsiders since its inception, and this tragedy clearly will not nudge the Hermit Kingdom out of isolation.
Ramsey, the Jane's commentator, said that the huge amount of aid from the international community, including those in the six-party talks, will not induce North Korea to give up its nuclear program and what experts believe to be several weapons. North Koreans, he pointed out, always have extended their hands for assistance and given nothing in return. So far, there's no reason to change.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China, India: Difference in the details
By Lynette Ong
China and India are among the fastest growing economies in the world, with growth rates much admired by developing countries desperately struggling to crawl out of the poverty trap. Their abundance of relatively skilled labor at low cost has turned them into "factories of the world", and their huge populations in turn offer lucrative consumer markets for multinationals. These two Asian giants are tipped to become the world's next economic superpowers.
Nonetheless, a closer examination reveals that they offer competing models of development, though they became modern nations at about the same time, India in 1947, China in 1949. They launched reforms from different starting points: China embarked on market reforms in 1979 - a decade earlier than India - from a centrally planned, economically backward, agrarian economy; India initiated its reforms in the early 1990s and is today a semi-socialist economy in a fledging democracy ridden with problems of corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency.
Today, China is seen to be ahead of India; but there is much speculation on their respective growth trajectories.
What do the numbers tell us?
China's economic growth thus far is certainly more impressive than its South Asian cousin. China's gross domestic product (GDP) grew by an average of 9.7 percent during 1982-92, and by 9 percent during 1992-02. On the other hand, India grew by 5.6 percent and 6 percent in the same respective periods, though still impressive by most developing countries' standards. India's lagging is due to a number of reasons. The Chinese save twice as much as Indians: for every US$1 earned, the Chinese save 44 cents, compared with 24 cents by Indians. As a result, the Chinese invest more in their economy than do the Indians. The share of gross domestic investment in GDP is 41 percent in China, compared to 22.8 percent in India. The Chinese economy is also more opened to international trade, and therefore gains from greater specialization in areas where China excels. China's export share of GDP is twice that of India's.
A more compelling reason to account for India's slower growth is the flows of foreign direct investment (FDI). As shown in the diagram below, the amount of FDI into India is only a small fraction of that into China. Of course, any statistics, especially those reported by communist cadres who are rewarded for economic performance of their localities, should be taken with a grain of salt. As frequently pointed out, China's FDI figures are likely to be exaggerated by "round-tripping" - domestic capital disguised as foreign investment (passed through Hong Kong) to qualify for special investment incentives reserved for foreigners. India's FDI figures, however, may be understated because they exclude foreigners' reinvested profits, the proceeds of foreign stock market listings, intra-company loans, and so forth. This may not be a simple issue of whether India is able to attract foreign investment, since it may have as much to do with New Delhi's policy or practice for years of keep foreign investors out of the country.
China vs India: Key Economic Indicators
China 1982 1992 2001 2002
GDP (US$ billions) 221.5 454.6 1,167.1 1,232.7
Gross domestic investment/GDP (%)
33.2 36.2 38.5 41.0
Exports of goods & services/GDP (%)
8.9 19.5 25.5 29.5
Gross domestic savings/GDP (%)
34.8 37.7 40.9 44.0
India
GDP (US$ billions) 194.8 244.2 478.5 510.2
Gross domestic investment/GDP (%)
21.7 23.8 22.3 22.8
Exports of goods & services/GDP (%)
6.1 9.0 13.5 15.2
Gross domestic savings/GDP (%) 18.3 21.8 23.5 24.2
Foreign vs private companies
China may boast impressive records in courting foreign investors, but it has few successful indigenous private companies on which it can pride itself. China's private companies are systematically discriminated against by the capital market and the legal system. Private property rights have only recently been recognized by the central government and given legal recognition and protection. The state-owned banking system is notorious for molly-coddling the inefficient and debt-laden state-owned enterprises, while shying away from the vibrant private sector.
The stock markets are also largely reserved for those enterprises with state backing. Ironically, foreign companies in China are granted better recognition, legal protection and market access than indigenous private companies. The internationally better known Chinese firms, such as China Telecom, and the white goods, or major appliance, maker Haier, were formerly nurtured in the state cradle. China Telecom is a state-owned enterprise, and Haier was formerly a collectively owned township and village enterprise (TVE).
In stark contrast, India's brand of internationally well-known companies, such as software giants Infosys Technologies and Wipro, and pharmaceutical and biotech start-ups Ranbaxy and Dr Reddy's Labs, are born and bred locally. "Indeed, by relying primarily on organic growth, India is making fuller use of its resources and has chosen a path that may well deliver more sustainable progress than China's FDI-driven approach," write Huang Yasheng and Tarun Khanna, dons from the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT, and the Harvard Business School, in an article published in Foreign Policy in August, 2003.
"China's export-led manufacturing boom is largely a creation of foreign direct investment, which effectively serves as a substitute for domestic entrepreneurship," they argue.
The point about India's better use of resources is worth noting, as the numbers seem to lend support to this hypothesis. China's GDP growth rate (8 percent in 2002) is about double that of India (4.6 percent); however, China's savings ($542 billion) are four times higher than India's ($122 billion), not to mention that its FDI inflows are more than 10 times greater ($52 billion compared with $3.5 billion).
Not just markets - institutions matter
Why is entrepreneurship able to flourish in India but not in China? "Blossoming entrepreneurship in India is due in part to a liberalizing financial market, which provides capital access previously exclusive to certain caste groups to the budding entrepreneurs. Capital is now available to private start-ups, through venture capitalists, the banking system, and the stock markets," says Vijay Kelkar, an advisor to the Indian Ministry of Finance, at a speech recently delivered at the Australian National University in Canberra.
Aside from a financial market that allocates resources more efficiently, India seems to have in place the institutions - democracy, a functioning judiciary, property rights and so on - conducive to economic development. Huang and Khanna, from MIT and Harvard, argue: "Democracy, a tradition of entrepreneurship, and a decent legal system have given India the underpinnings necessary for free enterprise to flourish." Of the world's top 200 small-sized companies listed by Forbes in 2002, 13 were from India; while four were China's - all of them based in Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, China's greater openness to the outside world and its ability to benefit from foreign trade and investment can be attributable to a "stronger state" (albeit authoritarian), one that is able to advocate and implement policies in the country's interests, rather than being held hostage by any vested interest groups. By contrast, India's burgeoning but unruly democracy means that in order to gain power, the Indian policy makers are often trapped in myopic vested interests and are sometimes held hostage by protectionist voices.
Lynette Ong studies China's political economy at the Australian National University. She can be contacted at LHLO@lycos.com.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
Posted by maximpost
at 12:10 AM EDT