|
|
DAILY
PRESS SUMMARY
Thursday,
17 October 2002
Vol 8 Number
2652
Palestinian officials said it is likely that the new Palestinian
government will be announced within the next three days, pointing to intensive
and difficult contacts held by the President with the various figures to
reach a government that can be accepted by the PLC which will have to grant
a vote of confidence for the new government. Al-Ayyam got to know that
President Arafat informed Fatah Central Committee yesterday evening that
Hani Al-Hasan, the member of Fatah Central Committee, will assume the Ministry
of Interior in the new government and that President Arafat informed the
PLO Executive Committee yesterday morning that three ministers from the
old government who are not Fatah members will remain in the new government;
the three ministers are: Dr. Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Finance Minister,
who is expected to remain in his position, and Ghassan al-Khatib, Minister
of Labor, representative of the Palestinian People's Party, who is expected
to assume the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, and Dr. Nabil Qassiss,
Minister of Tourism, but it is not clear if al-Khatib and Qassiss will
keep the same portfolios. Al-Ayyam newspaper got to know that it is almost
sure that Zuheir Sourani, the Attorney General, will assume the Ministry
of Justice and that Dr. Ahmad Al-Shibi, PLC member representing Khan Yunis
constituency, will assume the Health Ministry, and Hisham Abdul Razeq who
will assume the portfolio of Prisoners and Detainees (this ministry was
canceled in the previous government and was transferred to a commission
on Affairs of Prisoners), while there are final contacts with Dr. Hanan
Ashrawi to assume a ministerial portfolio. It was known also that the following
names are expected to remain in the new government: Dr. Nabil Shaath, Dr.
Saeb Erekat, Maher al-Masri, Azzam Al-Ahmad, Abdul Rahman Hamad, Naim Abul
Houmos and Rafiq Natsheh. It was also known that contacts are underway
between President Arafat and several figures on the possibility that they
might assume ministerial portfolios in place of figures who were excluded
from the government. Nabil Abu Rdeineh, President Arafat's adviser, said
the intensive contacts are still underway and that the new Palestinian
government is expected to be announced in the next few days and that the
new government will witness the exclusion of old faces and the inclusion
of new faces. The issue of the new government was the core issue in the
meetings of the PLO Executive Committee and Fatah Central Committee which
were headed by President Arafat. Participants in the meetings said that
President Arafat is laying the final touches on the new government and
that President Arafat has not made his final decision on the huge number
of names that were presented to him on the hope that they will get ministerial
portfolios. (Al-Ayyam)
The Danish FM whose country is the current president of
the EU affirmed the total condemnation of the EU to the Israeli assassination
operations without any trial to the Palestinians. He pointed out that the
EU reiterates its demand for immediate halt of such operations. The condemnation
comes following the assassination of Mohammed Ubeyyat in an Israeli targeted
operation in Bethlehem last Sunday. The Danish FM said in the statement
issued by the EU that the assassination of Ubeyyat causes concern and threatens
to impede the most recent announcement on calming the tension by Fatah
Organization and the Tanzim and the efforts of the international community,
including the efforts of the EU to put an end to violence. (Al-Ayyam)
US President Bush gave yesterday the Israeli PM Sharon
the green light to retaliate to any attack that Israel is subjected to
from Iraq in case Iraq is attacked by the US. Meanwhile, the tone was escalated
between Washington and Paris regarding the Iraqi issue. Bush told reporters
after his meeting with Sharon in Washington: if Iraq attacks Israel tomorrow,
I am sure that there will be an appropriate response. I hope that we can
remove the weapons of the Iraqi regime in a peaceful means and we never
gave up that option peacefully; we have no plans to use our armies unless
we are forced to. Ra'nan Gesin, Sharon's spokesperson, said following the
meeting: We did not expect better than this by President Bush who ratified
the right of Israel to defend itself in case it is attacked by Iraq or
Hizballah. He denied any US pressure from the Americans on the Palestinian
issue. (Al-Hayat al-Jadida)
Meanwhile, President Bush said yesterday that Israeli
PM Sharon promised him that he would do his utmost to transfer to the PA
all the funds that belong to it. In a joint US-Israeli statement following
the meeting, the statement said: Within the context of the efforts exerted
to expand the Palestinian reforms, the US President and Israeli PM agreed
that Israel returns gradually and within the time table all PA funds. The
statement added: this cannot happen unless there is strong monitoring by
the US to make sure that the funds are only used to finance Palestinian
economic activities and not military activities. (Al-Ayyam)
In Rafah, Palestinian citizen Ahmad Salam Asfour, 55,
died yesterday after he was shot in the head and 16 other citizens were
injured when the occupation tanks shelled the homes of citizens. In Ramallah,
the occupation troops broke into Birzeit University and conducted a search
at the Student Council Headquarters and arrested five students. The occupation
troops also demolished a home in Yatta village in Hebron. (Al-Hayat al-Jadida)
A Palestinian senior official said a Palestinian-Israeli
meeting was held yesterday evening and the meeting was headed by Saeb Erekat
from the Palestinian side and Shimon Peres from the Israeli side and was
held in West Jerusalem and that the meeting discussed the Israeli withdrawal
from the Palestinian cities. The Palestinian official said Erekat and Maher
Al-Masri attended the meeting and they agreed with the Israeli side on
having a broader meeting between the two sides next week. He explained
that they discussed in the meeting the Israeli withdrawal and the siege
and the humanitarian disaster and they discussed the issue of the PA funds
which the Palestinian side demands to be transferred. Meanwhile, Palestinian
Local Government Minister Saeb Erekat accused the government of Sharon
very clearly of trying to kill President Arafat and finish the PNA and
frustrate the general elections with US support. (Al-Hayat al-Jadida)
Israeli PM Areel Sharon stated that the US President George
Bush is the best American President that Israel has dealt with throughout
its history. (Al-Quds)
World Food Day: CARE International Assessment finds high levels of Malnutrition, Anemia, and Micro-nutrient Deficiencies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
Jerusalem, October 16, 2002 – On the occasion of World Food Day, CARE International is releasing the final findings of a Nutritional Assessment carried out in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. According to the Assessment’s coordinators, “Although the West Bank demonstrates a prevalence of acute malnutrition that raises concerns, the levels in Gaza Strip indicate a distinct humanitarian emergency.” The level of acute malnutrition in the Gaza Strip is 13.3 percent and 4.3 percent in the West Bank. Chronic malnutrition stands at 17.5 percent in the West Bank and 7.9 percent in the Gaza Strip. These findings are based on a survey of 1,004 households randomly selected in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
The Assessment’s other findings provide important data regarding household level access to food, the ability of the market to provide various products and the ability of clinics to respond to the rising levels of malnutrition and anemia. These findings reveal that the current nutritional crisis is exacerbated by market disruptions from curfews, closures, military incursions, border closures, and checkpoints; decreased caloric and micronutrient intake by preschool aged children; and the fact that healthcare providers may not be adequately identifying and diagnosing malnutrition in their communities.
Unlike the levels of malnutrition, the prevalence for anemia among children 6-59 months of age varies little between the West Bank (20.9 percent) and the Gaza Strip (18.8 percent). Four of five children in both areas have inadequate iron and zinc intake, deficiencies which cause anemia and immune deficiencies, respectively. Over half the children in both areas have inadequate caloric and vitamin A intake while half the children in both areas have inadequate folate intake. Non-urban areas of the Gaza Strip fared worse in all categories of intake. A large percentage of reproductive-aged non-pregnant women have deficiencies in energy, iron, folate, and zinc consumption, critical for healthy fetal development. Reproductive-aged women also show a 15-20 percent decrease in per diem calorie and protein intake compared to 2000.
In assessing clinics, the survey found that 40% of preschool aged children are not measured for growth and that 40% of malnourished children go undiagnosed. Attention to growth and monitoring of children declines as the age of the child increases, so that only 18 percent of children 25-36 months had had their weight recorded in the previous six months prior to the interview. Despite the objective prevalence of malnutrition from the clinics’ own records, clinic managers subjectively estimated only 1 percent of preschool aged children were malnourished. The clinic survey covered a sample of 68 clinics, half of which did not have protocols or guidelines within the clinic setting to standardize the diagnosis and treatment of malnutrition and anemia, or the guidelines for counseling or follow-up for such cases. As much as 27.9 percent of all 68 clinics (19) and 40.7 percent of the 27 rural clinics (11) lack supplemental iron for children.
Finally, the Assessment found that infant formula and other high protein foods critical for growth sustained major market disruption. For West Bank retailers cited incursions/curfews as the major reason for disruption (53 percent) followed by road closures/checkpoints (38 percent). West Bank wholesalers cited road closures/checkpoints as the major reason for disruption (52 percent) followed by incursions/curfews (34 percent). For both Gaza Strip retailers and wholesalers, border closures were cited as the major reason for disruption (60 percent and 63 percent respectively) followed by road closures/checkpoints (20 percent and 15 percent respectively). The market survey was a representative sample of 660 retailers and 140 wholesalers stratified by urban wholesale, urban retail, large village and refugee camp, and small village.
The Assessment was funded and supported by CARE International
with a grant from the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
The Assessment was implemented by the Palestinian Al Quds University and
the Global Management Consulting Group with technical assistance from Johns
Hopkins University. An executive summary is being released today
and is available on the following website: www.carewbg.org.
A full report will be available on this website next week. (JMCC)
Israeli settlements of Alfe Menashe, Tsufim and Oranit
(built on seized Palestinian lands) to Israel. Petition 8352/02, on behalf
of 49 land owners, demands that the Israeli High Court cancel military
directives issued by Moshe Kaplinski, Israel’s military commander of the
West Bank. These military directives, which seize Palestinian lands, come
in a process of expropriating Palestinian lands along the West Bank, in
order to build Israel’s apartheid wall, which shall extend along
the entire length of the West Bank, once completed next year. If the apartheid
wall goes ahead, Qalqilya will be transformed into an isolated canton,
surrounded on all sides by the wall, with only one entrance and exit point.
It is expected that Palestinians will have to apply for special permits
to enter or exit the area. The Israeli High Court also chose not to accept
LAW’s arguments that based on the map of the apartheid wall around Qalqilya,
political considerations (annexing fertile lands, water resources and settlements
to Israel), rather than security or military considerations were directing
the route of the wall. Rather, Israel’s High Court suggested that rather
than passageways being erected every 15km for link Palestinians to their
lands, according to the existing plan, this could be increased to two or
more, based on agreements between farmers and the Israeli army. Moreover,
the IHC suggested a ‘compromise’ that Palestinians liaise with the Israeli
army to negotiate which trees should be uprooted, and whether the trees
can be moved to non-confiscated land. After a telephone discussion between
LAW’s attorney and the main petitioner, these suggestions were rejected.
The main petitioner noted that he could not attend court because he had
been held up at a checkpoint for an hour and a half, and did not see that
the Israeli army or Israeli state was going to respect agreements made
with Palestinians, based on his previous experiences. Israel’s High Court
also cancelled an interim injunction preventing the army from continuing
work on the wall until the court had ruled on the merits of the case. Azem
Bishara, attorney at LAW noted, “This means that the State can continue
building the wall. The parts around Qalqilya will be completed in a few
weeks time, and the damage will be irreversible. We don’t have to wait
for the verdict. Trees will be uprooted and the damage will be done. ”LAW
expects that the IHC shall give its verdict in the next few days. In a
report issued by Eliezer Goldberg, Israel’s State Comptroller in July this
year, most suicide bombers entered Israel through checkpoints. A wall does
not resolve these concerns. Israel’s apartheid wall is projected be three
times the length and twice the height of the Berlin Wall, unilaterally
annexing approximately 10% of the West Bank, 57 Israeli settlements illegally
built on seized Palestinian lands, 303,000 Israeli settlers and almost
290,000 Palestinians. The form of apartheid Israel applies against
Palestinians fulfils all elements of the crime of apartheid as defined
under the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of
the Crime of Apartheid (1976), which expressly states that the crime of
apartheid 'shall include similar policies and practices of racial segregation
and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa' (art.2). Under the
Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, the destruction
or seizure of property in Occupied Territories is forbidden, as is collective
punishment. Article 47 outlines that Occupying Powers must not make changes
to property in occupied territories. Requisition of land in occupied territories
is prohibited under Article 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, which
is a part of customary international law. Occupiers cannot make any changes
in status of occupied territories. Israel’s apartheid wall seizes, destroys
and permanently changes the status of occupied territories.
Al-Quds: The game of dismantling deserted settlements
According to the whole world and the Palestinian people,
ending occupation and settlements is one of the requirements of a just
peace.
The steps taken yesterday on dismantling two deserted
settlement posts is an exposed game that only aims to deceive the world
opinion.
If the Israeli government believes that settlements constitute
an obstacle in the path of peace, it must cross the red lines and initiates
by removing all settlements as a step towards proving the credibility of
the intentions to make peace.
Jenin: Israeli occupation forces imposed a curfew on Jenin since this morning. It seems that Israeli army will conduct a wide range of operations in Jenin. The Israelis have informed the Palestinians that the city will remain under curfew until further notice.
Nablus: Israeli occupation forces arrested five Palestinian youths from Til village in the Nablus district. Israeli military stayed in the village until the early hours of this morning and they prohibited the farmers from heading to their fields to pick olives.
Bethlehem: since the early hours of this morning Israeli helicopters have been hovering over Bethlehem, Beit Jala and Beit Sahour.
Hebron: Israeli occupation forces continue to harass and attack Palestinian citizens in Hebron. They also forced the people to work in settlement activities in the city. Meanwhile, arrest campaigns continued in various parts of the Hebron district particularly in Dora village.
Gaza: Funeral of the Palestinian martyr Ahmad Asfour, 55, will take place later today. He was killed in Rafah yesterday.
Qalqilya: Israeli occupation forces imposed a curfew
on the western neighborhoods of Qalqilya. They besieged and shelled Muhammad
Fihmi Jaber’s home. They also raided and damaged the house, however, they
failed in arresting its owner.
Palestinian detainees
Issa Qaraqe’ – Head of Prisoners Club
Q: What is the action of human rights organizations
towards the prisoners’ conditions particularly during winter?
A: we held long discussions about conditions of Palestinian
prisoners in detention camps during winter. We asked the Red Cross to play
its role in this regard.
After a long delay by authorities of Negev Detention
Camp, they permit us to send blankets and winter clothes to the prisoners.
They were donated by Palestinian institutions in districts of Bethlehem
and Hebron.
Administration of the jail is supposed to provide such
materials. Ansar detention camp is not appropriate for human living.
There are around 100 injured and sick cases in that jail. In light of the
shortage in winter clothes and blankets, lives of the sick cases will be
endangered.
Q: Can you elaborate on prisoners’ intention to boycott
Israeli courts?
A: I think there is a contradiction in the positions
among the prisoners in this regard. I believe administrative detention
is illegal and the presence of lawyers in the courts will give legitimacy
to this detention.
Saeb Erekat – PNA Minister of Local Government
Q: What did you discuss in your meeting with Shimon
Peres?
A: Israeli side requested an expanded meeting with us.
However, we said that there should be an agreement over the agenda before
convening the expanded meeting. Yesterday’s meeting was a preparatory meeting
to prepare the agenda and to be sure that the achieved agreements will
be implemented particularly those over Israeli withdrawal and lifting the
closure and blockade.
Q: Are there fears that the goal of such meetings is
to reduce the possible pressures on Israel?
A: I do not think so because the meeting took place after
Bush – Sharon meeting. For members of the Quartet, they encourage such
meetings.
Q: Israel agreed to transfer PNA money on the condition
of spending them under US supervision. What is PNA position?
A: we hear that from media means. We want our seized
money to be transferred to PNA without any condition in accordance to Paris
Agreement.
Q: Is there any intention to declare the new government
soon?
A: I know that there are continuous consultations and
I hope the President will form the government as soon as possible.
Q: EU condemns Israeli assassination policy. Do you
think EU position is progressing?
A: in fact, there is a unique European position regarding
the Palestinian cause. EU rejects Bush statements over changing the Palestinian
leadership. EU calls for the unconditioned Israeli withdrawal. EU also
calls for ending the policy of assassination and settlement activities.
It also calls for resuming the peace process, ending occupation of Palestinian
territories, which were occupied in 1967 including Jerusalem.
EU also provides assistances to Palestinian people. Few
days ago the Europeans decided to provide additional 50 million Euros in
support to Palestinian institutions.
Q: How do you see Peres supportive position to Oslo
Accords?
A: This is a known position by Peres. But at time Peres
defends Oslo we realize that the agreement is being torn on ground because
of settlement activities, land confiscation, evicting the people, reinforcing
the re-occupation and assassination.
Q: Have you discussed with Peres the timeline of Israeli
withdrawal from Palestinian re-occupied territories?
A: yes, and we asked for a timeline to end Israeli withdrawal
from Palestinian territories. We also want observers from the Quartet.
Moreover, we want the lift of closure and blockade on our people.
Q: Is there an Israeli position regarding the Quartet
observation?
A: they said that they are ready to include this issue
on their agenda. We also raised the issue of settlement activities.
Q: Do you think the Israeli side is ready to talk about
settlement activities in Jerusalem?
A: no party can prohibit us from talking about this issue.
We want an Israeli concern to stop this issue. We want the Israeli side
to abide by signed agreements.
Q: Do you think there is progress in the British position?
A: The British position is part of the EU position.
Headlines
Egypt: Al-Ahram daily, Oct. 17
* Mubarak: the world leaders witnessed the return of Alexandria
Library to its place in civilization and its international status. The
president delivers a speech in the opening of the unique edifice amid an
official and popular great Egyptian celebration. The leaders of France,
Rumania, Greece, Croatia, the Maldives, the Queen of Spain, and the Queen
of Jordan took part in the celebration.
* The Opening of Alexandria Library and its return to
the world as a place for dialogue and a beacon of science. 300 senior world
leaders and intellectuals who got the Noble Prize took part in the historical
event. The President affirms in his inauguration speech of this new cultural
edifice: the new Alexandria Library is a beacon of knowledge and an embodiment
of acculturation.
* Mubarak-Chirac talks underline the need to avoid war
against Iraq and supporting the peace efforts.
* Bush endorses the war decision in the presence of the
Congress leaders.
* Israel talks about the fall of Arafat after Saddam.
* Lebanon starts bumping the Wazzani water and Israel
threats with aggression.
* Australia allocates $ two millions to arrest the perpetrators
of the attack in Bali
* An American agency “protest” against giving a Palestinian
school the name of woman martyr (Dalal Al-Mughrabi).
Jordan: Jordan Times - Carter versus the empire builders; by George S. Hishmeh
Washington — Most Americans, certainly those opposed to the hawkish policies of the Bush administration, were delighted with the announcement that ex-president Jimmy Carter has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
And many of those opposed to the ongoing US war plans against Iraq, who are increasing by the day, were particularly joyous over the slap-in-the-face that US President George W. Bush received from the head of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee Gunnar Berge, when he unexpectedly declared that, in addition to honoring Carter, the 2002 prize should also be interpreted as “a criticism of the line that the current (US) administration has taken”. Neither Iraq nor the Palestinian question were identified in his remarks.
The citation read in part: “In a situation currently marked by threats of the use of power, Carter has stood by the principles that conflicts must, as far as possible, be resolved through mediation and international cooperation, based on international law, respect for human rights and economic development.”
Although the award to Carter pleased most people, there are many Arabs who were not entirely happy with his singular achievement during his tenure at the White House, namely the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, which he shepherded at Camp David for 13 long days and nights in 1978. The net effect of the treaty, to the dismay of many Arabs, was the elimination of Egypt, the most influential and powerful Arab country, from the Arab-Israeli equation, leaving each Arab party diminished and weakened to fight its own battle single-handedly. Witness the current case of the Palestinians, and the Syrians who are still unable to get the Israelis to withdraw from the Golan Heights to the 1967 armistice lines.
Nevertheless, Carter is deservedly honored for his achievements as an ex-president rather than president, since he has devoted his time (accompanied by his wife Rosalyn) unselfishly to promoting democracy and humanitarian causes all over the world. He, for example, refereed the first Palestinian national elections after Israel withdrew in compliance with the Oslo accords from Palestinian cities (which have been reoccupied since last June).
His mettle was evident in the verbal whip lashing that the former president gave the Bush administration in a column published last month. It was memorable for its forthrightness and honesty.
He lamented that “fundamental changes” are taking place in US policies “without definitive (public) debates” on such issues as “human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process”.
He continued: “Our country has become the foremost target of respected international organizations concerned about these basic principles of democratic life. We have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism effort, while detaining American citizens as `enemy combatants', incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being charged with any crime or have the right to legal counsel.”
The former president took jabs at Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the latter for declaring that the several hundred captured Taleban held at Guantanamo Bay would not be released even if they were someday tried and found to be innocent. “These actions are similar to those of abusive regimes that historically have been condemned by American presidents,” Carter stressed.
The former president took note of the vigorous emphasis of “foreign allies and ... responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, (that) there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad”.
As far as the Middle East process is concerned, he sounded despondent: “Tragically, our government is abandoning any sponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. Our apparent policy is to support almost every Israeli action in the occupied territories and to condemn and isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of our war on terrorism, while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves shrink.”
He once again took Rumsfeld to task for negating presidential pronouncements about the establishment of a Palestinian state because the defence secretary had said “there will be some sort of (a Palestinian) entity that will be established” and his reference to the “so-called occupation”.
The “belligerent and divisive voices” that Carter condemned have, in the past few weeks, prompted several anti-war demonstrations in the country. Two full-page ads in the same issue of the New York Times appeared last Tuesday (Oct. 14) blasting the war on Iraq. One of the ads displayed head photos of Rumsfeld, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney with the headline: “They're selling war. We're not buying.” This ad was sponsored by “Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities” whose president is, interestingly, Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry's, an ice-cream firm which earlier this year had been chastised by Palestinians for utilizing waters from the occupied Golan Heights for its plant in Israel.
The reasons for the drive behind the Bush administration against Iraq has long been debatable, but without any firm conclusions. A couple of weeks ago, however, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution published a well-documented article by its deputy editorial page editor, Jay Bookman, which provided startling facts.
Bookman thought the connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and Al Qaeda has always seemed “contrived and artificial”. He argued that “the pieces just didn't fit” and that “something else had to be going on, something was missing”.
His search led him to this conclusion: “This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years ago or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the `American imperialists' that our enemies always claimed we were.”
Bookman went on to underline that “the lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf”.
He reported that the new National Security Strategy, which outlined the Bush administration's approach to defending the US, was inspired by a report issued in September 2000, a year earlier than the tragic events of Sept. 11, by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists “outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire”.
Among the contributors to the 2000 report were Paul Wolfowitz, who is now deputy defence secretary; John Bolton, the undersecretary of state; Stephen Cambone, head of the Pentagon's Office of Programme, Analysis and Evaluation; Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross, members of the notorious Defence Policy Board which advises Rumsfeld.
More intriguing is the fact that the 2000 report, according to Bookman, acknowledged its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Department of Defence. The defence secretary then was Richard Cheney, and the document was drafted by Wolfowitz who, at the time, was defence undersecretary for policy.
“That (1992) document,” wrote Bookman on Sept. 29, “had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power.”
Bookman said that “when leaked in final draft form, however,
the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated
by the first President Bush”.
There's certainly more than meets the eye in this battle
under way between the traditionalists and the empire builders.
Egypt: Al-Ahram daily, Oct. 17 - Threatening with the use of force in the international relations
Among the stable rules in the international relations which were asserted by the UN Charter, is the principle of the impermissibility of using force in the international relations or threatening of using it, and that differences have to be solved peacefully.
Despite the fact that the Iraqi regime has responded positively
to what it was demanded to do, still the American administration is determined
to attack Iraq. It is certain that any military action against Iraq after
it has accepted the UN demands, will create a state of perplexity which
will lead to the diminishing of confidence in the UN, with extremism forces
coming to the front. That will be sufficient to destroy stability
in the region.
In a clear attempt to mislead the world public opinion
at a time when the American president is meeting the Israeli premier General
Sharon, a fabricated move was taken by General Benyamin Ben Elizer to evacuate
settlement locations which were described as “illegal” for the sake
of investment by these two generals in their upcoming party elections which
will decide their political future in their parties. One of the most prominent
members in the Labor party Yusi Katz described the movement of Ben Elizer
towards settlement as a deception. If we add to that the concomitant media
clamor about Peres’ statement that Israeli will withdraw from Hebron if
calm prevails until the end of the week, while we notice nothing on the
ground there, and settlers are standing against the withdrawal and are
threatening then we can tell that we face a funny and provocative scene
at the same time. This is an open game that unfortunately will find people
to promote and welcome. We are facing an unprecedented state of political
comedy that is escalating with the beating of the drums of war against
Iraq. It aims at distracting the attention from what is going on in Iraq
and also from what is going on in Palestine including massacres, war crimes,
flagrant violations of human rights, making people hungry and poor, and
humiliating them and turning the West Bank and Gaza Strip into the biggest
detention center in the world as the British ambassador to Israel rightly
said.
Two years ago, Lebanon achieved victory by liberating
its occupied land in the south, and yesterday it achieved another victory
by liberating its water. Both victories could not have been achieved without
two main factors namely determination and resistance. Lebanon the small
country which has only modest army and weaponry presents its second victory
to all concerned Arab countries, especially those countries which are scared
and afraid with an aborted determination. May be these countries can come
out of their coma and repossess their will.
…….The terror networks succeeded in terrifying the world
with the abhorrent crime in Bali which led to killing many people the largest
since the September 11 incidents. The terror was also successful in reaching
the French oil tanker, and shooting in Kuwait. Foiling the attempt to hijack
the plan yesterday showed that terror cannot have the upper hand always.
A second message comes from Alexandria where its famous
library was inaugurated yesterday, 1600 years after it was set Ablaze.
This is a project in which international parties took part as well as the
Egyptian and Arab parties. This forms a message of the continuation of
civilization and an attempt to revive the old role of the library which
gathered the human thought. The opening of the Library at this particular
time, in which the ideas of conflict and confrontation finds a fertile
soil, can be a clear message of acculturation, dialogue, and interaction
among all cultures and human civilizations.
“It seems that the attack targeting the Indonesian island of Bali has given Washington and London a further excuse to intensify their war of words against Iraq, instead of persuading them that the ‘priority’ should be to combat what they term ‘international terrorism,” according to the Beirut daily As-Safir.
The paper points to how US President George W. Bush, after
first portraying the bombing as the work of
Al-Qaeda, went on to insist that Iraq’s President Saddam
Hussein has links to the organization and intends to use it as a surrogate,
while Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair “joined in with an affirmation
that the campaign against terror must encompass Iraq.”
Many commentators in the Arab press wish the Americans and their British acolytes had drawn the opposite conclusion from the atrocity in Bali and the recent spate of attacks on US troops or other Western targets in various parts of the world.
Osman Mirghani, writing in the London-based pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, says recent developments should have made clear to the Bush administration how misguided it was to “direct its energies and rhetoric from the ‘war on terror’ into war on Iraq, and from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein.”
“Had the US administration found, or proven, a link between
Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the world would have understood the administration’s
expanding the war on terror into a confrontation with Saddam. Had it won
the war on terror fully and paralyzed Al-Qaeda completely and finally,
some people would have found justification for it turning to other wars.
But America has not achieved that. And if there is any need for evidence,
events in Kuwait, Yemen, Indonesia and the Philippines in recent days have
confirmed that Al-Qaeda remains active, and that the war on terror is still
at an early stage,” he writes.
The Bush administration now faces a “major challenge,”
says Mirghani. “If it really wants to play the role of a responsible superpower,
and lead the world rationally to win this intricate war, it must learn
to listen to the voices of others, awaken from its power-drunken stupor,
and clip the wings of its hawks.”
It must also behave as a model international citizen (rather than showing contempt for the UN and international law and treaties), stop applying double standards, and use its enormous power to start addressing fairly some of the world’s conflicts and trouble spots that nurture violence and extremism, says Mirghani.
In Jordan’s Al-Rai, Tarek Massarwa writes that if bin Laden was indeed behind the Bali bombing, “that means the invasion of Afghanistan was useless, and the victory of Bush and his administration over terror is false.”
That and the other attacks signify that Al-Qaeda “can move around the world at will,” according to Massarwa. And that should strengthen the argument made by former US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, among others that war on Iraq can only jeopardize the successful prosecution of the war on terror.
“There is no connection between Iraq and terror. Terror can be weakened and its sources dried up by means of a broad international coalition and without the use of the military means we witnessed in Afghanistan. But war on Iraq would inevitably lead to the collapse of any anti-terror coalition led by Washington. For Washington would be exploiting the unacceptable in pursuit of colonial objectives that would pose a greater threat to international relations than terrorism does,” he writes.
Events in Bali cannot be used to promote war on Iraq, he asserts. “There is much more to them than that, and the onus for an explanation may lie more with Bush than anyone else.”
In the Beirut daily An-Nahar, Rajeh al-Khoury expects Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to discuss a “road map” for the war on Iraq with his Washington hosts in during his visit.
Khoury dismisses Israeli press reports claiming that the Bush administration is putting “heavy pressure” on Sharon to stay out of any war and/or make concessions to the Palestinians in order to help Washington overcome Arab opposition to an invasion of Iraq.
Developments over the past year and a half have taught us to treat reports that the Bush administration is poised to clash or “get tough” with Israel with scorn, he says. “Let’s not forget for one moment that Wednesday’s Bush-Sharon meeting will be a reunion of partners coordinating plans on the eve of an assault on Iraq that everyone knows will quake the entire region.”
Mustafa Husseini, writing in As-Safir, expects Sharon and Bush will agree on some token steps that can be presented as constituting “progress” in Palestine ahead of a blitz on Iraq.
There has been talk of Washington “demanding” that Israel ease its siege on the Palestinians and allow them a little more freedom of movement, pull its forces out of one or more Palestinian towns, and release some frozen Palestinian Authority (PA) funds while keeping the money under American scrutiny, he writes.
Husseini says it is easy to predict that these “demands” will be whittled down, and Sharon will agree to some of them.
He also ventures to predict that while these moves will be inconsequential in practice, they will be warmly welcomed by Arab governments including the PA who will hail them as “positive” and portray them as cause for optimism and a “first step” toward getting the Israeli Army to pull back to pre-intifada lines.
The Bush administration’s objective is to “cool down the Palestinian situation” so it can rally Arab support against Iraq, Husseini continues. “Which means that once that support is secured and the Iraqi issue is done with,” it can reconsider its options.
That includes the option of “giving Sharon back his free hand in dealing not only with the Palestinians, but with the entire region,” Husseini writes. “Indeed, that free hand in the affairs of the region may be Bush’s principal bargaining chip in his negotiations with Sharon over the American ‘demands.’”
Abdelbari Atwan, publisher/editor of the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi, balks at Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa’s declaration that all the Arab states are clearly and firmly committed to not participating in any US-led blitz on Iraq.
He remarks that Moussa cannot be unaware of reports that US military command centers are being transferred to Qatar and Kuwait in readiness for war, and that Saudi AWACs have been directing daily raids into Iraq by American jets.
“If he defines ‘participation’ as the deployment of Arab troops alongside US forces in an attack on Iraq, as happened in the 1991 war, then he may be right,” Atwan writes. No Arab troops will be deployed, for the simple reason that Washington hasn’t asked for any. They would be “mere decor” and the US doesn’t need them.
But participation can take other forms, such as making
Arab territory, airspace and territorial waters available for the Americans
to use in their war, and providing them with base and logistical facilities.
“That is much more effective participation than sending
a few pot-bellied soldiers who have never seen combat throughout their
military career and work as taxi drivers by night to complement their meager
salaries,” he writes.
So Moussa’s statement was factually incorrect. Moreover,
he spoke as though by merely “not participating” in a war on Iraq, the
other Arab regimes are expressing the utmost patriotism and solidarity
with the Iraqi people, when what they should be doing is actively coming
to Iraq’s defense.
What he seems to forget is that if Iraq is occupied,
the whole region will come under American and Israeli tutelage, and “his
Arab League” will become totally redundant, “at best a monument to Arab
emasculation.”
“Once Iraq is occupied, there will be no more OPEC or OAPEC, no ASESCO or even ALESCO only the Copenhagen group, the Organization of Arab-Israeli Peace and Cooperation, and the Union of American High Commissioners in the Middle East,” he writes.
In the Beirut daily Al-Mustaqbal, Najwa Kassem writes that the Arab governments have had remarkably little to say about reports that Washington is planning to set up a military administration led by an American general in post-Saddam Iraq, as it did in Japan after its defeat in World War II.
Other than a few commentaries in the media, she says, not a single “serious” Arab voice has been raised in protest at the prospective military occupation of a key Arab state.
This is symptomatic of a crisis in which the people most directly affected, the Arabs, are the most passive players. Thus, in seeking to muster international backing for its war, Washington’s task is confined to persuading Paris and Moscow to go along. And within the region, the concerns of Turkey and Iran are being accorded far more consideration than any of the Arabs may have.
Kassem says that one reason the Americans have opted for a military occupation of Iraq is that they have failed to find an “Iraqi Hamid Karzai.”
Another reason appears to be so that the US can assume direct control of Iraq’s oil fields, and use the proceeds to cover the enormous costs of its war and the subsequent occupation.
It is telling that the Americans seem so unperturbed by the prospect of waging a war that would entail an estimated outlay of $16 billion per month, she remarks. It is also noteworthy that whenever there is discussion of war in America, it is “shamelessly” accompanied by talk of the lucrative business that American corporations stand to gain in post-Saddam Iraq.
“Ahmed Chalabi, head of the opposition umbrella group known as the Iraqi National Congress, was ‘proud’ to announce that American corporations would get the lion’s share of Iraq’s oil,” she reports.
“But Chalabi, and other would-be Karzais who also endorsed the plan, seem to have failed to take into account the prospect of a ‘competitor’ like Tommy Franks, the much-decorated general who was wounded three times in the Vietnam War, does not like to appear on the TV screens too often, and held several posts before assuming command of his country’s forces in the Gulf,” she says.
“Why search here and there for Karzais so long as there
is a better candidate on hand, and so long as no one protests or will raise
objections?”