Hypocrisy and Cowardice in China and the U.S.
by Jacob G. Hornberger
Members of Congress are upset with Yahoo officials for giving Chinese officials confidential online information about one of their customers in China. The Chinese authorities used the information to send the Yahoo customer to jail for 10 years for engaging in subversive, anti-government activity.
Meanwhile, Congress is talking about the importance of giving immunity to U.S. telecommunication companies for illegally giving U.S. officials confidential online information about their customers in the United States. The U.S. officials say that they needed the secret information to ferret out subversive activity against the U.S. government.
Oh, well, no one ever accused Congress of a lack of hypocrisy.
Yahoo’s general counsel, Michael J. Callahan, said that Yahoo employees had little choice but to comply with the Chinese government’s demands.
Ironically, that’s what the U.S. telecommunication companies are saying as to why they complied with the U.S. government’s demands!
The fact is that all these executives are the par excellence of cowardice. Yahoo does have a choice — stand up for your customers or don’t do business in communist countries. And U.S. companies also have a choice — stand up for your customers and tell the feds to take a hike, even if it means they come after you with a retaliatory indictment, as they did with Qwest, which, unlike Yahoo and the U.S. telecommunications companies, said “No” when the little tyrants came demanding their information.
For decades both the American and Chinese people have loved their big governments, mostly because their big governments take care of them like parents with education, health care, social security, and other forms of welfare. But as we are learning with the Yahoo and U.S. telecommunications scandals, there is big price to pay for big government.
Isn’t it ironic that Americans have the most powerful government in history and the most terrified citizenry in the world? It is not a coincidence. Big government produces small, frightened people. As earlier generations of Americans could attest, small and weak government, on the other hand, results in strong, self-reliant, and courageous people.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Permalink
Full Version: Foreign Policy Commentary
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media
Power, Passion, and Neoliberalism
Walden Bello
Nov 12, 2007
Pakistan's Dictatorships and the United States
Stephen Zunes
Nov 11, 2007
Walden Bello
Nov 12, 2007
Pakistan's Dictatorships and the United States
Stephen Zunes
Nov 11, 2007
Bush's Role in Bringing
Pakistan to the Abyss
by Ivan Eland
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is now teetering on the edge of the abyss, just as I predicted in the spring of 2007. He was pushed there by U.S. policy, and worse yet, his country is armed with nukes. To prevent the Pakistani Supreme Court from declaring him ineligible to serve another term as president, a role he won last month in dubious elections, the autocratic Musharraf has declared martial law and ousted the Supreme Court's chief justice.
Although President George W. Bush has asked Musharraf to set an end date for the state of emergency, hold elections, and give up his powerful position as head of the armed forces, Bush has continued U.S. aid and recently described Musharraf as an ally America needs in order to fight al-Qaeda. These signs of continued U.S. support have emboldened the spent Musharraf regime. Although Musharraf has set parliamentary elections for January 2008, they will hardly be fair, unless martial law is lifted prior to the plebiscite. Meanwhile, the Pakistani population smolders with anger against the unpopular dictator, and in Pakistan's northwest, Islamic militants are ascendant.
How did the Bush administration help create this mess? It all started in 2002. The Bush administration decided U.S. forces should stay and occupy Afghanistan after their successful invasion to oust the radical Islamist Taliban movement from power. Meddling in and occupation of Muslim lands by non-Muslims is what drives Islamists to violent acts – guerrilla warfare and terrorism. For example, American support for the corrupt Saudi Arabian regime, and U.S. military presence in holiest lands of Islam, led Osama bin Laden to launch his terrorist campaign against the United States. Similarly, continued U.S. and Western occupation of Afghanistan and the failed attempt to eradicate opium, the primary crop of the poor Afghan people, have led to Afghan disillusionment with the West and increased support for a resurgent Taliban movement.
That's where Pakistan comes in. The Pakistani intelligence services, in order to dominate Afghanistan, supported the Taliban in its original quest for power, then during its despotic rule. Although Musharraf, under intense pressure to switch sides after 9/11, rhetorically supported the U.S. "war on terror" and pocketed $10 billion in American aid, he needed the support of those same Islamists to survive in power. Thus, he never made a real effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, suspected to be hiding in northwest Pakistan. On the contrary, he pledged not to attack the Islamists in that area. Meanwhile, as with the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, U.S. backing and military assistance to the Musharraf government has fueled an Islamic resurgence in Pakistan, too.
Now it is within the realm of possibility to have a repeat of the 1978 situation in the shah's Iran. The population could become so enraged at a brutal dictator supported by the United States that eventually a hostile radical Islamist government could take power. But this time, in Pakistan, it would be a regime with nuclear weapons – in short, an Islamic bomb. So the Bush administration may yet hand us the worst of all worlds: bin Laden and company still on the loose and again guarded by an Islamist regime, this time with nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration has continually exacerbated the threat of radical Islamism by refusing to see that U.S. meddling in Islamic nations is fueling the problem. Overt U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and support for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, along with U.S. backing and aid to Musharraf in Pakistan, have inflamed the entire region.
So after 9/11, what would have been a better U.S. policy? After the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States should have called a conclave of all Afghan groups and stated that Afghan governance was the business of Afghans; but if any Afghan government gave anti-U.S. terrorists sanctuary, the U.S. military would return with a vengeance. If the U.S. had employed such a policy, the Taliban likely would not be resurgent today.
As for Pakistan, for an entire year after 9/11, Musharraf quietly gave the United States free reign to nab bin Laden. But instead of using its covert forces quietly to take full advantage of this offer, the U.S. provided ostentatious diplomatic support and military aid, turning Pakistan – in the eyes of the Islamists – into an American puppet.
The first step toward a smarter policy in the region is to recognize that the United States is part of the problem. In Afghanistan, the United States still could do what it should have done after 9/11; withdrawing its forces would extinguish the fire of the Taliban resurgence. In Pakistan, Musharraf is likely to fall, but such a close U.S. hug for him makes it more likely that Islamists could eventually win power. So the U.S. should use Musharraf's declaration of martial law as a reason to terminate all aid to his regime. The United States is so unpopular in the region that supporting a governing alliance between Musharraf and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would probably delegitimize even the middle ground in Pakistan. For moderate forces to have the best chance in that nuclear-armed nation, the United States, paradoxically, should refrain from supporting them, and stay out of Pakistani politics.
Instead of taking its eye off the ball and continuing to take actions that make radical Islamism and anti-U.S. terrorism worse, the Bush administration should content itself with obtaining better intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden and his associates. If such information is found, the United States should take quiet, unilateral action to capture or kill them.
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=11897
Pakistan to the Abyss
by Ivan Eland
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is now teetering on the edge of the abyss, just as I predicted in the spring of 2007. He was pushed there by U.S. policy, and worse yet, his country is armed with nukes. To prevent the Pakistani Supreme Court from declaring him ineligible to serve another term as president, a role he won last month in dubious elections, the autocratic Musharraf has declared martial law and ousted the Supreme Court's chief justice.
Although President George W. Bush has asked Musharraf to set an end date for the state of emergency, hold elections, and give up his powerful position as head of the armed forces, Bush has continued U.S. aid and recently described Musharraf as an ally America needs in order to fight al-Qaeda. These signs of continued U.S. support have emboldened the spent Musharraf regime. Although Musharraf has set parliamentary elections for January 2008, they will hardly be fair, unless martial law is lifted prior to the plebiscite. Meanwhile, the Pakistani population smolders with anger against the unpopular dictator, and in Pakistan's northwest, Islamic militants are ascendant.
How did the Bush administration help create this mess? It all started in 2002. The Bush administration decided U.S. forces should stay and occupy Afghanistan after their successful invasion to oust the radical Islamist Taliban movement from power. Meddling in and occupation of Muslim lands by non-Muslims is what drives Islamists to violent acts – guerrilla warfare and terrorism. For example, American support for the corrupt Saudi Arabian regime, and U.S. military presence in holiest lands of Islam, led Osama bin Laden to launch his terrorist campaign against the United States. Similarly, continued U.S. and Western occupation of Afghanistan and the failed attempt to eradicate opium, the primary crop of the poor Afghan people, have led to Afghan disillusionment with the West and increased support for a resurgent Taliban movement.
That's where Pakistan comes in. The Pakistani intelligence services, in order to dominate Afghanistan, supported the Taliban in its original quest for power, then during its despotic rule. Although Musharraf, under intense pressure to switch sides after 9/11, rhetorically supported the U.S. "war on terror" and pocketed $10 billion in American aid, he needed the support of those same Islamists to survive in power. Thus, he never made a real effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, suspected to be hiding in northwest Pakistan. On the contrary, he pledged not to attack the Islamists in that area. Meanwhile, as with the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, U.S. backing and military assistance to the Musharraf government has fueled an Islamic resurgence in Pakistan, too.
Now it is within the realm of possibility to have a repeat of the 1978 situation in the shah's Iran. The population could become so enraged at a brutal dictator supported by the United States that eventually a hostile radical Islamist government could take power. But this time, in Pakistan, it would be a regime with nuclear weapons – in short, an Islamic bomb. So the Bush administration may yet hand us the worst of all worlds: bin Laden and company still on the loose and again guarded by an Islamist regime, this time with nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration has continually exacerbated the threat of radical Islamism by refusing to see that U.S. meddling in Islamic nations is fueling the problem. Overt U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and support for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, along with U.S. backing and aid to Musharraf in Pakistan, have inflamed the entire region.
So after 9/11, what would have been a better U.S. policy? After the destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States should have called a conclave of all Afghan groups and stated that Afghan governance was the business of Afghans; but if any Afghan government gave anti-U.S. terrorists sanctuary, the U.S. military would return with a vengeance. If the U.S. had employed such a policy, the Taliban likely would not be resurgent today.
As for Pakistan, for an entire year after 9/11, Musharraf quietly gave the United States free reign to nab bin Laden. But instead of using its covert forces quietly to take full advantage of this offer, the U.S. provided ostentatious diplomatic support and military aid, turning Pakistan – in the eyes of the Islamists – into an American puppet.
The first step toward a smarter policy in the region is to recognize that the United States is part of the problem. In Afghanistan, the United States still could do what it should have done after 9/11; withdrawing its forces would extinguish the fire of the Taliban resurgence. In Pakistan, Musharraf is likely to fall, but such a close U.S. hug for him makes it more likely that Islamists could eventually win power. So the U.S. should use Musharraf's declaration of martial law as a reason to terminate all aid to his regime. The United States is so unpopular in the region that supporting a governing alliance between Musharraf and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would probably delegitimize even the middle ground in Pakistan. For moderate forces to have the best chance in that nuclear-armed nation, the United States, paradoxically, should refrain from supporting them, and stay out of Pakistani politics.
Instead of taking its eye off the ball and continuing to take actions that make radical Islamism and anti-U.S. terrorism worse, the Bush administration should content itself with obtaining better intelligence on the whereabouts of bin Laden and his associates. If such information is found, the United States should take quiet, unilateral action to capture or kill them.
http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=11897
Musharraf Isn't the First,
but He Should Be the Last
America's dictatorial 'allies' in Islamabad
by Stephen Zunes
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would support democratic movements around the world and work to end tyranny. Furthermore, he pledged to those struggling for freedom that the United States would "not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." Despite these promises, the Bush administration – with the apparent acquiescence of the Democratic-controlled Congress – has instead decided to continue U.S. support for the dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president.
On Nov. 3, the U.S.-backed chief of the Pakistani army, fearing an imminent ruling by the Supreme Court which could have invalidated his hold on power, declared a state of emergency. He immediately suspended the constitution, shut down all television stations not controlled by the government, ordered the arrests of thousands of political opponents and pro-democracy activists, fired judges not supportive of his crackdown, jammed mobile phone networks, and ordered attacks on peaceful demonstrators. Leading Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir reported that the U.S. embassy had given a green light to the coup in large part due to its opposition to the chief justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry, who had issued key rulings challenging the government's policies on political prisoners, women's rights, and the privatization of public enterprises. Musharraf's efforts to sack the chief justice six months ago resulted in months of protests which led to his reinstatement just a few weeks before this latest crackdown.
No Impact
Within hours of the martial-law declaration, a Pentagon spokesman tried to reassure the regime that "the declaration does not impact on our military support." This reiteration of support comes despite the fact that the U.S.-armed police and military, instead of concentrating on suppressing extremists waging a violent jihad along the Afghan border as promised, are instead suppressing judges, lawyers, journalists, and other members of the educated, urban middle class struggling nonviolently for the restoration of democracy. Indeed, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte argued before a recent congressional hearing that continued support for Pakistan's authoritarian regime is "vital to our interests," that it is "contributing heavily to the war on terror," and that it remains "an indispensable ally."
Musharraf originally seized power in October 1999 following an effort by the democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to dismiss him from his position as army chief. Sharif has been exiled by Musharraf ever since; an attempt by the former prime minister to return in September was aborted at the airport and he was immediately deported.
Despite its unconstitutionality and its repression, the United States has sent over $10 billion in military and police aid to Pakistan over the past six years to prop up Musharraf's regime. And, in 2005, Pakistan became one of only a handful of states to be formally designated as a "major non-NATO ally" of the United States. During his visit last year to Pakistan, Bush praised Musharraf's commitment to democracy just hours after Pakistani police beat and arrested scores of opposition leaders and anti-Bush protesters.
Indeed, despite his well-documented human rights abuses, the Pakistani general has been repeatedly praised by America's political, academic, and media elites. Bush has commended Musharraf's "courage and vision" while Negroponte told the recent House panel that the dictator was "a committed individual working very hard in the service of his country." Similarly, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger – who called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "cruel and petty dictator" in his introduction of the Iranian president – introduced Musharraf at an earlier forum by expressing his "great gratitude and excitement" of hosting "a leader of his stature," praising the Pakistani general's "remarkable" contributions to his country's economic development and the "international fight against terror."
Support for Extremists
The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the United States must continue its backing of the Pakistani dictatorship because of its role in suppressing Islamist extremists. The reality, however, is far different. For its first two years in power, Musharraf was a major supporter of the Taliban regime, making Pakistan one of only three countries in the world that recognized that totalitarian government, despite the Taliban providing refuge for Osama bin Laden and others in the al-Qaeda network. As correctly noted by the 9/11 Commission in its final report, "On terrorism, Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban" and that "Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists."
Throughout his eight years in power, Musharraf has suppressed the established secular political parties while allowing for the development of Islamic political groups that show little regard for individual freedom. Despite claims that they had been shut down, madrassas run by Islamist extremists still operate openly. Taliban-allied groups effectively run large swathes of territory in the western provinces and the regions bordering Afghanistan are more controlled by pro-Taliban extremists than ever. In a press conference during a recent visit to Washington by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in which Bush tried to blame Iran for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Karzai corrected him by noting that Iran had actually been quite supportive of his government's efforts and it was actually Pakistan that was backing the Taliban.
Former Kandahar-based NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes noted in her recently-released book The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban that Pakistan has continued its decades-long policy of using religious extremists to exert its influence in Afghanistan. In return for providing limited cooperation against al-Qaeda, the United States is willing to ignore Pakistani backing of Taliban and Hizbi-Islami militants as they wreak havoc on the people of that war-ravaged country. Chayes also noted how Pakistani intelligence, through the assassination of moderate Afghan political leaders and other acts of intimidation, has effective veto power over key decisions of the democratically elected Afghan government, and without any apparent objections from Washington.
Support for Previous Dictators
For decades, the United States has backed the military dictators who have ruled Pakistan. Whether in the name of containing Communism or fighting terrorism, the well-being of the people of the sixth most populated country in the world has been of little concern to Washington policy makers of both parties.
During the Nixon administration, the United States served as the major foreign backer of Gen. Yahya Khan, who declared martial law in 1969. In response to electoral victories by the Bengali-based Awami league in 1971, he began mass arrests of dissidents following a general strike.
As army units began revolting in response to the repression, Gen. Khan cracked down with a brutality that Archer Blood, the U.S. consul in Dhaka, referred to as "genocide." In one of the strongest-worded dissents ever written by U.S. Foreign Service officers, Blood and 29 others declared, "Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the [Pakistani] government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankrupt." Despite these protests, the Nixon administration continued its support for the repression, which took hundreds of thousands of lives, before Congress – in response to public outcry – suspended aid.
Khan was forced from power soon thereafter, leading to a democratic opening until Zia-ul-Haq seized power in 1977, declaring martial law and executing the elected prime minister he had overthrown. Imposing a rigid and reactionary version of Islamic law, Zia-ul-Haq systematically dismantled many of the country's civil society institutions. U.S. aid to his regime increased dramatically after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979 and the CIA began collaborating with Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to arm the Afghan resistance, sending the bulk of the aid to the most hard-line Islamist elements, particularly the extremist Hezbi-Islami faction, despite its propensity to fight the more moderate Afghan resistance groups as much as it did the Soviets.
In the summer of 1983, massive and largely nonviolent demonstrations in Sindh and elsewhere in Pakistan by the pro-democracy movement were crushed without apparent objections from Washington. Pro-democracy agitation resumed later that decade to again be met by severe repression. The dictatorship did not end, however, until Zia-ul-Haq – along with U.S. Ambassador Arnold Raphel, top Pakistani military commanders, and other key supporters of the regime – were killed in a mysterious air crash in August 1988. President Ronald Reagan expressed his "profound grief" at Zia's death, eulogizing the dictator as "a statesman of world stature" and praising his "dedication to regional peace and reconstruction."
Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
Beginning in the late 1970s, as the extent of Pakistan's nuclear program became known, the international community began expressing concerns over the possibility of politically unstable Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. Throughout the 1980s, however, the Reagan and the George H. W. Bush administrations formally denied that Pakistan was engaging in nuclear weapons development despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In addition, the United States continued supplying Pakistan with F-16 aircraft even as nuclear analysts concluded that Pakistan would likely use these fighter planes as its primary delivery system for its nuclear arsenal. To publicly acknowledge what virtually every authority on nuclear proliferation knew about Pakistan's nuclear capability would force the United States to cut off aid to Pakistan, as required by U.S. laws designed to enforce the non-proliferation regime. The annual U.S. certification of Pakistan's supposed non-nuclear status was halted only in 1990, when the Soviet-backed Afghan regime was finally collapsing.
However, George H.W. Bush's administration insisted that the cutoff of aid did not include military sales, so the transfer of spare parts for the nuclear-capable F-16s aircraft to Pakistan continued. President Bill Clinton finally imposed sanctions against the regime when Pakistan engaged in a series of nuclear weapons tests in 1998, but the sanctions as well as restrictions regarding military aid to new nuclear states were repealed by Congress and the Bush administration three years later.
UN Resolutions
The U.S. government has blocked the United Nations from imposing sanctions or other means to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1172, passed unanimously in 1998, which calls on Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. (This contrasts with the Bush administration's partially successful efforts to impose tough international sanctions against Iran for violating UN Security Council resolution 1696 calling for restrictions on its nuclear program, even though the Islamic Republic is still many years from weapons capability and is therefore much less of a threat to international peace and security than is Pakistan.)
Indeed, the United States has released the previously suspended sale of sophisticated nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets to that country. A Bush administration official claimed that the U.S. fighter-bombers "are vital to Pakistan's security as President Musharraf prosecutes the war on terror" despite the fact that these jets were originally ordered 15 years earlier, long before the U.S.-led "war on terror" began. They were suspended by the administration of the president's father out of concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program and the Pakistani military's ties with Islamic terrorist groups, both of which are of even greater concern today.
Rogue States
One of the most disturbing aspects of U.S. support for the Pakistani regime is that Pakistan has been sharing its nuclear materials and know-how with North Korea and other so-called "rogue states." The Bush administration chose to essentially ignore what journalist Robert Scheer has referred to as "the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen" and to instead blame others. For example, even though it was actually Pakistanis who passed on nuclear materials to Libya, the Bush administration instead told U.S. allies that North Korea was responsible, thereby sabotaging negotiations which many had hoped could end North Korea's nuclear program and resolve that festering crisis. Similarly, though it was Pakistan which provided Iran with nuclear centrifuges, the Bush administration is now citing Iran's possession of such materials as justification for a possible U.S. military attack against that country.
The Bush administration, despite evidence to the contrary, claims that the Pakistani government was not responsible for exporting such dangerous materials, but that these serious breaches of security were solely the responsibility of a single rogue nuclear scientist named Abdul Qadeer Khan. Unfortunately, the Pakistani military regime has not allowed U.S. intelligence access to Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, whom the 9/11 Commission noted "was leading the most dangerous nuclear smuggling ring ever disclosed." Recently pardoned by Musharraf, he now lives freely in Pakistan while Pakistani anti-nuclear activists have been exiled or jailed.
Blowback
Despite President Bush's claim that Islamist extremists attack American because they "hate our freedom," the reality is that most people in Pakistan and other Islamic countries don't have anything against our freedom. They do, however, recognize that the United States shares responsibility for their repression through its unconditional support of the dictatorship that denies them their own freedom. And, without the opportunity to press for changes through the political system, some turn to violence and extremism.
The United States has supported repressive regimes in the Islamic world and beyond for years with little concern over the consequences. On Sept. 11, 2001, however, citizens from the U.S.-backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt hijacked four airliners, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. A public opinion poll in Pakistan this past August showed that Osama bin Laden has a higher approval rating than either Gen. Musharraf or President Bush. Extremist Islamist parties would not come close to winning a free election in Pakistan today, but in denying Pakistan's pro-Western democratic opposition a chance to compete and in jailing its leaders, Musharraf and his American supporters may be creating the conditions that could eventually lead to the takeover of this nuclear-armed country by dangerous extremists.
As President John F. Kennedy observed, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The American Public
In 1971, during the height of the massacres of Bengalis by the Pakistani army, a small group of American Quakers organized a flotilla of canoes in Baltimore Harbor to block a Pakistani freighter from docking where it was to be loaded with American arms and munitions while other protesters on shore blocked the train which carried the weaponry. Though most of them were arrested and the weapons were eventually loaded, the publicity from the event alerted the American public to the largely clandestine U.S. military support for the Pakistani regime.
When protesters met another Pakistani freighter attempting to pick up weapons in Philadelphia shortly thereafter, dockworkers refused to load the ship, preferring to not get paid that day rather than to work for what their local union leader referred to as "blood money." Within weeks, in the face of public outcry against U.S. support for the genocidal Pakistani regime, Congress cut off military aid, a testament to the power of nonviolent direct action.
Given the unwillingness of both the Republican administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to stop U.S. military support for the current Pakistani dictatorship, it may be time once again for concerned citizens to engage in similar nonviolent actions to end U.S. support for the oppression. For those at risk as a result of U.S. policy are no longer just those currently oppressed by the Pakistani regime. Some day, as a result of a possible blowback from this policy, it could be Americans as well.
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=11898
but He Should Be the Last
America's dictatorial 'allies' in Islamabad
by Stephen Zunes
In his 2005 inaugural address, President George W. Bush declared that the United States would support democratic movements around the world and work to end tyranny. Furthermore, he pledged to those struggling for freedom that the United States would "not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." Despite these promises, the Bush administration – with the apparent acquiescence of the Democratic-controlled Congress – has instead decided to continue U.S. support for the dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president.
On Nov. 3, the U.S.-backed chief of the Pakistani army, fearing an imminent ruling by the Supreme Court which could have invalidated his hold on power, declared a state of emergency. He immediately suspended the constitution, shut down all television stations not controlled by the government, ordered the arrests of thousands of political opponents and pro-democracy activists, fired judges not supportive of his crackdown, jammed mobile phone networks, and ordered attacks on peaceful demonstrators. Leading Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir reported that the U.S. embassy had given a green light to the coup in large part due to its opposition to the chief justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court Iftikhar Chaudhry, who had issued key rulings challenging the government's policies on political prisoners, women's rights, and the privatization of public enterprises. Musharraf's efforts to sack the chief justice six months ago resulted in months of protests which led to his reinstatement just a few weeks before this latest crackdown.
No Impact
Within hours of the martial-law declaration, a Pentagon spokesman tried to reassure the regime that "the declaration does not impact on our military support." This reiteration of support comes despite the fact that the U.S.-armed police and military, instead of concentrating on suppressing extremists waging a violent jihad along the Afghan border as promised, are instead suppressing judges, lawyers, journalists, and other members of the educated, urban middle class struggling nonviolently for the restoration of democracy. Indeed, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte argued before a recent congressional hearing that continued support for Pakistan's authoritarian regime is "vital to our interests," that it is "contributing heavily to the war on terror," and that it remains "an indispensable ally."
Musharraf originally seized power in October 1999 following an effort by the democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to dismiss him from his position as army chief. Sharif has been exiled by Musharraf ever since; an attempt by the former prime minister to return in September was aborted at the airport and he was immediately deported.
Despite its unconstitutionality and its repression, the United States has sent over $10 billion in military and police aid to Pakistan over the past six years to prop up Musharraf's regime. And, in 2005, Pakistan became one of only a handful of states to be formally designated as a "major non-NATO ally" of the United States. During his visit last year to Pakistan, Bush praised Musharraf's commitment to democracy just hours after Pakistani police beat and arrested scores of opposition leaders and anti-Bush protesters.
Indeed, despite his well-documented human rights abuses, the Pakistani general has been repeatedly praised by America's political, academic, and media elites. Bush has commended Musharraf's "courage and vision" while Negroponte told the recent House panel that the dictator was "a committed individual working very hard in the service of his country." Similarly, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger – who called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "cruel and petty dictator" in his introduction of the Iranian president – introduced Musharraf at an earlier forum by expressing his "great gratitude and excitement" of hosting "a leader of his stature," praising the Pakistani general's "remarkable" contributions to his country's economic development and the "international fight against terror."
Support for Extremists
The Bush administration and its supporters claim that the United States must continue its backing of the Pakistani dictatorship because of its role in suppressing Islamist extremists. The reality, however, is far different. For its first two years in power, Musharraf was a major supporter of the Taliban regime, making Pakistan one of only three countries in the world that recognized that totalitarian government, despite the Taliban providing refuge for Osama bin Laden and others in the al-Qaeda network. As correctly noted by the 9/11 Commission in its final report, "On terrorism, Pakistan helped nurture the Taliban" and that "Many in the government have sympathized with or provided support to the extremists."
Throughout his eight years in power, Musharraf has suppressed the established secular political parties while allowing for the development of Islamic political groups that show little regard for individual freedom. Despite claims that they had been shut down, madrassas run by Islamist extremists still operate openly. Taliban-allied groups effectively run large swathes of territory in the western provinces and the regions bordering Afghanistan are more controlled by pro-Taliban extremists than ever. In a press conference during a recent visit to Washington by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, in which Bush tried to blame Iran for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Karzai corrected him by noting that Iran had actually been quite supportive of his government's efforts and it was actually Pakistan that was backing the Taliban.
Former Kandahar-based NPR correspondent Sarah Chayes noted in her recently-released book The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban that Pakistan has continued its decades-long policy of using religious extremists to exert its influence in Afghanistan. In return for providing limited cooperation against al-Qaeda, the United States is willing to ignore Pakistani backing of Taliban and Hizbi-Islami militants as they wreak havoc on the people of that war-ravaged country. Chayes also noted how Pakistani intelligence, through the assassination of moderate Afghan political leaders and other acts of intimidation, has effective veto power over key decisions of the democratically elected Afghan government, and without any apparent objections from Washington.
Support for Previous Dictators
For decades, the United States has backed the military dictators who have ruled Pakistan. Whether in the name of containing Communism or fighting terrorism, the well-being of the people of the sixth most populated country in the world has been of little concern to Washington policy makers of both parties.
During the Nixon administration, the United States served as the major foreign backer of Gen. Yahya Khan, who declared martial law in 1969. In response to electoral victories by the Bengali-based Awami league in 1971, he began mass arrests of dissidents following a general strike.
As army units began revolting in response to the repression, Gen. Khan cracked down with a brutality that Archer Blood, the U.S. consul in Dhaka, referred to as "genocide." In one of the strongest-worded dissents ever written by U.S. Foreign Service officers, Blood and 29 others declared, "Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the [Pakistani] government and to lessen any deservedly negative international public relations impact against them. Our government has evidenced what many will consider moral bankrupt." Despite these protests, the Nixon administration continued its support for the repression, which took hundreds of thousands of lives, before Congress – in response to public outcry – suspended aid.
Khan was forced from power soon thereafter, leading to a democratic opening until Zia-ul-Haq seized power in 1977, declaring martial law and executing the elected prime minister he had overthrown. Imposing a rigid and reactionary version of Islamic law, Zia-ul-Haq systematically dismantled many of the country's civil society institutions. U.S. aid to his regime increased dramatically after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in late 1979 and the CIA began collaborating with Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to arm the Afghan resistance, sending the bulk of the aid to the most hard-line Islamist elements, particularly the extremist Hezbi-Islami faction, despite its propensity to fight the more moderate Afghan resistance groups as much as it did the Soviets.
In the summer of 1983, massive and largely nonviolent demonstrations in Sindh and elsewhere in Pakistan by the pro-democracy movement were crushed without apparent objections from Washington. Pro-democracy agitation resumed later that decade to again be met by severe repression. The dictatorship did not end, however, until Zia-ul-Haq – along with U.S. Ambassador Arnold Raphel, top Pakistani military commanders, and other key supporters of the regime – were killed in a mysterious air crash in August 1988. President Ronald Reagan expressed his "profound grief" at Zia's death, eulogizing the dictator as "a statesman of world stature" and praising his "dedication to regional peace and reconstruction."
Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
Beginning in the late 1970s, as the extent of Pakistan's nuclear program became known, the international community began expressing concerns over the possibility of politically unstable Pakistan developing nuclear weapons. Throughout the 1980s, however, the Reagan and the George H. W. Bush administrations formally denied that Pakistan was engaging in nuclear weapons development despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In addition, the United States continued supplying Pakistan with F-16 aircraft even as nuclear analysts concluded that Pakistan would likely use these fighter planes as its primary delivery system for its nuclear arsenal. To publicly acknowledge what virtually every authority on nuclear proliferation knew about Pakistan's nuclear capability would force the United States to cut off aid to Pakistan, as required by U.S. laws designed to enforce the non-proliferation regime. The annual U.S. certification of Pakistan's supposed non-nuclear status was halted only in 1990, when the Soviet-backed Afghan regime was finally collapsing.
However, George H.W. Bush's administration insisted that the cutoff of aid did not include military sales, so the transfer of spare parts for the nuclear-capable F-16s aircraft to Pakistan continued. President Bill Clinton finally imposed sanctions against the regime when Pakistan engaged in a series of nuclear weapons tests in 1998, but the sanctions as well as restrictions regarding military aid to new nuclear states were repealed by Congress and the Bush administration three years later.
UN Resolutions
The U.S. government has blocked the United Nations from imposing sanctions or other means to enforce UN Security Council resolution 1172, passed unanimously in 1998, which calls on Pakistan to dismantle its nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. (This contrasts with the Bush administration's partially successful efforts to impose tough international sanctions against Iran for violating UN Security Council resolution 1696 calling for restrictions on its nuclear program, even though the Islamic Republic is still many years from weapons capability and is therefore much less of a threat to international peace and security than is Pakistan.)
Indeed, the United States has released the previously suspended sale of sophisticated nuclear-capable F-16 fighter jets to that country. A Bush administration official claimed that the U.S. fighter-bombers "are vital to Pakistan's security as President Musharraf prosecutes the war on terror" despite the fact that these jets were originally ordered 15 years earlier, long before the U.S.-led "war on terror" began. They were suspended by the administration of the president's father out of concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program and the Pakistani military's ties with Islamic terrorist groups, both of which are of even greater concern today.
Rogue States
One of the most disturbing aspects of U.S. support for the Pakistani regime is that Pakistan has been sharing its nuclear materials and know-how with North Korea and other so-called "rogue states." The Bush administration chose to essentially ignore what journalist Robert Scheer has referred to as "the most extravagantly irresponsible nuclear arms bazaar the world has ever seen" and to instead blame others. For example, even though it was actually Pakistanis who passed on nuclear materials to Libya, the Bush administration instead told U.S. allies that North Korea was responsible, thereby sabotaging negotiations which many had hoped could end North Korea's nuclear program and resolve that festering crisis. Similarly, though it was Pakistan which provided Iran with nuclear centrifuges, the Bush administration is now citing Iran's possession of such materials as justification for a possible U.S. military attack against that country.
The Bush administration, despite evidence to the contrary, claims that the Pakistani government was not responsible for exporting such dangerous materials, but that these serious breaches of security were solely the responsibility of a single rogue nuclear scientist named Abdul Qadeer Khan. Unfortunately, the Pakistani military regime has not allowed U.S. intelligence access to Khan, the former head of Pakistan's nuclear program, whom the 9/11 Commission noted "was leading the most dangerous nuclear smuggling ring ever disclosed." Recently pardoned by Musharraf, he now lives freely in Pakistan while Pakistani anti-nuclear activists have been exiled or jailed.
Blowback
Despite President Bush's claim that Islamist extremists attack American because they "hate our freedom," the reality is that most people in Pakistan and other Islamic countries don't have anything against our freedom. They do, however, recognize that the United States shares responsibility for their repression through its unconditional support of the dictatorship that denies them their own freedom. And, without the opportunity to press for changes through the political system, some turn to violence and extremism.
The United States has supported repressive regimes in the Islamic world and beyond for years with little concern over the consequences. On Sept. 11, 2001, however, citizens from the U.S.-backed dictatorships of Saudi Arabia and Egypt hijacked four airliners, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Americans. A public opinion poll in Pakistan this past August showed that Osama bin Laden has a higher approval rating than either Gen. Musharraf or President Bush. Extremist Islamist parties would not come close to winning a free election in Pakistan today, but in denying Pakistan's pro-Western democratic opposition a chance to compete and in jailing its leaders, Musharraf and his American supporters may be creating the conditions that could eventually lead to the takeover of this nuclear-armed country by dangerous extremists.
As President John F. Kennedy observed, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
The American Public
In 1971, during the height of the massacres of Bengalis by the Pakistani army, a small group of American Quakers organized a flotilla of canoes in Baltimore Harbor to block a Pakistani freighter from docking where it was to be loaded with American arms and munitions while other protesters on shore blocked the train which carried the weaponry. Though most of them were arrested and the weapons were eventually loaded, the publicity from the event alerted the American public to the largely clandestine U.S. military support for the Pakistani regime.
When protesters met another Pakistani freighter attempting to pick up weapons in Philadelphia shortly thereafter, dockworkers refused to load the ship, preferring to not get paid that day rather than to work for what their local union leader referred to as "blood money." Within weeks, in the face of public outcry against U.S. support for the genocidal Pakistani regime, Congress cut off military aid, a testament to the power of nonviolent direct action.
Given the unwillingness of both the Republican administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress to stop U.S. military support for the current Pakistani dictatorship, it may be time once again for concerned citizens to engage in similar nonviolent actions to end U.S. support for the oppression. For those at risk as a result of U.S. policy are no longer just those currently oppressed by the Pakistani regime. Some day, as a result of a possible blowback from this policy, it could be Americans as well.
http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=11898
Is World War III on Hold?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Is a Bush preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, or on the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard, a more remote possibility today than it was several weeks ago?
So it would seem.
The latest indication is a candid interview in the Financial Times with Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of Central Command, who would be the Tommy Franks of any naval or air war on Iran.
"The Pentagon is not preparing a preemptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers," concluded the FT in the lead of its story.
Dealing with Iran is a "challenge," a strike is not "in the offing," Fallon is quoted. His comments, said the Times, "served as a shot across the bows of hawks who argue for imminent action."
"[G]enerally, the bellicose comments" out of Washington "are not particularly helpful," said our CentCom commander. That is naval gunfire directed right across the bow of the West Wing.
For the ranking man in Washington said to be arguing loudest for imminent action is Dick Cheney. And the most "bellicose comments" about Iran coming out of Washington have come from George W. Bush.
Here, again, is Bush at the American Legion Convention:
"Iran … is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. … Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. … Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. … Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
Last month, Bush ventured further, "[I]f you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
If terms like "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" are not "bellicose rhetoric," what is?
Why might the administration be backing away from war on Iran?
First, Pakistan. With a nation of 170 million with nuclear weapons in a political crisis that could lead to civil war, igniting a war with Iran would seem suicidal – especially with the war in Iraq about to enter its sixth year this spring and the war in Afghanistan about to enter its seventh year next month.
Second, there is no guarantee U.S. air strikes could denuclearize Iran, except temporarily. Bombs cannot destroy knowledge. And Iran has been gaining knowledge for years on how to enrich uranium. Moreover, Iran has surely secreted away many of the centrifuges it has constructed, far from the Natanz plant – ground zero – where 2,000 or 3,000 are said to be operating.
Third, no one can predict where an attack on Iran will lead. While the United States could smash all known nuclear facilities, Iran could ship IEDs, sniper rifles, and surface-to-air missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and send in thousands of Revolutionary Guard and cause chaos in the Gulf that would double or treble the price of oil, setting off a worldwide recession. Sleeper cells could retaliate for Iranian casualties with suicide bombings at U.S. malls.
We went into Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit strategy. In Iran, other than the naval and air strikes of the first weeks, we do not know how or where the war would go. We do know the Iranians have been preparing surprises.
Fourth, Congress seems to have found its voice, and 30 senators have written to inform President Bush that he does not have the authority, absent an Iranian attack on U.S. forces, to launch a war on Iran. While Rudy Giuliani and John McCain remain hawkish, the Democratic candidates are moving in the other direction.
Fifth, there has been a downturn in roadside attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, suggesting Iran may no longer be supplying the enhanced IEDs. And U.S. forces have released several Iranians held captive in Iraq. There may be progress behind the scenes, as both countries could suffer horribly in a war.
We are not out of the woods yet. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the truth about those 3,000 centrifuges working perfectly, Iran could have the nuclear material for a single bomb in a year. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports this month on whether Iran is meeting its commitments to come clean. It is not. And the European Union will report on whether the sanctions have succeeded, or failed. And the latter is the case.
And there are those in Tehran who would relish U.S. strikes, to unite the nation against us and consolidate the mullahs' power.
Nevertheless, the forces against war now and for negotiations with Tehran – Condi Rice, Robert Gates, the Pentagon brass, the most outspoken of the retired military, and NATO Europe – seem to be gaining the ascendancy in the last great battle of the Bush presidency.
And the War Party, which began its propaganda offensive around Labor Day, seems to have shot its bolt. For now.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11899
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Is a Bush preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz, or on the al-Quds force of the Revolutionary Guard, a more remote possibility today than it was several weeks ago?
So it would seem.
The latest indication is a candid interview in the Financial Times with Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, head of Central Command, who would be the Tommy Franks of any naval or air war on Iran.
"The Pentagon is not preparing a preemptive attack on Iran in spite of an increase in bellicose rhetoric from Washington, according to senior officers," concluded the FT in the lead of its story.
Dealing with Iran is a "challenge," a strike is not "in the offing," Fallon is quoted. His comments, said the Times, "served as a shot across the bows of hawks who argue for imminent action."
"[G]enerally, the bellicose comments" out of Washington "are not particularly helpful," said our CentCom commander. That is naval gunfire directed right across the bow of the West Wing.
For the ranking man in Washington said to be arguing loudest for imminent action is Dick Cheney. And the most "bellicose comments" about Iran coming out of Washington have come from George W. Bush.
Here, again, is Bush at the American Legion Convention:
"Iran … is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. … Iran funds terrorist groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which murder the innocent and target Israel. … Iran is sending arms to the Taliban. … Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
Last month, Bush ventured further, "[I]f you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."
If terms like "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" are not "bellicose rhetoric," what is?
Why might the administration be backing away from war on Iran?
First, Pakistan. With a nation of 170 million with nuclear weapons in a political crisis that could lead to civil war, igniting a war with Iran would seem suicidal – especially with the war in Iraq about to enter its sixth year this spring and the war in Afghanistan about to enter its seventh year next month.
Second, there is no guarantee U.S. air strikes could denuclearize Iran, except temporarily. Bombs cannot destroy knowledge. And Iran has been gaining knowledge for years on how to enrich uranium. Moreover, Iran has surely secreted away many of the centrifuges it has constructed, far from the Natanz plant – ground zero – where 2,000 or 3,000 are said to be operating.
Third, no one can predict where an attack on Iran will lead. While the United States could smash all known nuclear facilities, Iran could ship IEDs, sniper rifles, and surface-to-air missiles into Afghanistan and Iraq, and send in thousands of Revolutionary Guard and cause chaos in the Gulf that would double or treble the price of oil, setting off a worldwide recession. Sleeper cells could retaliate for Iranian casualties with suicide bombings at U.S. malls.
We went into Iraq and Afghanistan without an exit strategy. In Iran, other than the naval and air strikes of the first weeks, we do not know how or where the war would go. We do know the Iranians have been preparing surprises.
Fourth, Congress seems to have found its voice, and 30 senators have written to inform President Bush that he does not have the authority, absent an Iranian attack on U.S. forces, to launch a war on Iran. While Rudy Giuliani and John McCain remain hawkish, the Democratic candidates are moving in the other direction.
Fifth, there has been a downturn in roadside attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, suggesting Iran may no longer be supplying the enhanced IEDs. And U.S. forces have released several Iranians held captive in Iraq. There may be progress behind the scenes, as both countries could suffer horribly in a war.
We are not out of the woods yet. If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is telling the truth about those 3,000 centrifuges working perfectly, Iran could have the nuclear material for a single bomb in a year. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports this month on whether Iran is meeting its commitments to come clean. It is not. And the European Union will report on whether the sanctions have succeeded, or failed. And the latter is the case.
And there are those in Tehran who would relish U.S. strikes, to unite the nation against us and consolidate the mullahs' power.
Nevertheless, the forces against war now and for negotiations with Tehran – Condi Rice, Robert Gates, the Pentagon brass, the most outspoken of the retired military, and NATO Europe – seem to be gaining the ascendancy in the last great battle of the Bush presidency.
And the War Party, which began its propaganda offensive around Labor Day, seems to have shot its bolt. For now.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=11899
U.S. Digs In to Guard Iraq Oil Exports
Long-Term Presence Planned
At Persian Gulf Terminals
Viewed as Vulnerable
By CHIP CUMMINS
November 12, 2007; Page A6
KHAWR AL AMAYA OIL TERMINAL, Iraq -- The U.S. Navy is building a military installation atop this petroleum-export platform as the U.S. establishes a more lasting military mission in the oil-rich north Persian Gulf.
[slideshow]
Chip Cummins
The U.S. Navy is quietly building a new military installation atop Khawr Al Amaya, one of two Iraqi export terminals.
While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry.
That is a sea change for the U.S., which has patrolled these waters for decades. In the past, American warships and their allies flexed the West's military might in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate a broad commitment to protect the region, which produces almost a third of the world's oil. President Jimmy Carter codified the doctrine in 1980 in response to a perceived Soviet threat.
Now, amid rising prices -- oil futures finished Friday at $96.32 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 86 cents -- and new vulnerabilities in the world's stretched oil-supply chain -- from militants in Nigeria to occasional Iranian threats to disrupt Persian Gulf shipping -- the Navy finds itself with an additional, much more specific role: playing security guard to Iraq's offshore oil infrastructure.
Iraq's two export terminals are an increasingly vulnerable link in that supply chain. If they are both working, they can load almost two million barrels a day, or about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs. If the four tanker berths at Al Basra Oil Terminal, the better-working of the two, are occupied with loaded ships, the cargo would represent almost 10% of global demand.
• The Situation: The Navy is building a command-and-control facility atop one of Iraq's offshore oil terminals, establishing a long-term commitment to protecting the country's oil industry.
• The Players: U.S., Australian and British personnel help guard the facilities and train Iraqis. Iran's Revolutionary Guards operate nearby.
• What's at Stake: Iraq's two export terminals, when working, can load almost two million barrels a day, about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs.
"As a contributor to an increasingly inelastic supply, that is a significant percentage," says Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf. "That isn't just an Iraq issue, that's a global economic-stability issue."
The new installation will house U.S., British and Australian officers and sailors. The Pentagon has said it has no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and Navy officials say they intend to turn over the facility to Iraqi forces as soon as they can run it on their own.
But Iraqi forces are a long way from being able to take over the mission, Navy officials say. Iraqi patrol boats are on the water assisting in sector patrols around the terminals. But they are rusting hulks. Iraqi soldiers stationed on the terminals have just recently started training with live ammunition. "They are going to need help for years to come," Adm. Cosgriff says.
So for the time being, the new base will serve as a U.S.-controlled command post straddling a major component of Iraq's creaking oil industry. From a collection of modified shipping containers, coalition officers will monitor ship traffic and coordinate the movement of coalition warships circling "Kaaot" and "Abot," as the military has nicknamed the two terminals.
Right now, the two terminals don't look like much. They are riddled with holes from bullets and shells during fighting in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. A causeway connecting two sections of Kaaot collapsed in the spring, and a fire ravaged another section of the terminal last year. Despite the disrepair, they are arguably the most heavily guarded oil installations in the world.
[Iraq]
These days, three U.S. Coast Guard and Navy patrol ships scoot around a mile or so off the terminals. An Iraqi boat is typically on station as well. They spend most of their day shooing away fishing boats and merchant traffic. A handful of much larger coalition warships cruise nearby.
A contingent of U.S. sailors lives on each of the two terminals to help provide close-in protection and to train Iraqi troops. A chain-link fence drapes over parts of the terminal to deter small craft or swimmers from getting to the terminal. U.S. and Iraqi forces narrowly thwarted an attack by explosives-laden speedboats in 2004.
Coalition staff, including an Australian commodore who currently has tactical control of the operation, have been previously stationed on the terminal, living aboard a rusty barge moored to Kaaot. Iraqi Marines man machine guns on each of the two terminals, and dozens of Iraqi employees, working shifts for Iraq's South Oil Co., operate the terminals for the Iraqi government.
Ashore, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad recently formed a special task force of American officials to coordinate U.S. policy regarding Iraqi energy-related issues, including security of oil infrastructure. U.S. forces don't guard any onshore installations, but Washington has committed some $277 million for energy-infrastructure protection.
Iraq's once-powerful oil industry is still a point of nationalistic pride among most Iraqis. Oil officials in Baghdad have mixed feelings about the U.S. presence atop one of their country's most important pieces of energy infrastructure.
Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, acknowledges the foreign navies' crucial role protecting the platforms. But he also complains about the delays that U.S.-led tanker inspections and security measures sometimes mean. "We have asked them not to influence the movement of vessels assigned to carry our crude oil to the buyers," he says.
The new outpost also offers a convenient perch from which to monitor Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Amid heightened rhetoric between Tehran and Washington over the past few years, some Iranian officials have threatened a disruption to shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The naval component of the Revolutionary Guards Corps operates from a partially submerged barge and crane visible on clear days from Kaaot. Iranian forces in the spring captured a contingent of British sailors who were participating in the oil-protection mission here and paraded them in front of cameras before letting them go.
Despite the incident, coalition officials say contact with their Iranian counterparts operating in the Gulf has been limited and mostly professional.
"We live with each other," says Lt. Brian Betz, commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Maui. "They stay on their side of the line, and we stay on our side."
Washington has also boosted its efforts to encourage more energy-security cooperation among allies in the Gulf.
Adm. Cosgriff says U.S. firepower won't solve all the region's energy-security fears. "You can go broke doing point defense for all the platforms out here," he says.
--Hassan Hafidh in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this article.
Write to Chip Cummins at chip.cummins@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194826754...=y&r=442705
Long-Term Presence Planned
At Persian Gulf Terminals
Viewed as Vulnerable
By CHIP CUMMINS
November 12, 2007; Page A6
KHAWR AL AMAYA OIL TERMINAL, Iraq -- The U.S. Navy is building a military installation atop this petroleum-export platform as the U.S. establishes a more lasting military mission in the oil-rich north Persian Gulf.
[slideshow]
Chip Cummins
The U.S. Navy is quietly building a new military installation atop Khawr Al Amaya, one of two Iraqi export terminals.
While presidential candidates debate whether to start bringing ground troops home from Iraq, the new construction suggests that one footprint of U.S. military power in Iraq isn't shrinking anytime soon: American officials are girding for an open-ended commitment to protect the country's oil industry.
That is a sea change for the U.S., which has patrolled these waters for decades. In the past, American warships and their allies flexed the West's military might in the Persian Gulf to demonstrate a broad commitment to protect the region, which produces almost a third of the world's oil. President Jimmy Carter codified the doctrine in 1980 in response to a perceived Soviet threat.
Now, amid rising prices -- oil futures finished Friday at $96.32 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up 86 cents -- and new vulnerabilities in the world's stretched oil-supply chain -- from militants in Nigeria to occasional Iranian threats to disrupt Persian Gulf shipping -- the Navy finds itself with an additional, much more specific role: playing security guard to Iraq's offshore oil infrastructure.
Iraq's two export terminals are an increasingly vulnerable link in that supply chain. If they are both working, they can load almost two million barrels a day, or about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs. If the four tanker berths at Al Basra Oil Terminal, the better-working of the two, are occupied with loaded ships, the cargo would represent almost 10% of global demand.
• The Situation: The Navy is building a command-and-control facility atop one of Iraq's offshore oil terminals, establishing a long-term commitment to protecting the country's oil industry.
• The Players: U.S., Australian and British personnel help guard the facilities and train Iraqis. Iran's Revolutionary Guards operate nearby.
• What's at Stake: Iraq's two export terminals, when working, can load almost two million barrels a day, about 2.4% of the world's daily oil needs.
"As a contributor to an increasingly inelastic supply, that is a significant percentage," says Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, commander of U.S. naval forces in the Gulf. "That isn't just an Iraq issue, that's a global economic-stability issue."
The new installation will house U.S., British and Australian officers and sailors. The Pentagon has said it has no intention of building permanent U.S. bases in Iraq, and Navy officials say they intend to turn over the facility to Iraqi forces as soon as they can run it on their own.
But Iraqi forces are a long way from being able to take over the mission, Navy officials say. Iraqi patrol boats are on the water assisting in sector patrols around the terminals. But they are rusting hulks. Iraqi soldiers stationed on the terminals have just recently started training with live ammunition. "They are going to need help for years to come," Adm. Cosgriff says.
So for the time being, the new base will serve as a U.S.-controlled command post straddling a major component of Iraq's creaking oil industry. From a collection of modified shipping containers, coalition officers will monitor ship traffic and coordinate the movement of coalition warships circling "Kaaot" and "Abot," as the military has nicknamed the two terminals.
Right now, the two terminals don't look like much. They are riddled with holes from bullets and shells during fighting in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. A causeway connecting two sections of Kaaot collapsed in the spring, and a fire ravaged another section of the terminal last year. Despite the disrepair, they are arguably the most heavily guarded oil installations in the world.
[Iraq]
These days, three U.S. Coast Guard and Navy patrol ships scoot around a mile or so off the terminals. An Iraqi boat is typically on station as well. They spend most of their day shooing away fishing boats and merchant traffic. A handful of much larger coalition warships cruise nearby.
A contingent of U.S. sailors lives on each of the two terminals to help provide close-in protection and to train Iraqi troops. A chain-link fence drapes over parts of the terminal to deter small craft or swimmers from getting to the terminal. U.S. and Iraqi forces narrowly thwarted an attack by explosives-laden speedboats in 2004.
Coalition staff, including an Australian commodore who currently has tactical control of the operation, have been previously stationed on the terminal, living aboard a rusty barge moored to Kaaot. Iraqi Marines man machine guns on each of the two terminals, and dozens of Iraqi employees, working shifts for Iraq's South Oil Co., operate the terminals for the Iraqi government.
Ashore, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad recently formed a special task force of American officials to coordinate U.S. policy regarding Iraqi energy-related issues, including security of oil infrastructure. U.S. forces don't guard any onshore installations, but Washington has committed some $277 million for energy-infrastructure protection.
Iraq's once-powerful oil industry is still a point of nationalistic pride among most Iraqis. Oil officials in Baghdad have mixed feelings about the U.S. presence atop one of their country's most important pieces of energy infrastructure.
Hussein al-Shahristani, Iraq's oil minister, acknowledges the foreign navies' crucial role protecting the platforms. But he also complains about the delays that U.S.-led tanker inspections and security measures sometimes mean. "We have asked them not to influence the movement of vessels assigned to carry our crude oil to the buyers," he says.
The new outpost also offers a convenient perch from which to monitor Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Amid heightened rhetoric between Tehran and Washington over the past few years, some Iranian officials have threatened a disruption to shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The naval component of the Revolutionary Guards Corps operates from a partially submerged barge and crane visible on clear days from Kaaot. Iranian forces in the spring captured a contingent of British sailors who were participating in the oil-protection mission here and paraded them in front of cameras before letting them go.
Despite the incident, coalition officials say contact with their Iranian counterparts operating in the Gulf has been limited and mostly professional.
"We live with each other," says Lt. Brian Betz, commanding officer of the U.S. Coast Guard cutter Maui. "They stay on their side of the line, and we stay on our side."
Washington has also boosted its efforts to encourage more energy-security cooperation among allies in the Gulf.
Adm. Cosgriff says U.S. firepower won't solve all the region's energy-security fears. "You can go broke doing point defense for all the platforms out here," he says.
--Hassan Hafidh in Amman, Jordan, contributed to this article.
Write to Chip Cummins at chip.cummins@wsj.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194826754...=y&r=442705
America's Ugly Allies in Iraq: A Profile of Abu Abed This article is a must-read according to my friend Nir Rosen on what illusory American success in Iraq is based on.
I find these quotes from the piece illuminating:
05:16 PM | Permalink
I find these quotes from the piece illuminating:
"The Americans lost hope with an Iraqi government that is both sectarian and dominated by militias, so they are paying for locals to fight al-Qaida. It will create a series of warlords. It's like someone who brought cats to fight rats, found himself with too many cats and brought dogs to fight the cats. Now they need elephants."-- Steve Clemons
05:16 PM | Permalink
TURKEY, TERRORISM AND DOUBLE STANDARDS - BRUCE FEIN (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 13): http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...mplate=printart
BIDEN RAPS BUSH OVER PAKISTAN: HE SAYS U.S. MUST AID NATION, NOT MUSHARRAF - ETHAN WILENSKY-LANFORD (CONCORD MONITOR, NOVEMBER 9):
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...381/1043/NEWS01
AN AWESOME PLAN FOR PAKISTAN ... AND A PONY! ? BLAKE HOUNSHELL (PASSPORT, FOREIGN POLICY, NOVEMBER 9): Telling your constituents that you want to spend their hard-earned tax dollars to build a bunch of schools in the tribal badlands of Pakistan doesn't exactly turn out votes.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6971
THE ILLUSION OF AMERICAN 'SMART POWER' - KAVEH L. AFRASIABI (ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak02.html
FOREIGN STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN US UP FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 9/11 (AFP, NOVEMBER 12): http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNV0II...WX2GugaLqJXGfUA
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...dy-abroad_N.htm
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold...p;time=13%2014%
MONEY CAN'T BUY U.S. LOVE - JOEL BRINKLEY (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable
CHEAP DOLLAR, BUT NO FLOOD OF TOURISTS - MACKENZIE CARPENTER (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07314/832790-28.stm
THE COUP AT HOME - FRANK RICH (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/...agewanted=print
BRING THE REAL WORLD HOME - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/...agewanted=print
THE NEW FACE OF AL JAZEERA - KRISTEN GILLESPIE (NATION, NOVEMBER 9): http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...amp;s=gillespie
STUDY: FOREIGN STUDENTS ADDED TO ECONOMY - TAMAR LEWIN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): IN the 2006-7 school year, the report found, international students' net contribution to the United States economy was nearly $14.5 billion up a billion dollars from the previous year, the largest annual increase to date.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12int...agewanted=print
FORCED IRAQ POSTINGS 'MAY BE NECESSARY': VOLUNTEERS FILL ABOUT HALF OF EMBASSY'S 48 OPEN SLOTS, STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS - KAREN DEYOUNG (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1001472_pf.html
FOREIGN POLICY ZERO; MANAGEMENT ZERO - RECIPE FOR REBELLION IN THE RANKS PATRICIA KUSHLIS (WHIRLED VIW, NOVEMBER 11): http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview...gn-policy-.html
HURDLES STALL PLAN FOR IRAQI RECRUITS: SHIITE LEADERSHIP WARY OF BRINGING FIGHTERS INTO RANKS - JOSHUA PARTLOW AND ANN SCOTT TYSON (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1101730_pf.html
SECURITY GUARD FIRES FROM CONVOY, KILLING IRAQI DRIVER - JAMES GLANZ (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/world/mi...agewanted=print
HAVE WE TURNED THE CORNER IN IRAQ? IS THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT CASUALTIES IN IRAQ EVIDENCE THAT THE SURGE IS WORKING? DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND BRIAN KATULIS DEBATE (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...-opinion-center
'SURGE' AND GO: VIOLENCE IN IRAQ IS DOWN, AND THE U.S. MILITARY DESERVES OUR PRAISE. NOW MAY WE HAVE AN EXIT STRATEGY? ? EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editor...ment-editorials
CURVEBALL, SWING AND A MISS - GEORGE F. WILL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0901942_pf.html
IRAN: THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY: THE ISLAMIC REGIME BRUTALLY STIFLES DISSENT AND DETERMINES RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES BASED ON RELIGION - AKBAR GANJI (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
IS WORLD WAR III ON HOLD? - PATRICK J. BUCHANAN (TOWN HALL, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Patrick...war_iii_on_hold
THE SPY WHO WANTS ISRAEL TO TALK - DAVID IGNATIUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110901941.html
HOW TURKEY SEES AMERICA - AMAR C. BAKSHI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...ml?nav=rss_blog
A SAUDI PROPAGANDA SHOWCASE ? (LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS, NOVEMBER 10): http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...owcase#comments
THE GENERAL MUST GO: PERVEZ MUSHARRAF HAS BECOME AN OBSTACLE TO U.S. INTERESTS IN PAKISTAN -- AND TO PAKISTAN'S INTERESTS AS WELL ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111001308.html
INDIRA AND THE ISLAMISTS - SHIKHA DALMIA (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 13):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194905612...ain_europe_asia
PERILOUS PAKISTAN EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
MUSHARRAF GOES SPLAT - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0902023_pf.html
THE ANSWER IN PAKISTAN - THOMAS R. PICKERING, CARLA HILLS AND MORTON ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201417.html
WHITE HOUSE HAILS RENEWED TIES WITH EUROPE: FRENCH AND GERMAN LEADERS ARE VISITING - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110602177.html
CRISIS IN GEORGIA: THE UNITED STATES HAS NO REASON TO TOLERATE MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI'S VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC ORDER ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201549.html
GEORGIA'S LEAP BACKWARD - ANNE APPLEBAUM (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1201419_pf.html
A TILT ON CHAVEZ - OLIVER NORTH (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
WILL CHAVEZ PULL THE TRIGGER?: VENEZUELANS MAY GIVE THEIR PRESIDENT THE POWER TO RESTRICT OIL PRODUCTION -- AND CAUSE A GLOBAL RECESSION - MICHAEL ROWAN AND DOUGLAS SCHOEN (LOS ANGELES TIMES. NOVEMBER 12): .
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
NEW TERRORIST NEXUS - ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
BIDEN RAPS BUSH OVER PAKISTAN: HE SAYS U.S. MUST AID NATION, NOT MUSHARRAF - ETHAN WILENSKY-LANFORD (CONCORD MONITOR, NOVEMBER 9):
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...381/1043/NEWS01
AN AWESOME PLAN FOR PAKISTAN ... AND A PONY! ? BLAKE HOUNSHELL (PASSPORT, FOREIGN POLICY, NOVEMBER 9): Telling your constituents that you want to spend their hard-earned tax dollars to build a bunch of schools in the tribal badlands of Pakistan doesn't exactly turn out votes.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/6971
THE ILLUSION OF AMERICAN 'SMART POWER' - KAVEH L. AFRASIABI (ASIA TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IK13Ak02.html
FOREIGN STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN US UP FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 9/11 (AFP, NOVEMBER 12): http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNV0II...WX2GugaLqJXGfUA
http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...dy-abroad_N.htm
http://newswire.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold...p;time=13%2014%
MONEY CAN'T BUY U.S. LOVE - JOEL BRINKLEY (SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...;type=printable
CHEAP DOLLAR, BUT NO FLOOD OF TOURISTS - MACKENZIE CARPENTER (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, NOVEMBER 10): http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07314/832790-28.stm
THE COUP AT HOME - FRANK RICH (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/...agewanted=print
BRING THE REAL WORLD HOME - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/...agewanted=print
THE NEW FACE OF AL JAZEERA - KRISTEN GILLESPIE (NATION, NOVEMBER 9): http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...amp;s=gillespie
STUDY: FOREIGN STUDENTS ADDED TO ECONOMY - TAMAR LEWIN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): IN the 2006-7 school year, the report found, international students' net contribution to the United States economy was nearly $14.5 billion up a billion dollars from the previous year, the largest annual increase to date.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12int...agewanted=print
FORCED IRAQ POSTINGS 'MAY BE NECESSARY': VOLUNTEERS FILL ABOUT HALF OF EMBASSY'S 48 OPEN SLOTS, STATE DEPARTMENT SAYS - KAREN DEYOUNG (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1001472_pf.html
FOREIGN POLICY ZERO; MANAGEMENT ZERO - RECIPE FOR REBELLION IN THE RANKS PATRICIA KUSHLIS (WHIRLED VIW, NOVEMBER 11): http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview...gn-policy-.html
HURDLES STALL PLAN FOR IRAQI RECRUITS: SHIITE LEADERSHIP WARY OF BRINGING FIGHTERS INTO RANKS - JOSHUA PARTLOW AND ANN SCOTT TYSON (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1101730_pf.html
SECURITY GUARD FIRES FROM CONVOY, KILLING IRAQI DRIVER - JAMES GLANZ (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/world/mi...agewanted=print
HAVE WE TURNED THE CORNER IN IRAQ? IS THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT CASUALTIES IN IRAQ EVIDENCE THAT THE SURGE IS WORKING? DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND BRIAN KATULIS DEBATE (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...-opinion-center
'SURGE' AND GO: VIOLENCE IN IRAQ IS DOWN, AND THE U.S. MILITARY DESERVES OUR PRAISE. NOW MAY WE HAVE AN EXIT STRATEGY? ? EDITORIAL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editor...ment-editorials
CURVEBALL, SWING AND A MISS - GEORGE F. WILL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0901942_pf.html
IRAN: THE ANTI-DEMOCRACY: THE ISLAMIC REGIME BRUTALLY STIFLES DISSENT AND DETERMINES RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES BASED ON RELIGION - AKBAR GANJI (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
IS WORLD WAR III ON HOLD? - PATRICK J. BUCHANAN (TOWN HALL, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/Patrick...war_iii_on_hold
THE SPY WHO WANTS ISRAEL TO TALK - DAVID IGNATIUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110901941.html
HOW TURKEY SEES AMERICA - AMAR C. BAKSHI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 12): http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...ml?nav=rss_blog
A SAUDI PROPAGANDA SHOWCASE ? (LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS, NOVEMBER 10): http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?en...owcase#comments
THE GENERAL MUST GO: PERVEZ MUSHARRAF HAS BECOME AN OBSTACLE TO U.S. INTERESTS IN PAKISTAN -- AND TO PAKISTAN'S INTERESTS AS WELL ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111001308.html
INDIRA AND THE ISLAMISTS - SHIKHA DALMIA (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 13):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1194905612...ain_europe_asia
PERILOUS PAKISTAN EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
MUSHARRAF GOES SPLAT - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...0902023_pf.html
THE ANSWER IN PAKISTAN - THOMAS R. PICKERING, CARLA HILLS AND MORTON ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201417.html
WHITE HOUSE HAILS RENEWED TIES WITH EUROPE: FRENCH AND GERMAN LEADERS ARE VISITING - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 7)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7110602177.html
CRISIS IN GEORGIA: THE UNITED STATES HAS NO REASON TO TOLERATE MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI'S VIOLATION OF DEMOCRATIC ORDER ? EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111201549.html
GEORGIA'S LEAP BACKWARD - ANNE APPLEBAUM (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 13): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1201419_pf.html
A TILT ON CHAVEZ - OLIVER NORTH (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 11): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
WILL CHAVEZ PULL THE TRIGGER?: VENEZUELANS MAY GIVE THEIR PRESIDENT THE POWER TO RESTRICT OIL PRODUCTION -- AND CAUSE A GLOBAL RECESSION - MICHAEL ROWAN AND DOUGLAS SCHOEN (LOS ANGELES TIMES. NOVEMBER 12): .
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
NEW TERRORIST NEXUS - ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 12):
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
Stay or Go in Iraq? – Los Angeles Times online debate
Quiet Victory in Iraq – Rich Lowry, National Review
Victory in Iraq – Tony Blankley, Washington Times
GOP Finds Solid Ground on Iraq War - Bresnahan and Kady, Politico
Send the State Department to War? – Max Boot, New York Times
The Sunni in Iraq’s Leadership – Christian Science Monitor interview
Defector “Curveball” and OIF – Peter Wehner, National Review
Iraqi Defector "Curveball" as a Con Man – George Will, Miami Herald
Iraq and Australia’s Elections – Bruce Grant, Canberra Times
Is Canada Failing Afghan Captives? - Toronto Star editorial
Transfer of Detainees Complicity in Torture - Michael Byers, Toronto Star
GWOT: Bad Name, Worse Idea – Harlan Ullman, Washington Times
No Easy Answers to al-Qaeda Threat – Mary Jo White, USA Today
Australian Terror Laws Vital to Protection – The Australian editorial
Ahmadinejad Enriched by Bickering Critics – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
Iran Teeming With Hypocrisy - Akbar Ganji, Sydney Morning Herald
Blind Eye on Iran's Nukes - Amir Taheri, New York Post
Musharraf Digging a Hole – New York Times editorial
Musharraf's 10 Days - Toronto Star editorial
Musharraf’s Electoral Farce – Benazir Bhutto, Washington Post
Aunt Benazir’s False Promises – Fatima Bhutto, Los Angeles Times
Pakistan: Democracy or Jihadist Rule - Paul Shrivastava, Philadelphia Inquirer
Renew U.N. Support for Two-State Solution – Brian Siegal, Miami Herald
Why Pulling Lebanon From Brink Matters - Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer
Pyongyang Cloud Cover – Bruce Klingner, Washington Times
Determined Spirit Guides Grozny – Ruth Daniloff, Boston Globe
Geopolitics at $100 a Barrel – Robert Samuelson, Washington Post
Prince Walid bin Talal and His Plane – New York Times editorial
Burma: Arrests Speak Louder – Washington Post editorial
Violence Drags on in Sri Lanka – Boston Globe editorial
Hugo Chavez No Buffoon – Jeremy McDermott, London Daily Telegraph
Chavez Expresses Himself as Tyrant - Andres Oppenheimer, Boston Herald
Europe: Old Fears, New Threats – Uriya Shavit, Wall Street Journal
Georgia's Troubles - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
America’s Partners – Helle Dale, Washington Times
Is Israel a Jewish State? – Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe
USN: Don’t Give Up the Ships – Seth Cropsey, Weekly Standard
Reject the Law of Sea Treaty - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial
Torture Doesn’t Work – Alison Brysk, Christian Science Monitor
Save JROTC for the Children - Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle
Quiet Victory in Iraq – Rich Lowry, National Review
Victory in Iraq – Tony Blankley, Washington Times
GOP Finds Solid Ground on Iraq War - Bresnahan and Kady, Politico
Send the State Department to War? – Max Boot, New York Times
The Sunni in Iraq’s Leadership – Christian Science Monitor interview
Defector “Curveball” and OIF – Peter Wehner, National Review
Iraqi Defector "Curveball" as a Con Man – George Will, Miami Herald
Iraq and Australia’s Elections – Bruce Grant, Canberra Times
Is Canada Failing Afghan Captives? - Toronto Star editorial
Transfer of Detainees Complicity in Torture - Michael Byers, Toronto Star
GWOT: Bad Name, Worse Idea – Harlan Ullman, Washington Times
No Easy Answers to al-Qaeda Threat – Mary Jo White, USA Today
Australian Terror Laws Vital to Protection – The Australian editorial
Ahmadinejad Enriched by Bickering Critics – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
Iran Teeming With Hypocrisy - Akbar Ganji, Sydney Morning Herald
Blind Eye on Iran's Nukes - Amir Taheri, New York Post
Musharraf Digging a Hole – New York Times editorial
Musharraf's 10 Days - Toronto Star editorial
Musharraf’s Electoral Farce – Benazir Bhutto, Washington Post
Aunt Benazir’s False Promises – Fatima Bhutto, Los Angeles Times
Pakistan: Democracy or Jihadist Rule - Paul Shrivastava, Philadelphia Inquirer
Renew U.N. Support for Two-State Solution – Brian Siegal, Miami Herald
Why Pulling Lebanon From Brink Matters - Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer
Pyongyang Cloud Cover – Bruce Klingner, Washington Times
Determined Spirit Guides Grozny – Ruth Daniloff, Boston Globe
Geopolitics at $100 a Barrel – Robert Samuelson, Washington Post
Prince Walid bin Talal and His Plane – New York Times editorial
Burma: Arrests Speak Louder – Washington Post editorial
Violence Drags on in Sri Lanka – Boston Globe editorial
Hugo Chavez No Buffoon – Jeremy McDermott, London Daily Telegraph
Chavez Expresses Himself as Tyrant - Andres Oppenheimer, Boston Herald
Europe: Old Fears, New Threats – Uriya Shavit, Wall Street Journal
Georgia's Troubles - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
America’s Partners – Helle Dale, Washington Times
Is Israel a Jewish State? – Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe
USN: Don’t Give Up the Ships – Seth Cropsey, Weekly Standard
Reject the Law of Sea Treaty - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial
Torture Doesn’t Work – Alison Brysk, Christian Science Monitor
Save JROTC for the Children - Debra Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle
Iran, Pakistan dump India
from pipeline deal
Iran and Pakistan have their pens poised to ink their part of the US$7.5 billion gas pipeline contract that is meant to see natural gas flow from Iran to India via Pakistan. The US wants India to find energy elsewhere, and New Delhi appears to be listening. - Siddharth Srivastava
from pipeline deal
Iran and Pakistan have their pens poised to ink their part of the US$7.5 billion gas pipeline contract that is meant to see natural gas flow from Iran to India via Pakistan. The US wants India to find energy elsewhere, and New Delhi appears to be listening. - Siddharth Srivastava
In Musharaff, Bush made the wrong friend By Rosa Brooks The U.S. alliance with Pakistan has only strengthened dangerous extremists.
The Islamist Tide in Iraq – Los Angeles Times online debate
When No News is Good News – Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics
Strategic Drift on Iraq - Podesta, Korb and Katulis, Washington Post
What Has Become of the “Iraqitects”? – Kurt Campbell, New York Times
Blackwater’s Loopholes – Jeremy Scahill, Los Angeles Times
No Good at Nation Building – Robert Novak, Washington Post
Don’t Blame Democracy – Peter Wehner, Weekly Standard
Democracy is Working in Latin America - Angel Gurría, Miami Herald
Untold Tale of Refugees – Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star
Balancing Liberty with Counterterrorism – London Daily Telegraph editorial
Actions Speak Loudest to Terrorists – Michael Burleigh, London Daily Telegraph
Iran: No More Nightmares – Daniel Gallington, Washington Times
Musharraf’s Opposition – Washington Times editorial
Musharraf Blocking Democracy - San Francisco Chronicle editorial
Pakistan: A Risk for the West – Paul Moorcraft, Washington Times
Musharraf is the Wrong Friend – Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times
Pakistan's Brave Lawyers - Francisco Angones, Miami Herald
Musharraf Borrows from Bush Playbook - Robert Scheer, San Francisco Chronicle
What About Hamas? - Baltimore Sun editorial
Kosovo Wants Independence – Agim Ceku, Wall Street Journal
The Kind of People Ruling Russia – Boston Globe editorial
Don’t Turn on Ethiopia? – Huddleston and Nagy, New York Times
Mr. Chavez’s Coup – Washington Post editorial
Burma’s Repression Rubies – Los Angeles Times editorial
X-Band Radar for Defense – James Hackett, Washington Times
UK: The Cost of Trident – Nigel Griffiths, London Times
When No News is Good News – Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics
Strategic Drift on Iraq - Podesta, Korb and Katulis, Washington Post
What Has Become of the “Iraqitects”? – Kurt Campbell, New York Times
Blackwater’s Loopholes – Jeremy Scahill, Los Angeles Times
No Good at Nation Building – Robert Novak, Washington Post
Don’t Blame Democracy – Peter Wehner, Weekly Standard
Democracy is Working in Latin America - Angel Gurría, Miami Herald
Untold Tale of Refugees – Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star
Balancing Liberty with Counterterrorism – London Daily Telegraph editorial
Actions Speak Loudest to Terrorists – Michael Burleigh, London Daily Telegraph
Iran: No More Nightmares – Daniel Gallington, Washington Times
Musharraf’s Opposition – Washington Times editorial
Musharraf Blocking Democracy - San Francisco Chronicle editorial
Pakistan: A Risk for the West – Paul Moorcraft, Washington Times
Musharraf is the Wrong Friend – Rosa Brooks, Los Angeles Times
Pakistan's Brave Lawyers - Francisco Angones, Miami Herald
Musharraf Borrows from Bush Playbook - Robert Scheer, San Francisco Chronicle
What About Hamas? - Baltimore Sun editorial
Kosovo Wants Independence – Agim Ceku, Wall Street Journal
The Kind of People Ruling Russia – Boston Globe editorial
Don’t Turn on Ethiopia? – Huddleston and Nagy, New York Times
Mr. Chavez’s Coup – Washington Post editorial
Burma’s Repression Rubies – Los Angeles Times editorial
X-Band Radar for Defense – James Hackett, Washington Times
UK: The Cost of Trident – Nigel Griffiths, London Times
something that hasn't gotten as much attention as it should: if
Congress wants to express its displeasure with the suppression of
democracy in Pakistan, it has a "free hit" readily available. It can
cut, suspend, or unilaterally condition (ie without the possibility of
Presidential waiver) the part of U.S. military aid that is not
plausibly related to fighting insurgents.
Slow Pitch: Congress Should Cut Military Aid to Pakistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...ou_b_72829.html
--
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Congress wants to express its displeasure with the suppression of
democracy in Pakistan, it has a "free hit" readily available. It can
cut, suspend, or unilaterally condition (ie without the possibility of
Presidential waiver) the part of U.S. military aid that is not
plausibly related to fighting insurgents.
Slow Pitch: Congress Should Cut Military Aid to Pakistan
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...ou_b_72829.html
--
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Iran: Has the Rising Price of Oil Trumped Sanctions?
By Victor Comras
A major debate is ranging in European capitals on how best to deal with the growing prospect of confrontation with Iran over its ongoing nuclear weapons development program. Last month French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on their EU colleagues to impose new EU sanctions against Iran. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also warned that dire consequences could result if Iran were permitted to continue unimpeded on its presence course. G7 Ministers meeting in Washington also praised new warnings issued by the 34 nation Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that Iranian banks posed serious international money laundering and terrorism financing risks. The United States had hoped that against this background EU countries would follow-suit after the US targeted new sanctions measures against Iran’s largest banks, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and IRGC controlled companies. But, this has not happened. Rather, the EU council has put on hold any new measures pending further developments and further reports from EU negotiator Javier Solana and IAEA director Mohamed El Baradei.
Some of my colleagues have suggested that the new US measures, and threats that the US will look more closely at those institutions doing business with designated entities in Iran, would persuade major European and other financial institutions to disengage from such relationships. But, without EU Countries adopting their own new sanctions measures, this may be no more than wishful thinking given the rise in the price of oil, significant increases in Iran’s oil revenues, and profit motivations. While several European banks have taken some steps to reduce their Iran exposure, few have actually withdrawn from the Iran market. Several have moved away from handling US dollar transactions for Iran and substituted euros or other foreign currencies. And, Iran, itself, has adeptly moved away from US dollar transactions into euro based transactions. This is particularly the case with oil industry-related transactions. Last March, Iran’s then Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh announced Iran would accept euros for crude oil sales, and would carry out its oil-industry related equipment purchases in euros rather than dollars. Arrangements were also made with Japanese customers to accept the Yen. Iran’s new Oil Minister, Gholamhossein Nozari is also expected to direct Iran’s energy sector further away from US dollar influence. Iran's central bank has also shifted to holding its foreign reserves in a basket of 20 currencies of which U.S. dollars now reportedly make up less than 20 percent..
German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s meetings last week with President Bush further underscored differences in Europe over the course of action to be followed. Unlike recent statement by French and British leaders, German leaders have continued to express their reticence to restrict banking activities, commercial deals and investments in Iran. Merkel again stressed Germany’s position that the Security Council, rather than the EU Council, is the proper forum for seeking agreement on further sanctions. She also insisted that the current round of negotiations be allowed to run through before new sanctions are considered. And, even in the likely event that such further negotiations go no-where, she committed herself only to having “a closer look again at {sanctions} and possibl(e) need to work together with our German business community. I will talk with them again on further possible reductions of those commercial ties." At the other end of the spectrum, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for a worldwide ban on all companies developing Iran’s oil and gas fields if Iran fails to curb its nuclear ambitions.
And what effect has the current international sanctions and the additional US measures actually had on Iran. Well, it is clear that they have had some impact, but certainly not enough to deter Iran from its present course. Several European banks have pulled back, or put on hold further discussions concerning some major oil field, pipeline and other potential financial commitments. Bank Sepah has had to close down its direct operations in Europe, and Bank Saderat and Bank Melli are cautiously redirecting their accounts away from European financial institutions. European boardrooms are also reflecting on the risks and likelihood of further EU sanctions measures, and as to whether they should really be concerned by threats of additional US regulatory activity. They are also concerned about their public relations in the United States, the growing impetus behind US disinvestment movements, and the threats of possible new US congressional action.
The fact is that Iran’s oil export revenue surge has served to shore up Iran’s otherwise foundering economy, at least for the short term. Last February Iran officials expected oil revenues to surpass $50 billion, and this can probably be raised by some 20 to 30 percent a result of the spot market price increases. Either way, increased oil revenues have resulted in a government revenue surplus which can be used to substitute for the loss of foreign funding for current critical infrastructure projects. However, this increased oil revenue has not insulated Iran’s vulnerable commercial class from the potential impact of any new European trade restrictions that might be directed at them. And this commercial class, which is crucial to providing new job development and for moderating current high urban unemployment rates, could prove to be Iran’s Achilles Heel.
November 14, 2007 12:55 PM Link TrackBack (0) Print
Dow Jones, Wall Street Journal, and Islamist Financing
By Jeffrey Imm
On November 18, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), published by Dow Jones, is sponsoring a conference in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on "Islamic and Ethical Finance" to "examine the huge opportunities presented by this high-growth sector". The Wall Street Journal's "Chief Shariah Officer" for this November 18 conference is Shaykh Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, who has worked for the pro-Wahhabist International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) organization and who was secretary of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) beginning in 1989. IIIT was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood memorandum as one of the Muslim Brotherhood's like-minded "organizations of our friends." The Investigative Project has linked members of the FCNA to Islamist extremism and terrorism.
The Dow Jones Company provides a Dow Jones Islamic Market and a Dow Jones Islamic Fund (IMANX). The Dow Jones Islamic Fund is managed by Allied Asset Advisors, a subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT is a venture of HLF trial unindicted co-conspirator Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Regarding NAIT, Newsweek has reported that "authorities say NAIT has long been a funnel for Saudi and other gulf money seeking to spread an often anti-American brand of Islamic fundamentalism in American mosques from southern California to South Carolina -- a little-noted movement financed by Saudi billions over the past 40 years."
Among the Dow Jones' "Shari'ah Supervisory Board" is Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, who has been recently reported in the London Times as supporting aggressive Jihad against non-Muslim nations, where the London Times summarized his views as "[o]ur followers 'must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad'". Dow Jones' advisor Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani's support of Jihad is not new. His book "Islam aur Jidat Pasandi (Islam and Modernism)" has been widely read among Islamists for years, and Chapter 11 of this book, "Aggressive and Defensive Jehad", clearly demonstrates this Dow Jones' advisor's support for aggressive Jihad. Per the London Times, Dow Jones' advisor Mufti Usmani is a Deobandi cleric and a former shariah judge from Pakistan. The Wall Street Journal's Chief Shariah Advisor Yusuf Talal Delorenzo also has experience with the Pakistan government, and was former Advisor on Islamic Affairs to the Government of Pakistan.
While the Wall Street Journal has recently published articles with criticism of politicians who link Islam to terrorism, the Wall Street Journal's financial reporting on Shariah finance seems to show no understanding of the political ideology of Islamism. An August 9, 2007 Wall Street Journal article clearly states WSJ's view of Shariah as "Islamic law" which "stems from the Quran and subsequent interpretations by scholars". Neither the Wall Street Journal nor Dow Jones addresses the role of Shariah as part of the Islamist political ideology, or the role of Islamist political ideology in promoting Jihad. The WSJ and Dow Jones efforts are effectively legitimizing the political Islamist ideology by defining Shariah as "Islamic law" and developing financial vehicles based on that ideology -- one that is not shared by Muslims that view Shariah law as neither "Islamic" nor compatible with the norms of modern society.
Read More »
Alex Alexiev, Vice President of Research at the Center for Security Policy, points out that Shariah law is not "Islamic law", except as interpreted by Islamists. In his article "Islamic Finance or Financing Islam?", Alex Alexiev states "shariah is mostly a post-Quranic, man-made medieval doctrine that is almost completely at odds with modern norms of human rights, political freedoms and international relations... and [s]hariah doctrine, though claiming to be derived from the Quran, is thus a politicized interpretation of the Muslim scriptures and other non-revealed sources" [Alexiev article, page 3]. Alex Alexiev further points out that "the word shariah is mentioned only once in the Quran, and not at all as a system of jurisprudence, but in its traditional meaning of the 'right path'" [Alexiev article, page 3].
One does not expect ideological issues to be the strong point of financial reporters working for the Wall Street Journal or financial analysts working for the Dow Jones Company. But one could hardly imagine the Wall Street Journal in 1967 holding a conference on "Communist Finance" vehicles, because without a doubt, the financial world and the American public understood Communism to be a political ideology. Moreover, it was understood as an enemy ideology inimical to the United States. In 2007, however, Wall Street has been persuaded by Wahhabists and Islamists that political Islamism is a religion, not a political ideology.
As previously discussed, this is where the failure of an agreed-upon policy on Jihad and Islamism continues to weaken the United States' national security. While the 9/11 Commission acknowledged in a footnote that Islamism provided a basis for Islamist terrorism, it failed to recommend any analysis or policy in determining an approach regarding political Islamism, and no policy has ever been created on Islamism. Without a policy on the ideology of Islamism, the America is handicapped in: (a) having a coherent war strategy, (
preventing infiltration of sensitive agencies, © preventing use of our media by foreign propagandists, (d) protecting our national financial security, and (e) defending our major financial organizations from being used as pawns by Islamists.Per Alex Alexiev's article, "far from being an innocent venture in free market capitalism, Islamic finance was conceived and is practiced as one of the key instruments of the militant Islamist movement in its struggle against the West." [Alexiev article, page 2] As Mr. Alexiev points out, a key objective in Shariah finance is to gain the acceptance of Shariah as legitimate "Islamic law" in the West, as a stepping stone to making Shariah a part of Western community law in areas such as family law, with the goal of creating parallel Islamist societies in Western nations.
The role of promoting Islamism as an objective in "Islamic finance" is also addressed in the book "The Politics of Islamic Finance", relating the "Islamic finance movement" as a party to "a broader Islamist agenda" to "transform the present state of the world" (page 2 of referenced book). And just how will Shariah finance and its Islamist supporters seek to transform the world?
Just as Islamists use Shariah to attempt to create parallel legal systems and societies in the West, the Islamist efforts with Shariah finance are an attempt to create a parallel financial system as well. A critical analysis of Shariah financial systems reveals that indeed there is very little "Shariah" about them, with the use of bogus techniques such as murabaha where instead of charging "interest", banks add a "service charge", with the transaction being "legitimate" per Shariah law because the bank will "own" the goods for a second. Alex Alexiev states "[t]o those that pursue the objectives of the radical Islamist agenda, all the ruses and deceptive ploys of Islamic banking are well worth the progress they have made in promoting shariah extremism by means of Islamic finance." [Alexiev article, page 9]
Another aspect of Shariah finance market is the sheer volume of the estimated $800 billion Shariah finance market and its impact on Western capital markets. As Douglas Farah states in his article "A Massive and Dangerous Shift", petrodollar liquidity continues to massively redistribute wealth on the order of $700 billion to other parts of the world, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and others. Per Douglas Farah, one example of the results of the avalanche of petrodollars in nations like Saudi Arabia will be a boost in Wahhabist theology efforts around the world: "[t]hat means mosques that spew hate, text books that promote intolerance and millions of dollars more through zakat money to charities that often align with terrorists." Alex Alexiev expresses the concern that "[i]t is thus not unrealistic to be concerned that if allowed to continue unabated, Islamic finance could not only acquire enough critical mass to start undermining Western capital markets, but is certain to create a massive, legitimate and institutionalized financial and political underpinning to Islamic extremism that has the stated objective of destroying Western civilization." [Alexiev article, page 10]
With this massive volume in Shariah finance, the ability to use Shariah zakat or "alms giving" based on 2.5 per cent per year takes on a different dimension. It has been reported that while the first tier of zakat recipients is to be for the poor, needy, and those heavily indebted, the next tier of recipients of zakat includes those supporting Islamist proselytism and Jihad. Per Alex Alexiev, "[e]very bank offering Islamic products appears required to donate 2.5% of revenue generated from them to zakat and with some 400 banks in 75 countries and a trillion dollars in Islamic financing currently the potential zakat sums are staggering." [Alexiev article pages 9, 10].
Islamists argue that such Shariah finance zukat can be rightly used for Jihad. As per Lt. Col. Jonathan D. Halevi's article "What Drives Saudi Arabia to Persist in Terrorist Financing?", Halevi states that "Dr. Ajeel Jassem al-Nashami, secretary general of the International Organization for Zakat (Islamic alms) in Kuwait, argued that donations made by Muslims for zakat should be funneled to finance jihad warfare in Palestine against Israel." Halevi's article also quotes Saudi scholar Hamoud al-Oqala al-Shuaibi, stating "[i]n his Islamic edict on jihad in Chechnya, al-Shuaibi determined that the 'significance of financial jihad is not inferior to self-sacrificing jihad, being even more important.'"
Such pro-Jihad Shariah Finance zakat has supported Jihadist terrorist groups, Islamist madrassas, and supporting suicide bombers' families. Per Alex Alexiev, "Zakat committees in Gaza have been a prime transfer mechanism of funds for Hamas, for instance, and the radical jihadist madrassas in Pakistan have been partly funded from zakat for decades." Per Alyssa Lappen's article on "Shariah Finance", "[i]n 2006, UAE donated $100 million to house Palestinian Authority prisoners and families of suicide bombers--and honor UAE president Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahayan, whose late father, over 30 years contributed millions for PLO, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terror. On July 27, 2005, Hamas thanked Al-Nahayan's 'sisterly UAE' for its 'limitless [financial] support...,' and 'aid for our Mujahid,' in other words, Hamas jihadist 'charitable societies.' "
In addition to the growing size of the Shariah finance market, and the impact it could make in funding Jihad via zakat, another concern is a drive to consolidate global zakat funds for Islamist purposes. Per the Arab News, Saudi Sheik Saleh Kamel has sought to develop a "World Zakah Fund to streamline the collection and distribution of Zakah". The Arab News reported that proposed new "World Zakah Fund" "would have offices in all Islamic countires". Per Alex Alexiev, as of September 2007, "this plan was approved by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and is about to become a reality." [Alexiev article, page 14]
The Arab News also reported that Sheik Kamel had the support of Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, chairman of the World Forum for Muslim Scholars who estimates that the fund could be $2 billion. (Sheik Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has also been reported as a figure associated with the Muslim Brotherhood organization, and per the Investigative Project, is "known for his militant religious rulings and political commentary in support of acts of terrorism".) On October 8, Rachel Ehrenfeld reported that "[i]n 1999, Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi decreed: 'Declaring holy war [and] fighting for such purposes is the way of Allah for which zakat must be spent.' "
Alex Alexiev also states that "World Zakah Fund" founder Sheik Kamel is "a Saudi multi-billionaire, owner of the oldest and largest Islamic banking group, Dallah al-Baraka, and an alleged terrorism financier widely considered the kingpin behind international Islamic finance". [Alexiev article, page 14] Victor Comras reported in December 2006 that US District Court Judge Casey had dismissed lawsuits against Sheik Kamel and Dallah al-Baraka, despite Kamel being one of the names prominently listed in the so-called Golden Chain, which purported to be a list of potential al Qaeda financiers.
Dallah al-Baraka also offers investment opportunities in the Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund, which is no doubt what the Wall Street Journal will be promoting during its November 18 conference in Dubai.
Sources and Related Documents:
Wall Street Journal Web Site on Islamic Finance
Wall Street Journal Web Site on Islamic Finance Speakers
Wall Street Journal - Shaykh Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, Chief Shariah Officer and Board Member
DIFC and The Wall Street Journal launch Islamic and Ethical Finance Conference
Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes - Shaykh Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo Biography
Islamic Bookstore Biography on Shaykh Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo
IIIT Publication by Shaykh Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo
September 10, 2004 - The Washington Post: In Search Of Friends Among The Foes
DiscoverTheNetworks.org: Profile of International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT)
October 10, 2007 - Douglas Farah: The Muslim Brotherhood in America Defined as "Threat Organization" in DOD Memo
May 22, 1991: Muslim Brotherhood: "An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group" - Mohamed Akram
The Investigative Project: Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) - Members of FCNA connected to Islamic extremism and terrorism
Dow Jones Company History and Organization
Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes - Overview
Dow Jones Islamic Market -- The Shari'ah Supervisory Board
Dow Jones Islamic Fund (IMANX)
Dow Jones Islamic Fund Overview
North American Islamic Trust (NAIT)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, CR NO. 3:04-CR-240-G, Attachment A - List of Unindicted Co-conspirators and/or Joint Venturers
September 30, 2002 - Newsweek: "A Safe Haven?" - Sarah Downey and Michael Hirsh
Dow Jones Islamic Market Indexes - Shaykh Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani Biography
September 8, 2007 - London Times: Our followers 'must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad'
Islam and Modernism - Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, Chapter 11 - Aggressive and Defensive Jehad
Albalagh: Mufti Taqi Usmani
Muslim Investor Biography on Shaykh Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo
October 29, 2007 - The Wall Street Journal: "Linking Terror on the Trail: Republicans Point To Islam, Democrats Take Different Tone," by Elizabeth Holmes
August 9, 2007 - The Wall Street Journal: When Hedge Funds Meet Islamic Finance
Wikipedia: Islamism
October 26, 2007 - Jihad, Islamism, and the Challenge of Anti-Freedom Ideologies - Jeffrey Imm, Counterterrorism Blog
October 15, 2007 - The Dangerous Denial of Jihad's Threat - Jeffrey Imm, Counterterrorism Blog
September 11, 2007 - 9/11 and the Inconvenient Truths about Jihad and Islamism - Jeffrey Imm
November 13, 2007 - FrontPageMagazine.com: Muslims Against Sharia - by Jamie Glazov
Muslims Against Sharia Islamic Reform Movement
"Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism?" - The Center for Security Policy, October 2007, No. 29, by Alex Alexiev - pages 2, 3, 9, 10, 14
The Politics of Islamic Finance, Clement M. Henry and Rodney Wilson, Edinburgh University Press, 2004, page 2
March 21, 2007 - Reuters: FACTBOX: Key facts about Islamic finance
November 12, 2007 - "A Massive and Dangerous Shift" by Douglas Farah
June 1, 2005 - What Drives Saudi Arabia to Persist in Terrorist Financing? Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal - Financial Jihad Against the Infidels -- Lt. Col. Jonathan D. Halevi -- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Number 531
November 13, 2007 - FrontPageMagazine.com: Sharia Finance -- by Alyssa A. Lappen
October 26, 2006 - Arab News: Plans to Establish World Fund for Zakah
The Investigative Project: Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Theologian of Terror
October 8, 2007 - Terror Finance Blog: Islamic Financing - Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. Lappen
Dallah al-Baraka
Wikipedia.org: The Golden Chain - a list of wealthy Saudi sponsors that allegedly represents a list of financiers of al Qaeda
August 23, 2002 - BBC: Islamic bank defends terror funding claims
December 20, 2002 - In These Times: Funding Terror - Investigating the role of Saudi banks
December 18, 2006 - Another Terrorism Case Is Dismissed Against Saleh Kamel and His Dallah Al Baraka Investment Group - Victor Comras, The Counterterrorism Blog
Al Baraka Dow Jones Islamic Index Fund
Terrorism Financing: Roots and trends of Saudi terrorism financing
August 28, 2007 - The Terror Finance Blog: Islamic Finance, it's a Whole New World
September 22, 2005: "Financial Jihad" -- by Rachel Ehrenfeld
October 9, 2007 - New York Sun: City Tries To Increase Share of Sharia Finances
« Close It
November 14, 2007 12:30 PM Link
Hizballah Mole Case Reflects Depth of Threat
By Bill West
The emerging prosecution case against the former FBI and CIA officer in Detroit who has just pleaded guilty to various Federal felonies stemming from her apparent fraudulent infiltration of those agencies demonstrates the threat posed by operatives and sympathizers of terrorist organizations penetrating the front-line national security departments defending America from those very terror organizations. This is nothing new. This is the way skilled hostile intelligence organizations conduct espionage during wartime. This particular case, disturbingly, may be indicative of the level of sophistication Hizballah’s intelligence apparatus, surely with the assistance of the Iranian government, has reached.
Equally disturbing is how the accused defendant employed, with apparent ease, immigration fraud to remain in the United States after first entering on a temporary student visa (and how many hundreds of thousands of others like her from terrorist producing countries have similarly entered the US in recent years?). She then engaged in a sham marriage to obtain permanent resident status and ultimately obtained naturalized US citizenship via fraud. Having obtained US citizenship, she applied to the FBI and became an agent and later transferred to the CIA. A more potentially damaging security scenario would be hard to imagine.
While the Federal law enforcement authorities who brought this case to fruition should be commended, there are apparent systemic problems presented by this case. The background investigation process for such positions, one might have assumed, should have identified her original illegal immigration status. Was that even a “red flag” in the security process? Original illegal immigration status, followed by resident status via marriage and quick divorce, facts identified in the case press release, are indicators of fraud. Should those factors not have been considered during the vetting for a Top Secret clearance? If not, why not? These, perhaps, are questions for further inquiry; perhaps by Congressional oversight authorities.
Unfortunately, terrorists and their supporters fraudulently acquiring US citizenship and otherwise engaging in immigration fraud in support of their nefarious actions, to include the infiltration of US Government agencies, is something not limited to this case. Read more about such matters here, here, here and here.
November 13, 2007 05:50 PM Link TrackBack (0) Print
Hizballah's Penetration of the FBI, CIA
By Steven Emerson
As noted by Michael Cutler, the sister-in-law of Hizballah-linked fugitive Talal Chahine pled guilty today to fraudulently obtaining her citizenship, using her illegally acquired status to attain employment with both the FBI and CIA, and illegally using government computers to gather Hizballah-related intelligence.
Nadia Nadim Prouty, aka Nadia Nadim Al Aouar, came to the U.S. in 1990 on a non-immigrant visa, overstayed her visa and entered into a fraudulent marriage in Michigan to a U.S. citizen. Prouty submitted a series of fraudulent affidavits, notably from her sister Elfat Al Aouar and her husband, Talal Chahine, attesting to the validity of Prouty’s marriage. According to the federal government, “As planned, [Prouty] never lived as husband and wife with her fraudulent ‘husband’ and the marriage was never consummated sexually.”
But Prouty did use her newly gained citizenship to get a job as a Special Agent with the FBI, which requires U.S. citizenship for employment, in 1999. Prouty was given a security clearance and tasked to the FBI’s Washington Field Office.
According to prosecutors in the Eastern District of Michigan, Prouty used FBI computers - absent authorization - to run searches on herself, her sister and her brother in law, Elfat Al Aouar and Talal Chahine, owners of the popular Michigan-based restaurant chain, La Shish.
In May 2006, Chahine and Al Aouar were charged with tax evasion, with some of the proceeds allegedly funneled to Hizballah. As part of that case, the government asserted, in a written proffer that Chahine and his wife attended a fundraising event in Lebanon in August 2002 with Hizballah Sheikh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Specially Designated Terrorist (see page 8), where the two men were the keynote speakers.
Read More »
The proffer also claims that a search of El Aouar’s residence turned up a “thank you letter” for sponsoring 40 “orphans,” as well as images of Chahine and his family in front of a Hizballah outpost. According to the proffer:
As I wrote last year, Chahine is also connected to the Hizballah-linked charity al-Mabarrat, founded by Sheikh Fadlallah, still operating out of Dearborn, Michigan.
“[t]he government is aware that the sponsorship of orphans is a euphemism used by Hizballah to refer to the orphans of martyrs. This is a common public relations and recruitment tool used by Hizballah. Hizballah gains favor with the public in Lebanon by supporting ‘orphans,’ while at the same time recruiting others into the terrorist organization willing to sacrifice their lives in terrorist operations based in part on the promise that Hizballah will take care of their families.”
In 2003, Prouty resigned her position with the FBI and began working for the CIA - where U.S. citizenship is also a prerequisite for employment. Prouty is facing over 15 years in prison and $600,000 in fines for her crimes.
« Close It
November 13, 2007 04:55 PM Link
Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update November 15, 2007
SEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO WAR - MAX BOOT (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 14): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
THE SCHOOL OF BAD IDEAS: "SEND THE STATE DEPT. TO WAR" ? (AVUNCULAR AMERICAN AN EXPATRIATE VIEW FROM EUROPE BY GERALD LOFTUS): http://avuncularamerican.typepad.com/blog/...
SEND THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO WAR - MAX BOOT (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 14): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin
THE SCHOOL OF BAD IDEAS: "SEND THE STATE DEPT. TO WAR" ? (AVUNCULAR AMERICAN AN EXPATRIATE VIEW FROM EUROPE BY GERALD LOFTUS): http://avuncularamerican.typepad.com/blog/...