Dereliction of Duty
By Paul Krugman, New York Times, June 17, 2003
Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year's homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year. The subcommittee's chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding. It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric — and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny — lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn't fit the administration's agenda. Yesterday The Washington Post printed an interview with Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser who resigned in March. "They're making us less secure, not more secure," he said of the Bush administration. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done." Among the problem areas he cited were homeland security, where he says the administration has "only a rhetorical policy"; failure to press Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists) to take action; and, of course, the way we allowed Afghanistan to relapse into chaos. Some of this pattern of neglect involves penny-pinching. Back in February, even George W. Bush in effect admitted that not enough money had been allocated to domestic security — though (to the fury of Republican legislators) he blamed Congress. Yet according to Fred Kaplan in Slate, the administration's latest budget proposal for homeland security actually contains less money than was spent last year. Meanwhile, urgent priorities remain unmet. For example, port security, identified as a top concern from the very beginning, has so far received only one-tenth as much money as the Coast Guard says is needed....

Stick to the nuclear point on Iran
Editorial, Financial Times, June 17, 2003
International pressure on Iran to come clean about its alleged clandestine nuclear programme may be about to produce some results. The International Atomic Energy Agency is examining Tehran's nuclear activities this week at its board meeting in Vienna, amid signs that the the US - which labelled Iran a charter member of the "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea - is curbing its instinct to bring the issue to the boil and trying instead to build a broader diplomatic front. That, for now, is clearly the best way to approach the problem. Iran, for its part, is signalling that it may decide "positively" on the IAEA's demand that it sign an additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would allow unannounced and intrusive inspections at any declared or suspect site, and considerably strengthen NPT safeguards. If Iran were responding purely to pressure from the "Great Satan", its reaction would be different. But, unlike with Iraq, the US has the European Union and Russia firmly in its camp. EU foreign ministers have called on Tehran to accept tougher IAEA inspections "urgently and unconditionally". Brussels has leverage, since Iran is keen to secure a trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. Tehran is also feeling increasingly nervous about becoming encircled by the US after the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq, which has increased the diplomatic value of the policy of engagement with Iran pursued by the EU and its member states. Russia has leverage too. It is helping Iran build nuclear energy plants at Bushehr in the south of the country, but is now threatening not to supply nuclear fuel unless Tehran satisfactorily answers a host of IAEA questions about weapons-grade nuclear material and signs the additional protocol. This degree of international cohesion may not last indefinitely. But it would be unwise for Washington to try to force an early IAEA decision to declare Iran in breach of the NPT, triggering a referral to the UN Security Council. The IAEA board would probably split; the Council almost certainly would.

Poland has more to offer Iraq than troops
By Abbey Innes, Financial Times, June 16, 2003
When the Bush administration gave Poland's military an important role in stabilising postwar Iraq its intention was no doubt partly to reward one of America's most loyal allies from "New Europe". But there is another reason that Poland and, for that matter, other eastern European countries should help to stabilise and rebuild an unstable country ravaged by a cruel autocracy: they have the experience. Iraq is clearly not eastern Europe in 1989. American forces are still engaged in combat operations in central Iraq. Elsewhere, the occupiers face enormous difficulties in establishing order. In contrast, the demise of east European communism was mostly peaceful. Even after the violent Romanian revolution the ministry buildings were still standing and civil servants showed up for work. In Iraq, the ministries are bombed-out shells. The US-UK coalition thought it could decapitate a regime. It also, as is now clear, demolished a state. But there are similarities. Ba'athism was modelled on Stalinism. There are many Polish, Czech, Hungarian, Romanian and Serb reformers and former dissidents who in the past 14 years have constructed democratic government from a repressive state and a poisoned bureaucracy. These reformers have learnt from their mistakes, two of which, we should note, were underestimating the importance of legitimacy and giving rapid economic reform priority over legal and judicial order. In eastern Europe the new dissident governments operated with small clusters of hand-picked, effective and trusted officials. They would not be at a loss in Iraq and might even see the absence of old guard bureaucracy as an advantage. European anti-communists screened their security forces, reconstructed their police and military and started party politics - practically from nothing. Their experience should be brought to bear. The power vacuum in Baghdad is generating dangerous instability. More important than ethno-religious tension - there is a widespread tendency in the west to see fundamentalism in every open religious expression in the Middle East - is the inevitable mutual distrust that follows the collapse of a totalitarian regime. Iraqis fear the old guard may return: Saddam Hussein is still alive; Ba'ath party officials are being called back into public posts; the secret police, like the Securitate in post-Ceausescu Romania, linger.

Dark Star Chambers
By Elaine Cassel, CounterPunch, June 18, 2003
Secret Trials, Nameless Defendents, Veiled Threats to Defense Lawyers -- For those of you hoping the federal courts will save you from the abuses of freedom foisted upon you by the Congress who brought us the USA Patriot Act and Bush, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, who brought us the "war on terror," I have bad news to report. Yet another federal appeals court has slammed the door on public interest groups trying to stem the power of the government to detain, arrest, try, and deport people in secret. Yes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that all those nameless and faceless detainees who were rounded up by Ashcroft and his henchmen after 9/11, who were abused by the government as reported by the DOJ Inspector General last week, they all have the right to privacy! Now you and I don't have the right to privacy, common ordinary people charged with anything from jaywalking to murder, no siree, we have no right to privacy. Anyone can walk into any courthouse and get our criminal records. But so-called "terrorists" (I mean, that is why they were rounded up, wasn't it?) hell, they have privacy! Apparently, that irony was lost on the two who masqueraded as judges. And, just in case you don't buy the privacy argument, they said they must defer to the President in time of "war." Yes, that perpetual war that will never end. That war on evil, that war on terror. Whatever Bush and Ashcroft want from the courts, they will get. Judge Tatel wrote a stinging dissent, accusing his colleagues (one appointed by Reagan, on by George the First) of totally abdicating their role as protectors of the law. What, he said? You say the Freedom of Information Act falls when the President claims national seucirty? And you are not even going to look at the claim and see if it is legitimate?

Theater of Deception
By Sam Hamod, CounterPunch, June 18, 2003
Bush, Sharon and Abbas -- George W. Bush, it appears is an adept thespian. Look at the way he kept telling the world that he was "doing all I can not to go to war with Iraq"--when in fact, he'd made the decision months earlier to definitely go to war against Iraq. We now have the famous theatre of the Aqaba Summit. Here was GW, Ariel and Mahmoud Abbas--all smiling, shaking hands, making promises--even promises Mahmoud should never have made just to please GW and Sharon. But it now appears that Ariel and GW had their own plan that Mahmoud was not privy to--that Aqaba was pure theatre of the absurd for GW had told Ariel, go ahead, kill all the Hamas group and let's get rid of them once and for all. GW made a light protest when Sharon made his bold announcement, but within 24 hours, GW made clear that Sharon was right to go after all those "terrorists" who were trying to fight for their homes, land and families--in the same way GW is sure that those Iraqis who are resisting his "liberation" (aka occupation) are "Saddam loyalists" (not Iraqis), and anyone else who doesn't believe in and follow GW is nothing but a trouble maker who should be "punished" (as he told France, Germany and Turkey). So now the theatricality is over with, GW's mask is off, he is on the stage of the world embracing Ariel Sharon's dastardly actions. Any hope for this phony "roadmap" is gone, and the executioner seen is Sharon, but the one behind Sharon, the one who could stop him, but who instead supports him, is the real mover--GW Bush, or own little Georgie boy. When Sharon made his famous speech to the Knesset last week, he stated, "We must rid ourselves of Hamas if there is to be peace. We shall hunt them down until all these terrorists are killed." At first, GW made a comment, "This is not helpful." But within 24 hours, he reversed himself and said he agreed with his hero, Sharon, and wished him Godspeed in is mission to kill the members of Hamas. It defies logic to think then of Bush as an honest broker, but it allows me and several other friends, some of whom are people who have abandoned Israel is a fraudulent dream, to believe that it was all staged so that Bush could keep his promsie of a "roadmap" to Blair, Straw, the EU and the Arab and Muslims "friendly nations" as he had promised; after the staging, Sharon was once again, as he has been for the past two years, let on the loose to go on another rampage of killing in Palestine in the name of "security." It gets to be a tired song, a repetitious lie that even children can see through, though not the U.S. media!??

Illuminating Thomas Friedman
By M. Shahid Alam, Dissident Voice, June 18, 2003
A webpage on Thomas Friedman, maintained by Farrar, Straux & Giroux, declares that as the foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times (NYT), he is in a “unique position to interpret the world for American readers. Twice a week, Friedman’s commentary provides the most trenchant, pithy, and illuminating perspective in journalism.” My quarrel is not with why Friedman is in “a unique position to interpret the world for American readers.” That is plain enough: he writes for NYT, arguably the world’s most influential newspaper. But does he provide “the most trenchant, pithy and illuminating perspective” on foreign affairs, on Islam and the Middle East? I have the greatest difficulty with the third adjective. What does his commentary best illuminate: his subject or the biases that he brings to his commentary? Consider his column, “The Reality Principle,” from June 15, 2003. With a quote from an Israeli political theorist, Yaron Ezrahi, he argues that only the United States, “an external force,” can rescue the Israelis and Palestinians from their self-destructive war against each other. United States of America is the “only reality principle.” Only United States can save the day “with its influence, its wisdom and, if necessary, its troops.” How illuminating is this? Is United States altogether “an external force” in its dealings with Israel? This is not a subject that any politician or mainstream columnist, concerned for his or her career, can safely bring into the public discourse. It is much safer to take the position that Israel is a client state of the United States, a strategic asset that polices America’s friends and foes alike in the oil-rich Middle East. This is also the premise behind Friedman’s  description of United States as the “only reality principle” in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. This notion that Israel merely serves US interests is insupportable. At the least, it ignores three refractory facts. First, if US policy towards Israel is rooted in its national interest, it would be difficult to account for the vigorous activities of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—one of two most powerful political lobbies in the United States—dedicated to ensuring that the United States remains firmly committed to maintaining Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Why would American Jewry engage in such a monumentally wasteful exercise? Second, there is the curious fact that United States was deeply concerned, during the two Gulf Wars, to keep its strategic asset out of the war. Third, on the rare occasion when a US President has opposed an official Israeli position, even when this was a mild rebuke, he has run into massive opposition from both parties in the Congress.

Wanted Men-by Israel for Elimination, by Palestine for National Survival
By Samah Jabr, Palestine Media Center/Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 18, 2003
I was in the staircase of a public building at a very early hour in the morning when a well-built, barefoot young man accosted me, club in hand. He was not any less astonished to see me than I was to see him. Unlike me, however, who was paralyzed with fear, he soon heaved a sigh of relief. The young man quickly apologized and disappeared before I could fully grasp what had happened. Not long after that encounter he sent emissaries to inform me that he is one of the wanted Palestinians whose names appear on the "death lists" that are constantly being issued by the Israeli government. When he heard my footsteps he became terrified, and that was why he had raised his club at me. This unusual encounter brought home to me the reality of the wanted Palestinian political activists and fighters whom the iron fist of the occupation is eager to crush. Living with virtually no food, in crippling cold with little clothing, these people are constantly in the shadow of death. Many of their friends and comrades have been assassinated and many live in dread, anticipating death at any moment. They hide in caves, old buildings and public places, not knowing where to go or whom to trust. Israel has a long history of extra judicial killings, a policy in direct and blatant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It is being implemented, moreover, with complete disregard for the risks it poses to the lives of innocent civilian bystanders. The ultimate motive for this policy seems not to be the mere killing of Palestinian activists-although hundreds have been assassinated-but rather the "re-education" and intimidation of the entire nation. The reality of occupation has changed the interests and life style of many of our brave, altruistic and responsible young men. Resistance has become their priority and, for many, liberation is the ultimate goal in life. Instead of being wanted for jobs, for dates, for social and cultural activities, they are "wanted" as objects of assassination or endless imprisonment in the springtime of their lives. They behold their blood and coffins wherever they go, and live with unbearable distrust of others. Wherever they turn they face danger. Parted from their families and wives, suffering hunger, cold, and homelessness, they never know in which car, or phone booth, or surroundings, or from what Apache helicopter gunship, ambush, or sniper's fire they will meet their death.

The Aqaba summit: Palestinian clarity versus Israeli vagueness
Editorial, Daily Star, June 17, 2003
Each political agenda has its own logic, which means war, reconciliation and peace also have their own. Each of the four leaders present at the Aqaba summit, which took place on the eve of the 36th anniversary of the June war that went unmentioned, delivered his own speech. Two of the speeches, those of US President George W. Bush, and the host, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, concentrated on their vision of a two-state solution, and the bright future that this scenario promises. Those of the two protagonists, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, concentrated, as was expected of them, on the “road map” and the happy outcome it would eventually lead to. The manners in which each of the two premiers expressed their commitments to the road map, however, were diametrically opposed. While the Abbas speech was clear in expressing his commitment to it, Sharon’s was shrouded in such vagueness that the expression of any commitment was almost entirely lost. It appears that the Israeli premier saw in the lack of clarity a strategy that has a double benefit: one relating to the internal Israeli scene and the other to any future negotiations with the Palestinians. On the other hand, Abu Mazen saw the benefit of total clarity and the unequivocal acceptance of the terms demanded by the United States and its partners in the “Quartet” who formulated the road map, the shortest of roads to a Palestinian state. Just as every strategy has its specific requirements and political agenda, and every agenda has its own logic, the speech of the Palestinian prime minister was based on two premises: reciprocity in the application of the road map and readiness for negotiations. It seems however, that the next round will be tough on both sides given their very opposing logic ­ clarity at one end, which demonstrates a willingness to reach a solution, and vagueness on the other, which demonstrates a tendency toward maneuvering on both the implementation and negotiation levels. That situation begs the following question: What are the reasons behind the choice of strategies by each side, given the long and bloody conflict that exists between them?