Melia Amal Bouhabib: I would like to be wrong about this Fariba Nawa: Afghanistan, bombed and betrayed Marc Lynch: The U.N. is vital to establishing legitimacy in post-war Iraq Paul Hinlikcky: Anti-war activists are forfeiting influence in post-war foreign policy Robert Rubinstein: Going it alone is bad policy

New York University

ANTI-AMERICANISM IS BACK IN STYLE
Boston University professors Margaret and Melvin DeFleur have updated their study of attitudes about America in different countries of the world. Click here to see the an interactive guide.

Click here for the full report as a pdf file

The US State Department's Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism

PENTAGON DECLARES VICTORY, AND STARTS TO GO HOME
Tikrit is considered the last major combat in the war. Some ships and aircraft will be redeployed. The remaining U.S. troops will aim at consolidating power. U.S. sees no humanitarian crisis. (New York Times, April 15, 2003)
To listen to this week's Pentagon briefings in Real Audio, click here
Shape of Forces to change (DefenseLink, April 14, 2003)

U.S. CALLS IRAQI OPPOSITION TOGETHER TO DISCUSS ESTABLISHING CIVIL AUTHORITY, BUT SHIITES REJECT U.S. INVOLVEMENT
The meeting at an airbase outside Nasriya was snubbed by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Resolution—one of the largest Shiite opposition groups which until now has been based in Teheran. A crowd of SCIRI militants chanted "No to America, No to Saddam." (BBC, April 15, 2003)

A STRATEGY WHERE TO GO NEXT FOR IRAQ
A military victory was practically the only thing that nearly everyone agreed on about Iraq. The real question is: what comes next? The Economist Intelligence Unit analyzes the administration’s 3-phase strategy: 1) Military occupation leading to 2) Transitional Iraqi administration, which ends in 3) A permanent representational government elected by Iraqis. Everyone agrees on the steps, but how do you get there. As the Economist sees it, giving the Pentagon overall authority may make sense. It has the most experience in managing large administrative operations and in getting concrete results. To make the plan work though, the Administration will also have to defuse the Arab-Israeli problem.(Economist Intelligence Unit, April 11, 2003)

WHAT MADE IRAQ COLLAPSE SO QUICKLY
A Brookings Institution briefing concludes that Iraq planned for the wrong war and expected to have more time to make decisions. Saddam’s over confidence also helped. Kenneth Pollack, James Dobbins, Michael O’Hanlon and Israeli Major General Shlomo Yanai dissect recent developments in a wide-ranging panel discussion. Transcript in pdf format.
(Brookings, April 10, 2003)

U.S. INTELLIGENCE HUNTS SADDAM’S SECRET FILES
Saddam’s records should reveal once and for all whether he really did have any weapons of mass destruction. They may also reveal cooperation by U.S. companies and government agencies with Saddam over the years. When Iraq produced its report on its own weapons to the U.N. last year, the U.S. reportedly censored more than 1000 pages before letting the U.S. document be circulated to other countries. The reason for the censorship was never explained. (Ian Urbina, Asia Times, April 15, 2003)

INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION: DEFINING A NEW FOREIGN POLICY
The administration believes that the speedy victory in Iraq is only the first step in redefining U.S. foreign policy. "The world is changing," says one administration official. "There are consequences to this behavior". The Washington Post links to an analysis of the new administration position on each of the most critical foreign policy areas in the Middle East.
(Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, April 13, 2003)

TRASHING HISTORY
The looting of Iraq's national museum in Baghdad eliminated an important segment of the collected history of the human race, including artifacts dating back to Biblical times. The wanton destruction was a particularly bitter blow because the U.S. command had been warned of the danger months in advance. While half a dozen U.S. tanks secured Iraq's Ministry of petroleum, alone tank manned by U.S. Marines briefly frightened off looters, and then decided that it had better things to do. A day later, Baghdad's national archives were burned to the ground under similar circumstances.
Robert Fisk on sacking the Museum (The Independent, April 13, 2003)
Fisk on the national Archives

TO THE VICTORS THE SPOILS
The $4.8 million contract for managing the port of Um m Qasr has already gone to an American company. USAID is asking for bids from American companies to rebuild highways. A California Congressman wants the Pentagon to endow Iraq with a cell phone system that works on American standards and is incompatible with European phones. By the time, Iraq’s citizens get to express themselves, buying American will very likely be the only option.
(Naomi Klein, The Nation, April 10, 2003)

SYRIA: IN THE ADMINISTRATION’S SITES

FOR THE AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE'S MICHAEL LEDEEN, THERE IS ALREADY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR REGIME CHANGE
Iraq was never the most pressing danger, Ledeen insists. that title goes to Iran which has three times the forces, and to Syria, which is a co-sponsor of Lebanon's violent Hizbollah terrorists.
(Michael Ledeen, The Spectator, April 14, 2003)

HAS THE WHITEHOUSE ALREADY VETOED ATTACKING SYRIA?
The Guardian’s Julian Borger reports that Donald Rumsfeld had been studying a contingency plan for extending the war to Syria, but he was overruled by President Bush.
(Julian Borger, The Guardian, April 15, 2003)

U.S. DESTRUCTION OF IRAQI PIPELINE CUTS SYRIA’S OIL EXPORTS IN HALF
Syria’s has been exporting twice its expected oil surplus—roughly 437,000 barrels a day. That has stopped. Ten days after U.S. troops blew up an Iraqi pipeline suspected of sending 200,000 barrels a day to Syria illegally , Sytrol, the state-owned oil company announced that oil exports will be cut in half.
(MENA Report, April 10, 2003)

ANALYSIS:WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON WITH SYRIA?
PBS’ Jim Lehrer New2s Hour presents conflicting opinions from California State University’s As’ad Abu Khalil and Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute. Says Pletka: "…What we are doing is seeing a reaction to terrorists coming across the Syrian border, armed with Syrian passports… carrying Syrian-provided documentation, some of them with leaflets in their hands saying that there will be a reward for the killing of American soldiers. .." Responds As’ad Abu Khalil: "…The question we should face is this: Does the United States think that it can really take a case to the international community on the basis of some illegal flyers and night vision goggles that they found across the border?"
(Jim Lehrer News Hour, April 14, 2003)

THE MOOD IN DAMASCUS
Syria is increasingly torn between maintaining its image as a champion of pan-Arab independence and growing concern that U.S. troops are mopping up its next door neighbor and growing increasingly angry at the attitude in Damascus towards the war. (Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, April 15, 2003)

ISRAELIS SEE SYRIA PLANNING TO TURN IRAQ INTO A NEW BEIRUT
The U.S. sudden reversal of its policy towards Syria follows Damascus’ readiness to continue sending weapons and men into Iraq. Ha’aretz reports that the previous policy of quiet operations was led by the CIA, which apparently got intoxicated by information that the Syrians had provided at some stage about Al-Qaida's operations in various countries, including Germany. Washington, therefore, was reluctant to publicly censor Syria when it learned that the Syrians were acquiring equipment and arms for Iraq in various countries in Eastern Europe. That policy has now changed, although the administration may try to bring Damascus around by applying diplomatic pressure rather than military force.
Ze’ev Schiff in Ha’aretz, April 14, 2003)
Israel sending two envoys to Washington to discuss Syria

RUSSIA AND EUROPEANS DELIVER WARNING
Britain says that there are no plans to invade Syria. Russia and the European Union say that by racheting up the rhetoric against Syria, Washington is further complicating an already dangerous situation.
(BBC, April 15, 2003)

HOW DOES U.S. POLICY COMPLY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND WHO DECIDES ANYWAY?
No one doubts that Saddam Hussein violated all known standards of civilized behavior, but did the U.S. break international law in ousting him? The answer is more complex than it looks.
(Kenneth Anderson, The New York Times Magazine, April 13, 2003)
U.S. responsibilities in southern Iraq's water shortage
(Center for Economic and Social Right, April 2003)

RAND: RESTORING SECURITY TO THE PERSIAN GULF
The Rand Corporation argues that neither an externally imposed "democracy" nor a return to the old balance of power strategy will work. The current heavy dependence on a forward U.S. military presence and a readiness to fight increasingly risky expeditionary wars should be avoided. What is needed is a coordinated strategy involving both the U.S. and Europe.( Andrew Rathmell, Theodore Karasik, and David Gompert, RAND, April 2003)

HA’ARETZ INTERVIEWS ISRAEL'S ARIEL SHARON
"The Iraq war has created an opportunity with the Palestinians we can’t miss." In a surprising interview, the Prime Minister appears ready to open a dialogue.
(Ari Shavit in Ha’aretz, April 13, 2003)

BUT THEN, HE HEDGES HIS OPTIMISM
In a subsequent clarification, Sharon explains that his sudden willingness to advance the peace process hinges on a precondition that the Palestinians drop their demands for "right of return" for the hundreds of thousands of refugees driven from the Occupied Territories. (Aluf Benn in Ha’aretz, April 15, 2003)

HARDER THAN IT LOOKS
The U.S. has been involved in "nation building" 16 times since 1900. Only four of the attempts have actually produced lasting democracies (Japan, West Germany, Grenada and Panama). In Haiti, Cuba, and Nicaragua, brutal dictatorships, albeit friendly to Washington, emerged in the wreckage of botched U.S. nation-building efforts. In Cambodia, a genocidal regime gained power after the departure of American troops and perpetrated one of the worst crimes against humanity in history. The Carnegie Endowment for International peace charts the history of U.S. efforts, and explains why some of the best intentioned efforts have failed in the past. (Minxin Pei and Sara Kasper, CEIP, April 2003)

AND WHAT ABOUT PYNONGYANG ?
Increased North Korean flexibility is understandable in the wake of the destruction of Saddam’s regime, but with Seoul held hostage because of its vulnerability to North Korean artillery, the most likely response from Washington is likely to be increased attention. The U.S. is pondering moving its troops away from the DMZ could lower the risks of an accidental confrontation, or it might actually increase them by making a preemptive strike more palatable to Washington.
(Economist Intelligence Unit, April 10, 2003)

WANT TO ACCESS 40,000 TREATIES?
Christopher W. Bishop, writing in Foreign Policy, notes that the Internet has made research a snap—although occasionally a costly one. Bishop lists links to the best sites.
(Christopher Bishop, Foreign Policy, April 2003)

VICTORY IN BAGHDAD BOOSTED AL JAZEERA ‘S AUDIENCE BUT BRUISED ITS CREDIBILITY
The Doha-based TV channel gained high marks among Arab viewers for showing the footage that you couldn’t see on CNN, but it lost on its analysis. Al Jazeera pundits readily swallowed Iraqi claims that the U.S. was bogged down. As a result, Saddam’s total collapse took much of the region by surprise. Analysis in Arab News, April 13, 2003.

U.S. TV NETWORKS DID NOT DO SO WELL, EITHER
Overwhelmed with too much advertising, trivialized by ratings hungry executives and decimated by an emphasis on celebrity rather than reporting, Network News no longer defines how Americans see the world. The war should have triggered a surge in viewers, instead, a growing number of Americans looked elsewhere to find out what was happening.
(New York Times, April 14, 2003)

ISRAELI ARABS LOOK TO AL JAZEERA
69% of Israeli Arabs switched to the Arab TV channels to get their version of the Iraq War, while only 31% watched Israeli channels. Not surprisingly, the Arab view was much more skeptical about the final outcome. Most concluded that the Middle East will experience reverberations. 83% felt that Arab political leaders had done nothing to try to stop the war.(Yair Ettinger, Ha’aretz, April 14, 2003)

Need information, but having trouble with a broken link? Send an e-mail to wtd2@nyu.edu
or click here
We may be able to help

For quick access to the Global Beat, set your bookmark to:
http://globalbeat.org