|

| Want
to subscribe
to the Global Beat?
Send an e-mail to:wtd2@nyu.edu
with
the word "subscribe" in the subject line.
To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail with "unsubscribe" in the
subject line.
Any
problems, comments or mail, click here:
CONTACT:
GLOBALBEAT |
U.S.
State Department's
Report
on Patterns of Global Terrorism for 2002

The
US State Department's Report on Patterns of Global Terrorism for 2001
|
IRAQ: 'BETTER THAN YOU PROBABLY THINK' Mindful of the danger of entering an election year with the burdens of occupation in Iraq weighing heavily on the minds of the American voter, the Bush administration has launched a concerted effort to persuade the public that things in Iraq are going better than media coverage suggests they are. But the basic problem facing the administration is that Americans' perceptions of the war may be based less on media coverage than on the real cost in American lives and treasure of maintaining the operation. Although attacks by various insurgents in Iraq don't present a strategic threat to the U.S. occupation force there, they have managed to maintain a casualty rate of four to six U.S. soldiers killed every week and upward of 60 wounded, as well as launching spectacular car bomb attacks and assassinations designed to intimidate supportive Iraqis and international aid workers. And the paltry pledges of reconstruction aid from U.S. allies mean the lion's share of both the military and administrative costs of stabilizing Iraq will be born by the U.S. taxpayer.
(LA Times, October 12, 2003)
President Bush devoted his weekly radio address to signs of improvement in Iraq, urging Americans to stay the course and to support his reconstruction budget.
The administration's initiative will not be helped by a PBS Frontline documentary Truth, War and Consequences that aired last week, systematically following the making of the administration's case for war as measured against the postwar reality that failed to confirm it, and investigating how the postwar planning proved to be so inadequate to the challenge -- former U.S. administrator Jay Garner bluntly tells Frontline that the decision by the Pentagon to trash the State Department's year-long planning initiative for the post-Saddam transition was "a mistake." And Ahmed Chalabi, favorite Iraqi exile of the Pentagon hawks, emerges with his credibility somewhat bruised after an interview more vigorous than most of those to which he was subjected in U.S. media before the war.
President Bush has recently been lent a hand by soldiers of the 503rd Airborne who wrote to their local newspapers expressing support for the war effort. But USA Today reports that questions may be raised over the fact that letters appearing in 11 different papers signed by 11 different soldiers all had identical text, and at least one of the soldiers contacted by reporters had no knowledge of the letter.
Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Insitution writes that what's important to note in Iraq is that U.S. casualty figures have remained fairly constant rather than escalating, and great progress is being made training Iraqis to take charge of much of their own security, meaning that things will get better for U.S. forces.
Last Sunday's suicide bombing at a hotel used by coalition forces underlined the ongoing security crisis. The Washington Post's Rajiv Chandrasekaran was there at the time, meeting with a member of Iraq's Governing Council. The insurgents, he says, have those Iraqis who cooperate with the U.S. their target of choice.
Lebanese TV reporter Zaki Chehab says the emergence of suicide bombing among the tactics of the anti-U.S. forces in Iraq suggests a convergence of different elements in a common insurgency, including former Baathists and Islamists. And, warns Chehab, they're actively seeking to learn from the likes of Hamas.
The insurgents may not be the only ones bringing the tactics of the Israeli-Palestinian contest in the occupied territories to Iraq . The Independent reports that U.S. forces have destroyed orchards belonging to local tribesmen in Saddam's home region who have failed to cooperate with U.S. forces, on the grounds that these orchards were used for cover by insurgents. Regardless of their tactical necessity, such operations doom the prospects for a political victory over the insurgents.
Even as he moves to assuage the anxieties of a growing number of Americans, President Bush is facing a barrage of criticism from within both parties on Capitol Hill. That's not only because of the cost to the U.S. of its current approach, but also because of the open conflict at the heart of the administration over Iraq policy, most recently in the form of a spat between Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
U.S. OFFERS A THIRD DRAFT RESOLUTION IN SEARCH OF UN BACKING
Having twice been rebuffed by key Security Council members France, Germany, Russia and China, the Bush administration submitted a third draft resolution Monday in hoping of winning a vote endorsing its current Iraq effort -- a move that Washington hopes would provide political cover for greater military and financial assistance from reluctant allies. But although the new draft seeks to address concerns on the need for a timetable and a vehicle for restoring Iraqi sovereignty, its chances of winning unanimous support may be clouded by the fact that it continues to offer only a vague political role to the UN.
(Washington Post, October 13, 2003)
The BBC's Barnaby Mason says that even if the resolution passes the Security Council, it's unlikely at this stage to significantly increase the amount of military and financial aid to the U.S. effort in Iraq.
The BBC also points out that while the current authoritative assessment of the World Bank and IMF on Iraq's reconstruction needs over the next four years is $55 billion, the pledges that will be gathered at the Madrid donor conference on October 23 amount to less than half of that. The U.S. is offering $20 billion, Japan $5 billion, the UK $1 billion and Canada and the EU, between them, half a billion.
Herbert Docena argues in Asia Times that bipartisan congressional reluctance to sign off on reconstruction grants signal deep resistance in Washington to shouldering the burden of occupation. The financial rather than the security concerns may prove to be the administration's Achilles Heel in Iraq.
IRAQIS REJECT TURKISH TROOPS
The announcement that Turkey had agreed to send up to 20,000 men to Iraq may have come as welcome relief for an overstretched U.S. military, but it has been greeted with alarm by ordinary Iraqis and the U.S.-appointed Governing Council. Despite efforts to persuade the IGC to back down, the Council has stuck to its guns and has instead gone to the Arab League to seek support for its position that no neighboring countries should send troops into Iraq. Mindful of Kurdish concerns, the U.S. intends to deploy the Turks instead in the "Sunni triangle" where resistance has been strongest. But Iraq's Sunnis are also hostile to the Turks, under whose occupation they lived until World War I.
(Financial Times, October 13, 2003)
The reaction from the insurgents was swift and brutal: a suicide bomber attacked the Turkish embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday.
Rajan Menon and Henri J. Barkey argue that introducing Turkish troops into Iraq may lighten the load of U.S. forces, but it could also open new conflicts in presently tranquil parts of the country (in particular, the Kurdish north, through which the Turkish troops would have to pass) and destabilize the region.
The BBC reports on a war of words between Turkey and some Iraqi Kurds over the prospect of Turkish convoys passing through Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Turkish newspaper Zaman explains that the reason Turkey agreed to send troops is principally that Ankara wants a say in shaping the future of Iraq. And that, of course, is precisely why the Iraqis are so opposed to their presence.
The IGC's opposition to Turkish troops has won backing from Jordan, which has asserted that neighboring countries should stay out of Iraq because each has their own agenda.
SADR'S IRAQI SHIITES CHALLENGE THE U.S.
The radical firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has raised the temperature of his dispute with the U.S. occupation authorities in Iraq by declaring his intention to launch his own, Islamic government to challenge the legitimacy of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. While hardly speaking for all Shiites, Sadr has mass support in the slums of east Baghdad and a number of other cities, and last Friday's clashes in which two U.S. soldiers were killed on his turf underline the mounting danger. Sadr's followers have now warned the U.S. forces to stay out of their neighborhoods, leaving the U.S. facing some uncomfortable choices: They can't let Sadr have his way, but as they've discovered each time they move in his direction, confronting him risks a violent clash with a major Iraqi constituency that has, until now, stayed out of the anti-American insurgency.
(Knight-Ridder, October 10, 2003)
The New York Times reports that the increasingly strident Sadrist movement poses a major challenge to the U.S. ability to manage the political transition in Iraq.
Juan Cole explains the lines of political competition among Iraq's Shiites, and warns that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has created unprecedented space for an Islamist political challenge in Iraq.
FORMER MINISTERS ROUND ON BLAIR
Former UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook quit Tony Blair's cabinet even before the Iraq invasion in protest over Blair's support for the war, and now he's telling Britons that the prime minister had privately conceded, two weeks before the war began, that Saddam posed no immediate danger. Cook, in his newly published diary, maintains that Blair had decided to go to war to back Presidnet Bush regardless of the outcome of UN weapons inspections.
(ITV, October 4, 2003)
Cook's former cabinet colleague, Claire Short, who resigned in protest shortly after the war, told the Council on Foreign Relations that Blair's troubles are a self-inflicted wound, and that while it may have been loyalty to the U.S. that prompted him to rush into a war on a schedule that most of his cabinet thought ill-advised, Short believes such uncritical support does not serve the U.S.-British friendship well.
The accounts by Short and Cook appear to jibe with the six talking points that constituted the argument for war inside the Blair government, according to Blair's chronicler of the road to war, former Times editor Peter Stothard. Points 4 and 6 of this argument were that the U.S. would go to war no matter what anyone else said or did, and that it would be more damaging to the long-term interests of the West if the U.S. went in alone.
CHENEY COMES OUT SWINGING
Before the Iraq war, Vice-President Dick Cheney went further than most administration officials in overstating the threat supposedly represented by Saddam Hussein -- Cheney even said Saddam had "reconstituted nuclear weapons" -- and the failure to find postwar evidence to back many of the administration's claims has not deterred the Vice President. Indeed, even after President Bush disavowed the claim, Cheney continues even to hold out the possibility that Saddam may have had a hand in the 9/11 attacks. And in a muscular defense of the administration's preemption doctrine, Cheney insists that the invasion was the only prudent course of action because failure to act against even the potential of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction threat combined with the potential of an Iraq-al Qaeda alliance could have been fatefully negligent.
(Heritage Foundation, October 10, 2003)
Brookings scholars Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay argue that Iraq should serve as a cautionary tale to the doctrine of preemption: the threat failed to materialize, but the invasion and occupation has actually weakened the diplomatic and political position of the U.S. as well as putting new military and economic strains on the U.S. for some time to come.
Tomas Valasek of the Center for Defense Information argues that while unilateral preemption may be regarded as impermissible by most of the international community, it's time to open a debate on the question of preemption through the UN framework of collective security
MIDDLE EAST TEETERS WITHOUT RULES OR BORDERS
The geopolitical equilibrium of the past three decades in the Middle East has been both unhealthy and hazardous, argues former State Department official Robert Malley (currently with the International Crisis Group). But over the past three years, many of the spoken and unspoken rules that contained the conflicts of an inherently unstable region have been broken, and they haven't been replaced by any new set of rules or framework. All the players now, are acting simply on the basis of fear and strength, while the U.S. has almost entirely abdicated its refereeing functioning. The result, Malley warns, is a vacuum far more dangerous than the previous unstable order.
(Washington Post, October 13, 2003)
PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP IN CRISIS
Hardly three days into his new job, Yasser Arafat's latest prime minister-designate, Ahmed Qurei, was on the verge of quitting. The current round of Palestinian infighting reflects Arafat's growing physical and political weakness, writes Danny Rubinstein. The struggle to succeed him is already in full swing. But Israelis who believe removing Arafat is the key to solving their problems may be in for a nasty surprise.
(Haaretz, October 13, 2003)
The Guardian's Martin Woollacott argues that Sharon's target not Arafat himself at all. Instead, the reason the Palestinian leader has become such an obsession for the Israelis is that he personifies the potential for Palestinian national unity that seeks to bring the likes of Hamas into the political process.
Sharon was infuriated last weekend following the announcement that a group of legislators from the opposition Labor Party had concluded a draft final-status peace agreement with a Palestinian delegation. Negotiation and compromise among people who hold no power may seem academic, but the exercise was designed to undercut the argument by Israel's current government that it has no partner with whom to conclude a peace deal.
Not that Sharon is going to be feeling the heat. The New York Times reports that the Israeli leader is taking all his actions, from incursions in Gaza to air raids on Syria, with the assumption that he has the tacit backing of the Bush administration. And in an election year, that may be a safe bet.
ISRAEL EXPANDS ITS NUCLEAR CAPABILITY
U.S. efforts to deter Iran from going nuclear won't be helped by the revelation by U.S. and Israeli officials that Israel is now capable of launching nuclear-armed cruise missiles from its submarine fleet. Israel's capability creates a strategic incentive for its Middle Eastern neighbors to seek parity, suggesting that sooner or later the U.S. will have to take the lead in a process of writing a new nuclear rule book for the region.
(Los Angeles Times, October 12, 2003)
Not that Sharon is going to be feeling the heat. The New York Times reports that the Israeli leader is taking all his actions, from incursions in Gaza to air raids on Syria, with the assumption that he has the tacit backing of the Bush administration. And in an election year, that may be a safe bet.
Jordan, meanwhile, has stepped up to play the role of back-channel mediator between the U.S. and Iran. Foreign minister Marwan Muasher tells the Council on Foreign relations that King Abdullah recently visited Tehran and brought back a message to Washington that both reformers and hard-liners in Iran are interested in negotiating with the U.S. over proliferation issues and al Qaeda captives being held in the Islamic Republic.
UN EXPANDS AFGHAN SECURITY MISSION
Hoping to reverse a rising tide of violence in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council has authorized the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to begin operating outside of the capital, Kabul. The first contingent of Germany troops will leave shortly to conduct operation in the north, around Kunduz. But making the decision to expand beyond the capital effective will require up to 10,000 new troops, which have yet to be found.
(BBC, October 13, 2003)
Although the Taliban is resurgent in southern Afghanistan, the worst fighting since the war broke out last week in Northern Afghanistan between rival factions of the Northern Alliance, both of whom are supposedly loyal to the government in Kabul. The Guardian suggests these clashes are part of a power struggle in and around the government in Kabul.
A Council on Foreign Relations task force recommended the expansion of ISAF's mission, as well as empowering U.S. troops there to conduct peacekeeping operations, as part of an urgent package to reverse a dangerous decline in security.
BOLIVIA FACES GAS SHOWDOWN
At least five Bolivians have died in clashes over the decision by the government in La Paz to begin exporting the country's natural gas. At issue: An IMF-backed economic liberalization policy shepherded by a president well liked by international institutions but deeply unpopular at home. In other words, a test case for globalization in Latin America.
(BBC, October 13, 2003)
KOSOVO TALKS REVIVE A DEFERRED MOMENT OF TRUTH
The cease-fire ending NATO's military operations over Kosovo deferred the question of the territory's political status. It remains legally part of Serbia, but is run as a UN protectorate in what Kosovar Albanians see as a progenitor of sovereign independence. And both sides appear to be doing their best to avoid long-scheduled talks on the issue due to begin in Vienna this week
(Washington Post, October 13, 2003)
Whitney Mason of the UN special representative's office in Pristina argues that ducking talks would signal that the Kosovar leadership are content to remain a ward of the international community.
SOUTH KOREA POLITICAL CRISIS COULD HINDER EFFORTS TO DETER PYONGYANG'S NUKE AMBITIONS
South Korea's dovish President Roh Moo-hyun announced this week that he no longer enjoys the confidence of the electorate to do his job, and will hold a referendum in December on whether to remain in office. Besides plunging Seoul into a new season of political turmoil, the same month that South Korea, the U.S., China and Japan had hoped to join North Korea in a new round of talks designed to curb Pyongyang's nuclear program. The timing couldn't be worse, warns the Economist.
|

Nobel laureate Ebadi
|
NOBEL HONOR CHALLENGES IRAN AND THE WEST
By choosing Iranian lawyer and human rights campaigner Shirin Ebadi as its Nobel Peace laureate for 2003, the Swedish Nobel Committee sent an important message to Tehran -- those that the authoritarian clerical regime has sought to marginalize and silence enjoy the very international standing and recognition sought by the Iranian government. President Mohammed Khatami won't mind, of course, having long supported some of Ebadi's stands. His office congratulated her on the honor, but the hard-liners were predictably furious. The Nobel Committee's move also appeared to have a message for the West: There is a homegrown democratic dynamic in Iran struggling against the odds to express itself. It sees its goals as consistent with Islamic values, and it is opposed to war.
(BBC, October 10, 2003)
BUILDING AN EMPIRE ON CREDIT
The curious thing about the United States, in the French view of Le Monde Diplomatique, is that it is at once the world's hegemon and its largest debtor. Washington owes international banks almost as much money as the entire developing world, a situation that has profound long-term implications for everything from U.S. domestic interest rates to the financing of its expanded military operations.
(Le Monde Diplo, October, 2003)

The
Security Policy Working Group

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
| TO
SIGN UP FOR GLOBALBEAT'S WEEKLY E-MAIL ADVISORY, SEND AN E-MAIL
TO wtd2@nyu.edu with "SUBSCRIBE" IN THE SUBJECT HEADING
(or click here to subscribe) |
|