Send this page to a friend!

Travel
Australia - Dream Come True

By Hafeezur Rahman Malik* 

"Twelve thousand kilometres on buses in 40 days!! Are you crazy?" shouted my friend, Zahid, when he saw my travel plan for Australia. Zahid was right. Information I gathered from Greyhound Pioneer was staggering. It would take at least 190 hours of bus ride round the clock to complete my goal. 

My proposed bus trip around Australia!

I have faced it before. Of course, there is a price to be paid: neck stiffens, back aches and bottom burns. Overnight journey brings in more miseries: hostels' checkout time being 11 a.m. or earlier, so one has to drag one's gear all day before boarding the bus then a sleepless night follow.            

More troubles are in store as one arrives at a new place in the early hours only to find that until afternoon.  Why do it, you might ask?  Well, if you want to see the world, and I do, and you aren't made of money, and I'm not, you do the best you can and go. I was warned about Australia being quite expensive. So, scarping together all my sources, I collected US$3,000 to cover the tour costs. In addition, I had access to another US$3,000 through cash/credit cards. With light luggage, high spirits and deep pockets, I landed at Kingsford-Smith Airport, Sydney.

"Have you any food with you", an immigration officer asked me. When I showed him a small packet of cheese, pinched away from the airline breakfast tray, he directed me to the Red Channel. There, I had to wait for a while as the line was progressing slowly. When my turn came, I laid down all I had on the table, piece by piece.           A customs officer looked at everything and threw away the cheese instantly. When she went for my medicine box, my heart sank. "What is this for?" she enquired picking up a wrapper of Zoften. "It is anti-allergy medicine for sinus, ma'am," I told her, pointing out to my stuffed nose to establish my bona-fides. She smiled and cleared me. Once out of the terminal, I took a sigh of relief. 

Australia - Dream Come True

I was in Australia, a dream had come true. In the next 40 days, I covered 12,900 km to Brisbane, the Gold Coast, Cairns, Mount Isa, Darwin, Kakadu Park, Alice Springs, Ayers Rock, Kings Canyon, Coober Pedy and Melbourne. Finally, for a change of pace, I boarded a ship to Tasmania. 

Returning home to Pakistan,  I was lighter by 3 kgs and US$4,000. Never before have I spent so much on my annual tours. I could not have done with less as I was already staying in dorms and traveling by night buses to save room rent. I tried other ways, too. I stayed free-of-cost with my nephew part of time in Sydney but that proved futile. As a good grand uncle, I could not refuse taking his three kids to zoo, aquarium and Olympic Park where tickets were in the vicinity of US$100 each time. 

All in All, a Great Trip

But I don't mean to complain too much. Ignoring cost and fatigue, my travels in Australia was very successful. I was able to move as I liked. There was a variety of transport everywhere, all were time-conscious. Only on one occasion, a boat, "Spirit of Tasmania" stopped midway in Bass Strait for about four hours. This was compensated by a sumptuous breakfast next day. 

On another occasion, a bus broke down but an alternate bus was provided within half an hour. By taking a shorter route, it arrived in Sydney on schedule. Greyhound Bus staff were well informed and well mannered. One time, hiking up a steep ascent at Kings Canyon, I felt pain and stiffness in my legs and had to take a break occasionally. I found the Greyhound driver all the time trailing two steps behind me to extend a hand should I stumble. 

Food was always fresh and dandy. Railway stations and main bus depots had food courts that remained opened 24 hours as did chain stores like Coles and Seven-Eleven. Prices were fixed and well displaced. The trip provided me an opportunity to see tropical wetlands, rain forests, coral reefs, red-soiled deserts, ghost towns, road-trains, ant hills, mighty rocks changing colour at sunrise and sunsets. Above all, I found Australians friendly, informal and helpful. Chances of being cheated were remote. 

Though the trains throughout the country are perfectly safe, all stations had marked areas for waiting at night. Taxis have glass partitions separating drivers from passengers though muggings and stickups were unheard of. 

Aussie Pass

Sydney Airport had a good rail-link. It took barely 12 minutes to reach the Central Station located right in the city centre. My first job was to look for a place to sleep. Fortunately, Youth Hostels of Australia (YHA) was just around the corner. The staff was very friendly and advised me to become a member for US$30 to have access to 140 YHAs all over the country. For another $42, they provided me with a comfortable room. I went to sleep immediately to beat the jet lag. 

Rested, I set off to organize my bus plan. Information booths were handy to the YHA. Of the many different available passes, I got an "Aussie Highlights Pass" for around A$ 1,467 (US$ 1040) which allowed a loop around the eastern half of Australia plus bonus tours to Kakadu and Uluru Parks. The pass was valid for 365 days with a minimum of 32 days required to complete the tour. 

With my lodging and travel problem solved, I set off on a footloose walk in the city. I never consult a city map; I just go left and right and note landmarks as I pass by. By the Grace of God, I always return safely by night. The trick is to keep going in one direction, drifting a little to the left or right, and returning back by a parallel road. To double check, I always keep a compass ready. Only by some peculiar quirk of fate would I get lost. 

Moving to my left, I found myself on broad, vibrant George Street and asked a female passerby how far I could go on that road. "To the end of the world crossing Harbor Bridge," she replied. It's best if you buy a Day-Pass for only fifteen dollars." 

Walkabout Sydney Centre

Having already used a big chunk of my funds, mere mention of the word "dollar" revved my blood pressure and blocked my ears. I thanked her, patted my legs and braced myself for a 12 kms walk. 

Sydney, I discovered is  as multi-ethnic as New York City.  Passing through  "Spanish Town" and "China Town" I heard multiple languages. Restaurants and food stall offered Chinese, Malay, Vietnamese, Thai, Indian and Japanese food. 

In "The Rocks", the oldest part of Sydney, I found narrow cobblestoned streets and colonial buildings giving a look of the past. Filled with tourist, the area is now a paradise of gift shops, galleries, pubs and tea rooms. 

Along the way I often glimpsed the magnificent Sydney Harbour Bridge and when I finally reached it and saw a stair-access, I could not resist walking across. It was a very pleasant walk with fresh air and scenic views of the rivers, ferries, cruisers, the city skylines and the unmistakable Sydney Opera House. Looking up, I saw people climbing the bridge in groups. Later, I heard that each had paid US$140 for a guided tour to the top just for a thrill. 

Crossing Harbour Bridge brought me to North Shore, which was studded with high-rises and sidewalk cafes, but exploring the area would have to wait for another time.  Zigzagging in narrow streets, I made my way to the ferry terminal. No one asked me for a ticket on boarding, and I thought it was a free ride, but when I disembarked at Circular Quay, I had to purchase a ticket to leave the terminal. There is no such thing as a free lunch. 

Returning to the city centre, I crisscrossing Elizabeth Street, Pedestrian Malls, and George Street, reached the YHA, fell into bed and I slept like a log. 

DARLING HARBOUR

The following day I rode a monorail (A$ 6) to Darling Harbour, another lively waterside district. From above, Sydney looked like a big, bustling. Said to be over 4,000 square kilometers in size, metropolitan Sydney is one of the largest cities in the world in term of area. Near the Harbour, the view from the top a gorgeous panoramic: water glistening under bright sun, flags flapping in a cool wind, people in colourful clothes moving about parks, restaurants, shops and amusements., museums and casinos. It was a gorgeous view giving a real feel of the city. Darling is home to the Sydney Aquarium, an IMAX Theatre and the Chinese Garden of Friendship, a gift to Sydney from its sister city of Guangdong. 

I had started my day with only a cup of tea and a couple of crackers and was feeling hungry, so first I looked around for any eating place.  Wok on Inn, a noodle bar, gave me my fill for A$10. 

Afterwards, I adjusted my belt and went to visit the Maritime Museum (A$12) and its display of aboriginal canoes, First Fleet and surf culture. Moored outside were a navel destroyer, a submarine, a racing yatch and a Vietnamese refugee boat. Nearby, the  Powerhouse Museum (A$ 12) covered varied subjects such as decorative arts, social history, costume jewelry, rock music, locomotive and space capsules. This small harbour had been transformed into a major tourist site, appealing predominantly to children.                  

Sydney Opera House and Botanical Gardens

Next on my agenda as Sydney Opera House, walking via Market Street and Queen Square where I turned left onto Macquarie Street. I passed by old public buildings like St James Church, the Mint, Parliament House, the State Library and the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, eventually arriving at Circular Quay. I had been here before as it was a hub for the ferry terminals, the railway station and bus stops.

The Opera House was now in sight, with soaring sail-like or shell-like roofs. 

The Sydney Opera House

Once I was face-to-face with the Opera House, it did not seem so romantic. At many places, tiles were broken and cracked along edges. Some were scrawled with the names of those who had visited before. Many types of guided tours were available like "Front-of-the-House" and "Backstage" but at a high cost. So I just walked around enjoying the aromatic air coming from the nearby Royal Botanical Gardens, my next point of interest. 

The gardens were located in a hilly area on a slope overlooking the harbour. There were many trail leading to different displays, from Mrs. Macquarie's Bushland Walk to formal manicured gardens, to exhibits of rare and endangered specie from around the world.  With planning, plant lovers could spend endless pleasant hours here attending guided walks, lectures, exhibitions, and workshops held at several avenues on the grounds. It was early evening when I left the garden and took a path leading to the Opera House. With the skyline of downtown Sydney as its backdrop, the Opera House was looking awesome. Beauty always improves with distance.

The day long walk had taken its toll. My muscles trembled and joints were rattled, so I called it a day and took CityRail (A$ 2.2) back to Central Station and the YHA. 

Soon my Australian odyssey by bus would begin.  Next stop Brisbane and beyond.  But first, I needed to get some sleep. 

[*Mr. Hafeezur Rahman Malik is a retired development bank specialist now whiling away his time in teaching and traveling. He lives at Karachi with his wife and a cat.]

A Perspective about war on terrorism

By John Kerry, America

"This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals. 

Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism. 

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them. 

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon. 

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging. 

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror. 

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight. 

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition. 

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done. 

In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march." 

But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. 

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people. 

So do the facts on the ground. 

Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. 

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September. 

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion. 

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase. 

Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad. 

Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise. 

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating. 

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day. 

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school. 

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys. 

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails. 

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents. 

That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people. 

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. 

I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do. 

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure. 

The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction. 

The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people. 

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. 

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded. 

His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat. 

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq. 

He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured. 

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor. 

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security. 

Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted. 

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." 

How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today? 

This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war. 

The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq. 

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president. 

This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq. 

This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. 

The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. 

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. 

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. 

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. 

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. 

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself. 

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth. 

General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism? 

By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low. 

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world. 

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons." 

The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America. 

Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan. 

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq. 

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda. 

The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States. 

We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world. 

The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America. 

Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it. 

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority. 

The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed. 

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable." 

Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done. 

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe. 

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them? 

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America. 

The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be. 

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come. 

All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence. 

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency. 

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments. 

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq. 

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. 

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late. 

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief. 

Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter. 

And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered. 

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process. 

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed. 

Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. 

Last February, Secretary Rumsfield claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces. 

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order? 

The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers. 

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. 

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers. 

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. 

Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort. 

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. 

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement. 

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done. 

The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S. forces would end up bearing those burdens alone. 

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years. 

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America. 

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. 

On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve. 

In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions. 

At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger. 

The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly. 

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do. 

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so. 

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer. 

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans. 

If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course. 

I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world. 

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America." 

Raw and Awami League join hands once again

By Saleem Shaikh

On 21st August a series of lethal grenade attacks on a rally of Bangladesh's leader of the opposition Sheikh Hasina Wajid, former Prime Minister, in Bangabandhu killed around 19 people and injured 300 persons. 

To make the occasion look more natural, the unknown assailants even targeted the panicky Awami League leaders during the rampage and injured one veteran leader. Surprisingly, the first bomb went off forthwith after Sheikh Hasina finished her speech at the rally but she and her party’s top key leaders made a hair’s breadth escape.

Hasina expressing her strong condemnation over the attack has demanded resignation of the present Bangladesh Government, and blamed Islamic hardliner coalition for turning Bangladesh into a terrorist State. 

Indian government has held Islamic fundamentalists baselessly responsible for the bombing on Sheikh Hasina’s political rally, despite the fact no such blames were made to the fundamentals from anywhere in the world. Many opinions and write-ups were carried by different newspapers from across the world, flaying such allegations of India. Instead, India was considered to be taking the fullest advantage of such incidents by alleging Pakistan for such lethal attacks in the world. 

The sole beneficiary of such an act is India, who is using this incident to malign allegedly present Pakistan friendly government in Bangladesh, and is associating this bomb blast with Islamic fundamentalists to attract International Community’s attention. 

It is also noteworthy that claims regarding recovery of two bombs from the blast site near Dhaka Jail and Hawkers’ market to be of Pakistani origin and ISI’s involvement in this particular incident not only helps RAW fight negative perceptions among masses of Bangladesh about RAW and Indian involvement in internal political affairs of Bangladesh, but also fulfills the aim to disrupt political process of a Pakistani friendly Government in Bangladesh. Since Khalida Zia set up a high level probe committee to investigate the incident, the Indian High Commission and International Community was requested by Hasina Wajid to investigate the matter through Interpol, an internal matter of Bangladesh.

Analysts have shown their great concern regarding return of RAW as main terrorist force in Bangladesh and RAW’s resorting to old tactics to create chaos and division similar to that of 1971. Evidences indicate that Awami League’s leadership was fully aware of the sequence of events that took place and exploited them to fullest for maligning the government and demanding Khalida Zia’s resignation, using internationally popular slogans of terrorism, say, proliferation, fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism. 

Analysts believe that if Hasina was to be the target, then why was she not targeted when she rode on top of the truck to the rally? Why was Hasina Wajid assisted in treatment of dozens of “uninjured” party leaders in India? And, why was she not perturbed by the explosions and answered the press so calmly knowing precisely what to say?

The International Community and masses of Bangladesh must know that Mr. Haider purporting himself to be the member of “Himatul Jihad”, who took responsibility of the incident via mail to “DAILY PROTHOM”, is actually a Shaibal Saha alias Partha Saha, a student of Chennai University (Madras) India, who under the cover name ‘Haider’ sent an email claiming responsibility and connection with Islamic organizations.

It is high time for RAW and Hasina to understand that these staged acts are well understood by every one in the world, and it is too obvious that Awami League had once again joined hands with RAW to kill its own people for its own vested interests.

Treatment without diagnosis: An open letter to the Western world

BY SHAFIQ KHAN, Canada

For centuries, England ruled scores of countries in Asia, Asia Pacific, Africa, and the Arab world. 

After the World War II, the sun of British control over the colonial nations started setting down in the horizon and the dawn of emancipation brought a gospel of sovereignty for those subdued nations. By 1960s, up to 99% of the colonial nations were freed from the British yoke. 

Unfortunately, a greater number of all those nations, who got independence geographically from the British rule, failed to maintain their integrity, self-respect and prosperity in a real sense because of the reason that while giving independence to those nations, the British rulers left some kind of problematic string of dispute with most of those nations, either within the country among their communities or outside with the bordering neighbors, so they continue to remain unstable politically and economically. Apart this, the corrupt and dishonest leadership ruined those countries because of their greed for power and wealth. Nepotism, favoritism and internal conspiracies continuously kept those countries in chaos since their national resources were plundered by their corrupt leaders. This situation put those nations to be dependent forever to the Great Britain, the United States and other western countries economically, socially, educationally and politically. Then some of those countries remained suffering because of the military dictatorships and some have monarchies, which is a worse form of dictatorship. 

Consequently, most of those third world countries fell prey to the United States in the name of economic aid, humanitarian help and international loans. America deliberately played a part of imbalance with it’s strategic planning to keep those countries weak to gain it’s own objectives. If two neighbours don’t fight, who is going to buy F-16, AWACS, Tanks and Missiles? Unfortunately, most of those nations got independence geographically but, in essence they were never freed and remained slaves to the western powers. 

US President, George W. Bush, was not the only United States president who started aggression against the sovereign states after 9/11 by direct military intervantions rocking Afghanistan and Iraq. If one looks at past 40 year history of the United States, then it is replete with invasions on sovereign states directly and indirectly or conspiring against the heads of the states and governments all over Asia, Africa and the Middle East after the Second World War. North Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Kuwait-Iraq conflict, Gulf war, Afghanistan, Iraq are some of the military interventions by the United States in the last four decades. After the fall of Soviet Union, the Americans got a free-hand to vandalize the world as it emerged as the only super power! 

I understand, that the arrogance of their supremacy in the world because of their strong economy, robust warfare, science and technology and many other fields of human behavior fascinate the Americans. But on the same time, they always overlook a universal reality of the eternal supremacy of omnipotent God. God’s unchallenged authority between the earth and the sky, above the sky and under the sea. God's ultimate power is not even a drop in the ocean what America or all the 220 countries of the world could have on the planet! This authority is called as "mother-nature". I would suggest Americans to back off and think for a moment as to there does not pass a single month, when somewhere in the United States a forest does not get fire, a tornado or a twister does not hit a town or a city, a volcano does not puke lava or flood waters do not bring devastation to a city. These hard-hitting havocs, what we call natural calamities, are God-sent that come to pass time to time for quick reminders of His wrath towards sinful humans on the earth. 

No matter how powerful Americans are and no matter how fool-proof system they have but, for God, it’s just a matter of time of one trillionth of a second to blow all the nuclear storage all over the United States, destroying the entire world or a major portion of it. Imagine the volume of destruction that could cause by those explosions. Isn't true and we have learned through the experiences that humans and mistakes are juxtaposed? Have not we seen many manned space missions destroyed by the 'mother nature', killing all those inside the space crafts? No human hands could reach to those extra ordinarily guarded nuclear facilities in the United States but, God is present every where. God can make a mountain out of a muster seed and could reduce the Himalayas into a sand particle. In the advancement of science and technology and progress of human minds, we have totally forgotten that, we are creations of God, we are just His paintings. 

I am an educated and liberal Muslim. I have neither command on my religion, nor I am a religious scholar nor a cleric, but I do know, for sure, the fundamentals of Islam, basics of Quran and teachings of our last prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). Most importantly, I can read the minds and hearts of my fellow Muslims, who have turned themselves as fanatical terrorists. I know, how far they could go in the name of God and His last prophet Muhammad (PBUH). I know, for sure, suicidal attacks or killing of any nature of fellow human beings is strictly forbidden in Islam but, they do it in ‘blind faith’. They even don’t know what are they doing and only think they are doing in the name of God and His prophet. 

Recently, I came across an Internet site, where Americans have classified 36 Islamic organizations as terrorists’ network in 30 countries with over 60,000 active members. America calculates everything on humanly basis, according to it’s wealth, military power and scientific know-how. The current fanaticism is an open terrorism though but, it is an American way of thinking, while as those terrorists consider themselves as the ‘soldiers of God’ and ‘slaves of Muhammad (PBUH).They think as they are going to paradise straightaway after being blown up into pieces. I can tell one thing to all the faiths of the world that no one can shatter the belief of those suicidal killers, no matter what outcome may be. No military power, pressure, atomic bomb, Stealth, F-22, Missiles, tanks or war technology could make them flinch from their plight of doing what they are doing. If someone is prepared to die and give his life, what else could frighten him? Even if one million countries come forward with equal force and resources like the United States of America, they cannot stop them from killing themselves and others in the name of religion. Think for a moment, they leave their homes, their wives, children, parents, brothers and sisters, jobs, businesses and all worldly things but they prefer to go to the battle front to fight their opponents or reach a suicidal target to blow themselves without any fear or hesitation. In these circumstances, how could some one intimidate them or suppress them with military power? 

Muslims are over one billion in population in 220 countries and territories of the world and I can tell you, 95% of the Muslims could jump into the fire in the name of God, just forget 60,000 numbers. Islam is the only religion between the earth and the sky that you cannot prejudge or forecast anything on scientific calculations because God controls their brains, hearts and souls. 

The current ‘prevailing situation’ of terrorist activities all over the world by fanatics is a disease, caused by injustices, suppression and inequality by the western world. But, this disease is curable. 

The former Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Jean Chretien said on September 11, 2002 while being interviewed by the CBC TV and I quote: "The unchecked greed of the west made it lose sight of the consequences of it's actions 20 to 30 years into future. I do think the western world in getting too rich in relation to the poor world. We are looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. The 11th September is an occasion for me to realize it even more. Power cannot be exercised to the point that it humiliates others". I am quote. 

I have watched several programmes on different TVs where some westerners said that those people from the third world countries are jealous of the west’s prosperity and progress and civilization. But, the truth of the matter is that those extremists think whatever west has achieved is not their own, they have built and acquired at the cost of those poor nations after squeezing their blood one way or the other, by hook or by crook. 

The imperialistic, dictatorial and Zionist expansionistic policies of the west and Israel against the Muslim Ummah are the main causes of Muslims’ unrest and frustration all over the world today. Every disease needs to be diagnosed before the treatment is commenced. It doesn’t matter, how specialized and expert is the surgeon or the physician and how sophisticated and equipped is the hospital, the disease’s diagnosis is prerequisite for the treatment. You cannot treat a sick person by threats or at a gun point, what Americans are doing today. 

Apparently, American intelligence agencies are figuring out 60,000 terrorist members in 36 organizations but, in reality every single Muslim out of one billion is a soldier of God and slave of Muhammad (PBUH). Your eyes could only see President Pervez Musharraf, King Hussain, King Khalid, President Karzai and likewise individuals who are supporting American policies. These might number a few hundred or thousands but, what about the ocean of people, the mammoth crowd in the four corners of the world, the one billion Muslim population who are against you? The Americans and the western world needs to cure the disease without further ado before it transforms into an epidemic, flipping and gripping the entire world from one corner to the other. 

The civilized western world should also pay attention to one thing more. A rich and wealthy loves his life more than anything but, a poor does not bother for his life and belongings as he already has nothing to take care of. These frustrated and stranded Muslims are already ruined at the hands of the west in different parts of the world, so why and what for they would bother for their life and worldly things and top of that, they believe they are giving away their lives in the name of God. 

As a magician’s life is in a parrot, the same way these crazy peoples’ lives are in the hands of these mullahs and clerics, who brainwashed them not with the green money or gold but with the name of God and prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Now Americans cannot reach those clerics, mullahs and so-called religious scholars and kill them all as they could be in millions, who knows one billion Muslims turn to be religious mullahs from them inside? 

A FOOTNOTE: Over 1400 years' Muslim history is witness that the number of worshipers and deities of God have always increased by the time and no power, pressure, threat or greed could ever down-sizeed their numbers. The followers of God and His prophet Muhammad (PBUH) continued to increase as world traveled forward in those 1400 years. Just flash back 5/6 years back when these fanatics first came on the scene with sporadic attacks, comparatively smaller number of terrorist activities. And see the intensity today. What they are doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and other parts of the world is signaling their future intentions and the direction of the wind. Can the people of the United States, western world and their supporters live till the dooms day in these circumstances of terror and sword hanging over their heads 24/7? You can build dams and bridges on rivers and canals to control waters but, you cannot do the same on to the oceans. Western world got to change their attitude and start playing 'fair' and 'justice' with the Muslim Ummah. America is trying to control the world by forcefully occupying the world resources by controlling human numbers on the planet. America could control anything on earth but, not the Muslim numbers, their brains, bodies and souls. If that happens, that would be the end of the world, the doomsday. 
shafiqahmed7@hotmail.com 

ME Needs Liberation, War Reparation and Justice -- Not Western 'Democracy' 

By Yamin Zakaria, London, UK

It is difficult to think of an appropriate title that would best describe a man who personally profits from a pre-emptive (unprovoked) war. On the basis of the number of victims, he could be described as a serial killer or a mass murderer or a deranged Fascist. Taking a metaphorical view, he could be considered like a vulture or a vampire, feeding on the flesh and blood of the victims. Alternatively he could be thought of as a war merchant and/or a modern day shylock because he profited handsomely from the war, which was largely initiated by the Jewish cabal (neo-cons). The man in question is the current US Vice-President Dick Cheney. 

Many would prefer to attribute the title of shylock to Paul Wolfwitz. Who is a Jew, passionately pro-Israel, and like the other "chicken hawks" he likes to beat his war drums from a secured bunker. True to his nature, he made a hasty retreat from Iraq, when he was showered with missiles rather than rose petals, which he predicted prior to the war. The Fox channel was thought to have reported at the time a shortage of rose petals, due to the fact that Saddam Bin Laden disposed some of his WMD arsenal by destroying the infidel rose plants. Therefore, the vast majority of the ordinary Iraqis remained at home. President Plastic Turkey Bush, "Foot in Mouth" Donald Rumsfeld with his "unknowns" and Saint Tony Blair with his 'divine' revelation, followed the example of Paul Wolfwitz, as they sneaked in and out of Iraq. 

Whatever title is chosen, it would be safe to say Dick Cheney does not have the moral authority to lecture others about democracy. There are also couple of other points to consider. His former company Halliburton has been awarded the largest contract to date in Iraq. Could this have any possible connection with the regular and substantial party 'donations' made by Halliburton? In addition Dick Cheney got 33 Million dollars just before he took up his post as Vice-President. Say no more. Actions speak louder then words. Thus, it is dollars and not the votes that get represented. 

To the rest of the world, Western 'democracies' looks like a place where you can protest and shout to your hearts content, but the government does anything it likes, driven by Corporate interests. His boss, the President, was fraudulently elected. The subsequent offer by Robert Mugabe President of Zimbabwe, to monitor and verify the election process was turned down. No one is interested to listen to a black man or a woman unless it is the likes of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice or Kofi Anan. The point being, it is difficult to preach what is not being practiced.  

Dick Cheney stated in Davos, Switzerland: "We must confront the ideologies of violence at the source, by promoting democracy throughout the greater Middle East and beyond." 

Does this mean that US led 'confrontation' is not violent despite the use of devastating military force? Or is Dick Cheney implying that the US is defending itself from the Islamic military bases that are dotted around the American hemisphere? What is even more baffling is that, he subsequently advocated imposing 'democracy' through the use of force, should diplomacy fail! It even shocked the Finish MP. Can anyone reconcile the forceful imposition of 'democracy' with its core value as the rule of the free masses? 

He attributed the teachings of Islam and the absence of Western 'democracy' as being the primary reasons for the anger and resentment. As he states: "Democracies do not breed the anger and the radicalism that drag down whole societies and export violence"

The reality on the ground is the continuous subjugation and genocide in return for oil, market penetration, ideological fanaticism and other corporate interests. Dick Cheney failed to account for the on going extermination of the Palestinians through their proxy Israel. What about the gratuitous massacre on the "road to Basra" during the first gulf war? Half a million Iraqi children became the victim of the brutal economic sanction and Depleted Uranium over the last decade. What about the deliberate bombing of civilian installation causing immense sufferings under the pretext of imposing the 'no-fly zone', which had no UN mandate. These are just a small sample of some the reasons behind the hate and anger. Which has no relation to the teachings of Islam. Otherwise the entire Islamic world at all periods of history would have exhibited such anger and resentment.  

The issue of exporting violence, no Arab/Islamic troops were massing near the US borders, rather it is the US that has exported its troops and initiated an unprovoked attack on Iraq. If democratic societies are so peaceful why is that they are the largest producer and exporter of these lethal weapons and has the best track record for using them. Hence, the claim by Dick Cheney that Middle East is inherently violent is puzzling. It simply looks like Genghis Khan delivering a sermon about non-violence to the residents of Baghdad after pillaging the entire city! 

As for radicalism, it was not the Middle East that produced the doctrines of the Nazis (Adolf Hitler), the Fascists (Mussolini) and the Communists (Joseph Stalin). These emanated from the heart of democratic Europe. The issue of Islamic fundamentalism or the fundamentalism of the US is simply a matter of perspective. 

So, what does Dick Cheney mean by 'democracy'? The widely accepted view that it is simply a rule of the free masses as they decide on a government through the process of election. Therefore, is Dick Cheney seriously advocating that the ordinary Arabs on the street should decide the fate of their countries? Does this also mean if the Iraqis or any of the Arab/Muslim countries voted on a government that called for the implementation of the Sharia Laws, the US would regard it as a democracy? Unlikely, their un-stated view of democracy is simply a pro-US or a pro-Western government, regardless of its popularity.

The US track record is an indictment of this hypocrisy. Had the early signs in Iraq indicated a desire for Western 'democracy' rather than an Islamic orientated government; the elections would not have been frozen. When the Turkish parliament voted to prevent the US armies entering Iraq from its soil, Donald Rumsfeld appealed to the Turkish army to intervene. Rumsfeld and the rest of the cronies in the US state department then had the chutzpah to issue threats to enforce democracy. Going back even further the Turkish army intervened when Islamic party won the election. Similarly, the Algerian government suspended the election when the Islamic party was poised to win. So why was there was no outcry from the democratic enthusiasts to restore democracy at that time? Iran likewise would not be accepted as a democracy regardless of its support until the Westernised secular elites emerges as a dominant voice.

In seeking to solve the Middle East problem, Dick Cheney should be asking the Arabs for the answers instead of exporting his solutions through violence, US fundamentalism and freedom fanaticism. Here are some of the answers: 

a)                War Reparations for Iraq - 

David Kay the chief of the US appointed, Iraq Survey Group resigns, as he is got bored of the wild goose chase. Collin Powell now grudgingly admits that Iraq never possessed any WMD. However, Tony Blair, Dick Cheney and the other extremists (hawks) are still asserting that the mythical weapons exist somewhere. The spin-doctors have began a rescue operation by creating terms like "WMD programme", "Saddam had intention to acquire WMD", and finally "how much better it is without Saddam". Oh yes, definitely better for the Israelis. It is also better for the US companies to make fat profits. Final category are the puppet regimes that live in palaces with their oversize waistlines and Philippino 'nurses', whose tribes are living on imported goods and roaming around shopping centres all day. 

The Western intelligentsia are feeling shy to concede that their governments had openly lied. So another rescue operation has been launched, blaming the intelligence services. The way it looks, there was zero intelligence in the first place, which became manipulated intelligence with a bit of massaging from the likes of Alistair Campbell. Finally it became the official gospel, with the prayers of Saint Tony Blair and born again Bush. The former is behaving in manner as if he is in recipient of divine revelation, no wonder Robin Cook correctly stated that he is driven by "evangelical certainty".  

Surely, a nation attack without provocation, without UN authorisation and now, even the stated pretext has been proven to be false, is entitled to War reparations. Now that would be a real evidence of the legitimacy of international 'law'.   

b)                 Liberation 

Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and all the other Arab/Islamic country is need of liberation from the US bases and all the puppets and cronies that govern the region. The question of the border disputes inherited form the colonialists have to be settled by the Arab/Islamic nations without any external interference. True liberation emanates from within a nation not through a foreign army. If the West truly believes in democracy as they purport, then they should demonstrate this by allowing the Arab/Islamic world to determine their own fate. If they want to impose the Sharia Laws or if they want to bring back the Islamic State (Khilafah), that is their business. Just non-Interference would give the US immense respect from the Arab/Islamic world.
 
c)                 Justice
 
Finally, justice is required for the victims of the Israeli and American aggression in the region. Whatever political 'settlement' is reached in Palestine will not address the crimes that began in 1948. Solution will be a temporary one and never permanent. It was Europe that has been the real cause of the suffering of the Jews and thus, it is they who should carry the burden of giving them a homeland. 

The victims of the illegal war on Iraq and Afghanistan are nameless and faceless. A figure that the US is not interested in, and no one really knows. When they are occasionally compensated they get pennies whilst the victims of Lockerbie got millions. Isn't all human life worth the same value?
 
The US should release all the captives in Guantanamo Bay and Bagram Air base as they are being held without the due process of law. They should be compensated along with the families of those who have been tortured and executed to date.

Conclusion

The continuation of playing the role of the Godfathers of Western 'democracy', and constantly legitimising Israeli aggression will only make the situation worse. The Arab/Islamic world has their own values, and democracy dictates that they should be allowed to adopt what ever they see fit. It is not for the US to lecture or dictate to the Arab world into something that she herself does not practice fully.

If the US pursued in giving justice, facilitated true liberation of the Arab/Islamic world and provided war reparations, the anger, hatred and the retaliatory strikes, which she conveniently calls terrorism would certainly diminish. Otherwise it would be to the detriment of everyone, except those who have vested interests in expanding the current conflict. Just examine the main beneficiaries.  

Yamin Zakaria

London, UK

Non-Proliferation and the Scientists

By Khalid Saki, 
Pennsylvania, USA

The whole damning issue of Nuclear Proliferation with reference to top Pakistani scientists presents a slashing insight into the behavior of all manner of culprits behind the screen, or shadows lurking in the dark. While it’s not to say that the scientists currently facing a spate of charges and forgiveness procedures all the same are not guilty at all, it is totally regrettable and a gross insult of public intelligence – unless insult-proofed – to keep the whole focus on a single group of individuals. Do the ones at the helm of affairs really believe they can walk clean out of this morass, just like that? 

They must be very naïve indeed to have fostered that kind of thinking, unless, of course, the objective of the powers that be is only to disorient the ambitious, albeit hapless – or money-minded – scientists of that country. By all means the ruling authorities are entitled to a wishful thinking that subjecting to humiliation of a few scapegoats – however rightfully – and passing part of the blame on some minor lapses of security in the past will conveniently get them off the hook. Stand assured that this is an outlandish fantasy, at best. 

Like the things are at the moment, it might look that way for the time being at least, but deceptions never help/hold/endure, not for long. In the circumstances that prevail, the barbaric realities couldn’t be more abysmally concerted on the point. Given the scale of monstrosities said to have been committed, who will prevent the truth from haunting the imagination of the whole mass of smug rulers and the ruled alike? It’s high time everybody looked reality in the face as dodgy escapes are fraught with dangers. 

For the most part, scapegoats are not innocent creatures – and the guiltier, so much the more useful. In fact the lack of innocence is what qualifies them to be ideal scapegoats, doesn’t it? Everything else being equal, it’s an unmistakable way (lynching the scapegoats, sometimes even forgiving them, but lynching them nonetheless) to deal with the depravities of any magnitude as long as the evil-doers do get in the end what they “rightfully” deserve, no less. As such, a wholesale generosity of extolments is showered on the authorities that championed the cause of “justice” by sparing no efforts whatsoever in the way of eliminating the crime or crookedness, whatever the case may be, in order to prevent the humanity from being injured/hurt. However, this could only happen in an ideal world and ours is obviously far from being so.

The problem here appears to be by far the most complex. The payoff for the government would have been considerable if they had not targeted only the scientists in this sordid/morbid/sickly affair however hard it may have been to implicate the other participants. Politicians are admittedly a dangerous breed to deal with in such cases, no matter how wildly they are believed to be involved in any number of shady businesses. Generally speaking, current rulers may be eternally tempted to accuse their rivals of any abnormality of character, or gross failures in the way of good governance, yet when it comes to a string of crimes committed in the past that become inescapably daunting , a cover-up policy is always deemed to be the best option. 

What with national interest and so on which is perfectly “understandable”, but perhaps, the most unequally significant factor of all factors may be some big time worries as to a boomerang effect of that kind of endeavor – to give one’s political rivals a rough sail for no matter how heinous the nature of a crime. In some peculiar way, it has been so often the case that past maintains an inalienable link-up with the present. It is very interesting, though, to note that the cover-up strategy should apply only to actual crimes, not to fabrications and suchlike which can be successfully used for settling scores, even inflicting horrendous penalties on the rivals at some critical junctures of life. This becomes a strong imperative where “doctrinal” necessities are impossible to dispense with. But this is a different subject altogether and has little to do with the business in question.

So how about looking to some elements in the heavy-handed bureaucracy on the security front, for starters? In most cases it would be absolutely wise to leave them alone, for they are, as a rule, a formidable entity with a thoroughly organized force to abort almost any fact-finding commission directed against their “integrity”. Yet, when the stakes are alarmingly high, it’s never a misplaced venture for the good old government to probe the dubious ways of the bureaucratic functionaries who should have witnessed the whole episode with great enthusiasm but had turned their eyes away for any number of reasons. After all, while trying to round up a handful of security personnel for irresponsible oversights doesn’t mean, necessarily, that someone dares to cast even a shadow of doubt on the military institution. Of utmost importance, though, is the matter of selectiveness and the most focused approach in getting to the culprits trying desperately to hide themselves now, but also using some tough language at the same time – just an old habit. 

Despite an all-embracing stranglehold of bureaucracy on the minds and nerves of a huge body of populace in Pakistan, perhaps in extreme exigencies such as now in the midst, it’s by no means too much to ask of the common intelligence of a bewildered public to give an unqualified approval for a wide-ranging scrutiny, given the unnecessary screw-up all manner of bureaucratic agencies are ever so fond of stamping on every single phase of the lives of ordinary men and women. Let there be no doubt, therefore, that people couldn’t care less about any move aimed at making expendable some bureaucratic elements as a punishment for their complicity in the acts of crime. In all fairness, it will also reduce the deadly burden that everybody can realize is beyond the forbearance of those scientists now in the hellfire.

After all, that’s what accountability is all about, isn’t it? To make it more diffused, so it can have a more widespread effect. Goodness only forbid if masses get so carried away as to demand the direst of punishment for the “culprits of nation”. Nobody is talking here about capital punishments, or something even more horrifying as seizing personal fortunes gained during the happy stints of service. Just a symbolic screw-up, namely the removals and dismissals from work as part of a clean-up operation, for example, will be just as good as anything conceivable. For those no more in active service, what could be more drastic in terms of punishment as barring them from holding any public offices in the future or simply curtailing their social activities under the penalty of law.
.
Even if a few of the military strongmen inextricably fall inside of the unfortunate loop, so what? Law is law and such are in fact the times to prove the authenticity of this thesis, by establishing that nobody, repeat nobody, stands above the law. As already explained, the problem at hand is rather intractable, yet there’s no denying the fact that an even-handed treatment of a few in the hierarchy, both military and civilian, would have been an ideal picture for the government to paint, for local consumption of course. For international dealing, nevertheless, there is no reason why the same strategy should not be working fairly well too, if only to be coupled with a high level of understanding on rather substantive issues, thus contributing “directly” to make the world a safe place to live, and for civilizations to endure.

So far, the emphasis has been on what might in all probability have brought a happy ending to an extremely sad drama of life. However, we all stand darn assured that what public wants done or not done almost always has a nominal bearing on what the leaders should decide in the end. Nor is it the first time the popular wishes have been left by the wayside. The all-knowing leadership adopted a course of action that has stunned many, both at home and abroad, arousing sentiments of widespread disdain or despondency or anger, depending on how one regarded the matter of nuclear proliferation as a result of a prolonged period of give and take business – allegedly a highly profitable one – with the underworld. 

The fact remains, that as soon as this dismal revelation was made public by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the government of Pakistan took upon itself to deal even-handedly with the ones – the most unfortunate scientists in the case at hand – who were just too weak to be able to curb their greed with nothing in the way of any concern for national security or international obligations. It will be seen, nonetheless, in a while, that not all public sensitivities were totally overlooked after all. Some measure of accommodation, as we shall shortly see, was very kindly sustained, if only in recognition of someone’s heroism being wildly acclaimed.

Much to the relief of the government of Pakistan, as investigation revealed, no trace of any involvement on the part of military or civilian leadership, not at any stage through almost three decades of vigorous pursuit for an atomic bomb, was ever found. Only the team of scientists, who were given practically all autonomy to oversee the highly sensitive project, just couldn’t help betraying the trust of a whole nation of adoring individuals. Also, a very small number of security personnel acting quite independently of their leadership were found involved in what constituted the biggest ever threat of nuclear proliferation in the world. In all seriousness, the scientists were subjected to intensive sessions of “debriefing” and interrogation. Startling discoveries were made in the process of investigation, followed by one confusing statement after another by the government agencies. People were waiting with bated breath to find out about the fate, probably not as much of Pakistan’s nuclear future as that of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan’s welfare. 

As a foremost breather for the awaiting admirers, first the pioneering father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb was cleared by a government spokesman of any involvement in the underworld transactions of any sort – a good news in so far as the government demonstrated its will to stand up for the champion of its atomic might. Then, quite unexpectedly, there followed a barrage of confessions on TV network by the top scientist himself which was enough to shake the whole nation of 150 million poor souls to its very roots. 

In view of his (Dr. Khan’s) frankness and in recognition of his sterling service to the nation in acquisition of atomic power, the government was quick to grant Dr. Khan a pardon – a seemingly unconditional one at first but later on some strings got attached. According to government information released later, it was not a blanket pardon, but only in so far as it was relevant to the confessions made. Apparently, that was the best the good government could do by way of having to allay the anxieties of a restive people. It was also decided to relieve him (the top scientist) of the responsibilities he was discharging until just before the “debriefings” set in. 

In any case, the enormity of esteem in which the people in general are most genuinely disposed to hold their “heroes” is so unsurpassed in generosity in this particular instance that, small wonder, the revered “father of the bomb” is said to continue to command the respect “due to him” in spite of whatever has so far befallen him – learned through the media protestations as to his impressively large volume of personal fortunes, but, primarily, through his own admission to public of involvement in a shameful business of underworld dealership in nuclear proliferation.

All this sorry state of affairs to one side, there are also some other scientists – prominent too in their own right – whose fates are still hanging in the balance, but not to worry. In all likelihood, a pronouncement of partial exoneration from blame for most, if not everyone, is expected to be coming through in due course of time. If not, there is only so much even the “all-powerful” but well-meaning governments can sometimes do. And that’s not the end of the world anyway; when someone goes around playing it foul, he knows how to survive the setbacks. 

One can’t help wondering: would it have been possible for a government figure in the like circumstances to be treated with the same measure of largesse that vast majorities are betraying for the “father of bomb”? Who knows? A risky business all the same, for any fool to contemplate! Dr. Khan appears to hold that singular privilege, like that of a movie star, a pop star, or a celebrated sportsman who each enjoys public respect regardless of any excellence of person. 

Politicians are allegedly the least sportsmanlike, much less the likes of movie or pop stars, except as being the shooting stars. So where do they stand in this intriguing equation it’s really very hard to know. It is very doubtful, also, that even another scientist on the same “illustrious team” could possibly boast something marginally as good as the spontaneous outpouring of public passion for the father of a nation’s bomb. A few words of sympathy as an aside maybe for the other luminaries, but that’s about as far as it can get for the ordinary mortals. In the case of Dr. Khan, it only makes sense to hang on to the saga of his heroism as long as the mighty bomb holds out – like in father-son relationship. 

Email: sakikhalid@hotmail.com  

US crumbles in Iraq

By Anmol Gupta from India

The Americans went into Iraq ignoring the world and look the mess they are in. Kofi Annan is doing the right thing by withdrawing the UN staff and telling the Americans that the result of bypassing the UN is quite grave. France was right in asking for diplomacy to be given more time. The Americans did not even prepare for a post war Iraq and it is because of this that it is facing troop casualties. Now, these are statements made by eminent scholars, academicians and politicians worldwide including here in India.

But was America wrong in going after Saddam? The answer is NO. Jacques Chiraq says it was right in asking for diplomacy to be given more time. It seems Chiraq loved Saddam. What Chiraq was asking for was like giving a rotten fish more time to come out of the waters on its own. Perhaps he needs to go fishing to know that a rotten fish makes the water rotten. Let's move on to the UN now. Kofi Annan calls out the UN staff from Baghdad ostensibly because the UN personnel there are in danger. Mr. Annan, did the US bomb the UN headquarters? Or are you saying that terrorists have the veto to make the UN move out from Baghdad. What does indeed emerge from the above are two faces which are helping terrorism-Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac.

There are troop casualties because America did not prepare for a post war plan. It is true that there are troop casualties and it is the same reason which made the coward Annan withdraw the UN from Baghdad. It is terrorism. Saddam is sending in terrorists in the guise of a freedom struggle with the aim of re-establishing his authority, a cause which a lot of democracy-bashers all over the world are readily sympathizing with. And what more encouragement can he get than by the UN being forced to withdraw on his terms. The choice for the US is crystal clear, either it can make the world know that democracy will one day shine in Iraq or it can follow the Annan route.

Standing like a rock and spreading the seed of democracy is the answer. Four pivotal seeds are necessary for democracy to bear fruits in Iraq, a country having the roots of civilization. The first and foremost is a strong constitution. And this constitution should stress on a secular democratic Iraq rather than an Islamic democracy. This is because one, Iraq has always been secular due to its various religions and ethnicity. Two it ought to be the pillar which the rest of the radical nations of the world ought to look up to. The second seed is of a solid economy. For this its oil ought to be exploited and funds made available timely for developing its infrastructure. The third seed is of boosting the education process to a world class level. This will help churn out knowledgeable Iraqis modern in outlook and helping their own country. The fourth is that of a military albeit with total devotion and dedication for civilian rule apart from its dedication for the defense of the country. America has taken the right path; it should continue to move on the road less traveled for that is the road to a better world. 

gupta_anmol@yahoo.com 

The Enemy Within: Common Sense Stuff From A Commoner!

By Shamshir-e-Umar
Writer is a Lahore based analyst 

Media has always played a vital role in raising voice against rampant social injustice with the prime objective of bringing issues to the notice of the rulers for the good of country. For this the media always target issues like price hikes, malpractices of bureaucracy, faulty policies and social issues. This trend, however, has taken 180-degree turn with media targeting armed forces and making poor Musharraf warn us again and again about the enemy from within.

Somehow, some weekly magazines from Lahore are becoming a miniature copy of one UK based online paper known for army bashing with full force. Rumors are that this net is slowly being introduced within the country to do the job by selecting intellectuals wearing price tags in their necks, but still God knows better. Last few months are witness of army being targeted and some real eye opener kind of articles have appeared bashing and demeaning the Pakistan armed forces along with the Intelligence agencies. 

The articles have been regularly appearing in Magazines whose owners are known to have strong enmity with intelligence agencies of Pakistan. A close tie between here and abroad for starting the cobweb of expert propaganda is to create chaos, may be? The writers seem to have one target alone, i.e., target armed forces and put as much blame of every thing on army as is possible, particularly one regular writer seems to very well versed not only with the terminology but also has knowledge of the budgetary matters of the Armed forces. This is off course not very easy for a civilian to get hands on and that’s what intrigued me. Those near to the writer shared that coming from a rich feudal background, joining the bureaucratic circle, writer holds high ambitions to get into politics and has been quoted to have close contacts with BB who apparently offered a ticket in this election and a ministry from writers hometown! Another string of cobweb but sadly too.

The writer got herself transferred from government to serve the Naval Force in their accounts department (which was opposed by many officers at that time) and was a close ally in arms procurement deals of the Navy, which is the topic of her PhD thesis also. Very well known among diplomatic circles and known to have traveled widely including Hindustan, the writer challenges armed forces structure, budget and functioning. Some in Islamabad also claim that the writer actually had very close ties with the Intelligence agencies writer is critical of now, got promoted internationally, but somehow the effort of the agencies went the wrong way; but then only God knows better.

Yes what she writes is right in a way that she points out at the flawed system but her subtle demeaning way and expression is not friendly but indicates something else, after all we all are humans and our writing reflects what’s in our minds, but the question is: why is it that the armed forces have become the main theme, where she served with the most inner circles for nearly three years? Questions are (a) Is it that intricate connection between wires abroad spreading like a cobweb that has unfortunately encircled our country due to individual’s vested interests or (b) is it a real patriotic heartburn for what is happening around us? If option (a) is the case lets analyse it critically and in a very unbiased way, and we see that chances of option (b) to be true are totally nullified. 

The very timings of appearance of the articles is quite significant and content of the articles resemble the content and target theme of Satribune.com, or the Tribune International UK based internet newspaper, owned by the Sehbahi’s. The articles seems to use derogatory and over generalized assumptions where intellectual fallacy technique of propaganda is used quite successfully, not very easily identified by our common people, e.g., in one of the articles, the writer claims that all the NCOs/JCOs commissioned for mainly field work in the agencies are intellectually deficient. She even claims that most of the officers also fall under the same category, which seems to be a pretty generalized statement coming from a scientifically trained person who specialized in arms procurement. Had the lady been expert in mental health the statement would have held some validity, but on the basis of may be her personal experience (as she has traveled abroad and to neighboring country) giving such a statement can be a very personal view. 

Nevertheless, it can actually have a real negative effect in terms of gaining civilian support, collaboration or confidence in our own intelligence agencies. Similarly her statement about selecting and sending high or low rank officers according to the status of individual being enquired about is a bit strange and cocky. It seems maybe we will have to request the ISI chief to go himself on an assignment for gathering information about suspicious activities of lets say a grade 22 officer or a PhD scholar who happens to have mustered Western support! So good luck to Agencies to get the Chief trained in interviewing skills!

Though the suggestion to train officers in communication skills would have seemed appropriate had it only advised to upgrade the qualification and communication skills of field workers, but in fact suggesting grade wise job allocation simply indicates a feudal mind, aristocracy and a feeling of superiority over our masses which has in fact lead the nation to this state where no political leadership is to be found at all. To be real, how many field officers of such high status do we need in a country with literacy rate below 40% and rural population comprising 80% of the total population? How many aristocrats sitting in Islamabad do we have? Maybe, we can count on fingers. Islamabad which is called to be a city 20 miles outside Pakistan by people from interior parts of our provinces is not the only part of Pakistan, so my request to Intelligence Agencies: open your eyes dear ones Lords want officers of caliber, get officers who can behave the way our rich and feudal Lords want, that’s what has happened in past and that’s the way things are going to be until and unless you have the courage to open up realities to common man and let masses take away masks from the faces of our healthy, wealthy and wise. 

My advice to the intelligence agencies is: make a public relation office build rapport with your masses, dissolve the myths that surround you and let people of this country be your informants, let them deliver information about the lords and their black knights ruining our land, and let people be proud of your existence. That’s how MOSAD is the strongest of all world agencies as a Jew living in any part of the world directly communicates with his/her agency, thus carrying a sense of National harmony every where. And you will never hear a Jew uttering such nonsense as our pseudo-intellectuals utter on National and International fronts for their armed forces or agencies as for them Israel is them and them their country.

Such articles do raise some questions in my enquiring mind regarding changing human nature, wonder if someone can fit some characters in them (1) what is it that changes individual perceptions from serving with dignity to exposing with disgrace, is it money or is it psychological power one gains for being an outlaw to attract attention, (2) Is it power ambition that makes a government servant turn into government basher, or is it overcompensation of our own inner inadequacies, (3) Does Pakistan needs cruel exposure at this time or is it sincere critical approach with deep sense of national integrity that we need?
I leave it up to you all to decide the choice for yourself and for once come with heads high for being a Pakistani no matter what it takes.

Coming back to the media army bashing, it seems a new chapter has been opened by arrest of Jawaid Hashmi, the MNA with venom for the army, and a daughter as MNA selected on the special reserved seats from her hometown. The family seems to be fulfilling the rotten old traditions of past where common man is satisfied with empty slogans of democracy and the “right to rule” remains with elite families, born to rule, have taste to rule and off course have the depth and understanding which the common man does not. Or, may be none of the females in the area really could come up to the Makhdoom’s daughter’s standards to be nominated on the special seat, or maybe our politicians knowing future problems need some kith and kin for support, God knows better.

Anyway, trained by the Jamat in early student days, Hashmi is known for his lack of emotional stability, lack of control and cool in situations of stress, uncontrolled outburst in face of provocation even at national or international level, along with inability to critically judge a situation and apply logic before taking an action. He is known for his slogans for democracy and though has a history of shifting parties, but what’s bad about it as Hashmi and party use the term “lota” for this politically worldly wise and acceptable behaviour. 

One could so easily evaluate Hashmi’s personality if one had watched Dr. Shahid’s programme on ARY, where in deep anger Hashmi physically reacted to Shaikh Rashid in language unworthy to be telecasted at International level to the extent that Dr. Shahid had to ask Hashmi to control himself as it was very embarrassing for him. The host had to say twice that the programme was being telecasted internationally and that his behavior was a poor expression of our country. More clearly, freud would not hesitate to diagnose him as a grown up man who never grew emotionally and the inner child takes over whenever he is in situations of distress causing uncontrolled anger and expressions. A sad state as he is a quite good looking old man, only if the untamed child remains within limits though.

What brought the checkmate situation for Hashmi was no body else but his personality characteristic of an immature emotional child where he seems to be victim of his inner party politics and where Fauzia played a key role. The question that arises in mind is why did Fauzia after initiating the action, making the poor child furious enough to deliver speeches against army, not only here but in Multan, made him read a letter that came to her and then backed out on recommendation of a “friend from army” (hey who says we are backward? our parliamentarians publicaly can announce their friendships for which poor Clinton got impeached, women empowerment at its best! thanks Musharraf for 40% seats). 

Secondly, why was the letter read after being discussed in the opposition parties meeting and relevant quarters of army not informed and how come none of the seasoned democracy lovers with sincere suggestion to formally inform the GHQ about it, after all in all government businesses it’s the relevant department which is authorized to take an action? If I was sincere enough with my country and did not have any vested interests instead of calling a press conference I would have taken the envelop to GHQ and delivered it personally. Intentions are what make a convict declared criminal not the action here. 

The very nature of intentions is being challenged since Hashmi is member of the August House apparently fit enough to participate in making national decisions, what happened to his thought process why did he not think for the Nation. Thirdly even the highest courts of Pakistan cannot take any action against (even against a grade one government officer) on the basis of an anonymous letter or report (read Esta code), what did Hashmi want to accomplish or may I dare say PPP wanted to accomplish via Fauzia to Hashmi route by getting an anonymous letter read to the press, Lord this is madness! Why did Hashmi being acclaimed and seasoned politician not understand what I being a mere commoner understand? and if he does not understand this then is he fit to be qualified for the post he holds? The street news is that cases in NAB against Hashmi were quite strong and he thought of going as a hero of democracy to jail than a convict! But then God knows better.

Hashmi who had been a minister during General Zia’s era indicating his unconditioned support for “democracy”, reading a legally invalid document in press, raise few questions; (a) is Hashmi cognitively sound parliamentarian to be trusted on matters of National security and confidence keeping in mind Pakistan being a nuclear capable state? (b) Should a man be trusted to be member of an August House, who has uncontrolled emotional outbursts and can publicaly announce statements which he did not receive personally, indicating inability to test and read out statements in front of media that had no legal significance in any court of law indicating his poor judgment ability? (c) If he planned the whole thing to avoid conviction in NAB case then is he really sincere to the country and cause of democracy?

It is also said that Hashmi even before his press conference told the federal minister for information, Sheikh Rashid, that he is going to do something for which he will be arrested, indicating his intentions to go ahead with an invalid act that can jeopardize national integrity and security. Does this mean Hashmi is acting on his own or is he being used? In both cases the argument rests with the conclusion that mentally, emotionally and cognitively challenged individuals or Individuals who can put their self before the national cause are not supposed to be in position of national importance.

The letter though heard by the journalists did not have any names and content whose language and expression resembled what UK based Internet paper and Lahore Weekly is expressing these days. The only difference is that in Hashmi those who wanted to raise an issue found a suitable surrogate to carry the message and in above-mentioned articles they have an intellectual insider telling stories with exaggeration and overgeneralization.

Here all the credit goes to the print media, which is a flagrant example of yellow journalism and off course money is being pumped like hell to write against the army by those who do not want the system to work. Yet, it is the print media that acted wisely and did not print the contents of a legally invalid document, not the politicians.

The decision is with common people to make as to how long do we need to suffer at the hands of feudal, price tagged intellectuals who are conditioned to change their paths any time, and bash us and others – be it army. Intelligence agencies or security personals they are product of our own society, they are from amongst us and certainly we cannot import people for this purpose. So what do we do? Own them or bash them? Show empathy and give positive criticism helping them improve or try to take their cloths off making them into demons of hell? In both cases lets be sure no one from across borders is ever going to come to save us but may they be corrupt, ignorant, intellectually deficits. They are the ones who are going to take the bullets and saving us, not the articles, pseudo-intellectuals or the politicians sitting abroad in protest. So lets not kill their morale by our intellectualism and actions run by ulterior motives. Lets point what’s wrong using a positive tone for criticism that builds our country and not fill the hearts of enemy with joy. After all, its just common sense of a commoner!

Serenity712@lycos.com

Globalisation: a threat to Indian Culture?

By Anmol Gupta from India

That "globalization is a threat to Indian culture'' is a frequently-heard theme in India today. The answer is NO it is not. Infact globalisation is part of Indian tradition. More than two thousand years ago, India was linked to both Rome and China by trade, and considered a land of wealth and fine products. Buddhism spread as a missionary religion, to central Asia, South East Asia and China. Trade goods went along with these. Culturally, the tendency to characterise all foreigners and foreign products as wrong influences was countered from the very beginning by the trend of offering the best of Indian culture and products to the world. Even as late as the 17th century, it was British manufacturers who were afraid of and opposed to free trade because of the competition from fine Indian cotton cloth, while merchants supported it. 

Britain's industrialisation was secured by destroying the manufacturing capacity of India. In 1699, the British government banned the import of woolen cloth from Ireland, and in 1700 the import of cotton cloth from India. Both products were forbidden because they were superior to the British. As the industrial revolution was built on the textiles industry, the British could not have achieved our global economic dominance if we had let them in. Throughout the late 18th and 19th centuries, India was forced to supply raw materials to Britain's manufacturers, but forbidden to produce competing finished products. There is a saying which goes "British are rich because the Indians are poor."

Now the jobs that the British stole 200 years ago are returning to India. Today the National Rail Enquiries, Great Britain is likely to move its rail enquiry services to Bangalore, in south-west India. Recently, the HSBC bank announced that it was cutting 4,000 customer service jobs in Britain and shifting them to India. BT, British Airways, Lloyds TSB, Prudential, Standard Chartered, Norwich Union, and Reuters, have already begun to move their call centres to India. There is a profound historical irony here and it is all due to globalization. 
So a historical restitution appears to be taking place, as hundreds of thousands of jobs, many of them good ones, flee to the economy the British ruined A new middle class is developing in Indian cities previously dominated by caste. Prosperity is changing the culture for good.

Today, the challenges of globalisation cannot be met by further protectionism or other means of closing off the country; the old ``Nehru model'' of development has resulted in backwardness and its continuation today would only prolong backwardness. India has already shown what its educated, information-savvy skilled workforce can do in such areas as computer technology; the same skillful use of markets and people has to be extended to the areas such as agriculture and simple consumer goods which still employ the largest numbers of people. 

Education and modern technologies - including the controversial areas of biotechnology and irrigation - have to be truly universalised. The future is not dark, but it is time to stop romanticising the backward aspects of the past, and learn from the equally Indian tradition of using globalisation. 

Would Arabs return to the Camel age? 

By Shafiq Khan

I am not writing here to discount Arabs. The world knows it and I can prove through the last 5 decades of history that Arabs are the most complacent and arrogant people on earth. Their complacency and pomposity has been a great cause of failure of the Muslim Ummah, because they control the richest oil resources on the planet and thrown that in the laps of American and British governments to control it. Those who had the opportunity of performing Hajj, might have noticed that, even a bottle of cold water in the maidan-e-Arafat carries a note," from the Royal King". The entire revenue of the Saudi Kingdom goes to the King and princes' personal accounts instead to the treasury of the kingdom. King Fahad's nephew is the 5th richest man in the world and he has investments in American and European stocks of over 6 billion Dollars. The entire Saudi government is controlled, from top to bottom, by 5000 princes and people from Royal families. Their oil reserves are not only quickly running out, but they are forced to impose taxes on certain things to generate more revenues and to catch up their budget deficits.

The entire system in Saudi Arabia, Middle east and other parts of the Gulf states is being looked after by the Americans and British, who bill them heavily for their services in return. The Americans and British control their economy and resources directly and indirectly within and outside the country. Within the country, they control their forces, businesses and entire working system and outside the country, their billions and trillions of Dollars bank accounts, stock investments, bought properties and assets. Because of the shortfall of Saudi's revenues, recently they have let go over 30,000 foreign workers and are employing Saudi locals.  

On the one hand the display of today's magnificence and splendor of Arab world is the proof of their sumptuous and promiscuous life style and a visible prodigal and profusion. We have heard thousands of stories, watched a lot of movies and witnessed uncountable incidents of Arab fetishism and debouchments in the past. I remember as to once I saw pictures in the newspapers while in Pakistan of an Arab prince with a congregation of his girl friends in a motorcade of 100 cars on the streets of New York or some other city in States. Same way there is a true story of an Arab Shaikh who went to gamble in a Casino of Las Vegas and before the start he challenged his opponents, saying that "remember, if I loose, I can buy America".

Just a couple of years back, the King of Brunei Dar-e-Salaam spent 52 million pound sterling in one night while celebrating his birth day. It was attended by Prince Charles and Pop singer Michael Jackson among others. The stories of their miles-long palaces with all amenities of 'an state' with in are in hundreds.  

Arabs are very rude, rough and humiliating to other nationals from third world countries, specially with their Muslim brothers from Pakistan. In my 10 years experience of living in North America and visiting a large number of countries in Europe and the Middle East, I have found that 90% of the Pakistani residents who worked 15-20 years in Saudi Arabia or the Middle East had to leave those Arab countries when their children reached to a college level education after completing their High Schools, because after High School, these Arab countries do not allow aliens to study in their colleges. 

The unhappy part of the episode is that since those Pakistani are so used to of their different life style while living abroad, so they end up going to Canada, the United States or England to make their living as they find hard to adjust back in Pakistan because of so many reasons, main being the political uncertainty. During their working in those Arab countries, the local Shaikhs and sponsors apply all kinds of immoral and illegal behaviors to these aliens like, surrendering their passport (I have recently read that UAE has recently passed a law not to do so in future), paying less wages against the signed agreements, terminate their working sponsorships before time, forfeiting their employment gratuities, bonuses, severance pays and other employment benefits at the time of retirement or leaving the job. 

The only interest Saudi Arabia and the Middle Eastern countries have from the Pakistani government is of our military's expertise and training their personnel. But slowly and gradually its fizzling out too as they are now completely depending on Americans and Britishers. Some people might not know that America has the largest oil reserves in the world, but it does not use its reservoirs and is keeping for the future when Arab countries would run out their oil reserves after 40/50 years or so. Plus, America buys crude oil at a cheaper price from Arabs and have other 'back doors' and 'flukes' of getting it like,  occupation of Iraq, controlling Kuwait etcetera. Though God has bestowed upon Arabs the wealth of 'black gold' but unfortunately, they did not make a proper use of it.

The Arabs may find harder after 40/50 years as they did not industrialize themselves in the wake of on going development in the world and to make them self-sufficient in all walks of life.Population and area wise these countries are too small (except Saudi Arabia) plus, they have boiling weather, scorching deserts, hard-rock mountains and the absence of fresh water, which might put them in trouble after some 50/60 years. Those adverse conditions might push them to a camel age again because of their easy going, luxurious life style and improper use of their God gifted resources. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the Muslim world of 57 nations, which follows so-called Islamic Shariah in their day to day life. But one can ask them a question that if Saudi government and its Royal rulers are so pious and followers of God, than why they have this every day chaos, unrest and abyssal violence? For last several years the intensity of violent incidence have substantially increased. This is beyond the fact that, they have equal number of police, intelligence personnel and security guards to watch their systems. 

If you go to Khana-i-Kaaba for prayer, you will see every namaazi has an agency man behind him. I don't see future of Saudi kings different than Raza Shah Pahelvi of Iran. Are we old enough to remember that even Shah's best friend America had refused to land his plane on the American soil and the poor king died like a pauper. Jordan's story is also not different than the other Arab world. The late King of Jordan first nominated his younger brother Prince Hassan to the throne, but while at moribund, he changed his mind and declared his British native born wife's son, prince Abdullah as king of Jordan. You will frequently see King of Jordan, queen, prince and princess visiting states as their in-laws home. 

Very often, they are shown on the CNN and other American TV channels giving so-called lectures on Islam and morality. A FOOTNOTE: If you ever try to contact any Saudi official in Saudi Arabia, their embassy (ies) around the world for any query or question by the Internet, you would never ever find an e-mail address. Even the embassies in Washington and Islamabad do not have e-mail addresses. Though their system was computerized at the same time when Americans did. In my wisdom, there could not be a worse example of their complacency, arrogance and nonchalance than this. Yours 
shafiqahmed7@hotmail.com 

Post Iraq war scenario and world leadership

By Yamin Zakaria

Recent decision by India not to send her troops despite requests from the American government can only be looked upon with admiration. It shows her determination to be independent and to pursue her genuine national interests rather then simply to subject herself to the overt bribes and threats from the US government. Threats and bribes has become a hallmark for the US ambassadors in the various countries where they behave like Viceroys of the British era.

Historically speaking, Mrs Indira Ghandi also undertook such decisions when the US tried to turn it into one of her military bases to enforce the foreign policy of the pre-Nixon era of containing China. Perhaps that is why Pakistan became a convenient ally of the US rather than a natural one. Exertion of such determination and will power based on a long-term vision is part of the reason why India is moving towards becoming a significant regional power. This is something that the regime in Pakistan has yet to realise.

It is interesting to note that India being a predominantly Hindu country has opposed the war vehemently on various grounds, and she matched her words with deeds by refusing to send troops to give legitimacy to the illegal occupation and implicitly the war. Whereas, the protests from the masses in the two neighbouring countries of India –Pakistan and Bangladeh -- were in much larger numbers, which was naturally expected as both are predominantly Muslim countries. Yet the governments of these two countries failed to adequately condemn this immoral and illegal war in Iraq.

The recent uncovering of the lies by the BBC (dodgy dossier, dodgy intelligence, dodgy 45 minutes possibilities nuclear blasts by Sadam Hussein and now the dodgy death of Dr Kelly) coupled with the failure to find Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) the criminality of Bush and Blair is beyond doubt. Why is it that only history must judge the Bush and Blair rather than the arm of International laws, if the laws are genuinely International? It seems that we are living in an era where such laws gets interpreted and applied by the Anglo-Saxon world to enforce their own agenda. A real proof of the justice of International Laws would be demonstrated by subjecting Bush and Blair to criminal prosecution in the Hague by the relatives of the 8000 civilians and Journalists who have been murdered by this illegal and criminal war. Remember the old axiom, the real test of the law is not to bring the weak to justice but the strong as well.

Far from condemning the war, criminals Blair and Bush, the leaders of these two countries (Bangladesh and Pakistan) are seems looking for ways to send their troops in return for some financial benefit, behaving like the 19^th century’s Nawabs of India when they sold themselves to the British in consideration for their personal privileges.

Such behaviour clearly demonstrates the real distance between the ruling elites of these two nations with the feeling and the aspirations of its masses.

India, Pakistan need to pursue give and take policy for peace 

 By Nawaz Khuhro 

Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf’s recent offer to India for initiating the Middle East-style talks on Kashmir matches international standards for solving issues, but Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s rejection in this regard seems to be contradictory to his recent efforts that ended diplomatic deadlock between the two countries.  

It is irony that India on one hand talks for solving issues while on other hand it continues to accuse Pakistan of ‘infiltration’ in held Kashmir. The unexpected breakthrough has brought two nuclear-arch rivals very close to each other by means of which they could bring peace in the South Asia. But some provoking statements from Indian leaders still haunt the superb diplomatic thaw.

The narrow-minded statements from Indian side, if continued to be released, will bring nothing but a hammer that would shatter on-going peace efforts. However, Pakistani leaders Pervez Musharraf and Mir Zaffarullah Khan Jamali have demonstrated good response to India that would pave a way to an everlasting peace in the region.

Several breakthroughs in relations between the two countries including holding of the Agra Summit have occurred over the last two decades, but no outcome has yet been accomplished. As a result, the trade, political and economic relations between the two countries suffered major setbacks.

India says Kashmir is its integral part and it would never loose it while Pakistan President General Musharraf says Kashmir issue should not be sidelined during peace talks. The stands of New Delhi and Islamabad seem tough one but it does not mean that issues can not be resolved. The need is that they should think of new things they never thought of. They should adopt policies they never pursued before. They should mull and act on the policies-based on give and take. 

Pakistan and India have experienced each other’s capabilities thoroughly as they have fought two major wars and reached third, the small one at Kargil. They are also well aware about the nuclear capabilities of each other and results of nuclear wars.

Now that Vajpayee has appeared in a political ground so he should not play on a weak wicket by issuing statements that “Pakistan must stop infiltration into held Kashmir’. Such kind of statements shows that he wants to flee from a political ground. India must remind that it has wasted a lot of money by deploying mass troops in held Kashmir and killing thousands of innocent people ruthlessly. It has also got its thousands of troops killed there.

If India is sincere this time to restore peace in South Asia then it should not adopt zigzag way for peace.  It must change its policy on Kashmir and try to resolve it through UN Security Council because it the sole international body that could help in restoring peace.  

India and Pakistan are developing countries wherein poverty and unemployment is too higher as compared to western countries, so they should now change their attitudes. Both countries mostly depend on their agriculture as they have less number of industries. In order to become developed countries they need to boost their industries. But this could be achieved when they would defuse tension, develop education system and expand industrial network.

There should be no denying that Pakistan and India have lost a lot of money in boosting their military mights over tension in the region, leaving themselves backward in economic growth. The changing dynamics of the international political economy has offered a new lucrative opportunities to India and Pakistan. The demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War has freed South Asia from external alliances that had divided India and Pakistan.

Internal developments have created a new domestic pressures in favor of cooperative bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. In both countries, there is growing awareness among an expanding middle class, intellectuals, and a young generation. The existence of the potential market has attracted the interest of Pakistani businessmen.  

The sole reason of tension and economic loss in both countries is due to Kashmir issue that now needs to be resolved peaceful through only diplomatic efforts. Who is right? This could be established only by bringing a third party – the international community- The United Nations is this time sole international body that represents more than 180 nations including Pakistan and India. Fact is that this issue should be settled through this body without any delay by adopting give and take policy.

Kashmir issue is one of the difficult problems in the world, so a great tolerance and positive thinking are required to take this issue to the UN forum and resolve it amicably. Islamabad and New Delhi should now come with concrete measure to initiate meaningful and wide-ranging talks to resolve all lingering issues including Kashmir one. Pakistan and India have a lot of resources for the development of economy such as agriculture products, coal and water, so they should also resume bilateral trade in order to boost peace and economy in the South Asia.

After restoring peace, they should first of all raise educational budgets to give a major boost to high quality education and create expert engineers and scientists, who through expertise and good education, will help establish high-level electronic and many other kinds of industries. 

Pakistan and India should also restore all tourism restrictions to boost their tourism industry. Doing this would not only boost peace in the region but will help avert hate among the people of the two arch rivals. 

Gujrat Caretaker Chief Minister Narendra Modi in a statement published in Indian dailies and Pakistan’s newspaper The News on May 19 said, "If the Narmada and Sindhu rivers are connected through a joint river management project, it could prove a boon for both the Kutch region in India and the Sindh province in Pakistan."

Modi, who is normally belligerent when he speaks about Pakistan, sounded extremely reconciliatory. His idea should be considered by the leaders of both countries because this could create a major normalcy between the relations of the two countries. India has large reservoirs of water and during floods and its huge water goes in waste, so it could provide its extra water to Pakistan through Indus River (Sindhu) that will help Pakistan to cultivate lacks of acres of land in Sindh.
yaminz@yahoo.co.uk 

Refugees global protection principles at stake after 9/11 

By Syed Muhammad Arif

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 the core refugees protection principles are under serious threat across the globe and the future of millions of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants is uncertain. In the aftermath of September 11, the governments faced a critical challenge to address legitimate national security concerns without undermining long-enshrined refugee protection and human rights standards and further eroding the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants.

Security concerns in the wake of the September 11 attacks prompted governments around the world to introduce emergency legislation and tighter immigration controls. In many countries, such measures were introduced in an existing climate of growing hostility and restrictions on the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants. Several governments introduced measures that seriously eroded their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and undermined the fundamental right to seek and enjoy asylum, as stipulated in the UDHR. It was ironic that in the year marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Refugee Convention, the very same governments responsible for its establishment sought to depart from their obligations under this treaty.

This act not only affected Afghan refugees in neighboring countries, but also resulted in strict measures adopted to stop large number of influx of refugees in their countries. According to UNHCR, Afghan refugees arrived in countries Australia, Cambodia, Cuba, and Iceland in 2000. In 1999 and 2000, the number of Afghans who sought asylum in Europe nearly doubled, with Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom receiving the largest numbers of applications. Fears of a mass influx of Afghan refugees after September 11, prompted several countries to introduce harsh policies. 

The United States was one of the first countries to respond to the events of September 11 with emergency anti-terrorism legislation that severely curtailed the rights of non-citizens and permitted their indefinite detention. Despite vigorous protest by human rights, civil liberties, and immigrants' rights organizations, the "USA Patriot Act" was passed on October 26. The procedures leading to the passage of the anti-terrorism bill were flawed and rushed. Congress was unable to meet and fully consider the legislation as it was amended, meaning that problematic provisions of the legislation were never fully considered and debated by members of Congress.

 The legislation granted unprecedented broad powers to the attorney general to "certify" and then detain any non-citizen, including an asylum-seeker, legal permanent resident, or a refugee, who he had "reasonable grounds to believe" was engaged in terrorist activities or other activities that endangered national security. A certified immigrant who had been charged with an immigration violation but who could not be deported would remain in custody until the attorney general determined that he or she no longer met the criteria for certification. While judicial review of the detention would be permitted, there were no meaningful, prompt, or periodic reviews to ensure the detention was warranted. 

The overly broad and vague criteria for subjecting a non-citizen to detention could allow the attorney general to certify and detain any non-citizen in the U.S. who had any connection, however tenuous or distant in time, with any group that had ever unlawfully used a weapon to endanger a person. Given the focus of the law enforcement efforts in the wake of September 11, there were concerns that such language created the risk of arbitrary application and could disproportionately impact individuals from certain countries or religious groups, including asylum seekers and refugees. The legislation contravened the prohibition against prolonged, arbitrary, or unlawful detention in international human rights law and UNHCR's guidelines on the detention of asylum seekers. 

In October, the U.S. government also announced that for national security reasons it had suspended all resettlement of refugees to the U.S., including Afghan refugees who were waiting to leave Pakistan. In 2000, the U.S. took 90 percent of the 4,000 Afghan refugees resettled out of Pakistan. The moratorium affected some 20,000 refugees from countries across the world who had been cleared by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for resettlement to the U.S. Refugee organizations criticized the moratorium, arguing that it was unnecessary and only increased the suffering of refugees from war-torn countries like Iraq, Sierra Leone, and Somalia, many of whom had spent years in desperate refugee camps waiting to be resettled. 

In a worrying trend throughout Europe, governments linked anti-terrorism measures with the fight against illegal immigration and introduced measures that severely curtailed the rights of refugees and migrants. Spain's foreign minister, for example, voiced concerns that international terrorists could be smuggled into Spain and said that "[t]he strengthening of the fight against illegal immigration is also a strengthening of the anti-terrorist fight."  

In Hungary, all Afghan asylum seekers were transferred from open reception centers to facilities with heightened security measures. In Greece, Afghan refugees who arrived after the September 11 attacks received a hostile reception as the government refused to allow them to apply for asylum, violating its obligations under the Refugee Convention. In the wake of vociferous international pressure, the government subsequently permitted some refugees to apply for asylum.

In Germany, advocacy groups reported that efforts to include adequate human rights safeguards for refugees in proposed asylum legislation suffered a serious setback in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks with many viewing the new legislation as a necessary measure to strengthen national security. More positively, however, the German government announced in November that it would introduce legislation to reverse its practice of excluding victims of persecution by non-state agents from refugee protection, such as asylum seekers from Somalia, Algeria, and Afghanistan. 

After September 11, there were concerns that EU efforts to safeguard internal security could result in the exclusion or expulsion of refugees and migrants from member states without adequate safeguards. Following September 11, the British Home Secretary David Blunkett proposed far-reaching measures to restrict entry into the U.K. and strengthen national security. Outlined in a new Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, these proposals were before parliament at the time of writing.

Civil liberties, refugee advocacy, and human rights NGOs were concerned that the bill would permit the unlawful indefinite detention of foreigners suspected of terrorism-related activity without access to effective appeal procedures and deny some asylum seekers individual determination of their asylum claims without recourse. The bill's broad and overly inclusive definition of terrorism would include any person with "links" to an international terrorist group, suggesting that this could lead to "guilt by association" and the targeting of individuals based on their political, national, ethnic, or religious affiliation. The bill's provisions seriously undermined the fundamental right to seek asylum and the purpose and intent of the Refugee Convention, and represented a departure from well-established refugee protection standards.  

Racist attacks against Afghans and other Muslims living in the U.K. increased dramatically after September 11. These included damage to property, bomb threats against mosques, physical and verbal abuse of Muslim women wearing headscarves, and gang assaults targeting Arab and South Asian men. In one attack an Afghan taxi driver was beaten so severely he was paralyzed from the neck down. Both Prime Minister Tony Blair and Home Secretary David Blunkett condemned the attacks and called for tolerance.

Australia faced a barrage of international criticism for its excessively harsh and restrictive immigration and asylum policies. In August, the government turned back a boatload of mainly Afghan asylum seekers who had been rescued at sea by a Norwegian freighter, the Tampa, from a sinking Indonesian ferry, and refused to let them land on Australian territory. Most of the 438 asylum seekers were eventually sent to the Pacific island state of Nauru; others were sent to New Zealand. Following the September 11 attacks, Defense Minister Peter Reith justified Australia's actions, arguing that it should reserve the right to refuse entry on security grounds to "unauthorized arrivals".  

Following the Tampa incident and the September 11 attacks on the US, the government adopted new and unprecedented immigration legislation in an expedited manner on September 26. Under the legislation, it "excised" various Australian territories, such as Christmas Island, Ashmore and Cartier Islands, and the Cocos Islands, from its "migration zone" and refused to consider asylum applications from anyone arriving at those places. Instead, the asylum seekers were transported to other non-Australian Pacific island states while their refugee claims were assessed, or simply sent back to sea. Human rights, refugee, and advocacy organizations charged that by forcing boats of asylum seekers back into international waters, Australia was endangering the lives of asylum seekers, undermining the right to seek asylum, and potentially violating non-refoulement obligations.  

The new legislation also required the detention of asylum seekers arriving at an "excised offshore place" without any right to judicial review. Australia's policy of mandatory detention for all unauthorized arrivals continued to be widely condemned.

Between August and November, Australia turned back several boatloads of asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries in the Middle East and South Asia, and returned them to international waters. Many of the boats arrived in Australia via Indonesia, which was not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and lacked laws and procedures for determining refugee status. 

Governments hosting large, long-term refugee populations faced the challenge of continuing to provide protection and keep their borders open, while the international community had a heightened responsibility to provide sufficient funding and support and to seek effective solutions to chronic refugee crises.  

 European Union's Southern Drive

By Shada Islam 

BRUSSELS: As US President George W. Bush prepares for a long-overdue trip to the Middle East, the European Union governments are designing their own blueprint for peace and stability in the war-torn region. Many elements of the 15-nation bloc's Middle East agenda coincide with American plans. The US and EU worked with the United Nations and Russia to design the international road map for ending Israeli-Palestinian violence which Israel accepted on May 25 and are now struggling to get the blueprint implemented as soon as possible. But tired of playing second fiddle to American interests in the Middle East, EU policymakers are mapping a distinctive design for the region. 

More ambitious than the Bush Administration's free trade proposal for the region, the EU plan is part of what the European Commission President Romano Prodi calls a new "proximity policy" for relations between the ten so-called 'southern Mediterranean states' stretching from Morocco to Syria. The EU plan aims to promote political and economic reform, combat terrorism, and improve the human rights' record through tough conditionality on EU financial assistance in the Middle East. 

"These countries are our direct neighbors. What happens there affects our security, our economies and our future," says an aide to EU security chief Javier Solana. This approach marks a radical departure from EU attitudes towards a region that many in Europe tend to see as little more than a source of illegal immigration and a breeding ground for religious extremists and terrorists. EU policymakers insist that the EU can no longer afford to treat the Mediterranean merely as a security issue. First, many of Europe's estimated 13 million Muslims of Middle Eastern origin support closer relations between their adopted lands and countries of origin. Second, while people smuggling across the Mediterranean remains a problem, European governments are realizing they must forge stronger contacts with nations whose workers are needed to replace the EU's ageing workforce. Finally, to tackle the "root causes" of extremism, Europe must help Arab countries to become more democratic. 

This blueprint for a reconfigured EU is simple enough: Europe's southern neighbors must be allowed to become a part of an EU "area of cooperation and integration," says Prodi. Unlike countries to Europe's east, including the Balkan States, which have been promised EU membership, Prodi has made it clear that Europe's southern neighbors will not have the status of full-fledged EU members. Nonetheless, they can become part of a wider Europe, sharing "everything but institutions" with an expanded EU. This will require that the EU use the same techniques that it utilized successfully to speed up reform in the central and eastern European states. In other words, EU intends to play a critical role in promoting economic and political modernization in the Middle East. 
Although Brussels is still debating the details of the new approach, EU policymakers say Arab governments might be asked to prepare joint annual action plans with the EU, that translate policies into national legislation and implementation. Each plan will include specific goals and deadlines for market liberalization, police reform and human rights. The EU will ensure implementation, and the European Commission will make policy recommendations. 

Arab governments that agree to play the game stand to be rewarded generously. Under Prodi's plan, southern Mediterranean states will not only receive more aid than in the past but in the long term, become eligible to participate in the bloc's frontier-free "internal market," benefiting from the so-called "four freedoms" or EU rules for the untrammeled cross-border movement of goods, services, capital and people. EU governments were not too happy initially with the idea of Moroccan workers traveling unfettered across Europe, admits an aide to Prodi. "But faced with labor shortages, mentalities in Europe are changing," he says. 

This isn't the EU's first attempt to initiate a policy for countries on its southern rim. EU launched a so-called Euro-Mediterranean "partnership" in Barcelona in November 1995 in response to the US-led Middle East peace process. The blueprint focused on building a European-Mediterranean Free Trade Zone, and promoting north-south cultural cooperation. EU governments also provided millions of euros in aid to build the region's transport, telecommunication, and electricity infrastructure. 

But the seven-year old strategy has failed to deliver. "Mediterranean states have not seriously tackled overdue political reforms, while the EU has not really found the right approach to engage its partners in an effective dialogue," warns Eberhard Rhein, a former Commission official in charge of Middle East issues. EU governments remained unable to use their leverage to address issues like democratic reform, public accountability and the judiciary, education and improving the role of women in society. The failure of this strategy does not mean that the EU does not have an important role in promoting reform and development in the region. 

In spite of EU's best intentions, EU diplomats recognize that their new vision for the region has little chance of success as long as the volatile situation in Israel-Palestine remains unsolved. Creating an independent and viable Palestinian state is imperative for peace and an end to terrorism in the Middle East. "The Palestinian problem … is not only the cause of terror against Israel but has been used by terrorist organizations in the region as an excuse. If you want to see Arabs move on reform, solving the Palestinian issues is the key," Greek's Foreign Minister, George Papandreou has said. |

EU governments have been spending millions of dollars to shore up the Palestinian Authority and encourage Palestinian reforms. Papandreou further argued that despite Israeli insistence that the road map must be US-led, Europeans need to "remain engaged in the Middle East peace process." The plan was a "common project," Papandreou claimed, while German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer described the international road map as "Europe's baby," adding that the EU had been urging Washington to step up its involvement in Middle East efforts for several months. 

Despite all the rhetoric, few EU governments have any illusion about their ability to reshape the Middle East. US involvement is critical in ensuring that Israel begins implementing the peace plan it reluctantly accepted last week. EU diplomats also recognize that they have little influence over Israel, which continues to view the bloc as pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian. Still, once the peace process gets under way, EU officials are confident that not only will the Palestinians demand the EU's support but the US will also recognize that it cannot achieve peace in the Middle East alone. 

Unlike the public squabbles over Iraq, this time around Washington might not be able to play the game of "divide and rule Europe." Over the years, EU governments have come to agree on the best way of achieving Middle East peace. "This is one region where EU countries realize that they can exert more influence if they work collectively," says an EU diplomat. That does not mean that there is no room for national initiatives such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair's efforts to organize a peace conference. According to an EU diplomat, "When EU leaders talk these days, they send the same message to America, Israel, and the Palestinians on the need to stop bloodshed and achieve peace." 

Shada Islam is a Brussels-based journalist specializing in EU trade policy and Europe's relations with Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

Courtesy: YaleGlobal 

Iraq war: A big blow to UN credibility

By Nawaz Khuhro

There should be no denying that US-led war on Iraq without international approval has reduced the United Nations to a powerless body, because it has now failed to fulfill its commitments to promote peace, prevent one nation from occupying another and shield weak countries against war mongers.

The world body’s failure to stop the coalition forces from invading Iraq has seemingly shattered its credibility and rendered it helpless. The unilateral US military assault on Iraq has flagrantly violated the UN rules and regulations. This aggression has not only posed threat to the existence of the world body but has hammered the world peace.

During the Persian Gulf War 91, the UN Security Council authorized a use of international coalition force against Iraq, as a result the Iraqi troops were driven out of Kuwait. The question that arises is: Why the UN did not take action America this time like the one it took against the Kuwait invasion.

Apparently, the UN’s failure to resolve major international issues like Palestine and Kashmir is attributed to its lack of resolve and the fact the US has always been allowed to retain its hegemony in the world body. The Washington’s absolute rejection of the international community’s stand against war on Iraq, and violation of the international law has now held the UN role as condemnable, suspicious and unreliable towards the world peace

US President Bush had no right and any perceivable justification to attack Iraq, ruin its history and cultural legacy  in the pretext of weapons of mass destruction at a time when his country itself possesses a huge stock pile of nuclear weapons.  The unauthorized and dictatorial occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has now exposed America’s bids to control oil resources in Arab countries and rule the world by crushing Muslims states – in fact America’s top agenda.

Furthermore, after its unlawful attack on Iraq, the US has turned the direction of its tanks to Syria and threatened economic, diplomatic and other unspecified sanctions against it if it failed to take what it called the ‘right decisions’. This kind of US threats that reflect its print of warring policies have been condemned worldwide as Secretary General of the Arab League, Amr Musa, said he was astounded by the threats. Egyptian spokesman also warned against what he called the targeting of Arab countries one by one.  UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, on a visit to Central Command in Qatar, refused to back the Washington line that Syria is a "rogue state".

It would be a commendable act of the UN if it comes out with concrete efforts this time to shield the world peace and Arab countries’ huge oil reserves against possible US-led military attacks. The world body should mull as to what justified the US to attack Iraq in the pretext of disarmament despite the fact that it also keeps huge stocks of weapons of mass destruction. A fact can not be denied that the United Sates itself has weapons of mass destruction and used them on million of people in Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the World War II in 1945, killing thousands of people ruthlessly and rendering millions homeless. These attacks proved to be the genocide of Japanese people as they were not aimed at the country’s military targets. The nuclear attacks on Japanese cities still expose American forces’ sincerity with the humanity.

The UN should keep in mind that wars bring socio, economic and political problems worldwide . After attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the global economy slowed down to an alarmingly level, shattering trade activities globally.

Iraq is the second largest oil-producing country in the world behind Saudi Arabia and almost all industries in the world depend on oil. America also imports a huge quantity of oil from the Arab countries. If wars were imposed on other countries, then there is certainty that oil prices will climb to an alarming level, causing oil shortage and price-hike all over the world, especially in the US wherein a large number of industries depend on oil.

Mr. Bush must also not forget that Washington has already conducted more than hundreds of underground and sea nuclear tests and made atomic bombs, some of them already used on Japan. It has the worst devastating nuclear technology as well, by means of which it can destroy the whole world in a short span of time. It is the US, which has uniquely nuclear programmes, which it justifies for the production electrical energy. Another question that arise is: Has Iraq no right to even mull over a nuclear programme for boosting energy?

Why the US does not abandon its nuclear programmes, destroy deadly arms and missiles that pose an alarming threat to the world population and peace. The Iraqi disarmament could be justified only when first of all America disarm itself and then ask other countries to follow the suit.

The US also imposed war on Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban rulers in the name of Osama Bin Laden’s arrest. The merciless US attacks in Afghanistan reportedly left thousands of people dead and injured.  To wash its failure in arresting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the US has started propaganda of freeing people from Saddam Hussein and Taliban rulers. Such sort of US propaganda and claims seems to be hollow slogans as the post-war period conditions in Afghanistan and Iraq are still worst and far from ideal.

The Pentagon’s allegation that Baghdad has weapons of mass destruction seems baseless as the UN weapons inspectors clarified that they found no such weapon in Iraq. The main reason of such blames and propaganda seemes to be the US encounter with Iraq’s opposition to the deployment of ever-increasing number of western forces in Arab states that posed a threat to Iraqi oil stocks.

Obviously, the US has made Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and now Syria as conflict places, drawing the attention of almost the whole world into the regions.  George W. Bush is still trying to trace out Osama bin Laden and those involved in the attacks in Pakistan and even in its own country. The Bush’s international campaign for so-called war on global terrorism also seems to be a part of its cynical intentions to dominate the world and win American people’s favour for his next presidential election.

Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991, the US and the United Kingdom have maintained ‘’no-fly zones in southern Iraq. Reports say they have conducted several raids in southern Iraq, killing many people and destroying its communication systems. The US-Britain’s claim that these raids are aimed at saving anti-Iraqi people in the country demonstrate their double standard policy on the world issues as there are other issues like Palestine and Kashmir where in thousands of people are being killed ruthlessly. The UN should also remind the atrocities in the countries and take action against Israel and India.

U.N. weapons inspectors, who left Iraq in December 1998, were allowed to inspect all suspected weapons sites in Iraq. President Bush signed a resolution by the U.S. Congress authorizing him to use force against Iraq if necessary.

The U.N. Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution 1441, demanding Iraq give U.N. inspectors the unconditional right to conduct search anywhere in Iraq for banned weapons. Iraq was also required to make a complete declaration of its nuclear, chemical, biological and ballistic weapons. France and Russia seemed wise enough because they thought that a war without UN approval would trigger devastating shocks to the world peace that was why they offered a bitter opposition to any military assault on Iraq.

The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) in its meeting in Doha on March 5 opposed US-led assault on Iraq. It also rejected US plans to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and demanded peaceful solution to US-Iraq standoff on the UN platform. The Islamic body  which represents 57 countries is a massive vote bank for Iraqi support. The UN should also keep in mind the stand of the Islamic states which form a major block in the global body. 

The United Nations inspectors in their report presented at the Security Council meeting on March 7 also said that Iraq is increasing cooperation over disarmament as it destroyed its Al-Samoud 2 missiles. They also said that no evidence wast found that could justify the fears of Washington, claiming that Iraq possesses the weapons of mass destruction(WMD). The UN weapon inspectors this report dealt a hard blow to the US policy.

NATO countries Belgium and Germany’s rejection of US plea for deploying troops to save Turkey in case of Iraq war also dealt one of the big blow to US diplomatic efforts. The Non-Aligned Movement’s meeting in Kuala Lumpur also rejected any US invasion of Iraq. In a nut shell, almost the whole world has rejected any war on Iraq, even American citizens held protests to oppose President Bush’s war plans.  

History is witness that America and Britain have killed millions of people in different wars mercilessly, and new leaders of these countries Bush and Blair seem to repeat horrible incidents in the world like German leader Hitler, a murderer of millions and thought to be sent by the evil. Every thing in this world will have to undergo a downfall. Bush must remind that Hitler, despite having a strong military force in the world, perished and no one could still found his clue.

The UN is a global body and it keeps a huge responsibility on its shoulders for ensuring a peace in the world so it would be its brilliant task if it plays a crucial role to act against the US for violating international laws. It should also brace for the solution to the Kashmir and Palestine issues that happens to be some of the major causes of the split between the Muslim world and Western world.

Public perceptions in Pakistan and India are key to peace

By Kamran Meer

There is no issue more sensitive than that of Kashmir for the people of both Pakistan and India as well as for people of Kashmir itself. These days emotions are once again running high because Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee has surprised everyone with his sudden welcoming gestures. 

Suspicious and forever angry hawks on the Pakistani side, wary of what they see as mere deception by the Indian government while it continues its human rights abuses and atrocities in the valley, is only matched by the vitriol of the hawks on the Indian side, who have taken their PM to task in the Parliament for extending his hand of friendship to Pakistan, which they see as nothing more than a failed state with the single-minded objective to break up India through cross-border infiltration along several borders. 

Unfortunately, the hawkish rhetoric on both sides finds great resonance with the masses and cements a world-view for public consumption that is diametrically opposite on each side of the border. The Pakistani masses widely believe that the deadlocked Kashmir issue is only the result of infinite Indian obduracy and hegemonic designs and possibly a key element within the global conspiracy being waged against Muslims that encompasses Palestine, Chechnya and Iraq. 

The viewpoints on each side of the border cannot both be right at once. The reality we know lies in between these two extreme positions. The problem is that the wide belief in the extreme positions will put negotiators on both sides under intense pressure from constituencies at home. Successive Pakistani governments have been saying for a much longer time than India that it wants to negotiate peacefully but at the same time the history of sporadic wars, guerilla violence and human rights abuses has made it all that much more difficult for either side to accept a negotiated outcome.  

Kashmiri blood that has flowed is no small measure either – an understated 36,000 lives by Indian government estimates and 100,000 by Pakistani estimates, is a staggering investment made by the Kashmiris. The Indian side!, by resisting the guerilla onslaught for 14 years through absorbing civil and military casualties, but above all by claiming Kashmir to be an integral part of India, has also borne a political and material cost that makes it all the more difficult to give anything up on the table.  

With so much investment gone in from all sides, one can be sure that it will take many years before an agreement acceptable to all parties will be reached, if at all. From a purely objective standpoint, chances of failure are much higher than chances of success. Unfortunately, the attitudes and perceptions of the public on both sides are almost cast in stone. It appears that nothing but a catastrophe can unhinge the attitudes.  

But the attitudes must be unhinged. Public opinion on both sides must be shifted from its cemented positions if negotiations are to succeed in a few years from now. The very first deal other than resuming cricket matches that Pakistan and India must make should be to implement programs whose objective is to change the public’s distorted perception of the history. If propaganda has been used in the past to harden the public’s perception, it must now be used to soften it. 

It is important because the world has changed, especially after Iraq. India and Pakistan are easily the world’s third potential super-power after the US and China in every respect – militarily, economically and culturally. With the US having shown clear signals that it will unilaterally dominate the world’s resources for the benefit of its own population over the next 20-30 years, both Pakistan and India must panic now and begin to put their differences behind them, so that they can ultimately be able to market their resources in the global village at a fair price rather than give them away cheaply.

Questioning the will of people

By Khalid Saki

We are conveniently ignoring the fact that our president was elected by an overwhelming majority of popular vote-a near 100% win, for sure. Thus if we are to question anything at all, it has to be the credibility of the vote and not the actions of the monumental "winner" who is surely indignant at being asked to make a painful choice between the presidency and the control of his troops. Experience has repeatedly shown that the credits of each position of prestige not just compliment each other by allowing the head of state to run more daringly the vital affairs of politics, but by far the most importantly, this dual authority serves as an insurance policy towards longevity of the hold on power.

In times to come, however, if such an occasion should present itself ever again, we should be ultra-careful, not to go to polls before the "privileged uniform" is securely passed on to someone else. I don't know how on earth can we fall into the same trap more than once, or any number of times for that matter, without ever so much as even trying to get our calculations right. For frivolities like Legal Framework Orders not to interfere with our otherwise easy-going lifestyles, why not give timely attention to where it is absolutely due. The importance of having to transfer the top military post to someone other than the initial coup leader who, in due course, ensure as anything moves on to the house of presidency, is all the more understandable when we consider that, although traditionally, the next military comeback could thus be deferred for anywhere between 5 to 10 years, maybe longer. 

The major advantage of that kind of arrangement would be to imperceptibly transform a military coup d'etat into some kind of a civilian presidential rule-if that's what may suit our purpose-within months of the former having occurred. Besides, once the tradition is born, there always will be hope to dispense with military ambitions in a similar fashion. It makes perfect sense to go for only a marginal civilian rule rather than an indeterminate military dictatorship. Quite a shot, isn't it, even if that may be a long enough shot? 

Taking back to the past memories of the good old days when our legendary general was hailed as a national hero after delivering a mighty-perhaps not so terribly mighty but mighty nonetheless-kick of his martial boot to the marauding Sharifs? We are a very excitable people, aren't we? News are currently rife that our national interests are increasingly pressing for a prominent member of Sharif family to return home and benefit once again the country that has so desperately missed the veteran qualities and expertise so crucial to its survival. This change of heart may be due to only the fact that we are by nature a very forgiving-nation, so bearing a long-term grudge starts hanging heavy on our conscience after a while. Thank Goodness we did not undertake anything drastic when sentiments of hostility were running so high as to blind, even though temporarily, our compulsively hot-tempered nation to the dictates of reason and good sense. 

And by the way, some of our numbers seem to be so complacent-in their naivety-that our coffers have now swollen to the tune of 10 billion dollars, thanks-maybe-to the far-reaching consequences of the process of accountability, or simply the shortness of our memories about the "nukes" having blasted all foreign currency holdings back in the days of some really bad governance. Quite possibly, it may just as well have been due to an overall lack of trust in overseas investments which are about as shaky as they can get in the new world order. Could it even be considerable that it might be-just might be-due to erstwhile flair of green back fading ever so fast? Whatever the case, it's the figures that count most and they are pretty much supportive of whoever is calling shots at the moment. And if these figures can make our compatriots euphoric, let it not be for any of us look for ways to spoil that feeling which, under any circumstances is so very hard to come by. 

Let's be warned, though, of yet another slash on currently held volume of reserves-in the very best interest of our nation at the time of another emergency looming in the dark. "Once bitten, twice shy" must be the approach we need to develop, at least after being bitten so many times already. "Better late than never" is a phrase that carries its implied meaning just within a limited context, surely not forever, so procrastination is best gotten rid off while still there is time to do so. If past experience is any thing to go by, it is only a matter of time before any emergency-real, imagined, or induced it doesn't quite matter which one-should be up and coming to claim all the existing and such as yet to be exploited, if any, resources of this poor, dilapidated nation.

Like we all know almost intuitively, there's nothing so easy as to follow a bad example and that's what our track record is all about. Our relatively short but chequered history is representative of just that-a vast supply of bad to extremely bad examples. We tend to forget the miseries of the past because the present is progressively getting overloaded with worse than ever misfortunes and future lies in the hands of those who have their own axes to grind-be it to satisfy their own greed to accumulate wealth with both hands in any measure of ruthless frenzy or be it to feed their lust for naked power beyond limit which becomes real hard to relinquish the longer one holds on to it. So, the sooner we get around to ask some right questions at the right time, the better.

It is a wholesale fallacy to muse around in the conviction that someday a superman will emerge to pull this limping nation out of its ruthless fix-just no way possible. There's no easy fix, by not any means through wishful thinking, or half measures if one like. As long we continue to stick with form rather than content, rest assured the more inescapably are we bound to be mangled up by labyrinths of trials and tribulations. Long overdue is there a need to quit our time-old habit of looking up with glaring hopes to each new military leader who bursts onto the public stage to test his muscle, with tall pledges to make the endemic corruption and looting a thing of the past. No need to remind that, before long, such pledges are doomed to be committed to bulk cold storage to stay frozen, lest they should stink or something.

President General Musharraf is just another human being, like the rest of us, so if the above description of our masses having constantly failed in delivering a "better judgment" sounds like approval for his sticking with his "dual role"-that of the military strongman and of the country's president- so let it be. As far as his rough handling of the constitution is concerned, he's only seeking to brushstroke it with a few "doctrinal" touches, just like his predecessors did. And that will continue to happen as long as our political cadres are full of elements that are ever ready to compromise the interests of masses-for their own good, of course. That, in turn, invests an individual, or a group of individuals in the ruling hierarchy with sweeping powers to gratify the calls of devouring egos in a relentless pursuit of personal agendas.
sakikhalid@hotmail.com  

Nobel peace prizes for not murderers of humanity; but real peace makers

By Hamid Bari

The Nobel Prize is an oldest international award for those pre-eminent personages who excel in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, and peace. The prize consists of a medal, a certificate, and a 
prize amount. Since 1901, approximately 736 awards including 89 peace prizes have been given away to 51 countries' citizen and organizations while only 32 countries received Nobel Peace Prize. These awards sometimes shared by more than one person or organization.

There are many peace prizes in the world, some of them worth larger amount of money than the Nobel Peace Prize. Nevertheless, none of them has matched with the Nobel Prize prestige. Here one can ask why has the Nobel Peace Prize acquired such enormous prestige. This is partly fortuitous, and a question of the age of the Prize. The most important effect of the Nobel Peace Prize may be that it has succeeded in creating clear symbols, which appeal to our best instincts - symbols of good will. Alfred Nobel said, "It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, so that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not."

My purpose of writing these lines is to bring your newspaper readers' attention to the news "Bush, Bliar have nominated for Nobel Peace Prize of 2003". According to the news, "A Norwegian legislator nominated U. S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Bliar for the Nobel Peace Prize, praising them for winning the war in Iraq". The News also mentioned Mr. Jan Simonsen's remarks that, "Sometimes it's necessary to use small and effective war to prevent a much more dangerous war in future". Mr. Simonsen is a right wing independent in Norway's parliament.

The Nobel Prizes have been controversial for many reasons in the history including political effects and the criteria Nobel Prize Committee made for peace prize in the area of Humanitarian Work, Organized Peace Movements, Peace Negotiations, Policy of Reconciliation, and Struggle for Human Rights. 

A survey of the whole history of the Peace Prize shows that the vast majority of the Laureates have been white men of Western origin. It is controversial because of regions and region too. Only 0.2% of the world population is Jews but they got 8 Nobel Peace Prize while 19.6% of World population is Muslims and they got only 2 shared prizes with Jews people. It is not surprising that most of the Peace Prize went to United States although it has been involved heavily in anti-peace activities. United States history shows that American leaders are hungry for the prizes but they never work to get those prizes on merit.

We cannot forget the crazy US president Richard Nixon who enforced the war on the Vietnam. Nixon ordered a series of air raids on Hanoi and Haiphong. It was the most intense bombing attack in world history. In eleven days, 100,000 bombs were dropped on the two cities. The destructive power was equivalent to five times that of the atom bomb used on Hiroshima.

Henry Kissinger was an important member of the Nixon's administration. He never spoke out against the war when U.S. was planning to go for the war. Later, Kissinger was put in charge of peace talks when Nixson was warned that a victory in Vietnam was unobtainable. He came close to agreeing to a formula to end the war. The plan was that US troops would withdraw from Vietnam in exchange for a cease-fire and the return of 566 American prisoners held in Hanoi.

Consequently of their role in these peace talks, Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. However, Le Duc Tho, refused to accept the prize because his country was not yet at peace. He is 
the only person in the Nobel Prize award history who refused prize but on the other hand, Henry Kissinger accepted the prize.

If the committee awards the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on victory over IRAQ it would not only be controversial but to sham on humanity. We can then expect one day Nobel Peace Prize will be given to Osama Bin Laden and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, if they just bring a peaceful solution after violating human rights and killing thousands of innocent people. Instead of giving them Peace Prize, we would like to see them in 
International Criminal Court for justice as they killed thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We would request the Nobel Peace Prize committee to please carefully and impartially analyse all the facts before giving the prize to these bully leaders of the world. Because, these leaders enforced the war on Iraq to control its oil resources and nothing. They went for war in Afghanistan to find Osama Bin Laden. Have they found him? They went to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction and catch Saddam Hussein. Have they done that? If they are really a peacekeeper, why not they take action in the same fashion on Palestine and Kashmir issue where hundreds of thousand of innocent people have lost their lives for their rights of self-determination.

We have seen millions of anti-war protects around the globe including United Stated and United Kingdom. There was a huge protest against the war on Iraq in both the countries. However, these two leaders refused all peace dialogues and Security Council voting and went to the war when President Saddam Hussein 
was cooperating with UN weapons inspectors.

Last year Committee gave the Nobel Peace Prize to former President of United States for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to 
promote economic and social development. However, this year if they give the prize to Mr. Bush it will be criticized a lot and the importance of Nobel Prize will get down.

I would like to quote here a remark from Jimmy Carter's article that he wrote for the New York Times on March 12, 2003. He said, "Recent attacks on U.S. policy by famous and respected men like Nelson Mandela and John Le Carré, although excessive, are echoed in a Web site poll conducted by the European edition of the TIME magazine. The question was "Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace in 2003?" With several hundred thousand votes cast, the responses were North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent. This is a gross distortion of our nation's character and America is not inclined to let foreign voices 
answer the preeminent question that President Bush is presenting to the world, but it is sobering to realize how much doubt and consternation has been raised about our motives for war in the absence of convincing proof of 
a genuine threat from Iraq."

I hope it will not be hard for the Nobel Prize Committee to find someone else other than these bully leaders of the world as they broken all International rules and ignored the UN Security Council voting on Iraq's issue as demanded by the whole world. If the committee cannot find anyone who did, great work for the Peace this 
year then the committee must not pick the person like who was engaged in killings of thousand of innocent people.

hbari@hotmail.com  

“Free” Iraq under the shackles of neo-Colonialism 

By Yamin Zakaria 

It really incenses the mind of a rational human being, adding insult to injury, when attempts are being made to demonstrate that corporate-US has waged this unprovoked war against Iraq for benevolent reasons. Does any sane person really expect the world to believe that leading Capitalist state driven by large multinationals have suddenly become benign? Why the US has selectively chosen to “liberate” the Iraqi’s rather then the Palestinians, Rwandans or the Kashmir’s? If the welfare of the Iraqis was an important factor for the US, why there has been so little effort directed towards restoring the vital public services, which were destroyed by the bombings? 

Yet the US managed to deploy adequate resources to securing the oil fields. Now that Iraqi’s have been “freed”, why is it a problem for the Anglo-US forces to hand over the responsibility to the UN, since they have met their original well-intended objective? Did the “free” Iraqis get a choice to say who will be awarded the contracts for reconstruction of their own country? Is it not being handed on a plate to the US multinationals (Bechtel)? Perhaps turning the war of “liberation” into a war of ”profit”, just like the first Gulf war. 

Iraqis are now paying for the reconstruction of their own country destroyed by the foreign invaders with their own oil after they have already paid for it with their blood. Politically, the US is preparing a former convict (Chalabi) with strong Zionist connections to run Iraq on its behalf, whilst J. Garner an arms dealer also with Zionist connections is shaping Iraq to generate other subservient coolies, should Chalabi suffer the same fate as the recent cleric did in Najaf. The US now wants four military bases in “free” Iraq. What is the need for these bases since the Bathist regime has collapsed in toto? Does it give us hint about the future US intentions to remove the much discredited Saudi regime, or perhaps to constrain the Syrians and the Iranians with the same leverages of Democracy and Human Rights violations? 

Despite all this the US continues to deny any aspiration to colonise Iraq. Much of this denial is under the veil of defining “colonialism” as was practiced by the British. The objective of colonialism is to access the valuable raw materials, and then create new markets for the processed goods; occupation is simply a means to achieve these objectives. Now that we live in an era of neo-colonialism, direct occupation has been replaced with more subtle methods. Create a government with a friendly native faces who will dance to your commands, in return for securing their privileges, as the ruling family in Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Egypt, and Afghanistan demonstrates. In addition there are other powerful tools like IMF, World Bank that aid such types of neo-colonialism where the entire country simply becomes mortgaged to these institutions. 

As usual the case of US intervention in Bosnia/Kossovo is always cited to demonstrate her innocence of having any colonialist aims as well as to dispel the words of George Bush that “this crusade will take a while”. The US was simply behaving as a spectator for most of the civil war in Bosnia. She only intervened when the Serbs were practically finished in gaining their domination of the region. The arms embargo imposed by the UN against the Muslims aided much of the genocide and suffering. In the end the US carried out some nominal bombings to subdue the Serbs to prevent destabilisation in Europe, but nothing compared to the scale of the recent “Shock and Awe”. 

Do not tell us that this token example was a manifestation of genuine human compassion on the part of Capitalist Corporate-USA. If so, the people of Rwanda or Palestine could have done with a small drop of such resolve that manifested in Bosnia. Similarly at every point of launching an aggression against the Arabs we hear of sudden plans or solution for the Palestine problem. 

From the first Gulf war there has been so many “visions” of an independent Palestinian state. Bush senior, Clinton, Bush Junior, Colin Powell, and now even Tony Blair has one. He says he has a road map, leading to where and how, no one knows. Perhaps it is enough for the pro-war Kuwaitis to write about in their own media in collusion with their pro-Zionist neo-conservatives friends in the US. But the comments of Ariel Sharon indicates it is only a mater of time when Tony Blair realises who has more clout in the US administrations and the Pentagon affairs. 

Many of the war hawks commentators have tried to down play the anti-US sentiments in the Arab/Islamic world as the product of the curriculum in the Islamic Schools (Madrassas). Such sentiments are not exclusively confined to the religious Muslims/Arabs, but are much more widespread across the entire world. Do we not witness the entire world including a significant section of the US population is raged with anger against the US foreign policy? Sentiments expressed by many countries that have no historical connection to the Middle East, its people or its culture. Such widespread emotion is the product of years of US fundamentalism and brutality around the world rather then any form of propaganda. 

Producing the likes of those who plunged into the buildings with the planes and perhaps they have lost their loved ones in the various carnages that were undertaken by the US and Israeli forces. The “road to Basra”, Qana, Sabra-Shatila are just a few examples. In short, 9/11 actions are retaliatory actions and not an act of unprovoked aggression or the result of the non-political curriculum of the Madrassas. Similarly many of the relatives of the victims of this recent war in Iraq and Afghanistan may resort to the same against the US in the near future. If such punishments were dispensed, it would be just and moral by any standards. 

We were told that Saddam would be disarmed of his WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), which is turning out be weapons of mass lies, as not an iota of credible evidence found by any INDEPENDENT authority. Independent verification is central to establishing an unbiased judgment on any dispute. The coalition forces were the original plaintiffs against Iraq, so how is it that they can assume this “independent” role of verifying the “evidences”, assuming we hear about it? 

There is no need as the goal post changes again. Claims are already being made, that finding WMD was not central to enforcing the resolution 1441 but that Saddam’s “breach” was sufficient. Existence of the circumstantial evidences regarding WMD on paper was sufficient regardless of its physical existence of WMD. Likewise, we heard a free Iraq will be able do decide their future. 

As again the goal post is shifting. Free Iraqis would be free as long as they are subservient to the US/Israeli interests. Hence the recent demonstrations by the indigenous “free” population of Iraq in the post Saddam era to establish an Islamic state has already been opposed by Rumsfeld. The Blair-Bush administrations pretence about its lofty moral principals and values only adds bitter resentment. They violate the same principals without reservation, whilst they try to enforce the same on the rest of the world. Unlawful captivity of the prisoners including children in Guantanamo-Bay, summery executions in Mazar-e-Sherif, encouraging Israel to engage in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians (Who were there long before 1948, just like the red-Indians.) in violation of more UN resolutions then Iraq are few examples of such blatant hypocrisy. Is it any ! surprise every time their lips move all we feel is our stomach turning at the mass of lies, hypocrisy that has been packaged with the aid of its powerful sophisticated propaganda machine. 

On the subject of Propaganda machine, the media war waged by the powerful mass media (CNN, Sky and Zionist-Fox etc), with its embedded “reporting” has been just terribly lethal and disgustive. Just recently we saw how it manipulated the images of a handful of people composed of US marines, Chalabi’s paid mercenaries and released convicts, “celebrating” the victory of the US forces as being representative of the ordinary 22 Million Iraqis. Now the media has shown almost no pictures of all the anti-US demonstrations carried out by the “Free” Iraqis in their thousands that were “liberated” by the US. Nor does it show the grieving families and ask their opinions on this unilateral war of  so-called “liberation”. 
yaminz@yahoo.co.uk 

Festivity of Basant

By Shazia Sabeen
 

Basant, the festival of jubilation, gratification and glee with kites hovering in the sky filling the ambiance with color and euphoria. With the passage of time the festival of Basant has become a recognizing feature of the city of Lahore, portraying the true vivacious and vibrant nature of the people.

This festival provides a common ground for several classes of the society to interact with each other, invigorate their deprived, oppressed and distressed spirits and accommodate optimism. Basant for it's varying temperament is equally admired India as in Pakistan. The fact can be easily justified by analyzing the arrival of past year’s great number of Indian guests who came from all the way to share the festivities with Lahorians in particular and Pakistanis in general.

Although from a few years the strength of Indian guests is remarkably low primarily because of the unstable political, but still the yarn used for kites all through the festivity comes from India. Basant ties the people of two nations with the thread of unity. 

However, along the line we have depicted the wrong meaning of Basant. In fact, it started to represent frenzies. The authentic intention behind this innocuous celebration has now been so diabolically dominated by the exaggerated parade of wealth and resources. An ingenuous harvesting festival has now-a-days become a grand fiasco of expenditure and money.

To celebrate the festivity of Basant, billions of rupees are spent, which itself is huge waste of affluence, and instead of reaching the have-nots of the locality just went down the drain. It also creates an unspoken tension between the two major classes of the society and ends in crime and higher degree of poverty and misery.

Basant has become a festival which can only be celebrated in a befitting manner by posh class; whereas, on the other hand the poor deprived ones remains fighting with the odds in their lives endlessly.

A celebration in the busy and hectic lives of today's people seems to bring maximum joy with least expense, But, on the contrary the cost of Basant is immense whether it be material coat or immaterial. It is fairly tough to estimate the exact layout during Basant, but a rough statistic shows an amount of 1-2 billion rupees. In the end this exuberant exhibit of wealth creates a sinister agitation between have and have-nots and conclusively we are losing the both ways. 

Pointing out to a major pitfalls of the society regarding the expenses of Basant, millions and billions of articles are being carried out including yarns, kites etc., but all these items are wasted in the end, bringing no return whatsoever.

 The practice of exaggerated display of wealth is common in our society, whether it is a social occasion like marriages or festivities like Basant. Bring awareness to the masses is not a simple undertaking. In an underdeveloping country being well-healed in the society is a blessing, using this wealth cautiously to bring prosperity is the only solution for survival.  

Globalization and the Middle East: Part Two 

By Frank Griffel

Islamic fundamentalism is often understood as a straight return into a distant past. Its ideology of a revival of the Prophet Muhammad's political message is seen aimed at countering the impetus of modernization in many countries of the Middle East. Equally, it has often been said that Muslim fundamentalism has turned the Middle East into a region which is most successfully - and most tragically - opposed to the effects of globalization. The world of 2003 has become a much smaller place than the one of the Prophet Muhammed, and Islamic law, its critics say, is ill-suited to serve a globalized citizenry.

But if globalization is taken to mean increased inter-dependence and interaction in a world reduced in size by the revolutions in transportation and communication, then this could be not further from the truth. Islamic fundamentalism has been, in fact, strengthened by globalization. In the Middle East it is one of its driving forces. Muslim fundamentalist movements are benefiting from an increase in the flow of information, speed of communication, and mobility more than any other political movements in the region. Their vision of a globalized society, however, is quite different from the pleasure-seeking, profit-driven western lifestyle that is being promoted by the globalization that we focus upon most. The Islamists' ideal of a globalized society is the network-connection of all "real" Muslims and their organizations in order to promote their definition of Islam.and what they view as "Islamic."

Globalization should not be equated with the Westernization of the world. A close look into the Islamic world reveals that it does indeed actively participate in the various processes of globalization, probably even more than many other regions of the world, and that Islamist movements are one of globalization's motors. The Islamic world itself has become something like an "Islamic village" mainly due to the activities of the Islamist groups. The technological advances of the 20th century led to a kind of globalization in the Islamic world that has yet to be recognized in its full scope.

For the West, the most visible expression of globalization in the Islamic world were the attacks of September 11. The terrorist attacks of that day are the result of what might be called the globalization of several civil wars and political conflicts between Islamists, military governments, like Syria and Algeria, or monarchical governments like the kingdoms of the Arabia Peninsula, led by Saudi Arabia. The attacks were the terrible consequence of a strategic decision on the part of the most radical Islamist movements stemming from their defeat in many Muslim countries. The developments of the national jihad in Muslim countries like, for instance, Algeria and Egypt, were remarkably similar. In the years between 1992 and 1997, both nations saw extremely bloody battles in a war between militant Islamists who wanted to take over the governments of these countries. The increasingly violent actions of the Islamists in these two countries turned the masses against them and alienated their own supporters. Subsequently, both the leadership as well as many of the foot soldiers of the militant Islamist movements either made their peace with the authorities or went into exile. Some became part of the Muslim diaspora in Europe where they would continue the work as a jihad vanguard despite their disconnection from the political issues that carried their struggle in their home countries. Others went to Afghanistan, where they had enjoyed a safe haven since the 1992 overthrow of the communist regime. Here, they would meet those who earlier had left the Arab world in order to fight in the Afghan jihad against Soviet occupation. The rest of the story is well known. The different strains of defeated Islamist movements were picked up and connected under the leadership of the Saudi renegade Osama bin Laden and the Egyptian jihad leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. Their organization, al-Qaeda, is the first truly global terrorist network that would use e-mail, internet, frequent flyer miles, wire transfers, and tourist, student, and refugee visas in order to organize a globalized jihad.

While globalization of the several armed struggles in the Muslim Middle East became frighteningly effective until the crackdown following September 2001, the militant Islamists claimed that globalization was also the cause of the new jihad. In their analysis of the defeat within their home countries it was not only their incapacity to keep the connection with their mass base that led to their failure. The Islamist groups blamed the West's and particularly America's active support of their enemy governments. In the case of Egypt, for instance, they pointed to the roughly $5 billion that the U.S. pays annually to the government in Cairo. When the military government in Algeria canceled its first democratic ballot scheduled in 1992, France, which took the leading role among the Western countries in this case, actively supported the military coup. In fact, the military government in Algiers became so attentive to Western support that at one time, the Islamists claimed, the authorities murdered a group of Italian sailors on board their ship in an Algerian harbor and staged the event as if it has been committed by the Islamists. This was all done, it was claimed, in order to ensure continuing Western support in the conflict.

"This article appeared in YaleGlobal Online, ( www.yaleglobal.yale.edu ) a publication of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, and is reprinted by permission. Copyright © 2002 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization."

Bush at the Rubicon

By Strobe Talbott

WASHINGTON: George W. Bush keeps telling the world he is still open to a peaceful solution in Iraq, but he acts as though he believes there is no such thing. Recent visitors to the Oval Office are struck by the president's single-mindedness on this subject. No matter what they come to discuss - the economic stimulus package, themes for the State of the Union message, the fiscal plight of the American states, trade policy, judicial appointments, the emerging field of Democrats who want his job two years from now - Bush brings the conversation quickly to Iraq and the urgency, as he sometimes puts it privately, of "getting this thing done." This week he went public with his impatience: the inspections were turning into "a rerun of a bad movie," he said, "and I'm not interested in watching it."

A few presidential friends and advisers have pointed out, ever so politely, the perils of going to war, especially now. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are still at large and eager to exploit what they will portray as the latest crusade of the infidels. The impasse in the Arab-Israeli conflict plays into the strategies of Osama and Saddam alike. Meanwhile, half a world away North Korea is using the American preoccupation with Iraq to rush ahead with its own nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs.

Bush listens to these cautions with a combination of body English and skeptical comebacks that make clear he just isn't buying. He seems convinced that if the war goes well, it will deprive future terrorists of made-in-Baghdad biological, chemical and nuclear weapons; it will remove from the Middle East one of Israel's most dangerous enemies and thus, perhaps, make peace more likely down the road; it will eliminate from the Gulf a tyrant who has bullied his Arab neighbors; and it will send a signal that the U.S. is serious about bringing down any regime it regards as a menace to world peace.

Thus, Bush seems to have reached the banks of his own Rubicon - the point at which he feels he has heard enough of the arguments against what his instincts tell him he should do. He understands that it is the consequence of a decision, not the rationale for it, that determines how it will be judged. He wants to end the debate with action and dispel the doubts with success.

So the question becomes, what will constitute a success that vindicates the biggest gamble of Bush's presidency?
In the near term, the crucial requirement is that the war neither drag out nor spread. Once the first American cruise missiles slam into Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries, command bunkers and presidential palaces, Saddam will try to draw Israel into the fighting, thereby stirring up the passions of the Arab street and, he hopes, igniting a conflagration in the Greater Middle East and perhaps as far away as Indonesia.

The most worrisome danger zone is South Asia. A wave of antiwar protests in Pakistan could sweep President Pervez Musharraf aside and bring to power radicals who would have their fingers on the only deliverable nuclear weapons in the Islamic world. That development could, in turn, provoke India to exercise its own version of the preemption doctrine that the Bush administration made famous and fashionable last fall.

In order to avoid a cascade of unintended consequences, Bush must use the firepower he is assembling in the Gulf as a terrible swift sword that beheads Saddam in a single stroke.

Even if the war is quick and contained, the aftermath is sure to be messy, protracted and expensive. Keeping a large, fractious and initially headless country under control will require foreign occupation and reconstruction on a massive scale. The U.S., which cannot undertake that task by itself, will look to a consortium of regional and world bodies. The willingness of others to join will depend in large measure on whether they feel they had a say in the decision to go to war in the first place, and whether the operation is seen to have been authorized by the UN. That argues for Bush curbing his impatience with the Security Council and bringing that body along with him as the showdown continues, even if it means a delay in the war.

In the longer term, judgments of the wisdom of what Bush does this winter in Iraq will take account of the conduct of American foreign policy around the globe during the remainder of his term. The best aftermath of yet another display of Uncle Sam's military prowess would be a period in which American diplomatic skill and leadership return to the fore, notably in the Middle East.

If, instead, a thumping triumph in Iraq solidifies the administration's proclivity to give short shrift to the rest of the world's views, the U.S. could find itself with few friends and allies when it runs into trouble on some future battlefield - or, for that matter, on the occupied territory of post-Saddam Iraq.

Strobe Talbott is the president of the Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu). He was deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration and the first director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization.

Courtesy YaleGlobal Online, ( www.yaleglobal.yale.edu ). Copyright © 2002 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization."
                                              

Send this page to a friend!

Back to Viewer's Forum | Previous articles