Elsewhere today (387)
Aljazeera:
Oil workers may leave Niger delta
Wednesday 23 August 2006, 15:11 Makka Time, 12:11 GMT
Nigeria's oil workers' unions are considering pulling all their members out of the Niger delta after a series of abductions.
Two oil unions have called an emergency meeting after the kidnappings of 17 workers, mostly foreigners, in the last month. Oil companies have imposed strict travel restrictions on their staff to try to keep them safe.
Government attempts to rescue a Nigerian hostage in the delta ended in a shoot-out on Sunday. Up to 10 members of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta were killed and it is still unclear whether the hostage, an employee of Royal Dutch Shell, survived.
"We are afraid for the safety of our members and anyone working in the Niger Delta. We feel the government is not doing enough," said Peter Esele, president of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria.
Esele said the decision-making councils of the association and its ally, the blue-collar National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers, would vote on August 30 on whether to call on their members to leave the region.
Military crackdown
Last week Olusegun Obasanjo, the Nigerian president, ordered the military to meet the militants with "force for force".
"This does not in any way solve the problem," Esele said, arguing that there was no military solution to the situation and that a military crackdown risked further endangering the lives of workers.
Esele accused Nigerian authorities of making greater efforts to release foreign hostages than Nigerians.
"The Nigerian government doesn't have as much respect for its own citizens. If foreigners are involved the government does everything it can to get them out but if it's a Nigerian there is neglect," he said.
The violence stems from widespread resentment by locals that their region provides the bulk of Nigeria's wealth while they have received few benefits.
Organised gangs now also kidnap for ransom and battle to control a lucrative trade in stolen crude oil.
Reuters
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/98137CE1-12FB-4E4B-B7D9-8CE95DF19E72.htm
allAfrica: Frontrunners Need Alliances
for Second Round of Presidential Polls
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks NEWS
August 22, 2006
Kinshasa
Presidential frontrunners Joseph Kabila and Jean-Pierre Bemba of the Democratic Republic of Congo will have to make political alliances to win the run-off election due on 29 October, analysts said.
A run-off is needed because, under the country's electoral law, a candidate must win 50 percent plus one vote to be declared the outright winner.
In the results for the first round announced on Sunday, Kabila, the incumbent president, won 44.8 percent of the votes, and Bemba, his nearest rival and one of the vice-presidents, 20 percent. Kabila swept the east of the country and Bemba the west.
Kabila won the eastern provinces of Orientale, North Kivu, South Kivu, Maniema and Katanga, which account for 11.5 million of the nation's 25 million registered voters. Bemba won in the western provinces of Bas-Congo, Equateur and the capital, Kinshasa.
Nationwide, about 18 million voters - just over 70 percent of the electorate - took part in balloting on 30 July, and some analysts say that in a second round Kabila will easily retain the numerical advantage.
"If voter turnout remains the same as in the first round, and if voters in the east poll for Kabila for the same reason as they did [the first time], then he would need six percent more votes, that is to say close to 900,000 votes, to win," Philippe Biyoya, a professor of constitutional affairs from the Protestant University of Congo, said on Monday.
"Bemba for his part would have to fight hard to gain the 30 percent, that is 5.1 million votes, to hope to win," he added.
Both men, he said, would have to battle for votes in Kasai Oriental and Kasai Occidental, strongholds of veteran politician Etienne Tshisekedi. To get votes there, they would have to win Tshisekedi's support.
Tshisekedi did not compete in the elections. Votes that would almost certainly have gone to him went to Oscar Kashala, leader of l'Union pour la reconstruction du Congo, the candidate in fifth place, Biyoya said.
Presidential candidate Jean-Pierre Bemba, Kabila's main rival.
Bemba might be able to harness support in diamond-rich Kasai because his wife comes from there and he campaigned with her, although this did not seem to factor highly in the first round results.
Aides to Tshisekedi and Bemba say the two held discussions before the elections, while Tshisekedi appears to be politically estranged from Kabila.
"Everything, therefore, depends on the interests at play, and on Tshisekedi aides who may be in touch with Kabila or Bemba," Biyoya said.
Kabila has, for his part, already allied himself with certain of the 33 presidential candidates in the first round, some of whom campaigned on his behalf - such as Mbusa Nyamwisi.
Others who might help tip the balance are candidates Antoine Gizenga, Mobutu and Kashala.
"Already, Kabila seems to have promised, if not the premiership, then the presidency of the Senate, to Antoine Gizenga, who seems increasingly close to him. Given that, what else could he possibly offer Tshisekedi to entice his votes?" Biyoya said.
Jean-Marie Labila, a political analyst at the University of Kinshasa and director at the Ministry of International Cooperation, said the east-west political divide reflected linguistic divisions.
The west is largely Lingala-speaking, and the east, Swahili-speaking.
"The east, for long the scene of fighting among warring factions, has rejected all those who have until recently been rebels, and Bemba is among this lot," Labila said, "but in the west, the population has punished Kabila, whom it holds responsible for more than 10 years of a government incapable of providing for them and solving their social problems."
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations ]
Copyright © 2006 UN Integrated Regional Information Networks. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
http://allafrica.com/stories/200608220465.html
allAfrica:
11 Killed As Soldiers, Militants Clash
By Sopuruchi Onwuka & Dennis Naku, Yenagoa
Daily Champion (Lagos) NEWS
August 22, 2006
CLASH between the Joint Military Task Force and Niger Delta militants on Monday left no fewer than one soldier, 10 others dead and a Shell worker missing. The clash may have been the first major fall-out of the presidential directive to the task force to flush out the militants from the nation's oil facilities and secure the environment for safe industry operations.
The incident which took place around the Brass Creek in Bayelsa State at night also left unspecified number of people with serious injuries. Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) which operates in the area has declared its worker who had been taken hostage in the Letugbene area of Bayelsa State, missing. The company, in a statement, expressed great concern about the missing worker, emphasising that he might have been affected in the incident.
Bayelsa State's Commissioner of Police, Mr. Hafiz Ringim, confirmed the incident, adding that seven corpses had been recovered as search continues.
Shell said it has reached agreement with Bayelsa State government and community leaders to mobilize a search for the missing staff. "When we received news of his seizure, a formal report of the incident was made to the authorities, and we have been cooperating with the state government on efforts towards his release," Shell stated. Local sources told Daily Champion that 11 lost their lives in the incident.Shell did not confirm whether the clash affected production and if staff evaluation became necessary.
The attack on the militants may not be unconnected with the recent directive by the Federal Government empowering soldiers and other security operatives to flush out militants in the Niger Delta due to the recent spate of hostage taking and other criminal activities which has continued unabated in the region.
Sequel to the development in the state, security has been beefed up in Yenagoa, the capital city to forestall the spread of the incident, just as the government is intensifying efforts to get to the root of the matter. According to the police boss, the militants and the soldiers may have ran into one another, although he did not give details, but noted that there has been both police and military deployment to the trouble area since yesterday; just as advised people of the state to keep away from the area. Some youths from Bayelsa State are currently being arraigned at a Federal High Court, Abuja for their alleged role in the kidnap incident in Brass Local Government area of the state.
Meanwhile, what may have resulted into a clash between students of the Niger Delta University (NDU) and security operatives in Bayelsa State was averted when the latter chased over 500 students who were said to be carrying out a rally to create awareness on their students week which begins today.
Daily Champion investigation reveal that a score of the students have been arrested when they tried to carry out their campaign which they claimed had been the norm to government house; just as the security personnel shot carnisters of teargas to disperse the students.
Copyright © 2006 Daily Champion. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).
http://allafrica.com/stories/200608220008.html
Asia Times:
US made an offer Iran can only refuse
By Gareth Porter
Aug 24, 2006
WASHINGTON - Even before Iran gave its formal counter-offer to the permanent-five-plus-one countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China plus Germany) on Tuesday, the administration of US George W Bush had already begun the process of organizing sanctions against Iran.
Washington had already held a conference call on sanctions on Sunday with French, German and British officials, the Washington Post reported.
In Tehran on Tuesday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, delivered the official response to an international package to curb Tehran's nuclear program and suggested that Iran was prepared for "serious talks" with the six countries that extended the offer.
Details of Iran's 23-page written response have not been released, but they crucially are expected to confirm that Iran is not prepared to suspend uranium-enrichment activities without comprehensive security guarantees, especially from the US, in return.
The US has never been prepared to give such guarantees, and thus ends what appeared on the surface to be a genuine multilateral initiative for negotiations with Iran on the terms under which it would give up its nuclear program.
US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton was reported to have said that his country would study the Iranian response "carefully", adding that "if it doesn't meet with the terms set by the Security Council, we will proceed to economic sanctions".
The history of the international proposal shows that the Bush administration was determined from the beginning that it would fail, so that it could bring to a halt a multilateral diplomacy on Iran's nuclear program that the hardliners in the administration had always found a hindrance to their policy.
Britain, France and Germany (European Union Three - EU-3), which had begun negotiations with Tehran on the nuclear issue in October 2003, had concluded very early that Iran's security concerns would have to be central to any agreement. It has been generally forgotten that the November 14, 2004, Paris Agreement between the EU and Iran included an assurance by the EU-3 that the "long-term agreement" they pledged to reach would "provide ... firm commitments on security issues".
The EU-3 had tried in vain to get the Bush administration to support their diplomatic efforts with Tehran by authorizing the inclusion of security guarantees in a proposal they were working on last summer. In a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in July 2005, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy referred to the need to "make sure ... that we discuss with [the Iranians] the security of their country. And for this, we shall need the United States ..."
The EU-3 and the Bush administration agreed that the permanent-five-plus-one proposal would demand that Iran make three concessions to avoid UN Security Council sanctions and to begin negotiations on an agreement with positive incentives: the indefinite suspension of its enrichment program, agreement to resolve all the outstanding concerns of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and resumption of full implementation of the Additional Protocol under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which calls for very tight monitoring of all suspected nuclear sites by the IAEA.
That meant that Tehran would have had to give up its major bargaining chips before the negotiations even began. The Europeans wanted security guarantees from Washington to be part of the deal. Douste-Blazy said on May 8 that if Iran cooperated, it could be rewarded with what he called an "ambitious package" in several economic domains as well as in "the security domain".
The EU-3 draft proposal, which was leaked to ABC (American Broadcasting Co) News and posted on its website, included a formula that fell short of an explicit guarantee. However, it did offer "support for an inter-governmental forum, including countries of the region and other interested countries, to promote dialogue and cooperation on security issues in the Persian Gulf, with the aim of establishing regional security arrangements and a cooperative relationship on regional security arrangements including guarantees for territorial integrity and political sovereignty".
That convoluted language suggested there was a way for Iran's security to be guaranteed by the United States. But the problem was that it was still subject to a US veto. In any case, as Steven R Weisman of the New York Times reported on May 19, the Bush administration rejected any reference to a regional security framework in which Iran could participate.
Rice denied on Fox News on May 21 that the US was being "asked about security guarantees", but that was deliberately misleading. As a European diplomat explained to Reuters on May 20, the only reason the Europeans had not used the term "security guarantees" in their draft was that "Washington is against giving Iran assurances that it will not be attacked".
In light of these news reports, the public comment by Iran's UN Ambassador Javad Zarif on May 27 is particularly revealing. Zarif declared that the incentive package "needs to deal with issues that are fundamental to the resolution" of the problem. "The solution has to take into consideration Iranian concerns."
Zarif seems to have been saying that Iran wanted to get something of comparable importance for giving up its bargaining chips in advance and discussing the renunciation of enrichment altogether. That statement, which departed from Iran's usual emphasis on its right to nuclear technology under the NPT, suggested that Tehran was at least open to the possibility of a "grand bargain" with Washington, such as the one it had outlined in a secret proposal to the Bush administration in April 2003.
The partners of the US made one more effort to persuade Rice to reconsider the US position at their final meeting in Vienna on June 1 to reach agreement on a proposal. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed in a talk with Russian media the following day, the issue of security guarantees for Iran was raised by the negotiating partners of the US at that meeting.
But the Bush administration again rebuffed the idea of offering positive security incentives to Iran. In the final text of the proposal, the European scheme for a regional security system was reduced to an anodyne reference to a "conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional security issues".
The Europeans, Russians and Chinese knew this outcome doomed the entire exercise to failure. In the end, only the US could offer the incentives needed to make a bargain attractive to Iran. A European official who had been involved in the discussions was quoted in a June 1 Reuters story as saying, "We have neither big enough carrots nor big enough sticks to persuade the Iranians, if they are open to persuasion at all."
Despite the desire of other members of the 5+1 for a genuine diplomatic offer to Iran that could possibly lead to an agreement on its nuclear program, the Bush administration's intention was just the opposite.
Bush's objective was to free his administration of the constraint of multilateral diplomacy. The administration evidently reckoned that once the Iranians had rejected the formal offer, the US would be free to take whatever actions it might choose, including a military strike against Iran. Thus the June 5 proposal, with its implicit contempt for Iran's security interests, reflected the degree to which the US administration has anchored its policy toward Iran in its option to use force.
As Washington now seeks to the clear the way for the next phase of its confrontation with Iran, Bush is framing the issue as one of Iranian defiance of the Security Council, rather than US refusal to deal seriously with a central issue in the negotiations. "There must consequences if people thumb their noses at the United Nations Security Council," Bush said on Monday.
If the EU-3, Russia and China allow Bush to get away with that highly distorted version of what happened, the world will have taken another step closer to general war in the Middle East.
Gareth Porter is a historian and national-security policy analyst. His latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in June 2005.
(Inter Press Service)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH24Ak01.html
Asia Times:
New formula, same result
By Bill Samii
Aug 24, 2006
WASHINGTON - Iran responded on Tuesday to an international proposal on Tehran's disputed nuclear program by saying it is ready for "serious talks".
Iranian Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani gave representatives from China, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland (representing US interests) a 23-page written response to an international incentives package at a meeting in Tehran. The proposal is aimed at persuading the Islamic Republic to abandon its controversial uranium-enrichment program and other sensitive activities.
Details have not yet emerged of the statement that Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, gave to diplomats. However, the Iranian request for a "new formula" in any future talks is believed to include a proposal that temporary suspension of uranium enrichment could at that stage (not now) be open for negotiations. This is likely to be rejected by the United States.
US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton was reported to have said that his country would study the response "carefully ... We will see whether they are now prepared to abide by their obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] and convince the world that their intentions are peaceful, as they claim. But if it doesn't meet with the terms set by the Security Council, we will proceed to economic sanctions."
Mohammad Saidi, a top official in the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, also provided strong hints of the nature of the response. Saidi said the international proposal had "fundamental and serious ambiguities". He added that although suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment was no longer an appropriate precondition, Tehran was willing to hold talks, Mehr News Agency reported. Saidi also criticized aspects of the proposal that emphasize deterrence and ignore nuclear cooperation.
Iran has also rejected the possibility of suspending uranium enrichment, Fars News Agency reported. Iranian officials have been saying the same thing for months. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi gave a strong hint at the Iranian stance in a press conference on Sunday, when he said Iran was not considering suspension of its enrichment activities.
Larijani also reiterated that Tehran saw moves to take its case to the UN Security Council as "illegal".
Consistent line
The offer from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) plus Germany was followed late last month by Security Council Resolution 1696, which calls on Iran to halt sensitive nuclear activities by the end of August or face the possibility of economic and political sanctions.
Iran thus finds itself in a position that it has avoided for years through a combination of diplomacy and deception. This situation can be attributed to the hardline ideology of President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's administration and the support it is receiving from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The hardline sentiments were strengthened when Ahmadinejad announced on April 11 that Iranians had "enriched uranium to the enrichment level required by nuclear power plants", state television reported.
More recently, Khamenei said on Monday that "arrogant powers, led by America", feared Islamic countries' progress and were trying to block Iran's scientific and technological development, state television reported. Therefore, he continued, Iran would continue its nuclear pursuits.
What was offered
Javier Solana, the European Union's high representative for common foreign and security policy, gave the 5+1 proposal to Iranian officials in Tehran on June 6. The proposal called on Iran to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), "suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities" and "resume implementation of the Additional Protocol" of the NPT.
In exchange, the six countries would suspend Security Council talks on the Iranian nuclear program. Moreover, they would back Iran's right to have a peaceful nuclear program that conformed with its NPT obligations. Construction of light-water reactors in Iran, furthermore, would be backed.
Future cooperation would include a nuclear-cooperation agreement between Iran and Euratom (the European Atomic Energy Community), cooperation on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, and assistance in nuclear-related research and development. Other issues included assurances on the provision of nuclear fuel, including enrichment at a joint facility in Russia.
The June proposal mentioned political and economic incentives, too. There would be a regional security conference. Iran would be fully integrated into the international economy - including membership in the World Trade Organization - and there would be a trade and cooperation agreement with the EU.
Restrictions would be lifted on the sale of European and US-manufactured parts for civilian aircraft. A long-term Iran-EU energy partnership would be created, and restrictions on the use of US telecommunications equipment in Iran might be eliminated. There would be cooperation in the high-technology and agriculture sectors, too.
Where to now?
If Iran continues its uranium-enrichment activities and does not comply with Resolution 1696, the Security Council could impose commercial or diplomatic sanctions - per Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. The overseas travel of Iranian officials could be restricted and their assets frozen; there could be restrictions on Iranian sports teams' participation in international competitions; and there could be major economic embargoes.
It is unlikely that there will be much enthusiasm on the Security Council for any serious sanctions. Resistance will come primarily from Moscow and Beijing - in part due to their geopolitical competition with the US. China, furthermore, gets much of its energy from Iran. European powers get oil from Iran, and the country is a significant market for European goods.
There is concern that Iran would respond to sanctions by restricting oil exports. Indeed, Iran accounts for some 10% of global oil reserves and is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' second-largest producer. Yet Iran is heavily reliant on its oil revenues, which account for 40-50% of the state budget and 80-90% of total export earnings. Petroleum Minister Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh has dismissed use of the so-called oil weapon, although other officials have mentioned it.
Iranian withdrawal from the NPT is another possible response by Tehran. Ahmadinejad hinted at this possibility in February, and doing so now would conform to his confrontational foreign-policy style. Alaedin Borujerdi, chairman of the legislature's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said on Monday that NPT compliance would no longer apply if pressure on Iran continued, the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported.
Military action against the Iranian nuclear program is a remote possibility. Tehran has responded to this risk with a new doctrine of asymmetric warfare. Iran also reportedly has links with Iraqi insurgents who could act against coalition forces. Additionally, Tehran believes US forces are already overstretched with Iraq and Afghanistan and cannot commit to another military confrontation.
Iran also has engaged in saber-rattling, although this may be intended to reassure a domestic audience rather than frighten a foreign one. Iran displayed the new Fajr-3 missile, torpedoes and other weapons during war games in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Sea of Oman in late March and early April. These exercises allowed Iran to show its naval forces' area-denial capabilities. Iran is currently holding five-week-long military exercises in 16 provinces.
Where did things go wrong?
The Iranian nuclear program got under way even before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, and it has taken a long time for it to reach the stage of a UN Security Council resolution.
It was not until August 2002 that an opposition group revealed the existence of a uranium-enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy-water plant at Arak; it was not until June 2003 that the IAEA said Iran was not in compliance with the NPT. Yet in the following years, Iran continued to negotiate with Europe and avoid referral to the Security Council.
No international consensus on the gravity of the situation emerged until last September, when the IAEA confirmed that Iran had resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.
The current situation can be attributed to the newfound emphasis on ideology in foreign policy, according to Hojatoleslam Hassan Rohani. Rohani is currently the supreme leader's representative on the Supreme National Security Council, and for 16 years he was the council's secretary. In that position, he was Iran's lead nuclear negotiator from October 2003 until his replacement last August.
Rohani said late last month that the country was paying a heavy price at the moment, and he spoke out against critics of the diplomatic process who failed to understand the value of the concessions Iran was receiving from Europe, the newspaper Etemad reported on July 23.
Rohani met with president-elect Ahmadinejad for the first time shortly after the 2005 election. Asked later if there were any differences between the incoming administration and that of president Mohammad Khatami, Rohani conceded that there might be "some differences of opinion" regarding the suspension of uranium enrichment, Sharq newspaper reported on July 14, 2005. Nobody opposes talks with Europe, he continued, "but there may be some differences of opinion ... with some other issues".
In the 2005 interview with Sharq, Rohani stressed that Iran must avoid worrying other countries and isolating itself. "We have to interact with the world for the sake of our country's development," he said. "If what we envisaged for the next 20 years is to see a developed Iran ranking first in the region from the scientific, technological, and economic aspects, can we achieve this objective without interaction with the industrial world?"
Rohani went on to note the significance of Europe, Russia, Japan, China and other industrialized states, and he emphasized the importance to Iran of diplomacy and the danger of isolation.
By now, it is obvious that Rohani's advice was ignored, and he is not impressed. Several months ago, Rohani referred to "upstarts that have no experience and track record", Etemad reported on June 15.
How the Ahmadinejad team reacts next will color Iran's relations with the world for years to come.
Bill Samii is a regional analysis coordinator with RFE/RL Online and editor of the RFE/RL Iran Report. He earned his PhD at the University of Cambridge.
Copyright 2006 RFE/RL Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH24Ak02.html
Asia Times:
Lifting seven veils of the Iraqi illusion
By Michael Schwartz
Aug 24, 2006
With a tenuous ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon holding, the ever-hotter war in Iraq is once again creeping back on to newspaper front pages and toward the top of the evening news.
Before being fully immersed in daily reports of bomb blasts, sectarian violence and casualties, however, it might be worth considering some of the just-under-the-radar realities of the situation in that country. Here, then, is a little guide to understanding what is likely to be a flood of new Iraqi developments - a few enduring, but seldom commented on - patterns central to the dynamics of the Iraq war, as well as to the fate of the US occupation and Iraqi society.
1: The Iraqi government - a group of 'talking heads'
A minimally viable central government is built on at least three foundations: the coercive capacity to maintain order, an administrative apparatus that can deliver government services and directives to society, and the resources to manage these functions.
The Iraqi government has none of these attributes - and no prospect of developing them. It has no coercive capacity. The national army we hear so much about is actually trained and commanded by the Americans, while the police forces are largely controlled by local governments and have few, if any, viable links to the central government in Baghdad.
Only the Special Forces, whose death-squad activities in the capital have lately been in the news, have any formal relationship with the elected government; and they have more enduring ties to the US military that created them and the Shi'ite militias who staffed them.
Administratively, the Iraqi government has no existence outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone - and little presence within it. Whatever local apparatus exists elsewhere in the country is run by local leaders, usually with little or no loyalty to the central government and not dependent on it for resources it doesn't, in any case, possess.
In Baghdad itself, this is clearly illustrated in the vast Shi'ite slum of Sadr City, controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army and his elaborate network of political clerics. (Even US occupation forces enter that enormous swath of the capital only in large brigades, braced for significant firefights.)
In the major city of the Shi'ite south, Basra, local clerics lead a government that alternately ignores and defies the central government on all policy issues from oil to women's rights; in Sunni cities such as Tal Afar and Ramadi, where major battles with the Americans alternate with insurgent control, the government simply has no presence whatsoever. In Kurdistan in the north, the Kurdish leadership maintains full control of all local governments.
As for resources, with 85% of the country's revenues deriving from oil, all you really need to know is that oil-rich Iraq is also suffering from an "acute fuel shortage" (including soaring prices, all-night lines at fueling stations, and a deal to get help from neighboring Syria, which itself has minimal refining capacity). The almost helpless Iraqi government has had little choice but to accept the dictates of American advisers and of the International Monetary Fund about exactly how and what energy resources will be used. Paying off Saddam Hussein-era debt, reparations to Kuwait from the Gulf War of 1990, and the needs of the US-controlled national army have had first claim.
With what remains, so meager that it cannot sustain a viable administrative apparatus in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country, there is barely enough to spare for the government leadership to line their own pockets.
2: There is no Iraqi army
The "Iraqi army" is a misnomer. The government's military consists of Iraqi units integrated into the US-commanded occupation army. These units rely on the Americans for intelligence, logistics and - lacking almost all heavy weaponry themselves - artillery, tanks and any kind of air power. The Iraqi "air force" typically consists of fewer then 10 planes with no combat capability. The government has no real control over either personnel or strategy.
We can see this clearly in a recent operation in Sadr City, conducted (as news reports tell us) by "Iraqi troops and US advisers" and backed up by US artillery and air power.
It was one of an ongoing series of attempts to undermine the Sadrists and their Mehdi Army, who have governed the area since the fall of Saddam. The day after the assault, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki complained about the tactics used, which he labeled "unjustified", and about the fact that neither he nor his government had been included in the decision-making leading up to the assault.
As he put it to Agence France-Presse, "I reiterate my rejection to [sic] such an operation and it should not be executed without my consent. This particular operation did not have my approval."
This happened because the US has functionally expanded its own forces in Iraq by integrating local Iraqi units into its command structure, while in essence depriving the central government of any army it could use purely for its own purposes. Iraqi units have their own officers, but they always operate with American advisers. As US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad put it, "We'll ultimately help them become independent." (Don't hold your breath.)
3: Misleading decline in US casualties
At the beginning of August, the press carried reports of a significant decline in US casualties, punctuated with announcements from American officials that the military situation was improving. The figures (compiled by the Brookings Institution) do show a decline in US military deaths (76 in April, 69 in May, 63 in June and then only 48 in July).
But these were offset by dramatic increases in Iraqi military fatalities, which almost doubled in July as the US sent larger numbers of Iraqi units into battle, and as undermanned US units were redeployed from Anbar province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency, to civil-war-torn Baghdad in preparation for a big push to recapture various out-of-control neighborhoods in the capital.
More important, when it comes to long-term US casualties, the trends are not good. In recent months, US units had been pulled off the streets of the capital. But the Iraqi army units that replaced them proved incapable of controlling Baghdad in even minimal ways. So in addition to fighting the Sunni insurgency, American troops are now back on the streets of Baghdad in the midst of a swirling civil war, with US casualties likely to rise.
In recent months, there has also been an escalation of fighting between US forces and the insurgency, independent of the sectarian fighting that now dominates the headlines.
As a consequence, the US has actually increased its troop levels in Iraq (by delaying the return of some units, sending others back to Iraq early, and sending in some troops previously held in reserve in Kuwait). The number of battles (large and small) between occupation troops and the Iraqi resistance has increased from about 70 a day to about 90 a day; and the number of resistance fighters estimated by US officials has held steady at about 20,000. The number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) placed - the principal weapon targeted at occupation troops (including Iraqi units) - has been rising steadily since spring.
The effort by Sunni guerrillas to expel the Americans and their allies is more widespread and energetic than at any time since the fall of the Hussein regime.
4: Most Iraqi cities have active local governments
Neither the Iraqi government nor the US-led occupation has a significant presence in most parts of Iraq. This is well publicized in the three Kurdish provinces, which are ruled by a stable Kurdish government without any outside presence.
It is less publicized in Shi'ite urban areas where various religio-political groups - notably the Sadrists, the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Da'wa and Fadhila vie for local control, and then organize cities and towns around their own political and religious platforms. While there is often violent friction among these groups - particularly when they contest control of an area that is undecided - most cities and towns are largely peaceful as local governments and local populations struggle to provide city services without a viable national economy.
This situation also holds true in the Sunni areas, except when the occupation is actively trying to pacify them. When there is no fighting, local governments dominated by the religious and tribal leaders of the resistance establish the laws and maintain a kind of order, relying for law enforcement on guerrilla fighters and militia members.
All these governments - Kurdish, Shi'ite and Sunni - have shown themselves capable of maintaining (often fundamentalist) law and (often quite harsh) order, with little crime and little resistance from the local population. Though often severely limited by the lack of resources from a paralyzed national economy and a bankrupt national government, they do collect the garbage, direct traffic, suppress the local criminal element and perform many of the other duties expected of local governments.
5: Violence arrives with the occupation army
The portrait of chaos across Iraq that US news generally offers is a genuine half-truth. Certainly, Baghdad has been plunged into massive and worsening disarray as both the war against the Americans and the civil war have come to be concentrated there, and as the terrifying process of ethnic cleansing has hit neighborhood after neighborhood, and is now beginning to seep into the environs of the capital.
However, outside Baghdad (with the exception of the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, where historic friction among Kurds, Sunni and Turkmens has created a different version of sectarian violence), Iraqi cities tend to be reasonably ethnically homogeneous and to have at least quasi-stable governments. The real violence often only arrives when the occupation military makes its periodic sweeps aimed at recapturing cities where it has lost all authority and even presence.
This deadly pattern of escalating violence is regularly triggered by those dreaded sweeps, involving brutal, destructive and sometimes lethal home invasions aimed at capturing or killing suspected insurgents or their supporters.
The insurgent response involves the emplacement of ever more sophisticated roadside IEDs and sniper attacks, aimed at distracting or hampering the patrols. The ensuing firefights frequently involve the use of artillery, tanks and air power in urban areas, demolishing homes and stores in a neighborhood, which only adds to the bitter resistance and increasing the support for the insurgency.
These mini-wars can last between a few hours and, in Fallujah, Ramadi or other "centers of resistance", a few weeks. They constitute the overwhelming preponderance of the fighting in Iraq. For any city, the results can be widespread death and devastation from which it can take months or years to recover. Yet these are still episodes punctuating a less violent, if increasingly more rundown, normalcy.
6: Growing resistance movement in Shi'ite areas
Lately, the pattern of violence established in largely Sunni areas of Iraq has begun to spread to largely Shi'ite cities, which had previously been insulated from the periodic devastation of US pacification attempts. This ended with growing anxiety in the US administration about economic, religious and militia connections between local Shi'ite governments and Iran, and with the growing power of the anti-American Sadrist movement, which had already fought two fierce battles with the US in Najaf in 2004 and a number of times since then in Sadr City.
Symptomatic of this change is the increasing violence in Basra, the urban oil hub at the southern tip of the country, whose local government has long been dominated by various fundamentalist Shi'ite political groups with strong ties to Iran. When the British military began a campaign to undermine the fundamentalists' control of the police force there, two British military operatives were arrested, triggering a battle between British soldiers (supported by the Shi'ite leadership of the Iraqi central government) and the local police (supported by local Shi'ite leaders). This confrontation initiated a series of armed confrontations among the various contenders for power in Basra.
Similar confrontations have occurred in other localities, including Karbala, Najaf, Sadr City and Maysan province. So far, no general offensive to recapture any of these areas has been attempted, but Britain has recently been concentrating its troops outside Basra.
If the occupation decides to use military means to bring the Shi'ite cities back into anything like a US orbit, full-scale battles may be looming in the near future that could begin to replicate the fighting in Sunni areas, including the use of IEDs, so far only sporadically employed in the south. If you think US (and British) troops are overextended now, dealing with internecine warfare and a minority Sunni insurgency, just imagine what a real Shi'ite insurgency would mean.
7: Terrorism is tied to the occupation
Terrorism involves attacking civilians to force them to abandon their support for your enemy, or to drive them away from a coveted territory.
The original terrorists in Iraq were the military and civilian officials of the US administration of President George W Bush - starting with their "shock and awe" bombing campaign that destroyed Iraq's infrastructure to "undermine civilian morale". The US form of terrorism continued with the wholesale destruction of most of Fallujah and parts of other Sunni cities, designed to pacify the "hotbeds" of the insurgency, while teaching the residents of those areas that if they "harbor the insurgents", they will surely "suffer the consequences".
At the individual level, this program of terror was continued through the invasions of, and demolishing of, homes (or, in some cases, parts of neighborhoods) where insurgents were believed to be hidden among a larger civilian population, thus spreading the "lesson" about "harboring terrorists" to everyone in the Sunni sections of the country.
Generating a violent-death rate of at least 18,000 per year, the US drumbeat of terror has contributed more than its share to the recently escalating monthly civilian death toll, which reached a record 3,149 in the official count during July. It is unfortunately accurate to characterize the US occupation of Sunni Iraq as a reign of terror.
Sunni terrorists, such as those led by slain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have used suicide car bombs to generate the most widely publicized violence in Iraq - hundreds of civilian casualties each month resulting from attacks on restaurants, markets and mosques where large number of Shi'ites congregate.
At the beginning of the US occupation, car bombs were non-existent; they only became common when a tiny proportion of the Sunni resistance movement became convinced that the Shi'ites were the main domestic support for the US occupation. (As far as we can tell, the vast majority of those fighting the Americans oppose such terrorists and have sometimes fought them.)
As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote, these attacks were justified by "the treason of the Shi'ites and their collusion with the Americans". As if to prove him correct, the number of such attacks tripled to current levels of about 70 per month after the Shi'ite-dominated Iraqi government supported the US devastation of Fallujah in November 2004.
Sunni terrorists work with the same terrorist logic that the Americans have applied in Iraq: attacks on civilians are meant to terrify them into not supporting the enemy. There is a belief, of course, among the leadership of the Sunni terrorists that, ultimately, only the violent suppression or expulsion of the Shi'ites is acceptable. But as Zawahiri himself stated, the "majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it". So the practical justification for such terrorism lies in the more immediate association of the Shi'ites with the hated occupation.
The final link in the terrorist chain can also be traced to the occupation. In January 2005, Newsweek broke the story that the US was establishing (Shi'ite) "death squads" within the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, modeled after the assassination teams that the Central Intelligence Agency had helped organize in El Salvador during the 1980s.
These death squads were intended to assassinate activists and supporters of the Sunni resistance. Particularly after the bombing of the Golden Dome, an important Shi'ite shrine in Samarra, in March, they became a fixture in Baghdad, where thousands of corpses - virtually all Sunni men - have been found with signs of torture, including electric-drill holes, in their bodies and bullet holes in their heads. Here again the logic is the same: to use terror to stop the Sunni community from nurturing and harboring both terrorist car-bombers and anti-American resistance fighters.
While there is disagreement about whether the Americans, the Shi'ite-controlled Ministry of Defense or the Shi'ite political parties should shoulder the most responsibility for setting these death squads on Baghdad, one conclusion is indisputable: they have earned their place in the ignominious triumvirate of Iraqi terrorism.
One might say that the war has converted one of Bush's biggest lies into an unimaginably horrible truth: Iraq is now the epicenter of worldwide terrorism.
Where the seven facts lead
With this terror triumvirate at the center of Iraqi society, we now enter the horrible era of ethnic cleansing, the logical extension of multidimensional terror.
When the US toppled the Hussein regime, there was little sectarian sentiment outside of Kurdistan, which had long-standing nationalist ambitions. Even today, opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Sunnis and Shi'ites stand opposed to the idea of any further weakening of the central government and are not in favor of federation, no less dividing Iraq into three separate nations.
Nevertheless, ethnic cleansing by both Shi'ite and Sunni has become the order of the day in many of the neighborhoods of Baghdad, replete with house burnings, physical assaults, torture and murder, all directed against those who resist leaving their homes. These acts are aimed at creating religiously homogeneous neighborhoods.
This is a terrifying development that derives from the rising tide of terrorism. Sunnis believe that they must expel their Shi'ite neighbors to stop them from giving the Shi'ite death squads the names of resistance fighters and their supporters. Shi'ites believe that they must expel their Sunni neighbors to stop them from providing information and cover for car-bombing attacks. And, as the situation matures, militants on both sides come to embrace removal - period.
As these actions escalate, feeding on each other, more and more individuals, caught in a vise of fear and bent on revenge, embrace the infernal logic of terrorism: that it is acceptable to punish everyone for the actions of a tiny minority.
There is still some hope for the Iraqis to recover their equilibrium. All the centripetal forces in Iraq derive from the US occupation, and might still be sufficiently reduced by a US departure followed by a viable reconstruction program embraced by the key elements inside of Iraq.
But if the occupation continues, there will certainly come a point - perhaps already passed - when the collapse of government legitimacy, the destruction wrought by the war and the horror of terrorist violence become self-sustaining. If that point is reached, all parties will enter a new territory with incalculable consequences.
Michael Schwartz, professor of sociology and faculty director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University, has written extensively on popular protest and insurgency, and on US business and government dynamics. His books include Radical Protest and Social Structure and Social Policy and the Conservative Agenda (edited, with Clarence Lo). His e-mail address is Ms42@optonline.net
(Copyright 2006 Michael Schwartz.)
(Used by permission Tomdispatch)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH24Ak03.html
Guardian:
Amnesty report accuses Israel of war crimes
David Fickling
Wednesday August 23, 2006
Israel deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and committed war crimes during the month-long conflict in Lebanon, according to an Amnesty International report.
The report said strikes on civilian buildings and structures went beyond "collateral damage" and amounted to indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks under the Geneva conventions on the laws of war.
Kate Gilmore, the Amnesty executive deputy secretary general, said the bombardment of power and water plants and transport links was "deliberate and an integral part of a military strategy".
"Israel's assertion that the attacks on the infrastructure were lawful is manifestly wrong," she said.
"Many of the violations identified in our report are war crimes. The pattern, scope and scale of the attacks makes Israel's claim that this was collateral damage simply not credible."
Amnesty called for an official UN inquiry into human rights violations on both sides of the conflict.
The report's authors described the destruction of up to 90% of some towns and villages in southern Lebanon, releasing aerial photographs that showed Beirut's southern Dahiya district had been transformed from a bustling suburb into a grey wasteland.
"In village after village the pattern was similar - the streets, especially main streets, were scarred with artillery craters along their length," the report said.
"In some cases, cluster bomb impacts were identified. Houses were singled out for precision-guided missile attack and were destroyed, totally or partially, as a result.
"Business premises such as supermarkets or food stores and auto service stations and petrol stations were targeted, often with precision-guided munitions and artillery that started fires and destroyed their contents."
Israel launched more than 7,000 air strikes against Lebanon during the 34-day war, and naval vessels launched 2,500 shells, the report said.
Around one third of the 1,183 people killed in Lebanon were children, while 4,054 people were injured and 970,000 displaced.
Lebanese estimates suggest that 30,000 houses, along with up to 120 bridges, 94 roads, 25 fuel stations and 900 businesses, were destroyed.
Two hospitals were destroyed and three others severely damaged, while 31 "vital points" - such as airports, ports, water and sewage treatment plants, and electrical facilities - were also completely or partially destroyed.
The overall cost of the damage amounted to $3.5bn (£1.8bn), the report said.
Around 4,000 Hizbullah rockets were fired at northern Israel during the conflict, killing around 40 civilians. Up to 300,000 people in northern Israel were driven into bomb shelters by the fighting, and 117 soldiers died.
The Amnesty report said Israeli military policy seemed directed at destroying Lebanese popular support for Hizbullah, a tactic prohibited by the Geneva conventions.
"The widespread destruction ... in addition to several statements by Israeli officials, suggests a policy of punishing both the Lebanese government and the civilian population in an effort to get them to turn against Hizbullah," it said.
Red Cross officials were quoted as saying that people left behind in inaccessible villages in southern Lebanon had been unable to get hold of fresh water.
Refugees from the border village of Rmeish had told Red Cross delegates that locals had had to drinking foul water from an irrigation ditch.
The report's allegation of disproportionate action echoes comments made during the conflict by international observers including French, Russian and EU officials and the UN humanitarian chief, Jan Egeland.
However, the British government has avoided the term, which could be considered an accusation of war crimes, although former the foreign secretary Jack Straw and the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman William Hague both used it.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1856587,00.html
Guardian: If Europe doesn't want
Middle East war to begin again, it has to step up
EU nations are confirming the US right's prejudices by failing to deliver on promises of troops to police Lebanon's ceasefire
Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday August 23, 2006
Insults are not predictions: they're not meant to come true. But the leading nations of Europe seem bent on proving that every word of abuse rained down on them from across the Atlantic over the past few years was justified. To call the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" once appeared no more than a neocon slander. The American insistence that Europe was a continent of limp-wristed wusses, who were fond of fancy oratory but ran from the first sign of trouble, could be written off as mere Texan bluster.
Not now. With France in the lead, the great powers of Europe are confirming the US right's prejudices. During this summer's war between Israel and Hizbullah, they certainly talked the talk - pressing for a ceasefire, demanding an international force be placed between the combatants. But now it's time to walk the walk, and the Europeans are finding they'd rather stay on their chaise longues.
The French are the worst offenders. In a hurry to show the Americans how great powers ought to conduct themselves in the Middle East, France boasted of its status as the former colonial master in Lebanon and jointly proposed the UN resolution that would end hostilities. Central to that accord was the promise of a 15,000-strong force capable, alongside the Lebanese army, of keeping Hizbullah behind the Litani river and Israel behind its own border. France would supply most of the troops and be in command.
But now it's time to deploy and the French have dispatched precisely 200 troops - far short of the number the UN hoped they would send. They, and the Italians, whose planned 3,000-strong contingent now puts them in line to lead the UN force, are suffering from cold feet. They're worried that their men will be vulnerable; that they may have to confront Hizbullah; and that, if they don't, Israel will start do the job itself, leaving the blue helmets in the crossfire.
These are understandable worries, but they cannot have taken Paris or Rome by surprise. That this operation would entail risk was obvious the moment an international force was suggested. The clue was in the word "force". If this was a walk in the park, the UN would have asked for a multinational platoon of boy scouts and girl guides to patrol southern Lebanon.
Of course this task is risky. It will take a robust force to prevent, for example, the reported attempts by Hizbullah to smuggle in fresh arms from Syria. If those weapons convoys are not blocked, Israel will attack them, so triggering more Hizbullah rocket attacks over the border. The ceasefire Europeans insisted so loudly they wanted will be over. If Europe does not want the war to begin again, with all the death and mayhem among Lebanon's civilian population that that would bring, then it has to step up. But it is refusing to honour its promise.
And there is no one else who can do it. It can't be the US: thanks to the lunatic folly of Iraq, the American military is overstretched and the US so hated in the Arab and Muslim world that the very idea is unimaginable. Sadly, the same is true of Britain, for the same reasons. Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh are keen to do their bit, but Jerusalem balks at that since none of those countries recognise Israel: it's difficult to have an umpire who refuses to accept that one of the two teams on the pitch exists.
So this is Europe's responsibility. Over the past five years, the continent's politicians have made great capital lambasting the simple-minded crassness of the Bush approach, its doomed belief that the world could be reordered by force. Americans were from Mars, Europeans were from Venus - believers in the gentle suasions of "soft power". Much of that made good sense. But these Venusian Europeans usually conceded that there were times when there was no alternative to military might, albeit deployed for pacific ends. Most European leaders guiltily concede that a properly mandated force could have stopped the massacre at Srebrenica and should have stopped the genocide in Rwanda. The lesson of both those calamities is that sometimes Europe has to use hard power. Now is just such a time, and Europe is dithering pathetically. The result is that a Washington Post commentator could yesterday declare with justification that "as we always learn, Europe without American leadership is a mere tourist destination".
As for Israel itself, it is undergoing a remarkable shift. It began the summer conflict united to an extraordinary degree, convinced that no country in the world could sit back while the proxy army (Hizbullah) of a state committed to wipe it from the map (Iran) trained missiles on its civilians. That mood has evaporated in a few short weeks. Now Israelis are engaged in a round of numbed soul-searching, the nation's leading commentators concluding that the war of 2006 was a military, political and strategic failure.
Much of the criticism is currently directed at the operational errors: the lack of military preparedness, the indecision of commanders, the mistaken belief that a ground force like Hizbullah could be beaten from the air. Some are demanding a state commission of inquiry, like the ones that followed the debacles of the Yom Kippur war of 1973 and the Lebanon invasion of 1982. The fact that 2006 is bracketed in that company tells you all you need to know.
The immediate consequence is already clear: the suspension of the planned unilateral withdrawal from parts of the West Bank that was the centrepiece of Ehud Olmert's programme. As some of us feared, the Lebanon conflict was always a battle for the legitimacy of unilateralism: if Hizbullah could not be quieted, Israelis would conclude that pulling out of occupied territory - as Israel did from Lebanon in 2000 - only leaves them more vulnerable. So now Jewish settlements on the West Bank that would have been dismantled will remain; checkpoints that would have come down will stay up. The settlers should cheer the name of Hassan Nasrallah: he has saved them. And Palestinians should curse the Hizbullah leader: thanks to him and his rockets, the occupation of their lands that would have been shrunk, perhaps by as much as 90%, will now remain intact. (Those who declared "we are all Hizbullah now" at demonstrations in London this month might reflect on that.)
After that, what? Olmert's government will not be able to last. His reputation has surely been destroyed, along with that of the Labour leader Amir Peretz, who arrived amid such great hopes nearly a year ago. Voters will look for new leadership, untainted by the Lebanon disaster: perhaps the former intelligence chiefs Avi Dichter for the Kadima party and Ami Ayalon for Labour.
There might be moves toward a new unilateralism-minus: allowing settlements to wither in parts of the West Bank, but retaining a military presence, to prevent the Palestinians building up a hostile Hizbullah-style force there. Occupation without colonisation, if you like.
Optimists will hope that just as the scare of 1973 eventually led to the Camp David accord of 1978, so this near-defeat will trigger a new move towards peace. The obvious destination for that journey is Damascus, with Israel seeking to peel Syria away from Iran, in return for the Golan Heights and whatever other inducements the US might offer.
For now, though, Israel contemplates a landscape in which it is no longer feared as much as it was before. In 2006, it fought in such a way that it could not win - and it now wonders when, and how fiercely, it will have to fight again.
freedland@guardian.co.uk
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,1855986,00.html
Guardian:
US interventions have boosted Iran, says report
Staff and agencies
Wednesday August 23, 2006
The US-led "war on terror" has bolstered Iran's power and influence in the Middle East, especially over its neighbour and former enemy Iraq, a thinktank said today.
A report published by Chatham House said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had removed Iran's main rival regimes in the region.
Israel's conflict with the Palestinians and its invasion of Lebanon had also put Iran "in a position of considerable strength" in the Middle East, said the thinktank.
Unless stability could be restored to the region, Iran's power will continue to grow, according to the report published by Chatham House
The study said Iran had been swift to fill the political vacuum created by the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Islamic republic now has a level of influence in the region that could not be ignored.
In particular, Iran has now superseded the US as the most influential power in Iraq, regarding its former adversary as its "own backyard". It is also a "prominent presence" in its other war-torn neighbour, Afghanistan, according to Chatham House's analysts.
The report said: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East.
"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments - the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."
The thinktank said the west needed to understand better Iran's links with its neighbours to see why the country felt able "to resist Western pressure".
"The US-driven agenda for confronting Iran is severely compromised by the confident ease with which Iran sits in its region," said the report.
Western countries, led by the US, are locked in a bitter dispute with Iran over its nuclear programme.
Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, says it will not give up what it says is its right to peaceful nuclear technology. The west suspects Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.
The thinktank said: "While the US and Europeans slowly grind the nuclear issue through the mills of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations security council, Iran continues to prevaricate, feeling confident of victory as conditions turn ever more in its favour."
The report added the country was "simply too important - for political, economic, cultural, religions and military reasons - to be treated lightly".
One of the report's authors, Dr Ali Ansari, reader in modern history at the University of St Andrews, told Radio 4: "The United States needs to take a step back and reassess its entire policy towards Iran and work out, first of all, what does it want and how is it going to achieve it, because at the moment everything is rather like putting a sticking plaster on a fairly raw wound, and it is not really actually doing much at all."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1856362,00.html
Guardian:
Iran tries to split UN as it rejects nuclear demands
Robert Tait in Tehran
Wednesday August 23, 2006
After months of defiant rhetoric over its nuclear programme, Iran formally rejected an international demand that it suspend uranium enrichment yesterday to allay western fears that it wants to build an atomic bomb.
The rejection, in a 23-page response submitted by the country's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, to a broad-ranging incentive package, set Iran on a collision course with the UN security council. The council has passed a resolution requiring Iran to suspend uranium enrichment - a process that can be used to produce nuclear weapons - by August 31 or face the prospect of economic sanctions.
In what was being seen as a bid to split the council, Iran's response came with detailed counter-proposals, including a call for future talks under a "new formula".
Mr Larijani, who has criticised the incentives offered, couched Iran's answer in conciliatory language, describing it as "constructive". "Iran is prepared to hold serious talks," he told Iranian state television. "The representatives of the six world powers should return to talks to reach an understanding about all the issues mentioned in the offer, including nuclear issues, long-term technical and economic cooperation, as well as security cooperation in the region."
Mr Larijani was speaking after presenting the response to diplomats from Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany and Switzerland, which has represented American interests in Tehran since US-Iranian relations were severed following the 1979-81 embassy siege.
Few details of the document, described by one western diplomat as "comprehensive", were available. However, the Iranian request for a "new formula" is thought to include a proposal that temporary uranium enrichment suspension could be open for negotiations during further talks.
That idea is virtually certain to be rejected by the US, Britain and France, which believe Iran's nuclear programme is aimed at bomb-making, rather than domestic electricity as the Iranians insist. However, it could be sufficient to persuade the security council's other two permanent members, Russia and China - both of whom have extensive economic ties with Tehran - to oppose sanctions.
America, which has declined to rule out military action, reacted cautiously to the Iranian response, with John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, promising to study it carefully. He said: "From this definitive response, we will see whether they are now prepared to abide by their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and convince the world that their intentions are peaceful, as they claim. But if it doesn't meet with the terms set by the security council, we will proceed to economic sanctions."
The council's permanent five members, along with Germany, presented the incentive package to Iran in June, two months after it announced it had enriched uranium sufficiently to produce its own nuclear fuel cycle. The package proposes a range of economic sweeteners, including civilian nuclear technology, in return for Iran abandoning its solo nuclear activities for international cooperation.
Iran initially greeted the offer positively. But analysts in Tehran say the Islamic leadership has turned against it, seeing it as a front for the US desire for regime change. "They think that if they accept, the Americans will come up with something else, such as human rights, to destabilise them," one source said. "They think the nuclear issue is simply the current American strategy for undermining them. So they've decided that the nuclear issue is the one over which to have a confrontation, since it's a national issue supported by most Iranians."
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has ultimate authority over the matter, said on Monday the country would continue "on the nuclear path". He dismissed the west's claims that it was trying to develop nuclear weapons as a pretext for what he called its opposition to the development of Islamic countries.
The leadership's tough stand is bolstered by a belief that high oil revenues will enable it to withstand any sanctions that the UN imposes. Iran is the world's fourth largest crude producer.
Mr Khamenei's remarks on Monday prompted international crude prices to surge to $73.05 a barrel.
Tehran's atomic drive
Is Iran a nuclear power?
No. But it has an ambitious uranium enrichment programme intended to make it a nuclear power. Russia is building and supplying the fuel for Iran's first nuclear power plant. Iran says it is developing its own nuclear fuel cycle (uranium enrichment) to become self-sufficient. The west fears all this is a front for a bomb programme.
Will it get the bomb?
Iran insists its nuclear programmes are exclusively civil. But the technologies can quickly be turned to military ends.
What has the west offered?
The US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany offered a detailed package to Iran in June including long-term talks on political, economic, trade, security, and nuclear technology issues. It recognises Iran's right to nuclear power and would help it develop power stations. Russia would supply nuclear fuel and repatriate used fuel to prevent it being used for weapons. Iran has to "suspend" its own nuclear fuel output indefinitely. It refuses to do so.
What happens next?
A security council deadline ordering the enrichment freeze expires on August 31. Russia and China are reluctant to impose sanctions.
Who's winning this battle of nerves?
Iran, so far. Tehran has manoeuvred skillfully, exploiting divisions, playing for time, coaxing better offers, and still advancing its nuclear programme. Tehran has looked on as the US wiped out its biggest foes - Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. The US travails in the Middle East and the rise of the Shia from Iraq to Lebanon all boost Iran.
How advanced is the programme?
Iran is converting raw uranium into uranium gas, then feeding the gas into centrifuges for enrichment. Estimates of when Iran could have a bomb range from four-10 years.
What's all the fuss really about?
A lack of trust. The neo-cons in Washington don't believe a word from the mullahs. The hardliners in Iran are convinced the US wants regime change. The Europeans are playing the middleman, freezing the nuclear dispute until there's a better climate of confidence. That could be a long wait.
Ian Traynor
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1856155,00.html
Página/12:
Italia se hace cargo y pone condiciones
APORTARA 2500 SOLDADOS A LA FUERZA DE PAZ EN EL LIBANO, PERO PIDE APOYO Y GARANTIAS
Mientras continúa el emplazamiento de tropas libanesas en la frontera y se mantiene el alto el fuego, Roma negocia con sus pares europeos apoyos militares y con Israel, garantías de que la tregua se mantendrá. Kofi Annan discute una nueva resolución de la ONU sobre el mandato de la fuerza y Finlandia convocó una reunión de la Unión Europea.
Por Enric González y Ana Carbajosa*
Desde Bruselas y Roma, Miércoles, 23 de Agosto de 2006
Mientras los quince mil soldados libaneses terminaron ayer de desplegarse en los diversos puntos del país para cumplir con la resolución 1701 de la ONU, Italia exigió garantías para encabezar la tropa internacional de paz. La primera, que Israel respete rigurosamente el alto el fuego. La segunda, que los otros miembros de la Unión Europea (UE) aporten tropas y un firme apoyo político. La reunión que los ministros de Exteriores de la UE y el secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, celebrarán el viernes en Bruselas debe dar la señal de partida para que unos 2500 soldados italianos y unos 5000 de otros países europeos, entre ellos España, emprendan el viaje al Líbano. En tanto, el primer ministro israelí, Ehud Olmert, dijo que levantarán el bloqueo aéreo y marítimo a ese país cuando se despliegue la fuerza internacional en la frontera sirio-libanesa.
Massimo D’Alema, ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, fue rotundo en declaraciones al diario La Repubblica: “De Israel esperamos un compromiso renovado, y esta vez realmente vinculante, de respetar el alto el fuego. Es justo exigir que Hezbolá deponga las armas, pero no podemos enviar nuestros soldados a Líbano si el ejército israelí sigue disparando”. El primer ministro israelí, Ehud Olmert, fue precisamente uno de los primeros en pedir a Italia que encabezase la fuerza de paz. “Es indispensable que se comprometa toda la comunidad internacional y es indispensable el apoyo rotundo de la UE y de cada uno de sus 25 miembros”, declaró por su parte el vicepresidente italiano, Francesco Rutelli. “Se trata de una misión crítica, difícil, sujeta a muchas incógnitas; no tenemos ninguna intención de marchar hacia Líbano entre el aplauso general para encontrarnos solos al cabo de unos meses”, añadió.
El ministro D’Alema explicó que Italia está dispuesta a aportar “entre 2000 y 3000 efectivos”, equivalentes a “un tercio de las tropas totales europeas”, que deberían situarse entre 6000 y 9000, dentro del total de 15.000 previsto por la ONU. El ministro afirmó que con los italianos habrá españoles, escandinavos, belgas, holandeses y alemanes, y que los franceses, que hablaron en principio de 2000 soldados y luego de sólo 200, tendrían también “una presencia importante”.
Los países de la Unión Europea mantendrán hoy en Bruselas un primer encuentro tras el alto el fuego en el Líbano, en el que tratarán de coordinar el envío de tropas europeas. A la reunión le seguirá otra el próximo viernes, en la que los ministros de Exteriores europeos debatirán junto con el secretario general de la ONU, Kofi Annan, la composición y funciones de la Fuerza Interina de Naciones Unidas en Líbano (Finul), así como la posibilidad de aprobar una nueva resolución que regule el funcionamiento de las tropas, tal como propuso el lunes el presidente de Estados Unidos, George W. Bush. Francia cuestionó, por su parte, la idea de Estados Unidos de lanzar una segunda resolución en la que se aborde la cuestión del desarme de Hezbolá y se definan las reglas de enfrentamiento. París la considera prematura políticamente y advierte que podría retrasar aún más el proceso de despliegue de los cascos azules.
La idea es que en la reunión de hoy en Bruselas, convocada por Finlandia, país que preside temporariamente la UE, cada socio ponga sobre la mesa cuántos soldados y para qué está dispuesto a aportar al dispositivo multinacional. “La idea es tener una visión general de hasta dónde los países de la UE están dispuestos a contribuir. Pretendemos que los compromisos sean lo más amplios posible. Lo urgente ahora es maximizar la contribución”, sostuvieron fuentes diplomáticas finlandesas.
El despliegue de la fuerza internacional es sumamente importante, tanto para mantener la tregua entre Israel y Hezbolá como para lograr el cese del bloqueo impuesto al Líbano. El premier israelí, Ehud Olmert, condicionó el levantamiento del bloqueo marítimo y aéreo al despliegue de la fuerza internacional en el aeropuerto de Beirut y en la frontera sirio-libanesa, a lo que se opuso Siria. Olmert formuló estas declaraciones tras reunirse con el enviado especial de la ONU, Terje Roed-Larzen, horas después de que el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores libanés llamara a la comunidad internacional a interceder ante Israel para que levantara el bloqueo. Previamente, el gobierno israelí había dicho que continuarían con el bloqueo con un modo de prevenir el rearme del movimiento libanés Hezbolá, que según Tel Aviv está apoyado por Irán y Siria.
Mientras tanto, la acción siguió en los territorios palestinos. Soldados israelíes mataron ayer a tres miembros de Yihad Islámica cerca de la frontera central de la Franja de Gaza. Un portavoz del ejército israelí explicó que sus tropas los descubrieron acercándose a la valla fronteriza de una manera sospechosa por la noche, llevando grandes bolsas y en un momento se quedaron tumbados sobre el suelo. Los soldados abrieron fuego y los abatieron.
En otra acción, al menos diez tanques israelíes y vehículos armados se adentraron por la mañana temprano en el barrio de Sheja’eya, al Este de la ciudad de Gaza. Un portavoz del ejército dijo que las tropas arrestaron a cinco militantes buscados que se escondían en un edificio, incluidos dos miembros del movimiento radical islámico Hamas, actualmente en el gobierno palestino. La aviación israelí bombardeó también dos casas palestinas en el norte y el sur de Gaza durante la noche, sin que se registraran heridos.
* De El País de Madrid. Especial para Página/12.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-71859-2006-08-23.html
Página/12:
Irán no se baja
El régimen de los ayatolas entregó un documento en el que no incluye congelar su actividad nuclear.
Por Anne Penketh*
Miércoles, 23 de Agosto de 2006
Irán se ha puesto a tiro de confrontación con Occidente al no anunciar la suspensión de las actividades nucleares, en su respuesta formal de anoche a la propuesta occidental que intentaba frenar sus ambiciones nucleares. El jefe de las negociaciones iraníes, Ali Larijani, aseguró que el “exhaustivo” documento de 23 páginas ofrece “serias conversaciones” que comienzan hoy, aunque no se hicieron públicos los detalles anoche. Un diplomático de Occidente dijo que la respuesta contenía una “pista” de una posible suspensión del enriquecimiento de uranio si las negociaciones resultaban exitosas, pero añadió que esto no sería aceptable para el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU.
El consejo le ordenó a Irán que detenga su programa de enriquecimiento de uranio para fin de mes o se enfrente a la posibilidad de sanciones económicas y diplomáticas. El enriquecimiento de uranio es un proceso crucial en el ciclo de combustible que eventualmente puede conducir a la producción de armas nucleares. Pero los iraníes descartaron un congelamiento en el enriquecimiento de uranio, que es su derecho bajo el tratado nuclear de no proliferación mientras el objetivo sea pacífico.
Larijani dijo que Irán estaba listo para jugar un rol “constructivo” en relación con todos los temas del paquete, que incluía un diálogo directo con Estados Unidos, ayuda tecnológica en el desarrollo de energía nuclear con fines pacíficos y el levantamiento de las restricciones económicas. Las seis potencias que ofrecieron el paquete en mayo pasado, Gran Bretaña, Estados Unidos, Francia, Alemania, Rusia y China, considerarán la respuesta iraní colectivamente a comienzos del mes que viene. Anoche dijeron que estudiarían cuidadosamente el informe iraní.
“El Consejo de Seguridad dejó en claro lo que debe hacer Irán”, dijo un vocero del Foreign Office británico, refiriéndose a la fecha límite para el congelamiento del enriquecimiento de uranio. John Bolton, el embajador de Estados Unidos en la ONU, dijo: “También estamos preparados si no cumple con los términos establecidos por los cinco ministros extranjeros permanentes para proceder en el Consejo de Seguridad, como acordaron los ministros con las sanciones económicas”.
Después del éxito de la milicia aliada a Irán, Hezbolá, en el sur del Líbano frente a 34 días de ataques militares israelíes, y dada la influencia en Irak, las grandes potencias pueden estar buscando una salida diplomática. Uno de los autores del informe, Ali Ansari, dijo ayer: “La política occidental hacia Medio Oriente muestra una total falta de imaginación”.
* De The Independent de Gran Bretaña. Especial para Página/12.
Traducción: Celita Doyhambéhère
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-71858-2006-08-23.html
Página/12:
Los cinco elementos
Por Rodrigo Fresán
Desde Barcelona, Miércoles, 23 de Agosto de 2006
AIRE Hubo un tiempo en que los dioses, los superhéroes o los científicos más o menos locos eran los únicos que accedían al privilegio de viajar por el aire, por ese espacio al que ahora se le cuelgan nuevos planetas como si se tratara de medallas. Aire limpio y azul y libre de agujeros de ozono o de basura espacial. Ahora viajamos nosotros. Y viajamos mal. Y una nueva versión de La metamorfosis comenzaría así: “Una mañana, tras un sueño intranquilo, Gregor Samsa se despertó convertido en una valija extraviada”. El aire de los aeropuertos cada vez más viciado. El aire de los aviones que es la versión artificial del aire. Aire que –dentro de muy poco, estoy seguro– incluirá en sus moléculas una dosis de partículas somníferas que impedirá que los pasajeros sientan ganas de aterrorizar o que ayudará a que no se aterroricen cuando los acontecimientos (y el avión que lleva a bordo a los acontecimientos) se precipiten. Mientras tanto, nuevas medidas de seguridad que incluyen –cuando saltan las alertas– la prohibición de llevar libros a bordo. ¿Qué haremos entonces aquellos que no podemos viajar si no es transportados por novelas o cuentos? Las películas de ahí arriba, ya se sabe: las buenas uno ya las vio, y las malas uno no quiere verlas. Una modesta proposición: que junto al inevitable U. S. Marshal de incógnito viaje, también, un escritor. Y que se pare en el pasillo y cuente lo suyo. Así, la azafata anunciaría: “Señores pasajeros, viaja con nosotros el escritor alemán Günter Grass y acaba de informarme que tiene algo para confesarnos. Por favor, ajústense los cinturones y enderecen el respaldo de sus asientos y óiganlo con mucha atención”.
FUEGO El fuego que –con la ayuda de pirómanos nocturnos que de día trabajan de bomberos– arrasó miles de hectáreas de Galicia. El PP y el PSOE no se ponen de acuerdo en la cantidad exacta de hectáreas. El PP y el PSOE nunca están de acuerdo en nada; pero supongo que es mejor que los rivales políticos estén en partidos diferentes en lugar de en el mismo partido. Cuestión de higiene, digamos. Una cosa sí es segura: Günter Grass no tuvo nada que ver, porque por esas fechas se lo vio en Dinamarca. Eso sí: se está estudiando su posible participación en el incendio del edificio del Reichstag del 27 de febrero de 1933. Y, sí: hubo un tiempo en que el fuego no existía aunque ya estaba. Algunos mitos explican que fue un mortal quien se lo robó a las divinidades de turno y que pagó cara su osadía. Es decir: el hombre no inventó el fuego, tan sólo se limita a encenderlo en momentos casi siempre inoportunos. Ejemplo de receta para hacer fuego: tómese una piedra de Israel y otra piedra del Líbano. Golpéeselas con fuerza, una contra otra, hasta que salte una chispa. No hace falta golpearlas durante mucho tiempo o muchas veces. Enseguida salta y quema y se abre el fuego.
TIERRA Y corre el fuego por la tierra por la que ruedan las piedras. ETA anunció que “el proceso de paz está en crisis”. El PP y el PSOE se pelean por una piscina –cárcel del agua en la tierra– que un concejal de los primeros construyó junto a su casa ignorando el carácter público de unos terrenitos. El PSOE exige que la piscina sea, por lo tanto, para uso del pueblo. El PP dice que no. John Cheever escribiría un gran cuento con todo esto. Pero lo que en realidad tiene indignados a los españoles es la suspensión de los dos conciertos de los Rolling Stones en la península. Los dos primeros se suspendieron porque Keith Richards se cayó de una palmera. Estos dos por una laringitis de Mick Jagger. Günter Grass preguntó si podía confesar algo al respecto, pero le aconsejaron que no y que mejor esperara a la edición de su libro en España. Los móviles noticieros se trasladaron a los escenarios súbitamente cancelados de losrecitales, desenfundaron micrófonos, y ahí nomás encontraron a alguien que aullaba: “¿Y ahora qué carajo hago con la entrada, me la meto en el orto?”. Siempre –incendio, maremoto, alud o nova– habrá un argentino cerca de una cámara. Es ley de la naturaleza.
AGUA Sobre las olas llegan las oleadas de africanos en busca de la hipotética tierra firme europea. En lo que va del año, cinco veces más que en todo el 2005. Mientras tanto, el cambio climático tropicaliza al Mediterráneo: invasión de medusas y de especies calientes y de tiburones y, si la cosa sigue así, los españoles ya no tendrán necesidad de viajar al Caribe. Pero lo que a mí me interesa ahora es la historia de esos pescadores mexicanos que se la pasaron nueve meses a la deriva alimentándose “de patos que cazábamos” y que declararon nunca perder la esperanza “porque siempre vimos barcos, no nos rescataban, pero siempre veíamos barcos”. Dos de ellos saltaron por la borda porque, supongo, no le gustaban los patos o se cansaron de ser avistados pero no recogidos. Una tercera posibilidad me da miedo así que, mejor, no la escribo. Uno de los sobrevivientes ya se había perdido de igual manera cuando tenía siete años. De ahí que su familia jamás haya perdido la fe. Algo parecido le pasó al pequeño Günter Grass, durante una excursión por el Rhin. Pero mejor no hablar de ciertas cosas.
MEMORIA Están los especialistas que aseguran que el quinto elemento es el yogurt que no se sabe a qué orden pertenece. Ese yogurt que se comen Chávez y Castro. Pero yo prefiero pensar que el quinto elemento es la memoria. La memoria que no es líquida ni ígnea ni sólida o aérea pero de la que, sin embargo, estamos hechos. La memoria que lamenta perder el replicante Nexus 6 Roy Batty al final de Blade Runner, la memoria de Shakespeare sobre la que Borges escribió un cuento y la memoria de Borges que María Kodama dice que es sólo suya. La memoria es un elemento complicado. “El don súbito de la memoria no es siempre sencillo” y “la memoria es como un obrero que trabaja para establecer cimientos duraderos en medio de las olas”, escribió Proust. Y lo que molesta de la confesión pública de Grass en cuanto a su paso por la Waffen SS –del que se haya acordado de acordarse– es que coincida con la publicación de su autobiografía. Una cosa es cierta: de haberlo ventilado antes, difícilmente le habrían dado el Nobel a Grass (a Borges no se lo dieron por mucho menos), quien ahora afirma que “esta culpa me ha pesado como una ignominia”. OK. De acuerdo. Error de juventud. Todo bien. Grass sigue siendo un grandísimo escritor. Pero, siendo también el autor de libros como El tambor de hojalata y Años de perro, la verdad que el tema podría haber surgido antes de que escribiese este Pelando la cebolla. Eso sí, por favor, que ahora no empiece a pedir perdón todo el tiempo. El perdón no es un elemento. El perdón es un derecho del que lo otorga y no un privilegio de quien lo pide.
© 2000-2006 www.pagina12.com.ar|República Argentina|Todos los Derechos Reservados
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/contratapa/13-71849-2006-08-23.html
The Independent:
How immigrants sustain Britain's economic growth
By Andrew Grice and Jonathan Brown
Published: 23 August 2006
The positive impact of the influx of migrant workers from eastern Europe on the British economy has enabled Gordon Brown to hit his growth targets, according to a new study.
It suggests that the Chancellor may have missed his key economic goals without the boost from the estimated 600,000 migrants from the eight former Soviet bloc nations who have come to Britain since their home countries joined the European Union two years ago. They now account for about 2 per cent of the UK's 30 million-strong workforce, contributing an estimated £2.5bn a year to the economy.
Business leaders also called for Britain to maintain its open-door policy for key foreign workers. Business for New Europe, which counts the former Tory minister Leon Brittan as well as chief executives and chairmen from blue-chip companies including Reuters, Carphone Warehouse, Sainsbury and the London Stock Exchange on its advisory panel, said further migration was a " cause for celebration, not cowardice".
Meanwhile, the construction industry indicated that there could be insufficient capacity to complete the Government's building programmes without new migrant labour. There are plans for 30 major hospital projects, including the £1bn scheme at Barts in London. Only last week the Government announced a further six projects worth £1.5bn, as well as plans for 50 new community hospitals. Labour is also committed to a programme of school building and refurbishment, as well as the scheme to regenerate the Thames Gateway, where 40,000 new homes will be built on former brownfield sites.
Maurice Fitzpatrick, senior tax manager at the accountancy firm Grant Thornton UK LLP, concluded that foreign workers were vital for Mr Brown to achieve his targets. "It seems likely that immigration has contributed 0.5 per cent to 1per cent to UK economic growth in each of the years 2005 and 2006. In terms of Brown's 2005 economic growth forecast, this was definitely needed in order for it to be achieved, and for the 2006 growth forecast it played a significant (perhaps crucial) part in its achievement."
Although the number of people claiming unemployment benefit has also risen slightly over the past two years, Mr Fitzpatrick said this might have happened anyway, since the economy had been growing at below its trend level, estimated by the Treasury at 2.75 per cent a year, even after the " immigration effect".
He added that migration had exerted a downward push on wage rates, which may have aided Britain's international competitiveness and helped to keep interest rates low.
Roland Rudd, chairman of Business for New Europe, said the rewards could be felt across the economy. "As well as Polish plumbers and property investors, the UK economy benefits from Hungarians in hospitality, Estonian engineers, Czech caterers and Slovakian scientists. This is because of our open labour markets following the EU enlargement of 2004. We have reaped the reward of this approach. We should abandon it at our peril."
Meanwhile, the National Farmers' Union said that at this time of year its members were dependent on as many as 70,000 migrant workers to bring in the harvest. "It is a plain fact that without these people a lot of businesses would not be able to operate and a lot of British food would not be on the shelf," said Philip Hudson, the NFU's chief horticulture adviser. "The myth to put to bed is that UK farmers don't look for UK labour °© they do."
According to Gerry Lean, industrial relations director of the Construction Confederation, 10 per cent of employees on UK building sites are thought to be from overseas °© up to 100,000 workers, many of them with vital craft skills. "If we didn't have these people we would suffer very badly," he said.The study will be seized on by supporters of a liberal policy on migration as evidence that the Government should extend its "open door" policy to workers from Romania and Bulgaria, which are due to join the European Union in January.
Mr Fitzpatrick acknowledged that some of the 427,000 registered workers, which does not inlude self-employed workers such as builders, had come to Britain from the former Soviet bloc countries and had taken low-paid jobs, but said that a relatively high proportion were based in London and the South-east, areas which enjoy the highest pay in the country.
The findings may go some way to allaying the fears of Labour MPs who are warning that Britain is suffering from "migration fatigue" and that British workers are being squeezed out by eastern Europeans.
The human face of success from abroad
Mary Ivanova Teacher, 54, arrived four years ago from Bulgaria
I was an English teacher and worked for 32 years in a school in south-east Bulgaria, in a town called Yambol. My children are grown-up, one is married, so I thought I didn't have to look after them any more. I felt free to look for my own future. I had a friend in London and it took me only a week to find work here. I teach English as a second language to foreigners, and Bulgarian and Russian to English people. Most Londoners are very polite, I know of only one person who doesn't like foreigners and makes no secret of it. I have friends from many countries because of my job, but I also have many Bulgarian friends. We support each other emotionally and practically. I am glad I came, it gave me lots of opportunities to develop myself.
Mohamed Maigag Charity Director, 38, arrived 21 years ago from Somalia
My parents and I were asylum-seekers - my father would have been prosecuted if we'd been sent back to Somalia. It took us four years to gain refugee status. I completed my education in Britain: I read religious and Islamic studies at the University of Wales before undertaking postgraduate study. After that I worked as a freelance interpreter in various courts, including the Old Bailey. I eventually set up my own interpretation business. I helped to develop the Haringey Somali Community and Cultural Organisation, working as a youth leader there. I am an avid Arsenal fan, and also tour with my Somali band - we will be playing at the Museum of London later this year.
Mario Nova Building Consultant, 26, came three years ago from Poland
I think England is a really good country as the Government is helpful for Polish people.
When I first came here it was difficult to find work. I didn't have any friends here and it was a struggle to survive. A lot of Polish people in London get really bad jobs and are pushed to the edge, you have to have a strong personality.
I eventually found employment in construction and set up Polish Staff, a free service which helps skilled Polish workers to find work. I work 12-14 hours a day and pay taxes, every Polish friend I have pays taxes. I didn't come here for benefits and I've never used the NHS; I came here for something different.
Salah Hashimi Lawyer, 32, came to Britain from Iraq 16 years ago
I studied architecture at university but was inspired to become a lawyer while an undergraduate. I had an excellent professor, a wonderful old gentleman who really supported me. Because of him, I decided to become a solicitor.
At first, being Iraqi, it was very difficult to be recognised as a good lawyer, so I started my own practice. I called it Pinnacle, because I think we are capable of attaining the height of legal principles.
Today I deal mainly with civil litigation and human rights cases, many involving newly arrived Iraqi immigrants. I feel closest to them because of the difficulty they have integrating into British society. I try to maintain close relations with my family back in Iraq, but I have not been there since 1990.
Ovidiu Sarpe Restaurateur, 59, left Romania 27 years ago for UK
I left five kids without a mother in Romania back in 1979 - I needed to work hard for them. Ceausescu had promised free speech and travel in 1977, but it didn't come. At that time it was quite a crime to ask "why?" - I did and I lost my job. It was getting difficult and I needed to leave the country. I got a job as a waiter at a hotel. It's been tough and I've worked very hard. Sometimes I wish I could've given my children more time. When you work in Romania you get paid €100 a month. It's a huge difference here - you work on a building site for a month and can buy an apartment - anyone would be attracted by that.
The experts' view
Industry: Richard Lambert, Director General, CBI
"The UK has benefited from the hard work of migrants. They have helped with skills shortages across the economy. But it is only right that the UK now takes the time to reflect on how and when to welcome the next phase of EU accession countries."
Healthcare: Dr Beverley Malone Royal College Of Nursing
"UK nursing has been shaped and influenced by overseas nurses. Beyond any doubt, the contribution they make is as staggering as it is welcome. In some parts of the country health services would be struggling without overseas nurses."
Education: Brian Lightman, Head of St Cyres school in Penarth, Vale of Glamorgan
"We have students whose background brings different languages, religions and cultures from each of the continents.We take pride in preparing our students for life in our multi-cultural society."
Armed Forces: Colonel David Allfrey Deputy in Charge of Army Recruiting
"We have a great tradition in the forces of recruiting from our minorities as well as abroad, and they have provided excellent service to this country. I am learning a lot more about just how wonderfully rich and diverse our culture is."
Arts: Brian Sewell, Art Critic
"I don't think there have been many artists among the recent European immigrants. However, a number from Africa, India and the West Indies are now quite celebrated; Chris Ofili, above, [born in Britain to Nigerian parents] for example."
Science: Professor Julia Higgins Vice-President and Foreign Secretary of The Royal Society
"Science is a truly global endeavour, and the UK has benefited from the circulation of scientific talent. Nobel Prize winners such as the American James Watson, above, help create intellectual hotspots."
Sport: David Moorcroft CEO, UK Athletics
"One thing I am proud of is that we are the most diverse and equitable of sports. Immigration over the past 30 or 40 years has been a huge benefit to athletics. We would not have had the success we have if immigration policy had been more restrictive."
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1221080.ece
The Independent: Untold story of the massacre
of Marjayoun leaves blame on both sides of the border
Robert Fisk
Published: 23 August 2006
There are few marks on the road where the missiles hit the innocents of Marjayoun. But there are the memories of what happened immediately after the Israeli airstrike on the convoy of 3,000 people after dark on 11 August: a 16-year old Christian girl screaming "I want my Daddy" as her father's mutilated body lay a few metres away from her; the town mukhtar discovering that his wife, Collette, had been decapitated by one of the Israeli missiles; the Lebanese Red Cross volunteer who went into the darkness of wartime Lebanon to give water and sandwiches to the refugees and was cut down by another missile, and whose friends could not reach him to save his life.
There are those who break down when they recall the massacre at Joub Jannine - and there are the Israelis who gave permission to the refugees to leave Marjayoun, who specified what roads they should use, and who then attacked them with pilotless, missile-firing drone aircraft. Five days after being asked to account for the tragedy, they had last night still not bothered to explain how they killed at least seven refugees and wounded 36 others just three days before a UN ceasefire came into effect.
It is one of the untold stories of the Israeli-Hizbollah war; there are others - infinitely more bloody - but the ultimate tragedy of these largely Christian refugees involved a raft of Lebanese officers and ministers, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, the US ambassador and the Israeli Defence Ministry.
It all began on 10 August when the Israelis staged a small ground offensive into Lebanon after a month of massive bombing of Lebanese villages in the south. Brig-Gen Adnan Daoud, commanding a mixed force of 350 Lebanese paramilitary police and soldiers at the barracks in the pretty Christian town of Marjayoun, found a man at the gate at 9am, an Israeli officer calling himself Col Ashaya. Brig-Gen Daoud, whose men were not fighting the Israelis, called the Lebanese Interior Minister, Ahmad Fatfat, who "endorsed" - Fatfat's word - Daoud's decision to let him in. "Ashaya" spent four hours looking round the barracks to assure himself that there were no Hizbollah members there. Then he left. Daoud put a white flag on the guardhouse.
But at 4pm that afternoon, an Israeli tank unit approached the barracks and started to shoot their way in. Daoud was again told by Fatfat to let in the Israelis who, according to Daoud, informed him that "we are the occupiers and we are in charge". An Israeli officer then locked Daoud into a room.
Thousands of Christians in Marjayoun now feared for their lives. According to several aid workers, Hizbollah were firing rockets from behind the town's hospital, which was immediately abandoned by the Lebanese Red Cross. The inhabitants believed, with good reason, that Hizbollah's missiles would be redirected from Israel on to Marjayoun itself now that the town had been taken over by Israeli troops and tanks.
Locked in his room, Daoud now called Fatfat again and Fatfat called the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, who, by chance, was talking to the US ambassador to Beirut, Jeffrey Feltman. Feltman - either via the State Department or directly to the US embassy in Tel Aviv - told his diplomats to call the Israeli Defence Ministry; and they swiftly replied that there should be no Israeli troops in Daoud's barracks. But the Israelis in Marjayoun refused to believe what Daoud told them.
Marjayoun's inhabitants, however, were now in a state of panic and Daoud called Fatfat at 7pm to start arranging for a refugee convoy north from Marjayoun to Beirut. The Lebanese government, according to Fatfat, called the United Nations command in southern Lebanon at 5am the next day, 11 August, to seek clearance from the Israelis to allow the thousands of refugees to be convoyed north. The UN, according to the government in Beirut, subsequently notified Gen Abdulrahman Shaiti, assistant to the head of Lebanese military intelligence, that the convoy had permission from the Israelis to travel.
Two UN armoured vehicles, crewed by Indian troops, subsequently turned up in Marjayoun to find at least 3,000 people, including Shia Muslim refugees from the surrounding, devastated villages, waiting to leave. "We had a total agreement that they would go out to the Bekaa [Valley] from [Alain] Pellegrini [the UN commander]," Fatfat says. "The road was also agreed." But there were delays. Part of the road ahead had been heavily bombed and had to be repaired. It was 4pm before the convoy crept slowly out of Marjayoun, Daoud's 350 soldiers in the lead. The UN vehicles then abandoned the convoy at Hasbaya, the northern limit of UN operations, leaving the refugees dangerously exposed. The UN had already warned the Lebanese authorities that it was late for the convoy to leave.
"They went so slowly, I was enraged," a relief worker recalls. "People at friendly villages would come out and give the refugees food and water and want to talk to them and people would stop to greet old friends as if this was tourism. The convoy was only going at five miles an hour. It was getting dark." The 3,000 refugees now trailed up the Bekaa after nightfall and were approaching the ancient Kifraya vineyards at Joub Jannine when disaster struck them at 8pm.
"The first bomb hit the second car," Karamallah Dagher, a reporter for Reuters, said. "I was half way back down the road and my friend Elie Salami was standing there, asking me if I had any spare gasoline. That's when the second missile struck and Elie's head and shoulders were blown away. His daughter Sally is 16 and she jumped from the car and cried out: 'I want my Daddy, I want my Daddy.' But he was gone." Speaking of the killings yesterday, Dagher breaks down and cries. He tried to carry his arthritic mother from his own car but she complained that he was hurting her so he put her back in the passenger seat and sat beside her, waiting for a violent death which mercifully never came. But it arrived for Collette Makdissi al-Rashed, wife of the mukhtar, who was beheaded in her Cherokee jeep, and for a member of the Tahta family from from Deir Mimas, and for two other refugees, and for a Lebanese soldier and for 35-year-old Mikhael Jbaili, the Red Cross volunteer from Zahle, who was blasted into the air when a rocket exploded behind him.
"There was panic," the Marjayoun mayor, Fouad Hamra, said. "Many people drove away. They had a clearance; everything should have been OK. If Hizbollah was supposed to be carrying weapons at night, they would have been travelling in the opposite direction!"
Who flew the drones? An Israeli soldier of the invasion force? A nameless officer in the Israel Defence Ministry in Tel Aviv? The Israelis knew a civilian convoy was on the road. Yet they sent their pilotless machines to attack it. Why? Last night, the Israeli Defence Ministry had not responded to inquiries from reporters who asked for the answer last Friday.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1221078.ece
posted by attilav at 16:49
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home