The Iraq Study Group Report — Has the Empire Really Failed?
Publication time: 27 December 2006, 12:07
"The Failure of Empire" is the title I gave to the closing chapter of my book Naked Imperialism (Monthly Review Press, 2006). That chapter first appeared almost two years ago as a January 2005 article in Monthly Review. It began: "The United States is facing the prospect of a major defeat in Iraq that is likely to constitute a serious setback in the ongoing campaign to expand the U.S. empire." It ended: "The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq may be creating the conditions for a civil war, lighting a powder keg under the entire Middle East."
These observations have been borne out by subsequent events. Yet, at a time when even the new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, has stated that the United States is "not winning" the war in Iraq, it is important to recognize that there is also a sense in which the empire may not have entirely failed — at least not yet. The war is almost universally viewed as a political and military disaster for the U.S. empire. Nevertheless, Washington is still hoping amidst the devastation to hold on to some of its long-term economic and strategic goals in Iraq. Realization of these will have made the war "worth it" from the standpoint of the U.S. ruling class, irrespective of the cost in lives and treasure.
There is no doubt what these spoils are: (1) control of Iraqi oil reserves (the second largest in the world), (2) "geopolitical gains" (or greater domination of the vital Middle East oil region), and (3) strengthening of U.S. global hegemony as a result of this new oil imperium. Crucial to the realization of these spoils, the United States has not only been forcibly occupying Iraq, but has also been looking to the future by building long-term (usually referred to as "permanent") military bases in Iraq where it plans to continue to locate substantial military forces and capabilities even after it has ostensibly "withdrawn" its troops. Such bases have but one undisguised purpose: the projection of U.S. imperial power over Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and the surrounding regions as part of the larger global projection of U.S power.
Little noticed or commented on in media discussions of the recently released Iraq Study Group Report is that one of its proposed "Milestones" for "the end of 2006-early 2007" is the Iraqi government's passage of a "new petroleum law." Washington not only helped to draft this law (in conjunction with representatives of the large oil corporations), but is playing a role in ensuring its passage. The full details of the new legislation are not available, but it is clear that it is intended to establish "production-sharing agreements." Production-sharing agreements are the contemporary version of the old imperial concessions system, giving foreign corporations control over the production and marketing of Iraqi oil reserves and the lion's share of the profits.
In line with this, the Iraq Study Group Report's Recommendation 63 states: (1) "The United States should encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies," and (2) "The United States should assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise, in order to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability." In other words, the goal is the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry to an extent that does not currently exist for any major petroleum-exporting country. This will open up the country's oil fields to full exploitation by foreign corporations (in which U.S. and British oil multinationals are expected to dominate). The new production sharing agreements will so enhance the value of the global energy firms that enter into these contracts that these corporations will be able to book the value of the Iraqi oil production/reserves that they control, as assets in their own corporate accounts (see "Notes from the Editors," Monthly Review, December 2006).
Given the antiwar movement's earlier "No Blood for Oil" slogan, the U.S. political and economic establishment and the U.S. corporate media have of course done everything they can to conceal and downplay the significance of oil in the Iraq equation. This can be seen in a front page article in the New York Times on December 9th entitled "Iraqis Near Deal on Distribution of Oil Revenues," addressing the new Iraqi oil law. The article focuses entirely on the issue of the distribution of oil revenues between Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, a crucial issue in the formation of a new Iraqi state. But something is missing. Nowhere in its extensive and detailed analysis does the New York Times mention that in the new law the Iraqi oil industry is to be effectively privatized, with real control over the oil reserves turned over largely to foreign corporations through production-sharing agreements that no major oil exporter has accepted willingly.
To be sure, Recommendation 23 of the Iraq Study Group Report would appear to have helped alleviate all such concerns by declaring that "The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq's oil." But the fact that the President Bush is asked to "restate" this suggests that his original statement to this effect was not believed by the Iraqis, and for good reason. Although the United States has offered "guarantees" of Iraq's de jure control over its own oil, the production-sharing agreements in the draft petroleum law are designed to wrest from it de facto control.
The non-treatment of this issue by the New York Times contrasts sharply with the analysis only two days before in London's Financial Times (December 7, 2006) in an article entitled "Oil Groups Dream of Day They Can Enter Iraq." There we are told: "Political squabbles have overshadowed what could be the historic aspect of the legislation: . . . the law is expected finally to reverse the 1972 nationalization of the industry. According to drafts now circulating, it would allow various forms of foreign partnership, possibly including production-sharing agreements. Such contracts are preferred by oil companies . . . giving them greater scope for gain if oil prices rise." Further, the Financial Times states: "Big oil multinationals struggling to increase their own production and add to reserves have been desperate to be given a chance to develop Iraq's oilfields." One British Petroleum official is quoted as saying, "The whole industry is interested in Iraq, including us." "From a global perspective," the Financial Times tells its mostly corporate readers, "Iraq's oil is becoming increasingly important to overall supply as demand accelerates, from China in particular, and output from fields in the U.S., Europe and parts of Asia slows with their advancing age." Iraq's production, the Financial Times contends, needs to increase by 4.9 percent every year until 2030 to meet world demand.
The main obstacle to this "Oil Groups Dream" is of course lack of security, which greatly magnifies risks. Iraq needs to be under firm, strategic military control. This means that it must be ruled over by either a strong but exceedingly compliant state or by an imperial force (or more likely some combination of the two). Only in this way can the decades-long production-sharing agreements and the vast potential profits to be derived from them be secured. As the same BP official states, "The security situation would have to improve dramatically if oil companies like us were to commit themselves to long-term exploration and development." This boils down to finding a way of making sure that the Iraqi oil fields remain within the U.S. empire.
It is from this vantage point, in which Iraqi oil looms ever larger, that we can understand the main features of the Iraq Study Group Report, the most comprehensive plan yet available for ending the war in Iraq while securing U.S. power over the country. Contrary to the initial media accounts, this report by the bipartisan foreign policy "realists" (James Baker III, Lee Hamilton, and their co-authors) is not simply about how the United States can exit from Iraq. Rather it seeks to do so while retaining the spoils seized in the war. Maintaining control over Iraq thus still takes precedence over complete withdrawal. The empire it seems has not yet admitted failure and while wounded is still seeking to dictate the terms.
The Iraq Study Group actually envisions a "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq in the immediate future to accelerate the formation of a strong Iraqi army and to stabilize Baghdad. Thus their report states that "the United States should significantly increase the number of U.S. military personnel, including combat troops, imbedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units."
Indeed, the bipartisan "realists" envision something more like a partial withdrawal and redeployment of U.S. forces than a complete withdrawal from Iraq. Here it is important to recognize that despite the report's insistence that "all combat brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq" by early 2008, this is understood as still leaving a large role for U.S. troops: in the areas of "force protection," as "units embedded with Iraqi forces, in rapid-reaction and special operations teams, and in training, equipping, advising . . . and search and rescue" . . . as well as intelligence and other support operations — all of which are included in the Iraq Study Group Report recommendations. Indeed, the plan offered by the Iraq Study Group would involve multiplying by as much as five times the number of U.S. troops embedded in Iraqi forces for an indefinite period.
Further, we are told that "a vital mission of the U.S. military would be to maintain indefinitely rapid-reaction teams and special operations teams. These teams would be available to undertake strike missions against al Qaeda in Iraq when the opportunity arises, as well as for other missions considered vital by the U.S. commander in Iraq." The U.S. would also continue to train the Iraq police forces, while moving the "police commandos" of the national police (paramilitary death squads originally promoted by the United States — see "Notes from the Editors," Monthly Review, May 2006) into the Iraqi Army, where the United States would have greater control over their counterinsurgency operations
In case there should be a misunderstanding about the continuing U.S. military role in Iraq, the report explicitly states: "Even after the United States has moved all combat brigades out of Iraq we would maintain a considerable military presence in the region, with our still significant force in Iraq and with our powerful air, ground, and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as an increased presence in Afghanistan" (italics added). These forces would be available to support the Iraqi government, block the disintegration of the country, fight terrorism, train equip and support the Iraqi troops, and deter foreign aggression. In short, they would be available for all conceivable military missions necessary to control Iraq and to limit its "sovereignty" to that of a subservient neo-colony.
The Iraq Study Group's widely noted Recommendation 22 underscores that "the President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq." But the next sentence in that recommendation undermines the first by declaring: "If the Iraq government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government." Such "temporary" bases can obviously be of very long duration.
The most ominous statement in the Iraq Study Group Report relates to the dismemberment of the country. The United States, the report says, should not support political "devolution to three regions" and thus the weakening, as critics suggest, of a strong Arab oil state. Nevertheless: "If events were to move irreversibly in this direction, the United States should manage the situation to . . . minimize regional instability. The United States should support as much as possible central control by government authorities in Baghdad, particularly on the question of oil revenues." Although this might be read as U.S. support for stability in Iraq and for fair distribution of oil, it is more credible to understand it as a statement of the need to maintain the empire of oil, above all other ends: including the continuation of Iraq as viable a nation-state, and the prevention of its dismemberment.
All of this points to the fact that the U.S. empire has not entirely failed in Iraq, at least not yet. From the standpoint of powerful vested interests in the United States, the Iraq War may still be seen as worth the costs. Oil after all is more valuable than blood, especially the blood of others (including the innocent). Iraq may be a political disaster but it remains an economic and geopolitical prize of incalculable dimensions. As a result the empire is not yet letting go. We remain in an age of Naked Imperialism.
Source: ZmagOrg
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Hindutva Parties out of influence in Politics in Asom
The symbolic defeat of Hindutva Anti-Muslim BJP , AGP in the 2006 elections, particularly in Asom, was a good news for Muslims in the country. The Hindutva family ( BJP , AGP , AASU , AJYCP , etc ) and their supporters have been campaigning to brand the Muslims of NE as "foreigners" , who have find a section of the local print and electronic media sympathetic to their cause for a long time . .But the fact is that prior to independence of India in 1947 , Asom NE was a Muslim majority region . After the independence , Muslims were made minority in the state by transferring the Muslim majority district of Sylhet to Pakistan , and also reorganizing Asom into smaller states . During the 1962 war with China , the than Prime Minister of India Mr Nehru " was sorry for the peoples of NE "Muslims from AsomNE have been so disheartened by the ever-rising star of the BJP-AGP combine over the last decade that they can only rejoice at any relative setback that the party can befall.The RSS , BJP , AGP , AASU etc are known by different names , yet their objective is the same . They have been defaming the Muslims in Asom NE as foreigners in the same spirit and working to reduce them to an insignificant minority by deleting their names from the electoral rolls and deporting them to Bangladesh .The Supreme Court on 051206 has struck down the amendment to the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 brought in by the UPA Government early 2006 after the repeal of the IM(DT) Act, A Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Markandeya Katju directed the Union Government to constitutewithin four months sufficient number of tribunals to detect infiltration into Asom. The apex court had in July, 2005, struck down as "unconstitutional" the Illegal Migration (Detection by Tribunal) Act (IMDT). After quashing of the Act, the Central Government through a fresh notification in February 2006 issued the Foreigner (Tribunals for Assam) Order, 2006, which was challenged by AGP MP Sarbananda Sonowal and BJP leader Charan Deka. In the petitions, it was alleged that the notification was nothing but a repetition of the quashed IM(DT) Act which put on the onus of proving a person an illegal foreigner on the complainant. The petitioners, who were represented by senior counsel Ashok Desa! Arun Jaitley and Ravi Shankar Prasad, had submitted that if the notification was to be implemented it would be impossible to detect and deport illegal migrants.The Brahmin Propaganda RSS chief KS Sudarshan on 101206 called upon the people of the North-east to unite against imperialistic designs of the Christian church as also the Muslim fundamentalists who had set their eyes on the region to further their plans for dominance of their religions. "Both the Christian church and the Muslim fundamentalists are engaged in an aggressive pursuit of their evil designs of imperialism across the world, and the Northeast happens to be an important area of their focus due to its strategic location," Sudarshan said while addressing a Enlightened Citizens' Meet at the District Library auditorium in Guwahati. Terming the unabated infiltration from Bangladesh, increasing activities of the church aimed at spreading Christianity major problems faced by the country, Sudarshan said that only a united front from the people could defeat such evil forces. Another Brahmin Propagandist DN Bezboruah, former editor of The Sentinel, in his speech, Termin!
India as the only country where the majority is rendered second class citizens due to the unabashed minority-appeasement policy of the governments, Bezboruah said that even hard facts and data about the status of the Muslim minority (i.e. their abnormal increase in population) were sought to be brushed under the carpet for upholding the so-called secularism. Bezboruah said that the time had come for all the Hindus to unite, discarding their differences on grounds of caste. "Nowhere in the world can one witness such blatant appeasement of the minorities to the extent that the majority is in grave danger of losing their identity. The only way out of this morass is a united stand by the Hindus," he said. Another Brahmin Propagandist DN Chakravorty, editor of Dainik Asom, was of the view that the openness of the Hindu religion was being taken advantage of by outsiders, putting in jeopard! In the process the very existence of the indigenous population. "The need of the hour is to have unity, uplift and understanding among the Hindus," he said.Another Brahmin Propagandist Former State Chief Secretary JP Rajkhowa stressed the need for stern opposition to the move of some minority organisations to bring in a clone of the IM (DT) that would be applicable to the entire country following the Supreme Court's repeal of the IM (DT) and the Foreigners' (Tribunal) Order. "All political partiers and organizations of the State should evolve a common stand to thwart this sinister design," he said.Now let's see how can peoples like editors of newspapers and ex-bureaucrates attend a function attended by an organization like RSS; the group of fundamentalistsfanatics with no respect to AsomNE DIVERSITY?!!! Its ridiculous..The AASU Adviser - Brahmin S Bhattacharya along with his puppet's enjoyed a long night in the AASU head office in Guwahati, for their future agenda of anti-muslim propaganda. The same AASU leaders in their anti-muslim agitation of the early 80's of last century killed 3000 muslims on one night in a village, their the than leaders Brahmin P K Mahanta became CM of Asom, as a reward for killing the Muslims.The laws under which the Muslims were expelled from Asom are: (I) The Foreigners' Act, 1946, (II) The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, (III) The Foreigners' (Tribunals) Order, 1964, (IV) The prevention of Infiltration from Pakistan Plan, 1964 known as PIP Plan and (V) The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. Except the last one all laws are communally over toned and heavily biased against the Muslims of India. Brahmin P. K. Mahanta who was the top leader of the agitation against Muslims and CM of Asom for two terms, while commenting on the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act has, in his book, 'The tussle between the citizens and foreigners in Assam,' correctly observed: "It is not at all difficult to read the Act between the lines. It is religion oriented. The Act openly encouraged free entry into Asom of a particular religion or community on the pretext of victims of disturbances in East Pakistan. It can undoubtedly be said that this Act was largely responsible for the alarming population growth during the decades 1951 - 1961 and 961 -1971. ln secular ndia, the Hindu East Pakistanis were permitted to settle as refugees and Muslim East Pakistanis were thrown out,"Now the Muslims of Asom NE should have to acknowledge the situation - of post IMDT , its knots about the influence of Hindutva and pro-hindutva on scalping the act. The Muslims of NE should have to know about the Brahmin's policy of propagating the hate Muslims campaign on a daily basis and how to stop these hate mongers. The Muslims should have to push back these Brahmin's High caste beyond the borders of Asom NE .By Afdal Hussain ( Assam)
India as the only country where the majority is rendered second class citizens due to the unabashed minority-appeasement policy of the governments, Bezboruah said that even hard facts and data about the status of the Muslim minority (i.e. their abnormal increase in population) were sought to be brushed under the carpet for upholding the so-called secularism. Bezboruah said that the time had come for all the Hindus to unite, discarding their differences on grounds of caste. "Nowhere in the world can one witness such blatant appeasement of the minorities to the extent that the majority is in grave danger of losing their identity. The only way out of this morass is a united stand by the Hindus," he said. Another Brahmin Propagandist DN Chakravorty, editor of Dainik Asom, was of the view that the openness of the Hindu religion was being taken advantage of by outsiders, putting in jeopard! In the process the very existence of the indigenous population. "The need of the hour is to have unity, uplift and understanding among the Hindus," he said.Another Brahmin Propagandist Former State Chief Secretary JP Rajkhowa stressed the need for stern opposition to the move of some minority organisations to bring in a clone of the IM (DT) that would be applicable to the entire country following the Supreme Court's repeal of the IM (DT) and the Foreigners' (Tribunal) Order. "All political partiers and organizations of the State should evolve a common stand to thwart this sinister design," he said.Now let's see how can peoples like editors of newspapers and ex-bureaucrates attend a function attended by an organization like RSS; the group of fundamentalistsfanatics with no respect to AsomNE DIVERSITY?!!! Its ridiculous..The AASU Adviser - Brahmin S Bhattacharya along with his puppet's enjoyed a long night in the AASU head office in Guwahati, for their future agenda of anti-muslim propaganda. The same AASU leaders in their anti-muslim agitation of the early 80's of last century killed 3000 muslims on one night in a village, their the than leaders Brahmin P K Mahanta became CM of Asom, as a reward for killing the Muslims.The laws under which the Muslims were expelled from Asom are: (I) The Foreigners' Act, 1946, (II) The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950, (III) The Foreigners' (Tribunals) Order, 1964, (IV) The prevention of Infiltration from Pakistan Plan, 1964 known as PIP Plan and (V) The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983. Except the last one all laws are communally over toned and heavily biased against the Muslims of India. Brahmin P. K. Mahanta who was the top leader of the agitation against Muslims and CM of Asom for two terms, while commenting on the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act has, in his book, 'The tussle between the citizens and foreigners in Assam,' correctly observed: "It is not at all difficult to read the Act between the lines. It is religion oriented. The Act openly encouraged free entry into Asom of a particular religion or community on the pretext of victims of disturbances in East Pakistan. It can undoubtedly be said that this Act was largely responsible for the alarming population growth during the decades 1951 - 1961 and 961 -1971. ln secular ndia, the Hindu East Pakistanis were permitted to settle as refugees and Muslim East Pakistanis were thrown out,"Now the Muslims of Asom NE should have to acknowledge the situation - of post IMDT , its knots about the influence of Hindutva and pro-hindutva on scalping the act. The Muslims of NE should have to know about the Brahmin's policy of propagating the hate Muslims campaign on a daily basis and how to stop these hate mongers. The Muslims should have to push back these Brahmin's High caste beyond the borders of Asom NE .By Afdal Hussain ( Assam)
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
QUITE A LINE-UP
A woman walks past a painting featuring Malaysia`s former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad and his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi on display during the Id ul-Fitr open house celebration hosted by Mr Abdullah Ahmad Badawi in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday.
JOY UNCONFINED
JOY UNCONFINED :Children in a playful mood after offering Id Namaj at Red Road, in Kolkata on Tuesday
Pakistan cricket captain Younis Khan and the team’s bowling coach Waqar Younis offer Id prayers at a mosque in Chandigarh on Tuesday.
Pakistan cricket captain Younis Khan and the team’s bowling coach Waqar Younis offer Id prayers at a mosque in Chandigarh on Tuesday.
Children greet each other on Id at Jama Masjid in Delhi on Tuesday. 24/10/06
Children greet each other on Id at Jama Masjid in Delhi on Tuesday. 24/10/06
Eid in Guwahati 24/10/06
A festive atmosphere prevails at the Machkhowa Idgah in Guwahati on Tuesday on the occasion of Id-ul-Fitre. 24/10/06
Muslims offering sallah on the occasion of Idd-ul-Fitr at Machkhowa Idd Gah in Guwahati, on Tuesday.24/10/06
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of creation,The merciful, the CompassionateRuler of the Day of JudgementHelp us, lead us in the path.— Holy Koran
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Anti-Muslim Attacks Surge in UK
Anti-Muslim Attacks Surge in UK
IslamOnline.net & Newspapers
Many Muslim women in Britain had their face veils torn and verbally abused after Straw's controversial call. (Reuters)
CAIRO — Physical and verbal attacks against British Muslims have been on the rise since former foreign minister Jack Straw's call for Muslim women to remove their face veils, reported The Independent on Saturday, October 14.
"…We have noticed a rise in Islamophobic attacks. This time last year we did not have so many incidents," said Azad Ali, the chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum.
Last week, Straw, leader of the House of Commons, wrote in his local newspaper that he asks Muslim women to show their face in the presence of female staffers when they visit his constituency office in Blackburn, northwest England, seeking assistance.
Straw also said that he would prefer if Muslim women did not wear the face veil at all.
Prime Minister Tony Blair backed Straw for raising an important issue in a "sensible and measured way."
Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Blair's likely successor, also insisted that it would be better for Britain if fewer Muslim women wore face veils.
Since then, racist attacks targeting veiled Muslim women have surged.
A day after Straw's remarks, a white man pulled out the veil of a young Muslim woman and threw it to the ground at Canning Town Tube station in east London.
Another Muslim woman had her veil torn from her face by a white man who uttered racial abuses as the woman waited at a bus-stop in Liverpool's Toxteth district.
On the same day, a young veiled Muslim girl was attacked by three youths in Straw's Blackburn constituency.
One young man threw a newspaper at the Muslim girl and shouted "Jack has told you to take off your veil".
A 21-year-old Turkish student was also verbally abused by a middle-aged white woman outside a supermarket in Canterbury, who told the Muslim student that she hated her presence in Britain and called on her to leave.
On the same day in Hackney, east London, a black Muslim woman wearing a veil was getting off a bus when a passenger shouted out: "Why don't you show your, lovely hair?"
Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations.
As for the face veil, the majority of Muslim scholars believe that a woman is not obliged to cover her face or hands.
Alienated
Muslim leader have blamed the government for pushing the Muslim minority into "ghettos".
"The [Muslim] community feels that there is always something negative in the news about Muslims," Ali said.
"We feel very alienated by comments from people such as (Home Secretary) John Reid. Similar things have come from the Conservative camp," said Ali, referring to Reid's remarks during the Labour Party conference that extremist Muslim "bullies" must be faced down.
Two days after Reid's remarks, a group of white and black youths attacked the Jamia Masjid mosque in Preston, throwing bricks at cars while Muslim worshippers were performing prayers inside.
The following day, Falkirk's Islamic centre was set on fire, causing £10,000 damage.
A day later, the Medina Dairy, which is owned by a Muslim family in Windsor, came under siege by up to 30 people with fire bombs thrown into.
In Scotland, a Muslim preacher was hurt in an apparently racially motivated attack inside his mosque in the Scottish city of Glasgow, police, health officials and witnesses said Saturday.
Muslim leaders have pinpointed a growing sense of alienation from other communities, particularly among the young, saying Straw and his supporters had no point when they argued that the face veil impede integration.
They said the government should have addressed the underlying causes of this alienation like unemployment and poor education that had led to areas becoming "ghettoized".
A government-backed study showed in May that the Muslim minority in Britain — estimated at some 1.8 million people — faced some of the most acute conditions of multiple deprivation.
In a recent interview with IslamOnline.net, MCB Secretary General Muhammad Abdul Bari accused the Blair government of marginalizing the major Muslim organizations in Britain for the sake of unrepresentative bodies and individuals.
IslamOnline.net & Newspapers
Many Muslim women in Britain had their face veils torn and verbally abused after Straw's controversial call. (Reuters)
CAIRO — Physical and verbal attacks against British Muslims have been on the rise since former foreign minister Jack Straw's call for Muslim women to remove their face veils, reported The Independent on Saturday, October 14.
"…We have noticed a rise in Islamophobic attacks. This time last year we did not have so many incidents," said Azad Ali, the chairman of the Muslim Safety Forum.
Last week, Straw, leader of the House of Commons, wrote in his local newspaper that he asks Muslim women to show their face in the presence of female staffers when they visit his constituency office in Blackburn, northwest England, seeking assistance.
Straw also said that he would prefer if Muslim women did not wear the face veil at all.
Prime Minister Tony Blair backed Straw for raising an important issue in a "sensible and measured way."
Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, Blair's likely successor, also insisted that it would be better for Britain if fewer Muslim women wore face veils.
Since then, racist attacks targeting veiled Muslim women have surged.
A day after Straw's remarks, a white man pulled out the veil of a young Muslim woman and threw it to the ground at Canning Town Tube station in east London.
Another Muslim woman had her veil torn from her face by a white man who uttered racial abuses as the woman waited at a bus-stop in Liverpool's Toxteth district.
On the same day, a young veiled Muslim girl was attacked by three youths in Straw's Blackburn constituency.
One young man threw a newspaper at the Muslim girl and shouted "Jack has told you to take off your veil".
A 21-year-old Turkish student was also verbally abused by a middle-aged white woman outside a supermarket in Canterbury, who told the Muslim student that she hated her presence in Britain and called on her to leave.
On the same day in Hackney, east London, a black Muslim woman wearing a veil was getting off a bus when a passenger shouted out: "Why don't you show your, lovely hair?"
Islam sees hijab as an obligatory code of dress, not a religious symbol displaying one’s affiliations.
As for the face veil, the majority of Muslim scholars believe that a woman is not obliged to cover her face or hands.
Alienated
Muslim leader have blamed the government for pushing the Muslim minority into "ghettos".
"The [Muslim] community feels that there is always something negative in the news about Muslims," Ali said.
"We feel very alienated by comments from people such as (Home Secretary) John Reid. Similar things have come from the Conservative camp," said Ali, referring to Reid's remarks during the Labour Party conference that extremist Muslim "bullies" must be faced down.
Two days after Reid's remarks, a group of white and black youths attacked the Jamia Masjid mosque in Preston, throwing bricks at cars while Muslim worshippers were performing prayers inside.
The following day, Falkirk's Islamic centre was set on fire, causing £10,000 damage.
A day later, the Medina Dairy, which is owned by a Muslim family in Windsor, came under siege by up to 30 people with fire bombs thrown into.
In Scotland, a Muslim preacher was hurt in an apparently racially motivated attack inside his mosque in the Scottish city of Glasgow, police, health officials and witnesses said Saturday.
Muslim leaders have pinpointed a growing sense of alienation from other communities, particularly among the young, saying Straw and his supporters had no point when they argued that the face veil impede integration.
They said the government should have addressed the underlying causes of this alienation like unemployment and poor education that had led to areas becoming "ghettoized".
A government-backed study showed in May that the Muslim minority in Britain — estimated at some 1.8 million people — faced some of the most acute conditions of multiple deprivation.
In a recent interview with IslamOnline.net, MCB Secretary General Muhammad Abdul Bari accused the Blair government of marginalizing the major Muslim organizations in Britain for the sake of unrepresentative bodies and individuals.
Tarun Gogoi rraying during an Iftar in Guwahati
Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi and APCC president Bhubaneswar Kalita praying during an Iftar party at Rajiv Bhavan organized by the minority cell of the Congress in the city, on Saturday. 14/10/06
Friday, June 16, 2006
Schoolchildren commute on a makeshift banana raft through the flood waters at Bordoulguri near Mangaldai in Darrang district, on Thursday
Schoolchildren commute on a makeshift banana raft through the flood waters at Bordoulguri near Mangaldai in Darrang district, on Thursday 15 /06 /06 , Axom - India
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Greek Muslim Woman Stands Elections, Right Irked
ATHENS, May 9, 2006 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - The choice of a Muslim woman to stand in local elections in Greece has stirred a bitter row between the right, which has questioned her allegiance to the nation, and the left, which has called it a groundbreaking move.
"This a daring and groundbreaking move which deserves to be fully supported," Socialist deputy and former European Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou told Reuters on Tuesday, May 9.
Gul Kara Hasan was handpicked by opposition Socialist leader George Papandreou to run for prefect of her district of northeastern Greece, where many Muslims of Turkish or Bulgarian origin live.
By choosing her, the Socialists hope to gain Muslim votes and increase the representation of women in local polls.
The 27-year-old lawyer is the first ever Muslim woman to run the nationwide local elections, due in October.
Muslim men have been elected in the past to represent the region in the Greek parliament.
If she wins, Kara Hasan would be in charge of a large part of northern Greece, in a far more visible role than that of a lawmaker.
While Kara Hasan is a Pomak -- from a small group of ethnic Slavs who reverted to Islam centuries ago -- she lives side-by-side with the 120,000-strong ethnic Turkish community in Thrace.
Muslims make about 1.3% percent of the population in overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian Greece, according to the CIA facts book.
The capital Athens is home to an estimated 100,000 Muslim Albanians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Moroccans, Syrians and Nigerians.
Criticized
The Muslim candidacy drew immediate criticism from the ruling conservatives as well as the powerful Orthodox Church.
"We are not the same as those who have another religion," argued high-ranking bishop Anthimos.
Kara Hasan's choice has highlighted the fragile relations between majority Orthodox Greeks and the small Pomak and ethnic Turkish community, which until a few years ago was almost completely excluded from mainstream Greek social life.
Some conservative politicians have gone as far as questioning her loyality to the country.
"If she wins, I wonder if she will be standing next to me at the parade for the March 25 celebration," said George Kalantzis, minister for the northern regions of Macedonia and Thrace.
He was referring to Greece's national day marking an 1821 revolution against almost 500 years of rule by the Ottoman Turks.
Arch-rivals Greece and Turkey have long fought a war of words over what Greece calls its Muslim community but Ankara labels Turkish.
Greece vehemently denies the existence of a Turkish minority.
Kara Hasan has so far sidestepped the row, saying she is ready to work for the good of the region.
"People should not by judged by labels but by their actions."
"This a daring and groundbreaking move which deserves to be fully supported," Socialist deputy and former European Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou told Reuters on Tuesday, May 9.
Gul Kara Hasan was handpicked by opposition Socialist leader George Papandreou to run for prefect of her district of northeastern Greece, where many Muslims of Turkish or Bulgarian origin live.
By choosing her, the Socialists hope to gain Muslim votes and increase the representation of women in local polls.
The 27-year-old lawyer is the first ever Muslim woman to run the nationwide local elections, due in October.
Muslim men have been elected in the past to represent the region in the Greek parliament.
If she wins, Kara Hasan would be in charge of a large part of northern Greece, in a far more visible role than that of a lawmaker.
While Kara Hasan is a Pomak -- from a small group of ethnic Slavs who reverted to Islam centuries ago -- she lives side-by-side with the 120,000-strong ethnic Turkish community in Thrace.
Muslims make about 1.3% percent of the population in overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian Greece, according to the CIA facts book.
The capital Athens is home to an estimated 100,000 Muslim Albanians, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Moroccans, Syrians and Nigerians.
Criticized
The Muslim candidacy drew immediate criticism from the ruling conservatives as well as the powerful Orthodox Church.
"We are not the same as those who have another religion," argued high-ranking bishop Anthimos.
Kara Hasan's choice has highlighted the fragile relations between majority Orthodox Greeks and the small Pomak and ethnic Turkish community, which until a few years ago was almost completely excluded from mainstream Greek social life.
Some conservative politicians have gone as far as questioning her loyality to the country.
"If she wins, I wonder if she will be standing next to me at the parade for the March 25 celebration," said George Kalantzis, minister for the northern regions of Macedonia and Thrace.
He was referring to Greece's national day marking an 1821 revolution against almost 500 years of rule by the Ottoman Turks.
Arch-rivals Greece and Turkey have long fought a war of words over what Greece calls its Muslim community but Ankara labels Turkish.
Greece vehemently denies the existence of a Turkish minority.
Kara Hasan has so far sidestepped the row, saying she is ready to work for the good of the region.
"People should not by judged by labels but by their actions."
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Number of missing females in Axom / NE
Number of missing females alarming in StateBy Prabal Kr Das
http://www.assamtribune.com/ GUWAHATI, April 22 – It is a situation that no civil society can ignore. The number of missing females, both adult and children, is creating a complex problem in the State. Many of those missing have gone untraced for long, others have not been found. Missing females undergo an experience that is usually more acute than that of their male counterparts. Some are mentally and physically abused, and even after they return home, adjustment or acceptance within society is arduous. The impact on family and friends is immense as they too endure painful absence of a loved one, have little recourse to information, and even risk social stigma. “The feeling is one of hopelessness and frustration, besides there are innuendoes to cope with!” said a young homemaker, whose college-going sister went missing from Guwahati. According to police data made available to this reporter, 3,903 females went missing in the State between 2000 and 2004. Among them the number of female children was 2,175. No less distressing is the fact that out of the total that disappeared, 2,327 could not be traced till date.The data, however, is not comprehensive, because many cases of missing females, especially adults go unreported. Social mores and family attitudes on many occasions restrain people from reporting missing adult females. It is an irony that no one would be able to quantify the magnitude of the problem. For the State the growing number of missing females has implications, which go beyond effects on family and friends. The trend could be perceived as a clear violation of human rights, if female children fall victims to trafficking. Similar is the case if adult females are compelled or induced to enter into prostitution.Several factors have been identified as responsible for females gone missing, two of them being kidnapping and elopement. The other that has in recent times appeared just as instrumental is trafficking. Talking to The Assam Tribune, Gunottam Bhuyan, IGP, CID, who is also the State nodal officer anti-trafficking, said that the emerging trend was a matter of serious concern and it required concerted action involving all stakeholders. “If the situation is not tackled now, there is a chance it would evolve into something that we cannot cope with. The rise in numbers of the missing would require resources, which might not be available.”Like him, those acquainted with the situation favour three basic steps to be implemented – prevention, prosecution and precaution. All three would have to be promoted by members of the police, NGOs and other welfare bodies. However, the step that should precede these should be building up a database. Till now, the State Government does not have a comprehensive list of missing persons with their identifying details and other information. The public also need to be made aware about the need for speedy reporting of missing females.According to Bhuyan, two other measures – rescue and rehabilitation – are required to redress the problem of missing females. “While we have witnessed rescue taking place from time to time, rehabilitation efforts should be redoubled. That should take care of the victim’s mental, physical as well as economic requirements.” The problem is even more complex while dealing with missing female children. They are often the worst sufferers and carry mental scars, which are hard to heal. In order to rescue and rehabilitate them, NGOs and other civil society groups have a role that is yet to filled in the State.
http://www.assamtribune.com/ GUWAHATI, April 22 – It is a situation that no civil society can ignore. The number of missing females, both adult and children, is creating a complex problem in the State. Many of those missing have gone untraced for long, others have not been found. Missing females undergo an experience that is usually more acute than that of their male counterparts. Some are mentally and physically abused, and even after they return home, adjustment or acceptance within society is arduous. The impact on family and friends is immense as they too endure painful absence of a loved one, have little recourse to information, and even risk social stigma. “The feeling is one of hopelessness and frustration, besides there are innuendoes to cope with!” said a young homemaker, whose college-going sister went missing from Guwahati. According to police data made available to this reporter, 3,903 females went missing in the State between 2000 and 2004. Among them the number of female children was 2,175. No less distressing is the fact that out of the total that disappeared, 2,327 could not be traced till date.The data, however, is not comprehensive, because many cases of missing females, especially adults go unreported. Social mores and family attitudes on many occasions restrain people from reporting missing adult females. It is an irony that no one would be able to quantify the magnitude of the problem. For the State the growing number of missing females has implications, which go beyond effects on family and friends. The trend could be perceived as a clear violation of human rights, if female children fall victims to trafficking. Similar is the case if adult females are compelled or induced to enter into prostitution.Several factors have been identified as responsible for females gone missing, two of them being kidnapping and elopement. The other that has in recent times appeared just as instrumental is trafficking. Talking to The Assam Tribune, Gunottam Bhuyan, IGP, CID, who is also the State nodal officer anti-trafficking, said that the emerging trend was a matter of serious concern and it required concerted action involving all stakeholders. “If the situation is not tackled now, there is a chance it would evolve into something that we cannot cope with. The rise in numbers of the missing would require resources, which might not be available.”Like him, those acquainted with the situation favour three basic steps to be implemented – prevention, prosecution and precaution. All three would have to be promoted by members of the police, NGOs and other welfare bodies. However, the step that should precede these should be building up a database. Till now, the State Government does not have a comprehensive list of missing persons with their identifying details and other information. The public also need to be made aware about the need for speedy reporting of missing females.According to Bhuyan, two other measures – rescue and rehabilitation – are required to redress the problem of missing females. “While we have witnessed rescue taking place from time to time, rehabilitation efforts should be redoubled. That should take care of the victim’s mental, physical as well as economic requirements.” The problem is even more complex while dealing with missing female children. They are often the worst sufferers and carry mental scars, which are hard to heal. In order to rescue and rehabilitate them, NGOs and other civil society groups have a role that is yet to filled in the State.
Monday, April 03, 2006
New Christian pro-Israel lobby powerful than AIPAC
The Jewish lobby has long had a powerful influence on the U.S. foreign policy but there is growing evidence that Israel now found strong support from American Christians who are forging an alliance with American Jewish organizations.
A U.S. Televangelist recently announced that he will launch a new Christian pro-Israel lobby that is expected to be more powerful than the U.S.‘s largest pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), according to Israel‘s daily Haaretz.
John Hagee, the founder and senior pastor of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas - which includes more than 18,000 members - announced his plans at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represents 52 national Jewish groups.
He told Jewish community leaders that 40 million (out of the 50 million) evangelical Christians in the United States back Israel, adding that he is determined to use this power to help the state of Israel by launching a powerful Christian pro-Israel lobby.
More than 400 hawkish Christian community leaders, who are well-known pro-Israeli supporters, met in February to discuss the establishment of the new lobby. Other than Hagee, its leaders include evangelist George Morrison; fundamentalist Baptist minister Jerry Falwell; and Gary Bauer, president of the American Values organization.
“A force to be reckoned with”
Though Israel has always enjoyed a broad support among the American public, its most vocal and influential supporters were American Jews. But political analyst note that this began to change in recent years, as Christians took on an increasingly important role in American politics, particularly since George W. Bush recaptured the White House for Republicans in 2000.
"President Bush's election gave Christian conservatives a measure of influence with the executive branch of the United States government that they had not enjoyed since the Reagan administration," according to Robert P. George, a professor of politics at Princeton University and an astute Beltway observer. "Their influence is greater than it was with the administration of President Bush's father and, of course, they had no influence with Clinton."
Hence, according to George, "Christian conservatives are a force to be reckoned with in Washington. They are not in a position to dictate policy, but they almost always influence it on issues of concern to them." And, of course, one of those issues of concern is Israel.
Some analysts also say that the September 11 attacks reinforced many Christians‘ support for the Jewish state. "I think popular American support for Israel, certainly after 9/11, has gone back up again," says Glickman, a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture who served in the United States Congress for 18 years. "After 9/11, that support is firmer now than it was before“ he said.
“Political earthquake”
According to Hagee, the new Israel lobby is due to be launched in July during a Washington conference that will be attended by hundreds of U.S. evangelicals. He said that the group’s activities would be a "political earthquake,” as it would target senators and congressmen on Capitol Hill. A quarter of congressmen are evangelicals, Hagee said, adding that many American legislators represent regions that include a large evangelical population.
Hagee also plans to establish an effective network of key activists across the United States who can be reached within 24 hours for emergency lobbying efforts. He said he already appointed 12 regional directors who will be responsible for lobbying activities in their areas and that he plans to appoint representatives in every state and major city.
Hagee, one of 20 evangelical leaders who met with now coma-stricken Ariel Sharon during his last trip to Washington, also said he would head a delegation of 500 evangelicals due to visit Israel this summer.
Hagee already discussed his project with Israel’s consul general in New York, Aryeh Mekel, who said that the “evangelical population's support of Israel is very important.”
Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Danny Ayalon, responded in a similar manner when he discussed the formation of the new lobby with Hagee last February. "We see Christians in the United States as true friends and important supporters on the basis of shared values, and we welcome their efforts to strengthen the ties between Israel and the U.S.," he said at the time.
Rabbi James Rudin, author of "The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us," said that Hagee has been known for many years as an enthusiastic advocate of Israel, and is a typical right-wing Christian supporter of the Jewish country.
Rabbi Rudin’s words couldn't be more true. Hagee once told Christian worshippers at the Cornerstone Church in Texas, that "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish state. Not since Camp David but since King David.”
Pro-Palestinian groups say that this new alliance between Jewish groups and Christian conservatives in the United States could never bring a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Moreover, som left of centre activists like MJ Rosenberg of the Israeli Policy Forum fear that the new Christian pro-Israel lobbies may constrain the U.S.‘s ability to act as a fair mediator between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
"It's more than damaging," he says. "It's frightening."
Sources: AlJazeera2006-04-03 22:05:29
Israeli artillery shelling north of Gaza Strip yesterday (Alhayat Aljadeeda, 4/2/06).
Israeli artillery shelling north of Gaza Strip yesterday (Alhayat Aljadeeda, 4/2/06).
First phase of election on 03 - 04 - 06
GUWAHATI - 03 ; Today voting started for the first phase of election . The voting is just like snail . The missdeeds of all the party concern will be the outcome of the election . Peoples those who are taking part are keeping in mind the 47 th partition , the anti Muslim agitation of AASU , the Godhra episode , the secret killing during the Hindutva rule of A B Vajpayee , the scraping of IMDT , the constable selection and so on .
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Axom Muslims cultural event held in Guwahati .
GUWAHATI, March 3: A Jikir and Jarri musical programme at Ravindra bhavan in the guwahati recently.The programme was organized in collaboration with the Directorate of Cultural Affairs, Asom. The director of the programme was Eli Ahmed while the artistes coming from different parts of the State were led by Samsuddin Ahmed. It was for the first time in Axom in organizing such a programme by the Government of Axom , though long time the Muslims of Axom / NE use to organised such programe without the participation of Government but with the hindus the opposite is . During her speech, Eli Ahmed said that she tried to bring out the hidden talents in a number of persons in the backward areas of the State.She said that the development of Axom would gain momentum, when there would be perfect harmony among the people of the different communities living in the State. She expressed her gratefulness to Pritam Saikia, Director, Cultural Affairs and other people of the office for their active cooperation in organizing the programme.The performance which was organized with the help of light, sound and shadow kept the audience present spellbound .
India: The Real Reason for Bush's Warm Embrace
By Randeep Ramesh
The Guardian, 4 March 2006
A world away from its self-declared international war on terror, Washington has spied greater and more potent threats on the horizon. India’s nuclear program — built in isolation, from scratch, after American-imposed sanctions in the 1970s — is such a threat.
Not only has a poverty-stricken country, without outside help, built a nuclear industry, but its scientific community has also mastered the technically difficult reprocessing cycle and achieved a series of unique breakthroughs in nuclear technology. India might one day be “free” to assemble as large an atomic arsenal as possible and, even more problematic for Washington, end up with a monopoly on an energy source of the future.
By comparison America has not built a nuclear reactor for three decades, since the Three Mile Island scare of the late 1970s. Conscious of being dependent on oil in a time of rising prices, George Bush decided to reactivate the country’s nuclear program and capture the benefits of the labor of others. It is this that informs American thinking on how to deal with incipient risks to its global dominance, not some fuzzy talk of a special relationship with India built on a sense of shared values.
Yet US propaganda continues. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice neatly encapsulated the Bush policy as a “balance of power that favors freedom”, which also appeals to Indians’ view of their country as a moral force in the world. Casting India as a friend and Iran as a foe can also be conveniently justified on such terms. However, American bullying of smaller states undermines this moral consensus around democracy and freedom. India’s size, geography and economic clout mean it is less susceptible to the kind of tactics used to intimidate Tehran.
But India’s energy policy has already come under serious pressure from America; the last petroleum minister had ambitious plans to build an Asian grid of oil and gas pipelines stretching from Ukraine to Japan. This plan, to be kickstarted by a pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan, ran counter to Washington’s interests. Last month the minister lost the oil portfolio.
America is determined to ensure that the rise of India, and its larger neighbor China, will not mean the decline of the US. Washington may be prepared to concede that there might be bigger economies in the world, but aims to remain pre-eminent in industrial power.
To do so Washington is willing to restrict access to capital markets and technology, promoting its national interest under the guise of a moral foreign policy. The blocking of a Chinese oil company’s bid for a US rival last year is just one example of this new policy, and Indian potential could be restrained by similar means. As Bush’s own nuclear negotiating team has made clear in testimony to Congress, the administration wants to “lock in” India to a deal before moving to tie down and restrain the country’s nuclear potential in nonproliferation discussions.
The dressing up of hard-nosed realism as high-minded altruism lies at the heart of Bush’s nuclear diplomacy in the subcontinent. How history unfolds is often decided long in advance. Leadership matters, but if an opponent has been weakened by policy, intrigue and opportunism, victory becomes easier.
Unlike the Cold War, where America shut out its rivals from the world market and refused to trade with them, its policy in the coming decades is to entangle rising powers in a web of rules designed to favor itself. As India may find to its cost, getting into a hot embrace with Washington is easy; getting out may be much harder.
The Guardian, 4 March 2006
A world away from its self-declared international war on terror, Washington has spied greater and more potent threats on the horizon. India’s nuclear program — built in isolation, from scratch, after American-imposed sanctions in the 1970s — is such a threat.
Not only has a poverty-stricken country, without outside help, built a nuclear industry, but its scientific community has also mastered the technically difficult reprocessing cycle and achieved a series of unique breakthroughs in nuclear technology. India might one day be “free” to assemble as large an atomic arsenal as possible and, even more problematic for Washington, end up with a monopoly on an energy source of the future.
By comparison America has not built a nuclear reactor for three decades, since the Three Mile Island scare of the late 1970s. Conscious of being dependent on oil in a time of rising prices, George Bush decided to reactivate the country’s nuclear program and capture the benefits of the labor of others. It is this that informs American thinking on how to deal with incipient risks to its global dominance, not some fuzzy talk of a special relationship with India built on a sense of shared values.
Yet US propaganda continues. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice neatly encapsulated the Bush policy as a “balance of power that favors freedom”, which also appeals to Indians’ view of their country as a moral force in the world. Casting India as a friend and Iran as a foe can also be conveniently justified on such terms. However, American bullying of smaller states undermines this moral consensus around democracy and freedom. India’s size, geography and economic clout mean it is less susceptible to the kind of tactics used to intimidate Tehran.
But India’s energy policy has already come under serious pressure from America; the last petroleum minister had ambitious plans to build an Asian grid of oil and gas pipelines stretching from Ukraine to Japan. This plan, to be kickstarted by a pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan, ran counter to Washington’s interests. Last month the minister lost the oil portfolio.
America is determined to ensure that the rise of India, and its larger neighbor China, will not mean the decline of the US. Washington may be prepared to concede that there might be bigger economies in the world, but aims to remain pre-eminent in industrial power.
To do so Washington is willing to restrict access to capital markets and technology, promoting its national interest under the guise of a moral foreign policy. The blocking of a Chinese oil company’s bid for a US rival last year is just one example of this new policy, and Indian potential could be restrained by similar means. As Bush’s own nuclear negotiating team has made clear in testimony to Congress, the administration wants to “lock in” India to a deal before moving to tie down and restrain the country’s nuclear potential in nonproliferation discussions.
The dressing up of hard-nosed realism as high-minded altruism lies at the heart of Bush’s nuclear diplomacy in the subcontinent. How history unfolds is often decided long in advance. Leadership matters, but if an opponent has been weakened by policy, intrigue and opportunism, victory becomes easier.
Unlike the Cold War, where America shut out its rivals from the world market and refused to trade with them, its policy in the coming decades is to entangle rising powers in a web of rules designed to favor itself. As India may find to its cost, getting into a hot embrace with Washington is easy; getting out may be much harder.
Indian Muslims and the Bush Visit
By Ghulam Muhammed
Al-Jazeerah, March 1, 2006
While on the occasion of US President Bush's ! visit to India, the media here has gone to town, putting out reams of papers and hours and hours of saturation TV coverage of the issues and opportunities that are supposed to translate into a big windfall for India; in the streets of cities and towns big protest marches are planned, to give, in the words of Communist leader, Sitaram Yachury, a 'warm wlecome'.
On the one hand, there is tremendous built-up of heady euphoria about the future of India-US 'strategic relationship'; on ! the other hand, screaming banners and shouting crowds want Bush to go home, even before he is in India.
To a pointed question, BBC's Shrivasta did admit that Left and Muslims are in the forefront of the protests, though it will appear that both Bush-haters have completely different stakes in opposing Bush visit to India.
For Muslims, emotions have been on the boil, when Bush invaded Iraq on dubious pretext of Saddam's piling up of Weapons of Mass Destruction without any! United Nations sanction and in fact, blatantly violating international law after unleashing most brutal bombings in Afghanistan, another Muslim country, whose people at a crucial moment in history fought with American forces and helped America's cause to drive the infidel Communist Russians from their land. In Iraq too, hundreds of thousands civilians died.
The city of Baghdad with its holy sites and historical role in the glorious Muslim past, was reduced to rubble in the same manner as long back in history! , the Mongols destroyed the citadel of Islam that signified Baghdad.
Indian Muslims joined hands with the Leftists to publicly and vigorously oppose any dispatch of Indian troops to Iraq, which L. K. Advani, the traditional bête noire of Indian Muslims, had unwisely and unilaterally committed to, while on a visit to White House, where Bush strategically walked in to meet him and grant him the 'rarest of rare' diplomatic honour; he being only a Home Minister and by protocol norms, not supposed to be meeting the US President. Puffed up by such presidential pumping, a small man, with big ambitions, Advani instantly agreed to send Indian troops into Iraq. Advani and India will have to thank Muslims and the Leftists, who saved India from a monumental disaster that is still bedeviling America and its allied forces in Iraq. Muslim firmly believe US invaded Iraq at the instigation of Israel and the American Jewish neo-cons. ! Whatever the demerits of Saddam as a ruler, the Israeli/American move was considered to be against the Muslim world.
The second event that had raised Muslim anger to its highest pitch was India's vote against Iran in IAEA, under direct and blatant blackmailing pressure campaign by the United States. T! he whole process appeared to enforce the notion, that even in their own country, while the Indian government has been in power in a great measure with the direct and block support of Indian Muslims; it has been most insensitive and uncaring to their sentiments.
Once again, another servile Indian minister, used to 'yes sir'-ing' all his life, was wrapped by Bush under his far-flung arms of strangulation, and India was on its way to hand over all its independence and freedom, even in the field of its nuclear security, in a hastily drawn up 'strategic partnership', much in the manner Indian Police in local thana force their hapless victims to sign on blank sheets to be filled up them as and when they desire.
Once again interests of Muslims and Leftists converged. The communists could not imagine their own coalition partner in the Central Government had prepared for a virtual sell-out to their ideological bugbear without so much as any prior consultations from either their coalition partner, or the Parliament or the general public.
To compound open humiliation of India, US threats materialized, rendered not only by Bush and Rice, but even the lowly US ambassador stationed in India and posing as virtual viceroy of the imperial America, threatening the dire consequences for India not voting against Iran, as desired by the US.
The chorus of public outrage in fact, worked against US plans of browbeating India into signing on the dotted line. Details of US demands on India's own indigenous nuclear fast breeder facilities filtered through to the scientific community, who were proud to have ushered India into nuclear age. The matters were raised in parliament and Prime Minister had to give assurance to the nation, that India's freedom and independence in its nuclear security field will not be compromised.
Résistance to Bush came out from the convergence of opposition from Leftists and Muslims, both vocalizing their rage against Congress government and the US, who were railroading their own exclusive agenda on India, with hardly a chance for the people to react to this highway robbery. The US became the common enemy of the Muslims and Leftists. Iran became to common friend of Muslims and Leftists.
Another concurrent issue for Indian Muslims was the continuous and persistence demonizing of Muslims as terrorists all around the world. The barrage of Bush threats against imaginary and concocted terrorist Muslim organisations, left no doubt with the Indian Muslim masses, that US is prepared to unleash a global crusade against Islam and now courting India, to enlist and exploit its military and strategic resources, to use against them in India as well as against Muslim countries around the world. No day passed without Bush and his administration, with Jewish controlled media ! within the US and through its proxies around the world and even in India, coming out with vicious propaganda against Muslims and Islam.
The last straw on the camel's back was the publishing of Danish cartoons blaspheming Prophet Mohammad. Though Bush visit was planned month in advance, the outrage around the world felt by Muslims is still drawing tens of thousands of angry Indian Muslims gathering in cities and towns in India, and formed the basis to combine the pent up hatred of US hegemony, to characterize Cartoon protests, as essentially anti-Bush and anti-American show of anger.
Left, facing elections in both states of West Bengal and Kerala where Muslim votes are sizable, had been forced to join Muslims, though only symbolically, in organizing and co-sponsoring street protests.&n! bsp;
With so much anti-Bush feelings around in Muslim India, it is surprising that Bush personally misses no opportunity to highlight the fact ---- even to the visiting Indian Prime Minister, that not a single Indian Muslim has joined Al Qaida, even though India has world's second largest population of 150 million Muslims that is fully supporting India's robust democratic institutions.
In fact, without Muslim voters supporting the so-called 'secular' Indian National Congress, Congress would not have been able to rule India for its first 40 years, with such stable and loyal electoral majority.
Indian Muslims, therefore, fill both of Bush criteria of democracy and anti-terror ethos to be treated as preferred partners in his own designs of the New American Century.
Apparently Indian Muslim's internal concerns do not form the real basis of their anti-Bush reaction. It is Indian Muslims' concern for their international brotherhood and their commitment to Islam and its identity that translate their image of the US in general and US President as sworn enemies and thus encourages them to mobilize and forge unity among their own fractured polity.
They are fully cognizant of India's important role in the future shaping of the world and would like India to be in their corner. After all it is their country.
GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI, INDIA,
Al-Jazeerah, March 1, 2006
While on the occasion of US President Bush's ! visit to India, the media here has gone to town, putting out reams of papers and hours and hours of saturation TV coverage of the issues and opportunities that are supposed to translate into a big windfall for India; in the streets of cities and towns big protest marches are planned, to give, in the words of Communist leader, Sitaram Yachury, a 'warm wlecome'.
On the one hand, there is tremendous built-up of heady euphoria about the future of India-US 'strategic relationship'; on ! the other hand, screaming banners and shouting crowds want Bush to go home, even before he is in India.
To a pointed question, BBC's Shrivasta did admit that Left and Muslims are in the forefront of the protests, though it will appear that both Bush-haters have completely different stakes in opposing Bush visit to India.
For Muslims, emotions have been on the boil, when Bush invaded Iraq on dubious pretext of Saddam's piling up of Weapons of Mass Destruction without any! United Nations sanction and in fact, blatantly violating international law after unleashing most brutal bombings in Afghanistan, another Muslim country, whose people at a crucial moment in history fought with American forces and helped America's cause to drive the infidel Communist Russians from their land. In Iraq too, hundreds of thousands civilians died.
The city of Baghdad with its holy sites and historical role in the glorious Muslim past, was reduced to rubble in the same manner as long back in history! , the Mongols destroyed the citadel of Islam that signified Baghdad.
Indian Muslims joined hands with the Leftists to publicly and vigorously oppose any dispatch of Indian troops to Iraq, which L. K. Advani, the traditional bête noire of Indian Muslims, had unwisely and unilaterally committed to, while on a visit to White House, where Bush strategically walked in to meet him and grant him the 'rarest of rare' diplomatic honour; he being only a Home Minister and by protocol norms, not supposed to be meeting the US President. Puffed up by such presidential pumping, a small man, with big ambitions, Advani instantly agreed to send Indian troops into Iraq. Advani and India will have to thank Muslims and the Leftists, who saved India from a monumental disaster that is still bedeviling America and its allied forces in Iraq. Muslim firmly believe US invaded Iraq at the instigation of Israel and the American Jewish neo-cons. ! Whatever the demerits of Saddam as a ruler, the Israeli/American move was considered to be against the Muslim world.
The second event that had raised Muslim anger to its highest pitch was India's vote against Iran in IAEA, under direct and blatant blackmailing pressure campaign by the United States. T! he whole process appeared to enforce the notion, that even in their own country, while the Indian government has been in power in a great measure with the direct and block support of Indian Muslims; it has been most insensitive and uncaring to their sentiments.
Once again, another servile Indian minister, used to 'yes sir'-ing' all his life, was wrapped by Bush under his far-flung arms of strangulation, and India was on its way to hand over all its independence and freedom, even in the field of its nuclear security, in a hastily drawn up 'strategic partnership', much in the manner Indian Police in local thana force their hapless victims to sign on blank sheets to be filled up them as and when they desire.
Once again interests of Muslims and Leftists converged. The communists could not imagine their own coalition partner in the Central Government had prepared for a virtual sell-out to their ideological bugbear without so much as any prior consultations from either their coalition partner, or the Parliament or the general public.
To compound open humiliation of India, US threats materialized, rendered not only by Bush and Rice, but even the lowly US ambassador stationed in India and posing as virtual viceroy of the imperial America, threatening the dire consequences for India not voting against Iran, as desired by the US.
The chorus of public outrage in fact, worked against US plans of browbeating India into signing on the dotted line. Details of US demands on India's own indigenous nuclear fast breeder facilities filtered through to the scientific community, who were proud to have ushered India into nuclear age. The matters were raised in parliament and Prime Minister had to give assurance to the nation, that India's freedom and independence in its nuclear security field will not be compromised.
Résistance to Bush came out from the convergence of opposition from Leftists and Muslims, both vocalizing their rage against Congress government and the US, who were railroading their own exclusive agenda on India, with hardly a chance for the people to react to this highway robbery. The US became the common enemy of the Muslims and Leftists. Iran became to common friend of Muslims and Leftists.
Another concurrent issue for Indian Muslims was the continuous and persistence demonizing of Muslims as terrorists all around the world. The barrage of Bush threats against imaginary and concocted terrorist Muslim organisations, left no doubt with the Indian Muslim masses, that US is prepared to unleash a global crusade against Islam and now courting India, to enlist and exploit its military and strategic resources, to use against them in India as well as against Muslim countries around the world. No day passed without Bush and his administration, with Jewish controlled media ! within the US and through its proxies around the world and even in India, coming out with vicious propaganda against Muslims and Islam.
The last straw on the camel's back was the publishing of Danish cartoons blaspheming Prophet Mohammad. Though Bush visit was planned month in advance, the outrage around the world felt by Muslims is still drawing tens of thousands of angry Indian Muslims gathering in cities and towns in India, and formed the basis to combine the pent up hatred of US hegemony, to characterize Cartoon protests, as essentially anti-Bush and anti-American show of anger.
Left, facing elections in both states of West Bengal and Kerala where Muslim votes are sizable, had been forced to join Muslims, though only symbolically, in organizing and co-sponsoring street protests.&n! bsp;
With so much anti-Bush feelings around in Muslim India, it is surprising that Bush personally misses no opportunity to highlight the fact ---- even to the visiting Indian Prime Minister, that not a single Indian Muslim has joined Al Qaida, even though India has world's second largest population of 150 million Muslims that is fully supporting India's robust democratic institutions.
In fact, without Muslim voters supporting the so-called 'secular' Indian National Congress, Congress would not have been able to rule India for its first 40 years, with such stable and loyal electoral majority.
Indian Muslims, therefore, fill both of Bush criteria of democracy and anti-terror ethos to be treated as preferred partners in his own designs of the New American Century.
Apparently Indian Muslim's internal concerns do not form the real basis of their anti-Bush reaction. It is Indian Muslims' concern for their international brotherhood and their commitment to Islam and its identity that translate their image of the US in general and US President as sworn enemies and thus encourages them to mobilize and forge unity among their own fractured polity.
They are fully cognizant of India's important role in the future shaping of the world and would like India to be in their corner. After all it is their country.
GHULAM MUHAMMED, MUMBAI, INDIA,
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Fanatic Hindutva allegation about Muslims in Axom / Northeast India
JONAI, AXOM ,Feb 17 – With political parties gearing up for the forthcoming Assembly election in the Axom, the Hindutva brigrade Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) began its rally from Jonai here recently.Axom BJP president Indramani Bora urged the citizens to oust the Congress government in the ensuing polls. Criticising the Tarun Gogoi-led Congress government, he stated that the law and order situation in the State has deteriorated so much that the security of the common people cannot be ensured. Congress has failed to take step to ameliorate the sufferings of the people in the State, he alleged.Stating that the ouster of Congress rule to check the overwhelming corruption and exploitation is the need of the hour the BJP president castigated the State government for being inactive, idle and inefficient. Addressing the gathering in the occasion Narayan Borkatoky, a senior BJP leader asserted that the Congress rule is more terrible than the British rule.Participating in the inaugural programme of rally former Union Minister and general secretary of BJP central committee, Fanatic Hindutva Pramod Mahajan alleged that the ruling Congress government has been playing ‘divide and rule’ politics to demolish the unity among the ethnic groups of Assam. He claimed that there was no alternative other than the BJP to restore unity among the people irrespective of caste and creed. Explaining the concept of ‘Hindustani’ the BJP leader elaborated that the Congress’s anti-people politics had led to enhance Bangladeshi immigration into the State. He said that the Congress rule is a misfortune for the people of Assam. Vehemently criticising Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi, Mahajan said that the most tainted history of the State was created during the Congress regime when suspected Bangladeshi nationals have infiltrated into almost all the district. He also expressed concern over the alarming increase in Muslim voters in the electoral rolls especially since 1971 during the Congress tenures. ‘The forthcoming election is not an ordinary one but a struggle to protect our motherland from the grip of Bangladeshi nationals’, he stressed.
As the fathfull servent of the northindian fanatic hindutva Mr I Bora , have said that over here law and order situation have deterioted but does not he see about the Fanatic ruled state whats going their .
Mr P Mahajan have said that there are many bangladeshis in Axom / Northeast - but why muslim , there are not even a single muslim over in Axom who are illegale but about hindus from bangladesh , nepal and north india it is a questionable .
As the fathfull servent of the northindian fanatic hindutva Mr I Bora , have said that over here law and order situation have deterioted but does not he see about the Fanatic ruled state whats going their .
Mr P Mahajan have said that there are many bangladeshis in Axom / Northeast - but why muslim , there are not even a single muslim over in Axom who are illegale but about hindus from bangladesh , nepal and north india it is a questionable .
What Bush Is Up To
by Charley Reese
I'm going to tell you what the real Bush administration policy is. I have no take-it-to-court proof. No one does, because the administration doesn't tell the truth and is very secretive.
But from conversations I've had with people from the Middle East and from extensive reading, I infer that the Bush administration's policy encompasses three goals:
One of the goals is to replace the present Syrian government with one the administration hopes will be more pliable in its policy toward Israel. Another is to construct four permanent bases in Iraq, and that means the administration has no intention of ever withdrawing all U.S. forces. The third goal is to attack Iran's nuclear facilities from the air. The propaganda campaign to justify this attack is already under way.
The U.S. government has lied a lot about Syria. It has implied that Syria was helping jihadists slip into Iraq. Some of the neoconservatives have claimed that Iraq hid its infamous nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Syria. Now they have joined in accusing the Syrian government of assassinating a Lebanese politician. They've even picked out a successor to the current president of Syria. More recently, they accused Syria of inciting mobs to burn a foreign embassy in Damascus during a riot related to the prophet cartoons.
In fact, Syria's government is Ba'athist – that is to say, it is secular, socialist and nationalistic. It highly disapproves of religious extremists, whether Shi'ites or Sunni. There is no evidence whatsoever that Syria incited the mobs to burn the foreign embassy in Damascus. Professor Juan Cole searched the databases of Arab newspapers and radio broadcasts, which are monitored and translated by the U.S. government and the BBC. Not a peep from the Syrian government in the way of incitement.
The Syrian ambassador to the U.S. told me of another instance of U.S. lying. Our government asked the Syrian government to help it catch an Iraqi who was hiding in a tribal area that extended across the border, partly in Iraq and partly in Syria. The Syrian government agreed and indeed captured the man and 32 of his followers, all of whom were handed over to the U.S. Syria asked the U.S. for only one thing in return: just tell the world we cooperated with you.
Did the U.S. do that? No, it lied and said that the Syrians had harbored the fugitive. As for Saddam Hussein hiding his weapons in Syria, it so happens that the Syrian Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party have famously been at odds for years. People spreading that nonsense seem to have forgotten that Syrian troops fought alongside Americans in Gulf War I against Iraq. You can be sure Saddam did not forget that. He would have no more turned over his nonexistent weapons to Syria than he would have to Israel.
The large American military bases in Iraq already exist and are being improved. These are billion-dollar-plus facilities, and you can bet nobody in the Bush administration intends to hand them over to the Iraqis. Watch carefully the language used when the Bush people, in or out of uniform, talk about "withdrawal." It is always surrounded by conditions. They don't intend to leave Iraq. Now, that doesn't mean that the new Iraqi government might not force them to leave. That remains to be seen.
As for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, we have that capability. There's not much the Iranians could do to stop us. And, yes, it would be a stupid and foolish thing to do, since at present there is no evidence that Iran intends to build a bomb. As we know from the Iraq invasion, this administration is capable of doing stupid and foolish things.
Just because Iran can't stop us from bombing it doesn't mean the Iranians can't retaliate. They very likely have the capability of setting the entire Middle East on fire with a general war that could disrupt the world's oil supply and wreck much of the world's economy. Unfortunately, history shows that those who bet on wise political leadership avoiding war end up losing their shirts and often their lives and their fortunes.
I'm going to tell you what the real Bush administration policy is. I have no take-it-to-court proof. No one does, because the administration doesn't tell the truth and is very secretive.
But from conversations I've had with people from the Middle East and from extensive reading, I infer that the Bush administration's policy encompasses three goals:
One of the goals is to replace the present Syrian government with one the administration hopes will be more pliable in its policy toward Israel. Another is to construct four permanent bases in Iraq, and that means the administration has no intention of ever withdrawing all U.S. forces. The third goal is to attack Iran's nuclear facilities from the air. The propaganda campaign to justify this attack is already under way.
The U.S. government has lied a lot about Syria. It has implied that Syria was helping jihadists slip into Iraq. Some of the neoconservatives have claimed that Iraq hid its infamous nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Syria. Now they have joined in accusing the Syrian government of assassinating a Lebanese politician. They've even picked out a successor to the current president of Syria. More recently, they accused Syria of inciting mobs to burn a foreign embassy in Damascus during a riot related to the prophet cartoons.
In fact, Syria's government is Ba'athist – that is to say, it is secular, socialist and nationalistic. It highly disapproves of religious extremists, whether Shi'ites or Sunni. There is no evidence whatsoever that Syria incited the mobs to burn the foreign embassy in Damascus. Professor Juan Cole searched the databases of Arab newspapers and radio broadcasts, which are monitored and translated by the U.S. government and the BBC. Not a peep from the Syrian government in the way of incitement.
The Syrian ambassador to the U.S. told me of another instance of U.S. lying. Our government asked the Syrian government to help it catch an Iraqi who was hiding in a tribal area that extended across the border, partly in Iraq and partly in Syria. The Syrian government agreed and indeed captured the man and 32 of his followers, all of whom were handed over to the U.S. Syria asked the U.S. for only one thing in return: just tell the world we cooperated with you.
Did the U.S. do that? No, it lied and said that the Syrians had harbored the fugitive. As for Saddam Hussein hiding his weapons in Syria, it so happens that the Syrian Ba'ath Party and the Iraqi Ba'ath Party have famously been at odds for years. People spreading that nonsense seem to have forgotten that Syrian troops fought alongside Americans in Gulf War I against Iraq. You can be sure Saddam did not forget that. He would have no more turned over his nonexistent weapons to Syria than he would have to Israel.
The large American military bases in Iraq already exist and are being improved. These are billion-dollar-plus facilities, and you can bet nobody in the Bush administration intends to hand them over to the Iraqis. Watch carefully the language used when the Bush people, in or out of uniform, talk about "withdrawal." It is always surrounded by conditions. They don't intend to leave Iraq. Now, that doesn't mean that the new Iraqi government might not force them to leave. That remains to be seen.
As for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, we have that capability. There's not much the Iranians could do to stop us. And, yes, it would be a stupid and foolish thing to do, since at present there is no evidence that Iran intends to build a bomb. As we know from the Iraq invasion, this administration is capable of doing stupid and foolish things.
Just because Iran can't stop us from bombing it doesn't mean the Iranians can't retaliate. They very likely have the capability of setting the entire Middle East on fire with a general war that could disrupt the world's oil supply and wreck much of the world's economy. Unfortunately, history shows that those who bet on wise political leadership avoiding war end up losing their shirts and often their lives and their fortunes.
Report: Sunni Insurgents Increasingly Unified in Iraq
by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON – Despite reports of growing tensions and even occasional clashes between Islamists and nationalists, the predominantly Sunni insurgency in Iraq appears increasingly united and confident of victory, according to a new report released here Wednesday by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG).
The 30-page report, based primarily on an analysis of the public communications of insurgent groups, as well as interviews and past studies about the insurgency, also concludes that rebel groups have adapted quickly and effectively to changing U.S. tactics – in both the military and political spheres.
"Over time, the insurgency appears to have become more coordinated, confident, sensitive to its constituents' demands, and adept at learning from the enemy's successes and its own failures," according to the report, "In Their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgency."
"The U.S. must take these factors into account if it is to understand the insurgency's resilience and learn how to counter it," it added, stressing that the most effective responses include reining in and disbanding sectarian militias responsible for human rights abuses and repeatedly making clear that Washington has no designs on Iraq's oil resources or on its territory for military bases.
The report, which comes amid intense – but so far unavailing – efforts by the U.S. embassy to negotiate the creation of a new government in Baghdad that will place prominent Sunnis in key cabinet posts, is based mainly on what insurgents have themselves said on their Internet Web sites and chat rooms, videos, tapes, and leaflets since the invasion and how those messages have evolved.
While much of the rhetoric is propagandistic, according to the ICG, it also provides a "window into the insurgency" capable of informing the analyst about its internal debates, levels of coordination, its perceptions of both the enemy and its constituency, and changes in tactics and strategy.
Such a textual analysis, according to the ICG, yields conclusions that are substantially at odds with many of Washington's current, as well as past, assumptions about the insurgency. Indeed, "[I]n Iraq, the U.S. fights an enemy it hardly knows," the report asserts.
The notion, for example, that the insurgency is divided between Iraqi nationalists and foreign jihadis, most prominently al-Qaeda's Organization in Mesopotamia (QOM) allegedly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, appears increasingly questionable, according to the report, which notes that there has been a "gradual convergence" in the groups' tactics and rhetoric.
"A year ago, groups appeared divided over practices and ideology, but most debates have been settled through convergence around Sunni Islamic jurisprudence and Sunni Arab grievances," according to the report.
"Practically speaking, it has become virtually impossible to categorize a particular group's discourse as jihadi as opposed to nationalist or patriotic, with the exception of the Ba'ath Party, whose presence on the ground has been singularly ineffective."
During the first half of 2005, when reports of armed clashes between the two kinds of groups first surfaced, that was less true, but, since then and despite intense U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between them, the groups have largely harmonized their rhetoric.
In that connection, "recent reports of negotiations between 'nationalist' groups and the U.S. over forming an alliance against foreign jihadis appear at the very least exaggerated," according to the report. It noted that any such "duplicity" would almost certainly have been exposed and denounced by others.
Moreover, "no armed group so far has even hinted" that it may be willing to negotiate with the U.S. and Iraqi authorities. "While covert talks cannot be excluded, the publicly accessible discourse remains uniformly and relentlessly hostile to the occupation and its 'collaborators.'"
That does not mean that differences between the two kinds of groups do not exist and that there could be a day of reckoning – but only after Washington's withdrawal. "To this day, the armed opposition's avowed objectives have … been reduced to a primary goal: ridding Iraq of the foreign occupier. Beyond that, all is vague."
Meanwhile, the groups have become increasingly mindful of their image and the necessity of cultivating public opinion among Sunnis, other Iraqis, and the West, according to the report.
Thus, they promptly and systematically respond to charges that they are corrupt or target innocent civilians and even reject accusations, despite the evidence from suicide attacks, against Shi'ite mosques, that they are waging a sectarian campaign.
Similarly, they have abandoned some tactics that proved especially revolting to their various audiences, such as the beheading of hostages and attacking voters going to the polls. And "[w]hile [they] deny any intent of depriving the population of water and electricity, restraint does not apply to oil installations, which are seen as part and parcel of American designs to exploit Iraq."
According to the report, four main groups now dominate the communications channels of the insurgency and publish regularly through a variety of media: QOM; Partisans of the Sunna Army (Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna); the Islamic Army in Iraq (al-Jaysh al-Islami fil-'Iraq); and the Islamic Front of the Iraqi Resistance (al-Jabha al-Islamiya lil-Muqawama al-'Iraqiya, or Jami).
QOM, whose operational importance has, according to the ICG, been exaggerated by U.S. officials, sought during the past year to "Iraqify" its image, in part by reportedly replacing Zarqawi, a Jordanian, with an Iraqi leader. Jami, according to some ICG sources, may be a "public relations organ" shared by different armed groups and tends to be somewhat more sophisticated and nationalistic in its rhetoric and communications strategy than the others.
Another five groups that take credit for military actions generally use far less elaborate and stable channels of communication, while four more groups appear to lack regular means of communication to produce occasional claims of responsibility for armed actions through statements or videos.
All groups appear to have become more confident over the past year, according to the report, which noted that their optimism is not only noticeable in their official communiqués but in more spontaneous expressions by militants and sympathizers on Internet chat sites and elsewhere.
Initially, according to the report, they perceived the U.S. presence as extremely difficult to remove, "[b]ut that no longer is the case."
"Today, the prospect of an outright victory and a swift withdrawal of foreign forces has crystallized, bolstered by the U.S.' perceived loss of legitimacy and apparent vacillation, its periodic announcement of troops redeployments, the precipitous decline in domestic support for the war, and heightened calls by prominent politicians for a rapid withdrawal," the report states.
Moreover, "[w]hen the U.S. leaves, the insurgents do not doubt that Iraq's security forces and institutions would quickly collapse."
WASHINGTON – Despite reports of growing tensions and even occasional clashes between Islamists and nationalists, the predominantly Sunni insurgency in Iraq appears increasingly united and confident of victory, according to a new report released here Wednesday by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG).
The 30-page report, based primarily on an analysis of the public communications of insurgent groups, as well as interviews and past studies about the insurgency, also concludes that rebel groups have adapted quickly and effectively to changing U.S. tactics – in both the military and political spheres.
"Over time, the insurgency appears to have become more coordinated, confident, sensitive to its constituents' demands, and adept at learning from the enemy's successes and its own failures," according to the report, "In Their Own Words: Reading the Iraqi Insurgency."
"The U.S. must take these factors into account if it is to understand the insurgency's resilience and learn how to counter it," it added, stressing that the most effective responses include reining in and disbanding sectarian militias responsible for human rights abuses and repeatedly making clear that Washington has no designs on Iraq's oil resources or on its territory for military bases.
The report, which comes amid intense – but so far unavailing – efforts by the U.S. embassy to negotiate the creation of a new government in Baghdad that will place prominent Sunnis in key cabinet posts, is based mainly on what insurgents have themselves said on their Internet Web sites and chat rooms, videos, tapes, and leaflets since the invasion and how those messages have evolved.
While much of the rhetoric is propagandistic, according to the ICG, it also provides a "window into the insurgency" capable of informing the analyst about its internal debates, levels of coordination, its perceptions of both the enemy and its constituency, and changes in tactics and strategy.
Such a textual analysis, according to the ICG, yields conclusions that are substantially at odds with many of Washington's current, as well as past, assumptions about the insurgency. Indeed, "[I]n Iraq, the U.S. fights an enemy it hardly knows," the report asserts.
The notion, for example, that the insurgency is divided between Iraqi nationalists and foreign jihadis, most prominently al-Qaeda's Organization in Mesopotamia (QOM) allegedly led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, appears increasingly questionable, according to the report, which notes that there has been a "gradual convergence" in the groups' tactics and rhetoric.
"A year ago, groups appeared divided over practices and ideology, but most debates have been settled through convergence around Sunni Islamic jurisprudence and Sunni Arab grievances," according to the report.
"Practically speaking, it has become virtually impossible to categorize a particular group's discourse as jihadi as opposed to nationalist or patriotic, with the exception of the Ba'ath Party, whose presence on the ground has been singularly ineffective."
During the first half of 2005, when reports of armed clashes between the two kinds of groups first surfaced, that was less true, but, since then and despite intense U.S. efforts to drive a wedge between them, the groups have largely harmonized their rhetoric.
In that connection, "recent reports of negotiations between 'nationalist' groups and the U.S. over forming an alliance against foreign jihadis appear at the very least exaggerated," according to the report. It noted that any such "duplicity" would almost certainly have been exposed and denounced by others.
Moreover, "no armed group so far has even hinted" that it may be willing to negotiate with the U.S. and Iraqi authorities. "While covert talks cannot be excluded, the publicly accessible discourse remains uniformly and relentlessly hostile to the occupation and its 'collaborators.'"
That does not mean that differences between the two kinds of groups do not exist and that there could be a day of reckoning – but only after Washington's withdrawal. "To this day, the armed opposition's avowed objectives have … been reduced to a primary goal: ridding Iraq of the foreign occupier. Beyond that, all is vague."
Meanwhile, the groups have become increasingly mindful of their image and the necessity of cultivating public opinion among Sunnis, other Iraqis, and the West, according to the report.
Thus, they promptly and systematically respond to charges that they are corrupt or target innocent civilians and even reject accusations, despite the evidence from suicide attacks, against Shi'ite mosques, that they are waging a sectarian campaign.
Similarly, they have abandoned some tactics that proved especially revolting to their various audiences, such as the beheading of hostages and attacking voters going to the polls. And "[w]hile [they] deny any intent of depriving the population of water and electricity, restraint does not apply to oil installations, which are seen as part and parcel of American designs to exploit Iraq."
According to the report, four main groups now dominate the communications channels of the insurgency and publish regularly through a variety of media: QOM; Partisans of the Sunna Army (Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna); the Islamic Army in Iraq (al-Jaysh al-Islami fil-'Iraq); and the Islamic Front of the Iraqi Resistance (al-Jabha al-Islamiya lil-Muqawama al-'Iraqiya, or Jami).
QOM, whose operational importance has, according to the ICG, been exaggerated by U.S. officials, sought during the past year to "Iraqify" its image, in part by reportedly replacing Zarqawi, a Jordanian, with an Iraqi leader. Jami, according to some ICG sources, may be a "public relations organ" shared by different armed groups and tends to be somewhat more sophisticated and nationalistic in its rhetoric and communications strategy than the others.
Another five groups that take credit for military actions generally use far less elaborate and stable channels of communication, while four more groups appear to lack regular means of communication to produce occasional claims of responsibility for armed actions through statements or videos.
All groups appear to have become more confident over the past year, according to the report, which noted that their optimism is not only noticeable in their official communiqués but in more spontaneous expressions by militants and sympathizers on Internet chat sites and elsewhere.
Initially, according to the report, they perceived the U.S. presence as extremely difficult to remove, "[b]ut that no longer is the case."
"Today, the prospect of an outright victory and a swift withdrawal of foreign forces has crystallized, bolstered by the U.S.' perceived loss of legitimacy and apparent vacillation, its periodic announcement of troops redeployments, the precipitous decline in domestic support for the war, and heightened calls by prominent politicians for a rapid withdrawal," the report states.
Moreover, "[w]hen the U.S. leaves, the insurgents do not doubt that Iraq's security forces and institutions would quickly collapse."
Monday, January 30, 2006
Iran-EU Talks Resume, India Shrugs off US Pressures
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," said Asefi.
TEHRAN, January 29, 2006 – Iran will resume on Monday, January 30, talks with Britain, France and Germany on its nuclear program, as India shrugged off on Sunday, January 29, US pressures to vote against Iran at the upcoming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Official media said the Iranian delegation would be headed by senior nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi, but gave no details on the agenda for the discussions, which will come just days before the IAEA emergency meeting, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.
The EU-3 and the United States are pushing IAEA members to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, claiming Tehran is using a nuclear energy drive as a cover for weapons development.
Asefi dismissed the IAEA meeting, scheduled for February 2, as "politicized" and said "dealing with Iran's case outside the IAEA will not solve anything".
Pressures on Iran were heightened earlier this month when the country announced it was suspending a voluntary moratorium and resuming sensitive nuclear research work.
Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is for strictly peaceful purposes, and says it is cooperating with a now three-year-old IAEA investigation.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Saturday, January 28, that diplomacy was still possible even as other leaders made clear that bringing Iran before the Security Council for possible sanctions was still very much on the cards.
Asefi said talks with Russia on a potential compromise needed more time.
"It can be a useful plan if seen as a package. The plan needs more work on it," added the spokesman.
Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a possible solution to the standoff and has received cautious and conditional support from the US and the EU.
Moscow is proposing that sensitive nuclear fuel work -- which could potentially be diverted to produce nuclear weapons – be conducted outside the Islamic republic as a way of preventing Iran from acquiring bomb-making technology but also guaranteeing its access to nuclear energy.
Iran has repeatedly said it would never abandon its drive to enrich uranium on its own soil.
But in a bid to allay increased international tension, Tehran has signaled a leaning towards accepting the compromise solution.
Defiant India
In a related development, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted Sunday that his country will not be pressured into voting against Iran in this week's IAEA meeting.
"We will do what is right for the country. India's national interest is the prime concern whether it is domestic or foreign policy," Singh told reporters in New Delhi.
"We will not come under pressure. We will do the right thing for the country. Our prime concern is to protect and safeguard India's enlightened national interest," he added.
US Ambassador in New Delhi David Mulford warned last week that a historic deal to provide India with American nuclear technology might fall through unless it votes against Iran at the IAEA meeting.
Mulford said a prospective deal for the United States to transfer civilian nuclear technology to India would "die" in the US Congress if India voted against a resolution on Iran.
During the IAEA meeting in Vienna in September, India voted with the United States, Britain, France and Germany to chide Iran for its nuclear program.
The US is also pressuring Russia and China, both veto-wielding Security Council members, to back the referral of the Iranian file to the Security Council.
Experts say Russia and China face important strategic setbacks if the Iran nuclear issue is referred to the Security Council, and will fight behind the scenes to prevent this.
Courtesy:-www.islamonline.net
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," said Asefi.
TEHRAN, January 29, 2006 – Iran will resume on Monday, January 30, talks with Britain, France and Germany on its nuclear program, as India shrugged off on Sunday, January 29, US pressures to vote against Iran at the upcoming meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Official media said the Iranian delegation would be headed by senior nuclear negotiator Javad Vaidi, but gave no details on the agenda for the discussions, which will come just days before the IAEA emergency meeting, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).
"The doors for negotiation are open and we can still find a formula to reach a conclusion," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters.
The EU-3 and the United States are pushing IAEA members to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, claiming Tehran is using a nuclear energy drive as a cover for weapons development.
Asefi dismissed the IAEA meeting, scheduled for February 2, as "politicized" and said "dealing with Iran's case outside the IAEA will not solve anything".
Pressures on Iran were heightened earlier this month when the country announced it was suspending a voluntary moratorium and resuming sensitive nuclear research work.
Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is for strictly peaceful purposes, and says it is cooperating with a now three-year-old IAEA investigation.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Saturday, January 28, that diplomacy was still possible even as other leaders made clear that bringing Iran before the Security Council for possible sanctions was still very much on the cards.
Asefi said talks with Russia on a potential compromise needed more time.
"It can be a useful plan if seen as a package. The plan needs more work on it," added the spokesman.
Moscow's idea to enrich uranium outside Iran is seen as a possible solution to the standoff and has received cautious and conditional support from the US and the EU.
Moscow is proposing that sensitive nuclear fuel work -- which could potentially be diverted to produce nuclear weapons – be conducted outside the Islamic republic as a way of preventing Iran from acquiring bomb-making technology but also guaranteeing its access to nuclear energy.
Iran has repeatedly said it would never abandon its drive to enrich uranium on its own soil.
But in a bid to allay increased international tension, Tehran has signaled a leaning towards accepting the compromise solution.
Defiant India
In a related development, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asserted Sunday that his country will not be pressured into voting against Iran in this week's IAEA meeting.
"We will do what is right for the country. India's national interest is the prime concern whether it is domestic or foreign policy," Singh told reporters in New Delhi.
"We will not come under pressure. We will do the right thing for the country. Our prime concern is to protect and safeguard India's enlightened national interest," he added.
US Ambassador in New Delhi David Mulford warned last week that a historic deal to provide India with American nuclear technology might fall through unless it votes against Iran at the IAEA meeting.
Mulford said a prospective deal for the United States to transfer civilian nuclear technology to India would "die" in the US Congress if India voted against a resolution on Iran.
During the IAEA meeting in Vienna in September, India voted with the United States, Britain, France and Germany to chide Iran for its nuclear program.
The US is also pressuring Russia and China, both veto-wielding Security Council members, to back the referral of the Iranian file to the Security Council.
Experts say Russia and China face important strategic setbacks if the Iran nuclear issue is referred to the Security Council, and will fight behind the scenes to prevent this.
Courtesy:-www.islamonline.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)