SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2808)1/25/2003 8:28:52 PM
From: lorne  Respond to of 15987
 
'Gray Lady' runs
ad for terrorists
Times' plug included photos of 6 alleged congressional supporters
January 24, 2003

The New York Times has published a full-page advertisement for an Iraqi-based terrorist group that boasts of the support the group has received from 150 members of Congress.

The group, the People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran, also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq, or MEK, claims to have thousands of armed members based in military camps in Iraq, financed and equipped by Saddam Hussein.

In the 1970s, elements of the group were involved in the murder of American servicemen and civilian contractors in Iran and took part in the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979. They later clashed with the radical Islamic clerics led by Ayatollah Khomeini over power-sharing arrangements, and were driven into exile in 1981. Since 1986, they have been based in Iraq.

The State Department has included the MEK on its list of international terrorist organizations since 1994. Its flagship organization in the United States, the National Council of Resistance, was designated by the State Department as a "front" for the MEK in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The pro-MEK ad appeared on page A8 of the Times on Jan. 15. Fine print at the bottom identified the sponsor as the "Colorado Iranian-American Community, 19857 E. Lindale Place, Aurora, CO 80013."

The Colorado secretary of state's office, which maintains corporate registries, had no files on such an entity. Unregistered groups with similar names have been used by the MEK in the past as fronts for its public activities. According to the New York Times advertising department, full-page ads appearing during the week sell for $104,554.80.

An FBI spokesman tells Insight he is "unclear" whether the ban on activities by terrorist groups in the United States extends to newspaper advertising, or whether the New York Times had broken the law by accepting money in support of a group whose assets have been frozen by executive order.

Unlike many large newspapers, the New York Times has no ombudsman to represent the readers or correct factual errors in the newspaper's reporting. No one at the Times' advertising department would say who had made the decision to accept the payment on behalf of the terrorist group.

The ad included photographs of six of the 150 members of Congress who allegedly had signed a recent statement of support for the MEK. Top billing went to Florida Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who circulated the pro-MEK letter among her congressional colleagues. She and others have signed previous letters of support for the group.

Also appearing were Reps. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., Bob Filner, D-Calif., Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, and Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla. Most acknowledge having signed the pro-MEK letter, although a spokeswoman for Diaz-Balart tells Insight that she was "not aware" that his picture had been used in the ad.

In the 1990s, before its assets were frozen, MEK members and supporters contributed heavily to the election campaigns of their political supporters in Congress. They gave more than $136,000 in hard money contributions to disgraced former senator Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., and large amounts to Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y. Mujahedin supporters also gave several thousand dollars to Towns and Ros-Lehtinen.

The MEK has proved adept at winning congressional support for its activities by painting itself as the only credible opposition to the clerical regime in Tehran.

"They come to us and say, 'Don't you oppose terrorism? Don't you oppose the mullahs?' It's hard to say no," one congressional staffer, whose member later withdrew from an MEK support letter, said.

Veterans of Capitol Hill tell Insight that young staff members with little or no international experience sometimes make the decision for their congressman to sign on to these letters, thinking they are supporting a pro-democracy group.

"I would say they are terribly misinformed and should educate themselves [as] to what's really going on," says Larry Klayman, chairman and chief counsel of Judicial Watch.

Responding to a lead editorial in the Rocky Mountain News last week that blasted him for supporting a terrorist group, Rep. Tancredo took full responsibility for his decision. "I do not dispute the claim that the history of the [MEK] is not that of the Boy Scouts," he said. To claim that he or others had been "duped" was simply "arrogant."

Tancredo reiterated MEK propaganda that the group is "dedicated to the overthrow of the bloodthirsty regime that today holds power in Iran," and called them a "secular coalition."

In fact, the MEK imposes Islamic headscarves on female members – which secular groups in the Muslim world eschew – and regularly has purged coalition "partners," starting with former president Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, whose daughter had been married to MEK leader Massoud Radjavi in the early 1980s.

"The MEK is not a secular but a religious party," says Roozbeh Farahanipour, a prominent leader of the 1999 student rebellion in Iran who now lives in the United States. "The fact that their own 'president,' Maryam Radjavi, covers her hair is a sign of them being a religious party. People are looking for a secular government in Iran."

The FBI has been investigating MEK activities in the United States and Iraq since the 1980s. An FBI penetration agent, who spent several months in MEK camps in Iraq in the late 1980s, tells Insight that the group still celebrates the anniversary of the murder of U.S. servicemen in 1977 by singing revolutionary songs at reveille.

Defectors from the group, which former insiders say is run like a cult by co-leaders Massoud and Maryam Radjavi, provided information to U.N. weapons inspectors in 1997 that the Iraqi regime had hidden banned weapons-production equipment and possibly nuclear materials in a MEK training camp east of Baghdad. MEK troops blocked entrance to the camp when a U.N. inspection team attempted to enter the site.

U.S. intelligence officials today believe the MEK camps still are used by Iraq as hiding places for banned weapons of mass destruction, and expect Saddam to call on MEK troops in the event the U.S. marches on Baghdad. MEK units fought Iraqi opposition Kurds during the insurrection of 1991.

Many Iranians think of the MEK as traitors, say regional experts, because they fought on the side of Iraq during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. "The MEK is not the hope of Iranians," student activist Aryo Pirouznia tells Insight. "We saw how they backed the Islamic regime in seizing power. They took part in the mass executions at the beginning of the regime, then backed Iraq in its attack on Iran, thinking they would become the sole power in Iran."

The Islamic veil the MEK imposes on women "has become a synonym of oppression in Iran," Pirouznia adds.

Khosrow Akmal, former secretary general of the Constitutionalist Movement of Iran, an exile group with members across Europe and the United States, calls support for the group from members of Congress "100 percent wrong" and "surprising, especially after so many reports from the State Department. It's simply not possible for members of Congress not to know that these people killed many Americans."

Some 60 percent of Iran's population is under the age of 25 and too young to remember the former shah or the mujahedin. And yet it is these young people who repeatedly have risen up against the regime over the past three years in cities and universities across the country.
worldnetdaily.com



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2808)1/25/2003 8:46:55 PM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
Hawk,
Thanks.

I just read the last 100 posts.
Now I am only 2718 behind.

I'll lurk for now and try to catch up.
unclewest



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2808)1/26/2003 12:49:16 AM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
Hawk@guessIpickedthewrongtimetoquitsmoking.com

Hoo! Everyone keep their heads down and asses covered! :P

Derek



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2808)1/26/2003 10:42:56 AM
From: lorne  Respond to of 15987
 
THE ENEMY WITHIN
Meet the U.S. Congress'
dirty dozen terror caucus
At least 12 members of House,
Senate provide aid, comfort
January 26, 2003

When he was governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge signed the execution warrant for Muslim militant Mumia Abu-Jamal, whom a jury convicted of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner in 1981.

Mumia had shot the 25-year-old policeman once in the back and point-blank in the face. A handful of congressmen, as part of a yearslong campaign to ''Free Mumia,'' assailed Ridge.

Those same congressmen likely will give Ridge an even harder time in his new post as secretary of homeland security. The most senior of them, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has been on the Mumia campaign since the start, signing letters, addressing rallies and pressuring the previous president of the United States to intervene. Conyers similarly has embraced the cause of Leonard Peltier, the convicted murderer of FBI special agents Jack R. Coler and Ronald A. Williams. Conyers argues that Mumia, a Muslim African-American, and Peltier, an American Indian, are victims of a racist and bigoted system. He also sued the Department of Justice a year ago to force an open hearing for Rabih Haddad, leader of a group that U.S. officials say raises money in the United States for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist group.

Fringe politician that he is, Conyers is no backbencher. On his Website he calls himself ''a senior statesman in American political life.'' The 20-term representative from Detroit is the second-most-senior member of the House, and serves as the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. This means he shares oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, and writes and amends antiterrorism laws. Nor is he alone as a prominent congressional friend of radicals and revolutionaries.

An Insight investigation finds that at least a dozen sitting members of the House and Senate have provided active support to terrorist organizations, armed clandestine groups that targeted and killed Americans, or regimes that sponsor terrorism. Some of the lawmakers have been at it for years – even decades. Some appear to have done it for ideological reasons. Others certainly have been duped. With most, it's hard to tell.

The problem, close observers of domestic terrorist groups say, is that providing such support has become an accepted practice on Capitol Hill, where critics are silent and almost everyone would like to sweep the issue under the rug. One of the reasons for the silence, congressional sources admit, is that either the lawmakers or the cop-killers and terrorists for whom they advocate are members of ethnic minorities – and Democrats and Republicans alike are afraid to raise the issue for fear of being called racist.

At the time Mumia murdered Faulkner, Barbara Lee was on Capitol Hill as a staffer to then-representative Ronald V. Dellums, D-Calif. She succeeded Dellums in a special 1998 election and sits on the House International Relations Committee.

Like Conyers, Rep. Lee publicly has embraced the ''Free Mumia'' campaign, and she has long-standing ties to radical groups and to regimes that have sponsored terrorism. In the early 1980s, Lee had an unusually close relationship with the Marxist-Leninist regime of Maurice Bishop on the Caribbean island of Grenada. Lee and fellow Dellums staffer Carlottia Scott had tried with much frustration to get the congressman involved with the Grenada cause, and finally, in April 1982, brought him to the island where he became committed to the Bishop regime. At that time, Grenada was serving as a transshipment point for Soviet-bloc weaponry to guerrilla and terrorist organizations in the hemisphere, as official documents captured by U.S. forces subsequently proved.

One of those documents is a May 16, 1980, memorandum from the Grenadian ambassador to the Organization of American States to Bishop, stating that Lee warned of a possible infiltration of the regime's leadership. Lee had received a letter, addressed to her Capitol Hill office in 2464 Rayburn Building, from the office of the prime minister and with an official postal frank. The memorandum stated, ''Comrade: On May 14, 1980, Barbara Lee called to say she had received a piece of anti-PRG [People's Revolutionary Government] propaganda stamped from the prime minister's office, postmarked in Grenada. We collected it May 15, and it is herewith attached.'' The ambassador suspected ''a spy inside the ministry'' and credited Lee for the timely warning to the communist regime.

Lee and Scott pushed the PRG cause for some time, finally persuading Dellums to visit Grenada in early 1982. Insight has obtained a letter that Scott wrote to Bishop after that visit, following a stop in Cuba. Addressing the Grenadian leader as ''My Dearest,'' she described ideas that she, Lee and Dellums had for promoting the Marxist-Leninist regime's cause in Washington. ''Ron had a long talk with Barb and me when we got to Havana and cried when he realized that we had been shouldering Grenada alone all this time,'' she wrote. ''He's really hooked on you and Grenada and doesn't want anything to happen to building the Revo[lution] and making it strong. He really admires you as a person and even more so as a leader with courage and foresight, principle and integrity. Believe me, he doesn't make that kind of statement often about anyone. The only other person that I know of that he expresses such admiration for is Fidel [Castro].''

Several other such U.S. lawmakers have championed a domestic terrorist group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation – known by its Spanish initials of FALN – that seeks to impose a Marxist-Leninist regime on Puerto Rico and secede from the United States. In the 1970s and 1980s, the FALN planted more than 130 bombs and killed at least six people. Reps. José E. Serrano D-N.Y., Nydia M. Velázquez D-N.Y. and Luis V. Gutierrez D-Ill., all left-wingers of Puerto Rican ancestry, embraced the cause of 16 convicted FALN members serving time in federal prison. Serrano called them ''political prisoners,'' according to the People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA.

They campaigned to pressure then-president Bill Clinton to issue pardons to free the radicals, even though the terrorists themselves had not requested that their sentences be commuted. When Clinton agreed to grant them clemency in August 1999, Serrano blasted him for requiring them to renounce violence as a precondition of their release.

That presidential action caused problems for then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was about to begin her campaign to become a U.S. senator. ''President Clinton made his decision to release the FALN terrorists at the same time his wife was campaigning for the Senate in New York,'' the Senate Republican Policy Committee reported in a policy paper. ''Many commentators believe he hoped to win votes for his wife from the large Hispanic population in New York City. However, law-enforcement groups and victims'-rights groups were outraged, and his clemency offer did not poll well in New York state. His wife then opposed the granting of clemency, and the president denied that she was in any way involved in the decision.''

The clemency offer did not otherwise fit the pattern of Clinton's behavior, the committee noted: ''The president had only granted three out of the more than 4,000 clemency requests during his presidency.'' The terrorists didn't even ask for clemency, and in granting it Clinton ''did not follow the procedures that have been in place since Grover Cleveland was president,'' granting it ''even though the Justice Department did not take an official position as required.''

Ninety-five senators condemned Clinton's action, voting in a resolution that ''the president's offer of clemency to the FALN terrorists violates long-standing tenets of United States counterterrorism policy, and the release of terrorists is an affront to the rule of law, the victims and their families, and every American who believes that violent acts must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.''

A joint congressional resolution declared that ''making concessions to terrorists is deplorable,'' and that "President Clinton should not have granted amnesty to the FALN terrorists.''

Hillary Clinton changed her position, but not two of her colleagues-to-be. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, and the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn. were the minority of two standing on the far left with the amnesty.

Several lawmakers even have rallied to the causes of American terrorists and terrorist collaborators arrested and imprisoned abroad. Lori Berenson, a member of the Marxist-Leninist Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, MRTA, in Peru, was convicted and imprisoned in harsh conditions under the country's strict antiterrorist laws. Her congresswoman from home, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., has interceded on her behalf; so have Reps. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, and Jim McGovern, D-Mass. McGovern has allied himself with violent revolutionary movements since the 1980s, when he was a staffer for the late Rep. Joseph Moakley, D-Mass. He has helped the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in El Salvador, facilitating the shipment of material aid and American volunteers for the Cuban-backed group's rural civic-action efforts, according to documents and letters he signed in the 1980s that Insight has obtained.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., secured the release in the 1980s of Jennifer Jean Casolo, an operative with the FMLN, after Salvadoran authorities found her house in San Salvador had been a clandestine arsenal.

El Salvador was a breeding ground of sorts for witting and unwitting congressional support for foreign extremist groups that targeted American military and civilian personnel and U.S. interests. The country's bitter guerrilla war in the 1980s attracted a score or more of U.S. lawmakers to assist FMLN propaganda, civic-action and fund-raising operations. Most of the congressmen seemed otherwise ignorant of El Salvador and unaware that the groups they were supporting were FMLN fronts. But some, including Conyers, signed direct-mail fund-raising letters to raise money for FMLN fronts – in Conyers' case, a group called Medical Aid to El Salvador, which channeled medicine and first-aid supplies to FMLN-controlled groups and regions. Insight has a copy of the Conyers letter, which the U.S. ambassador to El Salvador at the time, Edwin Corr, assailed in a long cable as being full of FMLN disinformation about the nature of the conflict and of U.S. involvement.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., now House minority leader and the most powerful woman in Congress, signed many letters on behalf of FMLN causes in the 1980s. Among the letters, copies of which Insight obtained, are requests to the U.S. Embassy and to the Salvadoran military and civilian leadership urging them to grant safe-conduct passes to radical American activists into FMLN-controlled regions. A former Salvadoran ambassador to the United States tells Insight that his government felt intense pressure to grant the passes demanded by U.S. lawmakers, even though authorities knew the activists were with FMLN support groups and that their activities provided material support to the communist guerrilla forces and their civilian infrastructure.

Other sitting lawmakers who publicly endorsed, assisted or lent their names to FMLN causes include Sens. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., according to literature published by FMLN support groups such as the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador.

The FMLN assassinated American military trainers, U.S. Marines who guarded the embassy in San Salvador, American businessmen and CIA assets, and a retired American Jesuit priest, the Rev. Francisco Peccorini.

Most of these lawmakers object when they are charged with helping extremists, terrorist groups or terrorist regimes and, indeed, most probably have no idea they did so. But some are hard-core extremists who know very well what they have been doing. Serrano, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations panel in control of the FBI budget, is one of the latter.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews once grilled Serrano about Castro and Cuba, asking the lawmaker if he thought Cuba, one of seven countries the State Department classifies as a state sponsor of terrorism, is a free country. ''It's a sovereign country,'' Serrano said at first, then added, ''It's a country with a system different from ours.'' After aggressive prodding from Matthews, Serrano said, ''I don't know if it's a free country. I don't live there.'' Ultimately the congressman revealed his true belief. The Castro regime, he said, ''allows personal freedoms – absolutely.''
worldnetdaily.com



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2808)1/26/2003 3:17:20 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
I thought this was a well written essay:

washingtonpost.com

Transatlantic Chill? Blame Europe's Power Failure

By Gianni Riotta
Sunday, January 26, 2003; Page B05

Euro-American relations have come to this: A small traffic incident can become a symbol of a geopolitical brawl. Recently the phone in my apartment in New York City rang early in the morning. When I picked it up, a European friend was yelling. "My daughter is in America! Her boyfriend was stopped by the police and locked in jail for 48 hours," he bellowed. "See? They started with Guantanamo and end up with a police state."

If this sounds like the ranting of a crazed friend, then lately it seems as though a lot of otherwise sober people on both continents are becoming unhinged.

"The United States is becoming a problem for the world . . . a factor of international disorder, fostering uncertainty and conflict wherever it can," writes the French author Emmanuel Todd in his book "Après l'Empire" (After the Empire), subtitled "an essay on the rotting American system." Meanwhile, American commentator Robert Kagan muses that "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus." Oxford University professor Timothy Garton Ash reads this as a sexual stereotype: "The American is a virile, heterosexual male; the European is female, impotent, or castrated. Militarily, Europeans can't get it up."

Whatever happened to the myth of the "Latin lover," one would joke , except that the issues are terribly serious. They go beyond Germany and France's declarations last week that they would oppose a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq if U.N. inspectors aren't given more time to search for horrible weapons. The real issue is that Europeans feel they have not been accorded the power they deserve in the international arena, while Americans largely feel that Europe is freeloading off U.S. military might. That is what makes the Euro-American duel so nasty.

This a heady, but challenging time for the small tribe of us who make our livings ferrying ideas across the Atlantic. Another friend, a literary agent in New York, moans, "I spend half of my time defending America with my European clients, and the other half defending Europe with my American clients." I know the feeling. I write a weekly column for Corriere della Sera, a newspaper in my native Italy. The column is called "Titanic," an acknowledgment of the dangers of communicating between the continents.

Euro-Americans relations are frigid. The cover story in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books is Garton Ash's essay, "America's Anti-Europeanism." The magazine's European twin, the Times Literary Supplement, has a cover story titled "Why the French Hate America," a long review by Henri Hastier of the BBC. Meanwhile, the Times in London and Le Monde in Paris published an essay by the master spy storyteller John Le Carré denouncing President Bush "and his junta."

It is common to attribute cross-Atlantic quarrels to cultural differences, different styles and ways of life. Most Americans do not watch European movies, and only a few French, Italian, German or Spanish novels are translated for the American market. We Europeans have different attitudes toward work and leisure. Others see the gap as mainly ethical, a conflict of two sets of values. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld criticizes "old Europe" -- the France and Germany that are saying no to war in Iraq -- while praising "new Europe," the former Eastern European countries that, after escaping Soviet domination, still value liberty and justice. Javier Solana, the European Union secretary of state, says that the clash is about "values," that Americans are "religious" while Europeans tend to be "secular."

Do not believe the hype. Culture is not a real issue. Our tastes are not so different. French and Italian intellectuals can make a fuss about McDonald's, and the Slow Food movement founded in Italy by Carlin Petrini has become a national fad. But even in the United States, McDonald's is selling fewer Big Macs. The percentages of Europeans and Americans who watch Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Woody Allen or the Cohen brothers are surprisingly similar. In both the EU and the United States, there are audiences for Pavarotti, Jennifer Lopez and Spike Lee. When I moved to New York as a young Fulbright fellow, there wasn't a single McDonald's in Italy and it was impossible to buy a decent bottle of olive oil or sip a warm cappuccino in Manhattan. Now the McDonald's in my hometown, Palermo, attracts hungry teenagers, but I dress my salad with the dark green olive oil produced in Palermo that's now available all over the United States. And I rate American cappuccinos the best outside the old country.

So the real matter is not culture or taste and, please, do not use values as a football. Take the fuss in Europe over the death penalty. Civilized Europeans read almost every week stories about the cruelty of the death penalty in the United States. A prominent Italian writer once told me, "I'll never visit the United States while the death penalty is in effect." Yet he did not apply the same principle to Spain, Portugal and France, all of which he visited while the garrote and the guillotine were still hard at work.

The two areas where Europe and the United States risk serious friction are geopolitical and ideological. The EU economic tiramisu might soon be bigger than the $10 trillion U.S. apple pie. Bolstered by its economic growth, Europe wants to be the new superpower, but Washington will share power only when the European economic giant becomes a military and diplomatic giant, too.

Right now, Europe doesn't fit that description. When Europe had to settle a minor issue between Spain and Morocco over possession of the barren island of Perejil, it took a phone call from Secretary of State Colin Powell to cool heads. And when Slobodan Milosevic was running wild, Europeans did not intervene. Europe is aware that failing to rein in the Serbian czar when he was wreaking havoc in the Balkans was not only a geopolitical failure but also a symptom of a weak moral spine. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and Czech President Vaclav Havel try to rally Europe's conscience with words like "reason often needs force," but however admired they are, their voices do not often prevail.

One diplomatic issue that does arouse European public opinion is the "favorite son" treatment that Washington grants to Israel. (Many polls show that anti-Americanism is fueled by the conflict in the Middle East.) Europeans want to try their hand at negotiating peace, but all they offer is: "Let's do what America is not doing."

It is not America's unilateralism that relegates Europe to the kids' table. It is Europe's budget priorities. Europe spends $2.50 a day on every cow that grazes happily on the grass of the EU. Yet defense spending lags. Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of government at Harvard University, estimates that "the United States spends five times more on military R&D than all of Europe." Europe's soldiers cannot fight beside their U.S. comrades-in-arms because they lack technology such as the AN/Pvs-7 night vision goggles; the U.S. Army has 215,000 of them. European forces have 11 heavy military transport planes; U.S. forces have 250.

The United States will accept Europe as a real equal when it sees muscle behind diplomacy. However much Europeans dislike Uncle Sam's war machine, they forget that Europe can't fight without it.

When Europe accepts its geopolitical responsibilities, the world will be a safer place. A real geopolitical rivalry will be healthy both for the United States and Europe.


If you look closely, you can see that both parts of the old Western world still have much in common. Globalization may be derided as a synonym for Americanization, but even anti-American protesters borrow from the United States. When kids in Florence took to the streets against the International Monetary Fund, they drew inspiration from the Seattle protests. Many rabid anti-Americans pepper their arguments with quotes from Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal.

Moreover, Europeans tend to view "Americans" as a monolith. In fact, many Americans share European qualms about issues. Sen. Ted Kennedy's speech against an invasion of Iraq could be an editorial in many European dailies. And when the majority of people in America say, "Attack Saddam only under the U.N. flag," they sound much like their European counterparts. Similarly, the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto protocols is vilified in Europe, but it also angers half of American voters.

So the real divide between Europe and the United States is about power and ideas. Europe wants a say in international affairs. True, America cannot solve any international crises alone. But the Europeans have to accept that no crises can be solved without the United States, either.

Rhetorical excesses -- such as the National Review Online editor's use of the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" to describe the French, and French author Todd's arguments against "America's predatory force," -- will fade. Perhaps then people will realize that liberty, tolerance, social justice, equality, freedom of speech and religious faith are precious commodities. Together the United States and the EU can preserve and spread them. In jockeying for geopolitical power, they risk forgetting this. It happened last Monday with the grotesque ascension of Libya to the chairmanship of the U.N. Human Rights Commission; the United States opposed it while Europeans abstained. Whoever wins the Free World Super Bowl, Europe and the United States risk losing their souls if they forget what our democracies stand for, or should stand for.

Gianni Riotta is a New York-based columnist for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera and author of "Prince of the Clouds" (Picador).

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

*******************

I loved the comment about the French being called "cheese eating surrender monkeys".. :0)

But the crux of what she's stating is correct. All the rhetoric we're seeing out of Europe is an attempt to "shame" the US into not acting because Europe is impotent to influence events any other way...

And France and Germany sense that it is quite important, for the purpose of sustaining the illusion of a EU unified political and foreign policy, to oppose the US whatever the cost..

If they don't they risk confronting us now, they risk being made utterly irrelevant. And they can't participate militarily, except with US support.

Hawk



To: Hawkmoon who wrote (2808)1/26/2003 4:07:02 PM
From: Elmer Flugum  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
"And quit bringing up your friggin' straw arguments about the Israelis or I'll ban you... Iraq is under a BINDING UNSC RESOLUTION, ISRAEL IS NOT."

I guess the door does not swing both ways in your mind.

Isra'El is indeed supposed to be under UN Resolutions that they have ignored and sneered at, with no response from those who claim to be "neutral" partners in peace.

The Frustration Of Inspections

nytimes.com

January 25, 2003

The Frustrations of Inspections

By WARREN BASS


After years of Iraqi deceit, United Nations inspections now feel both frustrating and familiar. "This looks like the rerun of a bad movie," President Bush said last week. In fact, that movie has been running for longer than he realizes. Nuclear weapons inspections are almost always difficult — even if the country being inspected is a friend of the United States.

From 1961 until 1969, United States nuclear inspectors were quietly sent into Israel's secret reactor at Dimona in the Negev Desert. Of course, there are obvious differences between Israel then and Iraq now; Israel was hardly a regional menace like Iraq. It sought nuclear weapons as the ultimate deterrent to Arab armies and as a guarantee against annihilation. Still, the C.I.A. warned that a nuclear Israel could set off a Middle East arms race and drive Arab states toward Moscow.

The Eisenhower administration sought to channel Israel's atomic efforts toward peaceful research. It provided some technology for a small reactor outside Tel Aviv under its Atoms for Peace program, which encouraged nonmilitary nuclear science. But in 1958, a U-2 spy plane spotted a suspicious construction site in the Negev. When news reports confirmed a second reactor's existence, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion told the Knesset that Dimona was "designed exclusively for peaceful purposes."

President John F. Kennedy, like his predecessor, was inclined to distrust but verify. And Ben-Gurion, fearing Soviet interference, preferred United States inspections to international ones. But Israel controlled the inspections tightly. The first tour came, after much Israeli stalling, on May 18, 1961, when two scientists from the United States Atomic Energy Commission spent the day being shown around Dimona, saw no plutonium-separation plant, and gave the reactor something close to a clean bill of health.

Kennedy, however, remained skeptical. At the Waldorf-Astoria in New York on May 30, the new president told Ben-Gurion that he wanted more inspections "on the theory that a woman should not only be virtuous but also have the appearance of virtue." Sixteen months later, two other commission scientists were abruptly taken on another tour around Dimona — this time for just 40 minutes.

In 1963 Kennedy finally forced a showdown. Secretary of State Dean Rusk told the Israelis that the president now wanted semiannual, unhindered visits to Dimona by American experts. Kennedy insisted on two inspections per year to see how fast Dimona was burning through fuel — a telltale sign of a weapons program.

Ben-Gurion defiantly offered one supervised visit per year. That spring, Kennedy sent Ben-Gurion two scorching letters warning that U.S.-Israel relations would be "seriously jeopardized" without real inspections. When Ben-Gurion resigned over an unrelated domestic political scandal, Kennedy repeated the threat to the new prime minister, Levi Eshkol.

Eshkol's advisers were split. Deputy Defense Minister Shimon Peres, who had helped start the Dimona program, wanted to defy the Americans; Israel's ambassador to Washington, Avraham Harman, urged cooperation. On Aug. 19, Eshkol sought to mollify Washington without abandoning Dimona. He agreed to regular American visits, hinting that the six-month schedule would not be a problem, and promised to return plutonium produced at Dimona to France. Meanwhile, as the Federation of American Scientists later reported, Israel installed false control-room panels and bricked over passages leading to Dimona's innards.

Then Lyndon Johnson became president. He proved less resolute than Kennedy, and Eshkol kept stalling. Johnson ended up settling for one daylong visit per year, under watchful Israeli eyes. By 1969, the Nixon administration had concluded that Israel had some nuclear weapons capacity and gave up on inspections.

It's tempting to use the Dimona story to conclude that inspections can't work, even under nigh-ideal conditions. But a better conclusion may be that inspections are more easily used to paper over proliferation problems than to solve them. Kennedy wanted to use inspections to stop Ben-Gurion's drive for the bomb, but Johnson and Eshkol used them as a fig leaf — averring that Israel's purpose was peaceful. They averted a regional crisis not by halting Israel's nuclear program but by allowing it to continue and muting American suspicions.

None of this means that war is the Bush administration's best or only option on Iraq. But it does suggest that the success of inspections often depends on who's more determined: the inspectors or the inspected. That moral holds for friends and foes alike.

Warren Bass, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is author of the forthcoming "Support Any Friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the Making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance."

Lightupandlightenup

len