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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (45383)12/25/2003 8:08:08 AM
From: 2MAR$  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
US draws a bead on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
atimes.com

(the demon dwarves of ignorance know they'll be lost soon , their ugly jhiads go unpraised and even forgotten in heaven ...the earth will soon swallow them up back into dust, and remembered only as murderers)

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

KARACHI - With the United States facing the prospect of continuing difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan in the new year, there are signs that it will adopt an aggressive policy to cut all kinds of supply lines to the guerrilla movements in these countries, starting with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and making no concessions.

Pakistan
A well-placed source in the Pakistani strategic community tells Asia Times Online that Pakistan has been given a clear message that although Islamabad has pledged its full commitment to the "war on terror", Washington is not entirely pleased with its efforts to date and still considers the country the "naughty boy" of the region and indirectly considers it a catalyst for support of anti-US forces.

The row over a possible Pakistan link to Iran's nuclear program is a case in point, in which the US has lost patience with Islamabad. The Pakistani government has confirmed that the father of its nuclear bomb program, Abd al-Qadir Khan, was being questioned in connection with "debriefings" of several scientists working at his Khan Research Laboratories. This follows a report by The New York Times that information Iran turned over to the International Atomic Energy Agency two months ago has strengthened suspicions that Pakistan sold key nuclear secrets to Iran.

"American and European investigators are interested in what they describe as Iran's purchase of nuclear centrifuge designs from Pakistan 16 years ago, largely to force the Pakistani government to face up to a pattern of clandestine sales by its nuclear engineers and to investigate much more recent transfers," including ones to North Korea in the late 1990s, The Times said.

Although Pakistan claims that some of its nuclear scientists may have been motivated by "personal ambition and greed" to share sensitive nuclear technology with Iran, and that the Pakistan government never authorized the transfer of such information, the US remains unconvinced.

Accordingly, Washington is now placing heavy pressure on Pakistan to abandon its nuclear program. Pakistan and India are believed to be ready next week to exchange lists of their nuclear installations and facilities, and members of the international nuclear club want them to create a South Asian nuclear-free zone by signing a bilateral agreement along the lines of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in which two nuclear rivals in South America - Argentine and Brazil - in the 1990s declared the region a weapons-free zone and abandoned their long-range missile programs, as well as nuclear plants.

Another bone of contention between Pakistan and the US is Pakistan's remote, mountainous and volatile tribal areas that border Afghanistan and which are acknowledged as a base for the resurgent Taliban. Pakistan has repeatedly promised to control the area, but without any significant results. Indeed, sectors within the Pakistani security apparatus are suspected of actively aiding the Taliban in maintaining their supply lines.

To deal with Pakistan, the Washington response in the first stage is to control its nuclear power, and then to create more US bases in Pakistan. This strategy would take Pakistan back to the 1960s, when Pakistan had very limited military and strategic interests in the region, and what there were, were linked to agreements with the US.

Saudi Arabia

Despite half a century of friendship, in the post-September 11 period the kingdom is now seen in Washington as a hotbed of US antagonism. As a result, the US has drawn up a strategy to combat this, with a heavy accent on education.

According to a source at the Islamic University of Medina in Saudi Arabia, under strict US State Department directives, the Saudi government prepared a new educational reform package, a copy of which was handed to Washington. It was rejected, with Saudi authorities asked to prepare another one which removes any teachings about jihad and anti-Christian and Jewish sentiment. Saudi Arabia has also been directed to stop its institutional support of various charity organizations that are suspected of channeling funds to jihad, or Islamic struggle, organizations.


On the political front, local people are to be given broader participation, while in business, strict conditions limiting foreign investment will be lifted, and foreigners will be allowed to operate in the kingdom without a local partner.

By clamping down on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the US hopes to stem support for terrorism at its roots.



To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (45383)12/25/2003 10:32:04 AM
From: JEB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
" The President started the discussion by telling his guests that he had invited them in for a round table discussion of the events in Paris of the preceding week. He said that he thought they might want to ask questions of him or Secretary Herter or Secretary Gates who were also present. The President also added that he heartily approved of the inquiry which was being started in the Senate and that the Administration people, of course, would fully cooperate.

The President said that he specifically wanted to bring up two questions at the start.

The first was what happened to the U-2 plane. He said that the Soviets had claimed they had shot it down by rocket, but that he did not believe this. The Soviets had known about these flights for some time and were not able to interfere with any of the other flights because of the high altitudes at which the planes were flying. He pointed out that a picture of the plane released by the Soviets showed bullet holes in the wings. No soviet fighter could get up to 70,000 feet so it is obvious that those holes must have been put in the wing at a lower altitude. He said it is the present theory that the plane's engine had flamed out, and that the pilot had to come down to below 70,000 feet to get the plane working again. It is possible that at that level Soviet planes could have attacked the U-2 and that their bullets could have damaged the plane's control and made it impossible for the pilot to destroy the plane.

The second point the President said he wanted to raise was that of intelligence and espionage. He said that intelligence and espionage were distasteful for many Americans, but that he as President from the very beginning of his Administration had to make decisions based on what was right for the United States concerning the fundamental intelligence knowledge that we had to have. In this field, of course, one had to weigh the risks and the serious consequences that would result if one were caught. The decision of such espionage is something that the President, and the President alone, has to decide. The President fully knows that if anything goes wrong, there will be criticism not only abroad but here at home. Nevertheless the President has to accept responsibility for these decisions and also keep the knowledge of such activities in the fewest possible hands. Only a few people in State, Defense and CIA knew of this, and there had been no spreading or leaks of the information. The President said that he was responsible for the directive for the U-2, that the wisdom of the decision lay with the President. "There is no glory in this business," he said, "If it is successful, it can't be told."

The President said that he did his best to put everything he could on the record in his speech last night, but that he was worried that the members of Congress in conducting the inquiry would try to dig into the interior of the CIA and its covert operation. Such attempt would be harmful to the United States and he was sure that the leaders of Congress would realize this. He repeated that the Administration people would cooperate with the inquiry -- he called it "investigation" several times.

Senator Dirksen said that he was in G-2 during World War I and had some idea about intelligence and that he agreed with the President that intelligence operations by the Government should be held very tightly.

The President continued that it was also his decision to suspend flights. He said that he was sure that the leaders of Congress would be able to see some photographs of the Soviet installations taken by the U-2 and that they would see how tremendous they were. He pointed out that these flights had to be done from friendly bases and that when the U-2 incident occurred, there was a question of embarrassing our allies, and that was one of the reasons he made the decision to suspend the flights.

Senator Bridges interrupted to ask why some of our allies protested about the use of bases on their soil. The President responded that some of these nations are fairly weak militarily and are close to the borders of the Soviet Union. He said that the Scandinavian countries particularly were afraid of the Bear, that they were perfectly willing to participate if the projects and missions could be concealed but that when they were uncovered, the Scandinavian countries felt that they must disown them.

Secretary Herter said the Pakistan reaction was very good -- that they had registered a protest with us for their own protection but they were not going to publish such a protest and were merely going through the motions. Norway also made a protest, but again Secretary Herter said those nations had to go though the motions for home consumption.

The President said that Ayub of Pakistan was a fine and staunch ally and dwelt for a few minutes on Ayub's plan of basic democracies where first the localities, then the provinces and finally the nation will be given the right to vote.

Senator Mansfield said he was glad to hear the President would support the "investigation" but that he and his colleagues preferred the word "inquiry", that it would not be an investigation in the ugly sense of the word.

He then said that he wanted to ask one question. What would the President think if there were to be established in the Congress a joint Congressional Committee which would oversee the activities of the CIA.

The President responded that his own feeling was that the operation of the CIA was so delicate and so secret in many cases that is must be kept under cover, and that the Executive must be held responsible for it. He said that he would agree to some bipartisan group going down occasionally and receiving reports from the CIA on their activities, but that he would hate to see it formalized -- indeed would be against the proposal made by Senator Mansfield.

Senator Russell supported the President in this viewpoint and said that they do have a Congressional group that periodically went over reports. He said that they knew the U-2 planes were under construction a long time ago. The Senator added that he was not afraid of the Senators on security matters but that he was afraid of staffs and that he would not want to be responsible for staff leaks. He put it quite bluntly when he said that any leaks of this nature from staffs would endanger the lives of men going into Russia and that he did not want it on his conscience.

Congressman Vinson said that he was in complete disagreement with Senator Mansfield, that he supported Senator Russell, and that indeed in the House they had the same system as in the Senate.

Senator Hayden also agreed with Senator Russell and Congressman Vinson -- and Senator mansfield's suggestion therefore was rapidly knocked down.

Senator Fulbright then said that he looked upon the work his committee would do as a study or inquiry and that he hoped the word "investigation" would not be used in connection with it. He said he was glad to hear that the President approved of the inquiry and that he would do his best to it on the track and not let it stray. He also said that he would like to raise this question -- that there was a tendency to revive political dialogue between the parties on who was soft on Communism. He said that if this continues, it would be disastrous, that it would get into the political campaign and that in the end, both parties might find themselves in the position where it would be impossible to renew contacts or continue them with the Soviets.

The President agreed with Senator Fulbright on this point and said that such a situation was easy to develop unless both political parties were careful of their language and their charges. He said that this was one of the things that Krushchev was trying to do, to inject this matter into the American campaign, that he as President had refused to even recognize it and that he was sure the United States had leaders who had sense to remain bipartisan in the international field. As for himself, the President said he would have no part of any such political activities.

Senator Fulbright said that his committee would follow the same pattern as the Russell Committee had in the past, and that a transcript would be issued after the private meeting. The transcript, however, would be subject to censorship as far as security matters were concerned.

Senator Fulbright said that he would like to raise another point, and that was whether it was wise for the President to take responsibility for the U-2 flights. He said that he himself thought that disavowal would probably have been better.

In response the President said that when the plane was first missing, no one knew what had happened. It had been thought that if the plane got into trouble it would be destroyed, all material on board would be destroyed, and that the pilot would be free of any such material. On this assumption the story of a weather plane would have been able to stick. But, he added, the assumptions were incorrect. Within a few days the balloon was up. Senator Fulbright said that he still didn't think it was wise to take full responsibility. President Eisenhower responded that he thought it was, that if he didn't take responsibility someone else would have had to. He said he agreed that Krushchev had tried to give him an out on this, but that he looked upon it as his responsibility, and he assumed it.

"Incidentally," he said with a smile, "if anyone were punished they should punish me first." He said that anyone sitting in his chair wouldn't want to put the CIA on the spot, and would not want to disown the CIA or its Director. He said that in addition to being President, he was also Commander-in-Chief, and he didn't see how he could duck this responsibility. He said he would be interested to see what the majority opinion of Fulbright's Committee would be on this point.

At this point Congressman Vinson leaned over and whispered to me that the President was dead right, that Fulbright was all wrong on his thesis, and that he, Vinson, thought the President had acted quite right in assuming responsibility. He said -- "That's the kind of man he is anyway."

Senator Johnson then asked whether our intelligence would suffer by the discontinuance of the U-2 flights.

The President responded that when our friends were on the spot he had no alternative but to cancel out the flights. But he added that it was clear that with the advance of techniques these flights are not going to be as useful as they were in the past.

Senator Johnson then asked why they weren't stopped before the Summit Meeting.

The President said again that this was a decision that had to be made. The previous flights had been successful. The ill-fated flight had to take advantage of the weather to get the needed information that would no be available later on, and the decision was to go ahead. It was just bad luck that the flight had failed.

Speaker Rayburn interjected that as far as he was concerned, he had kept quiet about the whole thing.

The President responded that the people closely associated with the flight were sure that their cover story would hold and that that was the only reason he told them to put it out. He said that on reflection it would have been a good idea to count to ten, but that that was crying over spilt milk and that nothing could be done about it. It was then that the President said that he would study any recommendations that Senator Fulbright's Committee might make.

Secretary Herter said that the whole matter was a question of alternatives -- that the flights in the past had been successful, that the information they had collected was remarkable but that when the flight failed it was decided to make a frank and full story of the incident.

The President jocularly said that as far as punishment was concerned, the only way he could be punished would be by impeachment. Speaker Rayburn also replied jocularly that "you haven't got long enough to go for that." But then on a serious vein the Speaker told the President that whether mistakes had been made or not, "we are all in this together."

The meeting then broke up with the President thanking all the participants for coming to the White House. ..."

(Memorandum Of Conversation, Bipartisan Leaders Breakfast With The President, Held In The State Dining Room, The White House, Thursday, May 26, 1960, At 8:45 A.M.)