February 16, 1999
       The *FREE ARAB VOICE* (http://www.fav.net)
      (Your Voice in a World where Oppression, Steel, and Fire have
turned Justice Mute)

In this issue of the Free Arab Voice we present:

1) "Should we Postpone or Pose Women's Issues During the Struggle for
National Liberation?"  Laila Khaled tackles the question in depth, in
the second part of her interview with the Free Arab Voice.

2) "The Dowry", a powerful poem by Nabila Martino.

3) A Palestinian Book of Poetry by Ziad Shaker el-Jishi

#######################################################
1) Women in the Liberation Movement.  Interview with Laila Khaled

The following is part II of Laila Khaled's interview with the Free Arab
Voice.  Laila Khaled is a member of the leadership council of the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestinian (PFLP), a delegate of
the Palestinian National Council (PNC,i.e., Palestinian parliament),  a
leader in the Palestinian Women's Union, and otherwise another
Palestinian Arab who has given the last three decades of her life for
the cause.   In part one of this interview, we discussed controversial
issues relating to the strategy of liberating of Palestine. See
http://www.fav.net/ExclusiveInterviewWLailaKhaled.htm

In this part, we focus on women's issues, with special emphasis on women
in the movement for national liberation.

[The interview with Laila Khlaed was done for the Free Arab Voice by
Ibrahim Alloush]

FAV: You mentioned earlier that you were prevented from leaving for
Beirut in December 1998 to attend the second Arab sub-meeting of the
post-Peking women's conference, because the authorities thought you were
going in fact to attend the Palestinian opposition conference in
Damascus.   But let's turn here to the question of women.  Until
recently, the official line of the Palestinian left on the question of
women was that the question of national rights comes before the question
of women's rights.  The latter question is hereby deferred till after
liberation, like all questions not pertaining directly to resisting the
occupation.

However, in recent years, the question of women was posed again
forcefully by two different groups: 1) the religious fundamentalists,
who have been trying to impose a certain concept on the role of women in
society that is considered backward and reactionary by some, and 2) the
Non-governmental organizations (NGO's), and international agencies, who
have been trying to impose an alternative concept for the liberation of
women that is described as a western construct alien to our society by
others, even part and parcel of the cultural Zionist campaign to wreck
our societies politically.

Before this conflict taking place right now in front of  us between
local fundamentalists on one hand and the westernized activists on the
other, can we continue to re-iterate that the question of women is to be
postponed till after liberation?  Or do we have no choice but to
struggle on both fronts, the social and the national?  Can we really
separate the liberation of women from the liberation of the homeland? Or
should we ignore this issue when posed by the fundamentalists or the
westernized, so we may better focus our energy on the Zionist enemy?
But can we really separate social backwardness, and some of our
attitudes and conventions, from the struggle against the Zionist
occupation as the latter thrives on our backwardness?   Would Laila
Khaled like to tackle this broad topic?

Laila: You mean broad topics rather : ) Well, let's first of all define
what we mean by the women's question.  A Palestinian, regardless of
whether s/he is a male or a female,  has the most basic problem of being
either a refugee or under occupation.    There's a Zionist entity on our
land that was built on our ruin, i.e., on the assumption that we don't
exist.  Our people, both men and women,  struggled to reclaim their
identity as Palestinian.   Thus the Palestinian national movement
focused on the goal of reaffirming the Palestinian identity, and I mean
that in a progressive, not a parochial or anti-Arab sense.

In the course of this struggle however, certain necessary and crucial
issues are posed, among the most prominent of which is probably the
question of women.  For example, women are half of society.  So if this
society doesn't mobilize all of its energy to face down the enemy, it
can't achieve victory.  A Palestinian woman is a Palestinian as well.
As such,  she has the same goals as the rest of our people.

But at the same time, the persecution of our women is compounded, not
just cumulative.    She is oppressed nationally as a Palestinian under
occupation or in exile.  This is the primary facet and cruelest form of
her oppression.  The second facet of the complex is her socio-economic
exploitation as a member of the social class she belongs to.  Last but
not least, she is oppressed as a woman because our societies are sexist.
Therefore her struggle has to also be complex and multi-faceted too.  In
the struggle for liberation, she is indeed fighting on several fronts:
the national, socio-economic, and the social front.  This means that for
liberation to really take place for her, it has to take place in these
three dimensions SIMULTANEOUSLY, not successively.

How can an enslaved (hu)man liberate her land if she is not free?!  She
cannot be free as a woman however if her land is occupied.  Thus the
dialectical process falls into place.  As you struggle, you regain your
freedom and humanity.  You don't wait until the land is liberated, or
until someone liberates it for you, to call yourself free that way then
get ready to build on that freedom another dimension.

FAV [Question from Fadia Rafeedie]: Some books about women's rights and
liberation in English accuse you personally of adopting the masculine
concept of the liberation of women, which is to put off the question of
the liberation of women to a later stage.    How do you respond to that?

Laila: No,  I don't think like that, neither on my personal level nor
that of the PFLP.  I'm one of those who struggled against that
particular concept of women's liberation, even within the PFLP.  I don't
consider it a deferred question at all, because we are dealing with the
problem of a whole society here, just like the problem of poverty for
example, or that of backwardness.  But I do believe that we have to
struggle with progressive men on our side for these social causes,
including the central one of women.   It is no different from struggling
to achieve workers rights, or to improve health and education in the
third world.  These are social issues, and they can't all be postponed
till after the liberation of our land.  On the contrary, making progress
in these areas, will help us achieve national liberation.

This is because revolution as a concept is not just about taking up
arms.  Hunters and hoodlums bear arms too.  Revolution has a political
end.  In its more comprehensive sense, revolution is a process of change
in reality that encompasses several aspects of life.  We are a society
in need of that change.  Revolutionaries struggle against backwardness,
illiteracy, poverty, and even against the bourgois culture of
consumerism.  We happen to be fighting on top of all that against those
who took our land as well.    You can't postpone all these questions
till after liberation, just like you can't build a house before you
establish a good foundation.

FAV: Where do you stand on the religious fundamentalist line on women?

Laila: Of course the fundamentalist line on women should be rejected
wholesale.  But we cannot ignore its presence either.  The religious
tide has begun to hold sway in our society.  Its manifestations and
influence have become omnipresent.    Therefore, we have to confront it
with dialogue. . with dialogue.  In doing this however, we should steer
away from anything which touches the sensitive chord of Islamic culture
in our society.  I mean we shouldn't discuss these issues from a narrow
perspective.  Rather we should try to look at them from very wide
angles.  We should- and I mean WE here, not anybody else- give the
religious approach a progressive content, as opposed to a fundamentalist
content.

You know we live in an overtly religious society.  So it would be wrong
to butt heads here with sensitive issues that turn the people away from
us.  Rather, what is required of us is to understand our reality and
deal with it.  Ask them: what did God order us to do?  God ordered us to
practice Jihad (struggle), right? So let us practice that Jihad.  But it
is not only for men, is it now?  It's for both men and women.

Fundamentalists pose social issues strictly from the point of view of
social legislation dealing with marriage, divorce, etc…The social
question for them collapses into how to regulate women.    But this
perspective is too inadequate to mobilize a society against the
occupation...too inadequate.  That's why they will never get any serious
results there [on the national front].

But when they say let's fight together, I'm willing to fight along the
side of a guy who has a beard this long even if has all kinds of weird
ideas about women in his head.  As long as he is fighting the
occupation, I'll fight with him.    While fighting together, I don't
pause to evaluate him on whether he thinks women should wear a veil or
not.  He too will forget that I'm not wearing a veil when he sees me
fighting.  When we get thrown in jail together, he's not going to focus
on whether I'm wearing a veil or not.  When we go to the graveyards and
see the martyrs laying side by side, he's not going to think about which
martyr was wearing what.

In general however, the fundamentalist viewpoint is a negative one,
incapable of serious political mobilization.  It represents an effort to
turn back the clock.  Unfortunately this view is helped by the fact that
the Palestinian cause itself is experiencing a state of defeat.  So
people retreat to metaphysics for instant relief, as they look to shift
the heavy burden outwards!

FAV: …And the Western viewpoint on the women's question?

Laila: In the Peking women's Conference we were discussing this …

FAV: You mean the one that Hillary Clinton attended?

Laila: Hillary Clinton, for electoral reasons, and due to the influence
of the church, was preaching on the primacy of the family.   But that
was at odds with what the U.S. government delegation in the Peking
Conference was pushing  Hillary Clinton said that a family is a mother
and a father living under legal contract, with children and what have
you.  The official American stand however was that any two can form a
family, any two people: a man and a woman without a legal contract, or
even two people from the same sex.  Of course this strange concept of
the family was rejected by the official Arab and Islamic delegations in
the Conference.   So Hillary started preaching our traditional Arabian
concept of the family.  We understood that as politics to help out her
husband and his administration.

The most dangerous aspect of the conference nevertheless was the attempt
to "de-politicize" the question of women.

FAV: What does that mean?  Can you explain this please?

Laila: That is 'de-politicize', meaning, to NOT consider the question of
women an integral part of the question of social and political change in
general.

FAV: So is this in your opinion the main problem with the western
concept for the liberation of women?

Laila: Their point was that we women can unite on issues regardless of
nature of our political systems.  Here we posed the following question,
and this was the subject of pitched battles between us and the Western
world since the first Women's Conference under the auspices of the
United Nations in Mexico in 1975, until 1995 in Peking: WHY CAN'T THE
PALESTINIAN WOMEN'S DELEGATION VOTE IN THE CONFERENCE?  We vote in the
group of 77, but not in the conference.  We are treated like another
United Nations organization!

In 1980, the question of Palestinian women was on the agenda.  Serious
attempts were made [by anti-Palestinian forces] to drop that issue.  But
we insisted and fought back. The socialist states supported us and we
adopted resolutions favoring Palestinian rights as a result.  In
Nairoubi however, there was a big retreat.  A resolution was passed that
abrogated a previous resolution equating Zionism with racism.  In recent
years, there's been a big retreat on both fronts: the women's, and that
of Palestine.

In Peking in 1995, in the meetings of the official delegations, not the
one by NGO's,  we spent about fifteen days squabbling over the
terminology of  a paragraph titled: "Violence against Women".   The
paragraph discussed the need to support women who were under occupation,
or who were subject to sexual abuse. We said you really can't set
occupation and sexual abuse on the same political plane.  Sexual abuse
is the problem of individuals, regardless of how rampant, whereas
occupation is the problem of whole peoples.

In previous women's conferences, we tackled in our resolutions issues
such as women under colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, apartheid, and
so forth.  But in the Peking Conference this time, we lost fifteen days
in the sub-committee that was led by the American delegation just to
move 'sexual abuse' into a different paragraph from that dealing with
occupation.  We even tried to specify in the text which women in the
world were under occupation, without much luck.  The best we could do
was to have 'sexual abuse' removed from right next to 'occupation' to
the end of the same paragraph.  They also vehemently refused to let us
specify which women were under occupation. The American delegate
responded outside…

FAV: Was the American delegate a 'he' or a 'she'?

Laila: It was a guy, and he pointed out outside the meeting to one of
our Palestinian representatives: "You know who is occupying whom.  Why
specify it!!".  Tell me, what does that mean politically for the women's
movement?!

Other women from some parts of the world tell us that we can unite on
the issue of our sexual oppression.  Everywhere you look in the text, or
the program of action, you'll find the word 'sex'.  You'll find sex
here, and you'll find it there.  It 's there to discuss sexual abuse one
time, then again to discuss sexual tourism.  The point is to
de-politicize the question of women, and  affirm that women can unite
just as women.  I say yes  let's unite, but to do what exactly?

For example, they wanted to unite us on the question of sexual tourism.
But that is something that we Palestinians and Arabs neither know nor
understand.  This is not the most serious problem in OUR societies.  We
are still fighting to get the right to vote on these resolutions in the
women's conference you see!!  So I asked them to explain sexual tourism
to me.  Of course we are against it, but it really is not something we
are familiar with.  When they started discussing 'sexual industry', I
got lost again because these are expressions that are not even in our
dictionary.   WE ARE LIVING IN A SOCIETY THAT HAS A DIFFERENT SET OF
PROBLEMS.

For example, we Palestinians have been subject to political genocide.  I
therefore support having more, not less, Palestinians.  But these guys
want to push population control on us.   The right to choose for me is
an individual matter.  It doesn't need to become foreign policy.
That's the way I see that issue.

In Europe and the United States, the question of abortion occupies a
central place in the political debate.  The church says no, supporters
of women's rights say yes.  This may be an important issue to understand
and take a position on too.  But how does it become a central issue for
our people?  We have other priorities.  We don't even have lesser
rights.  Our humanity has been denied us.  So why should I lose time on
this issue? Right now we have to deal with the more urgent daily
persecution of the Palestinian National Authority for example.  We have
to worry about whether the refugees will return or not.  We wonder first
and foremost about whether these political deals concerning us are fair
or not, and whether the injustice we have been living will escalate.

We suffer from exile, and the oppression of Arab regimes.  Our
populations are being impoverished.  But these guys [in the conference]
wanted to make the issue of sexual freedom the most important item on
the agenda.  Again, this might be an important question on the
individual level, but not on our social level.   I VIEW THIS AS A
POLITICAL DEVIATION WHICH PURPORTS TO THWART OUR ATTENTION FROM THE REAL
ISSUES THAT CONCERN OUR PEOPLE AND SOCIETY.   A red herring to preoccupy
us with trifles, that's what it is.

If a woman in Sweden wanted to worry about these things, that would make
sense for her.  A woman in the United States might have to deal with
problems transpiring from the inner workings of her society, like:
should homosexuals be allowed into the navy or not? !!!!   She might
want to worry about that but I won't, because this is definitely not the
most pressing  Palestinian problem right now.

FAV:  Let's go then to the individual level with an important question
for a large number of political activists of both sexes perhaps.   In
your opinion, and in the light of your personal experience, do you think
that a long-term relationship, or a marriage, between a political
activist and a non-politicized person could work out?  And under what
conditions specifically?  For example, in modern Arab cities, average
people are getting increasingly more concerned with HAVING as many
material amenities as possible.  They live for appearances.   Being with
someone like that may retard an activist and may perhaps turn into a
reactionary force in her or his life.  On the other hand, would it be
easier for a male activist to have a non-politicized mate, than it is
for a female activist, since our societies are unfortunately sexist?
What do you say to that?

Laila: I believe that any marriage, between any two people, has to have
a solid basis of social and intellectual common grounds.   They of
course have to love and respect each other.  Yet in our masculine
societies, it is possible for a male political activist to be with a
non-politicized mate.  They'll live okay, but will that be a successful
marriage?!  I really don't think so.  They might live together in a
family and raise children, but still it's not really successful because
they'll be living in two different worlds.   He'll probably be okay with
that though because he merely wants a good housewife, maybe a
breadwinner on the side, or someone to raise the children so he may
devote himself more fully to political concerns.   He might even yell at
them to shut up so he may read.   But he wouldn't know what they are
yelling about, or even know them very well, really know them.

That's why things are necessarily different for a female activist.  When
she is politically involved, she can only be with a politically involved
mate.   I talk from experience.  Women activists may be accepted by
their husbands the way they are, but only within the limits that don't
conflict with his interests at home.  At the end of the day, he wishes
her to turn into a traditional housewife.  Fetch coffee!  Make dinner!
Thus problems arise.

To the extent the two realize that marriage is a partnership, things
will work out better though.  When they are on similar planes in their
intellects, qualities, and abilities, things might work out better.  But
when one of them supersedes the other in those areas, the relationship
becomes uneven, maybe to the point of disintegration.

Naturally dialogue plays a crucial role in the success of any
relationship, although dialogue could take angry forms sometimes.
Mutual concessions are also necessary, but usually women end up making
them more in the relationship.  Many men say they support women's
rights, but frequently they don't practice that in reality, and they
especially won't practice that in their own homes.  There are individual
exceptions to the rule of course, but we have a lot of progress to make
on the social level.   There are successful cases as well, but even
those go through alternate periods of ups and downs because this is
life.  With my husband and kids, even though we have a good frame of
understanding overall, differences do arise.   The good thing is that we
agree politically.  That's important.

FAV: Is your husband politically active?

Laila: He's a physician who writes political newspaper columns
frequently.

FAV: So he's politically committed too?

Laila: Of course, who else would bear to live with me : ) For me the key
is having a good balance between responsibilities at home and
responsibilities outside.  For example, I'm thinking right now that
perhaps I should go home to cook for my kids.

FAV: Okay, thank you Laila Khaled, we're done : )   : )
########################################################

2) 'The Dowry' a poem by Nabila Martino

Here is the bride price:
(Quite different from the one
That childhood anticipated…)

Death assaulted you but once…
For me, each time I dream
I am dragged through the landscape
Of  that final moment…

Death recycled a hundred times,
Fragments exploding through time
Into my arms
Over and over,
Nightmares delivered express,
Insured by love.

Dawn comes at last,
But not as rescuer…
For awakening
Brings realisation
That your murderers
Still freely rain down death
>From the skies
While their star
Coldly reigns
Over minefields and settlements
And countless unmarked graves.

Is peace of mind
A small price to pay
For the obliteration
Of the truth?
I will dream on,
My love…
#########################################################


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 99 20:01:18 -0400
From: akin@...
Subject: AKIN Press Relase on Ocalan and An Announcement




For Immediate Release (# 40)
202.483.6444 (Tel.)
February 16, 1999

AKIN Condemns Apparent Greek and U.S. Complicity in Arrest of Ocalan
Calls on International Community to Oppose Turkey's Genocidal Campaign
Against the Kurds

Washington, DC:  The delivery of the Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan into
the hands of the Turkish government raises a number of troubling
questions about the complicity of Greece, Kenya and the United States in
the Turkish military's genocidal campaign against the Kurdish people.

Conflicting reports of Ocalan's arrest from the Greek and Kenyan
governments point to their cooperation with the Turkish government's
anti-Kurdish campaign which, under the banner of anti-terrorism, has
razed countless Kurdish villages, committed widespread torture, and
denied a people their basic human and cultural rights.

Earlier today, the Embassy of Greece in Washington, DC, issued a
statement noting that because Ocalan had intended to go to Holland the
Greek government was freed of any responsibility for his safety.  Without
providing any explanation, the Greek Embassy reported that Ocalan somehow
fell into the custody of the Kenyan police officers, who then apparently
handed him over to the government of Turkey.  The Greek Embassy statement
failed to make reference to the diplomatic protocol that its Embassy's
grounds are considered Greek soil and that, accordingly, the Kenyan
authorities could not have entered the Embassy compound without the
consent of the Greek government.

In sharp contrast to the Greek government's version of the arrest, the
Kenyan Foreign Minister Bonaya Godana flatly denied the Greek
government's version of events.  Godana reported that he simply asked the
Greek Ambassador to Kenya to have Ocalan be removed from the grounds of
the Greek Embassy, but that his government would not in any way have been
involved in handing Ocalan over to the Turkish government.

These conflicting reports and, particularly, the highly suspect version
of the events surrounding Ocalan's arrest being put forward by the Greek
government suggests a break with Greece's traditional support for the
democratic aspirations of the Kurdish nation.  Sources in the region
attribute this move to heavy pressure on Athens from the United States
government.  The exact role of Kenya remains unclear, although it appears
as though outside interests may have played a role in either
orchestrating or, at the very least, heavily influencing the Kenyan
government's actions.

Greece's role holds a telling irony, in that the Greek government's
involvement in Ocalan's arrest directly benefits Turkish Prime Minister
Bulent Ecevit, the very same man who ordered the invasion of Cyprus in
1974.  It only adds to this irony that Ecevit, America's "supposed" key
friend in the region, recently hosted Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq
Aziz, despite Washington's long-standing opposition to the Iraqi regime.
Double standards, it would seem, do not trouble those who would deny the
Kurds their basic rights even as they carry the banner of democratic
ideals and international cooperation.

The American Kurdish Information Network (AKIN) condemns any complicity
on the part of Greece, Kenya, the United States or other states in the
Turkish government's genocidal campaign against the Kurdish people.  AKIN
joins with all Kurdish organizations to call upon the peoples of the
world to support the democratic aspirations of the Kurdish nation and a
political settlement of the Kurdish question in Turkey.


An AKIN Announcement

The Director of the American Kurdish Information Network (AKIN) will be
on CNN tomorrow Wednesday at 10:45 am.  Ocalan's fate and the Kurdish
Question will be discussed.


The American Kurdish Information Network
2623 Connecticut Avenue NW # 1
Washington, DC 20008-1522

Tel: 202.483.6444
Fax: 202.483.6476

The American Kurdish Information Network (AKIN) provides a public service
to foster Kurdish-American understanding and friendship


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:35:19 -0500
From: Washington Kurdish Institute <wki@...>
To: wki@...
Subject: WKI PRESS RELEASE: ARREST OF ABDULLAH OCALAN

PRESS RELEASE
February 16, 1999

WKI Calls for International Monitors to Ensure Open, Fair Trial of Abdullah
Ocalan
Predicts Continued Violence as Long as Turkey Denies Political, Cultural Rights

Washington, D.C. -- Washington Kurdish Institute President, Dr. Najmaldin
Karim, issued the following statement concerning the capture of Abdullah
Ocalan, leader of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).

"Mr. Ocalan's arrest changes little for the Kurds of Turkey.  As long as
Kurds in Turkey are denied political and cultural rights, they will continue
their struggle. As long as Turkey's military kills, tortures, and arrests
Kurds for peacefully expressing their identity, Kurds will defend themselves
and the cycle of violence will continue. The PKK represents the most recent
of numerous mass Kurdish uprisings against the Turkish state. Underlying
sources of discontent predate the PKK and will not end with Mr. Ocalan's
arrest.

The dimensions of the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK are
staggering.  The complete lack of international support for resolving the
conflict is equally shocking. More than 30,000 people have died. The Turkish
military has destroyed 3,000 Kurdish villages and forced more than two
million people from their homes. The government has spent more than $112
billion dollars fighting the PKK, yet southeastern Turkey remains
economically devastated. The conflict ensures the Turkish military's leading
role in political life and gives the regime a pretext to curtail freedom of
expression and other basic human rights for all Turkey's citizens

Such severe political repression, coupled with economic deprivation are
directly responsible for the PKK's emergence. With all legal Kurdish-based
parties closed or in the process of being closed, Turkey's Kurds have no
legal means of expressing themselves politically or culturally. Without
responsive political institutions, Kurds are unable to participate as equals
in Turkish society.  Mr. Ocalan's detention does not change this fundamental
reality.

The United States and international community must take steps to ensure an
open and fair trial for Mr. Ocalan, and to see that he is not tortured. Mr.
Ocalan's trial and conditions of his detention should be closely monitored.
The US administration should publicly support efforts to find a peaceful
solution to the Kurdish question in Turkey.  Support for the Turkish
government's corrupt war against "terrorism" has only prolonged Kurdish
suffering and retarded democratic development in Turkey. With US assistance,
the Turkish regime has avoided dealing with the serious underlying issues
that threaten political and economic stability.  The opportunity that now
exists to move forward towards a peaceful political solution should not
remain hostage to politically expedient definitions of "terrorism."

Mr. Ocalan's arrest shares headlines with US efforts to force Serbia to
grant autonomy to Albanians living in Kosovo. Any moral authority behind US
policy in the Balkans withers in the face of US unwillingness to challenge
Turkey's policies of ethnic cleansing. The double standards evident in
juxtaposition of these two situations are  hard to ignore.

While Kurds around the world struggle to make sense of Mr. Ocalan's arrest,
it is important to begin to look to the future. Kurds in Turkey and
elsewhere must refrain from letting emotions move them to act in a manner
which can be used by the Turkish government and others to criminalize the
Kurdish movement. Kurdish communities and their leaders must rededicate
themselves to a peaceful struggle for human rights and democracy in Turkey
and elsewhere."

END
***************************************************************************


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Please sign on, distribute, post, announce:

Available at http://www.endiraqsanctions.com

Advisory Board

Noam Chomsky
MIT

Howard Zinn
Boston University

Edward W. Said
Columbia University

Robert Jensen
University of Texas at Austin

William Keach
Brown University

Ad Coordinator:
Sharon Smith

February 3, 1999

Dear Friend,

A growing chorus of people, in this country and around the world, are
demanding an end to the murderous sanctions against Iraq, which are a
direct result of U.S. government policy. The sanctions have taken a
staggering toll among Iraqi civilians-especially the sick, the elderly and,
above all, children under the age of 5.

Here in the U.S., the mainstream media is finally giving some attention to
the deadly effects of the sanctions. But much more is needed. Most people
in this country have little or no knowledge of the human suffering that is
being inflicted by our government, in our name.

We have initiated a campaign to place a full-page signature ad in the New
York Times. We believe that such an ad can play an important part in giving
voice to the growing opposition to the sanctions against the Iraqi people.

The purpose of this letter is to ask you to sign on to the signature ad,
which will appear in the New York Times within the next six weeks. We also
ask that, if at all possible, you enclose a contibution to help finance it.
As you may imagine, the ad will cost a great deal of money-$34,000. But it
will allow us to reach the widest possible audience with the facts about
the sanctions.

We have enclosed the text of the ad as it will appear. Please fill out the
form below and return it to us in the enclosed envelope at your earliest
convenience. We are certain that you share our sense of urgency to place
this ad as quickly as possible.

If you add your name, we will contact you to let you know when to look for
the signature ad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____ Yes, add my name to the New York Times signature ad:

Name/Title________________________________________
Organization*__________________________________________________
Mailing Address________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Telephone______________________________E-Mail_________________

_____ I want to help finance the ad. Enclosed is a check for:

$50_____ $100_____ $500_____ $1,000_____ Other______

Please make checks payable to the New York Times and mail to:

End the Sanctions Against Iraq Signature Ad Campaign
P.O. Box 16085
Chicago IL 60616
v 773-665-8695
f 773-665-9651
e endsanctions@...

*Organizations are listed for identification purposes only.

Sanctions ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction

We the undersigned call upon the United States government to end all
sanctions against the people of Iraq.

At the end of 1998, the United States once again rained bombs on
the people of Iraq. But even when the bombs stop falling, the U.S. war
against the people of Iraq continues-through the United Nations harsh
sanctions on Iraq, which are the direct result of U.S. policy.

This month, U.S. policy will kill 4,500 Iraqi children under the
age of 5, according to United Nations studies, just as it did last month
and the month before that all the way back to 1991. Since the end of the
Gulf War, more than a million Iraqis have died as a direct result of the UN
sanctions on Iraq.

To oppose the sanctions is not equivalent to supporting the regime of
Saddam Hussein. To oppose the sanctions is to support the Iraqi people.
Saddam Hussein is a murderous dictator, who promotes those who are loyal to
him and kills all those who voice opposition to his regime. But throughout
the 1980s, when it suited U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East, the
U.S. government was more than willing to ignore Saddam Hussein's brutality.
In fact, U.S. and European companies provided Iraq with materials used to
produce Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction." Moreover, the
sanctions have not affected the lifestyle of Saddam Hussein or his inner
circle. Food and medicine are available for those who can afford it. The
sanctions hurt only the Iraqi people.

The sanctions are weapons of mass destruction. When a UN
inspections team visited Iraq to survey the damage from the Gulf War in
March 1991, it concluded that the bombing has reduced Iraq to a
"pre-industrial age." The team said at that time that if the sanctions were
not lifted, the country faced "immediate catastrophe." Yet the sanctions
have continued for the last seven years, preventing Iraq from obtaining the
hard currency to buy basic food stuffs and medicines-or to rebuild its
infrastructure. The oil-for-food deal that allows Iraq to sell $5.2 billion
of its oil every six months has had only marginal effects. The United
Nations takes one-third of all oil revenues for war reparations and its own
expenses. The oil-for-food program does not generate enough money to feed
adequately a population of 22 million. Raising the ceiling would not help.
The refineries were bombed during the war and need to be rebuilt-even now,
Iraq is unable to produce all the oil it is allowed to. In October, Denis
Halliday, the UN coordinator for humanitarian aid to Iraq, resigned in
protest, arguing that the sanctions "are starving to death 6,000 Iraqi
infants every month, ignoring the human rights of ordinary Iraqis and
turning a whole generation against the West."

The sanctions also prevent Iraq from importing many basic
necessities. Most pesticides and fertilizer are banned because of their
potential military use. Raw sewage is pumped continuously into water that
people end up drinking because Iraq's water treatment plants were blown up
by US bombs in 1991-and most have never been repaired. Yet chlorine is
banned under the sanctions because it also could be of military use.
Typhoid, dysentery and cholera have reached epidemic proportions. Farid
Zarif, deputy director of the UN humanitarian aid program in Baghdad,
argued recently, "We are told that pencils are forbidden because carbon
could be extracted from them that might be used to coat airplanes and make
them invisible to radar. I am not a military expert, but I find it very
disturbing that because of this objection, we cannot give pencils to Iraqi
schoolchildren."

For the past several years, individuals and groups have been
delivering medicine and other supplies to Iraq in defiance of the U.S.
blockade. Now, members of one of those groups, Chicago-based Voices in the
Wilderness, have been threatened with massive fines by the federal
government for "exportation of donated goods, including medical supplies
and toys, to Iraq absent specific prior authorization." Our government is
harassing a peace group that takes medicine and toys to dying children: we
owe these courageous activists our support.

This is not foreign policy-it is state-sanctioned mass murder. The
Iraqi people are suffering because of the actions of both the Iraqi and
U.S. governments, but our moral responsibility lies here in the United
States. If we remain silent, we are condoning a genocide that is being
perpetrated in the name of peace in the Middle East, a mass slaughter that
is being perpetrated in our name.

<>

Anthony Arnove
South End Press
7 Brookline Street #1
Cambridge MA 02139-4146
v 617-547-4002
f 617-547-1333
e arnove@...
w http://www.lbbs.org/sep/sep.htm

National Writers Union/UAW Local 1981


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Campaign for Labor Rights <clr@...>
To: clr@... <clr@...>
Date: February 14, 1999 10:17 PM
Subject: student sit-in victories


>Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights
>To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to CLR@...
>Web site: www.summersault.com/~agj/clr
>Phone: (541) 344-5410   Fax: (541) 431-0523
>Membership/newsletter: Send $35.00 to Campaign for Labor Rights, 1247 "E"
>Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. Sample newsletter available on request.
>
>STUDENT SIT-IN VICTORIES AGAINST SWEATSHOPS
>posted February 14, 1999
>
>In this alert:
>Overview
>Report from Duke
>Report from Georgetown
>Report from Wisconsin
>
><><><><><>
>
>OVERVIEW
>
>In the past two weeks, the student movement against university / college
>complicity in sweatshop abuses has become more militant - and appears to
>have won some important victories.
>
>Collegiate licensing is a multi-billion dollar business. University and
>college administrations sell companies the right to put their school logo
on
>clothing, banners, coffee mugs and endless other paraphernalia. Sales from
>such contracts are highly lucrative for Nike and other corporations.
Profits
>increase when those companies keep labor costs at a minimum by having their
>products made in sweatshops.
>
>During the 1997/98 school year, students on a number of campuses began to
>pressure their administrations to adopt codes intended to guarantee that
>items bearing the school logo would not be made in sweatshops. In a few
>instances, negotiations between students and administrators actually led to
>passage of codes.
>
>As students and others concerned with sweatshop issues discussed the
>movement around licensing codes, there developed a near unanimity that the
>codes already passed on some campuses and any future codes passed on other
>campuses needed to be strengthened in two fundamental respects:
>
>1) Disclosure must involve the public, not just corporate-friendly
>administrators. Students and the general public have a right to know the
>names and locations of the factories where items bearing the school logo
are
>produced, and they must have access to reports resulting from monitoring of
>those factories.
>
>2) The code must include a clear commitment to pay workers a living wage,
>not just the legal minimum in the countries where the items are produced.
>
>During the summer of 1998, in another important development, students from
a
>number of campuses formalized their work by founding United Students
Against
>Sweatshops (USAS), and they improved their information-sharing by setting
up
>a list serve.
>
>While the students were strengthening their hand, meanwhile the companies
>profiting from licensing contracts prepared a retrenchment. More than 100
>campuses use the services of the CLC (Collegiate Licensing Company). This
>for-profit business brokers deals for many of the companies seeking
>licensing contracts. While the CLC has a monopoly on neither the campuses
>nor the companies with such contracts (Nike, for example, negotiates its
own
>contracts), the CLC was uniquely positioned to act as a counter-force to
the
>student anti-sweatshop movement.
>
>To undermine the student movement, the CLC wrote its own, weak and
toothless
>code. The CLC code was a more blatant travesty than the agreement produced
>by the White House task force on sweatshops (AIP - Apparel Industry
>Partnership) because there was not even a pretense of negotiating with
>unions and non-governmental organizations, only a "comment period" during
>which people could suggest changes to what already was a done deal.
>
>Reportedly, the Clinton administration even got into the act recently,
>inviting key college and university presidents to the White House, to urge
>them to opt for the CLC code. This is consistent with Clinton's policy of
>promoting "free trade" without meaningful provisions for labor rights.
>
>As some university administrations moved to adopt the CLC code, students on
>at least three campuses have risen to the occasion. As the following
reports
>detail, students conducted sit-in's (some lasting for days) until they had
>reason to believe that they had wrested meaningful commitments from
>administrators.
>
>The student response is especially heartening, given concerns that endless
>negotiations with administrators might have demobilized a vibrant
>campus-based movement. In the fall of 1997, Nike had three PR teams in the
>air for months on end, trying to quell protests against sweatshop practices
>in Nike's Asian shoe factories. Soon, the momentum and organizing potential
>seemed to come to a halt as small groups of students closeted themselves
for
>months on end in negotiations with administrators over the minutiae of
>codes. Some observers of the student sweatshop movement feared that it was
>in danger of being negotiated to death.
>
>Those doubts are now beginning to be dispelled, as we see the passion and
>determination of the students who occupied administration offices until
>their demands were taken seriously. These events call to mind the long,
>proud tradition of student militancy in defense of human rights.
>
>How events will unfold next is anybody's guess. Concessions made in
response
>to sit-in's may crumble as administrators remember that they ultimately are
>answerable to corporations, not to students. While there is reason to keep
a
>jaundiced eye on any promises made by administrators, the important news is
>that the student labor rights movement is alive and well, and growing
stronger.
>
><><><><><>
>
>REPORT FROM DUKE
>
>New York Times
>2/1/99
>
>Sweatshop Protest Ends With Agreement at Duke
>
>Twenty-one Duke University students ended a sit-in at the office of the
>university president on Saturday night [January 30] after agreeing with
>Duke's administration on a plan to help insure that apparel bearing Duke's
>name is not made in sweatshops.
>
>The students staged the 31-hour sit-in to protest Duke's plans to sign a
>code of conduct with the Collegiate Licensing Company that does not require
>the disclosure of the names and addresses of factories that make products
>carrying the Duke name. The students said such disclosure was needed to
>enable outside monitors, like human rights groups, to determine whether
>factory conditions were adequate.
>
>In the agreement, Duke promised that within a year it would sign a code of
>conduct that mandates disclosure of the names and addresses of factories
>making Duke-licensed products. Duke could still go ahead with its plans to
>sign the understanding with the Collegiate Licensing Company, which handles
>licenses for about 160 schools.
>
><><><><><>
>
>REPORT FROM GEORGETOWN
>
>2//10/99 student report
>
>Hey all, We got it! The negotiations that took place during our occupation
>of the Univ. President's office produced two documents. The first outlines
>GTown's response to the CLC Code and the new disclosure provisions. The
>second is the design and charge of the newly created Licensing
>Implementation Committee, which will research and direct all university
>policies related to licensing. I think the agreement is very strong ... by
>February 12, 2000, the companies had better send GTown a full list of
>facilities making our stuff, or they will be dropped!
>
><><><><><>
>
>REPORT FROM WISCONSIN
>
>2/1/99 student report
>
>This morning at a press conference called by the Madison Anti-Sweatshop
>Coalition, the UW Alliance for Democracy and the South Central Federation
of
>Labor, UW Chancellor David Ward publicly stated that the UW would not sign
>onto a CLC code of conduct without full public disclosure. With TV, radio,
>and print media waiting, UW students and community members made their way
to
>the front of Chancellor Ward's office to present a demand that he agree to
>sign a modified version of the Duke statement signed over the weekend with
>their administrators. The agreement basically stated that the UW would not
>sign on to the proposed CLC code without full disclosure of subcontractors'
>names, locations, and addresses. If the code could not be changed, UW would
>not work with CLC.
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

1. Russia's Secret Deal to Re-arm Saddam (Sunday Telegraph-UK) 2/14
2. Russia and Iraq - the Deadly Friends (Sunday Telegraph-UK) 2/14
3. Turkey Rejects Iraq Demands to Stop US Raids (REUTERS) 2/15
4. Iraq Threatens Incirlik Attack (Associated Press) 2/15
5. Iraq Threatens Bases in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (REUTERS) 2/15
--------------------------------------------------------------

Sunday Telegraph
February 14 1999
Revealed: Russia's secret deal to re-arm Saddam
By Con Coughlin, Foreign Editor

    Russia has signed arms deals worth more than £100 million with Saddam
Hussein to reinforce Iraq's air defences. The move will pose a serious
threat to British and American planes enforcing Iraq's no-fly zone.
    In a blatant breach of the UN arms embargo, the Russians have agreed
to upgrade and overhaul Iraq's ageing squadrons of MiG jet-fighters and
restore Iraq's air defences to combat readiness, diplomatic sources in
Moscow have told The Telegraph.
    The arms deals constitute a serious challenge to British and American
attempts to force Baghdad to honour its commitment to dismantle Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. It will also strain Moscow's relations with
Britain and the US at a time when President Boris Yeltsin is desperately
seeking international assistance for Russia's beleaguered economy.
    British and American jets have been involved in almost daily military
confrontations with Iraq since Operation Desert Fox, the air strikes
unleashed against Saddam's military infrastructure by Britain and the US
at the end of last year.
    The Iraqi armed forces have so far failed to shoot down any Allied
warplanes because they have to rely on out-dated and unreliable
equipment. However, the Russian deal to upgrade Iraq's air force and
anti-aircraft missile batteries will bring Iraq's air defences up to
pre-Gulf war levels.
    Apart from earning much-needed foreign currency, Russia's decision to
provide Iraq with military assistance was approved by Prime Minister
Yevgeny Primakov in retaliation for Operation Desert Fox. Russia
bitterly opposed launching air strikes against Iraq to punish Saddam for
not co-operating with UN weapons inspectors.
    The Foreign Office said yesterday that it had received reports of the
arms deals, which were being investigated. Officials privately confirmed
that the deals had been approved by Moscow. A senior Foreign Office
official said: "It is almost beyond belief that a permanent member of
the security council could authorise such a flagrant breach of the UN
arms embargo. It indicates that Russian relations with Iraq have become
a great deal closer since Mr Primakov became prime minister."
    Officials expect Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary, to raise the
issue of Russia's arms sale to Baghdad when he embarks on his
much-delayed trip to Moscow. Mr Cook was to fly to Russia in early
March, but the trip was yesterday postponed because of his commitments
to the current round of peace talks over Kosovo.
    Details of the arms deals between Moscow and Baghdad have also been
passed to the State Department in Washington, where officials have
already been alerted to be on the look-out for evidence of arms trading
between Russia and Iraq. A spokesman said: "Any attempt by Russia to
violate UN sanctions will be a matter of the deepest concern."
    In Moscow, the Foreign Ministry refused to comment, while officials
at Mapo-MiG, one of the beneficiaries of the arms trade, denied any
knowledge of the deals.
    Ahmed Murtada Ahmed Khalil, the Iraqi Transport and Communications
Minister, signed the arms deals in Moscow on January 13 and 14 after a
visit to Russia by Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi deputy prime minister, in
December, days before Operation Desert Fox was launched.
Additional reporting by David Wastell in Washington and Marcus Warren in
Moscow

------

Sunday Telegraph
February 14 1999
Russia and Iraq - the deadly friends
By Con Coughlin
Revealed: Russia's secret deal to re-arm Saddam

    Two weeks before British and American warplanes launched a series of
devastating air strikes against Iraq last December, Tariq Aziz, the
Iraqi deputy prime minister, flew to Moscow on an urgent mission.
    The official reason for Aziz's visit was to lobby Russian support for
Iraq in its stand-off with United Nations weapons inspectors. As Saddam
Hussein's right-hand man, Aziz had been sent to justify Iraq's refusal
to fulfil its post-Gulf war commitment to destroy its nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons arsenal, and to ensure that the Russians vetoed
any attempt by the UN Security Council to authorise punitive bombing
raids.
    Following a preliminary round of discussions at the Russian Foreign
Ministry, Aziz was taken to meet Yevgeny Primakov, Russia's
newly-appointed prime minister. This was one occasion when the Russian
prime minister could dispense with the formalities of high office. The
former Soviet spymaster and Arabist is no stranger to Saddam's inner
circle. As a young diplomat in Baghdad in the 1970s, he became a
personal friend of Saddam Hussein. The friendship blossomed after Saddam
became president in 1979, even though Primakov suffered no delusions
about Saddam's true character.
    He later wrote: "I could not help being struck by Saddam's toughness,
that often verged on cruelty, a will that often bordered on wilfulness,
a readiness to push his way towards his goal at any price, combined with
a dangerous unpredictability."
    During that period Primakov also became well-acquainted with Aziz, so
that the veteran Iraqi negotiator was guaranteed a warm welcome at the
Russian prime minister's office. Ostensibly, Aziz wanted to discuss the
looming crisis with Unscom. But Aziz also had another, equally important
issue to raise. If, as seemed likely, Iraq's policy of non-compliance
with the UN resulted in air strikes against Saddam's military
infrastructure, it was essential, Aziz argued, that Iraq had the means
to defend itself.
    An all-embracing arms embargo against Iraq was unanimously agreed by
the UN Security Council - with Moscow's wholehearted support - in August
1990 in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Under
the terms of the embargo, all member states agreed not to supply Iraq
with arms.
    But during the Cold War the Soviet Union had been the main military
supplier for the Iraqi armed forces; it was logical that Baghdad should
turn once more to Moscow to supplement the MiGs and anti-aircraft
missile batteries that provide the backbone of Iraq's air defence
capability. Primakov was only too ready to agree.
    As he was later to state publicly once the air raids commenced,
Primakov was firmly against military action being taken against Iraq.
"We condemn the United States, and nobody should doubt our negative
attitude," commented Primakov once the bombing began. If the Americans
and British were going to bomb Baghdad, then Primakov's old Cold War
instincts easily persuaded him that Russia should back Saddam.
    It was at that meeting in Primakov's office on December 7 last year
that approval was given for the arms deal which will shortly provide
Iraq with the means to pose a serious military threat to British and
American warplanes attempting to enforce the UN's no-fly zone. According
to well-informed diplomatic officials in Moscow, Primakov gave Aziz the
go-ahead to commence negotiations on a wide-ranging arms deal with
Russia's most prestigious arms manufacturers, details of which are
published exclusively today in The Telegraph.
    A month before Aziz's visit, a comprehensive shopping list of Iraq's
military requirements had been submitted to the permanent representative
in Baghdad of Rosvooruzheniye, the Russian government arms export
concern, by the Iraqi Military Industrial Commission (MIC). Senior
members of MIC travelled to Moscow as part of Aziz's delegation and,
with Primakov's approval, were allowed to visit the headquarters of the
Mapo-MiG Company, makers of Russia's legendary MiG jet-fighters, and
Avtoexport, a major exporter of military vehicles and spare parts.
    The talks in early December, however, were mainly exploratory. It was
only after the US, with Britain's active backing, launched Operation
Desert Fox later in the month that the Iraqis and Russians moved quickly
to complete the deal.
    Officially, Primakov demonstrated his extreme displeasure with the
Anglo-American action by withdrawing Russia's ambassadors from London
and Washington. Unofficially he approved a £100 million plus arms deal
with Iraq.
    On January 10 this year, Ahmed Murtada Ahmed Khalil, Iraq's Transport
and Communications Minister, flew to Moscow with representatives of
Iraq's MIC. During the next four days the delegation visited a number of
Russian defence plants, including three factories in Nizhniy-Novgorod
that manufacture MiG spare parts, and Fazotron in Moscow, which develops
weapons-control systems.
    Murtada then signed a number of arms contracts which were personally
approved by Russian First Deputy Premier, Yuri Maslyukov. The contracts,
if honoured by the Russians, will bring Baghdad's air defence capability
to a level not achieved since the Gulf war.
    In what amounts to a wholesale disregard of UN sanctions, the Iraqis
have been able to sign at least two deals with Mapo-MiG which provide,
among other longer-term commitments, for the overhaul and upgrading in
Iraq of all Iraqi MiG combat aircraft, with special emphasis on MiG-23s
and MiG-29s, as well as the supply of avi-onics systems, oils, engines
and other aircraft parts.
    In addition, agreement was reached on training Iraqi technicians in
aircraft assembly and maintenance, as well as stationing a Mapo-MiG
technical expert in an Iraqi air force base for a period of six months
in order to provide technical support, advice and guidance. The Iraqis
are also discussing with Mapo-MiG the possibility of a separate contract
for leasing combat-ready planes and purchasing new, advanced air defence
batteries and surplus batteries from the Russian army.
    Top secret talks on these and other subjects are currently taking
place between MIC officials and the Rosvooruzheniye representative in
Baghdad, with a view to signing further agreements. The total cost of
the deals signed between the Russians and Iraq last month is more than
£100 million.
    When confronted with details of these deals, officials at Mapo-MiG
firmly denied doing business with the Iraqis, while Avtoexport and the
Russian Foreign Ministry both refused to comment. An official at
Mapo-MiG did, however, admit that the company would be glad of the
business. Western diplomats estimate that the deal with Mapo-MiG alone
is worth more than £60 million.
    But Foreign Office officials in London are not convinced by the
Russian denials. "They would say that, wouldn't they?" commented one
official. "With a seat on the security council, the Russians can hardly
be seen to be actively defying the UN arms embargo."
    British and American diplomats are already deeply suspicious about
Russia's close relations with Iraq, especially after it was discovered
that Russian members of Unscom tipped off Saddam Hussein about which
locations particularly interested the weapons inspectors, giving the
Iraqis time to move banned equipment before the inspectors arrived.
    With American and British warplanes involved almost daily in military
confrontations with Iraq, these arms deals will enable the Iraqis to
pose a serious threat to British and American air crews. Since the
commencement of air strikes against Iraq during Operation Desert Fox,
Allied aircraft have regularly been targeted by Iraqi anti-aircraft
missile batteries - so far without success.
    The Iraqis are unable to hit British and American jet-fighters
because the shortage of spare parts and technical expertise means most
of their MiGs are not operational. Much of Iraq's air defence missile
system was destroyed during the Gulf war.The wide-ranging arms embargo
against Iraq has made it impossible for Saddam to buy effective
replacements.
    There is nothing that would please Saddam more than to be able to
shoot down an Allied aircraft, capture its crew, and parade them before
the Iraqi media, as he did with the two RAF crewmen - Flight Lieutenants
John Nichol and John Peters - shot down over Iraq during the Gulf war.
The deals signed in Moscow last month, which are to be implemented later
this year, will give the Iraqis that capability.
    The only serious obstacle standing in the way of a speedy
implementation of the arms deals is Iraq's ability to pay. While
Moscow's decision to re-equip Iraq's armed forces was taken in
retaliation for Operation Desert Fox, Russia's arms industry desperately
needs the business. At present it is estimated that Iraq owes the
Russians seven billion dollars - mainly for civilian supplies provided
since the imposition of UN sanctions.
    To ensure that Iraq fulfils its part of the deal, the Russians have
insisted on a cash-on-delivery arrangement. Saddam will raise the hard
currency to pay for Russia's military technology by increasing Iraq's
oil-smuggling operation, details of which were given exclusively to The
Telegraph last year by Iraqi defector Sami Salih. Since Salih's
defection, Saddam has changed the smuggling route from Iran to Syria,
but the arrangement remains highly lucrative.
    Salih revealed that Saddam's primary objective in setting up the
smuggling operation was to finance arms purchases by Iraq's Military
Industrial Commission. Those funds, so far as Iraq is concerned, have
now been put to good use.

----

Turkey Rejects Iraqi Demand To Stop U.S. Raids
Feb 15, 1999 Eastern
By Jon Hemming

ANKARA, Turkey (Reuters) - Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit rejected
personal appeals by a top Iraqi official Monday to stop U.S. warplanes from
launching attacks on northern Iraq from Turkish soil.

Ecevit met Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz in Ankara as U.S. jets
from the joint Turkish-U.S. Incirlik base in southeastern Turkey attacked
two Iraqi air defense sites in the northern ``no-fly'' zone set up after the
1991 Gulf War.

``The U.S. and British pilots open fire only to defend themselves,'' Ecevit
told a news conference after the talks. ''Turkish officers monitor with
sensitivity.''

Ecevit said ``my old friend'' Aziz, who arrived in Turkey Sunday after a
grueling overland journey over rugged northern terrain closed to Iraqi
flights, had told him Baghdad would not stop challenging the U.S. flights.

`He told me they had to continue to do that as proof of sovereignty in their
airspace,'' Ecevit said.

Aziz's visit to Turkey, a key U.S. NATO ally, was in itself cause for
concern in London and Washington.

Leftist Ecevit, who formed an interim government last month to take Turkey
to April elections, while in opposition had criticized the``Northern Watch''
patrols set up to protect Kurds against President Saddam Hussein's forces in
Iraq.

Since taking office, Ecevit has hinted he feels U.S. strikes, now a regular
occurrence, might be pushing the limits of a mandate allowing action in
self-defense.

Aziz had been expected to play on this and on Ecevit's fears that U.S.
policy, perhaps inadvertently, could lead to formation of an independent
Kurdish state in northern Iraq. This, Ecevit fears, would encourage Kurdish
guerrillas in southeast Turkey.

The United States has forged cooperation between two Kurdish factions that
now effectively control large areas of northern Iraq. But Washington joins
Ankara in condemning Kurdish separatists in Turkey, led by Abdullah Ocalan,
as terrorists.

Iraq said Western aircraft based in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia also had struck
at sites in a southern ``no-fly'' zone in Iraq Monday, killing five people
and wounding 22. A spokesman said jets from Turkey also had violated Iraqi
airspace.

``Our ground and missile defenses engaged in fighting with these hostile
formations and forced them to flee ... inside Turkish airspace,'' the Iraqi
military spokesman said.

Saddam warned Sunday that Iraq was able to attack the Saudi and Kuwaiti
bases from which U.S. and British aircraft operate over southern Iraq.
Saddam made no reference to Incirlik, though the base clearly is within range.

Last month, Incirlik briefly was put on alert after reports, which later
proved erroneous, that Iraq had launched a missile.

Aziz said his meeting with Ecevit focused on the impediment the U.S. air
patrols posed to normal relations.

``The main question as we see it is that when we remove the foreign
interference we can make a good degree of understanding and cooperation,''
Aziz told reporters.

A leading U.S. Air Force general visited Turkey Monday in a timely reminder
of close Turkish links to Washington.

Gen. Lloyd Newton and seven other senior Air Force officers paid tribute at
the imposing, neoclassical mausoleum of Turkey's secularist national
founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

``The general's presence here in uniform reflects ... the importance the
United States attaches to its relationship with Turkey,'' U.S. Ambassador
Mark Parris said after the ceremony.

Turkey, estranged from the European Union, relies too closely on the United
States to risk jeopardizing their alliance, regional analysts say.

---

Iraq Threatens U.S. Base Attack
By Leon Barkho
Associated Press
February 15, 1999

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq will attack a Turkish base for U.S. warplanes --
and other American and British bases in the region -- if the jets continue
to patrol the skies over Iraq, the Iraqi vice president warned Monday.

Taha Yassin Ramadan's threat, coming in an interview with Radio Monte Carlo,
monitored in Baghdad, marked the first time in years that Iraq has
threatened to attack neighboring Turkey.

U.S. jets based at Incirlik, in south Turkey, have struck almost daily at
Iraqi defense sites after being targeted by Iraqi defenses while patrolling
the ``no-fly'' zone over the north of the country.

Ramadan threatened attacks on the Incirlik base, and repeated Iraq's threat
Sunday on other bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from which U.S. and British
jets patrol a southern ``no-fly'' zone.

``If the Turkish base continues attacking Iraq it will certainly be
(targeted) like other bases (in the Persian Gulf),'' Ramadan said.

``I say if America and Britain do not retreat, they'll soon pay dearly in
relation to the properties and elements they use to launch aggression on the
people of Iraq,'' he said.

Ramadan made his remarks the same day that Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq
Aziz held talks with Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit in Ankara. Aziz
went to Turkey to try to persuade the Turkish government to halt the
overflights from Incirlik base. Ecevit, however, insisted that use of the
base to patrol the zone would continue.

Also on Monday, U.S. warplanes attacked Iraqi defense sites in northern
Iraq, the Defense Department said in Washington. The planes returned safely
to Incirlik, according to the Defense Department.

The Iraqi government said in a statement that allied planes also had carried
out attacks in the southern ``no-fly'' zone, killing five civilians and
injuring another 22. The U.S. statement made no mention of strikes in the
south and the Iraqi claims could not be independently confirmed.

The ``no-fly'' zones were set up after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to prevent
Iraqi aircraft from attacking Kurdish rebels in the north and Shiite
Muslims in the south of the country.

Iraq has never accepted the validity of the zones, which were created by the
United States, Britain and France and are not authorized by a specific U.N.
Security Council resolution. France later withdrew its participation in the
enforcement of the zones.

The United States says Iraq has violated the zones 90 times since it began
challenging them in December. U.S. and British planes have retaliated by
attacking more than 40 Iraqi air defense sites. Iraq says at least 32 people
have been killed in these attacks.

In Kuwait on Monday, a foreign ministry spokesman said the Iraqi
leadership's threats reflect Baghdad's ``aggressive intention toward its
neighbors.''

Iraq's warning on Sunday was a ``direct and serious threat to Kuwait's
security and sovereignty,'' the spokesman told the official Kuwait News Agency.

In Ankara, Ecevit made clear Monday that U.S. and British planes would
continue to be allowed to use Incirlik to patrol northern Iraq. However, he
distanced his nation from the American interest in overthrowing Iraqi
president Saddam Hussein.

Turkey fears attempts to remove Saddam could lead to chaos in Iraq. ``For us
the problem is not Saddam Hussein,'' Ecevit reported after meeting with Aziz.

``Saddam Hussein is the concern of the Iraqi people, and it might be the
problem of the United States or other states,'' Ecevit said. ``For us the
problem is to prevent Iraq's division.''

He said he told Aziz the mission was operating under the strict control of
Turkish officers and that U.S. jets were only striking at Iraqi defense
sites when attacked or targeted.

----

February 15, 1999
Iraq warns Kuwait, Saudi Arabia over air bases
By Hassan Hafidh

BAGHDAD, Feb 14 - Iraq told Kuwait and Saudi Arabia on Sunday to stop
letting U.S. and
British warplanes use their bases to patrol the no-fly zone in southern
Iraq, and threatened to retaliate if they failed to do so.

"We warn the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and tell them 'you are now
involved in an aggressive war which the peoples of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
have no interest in, but America and Zionism do'", said a statement issued
after a meeting of top Iraqi officials led by President Saddam Hussein.

"If you are helpless and and you have no desire for the aggression, we are
able to target sources and means of aggression, and from anywhere it is
launched, after relying on God and the support of our Arab nation," the
statement said, quoted by Baghdad television.

"If you are doing that deliberately to kill more Iraqi women, children, men
and the elderly and destroy Iraqi property, God is above you," it added.

A U.S. military spokesman in Washington said Iraq "issues lots of rhetoric,
lots of threat" and the latest warning would not halt patrols of the
southern no-fly zones.

"We are going to continue to patrol the no-fly zone. We are going to protect
our interests there," the Pentagon spokesman said.

There were no clashes on Sunday, the Pentagon said. On Saturday, U.S.
military jets attacked two Iraqi defence sites in the southern no-fly zone,
including one that fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the zone. Iraq
said the U.S. attack killed three civilians and wounded many others.

The television said Sunday's meeting was attended by Vice- chairman of the
Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) Izzat Ibrahim, Vice-President Taha
Yassin Ramadan and member of the RCC Ali Hassan al-Majeed.

The statement followed a series of harsh verbal attacks by Iraq in recent
weeks on its neighbours, coupled with demands that their rulers be removed
for allowing the use of their bases by Western aircraft which patrol the
skies over southern Iraq.

The zones, set up after the 1991 Gulf War to protect southern Iraq's Shi'ite
Moslems from possible attacks by Baghdad, have recently seen attacks on
Iraq's air defences when they targeted U.S. and British fighter jet patrols.

Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz on Sunday visited NATO member Turkey
to try to
persuade it to stop western aircraft using Turkish bases to patrol a no-fly
zone in northern Iraq, set up to protect Iraqi Kurdish enclave.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
To: wki@...
Subject: (RESOURCES) Kurdish 2000 Plus: Discussion Forum

A Kurdish "community page" has been created by Kurds in Australia under the
name Kurdish 2000 Plus:  http://www.dejanews.com/~kurdish2000plus

The page includes an online discussion forum (Kurdish, English,German) of
issues related to Kurdish Language, Culture and Politics.  The following
open letter to Turkey's President Demirel from Chahin Baker is one of the
first postings at the new site.

--------------------------------------
OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT OF TURKEY

The Honorable Suleyman Demirel
President of the Republic of Turkey

Dear President,

I am not addressing this letter to your Excellency because you are the
president of a state blamed to have practiced a policy of harsh oppression
towards the Kurdish people, nor am I writing as a Kurd whose aim is to prove
a point. I am writing because we are both members of one race, the human
race, described as being "the finest amongst God’s creatures." I am writing
because deep within my heart I believe you to have the virtue, the ability
and the courage to set the corner stone for a beautiful dream. My being a
Kurd, no doubt, also has something to do with it but another very important
reason is this: My love for the Turkish people. This last statement may
shock some. In my life I heard stories, ballads and poems cursing the Turks
for the oceans of agony they let the Kurds drown in; enough to generate
hatred for generations to come. It will be hypocritical if I don’t admit
that during earlier stages of my life some of my writings went so far as to
advocate extreme measures to be taken against Turkey. At one stage I even
advised Kurds not to purchase Turkish goods. Yet despite all that I have
come to the conclusion that hatred is the most evil and destructive element
within the human character. Now that I have passed my fifties I cannot but
admit that I still love everything good within the Turkish culture, that I
enjoy listening to Turkish music and most importantly I feel close to the
Turkish people and enjoy the company of my Turkish friends. Although I was
not born in Turkey, even here in a Australia, a country so far away from the
Middle East, I have endeavored to improve my knowledge of Turkish. Of course
I still detest the nationalistic fanaticism within some pockets of the
Turkish society as I deplore the nazi elements within the German society for
glorifying one’s own nation against another is in reality not only harmful
to humanity but to the interests of the very same nation.

Recently I read in a German newspaper that a number of Turkish teachers were
teaching their students that "the colour of our flag is as red as our blood
and we must defend it with our lives." It is of course understandable that
the citizens of any country are expected to defend their country against
outside aggression, however, to brainwash children and turn them into
fanatics is another matter. One respects flags as being symbols of nations
but on the other hand all the flags of our world are not worth a cupful of a
young person’s blood. While Turkish children are taught "to be proud they
can call themselves Turks" Kurdish children are deprived to even write a
phrase to their mothers in their language, a phrase to say "dayê, ez ji te
hej dikim" (Mother, I love you). For decades the successive Turkish
governments have pursued a policy of assimilation yet these policies instead
of wiping out the Kurdish identity have back fired and turned thousands of
young men and women many of whom don’t even speak Kurdish into people filled
with hatred towards everything Turkish. History clearly indicates that
policies such as those employed by the Turkish state in the last eight
decades can only aggravate the animosity between peoples of different ethnic
backgrounds. We should all learn lessons from the history of Irish, Jewish,
Palestinian and Basque peoples, we should learn from what decades of
oppression have lead to in the former republics of the Soviet Union and
Yugoslavia.

Turkey has spent billions of dollars in an attempt to eradicate Kurdish
nationalism. Yet Kurdish nationalism, if anything, has become more militant,
thousands of mothers and fathers, Kurdish and Turkish, lost their beloved
children, many villages were destroyed or deserted and scores of innocent
people lost years of their lives in prisons. The tragedy continues. Wise
people will, or should, know that the oppressive policies against the
Kurdish people have not only harmed the Kurds but also had tremendous
negative effects on the Turkish economy, the country’s progress and its
reputation in the international arena. Furthermore, statesmen who really
care for Turkey and consider the Kurdish (south eastern) areas a part of
this country should at last realize that any intentional or unintentional
harm done to the areas concerned are at the same time harmful to today’s and
tomorrow’s Turkey. It is quite illogical to consider these regions a part of
the country when the state is doing almost everything to prove other wise by
opposing the will of the majority of the inhabitants and by depopulating the
rural areas. The Turkish government cannot continue blaming everything on
terrorism. The problems in these regions existed long before the word
"terrorism" was included in dictionaries. As a matter of fact "terrorism" is
a consequence of these problems which remained unsolved for decades. The use
of force and extreme nationalistic measures are outdated methods which don’t
solve problems entirely anyway. If Turkey really wants to enter the new
millenium as a progressive country then the Kurdish issue needs to be solved
peacefully today.

Your Excellency,

I refuse to believe a gentleman like you who has spent his entire life in
politics, a man who is well aware of yesterday’s and today’s world, a
grandfather who loves his family would fail to understand that the Kurdish
people like everyone else are entitled to their identity, language and
aspirations. If some Kurds believe in separation from Turkey today then it
is mostly due to the harsh policies and the crimes committed against them
and their predecessors all these years. They have grown to distrust the
Turkish state, they have grown to believe that only total separation from
Turkey could result in the fulfillment of their dreams; and many of them, as
you know, are even ready to die for what they believe in. Therefore, it is
about time a man of your qualities put an end to this distrust. Let flowers
replace mines and barbed wire, let love replace hatred and let a new era
begin in the relations between the Turks and Kurds.

Your Excellency will be well aware of the history of the European nations.
They fought against each other for centuries. Some sought liberation, others
struggled for independence,… but today Europe is doing everything to unite.
This desire is there because nations feel confident they are equals and will
be better off united. If we are to learn anything from this phenomenon then
it is clear that without real equality no real unity is achievable.

In Turkey for decades some tried to deny Kurds existed. The Kurdish language
was quoted as being a mixture of Persian, Turkish and Arabic,… Kurds were
described as backward religious fundamentalists, Communist agitators or
terrorists. Even if some Kurdish individuals were to fit such descriptions
the reality is Kurds as an identity were always there, are still there and
will remain there. Today some stubbornly claim that Turks and Kurds are
equal in Turkey. How could this be so, your Excellency, when it is a fact
that there is not a single school in all of Turkey where a Kurdish child can
learn the language of his ancestors. Turkey demands, rightly so, that the
children of Turkish migrants and guest workers be entitled to the right of
being taught Turkish yet in Turkey itself Kurdish children are not only
deprived of that right but teaching Kurdish in schools is punishable.
Equality can be achieved only when the Kurdish and Turkish citizen have the
same rights and duties in the Republic of Turkey.

The main purpose of writing this letter to your Excellency is to suggest
that you give a serious thought to these matters, not just as the President
of Turkey, but as the President of a country millions of its citizens are
Kurds. There are many things your Excellency could do to break the ice. You
may, for instance, consider starting something millions of people in the
civilized world take for granted, like doing everything in your power to
give Kurdish children the right to learn how to read and write in the
language of their ancestors. As a first step Kurdish could be taught in
primary schools side by side with Turkish wherever there are parents who
wish their children to learn this language.

Excellency,

You were recently in Jordan and you witnessed the great admiration world
leaders had for the late King Hussein. This admiration was merely due to one
element of his character: the courage to initiate peace.

US President Bill Clinton said this in memory of King Hussein:

A MAN WHO BELIEVED THAT WE ARE ALL GOD’S CHILDREN, BOUND TO LIVE TOGETHER IN
MUTUAL RESPECT AND TOLERANCE. KING HUSSEIN WAS ENNOBLED.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan:

… A KING WHOSE TRUE MAJESTY FOUND EXPRESSION IN LIFELONG STRUGGLE TO BRING
PEACE TO THE ORDINARY MEN OF THE MIDDLE EAST. HE SHOWED AGAIN THAT COURAGE
IS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT OF ANY PEACE PROCESS.

You too, President Demirel, have the courage, I believe, to create history,
not by the continuous referral to terrorism but by something new and fresh,
by opening the door for peace. Every great man has courage in one way or
another but greater individuals have the power to exercise that ability, and
the most noble of them are those who use that courage to bring peace about,
not war.

History will judge President Suleyman Demirel not by the number of times he
referred to terrorism but by what he did to end terrorism and replace it
with peace and reconciliation. I sincerely hope your Excellency will be
remembered as a great leader who opened the door for a great dream by
initiating peace and by making the teaching of the Kurdish language in
Turkey the first step towards the fulfillment of that dream.

Chahin Baker, B.A., Dip. Ed.
Kurdish Australian Teacher, Journalist and Writer
Sydney, 9 February 1999


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Headline: Greece: Ocalan in Kenya
Wire Service: UPn (UPI US & World)
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 1999
  Copyright 1999 United Press International. All rights reserved.
The following news report may not be republished or redistributed, in
whole or in part, without the prior written consent of United Press
International.

    ATHENS, Greece, Feb. 15 (UPI) -- A Greek government spokesman says
(Monday) Athens has arranged for a safe haven in Kenya for Kurdish rebel
leader Abdullah Ocalan, but he says the Greek government has already lost
track of Ocalan's whereabouts. Government spokesman Dimitris Reppas
announced that "the Greek authorities have no information as to where
Ocalan is" and are seeking information from the Kenyan government.


Headline: Kurdish rebel leader Ocalan in Kenya - agency
Wire Service: RTna (Reuters North America)
Date: Mon, Feb 15, 1999
  Copyright 1999 Reuters Ltd.  All rights reserved.
The following news report may not be republished or redistributed, in
whole or in part, without the prior written consent of Reuters Ltd.

     ROME, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Fugitive Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah
Ocalan has been handed over to Kenyan authorities by Greek embassy
officials in Nairobi, the Italian news agency ANSA reported on Tuesday.
      ANSA said Ocalan, Turkey's most wanted man, had sought refuge at the
Greek embassy in the Kenyan capital. The agency said its news was
confirmed by Giuliano Pisapia, one of Ocalan's Italian lawyers.
     No independent confirmation of the ANSA report was immediately
available.
      Ocalan, sought by Turkey for leading a separatist campaign in which
29,000 people have been killed, has been on the run since he left Rome on
January 16 after failing to gain immediate asylum.
      His whereabouts have been unknown since early February when he was
refused entry into the Netherlands where he reportedly wanted to appear
before the International Court of Arbitration to plead the Kurdish cause.
      ANSA said Ocalan left the Greek embassy in Nairobi on Monday and had
denied that he had officially asked Greece for political asylum. A senior
Greek government source told Reuters on Monday that Greek ambassadors had
launched a diplomatic effort in European Union capitals to get the
15-nation bloc to address Ocalan's future at the highest level.
  REUTERS


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 14 Feb 99 19:27:32 -0400
Subject: Ocalan Appeals To European Magnanimity and BBC Report About it

Abdullah OCALAN, the President of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK),
Calls on Europe to Show its Magnanimity

"The Turkish state, in order to finalize its genocidal war against the
Kurdish people, has recently intensified its efforts to eliminate me. I,
on the other hand, on behalf of PKK, have expressed my support for a
negotiated settlement of the Kurdish question and thus have reached out
to the European leaders for a resolution of the conflict based on the
international law.

Ever since my departure from the Middle East, I first applied for
political status in Russia.  Despite the overwhelming support of Duma,
the Primakov administration, to date, has not responded to my
application. I wish to reiterate my request for the implementation of the
Duma's recommendation that I be granted political status at this time.

For various reasons, I had to leave Russia and arrived in Rome on
November 12, 1998.  I, again, applied for political status upon my
arrival.  My application is still pending and I am awaiting the final
decision.  In the meantime, the talk in Turkey is to put me out of
commission with the help of its allies.  Such a threat constitutes a
grave danger to my safety. I urge the Italian authorities to take all
necessary measures to provide me with the necessary protection.

I believe my arrival in Rome drew attention to the plight of the Kurds.
My application for asylum was supported by various political circles
around the world.  In Greece itself, despite an overwhelming support of
Greek parliamentarians, the government in Athens, for some unclear
reasons or excuses, could not take an action on my request for political
status.

I call on Europe, Germany and France, in particular, who have taken the
leading role in criminalizing our movement, to reconsider their policies
on the Kurdish question and their attitude towards the PKK.  Europe must
exercise its responsibility.  And If it insists on its decision to put me
on trial, which I have agreed to participate, then it must assure me a
fair hearing.

I urge all those concerned to take action on the imminent danger to my
safety and on my request for a political status. I call on all
progressive public opinion, particularly the supporters and friends of
our people in Greece and Italy, to continue  their efforts until we
achieve our demands."


February 13, 1999
This statement is translated from the Turkish original.



BBC
Feb. 14, 1999

Kurd leader's new asylum demand

The Kurdish separatist leader, Abdullah Ocalan, has asked Italy, Greece
and Russia to reconsider his request for political asylum.

In a statement carried by a Kurdish news agency in Germany, Mr. Ocalan
also demanded guarantees for his personal safety until a decision on
possible asylum is reached.

He did not give any information over his current whereabouts.

The Kurdish leader has been looking for a host country after leaving
Italy in January.

"Until my request is approved I expect my safety to be secured in the
place where I am now," the agency, close to the rebels, quoted Ocalan as
saying.

Ocalan also criticized Greece and Russia for failing to award him asylum
and called on his supporters in Italy to continue efforts to secure his
"urgent requests for safety and asylum."



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

A SAD STATE OF FREEDOM

You waste the attention of your eyes,
the glittering labour of your hands,
and knead the dough enough for dozens of loaves
         of which you'll taste not a morsel;
you are free to slave for others-
you are free to make the rich richer.

The moment you're born
        they plant around you
mills that grind lies
lies to last you a lifetime.
You keep thinking in your great freedom
        a finger on your temple
             free to have a free conscience.

Your head bent as if half-cut from the nape,
your arms long, hanging,
your saunter about in your great freedom:
          you're free
              with the freedom of being unemployed.

You love your country
as the nearest, most precious thing to you.
But one day, for example,
          they may endorse it over to America,
and you, too, with your great freedom-
you have the freedom to become an air-base.

You may proclaim that one must live
not as a tool, a number or a link
but as a human being-
then at once they handcuff your wrists.
You are free to be arrested, imprisoned
          and even hanged.

There's neither an iron, wooden
          nor a tulle curtain
              in your life;
there's no need to choose freedom:
you are free.
But this kind of freedom
           is a sad affair under the stars.

Nazim Hikmet

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

1. Aziz to Visit Turkey (New York Times) 2/11
2. Aziz Talks Previewed (Turkish Daily News) 2/12
3. Aziz Visit Analysis (Milliyet) 2/11
4. Aziz Aims to Split US and Turkey (REUTERS) 2/11
5. US Irritated by Aziz Visit (REUTERS) 2/11
6. Iraq Amb. to Turkey Causes Controversy (Hurriyet) 2/11
7. US Planes Attack Iraqi Targets (New York Times) 2/12
8. Baghdad Mounts New Anti-US Diplomatic Offensive (REUTERS) 2/12
-----------------------------------------------------------------

New York Times
February 11, 1999
Iraqi Official Gets Approval For Key Visit to Turkey
By STEPHEN KINZER

ISTANBUL, Turkey -- The government of Saddam Hussein scored
at least a symbolic diplomatic coup Wednesday when it was
announced that the Iraqi deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, would visit
Turkey next week.

A statement from the Foreign Ministry here said that Aziz would arrive in
Ankara on Monday for "high-level discussions regarding Iraq and the
Turkey-Iraq relationship."

The announcement came at a time when Iraq appeared to be increasingly
isolated. In recent weeks, Iraqi leaders have bitterly accused many
countries in the Middle East of abandoning the Iraqi cause.

At the same time, the United States has stepped up its efforts to
overthrow the Iraqi government. U.S. planes were bombing Iraq at
almost the same moment that Aziz's visit to Ankara was being announced.

The U.S. Embassy in Ankara, where diplomats are anxious to prevent
Iraq from driving a wedge between the United States and Turkey, issued
a restrained statement in response. It said only that Turkey "has its own
foreign policy" and that Turkish leaders should "stress to Aziz the need
for Iraq to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions."

A U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity, however, was more
explicit. "We don't like it," the diplomat said of Aziz's planned visit. "Why
would they give him sanction and access when we're trying to isolate
him? It runs counter to what we want to do."

Although Turkey and the United States are NATO allies and close
political partners, differences between their policies toward Iraq have
broken into the open since Bulent Ecevit became prime minister last month.

Ecevit, a lifelong leftist and self-proclaimed anti-imperialist, has for years
expressed sympathy with Iraq and Hussein. This month, as U.S. war
planes flying from the Incirlik base in southern Turkey have repeatedly
bombed Iraqi targets, Ecevit has begun to question their mission.

"The Iraqis are zealous supporters of their independence," Ecevit said
during a televised interview last week. "It is unclear how the American
government will reach its goals to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It doesn't
seem to have formed a policy on Iraq. It needs to plan carefully what to
do about that issue, and Turkey should contribute to those plans."

Foreign Minister Ismail Cem said that Turkey remains willing to allow
U.S. planes to use the Incirlik base and wants Iraq to comply with U.N.
resolutions that require it to allow monitoring of its weapons programs.

"We're very strongly asking for full compliance," Cem said in a telephone
interview. "The Americans have their policies, but Iraq is a state and a
neighbor of ours. When the leadership of a neighboring state asks to
create the groundwork for coming over and having bilateral talks, I think
it is normal to proceed with that."

Wednesday, U.S. fighter jets based in Turkey did not respond when
Iraqi jets violated the northern no-flight zone, but allied jets based in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait retaliated against violations in the southern
zone. A Pentagon official said there has been no easing of enforcement in
the north as a result of any unease on Turkey's part regarding strikes
from its territory.

"We will continue to respond to Iraqi provocations in the north," the
official said.

Turkey and Iraq enjoyed good relations before the Persian Gulf War.
Since the war, Turkey has lost billions of dollars as a result of trade
sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations.

A national election is scheduled here on April 18, and by inviting Iraq's
second-ranking leader to Ankara, Ecevit may be seeking to shore up his
support among leftist voters and the thousands of families along the Iraqi
border who have lost their livelihoods as a result of the U.N. sanctions.

"Ecevit is under intense criticism for sitting on the lap of the United States
and letting the Americans use the Incirlik base for bombing Iraq," said
Cengiz Candar, an author and commentator who is a specialist on
Middle Eastern politics.

"It runs against the image he cultivated over the years as having a distance
from the United States and sympathizing with the plight of the Iraqi
people and with Saddam. On the eve of the election campaign, he might
see that as a weak spot. He may also be hoping to use this as a
bargaining chip to get more sympathy and economic aid from Washington."

"For Tariq Aziz, the visit is important because in the post-King Hussein
era Jordan may become a base for the Iraqi opposition, and he wants to
keep Turkey from becoming another link in that chain," Candar said.

-------

Iraqi Vice President Aziz to visit Ankara

  Diplomatic analysts say that Ecevit's goal in inviting Aziz to Turkey may be
to create an opportunity for making his policy toward Iraq known to Baghdad

Ankara - Turkish Daily News / February 12, 1999

The closest aide of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Vice President Tariq
Aziz, is arriving in Ankara next Monday, Feb. 15, the Turkish Foreign Ministry
said on Wednesday.

Sources close to the Turkish prime minister said that Aziz is coming to
Ankara on the invitation of Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, although Baghdad
had initialy refused the invitation when Ecevit first made it.

Diplomatic analysts say that Ecevit's goal in inviting Aziz may be to create an
opportunity for making his policy toward Iraq known to Baghdad.

An Iraq plan prepared by Ecevit's Democratic Left Party (DSP) in 1996 was
brought to the agenda last month by the prime minister.

Aziz will arrive in Ankara on Sunday and will hold daylong talks with Turkish
officials, including Ecevit, on Monday.

"Talks may continue on Tuesday as well," said officials at the Prime Ministry.
Analysts draw attention to the timing of the visit by Aziz, referring to the
continued American influence in the Middle East that was apparent during the
funeral of the late King Hussein of Jordan. The late Jordanian leader's funeral
was attended by four former U.S. presidents.

Cengiz Candar of Sabah Daily commented that the fact of such a visit
occurring is a very important development on its own.

"Aziz's coming to Ankara is more important than its results. At a time when
Washington is trying to weaken the Iraqi regime with air attacks, this
invitation
does not seem to please the United States. Even Russia and France would
not make this kind of an invitation to Baghdad," Candar said.

According to Candar, Ecevit's goal in inviting Aziz to Ankara is also related to
a desire to send a message to the Turkish public that a policy toward Iraq is
still an important issue for him.

"He seems to be trying to change the image that he is portraying to one that is
more in line with U.S. policies as the elections are getting closer," said
Candar.

U.S. embassy officials in Ankara said that they would hope that the Turkish
government will take the opportunity to stress again to Aziz the need for Iraq
to comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. "Turkey has its
own foreign policy," U.S. officials said.

The official Iraqi News Agency said that the purpose of the visit is to improve
bilateral ties.

Sweeping U.N. sanctions imposed on Iraq for invading Kuwait in 1990 have
drastically reduced trade between Iraq and Turkey. The value of the annual
trade between the two countries stood at roughly $3 billion in 1989.

Trade started to pick up under Iraq's oil-for-food deal with the United Nations,
but diplomats said Baghdad has recently begun to conduct most of its
commercial dealings within the program with either Syria or Jordan.

Under the program, the value of the annual trade between Iraq and Turkey
dropped from an average of $76 million in each of the first three phases of the
deal to only $25 million in the last phase.

The oil deal allows Baghdad sales of $5.2 billion every six months in order for
it to purchase essential goods and services.

The United States' use of Incirlik Air Base to launch planes as part of
Operation Northern Watch has been a major problem between Turkey and Iraq.

Turkey and Iraq appointed ambassadors to one another, though the two
diplomats are still waiting to present their credentials.

copyright 1999. reprinted with permission.
-------

Tariq Aziz coming
Feb. 11, 1999
Milliyet
by Hasan Cemal

After Bulent Ecevit became prime minister, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq
Aziz
reiterated his request to visit Turkey. Aziz's letter reached Ankara 10 days
ago. The
Turkish side agreed, and the date proposed by Aziz, Feb. 15, has been
finalized.

This is no ordinary diplomatic event. Aziz is the number two figure in the
Saddam administration which is an enemy of the United States.  Furthermore,
the visit comes at
a time when U.S. planes taking off from Incirlik, Turkey are hitting targets
in Iraq.

With Ecevit as prime minister, is Turkey changing its Iraq policy? Is the
Tariq Aziz visit the first sign of such a change? I do not think so. The
impressions I had
from Ankara on Feb. 10 were as follows:

* Turkey's Iraq policy remains unchanged.

* Turkey has never closed the door to a dialogue with Iraq, a neighboring
country. It is a wise political choice that today, as well, Turkey keeps
that door ajar. As a Turkish Foreign Ministry official says: "It would not
be fitting for a great country
such as Turkey to say 'no' to a neighbor who says he wants to visit. No one
should see this visit as something directed against America."

* Iraq has also become isolated in the Arab world. For that reason, Aziz may
want to take an initiative and try to open up Iraq to the world via Ankara.
In that case, the Turkish side would hear him, and his messages, if any, can
be conveyed to certain
addresses.

* On the other hand, Iraq may not act in a rational manner at all.

Meanwhile, obviously Washington's priority is toppling the Saddam regime,
whereas
Turkey's priority is the preservation of Iraq's territorial integrity and
political unity. In other words, Ankara is more concerned with what happens
in the post-Saddam era. Ankara expects Washington to be more sensitive on
this issue and to share its intentions more widely with Ankara. As a source
at the Foreign Ministry says, friends
and allies can have different priorities but that is not the end of the world.

------

Iraq's Aziz looks for U.S.-Turkey split
Feb 11, 1999
By Jon Hemming

ANKARA, Feb 11 (Reuters) - Iraqi deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz will try
to drive a wedge between Turkey and its NATO ally the United States when he
visits Ankara early next week, regional analysts say.

But Turkey, spurned by Europe and at odds with the Arab world over its ties
with Israel, is unlikely to seriously cross its main diplomatic backers in
Washington.

Aziz, Baghdad's urbane front man, is likely to play on Ankara's fear that
U.S. policy on Iraq and air patrols from Turkey's Incirlik base could lead
to the establishment of a Kurdish state on its doorstep in northern Iraq.

``We will continue our struggle against it (the no-fly zones), no matter
what the sacrifices and the consequences,'' Aziz told reporters in Baghdad
on Thursday.

Aziz said he would ask Turkey to terminate the U.S.-British mandate to use
Incirlik and halt their attacks on Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries in the
north. Baghdad hopes to defeat the United States with diplomacy where
missiles failed.

`The Iraqis want to prove their sovereignty over the whole of Iraq,'' Middle
East analyst Anoushiravan Ehteshami told Reuters. ``They haven't been able
to secure this with missiles. They can't keep the planes away, the only
thing they can do is to prevent them using neighbouring countries as a base.''

Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, a leftist with an 'anti-imperialist'
streak, has criticised U.S. aims in Iraq. His defence minister called last
week for a review of the rules of engagement for the U.S. and British air
patrols.

``Great problems are being created from the point of view Iraq's
integrity,'' Ecevit told reporters on Thursday. ``Apart from Iraq, no
country has been damaged by sanctions as much as Turkey,'' Ecevit said.

Turkey says it has lost some $30 billion from the embargo.

Turkish officials also fear the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein,
sought by the United States, could cause chaos in Iraq and send refugees
pouring over the Turkish border.

Such chinks in the alliance between Ankara and Washington will be exploited
by the wily Aziz as part of Baghdad's efforts to overturn both the northern
and the southern no-fly zone, which is patrolled from bases in Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia.

``They can't get the Kuwaitis or the Saudis to budge on this one, but they
can try to get the Turks to close Incirlik,'' said Ehteshami.

In return, Iraq could offer an increase in both official and illicit
petroleum exports to energy-hungry Turkey and the two neighbours could
present a united front against Kurdish nationalism, a threat to both states.

But despite apparent discord between Ankara and Washington, analysts doubt
whether Aziz's visit, starting on Monday, will produce any tangible results.
Rather, it will serve as a warning to Turkey's NATO allies that Ecevit's
concerns should be taken seriously.

``The only way for him to reiterate his differences from the Americans is to
start dialogue with the Iraq regime and attract international attention to
voice his anxieties,'' Cengiz Candar, a columnist for the Sabah newspaper,
told Reuters.

Ecevit also sought to ease fears of a split with his NATO partners. ``This
should not be interpreted as an anti-American stance,'' he said.

Ankara has suffered multiple blows to its ambitions to join the European
Union, which has criticised its human rights record and the power of the
military in politics.

The United States, more interested in Turkey's strategic position than
democratisation and human rights, has consistently backed Turkish
aspirations and encouraged its military ties with Israel. These have
strained Ankara's ties with the Arab world.

``We have so much common interest with America,'' columnist Hasan Cemal
wrote in the Milliyet newspaper. ``From the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the
IMF, foreign credit, (Kurdish rebel leader) 'Apo' to the  European Union.''

------

U.S. irritated by Iraqi visit to Turkey
RTw (Reuters World Report)
February 11, 1999

    WASHINGTON, Feb 11 (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday showed
signs of irritation that Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz will visit
Ankara next week.
      But it expects Turkey, a NATO ally of the United States, to blame the
Iraqi
government for the country's troubles, State Department spokesman James
Foley told a briefing.
      "We don't understand (Turkish) Prime Minister (Bulent) Ecevit's decision
to host Tareq Aziz at this time. Obviously we'll be in diplomatic contact with
the Turkish government on this matter," he said.
      "We expect that the Turkish government will make it clear to Tareq Aziz
that the roots of the current confrontation with Iraq are Baghdad's eight-year-
long refusal to meet its U.N.
   obligations and more recently its challenges to the no-fly zones," the
spokesman added.
      Regional analysts say Aziz will try to drive a wedge between Turkey and
the United States on the visit.
      But Turkey, spurned by Europe and at odds with the Arab world over its
ties with Israel, is unlikely to seriously cross its main diplomatic backers in
Washington, they add.
      Aziz has said he will ask Turkey to terminate the U.S.-British mandate to
use Incirlik and halt their attacks on Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries in the
north.
      Ecevit, a leftist with an "anti-imperialist" streak, has criticised
U.S. aims in
Iraq. His defence minister called last week for a review of the rules of
engagement for the U.S. and British air patrols.

------
(from TDN Press Scanner, Feb. 12, 1999)

Iraq crisis in Ankara

HURRIYET reported that Faruq Hejazi, a former intelligence official whom
Iraq has appointed to Ankara as its ambassador, has created a rift among
Turkish officials. Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit wants Hejazi to be invited
to the presidential palace
immediately so that he can present his credentials. President Suleyman
Demirel is
stalling because he has certain concerns. Ankara has also been worried
because of the visit Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz is expected to
pay to Turkey next Monday.

----

New York Times
February 12, 1999
American Jets Hit 7 Iraqi Military Sites
By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON -- American aircraft pounded Iraqi air-defense sites for the
second day in a row Thursday as the Iraq government pledged to continue
challenging American and British control of most of its skies, using
diplomatic as well as military means.

American fighter jets hit seven military sites -- including surface-to-air
missile launchers, radar stations and communications centers -- in the
northern and southern no-flight zones, Pentagon officials said.

The officials described the strikes as defensive, although the strikes in the
south occurred more than six hours after the Iraqi actions that the
Pentagon cited as justification for attacking. The severity of the strikes
reflected the more aggressive enforcement of the zones that President
Clinton approved last month.

The official Iraqi news agency said that two civilians had been killed and
several wounded. The Pentagon said it could not confirm the casualties.
Officials said the strikes appeared to have succeeded in hitting their
military targets, and expressed skepticism about Iraq's contentions.

Iraq also reported again that it had shot down an enemy plane. But
Pentagon officials said all the American and British jets that flew over
Iraq Thursday returned safely to their bases.

The American attacks, which resumed on Wednesday after a weeklong
lull, have done little to stop Iraqi challenges to the zones, which began in
December after four nights of air and missile strikes by the United States
and Britain.

The deputy prime minister of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, said Thursday that Iraqi
forces would confront the American and British forces "no matter what
the sacrifices and the consequences."

"This is flagrant aggression against Iraq," Aziz said. "It is a flagrant
violation of international law and it is a violation and act of disrespect for
Security Council resolutions that Iraq will not accept."

The new prime minister of Turkey, Bulent Ecevit, has expressed
misgivings about the American policy toward Iraq in the wake of weeks
of strikes by allied jets that are based at the air base in Incirlik, Turkey.
On Thursday, the United States expressed its misgivings over Ecevit's
willingness to meet Aziz.

"We don't understand Prime Minister Ecevit's decision to host Tariq Aziz
at this time," a State Department spokesman, James Foley, said.

Turkey's willingness to allow the use of the base in Incirlik is essential to
enforcing the northern no-flight zone. The patrols have always been a
source of debate within Turkey's political parties. But Pentagon officials
said they were confident that the country's powerful military remains
committed to the effort.

The strikes began Thursday, the Pentagon said, when Iraqi antiaircraft
batteries opened fire near an American F-15E that was patrolling near
the northern city of Mosul and then tracked it with radar. The jet
responded by attacking a communications center linked to a
surface-to-air missile site. Two additional F-15s then attacked the missile
site, the officials said.

Those attacks were followed an hour later by strikes on an SA-6 mobile
missile launcher and other radar and communication centers. The officials
said those strikes were a response to Iraqi forces' "locking on" the
American planes with radar.

In the southern zone, F-15s based in Saudi Arabia and F-14s and F-18s
from the carrier Carl Vinson attacked targets near al-Habbariyah and
al-Amarah. Those strikes responded to an incursion into the zone by at
least three Iraqi MiG-23 jets more than six hours earlier.

Pentagon officials justified the strikes in the south, saying each violation
would invite retaliation. Pilots now routinely fly with potential targets in
mind.

"We have said that commanders in the area have broad authority to
respond as they see fit to reduce the threats that are posed by the Iraqis,"
a Pentagon spokesman, Capt. Michael Doubleday of the Navy, said.

----

Iraq mounts fresh anti-U.S. diplomatic offensive
RTna (Reuters North America)
Fri, Feb 12, 1999
By Hassan Hafidh

      BAGHDAD, Feb 12 (Reuters) - Iraq has mounted a diplomatic offensive to
win Arab and world support in its standoff with the United States and
Britain.
      President Saddam Hussein has dispatched Foreign Minister Mohammed
Saeed al-Sahaf to Arab and African leaders to try to drum up support for Iraq's
defiance of two Western-imposed no- fly zones in north and south of the
country.
      Sahaf arrived in Morocco on Thursday to deliver a letter from Saddam to
King Hassan. He has already taken similar letters to Algeria and Tunisia and
Baghdad newspapers say he will continue on to other Arab countries.
      They did not identify the countries but it seemed that Jordan would be one
of his destinations.
      Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz is meanwhile preparing to visit Turkey
next week -- an arrangement
which was has surprised and irritated Washington. He plans to ask Ankara to
stop U.S. and British air
forces using Incirlik -- the Turkish base from which they patrol northern Iraq.
      "This is unfortunate because Turkey is a neighbour and we think
neighbours should respect the security and mutual interests of each other,"
Aziz told reporters on Thursday.
      Western planes patrolling Western-declared no-fly zones in northern and
southern Iraq have met
challenges from and struck at Iraqi air defences almost daily since the
United States and Britain conducted
four days of widespread air and missile attacks against Iraq in December.
      Saddam apparently hopes to widen the gap between the U.S. and Britain
and other members of the United Nations Security Council.
      Washington and London say they have the backing of U.N. resolutions.
      "This is a flagrant aggression against Iraq. It is a flagrant violation of
international law and it is a violation and act of disrespect for Security
Council resolutions that Iraq will not accept," Aziz said.
      The United States, which led an international force to expel Iraqi troops
from Kuwait in 1991, launched the attack in December after the U.N. weapons
inspectors, overseeing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, said that Iraq was
not cooperating.
      Baghdad says it will not allow the inspectors back in Iraq unless sweeping
sanctions imposed for its 1990 invasion of Kuwait are lifted unconditionally.
Iraq also says that it has disclosed all its prohibited weapons to U.N.
monitors.
      France, Russia and China, all permanent members of the Security Council,
say the inspection regime should be changed and that the U.N. should move
toward possible easing or lifting the sanctions.
      The other two permanent members, the United States and Britain, say Iraq
is nowhere near meeting arms and other requirements of the U.N.
resolutions.
      An "oil-for-food" deal with the United Nations, which went into effect in
December 1996, allows Iraq to sell $5.26 billion worth of oil over six
months to
buy food, medicines and other humanitarian needs to help offset the sanctions.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:23:17 -0800
Subject: THIS IS CIVILIZATION?

The CCPA Monitor                                        February 1999


THIS IS CIVILIZATION?

         Global capitalism most barbaric
         economic system in history

         By Ed Finn

Occasionally, when I venture beyond the friendly confines of the
left, I am accosted by people who don't share my aversion for the
big corporations and their CEOs.

"What have you got against capitalism?" I am asked, accusingly.
Sometimes there's a follow-up query: "Would you rather live under
a communist system?"

To the first question, my flip response is usually that I can't spare
the hours or days it would take to list all my objections to the New
World Order; and to the second I aver that the choice is not
between capitalism and communism, per se, but between civilized
and uncivilized ways to run an economy. Capitalism as it is
practised today is clearly no improvement over Soviet communism,
and arguably is even worse for the majority of people who live
under it.

Come to think of it, I could sum up all my reasons for loathing free-
market capitalism in just three words: it is barbaric.

Look up the word "barbaric" in your dictionary, and you'll find
several synonyms, including brutal, savage, and cruel. They all
apply to the current capitalist system--and even more so to its
overlords. These suave chief executives don't look or act like Attila
the Hun. They dress smartly, talk smoothly, and their table manners
are impeccable. But strip away the glossy veneer, and you find the
savage, ruthless tyrants not far beneath the surface.

These modern barbarian chieftains don't personally lead their hordes
to invade other countries. They don't physically destroy cultures.
They don't openly loot and pillage cities, or massacre their
inhabitants. But they engage in the equivalent of all these barbaric
activities from the seclusion of their boardrooms, sometimes with
just a phone call or a tap on a computer key.

Their invasions take the form of "free trade." Their looting and
pillaging is done through strip-mining, deforestation, privatization
and deregulation, currency speculation, and IMF-enforced
repayments of onerous debt-loads.

In the wake of these corporate depredations, billions of people are
doomed to poverty, hunger and disease, and many thousands to
premature death. They are as much the victims of barbarism as
were those slaughtered by Attila and Genghis Khan. The business
brigands who plan and direct these pogroms don't have blood on
their well-manicured hands, but they make the Goths and Vandals
look like teenaged delinquents.

What do I have against capitalism, indeed! Am I supposed to
applaud and endorse an economic system in which 225 billionaires
have more money than the two billion poorest people? In which just
4% of the wealth of those 225 individuals--about $40 billion a year-
-would be enough to eliminate world hunger and provide adequate
health care and basic education for everyone?

Sorry, but I don't buy all the glib excuses and rationalizations for
this obscenely inhumane system trotted out by the Žlites and their
propagandists. "The poor will always be with us," they say, quoting
the bible. (Yes, they certainly will be as long as the God of the
Market so decrees.) "You can't help the poor, sick and hungry by
throwing money at them." (How about not taking the money away
from them in the first place?)

For me, the two events in 1998 that most tellingly revealed the true
face of modern capitalism were the crisis on Wall Street in
September and the crisis in Central America in November.

The crisis on Wall Street was the imminent collapse of a major
investment fund--Long-Term Capital Management--after it lost
billions gambling on the rise or fall of European currencies. The
fund's affluent managers and several hundred investors (who had no
one to blame except their own avarice) cried out to be rescued from
their folly, and it took just a few days to accumulate the $3.5 billion
needed to bail out their fund.

The crisis in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador
ravaged millions of people in those countries whose lives and
economies were shattered by Hurricane Mitch. But these were not
rich investors or speculators. They were poor, homeless, hungry
members of the lower classes. So the ChrŽtien government's first
response was to offer them a paltry $1 million in aid, while the U.S.
government coughed up $2 million.

Only public outrage over these meagre amounts forced the two
governments to increase them. Eventually, with the help of other
nations in Europe, the total aid package was boosted to half-a-
billion, but this still fell far short of the $2 billion or more needed by
Mitch's helpless victims--and well short of the amount raised almost
overnight for the wealthy Wall Street speculators.

The lesson is that there is fast and generous charity for the greedy,
slow and grudging charity for the needy.

Basically, capitalism enshrines greed--one of the most repugnant of
human vices--as the predominant virtue. The whole system is driven
by greed. Selfishness harnessed to initiative is supposed to produce
the best of all ways to run an economy, or a country--or even the
world.

The truth, of course, is that any system that enshrines rapacity as its
motivating force must by its very nature be a form of barbarism.

Is this really the best system that humankind can devise to allocate
the planet's resources? If so, we have no right to call our society
civilized. (Or our species, either.) It is just as primitive and causes
as much misery and injustice as any social or economic system in
human history. A good case could even be made, now that the
corporations have succeeded in dominating the entire planet, that
this is by far the most unjust and brutal system ever to oppress the
world's people.

Its defenders argue that it simply reflects the reality of Nature, "red
in tooth and claw," which dictates that the law of the jungle must
also be the overriding law governing human affairs. All creatures,
they claim, are either predators or prey, and the struggle to survive
must play itself out in the human jungle, too.

If that were true, however, the human predators would not take
more prey than they need to survive. The lions and tigers aren't
greedy. They don't keep killing more zebras and antelope than they
can eat. There aren't 225 lions with more to eat than two billion
hogs or deer or giraffes.

So don't prattle to me about the law of the jungle or the survival of
the fittest. That's an insult to the animals. What we have is an
economic system that glorifies, promotes and rewards the basest of
human instincts--a system that carries cruelty, injustice and
brutalization to their worst extremes.

                                 * * *

And now that I've told you what I have against capitalism, let me
ask you fanatical free-enterprisers: What do you have for it?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

1. Congressman: "Why Kosovo and Not Kurdistan?" (Intl. Relations Committee) 2/10
2. Moderate Kurd-based Party (DKP) also Faces Closure (Milliyet) 2/11
3. Singer Attacked for Kurdish Songs (Sabah) 2/11
4. Congress Report Foresees Political Instability (Turkish Daily News) 2/12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEBRUARY 10, 1999
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HEARING ON DEVELOPMENTS IN KOSOVO AND U.S. ROLE IN RESOLVING THE CONFLICT
CHAIRED BY: BENJAMIN GILMAN (R-NY)
WITNESSES: THOMAS PICKERING, UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
            WALTER SLOCOMBE, UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC

REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My guess is most questions have already been asked, but I'm going to delve
into a related issue in the hopes of asking something that our fine
panelists haven't addressed yet.

Throughout history, governments have killed civilians, and it's happened
recently in such places as East Timor, where America has really never
thought of sending military forces or threatening military action.

Kosovo is a bit different in that it is within the NATO area. But within the
NATO area, Kosovo is not the only place where a government is not killing
secessionist-minded civilians or civilians of a particular ethnic group that
have some support for secession. The other area within the NATO geographic
area where this is occurring is Kurdistan.  And I realize that Kurdistan is
not in Europe, but it is clearly within the borders of NATO.

And I wonder why dozens of brutal murders in Kosovo have inspired such an
outpouring of American concern and the threat of military action, whereas
hundreds and thousands of dead civilians of oppression, of murders on a much
larger scale in Kurdistan have not? I mean, we're still -- we're certainly
not threatening to bomb Turkey over this, nor would I suggest that.  But why
is the administration willing to risk American lives to stop the deaths of
civilians in Kosovo, and yet unwilling to even risk American words to stop
the deaths of Kurds also in the NATO area, under very similar circumstances.

I wonder if Mr. Pickering could address this -- Secretary Pickering.

MR. PICKERING: Yes.  Thank you very much.  You raise an important question.
First, with respect to Kurdistan and Turkey, and as you know, there are
Kurds present in three countries in the area, and we have, obviously, a
different position regarding this particular issue.  We have spent the last
five to 10 years with the Turkish government making, I think, significant
progress over their dealing with the Kurdish minority in Turkey, and we will
continue to do that. And that as a NATO ally, we have in many ways had a
very, very useful place to have influence over that particular problem.

Would I say that it is now perfect? The answer, of course, is no.  Would I
say that the appropriate route for us to deal with this particular problem
is not to send troops, as you said, on the ground to Turkey to deal with it?
The answer, of course, is yes.  The appropriate way to deal with this is to
use our very considerable influence over Turkey, to continue to get the
Turks to deal with this problem.  And I believe there are a number of
circumstances in a number of areas where there have been significant steps
forward in dealing with this issue.  Is it perfect?  No.

The difference, obviously, is in Kosovo, that there is no responsiveness on
the part of Mr. Milosevic.  And indeed Mr. Milosevic, in the summer, as you
will understand from my statement, moved large numbers of forces into Kosovo
and directly attacked large numbers of people.

REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Secretary, if I can interrupt you, because the time is
almost done, clearly the number of troops sent by the Turkish government to
Kurdistan, much larger than Milosevic has sent to Kosovo.  The number of
dead civilians in Kurdistan, much larger than Kosovo.  I would hope that the
American government would be willing to take a more public and more strident
approach toward protecting the Kurds, and we shouldn't take the view that
oppression is to be viewed differently in the NATO area if it's done by a
NATO country as opposed to being done by a country that's outside of NATO.

MR. PICKERING: I believe that we have worked very hard with Turkey to deal
with this particular problem and will continue to do so.  The question,
obviously, of Milosevic is quite different.  He is not a NATO member, but he
has acted in ways that every indication is that there is absolutely no bow
in his direction toward issues of human rights or toward issues of respect
for ethnic minorities.

----
(from TDN Press Scanner, February 12, 1999)

Kurds and politics
February 11, 1999
Milliyet
by Taha Akyol

The Democratic Mass Party (DKP), which was founded by a group led by
Serafettin Elci, is being tried at the Constitutional Court on charges of
separatism.  A similar case has been initiated against the People's
Democracy Party (HADEP) at the same court, also on charges of separatism.

But there are significant legal and political differences between these two
cases.
HADEP is being accused of having supported terrorism, that is, the PKK,
whereas there is no such charge against the DKP. In fact, the PKK's
hostility toward  Elci and his friends is common knowledge.

The difference between these two parties is not limited to the terrorism
issue. Elci and his friends have a liberal view of the world. The political
project they are advocating is different than that of the Kurdish radicals.

The case in which the prosecutor wants the DKP's closure was initiated 20 months
ago. For this reason, the party could not set up its provincial branch
offices and will not be able to take part in the April 18 elections. I wish
it would be able to take part in the elections. The Constitutional Court
will announce its decision regarding
the DKP in about 10 days. This will be a milestone for our constitutional law.

The rapporteur of the Constitutional Court has maintained that the DKP,
which upholds the Kurdish identity, has not violated the Constitution. That
means that ethnic and religious identities can be expressed in the political
arena within "territorial and national unity." This is a significant
positive step on the path of liberalization.

I believe that the Constitutional Court will decide that the DKP must not be
closed. Such a decision would entail a reinterpretation of concepts such as
"national unity," "territorial integrity" and "national sovereignty," which
are Turkey's unchanging basic values. This is the direction in which the
"nation-states" of our day evolve -- cooling off the heat by enabling the
subidentities to express themselves, while carefully protecting the
legislative, executive and judicial powers of the state, as well as
the "unitarian" nature of the "citizenship" concept.

-----
(from TDN Press Scanner, Feb. 12, 1999)

Ugly incident

SABAH reported that singer Ahmet Kaya, who was presented with an award at a
gala organized at a hotel in Istanbul by the Entertainment News Correspondents'
Association, was attacked by a number of people when he declared, "From now
on I will
sing in Kurdish." While forks and knives were flying in the air, Kaya was
spirited out of the hall and taken to a police station for protection. The
tension in the hall
was eased when another singer, Serdar Ortac, sang the 10. Yil Marsi, the
marching song
commemorating the 10th anniversary of the republic.

----

Congressional report predicts further instability in Turkey

The CRS report stresses that the current state of political affairs in
Turkey are a source of concern for both the US administration as well
as for Congress

Ankara - Turkish Daily News / February 12, 1999

A report presented to the members of the U.S. Congress said that the April
elections in Turkey will not significantly change the parliamentary distribution
of seats and asserted that the political instability in Turkey is likely to
continue,
the Anatolia news agency reported from Washington.

The report, prepared by Carol Migdalowitz, a Turkey expert from the
Congressional Research Service (CRS), said that there has been instability
in Turkey since the last elections in 1995 and that the military will be closely
watching the results of the upcoming elections in April, in particular the
possible rise of the Islamists during the elections.

Turkish political leaders, despite the likelihood that the Islamists will emerge
as the victorious party, are willing that the elections take place, but the
"strong" Turkish military is not so eager, the report said.

The Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) is the guarantor of the basic principles that
form the Turkish Republic's foundations, the report added. It emphasized the
TSK's determination to protect the principles of secularism.

Speaking on the consequences of the National Security Council (MGK)
meeting that took place on Feb. 28, 1997 which led to the resignation of the
Islamist-led coalition government the CRS report said that only the education
reform had been put into effect.

The report also evaluated Turkey's current prime minister, Bulent Ecevit,
saying that Ecevit himself is a secular nationalist but controls his Democratic
Left Party (DSP) through autocratic methods. Because of the early elections,
Ecevit will not be able to carry out important tasks, the reports added.

It also went on to comment on Ecevit's posture towards Iraq, Cyprus,
Turco-Greek relations and Turkey-European Union ties. Ecevit, it said, was
placing more emphasis on foreign policy affairs, like his predecessor Mesut
Yilmaz.

Migdalowitz's report stressed that the current political affairs in Turkey
were of
concern both to the U.S. administration as well as to Congress.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:08:19 +0000
Subject: View from 'Down Under"

I am not sure what to say about it but what is going on in US
politics?  The TV news here (Australia) announced that the Christiam
Right has declared one of the Teletubbies a gay icon - purple suit,
triangular antenna - of course.  A collegue here pointed out that a
generation ago similar claims were made against 'Noddie and Big Ears"
and the book were withdraw from the libray.  I attach Barry Sheppards
article from 'Green Left Weekly' (check it out at
http://www.peg.apc.org/~greenleft/).  Is he on the right track? is
this getting worse or is it just over reporting?

Regards

Shane


What's going on in Washington?

      By Barry Sheppard

      US politics must seem quite odd to people in other countries. The
      Democratic president of the United States is put on trial in the
      Senate by the Republicans for trying to cover up his affair with
      a young White House intern. In November a professional wrestler
      running for a third capitalist party inspires voters in the state
      of Minnesota to elect him governor, against the candidates of the
      Democrats and Republicans.

      Contrary to expectations, the Republicans lose ground to the
      Democrats in the elections elsewhere. As a result, the
      increasingly unpopular Republican speaker of the House of
      Representatives, Newt Gingrich, resigns.

      The Republicans choose Robert Livingston, another southern
      reactionary like Gingrich, to replace him. But before he can take
      office he quits, because self-described "smut peddler" Larry
      Flynt exposes him in Hustler magazine as an adulterer. Flynt put
      up a lot of money to entice past paramours of Republicans sitting
      in judgment on Clinton to spill the beans. Hustler plans to "out"
      11 more hypocrites in a special issue.

      Jerry Falwell, a leading light of the Christian right, goes on TV
      to denounce Flynt for exposing the Republican adulterers, even as
      he vigorously calls for Clinton's removal for covering up his
      adultery.

      Columnist Frank Rich writes in the New York Times, "The other
      hypocrites unmasked by Mr. Flynt's pranks could fill a cabinet
      department. It's hard to stop laughing when Dick Morris ["outed"
      last year], who sucked prostitutes' toes while on the White House
      payroll, decries the publisher for `degrading American politics'
      ... Larry Flynt is a bull in the china shop of false pieties,
      empty pretensions and sexual sermonizing that have brought us to
      this low moment in American history."

      Falwell, who is in the TV evangelism racket soaking millions from
      the gullible, also opines that the Antichrist is presently alive
      and is a Jew, and the second coming of Jesus is at hand.

      Racists and reactionaries

      The Republican head of the Senate, Trent Lott from Mississippi,
      is exposed as a supporter of a racist outfit that is the
      continuation of that state's White Citizens Council, which fought
      against the civil rights movement in the 1960s, including by
      organising murders of civil rights workers.

      Another supporter of the group, the Council of Conservative
      Citizens, is House member and leading Republican "family values"
      spokesperson Robert Barr, who was exposed by Flynt as having paid
      for his wife's abortion, although in Congress he has vigorously
      opposed a woman's right to choose even in cases of rape, incest
      or threat to the woman's life.

      In the midst of his impeachment proceedings, Clinton ordered the
      bombing of Iraq, because Iraq refuses to comply with the UN
      inspectors, charging that they are just a cover for US spies. It
      then turns out the charge is true, and is admitted by the US
      government itself.

      The impeachment trial opened with Senator Strom Thurmond, an old
      reactionary racist Dixiecrat-turned-Republican, swearing in Chief
      Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist as the presiding
      officer for the trial. Rehnquist, an arch-reactionary and racist
      himself, appears in an outfit of his own design, a black robe
      with peculiar stripes on the sleeves that he proudly declares is
      a copy of a costume he once saw on an actor in a Gilbert and
      Sullivan operetta.

      All of the press and radio and TV commentators solemnly intone
      that this is a "historic" occasion, and the senators agree.
      Endless hours of the proceedings are broadcast on National Public
      Radio and reprinted in the New York Times verbatim, while the
      rest of the country tunes out, puts on a soap opera or football
      game and impatiently wishes the whole affair over. Everyone has
      known the basic facts for months.

      The senators adjourn the trial for the day on January 19, and
      file into the meeting of the whole Congress to hear Clinton's
      "State of the Union" speech. Members of Congress who hours before
      had been demanding that Clinton be tossed out of office and sent
      straight to hell, politely applaud his speech, which is widely
      approved by the public.

      Another TV evangelist and leading light of the Christian right,
      Pat Robertson (who was caught with a prostitute some years ago,
      but was forgiven by Jesus, he says), even says Clinton has "hit a
      home run" with the speech and the impeachment trial might as well
      be halted. Robertson backtracks when denounced by his followers.

      All this is on CNN, and broadcast to the world.

      Christian right

      As the impeachment and trial have progressed, Clinton's ratings
      with the public keep climbing, while those of the Republicans go
      down. This undoubtedly was behind Robertson's concern. Some
      ordinary Republican voters are publicly changing their party
      registration. Why, then, have the Republicans pushed ahead so
      relentlessly?

      The answer lies with a core activist constituency in the
      Republican Party, the Christian right. They are a minority of the
      party's voters, but control many party caucuses and help get out
      the vote. They have been demanding the removal of Clinton since
      the scandal broke a year ago.

      They are the cutting edge of the movement to reverse the gains
      made by blacks and other minorities, women, gays and others in
      the social movements of the 1960s and early 1970s. They would
      like to see a Christian theocracy in the United States, complete
      with a sex police. Sensing that these are the forces behind the
      attack on Clinton, most people here are sympathetic to him.

      The idea that lying about an adulterous affair is a "high crime
      and misdemeanour" frightens a lot of people. Many think they
      would do the same if they were in Clinton's shoes.

      Opposition to these rightist extremists helped tilt the scale in
      the November elections slightly toward the Democrats, even though
      the voter turnout was very low, in the 30% range, reflecting
      widespread disgust with all the politicians.

      The election results and public opposition to the impeachment
      trial indicate a small shift to the left in bourgeois politics,
      in the sense that the Christian right was repudiated. The longer
      the trial goes on, the more isolated that right becomes.

      Discontented voters

      But the rightward shift by both Republicans and Democrats on
      other issues has not been reversed. Clinton and most Democrats
      have embraced Republican issues such as slashing social spending,
      ending the federal guarantee of welfare for the very poor,
      supporting the death penalty, cutting back on civil liberties in
      the guise of fighting "terrorism" and "drugs", cutting back the
      rights of prisoners, hamstringing the ability of unions to
      organise, raising war spending and so on.

      The election of Jesse Ventura, the professional wrestler, to the
      governorship of Minnesota on the Reform Party ticket of Ross
      Perot indicated disgust with both major parties, but not a break
      with capitalist politics. He openly came out for a woman's right
      to choose abortion, and for gay rights. He refused to accept
      campaign money from rich "vested interests", and appeared to be
      "something new".

      On the other hand, he also came out against welfare and
      child-care subsidies, and social spending in general. His
      positions put him roughly in the camp of moderate Republicans,
      who eschew the ravings of the Christian right.

      Ventura's presentation of himself as "something new" resulted in
      a relatively high voter turnout (60%) in Minnesota compared to
      the rest of the country.

      US politics continue to be marked by the fact that there is no
      mass party even claiming to represent the interests of the
      working people against those of capital, which could organise the
      discontent of much of the population. Until that happens, no
      significant step forward can be made on the electoral field.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 99 21:56:42 -0400
From: akin@...
Subject: Turkey Compared to Serbia About Kosovo Crisis and Canadian MP Speaks
     Up for Leyla Zana!

Copyright 1999 Federal Information Systems Corporation
Federal News Service



FEBRUARY 10, 1999, WEDNESDAY

SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING WITH DEFENSE AND STATE DEPARTMENTS PERSONNEL

LENGTH: 18935 words

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
  SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENTS IN KOSOVO AND U.S. ROLE
  IN RESOLVING THE CONFLICT
  CHAIRED BY: BENJAMIN GILMAN (R-NY)
  WITNESSES:
  THOMAS PICKERING,
  UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS
  AND WALTER SLOCOMBE,
  UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR POLICY
  2172 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
  WASHINGTON, DC


REP. BRAD SHERMAN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  My guess is most questions have already been asked, but I'm going to delve into
a related issue in the hopes of asking something that our fine panelists haven't
addressed yet.
  Throughout history, governments have killed civilians, and it's happened
recently in such places as East Timor, where America has really never thought of
sending military forces or threatening military action.
  Kosovo is a bit different in that it is within the NATO area. But within the
NATO area, Kosovo is not the only place where a government is not killing
secessionist-minded civilians or civilians of a particular ethnic group that
have some support for secession. The other area within the NATO geographic area
where this is occurring is Kurdistan.  And I realize that Kurdistan is not in
Europe, but it is clearly within the borders of NATO.
  And I wonder why dozens of brutal murders in Kosovo have inspired such an
outpouring of American concern and the threat of military action, whereas
hundreds and thousands of dead civilians of oppression, of murders on a much
larger scale in Kurdistan have not? I mean, we're still -- we're certainly not
threatening to bomb Turkey over this, nor would I suggest that.  But why is the
administration willing to risk American lives to stop the deaths of civilians in
Kosovo, and yet unwilling to even risk American words to stop the deaths of
Kurds also in the NATO area, under very similar circumstances.

  I wonder if Mr. Pickering could address this -- Secretary Pickering.
  MR. PICKERING: Yes.  Thank you very much.  You raise an important question.
First, with respect to Kurdistan and Turkey, and as you know, there are Kurds
present in three countries in the area, and we have, obviously, a different
position regarding this particular issue.  We have spent the last five to 10
years with the Turkish government making, I think, significant progress over
their dealing with the Kurdish minority in Turkey, and we will continue to do
that. And that as a NATO ally, we have in many ways had a very, very useful
place to have influence over that particular problem.
  Would I say that it is now perfect?

  The answer, of course, is no.  Would I say that the appropriate route for us to
deal with this particular problem is not to send troops, as you said, on the
ground to Turkey to deal with it?  The answer, of course, is yes.  The
appropriate way to deal with this is to use our very considerable influence over
Turkey, to continue to get the Turks to deal with this problem.  And I believe
there are a number of circumstances in a number of areas where there have been
significant steps forward in dealing with this issue.  Is it perfect?  No.
  The difference, obviously, is in Kosovo, that there is no responsiveness on the
part of Mr. Milosevic.  And indeed Mr. Milosevic, in the summer, as you will
understand from my statement, moved large numbers of forces into Kosovo and
directly attacked large numbers of people.
  REP. SHERMAN: Mr. Secretary, if I can interrupt you, because the time is almost
done, clearly the number of troops sent by the Turkish government to Kurdistan,
much larger than Milosevic has sent to Kosovo.  The number of dead civilians in
Kurdistan, much larger than Kosovo.  I would hope that the American government
would be willing to take a more public and more strident approach toward
protecting the Kurds, and we shouldn't take the view that oppression is to be
viewed differently in the NATO area if it's done by a NATO country as opposed to
being done by a country that's outside of NATO.
  MR. PICKERING: I believe that we have worked very hard with Turkey to deal with
this particular problem and will continue to do so.  The question, obviously, of
Milosevic is quite different.  He is not a NATO member, but he has acted in ways
that every indication is that there is absolutely no bow in his direction toward
issues of human rights or toward issues of respect for ethnic minorities.


Dr. Keith Martin, M.D., M.P.
Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca

NEWS  RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Martin Calls for Release of Political Prisoner
BC Reform Member Wants Kurdish Human Rights Activist Freed

Ottawa, February 10, 1999 -  Dr. Keith Martin, Member of Parliament for
Esquimalt ñ Juan de Fuca, and Deputy-Critic for Foreign Affairs issued a call to
Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy to use Canada`s influence as a member of
the Security Council to lobby for the release of Kurdish human rights activist
Leyla Zana.

Dr. Martin brought attention to the fact that Zana was invited by the United
States to address the Helsinki Committee on Kurdish human rights and was
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.  ìThis brave woman, who is a member of the
Turkish Parliament, is being persecuted for speaking up for human rights.î  Dr.
Martin went on to say that, ìshe has even turned down offers of freedom if she
will feign illnessÖyet she has refused.  So long as freedom of speech is
repressed in Turkey, she has vowed to remain in prison.î

Dr. Martin noted that as a member of the Security Council, there is a window of
opportunity to wield enormous influence on the international stage.  ìWe could
all learn from her courage and her convictionÖthe Canadian government has an
opportunity to follow her example and lobby for her defence,î Martin added.

IN 1994, Leyla Zana was sentenced to a 15 year prison sentence following her
address to the Helsinki Committee in 1993.  As a member of the Sub-Committee on
Human Rights and International Development, Dr. Martin will lobby the committee
to put forth a motion urging Canada to lobby for her freedom.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

1. Kurds Cautious Towards US Plan to Topple Saddam (Associated Press) 2/10
2. "Intrusive" Checks on Iraqi WMD Programs Proposed (New York Times) 2/10
3. Amatzia Baram on Kurd State in Iraq (Zaman) 2/9
4. Iraq Report (RFE/RL) 2/5
5. Iraqi FM Tariq Aziz to Visit Turkey (REUTERS) 2/10
----------------------------------------------------------

Iraqi Kurds Cautious of Supporting US Plans to Topple Saddam
APn (AP US & World)
Feb 10, 1999

    By VIJAY JOSHI
  Associated Press Writer
    SULAIMANIYA, Iraq (AP) -- A top Kurdish leader says he will accept U.S.
military aid for toppling President Saddam Hussein, but insists the job must
be done by Iraqis with no "outside conspiracy."
    An official of a rival Kurdish faction, however, said his group is not
immediately concerned with removing the Iraqi leader from power.
    The different views, revealed in separate interviews last week, demonstrate
the headaches facing the United States in its campaign to encourage Iraqi
dissidents to overthrow Saddam.
    President Clinton decided last month to give $97 million worth of military
supplies to seven Iraqi opposition groups, including the Kurdistan
Democratic Party and its rival Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
    While both groups say their ultimate goal is to bring about multiparty
democracy in Iraq and secure full autonomy for the Kurdish minority, their
immediate strategies are unlikely to converge soon.
    "We want to end the Iraqi dictatorship. This is our main goal," Jalal
Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, told The Associated Press
in the PUK government headquarters in Sulaimaniya, 235 miles north of
Baghdad.
    "The dictatorship of one party, one leadership must be ended," he said.
    But he rejected any plan that calls for ousting Saddam without also
installing democracy.
    Asked if he would accept part of the U.S. aid, Talabani said: "If they are
providing arms and training unconditionally, yes. If they put conditions, one,
two and three, no, we will not take."
    Asked the same question, Rosch Noori Schawees, the "prime minister" of
the Kurdistan Democratic Party administration, was more circumspect.
    "We need all the support ... which will enable us to reach the goals of the
Kurdish people," he said in Irbil, 90 miles west of Sulaimaniya. Then he
added: "It is not one of our goals to go and topple Saddam."
    Schawees and Talabani spoke in their strongholds in the Kurdish-
dominated northern Iraq, which has been out of Saddam's control since a
1991 uprising. A subsequent internecine war ended last year with the Kurdish
region split into KDP- and PUK-governed areas.
    A U.S.-mediated agreement between the two groups called for establishing a
joint regional government, an interim assembly and holding elections in
July, but its implementation has been delayed.
    The KDP's caution is understandable given its close links with Saddam's
government. The Iraqi army backed the KDP in its war with PUK in 1996.
    The KDP participates in the smuggling of Iraqi oil to Turkey in violation of
U.N. sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The smuggling
is a source of income for both Saddam's government and the KDP.
    Talabani and Schawees, however, stressed that they would not accept direct
American intervention in Iraq.
    "We are not participating in outside conspiracy. I would be ashamed if
America did it (oust Saddam). ... This is the task of the Iraqi opposition,"
Talabani said.
    "We believe that the present and the future of the Iraqi nation should be in
its own hands," Schawees said.
    Talabani also dismissed a recent assessment by Gen. Anthony Zinni, the
U.S. military commander in the Persian Gulf, that Iraqi opposition groups
were too weak to overthrow Saddam.
    He said the Kurds have "tens of thousands" of fighters who are building
links with an equally potent Shiite rebel force in southern Iraq. He
acknowledged that they still need to get the support of the Sunni Muslims in
the government-controlled part of Iraq.
    Saddam, together with almost all members of his inner circle and top army
officers belong to the Sunni sect, a minority in Shiite-dominated Iraq.
    "The day we achieve unity, the second day there will be a change in Iraq,"
Talabani said.

------

New York Times
February 10, 1999
'Intrusive' Iraq Check Proposed
By JUDITH MILLER

UNITED NATIONS -- The International Atomic Energy Agency has submitted plans
for long-term monitoring of Iraq that call for "intrusive" inspections and
assume that Baghdad might try again to produce nuclear weapons.

In a report to the Security Council on Monday, the agency director,
Mohammed el-Baradei, said the monitoring would cost at least $10 million a
year.

The report concludes once again that Iraq is denying the agency documents
and material it has requested, including, for instance, documentary evidence
that Iraq has abandoned its nuclear weapons program. And the agency said it
could not verify that Iraq had not hidden away banned nuclear equipment or
materials.

The agency has therefore concluded that any long-term monitoring must be
"comprehensive, rigorous, and, as a result, intrusive."

Specifically, the agency says it would use such measures as "unannounced
inspections of previously uninspected locations." It would examine "records,
equipment, materials and products," as well as conduct interviews,
environmental monitoring and radiation surveys, and test samples of water,
vegetation, air and soil.

Most problematic from Iraq's standpoint, the agency said it would need to
conduct "unannounced inspections at new sites" to detect signs of banned
activities. Such inspections infuriated Iraq when they were conducted by the
U.N. Special Commission charged with disarming Iraq of unconventional
weapons. While the Special Commission inspects for biological and chemical
weapons, the International Atomic Energy
Agency monitors nuclear activities.

A U.N. official said Tuesday that he hoped such an intrusive monitoring
system would deter Iraq from reviving its unconventional-weapons programs,
but added that there was no indication that Iraq would ever agree to such an
inspection system.

-----
(from TDN Press Scanner, Feb. 10, 1999)

US determined to topple Saddam

ZAMAN interviewed Professor Amatzia Baram, a world-renowned expert on Iraq.
Noting that the United States is determined to topple Saddam Hussein, he
said: "I do not know
how the United States will persuade Turkey that no Kurdish state will be set
up in northern Iraq in the post-Saddam period. I find Turkey's stance too
skeptical. The United States would not make any arrangements which would
threaten Turkey's strategic
interests. But it can accept Kurdish autonomy or 'autonomy plus' for the
Kurds."

------
RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT
Vol. 2, No. 5, 5 February 1999

A Review of Developments in Iraq Prepared by the Staff of
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

HAS U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ CHANGED? Since the appointment of
Frank Ricciardone to manage U.S. policy towards the Iraqi
opposition, some commentators have seen a change in
Washington's policy. London's "Al-Hayah" thinks that American
policy has undergone a "structural change" (1 February).
Since the appointment, the Iraq Liberation Act emerged, which
is seen as an "appropriate working mechanism ... to serve the
administration but without obligating it to use it as the
only tool for implementing what is now called the process for
rehabilitating Iraq against the calls for bringing down the
Iraqi regime by force." Needless to say, this interpretation
has not won widespread approval from all sectors of the Iraqi
opposition.
	 So far, seven opposition groups have been selected by
the U.S. to receive a share of the $97 million allocated by
the act for the toppling of Saddam Husseyn. Several of the
opposition parties met with Ricciardone in London.
Ricciardone stressed that the door was open to any opposition
group if it acknowledged the following five criteria for
rehabilitating Iraq: a commitment to fight and change the
regime and preserve Iraq's territorial integrity; a belief in
democracy; respect for the Iraqi people's human rights and
citizens' basic ones; commitment to a policy of respecting
neighboring peoples and countries and not developing or
possessing weapons of mass destruction; and a commitment to
cooperate with other opposition groups.
	 In the U.S., there are two options open under the Iraq
Liberation Act. The first is that of "hot military
confrontation," which is backed by Congress and, according to
"Al-Hayah," supported by a strong lobbying effort led by
former U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. This
option would involve a military confrontation in the south in
which Arab elements (including Shiite) would operate in
parallel with a military move in the north in order to bring
about the fall of Baghdad.
	 The second option, which is close to the view held by
the U.S. administration and the Pentagon, is the "pyramid
theory," which holds that the top of the pyramid, Iraq's
leadership class of some 25 to 100 people, would be separated
from the rest of the pyramid. According to Ricciardone, this
latter option was the reasoning behind the air strikes which
targeted the regimes nerve centers and the headquarters of
its leaders.
	 The options cited above are considered separate from the
activities of the Iraqi opposition, according to "Al Hayah."
The major question is how Iraq's neighboring countries will
react to this. There is a feeling in the region that the U.S.
is not serious about any of this (Tehran); others are either
excluded from the scenario (Damascus), or siting on the fence
(Turkey).
	 Such plans, and Ricciardone's appointment, also are in
sharp contrast to General Anthony Zinni's recent statements
to the effect that the Iraqi opposition pose no immediate
threat to the Iraqi regime.
	 Of the seven groups designated to receive U.S.
assistance, three have refused it: the two leading Kurdish
groups in the north -- the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan --and the Supreme Council for
the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Iraqi National Congress
has accepted, as has the Constitutional Monarchist Movement
and the Iraqi National Accord. According to Ricciardone,
before any distribution of aid in the form of weapons or
financial support, there are many issues which must be
resolved" ( Al-Quds Al-Arabi, 30-31 January). In addition to
the seven designated groups, an Iraqi Turkoman party has also
requested this aid.
	 The Kurdish parties that control the Kurdistan Regional
Government in northern Iraq have expressed some concern about
the American plan to topple Saddam Husseyn. Senior U.S.
sources have said that the Kurdish factions have avoided
adopting any measures against Husseyn's regime and they have
opposed hosting any non-Kurdish opposition factions,
particularly the Iraqi National Congress, because they have
gambled and lost. The key issue for them is to protect the
Kurdish areas from any possible attack by the Iraqi army.
	  Baghdad quickly responded to Ricciardone's activities.
A spokesman for the Culture and Information Ministry said on
Baghdad Television on 1 February: "...we know that this
Ricciardone is assigned to leading the agents and traitors --
the old mules who he called the Iraqi opposition."
	 But the American initiative and its support for the
Iraqi opposition found some favor in the Muslim world. In an
interview with London-based "Al-Sharq Al-Awsat" on 1
February, Bayan Jabr, a member of the Central Council of the
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that
in the past, the Arab world "did not take into account the
issue of the repression to which the Iraqi people are
subjected." It became clear after the Arab Foreign Ministers
meeting in Cairo last week that the Arab leaderships were
willing to differentiate between the Iraqi people and the
Iraqi leadership. (David Nissman)

MARTIN INDYK'S MIDEAST TOUR SEEN AS UNSUCCESSFUL. A number of
Arabic-language newspapers in London have concluded that U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk's tour of the Gulf
states to drum up support for the American plan to topple
Saddam Husseyn ended with negative results. In the United
Arab Emirates (UAE), for example, Indyk was unable to meet
with anyone but Shaykh Hamdan bin Zayid, Minister of State
for Foreign Affairs. The UAE had expressed its reservations
about interfering in Iraq's internal affairs, "al-Quds Al-
Arabi" reported on 3 February. The UAE's defense minister,
Shaykh Mohammad ibn Rashid Al-Maktum, pointed out that "any
political change in Iraq brought about from outside would
lead to division and civil war" (AFP, 3 February). Visits to
Oman and Qatar met with the same result. The only Gulf state
not to voice an objection was Kuwait.
	 The American plan is three-pronged: the first option is
to put pressure on the Republican Guard to prompt them to
remove Saddam; if the first does not succeed, then to weaken
the Guard and prompt other military units to confront them;
if this does not occur, the regime's defenses will have
weakened, which will enable an armed opposition to play a
role, "Al-Hayah" reported on 3 February.
	 Baghdad's response to Indyk's tour was voiced by Salah
Al-Mukhtar, a newly appointed ambassador. He said that Indyk
and Albright's trip to the region "have failed to secure
backing for the U.S. plans." He added that that is why "they
have resorted to an escalation," according to AFP on 3
February. U.S. officials said that U.S. fighters attacked an
anti-ship missile battery. That represents an expansion of
the kinds of targets hit in coalition air strikes. An Iraqi
newspaper said on Wednesday that "Indyk's visit to the
region...is one of a chain of conspiracies against
Iraq...Iraq will remain a difficult target for all kinds of
conspiracies," "Al-Jumhuriya" reported on 3 February.
	 At the same time, British Minister of State Derek
Fatchett held a meeting with 16 opposition groups in London.
The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq refused
to attend. The Assembly's representative in London, Dr. Hamid
Al-Bayyati told "Al-Hayah" (3 February) that the "Iraqi
opposition should be dealt with in a way different from these
meetings, which provide Saddam Husseyn with a weapon to
accuse it of subservience." The Supreme Assembly has
expressed its reservations about external interference in the
past.
	 There are thus widespread doubts about Washington's
ability to implement its three-pronged plan. Not only the
Gulf states, but also Egypt and Syria have objected to the
approach. An editorial in "Al-Quds Al-Arabi" (3 February)
expressed the thought that "the U.S. administration is
dealing with the Arab region and its governments as if they
were banana republics where it can topple any government it
wants and replace them with anyone it wants." The editorial
concludes: " ...Indyk's tour and recent moves can be seen
only as an insult to the Arabs and to Islam." (David Nissman)

IRAQI-SAUDI POLEMIC HEATS UP. Despite all the Arab
conferences concentrating on Iraq in recent weeks, only one
-- a meeting of the Arab Parliamentary Union in Amman -- has
produced a statement to Iraq's liking. A major reason for
this -- though far from the only one -- has been Iraq's
renewed threats against Kuwait and its direct appeals to Arab
populations to move against their own governments.
	 The various high-level meetings among Arab leaderships
typically have ended with a statement of commitment toward
the Iraqi people together with statements on the dangerous
policies followed by a statement on the dangers presented by
current Iraqi policies. Leading targets of Iraqi invective
are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
	 A recent Saudi response to the spate of Iraqi articles
and speeches attacking Saudi Arabia was voiced by the writer
Abd-al-Hamid al-Darhali in the Jeddah newspaper "Al-Madinah"
on 1 February.
	 He writes: "The Baghdad regime has adopted a new
strategy, the objective of which is to create problems
between the Arab street and Arab governments, while knowing
that there is no Arab country that has not confirmed a
thousand times its solidarity with the Iraqi people and its
sympathies with their catastrophic sufferings."
	 He continues by saying that the objective of this Iraqi
strategy is "to create a split and sedition between the
regimes and the people" and will lead to "increasing Arab
fragmentation."
	 By contrast, the Baghdad newspaper "Al-Iraq" on 29
January featured an open letter addressed to secretary-
general of the Arab League, Dr. Ismat Abd-al-Majid. The
letter refers to the statement issued by the consultative
meeting of Arab foreign Ministers: "it reflected ... the
subservience of the Arab regimes, particularly the Saudi and
Kuwaiti regimes, to Washington, London and the Zionists." It
also claims that "Iraqi and Arab masses have declared their
support of the leadership of President Saddam Husseyn as a
symbol of Arab national sovereignty and aspirations."
	 An important component of the Iraqi conspiracy theory
was expressed in the Baghdad Ba'thist Party newspaper "Al-
Thawra" on 31 January. The Saudi-Kuwaiti axis "is using
various means to blackmail other Arab countries in order to
harm Iraq and pan-Arab security and in order to serve U.S.
strategy and policies in the region."
	 Finally, an article in the Baghdad daily "Al-Jumhuriyah"
(30 January) traces the history of Saudi involvement with the
West. It began with Lawrence of Arabia, and based on his work
in Najd and Hijaz (part of Saudi Arabia), the British
colonialists targeted the region with a view to occupying the
sources of Arab oil. The job of securing these oil sources
was entrusted to the Al-Sa'ud family.
 	 "Hegemony over these
territories and the looting of their resources was
transferred from the hands of a dying Britain to the hands of
the United States." And according to Saudi writer Al-Darhali:
"The Arab street knows full well that reforming the house
starts at home, and that the Iraqi regime and Saddam Husseyn,
with all his impudence, belligerence, tyranny, and rudeness,
is [Israeli Premier Benjamin] Netanyahu himself." (David
Nissman)

TURKOMANS INCLUDED IN ECEVIT'S REVISED 'REGIONAL SECURITY
PLAN.' Bulent Ecevit, Turkey's prime minister, has presented
a new "regional security plan, updating and revising the one
he had first offered in 1995. Its basic goal is the
reintegration of Iraq in the changing regional scene,
primarily to prevent a Kurdish autonomy in northern Kurdistan
from attaining full independence and using the territory as a
launching platform for Kurdish forays into Turkish territory,
as well as dousing water on King Husseyn's dreams of
establishing a Hashemite sovereignty in the south of Iraq.
According to an article by Kemal Balci in the "Turkish Daily
News" on 28 January, a major emphasis in the plan is placed
on human and ethnic rights.
	 In Ecevit's revisions, the Turkomans, for the first
time, play a role. One of the stipulations is that a new
Iraqi government "must guarantee human rights and equality
for all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity, and reach
agreement about these issues with representatives of Kurds,
Turkomans, and Shiites." They must also accept the monitoring
of an international organization such as the OSCE on human
rights issues."
	 The second stipulation concerning the Turkomans is that
"the world should be reminded of the Turkoman presence in
Iraq. Baghdad should be aware of this presence and it should
be noted that providing certain rights and guarantees to the
Turkomans will contribute to ending the division in the
country."
	 At present, many problems with their neighbors,
primarily their Kurdish neighbors, have led to difficulties
for them. These include the fact that they have been
subjected to ethnic cleansing by the Kurds (see RFE/RL Iraq
Report, 15 January 1999), as well as a barrier to education.
The Iraqi Constitution forbids the use of any script save the
Arabic; the Turkomans use Latin. (David Nissman)

SIX KURDISH PARTIES LAUNCH "NATIONAL PLATFORM." Six Kurdish
political parties in Belgium have issued a "National Platform
of North Kurdistan." North Kurdistan refers to Kurdish areas
in Turkey's eastern Anatolia. By the same token, "South
Kurdistan" refers to the Kurdish-controlled areas in northern
Iraq.
	 The six Kurdish political parties involved are the
Socialist Party of Kurdistan, the Islamic Party of Kurdistan,
the Communist Party of Kurdistan, the Liberation Party of
Kurdistan, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), and the
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The spokesman for the parties,
PKK member Abdurrahman Cadirci, also said that preparations
were continuing for the convening of a Kurdish Congress
	 According to the "Turkish Daily News," they said they
were ready to engage in talks with Turkish authorities and
launched "an urgent demand for a peaceful solution to the
Kurdish problem" (TDN, 27 January). Any solution, Cadirci
said, would require that the Turks meet 14 conditions,
including the declaration of a bilateral cease-fire and a
"full investigation made into all state-linked gangs involved
in drugs and killings and for those involved to be brought to
justice." The Turkish government is unlikely to respond to
any PKK-backed initiatives.
	 The Kurdistan Democratic Party will definitely not take
part in a Kurdish Congress, and it is not known whether any
of the Kurdish parties in Iran will take part.
	 The statement "Urgent Demands For A Peaceful Solution to
the Kurdish Problem," is an obvious PKK initiative and more
an ultimatum than a statement. PKK member Cadirci, also a
member of the "Kurdish Parliament in Exile," is named as part
of the 150 person-entourage accompanying PKK leader Abdullah
Ocalan on his flight from Rome to an as yet unknown
destination (Istanbul, "Milliyet;" 29 January). According to
"Milliyet," the PKK is to hold its 6th Congress in Nagorno-
Karabakh. Ocalan will allegedly attend the Congress. (David
Nissman)

*************************************************
Copyright (c) 1999. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.

The RFE/RL Iraq Report is prepared weekly by David Nissman on
the basis of materials from RFE/RL broadcast services, RFE/RL
Newsline, and other news services. Direct comments to David
Nissman at nissmand@...

-----

Iraq's deputy PM Aziz to visit Turkey
RTna (Reuters North America)
Feb 10, 1999

      By Steve Bryant
      ANKARA, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Turkey said on Wednesday Iraqi Deputy
Prime Minister Tareq Aziz would pay a rare visit to Ankara next week to
discuss ties strained by recent U.S. air strikes on Iraq launched from Turkish
soil.
      Turkey said that its estranged southern neighbour had asked for the
meeting.
      "He's coming on February 15 at his own request," a foreign ministry
official told Reuters.
       The official gave no indication of the agenda of the meeting, but the NTV
television channel said Aziz would propose, among other things, the
opening of a second border crossing and discuss ways to improve trade.
      Iraq and Turkey were major trading partners until the 1991 Gulf War.
Turkey was part of the U.S.-led coalition that forced Iraqi troops out of
Kuwait.
      The embargo placed on Iraq after the war, conflict over a breakaway
Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq and U.S. use of Turkey as a launchpad for
strikes all now divide the two countries.
      Last month Iraq urged newly-appointed Turkish Prime Minister Bulent
Ecevit to end the mandate of a U.S.-British force based in Incirlik in southern
Turkey to enforce a no-fly zone in northern Iraq.
      Incirlik-based U.S. fighter planes have attacked Iraqi air defences
several
times during the past few week.
      Turkey's defence minister has called for a revision of the rules of
engagement. Ecevit had opposed the patrols over northern Iraq while in
opposition and since taking office has attacked U.S. policy towards Baghdad.
      Aziz seems likely to play on Turkish fears that the United States might be
moving towards setting up a Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Ankara fears
such a development would encourage Kurdish separatism in southeast
Turkey.
      Baghdad also criticises Ankara for periodically sending Turkish troops
across the border into northern Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels fighting for
self-rule in the southeast.
      Iraq has also accused Turkey of stealing the region's water by building
dams
and canals on the Euphrates River.
      Although Turkey complains of some $30 billion in losses from the
sanctions on Iraq, some trade between them has been maintained.
      Baghdad and Ankara have concluded several deals, the last of which was
signed in 1997 to set up a gas pipeline to supply Turkey with 10 billion cubic
metres of gas a year.
      An unregistered trade in diesel flourishes across the only border crossing
between the two countries.
       Iraq has been purchasing Turkish goods under an oil-for-food signed with
the United Nations and the bulk of the limited Iraqi oil exports under the
deal is being shipped through a pipeline to the Turkish terminal of Ceyhan
on the Mediterranean.
  REUTERS


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Hi everyone,

If you know any people who might be interested in joining
MESN, please ask them to send an email to mesn-subscribe@egroups.com
or my email address.

Fraternally,
Khashayar.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

tesekkurler sevgili dost Sebnem...
en kisa zamanda gorusmek uzere....



>Reply-To: mesn@egroups.com
>Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 23:33:58 -0500
>From: sebnem oguz <oguz@...>
>To: mesn@egroups.com
>Subject: [mesn] (no subject)
>
>           Thirty-Three Bullets
>
>   I.
>
>   This is the Mengene mountain
>   When dawn creeps up at the lake Van
>   This is the child of Nimrod
>   When dawn creeps up against the Nimrod
>   One side of you is avalanches, the Caucasian sky
>   The other side a rug, Persia
>   At mountain tops glaciers, in bunches
>   Fugitive pigeons at water-pools
>   And herds of deer
>   And partridge flocks...
>
>   Their courage cannot be denied
>   In one-to-one fights they are unbeaten
>   These thousand years, the servants of this area
>   Come, how shall we give the news?
>   This is not a flock of cranes
>   Nor a constellation in the sky
>   But a heart with thirty-three bullets
>   Thirty-three rivers of blood
>   Not flowing
>   All calmed to a lake on this mountain
>
>   .....
>
>   Ahmed Arif
>   (Turkish poet, 1927-1991)
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fresh flowers are the perfect way to say "I love you".
>Shipped direct from the grower, Proflowers.com has
>arrangements from $29.95 plus S&H.
>Click here: http://offers.egroups.com/click/216/0
>
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>


______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Thursday, February 11, 1999

Politics

New York Times
-U.S. Jets Attack Iraqi Targets After a Challenge by Baghdad

Khaleej Times
-France hits out at Iraq curbs

The Independent, UK
-Royal intrigue cost Hassan his crown
-'Christian Taliban' take up arms

Washington Post
-Government, Top Paper Square Off in Pakistan

The Times, UK
-Reformed rebel turns tide in Iran

Jerusalam Post
-Source: Abdullah keen on strong ties with Israel

BBC News
-Bin Laden 'cut off'
-'US planes kill two Iraqis'

Daily Star
-Party atmosphere marks Syrians’ Lebanese voting

Dawn
-War with Pakistan possible, says Indian army chief

Paltimes
-The PA clamps down on free press


Business

Kuwait Times
-Starbucks opens first major office outlet in Gulf area

Daily Star
-Lebanese secure Saudi loans

Khaleej Times
-Flow of huge outside funds led to bourse turmoil: banker

Jordan Times
-Panel studying mechanism to include private sector in Disi water project

Dawn
-MNCs report to govt: Foreign investment climate has worsened


Opinion

New York Times
-Palestinians and a New King

The Times, UK
-ISLAM'S LUTHER

Jordan Times
-Unity and continuity

Khaleej Times
-US at odds with the world

Paltimes
-Barak and Netanyahu: Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Jerusalam Post
-Mutual interests

Gulf Times
-FROM PALESTNE TO THE PACIFIC


___________________________________________

Politics
___________________________________________

New York Times

U.S. Jets Attack Iraqi Targets After a Challenge by Baghdad

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/021199iraq-us.html

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

WASHINGTON -- After a weeklong lull in the fighting, American and British
warplanes attacked air-defense sites in Iraq on Wednesday after three waves of
Iraqi MIG jets flew deep into the no-flight zone over southern Iraq.

___________________________________________

Khaleej Times

France hits out at Iraq curbs

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/middleeast.htm#story1

PARIS - French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine denounced UN sanctions on Iraq
as "useless and cruel" on Wednesday as he renewed calls for a new
international approach to neutralising Baghdad's weapons programme.

___________________________________________

The Independent, UK

Royal intrigue cost Hassan his crown

http://www.independent.co.uk/stories/B1102908.html

By Robert Fisk in Amman

Crown Prince Hassan knew that the game of kings had ended the moment his
brother landed at Amman's Queen Alia airport last month. There was a formal
embrace from the man who had supposedly won his long battle with cancer. But
King Hussein ignored Hassan's son, Rashid, and then showed what he thought of
his Crown Prince by choosing to travel into the city not with Hassan - as was
his normal routine - but alongside his wife, Queen Noor.

Hassan was left behind.

___________________________________________

The Independent, UK

'Christian Taliban' take up arms

http://www.independent.co.uk/stories/B1102910.html

By Jason Burke in Faisalabad

Christians in Pakistan are turning to violent militant movements in a bid to
counter increasing sectarian attacks and discrimination. Community leaders
fear this may lead to a civil war with Muslims.

___________________________________________

Washington Post

Government, Top Paper Square Off in Pakistan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-02/11/196l-021199-idx.html

Authorities Limit Newsprint Imports After Critical Coverage

By Kenneth J. Cooper
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, February 11, 1999; Page A33

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The government and War are doing battle in Pakistan.

After brewing behind the scenes for months, an all-out conflict between the
government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the nation's largest newspaper
chain -- the Jang Group, whose name translates as "War" -- has brought legal
challenges to the courts, protesting journalists to the street and fewer pages
to the chain's widely circulated dailies.

___________________________________________

The Times, UK

Reformed rebel turns tide in Iran

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?3218517

Revolutionary zeal is fading, says Michael Theodoulou in Tehran

IT IS difficult to imagine Abbas Abdi, a balding, softly spoken father of
five, as the firebrand young revolutionary he was two decades ago when he
helped to plan the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran. But it is not
only his appearance that has changed with time.

___________________________________________

Jerusalam Post

Source: Abdullah keen on strong ties with Israel

http://www.jpost.co.il/News/Article-2.html

By ARIEH O'SULLIVAN and DOUGLAS DAVIS

TEL AVIV (February 11) - Jordan's King Abdullah II twice visited Israel to
hold secret meetings with defense officials in the past year and is keen on
maintaining close strategic and intelligence cooperation between the two
countries, a source close to the Defense Ministry said.

___________________________________________

BBC News

Bin Laden 'cut off'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_277000/277209.stm

The Taleban authorities in Afghanistan say they have imposed restrictions on
the Saudi dissident, Osama bin Laden, cutting his communications with the
outside world.

___________________________________________

BBC News

'US planes kill two Iraqis'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/crisis_in_the_gulf/latest_news/newsid_
277000/277724.stm

The authorities in Baghdad says two Iraqis were killed in an American air
strike on Thursday, and have vowed to continue challenging the Western-imposed
no-fly zones over Iraq.

___________________________________________

Daily Star

Party atmosphere marks Syrians’ Lebanese voting

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/11_02_99/art2.htm

His image was ubiquitous as thumbs were pricked and the dabkeh danced
Munira Khayyat
Daily Star staff

Syrian soldiers display support
for their president as he looks on

Tens of thousands of Syrian nationals living or working in Lebanon cast votes
Wednesday in a referendum that will formally usher in a fifth seven-year term
for President Hafez Assad.

In an unprecedented move, 36 voting booths were set up across Lebanon to
accommodate the approximately 700,000 Syrian nationals here, with guest books
provided for Lebanese who wished to record their support for the Syrian
leader.
“The 1992 referendum was held on the Lebanese border, but now that the civil
war is over, we’re having our referendum in Lebanon because we are one people
in two countries,” a Syrian official said at the main polling station in
Ramlet al-Baida.

___________________________________________

Dawn

War with Pakistan possible, says Indian army chief

http://www.dawn.com/daily/19990211/top7.htm

NEW DELHI, Feb 10: India's chief of army staff said on Wednesday that he did
not rule out a war with Pakistan and nuclear weapons were not a deterrent, the
United News of India reported.

"Having crossed the nuclear threshold does not mean that a conventional war is
out," V.P. Malik said.

___________________________________________

Paltimes

The PA clamps down on free press

http://www.ptimes.com/current/articles.html#1

By Khalid Amayreh

Occupied Jerusalem-

After signing the hapless Wye memorandum on 23 October, the Palestinian
Authority (PA) stepped up its suppression of the media on the pretext of
“honouring our international commitments” and “combating incitement”. PA
President Yasser Arafat, who spoke almost euphorically about the “historic
agreement” after he returned from Washington, warned that “we will not allow
anybody or any group to sabotage this great national achievement.” PA Chief
Ghazi al Jabali, an Arafat hanger-on reputed for ordering night raids on
Islamist-run colleges and universities, stated that “Israel was our enemy
before the signing at Wye Plantation. Now this has changed. Israel has become
our peace partner and we shall not allow anyone to incite or instigate against
our partner.” Jabali went on to describe the United States as “our friend”,
warning that whoever sets the American flag on fire “is a traitor.”

___________________________________________

Business
___________________________________________

Kuwait Times

Starbucks opens first major office outlet in Gulf area

http://www.paaet.edu.kw/Info/HomePage/shaheen/kt/current/kstory5.htm

KUWAIT:Mohammed Al-Shaya, C.E.O of M.H. Al-Shaya Company and Howard Behar,
President of Starbucks Coffee International held a press briefing yesterday at
Sharq Souk to set out the aims and objectives of the posh coffee outlet,
Starbucks.

___________________________________________

Daily Star

Lebanese secure Saudi loans

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/business/b110299b.htm

Ramzi Mansour
Daily Star correspondent

A $200-million loan agreement from the Saudi Development Fund and Islamic
Development Bank is close to being signed, said Dr. Boutros Labaki, vice
president of the Council of Development and Reconstruction, who accompanied
Prime Minister Salim Hoss on his recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

___________________________________________

Khaleej Times

Flow of huge outside funds led to bourse turmoil: banker

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/finance.htm#story2

By Salah Eldin Eltayeb

FLOWS of huge liquidity from unidentified sources outside the UAE played a
critical role in the summer turmoil in the local stock market, a senior banker
told a seminar yesterday. Adel Al Hosani, Deputy General Manager of First Gulf
Bank, said at a seminar titled "Towards A successful Stock Market" that
"unclean money" estimated at Dh4 billion from AGCC and Asian countries flew
into the market, unnoticed by the Central Bank and other authorities. And the
money went out within two months "once it achieved it purpose," he added.

___________________________________________

Jordan Times

Panel studying mechanism to include private sector in Disi water project

http://www.accessme.com/jordantimes/Thu/economy/economy3.htm

AMMAN (J.T.) — THE OVERALL cost to draw water from Disi Basin to Amman was
estimated to cost JD600 million by Thabet Al Wir, the vice president of the
Zarqa Chamber of Industry. “This big project will create thousands of local
employment opportunities,” he said.

___________________________________________

Dawn

MNCs report to govt: Foreign investment climate has worsened

http://www.dawn.com/daily/19990211/ebr1.htm

By Sabihuddin Ghausi

KARACHI, Feb 10: The foreign investors in Pakistan consider present business
climate far worse than what was a year ago and believe that economy is going
down the hills and needs immediate corrective measures for reversing the
trend.

___________________________________________

Opinion
___________________________________________

New York Times

Palestinians and a New King

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/11khal.html

By RASHID I. KHALDI

HICAGO -- King Hussein grew up in the shadow of his grandfather Abdullah's
ambitions in Palestine. The new monarch of Jordan, also Abdullah, was a child
when Israel occupied the West Bank. For his entire adult life, the new King,
now 37, has regarded Jordan as bounded by the Jordan River.
___________________________________________

The Times, UK

ISLAM'S LUTHER

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?3218517

Khomeini's shadow still clouds the Muslim world

Twenty years ago an elderly, irascible Muslim cleric returned from 20 years
exile and loosed a whirlwind in Iran. Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution
overturned the Shah's regime and produced a realignment of political forces in
the Middle East. But its ideological and spiritual influence spread far
further. No corner of the Islamic world was unaffected by the radical return
to theological fundamentalism as a reassertion of Islamic identity and ideals.
Two decades later, it still reverberates with the aftershocks of a convulsion
comparable to that initiated by Martin Luther.
__________________________________________

Jordan Times

Unity and continuity

http://www.accessme.com/jordantimes/Thu/opinion/opinion1.htm

JORDANIANS HAVE many reasons to turn out in the hundreds of thousands to offer
condolences to His Majesty King Abdullah and the Royal family over the death
of His Majesty King Hussein. First and foremost is the love and affection that
they had for the late King. He was not only their beloved leader but their
father and brother and his loss was a loss for every one of them. And secondly
on this sorrowful occasion they reiterated their allegiance to the Hashemite
Throne, the symbol of the Kingdom's unity, stability and continuity, in the
face of mounting speculation in the foreign press about the country's future
and its security and stability. Appearing in such great numbers as they did at
the Royal Court, Jordanians, whether of East Bank or Palestinian origin,
demonstrated to every sceptic that Jordan is not about to turn against itself
or allow anyone to meddle in its internal affairs.
___________________________________________

Khaleej Times

US at odds with the world

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/editor.htm

IT IS ironic that just as the Israelis were
congratulating themselves on their greater
acceptance in the Arab world
demonstrated, in their view, by the
attendance of their jumbo delegation at
King Hussein's funeral in Amman, the United
Nations gave them a reminder of how the world views their
activities in occupied Arab land. By a crushing 115 to two vote,
with five abstentions, the General Assembly called a conference on
July 15 to enforce the Fourth Geneva Convention in the
Israeli-occupied territories, in particular the ban on settlements.
The symbolism of the United States as the only country siding with
Israel in opposing the resolution was not lost upon those present.
___________________________________________

Paltimes

Barak and Netanyahu: Tweedledum and Tweedledee

http://www.ptimes.com/current/comment.html

“If only the mean-looking extremist Benyamin Netanyahu would disappear and the
moderate, peace-loving Ehud Barak would step in, Israelis and Palestinians
would live like brothers ever-after, and violence and bloodshed would be
things of the past.” Such is the naïve dream of many people around the world.
___________________________________________

Jerusalam Post

Mutual interests

http://www.jpost.co.il/Opinion/Article-1.html

By URI DAN

(February 11) - King Hussein was the only Arab ruler with whom Israel could
sign a peace treaty and then turn its back, without having to fear that a
dagger would be thrust into it, in the tradition of the great desert kingdoms
of the Middle East.
___________________________________________

Gulf Times

FROM PALESTNE TO THE PACIFIC

http://www.gulf-times.com/1999/02/11/opinions.htm

By Ramzy Baroud in Seattle

Israel seeks legal cover for its inhumane activities

SIX appeals were recently made to the Israeli Supreme Court by human rights
groups to abolish the legally recognised torture of Palestinian prisoners.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Britain's Parliamentary Majority Condemns Efforts to Forge Closer
Relations with Clerical Regime, Reuters, February 9


         LONDON - Britain's efforts to forge closer diplomatic and
commercial ties with Iran were condemned on Tuesday by a majority of
members of parliament who asked the government to reconsider its stance.
         Leaders of the 330 strong cross-party group of MPs who signed the
statement said Britain should not have changed its policy toward Iran
until there was clear evidence of greater freedom of expression and human
rights.
         "Why have we become friends with one of the nastiest regimes in
the world?  Where is the evidence of change? The hangings go on, the
stonings go on, the persecution of writers goes on," Labor MP Robin
Corbett told reporters.
         He said the group was seeking a meeting with Foreign Secretary
Robin Cook in the hope of persuading him to change Britain's position.
         The statement said little had changed since President Mohammad
Khatami came to power 18 months ago and quoted a report from pressure
group Amnesty International condemning the Iranian justice system.
         "The UK should not give any trade concessions, credits or loans to
a regime which is incapable of change and which is under increasing social
and economic pressures from the people to whom it brutally denies basic
rights and democratic representation," the statement said.
         It followed a similar declaration signed by a majority of members
of the U.S. House of Representatives last year.



Mullahs' Regime Boycotted King Hussein's Funeral, Agence France Presse,
February 9


         TEHRAN - Iran had planned to send a government minister to join
world leaders at the funeral of Jordan's King Hussein, but pulled out in a
protest boycott, a Tehran newspaper reported Tuesday.
         Industry Minister Gholam-Reza Shafei, who heads an Iran-Jordan
joint commission, had been due to attend the funeral in Amman Monday, the
English-language Tehran Times said.
         Tehran "remains a threat to the security of certain Gulf
countries," the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat quoted the king as
saying last week.



Under Public Pressure Khatami Accepts The Sham Resignation of Intelligence
Chief, Agence France Presse, February 9


         TEHRAN - Mohammed Khatami accepted the resignation of his
intelligence minister Tuesday.
         The minister, Qorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, had resisted repeated
calls to step down but in the face of mounting tension over the issue,
Khatami put pressure on Dorri-Najafabadi to resign, sources close to the
government told AFP.
         Khatami thanked Dorri-Najafabadi "for your great efforts and
services" and expressed appreciation for "the valuable endeavors of our
colleagues at the intelligence ministry who are the defenders of the
revolutionary values as well as national security and the rights of the
citizens."
         Khatami hinted he might find Dorri-Najafabadi another job in
government.  "Of course the government and the nation will certainly
benefit from your knowledge and experience and capabilities elsewhere and
in an appropriate manner," he said.
         Dorri-Najafabadi will remain a member of the key political
arbitration body, the State Expediency Council, and will be appointed an
adviser to the president, the Tehran Times said.
         The government newspaper Iran Daily reported that Ali Yunesi,
another conservative cleric and member of a committee investigating the
recent murders, was the most likely candidate to succeed him.
         Since the 1979 Islamic revolution Yunesi has held a number of
senior positions -- he headed the powerful Tehran Revolutionary Court and
helped set up the intelligence ministry with the arch-conservative cleric
Mohammad Mohammadi Reyshahri.



Regime Says Seeking $1.5 Billion in Foreign Credit, Reuter, February 9


         TEHRAN - Iran hopes to receive another $1.5 billion in external
credit after rescheduling $2 billion of its foreign debt, Central Bank
Governor Mohsen Nourbakhsh said in remarks published on Tuesday.
         Iran, severely hit by low oil prices, has reportedly sought $3
billion in new loans from its main creditors -- Italy, Germany and Japan
-- to avoid defaulting on debt payments.
         Nourbakhsh put Iran's debt at around $12 billion, but he said an
additional $11 billion dollars was owed in connection to foreign purchases
made through the Central Bank.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Thirty-Three Bullets

    I.

    This is the Mengene mountain
    When dawn creeps up at the lake Van
    This is the child of Nimrod
    When dawn creeps up against the Nimrod
    One side of you is avalanches, the Caucasian sky
    The other side a rug, Persia
    At mountain tops glaciers, in bunches
    Fugitive pigeons at water-pools
    And herds of deer
    And partridge flocks...

    Their courage cannot be denied
    In one-to-one fights they are unbeaten
    These thousand years, the servants of this area
    Come, how shall we give the news?
    This is not a flock of cranes
    Nor a constellation in the sky
    But a heart with thirty-three bullets
    Thirty-three rivers of blood
    Not flowing
    All calmed to a lake on this mountain

    .....

    Ahmed Arif
    (Turkish poet, 1927-1991)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Centre for Refugee Studies Seminar Series Presents:


Diasporic Life, Satellite Television and Rights to Communication

Speaker: Dr. Amir Hassanpour (Department of Near and Middle Eastern
Civilizations, University of Toronto)

Date: Thursday, February 11, 1999
Time: 12:00-1:30 P.M.
place: Room 305, York Lanes, York University




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

A SUCCINCT HISTORY OF THE "HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN"

               J O R D A N I A N     R E A L I T I E S

Hundreds of millions of dollars are being rushed to Jordan's Central
Bank by Gulf monarchies, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  The
Americans are also pledging to the new King Abdullah II additional
monies, arms, intelligence cooperation and security guarantees. This
in 1999.  But Jordanian history begins closer to the beginning, rather
than the end, of this century:

1916 - Secret Sykes-Pecot agreement between England and France carves
up the Middle East into European spheres of influence at the same time
the Arabs are being promised unity and independence.

1918 - Hussein the First sends son Feisal to the Paris Peace
Conference.  "The Peace to end all Peace" turns into a disaster for
the Arabs.  Outmanuvered by the European Powers Feisal goes to
Damascus intent on pursuing broad Arab independence. In 1919 French
forces expell Feisal from Damascus and take control of the Levant.

1920s - Winston Churchill (yes the same one who was PM in WWII)
comforts the defeated Hashemite clan which had been working closely
with the British since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Hussein's sons
are given thrones -- Feisal in Baghdad, Abdullah in Amman as the
British divide their "Mandate" over Palestine into East and West
Banks.  The East Bank becomes TransJordan - "Across the Jordan".
About the same time the British carve Kuwait out of Iraq to further
weaken and divide the Arabs and help consolidate al-Saud rule in
Arabia.

1930s - Abdullah begins his secret relationship with the Zionists
leading to the secret plan in 1947 for Transjordan to annex what is
today called the West Bank while Israel will be born as a separate
"Jewish State".

1950s - Abdullah is assassinated by Palestinians in Jerusalem.  Son
Tallal is removed from throne by British intrique in favor of his
teenage son Hussein, thought to be more compliant toward Western
interests.  Secret CIA contacts and payments begin with Hussein
lasting until exposed in 1977.

1960s - Hussein begins secret contacts with Israeli leaders, providing
them considerable intelligence information about other Arab parties,
especially at the time of the 1967 and 1973 wars.

1970 - The Palestinians are defeated in Jordan civil war when
Americans and Israelis rally to Hussein's side.

1980s - Hussein steps up secret contacts with Israelis urging them to
abandon the idea that "Jordan is Palestine" and assuring them he can
benefit their interests more than anyone else in the area.  Hussein
takes two important steps: establishing the image but not the reality
of Jordanian democracy and formally abandoning Jordanian claims to the
Palestinian territory now called the "West Bank" even though stepping
up efforts to control and manipulate as best he can the Palestinians
both in his Kingdom and under Israeli occupation.

1990s - Feeling threatened from within Hussein is unable to join U.S.
intervention against Iraq; but soon complies with the American "New
World Order" and works closely with Israelis to establish today's
"Peace Process."



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Tuesday, February 9, 1999

In This Issue:

Political News:

New York Times
-DEATH OF A KING
-Experts Find No Arms Chemicals at Bombed Sudan Plant

Washington Post
-Iranian Intelligence Minister Resigns
-A Bond Severed, a Mentor Lost

BBC
-Mourning Jordan considers future

The Independent , UK
-Princes and presidents bury a king as his  people grieve
-After Hussein - Jordan waits nervously as vultures circle

The Times, UK
-The Jordan monarch's death has focused attention on other leaders' health
-Family closes ranks in grief

The Boston Globe
-Disputes set aside for funeral of Hussein

L.A. Times
-Clinton Uses Occasion to Network

Daily Star
-Hizbullah onslaught wounds five SLA militiamen in south

Business News

Daily Star
-Lebanon: World Bank to lend $600m
-A glimpse of the future

Gulf Daily
-Doha sets oil price at $10

Jerusalem Post
-Venture capital investments soar 65% in '98 to $330m.

Gulf News
-Two leading Dubai banks in merger talks

Opinion

New York Times
-A Silent, Mournful Eloquence
-Iraq's Not-So-Secret Weapon

Washington Post
-0F-16s for Pakistan

Japan Times
-Passing on the king's torch of peace

Toronto Sun
-ean who?

Ottawa Sun
-No-show is this nation's disgrace

Jerusalem Post
-Dangerous diversions

_____________________________________________________________


Political News:

New York Times

February 9, 1999

DEATH OF A KING

Hussein Is Laid to Rest as World Leaders, Allies and Enemies, Pay Respects
By DOUGLAS JEHL

AMMAN, Jordan -- United in loss and grief, an extraordinary array of
presidents, prime ministers and princes gathered here on Monday to accompany
King Hussein on his final journey, as his body was buried in a humble white
shroud.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/020999jordan-funeral.html

_____________________________________________________________

New York Times

February 9, 1999

Experts Find No Arms Chemicals at Bombed Sudan Plant

By JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON -- Chemists who examined soil, sludge and debris samples from a
Sudanese pharmaceutical plant destroyed in August by American cruise missiles
found no traces of chemical weapon compounds, according to a scientist hired
by the owner of the plant.

The findings, though prepared privately for lawyers for the owner, who is now
seeking redress from the United States, raise new questions about the
government's reliance on tests of soil samples from the site obtained
clandestinely by the CIA. American officials had said the samples contained
traces of Empta, a precursor used in the production of deadly VX nerve gas.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/020999sudan-plant.html

_____________________________________________________________

Washington Post

Iranian Intelligence Minister Resigns

By Afshin Valinejad
Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, February 9, 1999; 9:06 a.m. EST

TEHRAN, Iran –– Iran's intelligence minister has resigned four weeks after his
ministry admitted its agents were involved in the killing of dissidents.
President Mohammad Khatami accepted the resignation of Qorbanali Dorri-
Najafabadi, thanking him for his "great efforts and services," the official
Tehran radio reported today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iran/iran.htm

_____________________________________________________________

Washington Post

A Bond Severed, a Mentor Lost
Clinton Relied Heavily on King for Guidance, Friendship

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 9, 1999; Page A01

AMMAN, Jordan, Feb. 8—Only twice in this fractious part of the world has
President Clinton formed a truly personal bond, the kind that crossed from
statecraft to something deeper. Three years ago he wept with one of those
friends as they helped bury the other, slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin. Today he bowed his head before the flag-draped coffin of the second.

http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-02/09/105l-020999-idx.html

_____________________________________________________________

BBC

Mourning Jordan considers future

After the impressive display of international support at King Hussein's
funeral on Monday, Jordan has entered its second full day of grieving.

The country is due to mourn for 40 days, with the first three days devoted to
condolences for the next of kin, under Arab and Islamic tradition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_275000/275714.stm

_____________________________________________________________

The Independent , UK

Princes and presidents bury a king as his  people grieve

  By Robert Fisk in Amman

  TWO JORDANS buried their king yesterday. There was the formal,
  Westernised nation with its Scottish-style bagpipers and new, English-
accented
  monarch who invited the world's statesmen to bury the "fallen warrior" on his
  polished gun carriage, Hussein's Arab steed - empty boots reversed in the
  stirrups - clopping obediently behind the coffin. And what the world saw -
  indeed, what the world was supposed to see - was the adoration of kings,
  presidents, prime ministers and princes: Clinton, Bush, Blair, Assad,
Yeltsin,
  Chirac, Shamir, Netanyahu, Mubarak, Weizman, Arafat, Sharon, Carter, Ford,
  the Prince of Wales. After all, had not the American president already
  consigned this man to paradise?

http://www.independent.co.uk/stories/B0902901.html

_____________________________________________________________

The Independent, UK

After Hussein - Jordan waits nervously as vultures circle

  By Patrick Cockburn in Amman

http://www.independent.co.uk/stories/B0902903.html

  As the solemn procession of world leaders walked past the body of King
  Hussein yesterday, many must have remembered they had attended a similar
  ceremony 60 miles away across the Jordan river in Jerusalem just over three
  years ago.

  It is an ominous precedent. In 1995, it was King Hussein himself who was
  among the leading mourners to stand by the coffin of Yitzhak Rabin, the
  assassinated Israeli prime minister. Yesterday it was his turn to receive the
  same tributes to a "visionary and peace-maker"

_____________________________________________________________

The Times, UK

The Jordan monarch's death has focused attention on other leaders' health,
writes Christopher Walker

   Time running out for elder statesmen on Arab stage

   THE funeral of King Hussein provided a graphic reminder
   of the mortality of most of the remaining Arab heads of
   state - and signalled that the Arab world is poised for a
   sweeping change of guard. "It is no secret that most rulers
   of the 20 Arab nations are elder statesmen who have ruled
   for a long period of time, and if an Arab summit is held five
   years from now most of them will not be there," noted
   Fahed al-Fanek, Jordan's leading columnist.

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/02/09/timfgnmid01002.html?2398165

_____________________________________________________________

The Times, UK

Family closes ranks in grief

BY CHRISTOPHER WALKER AND ROSS DUNN

   JORDAN'S Royal Family yesterday staged a dignified but
   effective show of unity in grief to mark King Hussein's
   funeral and to mask the internal feuds over power which
   marred the last months of his life.

The new King, Abdullah II, stood close to - and often
   consulted - the late King's youngest brother, Prince Hassan,
   who was deposed two weeks ago after being the
   designated heir for 34 years. Senior officials said he would
   be offered an important advis-ory post in the new
   administration.

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/02/09/timfgnmid02006.html?2398165
_____________________________________________________________

The Boston Globe

Disputes set aside for funeral of Hussein

By Charles M. Sennott, Globe Staff, 02/09/99

MMAN, Jordan - As world leaders converged on this small desert nation
yesterday to mourn King Hussein, the Middle East's most bitter enemies
suspended their differences for a day.
In death as in life, the monarch brought together hostile countries like
Israel and Syria, the United States and Iraq, and reminded them of the need
for a lasting peace in the region.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/040/nation/Disputes_set_aside_for_funeral_of
_Hussein+.shtml

_____________________________________________________________

L.A. Times

Clinton Uses Occasion to Network

  Diplomacy: President presses other leaders to support Jordan's economy, U.S.
official says.
By SAM FULWOOD III, Times Staff Writer

MMAN, Jordan--President Clinton used the remarkable gathering of Middle East
and world figures at King Hussein's funeral Monday for some political arm-
twisting during a series of informal and chance meetings with regional leaders
and other foreign dignitaries.

National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said Clinton had a series
of chats with world leaders as they paid final respects to the Jordanian
leader, who died Sunday of cancer.

http://www.latimes.com/HOME/NEWS/NATION/t000012427.1.html

  _____________________________________________________________

Daily Star

Hizbullah onslaught wounds five SLA militiamen in south

Nicholas Blanford
Daily Star staff

In fierce clashes that left five members of the South Lebanon Army wounded,
Hizbullah guerrillas Monday attacked and overran the hilltop Sojod outpost.
Claiming a "major accomplishment," Hizbullah said that a "special forces"
squad at 10:45 A.M. assaulted the Sojod compound in the Iqlim al-Touffah
overlooking the villages of Arab Salim and Jarjoue.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/09_02_99/art1.htm

_____________________________________________________________

Business News

Daily Star

Lebanon: World Bank to lend $600m

Lebanon is to receive a loan of $600 million from the World Bank. The offer
was made Monday by Kemal Dervis, the bank’s vice president for the Middle East
region, during talks with President Lahoud.

The money will be used for infrastructure projects and to help pay for
adminstrative and economic restructuring; it must be spent within three years.
Repayment will be spread over 15 years.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/09_02_99/art4.htm

_____________________________________________________________

Daily Star

A glimpse of the future

Aly Harakeh
Daily Star staff

Compaq Computer Corporation, the world’s leading computer manufacturer with
$43 billion in sales last year, gave Lebanon its own vision of the future of
information technology in the hope that the country’s productive sectors will
soon join the technological development bandwagon.

More than 50 people, representing the public and private sectors, attended
Monday’s presentation by Marc Christiaens, Compaq’s product manager for the
Middle East, Mediterranean and Africa. Mr. Christiaens introduced firm’s
latest Intel-based family of servers, geared toward medium- and small-sized
businesses.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/business/b090299c.htm

_____________________________________________________________


Gulf Daily

Doha sets oil price at $10

DOHA: Qatars oil ministry has told the finance ministry to calculate the
states budget for the next fiscal year starting in April on a conservative $10
a barrel for Qatari crude, the oil minister said yesterday.

We have advised the ministry of finance to base their budget on the assumption
of $10 a barrel oil price, Oil Minister Abdulla bin Hamad Al Attiyah said,
referring to the 1999-2000 budget which starts in April.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/busi/bn4.asp

_____________________________________________________________


Jerusalem Post

Venture capital investments soar 65% in '98 to $330m.

JERUSALEM (February 9) - Investments of Israeli venture capital funds in hi-
tech and biotechnology companies soared 65 percent in 1998 to $332.2 million,
according to a survey published yesterday by the VentureOne Israel research
group.

http://www.jpost.co.il/Business/Article-0.html

_____________________________________________________________


Gulf News

Two leading Dubai banks in merger talks

Dubai - Emirates Bank International (EBI) and National Bank of Dubai (NBD) are
in "serious negotiations" to merge, EBI managing director and chief executive
Anis Al Jallaf confirmed yesterday. "There's an initial acceptance to work out
the criteria governing a merger. The two parties will now sit together," he
said

http://www.gulf-news.co.ae/today/business.htm


_____________________________________________________________


Opinion


New York Times

February 9, 1999

A Silent, Mournful Eloquence

In death, King Hussein was able to do once more what he often did while living
-- draw together divided men. Yesterday in Amman, Jordan, men whom the most
pressing diplomacy could scarcely gather passed one after another before the
King's coffin, acknowledging, even in their differences, the power of the
peacemaking man. The Syrian President, Hafez al-Assad, paused at the coffin,
as did the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu; the President of Egypt,
Hosni Mubarak; Bill Clinton, and three former American Presidents. Boris
Yeltsin, weakened by illness, paid a brief visit. Behind a military band and
an honor guard, that extraordinary group walked together through the cold,
bleached light of Amman. They did not succeed in giving the funeral pomp. They
were captured instead by its silent, eloquent modesty, more powerful in its
way than pomp could ever be.

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/editorial/09tue3.html

_____________________________________________________________


New York Times

February 9, 1999

Iraq's Not-So-Secret Weapon

By GEORGE YATES
OSWELL, N.M -- Under the United Nations "oil for food" program, the world
permits Iraq to sell oil if it uses the proceeds to buy food and medicine.
It's a noble goal, but the policy is fatally flawed. Not only is the aid not
getting to the Iraqi people -- most supplies lie in warehouses, undistributed
-- but Saddam Hussein has been granted effective control over world oil
prices.

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/oped/09yate.html

_____________________________________________________________

Washington Post

F-16s for Pakistan

Tuesday, February 9, 1999; Page A16

The Post's Jan. 16 editorial on the sale to New Zealand of F-16s originally
intended for Pakistan was marred by an inaccurate perspective -- namely, that
the warplanes were "intended as a contribution to a regional military balance
between India and Pakistan." Instead, 40 fighters were provided to Pakistan in
1983 as part of a defense package against the Soviets, who were then in
military occupation of neighboring Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-02/09/020l-020999-idx.html

_____________________________________________________________

Japan Times

Passing on the king's torch of peace

      The active rule of a king does not greatly differ from that of a dictator
in the sense that his demise has such a profound impact, not only on the
fortunes of his own people, but also on the relationships between his nation
and  other countries. Whether his rule was that of an enlightened political
leader or simply that of a dictator can be determined by his legacy. Viewed in
this way, the late King Hussein of Jordan comes into focus as an extremely
able leader who took the measure of the difficulties he faced and knew how to
deal with them.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/edit/edit.html

_____________________________________________________________


Toronto Sun

Jean who?

When Prime Minister Jean Chretien boasted a few weeks ago that he was learning
to snowboard on the eve of his 65th birthday, a nation smiled in approval.
But yesterday, when Chretien used a skiing holiday in Whistler, B.C. as an
excuse for skipping the funeral of Jordan's King Hussein - a funeral attended
by the leader or head of state of every other G-8 nation - we hung our heads
in shame.

  It's not just that Chretien, who should have been there alongside the likes
of U.S. president Bill Clinton (not to mention former presidents George Bush,
Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford) was conspicuous by his absence. Canada is, after
all, this month's leader of the UN Security Council.

http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoSun/editorial.html

_____________________________________________________________


Ottawa Sun

No-show is this nation's disgrace

By Earl McRae,

Canada, which deludes itself that it's one of the world's great countries,
showed the world yesterday where it really stands: Toilet bowl.

I apologize to Jordanian-Canadians and Jordanians everywhere for the latest
embarrassment of leadership by our wonderful prime minister who did not think
the funeral of King Hussein was worth tearing himself away from more important
matters of state: Skiing.

http://www.canoe.ca/OttawaNews/OS.OS-02-09-0048.html

_____________________________________________________________

Jerusalem Post

Dangerous diversions

By YOSSI BEILIN

(February 9) - Our dancing about in this election campaign is beginning to
resemble a dance at a wedding or bar-mitzvah, in which someone persuades the
guests sitting around the tables to join in, and they get up - hesitantly or
even unwillingly - and join the circle.

http://www.jpost.co.il/Opinion/Article-1.html




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 14:11:21 -0500
From: Amnesty International <amnesty@...>
Reply-To: owner-amnesty-l@...
To: amnesty-l@...
Subject: TURKEY: Trial undermines human rights defenders' work

* News Release Issued by the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International *
News Service: 029/99
AI INDEX: EUR 44/11/99
8 FEBRUARY 1999

PUBLIC STATEMENT

TURKEY

Trial undermines human rights defenders' work

Amnesty International today condemned the resumption of a trial against
10 executives of the Diyarbakir branch of the Turkish Human Rights
Association (HRA), describing the proceedings as "a shameful attempt to
sabotage the work of a courageous human rights organization."

The 10 HRA executives are due to return to Diyarbakir State Security
Court on 9 February, charged under Article 7(2) of the Anti-Terror Law
with producing propaganda for the Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK). If found
guilty, they face up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The prosecution is also
calling for the permanent closure of the Diyarbakir branch of the HRA.

As no serious evidence has been produced to support the allegation that
these HRA officers engaged in illegal or inappropriate activities,
Amnesty International believes that they should not be standing trial.

The 10 human rights defenders are not accused of violent offences.
Therefore, should they be imprisoned as a result of the current trial,
Amnesty International will adopt them as prisoners of conscience.
Amnesty International members worldwide will campaign for their
immediate and unconditional release.

Dr Heidi Wedel, a representative of Amnesty International's German
section, will be in Diyarbakir to observe the proceedings, to convey
Amnesty International's concern to the Turkish authorities and to
demonstrate Amnesty International's solidarity with the defendants.

Background
The HRA is Turkey's largest independent human rights organization, with
offices throughout the country. It carries out its work against the
backdrop of a bitter conflict between the state and the PKK in Turkey's
southeastern provinces. As one of the key HRA offices in the southeast,
Diyarbakir has had a prominent role in investigating and reporting on
human rights abuses committed in the region.

The HRA has openly condemned human rights violations committed by both
the state and the PKK, but its work is often presented by the government
as undermining Turkey's reputation and damaging public confidence in the
country’s security forces. In such a highly-charged context, the HRA has
been repeatedly targeted for attack. Its officials have been threatened,
arrested, prosecuted, abducted and killed, and its offices have been
ransacked and bombed.

In May 1998 the Turkish authorities began ordering the closure of branch
after branch of the HRA in an apparent bid to stifle its activities
permanently. The Diyarbakir branch -- as several others -- remains
closed, and its archives were confiscated by the police.

The Turkish authorities have used a range of pretexts to justify these
closures. The Diyarbakir branch was closed on the grounds that "its
activities threaten the unity of the state". Other branches were closed
because they were "acting outside their authority" or because "illegal
publications" had been found during police searches.

Alongside these closures, national and regional HRA officials face a
string of prosecutions under repressive legislation which restricts
peaceful freedom of expression. Amnesty International has repeatedly
condemned the closures of HRA offices and the prosecution of HRA staff.
ENDS.../
Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street,
WC1X 8DJ, London, United Kingdom
****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

For those of you who enjoy Said's analysis of politics and Palestine, I
  thought you might want to see the following interview. - jbc

  Subject:  BIRZEIT STUDENTS MEET EDWARD SAID
  Date: 1998-11-19 09:03
  Conversation ID: BIRZEIT STUDENTS MEET EDWARD SAID
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

  On 17 November, Professor Edward Said held a special meeting with  students
  at Birzeit University. In a wide ranging discussion, topics ranged from the
  current political situation in
  Palestine to the changing nature of society globally. Our Voice presents
  the entire text of the discussion, translated from Arabic by Birzeit
  student Kifah Fani. Questions posed to Dr. Said
  are in bold text followed by his answers.


                   BIRZEIT STUDENTS MEET EDWARD SAID

  What is the role of intellectuals in Palestinian society?

  There are 3 major functions of an intellectual and it is not necessary that
  one do all three,
  but some of them. The first role of the writer in the current situation is
  to witness what is
  happening. Our problem in the past is that we neglected our history. The
  history of Arab
  Palestine does not exist in a stable and documented form. This is
  particularly important
  now as changes are very quick. For example, yesterday there was a new
settlement
  established on one of the hills. I think such changes that are taking place
  now are due to
  the power of Israel, and without any significant Palestinian resistance
  which can stand in
  the face of this Israeli invasion it will remain for the writer to witness
  and to write about this.
  For our memory and for our history there is another role which is equally
  important, that is
  the role of a conscience. We are in an unstable period in which the
  dynamics of time affect
  values and principles - changing and destroying them. The mission of the
  intellectual is to
  affirm these values and principles such as loyalty and moral ethics. The
  third thing the intellectual or the writer must do is strengthen or assert
  the identity which is under threat from many directions. Between all these
  interests and missions there is a great potential of the intellectual to
  play an establishing role in this society.

  How do you assess the relations of power within the world today and what is
  the role of students in the current situation?

  I want to talk about the network of power in an abstract manner. There is
  no doubt that we are in a time which is different from 10 years ago. We are
  in a technological and electronic revolution that now holds amazing
  possibilities for communication and thinking. Especially in the West, you
  notice that there is a  revolution in knowledge and concepts because
  society is now
  post-industrial. It is not any more an industrial society, but is based on
  services and knowledge. It is an information age which has also brought
  changes in the nature of media and in politics. In
  the US for example, President Clinton has been under severe attack- I don't
  want to speak in details about it- but he overcome it in a sort of
  "anti-campaign campaign". A campaign based on the idea of winning over mass
  opinion against the campaign being waged against him. Opinion can be
  changed easily. These are basic, important changes, especially in a world
  that is called the "world of Globalization".

  We are an oppressed people and a people dispossessed and I believe we need
  to deal with the world not in a negative way but in a positive way. We
  can't let this situation then affect our
  internal psychological state in a negative fashion. What I am trying to say
  is that each student and all of the Palestinians in all the universities in
  the world should concentrate in achieving
  competence. You must conquer the field you are in regardless of what it may
  be in order to enter this world without fear and restrictions. For this
  reason I was interested in talking to you because
  you are the future, it is a difficult future and you have a very important
  mission in which you should not accept a marginal role. It is a difficult
  but adventurous future and you have a
  great responsibility not to be passive or accept what has been placed in
  front of you without being critical.

  I believe critical consciousness is more important than learning a subject
  by rote. I have been teaching for 40 years in universities and I am very
  careful that my students donŠt become copies of me. They can take from me
  and challenge me at the same time. This critical process is provocative and
  very important for our future, especially since one of the goals of the
  Zionist movement is to make us forget our identity and our history and
  leave the country for them. The role of hope and will is one of the most
  important available weapons against the current sickness and the bad
  economic and political situation. The defeated state of our subjective self
  is the most important element that faces us today and I feel obliged to
  concentrate on
  that.

  What is your opinion on Jerusalem?

  Sadly I feel that we are too late. Anyone who has visited Jerusalem can
  witness the reality of settlements which Israel is constructing to affirm
  that it is the land of Israel. All these buildings
  and people they have settled, and the expanding borders, are a kind of
  affirmation from Israel that Jerusalem is theirs. Our existence in
  Jerusalem decreases daily, what I can't understand - and this might be my
  question to you - how did we accept the implementation of this situation
  through 31 years of occupation? All Arab and Islamic countries could
  understand the targets and means of Israel in changing the identity, the
  places, even changing the features of houses inside East Jerusalem. Maybe
  it is a little late to start thinking about how we should start struggling
  around the Jerusalem issue. Maybe your generation will do this. Your
  generation has to think about
  what should be done but the current reality is all in Israel's favor. Is it
  possible that we are going to accept an alternative capital? It is also one
  of the choices that is offered to the Palestinian
  leadership, to take part of Abu Dis and call it Jerusalem.  It is all part
  of what is crystallizing now and we are paying for the delay. For the
  future we must find a collective plan - a plan
  that all can participate in.

  What is your opinion on the current Wye Memorandum?

  I don't want to talk about Oslo, but I think if we consider Wye as a final
  step in the so-called peace process it will show quickly the aims of this
  process. The first of these goals was that even though Israel now
  recognizes the Palestinian existence inside Historical Palestine, neither
  Israel or the US will accept a Palestinian entity with sovereignty. So what
  is the compromise or mid-way solution that will give the Palestinians not a
  state but a semi-state as if they were children playing in a playground
  surrounded by Israel? I think this has always been their vision - even
  since the time of Rabin and Peres - and it continues to this very day.

  The second reason is to renew the division of the Palestinian people.
  Ibrahim Abu Lughod (Chair of the Landscape Conference Committee) said that
  one of the achievements of the PLO was
  the unification of all parts of the Palestinian people - those inside and
  those in the Diaspora. We all feel now that we belong to a people called
  the Arab Palestinian people. The result of this process and the severe
  attack against the Palestinians and their leadership is that the
  Palestinian
  people are once more totally isolated from one another. Not only between
  Palestinians living inside the Occupied Territories and those outside, but
  even you who are living inside the Occupied Territories are totally
  isolated from one another. You in Ramallah and Birzeit feel very far away
  and this kind of feeling is a subjective feeling. It's unreal to feel that
  Palestine has
  been divided and there will be no connection between the North and the South.

  The third point concerns the American strategy. Israel still plays a basic
  role in this strategy as a stable and strong ally in the region but now
  there is an attempt to transfer concerns about the
  Arab-Israeli conflict to other issues. A new pole of Iran, Turkey and
  Israel aims at marginalizing us and the surrounding Gulf states and to
  decrease the importance of this conflict. All
  these poles are fully achieved, totally implemented, and unfortunately I
  can understand the indecisiveness of the Palestinian leadership - what is
  the alternative? All of this is imposed on us. And we have no strength to
  struggle against such an enterprise or to suggest results.

  But I think this is not enough for a leadership. If this leadership is
  defeated or has surrendered and cannot speak in a hopeful language then we
  as citizens have to demand the leadership to speak frankly. We want them
  now to express the Palestinian situation, not in an elusive form or by
  threatening to announce a state which is going to be invisible. How many
  times are you
  going to announce a state? Once. Not several times. The state should have
  sovereignty and land, and we don't have those.  And if we don't have
  sovereignty or land then what is the use of an
  announcement about the state if we cannot access most of our land? So I
  think the first demand on the leadership is frankness due to the harsh and
  bitter experience we are living. When I visited Palestine in 1992 and 1993
  I used to travel more easily than I can now.

  So first is frankness and the second demand is in regard to the
  negotiations which I don't consider a negotiation but an imposition on the
  Palestinian leadership to accept whatever it is given. I suggest the
  freezing of negotiations in order to stop the bleeding that has been going
  on since the beginning. The issue of the refugees is semi-finished and
  Jerusalem also is a finished subject. If we want to stop this retreat or
  this collapse that materialized in the negotiations we should stop the
  negotiations until we find an alternative choice. We should stop
  negotiating until we build civil institutions inside the Palestinian
  communities outside, or in the Occupied Territories which can
  play the role of establishing a new Palestinian nationality. We are in a
  state of listlessness and this is not something new or which can be argued
  about. But the future is still in front of us.

  A final point - and I think this is something that can be argued - is that
  inside Israeli society there are some streams that we can deal with. These
  are cultural streams, not political in the official
  sense but I believe that we can deal with them. We should never ignore
  Israeli society but unfortunately it is virtually unknown to Arab society
  especially the Palestinian. I know for
  a fact that there is no single institution in Palestine that is dedicated
  to studying Israeli society. On the other hand, consider how many
  institutions there are in Israel devoted to studying the Arab society and
  Palestinian society. You will notice then the difference between us and
  them. We are a torn apart, divided and regressive society in comparison
  with the Israeli society
  which is a modern, dynamic and complex society.

  I'm not afraid of this, on the contrary, if we go back to subjectivity,
  will and visions of the future from there we are transferred to politics. I
  am not a politician and I cannot propose a political solution but what is
  offered to us cannot be accepted as a final end. We know from the histories
  of people that night will never last.   Always there is questioning and
  opposition in order to
  change the situation for the better. Between us and Israel in regards to
  the ideology of Zionism there are great differences.  We say as
  Palestinians that we are accepting the other, our history is a history of
  many cultures that came and dwelt here and lasted and changed, and accepted
  other cultures and new identities.   We are constructed from a
  heterogeneous history but Israel on the other hand says that is
  constructing a state only for the Jews. This single identity is unnatural
  and unhistorical, how can you build a homogenous society that is the same
  from its beginning to its end. Only Jews? It is impossible and Israel has
  failed. There are one million Palestinians
  inside and they cannot deal with them. There is a contradiction between
  Zionism and the Palestinian existence inside, citizens either with no
  rights or minimal rights in comparison to the Jews. Historically speaking
  our struggle was based on co-existence. We have a precious and a diverse
  history and it has no aim of purifying itself from other races or
  identities. The entire philosophy of Israel is based on negating the ideas
  of the other. So we should practice dealing with Israel, "co-operating"
  with the full sense of the meaning specially with the streams that can
  accept our thinking and can be supported by us, and try to establish a
  common vision.

  I myself belong to the school of Antonio Gramsci, who founded the Italian
  communist party, fought against Italian fascism and was imprisoned in the
  later stages of his life. Inside the prison he wrote small booklets and
  there he suggested that the critical struggle for the modern world is to
  devote the struggle for the changing of the society to the basic element of
  opinion. The changing of the mind is the most important thing that can be
  done. Of  course changing minds cannot take place without organization, or
  political parties and constructing establishments like universities. We're
  talking about institutions of all kinds: religious, economic etc. He
  propounded a quite detailed and complex theory from which I try to take the
  importance of the cultural struggle and struggle to change opinion. I think
  we are in this stage, we cannot fight Israel in a traditional way, we don't
  have planes, atomic bombs but we do have our relation with the Arab world
  and the Arabic culture and the international community. All these are
  considerable elements of the conflict over opinions which ultimately must
  be implemented on the ground. What we lack is a real campaign that can
  activate the whole of the Palestinians in this struggle.

  In Washington last year you expounded the idea of a democratic state for
  all its citizens. Do you think this can form the strategy for the future
  Palestinian struggle?

  I cannot see any other solution. Now there are two people living in the
  same land and there is an intermingling between these two people. There is
  no peace between us because we're not going to
  give in our rights. When I say land I don't mean just the West Bank and
  Gaza Strip, I mean all of Palestine. This still need research and planning
  but in the last analysis there is no escape from a sort of co-existence
  between these two people in one state which is democratic and secular and
  based on citizenship rather than religion, race, or nationalism. This is
  the most important possible strategy that can be offered right now. It is
  obvious to all that the current political process is based on separation
  which means one people will dominate the other. This can only end up in
  Apartheid and I'm against that. So now I think, contradictorily, that the
  Palestinian leadership is
  negotiating on the basis of Apartheid. The announcement of a Palestinian
  state on spots of land which lack continuity ultimately is the recognition
  that we accept this Apartheid. The real
  strategy we must implement is to establish a peace movement that goes
  against racism and oppressing the Palestinian people - Christian and
  Muslim. A new state in which the
  citizens with all rights will co-exist. Even the Palestinians of 1948.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Subj:  Edward Said on Iran/iraq Crisis
  Date: 12/17/98 5:07:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
  From: aiindex@... (Harsh Kapoor)
  Sender: owner-abolition-caucus@...
  To: aiindex@...

  [Source: http://www.salam.org/iraq/apocalypse.html]

  Apocalypse Now

  by Edward Said
  It would be a mistake, I think, to reduce what is happening between Iraq
  and the United States simply to an assertion of Arab will and sovereignty
  on the one hand versus American imperialism, which undoubtedly plays a
  central role in all this. However misguided, Saddam Hussein's cleverness is
  not that he is splitting America from its allies (which he has not really
  succeeded in doing for any practical purpose) but that he is exploiting the
  astonishing clumsiness and failures of US foreign policy. Very few people,
  least of all Saddam himself, can be fooled into believing him to be the
  innocent victim of American bullying; most of what is happening to his
  unfortunate people who are undergoing the most dreadful and unacknowledged
  suffering is due in considerable degree to his callous cynicism -- first of
  all, his indefensible and ruinous invasion of Kuwait, his persecution of
  the Kurds, his cruel egoism and pompous self-regard which persists in
  aggrandizing himself and his regime at exorbitant and, in my opinion,
  totally unwarranted cost. It is impossible for him to plead the case for
  national security and sovereignty now given his abysmal disregard of it in
  the case of Kuwait and Iran.
  Be that as it may, US vindictiveness, whose sources I shall look at in a
  moment, has exacerbated the situation by imposing a regime of sanctions
  which, as Sandy Berger, the American National Security adviser has just
  said proudly, is unprecedented for its severity in the whole of world
  history. 567,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the Gulf War, mostly as a
  result of disease, malnutrition and deplorably poor medical care.
  Agriculture and industry are at a total standstill. This is unconscionable
  of course, and for this the brazen inhumanity of American policy-makers is
  also very largely to blame. But we must not forget that Saddam is feeding
  that inhumanity quite deliberately in order to dramatize the opposition
  between the US and the rest of the Arab world; having provoked a crisis
  with the US (or the UN dominated by the US) he at first dramatised the
  unfairness of the sanctions. But by continuing it as he is now doing, the
  issue has changed and has become his non-compliance, and the terrible
  effects of the sanctions have been marginalised. Still the underlying
  causes of an Arab/US crisis remain.
  A careful analysis of that crisis is imperative. The US has always opposed
  any sign of Arab nationalism or independence, partly for its own imperial
  reasons and partly because its unconditional support for Israel requires it
  to do so. Since the l973 war, and despite the brief oil embargo, Arab
  policy up to and including the peace process has tried to circumvent or
  mitigate that hostility by appealing to the US for help, by "good"
  behavior, by willingness to make peace with Israel. Yet mere compliance
  with the US's wishes can produce nothing except occasional words of
  American approbation for leaders who appear "moderate": Arab policy was
  never backed up with coordination, or collective pressure, or fully agreed
  upon goals. Instead each leader tried to make separate arrangements both
  with the US and with Israel, none of which produced very much except
  escalating demands and a constant refusal by the US to exert any meaningful
  pressure on Israel. The more extreme Israeli policy becomes the more likely
  the US has been to support it. And the less respect it has for the large
  mass of Arab peoples whose future and well-being are mortgaged to illusory
  hopes embodied, for instance, in the Oslo accords.
  Moreover, a deep gulf separates Arab culture and civilization on the one
  hand, from the United States on the other, and in the absence of any
  collective Arab information and cultural policy, the notion of an Arab
  people with traditions, cultures and identities of their own is simply
  inadmissible in the US. Arabs are dehumanized, they are seen as violent
  irrational terrorists always on the lookout for murder and bombing
  outrages. The only Arabs worth doing business with for the US are compliant
  leaders, businessmen, military people whose arms purchases (the highest per
  capita in the world) are helping the American economy keep afloat. Beyond
  that there is no feeling at all, for instance, for the dreadful suffering
  of the Iraqi people whose identity and existence have simply been lost
  sight of in the present situation.
  This morbid, obsessional fear and hatred of the Arabs has been a constant
  theme in US foreign policy since World War Two. In some way also, anything
  positive about the Arabs is seen in the US as a threat to Israel. In this
  respect pro-Israeli American Jews, traditional Orientalists, and military
  hawks have played a devastating role. Moral opprobrium is heaped on Arab
  states as it is on no others. Turkey, for example, has been conducting a
  campaign against the Kurds for several years, yet nothing is heard about
  this in the US. Israel occupies territory illegally for thirty years, it
  violates the Geneva conventions at will, conducts invasions, terrorist
  attacks and assassinations against Arabs, and still, the US vetoes every
  sanction against it in the UN. Syria, Sudan, Libya, Iraq are classified as
  "rogue" states. Sanctions against them are far harsher than against any
  other countries in the history of US foreign policy. And still the US
  expects that its own foreign policy agenda ought to prevail (eg., the
  woefully misguided Doha economic summit) despite its hostility to the
  collective Arab agenda.
  In the case of Iraq a number of further extenuations make the US even more
  repressive. Burning in the collective American unconscious is a puritanical
  zeal decreeing the sternest possible attitude towards anyone deemed to be
  an unregenerate sinner. This clearly guided American policy towards the
  native American Indians, who were first demonized, then portrayed as
  wasteful savages, then exterminated, their tiny remnant confined to
  reservations and concentration camps. This almost religious anger fuels a
  judgemental attitude that has no place at all in international politics,
  but for the United States it is a central tenet of its worldwide behavior.
  Second, punishment is conceived in apocalyptic terms. During the Vietnam
  war a leading general advocated -- and almost achieved -- the goal of
  bombing the enemy into the stone age. The same view prevailed during the
  Gulf War in l99l. Sinners are meant to be condemned terminally, with the
  utmost cruelty regardless of whether or not they suffer the cruelest
  agonies. The notion of "justified" punishment for Iraq is now uppermost in
  the minds of most American consumers of news, and with that goes an almost
  orgiastic delight in the gathering power being summoned to confront Iraq in
  the Gulf.
  Pictures of four (or is now five?) immense aircraft carriers steaming
  virtuously away punctuate breathless news bulletins about Saddam's
  defiance, and the impending crisis. The President announces that he is
  thinking not about the Gulf but about the 21st century: how can we tolerate
  Iraq's threat to use biological warfare even though (this is unmentioned)
  it is clear from the UNSCOM reports that he neither has the missile
  capacity, nor the chemical arms, nor the nuclear arsenal, nor in fact the
  anthrax bombs that he is alleged to be brandishing? Forgotten in all this
  is that the US has all the terror weapons known to humankind, is the only
  country to have used a nuclear bomb on civilians, and as recently as seven
  years ago dropped 66,000 tons of bombs on Iraq. As the only country
  involved in this crisis that has never had to fight a war on its own soil,
  it is easy for the US and its mostly brain-washed citizens to speak in
  apocalyptic terms. A report out of Australia on Sunday, November l6
  suggests that Israel and the US are thinking about a neutron bomb on
  Baghdad.
  Unfortunately the dictates of raw power are very severe and, for a weak
  state like Iraq, overwhelming. Certainly US misuse of the sanctions to
  strip Iraq of everything, including any possibility for security is
  monstrously sadistic. The so-called UN 661 Committee created to oversee the
  sanctions is composed of fifteen member states (including the US) each of
  which has a veto. Every time Iraq passes this committee a request to sell
  oil for medicines, trucks, meat, etc., any member of the committee can
  block these requests by saying that a given item may have military purposes
  (tires, for example, or ambulances). In addition the US and its clients --
  eg., the unpleasant and racist Richard Butler, who says openly that Arabs
  have a different notion of truth than the rest of the world -- have made it
  clear that even if Iraq is completely reduced militarily to the point where
  it is no longer a threat to its neighbors (which is now the case) the real
  goal of the sanctions is to topple Saddam Hussein's government. In other
  words according to the Americans, very little that Iraq can do short of
  Saddam's resignation or death will produce a lifting of sanctions. Finally,
  we should not for a moment forget that quite apart from its foreign policy
  interest, Iraq has now become a domestic American issue whose repercussions
  on issues unrelated to oil or the Gulf are very important. Bill Clinton's
  personal crises -- the campaign-funding scandals, an impending trial for
  sexual harassment, his various legislative and domestic failures -- require
  him to look strong, determined and "presidential" somewhere else, and where
  but in the Gulf against Iraq has he so ready-made a foreign devil to set
  off his blue-eyed strength to full advantage. Moreover, the increase in
  military expenditure for new investments in electronic "smart" weaponry,
  more sophisticated aircraft, mobile forces for the world-wide projection of
  American power are perfectly suited for display and use in the Gulf, where
  the likelihood of visible casualties (actually suffering Iraqi civilians)
  is extremely small, and where the new military technology can be put
  through its paces most attractively. For reasons that need restating here,
  the media is particularly happy to go along with the government in bringing
  home to domestic customers the wonderful excitement of American
  self-righteousness, the proud flag-waving, the "feel-good" sense that "we"
  are facing down a monstrous dictator. Far from analysis and calm reflection
  the media exists mainly to derive its mission from the government, not to
  produce a corrective or any dissent. The media, in short, is an extension
  of the war against Iraq.
  The saddest aspect of the whole thing is that Iraqi civilians seem
  condemned to additional suffering and protracted agony. Neither their
  government nor that of the US is inclined to ease the daily pressure on
  them, and the probability that only they will pay for the crisis is
  extremely high. At least -- and it isn't very much -- there seems to be no
  enthusiasm among Arab governments for American military action, but beyond
  that there is no coordinated Arab position, not even on the extremely grave
  humanitarian question. It is unfortunate that, according to the news, there
  is rising popular support for Saddam in the Arab world, as if the old
  lessons of defiance without real power have still not been learned.
  Undoubtedly the US has manipulated the UN to its own ends, a rather
  shameful exercise given at the same time that the Congress once again
  struck down a motion to pay a billion dollars in arrears to the world
  organization. The major priority for Arabs, Europeans, Muslims and
  Americans is to push to the fore the issue of sanctions and the terrible
  suffering imposed on innocent Iraqi civilians. Taking the case to the
  International Court in the Hague strikes me as a perfectly viable
  possibility, but what is needed is a concerted will on behalf of Arabs who
  have suffered the US's egregious blows for too long without an adequate
  response.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

THE U.S. AND WAR CRIMES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

MER - Washington - 1/2/99:  Former Attorney General of the United
States, Ramsey Clark; Catholic Bishop Brian Gumbleton from Detroit;
former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, Denis
Halliday -- these are all Western persons who have served at the
highest levels of authority and they have all of their own personal
volition reached the conclusion that U.S. policies toward Iraq are
immoral, unjust, and at least bordering on war crimes.
    The following comments about the bombing and sanctions of Iraq
come from Professor Noam Chomsky:


                  U.S. IS COMMITTING LAWLESS WAR CRIMES

The US and its increasingly pathetic British lieutenant want the world
to understand -- and in particular want the people of the Middle East
region to understand -- that "What We Say Goes," as Bush defined his
New World Order while the missiles were raining on Baghdad in February
1991.  The message, clear and simple, is that we are violent and
lawless states, and if you don't like it, get out of our way. It's a
message of no small significance.  Simply have a look at the
projections of geologists concerning the expanding role of Middle East
oil in global energy production in the coming decades.

I suspect that the message is understood in the places to which it is
addressed.

A very conservative assessment is that the US/UK attacks are
"aggression," to borrow the apt term of the Vatican and others. They
are as clear an example of a war crime as one could construct. In the
past, acts of aggression, international terrorism, and violence have
sometimes been cloaked in at least a pretense of legalism --
increasingly ludicrous over the years, to be sure.  In this case there
was not even a pretense.  Rather, the US and its client simply
informed the world that they are criminal states, and that the
structure of binding international law and conventions that has been
laboriously constructed over many years is now terminated.  It is
still available, of course, as a weapon against designated enemies,
but apart from that it is without significance or value. True, that
has been always been operative reality, but it has rarely been
declared with such clarity and dramatic force.

As for the moral level, if the word can even be used, it is hard to
improve on the pronouncements of Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright. Two years ago, when asked on national TV about her reaction
to reports that the sanctions she administers have killed half a
million Iraqi children in 5 years, she responded that it is "a very
hard choice," but "we think the price is worth it."  We know well
enough on what page of history those sentiments belong. Today,
suggesting a reversal of Washington's policy since 1991 of seeking a
military dictatorship to replace Saddam Hussein's in name at least,
she explains that "we have come to the determination that the Iraqi
people would benefit if they had a government that really represented
them." We need not tarry on the plausibility of this sudden
conversion. The fact that the words can be articulated tells us more
than enough.

It costs the US/UK nothing to keep a stranglehold on Iraq and to
torture its people -- while strengthening Saddam's rule, as all
concede There is a temporary oil glut, and from the point of view of
the oil majors (mainly US/UK and clients), it's just as well to keep
Iraqi oil off the market for the moment; the low price is harmful to
profits. That aside, competitors (France and Russia) are likely to
have the inside track when Iraq, which has the world's second largest
known energy reserves, is brought back into the international system,
as it will be when its resources are needed. So it might not be a bad
idea to bomb the refineries too, while dismantling further what
remains of Iraqi society.

The region is highly volatile and turbulent. Alliances can quickly
shift. Though the fact is carefully suppressed, we would do well to
bear in mind that the US/UK were highly protective of their admired
friend and trading partner Saddam Hussein right through the period of
his worst crimes (gassing of Kurds, etc.), and returned to support for
him right after the Gulf War, in March 1991, as he turned to crushing
a Shi'ite rebellion in the South that might have overthrown his
regime. Alliances are likely to shift again. But fundamental interests
remain stable, and the two warrior states are making it as clear as
they can that they are dangerous, and others should beware. It might
also be recalled that a recent high-level planning study, released
early this year but scarcely reported, resurrected Nixon's "madman
theory," advising that the US should present itself as "irrational and
vindictive," flourishing its nuclear arsenal and portraying itself as
"out of control."  That should frighten the world properly, and ensure
submissiveness, it is hoped.

The most ominous aspect of all of this is, perhaps, that the openly
declared contempt for the law of nations and professed norms of
civilized behavior proceeds without eliciting even a twitter of
principled comment among the educated classes. Their position, with
impressive uniformity, is that the criminal stance of the US and its
client are so obviously valid as to be beyond discussion, even beyond
thought.  If such matters as international law or the opinions and
wishes of the population of the region intrude at all, which is very
rare, they are dismissed as a "technicality," with no bearing on the
decisions of the global ruler. Not only are the warrior states
officially declaring (not for the first time, to be sure) that the
foundations of international order are an absurd irrelevance, but they
are doing so with the virtually unanimous endorsement of the educated
classes. The world should take notice, and it surely does, outside of
narrow sectors of privilege and power.

The manner and timing of the attack were also surely intended to be a
gesture of supreme contempt for the United Nations, and a declaration
of the irrelevance of international law or other obligations; that too
has been understood. The bombing was initiated as the Security Council
met in emergency session to deal with the crisis in Iraq, and even its
permanent members were not notified.  The timing is interesting in
other ways. The bombing began at 5PM Eastern Standard Time, when the
three major TV channels open their news programs. The script is
familiar. The first war crime orchestrated for prime time TV was the
bombing of Libya in 1986, scheduled precisely for 7PM EST -- which is
when the major TV news programs aired then.

Personally, I doubt that all of this has much to do with the
impeachment farce.  From Clinton's point of view, the coincidence
mainly serves to undermine his credibility further, though Democrats
are plainly hoping to construct an issue for later campaigns,
establishing the basis for much passionate rhetoric about how these
evil Republicans attacked our Commander-in-Chief while our brave sons
and daughters were putting their lives on the line fighting for their
country, and so on. The posture is familiar not only here, but also in
the long and ugly record of warrior states generally.

                     Noam Chomsky




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

In this issue of the Free Arab Voice we interview Laila Khaled.

Laila Khaled is a Palestinian Arab woman, an activist, fighter, and a
leader that has become now a familiar part of the Palestinian psyche.
She turned almost overnight from another refugee in Lebanon into an
unfurled Palestinian flag.  Unlike others who folded their flags though,
she remains as true to the faith today as when she was fifteen, only
smarter.  Understanding what she has to say is tantamount to
understanding what many Palestinians have to say.   We will not rain on
her parade.  She will introduce herself by herself.

[This interview was conducted for the Free Arab Voice (FAV) by Ibrahim
Alloush ].

Introduction:

FAV: Welcome Laila Khaled.  Would you like in the beginning to introduce
us briefly to yourself: your position in the PFLP (Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine), the Palestinian Women's Union, and the
Palestinian revolution?

Laila: I'm a Palestinian woman of Lebanese origin, my belonging is Arab,
and hence my belonging is Palestinian. I joined the Arab Nationalist
Movement early, early with respect to me, cause I was barely 15 years
old then.  After that [when the Movement dissolved itself], I moved to
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine since its inception in
1967, and continue to be with them until today.  I was a member of the
Union of Palestinian students, in the Administrative Committee, when I
was still a student in the American University of Beirut in 1963.  In
1974, I became a member in the General Secretariat of the Palestinian
women's Union.  Also I've been a delegate in the Palestinian National
Council [parliament] since 1979.

FAV: What's your official position in the PFLP?

Laila: I'm a member in the Leadership Council of the PFLP.

"Who Are the Palestinians?":

FAV: We're not going to dwell long on that military operation you
partook in, and which drew fame and glory. We have surpassed that stage
in a sense.  We're in a different stage now, perhaps even at your own
personal level.  Would you give us a quick glimpse though about that
operation so our younger readers may get an idea about what happened
then? When exactly, and what was your role in it?

Laila: [It was] one of the operations undertaken by the PFLP to hijack
airplanes.  I was the first woman to participate in one, but the PFLP
had done a few before.  One of those was the hijacking of an El Al
flight from Rome to Algeria.  The PFLP took this path under the motto of
"Going after the Enemy Everywhere", as one of the tactics or phases of
the armed struggle.  The main goal behind these operations was to pose a
big question to the world: who are the Palestinians?  At the time
Palestinians were being treated merely as refugees who may need
humanitarian aid.  So we got showered with tents, UNRWA programs, and so
forth!

The other goal behind these operations was to release our political
prisoners from "Israeli" jails.  From 1968 until 1970, the PFLP
performed operations abroad to achieve those two goals.  But having
posed the question of who are the Palestinians, the answer was not in
the final analysis to be answered by the operations themselves but by
the Palestinian revolution.  There was now a big commotion.  People all
over the world were asking who those were who were hijacking airplanes
and what they wanted.  Regarding the second objective of releasing
prisoners, we succeeded in that respect partially.  Had we had a
liberated base from whence we could have held planes and passengers, and
from whence we could have exchanged and negotiated, we could have
succeeded much more.  The Arab regimes had a clear position of not
supporting us, and of compromising us as needed to white wash any
affiliation with us.

I participated in two of these operations.  One was the hijacking a TWA
that Isaac Rabin was scheduled to be on.  At the time he was the
"Israeli" Ambassador in the U.S.  That flight was supposed to go through
Rome.  We boarded the plane there, and re-directed the plane to
Damascus, Syria. Unfortunately however, Rabin was not on board!

FAV: When was this?

Laila: This was in August 1969.

FAV: What happened after you came to Damascus?

Laila: When we came to Damascus, the airport we landed in was still not
in use so we inaugurated it.  We blew up the cockpit.

FAV: None of the passengers were hurt though!

Laila: No, no, not at all!  That was made very clear throughout. We had
strict directives not to hurt any passengers or members of the crew at
all.  Only in the case of clear self-defense, we were told, will you
repel anyone who attacks you.

FAV: So you released the passengers upon arrival to Damascus?

Laila: Immediately.  We told them to get off calmly, and showed them how
to do it safely.  Then we handed ourselves over to the authorities.  We
said we admit having done this, and would like to tell you why we did
what we did.

FAV: The second operation you took part in?

Laila: The second one was an El Al plane.  Now that's a different story
because it's an El Al!  An "Israeli" thing per se!  That flight was
carrying Ahron Yarev, the head of "Israeli" Military Intelligence at the
time.  We boarded that flight in Amesterdam.  It was supposed to be
headed to New York, but we were going to turn it back east.  We had just
inaugurated an airport near Amman, Jordan, that became known as the
Airport of the Revolution where. We had held three planes there already,
and we were going to bring our El Al plane there too.  But the pilot
took us to London instead, and our comrade from Nicaragua, Patrick
Aurguillo, was killed there.

FAV: What went wrong?

Laila: What went wrong was that we were to be four doing this, but only
two of us, Patrick and me, managed to get on board.  Because Yarev had
bodyguards too we simply got outnumbered and outgunned.  The route the
plane took was not the one we thought they would.  Landing in London was
totally unexpected.  We bet that they won't come near us.  I was in
charge of the operation and had two hand grenades.  I didn't think they
would ever dare to come near me, but it seems that "Israelis" think
lightly of dying as well.  They attacked the two of us, and managed to
kill Patrick savagely.  I wasn't shot, but tackled and beaten.  Media
reports later indicated that the body of the plane was riddled with
eighty bullet holes.  Patrick had one handgun and I had two grenades, so
guess who was doing most of the shooting?

FAV: Then?

Laila: The Brits took me.  The very following day however a Palestinian
guy from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, hijacked a BOAC plane to Beirut
because he couldn't handle the thought of me getting arrested.  He
requested to talk to the PFLP when he got to Beirut International
Airport, and asked them where he should go with the plane.  The pilot
didn't know how to get to the Airport of the Revolution because it
wasn't in the official charts.  So, he was given directions.  Then I was
released in exchange, along with a couple of other comrades, after 28
days in custody.  All this also raised the political question worldwide
of who we were and what we sought.

A Critical Evaluation:

FAV: How do you respond to those who say that this particular type of
operations did not help out very much, but had in fact hurt the
Palestinian cause?  Sure we got the attention of the world, but it was
perhaps negative attention, the kind that's not very good for us?

Laila: There's an intrinsic difference between armed struggle as one of
the main strategies to overcome the enemy, and these transient tactics
which we employed only during a very brief period.  On the internal
Palestinian level, other groups condemned our earlier tactics only to
end up adopting them after we abandoned them totally in 1970, as Fatah
did with the "Black September" organization!  So these were short-run
tactical measures that can and should easily be given up if needed.
Anyway, hijacking planes was not the only type of overseas operations we
engaged in.  In 1972 for example, the PFLP hit the oil tanker Coral Sea
which was clandestinely carrying Arab oil & gas (butane), from one of
the Gulf states, to "Israel".  It took about a year of careful
surveillance and planning to ascertain the route and method by which
Arab oil went to "Israel".  But nobody likes to talk about this.

FAV: Where did this happen?

Laila: The Red Sea.  Let me also add here that this operation cost
"Israel" a great deal in terms of maintaining tight security.  From that
point on, every tanker that went out to sea had to have military escort,
by planes sometimes.  Protecting their energy supplies became a real
pain.

FAV: So do you call now for resuming this type of operations?

Laila: Now circumstances are different.  Every act has to serve a
political end.  Hijacking airplanes is NOT in our best interest today.
Anyway, we in the PFLP totally quit that after the Central Committee
took a resolution to that effect in 1970.  In this regard I would like
to mention, with great admiration and respect, the contributions of the
martyr Wadi3 Haddad, who is also one of the founders of the Arab
Nationalist Movement.  I owe this man most for having taught me how to
love Palestine.

FAV: But you continue to be today for the continuation of the armed
struggle to liberate Palestine?

Laila: There is a simple and clear formula that I follow which doesn't
require much theorizing. Since there is still today an enemy that raped
and cast us out of our land, there is no language to communicate with
him but that which he understands best.  He talks the language of
terror, so we have a legitimate right to resist.  History, reality, and
the whole world concede the people's right to resist occupation.  That's
all there's to it.

The Calculus of War and Peace:

FAV:  Some say Arafat obtained more for the Palestinian people, with his
readiness to condemn and cooperate against Palestinian "terrorism", than
what we have obtained from decades of operations which cost us tens of
thousands of martyrs, injured, prisoners, not to mention international
public opinion.  How would you respond to that?

Laila: Arafat lost and made us lose with him.

FAV: How come?  Some say he obtained a small piece that could later
become the nucleus of a Palestinian state?  Can't this become a foothold
from whence we may liberate the rest?  Didn't he bring back about forty
thousand Palestinians with him from Tunisia?

Laila: Arafat as the epitome of a stratum of leaders of the Palestinian
movement that embraces the same way of thinking, has chosen to favor its
personal interests over those of the people.  Consequently they deemed
their own return to Palestine, under humiliating conditions, synonymous
with the "right of return".  We have in Palestine today about three
million Palestinians.  These have conducted one of the greatest
uprisings in the world.  Their problem was never the right of return for
Arafat and a small group with him.  Our problem has always been that we
are a people that have had its land occupied and that was forcibly
evicted from that land.  The Zionists built their state on our land.
Our problem can be summarized in two points: 1) sovereignty over the
land, 2) the return of refugees.  This is the essence of the Palestinian
problem.  Now let's see what Arafat did.  Arafat got the legitimacy to
speak for Palestinians from the blood of our martyrs, and from our
suffering.  He got legitimacy because he adopted initially the strategy
of armed struggle.  Then he stopped halfway.  When this stratum got some
perks and privileges, they balked on the notion of resistance.  Our
leadership was spoiled into submission, among other things.  They liked
hotels, travel, official receptions at their honor and what have you too
much.  But at the same time they were selling their own selves out.
Those selling themselves out can't be said to be "obtaining" anything
for their people, can they now?  It's true that "Israel" re-deployed its
forces in this alleged solution.  But even before that was done, Arafat
had to sign on to the enemy's right to exist on our land.  That is a
negation of the all the precepts of Palestinian struggle.

The PFLP's Stand on the Existence of "Israel":

FAV: But some claim that the PFLP has shifted, and is no longer totally
opposed to the principle of "Israel's" right to exist if that meant a
sovereign Palestinian mini-state on the side.  Is that true?

Laila: Let's judge the PFLP on the basis of its documents, and I'm part
of the PFLP.  When we say that we agreed to the program of Palestinian
national consensus: 1) the right of return, 2) self-determination, and
3) the Palestinian state.  That means a Palestinian state on the land
occupied in 1967, not Haifa.  But here are our documents, and our
strategy, and here's the Palestinian National Charter that Arafat
compromised.  They all talk of liberating Palestine from the Jordan
River to the Mediterranean Sea.
FAV: So this is what the PFLP remains formally committed to today?

Laila: Of course.  We haven't changed.  We believe in liberation in
stages, but we believe in our historical right to all of Palestine as
well.

Laila Khaled Prevented from Flying in December to the Palestinian
Conference in Damascus:

FAV: With respect to the Palestinian National Charter, there were
reports that you were on a plane headed from Amman to Damascus earlier
in December 1998, when you were asked to get off the plane right before
take-off by Jordanian authorities.  What happened there?  Did they get
nightmares from the mere thought of Laila Khaled on a plane? Was it a
matter of flashbacks from the sixties or is it more complicated than
that?

Laila:  I still travel by airplane by the way  : ) : ) I don't frighten
anyone there.  I was actually headed for Beirut, not Damascus, to
participate in the Second Arab meeting for the post-Peking Women's
conference.  No body told me why I was not allowed to fly that day, but
I think they expected me to be going to the Palestinian opposition
meeting in Damascus that convened on the 12th of December to re-endorse
the Palestinian National Charter.  But in fact the real reason is Wye
River, and the security deals that took place behind the scenes between
the security apparatuses in Jordan and "Israel".  Laila Khaled is a
Palestinian activist, and for her to travel and express her views here
and there just doesn't fly very well with the authorities.  So they
harass me as a member in the Palestinian opposition, not as an
individual.  But eventually, I traveled again later on, and nobody
stopped me

FAV: So what if they thought you were going to participate in the
opposition conference in Damascus?  What's their beef?

Laila: I wasn't the only one prevented from going to Damascus last
December.  All the delegates headed to that opposition Conference from
Jordan were intercepted and turned back.  Specifically, 53 delegates
were turned back.  I left several days before the conference date
because I was going to attend another in Beirut, then go to the
conference in Damascus.

FAV: But why?  What's the point of preventing you and those people from
attending the conference in Damascus?

Laila:  The point as expressed rather comically by the Jordanian
Minister of the Interior, Nayef al Qadi, was that those 53 delegates
were going to Syria to say stuff that was "contrary to the security of
Jordan".  The response to that is straight forward: the Palestinian
opposition was simply going there to discuss its position and options
after Arafat went ahead with the annulment of the Palestinian National
Charter.  That's all.  But let's not forget I live in a state that has
signed an agreement with "Israel" in Wadi Arabah.  This agreement, or
maybe one of its secret appendices, entailed that the opposition be
oppressed, as long as that is done with all the "democratic means"
available to the system!

[We will later go back and discuss in depth with Laila Khaled's the
Peking women's conference and her position on the question of women's
liberation.  There's about 30 minutes of tape here that FAV will
reproduce separately due to the extreme importance and the independent
nature of that subject- FAV].

Future Strategies for Palestinian Action:

FAV: The position you occupy now Laila Khaled in the Palestinian memory
and the Palestinian conscience forces us to pose all the hardest
questions to you.  The Palestinian activism has reached a predicament at
this point as is evident.  Can we say that the old forms of struggle
have fallen?  Is there a need for new forms to replace them?  If so,
what are some of the features of these new forms?  In short what is a
good strategy for Palestinian action for the coming period? What is to
be done? Whence do we begin?

Laila: You posed the question of whence do we begin, so let me say here
that we're not starting out from zero. Every time a new leadership
arrives at the scene, it doesn't study the phase preceding it, and
assumes that history began with it.  Since the Balfour Declaration in
1917, we've had a series of uprisings and leaders in Palestine,
culminating in a major armed revolt under the leadership of the Qassam
in 1936. Then there was Abdul-Qader al Husseini in 1948, then el Hajj
Amin, and in the sixties the present PLO leadership emerged. We need to
study therefore our history and draw hard lessons as much as we need to
thoroughly evaluate the previous phase of the Palestinian struggle.

We may have entered a new phase though, characterized by a political
settlement in favor of the enemy.  The cornerstones of Palestinian
activism have been upturned.  The precept that the Zionist enemy is
occupying our land has been clouded with false rhetoric about peace.
The notion of armed struggle has been distorted as well by those who
signed shameful agreements, like Arafat and his group.  We have to study
thus the previous phase in a comprehensive and careful manner.  We have
to examine where we hit and where we missed.  The great achievement the
Palestinian people has perhaps been the Palestinian national identity.
We learned how to resist, but the strategies of action now will have to
be different from the ones we adopted before.  The notion of armed
struggle itself though remains necessarily constant because this enemy
has not changed its nature.  This enemy does not seek peace.  It is
still racist, expansionist, and violent.
FAV: What is it that should change then?

Laila:  Only the mechanisms have to change, not the objectives.  The
strategy of armed struggle has to carry on from one generation to the
next.  It has to remain a historical struggle on all fronts.  The
military front is not currently open, while the usual measures like
demolishing homes, confiscating land, arresting activists, air raiding
south Lebanon, and killing civilians continue. We still have Palestinian
and Lebanese funerals daily.  This means the enemy does not understand
any other language.

FAV: This is regarding the objectives of the Palestinian action.  How do
we get there?

Laila: The objectives of the PLO have not been achieved, including the
right of return, self-determination, and the Palestinian state.  Some
say we still have to uphold those betrayed objectives, and I'm one of
those.  The problem now is that this [Palestinian] opposition, which is
made up of Islamic, nationalist, and leftist components IS NOT UNITED IN
ONE PROGRAM OF ACTION.  We don't have to unite them ideologically.
They do have to find a way however to deal jointly with the two most
important current issues of Palestinian struggle:

First, how to confront and escalate the fight against the occupation,
and second how to tackle the contradiction with the limited self-rule
authority of Arafat whose main task is to provide security for the
occupation, and to oppress Palestinians.  We can't adopt the same
approach in dealing with the two.  I don't think twice about the
legitimacy of resisting the occupation by all means necessary.

FAV: How do you respond to people like Edward Said and Azmi Bshara who
insinuate sometimes that we need new approaches to Palestinian activism,
for example by opening up Palestinian organizations to "Israelis" who
recognize "Israel's" right to exist, yet support Palestinian rights!

Laila: We have to look at the tasks of every concentration of
Palestinians in the light of its own circumstances.  We have a goal that
unites us all, which is to liberate Palestine.  But there's about a
million Palestinians right now living in the land occupied in 1948.
Those will have tasks that are different from the ones to be addressed
by the Palestinians of Lebanon.  In the former, the Palestinian struggle
focuses on removing the discrimination they suffer under "Israel".  But
in Rou7ah and Um Es-sa7ali when "Israelis" tried to confiscate more land
and to demolish homes a while back, the reaction of the Palestinians of
1948 made the Shin Bet report to the "Israeli" government that after
fifty years of "Israeli" rule, nationalist feelings among the Arabs of
"Israel", as they call them, are on the rise.  It's true there are a
couple there that call themselves "Israelis", but the Palestinians of
1948 have overall preserved their Palestinian Arab national identity.
Within the framework of the overall objective,  these people have the
local objective of achieving equality before the law in "Israel"…

FAV: But we can't generalize the tasks of the Palestinians of 1948 to
other Palestinians?

Laila: Yes, that part of our people will have different local objectives
because it has different local circumstances.  We are a dispersed people
you know.  Those in the West Bank and Gaza will have different tasks as
well.

FAV: So the idea of including "Israelis" in our struggle applies only to
the Palestinians of 1948, right?

Laila: No, no, no! Neither including nor excluding, no! I'm talking
about something totally different.  I'm talking about a relevant
Palestinian program for action.  I said there are general Palestinian
objectives for all Palestinians, and then there are particular
Palestinian objectives specific to the local circumstances for each
concentration of Palestinians.  For example, what is right now the main
concern of a Palestinian in Lebanon who is not allowed to work?  S/He
wants to make a living.  But even s/he is trying to observe the general
objective of preserving his Palestinian national identity.  He remains
steadfast in the refugee camp as a Palestinian under very harsh
conditions.  His tasks however will have to be different from those of a
Palestinian in Gaza, who has to deal with persecution by Arafat's PNA,
and the Zionist occupation.  Local strategies have to be decided
locally, not imposed from without.  There has to be coordination though
between the local parts so each complements the other.

FAV:  But where do the "Israelis" who allegedly support our rights fit
into all this?  Some say that our main task on the general level now
should be to intensify our efforts amongst Americans and "Israelis".
How do you respond to that?

Laila: Look, there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in North
America.  The main task of that group is to publicize the Palestinian
cause and win support.  They also have the additional task of not
forgetting, and letting their kids forget who they are and where they
came from.  They should think about coming back in the long-run.  It's
high-time we learned from our enemies, isn't it?  But let's also not
forget here that this is part of the overall struggle.  The children of
the West and Gaza didn't peddle theories about winning over the West in
the uprising.  They peddled stones.  And they won the support of the
world nevertheless.  The essential thing is to not forget that the
things that created the conflict with Zionists are still there.  They're
not gone.  The land is still occupied and the people are still
dispersed.  That's why we revolted.  These agreements are like some ash
over the coals.  Pour a little gasoline and we revolt again.  The
gasoline is how to make our local tasks complement each other.  The axis
of the combined work should be to hit the enemy on the head through and
through.  They only withdrew from south Lebanon because they were
shipping back too many coffins.  So coffins is what they understand.
And we should make no apologies here because our own graveyards are
full.  Before preachers try to teach you about the humanity of our
enemy, teach them about how we have been dehumanized.  They said: "The
Palestinians don't exist"!  We have been subjugated to a process of
extinction here.  Now they're even talking about making genes-smart
bombs that kill only Arabs.  These people are not about coexistence.
They still have their kids sing in Kindergarden: this bank of the Jordan
River is ours, and the other one too!  Why are you asking us to change?

FAV: ..and the "Israelis" that support our struggle!

Laila: This is something that concerns the Palestinians of 1948.  It is
not a task on the national level, except insofar as it contributes to
flaming differences within "Israeli" society, and weakens the
occupation.  Full stop.  But I don't tell our Palestinian masses there
to go to the booth to vote for Labor or Meretz.  These still say our
land is theirs.  I CHALLENGE ANY OF THE PARTIES THAT CLAIM TO SUPPORT
PALESTINIAN RIGHTS IN 'ISRAEL' TO SAY THAT JERUSALEM IS OURS.  None of
them do.  So what the heck?  We don't need more empty slogans from
"Israelis" who claim to be supporting us.  The United Nations resolution
that recognized "Israel" tied that recognition to the return of
refugees.  But that was not observed because in this jungle the strong
imposes its code.  Let those "Israelis" who say they support us call for
our return.  Look, if you want to note with appreciation a large
demonstration by "Peace Now", fine.  But don't fantasize.

FAV: Are you willing to share Jerusalem?

Laila: No way and never.  I want to go back to Haifa where I was born.
What are you talking about?

[To be continued]


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/list/mesn
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

The Middle East Socialists Network has been created as a place to discuss and
debate questions in socialist activism, political economy, democracy,
nationalism, socialism, imperialism, religion, and politics in the Middle East
as well as to share news and information on variety of subjects related to
MidEast politics and revolutionary struggles around the world.

Group Manager: mesn-owner@egroups.com

To subscribe, send a message to mesn-subscribe@egroups.com or go to the
e-group's home page at http://www.egroups.com/list/mesn