November , 2002 Opinion Editorials          http://www.aljazeerah.info

Al-Jazeerah Arabic  الجزيرة

Arab Cartoonists

Articles

Columnists

Contact us

Documents

Editorials 

Essays

Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Islam

letters to the editor

Media Watch

Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah

News Photos

News Archives 

Opinion Editorials

Poetry

Women in News

Yet another crisis looms in Saudi-US relations

An Arab press summary by The Daily Star, 11/27/02

The resurfacing of tensions between Saudi Arabia and the United States leaves commentators in the Arab press with a sense of deja vu.
Arab newspapers accord ample coverage to the fresh wave of criticism to which American politicians and pundits have subjected the kingdom in recent days, ostensibly over its complicity in the funding of “terrorism.”
No credence is given to the actual charge that occasioned the latest bout of recrimination ­ that Princess Haifa, wife of the high-profile Saudi ambassador in the United States (Prince Bandar bin Sultan) and daughter of the late King Faisal, may have aided some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
The sheer absurdity of the claim leads commentators to conclude that other reasons ­ particularly American-Saudi differences over Iraq ­ underlie the renewed “campaign” of Saudi-bashing which the claim triggered in Washington.
Saudi newspapers make much of the way the US administration of President George W. Bush has been defending Saudi Arabia against its American detractors. They highlight statements by senior administration officials praising Riyadh’s extensive cooperation with the US against terrorism, and playing down the significance of the latest investigation into charitable donations by the princess ­ which are alleged to have included payments to a needy Saudi family in America, one of whose members befriended two of the hijackers.
The Beirut daily As-Safir writes that the Saudi authorities have taken two steps aimed at countering the renewed political and media “offensive” against the kingdom that the affair has occasioned in America. They provided the Americans with the details of Princess Haifa’s charitable donations, and at the same time launched new probes into the activities of all 241 registered charities in Saudi Arabia, which between them distribute some $320 million worth of donations worldwide. The paper states that, in addition to suspecting that some of this money makes its way into “terrorist” hands, Washington has also repeatedly objected to Saudi citizens donating money to help the Palestinians and their intifada, and demanded that the Saudi authorities put a stop to the practice.
The pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi proclaims the outbreak of a “new war of words and setback to Saudi-American relations.”
It writes that while the two governments have been publicly playing down disagreements over “terrorist funding,” they have been exchanging harsh words off the record ­ with the Americans accusing the Saudis of bad faith, and the latter charging that they are being falsely implicated in “terrorism” as a way of subjecting them to underhand political pressure.
Al-Quds al-Arabi sees this as a manifestation of the “profound tension” between the two sides ever since Sept. 11, when it emerged that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. It states that these strains have surfaced on several occasions since then, notably last summer, when it was leaked that senior administration figures favored designating Saudi Arabia as an enemy, and again in November, when Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal ruled out the use of Saudi military bases in any US attack on Iraq ­ though he later retracted that declaration.
Further trouble between the two sides appears to be brewing, after The Washington Post reported that a task-force set up by the National Security Council is recommending an “action plan” to Bush designed “to force Saudi Arabia to crack down on terrorist financiers within 90 days,” or else face undefined “unilateral US action to bring the suspects to justice.”
The Washington Post indicated that the plan was not linked to the latest controversy, and that US officials had been “planning for a high-level confrontation with the Saudi government” since early September, when the two sides reportedly had a “misunderstanding” over the designation of a Saudi citizen as terrorist sponsor.
In the Beirut daily An-Nahar, Sahar Baassiri writes of a “new episode” unfolding in a “crisis that has been ongoing since Sept. 11” between the US and Saudi Arabia. She says that while “the efforts of Riyadh and its friends in the administration, like Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, have so far succeeded in keeping the crisis contained,” this may no longer be possible now American legislators are for the first time formally trying to implicate the Saudi royal family (some of whose members were earlier named in the claim for compensation filed by relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks) in terrorism.
“If this points toward anything, it is that American harassment of Saudi Arabia is being stepped up, either by the administration or by powerful hard-line groups within it,” Baassiri suggests. She writes that bilateral relations have deteriorated steadily over the past 14 months, with Washington objecting to Saudi Arabia’s school curricula and its funding of religious schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, and Riyadh opposing America’s Palestine and Iraq policies.
But in her view, the latest strains are rooted in two main things. The first is Washington’s refusal to take no for an answer from any country whose cooperation it wants in attacking Iraq. The second is that since Sept. 11 the Bush administration’s behavior vis-a-vis the Muslim world has been premised on the notion that it “needs to help it change.” The administration is convinced that the Islam represented by Saudi Arabia spawns terrorism, and concluded “the models of Islam which it deems acceptable lie somewhere between Pervez Musharraf’s Pakistan and Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey.”
The future development of Saudi-US ties depends on the interplay of these two factors, and also “on the ebb or flow of the influence of the hard-line group within the administration, which since Sept. 11 has been calling for treating Saudi Arabia as an enemy of America, and which plays down the kingdom’s worth as a political and oil asset given the prospect of the US assuming control of Iraq and its resources.”
Other Arab commentators believe Riyadh’s opposition to a US invasion of Iraq is the main reason Saudi Arabia again finds itself on the receiving end of America’s ire. “The tale has become familiar, repetitive and thoroughly tiresome,” comments Assayed Zahra in the Bahraini daily Akhbar al-Khaleej. “Whenever the US wants to blackmail an Arab country and force it to espouse policies it opposes, the US resorts to fabricating and contriving allegations against that country and issuing threats.” Saudi Arabia has been through the same routine before, as have Egypt, Syria and other Arab states, Zahra observes. “The same method is employed every time. The Bush administration gets some congressmen and media outlets to level false allegations and issue blatant threats, and then declares it has nothing to do with the matter.”
This time, it is obvious that Saudi Arabia is being targeted because of its avowed refusal to allow its territory to be used in any US war on Iraq. Prince Saud’s announcement to that effect surprised and shocked Americans and caught them off guard, prompting one Pentagon official to publicly refuse to accept it as the “final” Saudi position.
Zahra goes on to urge the Saudis not to allow themselves to be intimidated into changing policy over Iraq. “There are two reasons for that. First, the whole world has come to appreciate that, where the Bush administration is concerned, Sept. 11 has become an endless saga, to which they can append new chapters whenever it suits them. In other words, a new suspect can be added or a ‘sudden discovery’ made whenever US interests dictate. Secondly, the Bush administration classifies all of us ­ Arab and Muslim states and peoples ­ as terrorists who threaten the world,” he says. “So the administration’s tiresome tale will be repeated many times, and that ought not to frighten the Arab governments or be a reason for them to change policy.”
In the Jordanian daily Al-Rai, Yasser Zaatra remarks that the allegation that the Saudi authorities bankrolled the Sept. 11 attacks is so shabby as to be “unworthy of discussion,” and can only be viewed in the context of Washington’s drive to browbeat other countries into joining its war on Iraq.
“The US appreciates full well the pitfalls of going to war on its own” ­ which is why it has spent the past two months trying to dragoon the UN Security Council into going along with it.
Zaatra writes that the Bush administration has used the “carrot” to persuade some countries opposed to war to acquiesce in its plans, particularly Russia. But with Arab states, the Americans use only the “stick,” employing “cheap extortion” to force the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to do their bidding. Riyadh is being punished for its “reluctance” to allow its territory to be used in a war on Iraq, and especially for voicing that reluctance in public, “which was seen as a signal to the other Gulf Arab states that they need to take similar stands ­ which did not happen of course, due to the speed with which the Americans acted … and also the calculations of each country.”
In Al-Quds al-Arabi, Marwan Qabalan foresees trouble brewing between Saudi Arabia and Russia, whose President Vladimir Putin has been conspicuously berating Islam and playing up charges of Saudi funding for “terrorists” in Chechnya and elsewhere, and urging Washington to get tough with Riyadh over the issue.
Qabalan suggests the Russians are trying to exploit the deterioration in relations to advance their own interests.
“The events of Sept. 11 cast a heavy cloud of mutual suspicion over the Saudi-American relationship, and the tension has since been mounting inexorably amid calls from Washington for regimes to be changed, maps to be redrawn, new alliances to be forged and old ones to be abandoned ­ all accompanied by deliberate ambiguity about US policy toward Saudi Arabia,” he writes. These developments have prompted the Bush administration to abandon the old “oil-for-security” trade-off on which the partnership was traditionally based: Riyadh played the role of swing producer to guarantee a stable and secure supply of cheap oil and, in exchange, Washington undertook to protect the Saudi regime against any external or internal threats.
Qabalan says Russia has been watching the deterioration in Saudi-US relations with a view to taking advantage of it ­ not least in order to ingratiate itself with the US. It has done so by posing both as a “reliable” ally against Muslim “terrorism” of the sort the Saudis are accused of nurturing, and also ­ a much more important objective for decision-makers in Moscow ­ as an alternative and more trustworthy supplier of crude oil, as well as an indispensable ally in Washington’s decades-old “battle” against OPEC.
Qabalan writes that Russia has been doing its utmost to increase its oil output, and has ambitious plans for further boosting production capacity, with the aim of first restoring and then surpassing Soviet-era production levels. This has created a conflict of interests between it and OPEC, whose members have suffered falling incomes as a result and had to cut their own production to accommodate the extra volumes pumped by Russia ­ with the biggest burden inevitably falling on Saudi Arabia as the largest producer.
The Russians, with perceptible US blessing, are seeking in the longer term to supplant Saudi Arabia as main player on the world oil market. The Saudis cannot afford to take them on in a price war because of their weak finances and $170 billion debt burden, says Qabalan. America is encouraging Russia to supplant the Saudis and thus deprive Arabs of their sole potential source of strength, “perhaps because they fear this weapon could fall into hands hostile to US interests.”
“Thus while America continues with its preparations to invade Iraq, a different battle is being waged by different means against a different Arab country that until just the other day was America’s closest ally in the region,” writes Qabalan.

Arab satellite marriage — Ben Laden and Madonna

Rami G. Khouri

Jordan Times, 11/27/02

ARE THE new Arab satellite media — such as Al Jazeera, Orbit, MBC, Abu Dhabi, ART and others — good guys or bad guys? Are they a constructive, healthy force for modernity and democratisation in an Arab world whose fundamental political decision-making systems remain traditional in character and Late Ottoman in vintage, or are they merely new forms of old values that define the Arab ruling political order?

Many in the West, especially the US, view these new media seasonally: in the spring and summer they are purveyors of Arab democratisation, and in autumn and winter they are mouthpieces for the devil. Several Arab states (Jordan, Saudi Arabia and more to come for sure) have also assailed and boycotted Al Jazeera, accusing it of vicious, unfair programming and/or of serving Israeli interests.

What's going on here? Not much, I'd suggest, because the assessments of Al Jazeera and its more docile mates reflect a sad combination of shallow, self-serving analyses of these channels' media operations, and wildly exaggerated perceptions of them as political actors. The new Arab media are neither wonder boys of modernisation nor digitised sleeper cells of the evildoers. They are mostly repackaged reincarnations of the old Arab media's core political values and rules, but also fascinating examples of the consequences of cultural, political and commercial globalisation.

I praise the new Arab media for promoting new forms of lively political debate, despite some of the exaggerated, unsubstantiated accusations of some polemicists (our equivalent of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Fox Television's high-energy, low-knowledge blonde babes who have transformed their excess ideological hormones into anti-Arab and anti-Muslim vituperation, i.e., we give as good as we take). Arab satellite television has also done well in on-the-ground spot news reporting (if with obvious bias in their national perspectives — a mirror image of Fox channel's using the fluttering American flag as a routine on-screen backdrop, Dan Rather and other broadcast anchors wearing US flag lapel pins, and Geraldo Rivera packing a gun on the air and going after the bad guys in Afghanistan. Hey, in the commercial media world, you got to do what you got to do to keep the viewers viewing and sell those deodorant advertisements, in the New World and the Old World alike.)

Yet the new Arab media have done very, very little of the best practices of the Western media, such as in-depth and investigative reporting, documentaries, systematically holding accountable public and private officials, and specialised coverage of business, environment, and culture and the arts. They also have totally avoided examining the two primary sources of power that define Arab or any society — money and guns. Until the new Arab media seriously report on and debate the public expenditures of Arab states and their security/defence policies, these media will remain in the mould of the existing Arab media that agree to play by the rules set by the state authorities.

In their core political and commercial values, the new Arab media are something of a wedding between Madonna and Osama Ben Laden — they bring together the worst traditions of Western television (titillating entertainment) and the worst political legacy of the Arab world (endless ideological argument, self-flagellation, and mostly blaming others for our ills). Our new media certainly are bold, sexy, confrontational, loud and endlessly engaging. Yet, ultimately, they have no measurable political impact on the real world, because their Arab viewers cannot go out regularly and vote for their governments or change their national political, fiscal or defence policies.

The fare on our Arab screens has changed; the exercise of our Arab political authority has not. The stark detachment between the Arab citizen who watches the new media and the realities of power in the contemporary Arab state means the new Arab media are mainly entertainers, rather than credible political actors.

Also, the idea that the new Arab media will force Arab states to change their political systems is fanciful nonsense and California dreaming. The reality may be exactly the opposite — that these media are created and used by the existing Arab state order to perpetuate itself. The fact is, almost every new Arab media channel is funded directly by Arab governments (Al Jazeera, Abu Dhabi, Dubai channels) or indirectly through the Arab political-commercial elite who became wealthy through their association with state authorities and whose wealth funds these media (MBC, ART, Orbit, LBC TV, Al Hayat and Al Sharq Al Awsat newspapers, and others).

Perhaps with the exception of Hizbollah's high-adrenaline channel from Lebanon, Al Manar, the new Arab media are appendages of the ruling political and economic order in the Arab world, not challenges to it. These media may represent a sophisticated move by the ruling Arab establishments to cater and respond to their people's legitimate political anger and emotional angst, and safely channel these emotions through a release of tension every evening, thus solidifying rather than shaking the existing political order.

We should enjoy, applaud and recognise these media for what they offer and what they have pioneered and urge them to keep doing more new and good things. But we should also judge them according to the realities of our world and how they fit into that world, rather than seeing them in an Arab or Western dream world.

Privacy, civil liberties groups raise storm over homeland security bill

By Rob Lever
Agence France-Presse

Jordan Times, 11/27/02

The bill sought by President George W. Bush creates a massive government reorganisation to create a new Department of Homeland Security, and gives the agency powerful new tools to thwart potential terrorist attacks.

But some critics fear the measure also may increase secret surveillance and reduce privacy protections that Americans have taken for granted.

The measure “potentially allows the federal government to maintain extensive files on each and every American without limitations”, said Senator Russ Feingold, who voted against the bill.

“It also weakens important safeguards on government access to our e-mails and information about what we do on the Internet without the need for a court order.”

A particular concern is the last-minute insertion of the controversial CyberSecurity Enhancement Act, which had been a separate bill stalled in Congress that expands the ability of authorities to obtain information from telecom and Internet service providers.

“The contents of e-mail messages or instant messages could be given to any government official under a so-called emergency provision even when such a disclosure is not reasonable and does not deal with an imminent threat of injury,” says the free-speech Centre for Democracy and Technology in Washington.

Lee Tien, an attorney with the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that the law could be challenged is the courts but that in practice, it is hard to know if the government is carrying out secret surveillance.

“If you're an innocent person who was wrongly surveilled, you will never know,” Tien said.

“There is no notice ever to the person who is the victim of the surveillance unless authorities use this in a criminal proceeding, so trying to challenge or obtain redress becomes very hard.”

The bill does not specifically authorise a controversial Pentagon project aimed at creating huge electronic databases to monitor for signs of terrorist activities, called Total Information Awareness (TIA).

But critics say the use of that effort with expanded authority under the new legislation could lead to an unprecedented assault on privacy.

“We do not want the federal government to become the proverbial `Big Brother',” said Senator Patrick Leahy.

“The public's most sensitive e-mails, Web transactions, and instant messages sent to loved ones, business associates, doctors and lawyers, and friends deserve the highest level of privacy we can provide. The provisions of (this bill) make a mockery of our privacy laws.”

Supporters say the bill will help deploy new technology in the defence of homeland security.

“This is a major step towards a safer, more secure American public,” said Harris Miller, president of the Information Technology Association of America, a lobby group for big high-tech firms.

“This legislation removes impediments to fielding the best IT solutions for the public (in response to) a constantly changing terrorist threat.”

Others say that giving the government the ability to secretly collect information without court orders or other checks is a recipe for abuse, noting the McCarthy era and secret files on civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

“Whenever we have these kind of investigative and knowledge databases in the hands of government officials without accountability, they use it against political enemies,” said Tien.

Chris Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre said the law flies in the face of the presumption of most Americans that their communications will be private and that law enforcement must have some court supervision.

“We could create a completely safe state but our country would become a police state, and that is not a bargain that our constitution has given,” he said.

Unfair treatment of Iraq: Guilty until proved innocent
 Gulf News, 27-11-2002

In most courts of law it is presumed a person is innocent until found guilty. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove the charges made against the alleged perpetrator. And it is incumbent upon the accused to defend himself of the charges laid before the court. Such is the practice of jurisprudence that has been carried out for hundreds of years and is generally recognised as being an acceptable system.

   Now, however, it appears that the tables are turned. For the UN weapons inspectors to Iraq have let it be known that they expect Saddam Hussain to prove he does not have any weapons of mass destruction. As those experienced in judicial law will say, it is impossible to prove a negative; the burden of proof lies upon the prosecutors or the investigators to provide sufficient evidence to determine guilt. It is not up to the accused to demonstrate their innocence - or in this case, that they are in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

   Even more invidious and questionable is that evidence has to be furnished by the Iraqi authorities to the UN inspectors that it does not have material that has a dual-purpose - that is, a peaceful application or, with some modification, an ability to be used in warfare. In itself a very grey area of semantics on what, exactly, comprises "dangerous material". A furled umbrella can be considered a dangerous weapon - surely the weapons inspectors will not be impounding all the umbrellas in Iraq?

   The whole issue of the weapons inspectors is a farce being played out for the world arena. It is impossible for the inspectors to cover such a large area as Iraq to determine whether there is anything "suspicious" there. It is obviously just a prelude to the inevitable: war on Iraq.

An extra 'P' does not give Pakistan stability
By Farhan Bokhari, Gulf News,  27-11-2002


As if another 'P' would be the recipe for credence for the group of opposition turn-coats who threw their weight behind Pakistan's prime minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, the birth of the country's newest political party says it all.

After days of haggling over how a new ruling coalition has been formed, Pakistanis have been given one of the most controversially manufactured governments in recent memory.

Jamali's eventual vote of confidence would not have been confirmed without the backing of the 10 members of the Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians, who now function under the convenient garb of Pakistan People's Party Parliamentarians' Patriots - PPPPP! Patriotism for what, where and exactly why? There are no easy answers to that compelling question.

Instead, it's clear that far from the promise of an ideal democracy, Pakistan's new political order is in danger of becoming akin to another round of controversy after controversy. As the country struggles to return to civilian rule, there is little consensus on where and how General Musharraf's government first went wrong, trading the ideals spoken out so boldly on the eve of the 1999 coup for the emerging values of compromise.

Was it the choice of pushing mainstream leaders to become fringe dwellers in politics? Or was it indeed the failure to understand the context of political power? While there are no conclusive answers to such questions, an essential bottom line is clear.

With a number of politicians previously accused of corruption now back in politics, no one should be surprised that the journey which began with the hijacking drama over Karachi's airport in 1999 has culminated with embracing some of the most unwelcome pitfalls for a democracy.

For many among ordinary members of the Pakistani public, with the promise of a new beginning to reform the country now in tatters, the politics of status quo has indeed returned to haunt the country.

The new trend across the political spectrum with the convenient change of loyalties by politicians elected on one party's ticket and now allied with another, though a reminder of times to come, is hardly a failure of the new political order alone.

It is in fact the failure of the entire edifice which was promised to be created to take Pakistan towards an era of 'sham' free politics.

With a new set of rules for fair play thrown out of the window, one of the numerically largest oppositions in the country's entire history is now set to dominate the parliament with the promise of continued wrangling on a range of issues. Never before has Pakistan been locked in a similar predicament, where the outlook of its surrounding region and the divisions within have so profoundly challenged its future prospects.

The challenges of the present and the future indeed demand working towards a fresh national consensus on a range of issues. Yet, the series of controversies from the fallout following the presidential referendum to the validity of the Legal Framework Order (LFO) and from allegations of pre-election manipulation to post-election shenanigans must present a convincing argument that there's indeed very little light at the end of a long tunnel.

While the future of the overwhelming powers of General Musharraf is tied to the LFO-essentially the package of constitutional changes brought about ahead of the new parliament, opposition politicians are adamant in rejecting that package.

In this background, uniting Pakistan as never before may be a truly formidable task at a time when unity of concepts and ideas to reclaim the country's lost dream has become a distant hope.
The emerging scenario does not as yet challenge the continuity of the highest office in the land.

The presidency remains well protected with instruments ranging from dual charge - a civilian one combined with the overwhelming military chief's position - to the virtual absence of large street support to dissenting politicians if they choose to mount pressure.

Yet, the vital two-fold challenge, whose prospects for success now appear dim by comparison to the era before politics of compromise set in, is essentially the litmus test of nation building. On the one hand, with divisions across society along ethnic, sectarian, geographic and linguistic lines, Pakistan's political past has not been helped by the discord in its civil-military ties.

The days following the 1999 coup created an unprecedented opportunity for Pakistan's military rulers to quickly move towards regaining the public's support in recognition for their success in setting the pace for a new future.

For years before, Pakistan had been haunted by the frequent stories of corruption among ruling politicians and it was therefore natural for the public at large to demand justice.

The decade of the 90s began with the so called cooperative scandal whose fallout reverberated across the country as never more. Names of prominent politicians associated with the cooperatives scandal were revealed, raising hopes that they would be taken to task. More than a decade later, some of the most prominent names across the new parliament are indeed those very same politicians who were previously associated with one of the largest public rip-offs in Pakistan's history.

It's not surprising then that a cloud of gloom and disgust descends across the popular mindset, as those who shape mainstream opinion know well that the architects of that rip-off are freely moving about in search of opportunities for high office.

For the popular mood, there could be few tragedies greater than the sad conclusion that justice across Pakistan is only applied against the poor, weak and vulnerable who don't have powerful political connections.

Down the road, it should be no surprise if indeed the popular sentiment begins loosing faith in the capacity of the military-led establishment which was seen in the past as the last saviour in crisis. As a consequence of that mood, it should also be no surprise that repairing the damage done to civil-military ties, all in favour of setting the pace for a new Pakistan, may well become a profoundly difficult undertaking.

On the other hand, Pakistan's long search for returning to the principles of its founding fathers only promises to suffer significantly. The architects of the country must have never imagined some of the present day accepted practices across the political landscape.

If switching loyalties to suit one's convenience was ever even remotely accepted by Pakistan's first line of leaders on the eve of its partition and that too as a weak and vulnerable state, the country's very creation may have been jeopardised.

Yet, the dream which translated itself in to an eventual Pakistan was born on the strength of dedication to principles even when faced with the most insurmountable odds.

As gloom continues to dominate a good part of Pakistan's national sentiment, switching the country back to the legacy of its founders may well be the only cornerstone of a credible new beginning.

Yet, the politics of compromise unleashed have already set the pace for an unpleasant reality knocking on Pakistan's doors. A return to the ideals of a glorious past is unlikely to become the guiding principle of the key players in the new political order, whose appetite for political power and opportunity remains insatiable.

The writer is a Pakistan-based commentator who writes on political and economic matters.

By Nihal Singh, Khaleej Times, 11/27/02

LOGICALLY, Nato, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, should have been wound up after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1991. But far from being relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history, the Clinton administration kept it alive on life support system and expanded it in 1999 by taking in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

The reasons are no mystery. Nato has severed as a primary instrument of American power on the European continent, in addition to fulfilling its traditional Cold War aims. Second, reneging on promises made to the Soviet Union's last president, Mikhail Gorbachev, by Germany's Helmut Kohl and President George Bush Senior, Bill Clinton sought strategically to hem in the Russian Federation by taking Nato's frontier to the borders of the former Soviet Union.

Boris Yeltsin huffed and puffed but had to swallow his pride and America kept open the possibility of further expansion of Nato.

Then came the George W. Bush administration, swelling with pride over the country's omnipotence, and the events of September 11, 2001 gave it the opportunity to try to reorder the world. The American role over the 11-week air war against Yugoslavia had been a wake-up call for the Europeans, but even more shocking was the American go-it-alone posture in Afghanistan. Washington pointedly declined Nato's collective help offered for the first time, choosing its allies a la carte.

The message that was coming out loud and clear was that Washington did not need military allies, except on its own terms as subservient helpers. Both the Bush administration and its predecessor were unhappy with the European Rapid Deployment Force proposal and saw in it incipient signs of revolt against American hegemony.

The Afghan experience gave Americans food for thought: create a new Nato more as a political, rather than military, instrument. Invite a host of new members, including some countries that were thought to be unfit to fulfil the criteria a short while ago, rub the Russian nose in the dirt by taking in the three Baltic states which were part of the Soviet Union and transform the alliance mission, with the key securely placed in Washington.

The Prague summit of Nato accomplished these American objectives. The countries on Russia's periphery secured implicit security guarantees against Russia and joined the ranks of America's cheer leaders. Nato was divided into two commands: the operations section to remain in Brussels while the new 'transformation' command headquarters was taken to the United States. And Nato agreed to provide a 21,000-strong Response Force equipped with high-tech weapons and land, sea and air capability to be at the beck and call of America.

Since Nato countries were no longer in the league of the United States in military power and reach, they could not remain partners and were now assigned boutique roles to help America in niche areas and, of course, for the dirty work of cleaning up the mess after an American attack or invasion. The classic Marxist theory of the withering away of the state came to pass in the Soviet Union with a vicious sting in its tail: the disintegration of the nation. The withering away of Nato - cynics refer to its initials as Now Almost Totally Obsolete - began at the organisation's first meeting held behind the old Iron Curtain. Indeed, President George W. Bush gave so much attention to American war plans on Iraq that the expansion and Nato's new role took second place.

Among the new entrants to Nato are the three Baltic states - Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Unlike his predecessor, President Vladimir Putin made a virtue of necessity by not raising serious objections to the shifting of Nato frontiers to the country's very heart, and he even sent his foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, to Prague. President Bush rewarded President Putin by paying him a flying visit to St Petersburg while also calling on the Lithuanians.

There is little Moscow could have done to stop Nato's expansion; it is better to emphasise Russia's 'special' relations with Nato and the common objective of fighting terrorism. Besides, President Putin is wise enough to read the signs of the growing irrelevance of Nato.

According to the schedule mapped out at Prague, the Response Force for quick deployment anywhere in the world should have initial operational capability not later than 2004 and should be fully operational two years after that. What happens then to the European Union's own Rapid Reaction Force, envisaged to conduct fire-fighting operations on its own from 2004? The truth is that European and American perceptions and world-view have never differed since the end of World War II as much as they do today. European sympathy with America over the events of September 11 has largely evaporated in view of the somewhat vulgar advertisement of the tragedy and a growing suspicion that the 'war on terror' is being used by the Bush administration to tailor the world to exclusive American interests.

Gerhard Schrِder's anti-American Iraq platform that won him his re-election has introduced a chill in relations between the two countries. Germany's scepticism is shared by the rest of Europe and tensions created by President Bush's projected New World Order have even travelled north of American borders. A widely reported comment by a Canadian official describing W as a moron was contradicted by the country's prime minister, Jean Chretien, in the following words: "He (President Bush) is a friend of mine, he is not a moron at all".

Nowhere is the transatlantic split (Britain always excepted) sharper than over the beating of war drums by Washington. Thus far, the Bush administration has gone through the UN Security Council route only to proclaim its right to undertake unilateral action and few in Europe - or the outside world for that matter - believe that Washington is not waiting for the first Iraqi infraction to cry blue murder and the right to intervene, once the troops are ready.

Take the case of the two no-fly zones over Iraq. They were set up without the specific sanction of the UN Security Council and as and when Iraq symbolically fires at these illegal flights, US spokesmen declare that it is an Iraqi breach of the latest UN resolution. The world remains unconvinced that Iraq or President Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat. But the time and attention President Bush and his administration are devoting to Iraq would imply a hidden American agenda.

Hawks in the US administration seem to have convinced President Bush that at the height of Pax Americana, it is in his power to reorder the world, beginning with the Middle East. The plan is to place a puppet in power in Baghdad and control its oil. The whole region would then be at America's mercy and the Palestinians would be fobbed off with a sliver of a make-believe state bound hand and foot to Israel.

In all probability, Nato will not disintegrate like the Soviet Union did; it will wither away, unnoticed by much of the world.

Mushahid Hussain, Khaleej Times, 11/27/02

PARTING with power, even partially, is not easy. To this day, Al Gore laments his narrow loss of the American presidency to George Bush in 2000. And according to Dr Henry Kissinger, president Nixon wept like a child the night before his resignation in August 1974. In Pakistan, power struggles are at the heart of chronic instability in the political system, both among politicians and between the khaki and the mufti.

Given this context, Pakistani leaders need to learn from the wisdom, maturity and statesmanship of the Chinese leadership, which took an historic, unique and unprecedented step of actually parting with power en masse. This was their well thought out and planned transition to a new, younger generation of leaders implemented at last week's 16th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. Last week, Pakistan too had a political transition, similar to the script conceived and followed 17 years earlier by a previous military ruler, General Zia ul Haq.

As in Gen Zia's March 1985 polls, so also in November 2002, a military ruler is presiding over a transition to civilian rule after parliamentary elections following a presidential referendum. All 'checks and balances' are in place, including the Sword of Damocles, i.e. the power to sack the prime minister and parliament. Then too, Pakistan was a 'frontline state' with full support of the United States.

Not surprisingly, already questions are being asked about the longevity of the present political experiment, with assurances coming from day one regarding its capacity to survive its full five-year tenure.

This question, reflecting a lack of faith in the future, stems from the track record of Pakistan's parliaments given the failure to complete their term.

The answer to this question will depend on three aspects. First, the direction of civil-military relations, particularly the willingness of the khaki to give space and autonomy to the civilian government. Otherwise, a needless tussle would ensue over time.

Second, relations among the political forces, especially fostering a democratic attitude of tolerance and respect for the strongest opposition to emerge in Pakistan's political history.

Third, fall-out of the US-led 'war on terror', especially the repercussions of the American manhunt for Al Qaeda and Taleban remnants believed by Washington to have found sanctuary across the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and the impact that the coming war on Iraq may have for regional stability.

Unlike the 1985 non-party parliament though, the 2002 parliament is quite representative of divergent strands of public opinion, from religious radicals to secular nationalists, establishment politicians to militant democrats, plus a large contingent of educated youth, women and the clergy.

In that respect, Pakistan is witnessing both an irony and a paradox, indeed an historical role reversal. In the 1980s, the clergy and the religious right were staunch allies of the military regime, assuming an affinity with the regime's Islamisation and standard-bearers of the Afghan jihad, which was then being bankrolled by American dollars. It was a cosy troika of America, the Army and the religious Right for a whole lot of reasons of Pakistan's domestic and foreign policy.

It was the Left and liberals who opposed that military regime and its policies with an accent on democracy and all that it stands for, i.e., supremacy of the constitution, the rule of law and human rights. These issues were alien to the thinking of the religious Right of that period.

Now, in the present parliament, it is the religious parties conglomerate that has assumed the mantle of upholding somewhat secular issues like the sanctity of the 1973 Constitution, the rule of law and the role of the armed forces in politics, a departure from their ideological politics of the past.

They are in fact staking their claim as defenders of democracy, acting more like the democratic Left and liberals of the 1980s. Even their stance on foreign policy is a throwback to the anti-Americanism of the Left during the Cold War.

Conversely, the Left and liberals had welcomed the October 12 coup, clearly enamoured by the 'liberalism' of the military regime, although such 'liberalism' is more of the cultural rather than the political variety.

This is where the paradox of Pakistan's politics comes in, since most of the political forces prefer to suffer from an historical amnesia in this regard. They welcome the military's intervention, which by its nature is extra-constitutional and then carp when the khaki develops their own agenda.

This has been a predictable but unfortunate pattern of politics in Pakistan, prior to both the 1977 and 1999 military coups, which ousted Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Mohammad Nawaz Sharif respectively. The government-opposition relations break down with a 'them' or 'us' zero-sum-game approach. The party coming to power with the military's blessings outgrows its khaki mentors. The weakened opposition, unable to dislodge its rivals in government, turns to the military for help in ousting its political adversaries by any means, fair or foul. And the military is willing to oblige since it feels its protéges have become 'too big for their boots' and it is looking to mentor new faces.

Pakistan's political culture would progress if all political forces were able to agree on just one point. That in the future, they would never applaud military interventions or eagerly seek khaki support to destabilise and oust elected governments. That would be one sign that political forces are able to accept responsibility for their decisions and they have the capacity to lead on their own, rather than being led.

A strong opposition augurs well for Pakistan, since it will force both the government and opposition to coexist in an atmosphere of tolerance, with more of the political forces now having a stake in the system.

Pakistan's past political travails have nothing to do with the democratic system, which, as the last three years have proven, is badly needed and is certainly better than any military rule. The challenge is to foster democratic attitudes than can make democracy work.

Tuning up for peace in the Middle East
By Richard H. Curtiss, Special to Arab News

Thanks to US Secretary of State Colin Powell, the next show on the international agenda will be headlined by the International Quartet, starring the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. While Israel had anticipated a long postponement of peace negotiations due to a war with Iraq, Powell has circumvented that problem. Now it is time to negotiate the biggest international conundrum of all — Israel and human rights for the Palestinians.

An American lesson
Omaima Al-Jalahma/Al-Watan, Arab News, 11/27/02

It seems that the number of people eager to express their love for us is on the increase these days. The latest on the list is Elizabeth, daughter of US Vice President Dick Cheney. She is leading a State Department-sponsored campaign to bring information to Arab and Muslim women concerning democracy and freedom from an American perspective.

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent http://www.aljazeerah.info