Jan 25, 2003 Op Eds

Jan 25, 2003 Opinion Editorials http://www.aljazeerah.info

The British government must have blown a fuse when French President Jacques Chirac announced on Thursday that he has invited Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe to take part in a summit in Paris with other African leaders to promote justice, human rights and democracy.

The invitation flies in the face of the EU travel ban on Mugabe and 71 other members of the Zimbabwean regime, imposed last February along with a freeze on their assets, because of the ruling party’s violence and intimidation in last year’s controversial presidential elections. The ban expires on Feb. 18, the day before the summit, but it is certain to be renewed.

For France to so brazenly flout an EU decision can hardly do the cause of European unity any good. But that is a minor consideration compared to the moral issues raised. It looks as if France is intent on courting a man whom not only the UK, which has led the campaign to isolate Zimbabwe, but the rest of the EU too and indeed much of the world regard as a tyrant. Africa may disagree, if less from conviction as from a desire not to be part of a seemingly British-orchestrated campaign, but it is impossible not to be appalled at Mugabe’s doings. He has trampled democracy and human rights underfoot, destroyed his country’s economy — its performance is the worst in Africa — and now uses famine to starve those did not vote for him into submission.

There are two ways of looking at what the French are up to. One that they hope to profit from the row between Zimbabwe and Britain in order to gain political and economic influence, not just in Harare but in southern Africa as a whole. The other is that they genuinely want to prevent a crisis from becoming a catastrophe. Up to seven million Zimbabweans face starvation. Or possibly it is both; Anglo-French political and economic rivalry in Africa is as much alive today as it was when they were busy carving up the continent between them.

Ever since his party won the National Assembly elections last summer and freed him from the shackles of cohabitation with a socialist government, President Chirac has been keen to play the role of world leader on a par with George Bush — but independent of him. France’s stance on Iraq is evidence of that.

Yesterday’s Ivory Coast peace deal in Paris, brokered by the French, shows that France has much to contribute to resolving disputes elsewhere in the world, although it is early days yet as to whether that deal will work. Nonetheless, if French diplomacy can now go on to heal divisions in Zimbabwe then it will deserve the reward of increased economic ties. But it will be a miracle if it can. South Africa, with far more influence over Zimbabwe than anyone else, has tried to mediate between Mugabe and the opposition and has so far failed completely. Its plan that Mugabe go into exile in return for the opposition joining the ruling Zanu-PF party in government has been rejected out of hand by Mugabe.

Unfortunately, whatever France’s intentions, he will use his invitation to Paris to claim that he has international support. That will not help those who oppose him — which is regrettable. The fact remains that no one who opposes Mugabe is safe from being beaten up, tortured, imprisoned or worse. Zimbabwe is not going to see justice, human rights and democracy, or for that matter peace and prosperity, while he remains in power.

Make anti-war demonstrations work

By Fouad Mardoud

Syria Times, 19-1-2002

How does not it make sense of the conflicting news about Washington's real intention on war against Iraq. Looking at the scenes of thousands and thousands of American troops and arms pouring into the region, one would conclude that war is imminent and unstoppable. But contemplating the damaging consequences of a third Gulf war on world stability and peace, one would also conclude that it will be unwise for a superpower like the United States to launch a war against a small country and jeopardize the world security only to satisfy the greed of war advocates within the Bush Administration.

Only yesterday, millions of people took to the streets around the world condemning Washington's plans to wage an unjustifiable war against Iraq. Even ordinary Americans were justifiably wondering whether President George W. Bush's administration is heading into or out of a quagmire.

Understandably true, the Iraqis are trying to turn the world sympathy to their advantage as an important factor in their attempt to avoid war against their country. What is happening now around the world from China in the east to a large segment of the American society is understandable and easy to explain. The international outrage against the American plans on war stems from Washington's ruthless assault on the world will. There is no reason for war against Iraq. Baghdad's cooperation with the UN inspectors who have visited more than four hundred sites in the last few weeks was well and satisfactory, stressing that it hoped the United Nations would take over the task of solving world differences in a more peaceful way.

It seems that such hopes were plainly overoptimistic, but the world standoff with the American intentions may provide the most practical shield against a vengeful administration. The escalation of anti-war demonstrations around the world will make it clear for war-advocates in Washington that they are no longer able to drive things into war channels any time they want and in the way they choose.

Since the UN Security Council resolution 1441 pertains to search for mass destruction weapons in Iraq and destroy them ذ if there any, any military action against that Arab country would require a new Council resolution. It should not be beyond diplomatic wit to find language and solutions that would help solve the crisis between Washington and Iraq, and within the framework of a democratic system of international relations.

US war decision!

By R. Zein

Syria Times, 19-1-2002

Only less than ten days ahead of Jan. 27, the date considered by Washington as decisive in respect with the final report by UN arms inspectors on Iraq's alleged possession of "mass destruction weapons."

The American Administration of President George Bush has seemingly cornered itself after accepting to resort to the UN Security Council which issued resolution 1441. Washington did so because it was of the strong belief that it could prepare itself politically and militarily and compel the world into launching an unjust war on Iraq under the pretext that Baghdad is in breach of such resolution. So far, and after 50 days of intensive inspection operations across Iraq, the Bush Administration has failed to find a single internationally-marketed pretext to launch the war.

The Administration has succeeded only in beefing up a military build-up in the Gulf, unprecedented in the US history. The huge troops deployment is unfortunately escalated at a time when almost all members of the world community are refusing the war and when waves of protests world-wide continued to denounce America's military and arrogant drive.

The flagrant drive against Iraq is seen having nothing to do with the UN resolution nor with the results of the inspection teams operations as an aggression is premeditated irrespective of anything else.

Washington virtually wants to further plunder Iraq's oil and wealth and prevent it from recovery lest it should go back to the Arab fold strong and united. When the American Administration persists in achieving its sinister objectives and in defying the world community and its prestigious resolutions, it will soon find itself out of the entire community and of the international legitimacy which, as Washington alleges, is its basic pillar. In case the war is launched, the US will certainly pay a heavy price and the grave repercussions will have no mercy on any party, including the Americans who will be among the first losers.

Will reason and logic domain, and will the decision of war be given up for the interests of the peoples in the entire region and the world at large?

Middle East countries pass the buck again

The Daily Star, 1/25/03

After much haggling, the six countries that met in Istanbul in a bid to defuse the Iraq crisis pulled up well short of their stated objective. What might have been a powerful statement was too diluted to have any real impact. The document places onuses on Baghdad and the United Nations but leaves the other principal, Washington, free to play its own tune. More importantly, the signatories failed utterly to take responsibility for regional security. Instead of staking their claim to the problem and acknowledging their duties with regard to solving it, they handed it back to the rest of the world. That sort of behavior has played a large role in raising the threat of war in the first place.
The participants might still surprise everyone by meeting again to craft a more assertive stand on the matter, but this is no time for undue optimism. The fact that they agreed to meet again in Damascus “when required” is cold comfort in light of how little they managed to achieve in Istanbul. Apart from being hosted by a regime with fewer qualms than Turkey’s about offending the United States, why should a conference in Syria be any more productive?
Nonetheless, the possibility exists that the events of Thursday evening will serve as a learning experience, especially for the government that initiated the process. Even with Damascus as the setting, Ankara can and should continue to cast a long shadow over efforts to prevent hostilities in the Gulf. The Arab countries have proven incapable of unity at the best of times, so it was probably unfair to have expected it of them now; and Tehran’s relations with Washington are a major obstacle to its taking the lead on this issue. That leaves the Turks who, incidentally, have more to lose than almost anyone except the Iraqis themselves.
The economic damage that a new war in the Gulf stands to wreak on Turkey should be more than enough incentive for its government to grasp the nettle. Preventing a meltdown that could cost millions of jobs is eminently more urgent than sparing America’s feelings.
There is a major obstacle to such a sterile cost-benefit analysis, however: The party that currently governs Turkey has Islamist roots and so has been particularly cautious about how it is viewed by the United States. That is perfectly understandable, and the Justice and Development Party is to be commended for having taken action on a variety of matters left to rot by its many secular predecessors. The list includes human rights, which are (publicly at least) near and dear to Washington’s heart. Ankara should keep in mind that it might therefore have hitherto unsuspected amounts of diplomatic capital at its disposal.
Another relationship is on the line as well. Turkey’s campaign to reconcile with the Arab world will be off to an inauspicious beginning if it begins with a joint effort that falls flat because the parties can’t recognize the irrelevance that must follow inaction. If the countries of the Middle East are unable or unwilling to deal with the region’s problems themselves, they have no right to demand that others refrain from meddling.

Lebanon: Clueless on Iraq

By Michael Young

Turkey’s prime minister, Abdullah Gul, may look like a budget version of Rafik Hariri, but he hosted an old-fashioned Ottoman parley on Wednesday at Istanbul’s Ciragan palace, and Lebanon was not there.
This was made unnecessary by the visit to Beirut of Syrian foreign minister Farouq al-Sharaa, whom Lebanon has appointed custodian of its foreign relations. To ensure the Lebanese remembered their place, Sharaa was escorted by Ghazi Kenaan, the head of Syria’s political security service, who used his homecoming to warn local grandees against further quarrels.
Though one can thank the Syrians for their efforts, it was astonishing that Lebanon did not insist on joining the Istanbul collective. The bickering between Hariri and the president, Emile Lahoud, helped little, but even they have occasionally united when the interests of the state were threatened. And an Iraq war threatens Lebanon almost as much as it does others in the region.
Economically, a war may raise serious questions in the minds of donor states that pledged loans at the “Paris II” conference. While a portion of the funds has come in, the near certainty of war could interrupt the process. Since the economy is reliant on the Paris II loans, an indefinite delay in their arrival, coupled with deadlock in the domestic reform effort, would be disastrous.
There are also sectoral interests at stake. Lebanese industry is highly reliant on the Iraqi market. An economist has estimated the total annual volume of exports to Iraq, including goods exported directly and re-exported through Syria, at $400 million. If the figure is accurate, it means Iraq takes in more than two-thirds of total industrial exports, which a war would interrupt. Industrialists as well as the banks financing them would suffer greatly.
Politically, too, Lebanon can expect to pay a price. Indeed, it has already started doing so: instructions for calm from Syria have frozen the political game at a time when movement is required to reform the economic system and proceed with privatization. Lebanon is burdened with an unchangeable caretaker government, and the ensuing strain has led the Hariri and Lahoud factions to engage in the bitterest mutual sniping in years.
Down south the situation is equally volatile. Hizbullah’s attack in the Shebaa Farms earlier this week might have, paradoxically, reduced pressure (and the civilian population by one), since the party got an attack out of its system before an Iraq war. However, the prospect of a Gulf conflict might open many an uncertain door in the border area, as Israel or Hizbullah seeks to take advantage of regional fluidity afterward.
One would have thought the Lebanese could make their anxiety known by dispatching the foreign minister, Mahmoud Hammoud, to Turkey, if only to justify the word “foreign” in his otherwise specious title. And would the Syrians really have rebuffed Lebanese insistence, since another valuable voice could have been added to the regional chorus of Cassandras?
In its latest issue, Time magazine has a list of countries that will be affected by an Iraq war. The list is titled “the view from the neighborhood,” and includes such remote outposts as Kyrgyzstan. The one exception is Lebanon; Lebanon evidently has no view. The judgment may at first seem harsh. Take an extra minute, though, to see how accurate it is.
Youssef Ibish died last weekend, probably with the distinctive grunt that hid great kindness, uncommon brilliance and a devastating sense of humor. Wherever he’s going, he’ll probably light a cigarette upon arrival, and shoo the ethereal dissenters away.

Michael Young writes a regular column for THE DAILY STAR

Regional players have difficulty ‘treading a fine line’ over Iraq

An Arab press review, By The Daily Star, 1/25/03

While the Middle East’s heavyweights have been registering their collective opposition to war on Iraq, the general feeling reflected in the Arab press is that the chances of preventing an American assault on the country appear to be receding.
The statement issued by the foreign ministers of Turkey, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan after their conference in Istanbul does nothing to dispel that impression. They endorsed a slightly amended version of a statement drafted by Turkey that had been obtained earlier by the Lebanese daily As-Safir, essentially putting the onus on Baghdad to avoid war by heeding UN orders to disarm and taking unspecified steps to “inspire confidence” in its policies and promote “national reconciliation” at home.
As-Safir remarks that in formulating their “regional initiative on Iraq,” the conferees tried to tread a fine line between “warning Iraq without insulting its regime and urging the US to restrain itself without giving the impression that Iraq’s neighbors are forging an alliance against Washington.” The fact that their deliberations went on well into the night indicates that “they indeed found it difficult” to find the appropriate formula, the paper says.
A number of Arab papers report that some journalists covering the conference got a brief chance to eavesdrop on the closed-door deliberations when they were mistakenly given access to interpreters’ headphones. They heard, among other things, the Iranian minister stress that war must be prevented for the Iraqi people’s sake, his Syrian counterpart urge the conference to issue a “solemn” anti-war declaration, and their Saudi opposite number argue against any mention of the Palestine question in the closing statement. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher was overheard arguing that the Istanbul gathering should not be treated as a meeting of Iraq’s neighbors but as a regional convention, that there is no need for a follow-up meeting, and that the participants should “encourage” Iraq to be more “cooperative.”
An insight into official thinking in Cairo may be provided by Ibrahim Nafie, editor in chief of official Egyptian daily Al-Ahram and a confidant of President Hosni Mubarak, who on the morning after the Istanbul meeting runs a front-page editorial blasting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, essentially blaming him for any US invasion and hinting heavily though not in so many words that he can only avoid war by relinquishing power.
Nafie pulls few punches in his lengthy diatribe, which he begins by emphasizing the efforts, exerted by Egypt and other regional players, to prevent war.
“But in my estimation, the issue is no longer merely one of exerting regional efforts or proposing various initiatives,” he writes. “For the American-British military buildup and the way in which the Iraqi regime has been behaving and managing the crisis indicate that Saddam has not changed.” The Iraqi leader has been “pushing things to the brink,” while “regaling us with rhetoric about victory and vanquishing the enemies, hurling out accusations left and right, and inciting the Arab peoples against their rulers.”
This, Nafie says, is the same kind of behavior that brought Iraq catastrophe in the past, and typical of Saddam’s contemptuous attitude to fellow Arab countries that try to lend Iraq a hand. He goes on to recall how the Iraqi leader tried to isolate Egypt in the Arab world during the 1980s, the subsequent “savage murders” of Egyptian expatriates in Iraq, his 1990 invasion of Kuwait, his refusal to pull out to avoid war in 1991 and his failure to make amends since.
Arab countries later tried to encourage Baghdad to “close the Kuwait invasion dossier” by restoring ties with it, and have worked hard to prevent the US from launching another war on Iraq, Nafie adds. “With Egypt and Saudi Arabia at the forefront,” they refused to let the US use their air bases, and despite the “tangible tensions” that caused in their relations with Washington, continued to hold out for a peaceful solution to the crisis.
Nafie adds that having finally been persuaded to readmit and cooperate with UN arms inspectors, Iraq was expected to make peace overtures to Kuwait. Instead, Saddam addressed a speech to the Kuwaitis replete with “threats and slander,” and then “proclaimed defiance” once again with a speech vowing that Iraq would defeat the US. He proceeded to accuse the UN inspectors of spying before “reverting to likening the Americans to the Mongols and promising them death on the walls of Baghdad.”
“All of this indicates that the Iraqi president is still living with the pre-1990 mentality,” Nafie writes. His rhetoric serves only “the Arab satellite TV pundits who join him in deceiving the Iraqi people and pushing things toward another war,” especially now that “the main world powers are beginning to draw closer to the American-British position.”
“It is essential for the Iraqi regime to do something to show that it has indeed changed, for the sake of the fraternal Iraqi people. What concerns us are the people, not the regime. A president cannot sacrifice his people for the sake of his political survival, but should make the country’s interests his priority,” he says. “We await a courageous initiative from the Iraqi president to defuse the crisis.
“So will the Iraqi president come up with the initiative that is expected of him, and thereby defuse the confrontation and spare his people the horrors of a military campaign waged by the world’s premier power? Or will he persist with futile obduracy and defiance, for disaster to strike a second time?” Nafie asks.
In the UAE daily Al-Khaleej, Assayed Zahra says the first priority of the Arab states should be to make clear to Washington that they will not support it against Iraq.
He has mixed feelings about the Istanbul parley, arguing that the venue was inappropriate because Turkey has “known designs” on northern Iraq, is likely to be a major launching pad for a US invasion and maintains a “strategic alliance” with Israel. Nevertheless, the meeting was important as a forum for the major regional states to warn of the dangers of war, and make clear that if the US embarks on military action it will not be for their sake or in their name but in pursuit of its own selfish interests.
When the position of the regional states is added to that taken by major world players like France, Germany, Russia and China, “the US administration ought to understand that it stands alone against all the big powers in the region and the world, as well as against the peoples of the world,” he says.
Raghida Dergham, New York bureau chief for the Saudi-run pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat, writes that Arab governments and Iraq’s neighbors have been “wavering between enticing Saddam Hussein to step down or tempting the army command to depose the regime, and positioning themselves to save face with the Arab public by blaming Saddam Hussein alone for any US invasion of Iraq because he turned down offers to avoid one.”
She suggests that France may have inadvertently undermined their endeavors by taking a forceful stand against unilateral US action. Paris’ posture was “helpful” in terms of opposing an invasion but may have been “harmful” by easing the pressure on the Iraqi leadership to come to terms with “realistic options.”
France reiterated that what’s required in Iraq is disarmament and not regime change, at a time when the countries of the region are “searching for a way out of war based essentially on the regime bowing out, either peacefully or by being deposed,” Dergham says. That gave Baghdad a weapon to use against them and relieved it of international pressure.
But she suggests that France’s efforts and those of other opponents of US policy can at most only buy some time for Iraq. Indeed, their endeavors might backfire by strengthening the advocates of those in Washington who want the US to act quickly and without UN authorization
The US administration has clearly decided to link Iraq’s disarmament to regime change. “Some countries in the region understood the American policy and decided to help bring about by political means what Washington wants to achieve militarily namely, the demise of the regime in Iraq.”
Dergham expects the UN Security Council to “get the message” soon. Just as it took protracted negotiations to eventually persuade the council to endorse Resolution 1441 unanimously, more lobbying and the member states’ eagerness not to wreck their bilateral ties with Washington “will soon help shut the door to diplomacy,” she predicts.
As-Safir editor Joseph Samaha writes that the countdown to war is gathering pace and it could be “only a few days before the infernal machine is unleashed.” He notes that the UN arms inspectors are due to submit their report on Monday. The following day President George W. Bush is due to deliver his State of the Union address while Israelis (probably) re-elect Bush’s “man of peace,” Ariel Sharon, as their prime minister. And three days later, Bush is to hold a “council of war” with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the eve of the Security Council debate on Iraq.
The “tone” employed by the arms inspectors in their report will be important, Samaha writes. They have become increasingly critical of Baghdad, and while they have not explained precisely how it has “underperformed,” the US will find a way to invoke their findings to justify upping the ante in Bush’s speech.
The Security Council will then discuss whether to extend the inspectors’ mission, as France, Russia, Germany and others want. They will argue that the world can live with the status quo a little longer, and the US and Britain will reply that Baghdad was given a “last chance” and didn’t take it. The Americans fear that agreeing to more inspections may make war impossible and force regime change off the agenda, “and they will go to great lengths to ‘explain’ their viewpoint as Bush did yesterday: He used to say ‘Saddam is a dangerous man with dangerous weapons.’ Now he says ‘Saddam is a dangerous, dangerous man with dangerous, dangerous weapons!’”
Samaha says it was curious how, in rallying NATO support for its war effort, the US encountered resistance from traditionally ultra-loyal Turkey but got most support from newly admitted East European members like Poland. “If this split develops it could have important and unpredictable strategic ramifications,” Samaha says. “Anyone who doesn’t believe that should have seen Colin Powell’s face when he tried to excuse Donald Rumsfeld’s diatribe against ‘old Europe.’”
Pan-Arab Al-Quds al-Arabi editor Abdelbari Atwan contrasts the strong anti-war stand adopted by key European players with the way Arab governments have been “sending their foreign ministers on pilgrimage to Istanbul to seek the protection of the ‘grand vizier,’ in the hope of finding a fig leaf to conceal their dereliction of their duty to protect a fellow Arab Muslim country facing extermination.”
He says it is not surprising that the Americans have taken to openly “blackmailing” the Europeans over Iraq, as Senator Richard Lugar did when he warned France and Russia that if they want a stake in Iraq’s oil they will have to join the US war effort. “The Americans are behaving as though they’ve already occupied Iraq and are distributing the spoils among the allies, each in accordance with their role in the coming war,” he remarks.
Atwan also takes to task those Iraqi opposition politicians who, in the hope of winning favor with the Americans, “have opted to be the nucleus of the new Iraqi Contras.” He urges them to learn a lesson from history: When the Mongols laid siege to Baghdad, their leader, Hulagu, promised to spare some of the inhabitants if they would open the city gates to them and act as guides. But once he captured it, he ordered the collaborators all killed before proceeding to slaughter the rest of the population.
Nor did the Mongol advance stop at Baghdad, Atwan recalls. “The new Hulagu will also proceed to other Arab capitals, one after the other, and will show no mercy to their submissive rulers,” he says.

Uncertain future for Nato
Gulf News, 25-01-2003
-

The confirmation that Lord Robertson will stand down as Secretary General of Nato at the end of the year brings back into focus the need for the organisation to find a new role. After the collapse of communism, its defined purpose, which was limited strictly to mutual defence, seemed to have become more academic than useful.

   However, at the celebration of its 50th anniversary, Nato gave itself new rights to act to support peace keeping and other functions in the areas around the member states. This move was specifically encouraged by the need to act in the former Yugoslavia, but had wider implications.

   A few years later, Robertson became the only Nato Secretary General to invoke the treaty for mutual defence when the U.S. was attacked on September 11, 2001. However, although Nato forces have been active in Afghanistan, the increasing desire by the U.S. to go it alone in its own search to put the world to rights has sidelined Nato, along with the UN and several other multi-national bodies. The world certainly needs an international military force. All round the world armies are operating in peace keeping or peace enforcing roles, but most of the new ventures are not under the UN or Nato authority.

   Nato remains the most sophisticated international military alliance, and as such it is the easiest forum with which to muster a coherent international force. However, the U.S. does not want to give it any political independence in such ventures and is unwilling to use it unless it is clearly is support of an American initiative.

   Nato should be clearer about its own role, and withdraw from being giving American ventures international support. It should stick to its original role of mutual defence for member states, which would also leave the field clear for the United Nations to develop the multinational force which the world still needs.

Fleeing Muslims chase the Canadian odds
By Nihal Kaneira, Gulf News, 25-01-2003
-

Once again a section of the Arab and Muslim community in the United States is on the run. This time, the people running are mostly young undocumented Arab and Muslim men belonging to 25 Middle East and Asian countries, who have been living there for years, hoping to become citizens and live the American dream.

Suddenly, that dream has turned into a nightmare, and thousands of them have taken to their heels, heading to the Canadian border in the hope of avoiding possible detention and deportation in the United States.

Already, some 2,300 Arabs and Muslims have arrived at border posts in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and the Maritime province of New Brunswick. Huddled under blankets to keep out the winter cold, they are coming - some with families in tow, but many without - to seek political asylum or to become refugees, just to stay out of the reach of U.S. Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS).

Hundreds more are reportedly on the move and are expected to be knocking on doors at Canadian immigration centres along the border over the next several weeks. The biggest rush is at the immigration offices outside Buffalo, the border town at Niagara Falls, and Lacolle, just outside Montreal in Quebec.

They are the closest crossing points for people fleeing from U.S. in the North East. They hitch a ride with friends or travel by Greyhound bus to these places, walk across the border and file asylum applications at the immigration centres. The shelter houses at these crossing points are said to be overflowing these days with these asylum seekers.

The immediate cause for this exodus of Arabs and Muslims is a call made by the INS last month, requiring all undocumented 16 and over male nationals from 25 countries in Middle East and Asia, including Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Morocco, Yemen, Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Kuwait, to register within certain deadlines set for different nationality groups.

Some deadlines expired last month, a few have been extended. Others are due to expire at the end of this month and the next.

The registration apparently started off well with thousands of "out of status" aliens from the designated countries dutifully reporting at INS centres as requested. Then reports started filtering back to immigrant communities that some of the people who reported for the registration have been detained for immigration violations, and have been ordered deported.

Within days, instead of heading to INS centres, many of these "out of status" Arabs and Muslims have opted to run to Canada, carrying their valuables in carry-on luggage.

This week INS officials confirmed that some1,169 men who reported for the special registration have been detained, nearly twice as many as the number that they had acknowledged last month.

According to INS, some were held for a day or two and released with instructions to appear for deportation hearings. Others were held for longer periods. But 170 have been ordered detained indefinitely, pending completion of their investigations.

The detentions have sparked protests and demonstrations, but the INS is not budging. To be sure, some deadlines have been extended to facilitate the registration, but the department also added five more nations to the initial 20, which means more 'out of status' aliens will be on the run soon.

"Our lives have been turned upside down," says a Pakistani woman who had flown to Toronto from New York to meet her husband who is among those seeking asylum in Canada, and asked not to be identified.

"Sure, my husband has overstayed his visa. But then there are millions of other illegal residents in the U.S. who are not being subjected to this registration. Why does he have to run? He would be quite willing to register if he has some assurance that he would not be detained and deported."

She said that her husband was awaiting an immigration hearing on his application for legal residency when the INS announced the new registration programme. He wanted to heed the call, but when word got to him that illegal immigrants who went to register were being detained and deported, he decided his best option would be to go to Canada.

"My husband cannot go back to Pakistan. He has no one there. His family and friends are in New York ," the woman added.

Some of the people who have sought asylum in Canada have said that the men detained are mostly Arab and Muslims who responded to the call for the registration in December and January. Almost all of them are being held for immigration violations, and their fate would be decided at deportation hearings.

In the view of the U.S. Justice Department, the INS has launched the registration process as a way to track tens of thousands of undocumented visitors from countries that the United States considered security risks because they believe they harbour large numbers of Al Qaida members.

But the widespread fear and confusion caused by the detentions is prompting many to flee the country. "Once again this is a nervous time for Muslims in the United States." explains Mohammed Khadir, a Muslim activist in Toronto. "Rather than wait for the inevitable, many Pakistanis have chosen to run, jump into buses and head North. Their only hope is asylum in Canada."

But not everyone is assured of getting asylum in Canada. With Osama bin Laden's recent threat to include Canada as a target for his Al Qaida still hanging in the air, this is a sobering time even in Canada.

Immigration authorities are under strict orders to be extra careful in the screening of asylum applicants, and naturally, they run criminal background checks before admitting any newcomers. Those who flunk - immigration sources say some have - are returned to the United States or turned over to American immigration at the border station.

Fortunately, the failures are few and far between and close to 65 per cent of the applicants are reportedly getting through. This is not surprising considering that many of the Arabs and Muslims arriving in Canada are bona fide immigrants who have overstayed their visas in the United States, or people who have lost papers or have applications for residency pending.

Also among them are illegal immigrants who had been living there for five or six years, people who had applied for permanent residency under a 2001 amnesty law. But the processing of their applications had been delayed by post-September 11 investigations or because of the massive INS reorganisation.

Such immigrants are now in legal limbo - on the verge of obtaining green cards, yet still subject to deportation until that day arrives.

Rather than risk being deported, they are coming to Canada, either to wait here until they know the fate of their applications or 'until things cool down' in the United States, or because they have extended family there and want to remain close to them from Canada.

In Canada, the asylum seekers whose applications are accepted are allowed to continue on to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver and wait out the year-long series of asylum hearings. Some of them may still face deportation because under a new agreement that Ottawa concluded recently with Washington on asylum seekers and refugees coming to Canada via the United States, the rejected applicants have to be returned to U.S. authorities for deportation from there.

For people running in desperation, it seems a risk worth taking. For they say that the alternative is possible detention and deportation immediately, if they volunteer for the INS registration.

"Either way, it is a gamble," Mohammed Khadir points out. "Maybe in Canada they have slightly better odds. If they are fortunate enough to get asylum - and many will get asylum - they have a better than even chance of going back to where they came from, sooner or later."

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.