Friday, August 16, 2002

Mayor of Haifa Seeks to Run Against Sharon


JERUSALEM, Aug. 13 — A threat by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to call early elections and the sudden rise of a new political star have combined to fire up that most ardent of Israeli pursuits, domestic electoral politics.

The new star, Amram Mitzna, a retired major general and the two-term mayor of Haifa, formally announced today that he was running for leader of the Labor Party.

He pledged to open talks with the Palestinians "without delay" and without preconditions, including any demands about changes in the Palestinian leadership.

In the two weeks since Mr. Mitzna first disclosed his intention to run, he has created a powerful stir in the Labor Party, whose dispirited rump has been part of Mr. Sharon's governing coalition since the shattering defeat of the last Labor government under Ehud Barak 18 months ago.

On Monday, Mr. Sharon declared that he was prepared to call for a quick election if he continued facing resistance to the 2003 budget. Parliament reconvenes in October, and Israeli law requires 90 days before an election, so the earliest date would be in January. If an early election is not held, Mr. Sharon's term will run through October of next year.

The prime minister issued his warning at a meeting of the foreign affairs and defense committee of Parliament. "Elections are not a good thing now, but we have to pass the budget, which is not easy," he said. "Therefore, if the budget does not pass, it is natural that we should have elections."


Egypt hits at US over 'sham trial'



Egypt said yesterday it would resist an American threat to place a freeze on increases in future economic aid over the imprisonment of a human rights activist.

"Egypt does not accept pressure and will not bow to pressure and everyone knows that," the foreign minister, Ahmed Maher, said.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the Bush administration would oppose giving any new aid to Egypt to protest against the imprisonment of Saadeddin Ibrahim, convicted in July after a retrial on charges including defaming Egypt. Human rights activists in Egypt and abroad condemned the trial procedure as a "sham".

The US move is seen by diplomats in the region as part of a new initiative to encourage democracy in the moderate Arab world.

It would be in line with Washington's calls for more democracy within Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority and its efforts to force a "regime change" in Iraq.

Washington, while throwing its weight behind calls for more human rights in developing states in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and South America, has often been reluctant over several decades to involve itself in the struggle for democracy and human rights in North Africa and the Middle East where economic interests prevail.

Human rights groups have said the Ibrahim verdict is another government blow aimed at undermining Egypt's fragile civil society. But the government has defended what it calls the independence of its judiciary.

Mr Maher described the American threat as an attempt to meddle in Egypt's internal affairs. He said all states should respect the Egyptian judicial system and its rulings "as we respect their justice systems".

THE EMPIRES STRIKES BACK


NEW YORK -- On June 6, President Bush ( news - web sites) ended his address to the nation on homeland security legislation by saying: "History has called our nation into action. ... Will America -- with our unique position and power -- blink in the face of terror, or will we lead to a freer, more civilized world? There's only one answer: This country will lead the world to safety, security, peace and freedom."



It sounded as if our homeland was the whole world. Now that his anti-terrorism legislation has become law, it is obvious that he meant what he said -- and perhaps more. Fast-forward to last week, after he signed the 35-page Homeland Security Act of 2002. These paragraphs are from The New York Times of Aug. 10:

"The Bush administration, making use of the new anti-terrorism law, warned foreign diplomats this week that their nations could lose all military aid if they became members of the International Criminal Court without protecting Americans serving in their countries from its reach ..."

"Under a little-remarked provision in the anti-terrorism package President Bush signed last week, President Uribe (of Colombia) can now use dozens of American-applied helicopters as well as Colombian soldiers who were trained by United States troops in operations against leftist guerrillas. ... Previous guidelines limited the use of the helicopters and soldiers to anti-drug operations."

Two days later, on Aug. 12, The Times reported: "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is considering ways to expand broadly the role of American Special Operations forces in the global campaign against terrorism, including sending them worldwide to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders far from the battlefields of Afghanistan ( news - web sites)."

So, we are not only preparing to get back into the assassination business everywhere in the world, but our trained killers will be immune from any punishment and any questioning not personally approved by Bush and his successors. One way to define the reach of the power the United States thinks it has is to note that only a handful of countries -- Iran, Iraq and Cuba among them -- do not receive some of the billions of dollars a year we spread around in military aid to other countries.

This is our new idea of law and order. Republicans have taken to calling the international court "the rogue court." We have decided to make our stand on a 1950s Cold War view of law. It all seemed so sensible, even moral, until President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 and the public discovered, in congressional hearings in 1975, that our guys were out there trying to kill anyone who disagreed with us, beginning with Fidel Castro ( news - web sites). Judging by that, we will learn what is going on now in about 30 or 40 years -- when it will be too late.

Once again, Congress is signing off on it knows not what. The law passed by the Senate and House also provides that if any country defies us by charging any Americans, military or civilian, the president has the authority to free them by any "necessary and appropriate means" -- up to and including invasion. We could, for instance, invade the Netherlands if international courts charged one of us with conduct unbecoming an American.

Bush Demands Broad Homeland Powers


MOUNT RUSHMORE NATIONAL MEMORIAL, S.D. (AP) - With four presidents staring down at him and one potential rival, Tom Daschle, looking on, President Bush ( news - web sites) on Thursday demanded broad authority to oversee the new Homeland Security Department.

"I don't want our hands tied so we cannot do the number one job you expect, which is to protect the homeland," Bush said.

Just off to Bush's right was Daschle, the Senate majority leader who has clashed with Bush on how much flexibility Bush should have over the proposed department's personnel. Daschle, a Democrat who represents South Dakota, is considering challenging Bush in 2004.

The White House invited Daschle to the event, and Bush went out of his way to welcome him in opening remarks. But Bush also shouted at times, and seemed to look directly at Daschle occasionally, as he outlined an agenda that Daschle has frequently bottled up on Capitol Hill.

Wednesday, August 14, 2002

Stars and Stripes (Read Down to 'America's Leadership')



America's leadership

The sacrifices of military members and their families should be rewarded with fair treatment and honesty from their leaders. Now their safety, job security, and retirement benefits are in jeopardy because top leaders are using deployment decisions as mere profit-making vehicles.

Thomas White, as vice chairman of Enron when it allegedly hid $500 million in losses and manipulated the California energy crisis, is secretary of the Army, even after being cited by the Senate Armed Services Committee for violating his signed ethics agreement. That means he used his position for personal gain and compromised his objectivity for military decisions.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, is now the primary recipient of the Pentagon’s rush to build anti-terrorism military bases, costing taxpayers billions. U.S. military construction units could do all of this work for considerably less. This means more money for Cheney’s friends at Halliburton and less work for military personnel.

Commander-in-chief George W. Bush has made certain that former Enron and energy executives profit from defense and homeland security contracts. His own fortune was made through Enron/WorldCom-type accounting tricks and insider trading that have bankrupted companies and robbed people of their retirement savings. The Bush administration planned to invade Afghanistan even without the tragic events of Sept. 11 because Unocal had found the Taliban too uncooperative in its attempts to build an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Karachi.

Now Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld wants to eliminate an entire Army division, even as we are running out of reservists to backfill critical positions. The Bush team also thinks that it’s too costly for disabled veterans to earn their longevity pay in addition to retirement benefits. But it’s minimal when compared to cost-plus contracts for Halliburton.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and White are a gang of four who have ordered U.S. military members to be put in harm’s way for oil profits and that divisions be consolidated to free up money for private contractors. This administration has overseen a wrecked economy, befriended corporations that robbed their own employees, has tried to put Social Security into a losing stock market, restricted health care for veterans and deployed military members to fatten oil executives’ pockets.

It’s time for leadership the military can trust. It’s time for the gang of four to go!

M.D. Wooldridge
Würzburg, Germany