By William Fisher
This has been a week when the U.S. press was barely able to keep up with new developments in the ‘war on terror’, bewilderment coupled with hubris about changes in the Middle East, one court proceeding denying bail to an American citizen held without charge in Saudi Arabia for nearly three years and a second telling the Department of Justice to either charge another citizen or let him go, a civil liberties lawsuit accusing the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, of being responsible for prisoner abuse, and the release of the State Department’s annual report on civil rights around the world.
So it is not surprising that the recruiting problems facing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sneaked by virtually under the radar.
Two former CIA case officers weighed in on the recruiting problem. Melissa Boyle Mahle, who spent five years as a CIA recruiter, talked about her new book, "Denial and Deception: An Insider's View of the CIA From Iran-Contra to 9/11".
As reported in The Washington Post, Ms. Mahle says “part of the trouble in the CIA's trenches arises from the agency's hermetically sealed office culture, where secrecy and security can become excuses for avoiding risk. She cites the agency's continuing struggles to recruit Arab Americans, Asian Americans and other second-generation immigrants with native speaking ability who might blend more successfully into Third World societies than someone who looks like her.”
As a CIA recruiter, Mahle says she “sent many well-qualified, diverse candidates on for security review, only to see large numbers wash out. While some were rejected for straightforward reasons, such as lying about past drug use, others were turned away because their "psychological profile" did not match the CIA's abstract ideal or because their family and social contacts overseas made their backgrounds hard to scrub.”
"Security has no incentive to take risks," Mahle said.
The result "was best illustrated by a panoramic view of the swearing-in of the first class to enter on duty . . . after September 11; it was a sea of white faces."
And the Council on Foreign Relations magazine, Foreign Policy, the premier publication of its kind, carried an article by Robert Baer, cautioning that “The CIA must cultivate foreign sources, reward service overseas, and tap America’s top students to once again get good information on enemies of the United States.”
Baer, who was a CIA case officer from 1976 to 1997, had some advice for CIA chief Porter Goss -- “recruit on college campuses.” Baer noted an earlier time when the CIA “recruited actively and effectively on college campuses. If a student excelled in an obscure language such as Uzbek and expressed a desire to serve his country, a friendly professor might direct him or her toward Langley. It was a vetting system that helped the CIA attract the best and the brightest. The Vietnam War helped put an end to this system and left in its wake a hostile professoriate. Today, the agency relies too heavily on volunteers who come knocking on the door. Having a booth at college job fairs is no substitute for guidance from university professors and administrators.
“Reviving even an informal feeder system would surely meet resistance. But if
you’re able to reconnect with the country’s top universities and their students,
the rewards will be great down the line. Today, the directorate needs six years
to vet new employees: a year of working at headquarters, a year of training, a
year of language study, and a three-year journeyman tour overseas. For those who prove inadequate along the way, the only recourse is to shunt them off to jobs where they can’t do any harm. Imagine how much better the system would work if the CIA identified the prime talent at the front end,” he said.
He suggested changing the security clearance system. “If you are, say, an American born in Islamabad who happens to have a second cousin working in the Pakistani intelligence service, the chances of getting security clearance to join the agency are close to nil. Third-generation Americans with no known foreign relatives but who have spent much of their lives overseas have a better chance, but the odds are still slim, especially if those overseas years were spent
studying in a place like Cairo.”
Of course, he wrote, “there is always a risk that someone who has studied in Cairo—and picked up an Egyptian girlfriend or boyfriend, and a lot of other Egyptian friends—will have gone over to the dark side. But the CIA and the DO desperately need people who speak foreign languages and who know parts of the world crucial to the United States. To reject such people solely because they aren’t provincial is yet another way the agency cuts off its nose to spite its face.”
“Why give such people any clearance?” he asks. “Because we get a window on the world. Let’s say the CIA hires a young U.S. citizen educated at the American University of Beirut who marries a Saudi girl, and who maybe even converts to Islam and moves to Saudi Arabia to take a job. After five or six years living in the kingdom, he’s sure to speak fluent Arabic and move in circles regular CIA employees can’t even glimpse. He might even get close enough to the fundamentalists to recruit one as a source. This reform would radically alter protocols that have been in place since the CIA was founded in 1947. It will be tough to force through the system, but it is crucial if the CIA hopes to adapt.”
But one of the CIA’s juiciest recruiting targets is proving to be elusive. The Arab-American and Muslim-American communities are, by and large, terrified by even the idea of talking with any U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agencies. While some have come forward – and many of those have been unable to get security clearances – the Islamophobia that has gripped America since 9/11 has created widespread suspicion and fear in these communities.
Leaders of organizations representing Arab- and Muslim-Americans insisted on speaking with this column on condition of anonymity. But their message was unified and clear: “When the FBI or the CIA or the Department of Homeland Security come knocking at your door, you’re more likely to be rounded up and put in jail than offered a job.”
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Are the days of the pharaohs numbered?
The following is an editorial that appeared in The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. It is reproduced here with permission.
"For the first time since the days of the pharaohs, the Egyptian people will choose their ruler," reckons Mohammed Ulwan, the assistant head of the Egyptian opposition Al-Wafd party. Ulwan, using colorful and perhaps exaggerated language, was referring to proposed changes in the Egyptian Constitution, discussed in Parliament on Saturday, which would allow multi-candidate presidential elections.
Until a few days ago, President Hosni Mubarak was opposed to such a move. It was a surprise, then, when the veteran 76-year-old president - on a de facto throne for 23 years now and widely expected to run for a fifth six-year term later this year - did a volte-face on the matter. He has, of course, been encouraged along the way by the United States, which has been pushing hard for democratic reforms throughout the region, and by a political opposition that has recently grown bolder. In explaining this sudden reversal, one Egyptian analyst has suggested Mubarak, in the face of building pressure, "decided it is more dignified and practical to go on the initiative."
Whatever the motivations of the Egyptian president may be, the fact remains that, in the Arab context, this is a landmark development, albeit a long-overdue one. The eggshell of the status quo has been pierced - and it has indeed been a very tough eggshell to crack. Herein lies the caveat to optimism: No details are known about the proposed constitutional amendments, and they are unlikely to be known for months.
However, well-founded speculation has it that restrictions on who can run as a presidential candidate are likely to apply, and this raises the specter that Mubarak's "dignified and practical initiative" could end up being little more than a disguise to further state control. What is being presented in the interests of political reform could, in fact, be revealed as a monster if it is naught but democratic window dressing while the existing seat of political power remains effectively unchallenged.
Thus it is important at this crucial juncture for the opposition to participate in the reform process, and not just protest. There is no excuse for not doing so, and they must make their efforts public. Ayman Nour, the jailed leader of the opposition Ghad party, broke off his hunger strike on Saturday at the news of Mubarak's announcement. While obvious displays of commitment are valuable, the collective opposition must engage the evolving Egyptian political process with constructive contributions that will see the promise of change fulfilled.
At the end of the day, it is both wise and encouraging to realize the reform process that appears to have begun in Egypt - although only the first step in the proverbial 1,000-mile marathon - can only be brought to fruition by Egyptians. As with January's elections in Iraq, it is Egyptians braving the odds who will make their political system more pluralistic and open.
"For the first time since the days of the pharaohs, the Egyptian people will choose their ruler," reckons Mohammed Ulwan, the assistant head of the Egyptian opposition Al-Wafd party. Ulwan, using colorful and perhaps exaggerated language, was referring to proposed changes in the Egyptian Constitution, discussed in Parliament on Saturday, which would allow multi-candidate presidential elections.
Until a few days ago, President Hosni Mubarak was opposed to such a move. It was a surprise, then, when the veteran 76-year-old president - on a de facto throne for 23 years now and widely expected to run for a fifth six-year term later this year - did a volte-face on the matter. He has, of course, been encouraged along the way by the United States, which has been pushing hard for democratic reforms throughout the region, and by a political opposition that has recently grown bolder. In explaining this sudden reversal, one Egyptian analyst has suggested Mubarak, in the face of building pressure, "decided it is more dignified and practical to go on the initiative."
Whatever the motivations of the Egyptian president may be, the fact remains that, in the Arab context, this is a landmark development, albeit a long-overdue one. The eggshell of the status quo has been pierced - and it has indeed been a very tough eggshell to crack. Herein lies the caveat to optimism: No details are known about the proposed constitutional amendments, and they are unlikely to be known for months.
However, well-founded speculation has it that restrictions on who can run as a presidential candidate are likely to apply, and this raises the specter that Mubarak's "dignified and practical initiative" could end up being little more than a disguise to further state control. What is being presented in the interests of political reform could, in fact, be revealed as a monster if it is naught but democratic window dressing while the existing seat of political power remains effectively unchallenged.
Thus it is important at this crucial juncture for the opposition to participate in the reform process, and not just protest. There is no excuse for not doing so, and they must make their efforts public. Ayman Nour, the jailed leader of the opposition Ghad party, broke off his hunger strike on Saturday at the news of Mubarak's announcement. While obvious displays of commitment are valuable, the collective opposition must engage the evolving Egyptian political process with constructive contributions that will see the promise of change fulfilled.
At the end of the day, it is both wise and encouraging to realize the reform process that appears to have begun in Egypt - although only the first step in the proverbial 1,000-mile marathon - can only be brought to fruition by Egyptians. As with January's elections in Iraq, it is Egyptians braving the odds who will make their political system more pluralistic and open.
Friday, February 25, 2005
LET’S ‘C’
By William Fisher
Let’s C.
C is for Cat? Car? Connecticut?
No. Not even close.
Culture?
You’re getting warmer. Hint: You wear it.
Aha, the dreaded ‘C-word’: CONDOM!
The mere utterance is likely to lead to another battle in the culture wars.
But there: I’ve said it.
Which is more than the Bush Administration is prepared to do.
That’s what I discovered while surfing another bunch of C’s – the CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I was Googling for some pre-travel health advice, and stumbled across something called “The Yellow Book”, which the CDC website tells me contains information for international travelers. It says its “Travelers' Health” section “is one of the CDC's most-visited websites…considered by many to be the gold standard on travel information”. I learn it has been “expanded to offer new information on scuba diving safety, high altitude travel, travelers with special needs, and traveling with children.”
So I click and navigate to the site, where I am diverted by the words “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”. There, “Travelers Health” offers the following advice to people infected with HIV:
“The importance of safe sex practices should be emphasized to the HIV-infected traveler to prevent other sexually transmitted diseases, avoid transmission of HIV to others, and prevent acquisition of different HIV strains that may limit therapeutic options (e.g., non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are not active against HIV-2). Bringing a personal supply of condoms may be advisable, as the quality and availability of condoms can be unreliable in parts of the developing world (italics ours).”
But then I realize I’m reading the 2001-2002 edition, and learn that “The Yellow Book” is updated every two years.
So in “search within results” I type “2003-2004”.
Now, I’m in the most up-to-date spot.
I again navigate to “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”, where I find the following advice for HIV-infected travelers:
“Travel, particularly to developing countries, can carry substantial risks for exposure to opportunistic pathogens…especially those who are severely immunosuppressed. Discussing the itinerary with a health-care provider may identify area- and activity-specific risks that can be addressed. Patients should identify sources of medical care in the planned destination before departure and seek medical attention promptly when ill.”
It continues: “Because antiretroviral medications are not available in many parts of the world, patients should bring an adequate supply of their medications, along with copies of prescriptions. Attention should be given to refrigeration of medications. For extended visits, travelers should consult with their providers in advance regarding a plan for maintaining appropriate medical follow-up and supplies of medications. Avoid changes in the medication regimen shortly before travel, to ensure that no side effects or complications of a new regimen occur while traveling.”
But I have the sneaky feeling that there’s something wrong with this picture.
Aha! The dreaded “C-word” has disappeared. No more CONDOMS.
Why am I not surprised? Because what I’m being given to read follows a familiar pattern of the Bush Administration. The CDC website has been changed to push conservative ideology.
It’s not the first time either. For example, the President has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. As a result, a CDC initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its website. All five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only”. CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its website.
Information about condom use and efficacy was also deleted from the CDC website. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
And the President’s “just say no” agenda also extends overseas. He has pledged $15 billion in an “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief”, designed to provide support to the 15 African, Caribbean, and Southeast Asian nations most affected by HIV/Aids. But providing condoms is not part of the program. The Bush Administration has also renewed a ban on providing aid funds to overseas groups that help pregnant women, if they so much as discuss abortion.
Still, I’m disappointed. The website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is visited by millions of people looking for the most cutting edge information and advice. It’s a pity that the Bush Administration continues to delete science and substitute information designed to avoid offending his evangelical base.
Well, it’s just your tax dollars at work!
Let’s C.
C is for Cat? Car? Connecticut?
No. Not even close.
Culture?
You’re getting warmer. Hint: You wear it.
Aha, the dreaded ‘C-word’: CONDOM!
The mere utterance is likely to lead to another battle in the culture wars.
But there: I’ve said it.
Which is more than the Bush Administration is prepared to do.
That’s what I discovered while surfing another bunch of C’s – the CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I was Googling for some pre-travel health advice, and stumbled across something called “The Yellow Book”, which the CDC website tells me contains information for international travelers. It says its “Travelers' Health” section “is one of the CDC's most-visited websites…considered by many to be the gold standard on travel information”. I learn it has been “expanded to offer new information on scuba diving safety, high altitude travel, travelers with special needs, and traveling with children.”
So I click and navigate to the site, where I am diverted by the words “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”. There, “Travelers Health” offers the following advice to people infected with HIV:
“The importance of safe sex practices should be emphasized to the HIV-infected traveler to prevent other sexually transmitted diseases, avoid transmission of HIV to others, and prevent acquisition of different HIV strains that may limit therapeutic options (e.g., non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are not active against HIV-2). Bringing a personal supply of condoms may be advisable, as the quality and availability of condoms can be unreliable in parts of the developing world (italics ours).”
But then I realize I’m reading the 2001-2002 edition, and learn that “The Yellow Book” is updated every two years.
So in “search within results” I type “2003-2004”.
Now, I’m in the most up-to-date spot.
I again navigate to “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”, where I find the following advice for HIV-infected travelers:
“Travel, particularly to developing countries, can carry substantial risks for exposure to opportunistic pathogens…especially those who are severely immunosuppressed. Discussing the itinerary with a health-care provider may identify area- and activity-specific risks that can be addressed. Patients should identify sources of medical care in the planned destination before departure and seek medical attention promptly when ill.”
It continues: “Because antiretroviral medications are not available in many parts of the world, patients should bring an adequate supply of their medications, along with copies of prescriptions. Attention should be given to refrigeration of medications. For extended visits, travelers should consult with their providers in advance regarding a plan for maintaining appropriate medical follow-up and supplies of medications. Avoid changes in the medication regimen shortly before travel, to ensure that no side effects or complications of a new regimen occur while traveling.”
But I have the sneaky feeling that there’s something wrong with this picture.
Aha! The dreaded “C-word” has disappeared. No more CONDOMS.
Why am I not surprised? Because what I’m being given to read follows a familiar pattern of the Bush Administration. The CDC website has been changed to push conservative ideology.
It’s not the first time either. For example, the President has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. As a result, a CDC initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its website. All five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only”. CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its website.
Information about condom use and efficacy was also deleted from the CDC website. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
And the President’s “just say no” agenda also extends overseas. He has pledged $15 billion in an “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief”, designed to provide support to the 15 African, Caribbean, and Southeast Asian nations most affected by HIV/Aids. But providing condoms is not part of the program. The Bush Administration has also renewed a ban on providing aid funds to overseas groups that help pregnant women, if they so much as discuss abortion.
Still, I’m disappointed. The website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is visited by millions of people looking for the most cutting edge information and advice. It’s a pity that the Bush Administration continues to delete science and substitute information designed to avoid offending his evangelical base.
Well, it’s just your tax dollars at work!
‘EXTREME RENDITION’
By William Fisher
Since long before 9/11, U.S. mainstream media regarded reporting on the practice of ‘extreme rendition’ as a kind of Third Rail of American Journalism. But accounts of widespread prisoner abuse, ghost detainees, testimony from freed prisoners, dissident weblogs, and secret government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, have sounded a noisy wake-up call to the Fourth Estate.
In just the past week alone, the return to the U.S. of a 23-year-old American citizen, Ahmed Abu Ali, from secret detention in Saudi Arabia, has triggered major mainstream media coverage and editorials in the powerful New York Times and Washington Post, and a major article in Newsweek magazine. A week earlier, The New Yorker magazine published a long and detailed article, “Outsourcing Torture” by Jane Mayer, leading with the ‘extreme rendition’ of a Canadian citizen from the U.S. to Syria, where he alleges he was tortured.
Commenting on the Abu Ali case, The Washington Post editorial declared, “The courts need to ensure that no evidence obtained by torture -- with or without the connivance of the U.S. government -- is used to convict people in U.S. courts.” The New York Times editorial said, “In an undisciplined attempt to wring statements out of any conceivable suspect, American officials have worked with countries like Saudi Arabia, a nation whose attitude toward human rights is deplorable, and Syria, which is counted by Washington as a state sponsor of terrorism. And now these officials are faced with the problem of what to do with these prisoners, most of whom have proved to be no use to interrogators, but who remain on America's conscience.”
These and a flurry of other news accounts have been generated by prisoner abuses by the U.S. military and its contractors at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan, in suspected secret ‘interrogation centers’ run by the U.S. overseas, and by first-person accounts provided by prisoners freed from or still held in prisons in Egypt, Syria, Guantanamo Bay, and other locations.
President Bush has asserted that “the values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being.”
Before 9/11, many mainstream U.S. journalists and editors knew of the ‘extreme rendition’ practice, and reported on testimony on the subject before Congressional committees by the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) and other government units. Prior to 9/11, ‘extreme rendition’ was thought to be practiced by the C.I.A. only; post-9/11 cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement has now also implicated the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.).
But, while human rights advocacy groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union, have been outspoken in their condemnation of ‘extreme rendition’, U.S. press coverage has been sporadic, and infrequent stories did not stir up public sentiment. One of the notable exceptions has been the Washington Post, which has written on the subject frequently and recently exposed the C.I.A.’s ‘secret airline’ used to move prisoners to countries where they would very likely face torture. International coverage has been even less visible, with the exception of The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
Now, many of the ‘rendered’ prisoners are suing the U.S. Government, thus generating still more news. For example, the Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, alleges he was detained at New York JFK International Airport by U.S. Government authorities enroute back to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia, sent first to Jordan and then to Syria, where he was held for ten months without charge and tortured in detention. The parents of Ahmed Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen, claim their son was held in a Saudi jail for 20 months without charge – and tortured – while the U.S. State and Justice departments claimed no involvement in his detention, and the Saudis claimed they were holding him at the behest of the U.S. As the parents pursued his release in court in the face of ‘secret evidence’, the U.S. government brought him back to America in their custody and charged him with conspiring to assassinate President Bush.
Other suits involve U.S. citizens held by the American military, Australians held at Guantanamo Bay, and a German national spirited off to detention in Afghanistan.
While the total numbers of those “rendered” during the Bush Administration are unknown, former C.I.A. director George Tenet testified to the 9/11 Commission in October 2002 that more than 70 people had been subjected to renditions prior to September 11, 2001. That number is thought to have increased substantially post-9/11.
While public reaction still falls far short of an ‘outcry’, the ‘rendition’ issue has now worked its way to Congress. Last week, U.S. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, introduced legislation that would end the practice. His bill, the “Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act", requires the State Department to annually compile a list of countries believed to torture and mistreat detainees and prohibits the United States from sending individuals to those countries. It also rejects current State Department practice of obtaining assurances from a country known to torture that it will not torture a particular individual.
Introducing the bill last week, Rep. Markey said, “Extraordinary rendition is wrong because it: violates international treaties that the United States has signed and ratified, including most notably Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits sending a person to another state “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” The practice, he charged, “Undermines the moral integrity of America in the eyes of the world (and) ensures that American captives are likely to be tortured by others out of reciprocity, regardless of the urgency of the pleas of our government or the victim’s family.”
Torture, Markey said, “is morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong whether it captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people.”
The bill does permit legal, treaty-based extradition, in which suspects have the right to appeal in a U.S. court to block the proposed transfer based on the likelihood that they would be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment.
Since long before 9/11, U.S. mainstream media regarded reporting on the practice of ‘extreme rendition’ as a kind of Third Rail of American Journalism. But accounts of widespread prisoner abuse, ghost detainees, testimony from freed prisoners, dissident weblogs, and secret government documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, have sounded a noisy wake-up call to the Fourth Estate.
In just the past week alone, the return to the U.S. of a 23-year-old American citizen, Ahmed Abu Ali, from secret detention in Saudi Arabia, has triggered major mainstream media coverage and editorials in the powerful New York Times and Washington Post, and a major article in Newsweek magazine. A week earlier, The New Yorker magazine published a long and detailed article, “Outsourcing Torture” by Jane Mayer, leading with the ‘extreme rendition’ of a Canadian citizen from the U.S. to Syria, where he alleges he was tortured.
Commenting on the Abu Ali case, The Washington Post editorial declared, “The courts need to ensure that no evidence obtained by torture -- with or without the connivance of the U.S. government -- is used to convict people in U.S. courts.” The New York Times editorial said, “In an undisciplined attempt to wring statements out of any conceivable suspect, American officials have worked with countries like Saudi Arabia, a nation whose attitude toward human rights is deplorable, and Syria, which is counted by Washington as a state sponsor of terrorism. And now these officials are faced with the problem of what to do with these prisoners, most of whom have proved to be no use to interrogators, but who remain on America's conscience.”
These and a flurry of other news accounts have been generated by prisoner abuses by the U.S. military and its contractors at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in Afghanistan, in suspected secret ‘interrogation centers’ run by the U.S. overseas, and by first-person accounts provided by prisoners freed from or still held in prisons in Egypt, Syria, Guantanamo Bay, and other locations.
President Bush has asserted that “the values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being.”
Before 9/11, many mainstream U.S. journalists and editors knew of the ‘extreme rendition’ practice, and reported on testimony on the subject before Congressional committees by the Central Intelligence Agency (C.I.A.) and other government units. Prior to 9/11, ‘extreme rendition’ was thought to be practiced by the C.I.A. only; post-9/11 cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement has now also implicated the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.).
But, while human rights advocacy groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights First, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Civil Liberties Union, have been outspoken in their condemnation of ‘extreme rendition’, U.S. press coverage has been sporadic, and infrequent stories did not stir up public sentiment. One of the notable exceptions has been the Washington Post, which has written on the subject frequently and recently exposed the C.I.A.’s ‘secret airline’ used to move prisoners to countries where they would very likely face torture. International coverage has been even less visible, with the exception of The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut.
Now, many of the ‘rendered’ prisoners are suing the U.S. Government, thus generating still more news. For example, the Canadian citizen, Maher Arar, alleges he was detained at New York JFK International Airport by U.S. Government authorities enroute back to Canada from a vacation in Tunisia, sent first to Jordan and then to Syria, where he was held for ten months without charge and tortured in detention. The parents of Ahmed Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen, claim their son was held in a Saudi jail for 20 months without charge – and tortured – while the U.S. State and Justice departments claimed no involvement in his detention, and the Saudis claimed they were holding him at the behest of the U.S. As the parents pursued his release in court in the face of ‘secret evidence’, the U.S. government brought him back to America in their custody and charged him with conspiring to assassinate President Bush.
Other suits involve U.S. citizens held by the American military, Australians held at Guantanamo Bay, and a German national spirited off to detention in Afghanistan.
While the total numbers of those “rendered” during the Bush Administration are unknown, former C.I.A. director George Tenet testified to the 9/11 Commission in October 2002 that more than 70 people had been subjected to renditions prior to September 11, 2001. That number is thought to have increased substantially post-9/11.
While public reaction still falls far short of an ‘outcry’, the ‘rendition’ issue has now worked its way to Congress. Last week, U.S. Representative Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, introduced legislation that would end the practice. His bill, the “Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act", requires the State Department to annually compile a list of countries believed to torture and mistreat detainees and prohibits the United States from sending individuals to those countries. It also rejects current State Department practice of obtaining assurances from a country known to torture that it will not torture a particular individual.
Introducing the bill last week, Rep. Markey said, “Extraordinary rendition is wrong because it: violates international treaties that the United States has signed and ratified, including most notably Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits sending a person to another state “where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” The practice, he charged, “Undermines the moral integrity of America in the eyes of the world (and) ensures that American captives are likely to be tortured by others out of reciprocity, regardless of the urgency of the pleas of our government or the victim’s family.”
Torture, Markey said, “is morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong whether it captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people.”
The bill does permit legal, treaty-based extradition, in which suspects have the right to appeal in a U.S. court to block the proposed transfer based on the likelihood that they would be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
THE FUTURE OF ASHCROFT’S LEGACY
By William Fisher
Civil libertarians are wondering if America’s new attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, will repeat one of the legacies left by his predecessor, John Ashcroft: razzle-dazzle news conferences announcing the arrests of terrorists, followed by trials in which no one is charged or tried for any terror-related offenses.
The latest chapter in this legacy is the conviction of Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an
Iraqi-American oncologist, who was convicted last week on 59 of 60 counts, including violating economic sanctions against Iraq, Medicare fraud and tax evasion.
The government alleged that Dr. Dhafir illegally raised millions of dollars and violated U.S sanctions by sending funds to Iraq through his charity -- "Help the Needy" – and also diverted some of these funds for his personal use.
He is thought to be the only U.S citizen convicted of breaking the Iraq sanctions, though other organizations such as Voices in the Wilderness, Veterans for Peace, Pax Christi USA, the American Friends Service Committee, the Order of St Dominic (Dominican priests), Conscience International, Global Exchange, and the International Action Center, have admitted breaking the sanctions with Iraq since before the U.S. invasion.
When Dhafir was arrested in upstate New York in February 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft trumpeted the arrest as part of President Bush's war on terror. He said, “Those who covertly seek to channel money into Iraq under the guise of charitable work will be caught and prosecuted. As President Bush leads an international coalition to end Saddam Hussein's tyranny and support for terror, the Justice Department will see that individuals within our borders cannot undermine these efforts.”
And New York Governor George Pataki declared, 'It is again troubling to see…that there are clear terrorists living here in New York State among us...who are supporting or aiding and abetting those who would destroy our way of life and kill our friends and neighbors.'
But no terrorism charges were ever bought against Dr. Dhafir. A member of Dhafir’s defense team, Joel Cohen, believes that his client “was clearly targeted, clearly investigated, clearly indicted, tried, and clearly convicted because he is a Muslim, (and) because he is a person of Iraqi ancestry….”
The judge in Dhafir’s case denied a defense motion to allow mention of Dhafir’s religion or refer to terrorism during the trial.
David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an internationally recognized legal authority on civil liberties, believes the Dhafir case is emblematic of a pattern created by the Ashcroft Justice Department.
“Not one person of the more than 5,000 locked up as a foreign national in preventive detention by John Ashcroft was ever convicted of a terrorist crime. The only convictions have been of U.S. citizens. John Ashcroft labeled them as suspected terrorists, but it turned out they had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever, “ Cole said.
In his end-of-year speech to DOJ employees, Ashcroft said “375 people have been charged in terror-related cases over the past three years and 190 have been convicted or pleaded guilty.”
But, according to Cole, “what Ashcroft doesn't say is that most of those people are not indicted on anything to do with terrorism. What he doesn't say is that a Syracuse University research department looked at Justice Department figures found that the median sentence imposed on persons convicted for crimes in cases that the DOJ labeled as terrorism was 14 days. Now, 14 days is not the kind of sentence you get if you're convicted of terrorism. It's the kind of sentence you get if you're convicted of some completely petty crime.”
The Ashcroft DOJ has brought several other high-profile prosecutions. Among them is the case of “The Lackawanna Six”. Arrested in the Yemeni community of this old steel town in upstate New York, the six young men were charged under the federal anti-terrorism statute with providing material support to al-Quaida which, prior to September 11, 2001, had been designated by the Secretary of State as a “foreign terrorist organization.”
Specifically, the men were charged with providing “material support” in the form of training. The training consisted of paying for a uniform, attending the training camp where they learned to use weapons, and standing guard duty. The charges against them also specified viewing videotapes of the bombing of the USS Cole and speeches by Osama Bin-Laden.
None of the defendants engaged in acts that were, at the time, obviously criminal in nature. It was not until several months after their return from Afghanistan that planes crashed into the World Trade Center. The six young men agree to plead guilty to providing "material support" to al Qaeda. Prosecutors said the defendants belonged to a terrorist "sleeper cell."
"One by one," President Bush declared after the arrests, "we're hunting the killers down." Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson said the arrests showed terrorism was not limited to large cities. "It lurks in small towns and rural areas," he said.
But, according to defense attorneys, the defendants pled guilty because the federal government implicitly threatened to send them to a military prison without trial. Instead, they accepted prison terms of 61/2 to 9 years. But prosecutors never offered evidence that the Lackawanna defendants intended to commit an act of terrorism.
In another high-profile case, known as the "Detroit terror cell prosecution," a US federal judge threw out the June 2003 convictions of three Detroit-area men accused of being members of a terrorist “sleeper operational combat cell.”
The ruling came at the request of the Justice Department itself. The department admitted that prosecutors railroaded the defendants to prison, concealing dozens of pieces of exculpatory evidence that should have been given to defense attorneys during the trial.
Until their dismissal, the Detroit convictions were the only successful post-9/11 terror-related prosecutions, and had been hailed by administration officials and cited as one of the Justice Department’s “notable achievements”.
In his ruling, the judge said that in its “ruthless drive to convict Arab and Islamic suspects”, the DOJ “overcame not only its professional judgment, but its broader obligations to the justice system and the rule of law.”
As White House counsel, Ashcroft’s successor, Alberto Gonzales, was deeply involved in recommending policy options to President Bush for conducting the ‘war on terror’, as well as in the issue of what constitutes torture of prisoners.
First as a U.S. Senator and then as Attorney General, John Ashcroft was always a controversial firebrand. By contrast, Alberto Gonzales is soft-spoken and seemingly more contemplative. But, given his loyalty to the president and the administration’s unrelenting commitment to defeating the terrorists, it may be a stretch to think that there will be any fundamental change in the DOJ.
Civil libertarians are wondering if America’s new attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, will repeat one of the legacies left by his predecessor, John Ashcroft: razzle-dazzle news conferences announcing the arrests of terrorists, followed by trials in which no one is charged or tried for any terror-related offenses.
The latest chapter in this legacy is the conviction of Dr. Rafil Dhafir, an
Iraqi-American oncologist, who was convicted last week on 59 of 60 counts, including violating economic sanctions against Iraq, Medicare fraud and tax evasion.
The government alleged that Dr. Dhafir illegally raised millions of dollars and violated U.S sanctions by sending funds to Iraq through his charity -- "Help the Needy" – and also diverted some of these funds for his personal use.
He is thought to be the only U.S citizen convicted of breaking the Iraq sanctions, though other organizations such as Voices in the Wilderness, Veterans for Peace, Pax Christi USA, the American Friends Service Committee, the Order of St Dominic (Dominican priests), Conscience International, Global Exchange, and the International Action Center, have admitted breaking the sanctions with Iraq since before the U.S. invasion.
When Dhafir was arrested in upstate New York in February 2003, Attorney General Ashcroft trumpeted the arrest as part of President Bush's war on terror. He said, “Those who covertly seek to channel money into Iraq under the guise of charitable work will be caught and prosecuted. As President Bush leads an international coalition to end Saddam Hussein's tyranny and support for terror, the Justice Department will see that individuals within our borders cannot undermine these efforts.”
And New York Governor George Pataki declared, 'It is again troubling to see…that there are clear terrorists living here in New York State among us...who are supporting or aiding and abetting those who would destroy our way of life and kill our friends and neighbors.'
But no terrorism charges were ever bought against Dr. Dhafir. A member of Dhafir’s defense team, Joel Cohen, believes that his client “was clearly targeted, clearly investigated, clearly indicted, tried, and clearly convicted because he is a Muslim, (and) because he is a person of Iraqi ancestry….”
The judge in Dhafir’s case denied a defense motion to allow mention of Dhafir’s religion or refer to terrorism during the trial.
David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and an internationally recognized legal authority on civil liberties, believes the Dhafir case is emblematic of a pattern created by the Ashcroft Justice Department.
“Not one person of the more than 5,000 locked up as a foreign national in preventive detention by John Ashcroft was ever convicted of a terrorist crime. The only convictions have been of U.S. citizens. John Ashcroft labeled them as suspected terrorists, but it turned out they had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever, “ Cole said.
In his end-of-year speech to DOJ employees, Ashcroft said “375 people have been charged in terror-related cases over the past three years and 190 have been convicted or pleaded guilty.”
But, according to Cole, “what Ashcroft doesn't say is that most of those people are not indicted on anything to do with terrorism. What he doesn't say is that a Syracuse University research department looked at Justice Department figures found that the median sentence imposed on persons convicted for crimes in cases that the DOJ labeled as terrorism was 14 days. Now, 14 days is not the kind of sentence you get if you're convicted of terrorism. It's the kind of sentence you get if you're convicted of some completely petty crime.”
The Ashcroft DOJ has brought several other high-profile prosecutions. Among them is the case of “The Lackawanna Six”. Arrested in the Yemeni community of this old steel town in upstate New York, the six young men were charged under the federal anti-terrorism statute with providing material support to al-Quaida which, prior to September 11, 2001, had been designated by the Secretary of State as a “foreign terrorist organization.”
Specifically, the men were charged with providing “material support” in the form of training. The training consisted of paying for a uniform, attending the training camp where they learned to use weapons, and standing guard duty. The charges against them also specified viewing videotapes of the bombing of the USS Cole and speeches by Osama Bin-Laden.
None of the defendants engaged in acts that were, at the time, obviously criminal in nature. It was not until several months after their return from Afghanistan that planes crashed into the World Trade Center. The six young men agree to plead guilty to providing "material support" to al Qaeda. Prosecutors said the defendants belonged to a terrorist "sleeper cell."
"One by one," President Bush declared after the arrests, "we're hunting the killers down." Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson said the arrests showed terrorism was not limited to large cities. "It lurks in small towns and rural areas," he said.
But, according to defense attorneys, the defendants pled guilty because the federal government implicitly threatened to send them to a military prison without trial. Instead, they accepted prison terms of 61/2 to 9 years. But prosecutors never offered evidence that the Lackawanna defendants intended to commit an act of terrorism.
In another high-profile case, known as the "Detroit terror cell prosecution," a US federal judge threw out the June 2003 convictions of three Detroit-area men accused of being members of a terrorist “sleeper operational combat cell.”
The ruling came at the request of the Justice Department itself. The department admitted that prosecutors railroaded the defendants to prison, concealing dozens of pieces of exculpatory evidence that should have been given to defense attorneys during the trial.
Until their dismissal, the Detroit convictions were the only successful post-9/11 terror-related prosecutions, and had been hailed by administration officials and cited as one of the Justice Department’s “notable achievements”.
In his ruling, the judge said that in its “ruthless drive to convict Arab and Islamic suspects”, the DOJ “overcame not only its professional judgment, but its broader obligations to the justice system and the rule of law.”
As White House counsel, Ashcroft’s successor, Alberto Gonzales, was deeply involved in recommending policy options to President Bush for conducting the ‘war on terror’, as well as in the issue of what constitutes torture of prisoners.
First as a U.S. Senator and then as Attorney General, John Ashcroft was always a controversial firebrand. By contrast, Alberto Gonzales is soft-spoken and seemingly more contemplative. But, given his loyalty to the president and the administration’s unrelenting commitment to defeating the terrorists, it may be a stretch to think that there will be any fundamental change in the DOJ.
HOW TO PACK FOR OVERSEAS TRAVEL
By William Fisher
The website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers further evidence that the Bush Administration continues to delete science and substitute information designed to avoid offending his conservative base.
Every two years, the CDC issues its “Yellow Book”, which contains information for international travelers. It says its “Travelers' Health” section “is one of CDC's most-visited websites and is updated as new information becomes available.”
In its 2001-2002 edition, under the heading “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”, “Travelers Health” offered the following advice to people infected with HIV:
“The importance of safe sex practices should be emphasized to the HIV-infected traveler to prevent other sexually transmitted diseases, avoid transmission of HIV to others, and prevent acquisition of different HIV strains that may limit therapeutic options (e.g., non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are not active against HIV-2). Bringing a personal supply of condoms may be advisable, as the quality and availability of condoms can be unreliable in parts of the developing world (italics ours).”
But by the time of the 2003-2004 edition, the script had changed. The “C-word” had disappeared.
The 2003-2004 edition advised HIV-infected travelers that “Travel, particularly to developing countries, can carry substantial risks for exposure to opportunistic pathogens…especially those who are severely immunosuppressed. Discussing the itinerary with a health-care provider may identify area- and activity-specific risks that can be addressed. Patients should identify sources of medical care in the planned destination before departure and seek medical attention promptly when ill.”
It continued: “Because antiretroviral medications are not available in many parts of the world, patients should bring an adequate supply of their medications, along with copies of prescriptions. Attention should be given to refrigeration of medications. For extended visits, travelers should consult with their providers in advance regarding a plan for maintaining appropriate medical follow-up and supplies of medications. Avoid changes in the medication regimen shortly before travel, to ensure that no side effects or complications of a new regimen occur while traveling.”
The CDC, part of the Department of Health Human Services, declares the “Yellow Book” is “considered by many to be the gold standard on travel information” and notes it has been expanded to offer new information on scuba diving safety, high altitude travel, travelers with special needs, and traveling with children.
It says the 2003-2004 edition includes “new health topics”, including “New recommendations for preventing malaria; changes in vaccine recommendations for travelers; changes in recommendations for insect repellent use; expanded text motion sickness and travel-related injury, and; improved maps and expanded indexing.”
The change follows a familiar Bush Administration pattern. The CDC website has been changed a number times to reflect conservative ideology.
For example, the President has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. As a result, a CDC initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its website. All five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only”. CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its website.
Information about condom use and efficacy was also deleted from the CDC website. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
The President’s “just say no” agenda also extends overseas. He has pledged $15 billion in an “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief”, designed to provide support to the 15 African, Caribbean, and Southeast Asian nations most affected by HIV/aids. But providing condoms is not part of the program. The Bush Administration has also renewed a ban on providing aid funds to overseas groups that help pregnant women, if they so much as discuss abortion.
The website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) offers further evidence that the Bush Administration continues to delete science and substitute information designed to avoid offending his conservative base.
Every two years, the CDC issues its “Yellow Book”, which contains information for international travelers. It says its “Travelers' Health” section “is one of CDC's most-visited websites and is updated as new information becomes available.”
In its 2001-2002 edition, under the heading “Sexually Transmitted Diseases”, “Travelers Health” offered the following advice to people infected with HIV:
“The importance of safe sex practices should be emphasized to the HIV-infected traveler to prevent other sexually transmitted diseases, avoid transmission of HIV to others, and prevent acquisition of different HIV strains that may limit therapeutic options (e.g., non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are not active against HIV-2). Bringing a personal supply of condoms may be advisable, as the quality and availability of condoms can be unreliable in parts of the developing world (italics ours).”
But by the time of the 2003-2004 edition, the script had changed. The “C-word” had disappeared.
The 2003-2004 edition advised HIV-infected travelers that “Travel, particularly to developing countries, can carry substantial risks for exposure to opportunistic pathogens…especially those who are severely immunosuppressed. Discussing the itinerary with a health-care provider may identify area- and activity-specific risks that can be addressed. Patients should identify sources of medical care in the planned destination before departure and seek medical attention promptly when ill.”
It continued: “Because antiretroviral medications are not available in many parts of the world, patients should bring an adequate supply of their medications, along with copies of prescriptions. Attention should be given to refrigeration of medications. For extended visits, travelers should consult with their providers in advance regarding a plan for maintaining appropriate medical follow-up and supplies of medications. Avoid changes in the medication regimen shortly before travel, to ensure that no side effects or complications of a new regimen occur while traveling.”
The CDC, part of the Department of Health Human Services, declares the “Yellow Book” is “considered by many to be the gold standard on travel information” and notes it has been expanded to offer new information on scuba diving safety, high altitude travel, travelers with special needs, and traveling with children.
It says the 2003-2004 edition includes “new health topics”, including “New recommendations for preventing malaria; changes in vaccine recommendations for travelers; changes in recommendations for insect repellent use; expanded text motion sickness and travel-related injury, and; improved maps and expanded indexing.”
The change follows a familiar Bush Administration pattern. The CDC website has been changed a number times to reflect conservative ideology.
For example, the President has consistently supported the view that sex education should teach “abstinence only” and not include information on other ways to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. As a result, a CDC initiative called “Programs That Work” identified sex education programs that have been found to be effective in scientific studies and provided this information through its website. All five “Programs That Work” provided comprehensive sex education to teenagers, and none were “abstinence-only”. CDC has now ended this initiative and erased information about these proven sex education programs from its website.
Information about condom use and efficacy was also deleted from the CDC website. The CDC replaced a comprehensive fact sheet on condoms with one emphasizing condom failure rates and the effectiveness of abstinence.
The President’s “just say no” agenda also extends overseas. He has pledged $15 billion in an “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief”, designed to provide support to the 15 African, Caribbean, and Southeast Asian nations most affected by HIV/aids. But providing condoms is not part of the program. The Bush Administration has also renewed a ban on providing aid funds to overseas groups that help pregnant women, if they so much as discuss abortion.
Democracy Comes Knocking in Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine
The article below was written by Rami G. Khouri, Executive Editor of The Daily Star newspaper in Beirut. It is published here with the permission of the author.
By Rami G. Khouri
Some exciting and important forces are exerting themselves in parts of the Middle East, and some historic occupation-liberation dynamics are taking place in other parts of this region - and it is important not to mix up these two very different things.
A wave of analyses from many parts of Europe and North America is suddenly trumpeting events in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Egypt as part of a common awakening in which Arabs and Muslims are asserting their humanity and dignity by voting in elections or demanding more democratic rights. That is only partly correct. We have three very different historical and political processes at work here, and they may well end up one day at the same final destination of stable, democratic and prospering societies. I hope so, as do the many people in this region who have worked for this goal for many decades, at great personal danger to themselves in most cases.
So the first point to be made from within this region is that it is a refreshing treat to hear foreign governments and analysts now commonly advocating and applauding democratization forces in this region, instead of feeding the tyrants who jailed and killed democrats. I hope that the wave of promoting democracy, freedom and free market economics is not, like its predecessor era of propping up criminals and thugs, merely a transient and self-serving phase that fits the needs of the times as seen from Washington, London, Paris and Moscow.
The second point to be made is that domestic autocracy or tyranny and foreign occupation are equally bad but very different contexts. Iraq and Afghanistan are the easiest of the five situations to decipher. Evil regimes there were removed by the force of foreign armies, and the natives are being given a chance to reshape their societies through Western-style elections.
These are noble and historic endeavors, though still deeply controversial as to their origin, implementation, intent and consequence. Time will tell how they evolve.
The Palestinians are a unique case for they have suffered the longest foreign military occupation of the past three generations of world history.
So they continue to battle the Israeli occupation with all means available to them, from diligent self-improvement and acquiescent complacency, to nonviolent protest and active diplomacy, to armed struggle against Israeli troops and terror against Israeli civilians. Palestinian society for decades has been prevented from enjoying democratic elections primarily because of the Israeli occupation. In the meantime, Palestinian political life has almost always been defined by an impressive component of pluralism and internal checks-and-balances, with some obvious lapses here and there, to be sure.
To applaud the Palestinians for suddenly practicing democracy in their recent elections is hypocritical nonsense and slightly insulting to boot. Those who know and follow the Palestinian people would know that the will to live in decency and dignity has been a defining national and personal characteristic for all the decades that these people have been occupied by Israel, ignored by the Arab states, or duped by Western and Eastern powers.
The impressive Palestinian historical struggle for freedom against Israeli usurpation and occupation, and simultaneously against Western powers' colonial manipulations, towers over the recently held Palestinian presidential election like the Empire State Building towers over a U.S. Postal Service mailbox in central New York.
The conduct of the Lebanese and Egyptians is probably the most noteworthy and truly historic of the five cases mentioned above. For here we have people truly fighting against enormous local odds, at great danger to themselves, to live in freedom, equality, opportunity and dignity.
Egyptians in small numbers are challenging the desire of their president, Hosni Mubarak, to run for a fifth consecutive six-year term. His inclination to be a president-for-life, with a ruling party and security sector that perpetuate their control of all major aspects of political, economic and military life, is an insult to the right of ordinary Egyptians and other Arabs to be treated like adults, rather than children. Egyptians have had enough of executive authority that is not rotated peacefully and regularly, for this results in mediocrity, stagnation, corruption, national deterioration and degradation of the human spirit itself - all of which are clearly visible in contemporary Egypt. The slogan used by those who oppose Mubarak's fifth term is "enough."
Tellingly, that same word "enough" this week also appeared on posters and walls all around Beirut, where ordinary Lebanese and political leaders alike have launched an impressive rebellion against the present Lebanese government and the Syrian regime that is its selector, patron and backer. As has happened in Egypt, a threshold of fear of incumbent government authorities - both Syrian and Lebanese, in this case - has been shattered. The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri accelerated to a historic pitch the now widespread, explicit and vocal calls for the Syrians to leave Lebanon and the Lebanese government to resign.
This is a rare genuine grassroots, populist, spontaneous Arab movement to change an existing power structure, and so it is qualitatively significant in terms of modern Arab political history. Perhaps the most significant aspect of it is that it is also the first contemporary instance of Arabs defining their political values, goals and activism, boldly setting out to build a better society, and then seeing Western powers support them in their endeavor. This sure beats U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld giving aid to ensure Saddam Hussein's survival in the 1980s and then sending in the Marines two decades later to remove him from power.
By all means, then: Bring on democracy, support Arab democrats, oppose Arab autocrats, end Israeli occupation, promote Arab self-determination and, above all, please, make a reasonable effort to recognize the differences, and relationships, among all the above.
By Rami G. Khouri
Some exciting and important forces are exerting themselves in parts of the Middle East, and some historic occupation-liberation dynamics are taking place in other parts of this region - and it is important not to mix up these two very different things.
A wave of analyses from many parts of Europe and North America is suddenly trumpeting events in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Egypt as part of a common awakening in which Arabs and Muslims are asserting their humanity and dignity by voting in elections or demanding more democratic rights. That is only partly correct. We have three very different historical and political processes at work here, and they may well end up one day at the same final destination of stable, democratic and prospering societies. I hope so, as do the many people in this region who have worked for this goal for many decades, at great personal danger to themselves in most cases.
So the first point to be made from within this region is that it is a refreshing treat to hear foreign governments and analysts now commonly advocating and applauding democratization forces in this region, instead of feeding the tyrants who jailed and killed democrats. I hope that the wave of promoting democracy, freedom and free market economics is not, like its predecessor era of propping up criminals and thugs, merely a transient and self-serving phase that fits the needs of the times as seen from Washington, London, Paris and Moscow.
The second point to be made is that domestic autocracy or tyranny and foreign occupation are equally bad but very different contexts. Iraq and Afghanistan are the easiest of the five situations to decipher. Evil regimes there were removed by the force of foreign armies, and the natives are being given a chance to reshape their societies through Western-style elections.
These are noble and historic endeavors, though still deeply controversial as to their origin, implementation, intent and consequence. Time will tell how they evolve.
The Palestinians are a unique case for they have suffered the longest foreign military occupation of the past three generations of world history.
So they continue to battle the Israeli occupation with all means available to them, from diligent self-improvement and acquiescent complacency, to nonviolent protest and active diplomacy, to armed struggle against Israeli troops and terror against Israeli civilians. Palestinian society for decades has been prevented from enjoying democratic elections primarily because of the Israeli occupation. In the meantime, Palestinian political life has almost always been defined by an impressive component of pluralism and internal checks-and-balances, with some obvious lapses here and there, to be sure.
To applaud the Palestinians for suddenly practicing democracy in their recent elections is hypocritical nonsense and slightly insulting to boot. Those who know and follow the Palestinian people would know that the will to live in decency and dignity has been a defining national and personal characteristic for all the decades that these people have been occupied by Israel, ignored by the Arab states, or duped by Western and Eastern powers.
The impressive Palestinian historical struggle for freedom against Israeli usurpation and occupation, and simultaneously against Western powers' colonial manipulations, towers over the recently held Palestinian presidential election like the Empire State Building towers over a U.S. Postal Service mailbox in central New York.
The conduct of the Lebanese and Egyptians is probably the most noteworthy and truly historic of the five cases mentioned above. For here we have people truly fighting against enormous local odds, at great danger to themselves, to live in freedom, equality, opportunity and dignity.
Egyptians in small numbers are challenging the desire of their president, Hosni Mubarak, to run for a fifth consecutive six-year term. His inclination to be a president-for-life, with a ruling party and security sector that perpetuate their control of all major aspects of political, economic and military life, is an insult to the right of ordinary Egyptians and other Arabs to be treated like adults, rather than children. Egyptians have had enough of executive authority that is not rotated peacefully and regularly, for this results in mediocrity, stagnation, corruption, national deterioration and degradation of the human spirit itself - all of which are clearly visible in contemporary Egypt. The slogan used by those who oppose Mubarak's fifth term is "enough."
Tellingly, that same word "enough" this week also appeared on posters and walls all around Beirut, where ordinary Lebanese and political leaders alike have launched an impressive rebellion against the present Lebanese government and the Syrian regime that is its selector, patron and backer. As has happened in Egypt, a threshold of fear of incumbent government authorities - both Syrian and Lebanese, in this case - has been shattered. The assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri accelerated to a historic pitch the now widespread, explicit and vocal calls for the Syrians to leave Lebanon and the Lebanese government to resign.
This is a rare genuine grassroots, populist, spontaneous Arab movement to change an existing power structure, and so it is qualitatively significant in terms of modern Arab political history. Perhaps the most significant aspect of it is that it is also the first contemporary instance of Arabs defining their political values, goals and activism, boldly setting out to build a better society, and then seeing Western powers support them in their endeavor. This sure beats U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld giving aid to ensure Saddam Hussein's survival in the 1980s and then sending in the Marines two decades later to remove him from power.
By all means, then: Bring on democracy, support Arab democrats, oppose Arab autocrats, end Israeli occupation, promote Arab self-determination and, above all, please, make a reasonable effort to recognize the differences, and relationships, among all the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
