Biological and Chemical Weapons In An Age of Terror
A history of terrorism requires a very specific definition to avoid a never-ending summary of every violent act ever recorded. The brief, objective definition proposed by Dr. Boaz Ganor, an Israeli political scientist and deputy dean of the Lauder School of Government and Diplomacy at the Interdiciplinary Center Herzliya, works well for this purpose:terrorism is the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain politician aims.
This avoids subjective interpretation based on the perpetrator’s motivations, tactics, and civilian versus military status. When we discuss terrorism in the 21st century, however, we must include weapons of mass destruction, and broaden the defintion slightly to include indiscriminate targets, since many of the weapons and tactics of modern terrorism are capable of killing huge numbers of people at once.
Additionally, some forms of modern terror, such as cyberterrorism, do not fall neatly under the rubric of “violence”, at least in their initial employment, although in this increasingly computerized world, viruses and database intrusions could ultimately lead to deaths.
How real are the threats of WMD terrorism? What new or highly mutated forms of terrorist activities might lie ahead? And more to the point, how can countries hope to counter such violence, when one of the key components of “successful” terrorism is the element of suprise?
If you have ever seen photos of ordinary household germs and dust mites under an electron microscope, magnify your visceral and immediate recoil by ten-fold and you have a fair idea of how most people think about biological weapons.
Terrorism feeds on fear, and one thing people fear is fighting something likely invisible, insidious, and irreversible. Certain chemicals (and radioactive fallout) meet this description as well, but many do not. Biological pathogens, however, seem especially frightening to people perhaps because they seem, to the lay person, the easiest to disseminate and, unlike with other weapons, can be passed from one person to the next, expanding an attack well beyond the original point of deployment, using such contagious diseases as small pox, ebola, AIDS, or plauge.
Adding to this is the reality that the first responders are not members of law enforcement or the military, but members of the public health sytem: doctors, EMTS, firefighters, and other civilians.
Consider some staggering facts. According to a report issued by the World Health Organization in 1999, “Over the next hour alone, 1,500 people will die from an infectious disease- over half of them are children under five. Of the rest, most will be working-age adults-many of them breadwinners and parents.
Both are vital age groups that countries can ill afford to lose.” That adds up to 13.1 million people a year. Perhaps more frightening still, just six infections diseases account for more than 90 percent of those deaths: pneumonia, tuberculosis, diarrheal diseases, malaria, measles, and HIV/AIDS. (WHO,p.2,1999)
Improper use of antibiotics, as well as increased virulence and human tolerance due to the natural mutation process, have led to highly resilient strains of pneumonia, tuberculosis, cholera and malaria.
Considering that accidental and naturally occurring outbreaks can cost so many millions of lives, it’s not difficult to imagine the effect deliberately mutated and weaponized strains of biological pathogens would have around the world.
Armies and individuals have employed biological weapons throughout recorded history. Many of the earliest recorded instances involve poisoning food and water supplies. During the BC 6th century, Assyrians poisoned enemey wells with rye ergot, a fungal parasite that causes hallucinations and brain damage. Solon of Athens poisoned Krissa’s water supplied with hellebore, a narcotic that can also cause heart attacks. Ancient armies routinely infected tossed rotting animals into the enemies; water supply; in the 12th century Barborassa used the bodies of his own dead soldiers.
Contaminating food and water supplies is not the only-time honored form of bioterrorism. Spreading infection and disease using conventional weapons and everyday objects has a long history as well. As far back as BC 400, archers poisoned their arrows by dipping them into decomposing bodies or in blood mixed with feces. During the Second Macedonian War, in a crude but effective precursor to missiles with biological warheads, Hannibal won the naval battle of Eurymedon by launching pots of venomous snakes onto the decks of the Pregamon ships.
In 1346, when many of the Tatar soldiers attacking the Crimean port of Kaffa were dying of bubonic plauge, their leader, DeMussis, capulated the diseased corpses into the city. When the infected Geonese defenders fled, precipitating the Black Plauge epidemics that killed enemies with wine mixed with blood of lepers.
Two hundred years later another Spaniard, Franciso Pizarro, tried to speed along his invasion of South America by distributing clothing infected with smallpox. British forces tried the same tactic in the French and Indian War.
In the early part of the Civil War, a Confederate surgeon tried to infect the Union army with clothes carrying yellow fever, while his compatriots were tossing dead animals into wells as they retreated. At this time, the U.S. Government, concerned that its Union soldiers were far less experienced in military matters thatn were their Confederate counterparts, paid German lawyer Franz Lieber to prepare a code laying out the accepted principles of warfare.
The articles in the resulting document,”Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field,” became part of General Order No. 100, issued April 24, 1863. One key article read as follows: “The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of law and usages of war.”
Other countries were at work drafting similar codes. The nations participating in a conference in Brussels in August 1874 issued a declaration banning specific weapons, including poison. A 1907 addition prohibited the “employment of projectiles containing asphyxiating or deleterious gases.” These same prohibitions were upheld by later declarations, including the “Protocol for the Prohibion of the Use in Ware of Asphyxating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods fo Warfare”- the Geneva Protocol, signed June 19, 1925-which stated that “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, has been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world.”
Countries that ratified the protocol before WWII were Iran, Iraq, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. did not sign until 1975. The protocol was further strengthened in 1972 with the Biological Weapons Convention, but efforts to make it legally binding failed in 2001 when President George W. Bush refused to sign.
One business-oriented publication that often supported the president’s policies had this reaction: “Alongside Mr. Bush’s refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, and his moves to scrap the ABM(anti-ballistic missile) treaty, this was more than an undiplomatic blunder. It seems to represent a dangerously ideological aversion to any sort of binding arms control.”
These noble agreements, however, failed to prohibit governments from continuing to research, develop, store, transport, or produce biological weapons, and implied that all that was truly outlawed was being the first to use them in a particular conflict. The result is that countries around the globe still have active biological and chemical stockpiles or, as in the case of the United States, maintain active facilities engaged in defense research.
Dr.Leon Newton is the author of the book, Terrorism 101: A Library Reference and Selected Annotated Bibliography. He teach Terrorism and International Affairs. http://www.outskirtspress.com/terrorism101
Theories of Ethnic and Sectarian Violence
The United Nations has accepted the fact the world is a more dangerous place during the past Cold War. The proliferation of nuclear materials,and biological, and chemical weapons in the hands of antagonistic groups seeking self-determination could be dangerous for the international community goal of world peace and security.
There are other problems resulting from sectarian violence, such as a breakdown of the rule of law,thus weakening the nation-state. Sectarian leaders use exploiting and manipulating claims of ethnicity, inflaming the conflict and bolster national pride.
Sectarian conflict are directly correlated to refugees, economic decline due to the war torn cities, and the militarization of the armed parties to the conflict.
The Civil society institutions break down, resulting in psychological, social problems for the population, and the destruction of the infrastructure and environmental problems place the population health at risk.
Scholars and policy makers, calling themselves ethno- political specialists, have placed sectarian and ethnicity within a political context for analysis. When studying conflict theories there are three categories: behavior, stuctural and gentics.
Konrad Lorenz, believed that humans differ from the lower animals in their fighting habits primarily because humans have no natural weapons and have to use their superior intelligence to create destruction weapons.
The behaviorist believe that the root cause of conflict lies in human nature and human behavior.
Sigmund Freud, thought that conflict was inherent in man`s nature.
Charles Darwin, was a pessimist and he asserted that man`s destuctive hereditary traits were fixed.
Thomas Hobbes, in his political writings conflict is problematic for society because it is a jungle. Humankind is in a perpetual power struggle that lead men to war with every other man. The life of solitary, poor, nasty , brutish and short.
Henry Kissinger, argued that conflict is part of the international system and can only be met with countervailing power when challenged.
John Calvin,`s theology preached that conflict is inherent in man because of the original sin. According to Calvin, man was cast out of the Garden of Eden because sin was in conflict with God`s rule.
Another group of conflict theorists focus their study on markets and and less on inequalities in the market place.
Charles Cozic, says there are two reason why dominant culture groups react violently. One of the primary reasons is because the belief other groups are not deserving. The secondary reason is due to the build up of alliances through institutional structures by the dominant group to protect their interst.
John Burton, asserts that social identity theory helps us to understand the behavior of those whose identity is perceived to be threatened and whose behavior might otherwise seem irrational.
In conclusion, conflict theory try to help us understand human behavior and man aggressive tendencies.
Professor Leon Newton is an author, and columnist. He is the author of the book, Terrorism 101: A Library Reference and Selected Bibliography. http://www.outskirtspress.com/terrorism101
The New Iraq: Genocide of the Gentle
Of all the physical damage that has been done to Iraq, the greatest damage has been done to the culture itself. Iraq has lost much of her cultural capital.
Cultural capital as evidenced in the arts, education, healthcare, science, social justice, education, and law enforcement are the many artifacts of any civil society. Iraq began to lose many objects of value earlier; during the U.S. embargo against Iraq when families began selling Persian carpets, jewelry, wardrobes, and family heirlooms to survive.
Many treasures eventually left the country with or without their original owners. The more abstract artifacts of civil society also began to erode during the U.S. embargo when cultural capital began to deteriorate. The arts stagnated. Healthcare conditions plummeted to alarming neglect as antibiotics, aspirin, and even vitamins became virtually inaccessible to the average person.
Science and universities suffered greatly as scientific literature was blocked from entering the country for the long period of embargo. The educational system began to suffer as the Dinar diminished in value so did the ability of teachers to feed their own families on their pay and began to demand that the parents of their students pay them a personal fee to teach their children.
Law enforcement took an ugly turn during that time when those charged to enforce the law began breaking the law themselves in order to benefit their own families. Finally, the strain of the U.S, embargo began to break down the elements of social justice in that consideration for the old, the poor, and the weak became less and less evident in the increasingly desperate daily lives of Iraqi’s.
When those who followed the situation attentively thought the Iraqi peoples had been brought to the peak of suffering through the US embargo, the US invasion ripped out the remainder of civil society and in that void, Iraq has come to its darkest hour.
This is a true story. That is to say it is the collective story of so many stories gathered into one story. All names have been left out to veil these human beings from further suffering:
A woman is a well-known doctor inside of Iraq. She begins to wonder each day if one of her own patients will kill her. Each day her husband fears her demise whenever there is an explosion inside of Baghdad. Still they continue to care for their children, work, and live in daily terror.
One day she receives the long since dreaded death threat. They know that these threats are very real and that within 24 hours. This threat will most certainly be carried out upon them. Within 30 minutes they have gathered their two children, and left their home in which they have all worldly manifestations of the meaningful life they have made for one another and so many precious symbols of memories, hopes, and dreams.
They leave their home with nothing as they do not know if the death threat will be carried out by a neighbor, a coworker, or a patient. They must not alert any human being of their attempted departure. They arrive at a family member’s home to prepare to flee to the Jordanian border. They leave this home within one hour and must say nothing to other loved ones of their flight.
They leave many loved ones including an elderly widow behind. Yet to gather their loved ones from their households would likely alert their stealthy murderers and put so many more family members at acute risk. So this secret they must keep and travel through the desert by themselves. They make it into Jordan before they are caught but they cannot readily leave such sorrow and suffering behind them ….
Of all the damage that has been done to Iraq; through the U.S. invasion and occupation, the greatest damage has been done to the culture itself. Cultural capital is foundational to all artifacts of civil society such as the arts, education, healthcare, science, and social justice. Cultural capital itself is not a concrete thing and yet it is manifested in so many things; such as excellent education, quality health care, and the law & order of every advanced civil society.
Upon the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. citizenry was informed that Iraq’s museums were plundered and that Iraq consequently lost much of her cultural capital. How sad that the centerpiece of Iraqi cultural capital was presented as if encased in these particular objects of value. In fact, Iraq began to loose objects of value during the U.S. embargo, when families began selling their Persian carpets, jewelry wardrobes, and family heirlooms just to live.
Many of these items eventually left the country of Iraq with or without their original owners. The loss of these material objects is particularly tragic in that these objects belonged to the daily lives and history of living people. Iraq; however, has many more layers of cultural capital than those found in material objects. The cultural capital prior to the U.S. destruction there was rich and varied. Now it is virtually gone. Any family or person that is seen as contributing to society in a meaningful way is eliminated, driven into hiding, or forced to flee the country.
The gentle person, the rational minded, and the intellectual are eliminated, forced into hiding, or must flee. Any respected educator, caring doctor, or social servant is considered dangerous since such people are the dissidents of a civil society that has now been completely dismantled. This brief paragraph matter-of-factly conveys such immense damage to Iraq that has brought on indescribable human suffering. It is critical that the U.S. citizenry know that Iraq has now been almost completely pillaged of her most precious treasures; that is her human cultural capital
This is a true story and yet it does not fit with the notion of civil war. That is because the central issue of violence in Iraq does not rise out of civil war. Instead it rises out of a loss of civil society. American citizens have been bombarded with information about civil war. American citizens have not been told nearly so much about the systematic raping of Iraqi civil society. Iraq lays now in utter ruin and there is virtually nothing left of her now but her broken presence.
Are we a citizenry that has had meaningful participation in what our government has decided to do to Iraq? This could only be so if we were truly free to give input into U.S. policy in Iraq. Were we truly free to provide input into the U.S. policy in Iraq? Since true freedom requires citizens to be fully aware and learned about the choices before them, this could only be so if we were thoroughly educated by our government about policy we already carried out on Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion there. In all the rhetoric about Operation Iraqi Freedom, were we so free that we had no meaningful voice in a matter that we were intentionally or unwittingly misinformed of and consequently uneducated about?
This is a true story. That is to say it is the collective story of so many stories gathered into one story. Let it not be told in vain. Rather let it bring you to contemplate on the extent to which our citizenry has been honored by its own leadership as worthy of learnedness and as having participatory potential for the sake of truly being free to inform international policy in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Judi Lynn Lake resides in South Carolina, with her husband and 7 year old daughter. She successfully runs her own Advertising/PR Firm. Contact Judi at http://www.judilake.com. To learn more about Dr. Amaal V.E. Tokars’ mission at http://www.seducedbyfear.com
National Security and Our Family Unit
Over the years, as things have changed and evolved between men and women, we have lost sight of all the ramifications of these changes. America was the leader in the world in the eyes of many other nations. Although many other societies don’t necessarily agree with many of the USA’s ways and beliefs, most have had a relatively high level of respect for our great nation.
Democracy and the free capitalistic system we represent are the envy of many. In the last several years, the USA has lost much of this respect. Many now look at us as intrusive, hypocritical fools. Many of the cultures we are having trouble with have very strong traditional religious beliefs. They are very set in their ways with respect to their family unit.
Many believe, as do I, that the family unit is the heart of any society. The family unit and its traditional values are central to many of these cultures. The men in these cultures must be strong and in control of their families. They must be respected and appreciated, much like it used to be here forty years ago.
Since 9/11, we have all come to believe that terrorists are our nation’s biggest threat. I’ve got news for you. Although the terrorist issue is of great imminent concern, the deterioration of our family unit and the large increase of the dysfunctional family is a much bigger national threat than terrorists will ever be.
Terrorists can be curtailed and their wrath isolated. The breakdown of the family unit, the major increase in divorce, and single parenting is eating away at our entire country from within.
It’s like a cancer. Have you ever heard of the military strategy of “divide and conquer?” I believe this is what is happening to us. We are being divided by the deterioration of our basic social structure, only to be vulnerable to be conquered later. No greater damage can be done to our country than the slow, steady, systematic deterioration of basic family unit standards and our traditional moral fiber.
Any country’s youth is its future, and our youth are looking pretty grim. With the advent of the unfair marriage laws and the resulting high divorce rate and de-balling of the modern male, our youth are not being led and raised with any of the old morals. Selfishness has become the order of the day.
People these days don’t even look at getting a job and raising a family until almost middle age. Forty years ago, if you weren’t working and married with kids by twenty-five, something was wrong. Today, people haven’t even decided what they want to be when they grow up until their late twenties.
We only live to be around seventy. If you haven’t even made that decision until you’re thirty, you’ve already lived almost half your life before figuring out what’s up and what’s down. If this continues, can you imagine what it will do to our tax base in years to come? The de-balling of the modern male, which was created by the high divorce rate, is also breaking down our country’s structure. The same way terrorists must be squashed at all cost, so must this process of steadily eroding family values.
We are going around the world advocating our values, beliefs, and ways of life, and here we are in total lack of control of the basic values which form a society. Other countries have satellites and TVs. They see shows like Jerry Springer, The View, and the rest of them.
They know the way men are treated in the USA. They see how men have become a bunch of wimps, caving to and fearing women. How men are persecuted and how we applaud their persecution. Women here rule in all ways, and the world knows it.
Men get their penises sliced off while they sleep, and the mate who did it goes free and gets applauded by the rest of the women in the USA. Others can see the complete lack of respect and the humiliation that men are subjected to at the hands of the superior women.
We’re trying to tell them they should be like us, and here they are laughing at the men of the USA for being a bunch of submissive wusses who have no control over their women, lives, or families. We’re telling a society that believes women must be kept in veils that our way is better.
They know the American woman is out being as promiscuous as she can on the eve of her marriage, while hubby sits at home babysitting her kids from her previous two marriages.
If you stop and think about it, it’s actually comical. We’re asking them to sign up for that? There is no way they will want to have anything to do with our way of life. I’m not suggesting that the USA’s female chauvinists have caused our rifts with these nations, but I can tell you it has a lot to do with the lack of respect that is being shown to the USA.
How can you show respect for a nation whose basic family unit and structure is in such a chaotic state? How can you respect men who allow themselves to be degraded the way they are? We have to get our affairs in order, not only for the sake of our nation’s future, but also to regain a little respect back from the rest of the world.
As much as many societies see democracy as good and advantageous, they are threatened when you start talking about human rights, women’s rights, and minority rights. Not necessarily because they don’t believe in those people’s rights, but because they’ve seen what those programs have led to in the United States, how those programs get abused and taken too far.
The pendulum always swings too far when America tries to look after a certain group of people. It’s undeniable and apparent to all other nations and cultures. That’s part of what scares them. They see it has failed here, yet we haven’t seen it ourselves.
We must make our family laws fair again and stop prosecuting men. We must stop putting good, innocent, hard-working men in jail simply because some wife’s lawyer has figured out that strategically it works to her advantage. We must start to respect all people again.
We must recognize that men and women are and should be very different. Each of their priorities and ways of thinking must not be the same. Although different, men and women must be equal. We can’t confuse being different from each other to being equal to each other.
Men should be men and women should be women; they should be different, but equal. The pendulum must be put to the neutral position, not favoring either men or women. Then and only then will the divorce rate start to drop, single parenting will slow, and the de-balling process can start to be reversed.
Maybe then we will start to eliminate the level of dysfunctional families. Maybe then men will step up and commit the way they used to without the fear of being tormented, abused, taken advantage of, and persecuted for no good reason.
National security must start from within. As a nation, we have to preserve the sanctity of old family values. We must raise our offspring in an even, balanced way so that they get the equal influence of both parents. Men have to get back to the point where they don’t totally fear marriage and commitment.
Nothing threatens our nation’s security more than these issues. If this deterioration continues and is not reversed, we are going to be in big trouble in the years to come. We will be the joke of the world instead of the envy of the world. Even our staunchest supporters will turn on us if we don’t get our own house in order.
No matter how great our system and way of life is, if we don’t have control of our home lives and have a sound family unit, we will not be successful and will not have the respect of others. We will also be vulnerable to being divided and destroyed by our adversaries.
Andey Randead is the author of “The Great Female Con”, a highly controvertial account of many current relationship issues. His book can be previewed at http://www.thegreatfemalecon.com
Mohammad Yunus And The New Revolutionaries
In 1974, I found it difficult to teach elegant theories of economics in the university classroom, in the backdrop of a terrible famine in Bangladesh. Suddenly, I felt the emptiness of those theories in the face of crushing hunger and poverty. I wanted to do something immediate to help people around me, even if it was just one human being, to get through another day with a little more ease.
Thus begins the story of Mohammad Yunus, the 2006 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. In his Nobel lecture (watch the video and read the transcript here), he tells his story of how he came to found Grameen Bank and pioneer micro-lending to the poor.
The prevailing assumption of bankers and capitalists at that time was that the poor were not a good credit risk. Over the last 30 years, the Grameen (meaning village) Bank has given out loans totalling $6 Billion (US) to 7 million poor people, and the repayment rate has been 99%. Yunus proudly asserts that Grameen Bank routinely makes a profit, is self-reliant and has not accepted donor money since 1995. And, according to an internal survey of borrowers, 58 per cent have crossed the poverty line.
These results have say something about who we are as human beings, and what is possible for humanity going forward. Mohammad Unus sees a future where poverty only exists in museums! The path to get there lies, he sees, in questioning our assumptions about who we are as human beings and using free market principles to help the poor lift themselves from poverty.
I am in favor of strengthening the freedom of the market. At the same time, I am very unhappy about the conceptual restrictions imposed on the players in the market. This originates from the assumption that entrepreneurs are one-dimensional human beings, who are dedicated to one mission in their business lives - to maximize profit.
Human beings are a wonderful creation embodied with limitless human qualities and capabilities. Our theoretical constructs should make room for the blossoming of those qualities, not assume them away.
By defining “entrepreneur” in a broader way we can change the character of capitalism radically, and solve many of the unresolved social and economic problems within the scope of the free market.
In his speech, Mohammad Yunus introduces the concept of a social business, as a free market solution to end poverty, and as a vehicle for young revolutionaries to change the world.
Young people all around the world, particularly in rich countries, will find the concept of social business very appealing since it will give them a challenge to make a difference by using their creative talent. Many young people today feel frustrated because they cannot see any worthy challenge, which excites them, within the present capitalist world. Socialism gave them a dream to fight for. Young people dream about creating a perfect world of their own.
The FLOW Movement being started in Austin, Texas is forming an idealogical framework to provide a global context for tomorrow’s young revolutionaries. Michael Strong, Co-Founder of FLOW, sees how these new ideas about human potential, entrepreneurship and free markets can ignite a spark in University students, giving them a viable way to literally change the world for the better.
Mohammad Yunus says that we have poverty, because we accept it as part of the human condition. Once we raise our standards and refuse to accept it, we will easily find creative solutions to eliminate it altogether. The human mind has incredible power to solve problems, but only the problems that we refuse to accept.
We create the world in accordance with our mindset. We need to invent ways to change our perspective continually and reconfigure our mindset quickly as new knowledge emerges. We can reconfigure our world if we can reconfigure our mindset.
Could the way Mohammad Yunus thinks be a model for human beings going forward? Not what he thinks, but how. Could it be that the visionary mind of the future is one that evolves continually in ways that empower the individual to stand for more, see more as possible and create more? How can we all come to live and think as visionaries? For visionaries who stand for all of humanity are the new revolutionaries; and they shall create our future.
Michael Skye, founder and CEO of VisionForce.com, works with a new breed of impassioned change agents around the world, who are giving their lives to stand for all of humanity. The Visionary Mind Shifts are available free at http://www.VisionForce.com/course.
Tony Blair - Turkey and Iraq
The video clips of Saddam Hussein’s execution on 30 December 2006 have further alienated Arab opinion towards the West, and both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have reviewed their Iraq strategies.
President Bush still argues that ‘victory’ in Iraq can be achieved, but the British do not share his optimism.
Tony Blair and his British advisors have quietly distanced themselves from this latest US policy. They are already looking beyond the horizon and pin little hope on the latest Bush plan for Iraq. If the time span for a revitalisation of support for George Bush regarding Iraq is short, then Tony Blair is facing a similar time constraint. Mr Blair is committed to retiring from the post of British Prime Minister during 2007 and is therefore under immense pressure to extricate the UK from Iraq and to secure a settlement which has a reasonable prospect of bringing peace and stability to the region.
While most commentators focus on the Sunni / Shi’ite rift, UK policy advisors have been assisting Tony Blair to formulate a policy which will effectively lead to the partition of Iraq. The background to Mr Blair’s strategy lies in the longstanding and cordial relationship between the UK and Turkey. These ties have been greatly strengthened since 2004 when the UK became a vocal advocate of improving the
international standing of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, a state which is only formally recognised by Turkey. This relationship has also been nurtured by Cherie Blair’s representation in 2006 of a UK couple who were being sued in the UK by a dispossessed person from the Greek Republic of (South) Cyprus. In addition, the UK has been Turkey’s staunchest ally in the difficult EU accession negotiations.
There have however, been setbacks to this relationship. Tony Blair has persistently tried to persuade Turkey to commit troops to Iraq: so far, without success.
Any partition of Iraq would need to take account of the distribution of the various ethnic and religious groups.The Sunnis are prominent in the west and the Shi’ites in the south and east. However, the other significant group is that of the Kurds. The Kurds effectively control the north and were savagely repressed by Saddam Hussein. There are also sizable Kurdish populations in Southern Turkey, Syria and Iran.
While US policy has been generally viewed as favourable towards the Kurds and their desire for an autonomous administration or even a secessionist state, the UK has been sympathetic towards Turkish concerns for security and the suppression of the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) as this is considered a terrorist organisation. Although Mr Blair’s overtures for Turkey to send troops to Iraq have not borne fruit, he is now proposing that Turkey effectively occupies the Kurdish region of Northern Iraq. In return, Turkey will be expected to contribute to the pacification of Iraq.
From a Turkish perspective, the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence to Mosul and Kirkuk in North Iraq is enticing. It will be given a free hand to search for and destroy PKK fighters who reside in Iraq and mount terrorist attacks in Turkey. In addition, Turkey would have control of the valuable oilfields of the Kirkuk region and the pipeline linking Kirkuk to Bayji and then north to Turkey.
However, the US has recently signalled support for the referendum on Kirkuk to go ahead. Under Iraq’s new constitution, a local referendum is to be held during 2007 to determine whether Kirkuk should join the Kurdistan regional confederacy (the united
administration of Irbil, Dohuk and Sulaimaniya provinces).
Because of its oil wealth, the Kurds wish to incorporate Kirkuk and for it to become their regional capital. Due to the impending referendum, there are reports of significant numbers of Kurds flocking into Kirkuk in order to become eligible to vote on this issue. Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, on 16 January, warned Iraqi Kurdish groups against trying to seize control of Kirkuk. He said Turkey would not stand by amid growing ethnic tensions, by which he meant persecution of Turks and other minorities in the Kirkuk region.This speech prompted accusations of interference by Iraqi Kurds.
Although the Blair proposal is extremely ambitious and contentious, the current disastrous situation does call for bold measures. This would be the first step in a larger plan, whereby the Shi’ite regions of south and east Iraq would link to Iran, a country
with which the UK, unlike the US, has sought to develop good relations. This would then leave the Sunni area of western Iraq which could either orient towards Sunni dominated Syria or possibly become the remnant of Iraq with pan Arab backing.
Leslie Hardy is the UK Chairman of Wellington Estates Ltd, a North Cyprus property development company. Read the full text of this article at http://www.wellestates.com/turkey_iraq.htm
Can The USA And Israel Fight Side-By-Side?
For over 60 years the USA and Israel have been close allies. However we have yet to fight a war in the Middle East together to destroy an enemy. The IDF and the US military have both proven time and time again they don’t need anyone’s help to fight their enemies. However will Israel and the US ever unite as one army to destroy an enemy who threatens them both? It almost happened in the Gulf War. But will it ever happen? Many Muslims will view this as proof of a joint Zionist/American plot to destroy them. And anyone who thinks Israel will find an Arab country willing to fight along side them willingly are fools.
Israel and the U.S. have never fought side by side; however, they have fought face-to-face when they bombed the USS Liberty. Israel has taken care of business defending against simultaneous attacks in the past and there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t handle similar aggression in the future. We’ll continue to support them obviously, but I doubt you’ll see our air force/navy/army fighting side-by-side anytime soon. As far as Iran is concerned…are you insinuating some kind of land invasion by a combined US/Israeli force?
The American flag was prominently displayed. The Israeli planes were unmarked. Gunboats launched torpedoes at close range. And there were massacres involving hundreds of Egyptian prisoners going on at the same time. Probably that’s why the Israeli’s wanted to sink the spy ship. Israel, a nation with about 6.3 million people, is not really looking to invade Iran, a country of over 68 million people.
The indications are that Israel is not even really looking to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities either. It would have to overfly Iraq or Turkey to reach Iran, and that would complicate matters for them. They don’t want to get involved. Not yet. Not unless they were directly threatened. Remember golf war, US pressure Israeli not to attack Iraq if Iraq lunch missile at Israeli.
While Iran has definitely been a needle digging at the sovereignty of Israel, and has been undermining US interests abroad, the same can be said of the US going after Iran covertly. This is costly and non-productive for both sides. However, Israel might be forced to defend itself from Hezbollah attacks if the US unilaterally decides to. This would be nasty, dirty asymmetric 4th generational war mixed with plenty of terrorism. It would not be a glorious 3rd generational armor charge into prepared positions.
If the U.S. and Israel went into Iran, side by side, it would do the one thing that the Islamic world has been unable to do on it’s own to date. Unite the entire Islamic world against the West. Why do you think the Coalition begged the Israelis to stay out of the first Gulf War, even though they were being hit by Scuds? Since Abraham is the father of Israel, his dad’s name who was Terah, duration wandering a nomadic term I believe.
And if you use a genetic matrix meaning second arrangement it, Terah, time and seasons of badness/war, then the third arrangement retag in the first place/maybe meaning Eden or head of the family etc. Therefore, the history of scripture is reappearing as we try to settle the terrorist problem.
Especially by being Abraham’s mother country Babylon, the place of confusion of tongues. Almost forgot, Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon was personally given Egypt, for serving the Lord God of Israel when he destroyed the tyre in Land Warfare. Well if all you read on the incident was the blurb that the JVL (Israeli Propaganda) said, of course you would think it was an accident. I have talked ‘firsthand’ to survivors from the Liberty. The JVL doesn’t bother to mention the numerous recons over flights their air force did of the Liberty ‘before’ the attack.
Nor does JVL mention the fact that Israeli gunboats machine gunned the lifeboats that the Liberty dropped over the side out of the water. Now as any body with any military experience can tell you, if you are close enough to machine gun in lifeboats, you are more than close enough to read the oversize high contrast white lettering on a grey background when the letters height is measured in yards.
Victor Epand is an expert consultant for http://www.WarGear.info/ . WarGear.info carries the best selection of military clothing, war gear, and combat accessories on the market: http://www.WarGear.info/categories/adventure-clothing-foot-head-handwear-rain-gear-logo-apparel.html
Iraq - Strategic Options
The execution of Saddam Hussein on 30 December 2006 set the scene for the New Year. The indignity of his fate, which was recorded on film and transmitted around the globe, filled even conservative observers with disgust.
The scandal of his execution demonstrates that the US and UK policy of handing over civil matters in Iraq to a bourgeoning domestic administration is fatally flawed and the rhetoric which talks about the green shoots of democracy and civil administration in Iraq is a sham. It also leads one to ask the question that if the US and UK cannot organise an execution, how can they claim to have the vision and will to rebuild Iraq ?
VICTORY ?
The current US policy is that Victory in Iraq remains an achievable objective. The new US policy is to split Baghdad into some 10 sectors and to cleanse each sector in turn of insurgents. After a section has been cleansed, responsibility for law and order will be handed over to the Iraqi army and civil institutions.
In the past both the US and UK forces have engaged with militias and ejected them from areas and then moved on. After the departure of US and UK forces, the militias have returned to these locations, spent some time quietly regrouping, and then re-commenced operations. This has also been the experience in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are once again an active force and a serious threat.
The prospect of operating in Baghdad was not welcomed by the Iraqi army, and forces in the South rebelled upon receipt of orders for deployment in Baghdad.
The US and UK have demonstrated their ability to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq by precision bombing, but they have singularly failed to rebuild the country. In fact the infrastructure of Iraq has suffered further major depredations since the defeat of Saddam Hussein.
The practice of awarding contracts to US companies, and without a tendering process, is unimpressive. It simply reinforces and perpetuates the nepotism and corruption which permeated Iraq during the Saddam years. Vice President Dick Cheney has received major personal benefits from contracts awarded to Halliburton Co and has, for several years, been attempting to distance himself from the company.
In the north of Iraq, the situation is better. Most of the investments in the north have been made by Middle East companies, especially Turkish, and these projects have conferred tangible and auditable benefits to the regional economy.
It is a tragedy that the US and UK have been unable to disseminate their infrastructure skills and entrepreneurial expertise in Iraq. The years of occupation will simply be remembered for the heavy handed military presence and the deprivations of the Iraqi people.
The Democrats in the House of Representatives do not support this policy and the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made her feelings clear:-The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon - she said.
The Democrats are stymied by intellectual paralysis concerning Iraq and apart from their moral outrage at deaths of US soldiers, they have no constructive policy alternatives, other than to bring US troops home.
WITHDRAWAL ?
If victory is not an achievable goal, should the US withdraw troops from Iraq ? This is a simple and understandable policy, and inevitably has some appeal.
A reduction in troop levels will probably lead to increased casualties, rather than a reduction as the remaining forces will be stretched and more open to attack by militias. So the policy option is that of a complete withdrawal, presumably over a short time scale.
If there were a credible, embryonic Iraqi government in place, with both a palpable military capability and a commitment to justice and impartiality, then withdrawal with honour could be a possibility.
However, this is far from the case. The so called Iraqi government appears more like a passive spectator than an active actor in the daily disasters which are relayed to the western media. Even the Bush administration which initially proclaimed the democratisation of Iraq has become silent on this matter.
If there was a sudden withdrawal of US and UK forces, the disaster of Iraq would not diminish. On the contrary, it would grow and engulf neighbouring states including Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia. The results would be both unpredictable and possibly catastrophic.
In political terms, it would be a mortal blow for US credibility throughout the Middle East and create a vacuum which could be exploited by extreme religious and terrorist groups, including Al-Qaeda.
REGIONAL DIPLOMACY ?
If withdrawal is not a practical option, then the initiation of a dialogue with regional players would appear both prudent and pragmatic. This was one of the recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study group and espoused by George Bush senior.
Tony Blair has been especially enthusiastic about this option. However, this opportunity has been mishandled by both Bush and Blair. Both Syria and Iran were wooed to engage in diplomatic initiatives by the US. They were understandably nervous about this as they distrusted US intentions: the US media claims that Bush has drawn up plans for military action against these states.
Instead of treading softly, Bush and Blair adopted a threatening approach and warned of adverse consequences if they failed to become involved. This had the result of further alienating Iran and Syria.
In fact both Syria and Iran have become involved in Iraq, but not in the manner requested by the US. Syria provides training and aid to Sunni militias operating in west Iraq while Iran does the same for Shi’ites in the east. Both these militias target US and UK troops.
While the north of Iraq has seen some infrastructure improvements due to Turkish involvement, the treatment of Turkey by the US has been haphazard. On the one hand, the US has supported UK efforts to assist Turkey to join the EU, but on the other hand the US has been ambivalent about the status of Kurds in north Iraq.
The US has given repeated assurances that the PKK, which is considered a terrorist organisation by Turkey, will be removed from north Iraq. This has not happened. On the contrary, the US has encouraged Kurdish aspirations for an autonomous state in north Iraq, which would place Turkey in an intolerable position due to the large number of Kurds in southern Turkey.
Tony Blair has exhibited courage by distancing himself from US policy and allied himself with Turkey. During January 2007, Turkey increased the number of troops and weapons on its southern border with Iraq.
ISRAEL
No consideration of US policy in this area is complete without mention of Israel. The US and UK support for the Israeli bombing of Lebanon in 2006 and the ongoing problems in Palestine have been a harsh reminder to the Arab world of loyalties in the region.
The fact that Tony Blair and the UK were silent and hence complicit concerning the destruction of south Lebanon is a major reverse for UK credibility in the region. Future UK governments will have to work long and hard to redress this setback.
Some cynical observers perceive the Israeli hand in the US actions which have the effect of weakening or obliterating the military capability of states hostile to Israel. Based on this interpretation, Iran could well be the next target for US/Israeli ambitions.
Leslie Hardy is the UK Chairman of Wellington Estates Ltd, a North Cyprus property development company. Read more about Iraq and Turkey at http://www.wellestates.com
Iraq Oil - The Spoils of Victory
In 1999, when Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he asked the rhetorical question ‘Where is the oil to come from?’ and then gave the answer ‘The Middle East, with two thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies’. George Bush also has a background in the US oil industry, and the opportunity to take control of oil production in Iraq must be a dream beyond the wildest imagination of most Texan oilmen.
Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, US companies and in particular KRB, a subsidiary of Halliburton, have received contracts to maintain and repair the decrepit Iraq oil infrastructure which fell into a poor state of repair due to international sanctions.Oil production in Iraq has continued during the turbulent aftermath of the war and is at some 2.3 millions barrels a day.
Bush and his associates are seeking to secure their position as controllers of oil production, export and exploration in Iraq for the next 30 years by means of a new Hydrocarbon Law which is now being approved by what is euphemistically described as the government of Iraq.
The main features of the new law are as follows - Firstly, it will effectively place control of oil resources in the hands of multinational oil companies for some 30 years. Secondly, decisions concerning the flow of oil and the levels of production will be made by a consortium which could be controlled by the oil companies themselves. Thirdly, the percentage of oil revenues which are to be retained by the Iraqis will be distributed among the various regional and provincial authorities and not handed to the national government.
The final obstacle to the passing of the law appears to have been the Kurds in northern Iraq. The third provision, which shares the domestic revenue of oil wealth among the regional administrations, has secured their approval. It also safeguards the interests of Sunnis in west Iraq where little oil is currently produced.
The sheer scale of Iraq’s oil capability is impressive. The country has proven reserves of 115 billion barrels of oil, around the same as Iran. Due to the international isolation of Iraq, little exploration has taken place for some 20 years. It may well be that actual reserves could exceed 300 billion barrels, which is greater than Saudi Arabia.
In addition, the costs of extracting oil from Iraq are relatively low. Estimates are in the region of 1 to 2$ a barrel and the sales price is some 60$ a barrel. This is indeed an oilman’s dream.
However, the euphoria of the multinationals must be muted by the continued and probably worsening security situation in Iraq. Western oil companies are unlikely to inject financial investment and expatriate manpower into Iraq unless domestic security is significantly improved. Shell has been especially forthright on this point by stating ‘We would welcome the opportunity to help Iraq rebuild its energy industry, but will only enter the country once security, living and working conditions are improved’.
The new law is being enacted by a puppet regime, established by the US and UK, which has effectively handed over control of the main assets of the country to foreign agencies for a period of 30 years. The irony is that the regime is unlikely to be in existence for this time period and many estimate its life expectancy in months rather than years.
However, if the regime does nothing else, a cynic could argue that it has served its purpose. Firstly, it presided over the execution of Saddam Hussein, and secondly, gave away control of Iraqi oil to foreign companies. Henceforward, the nation state of Iraq can continue to disintegrate into partition based on the Kurds in the north, the Shi’ites in the south and east, and the Sunnis in the west. Each region will receive a secure revenue stream under the new law.
It is no surprise that the leading contenders for contracts are Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Total from the US, together with BP and Shell from the UK. However, Russia’s Lukoil and the Chinese are seeking a share of the action. Whether the Russians and the Chinese, given their lack of support for the war, will be granted access to this bonanza remains to be seen. It would be diplomatic for the US and UK to invite TPOA from Turkey and representatives from Saudi Arabia and Iran to participate, but such niceties are probably wasted on Messrs Bush and Cheney.
The invasion of Iraq has been a costly venture by the coalition forces, both in terms of resources and fatalities, and now the injection of foreign capital to revitalise the oil industry is a demonstrable requirement. However, the case for granting these generous oil licences needs to be made by both the US and UK adminstrations. The current policy of minimal publicity plays directly into the hands of the conspiracy theorists.
Leslie Hardy is the UK Chairman of Wellington Estates Ltd, a North Cyprus property development company. See an Oil Map of Iraq and Oil at http://www.wellestates.com/iraq_oil.htm
Terrorism and the Constitution
Immediately after the constitution became the supreme law its detractions warned that to much unstrained powers had been given to the central government.
Thomas Jefferson was among those who embraced the constitution but feared that without certain clauses the document did not protect individuals.
The result was a list of ten additional articles limiting the powers of the federal government.
The bill of rights established how things will work.
When members of the radical Islamist Cult Al Qaeda flew fully fueled jumbo jets into the World Trade Center on September11, 2001,nation paid attention.
Fear gripped the nation and people lashed out at fellow Americans who dared to say or do anything that did not follow lock-step with what the administration.
The host of the talk show politically incorrect, Bill Maher, responding to the George Bush stated opinion that the September 11 events were cowardly acts, said this on the air.
The show sponsors, Federal Express and Sears, pulled their advertising and the network ABC pulled the Show.
White House spokes person Ari Fleischer commented with these chilling words: all Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do.
This was the death of the first amendment. Some Americans were saying we were sacrificing the very freedoms we were claming to be defending.
Most Americans feel that in a time of war, the United States should be a model of civil liberties and civil rights protecting individual rights under the constitution.
Civil liberty since the USA-Patriot Act was to make the country a safer place for Americans citizens by expanding the reach of law enforcement.
It included sweeping changes in definitions and descriptions of what constituted suspicion, denied due process to huge numbers of people.
It even created new and incredibly ambiguous acts that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
Terrorism and the constitution is always a problem of trying to keep a balance of both competing interest of the government and the rights of people protected by the bill of rights and the constitution.
Civil liberties the personal guarantees and freedoms that the federal government can not abridge by law.
The civil rights the government protected rights of individual against arbitrary discrimination because ethnicity, especially after 911.
The Bill of Rights and the fourthteen amendment of the constitution are major corner stones of the constitution and should never be allowed to be subvert in this era of terrorism.
Leon Newton is a Professor of Political Science and teach Terrorism and International Relations. He is the author of the book, TERRORISM 101 A LIBRARY REFERENCE AND SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY. http://www.outskirtspress.com/terrorism101