[MAPC-discuss] Fw: The Liberty for US War Criminals Act; Pakistan Panics Over Threat to Arsenal;
Title
[MAPC-discuss] Fw: The Liberty for US War Criminals Act; Pakistan Panics Over Threat to Arsenal;
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Date Entered
2001-11-07
September 11 Email: Body
IN THIS MESSAGE: The Liberty for US War Criminals Act; Pakistan Panics Over Threat to Arsenal; The War We Cannot Win; War on Terror Becomes War on Afghanistan
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/558/4war1.htm
Al-Ahram Weekly Online Issue No.558 1 - 7 November 2001
Alienable Rights
The American Service-members Protection Act (ASPA) authorises
the US to use force to "liberate" any US or allied persons detained on
behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which will
be
based in The Hague, Netherlands.
By Amira Howeidy
We all knew it was coming. Last Friday, US President George W Bush signed
an anti-terrorism bill that proposes sweeping new powers for the FBI,
extending the agency's ability to search citizens, wire-tap telephone lines
and eavesdrop on the Internet. The period of detention allowed for a foreign
citizen suspected of terrorist activities has also be increased. The bill --
which has raised concerns over the meaning of civil liberties in the post 11
September age -- came as no surprise to rights advocates in the US and
elsewhere.
The US-led alliance's "war on terrorism," now in the fourth week of its
offensive against Afghanistan, bypassed internationally-recognised channels
of legitimacy such as the United Nations and its Security Council. The
result: hundreds or perhaps thousands of Afghan civilians may have been
killed (no accurate numbers have been released because the Pentagon says it
still doesn't know). But the "war on terror" has meant more than the loss of
innocent lives: it has included a myriad of other measures. The blocking of
information and images from the war in Afghanistan from reaching the
American public, for example. There has also been widespread discrimination
against Arabs (and other people of Middle Eastern appearance) both by
officials (at Western airports and airlines) and by the Western public.
Approximately 900 "suspects" -- most of whom are Arabs-- have been arrested
in relation to the 11 September attacks. In the struggle against "terror,"
several laws have been bypassed, leading to what civil liberties advocates
have described as a serious threat to human rights.
The media debate on the choice between "freedom" and "security" -- which is
raging in Germany and elsewhere -- reflects the chilling options now facing
Western societies. But has the choice been made already?
FBI and Justice Department investigators, frustrated by their failure to
extract confessions from four suspects, are contemplating resorting to
"pressure" according to a report in the Washington Post on 21 October. Among
the alternative strategies under discussion are extracting information using
drugs or other pressure tactics, such as those occasionally employed by
Israeli interrogators, according to the article. Another idea is to
extradite suspected terrorists to US-allied countries in which security
services can employ threats to family members or resort to torture. And last
Sunday, the same newspaper reported that the CIA is contemplating pursuing
an assassination policy of individuals -- a policy that could extend beyond
Bin Laden and members of Al-Qa'ida.
Meanwhile, the US State Department -- taking advantage of the frenzy and
confusion that followed the terrorist acts -- endorsed the American
Service-members Protection Act (ASPA) on November 5. The legislation
authorises the US to use force to "liberate" any US or allied persons
detained on behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which
will be based in The Hague, Netherlands. It also prohibits US military
assistance to those states that ratify the ICC treaty except for NATO
members and some major non-NATO allies.
The New York based Human Rights Watch described the new law as an attempt to
undermine the establishment of a permanent war crimes court. "The United
States is forging a global coalition against terrorism, and the State
Department has just endorsed a bill that authorises an invasion of the
Netherlands," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice
Programme at HRW. "This makes no sense. It hardly seems like a good moment
for the US to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply
because they want to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against
humanity."
For many, it is difficult to find any sense in this new reality. The US
Coalition's use of force, for example, appears to be contrary to established
international law.
This is the case according to William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre
for Human Rights. "The use of force is prohibited by the United Nations
Charter (art. 2 (4)), except in two circumstances: self defence (art. 51)
and Security Council action under Chapter VII (art. 42)," says Schabas. "It
does not allow the use of force for the purpose of "retaliation." Schabas
told Al- Ahram Weekly that "the US-led alliance seems to find support for
its action by invoking the right of self-defence rather than the right to
retaliate. This is a broad and exaggerated interpretation of the right of
self-defence."
Normally, he argued, a person (or a state) acting in genuine self-defence is
very clear in explaining and justifying its behaviour on this basis. "But
the US and UK, with their talk of retaliation, reprisal, 'bringing
terrorists to justice' and so on, invoke grounds that are not really
compatible with the concept of self-defence."
Schabas acknowledged that the US does enjoy self-defence rights but pointed
out that its actions must be conditioned by "proportionality" and by what is
necessary to protect itself from attack. In his words, "the US seems to be
taking a view that in the name of the war on terrorism it has the right to
attack (or 'counterattack') any country it suspects of being insufficiently
unsympathetic to terrorism. In effect, this is the legal window dressing of
the pax Americana, a justification to attack any country that the US doesn't
like, and at any time." To Schabas, one of the unfortunate consequences of
all of this is the "marginalisation of the United Nations, which should in
fact be taking the lead according to its noble role under the UN Charter."
Perhaps it was with this super-power mentality in mind that the US Congress
adopted the anti- terrorism bill. According to the American Civil Liberties
Union Freedom Network (ACLU), "the bill was adopted in near record time with
only one public hearing and little debate."
"All this will have terrible repercussions," was the response of
International Law Professor Kamal Abul-Magd. "If the law doesn't give you
protection, you are more likely to take the law in your hands."
To observers in the Middle East, the new US laws seem to be a glaring
paradox. In this part of the world, the anti-terrorism bill sounded like
all- too-familiar a tune. "It's almost identical to the 'emergency laws'
faithfully adopted by Third World regimes," says Dawoud Al-Shoryan, a
columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al- Hayat. For many years, the
US State Department's Human Rights desk has itself issued annual reports
clearly condemning such governments and their "freedom tying" policies,
human rights abuses and violations in the name of the emergency law. To
El-Shoryan and many others, it seems like the US is now taking such
"backward regimes" as their role model. He expressed fear that the American
"emergency law" will eventually "become an incubator that will lead to
similar laws being issued in several other countries, if Washington seeks to
extend its application within its anti-terrorism coalition."
It may not be all doom and gloom, however. After all, says Rights Activist
Gasser Abdel- Razek, a stronger global movement seems to be emerging as a
result of the September 11 attacks. "It will take different forms,
understandably, such as anti-war, human rights, environmental, and
anti-globalisation," said Abdel-Razek. "But it will definitely be more
critical of Western (that is, US) hegemony, even if its supporters don't
call it that."
====================================================
The Sunday Times (London) November 4, 2001
Pakistan panics over threat to arsenal
By Tony Allen-Mills Washington
Fears of fundamentalist upheaval in Pakistan have aroused concerns in
Washington that part or all of Islamabad's arsenal of nuclear weapons may
have to be moved to China for safekeeping from foreign attack.
Pakistan's military establishment was said last week to have been shaken by
reports that America, India or Israel might be planning pre-emptive strikes
on nuclear sites to prevent weapons falling into fundamentalist hands. "The
generals are panic-stricken," said one Pakistani source.
The threat to weapons widely regarded as the Pakistan military's "crown
jewels" has forced Islamabad to consider what one American expert described
as the "ultimate worst-case scenario" of removing warheads to China,
Pakistan's closest strategic ally in the region. The prospect that loose
warheads might be loaded onto helicopters or moved around a region foaming
with fundamentalist turmoil is adding to fears in Washington that the war in
Afghanistan might provoke a nuclear crisis.
Abdul Sattar, the Pakistani foreign minister, insisted last week the arsenal
was secure. But Washington officials have expressed mounting alarm that any
coup attempt against General Pervez Musharraf, the military president, might
put Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at risk.
Pakistani generals were appalled by one authoritative American report last
week that an elite Pentagon undercover unit, trained to disarm nuclear
weapons, was exploring plans for a mission inside Pakistan. "Every paranoid
fear they have had over the past 20 years about people coming to get our
missiles is suddenly coming to the fore," said Zia Mian, a Pakistani
physicist and authority on the nuclear programme.
China's nuclear relations with Pakistan have long been the focus of
controversy. Chinese scientists are believed to have played a key role in
developing Pakistan's nuclear programme in the early 1980s. The two
countries share a mistrust of India, which has also developed nuclear
weapons.
In the 1990s relations between Beijing and Washington were strained when
American officials discovered that China had supplied Islamabad with
magnetic components for a centrifuge used in enriching uranium, a material
used in warheads. US experts believe that Pakistan possesses between 30 and
50 warheads. Islamabad has also developed facilities for making
weapons-grade plutonium.
The precise locations of Pakistan's nuclear weapons are highly secret.
Several Washington sources said last week that senior Pakistani officers had
been forced to consider a range of scenarios, from thefts of weapon
materials to US bombing raids on nuclear facilities. The arrest in Pakistan
of three nuclear scientists with alleged Taliban sympathies heightened
concern that bomb-making secrets may have leaked to Afghanistan.
But even under extreme duress, several US sources said, many elements of the
Pakistani military would resist surrendering custody of their warheads to
China.
The risks of any deal with China are obvious. China is certain to be deeply
wary of being linked to fundamentalist conflict. Yet American experts
believe that Beijing represents the only haven that Pakistan would dare to
trust.
In a bid to defuse concern, US officials are understood to have offered
Pakistan high-tech assistance to improve the security of missile vaults and
update both command and control communications, and the multiple-code
custody arrangements that theoretically prevent rogue missile launches.
The issue was discussed by General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state,
during his recent visit to Pakistan. A State Department official said last
week Washington was "confident that Pakistan is taking steps to assure the
safety of these (nuclear) assets".
But other American sources said Pakistan was reluctant to accept US
technology for fear that it might be bugged by the CIA in order to establish
the whereabouts of warheads.
The threat that Osama Bin Laden may acquire nuclear bomb-making materials is
weighing heavily on American officials.
"Nobody in the Bush administration wants to be held responsible if Al-Qaeda
gets a nuke," said George Perkovich, an Asian nuclear programme expert, who
has urged the State Department to include China in talks on Pakistan's
nuclear problems. "They are working their asses off on this," he said.
=======================================================
http://www.msnbc.com/news/652509.asp#BODY
November 5, 2001
Priority: Pakistan's Nukes
If Taliban sympathizers overthrow Pervez Musharraf's regime,
U.S. Marines are standing by to move in
By John Barry, Newsweek International
Nov. 12 issue - The 2,200 troops of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit are
cooped up on the assault ship USS Peleliu, presumably itching for action. If
they ever go ashore, it's as likely to be in Pakistan as Afghanistan. Given
serious trouble in Pakistan - if, say, President Pervez Musharraf were
overthrown by forces friendly to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden - the
Marines would be charged with protecting and evacuating Americans and other
Westerners. But sources have told Newsweek the Marines could also be sent on
a more momentous and desperate mission: safeguarding Pakistanís nuclear
weapons and materials, to keep them away from bin Laden.
Whether the Marines would actually be needed for such a task, and whether
they could pull it off, remains unclear. Sources say Musharraf has
strengthened security at Pakistanís nuclear facilities since September 11.
Last week his foreign minister, Abdul Sattar, insisted the nukes were "under
foolproof custodial controls." Musharraf also has purged Taliban
sympathizers from the top ranks of the military and his intelligence agency.
But recently the military regime had to detain two scientists who played key
roles in the development of Pakistan's nuclear weapons - and turned out to
be Taliban supporters. The two men, Bashir ud Din Mahmoud and Chowdhury
Mohammed Amjad, retired after Pakistan's nuclear test in 1998 and founded an
Afghan relief organization. What they could offer bin Laden, in theory, is
inside knowledge of the Pakistani nuclear program - security procedures, the
number and location of warheads and the names of current staff members who
might be sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
By one estimate, Pakistan has enough nuclear material to make 30 to 50 bombs
or warheads. How many have actually been made isn't known, but even
unassembled parts could be dangerous. A "radiological weapon" - a
conventional explosive device used to scatter radioactive particles - would
be nearly as devastating as an actual nuclear bomb, producing fallout that
could render an American city uninhabitable for years. The material could
come from a weapons program or a civilian facility, such as a nuclear power
plant. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are dispersed across several secret
locations, and some elements of the armed forces surely would resist any
attempt by foreigners to take control of them. But if it comes to that, a
shootout with Pakistan might be preferable to nuclear terrorism in the
United States.
With Tony Clifton, Ron Moreau and Zahid Hussain in Islamabad
=======================================================
Dear EmailNation Subscriber,
An internationally acclaimed author of eighteen novels, John LeCarre is
also an astute political observer. In an exclusive essay published in the
November 19, 2001 issue of The Nation, LeCarre insists that the US's
current war on terrorism, rather than vanquishing the terrorist threat, is
in fact likely to increase it.
As he writes, "What America is storing up for herself...is yet more
enemies; because after all the bribes, threats and promises that have
patched together the rickety coalition, we cannot prevent another suicide
bomber being born each time a misdirected missile wipes out an innocent
village, and nobody can tell us how to dodge this devil's cycle of
despair, hatred and -- yet again -- revenge."
This essay is available in its entirety for a limited time only at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=lecarre
SEPTEMBER 11 RESOURCES
We've also created a special page on The Nation website, where we're
collecting all of our September 11 material, including web articles,
links, activist info, a regularly updated section of media resources, a
section on Islam and remarks on what patriotism is and ought to be. All
available at:
http://www.thenation.com/special/wtc/index.mhtml
And please remember that you can email any article on The Nation website
to friends, family and foes using the Email-To-A-Friend feature found by
clicking on the "email" link in the box adjoining each published article.
Best Regards,
Peter Rothberg, Associate Publisher
P.S. If you like what you read on The Nation website and you're not
currently a subscriber to the magazine, please consider taking advantage
of our special EmailNation offer -- only $35.97 for 47 weekly issues.
You'll be able to read ALL of what appears in The Nation and you'll help
us continue to do the work we do.
This special offer exclusively available at:
https://ssl.thenation.com.usa.mhtml
================================================
Published on Saturday, November 3, 2001 in the International Herald Tribune
The War on Terror Turns Into War on Afghanistan
by William Pfaff
PARIS -- What set out to be an American war on terrorism has become a war against Afghanistan. The substitution of Afghanistan for terrorism, or the identification of the one with the other, is not only unjust but diverts U.S. policy from where it was intended to go, to where it is the most simple to go. Afghanistan has been substituted for terrorism because Afghanistan is accessible to military power, and terrorism is not. The employment of high-tech munitions against irrelevant targets is a distraction from measures that actually deal with the threat. "War" is feasible against Qaida, the clandestine association of like-minded Muslim fundamentalists led by Osama bin Laden, because it is a matter of police and intelligence work. Remarkable progress has been made during the last four weeks, thanks to unprecedented international cooperation. However, Qaida is not identical with terrorism. Nor is bin Laden himself, even though Washington has cast him as the personification of evil. Terrorism is simply a form of violent political action, with political motives and objectives, and it is a recurrent phenomenon in history. Washington's inability to track down and seize or kill bin Laden is why the Taliban government has been substituted as America's enemy. The Kabul government's defiance is in turn responsible for the situation of frustration in which the United States finds itself, and which threatens to prove a damaging setback in more than one respect. Fear of American air attacks have provoked a huge exodus of refugees from Afghanistan. The country is already suffering the consequences of a drought that has crippled its agriculture. The attacks themselves have made it all but impossible for relief agencies to go into the country. Misdirected bombings that have twice hit International Red Cross relief depots add to the misery the United States is inflicting upon these people, and for which international opinion holds it responsible. The utility of the bombings is hard to defend. It was believed able to bring down the Taliban government, but that is not happening. There is no reason whatever to expect more bombs to make the Taliban authorities hand over bin Laden. The administration itself lacks confidence that an eventual ground expedition will seize him; Afghanistan is not Panama. The original plan depended less on bombing than on organization of the existing military and political opposition; cutting off the support Pakistan was giving to the regime; and enlistment of the country's other neighbors, including Iran, all with ethnic or religious clients inside Afghanistan. The authority of the former king and the United Nations was to underwrite a new coalition government. This plan has suffered a series of setbacks, and official Washington is rapidly losing interest in political solutions. There is an increasing disposition toward brute force, and the use of whatever allies are at hand, even if that threatens to leave Afghanistan in chaos, and the war on terrorism stranded. One might think it sensible to change a policy that is failing, but that is not the case in a government whose primordial motivation is to appease Congress and the media. Although bin Laden has not been found, operations against Qaida seem to be going well. An extensive apparatus for tracking terrorist communications, organizations and funding is being put into place. The United States and its allies could take advantage of these successes, and of the arrival of Ramadan and Afghanistan's harsh winter to suspend the bombings. The situation in Afghanistan and among Washington's Muslim allies could be allowed to evolve over the winter months. The result might prove constructive. Washington might take the time to reflect on its responsibility, which is to deal intelligently with the terrorist threat to the United States. Bin Laden and his group are merely instances of that threat. If he is killed, he will be replaced. The causes of terrorism will remain, and they are political. Afghanistan and its people are no threat to the United States, but they are th
e ones taking the full weight of America's indignation. The administration's priorities are upside-down. Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
Copyright © 2001 the International Herald Tribune
###
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
============================================================
LOOKING FOR FREE COUPONS? Visit the #1 coupon site on the
Web - CoolSavings! Save big on groceries, clothes, babies &
kids stuff and much more! Click here to enroll!
http://click.topica.com/caaadT2b1dc1Ab1fSOXg/CoolSavings
============================================================
______________________________________________
You can subscribe to Solidarity4Ever by sending a message to:
Solidarity4Ever-subscribe@igc.topica.com and unsubscribe by sending an email to:
Solidarity4Ever-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com.
_________________________________________________
This is a read-only list, but if you have an item you want posted, send it to the list moderator at , who will determine whether it is appropriate for redistribution. You can temporarily suspend delivery by sending a request to the same address. Notify the moderator at the time you want delivery resumed. You can also manage this function yourself by going to the list at < PRE>
http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/558/4war1.htm
Al-Ahram Weekly Online Issue No.558 1 - 7 November 2001
Alienable Rights
The American Service-members Protection Act (ASPA) authorises
the US to use force to "liberate" any US or allied persons detained on
behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which will
be
based in The Hague, Netherlands.
By Amira Howeidy
We all knew it was coming. Last Friday, US President George W Bush signed
an anti-terrorism bill that proposes sweeping new powers for the FBI,
extending the agency's ability to search citizens, wire-tap telephone lines
and eavesdrop on the Internet. The period of detention allowed for a foreign
citizen suspected of terrorist activities has also be increased. The bill --
which has raised concerns over the meaning of civil liberties in the post 11
September age -- came as no surprise to rights advocates in the US and
elsewhere.
The US-led alliance's "war on terrorism," now in the fourth week of its
offensive against Afghanistan, bypassed internationally-recognised channels
of legitimacy such as the United Nations and its Security Council. The
result: hundreds or perhaps thousands of Afghan civilians may have been
killed (no accurate numbers have been released because the Pentagon says it
still doesn't know). But the "war on terror" has meant more than the loss of
innocent lives: it has included a myriad of other measures. The blocking of
information and images from the war in Afghanistan from reaching the
American public, for example. There has also been widespread discrimination
against Arabs (and other people of Middle Eastern appearance) both by
officials (at Western airports and airlines) and by the Western public.
Approximately 900 "suspects" -- most of whom are Arabs-- have been arrested
in relation to the 11 September attacks. In the struggle against "terror,"
several laws have been bypassed, leading to what civil liberties advocates
have described as a serious threat to human rights.
The media debate on the choice between "freedom" and "security" -- which is
raging in Germany and elsewhere -- reflects the chilling options now facing
Western societies. But has the choice been made already?
FBI and Justice Department investigators, frustrated by their failure to
extract confessions from four suspects, are contemplating resorting to
"pressure" according to a report in the Washington Post on 21 October. Among
the alternative strategies under discussion are extracting information using
drugs or other pressure tactics, such as those occasionally employed by
Israeli interrogators, according to the article. Another idea is to
extradite suspected terrorists to US-allied countries in which security
services can employ threats to family members or resort to torture. And last
Sunday, the same newspaper reported that the CIA is contemplating pursuing
an assassination policy of individuals -- a policy that could extend beyond
Bin Laden and members of Al-Qa'ida.
Meanwhile, the US State Department -- taking advantage of the frenzy and
confusion that followed the terrorist acts -- endorsed the American
Service-members Protection Act (ASPA) on November 5. The legislation
authorises the US to use force to "liberate" any US or allied persons
detained on behalf of the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which
will be based in The Hague, Netherlands. It also prohibits US military
assistance to those states that ratify the ICC treaty except for NATO
members and some major non-NATO allies.
The New York based Human Rights Watch described the new law as an attempt to
undermine the establishment of a permanent war crimes court. "The United
States is forging a global coalition against terrorism, and the State
Department has just endorsed a bill that authorises an invasion of the
Netherlands," said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice
Programme at HRW. "This makes no sense. It hardly seems like a good moment
for the US to be threatening sanctions against dozens of countries simply
because they want to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against
humanity."
For many, it is difficult to find any sense in this new reality. The US
Coalition's use of force, for example, appears to be contrary to established
international law.
This is the case according to William Schabas, director of the Irish Centre
for Human Rights. "The use of force is prohibited by the United Nations
Charter (art. 2 (4)), except in two circumstances: self defence (art. 51)
and Security Council action under Chapter VII (art. 42)," says Schabas. "It
does not allow the use of force for the purpose of "retaliation." Schabas
told Al- Ahram Weekly that "the US-led alliance seems to find support for
its action by invoking the right of self-defence rather than the right to
retaliate. This is a broad and exaggerated interpretation of the right of
self-defence."
Normally, he argued, a person (or a state) acting in genuine self-defence is
very clear in explaining and justifying its behaviour on this basis. "But
the US and UK, with their talk of retaliation, reprisal, 'bringing
terrorists to justice' and so on, invoke grounds that are not really
compatible with the concept of self-defence."
Schabas acknowledged that the US does enjoy self-defence rights but pointed
out that its actions must be conditioned by "proportionality" and by what is
necessary to protect itself from attack. In his words, "the US seems to be
taking a view that in the name of the war on terrorism it has the right to
attack (or 'counterattack') any country it suspects of being insufficiently
unsympathetic to terrorism. In effect, this is the legal window dressing of
the pax Americana, a justification to attack any country that the US doesn't
like, and at any time." To Schabas, one of the unfortunate consequences of
all of this is the "marginalisation of the United Nations, which should in
fact be taking the lead according to its noble role under the UN Charter."
Perhaps it was with this super-power mentality in mind that the US Congress
adopted the anti- terrorism bill. According to the American Civil Liberties
Union Freedom Network (ACLU), "the bill was adopted in near record time with
only one public hearing and little debate."
"All this will have terrible repercussions," was the response of
International Law Professor Kamal Abul-Magd. "If the law doesn't give you
protection, you are more likely to take the law in your hands."
To observers in the Middle East, the new US laws seem to be a glaring
paradox. In this part of the world, the anti-terrorism bill sounded like
all- too-familiar a tune. "It's almost identical to the 'emergency laws'
faithfully adopted by Third World regimes," says Dawoud Al-Shoryan, a
columnist for the London-based Arabic daily Al- Hayat. For many years, the
US State Department's Human Rights desk has itself issued annual reports
clearly condemning such governments and their "freedom tying" policies,
human rights abuses and violations in the name of the emergency law. To
El-Shoryan and many others, it seems like the US is now taking such
"backward regimes" as their role model. He expressed fear that the American
"emergency law" will eventually "become an incubator that will lead to
similar laws being issued in several other countries, if Washington seeks to
extend its application within its anti-terrorism coalition."
It may not be all doom and gloom, however. After all, says Rights Activist
Gasser Abdel- Razek, a stronger global movement seems to be emerging as a
result of the September 11 attacks. "It will take different forms,
understandably, such as anti-war, human rights, environmental, and
anti-globalisation," said Abdel-Razek. "But it will definitely be more
critical of Western (that is, US) hegemony, even if its supporters don't
call it that."
====================================================
The Sunday Times (London) November 4, 2001
Pakistan panics over threat to arsenal
By Tony Allen-Mills Washington
Fears of fundamentalist upheaval in Pakistan have aroused concerns in
Washington that part or all of Islamabad's arsenal of nuclear weapons may
have to be moved to China for safekeeping from foreign attack.
Pakistan's military establishment was said last week to have been shaken by
reports that America, India or Israel might be planning pre-emptive strikes
on nuclear sites to prevent weapons falling into fundamentalist hands. "The
generals are panic-stricken," said one Pakistani source.
The threat to weapons widely regarded as the Pakistan military's "crown
jewels" has forced Islamabad to consider what one American expert described
as the "ultimate worst-case scenario" of removing warheads to China,
Pakistan's closest strategic ally in the region. The prospect that loose
warheads might be loaded onto helicopters or moved around a region foaming
with fundamentalist turmoil is adding to fears in Washington that the war in
Afghanistan might provoke a nuclear crisis.
Abdul Sattar, the Pakistani foreign minister, insisted last week the arsenal
was secure. But Washington officials have expressed mounting alarm that any
coup attempt against General Pervez Musharraf, the military president, might
put Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at risk.
Pakistani generals were appalled by one authoritative American report last
week that an elite Pentagon undercover unit, trained to disarm nuclear
weapons, was exploring plans for a mission inside Pakistan. "Every paranoid
fear they have had over the past 20 years about people coming to get our
missiles is suddenly coming to the fore," said Zia Mian, a Pakistani
physicist and authority on the nuclear programme.
China's nuclear relations with Pakistan have long been the focus of
controversy. Chinese scientists are believed to have played a key role in
developing Pakistan's nuclear programme in the early 1980s. The two
countries share a mistrust of India, which has also developed nuclear
weapons.
In the 1990s relations between Beijing and Washington were strained when
American officials discovered that China had supplied Islamabad with
magnetic components for a centrifuge used in enriching uranium, a material
used in warheads. US experts believe that Pakistan possesses between 30 and
50 warheads. Islamabad has also developed facilities for making
weapons-grade plutonium.
The precise locations of Pakistan's nuclear weapons are highly secret.
Several Washington sources said last week that senior Pakistani officers had
been forced to consider a range of scenarios, from thefts of weapon
materials to US bombing raids on nuclear facilities. The arrest in Pakistan
of three nuclear scientists with alleged Taliban sympathies heightened
concern that bomb-making secrets may have leaked to Afghanistan.
But even under extreme duress, several US sources said, many elements of the
Pakistani military would resist surrendering custody of their warheads to
China.
The risks of any deal with China are obvious. China is certain to be deeply
wary of being linked to fundamentalist conflict. Yet American experts
believe that Beijing represents the only haven that Pakistan would dare to
trust.
In a bid to defuse concern, US officials are understood to have offered
Pakistan high-tech assistance to improve the security of missile vaults and
update both command and control communications, and the multiple-code
custody arrangements that theoretically prevent rogue missile launches.
The issue was discussed by General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state,
during his recent visit to Pakistan. A State Department official said last
week Washington was "confident that Pakistan is taking steps to assure the
safety of these (nuclear) assets".
But other American sources said Pakistan was reluctant to accept US
technology for fear that it might be bugged by the CIA in order to establish
the whereabouts of warheads.
The threat that Osama Bin Laden may acquire nuclear bomb-making materials is
weighing heavily on American officials.
"Nobody in the Bush administration wants to be held responsible if Al-Qaeda
gets a nuke," said George Perkovich, an Asian nuclear programme expert, who
has urged the State Department to include China in talks on Pakistan's
nuclear problems. "They are working their asses off on this," he said.
=======================================================
http://www.msnbc.com/news/652509.asp#BODY
November 5, 2001
Priority: Pakistan's Nukes
If Taliban sympathizers overthrow Pervez Musharraf's regime,
U.S. Marines are standing by to move in
By John Barry, Newsweek International
Nov. 12 issue - The 2,200 troops of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit are
cooped up on the assault ship USS Peleliu, presumably itching for action. If
they ever go ashore, it's as likely to be in Pakistan as Afghanistan. Given
serious trouble in Pakistan - if, say, President Pervez Musharraf were
overthrown by forces friendly to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden - the
Marines would be charged with protecting and evacuating Americans and other
Westerners. But sources have told Newsweek the Marines could also be sent on
a more momentous and desperate mission: safeguarding Pakistanís nuclear
weapons and materials, to keep them away from bin Laden.
Whether the Marines would actually be needed for such a task, and whether
they could pull it off, remains unclear. Sources say Musharraf has
strengthened security at Pakistanís nuclear facilities since September 11.
Last week his foreign minister, Abdul Sattar, insisted the nukes were "under
foolproof custodial controls." Musharraf also has purged Taliban
sympathizers from the top ranks of the military and his intelligence agency.
But recently the military regime had to detain two scientists who played key
roles in the development of Pakistan's nuclear weapons - and turned out to
be Taliban supporters. The two men, Bashir ud Din Mahmoud and Chowdhury
Mohammed Amjad, retired after Pakistan's nuclear test in 1998 and founded an
Afghan relief organization. What they could offer bin Laden, in theory, is
inside knowledge of the Pakistani nuclear program - security procedures, the
number and location of warheads and the names of current staff members who
might be sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
By one estimate, Pakistan has enough nuclear material to make 30 to 50 bombs
or warheads. How many have actually been made isn't known, but even
unassembled parts could be dangerous. A "radiological weapon" - a
conventional explosive device used to scatter radioactive particles - would
be nearly as devastating as an actual nuclear bomb, producing fallout that
could render an American city uninhabitable for years. The material could
come from a weapons program or a civilian facility, such as a nuclear power
plant. Pakistan's nuclear weapons are dispersed across several secret
locations, and some elements of the armed forces surely would resist any
attempt by foreigners to take control of them. But if it comes to that, a
shootout with Pakistan might be preferable to nuclear terrorism in the
United States.
With Tony Clifton, Ron Moreau and Zahid Hussain in Islamabad
=======================================================
Dear EmailNation Subscriber,
An internationally acclaimed author of eighteen novels, John LeCarre is
also an astute political observer. In an exclusive essay published in the
November 19, 2001 issue of The Nation, LeCarre insists that the US's
current war on terrorism, rather than vanquishing the terrorist threat, is
in fact likely to increase it.
As he writes, "What America is storing up for herself...is yet more
enemies; because after all the bribes, threats and promises that have
patched together the rickety coalition, we cannot prevent another suicide
bomber being born each time a misdirected missile wipes out an innocent
village, and nobody can tell us how to dodge this devil's cycle of
despair, hatred and -- yet again -- revenge."
This essay is available in its entirety for a limited time only at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011119&s=lecarre
SEPTEMBER 11 RESOURCES
We've also created a special page on The Nation website, where we're
collecting all of our September 11 material, including web articles,
links, activist info, a regularly updated section of media resources, a
section on Islam and remarks on what patriotism is and ought to be. All
available at:
http://www.thenation.com/special/wtc/index.mhtml
And please remember that you can email any article on The Nation website
to friends, family and foes using the Email-To-A-Friend feature found by
clicking on the "email" link in the box adjoining each published article.
Best Regards,
Peter Rothberg, Associate Publisher
P.S. If you like what you read on The Nation website and you're not
currently a subscriber to the magazine, please consider taking advantage
of our special EmailNation offer -- only $35.97 for 47 weekly issues.
You'll be able to read ALL of what appears in The Nation and you'll help
us continue to do the work we do.
This special offer exclusively available at:
https://ssl.thenation.com.usa.mhtml
================================================
Published on Saturday, November 3, 2001 in the International Herald Tribune
The War on Terror Turns Into War on Afghanistan
by William Pfaff
PARIS -- What set out to be an American war on terrorism has become a war against Afghanistan. The substitution of Afghanistan for terrorism, or the identification of the one with the other, is not only unjust but diverts U.S. policy from where it was intended to go, to where it is the most simple to go. Afghanistan has been substituted for terrorism because Afghanistan is accessible to military power, and terrorism is not. The employment of high-tech munitions against irrelevant targets is a distraction from measures that actually deal with the threat. "War" is feasible against Qaida, the clandestine association of like-minded Muslim fundamentalists led by Osama bin Laden, because it is a matter of police and intelligence work. Remarkable progress has been made during the last four weeks, thanks to unprecedented international cooperation. However, Qaida is not identical with terrorism. Nor is bin Laden himself, even though Washington has cast him as the personification of evil. Terrorism is simply a form of violent political action, with political motives and objectives, and it is a recurrent phenomenon in history. Washington's inability to track down and seize or kill bin Laden is why the Taliban government has been substituted as America's enemy. The Kabul government's defiance is in turn responsible for the situation of frustration in which the United States finds itself, and which threatens to prove a damaging setback in more than one respect. Fear of American air attacks have provoked a huge exodus of refugees from Afghanistan. The country is already suffering the consequences of a drought that has crippled its agriculture. The attacks themselves have made it all but impossible for relief agencies to go into the country. Misdirected bombings that have twice hit International Red Cross relief depots add to the misery the United States is inflicting upon these people, and for which international opinion holds it responsible. The utility of the bombings is hard to defend. It was believed able to bring down the Taliban government, but that is not happening. There is no reason whatever to expect more bombs to make the Taliban authorities hand over bin Laden. The administration itself lacks confidence that an eventual ground expedition will seize him; Afghanistan is not Panama. The original plan depended less on bombing than on organization of the existing military and political opposition; cutting off the support Pakistan was giving to the regime; and enlistment of the country's other neighbors, including Iran, all with ethnic or religious clients inside Afghanistan. The authority of the former king and the United Nations was to underwrite a new coalition government. This plan has suffered a series of setbacks, and official Washington is rapidly losing interest in political solutions. There is an increasing disposition toward brute force, and the use of whatever allies are at hand, even if that threatens to leave Afghanistan in chaos, and the war on terrorism stranded. One might think it sensible to change a policy that is failing, but that is not the case in a government whose primordial motivation is to appease Congress and the media. Although bin Laden has not been found, operations against Qaida seem to be going well. An extensive apparatus for tracking terrorist communications, organizations and funding is being put into place. The United States and its allies could take advantage of these successes, and of the arrival of Ramadan and Afghanistan's harsh winter to suspend the bombings. The situation in Afghanistan and among Washington's Muslim allies could be allowed to evolve over the winter months. The result might prove constructive. Washington might take the time to reflect on its responsibility, which is to deal intelligently with the terrorist threat to the United States. Bin Laden and his group are merely instances of that threat. If he is killed, he will be replaced. The causes of terrorism will remain, and they are political. Afghanistan and its people are no threat to the United States, but they are th
e ones taking the full weight of America's indignation. The administration's priorities are upside-down. Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
Copyright © 2001 the International Herald Tribune
###
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
============================================================
LOOKING FOR FREE COUPONS? Visit the #1 coupon site on the
Web - CoolSavings! Save big on groceries, clothes, babies &
kids stuff and much more! Click here to enroll!
http://click.topica.com/caaadT2b1dc1Ab1fSOXg/CoolSavings
============================================================
______________________________________________
You can subscribe to Solidarity4Ever by sending a message to:
Solidarity4Ever-subscribe@igc.topica.com and unsubscribe by sending an email to:
Solidarity4Ever-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com.
_________________________________________________
This is a read-only list, but if you have an item you want posted, send it to the list moderator at , who will determine whether it is appropriate for redistribution. You can temporarily suspend delivery by sending a request to the same address. Notify the moderator at the time you want delivery resumed. You can also manage this function yourself by going to the list at < PRE>
September 11 Email: Date
Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:56 PM
September 11 Email: Subject
[MAPC-discuss] Fw: The Liberty for US War Criminals Act; Pakistan Panics Over Threat to Arsenal;
Collection
Citation
“[MAPC-discuss] Fw: The Liberty for US War Criminals Act; Pakistan Panics Over Threat to Arsenal;,” September 11 Digital Archive, accessed April 25, 2024, https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/879.