Mideast News Digest
U.S. Opposes Int'l Court Hearing on Sharon's Apartheid Wall
The hearing on Israel's new "Berlin Wall" of the Middle East before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is now in danger because of the opposition of the United States, the European Union, and 30 other countries, reported Ha'aretz on Jan. 31. The paper adds that "officials" of the United Nations say they cannot ignore this level of opposition.
The decision to bring the issue before the ICJ was the result of a resolution voted up by the UN General Assembly. Israel has been mobilizing, particularly in Washington, against this move. Now the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, and the EU claim the hearing would "politicize" the ICJ.
While the juridical question of whether it is right or wrong to bring this before the international body is open to debate, with very good arguments on both sides, this does not appear to be the main issue behind the U.S. opposition, rallied at the request of Sharon.
It is important to note that the ICJ is not to be confused with the International Criminal Court, which is a supranational body that can issue arrest warrants, conduct independent investigations, and infringe on the sovereignty of nations. Whereas, a decision by the ICJ, is only a judgment on standing in international law. The ICJ would making a finding as to whether the wallwhich all parties agree has taken Palestinian farmland, schools, and homes and made them inaccessible to citizens of the Palestinian Authorityviolates international law. The ICJ cannot not call for any sort of enforcement.
Since there are treaties between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, there is a legal basis to bring this case before the ICJ for a judgment. Such international conflicts between two treaty partners have been brought before the court in the past. The major difference in this case, is that Israel refused to allow the wall question to be brought before the court, so the Palestinians went to the UN General Assembly for a mandate.
There have been precedents, such as the case of apartheid in South Africa, which was brought before the international court in the 1970s. Although that judgment was later used to justify sanctions against South Africa, the sanctions only went through after a vote of the UN Security Council.
The actual effect of the U.S. preventing this issue from being heard in the ICJ is that the current stalemate will continue, with the Palestinians losing more access to their territory and economic means of survival.
So, at the end of the day, the Israel-Palestinian conflict will remain as it is, with Washington refusing even to enforce the terms of its own "Road Map," thus, giving Sharon free rein to carry out his genocidal measures.
Former UN Weapons Inspector Ritter Interviewed by EIR
Former UN Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter exposes the lies about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, in an interview with EIR, featured in this week's InDepth. Among the highlights, Ritter reveals that charges that Syria is hiding Iraqi weapons is pure "fabrication."
Syria Responds to U.S. Charge of Receiving Iraqi WMD
Syrian Information Minister Ahmad al-Hassan told reporters that U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts' (R-Okla) suggestion, that Syria had some of Iraq's missing weapons of mass destruction, was simply an attempt "to cover their own failure" to find weapons in Iraq, Reuters reported Jan. 25. "This [allegation] is meant to mislead [public opinion]," al-Hassan said. "So long as there were no weapons of mass destruction [found] in Iraq itself, how can they be in Syria?" He also called for a quick end to the occupation of Iraq.
Cheney, Sharon, Rumsfeld Want Syria War To Save Themselves
As reported in EIW last week, Jane's Intelligence Digest, the British military publication, reported Jan. 23, that U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "is considering plans to expand the global war on terrorism with multi-pronged attacks against suspected militant bases in countries such as Lebanon and Somalia." Jane's noted that an attack in Somalia would have little consequence, but attacks on Hezbollah bases in Lebanon is a more serious provocation, that "would almost certainly involve a confrontation with Syrian troops," and "would also fuel Muslim and Arab hostility toward the U.S., at a time when U.S.-led occupation forces are fighting the ongoing insurgency in Iraq."
But, despite the risk, the confrontation with Syria, writes Jane's, might occur because the Administration "considers Damascus a prime candidate for regime change," and is still committed to "preemptive war."
While a number of American and British specialists disputed the Jane's report, arguing that Bush election guru Karl Rove has let it be known there will be no new wars between now and election day, the report cannot be dismissed out of hand for three reasons: Don Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon.
All three are in deep political trouble, and in their desperation, could launch war as a way of changing the subject. (See this week's InDepth for the multiple investigations of Dick Cheney.)
Hamas Is Proposes 10-Year Truceif Israel Will Withdraw
Well-placed Washington diplomatic sources confirmed reports that the Palestinian Islamist organization Hamas has proposed a "10-year truce," or ceasefire, with Israel. Hamas spokesman Abdel Aziz Rantisi told Reuters on Jan. 26 that Hamas had come to the conclusion that it was "difficult to liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation. We accept a state in the West Bank including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for Israeli withdrawal and the establishment of a state."
Middle East sources have told EIR's sources report that Egyptian and Saudi leading circles made clear to Hamas that there is no other course to take.
However, on Jan. 27, the worst terrorist bombing inside Israel in months took place on a bus in Jerusalem, killing more than 10 Israelis, and injuring more than 50 people. It was claimed by Islamic Jihad.
NATO Role Being Discussed for Iraq
Trans-Atlantic talks are taking place concerning NATO peace-keeping in Iraq, and the Franco-German military role in Afghanistan. The upcoming Feb. 27, meeting at the White House between German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and President George W. Bush, their first in two years, and the meeting of the new NATO General-Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, with Bush in Washington on Jan. 30, have to be seen in the context of ongoing American efforts to transform the occupation of Iraq into a (European) NATO mandate, there. The U.S. visit of French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, two weeks ago also fits this pattern.
De Hoop Scheffer said, after his meeting with Bush, that NATO might take a greater role in Iraq, only after a sovereign government takes office in Baghdad, and asks NATO to do so.
An article by Lothar Ruehl, former German Assistant Defense Minister, in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung Jan. 30, discusses this NATO issue, as well as Afghanistan.
Ruehl reports that the U.S., with great urgency, is asking NATO to move into Iraq, while at the same time, emphasizing that the American position has become much more "flexible," regarding the role of the Europeans.
Ruehl says there are talks about merging the two Iraqi zones occupied by Poland and the United Kingdom, into one, which would be run by a doubled European NATO military presence of 50,000 soldiers. Ruehl adds that a kind of division of labor would go along with that, which would not involve Germany in Iraq, but give it an increased role in Afghanistan, instead. There, the Germans would take over command and control, and work with and through the Franco-German EuroCorps beginning Aug. 1, according to these deliberations.
Cheney's Dream of Privatizing Iraqi Oil Industry on Hold
The U.S. may be rethinking its plan to privatize Iraq's oil industry, due to Iraqi opposition to the scheme, and the Oil Ministry's reputed "success" in increasing production of crude to more than 2.3 million barrels a day, Associated Press reported Jan. 29.
The new line is that, after the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, they can decide what to do with the industry, according to Robert McKee, the U.S.-appointed senior adviser to the Oil Ministry. McKee said, "I think they'll have to begin with a state-controlled industry. That makes the most sense," he said.
Privatization was one of the main objectives of the American neo-cons, and the occupation under Paul Bremer, but the Iraqi resistance has changed that. "Even the U.S. has lost interest, mainly because the Iraqis themselves are so 'anti.' It's a nationalistic thing," Leo Drollas, chief economist at the Center for Global Energy Studies, said, from the Center's London office. According to Thamer al-Ghadban, a senior adviser at the Oil Ministry, the Iraqis are against it. "There is no policy to privatize the Iraqi industry," al-Ghadban said.
Plans to increase production and export have been dampened by the security situation. "We could do more ... if we had access through Turkey, but because of the security issues we now have unused production capacity in the North of about 400,000 barrels per day," al-Ghadban said. The Iraqi Oil Ministry, supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a private British firm, Erinys International Ltd., is training guards to protect its pipelines.
Iraqi Scientists Say 'Liar' Blair Should Resign
Leading Iraqi scientists living in exile, who were involved in the country's weapons programs in the 1980s, have come out saying bluntly that Blair is a liar, and should go, reported the London Telegraph, Jan. 30.
Dr. Emad Shansaldi, a nuclear physicist who is leading the calls against Blair, said: "There is only one thing for Tony Blair to do, and that is resign."
"We had no weapons of mass destruction when Britain and America invaded my country," said Dr Shamsaldi. "I should know because I spent much of the 1980s involved in Iraq's nuclear programme." The nuclear program ended with the first war against Iraq, he said. "The country has not been capable of building WMD for more than a decade," another scientist said.
"When we showed the UN inspectors our ruined country [after Gulf War I, in 1991], they agreed with our assessment," Dr Shamsaldi said. "We could not believe it when Blair and [U.S. President George] Bush said Iraq did [have WMD]. Sadly the British and American people believed it." One engineer who helped build Saddam's long-range missiles, said: "I made weapons because I wanted Iraq to be a powerful and prosperous nation. Every true Iraqi would do this."
Dr Fardel Abbas, a chemist, said: "Our work was not wrongbut Saddam was a bad leader." He went on: "In that we share the British experience of being misled and betrayed by our leaders."
|