|
Although many of the events
currently taking place in the Middle East and Central Asia
are deeply interrelated, we have added separate sections for
countries from which the most volatile events are now taking
place. Therefore, you will find general news of the region
on this page and news from Palestine, Israel, and Afghanistan
by clicking the buttons on the menu on the left side
of this page.
Middle East & Central Asia News
Arab
Boycott Campaign Worries US Business
(Lachlan Carmichael, Palestine Chronicle.com, May 01 2002)
A campaign by the Arab masses to boycott US brand names
is intensifying amid growing rage over Israel's invasion of
Palestinian land and alleged US corporate donations to the
Jewish state. . . . It is especially hurting business
at fast food franchises, but also sales of soft drinks, as
well as a range of supermarket and pharmaceutical products
in Egypt and other Arab countries, industry sources said.
. . . Lists are circulating with hundreds of brand names to
be boycotted, including McDonald's and Burger King outlets,
Tide and Ariel detergents, Pampers, Coca Cola and Pepsi, Marlboro
cigarettes, and Heinz ketchup. . . . "Boycott a product,
save a Muslim," reads a statement in a leaflet obtained
in Cairo. . . . "Why should I help the economy
of what I see as an enemy when it is destroying the social
structure of a fellow Arab nation (Palestinians)?"
. . . Boycott the dollar in your operations for the sake of
Palestine. Whenever possible, opt for the euro," it said.
. . . Cigarettes are another important target. . . . "We
are not selling American products anymore, we have cleared
our shelves (of one million dollars in) US products and returned
them to the importers," . . . Arab countries can influence
US decision-making "if they unite through economic interests,
not political," he stressed. "We have to be logical
and understand that the US administration is subject to US
public opinion," he said.
(Lachlan Carmichael, Palestine Chronicle.com, May 01 2002)
A campaign by the Arab masses to boycott US brand names is
intensifying amid growing rage over Israel's invasion of Palestinian
land and alleged US corporate donations to the Jewish state.
. . . It is especially hurting business at fast food franchises,
but also sales of soft drinks, as well as a range of supermarket
and pharmaceutical products in Egypt and other Arab countries,
industry sources said. . . . Lists are circulating with hundreds
of brand names to be boycotted, including McDonald's and Burger
King outlets, Tide and Ariel detergents, Pampers, Coca Cola
and Pepsi, Marlboro cigarettes, and Heinz ketchup. . . . "Boycott
a product, save a Muslim," reads a statement in a leaflet
obtained in Cairo. . . . "Why should I help the economy
of what I see as an enemy when it is destroying the social
structure of a fellow Arab nation (Palestinians)?" .
. . Boycott the dollar in your operations for the sake of
Palestine. Whenever possible, opt for the euro," it said.
. . . Cigarettes are another important target. . . . "We
are not selling American products anymore, we have cleared
our shelves (of one million dollars in) US products and returned
them to the importers," . . . Arab countries can influence
US decision-making "if they unite through economic interests,
not political," he stressed. "We have to be logical
and understand that the US administration is subject to US
public opinion," he said.
Due
to boycott "Made in Israel" is hard to sell
(Ora Coren, Ha'aretz, April 11, 2002)
Chairman of the Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce,
Dan Gillerman, said importers and exporters are having particular
problems selling Israeli-made goods in Europe. He said that
with the threat of an arms embargo against Israel, Italy has
stopped sending guns used with police robots. Spain has stopped
a shipment of fireworks that were to be used on Independence
Day on the grounds that they can be used for military purposes,
Gillerman said. . . . The Manufacturers' Association said
it had received 10 complaints from exporters who are having
trouble selling Israeli goods in Scandinavia. All of them
reported they had received letters from their buyers saying
they are having an increasingly-difficult time marketing Israeli
goods due to anti-Israel public sentiment. Exporters fear
the Scandinavian market may dry up completely.
Powell
Meets Criticism on His First Stop, Delay in Going to Jerusalem
Questioned by Moroccan King
(Alan Sipress and Howard Schneider, Washington Post, April
9, 2002)
Even as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel pressed his
invasion of West Bank cities, Powell planned to make at least
five stops for discussions with Arab and European leaders
before arriving in Jerusalem late this week. . . . But Powell's
itinerary has fueled Arab suspicion that the United States
is continuing to give Israel wide latitude to wage its military
offensive. That frustration surfaced in Mohammed's remarks,
which came as television cameras began to record the opening
of his meeting with Powell. . . . "Don't you think it
would be more important to go to Jerusalem first?" Mohammed
asked just after Powell and his delegation arrived . . . The
awkward reception in Agadir could be the first of several
difficult encounters awaiting Powell . . . On the eve of Powell's
arrival in Morocco, at least a half-million people took to
the streets of the capital, Rabat, to protest Israel's military
operations and U.S. backing for the Sharon government.
Gulf
War Foes Make New Start with Handshakes, Hugs
(Ashraf Fouad, Rueters, March 28, 2002)
Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi leaders exchanged handshakes and
hugs at an Arab summit on Thursday, symbolically setting aside
enmities dating back to the 1990-91 Gulf crisis. . . . The
big surprise of the Beirut summit came at the start of the
final session, when Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and Iraq's
Izzat Ibrahim hugged and kissed on live television. . . .
Delegates said the two men had earlier embraced behind closed
doors but decided to make the rapprochement public. . . .
The conference hall erupted in applause at the first such
high-level public contact between the two countries' officials
since the 1991 Gulf war. . . . The personal contacts between
Iraqi, Kuwaiti and Saudi officials was followed by the first
formal agreement on a summit document tackling the bitter
disputes between them. . . . Arab leaders welcomed Iraq's
agreement to respect the independence, sovereignty and security
of Kuwait and guarantee its safety and unity to avoid a repetition
of 1990. . . . The summit firmly rejected all threats to attack
Iraq, which Washington says poses a danger to its national
security in the context of the war on terrorism launched after
the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities.
Arab
summit lies in ruins as Arafat is fenced in
(Robert Fisk, The Independent, 27 March 2002)
When the Egyptian President decided last night he would not
attend the summit, the word was out. Stay away. Yasser Arafat
- even if the Israelis were generous enough to allow him to
travel to Lebanon at the 11th hour - was told by his cronies
to remain in his office in Ramallah. . . . Colonel Gaddafi
would not come. Nor would Saddam Hussein. Not even the ruler
of the United Arab Emirates deigned to come. Nor the Emir
of Qatar. They call this an Arab summit? . . . Many Palestinians
believed for Mr Arafat to accept Israel's "permission"
to attend would amount to a shameful humiliation. Since Mr
Sharon told Mr Arafat he must not "incite violence"
in any Beirut speech, the Palestinian leader would be a prisoner
of the Israelis.
Arab
League Summit May Impact Bush
(The Guardian, March 26, 2002)
President Bush's ability to aggressively push his anti-terrorism
strategy in the Middle East - including possible action against
Iraq - may hinge on what happens at an Arab League summit.
. . . The violence in the Mideast already is threatening to
undermine fragile Islamic support for Bush's anti-terrorism
war. It has stiffened Arab resistance to U.S. plans in Iraq.
. . . At stake at Wednesday's summit is much more than the
future of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking: The White House's
regional strategy also is on the line. . . . the Bush administration
has dramatically increased high-level efforts to stop the
Palestinian-Israeli fighting in recent weeks. . . . In recent
days, Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had publicly pushed
Israel to let Arafat go to the summit. . . . everywhere the
vice president went, Arab leaders wanted instead to talk about
the Palestinian-Israeli violence that grabs the headlines
in their countries, and leads their citizens to sharply criticize
U.S. support for Israel. . . . At the same time, European
allies were pressing the United States to use its influence
with Israel to scale back the violence and also opposing a
major expansion of the U.S. war on terrorism . . . Arab nations
blame Israel for the violence, saying its military operations
have enraged Palestinians.
If
Bush is having 'visions', America must need Arab support for
another war
(Robert Fisk, The Independent, 14 March 2002)
It is the "vision" thing again. When President George
Bush wanted Arab support for the US bombing of Afghanistan
in September, he suddenly announced he had a "vision"
of a Palestinian state. Then it disappeared off his radar
screen. . . . Yet now it's back in a watered-down, US-framed
UN resolution that affirms "a vision of a region where
two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side..."
Could it be that Mr Bush has another war in mind for the region,
that perhaps Vice-President Dick Cheney, now touring the Arab
world and Israel, wants Arab support for an attack on Iraq?
. . . As always, the Arabs - anxious not to alienate the Americans
- had to clap their hands at the "vision" bit, as
if it contained the seeds of Palestinian sovereignty.
Countdown
to a dangerous war game: War fever heightens as Britain and
US see options crystallise this spring
(Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and John Hooper, The
Guardian, March 16, 2002)
The implication of "not in the next few months"
is that there could be military action before the end of the
year. "The odds are about 50-50," said a Whitehall
adviser. . . . the cries of the war lobby in Washington are
daily becoming louder . . . Mr Blair has come to take the
support of his government for granted. He was disabused of
that in cabinet last week. A cabinet minister said that going
to war with Iraq was not what he had gone into politics to
do and he had no enthusiasm for it, a mood shared by those
around the table. Mr Blair was apparently surprised by the
reaction. . . . The US has declared its objective is "regime
change" - the toppling of Saddam. . . . The British hope
is that, in spite of the war fever in Washington, when Mr
Bush comes to look at the military options available he will
decide the risks are too high. . . . Military options are
under consideration in spite of official denials, and will
become increasingly detailed in the coming months. . . . "Where
would American troops invade from?" asks a senior defence
official adding that only Kuwait would be willing to provide
a land base, and even it would be reluctant to do so. . .
. "Anyone talking now about a land invasion is talking
out of the back of the head," a senior British defence
official said. . . . The danger at that point is that Saddam,
cornered and with nothing to lose, smuggles biological or
chemical weapons into Israel or fires missiles at it, as he
did during the Gulf war.
Saudis
to take hard line with Cheney against war on Iraq
(Brian Whitaker, Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor,
The Guardian, March 15, 2002)
Saudi Arabia is to deliver an uncompromising message to the
US vice-president Dick Cheney that it opposes attacking Iraq
and will not cooperate in military efforts to remove Saddam
Hussein. . . . The Saudi move - which represents a huge groundswell
of Arab opinion against a looming war with Iraq - will be
a blow for Mr Cheney, who is touring the Middle East to drum
up support for an extended "war on terrorism". .
. . Saudi support proved vital in the 1991 war to liberate
Kuwait from Iraqi occupation and the kingdom has been used
as one of several bases for US-British patrols of the southern
no-fly zone over Iraq. . . . Saudi Arabia last year refused
to let the US use its territory as a base for the war in Afghanistan.
Arabs
don't want war on Iraq. They want America to change its policy
(Robert Fisk, The Independent,
13 March 2002)
President George Bush may believe Iraq is part of an "axis
of evil" but it was clear from their reactions to Mr
Cheney's mission that there will be no chance of an Arab "coalition"
against Saddam Hussein of the kind that Mr Bush's father rallied
12 years ago. Most Arabs would prefer Mr Cheney to deal with
the Arab-Israeli war . . . Jordan was far more pointed in
its remarks. King Abdullah, whose father, Hussain, was forced
by public opinion to stay away from the last anti-Iraqi coalition,
said a war against Saddam would have a "catastrophic
effect" on the Middle East. "Striking Iraq represents
a catastrophe for Iraq, and threatens the security and stability
of the region," he said. The Saudis are just as unenthusiastic
and even Kuwait, rescued by America and its allies in 1991,
has serious reservations. . . . Put simply, the Arabs don't
want the Americans to package a new war for them; they want
Washington to re-examine its entire policy in the Middle East.
They want Mr Cheney to glance over his shoulder at the bloodbath
in Israel and "Palestine".
[NOTE: The link below will take
you to a RealPlayer audio of this interview.]
The
CIA, Saudi Arabia, and the Bushes deep ties to the Bin Ladens
and the Carlyle Group
Just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming
for the Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same
airport whisked 11 members of Osama Bin Laden's family off
to Saudi Arabia. [Editor's Note: Private aircraft were
used by the bin Laden's in U.S. airspace ( to pick up family
family members) during the time that no private aricraft were
allowed to fly over this country. Isn't it interesting that
the bin Laden family have more stroke to make things happen
over here than do even the biggest names in business or Hollywood,
whose private planes weren't flying then.] That did not concern
the White House. . . . Their official line is that the Bin
Ladens are above suspicion - apart from Osama, the black sheep,
who they say hijacked the family name. That's fortunate for
the Bush family and the Saudi royal household, whose links
with the Bin Ladens could otherwise prove embarrassing. But
Newsnight has obtained evidence that the FBI was on the trail
of other members of the] Bin Laden family for links to terrorist
organisations before and after September 11th. . . . Does
the Bush family also have to worry about political blow-back?
The younger Bush made his first million 20 years ago
with an oil company partly funded by Salem Bin Laden's chief
US representative. Young George also received fees
as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle
Corporation, a little known private company which
has, in just a few years of its founding, become one of Americas
biggest defence contractors. His father, Bush Senior, is also
a paid advisor. And what became embarrassing was the revelation
that the Bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just after
September 11. . . . You have a key relationship between
the Saudis and the former President of the US who happens
to be the father of the current President of the US. And you
have all sorts of questions about where does policy begin
and where does good business and good profits for the company,
Carlyle, end?
How
the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply
Thomas J. Nagy, The Progressive)
The U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq
to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War.
The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly
children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway. . . . The primary
document, 'Iraq
Water Treatment Vulnerabilities,' is dated January 22,
1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying
clean water to its citizens. . . . Food and medicine will
also be affected, the document states. 'Food processing, electronic,
and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely
pure water that is free from biological contaminants,' it
says. . . . In cold language, the document spells out what
is in store: 'Iraq will suffer increasing shortages of purified
water because of the lack of required chemicals and desalination
membranes. Incidences of disease, including possible epidemics,
will become probable unless the population were careful to
boil water.' . . . This document, which was partially declassified
but unpublicized in 1995, can be found on the Pentagon's web
site at www.gulflink.osd.mil. . . . The document proceeds
to itemize the likely outbreaks. It mentions 'acute diarrhea'
brought on by bacteria such as E. coli, shigella, and salmonella,
or by protozoa such as giardia, which will affect 'particularly
children,' or by rotavirus, which will also affect 'particularly
children,' a phrase it puts in parentheses. And it cites the
possibilities of typhoid and cholera outbreaks. . . . As these
documents illustrate, the United States knew sanctions had
the capacity to devastate the water treatment system of Iraq.
It knew what the consequences would be: increased outbreaks
of disease and high rates of child mortality. . . . The sanctions,
imposed for a decade largely at the insistence of the United
States, constitute a violation of the Geneva Convention. They
amount to a systematic effort to, in the DIA's own words,
'fully degrade' Iraq's water sources. . . . For more than
ten years, the United States has deliberately pursued a policy
of destroying the water treatment system of Iraq, knowing
full well the cost in Iraqi lives. The United Nations has
estimated that more than 500,000 Iraqi children have died
as a result of sanctions, and that 5,000 Iraqi children continue
to die every month for this reason. . . . No one can say that
the United States didn't know what it was doing.
Open Letter to the
Prime Minister of Canada (Aida Warah, Ph. D.)
“Let's not repeat the mistakes and atrocities of World
War II when many, simply watched while millions got killed
innocently. We are all responsible one hundred percent. Please
act.”
A
discreet way of doing business with Iraq (Carola Hoyos,
Financial Times; Nov 3, 2000)
Though legal, leading US oil service companies such as Halliburton,
Baker Hughes, Schlumberger, Flowserve, Fisher-Rosemount and
others, have used subsidiaries and joint venture companies
for this lucrative business, so as to avoid straining relations
with Washington and jeopardising their ties with President
Saddam Hussein's government in Baghdad.
US companies have in fact submitted contracts worth at least
$100m to the UN for approval to supply Iraq with oil industry
spare parts, through their foreign subsidiaries. Some informed
estimates put that value as high as $170m. Halliburton, the
largest US oil services company, is among a significant number
of US companies that have sold oil industry equipment to Iraq
since the UN relaxed sanctions two years ago. From 1995 until
August this year [2000] Halliburton's chief executive officer
was Dick Cheney . . .
"Washington doesn't want to enable the Iraqi economy
to recover, therefore it keeps the infrastructure very weak,"
a UN diplomat said. However, Iraq is the US's second biggest
Middle Eastern oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, making Washington
uneasily dependent on Iraq's steady oil flow.
|
