[Peace-discuss] RE: Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 11

[Scott Edwards]

Yes Carl, that is the reasoning I was using. AMIS is ineffectual because 
they are poor black Africans.

There is no doubt that AMIS has been ineffectual, and (suprise!) it has 
little to do with their skin color. They are ineffectual because they have 
limited equipment (but we sure as hell don't want the US providing equipment 
because the next step is texans in Sudanese oil fields), they are not 
allowed in the air (we sure as hell don't want planes in the air, thats just 
like kosovo!), and the GoS limits their movements and even attacks them (but 
we sure as hell don't want to support the Zionist conspiracy to get Nigerian 
and Rwandan troops to stand up to the government, cause that would be 
anti-Arab).

But we don't want a UN transfer either. Because it would just be about oil, 
just like kosovo, and be an Israeli conspiracy.

For the sake of dialogue, I do my best to put some sticks in the Darfur 
straw men whisping through on this list, but I can't do anything here.

regards.
scott



>From: peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net
>Reply-To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 11
>Date: Wed,  4 Oct 2006 14:50:55 -0500 (CDT)
>
>Send Peace-discuss mailing list submissions to
>	peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>	http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>	peace-discuss-request at lists.chambana.net
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
>	peace-discuss-owner at lists.chambana.net
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of Peace-discuss digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: RE: Military action in Darfur, like Kosovo (C. G. Estabrook)
>    2. Just Foreign Policy News, October 4, 2006 (Robert Naiman )
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:48:36 -0500
>From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Military action in Darfur, like
>	Kosovo
>To: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Message-ID: <45241014.3080801 at uiuc.edu>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Awfully suspicious, how the AU troops (accepted by Sudan) are dismissed,
>and a "legal transfer to the UN" (which Sudan won't accept) is insisted
>upon.  A certain liberal racism, perhaps? ("Those poor Africans are
>ineffectual, but if we get a crack UN force in there that can push that
>'Arab' government around in defense of those poor blacks...")
>
>Anyway, money and materiel can be gotten to the AU forces in situ far
>faster than a UN force can be introduced, on the UN's own estimate.
>That's clearly what serious save-Darfur people would be pushing for.  --CGE
>
>Scott Edwards wrote:
> > We are certainly not in disagreement on that point, Carl. Congress has
> > allocated somewhere in the hundreds of millions to AMIS, $20m in the
> > most recent mark-up. Thats a result of very hard lobbying by AI and
> > others. AI and others are calling for still more "additional support"
> > for AMIS, but between you and I, AMIS isn't bankrupt. Just ineffectual.
> >
> > As far as material, thats a harder problem. What is needed is military
> > capability that would allow the AU forces to see where villages might
> > burn, and equipment to deploy there in time to stop the killing of
> > civilians; not by Sudanese forces, but by the Janjawid.
> >
> > And not so the AU can kill or fight the Janjawid, but so the mere
> > presence of troops deters the looting, killing, and raping. And
> > guarantee aid delivery. Any such improvement of AMIS capability needs to
> > come through the UN, though, and not NATO or the Arab League. Because
> > this cannot be a mission dependant on the political will of NATO or AL
> > member states. This cannot be confused with AL or NATO member-state
> > interests. Thats why the legal transfer to the UN is important; though
> > not apolitical, a legally mandated UN PKO is much harder to manipulate
> > (whether the GoS, the USG, or the Darfur rebels) than a regional force.
> >
> > But it has to happen, because for 2 years, AMIS has been completely
> > impotent.
> >
> > best,
> > scott
> >
> >
> >> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> >> To: Scott Edwards <scottisimo at hotmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Military action in Darfur, like Kosovo
> >> Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:02:54 -0500
> >>
> >> Why aren't those seriously concerned about people in Darfur calling on
> >> the "world leader [who] has tried the hardest to save the survivors in
> >> Darfur" (in Nat's ridiculous phrase about George Bush) to transfer
> >> large amounts of money and material to the African Union forces?
> >>
> >> Of course the Bush administration wouldn't do that, because they're
> >> much more interested in using the UN and NATO to threaten Sudan, while
> >> the Israeli lobby organizes against an "Arab" hate-object.  --CGE
> >>
> >>
> >> Scott Edwards wrote:
> >>> Yeah...David Lake made a similar appeal (along with S. Rice),
> >>> likening it to Kosovo. I was ticking off the hours till you wrote.
> >>>
> >>> If the international community can get a UN transfer in Darfur, then
> >>> that is what needs to happen.  There are still some diplomatic levers
> >>> that can be pulled on. Nothing has changed, other than a few more
> >>> terrible comparisons to the NATO Kosovo campaign, which was illegal.
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>> scott
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> >>>> To: Scott Edwards <scottisimo at hotmail.com>
> >>>> CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >>>> Subject: Military action in Darfur, like Kosovo
> >>>> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:50:01 -0500
> >>>>
> >>>> Scott Edwards wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> ...I don't think anyone who is taken seriously in Darfur advocacy is
> >>>>> calling for a NATO military operation ... This situation is so
> >>>>> remarkably different from Kosovo that I'm just confused as to why it
> >>>>> keeps coming up on this list... If there is a similarity to a US-led
> >>>>> bombing campaign in Southern Europe, I fail to see it...
> >>>>
> >>>> Unfortunately that's not the view of some of the most avid
> >>>> supporters of
> >>>> "aid for Darfur" (via military action against Khartoum).  In 
>tonight's
> >>>> News-Gazette, Nat Hentoff -- who's been active in this matter for
> >>>> sometime -- calls for (as the headline has it) "Targeted airstrikes
> >>>> needed to send message on Sudan."
> >>>>
> >>>> The centerpiece of Nat's argument is Darfur's similarity to Kosovo!
> >>>> That's established for him by a Clinton official, Susan Rice.  
>Needless
> >>>> to say, both think Clinton/NATO's attack on Serbia a splendid idea,
> >>>> which should be repeated in Sudan.
> >>>>
> >>>> (BTW, I consider Nat a friend and a courageous champion of civil
> >>>> liberties for many years.  But his foreign policy views have become
> >>>> increasingly Rightist in recent years -- a sad mistake, I think.) 
>--CGE
> >>>>
> >>>> ===
> >>>>
> >>>>     News-Gazette October 3, 2006
> >>>>     Nat Hentoff
> >>>>     Targeted airstrikes needed to send message on Sudan
> >>>>
> >>>>     At the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 19, Secretary-General Kofi
> >>>> Annan described "men, women and children in Darfur, driven from their
> >>>> homes by murder, rape and burning of their villages ... making a
> >>>> mockery
> >>>> of our claim, as an international community, to shield people from 
>the
> >>>> worst abuses ... Not having done enough for the people of Rwanda." He
> >>>> continued, "can we just watch as this tragedy deepens?"
> >>>>     If we wait for the United Nations to act, the answer is "yes."
> >>>>     In August, the U.N. Security Council supported the sending of
> >>>> 22,500
> >>>> U.N. forces into Darfur to strengthen the small African Union 
>presence.
> >>>> But Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, threatens to attack 
>those
> >>>> peacekeepers if they come in -- adding that rising world protests
> >>>> against his government are part of a Zionist plot to redraw the 
>region
> >>>> in order to protect Israel.
> >>>>     The primary obstacle to any meaningful intervention by the United
> >>>> Nations is that, as Mr. Annan has stated, permission must come from 
>Mr.
> >>>> al-Bashir for U.N. forces to enter because the United Nations is
> >>>> composed of sovereign nations, and the sovereignty of each must be
> >>>> respected.
> >>>>     In a stinging response, Susan Rice, former assistant secretary of
> >>>> state for African Affairs, told National Public radio on Sept. 15: 
>"It
> >>>> is like giving Milosevic or Hitler a veto over the world stopping the
> >>>> perpetration of genocide."
> >>>>     I vividly remember Ms. Rice while she was in the Clinton State
> >>>> Department -- wishing to prod the White House to act more vigorously 
>on
> >>>> slavery in Sudan's south -- traveling to Sudan by herself to awaken
> >>>> world interest then. Now a senior fellow at the Brookings
> >>>> Institution in
> >>>> Washington, she is speaking the horrifying truth to the world if
> >>>> nothing
> >>>> more happens than more talk at the United Nations and more anguished
> >>>> editorials in the press. Just wringing our hands, she points out,
> >>>> "is an
> >>>> opportunity for the people who have perpetrated genocide, the
> >>>> government
> >>>> of Sudan, to clear out all the witnesses and ... continue a second 
>wave
> >>>> of the genocide, with the international community poised to stand by
> >>>> and
> >>>> watch."
> >>>>     Ms. Rice has an alternative: "If we, the United States, decided 
>--
> >>>> as we did in the case of Kosovo -- that we're going to act, then 
>action
> >>>> would happen." We must say to the government of Sudan that "there 
>will
> >>>> be military consequences ... unless and until you relent and allow 
>the
> >>>> United Nations force to come in and protect civilians."
> >>>>     But in view of the civil war in Iraq, the resurgence of the 
>Taliban
> >>>> in Afghanistan and our other pressing obligations, is it conceivable
> >>>> Congress would send American troops into Darfur?
> >>>>     What we can do, Susan Rice says, acting with NATO or a coalition 
>of
> >>>> democratic nations -- there can be "targeted air strikes at Sudanese
> >>>> airfields to knock out its airplanes, which have been very much
> >>>> involved
> >>>> in killing civilians."
> >>>>     "The threat of the actual action," she continues, "might be
> >>>> sufficient to persuade the Sudanese to accept a U.N. force. That can
> >>>> happen from the air" and could lead to "the U.N. forces on the 
>ground."
> >>>>     It's vital to remember that the United States has bypassed an
> >>>> impotent U.N. Security Council before when essential. Says the
> >>>> admirably
> >>>> clearheaded Ms. Rice: "We did act ... when we faced a similar, albeit
> >>>> not even as grave a situation in Kosovo. We acted without the 
>Security
> >>>> Council, even though it would have been our strong preference to act
> >>>> with the Security Council.
> >>>>     "We acted with NATO to save lives in Kosovo. We didn't accept
> >>>> Milosevic vetoing international action. We used a language Milosevic
> >>>> understood, which was air force strikes. We never put a single NATO
> >>>> soldier on the ground, but Milosevic got the message and a U.N. force
> >>>> went in."
> >>>>     If we do not now act to save the survivors in Darfur, one of 
>them,
> >>>> in Tawila -- Shiek Abdullah Muhammad Ali -- told Lydia Polgreen, the
> >>>> invaluable New York Times reporter on the ground: "What happened in
> >>>> Rwanda, it will happen here ... we beg the international community,
> >>>> somebody, come and save us. We have no means to protect ourselves. 
>The
> >>>> only thing we can do is run and hide in the mountains and caves. We
> >>>> will
> >>>> all die."
> >>>>     In Rwanda itself, a survivor of the genocide there, Freddy
> >>>> Umutanguha, told Reuters: "We survivors stand with the victims in
> >>>> Darfur. We know what it is like to lose our mothers, fathers, 
>brothers,
> >>>> sisters, sons and daughters. We know what it is like to lose 
>everything
> >>>> and see all who are dearest to us destroyed."
> >>>>     Of all world leaders, President Bush has tried the hardest to 
>save
> >>>> the survivors in Darfur. He named this crime against humanity being
> >>>> perpetrated by the government of Sudan for what it is -- "genocide" 
>--
> >>>> while other leaders used the euphemism "ethnic cleansing."
> >>>>     Will the president, with all the problems he is dealing with
> >>>> elsewhere, lead further, hopefully with other democratic nations -- 
>as
> >>>> we did in Kosovo -- with targeted air strikes on Sudanese airfields 
>to
> >>>> ground the killing Sudanese airplanes, and show Mr. al-Bashir he 
>faces
> >>>> consequences?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Peace-discuss mailing list
> >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> >
> >
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:50:33 -0500
>From: "Robert Naiman " <naiman.uiuc at gmail.com>
>Subject: [Peace-discuss] Just Foreign Policy News, October 4, 2006
>To: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>Message-ID:
>	<bd75d63d0610041250k625e4651vba4242ed1671400 at mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
>Just Foreign Policy News
>October 4, 2006
>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/newsroom/index.html
>
>The Just Foreign Policy News Summary is now podcast daily. To subscribe, 
>see
>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/podcasts/podcast_howto.html.
>
>Summary:
>U.S.
>Democrats criticized Senate Majority Leader Frist for saying that the
>Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and
>for favoring bringing "people who call themselves Taliban" into the
>government. Frist said Monday in Afghanistan that Taliban fighters are
>too numerous and too popular to be defeated. "You need to bring them
>into a more transparent type of government," he said. Democrats
>accused Frist of trying to "cut and run" in Afghanistan. "Senator
>Frist now suggests that the best way forward in Afghanistan is to
>coddle the Taliban by welcoming Taliban members into a coalition
>government, as if 9/11 had never happened," House Minority Leader
>Nancy Pelosi said.
>
>Pelosi's criticism is unfortunate. If it's wrong for Republicans to
>try to silence debate of U.S. foreign policy by accusing critics of
>cowardice, it's wrong for Democrats to do it. If it's wrong to do it
>with respect to Iraq, it's wrong to do it with respect to Afghanistan.
>
>To express support for Senator Frist's suggestion that the U.S. seek a
>political accommodation with supporters of the Taliban, you can write
>a letter to a newspaper using this link:
>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/fristafg_ltr.html
>
>Note that this story has been mostly ignored by mainstream press: only
>the AP is covering it. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington
>Post has run an article on it. This is striking, given Frist's
>stature. If you didn't read the Just Foreign Policy News, you might
>not know about it.
>
>The US, France and Britain rejected Iran's proposal that France
>organize and monitor the production of enriched uranium inside Iran.
>Washington has consistently taken the position that any uranium
>enrichment on Iranian soil is out of the question because it could
>give Iran the ability to master the nuclear fuel cycle. [This U.S.
>position has no basis in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.]
>
>A majority of U.S. adults say President Bush has deliberately misled
>the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an
>all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN.
>
>Secretary of State Rice is under pressure from Arab allies to renew
>efforts for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians.
>Arab officials expressed frustration that the US seems far more
>focused on the issue of Iran's nuclear program.
>
>Iran
>British forces in Iraq have found no evidence to support US claims
>that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq, the Washington
>Post reports.
>
>In a policy brief on US options regarding Iran's nuclear program, the
>Cato Institute's Ted Carpenter argues sanctions won't work, subversion
>won't work and could backfire, and air strikes won't work and would
>cause a terrible backlash. The US could accept Iran as a member of the
>nuclear club and rely on its own deterrent power as it has done
>successfully in the past, but the best option would be to normalize
>diplomatic and economic relations in exchange for Iran's agreement to
>open its nuclear program to rigorous inspections.
>
>Iran's president has ordered the country's nuclear sites be opened to
>foreign tourists to prove its program is peaceful, the BBC reports.
>
>Iraq
>Two months after a security crackdown began in the capital, U.S.
>military deaths appear to be rising, even as fatalities among Iraqi
>security forces have fallen. U.S. officials said the recent increases
>could be attributable to U.S. troops' greater exposure to combat since
>redeploying in early August from heavily guarded bases to Baghdad's
>streets.
>
>Iraqi authorities have taken a brigade of up to 700 policemen out of
>service and put members under investigation for "possible complicity"
>with death squads following a mass kidnapping earlier this week.
>
>Afghanistan
>An unexpectedly fierce and prolonged Taliban offensive that began last
>spring has U.S. and NATO officials deeply worried that they face a
>serious insurgency, writes Jim Lobe for Inter Press Service. Greatly
>compounding their concern is Pakistan's ceasefire agreement with
>pro-Taliban tribal leaders. A senior U.S. military officer said
>cross-border attacks by Taliban forces had tripled since the truce
>took effect.
>
>Contents:
>U.S.
>1) Frist Draws Criticism for Comments On Taliban
>Associated Press, Wednesday, October 4, 2006; Page A16
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301284.html
>Democrats criticized Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist yesterday for
>saying that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won
>militarily and for favoring bringing "people who call themselves
>Taliban" into the government. Frist, who was in Afghanistan, said
>Monday that Taliban fighters are too numerous and too popular to be
>defeated. "You need to bring them into a more transparent type of
>government," he said.
>
>Democrats accused Frist of trying to "cut and run" in Afghanistan,
>something Republicans have been accusing Democrats of seeking to do in
>Iraq. "Senator Frist now suggests that the best way forward in
>Afghanistan is to coddle the Taliban by welcoming Taliban members into
>a coalition government, as if 9/11 had never happened," House Minority
>Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.
>
>[To express support for Senator Frist's suggestion that the U.S. seek
>a political accommodation with supporters of the Taliban, you can use
>this link:
>http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/fristafg_ltr.html]
>
>2) Iran's Proposal to End Nuclear Standoff Is Rejected by the West
>Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, October 4, 2006
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html
>Iran has proposed that France organize and monitor the production of
>enriched uranium inside Iran, complicating negotiations over the fate
>of its nuclear program. The US, France and Britain rejected the
>proposal Tuesday, saying it was a stalling tactic and fell far short
>of the UN Security Council's demand that Iran freeze all uranium
>enrichment and reprocessing activities.
>
>The proposal, made by Mohammad Saeidi, deputy director of the Atomic
>Energy Organization of Iran, was presented as a sign of flexibility in
>negotiations between Iran and six world powers represented by the EU.
>A senior French official said: "This is totally excluded. There is
>nothing substantive behind it." The US is giving Iran until the end of
>the week to declare whether it will agree to fully stop making
>enriched uranium or face sanctions. Enriched uranium can be used to
>make energy or to fuel weapons, and Washington has consistently taken
>the position that any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is out of the
>question because it could give Iran the ability to master the nuclear
>fuel cycle.
>
>Secretary of State Rice and the foreign ministers of Britain, France,
>Russia, China and Germany have discussed the possibility of meeting in
>London Friday to plot a strategy for the next steps, officials said.
>While at a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo on Tuesday, Rice
>said there was nothing new in the Iranian proposal. "The Iranians have
>floated it before," she said, suggesting that the US would reject any
>proposal that allowed Iran to enrich and reprocess uranium on its own
>soil.
>
>The Iranian proposal, comes as Iran has hardened its position in
>negotiations between Ali Larijani, its chief nuclear negotiator, and
>Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief. Solana reported in recent
>days that Larijani rejected calls to halt key nuclear activities even
>though Iran could face sanctions by the Security Council, European
>officials said. Instead Larijani floated the idea of the creation of
>an international consortium to administer Iran's production of
>enriched uranium.
>
>Larijani told Solana Iran's current enrichment activities would have
>to continue, and that Iran would consider only a temporary halt to the
>expansion of its uranium enrichment program, officials added. The six
>powers had been trying to persuade the Iranians to accept a
>three-month halt on all uranium enrichment activities at Natanz and on
>construction at the plutonium plant at Arak, EU officials said.
>Uranium conversion, an earlier stage of processing, would have been
>allowed to continue at the Isfahan plant.
>
>There is frustration among EU governments with Solana for presenting
>the results of his talks in too positive a light, officials said.
>Solana has acknowledged lack of progress on substantive issues,
>telling reporters Monday, "The fundamental matter of suspension has
>not been agreed." But he has repeatedly pointed to "progress" on
>peripheral issues, like where and when further negotiations would take
>place. On Tuesday, Solana appeared to keep the door open to Iran's new
>proposal, describing it as "interesting," and adding, "This is
>something we have to analyze in greater detail."
>
>In the radio interview, Saeidi proposed that Iran's uranium enrichment
>activities would be monitored "in a tangible way" by Eurodif, a
>multinational enrichment consortium based in France, and by Areva, the
>France-based nuclear energy giant and majority shareholder in Eurodif.
>87% of Areva is held by French governmental institutions, and the
>company has vast interests in the US that it may not want to
>jeopardize by seeming to negotiate with Iran.
>
>3) Rice Urges 2 Palestinian Groups to Halt Violence
>Philip Shenon, New York Times, October 4, 2006
>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/world/middleeast/04diplo.html
>Secretary of State Rice called Tuesday for an end to the new wave of
>bloodshed between Palestinian factions as she prepared to travel to
>the West Bank to support the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.
>"Innocent Palestinians are caught in this violence, and we call on all
>parties to stop," Rice said. "The Palestinian people deserve calm."
>
>Gunmen linked to Abbas's secular Fatah movement threatened Tuesday to
>kill three senior leaders of Hamas, the Islamic group that won
>Palestinian elections in January. The gunmen, Al Aksa Martyrs
>Brigades, accused Hamas leaders of "sedition." The week's violence
>appeared to complicate Secretary Rice's campaign to drum up support
>among Arab nations for Abbas in his struggle to form a unity
>government with Hamas that could be recognized by the US. The Bush
>administration has said that it would resume financial aid to the
>Palestinian Authority only if a Hamas-run government agreed to
>recognize the right of Israel to exist and to forswear violence. Hamas
>rejects the conditions.
>
>4) Most in CNN Poll Say Bush Misled Public About Iraq
>Roger Runningen, Bloomberg, October 3
>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFRWtis3fHNg
>A majority of U.S. adults say President Bush has deliberately misled
>the public about progress in Iraq and opposition to the war matches an
>all- time high, according to a poll conducted for CNN. Sept. 29-Oct.
>2: 57% said the Iraq War has made the US less safe from terrorism. 58%
>said that the Bush administration misled the public on how the war is
>going. 61% said that they oppose the Iraq War. 66% said that they
>disapprove of the way that Bush is handling the Iraq War.
>
>5) Rice Under Pressure on Mideast Peace Efforts
>Robin Wright, Washington Post, Wednesday, October 4, 2006; 12:14 PM
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100400497.html
>Secretary of State Rice arrived in Jerusalem under pressure from Arab
>allies to jumpstart the Middle East peace process - as a Hamas
>official was gunned down by masked assailants and Palestinian
>Authority President Abbas declared that efforts to forge a unity
>government between Hamas and his Fatah party had ground to a halt.
>"There is no dialogue now," Abbas said.
>
>In talks Tuesday in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Arab leaders rebuffed the
>Bush administration's effort to foster a bloc of moderate Arab states
>to stand against growing militancy in the Middle East. They bluntly
>told Rice that they do not want to be pitted against other Arab
>governments and movements, according to senior Arab officials. The
>solution, U.S. allies told Rice, lies with stronger U.S. leadership in
>solving the Arab-Israeli conflict.
>
>Rice was confronted by pressure from eight governments - Egypt,
>Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain - to
>follow up on promises by Bush to help achieve a two-state solution
>between Israel and the Palestinians. They questioned whether the
>administration has the energy or commitment to pull off a solution to
>the Palestinian issue before Bush leaves office, officials said.
>
>Arab officials expressed frustration that the US seems far more
>focused on the issue of Iran's nuclear program.
>
>The new pressure came on the same day as a global appeal by 135 former
>presidents, prime ministers and Nobel Peace Prize winners from the US,
>Europe, Africa, the Middle East and Asia for a concerted international
>effort to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. The U.S. signatories to the
>document, released by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group,
>included former president Carter, ex-defense secretary Carlucci, 9/11
>Commission vice chairman Hamilton and retired Gen. Clark.
>
>On Wednesday, Hamas leader Mohammed Odeh was shot down by masked men
>as he left a mosque, according to AP. The killing came one day after
>members of Fatah threatened to kill senior Hamas figures. Some
>witnesses told AP the assailants who shot Odeh used a vehicle with
>Israeli license plates, and speculated that the killing may have been
>the work of undercover Israeli agents.
>
>Arab officials said they are increasingly concerned that, since the
>cutoff of tax revenue by Israel and aid by foreign governments since
>Hamas formed a government, an already serious humanitarian problem has
>deepened.
>
>On Iran, Egypt's Aboul Gheit said the Arabs listened to Rice but did
>not agree to any statement or action. Rice warned Tuesday that after
>weeks of diplomatic delays and Iranian stalling, time has run out for
>talks. The issue, she added, is no longer just Iran, but the UN's
>ability to deal effectively with global crises. "I hope that there is
>still room to resolve this, but the international community is running
>out of time because soon its own credibility . . . will be a matter of
>question," Rice said.
>
>Rice is tentatively planning to meet with her European counterparts,
>at the end of her Middle East tour to agree on sanctions to impose on
>Iran; Security Council action could follow as early as next week. The
>US has not formally specified which sanctions it supports, although
>they are widely reported to include a travel ban on Iranian officials
>involved in the nuclear energy program and a ban on the sale of any
>technology and hardware that could be used for production of deadly
>weapons. U.S. officials have said the first actions would be mild but
>would be followed by tougher measures if Iran failed to comply.
>
>Iran
>6) British Find No Evidence Of Arms Traffic From Iran
>Troops in Southeast Iraq Test U.S. Claim of Aid for Militias
>Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post, Wednesday, October 4, 2006; A21
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301577.html
>Since late August, British commandos in the deserts of far
>southeastern Iraq have been testing one of the most serious charges
>leveled by the US against Iran: that Iran is secretly supplying
>weapons, parts, funding and training for attacks on U.S.-led forces in
>Iraq. A few hundred British troops have taken to the desert in the
>start of what British officers said would be months of patrols aimed
>at finding the illicit weapons trafficking from Iran, or any sign of
>it. "I suspect there's nothing out there," the commander, Lt. Col.
>Labouchere, said last month. "And I intend to prove it."
>
>Other senior British military leaders spoke as explicitly. Britain,
>whose forces have had responsibility for security in southeastern Iraq
>since the war began, has found nothing to support the Americans'
>contention that Iran is providing weapons and training in Iraq,
>several senior military officials said. "I have not myself seen any
>evidence - and I don't think any evidence exists -  of
>government-supported or instigated" armed support on Iran's part in
>Iraq, British Defense Secretary Des Browne.
>
>Allegations that Iran or its agents are providing military support for
>Iraqi Shiite Muslim militias and other armed groups is one of the most
>contentious issues raising tensions between Washington and Tehran.
>Most gravely, U.S. generals and diplomats accuse Iran of providing
>infrared triggers for special explosives that are capable of piercing
>heavy armor. Evidence of Iranian armed intervention in Iraq is
>"irrefutable," Brig. Gen. Barbero told Pentagon reporters. The lead
>U.S. military spokesman in Iraq renews the allegation almost weekly.
>
>Iraq's Maysan province is "a funnel for Iranian munitions," said Wayne
>White, who led the State Department's Iraq intelligence team during
>the war and now is at the Middle East Institute. But Maj. Dominic
>Roberts of the Queen's Dragoons said: "We have found no credible
>evidence to suggest there is weapons smuggling across the border."
>
>7) Iran's Nuclear Program: America's Policy Options
>Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Institute, September 18, 2006
>http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6690
>Although it is possible that negotiations may produce a settlement to
>the issue of Iran's nuclear program, it is more likely that those
>negotiations will fail. If that happens, U.S. policymakers face a set
>of highly imperfect options.
>
>One option is to seek a UN Security Council resolution imposing
>economic sanctions. However, sanctions have a poor record of getting
>regimes to abandon high-priority policies. Even if Russia and China
>can be induced to overcome their reluctance to endorse sanctions, it
>is unlikely that such measures would halt Iran's quest for nuclear
>weapons.
>
>A second option is to intensify efforts to subvert Iran's clerical
>regime. Unfortunately, such a strategy may backfire, undermining the
>domestic legitimacy of Iranian dissidents. Moreover, there is no
>certainty that a democratic Iran would choose to be nonnuclear.
>
>Option three is to launch preemptive airstrikes against Iran's nuclear
>installations. That is the most unwise strategy. At most, such strikes
>would delay, not eliminate, Tehran's program. There is a grave risk
>that Iran would retaliate with the full range of options at its
>disposal, including attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and through
>proxy organizations. Attacking Iran would also further alienate Muslim
>populations around the world.
>
>Option four is to reluctantly accept Iran as a member of the global
>nuclear weapons club and rely on the deterrent power of America's vast
>nuclear arsenal. While that strategy is not without risk, the US has
>successfully deterred other volatile and unsavory regimes, most
>notably Maoist China during that country's Cultural Revolution.
>
>The best option, though, is to try to strike a grand bargain with
>Iran. Washington should offer to normalize diplomatic and economic
>relations in exchange for Tehran's agreement to open its nuclear
>program to rigorous, on-demand international inspections to guarantee
>that there is no diversion of nuclear material from peaceful purposes
>to building weapons.
>
>8) Iran 'to open atomic site tours'
>BBC News, Wednesday, 4 October 2006
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5405476.stm
>Iran's president has ordered the country's nuclear sites be opened to
>foreign tourists to prove its program is peaceful, state media report.
>Possible attractions would include the plants at Isfahan and Natanz,
>or a reactor being built in Bushehr. So far UN inspectors and
>reporters are the only foreigners believed to have been allowed to
>visit the sites. The head of Iran's tourism organisation said
>President Ahmadinejad had asked his group to study ways for tourists
>to see the sites.
>
>Iraq
>9) U.S. Fatalities in Iraq Rise Amid Crackdown
>Increase may be linked to troops' deployment to the volatile streets
>of Baghdad, officials say.
>Solomon Moore, Los Angeles Times, October 4, 2006
>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usdeaths4oct04,1,1391563.story
>Two months after a security crackdown began in the capital, U.S.
>military deaths appear to be rising, even as fatalities among Iraqi
>security forces have fallen, U.S. military sources and analysts said.
>The U.S. military Tuesday revised to eight its count of American
>deaths in the capital on Monday, the highest daily toll in a month. In
>September, 74 U.S. troops died nationwide, about a third of them in
>Baghdad, according to the military. U.S. officials and military
>experts said the recent increases could be attributable to U.S.
>troops' greater exposure to combat since redeploying in early August
>from heavily guarded bases to Baghdad's streets.
>
>10) Iraqi Police Unit Linked to Militias
>Sameer N. Yacoub, Associated Press, Wednesday, October 4, 2006; 12:40
>PM 
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100300398.html
>Iraqi authorities have taken a brigade of up to 700 policemen out of
>service and put members under investigation for "possible complicity"
>with death squads following a mass kidnapping earlier this week, the
>U.S. military said Wednesday.
>
>The Iraqi police officers were decommissioned following a kidnapping
>Sunday when gunmen stormed a frozen food plant in the Amil district,
>abducted 24 workers and shot two others. The bodies of seven of the
>workers were found hours later but the fate of the others remains
>unknown.
>
>The action appeared aimed at signaling a new seriousness in tackling
>police collusion with militias at a time when the government is under
>increased pressure to put an end to the Shiite-Sunni violence that has
>killed thousands this year and threatened to tear Iraq apart. Sunni
>leaders blamed Shiite militias for the kidnapping and suggested
>security forces had turned a blind eye to the attack.
>
>The top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B.
>Caldwell, said the Iraqi police brigade in the area had been ordered
>to stand down and was being retrained. "There was some possible
>complicity in allowing death squad elements to move freely when they
>should have been impeding them," he told a Baghdad news conference.
>"The forces in the unit have not put their full allegiance to the
>government of Iraq and gave their allegiance to others," he said.
>
>Afghanistan
>11) War on Terror Returning to Its Cradle
>Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, Wednesday, October 4, 2006
>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1004-08.htm
>Five years after the CIA was putting the final touches on a brilliant
>campaign plan to oust the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies from power,
>Afghanistan is back in the headlines, and the news isn't good. An
>unexpectedly fierce and prolonged Taliban offensive that began last
>spring has U.S. and NATO officials deeply worried that they face a
>serious insurgency fueled by a thriving drug trade and growing popular
>disaffection with the government of President Karzai.
>
>Greatly compounding their concern is Pakistan's ceasefire agreement
>with pro-Taliban, Pashtun tribal leaders signed earlier this month to
>withdraw thousands of army troops from North Waziristan and release
>several hundred Taliban and al Qaeda militants from jail.
>
>The accord, similar to one reached with pro-Taliban forces in South
>Waziristan two years ago, reportedly obliges the tribal chiefs to
>prevent Taliban and al Qaeda forces from crossing into Afghanistan,
>but most experts here considered those pledges a mere face-saving
>measure that enabled Pakistan's president Musharraf, to insist during
>his visits with sceptical U.S. officials that he remains committed to
>the anti-terror fight.
>
>Even as Musharraf sat down with Karzai for dinner hosted by Bush last
>Tuesday, a senior U.S. military officer was telling reporters in Kabul
>that cross-border attacks by Taliban forces had tripled since the
>North Waziristan truce actually took effect in late June.
>
>Several days later, the Washington Post reported on a captured al
>Qaeda document that strongly suggested that at least part of the
>group's top leadership is in fact living in North Waziristan,
>bolstering claims that the truce had created, in Newsweek magazine's
>words, a "'Jihadistan'... an autonomous quasi state of religious
>radicals, mostly belonging to Pashtun tribes..." stretching from
>central Afghanistan to much of northwestern Pakistan.
>
>  --------
>Robert Naiman
>Just Foreign Policy
>www.justforeignpolicy.org
>
>Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming
>U.S. foreign policy so that it reflects the values and interests of
>the majority of Americans.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>End of Peace-discuss Digest, Vol 33, Issue 11
>*********************************************