World Terrorism: News, History and Research Of A Changing World #5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following items are terrorism-related items from the National Intelligence Council's "Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts" report (December 2000).

States with poor governance; ethnic, cultural, or religious tensions; weak economies; and porous borders will be prime breeding grounds for terrorism. In such states, domestic groups will challenge the entrenched government, and transnational networks seeking safehavens.

At the same time, the trend away from state-supported political terrorism and toward more diverse, free-wheeling, transnational networks—enabled by information technology—will continue. Some of the states that actively sponsor terrorism or terrorist groups today may decrease or even cease their support by 2015 as a result of regime changes, rapprochement with neighbors, or the conclusion that terrorism has become counterproductive. But weak states also could drift toward cooperation with terrorists, creating de facto new state supporters.

Between now and 2015 terrorist tactics will become increasingly sophisticated and designed to achieve mass casualties.

Experts agree that the United States, with its decisive edge in both information and weapons technology, will remain the dominant military power during the next 15 years. Further bolstering the strong position of the United States are its unparalleled economic power, its university system, and its investment in research and development—half of the total spent annually by the advanced industrial world. Many potential adversaries, as reflected in doctrinal writings and statements, see US military concepts, together with technology, as giving the United States the ability to expand its lead in conventional warfighting capabilities.

This perception among present and potential adversaries will continue to generate the pursuit of asymmetric capabilities against US forces and interests abroad as well as the territory of the United States. US opponents—state and such nonstate actors as drug lords, terrorists, and foreign insurgents—will not want to engage the US military on its terms. They will choose instead political and military strategies designed to dissuade the United States from using force, or, if the United States does use force, to exhaust American will, circumvent or minimize US strengths, and exploit perceived US weaknesses. Asymmetric challenges can arise across the spectrum of conflict that will confront US forces in a theater of operations or on US soil.

Some potential adversaries will seek ways to threaten the US homeland. The US national infrastructure—communications, transportation, financial transactions, energy networks—is vulnerable to disruption by physical and electronic attack because of its interdependent nature and by cyber attacks because of their dependence on computer networks. Foreign governments and groups will seek to exploit such vulnerabilities using conventional munitions, information operations, and even WMD.

Much of the terrorism noted earlier will be directed at the United States and its overseas interests. Most anti-US terrorism will be based on perceived ethnic, religious or cultural grievances. Terrorist groups will continue to find ways to attack US military and diplomatic facilities abroad. Such attacks are likely to expand increasingly to include US companies and American citizens. Middle East and Southwest Asian-based terrorists are the most likely to threaten the United States.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=77311

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=77311

Friday, December 01, 2006
The Massive Protest

Daily Star Online edition staff

Sixteen armored carriers, several hundred combat troops and armed police on Friday ringed Prime Minister Fuad Saniora's office in unprecedented security measures ahead of a massive protest by Hezbollah and its allies aimed at ousting the Western-backed leader.

Opposition groups led by Hezbollah have mobilized their bases for the afternoon protest and were making arrangements to bus supporters from all corners of Lebanon to downtown Beirut for the massive show of popular support.

Heavily armed soldiers and police closed all roads leading to the sprawling complex in downtown, feverishly unfurling barbed wire and placing barricades to prevent any protests from spilling over into the stone-walled, brick-roofed historic building during what some newspapers billed as the "great showdown" between the government and the opposition.

Although there have been assurances by organizers of a peaceful demonstration, the stringent security measures came amid fears that the protests may turn into street clashes between the two sides or that Hezbollah supporters could try to storm Saniora's government headquarters.

Lebanese Universities closed their doors at 10 am; schools in some areas were closed Friday. Others opened until noon to give students time to return home before the expected deluge of protesters. Many businesses in the city center were closed because of the tight security, but elsewhere banks remained opened.

Launching the promised campaign to force Lebanon's government from office, Hezbollah and its allies on Thursday called for the mass demonstrations Friday followed by a wave of open-ended protests.

But a defiant Saniora vowed his government would not fall, warning in a nationally televised speech Thursday night that "Lebanon's independence is threatened and its democratic system is in danger."

Saniora asked Lebanese to show support by raising the Lebanese flag on their windows and balconies.

Hezbollah's leader has called on protesters to also carry the same banner, the national red and white flag with the historic Cedar tree in its middle.

But both camps seemed wide apart on what kind of Lebanon they want.

Government supporters accuse Syria of being behind the Hezbollah campaign, trying to regain its lost influence in its smaller neighbor. Hezbollah and its allies, in turn, say the country has fallen under U.S. domination and that they have lost their rightful portion of power.

Hezbollah had threatened to call mass demonstrations unless it and its allies obtain a veto-wielding share of the Cabinet _ a demand that Saniora and his parties have rejected. The aim of the protests is to generate enough popular pressure to further paralyze the government, forcing it to step down.

Hezbollah's deputy general security, Sheik Naim Kassim, made it clear the fight is against "American tutelage" and said the protest action will continue until the government falls.

"We will not let you sell Lebanon, we will protect the constitution and people of Lebanon," Kassim said on television Friday, addressing Saniora.

Christian leader and Hezbollah ally former Military General Michel Aoun also warned Saniora that he was reaching his end and urged him to resign.

Hezbollah has proven in past rallies that it can draw hundreds of thousands of its Shiite supporters into the streets.

President George W. Bush warned earlier this week that the Iran and Syria were trying to destabilize Lebanon.

Hezbollah's leader, Alsayyed Hassan Nasrallah, called for the protests to be peaceful. From the other camp in parliament, Saad Hariri, said his supporters should not hold counter-demonstrations.

"Tomorrow is a day when we will show our resolve," Hariri told The Associated Press Thursday. Still, he vowed to be "strong with the government. ... We will not accept to be part of an axis of Syria and Iran." Walid Jumblatt, a senior anti-Syrian pro-government figure, joined Hariri's calls for supporters to remain calm.

"Let them go down on the streets ... We can wait, a month, two months. When they want dialogue, we are ready," Jumblatt told reporters on Friday.

In announcing the protests, Nasrallah said that Saniora's government "has proven it is incompetent and has failed to fulfill its promises and achieve anything significant." Tensions are high in Lebanon after a string of assassinations of anti-Syrian figures over the past two years, including a prominent Christian government minister gunned down last week and Hariri's father, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed in a February 2005 bomb blast.

The battle is a fallout from the summer war between Hezbollah and Israel that ravaged parts of Lebanon. The resistance group's strong resistance against Israeli troops sent its support among Shiites skyrocketing, emboldening it to grab more political power. Hezbollah also feels Saniora did not do enough to support it during the fight.

Pro-government groups, in turn, resent Hezbollah for sparking the fight by snatching two Israeli soldiers, dragging Lebanon into war with Israel.

Lebanon's anti-Syrian parliament majority, in power since 2005, accuses former powerbroker Syria of aiming to regain control over the country, after its troops departed last year after a 29-year presence.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=3&article_id=77293

Saudis stop issuing licenses for foreign banks

Friday, December 01, 2006

Saudis stop issuing licenses for foreign banks

RIYADH: Saudi Monetary Agency Governor Hamad Saud al-Sayyari said Thursday that the kingdom had put plans to issue new licenses for foreign banks on hold until it could evaluate the impact of licenses issued so far. "There has not been any licensing for some time now," Sayyari said. "[We want] to evaluate the experience."

At least 10 foreign banks including Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas SA and National Bank of Kuwait have secured licenses to start commercial banking operations in Saudi Arabia.

The licenses are the first since the 1970s, when the Saudi government forced foreign lenders to relinquish controlling stakes in local operations.

Other banks have said they want to enter the Saudi market.

Dubai Islamic Bank said this month it wanted to open a branch in Saudi Arabia. In April, Citigroup said it was looking at returning to Saudi Arabia, two years after selling its stake in Samba Financial Group.

The governor also said it was too early to talk about delaying monetary union in the region, which is scheduled for 2010.

Earlier this month, Oman cast doubt on the timetable for monetary union in the world's biggest oil-exporting region, saying for the first time that a 2010 deadline agreed by the six GCC states might not be met.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

Sayyari said it would be premature to talk of changes to the timetable before GCC leaders meet in December.

"It's too early now too talk about delay until the meeting," Sayyari said.

"There were reservations and remarks about the time-scale but it too early now to talk about delay or a change," he said. Foreign banks have increased their presence in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states due to the oil boom in the region. Meanwhile, local commercial banks in the gulf region have multiplied their assets and deposits in record time thanks to the tremendous economic boom.

But Moody's rating agency warned earlier that the financial health of banks operating in the Gulf area, which has been boosted by an energy and construction boom, may be less robust than their results suggest.

Moody's said in a report on banks in the Gulf that many of them were exposed to "possible asset bubbles," especially in the property, contracting and construction markets, above all in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. - Trade Arabia News Service

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=1&article_id=77271

LF insists 9 arrested men were Daher's bodyguards

Daily Star staff
Thursday, November 30, 2006

BEIRUT: The Lebanese Forces denied a second time on Wednesday media reports that nine LF members with US- and Israeli-made weapons were arrested late Monday. "The news being reported is unfounded and aimed at sowing strife and destabilizing the country," an LF statement said.

Media reports earlier this week said that veterans of the LF's Civil War-era "Collision and Swat" squad were arrested in Kesrouan, north of Beirut, in the midst of a training exercise.

The LF said that nine men arrested by the Lebanese Army on Monday were bodyguards of Pierre Daher, general manager of local satellite television station LBCI.

"The LF urges the Lebanese not to be influenced by such provocations but unify stands in order to face conspiracies being hatched against them," the LF statement said.

Several local newspapers said Wednesday that the army had confiscated weapons, maps with directions to the homes of MPs Michel Aoun and Michel Murr in Rabieh, and unspecified monitoring systems.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb

"Our party is political and far from the issue of weapons," LF MP Antoine Zahra told Voice of Lebanon radio station on Wednesday. "How can such information leak into media outlets while investigations should be conducted secretly?"

Hizbullah's Al-Manar television broke the story on Monday. An-Nahar daily reported Wednesday that 22 LF personnel had been arrested.

"A human-sized plastic doll was found in one of the cars, along with a picture of Aoun," An-Nahar quoted the television report as saying.

Zahra dismissed the report. "It is really silly to mention Aoun's picture ... as if he is an unknown figure," Zahra said.

While Daher said the maps were "merely invitation cards from [businessman] Jacques Sarraf with directions to his home," Al-Manar said the map was found beneath one of the car seats, adding that the nine arrested people confessed to being part of the LF's armed forces. - The Daily Star

Analysis: Current CyberTerror Threat

by Laura Mansfield

Last night's warning from the US Department of Homeland Security
regarding an "Al Qaeda" cyber threat to the US financial sector was based in
part on a posting on the Al Firdaws forum which attempted to organize a
month-long cyber attack on US banking websites. The posting called
for attackers to use "destructive viruses" and to attempt to bring down
the websites and penetrate and destroy databases. Whether or not this
posting represents an actual threat by terrorists, and in fact whether
or not the posting is from what I call "Al Qaeda Classic" is far from
certain.

It is indisputable that individuals on the various jihadist
forums are organizing "cyber attacks", using denial of service attacks,
on various targets. The postings are certainly being made on message
boards that are openly sympathetic and supportive of Al Qaeda, and there
is little doubt that some of the individuals posting are terrorists.

However, these attacks do not seem to be organized by Al Qaeda, at
least not using the classic definition of Al Qaeda. Instead they appear to
be initiated by an individual or small group of individuals acting on
their own. They post the announcement of the attack on the jihadist
boards and on their own websites, and wait for others to jump on the
bandwagon with them. These are basically "entrepreneurial terrorists",
individuals and small groups who are inspired and motivated by Al Qaeda
but who do not receive orders or funding from Al Qaeda leadership.

Instead, these individuals act on their own and without the support of the
Al Qaeda infrastructure. So far, these "attacks" have caused, at most,
minor disruption and slowdown to targeted sites. The organization
behind these "terrorist hackers" and their attacks just doesn't seem to
well enough developed to mount a successful attack. In fact, the Vatican
website has been the target of several of these recently, where the
jihadists announced the attack, distributed the software, and then carried
it out. But the effectiveness of the attack was minimal; the Vatican
site has fended off several of these attacks without much difficulty.

At least one group of these "cyber terrorists" called the "Electronic
Jihad Group" offer special software on their website at al-jinan.org.

This group uses what appears to be a home-grown software package they
have written specifically for these attacks called "e-Jihad 1.5".

e-Jihad is not a particularly sophisticated program. The user specifies the
website to be attacked, and the program sends PING requests, HTTP_GET
requests, and garbage packets to the website named. Most ISPs and
business websites can easily filter these requests, although in theory if
enough people were using the software the website could become
overwhelmed by the high traffic generated by the attack. In the meantime,
when accessing the internet it is important that both business and home
computer users maintain "safe surfing" practices so that the computer
does not become infected with malware that allows a remote computer to
take control. (Remote-controlled "zombie" computers can be used in DDoS
attacks.) Use anti-virus and spyware protection software vigilantly and
make sure that the signatures for your anti-virus program are up to
date. It is also likely that we'll continue to see an increase in
"phishing" attempts, where users receive email from impersonators requesting
password and credit card information, so it would be advisable to not
let your guard down against these as well.

Corporate users should review their security protocols and ensure that
they have not inadvertantly left any "back doors" open on databases and
webservers. Most serious hacker intrusions have been the result of
security holes which are overlooked and are then exploited by "hackers".

And remember that these threats are an attempt to instill fear and
terror into our way of life. Don't let the bad guys win.

For more translations and news on terrorism, visit
http://www.lauramansfield.com
or visit our forum at http://www.lauramansfield.com/forum/

Strategic Translations is a service provided by Laura Mansfield through
http://www.lauramansfield.com

You may email Laura at laura@lauramansfield.com

01 December 2006
Blasphemy row inflames Azerbaijan

Islamists say journalist who allegedly impugned Islam deserves to die.

By Kenan Guluzade in Nardaran for IWPR (01/12/06)

For the past three weeks, residents of the village of Nardaran, close to Baku, have been demonstrating every Friday to demand severe punishment of Azerbaijani journalist Rafik Taghi, who is accused of having insulted the prophet Mohammed in an article published by the little-known Azerbaijani newspaper, Senet.

The case of the journalist, who is now serving a two-month prison sentence, demonstrates that Islamic sentiment is strong in Azerbaijan and has complicated relations with Azerbaijan’s southern neighbor, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Nardaran, a village with strong Islamic traditions, has been leading the protests. On 17 November, Haji Ali, one of the leaders of the local religious community, summoned crowds by striking a stone against a pillar in Imam Husein square in the center of the village. Teenagers, who had climbed on a wall, joined him, banging iron rods against a gas pipe. This noisy call to action reverberated through the village.

By three o’clock, the square was teeming with devout believers, who form an overwhelming majority in the village. “Last week we, the residents of Nardaran, condemned Rafik Taghi and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper,” said Haji Ali, beginning his speech. “Our religion knows only one punishment for such people, which is execution. This is not our decision, this is what our holy book prescribes. The authorities sentenced the journalists to two weeks in custody. But that is not enough!”

Nardaran became famous after bloody clashes between its residents and police in 2002. Since then, the village has become a stronghold for Shia Islamists opposed to the government. All walls on its narrow streets are covered with religious inscriptions, and locals are keen to vent their anger against the authorities in Baku.

The latest row began at the beginning of this month, when Senet (Trade), a Baku-based bimonthly with a circulation of 2000 copies, published an article by Taghi entitled “Europe and us.” The author criticized Azerbaijanis’ lifestyle and made some remarks about Mohammed, which many of the country’s Muslims interpreted as insulting. Whether Nardaran’s residents had heard about Senet before, the controversy around the article found its way into the village, causing a storm of outrage that believers from surrounding villages were quick to support.

Protesters carried banners with religious inscriptions and placards saying “Death to Israel!” All speeches were met with a loud “Allahu Akbar!” Guests from other villages spoke out to express their support for Nardaran. American and Israeli flags were brought to the square just to be tramped on and burnt.

“We declare that if these people are not sentenced to life imprisonment, we will take measures to punish them by ourselves,” said Haji Ali. “It’s a pity that there’s no death penalty in our country. We are told that their houses are being guarded, but let them hear us vow - Muslims never take vengeance on women and children. No one will touch their families. We’ve heard that Rafik Taghi’s family members have asked Denmark for political asylum, but no matter how things turn out nothing bad is going to happen to them. Rafik Taghi is the only one we want to have punished.”

As well as being a journalist and publicist, Taghi is also a professional cardiologist. He is well known for voicing ideas against the current of general public opinion. In other articles, he has made scathing comments about Azerbaijan’s national poet Samed Vurgun, chairman of the Writers Union Anar and other famous people.

Taghi and his editor Samir Sadagatoglu were arrested in mid-November and sentenced to two months in jail for kindling religious intolerance.

However, the villagers of Nardaran rejected the verdict and are continuing their protests, demanding that the two journalists be punished with a life sentence at least, burning US and Israel flags and calling for “an end to all supporters of world Zionism.”

Hajiaga Nuriev, one of the village’s elders and chairman of Azerbaijan’s Islamic Party, suggested Taghi was part of a wider conspiracy. “Both domestic and foreign forces have an interest in this,” he said. “We think that people such as Rafik Taghi are acting on behalf of international Zionism and Armenia, and they have deliberately damaged Azerbaijan’s credibility with its brothers-in-faith.

“In this situation, the residents of Nardaran could not have acted otherwise…to the enemies of Islam […] who discredited Azerbaijan in the eyes of the world. This blasphemy ought to be punished.”

Hajiaga said through their rejection of the court’s sentence, the people of Naradaran had rescued the country’s reputation as chairman of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and showed to the world that the Muslims of Azerbaijan were angered by the Senet article.

The affair has also triggered protests in Iran. APA news agency reported that around 50 people demonstrated in front of the Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran on 19 November to protest against the “humiliating” article. The Iranian TV-channel Seher aired calls for the overthrow of Azerbaijan’s “anti-Islamic” government.

Then news reports said that the Iranian ayatollah Morteza Bani Fazl had offered his own home as a reward for the head of the Azerbaijani journalist, who had “insulted” the founder of Islam. “I will give my house as a reward to anyone who kills this Azerbaijani author who insulted the Prophet Mohammed,” said the mullah who lives in the city of Tebriz in the northwest of Iran, which has a large Azerbaijani population.

The row is likely to strain further Azerbaijani-Iranian relations. Political analyst Boyukaga Agayev, who is director of the South Caucasus Research Center, said, “The relations between Azerbaijan and Iran cannot be described as friendly.” He noted that the two countries already stand on opposite sides of many disputes, from the status of the Caspian Sea to relations with the US and Israel.

Vugar Aliev, press secretary for the Azerbaijani prosecutor general’s office, said, “We live in a constitutional state, and all issues should be solved in accordance with the law. What happened in Nardaran is a protest reaction to what these people did. But the law-enforcement bodies have already taken appropriate actions, and these harsh calls with regard to the two journalists are unacceptable. The police responded in a timely fashion and there remains no danger of any civilians undertaking any illegal actions against them.”

This article originally appeared in Caucasus Reporting Service, produced by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR).

Printed from http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=16993
Online version provided by the International Relations and Security Network
A public service run by the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich © 1996-2004

01 December 2006
Russia’s race to arm the Americas

Rather than focus on a non-existent arms race in South America, US leaders, like leaders in Russia, should focus on improving military-military ties with Latin American countries.

Commentary by Sam Logan for ISN Security Watch (01/12/2006)

Talk of a regional arms race in South America has surfaced numerous times in the international press. In 2006, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Chile and Venezuela made military purchases, but none of the leaders in these countries considered that the purchases would lead to a regional arms race. The focus should not be as much on who is buying but on who is selling.

Chile’s purchases have been to strengthen military power with German armored vehicles, British frigates and US war planes. Brazil has also shopped in the US and Germany for armored vehicles and parts. Colombia has expressed interest in Brazilian aircraft and Peru has shown interest in used frigates from Italy.

Russia, however, has sold arms to all these countries, making 2006 a significant year for Russia’s increased presence in the Latin American arms market.

A decade ago, Russia was considered one of Latin America’s common threats to security. Yet in 2006, Russia sold military equipment to Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay and Ecuador, making the Russian military one of the region’s closest allies.

Russia’s best friend in South America by far is Venezuela.

Dozens of reports about the country’s multi-billion arms sales to Venezuela have catalyzed reactions from conservative voices in US military and political circles of an impending arms race. Assault rifles, helicopters, airplanes and most recently, specially-designed presidential helicopters populate a long list.

Perhaps the most threatening piece of military equipment Russia has sold to Venezuela is the Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jet. Assuming Venezuelan pilots have undergone extensive training, Venezuela will soon have the region’s most powerful air force, capable of extended dog fights in Brazilian, Colombian, Cuban and Caribbean air space.

A little-known announcement adds some balance to Venezuela’s potential for air force might. Sergei Ladygin, the Latin American region department head for Russia’s state-owned military export company Rosoboronexport, said on 28 September that Russia would soon sign export agreements that would open the door to the sale of Sukhoi Su-30 aircraft to Mexico and Brazil.

Rosoboronexport will also offer Mig-29 Fulcrum fighters to Mexico and Brazil. Ladygin also stated that he intended to sign an agreement with Chile for the sale of Mi-17B5 Hip H helicopters.

He made these announcements in from the sidelines of the SINPRODE 2006 military exhibition in Argentina, where the government is interested in purchasing Russian-built planes, boats and helicopters.

On 2 August , Russian Ambassador Yuri Korchagin met with Argentine Defense Minister Nilda Garre to discuss arms sales. The Argentine daily La Nacion reported that earlier talks involved the prospect of trading Argentine beef for military helicopters and armored patrol boats. To date, the Argentine government has not commented on such plans.

The US, however, has complained loudly of the arms going to Latin America, especially the sale of 100,000 AK-103 assault rifles to Venezuela. Apart from stockpile security and the possible leakage of the AK rifles to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), some observers in the US are worried most about ammunition. Unlike rifles, bullet shell casings do not have serial numbers and thus are hard to track.

As of now the delivery of all 100,000 rifles has been completed. These 7.62 mm caliber rifles will most likely use ammunition initially supplied by Russia, but eventually manufactured inside Venezuela as the planned Kalashnikov factories there move from paper to construction and finally operation.

According to experts on small arms in South America, the FARC is in desperate need of 7.62 mm caliber ammunition for its stock of AK-47 rifles. It is possible that the FARC regard Venezuela as a new, neighborly supply of ammunition. This possibility is worrisome but far from realization.

A final point of contention concerns military-military relations between the US and various Latin American countries. The sale of equipment by US companies to Latin American countries is usually followed by a series of training secessions that catalyze personal relationships between US pilots, mechanics, engineers and commanders and their Latin American colleagues. The same is true for Russia. The more Roxoboronexport sells Russian-built arms in Latin America, the closer the Russian military grows to its Latin American counterparts.

Losing ground on the political front in many Latin American countries, as the US has done since the beginning of the Bush administration, can be regained from one administration to the next, but military relationships take years to build. The US has a head start on Russia in the region, but as regional ties between the US and Latin American countries loosen over time, military relations between numerous countries there and Russia will only grow.

There is not an arms race in South America, nor will there be one in the foreseeable future. There is a race, however, to push the US as far away from Latin American governments – and militaries – as possible. Russia has taken a leap forward in 2006. US leaders should shift their focus from a non-existent arms race to the military-military relationships that are slipping away with every Russian built rifle, jet, boat or helicopter sold.

Sam Logan is an investigative journalist who has reported on security, energy, politics, economics, organized crime, terrorism and black markets in Latin America since 1999. He is the Latin American correspondent for ISN Security Watch.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).

Printed from http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=16989
Online version provided by the International Relations and Security Network
A public service run by the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich © 1996-2004

01 December 2006
Iraq PM under fire from all sides

Even as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was due to meet US President George W Bush in Jordan on 29 November to discuss ways of halting the violence in Iraq, he faced strong criticism not only from minority Sunni Arab groups, but by members of his own Shi'ite coalition.

By Sumedha Senanayake for RFE/RL (01/12/06)

Even as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was due to meet US President George W Bush in Jordan on 29 November to discuss ways of halting the violence in Iraq, he faced strong criticism not only from minority Sunni Arab groups, but by members of his own Shi'ite coalition.

Furthermore, US officials, who have been staunchly supportive of al-Maliki, have recently displayed signs of impatience with his inability to stem the violence.

This leaves al-Maliki caught between the of Shi'a, who want him to consolidate power; the Sunni Arabs, who demand to be treated as equals; and the US administration, which wants him to take significant steps to stop the violence.
Attacked from both sides

Despite al-Maliki's stated intention of attempting to foster reconciliation with the marginalized Sunnis, they have long assailed him for favoring the Shi'a. Mostly, they have accused al-Maliki of essentially turning a blind eye while Shi'ite militias attack them. In addition, he has been unwilling or unable to weed out Shi'ite militiamen who have infiltrated the police, and who use the cover of the security services to carry out sectarian attacks.

At the same time, Sunnis accuse al-Maliki of coming down too hard on the insurgents, most of whom are Sunni Arabs, while virtually giving free reign to the Shi'ite militias and death squads. This gross discrepancy, Sunnis complain, dissuades many Sunni insurgents from abandoning the armed struggle and entering the political process.

On the other hand, there are those among his own Shi'ite faction that have voiced displeasure with some of positions. His most prominent critic is radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political bloc on 29 November withdrew from the ruling coalition to protest al-Maliki's planned meeting with Bush. Al-Sadr had complained that US forces were complicit in allowing Sunni insurgents to launch a spectacular attack on Al-Sadr City that killed over 200 people on 29 November.

Should al-Sadr's bloc maintain its position, this would mean the collapse of al-Maliki's coalition. The al-Sadr bloc, with 30 seats in parliament and four cabinet positions, is widely considered the single-most-significant political figure in Iraq at the moment.

Therefore, if al-Maliki moves to isolate al-Sadr, he may win the support of some Sunni Arabs, but his government will fall. If he yields to al-Sadr, he risks further marginalizing the Sunni Arabs, who may see continuing the insurgency as their only option.
Memo reveals US doubts

A secret White House memo that was leaked to "The New York Times" on 29 November revealed uncharacteristically harsh criticism of the Iraqi prime minister. In the 8 November memo, US national security adviser Stephen Hadley expressed grave doubts about al-Maliki's ability to control the sectarian violence, implying that he was either unwilling or unable to be an effective leader.

"The reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests al-Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action," Hadley wrote in the memo.

Most importantly, Hadley indicated that despite al-Maliki's reassurances about forming a Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurdish partnership, his actions "suggested a campaign to consolidate Shi'ite power in Baghdad." Also, the information he receives is being "skewed by his small circle of Al-Da'wah [Party] advisers, coloring his actions and interpretations of reality."

The suggestion that al-Maliki may be trying to consolidate power for the majority Shi'a is particularly startling, because this would mean that the prime minister himself is part of the problem with respect to the sectarian conflict.
Ironically, al-Maliki, whom the Bush administration championed to replace Ibrahim al-Ja'fari in the new government following the December 2005 elections, is starting to be seen in the same light, as an ineffective and divisive leader.

Hadley said in his memo that al-Maliki should end "his political strategy" with al-Sadr and look to develop an alternative political base that included more moderate figures. The leaking of the memo could be an attempt by the US administration to push al-Maliki in that direction.
Postponed meeting speaks volumes

On 29 November, the much-anticipated meeting between Bush and al-Maliki was delayed until 30 November. US officials said the delay was due to al-Maliki having already met with Jordan's King Abdullah, making a three-way meeting including Bush unnecessary. White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said the trilateral meeting was always planned as a "social meeting" in any case.

Although, US officials downplayed the postponement, the situation underscored the precarious nature of the Iraqi prime minister's political position. First, the postponement could be a reaction to the announcement by al-Sadr's movement suspending its participation in the Iraqi government.

Indeed, al-Maliki is indebted to al-Sadr and needs his support to keep his coalition government afloat. The postponement was perhaps a gesture from al-Maliki to al-Sadr, showing the importance of the Al-Sadrist bloc to the overall stability of the government. Al-Maliki did not completely acquiesce to al-Sadr, but sent a message that he needs him by giving him an opportunity to rejoin the government.

Second, the postponement could be a direct response to the leaked White House memo. Al-Maliki may feel unable to meet with Bush in the face of such embarrassing criticism by a member of Bush's staff. If he did, he may feel he would be perceived by the Iraqis as being weak and doing the bidding of a foreign power, even as it humiliated him.

Lastly, the meeting itself, aside from the delay, is a sign that al-Maliki's performance is unsatisfactory in the eyes of the US administration. Although Bush has publicly expressed confidence in the Iraqi prime minister, the meeting in Jordan is clearly intended to give the impression that he will push al-Maliki to do more.

Meanwhile, the political process is in virtual paralysis. Al-Maliki's much-touted "national reconciliation" plan, intended to offer amnesty for Sunni Arab fighters in the hope that they will lay down their weapons and join the political process, has stalled. His announcement on 12 November of a major cabinet reshuffle has never materialized, and considering the huge spike in violence, a significant reorganization at this time seems highly unlikely.

There has also been little progress on long-standing promises to review the constitution, which is a major Sunni demand. Most importantly, al-Maliki has not moved to reign in the Shi'ite militias, a step US officials stressed needs to happen if the sectarian violence is to be contained.

Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington DC 20036. Funded by the US Congress.

Printed from http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=16992
Online version provided by the International Relations and Security Network
A public service run by the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich © 1996-2004

29 November 2006
How much can 'big oil' risk in Nigeria?

Attacks by armed militants have forced some oil companies in Nigeria to pare down or withdraw their operations in the southern oil region. But despite signs the violence could get worse, other companies show no signs of quitting Africa's leading producer.
By Dulue Mbachu in Port Harcourt, Nigeria for ISN Security Watch (29/11/06)

After more than three decades of operating in Nigeria, Willbros Group Inc, a multinational engineering contractor for the global oil industry, left the country in August in the face of growing violence in the southern Niger Delta oil region. Company chairman Mike Curran told reporters that the situation in the oil region had gone beyond “acceptable risk levels.” In February 2006, nine of Willbros' employees were kidnapped by rebels. They were released the next month.

Another company that services the oil industry in Nigeria, German construction firm Bilfinger Berger, also pulled out that same month over security concerns. Like Willbros, employees of Bilfinger Berger were among hostages taken in the rash of armed attacks and other violence that has rocked a region that produces nearly all of Nigeria's oil.

The choice the two companies made is one increasingly facing every oil company operating in Nigeria. Each has to decide what level of risk is acceptable for continuing business as violence spreads in the region. For now, most have chosen to remain and merely tightened their security. But there are signs that the violence will only get worse in the coming months.

On 22 November a British oil worker, one of seven foreign oil workers seized by armed men from an offshore field run by Italy's ENI Spa, was killed when the Nigerian navy launched a rescue attempt. Though the remaining six were freed, it marked the first time an abducted foreign oil worker died since the upsurge in attacks began early this year, further underlining the growing dangers in the oil region.

The US Embassy in Nigeria warned its citizens there earlier this month that it had received intelligence that large-scale militant attacks in the delta were imminent. According to the advisory: “The attacks allegedly will be carried out sometime during the first week of November and will include 10 to 20 simultaneous bombings of land-based targets and a series of separate attacks on oil installations in which expatriate workers will be taken hostage.”

Nigeria is the world’s eighth-largest exporter. For this reason, among others, disruptions to Nigerian supplies have been among the key fears fuelling spikes in oil prices in the past two years.

Oil accounts for more than 95 percent of Nigeria's foreign earnings and 80 percent of total government revenue. But in Africa's most populous region of more than 130 million people, oil has manifested all the signs of a curse.

Little of the oil wealth is seen by the vast majority of the population who live on less than US$1 a day. Nigeria's financial crimes agency estimates that a total of US$380 billion has been stolen or wasted through corruption and mismanagement by a succession of military and civilian rulers.

The multi-ethnic nation is becoming increasingly troubled by Nigeria's oil wealth not benefiting the entire population.

In the impoverished delta, which accounts for most of Nigeria's oil reserves, resentment felt by the local population of mainly ethnic minorities has grown against the central government, dominated by people from the major ethnic groups. Currently, 87 percent of the oil wealth goes to the central government, which works in joint venture partnerships with international oil companies. Political leaders in the delta want 50 percent of the total oil revenue.

The delta position has recently attracted the backing of Brussels-based International Crisis Group. Its latest report on Nigeria speaks of a “faltering federal experiment” where large and diverse sections of the population are alienated from the system of distribution of national wealth thereby fuelling tensions and violence across the country.

After nearly two decades of protests, disruption of oil operations and hostage-taking, violence took a new turn this year as the militants became better organized and acquired more weapons. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), which has claimed some of the worst attacks, says its objective is “the liberation of the Niger Delta from the clutches of the oil companies and the Nigerian government.”

But in a region awash with weapons, many other armed groups are also kidnapping for ransom. More than 50 foreign oil workers have been abducted and freed since January, some after the payment of ransom. During raids by militants, oil installations, including pipelines and pumping stations, were destroyed, crippling oil operations. In May, a US citizen employed by drilling equipment supplier, Baker Hughes Inc, was shot dead in the main oil industry centre of Port Harcourt as he was on his way to work.

On 26 October, an American and a Briton were seized from an offshore vessel owned by Norwegian firm Petroleum Geo-Services. They were freed after five days in captivity. An entire community in the area claimed responsibility for the kidnappings, saying that they wanted compensation payments for previous oil spills as well as jobs and development projects.

Days earlier, four Britons, one Romanian, an Indonesian and a Malaysian, were freed after nearly three weeks in captivity. They had been seized on 3 October from the southeast town of Eket during an attack on a residential compound for contractors working for Exxon Mobil. Two guards were shot dead by the militants in that attack.

It was the first time an ExxonMobil installation had been hit by a militia attack, it was also the first time the attackers had gone that far east in the delta region, showing increasing militia reach and confidence.

Despite assurances of security, President Olusegun Obasanjo's government has not been able to stop the attacks. Operating with hit-and- run tactics in the delta’s maze of creeks and swamps they know very well, the militants have proved difficult to tackle for the country's conventional armed forces.

Obasanjo's response has been to send even more military to the delta, with more than 10,000 troops constituting a joint task force of the army, navy and air force, deployed in the region. Accusations have been rife of reprisal attacks by troops against villages thought to be harboring the militants.

Many analysts fear the Nigerian government has lost control of the situation in the oil region and can no longer handle it alone, raising questions about the possibility of foreign military assistance or even outright intervention.

“Nigeria does not have the capability and equipment to actually protect its oil,” said Jonathan Bearman, head of UK-based Clearwater Research Services, which provides risk and intelligence advice to oil companies. He expects that in the future there will be foreign involvement in dealing with the situation in the oil region.

In the past three years, the US has provided Nigeria with refurbished Coast Guard vessels to improve defense of oil facilities and Atlantic territorial waters where oil and armed smugglers have helped sustain the armed violence. But these have remained inadequate to contain the militants in the delta.

“Militants in the Niger Delta are capturing expatriate [oil] workers at will, even planting a bomb right in an army barracks,” said Nigerian analyst Rose Umoren. This creates “a dangerous situation” which might prompt Western countries with huge investments in Nigeria’s oil industry to contemplate military intervention, she said.

Western military presence is slowly growing in the Gulf of Guinea with more frequent US and British navy patrols in the region projected to account for 25 percent of US oil imports by 2015 as against current 15 percent. US and British warships were visiting Nigeria at the time of an attack in June when citizens of both countries were taken hostage.

Captain James Morse, commander of the British war ship HMS Chatham, told reporters the UK Foreign Office was studying the situation in the Niger Delta closely, but stressed they have not been invited to help. “If we are asked to help, we have the capability,” he said.

So far none of the major oil companies operating in Nigeria - Shell, Exxon Mobil, Total, Chevron and Agip – have indicated any inclination to divest from their multi-billion dollar investments in the country as a result of the unrest in the delta. While others have been more reticent about how they expect the security situation there to be resolved, only Chevron has come out openly to say it is against the use of force.

“We all need to get it right in the delta, brute force does not work in the long term,” Fred Nelson, who heads Chevron's operations in Nigeria and the entire Gulf of Guinea, told reporters recently. “Our strategy is to hold dialogue with the communities to solve their problems. If we can solve the problems, the security issue will go away.”

Dulue Mbachu is a correspondent for ISN Security Watch based in Nigeria. He has reported Nigeria for international media outlets including The Washington Post and the Associated Press.

Printed from http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=16977
Online version provided by the International Relations and Security Network
A public service run by the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich © 1996-2004

27 November 2006
Maneuvering in Abkhazia, South Ossetia

As Georgia attempts to create alternatives to its separatist regimes in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russia seeks to maintain the status quo of frozen conflicts for leverage against Georgia.

Commentary by Simon Saradzhyan in Moscow for ISN Security Watch (27/11/06)

In line with its new strategy of attempting to create alternatives to separatist regimes in its breakaway republics, Georgia has set up what it says is the Republic of Abkhazia's legitimate government in an area re-named Upper Abkhazia.

Upper Abkhazia remains cut off from the rest of the republic during winter snowfalls, and the only means of transportation is helicopter. But despite its isolation, Tbilisi has succeeded in thwarting the separatist regime's argument that it is the sole representative of the Abkhaz population.

Tbilisi hopes that the existence of the alternative government will ensure that the upcoming decision on the status of Serbia's UN-administered province of Kosovo - a decision largely expected to be independence - will not set a precedent for Abkhazia, which now has two governments.

Abkhaz separatists have publicly expressed concern that the forces deployed in Upper Abkhazia might be used to launch a surprise offensive, but privately they admit that the gorge would be the least favorable site for the Georgian military to plan an attack on the republic's de facto capital, Sukhumi.

What is more likely is that the Georgian government will try to fulfill its recent promise to turn Upper Abkhazia into an island of economic and social excellence in order to lure separatists back into Georgia with material carrots rather than military sticks.

Georgia has used the same strategy in South Ossetia, which Tbilisi refers to as the Tskhinval region. There, Tbilisi even managed to recruit an ethnic Ossetian to lead its "alternative effort." As such, on 12 November, the residents of the breakaway republic could have chosen between voting in a two separate referendums - one on independence and one on talks with Tbilisi - and two separate presidential elections.

Of those who participated in the independence referendum, 99 percent voted to break away from Georgia and for incumbent separatist president Eduard Kokoity to be re-elected. Simultaneously, ethnic Georgians in the republic voted in favor of launching negotiations with Tbilisi on status of the South Ossetia's status. Georgia also staged alternative presidential elections, with former South Ossetian prime minister Dmitry Sanakoyev - fired by Kokoity in 2001 - won.

Seeking to pre-empt a similar move by Abkhazia, Georgian authorities have already asserted their right to organize a referendum among refugees from the separatist province. "If they [Abkhaz separatists] decide to hold elections, then some 300,000 refugees […] will come to Kodori and vote there," chairman of the Georgian parliament's international affairs committee Konstantin Gabashvili warned in a recent interview in Russia's Vlast magazine.

"We will see who wins then," Gabashvili said. "We have a counter-move to each Russian move."

While Moscow may indeed move to encourage a referendum in Abkhazia, it would rather avoid recognizing either this separatist republic or South Ossetia as independent entities, benefiting much more from the frozen status quo of this and other conflicts, which it can use as leverage vis-a-vis Georgia.

Despite the fact that Russia has been playing the Kosovo card, insisting that independence for Kosovo should set a precedent for separatist regimes in the former Soviet Union, international recognition for South Ossetia and Abkhazia would not be in Moscow's best interest.

Recognition of these separatist republics by Russia would raise questions why Moscow has not granted independence to Chechnya. It also may encourage so-called ethnic republics of the Russian Federation to attempt to break away if Russia is weakened.

Realizing that it is not in Russia's interest to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Georgia has nevertheless escalated tensions with Russia: Tbilisi hopes that it can provoke Russia's excessive wrath to the extent that Western powers will have no choice but to intervene to protect the country and its energy interests in the region and sideline Russia from mediation of the frozen conflicts.

Georgia's arrest of Russian military officers for alleged espionage was just one such provocation - but its results have been rather ambivalent. On the one hand, NATO and Western powers pressed Russia to limit its response to these arrests, which featured cutting off transportation links and deportation of Georgian citizens. But on the other hand, the US, for one, would not have risked alienating Russia - an important energy supplier - over Georgia's separatist squabbles. Moreover, the scandal prompted Moscow to expedite the withdrawal of its troops from Georgia in what would rob the latter of an important leverage point.

Moreover, Moscow has announced that it will double price for gas for Georgia to more than US$210 per 1,000 cubic meters in an effort to force Tbilisi to abase itself this winter.

Georgia's calculation has been that it can re-heat the South Ossetian or Abkhazian conflicts to a stage of sporadic armed clashes to discredit Russian peacekeeping efforts there and compel Western powers to intervene. But this brinkmanship is risky because Russia can attempt to escalate tensions into a full-fledged conflict, in which Russian "volunteers" will help Abkhazia and/or South Ossetia to defeat the Georgian army. Such a defeat would seal the de-facto independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and let Moscow keep the conflicts frozen for years, if not decades to come.

Simon Saradzhyan is a veteran security and defense writer based in Moscow. He is a co-founder of the Eurasian Security Studies Center in Moscow.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).

Printed from http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=16964
Online version provided by the International Relations and Security Network
A public service run by the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zurich © 1996-2004

Related to your google groups links on Russian/Ukrainian WMD help to Iran, here is an old post I made in April of 2004 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1113610/posts

From "Svoboda" (Freedom) #13 (194), 6-12 April 2004, p7 (author Diana Kershenbaum)
No internet link.

Rocket Secrets

Investigations
On 25 March (2004) the newspaper Den (known for its close relationship with acting Ukrainian defense minister Evgeniy Marchuk) published a curious interview with the defense minister. It seems that the army has been holding a big sale. Several hundred guided anti-aircraft missiles (ZUR) for use with air defense systems simply... have disappeared without a trace. The details are as yet uncertain, but, according to unofficial sources, there is talk of about 350 rockets type 20D S-75M ("Wolf"), known in NATO circles as the SA-2 "Guideline".

(SNIP)

It's probable that the military will have to answer a series of unpleasant questions. For example, how did it occur that the officially "liquidated" RS-18 (NATO SS-19 "Stilleto") which were destroyed or removed from the territory of the Ukraine in 1999, three years later turned out to still have 31 examples sitting in silos and warehouses? Or: what happened to those 230 "extra" nuclear warheads which - according to information from the general headquarters of the Ukrainian armed forces - existed, but - according to a declaration by the MoD - suddenly did not exist? The fact of the matter is, that the MoD reported on the transfer or destruction by the Ukraine of 3772 nuclear warheads, while the general staff reported that there were more than 4000. This "miscalculation" (for want of a stronger term) either occurred during the time of General/People's Deputy Kuzmuk's reign at the ministry of defense, or the conflicting data was published during his term. It's highly likely that until the end of 2000 the Ukrainian ministry of defense "increased" its supply of nuclear warheads by 25% in order to receive a corresponding increase in active international financing and aid in removing these weapons.

(SNIP)

...in April of 1998 a parliamentary investigative commision on the matter of unsanctioned weapons sales became interested in a letter by the assistant minister of defense - commander of the 43rd rocket army Colonel-General Vladimir Mikhtyuk. The letter, dated December 17th, 1997, detailed cooperation with the Russian MoD in the sale of 24 ICBMs of the type 15A35 RS-18 (NATO SS-19 "Stilleto"). Ukrainian paliamentary deputies were at the time more worried about where the profits from these illegal sales had ended up, and because of this they missed the most interesting part: of the 24 rockets that where sent to Russia... only 19 arrived (according to Ukrainian MoD information). The fate of the remaining 5 ICBMs is still unknown.

(SNIP)

...In 1999-2000 our country sold Russia 581 KRVB long-range winged missiles type Kh-55SM (also known as the RKB-500 or by its NATO name AS-15 "Kent"). This deal was widely published in the news as the next step in the Ukraine's strategic disarmament, and did not summon the slightest suspicion by our mass media, though no details of the sale or execution of the contract on the Russian side ever surfaced.

It now appears that Russia received 575 KRVB Kh-55SM "Kents". Of course, the six missing missiles could be written off as either wrecked during warehousing, or "transferred to another authority", or the newspapers may have mistaken some of the numbers. But why then did the Ukraine the following year suddenly rush to sell Russia another 6 Kh-55s? Since there were no more Kh-55SMs, why did the Russians buy six older Kh-55s of an earlier series? After this reminder any further mention of the Kh-55 sales completely disappeared from the Russian mass media. It's possible to understand - Russia got her 581 rockets. But, according to our data, there were 587 rockets sold, and therefore the question where did the missing rockets end up still remains unanswered.

The Kh-55 - it's not an ICBM RS-18, but this two-ton "toy" can carry a 250 kt nuclear warhead 2500-3000 kilometers. In order not to give away technical details, we will remark only the the famous "Tomahawk" cannot hold a candle to the Kh-55. In any case, during the same timeframe yet another rocket deal was made with Russia. Our eastern neighbor was sent 386 Kh-22 air-launched ballistic missiles. Information about the deal was not published until the culmination, but if the deal was a clean one, why were no details released by the military or by the MoD to the UN?

(SNIP)

And so, we cannot rule out that we will soon be seeing yet another "rocket scandal".

Thanks to Milford421 for this report.....

Train Derailment - N. Baltimore

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061201/NEWS01/612010415

NORTH BALTIMORE IN WOOD COUNTY
Trains jump track, hurt 3; debris from derailments slams into
adjacent autos

About 15 cars derailed from a westbound freight train, left,
injuring three motorists waiting at a crossing and derailing fi ve
cars of an eastbound coal train.
( THE BLADE/ANDY MORRISON )

Zoom | Photo Reprints

By DAVID PATCH
BLADE STAFF WRITER

NORTH BALTIMORE, Ohio — Three motorists were hurt yesterday when
about 15 cars of a CSX Transportation Corp. freight train derailed
while traveling through town, showering their vehicles with wreckage
and striking a second train that also derailed.

North Baltimore police Chief Gerald E. Perry II said it was
miraculous that Bob Loe, 48, the village's streets superintendent
who was driving the car closest to the tracks, survived the
derailment.

The roof of Mr. Loe's car was crushed down to the doors by a plate
of steel thrown from a careening freight car, yet he remained
conscious, calm, and talkative while rescuers extricated him.

Mr. Loe had been reported in fair condition early yesterday evening
at Wood County Hospital, Bowling Green, before he was transferred to
University Medical Center, Toledo. No further information about his
condition was available last night.

"I'm very surprised, but I'm very grateful, too," that Mr. Loe was
not more gravely injured, the police chief said.

Two drivers were hurt less seriously as they waited behind Mr. Loe's
vehicle at the Tarr Street grade crossing when about 15 cars from a
35-car westbound freight train derailed about 12:18 p.m.

Zoom | Photo Reprints

Matt Swartz, 37, a member of the village street department who was
following Mr. Loe, was treated at Blanchard Valley Regional Health
Center, Findlay.

Joseph Cook, 25, who was driving a vehicle that was behind Mr. Loe
and Mr. Swartz, was treated at Wood County Hospital for minor
injuries.

All three men live in North Baltimore.

Five rail cars near the rear of a 119-car eastbound coal train that
was passing the westbound train on a parallel track also derailed,
with two partially spilling their cargo along the tracks.

The accident blocked a major east-west rail line across western Ohio
that is used by about 75 trains a day, all of them freight trains.
Some trains were immediately diverted at either Fostoria or Deshler, Ohio, to run up other CSX tracks to the Toledo area and then back
down to the main line.

Beverly Hartman of North Baltimore, who watched the crash from her
car, said the eastbound train was going very slow, while the
westbound was blowing its whistle for the Tarr Street crossing and
was traveling at a normal speed.

The speed limit at that point in the rail line is 60 mph.

"The first sign of trouble was just as the westbound engine got past
Tarr Street, and I saw something white fly from the train, and then
debris was going all over the place," Mrs. Hartman said.

The top of one auto was crushed, injuring Bob Loe, the village's
streets superintendent, who was the closest to the crossing.
(

The wheels off one freight car sailed into the air, she said, and
then other cars started "buckling" together.

People in nearby buildings said they heard a loud bang as the
derailment started.

"We looked out the window, and saw one [rail] car go sideways, then
the others piled onto it," said Jan Rush, a clerk at the Mid-Wood
grain elevator office.

Joe Smith, the elevator's manager, said he was eating lunch at a
restaurant a block away when he heard the noise and saw the
westbound train's four locomotives and first five cars go across
Main Street. The fifth car, which had partially derailed, was
dragging along the track and lost one of its wheel assemblies just
after it crossed the street.

The locomotives finally stopped about three-quarters of a mile west
of the derailment.

Chief Perry said the derailment appeared to have begun at a track
switch where a siding to the Mid-Wood Inc. grain elevator connects
to the main line.

Why cars in the middle of the westbound train started entering the
siding instead of staying on the main track remained to be
determined.

"We need to look at the track conditions, the [train] equipment, and
how the train was being operated," said Gary Sease, a CSX spokesman.

Abbi Spangenburg, who lives across the tracks from the elevator,
said the accident increased her anxiety about living next to the
tracks, and Cheryl Spangenburg, her mother, said she had "just been
talking to a neighbor" about what could happen if a train derailed
in their neighborhood.

"The house started shaking, and I looked out the window and saw
sparks flying and the [coal] train tipping over," Abbi Spangenburg
said.

Freight cars immediately behind the locomotives included five
flatcars carrying large steel plates. Three of those cars were
involved in the wreck, scattering the plates around the area.
Boxcars and one tank car loaded with latex also derailed, and a
small amount of latex leaked, Mr. Sease said.

Two cars farther back in the train that contained residual amounts
of hazardous material were not involved in the accident.

Within two hours of the accident, contractors specializing in
derailment cleanups arrived at the scene with heavy equipment to
clear the wreckage.

Less-damaged railcars were re-railed, while others were to be pushed
out of the way for later removal or scrapping at the scene.

While not blocked by the derailment, Main Street was kept closed
while the derailment cranes moved back and forth.

Chief Perry said representatives of the Public Utilities Commission
of Ohio and the Federal Railroad Administration were at the scene to
participate in the derailment investigation.

The accident was the third major derailment on CSX tracks in
northern Ohio in nine days.

On Wednesday, a CSX train derailed in Ashtabula, four miles from the
location of a Nov. 22 derailment on the same line.

Contact David Patch at: dpatch@theblade.com or 419-724-6094.

http://www.jamestown.org/news.php

Kabardino-Balkaria Rebels Vow to Renew Attacks
11/22/2006 - By Aslan Idar & Andrei Smirnov (from Chechnya Weekly, November 22) - On November 15 and 16, a video statement made by Anzor Astemirov, aka Emir Seyfullah, the leader of the rebels of Kabardino-Balkaria, a region in the North Caucasus, was posted on the rebel-based Camagat website as well as the Kavkaz Center website. Astemirov said that the militants were planning to conduct a large-scale operation in Kabardino-Balkaria soon, but that prior to this they were getting ready to target local residents who had cooperated with the Russian authorities, including policemen, officials, clerics, and businessmen. “For some time, we have been indulgent toward anyone who considered himself a Muslim, but this will now change,” the rebel leader warned on the video. “Now we will consider who is a Muslim in deed and not just in word.” At the same time, Astemirov claimed that more and more people in the region are joining the ranks of the insurgency, including students, workers, businessmen and even policemen. Even before Astemirov’s statement appeared, it was evident that the rebels were preparing large attacks in the North Caucasus. In September, Dagestani Interior Minister Adilgerei Magomedtagirov announced that “the leaders of these bandit formations plan to carry out several terrorist acts in several republics of the North Caucasus.” Furthermore, on October 17, General Arkady Yedelev, commander of the Russian Anti-Terrorist Forces in the North Caucasus, said at a press conference in Nalchik, the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, that, “until Astemirov and [Musa] Mukozhev [another leader of Kabardino-Balkarian militants] are caught, there is a possibility of terrorist attacks and extremist raids in Kabardino-Balkaria” (Vesti, October 20).
Full Story >>

Yemen's Al-Iman University: A Pipeline for Fundamentalists?

"Arabs may one day miss George W. Bush"

by Michael Rubin
The Daily Star (Beirut)
December 1, 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/1063

The Middle East cheered the Republican defeat in the recent American congressional elections. The official Syrian daily Al-Baath labeled the elections a "painful blow," while the Saudi daily Al-Watan called for a "wise" policy from Washington "to bridge the gulf in confidence between the United States and the regional peoples and governments." The Iranian press gloated, while the Turkish Islamist daily Yeni Aafak argued that the election rebuke was "punishment for Bush's neocon policies." Such reactions do not surprise. President George W. Bush's policies have not been easy for many in the Middle East to digest.

Different segments of Arab societies dislike Bush for different reasons. Many Arabs outside government believe Bush tilts too much toward Israel. Lebanese cite with particular disdain Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's characterization of this summer's violence as "birth pangs of a new Middle East." Others see the US veto last November 11 of a United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning Israel for its military operations in the Gaza Strip as abdication of Washington's role as an honest broker. They accept Palestinian UN observer Riyad Mansour's characterization of the veto as evidence that Washington backs Israel as it "commits crimes and acts of outright aggression with impunity."

That US policy tilts toward Israel has nothing to do with Bush or any single party. While Arab commentators may find comfort in blaming a Jewish lobby, the real reason is more straightforward. To Americans, Israel is a democracy and, for decades, has been a consistent ally. Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, administrations favored Arab states for the practical reason that Arabs outnumbered Israelis and had oil; it was in US interests to seek partnership in the Arab world. Hence, Washington sided with Cairo against Tel Aviv in the 1956 Suez crisis, handing Egyptian President Gamal Abdel-Nasser his greatest victory. But while Arab states attacked the US, Israel stood by it. Any comparison of UN votes - especially on issues having nothing to do with the Middle East - underscores this pattern.

Bush is not anti-Arab, though. He went farther than any predecessor to support Palestinian statehood when, on June 24, 2002, he declared: "It is untenable for Palestinians to live in squalor and occupation ... My vision is two states, living side by side in peace and security." Certain Palestinian groups, often with foreign support, squandered their opportunity by re-embracing violence. Bush's belief in liberty extended beyond the Palestinians, though. While his father's advisers sacrificed Lebanese freedom for the stability of the Syrian military presence until 2005, Bush sought actual Lebanese independence.

Autocrats across the region distrust Bush for entirely different reasons. To leaders in Cairo, Damascus, Tehran and Riyadh, the Palestinian cause is little more than a useful rhetorical tool to distract their own citizens from failures closer to home. These leaders do not blame Bush for his policies toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, but rather dislike him for his rhetoric of democratization and reform.

The US occupation of Iraq may not be popular anywhere in the Arab world, but scenes of Iraqis celebrating Saddam Hussein's downfall infused Arab regimes with particular unease. Many Arab leaders surround themselves with sycophants. Delegates at Egypt's National Democratic Party conference in September, for example, repeatedly interrupted President Hosni Mubarak's speech to inform him of their admiration for him and the love of ordinary Egyptians. But, outside the posh convention center, ordinary Egyptians cursed their president for corruption, stagnation and his desire for a royal succession. Arab leaders may try to convince themselves that such adoration in sincere, but their reliance upon multiple security services signals their recognition of reality.

White House pressure for reform antagonized these leaders, as the whining nature of editorials in state-run newspapers demonstrated. Previous US administrations, both Democrat and Republican, spoke of human rights, democracy and transparency, but did not push the issue. Bush did. Mubarak did not expect Washington to withhold $134 million in aid to win Egyptian democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim's release. Mubarak's subsequent acquiescence to allow contested elections was the result, in part, of Western pressure.

Bush's reform push was as unpopular among the US foreign policy establishment as it was in Arab capitals. Many "realists" criticized the White House for pressuring such long-standing allies. But Bush, at least initially, refused to accept that the only choice in the Middle East was between the rule of autocrats and theocrats. Against the advice of many career diplomats, he directed the State Department to help build a platform upon which liberals and reformers could thrive.

Bush's initial success is best seen in juxtaposition to his subsequent failure. As critics condemned the effectiveness of his push toward reform and questioned the wisdom of pressuring allies, leaders in Bahrain, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen began de-prioritizing democratization, closing newspapers, arresting opposition leaders, torturing bloggers, cancelling elections and abandoning pledges to retire from office. Because of this, many Arabs may come to regret their hostility toward Bush and his policies.

As the realists again rise triumphant, stability will trump reform. The same figures who Bush now embraces backed Syria in Lebanon, and ensured Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's grip on power after ordinary Iraqis heeded President George H.W. Bush's February 15, 1991, call for "the Iraqi people [to] take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein the dictator to step aside." These realists did not blanch as Saddam massacred tens of thousands of civilians.

New policies may revive old dictatorships. European governments find it easier to trade with the Revolutionary Guards-operated companies in Iran than press for economic opportunities for ordinary Iranians. Former US ambassadors to countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey would rather cash in on their connections to ruling parties than see old faces disappear upon the whim of the electorate.

Nor will Arab civil society organizations be able to rely on their "progressive" counterparts in the West to defend liberalism and reform. Hatred of Bush trumps declared principles. Because Bush made democratization and reform the centerpiece of his Middle East strategy, many Western progressives dismiss them as priorities or even as desirable. After all, in progressive rhetoric how can Bush be both an idiot and correct?

Instead of democracy, many progressives have come to romanticize "resistance." They have become attracted to the same rhetorical motifs projected by liberation movements of a generation past and Islamists today. Embrace of multiculturalism has morphed into a cultural relativism that justifies oppression in the name of culture.

The majority of Arab civil society may celebrate Bush's election rebuke and welcome the end of the Bush years but, as anger fades and Washington re-embraces realism, Arab reformers from Rabat to Riyadh may find they have missed their best opportunity, while dictators and theocrats seize theirs.

Michael Rubin, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Printer-friendly version
Related Items

* Other items by Michael Rubin
* Other items in category US foreign policy

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.