Replies

dailysummit.net Shines Spotlight on Iranian Net Censorship

By Andrew L. Jaffee, December 11, 2003

The website dailysummit.net has helped to turn some of the UN World Summit on the Information Society's focus to Iran's censorship of the Internet. According to the BBC, "hundreds" of Iranian Internet users have been posting comments on dailysummit.net complaining about Iranian government censorship of more than 10,000 websites.

Pro-democracy Iranians and their supporters are hoping to pressure UN technology summit delegates into lobbying Iran's government to loosen its Net censorship. The BBC claims that in spite of government censorship, Iranian blogs were instrumental in rapidly spreading word about the UN summit and recent moves by the authorities to restrict access to websites like Google.

As Iran's ultra-conservative judiciary has shut down several magazines and newspapers in the past few years, Iranian citizens are increasingly turning to the Web to get information. According to the BBC, the Iranian government is trying to limit the number of indigenous Internet service providers (ISP's). In other words, they want more Iranians obtaining Internet connections through a smaller number of ISP's. This way, authorities will have an easier time monitoring and controlling their peoples' Net access.

But sites like dailysummit.net are turning the pressure up on the Iranian government. Website members attending the UN summit, like Ahmed Reda, posed questions about Web censorship directly to Iranian President Khatami at a press conference. Though Khatami mentioned political blogs in Iran, he was evasive about the censorship issue. dailysummit.net members said they "confronted" an Iranian official at the UN summit over Net censorship:

How does Ahmad Motamedi, Iran's minister for Information and Communication Technology (ICT), explain the huge number of websites censored in his country? "Sometimes mistakes happen," he said.

Some mistake. In a rare interview, Mr Motamedi claimed that officially just 240 sites were banned in Iran and that no-one was punished for writing anti-government messages online.

He had a harder time explaining the arrest of Sina Motallebi, the journalist and blogger held earlier this year.
The people at dailysummit.net should be applauded for putting Iranian government officials on the spot. Khatami was elected president six years ago. He promised reform, but many Iranians have become fed up with the slow/nonexistent implementation of political changes. Iranians have since held many public demonstrations demanding reform. Most often, the authorities have responded with violence.

Violence is not reform. Censorship is not reform.

http://netwmd.com/articles/article340.html

An Iranian ‘no’ to imposed democracy

On June 13, United States Congressman Brad Sherman introduced legislation into the Committee on International Relations and the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives for the purpose of “fostering democracy and freedom in Iran.”

Sherman’s bill is aimed at providing assistance to Iranian dissidents and opposition television broadcasters based in the United States, reimposing a total embargo on Iranian goods that had been partially lifted and giving President George W. Bush the authority to reduce US payments to the World Bank and other international financial institutions that provide loans to the Iranian government. The bill was cosponsored by 22 members of Congress and will be introduced for discussion on the floor in the near future. The so-called Iran Democracy and Freedom Support Act includes provisions from a previous Iran Democracy Act, submitted by Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican.

Proponents of the bill are among the staunchest supporters of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government in Israel and have close links to pro-Israel groups in Washington. They also have ties to others who regularly take a hard-line on Iran, including Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Richard Perle, the former Pentagon official who supported the US invasion of Iraq and has strongly advocated regime-change in the Middle East.

After Bush’s “axis of evil” speech, and especially in the past two months, tensions between the United States and Iran have greatly escalated. Pushing for a confrontation has been a coalition including Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Washington neoconservatives, the Israeli government and Iranian expatriates.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell and the European Union (EU) have prescribed a different approach. For example, on Oct. 28 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Iran and invited in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. In his testimony Armitage declared the US would not pursue regime-change in Iran and would attempt other means to encourage democratization there.

However, such an attitude is not to everyone’s liking. US neocons have urged State to take a tougher approach to Iran. Similarly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was pressured by Washington to condemn Tehran for violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and encouraged to pave the way for Security Council involvement in possible sanctions.

The Bush administration’s mounting problems in Iraq and its desire to further involve the Europeans in the Iraqi conflict forced it to reluctantly accept the EU’s softer position on Iranian NPT violations. The foreign ministers of Britain, Germany and France visited Tehran in October and convinced the Iranian government to accept IAEA demands. Under pressure from President Mohammad Khatami and the EU, conservatives within the Iranian government agreed to go along with this. Iran agreed to sign the Additional Protocol to the NPT, which gives the IAEA the right to conduct more intrusive inspections of atomic sites, without prior notice.

Iran’s agreement to sign the Additional Protocol was not enough for the neocons in Washington and the Sharon government. With the implicit approval of the US, Sharon threatened to take matters into Israel’s own hands and bomb Iranian nuclear facilities if the IAEA did not adopt a tougher stance.

As US foreign policy toward Iran has continued to swing between those favoring confrontation and those advocating a less provocative approach, the “confrontationalists” have failed to adequately consider the implications of their policies for Iran, the Middle East, and the international community. Iran’s goodwill in Afghanistan and Iraq, and its cooperation with the IAEA, has made little difference in the overall Washington mindset. The Sherman bill has the stamp of the neocons, the pro-Israel lobby and Iranian expatriates, who all advocate regime-change imposed from outside, rather than through domestic reform. So far, the behavior of the US and Israel suggests they are unconcerned about the establishment of Iranian democracy; rather, they seek a government in Tehran that is incapable of challenging American and Israeli hegemony in the region.

The Iranian expatriates encouraging the antagonistic US policies against Iran are mostly monarchists who supported the late shah’s tyranny to the end. They, too, care little for Iranian democracy, and wish merely to see a return of the old regime. The Sherman bill seeks to give US financial support to this group under the rubric “opposition broadcasters,” since the monarchists have established over 10 international television and radio stations in the US in order to destabilize the Iranian government. This group has negligible support in Iran, even inside opposition groups and in the student movements.

The opposition and democratic movements inside Iran are formed around nationalist and religious-nationalist groups, who advocate reform and change from within. These groups are critical of past and current American policies toward Iran, in particular the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup against the democratic government of Mohammad Mossadegh, which brought Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi back to power. They mistrust American claims of democratization because they believe the Bush administration has built up close links to individuals who lack any democratic credentials in Iran.

The Iranian nationalists, religious-nationalists and reformers also argue that American policies have severely undermined their own political aspirations and agendas. Such legislation as the Iran Democracy and Freedom Support Act, they argue, plays into the hands of Iranian conservatives, allowing them to justify their tight grip on power and their suppression of dissent under the guise of defending against an outside threat. Similarly, the Iranian expatriates supporting the US legislation know well that they do not have support inside Iran and, therefore, benefit from any confrontation with the US, since this can postpone homegrown Iranian reform initiatives.

Iran is not the only country that the United States has problems understanding, at least if one reads former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski correctly. He recently described American behavior in this way: “(It) can be summed up in a troubling paradox regarding the American position and the role in the world today. American power worldwide is at its historic zenith. American global political standing is at its nadir. Why? What is the cause of this? These are facts. They are measurable facts.

They’re also felt facts when one talks to one’s friends abroad who, like America, value what we treasure, but do not understand our policies, are troubled by our actions, and are perplexed by what they perceive to be either demagogy or mendacity.”

Mehdi Noorbaksh is a professor at the Center for International Studies at the University of St. Thomas, Houston. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/11_12_03_b.asp

EU to argue case with US for dialogue with Iran
By Judy Dempsey in Brussels

Published: December 11 2003 18:52 | Last Updated: December 11 2003 18:52

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, travels to Washington next week to press the argument that Europe's political and diplomatic dialogue with Iran remains a crucial element in attempts to curb Tehran's nuclear programme.

The visit comes at a delicate point in relations between the EU and US over Iran. The US administration is divided over whether to call openly for regime change in Iran or give the diplomatic track currently pursued by the Europeans a chance.

Neo-conservatives in Washington continue to advocate regime change. But Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state, said "regime change" was not US policy at a Senate hearing on October 28

"The administration is divided over Iran. But we are not going to change our policy. We are waiting for the Iranians to deliver. But that does not mean just being passive," said an EU diplomat involved in negotiations with Iran.

Earlier this week, Mr Solana won support from foreign ministers for a visit to Iran next month, where he will spell out EU policy towards the Islamic Republic - if Iran meets all its obligations set out in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The decision to send Mr Solana came after Iran said it would sign the "additional protocol", opening the way to enhanced inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear watchdog. It also agreed to suspend uranium enrichment - a process required for producing nuclear weapons. The IAEA will monitor the suspension.

Italy, holder of the EU's six-monthly rotating presidency, said Iran should be rewarded for taking those decisions even though it has yet to sign the additional protocol. Franco Frattini, Italian foreign minister, said ministers should consider resuming negotiations on a trade and co-operation agreement. These talks are linked to progress on issues including human rights, combating terrorism, respect for Iran's nuclear obligations and supporting any Middle East peace process.

Britain, France and Germany, which together forged the EU's distinctive policy towards Iran, forced Italy to back down, saying it was too early to send such signals to Iran.

"If we talk about resuming these [trade and co-operation] negotiations, what leverage is then left to us?" asked another EU diplomat. "Iran has to deliver. This will take time, a year or two. We have to judge when is the right time to send the signals."

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1069493922741

Student Day in Iran

December 12, 2003
VOA News
Editorial

“Free all political prisoners!” and “Death to despotism!” were some of the chants heard December 7th in Tehran during the annual Student Day. The slogans were a message to the Iranian clerical regime that its radical Islamic program had failed to create a better society –- and continues to make life worse for many Iranians.

According to news reports, some fifteen-hundred Iranian students joined the demonstration, which marked the anniversary of student deaths in protests in 1953.

Some of the protestors directed their frustration at President Mohammed Khatami. Leila Zanjani Zanjani, a female student leader, told the Associated Press that, “Khatami doesn’t have the courage to fulfill his promise. . .unfortunately, after six years failing to enforce promised democratic reforms. Khatami,” said Ms. Zanjani, “has lost the confidence of the young generation.”

Ms. Zanjani speaks for many Iranians who want a free and democratic state, and who denounce the theocratic system.

The U.S. supports the Iranian aspiration for democracy. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recently told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “There’s no question that the Iranian regime is engaged in destructive policies and actions.”

Iran has an abysmal human rights record. Its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction threatens to destabilize the region. Iran continues to support terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. And, as White House spokesman Scott McClellan says, Iran is still harboring al-Qaida terrorists:

“Iran must change its course, change its behavior –- particularly on the issue of its relationship with al-Qaida and the Ansar al-Islam terrorist organizations, and that would be an important step.”

The Iranian people have made it clear that they oppose the price their government has imposed on them for its support for terrorism. Instead, they want their government to devote itself to more constructive purposes, such as reintegrating Iran into the world community, revitalizing the Iranian economy, and engaging in genuine democratic reform.

http://www.voanews.com/Editorials/article.cfm?objectID=68E77AC3-BE9C-4FAC-94A55CBFC4C3FA1F&title=12%2F10%2F03%20%2D%20STUDENTS%20DAY%20IN%20IRAN

Mystery of Iran's Missing Jews

December 12, 2003
Jewish Telegraph
JTA

Babak Tehrani was 17 years old in June 1994 when he hugged his parents and two younger brothers, left his home in Tehran and, guided by a well-paid smuggler, tried to slip across rugged mountains into Pakistan.

He was joined by his friend Shaheen Nikkhoo, 20.

The two were caught by Iranian police at the border town of Zahedan - and haven't been heard from since.

Tehrani and Nikkhoo are among 11 Iranian Jews, ranging in age from 15 to 57 at the time of their ill-fated flights, who were caught and arrested while trying to leave Iran in the 1990s.

Pleas

All attempts to learn of their fate or win their freedom through personal pleas or backdoor diplomacy have been met with evasions or silence by Iranian authorities.

Now, for the first time, their families and the Jewish organisations backing them have decided to go public and enlist the help of the UN and media.

''The families have lost patience, and we've lost hope that those responsible elements in Iran will release these prisoners voluntarily,'' said Sam Kermanian, secretary-general of the Iranian American Jewish Federation.

''We are therefore in need of international support.''

According to the IAJF's latest information, the 11 men were spotted alive earlier this year in a Tehran prison.

The other missing Jews are aged between 24 and 66 - and include two pairs of brothers. All disappeared between 1994 and 1997. A twelfth Jew, Eshagh Hassid, 66, last spoke with his sister in February 1997 and indicated he would try to leave the country. His fate is unclear.

Kermanian said flight across Iran's south-eastern border with Pakistan is common - and was even more so during the mid-1990s, when emigration rules were more stringent.

''Everybody chooses this route for different reasons, but thousands of Jews and millions of non-Jews have left Iran through these means,'' he said.

The restrictions on Jews in Iran were particularly tough during the mid-1990s. For example, entire families were forbidden from emigrating; at least one member had to remain.

Hostages

Emigration restrictions have been eased somewhat since then.

However, some have suggested that Iran wants at least some Jews to remain in the country as virtual hostages to deter any potential attack from Israel. Others say they fear a wholesale Jewish exodus would damage Iran's image.

Indeed, whenever Iran's human rights record is criticised, Iranian officials counter by saying minority groups like Armenians, Assyrians, Zoroastrians and Jews - have elected representatives in Parliament.

Nevertheless, since Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, the Jewish community has dwindled from 100,000 to between 20,000 to 25,000.

''This would be the first government in Persia in 2,500 years to make the country devoid of Jews, and that would not reflect well on the regime,'' Kermanian said.

In the first few years after the men disappeared, advocates hoped Iran's new president, Mohammed Khatami, would prove to be as moderate as he portrayed himself. But the moderation -- especially vis-a-vis the Jews -- never materialised.

The first publicised word of the 11 came in September 2000, when Mehdi Kharroubi, the speaker of Iran's Parliament said during a visit to New York that he would look into the issue.

But that contact came amid more intense, public lobbying efforts to win the release of 10 of the original 'Iran 13' - Jews jailed in 1999 on charges of spying for Israel.

Since then, little has been heard publicly about the missing 11.

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman of the US Jewish Conference of Presidents, said of the missing men: ''After nine years with little progress, we still haven't been able to even verify if they're alive or in prison.''

Now UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has been asked to ascertain the men's whereabouts and condition - and to obtain their release.

Ramin Nikkhoo of Los Angeles, Shaheen Nikkhoo's older brother, said: ''I wake up and think about him. I shower, I eat, I go to work, and all the time I think about him. I feel the same anguish as I did on the first day, nine years ago.

''The Iranians can't just get away with kidnapping men, they have to give them back to their families.

http://www.jewishtelegraph.co.uk/world_3.html

Iran's President Defends Web Control

December 12, 2003
BBC News
Aaron Scullion

Iran's policy of blocking access to certain websites has been defended by the country's authorities at the UN digital summit.

Speaking in Geneva, Iran's President Mohammad Khatami insisted that the country only blocks access to 240 "pornographic and immoral" websites.

He said the ban only applies to sites that are incompatible with Islam, and a government official added that "all political sites are free".

Online censorship in Iran became a big issue at the summit after hundreds of Iranians flooded a website covering the event with complaints about restricted access.

'Criticism is OK'

The web has become an important alternative method of communication in Iran, with the authorities often imposing heavy penalties on any net service providers that fail to block access to their list of restricted websites.

More than 10,000 sites are banned in Iran, according to reports.

But when questioned by BBC News Online over this figure, President Khatami insisted the number was much smaller - just 240 - and that the authorities were not blocking pro-reform sites.

"We are exerting greater control over pornographic and immoral websites that are not compatible with Islam", President Khatami said.

"But we are not censoring criticism. Criticism is OK.

"Even political websites that are openly opposed to the Iranian government ... are available to the Iranian people."

President Khatami added that Western broadcasters, such as the BBC, would not be blocked in Iran.

'No punishment defined'

Iran's minister for information technology, Ahmad Motamedi, added that there was "no punishment defined" for people publishing material the government did not agree with, despite the detention of Sina Motallebi, an Iranian blogger and journalist, earlier in 2003.

Dr Motamedi first insisted he knew nothing of the story, and then said the writer "has been arrested but not in relation to weblogs."

The minister offered an example, "If somebody is a weblog writer, and kills somebody, should they not be arrested?"

President Khatami also spoke of the popularity of weblogs in his country, saying "I do not use weblogs - but I do not use many good things."

"Our youth and adolescents during high school, and university, are using weblogs very extensively. Access for youth to the internet is very satisfactory."

He added that, after English and French, more weblogs were written in Persian that any other language.

'Freedom not chaos'

that "principles of democracy" were key to a knowledge-based society.

Speaking to journalists, President Khatami added, "democracy runs in tandem with freedom of expression, but this does not mean that everything goes.

"Freedom of expression and freedom of thought are the preconditions of a democratic society. But freedom does not mean chaos".

President since 1997, Mohammad Khatami held the post of minister of culture and Islamic guidance in the 1980s.

He was eventually forced to resign over accusations that he was too permissive in sanctioning books, magazines and films which some considered subversive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3312841.stm

Japan-Iran Oil Project Talks Stalled - Kyodo

December 12, 2003
Dow Jones Newswires
Dow Jones

TOKYO -- A Japanese business consortium and Iran appear unable to avoid a rupture in their stalled negotiations for a major oil development project unless the Iranian government makes a concession, the Kyodo news agency reported Friday, citing officials in the Japanese group.

Differences over contract terms remain wide, they said.

At issue is a project to develop part of the Azadegan oil field in southwestern Iran, which is one of the largest oil fields in the country, Kyodo said.

Earlier this week, Iran virtually set a deadline for concluding the negotiations by urging the state-backed Japanese consortium to clarify its official position on the issue by Monday, saying the Japanese group will have to participate in an international bidding process for the project unless the Iranian request is met by then, Kyodo said.

An official in the consortium, which includes Tomen Corp., Inpex Corp. and Japan Petroleum Exploration Co., said the project will be unprofitable under terms proposed by Iran with regard to how to treat fees and share expenses, according to Kyodo.

Another official said, "Progress in negotiations is difficult" in light of the U.S. government's opposition to Japanese participation in the project because of Tehran's alleged nuclear weapons program, Kyodo reported.

Unless the deadline set for Monday is designed for "bargaining tactics, no agreement is possible," he said. "We will have to ask for freezing negotiations until the international situation stabilizes," according to Kyodo.

The preferential negotiation rights awarded to the Japanese business group expired at the end of June, but the Iranian government has continued to deal with it while inviting other foreign businesses to submit bids, Kyodo cited.

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2003121213430003&Take=1

Iraqi Council Could Seek US Help To Eject Anti-Iran Group

December 12, 2003
Dow Jones Newswires
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD -- The Iraqi Governing Council might ask the U.S. military to expel an anti-Iran paramilitary group from Iraq, but the council has no plans to hand them over to Iran, where they are wanted for terrorist attacks, two Iraqi officials said Friday.

Earlier this week, the U.S.-appointed council decided to expel by year's end the 3,800 members of the Mujahedeen Khalq, listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and the European Union.

"We might ask the Americans because they have the military capabilities," Governing Council member Dara Noor al-Din said. "We don't have an army and the police force isn't well enough equipped to face the Mujahedeen, because they have light weapons."

The U.S.-led administration of Iraq will meet the council to discuss the expulsion of the Mujahedeen Khalq, said a spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA.

The coalition official, who spoke in a briefing with media on condition of anonymity, didn't say whether the U.S. military would forcibly eject the group.

"We and the Governing Council and most Iraqis agree that the Mujahedeen Khalq is a terrorist organization and needs to be dealt with as such," the official said.

The group was disarmed by U.S. forces and is currently being held inside its camp northeast of Baghdad. Mujahedeen members at the camp said they were prohibited by the U.S. military from speaking with the press.

The Mujahedeen Khalq has for years sought to topple Iran's clerical government and kept an army in Iraq. During Saddam Hussein's rule, its fighters are believed to have taken part in some of Saddam's campaigns to suppress dissent among the country's Kurdish and Shiite Muslim communities.

The coalition briefer said he had no information on speculation that the group might be bartered away in a prisoner swap between the U.S. and Iran. A swap would hand the Mujahedeen Khalq to Tehran in exchange for members of al-Qaida in Iranian custody.

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush administration has called on Tehran to detain and hand over al-Qaida members in Iran. In October, Bush said it would improve Iranian-U.S. relations "if we end up reaching an agreement on the al-Qaida that they hold."

Officials in the U.S. Department of State have criticized U.S. defense officials for agreeing to a wartime cease-fire with the Mujahedeen Khalq, after initially bombing the group's base during the war. Some in the U.S. have commended the Mujahedeen for battling the Iranian clerical regime, and the Pentagon is thought to be more sympathetic to its goals than the State Department.

Recently, however, the U.S. appears to have taken a harder line against the group, and Iraqi Governing Council members - eager to mend ties with Iran - seem ready to dispose of a band of fighters whose presence has become an embarrassment.

Still, the Governing Council has no plans to hand the group, known as the MEK, to Tehran.

"We're not concerned where the MEK are going to go," said Entifadh Qanbar, a spokesman for Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi. "They can choose their own destination. We've given them sufficient time to gather their stuff and leave the country."

http://framehosting.dowjonesnews.com/sample/samplestory.asp?StoryID=2003121213180005&Take=1

Booby Trapped Letter Explodes in Office of Kuwaiti Editor

December 10, 2003
Middle East Media Research Institute
MEMRI

A booby trapped letter addressed to ahmed al-jarallah, the chief editor of the kuwaiti daily, al-siyyisah, exploded in his office and injured his secretary. The letter was sent from lebanon. (mr. Al-jarallah has recently written highly critical editorials of the syrian regime.) (al-hayat, london, 12/12/03)- MEMRI News Ticker Headlines

Editor of Kuwaiti Daily: 'The U.S. is not going to Quit... It will Convert Poles of Jihadi Flags into Arrows to Pierce the Hearts of Terrorists'

On November 23, 2003, Ahmad Al-Jarallah, the Editor-in-Chief of the Kuwaiti dailies Al-Siyassa and Arab Times, praised the U.S. fight against Jihad fighters. The following are excerpts from the article: [1]

"Any resistance that depends on suicide bombers to destroy its target is a desperate and futile movement. Such a resistance hasn't succeeded in evicting Jews from Palestine or ending the misery of Palestinians. It has also failed to curtail the political authority of Jews over Palestinians. Those who still employ this method - covered by slogans of Jihad and promises of a place in heaven for the suicide bomber - wrongly believe it is an effective method.

"They are living in the past and they can see only the history of the United States. They think America is the same country that withdrew from regions where it incurred heavy casualties, such as Vietnam, Beirut in 1982, and Somalia. They refuse to see the recent history of the US in Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and in the war to liberate Kuwait. Americans weren't fazed by suicide bombings. Trucks laden with deadly bombs and driven by suicide bombers failed to scare them. Instead, such attempts have steeled their resolve to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places.

"Regrettably, some myopic Arab leaders can see only the negative side of the U.S. army's history. All their speeches are stale and full of lies and their people are sick and tired of their meaningless slogans. These leaders delude themselves trying to lead their people towards mass suicide. They are not aware history is changing and they don't realize any self-respecting military will learn from its past mistakes. The U.S. has chosen to take terrorism head on by launching a war on terror. Nobody, except these handful of Arab leaders, are surprised by America's resolve to fight terrorism.

"Saudi Arabia - which was earlier ambivalent towards terrorism - has been forced to join the war on terror. The tone of Saudi media has changed and they want to eliminate the dangers of international terrorism. They now proclaim terrorists violate the teachings of Islam. Kuwait and Egypt have also been fighting terrorism for a long time. The latest victim of terrorism is Turkey where a number of innocent civilians were killed… "This will only result in an international war on terrorism which will have legitimate reasons to continue till the fountainheads of terrorism are smashed. Those who lead revenge operations - for their defeats in Kabul and Baghdad - in the name of resistance are unwittingly strengthening the resolve of the United States to face and defeat terrorism. The United States is not going to quit. Instead, it will convert poles of Jihadi flags into arrows to pierce the hearts of terrorists - who ultimately will be consigned to the dustbin of history."

[1] Arab Times (Kuwait), November 23, 2003.

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD62603

Scientists in Iran Nuke-scam Not Arrested, Says Govt

December 13, 2003
The Peninsula
AFP

ISLAMABAD -- Pakistani authorities yesterday sent home one of the two nuclear scientists who had reportedly been detained since early this month, saying they had finished “debriefing” him. “The debriefing session of one of the scientists has concluded and he has resumed his normal duties,” foreign ministry spokesman Masood Khan said.

Local newspapers had linked the pair’s apparent detention to allegations that Pakistani scientists helped Iran develop its nuclear programs.

Yasin Chohan, a laboratory director at the Kahuta Research Laboratories (KRL) uranium enrichment facility, returned home yesterday morning, an associate of Chohan’s family said.

Chohan and KRL director Farooq Muhammad were taken from their homes in early December and held for questioning, according to opposition politicians and local news reports. Some reports quoted witnesses saying Caucasian men wearing bulletproof jackets took them from their homes, triggering accusations that United States intelligence agencies were involved.

Pakistani officials denied the pair were in custody, saying they were merely undergoing “routine personnel dependability and debriefing programs”. Earlier a senior government official said the two scientists were “neither arrested nor detained.”

“They are undergoing debriefing sessions conducted by officials from within the sensitive organisations,” said the official, who could not be named. The term “sensitive organisations” refers to intelligence agencies.

“This exercise does not stem from any specific charges against these individuals,” he said. The foreign ministry’s Khan also denied the men had been interrogated or were in custody, or that any foreigners were involved.

“There is no ‘interrogation’ going on. The word has implications of ‘wrongdoing’. This is prejudgement,” Khan said in a written response to e-mailed questions.

“People in debriefing sessions are not held in ‘custody’.”

But he declined to answer whether the men had freedom of movement. Muhammad’s son said his father was fine and was in regular contact with the family. “He is in touch with us and we have spoken to him on a number of times,” he said.

Opposition parties are furious at the scientists’ apparent detention and have accused President Pervez Musharraf of trying to appease the United States. Islamist senator Khurshid Ahmed claimed a third nuclear scientist had been detained, naming KRL principal engineer Saeed Ahmed.

The senator dismissed government assertions that the two scientists were undergoing debriefing sessions as “eyewash.”

The United States has said it will step up its effort to prevent nuclear technology reaching Iran, alleged by Washington to be using an atomic energy program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons.

Pakistan, which declared its nuclear capability in May 1998 with a series of underground nuclear tests, has been accused of sharing nuclear technology with both Iran and North Korea. It adamantly denies the allegations.

Earlier this year, the Americans imposed sanctions on the Khan Research Laboratories, saying the establishment was providing material support to a country or people trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Pakistan+%26+Sub%2DContinent&month=December2003&file=World_News2003121314454.xml

Rebel army termination tests U.S.
Iraq panel votes to oust fighters opposing Iran

Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, December 11, 2003

Khalis, Iraq -- The U.S. secret weapon against Iran is kept behind high gates here, where several thousand fighters of the Mujahedeen Khalq, or People's Warriors, live in a sprawling military base guarded by U.S. troops.

Although Khalis is just 60 miles north of Baghdad, two large statues of Iranian lions decorate the base's interior gateway, and an Iranian flag snaps in the wind.

The rebel army has become a symbol of the Bush administration's internal divisions about policy toward Iran -- and a possible point of friction with Iraq's emerging civilian leadership.

On Tuesday, the Iraqi Governing Council voted unanimously to shut down the Mujahedeen Khalq (known as MEK) camp at Khalis by the end of December. It also called for seizure of the rebels' money and weapons and a funneling of the proceeds to a fund that will compensate victims of Saddam Hussein's regime.

The move poses a sharp challenge by the council to the U.S. military, which has long sympathized with the Mujahedeen -- and to President Bush and his circle of advisers, since a dissolution of the group has long been sought by Iran's Islamic government.

On Wednesday, Pentagon officials responded cautiously, indicating that they would resist any immediate action to carry out the Iraqi decision.

"We share the Governing Council's decision about the MEK," said a Pentagon official in a telephone interview. However, he added, "We are considering how to deal with them and will of course consult with the Governing Council ..."

The guerrilla army, which has been opposed to Iran's religious rulers since it broke with them shortly after the 1979 revolution, is classified by the State Department as a terrorist organization because of its role in attacks on Americans in the 1970s and its support for Hussein in crushing the Shiite uprising in southern Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991.

It was given lavish support by Hussein, who provided conventional weaponry like tanks and helicopters, plus a half-dozen luxurious military bases replete with swimming pools and executive-quality offices.

On the other hand, conservatives in the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office view the rebels as freedom fighters and potential U.S. allies against Iran's religious leaders, in much the same way as the Northern Alliance helped overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The group has long occupied a top spot in the Iranian government's pantheon of archenemies, and most official public rallies in Iran are punctuated by orchestrated chants of "Death to Israel! Death to America! Death to the Mujahedeen Khalq!"

After the U.S. conquest of Iraq, during which the Mujahedeen bases were briefly bombed by coalition forces, many in Tehran and Washington expected that the Americans would disband the group.

Although the U.S. military has taken away its heavy weapons and confined its fighters to their main base at Khalis, it has taken no steps toward dissolution.

The relation between the two forces clearly is friendly. At the base, an outer gate is manned by American troops, with a large antiaircraft radar nearby. About 100 meters inside is a grand inner gateway fit for a palace, with large imperial lion statues and flags of prerevolutionary Iran and the MEK overhead, with dozens of uniformed Mujahedeen fighters -- men and women alike -- carrying Kalashnikov rifles.

In a Chronicle reporter's visit to Khalis last week, it seemed apparent that the group was being kept intact as a potential fighting force.

Maj. Chris Wilson, executive officer of the U.S. garrison, said his instructions were to allow no media on the base, and said the rebels had been disarmed.

Mohammed Hussein, a Mujahedeen spokesman, said he could not give an interview or allow a visit inside. "I'm sorry, but we have received instructions from the U.S. Army not to talk to the press. We do not have freedom of movement, as you can see. We are waiting for decisions to be made."

U.S. officials and Arab diplomats say that in backchannel negotiations through Jordan's King Abdullah II, Iran has offered to extradite several top- level al Qaeda officials it is holding if the United States shut down the Mujahedeen and delivered its members to Iran.

In Iraq, however, it is widely assumed that the Americans are preparing the Mujahedeen as an intelligence and covert-action force. A U.S. military official hinted Wednesday that this might be true, saying that the rebels were "being screened to get intelligence they have about Iran that might be useful to us."

Last year, the group proved its credibility in the emerging debate over whether Iran is covertly developing nuclear weapons. The group released information about a secret plant for enriching uranium in the cities of Natanz and Arak. U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors investigated the claims and found them mostly correct.

However, the group is not believed to have much support inside Iran. The Mujahedeen "appear to have some support among professional and scientific classes, but it wouldn't be correct to assume they have a large base here, or that people would rise up to follow them if the U.S. did some kind of military or covert action," said a Western diplomat in Tehran.

"The Mujahedeen have been painted as the demons, and they are hated because they sided with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war," said one Tehran resident who supports the Mujahedeen. "Its future as a military organization is over."

One U.S. official who asked to remain unidentified said, "I don't think anybody knows right now what's going to come of" the Governing Council's decision to expel the MEK. But he stressed that the council's Dec. 31 deadline was essentially impossible to meet.

If any rebels are deemed by U.S. investigators to be terrorists, the official added, "Will the legal action against them come in Iraq? The United States? Iran?

"And if they're not prosecuted, they're essentially refugees. Where will they be relocated? We haven't started asking that."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/11/MNG3A3KPHG1.DTL

MKO warns US, expulsion would be a war crime

Friday, December 12, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

NICOSIA, Dec 12 (AFP) - Iran's armed opposition group, the Mujahedeen (MKO), said Friday it had told the US authorities that any attempt by Iraq's US-controlled Governing Council to expel thousands of its members to Iran would be a war crime for which Washington would be responsible.

Some 4,000-5,000 of the MKO, which mounted attacks inside Iran from neighbouring Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power, have been disarmed since the US-led invasion and are now guarded by US troops in their base of Camp Ashraf, east of the capital.

Earlier this week the Governing Council said it planned to expel the MKO, whom it accused of terrorism, by December 31. On Thursday a member of the council said Iraq's interim rulers are considering handing them over to the very Iranian authorities they have been fighting to overthrow.

A Swiss international law expert acting for the MKO, Professor Marc Henzelin, told AFP he had written Thursday to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and top military officials warning them that such a move would be a war crime under the terms of the Geneva Convention.

As the occupying power in Iraq, the United States would bear the responsibility, and would face legal action in US, Swiss or other courts.

"I am totally convinced that the legal experts of the US military will reach exactly the same conclusion," Henzelin said, noting that when they agreed to be disarmed in September the MKO put themselves under US military protection.

He said the Governing Council did not have the means to carry out its decision on its own, but would require the consent and cooperation of US forces for any deportation.

A statement issued by the MKO also said the handing over of the Mujahedeen to the Islamic republic "would be a war crime and a crime against humanity."

Washington must provide the "relevant protection offered to members of the (MKO) by the Geneva Convention, which categorizes them as civilians.

"Any transfer or deportation of (MKO) members outside the territory of Iraq to any country, and in particular to Iran, is prohibited under the laws of war applicable to the present occupation," it said.

The statement also said deportation would violate an international treaty binding states not to "expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

It called on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, all the member states of the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross to "maintain a vigilant eye on the developing situation in Iraq with regard to the status of (MKO) members who are refugees in Iraq."

Iran greeted the expulsion decision as "very positive" and said the Islamic republic would show "leniency" to low-ranking members wishing to give themselves up.

The authorities said nothing about how middle- and high-ranking members would be treated, but have said in the past they would be dealt with harshly.

Governing Council member Nuredin Dara told AFP on Thursday: "It's better for them to ask for forgiveness from Iran. I think Iran will be understanding.

"If we deliver them to Iran I think (Tehran) will issue a general amnesty. The country may forgive them for the crimes they committed against Iran and accept them back again in their country."

Dara denied that the MKO had been sacrificed in the interest of better ties with Iran or that they would likely be executed upon their return.

He accused them of allowing themselves to be used "as a means for Saddam Hussein to execute the crimes of killing and slaughtering," notably of Kurds.

A MKO official, denying the allegations of terrorism, said the move showed Iran was exerting a malevolent influence on the Governing Council, 24 of whose 25 members had recently visited Tehran.

"As long as the fundamentalist regime remains in power in Iran, democracy in Iraq is an illusion," he said.

The official also noted that "quite a few members" of the MKO in Camp Ashraf had US or other citizenship and families living in the United States and elsewhere in the West.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20522&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

UK not to intervene in Iran, Syria: O’Brien -- Detail Story

KARACHI: British Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Mike O’Brien has said that the British government would not take part in any military intervention in Iran or Syria.

He was talking to newsmen, after delivering keynote speech on "Pakistan and Britain - A Developing Relationship", arranged by the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations, Economic Affairs and Law (KCFREAL) at the FTC Auditorium, here on Thursday.

Describing Iran as an emerging democracy, he said that the UK was working alongside the Iranian government for the country’s growth. He said his country also had no plans to go after Syria.

He dispelled the impression that there was any list of countries to be attacked like Afghanistan and Iraq. He said that the allegations that the US and the UK would be benefited from the oil in Iraq were also baseless.

Responding to a question about the bugging of the Pakistan High Commission in London, he said: "There are people who make all sorts of allegations. The British government’s position is that we don’t either confirm or deny any such allegations."

Earlier in his speech, the minister, who also holds the portfolio of international trade and investment, said: "Britain and Pakistan are intimately linked, in their past and in the present." He said that more than three-quarters of a million Pakistanis, who had made their home in the UK, were playing a vital part in every sector of the British life. Similarly, he added, 80,000 British citizens had chosen to make Pakistan their home. "This is only one of the factors that has helped trade between our two countries to improve so dramatically in recent months," he said.

He said both the countries could and should work closely on some issues facing the world today. He said the concept of "clash of civilisations" had persisted since the phrase was first coined by an American academic, Samuel Huntingdon, a decade ago.

"There is a danger that this perception will gain ground in these difficult times for all. Britain’s multi-cultural society shows that Islam and Christianity can live in harmony.

"The growth of extremism in any religion or society is an issue that concerns us all. It has been found in the Christianity and many other religions also. It is Islam that has a long tradition of tolerance and deep-rooted tenets of equality, humanity and respect for the views of others," he said.

The British minister applauded President Musharraf’s concept of enlightened moderation and his initiatives at the Organisation of Islamic Countries. "He (Musharraf) is right. We all have some serious work to do," he said.

Earlier, KCFREAL Secretary General Ahsan Mukhtar Zubairi and founding member Liaquat Merchant, respectively, delivered the introductory and welcome addresses.

http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en47547&F_catID=&f_type=source

Campaigning to begin in Iran amid fears

Friday, December 12, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

TEHRAN, Dec 12 (AFP) - "Why should I bother to vote?" asks 25-year-old Dariush, one of the millions of young Iranians who helped put reformists in power during the last parliamentary elections in 2000.

"The reformists have done nothing. Khatami has had the backing of 22 million people yet he hasn't stood up to the conservatives," he says of embattled President Mohammad Khatami, whose pledge of 'Islamic democracy' saw him win landslide victories in 1997 and 2001.

In just over two months, Iranians will again be deciding on the way forward for the quarter-century-old Islamic republic.

Will it be yet more struggling between elected reformists and powerful entrenched hardliners, or a message that the system is not working with the majority of the 41 million eligible voters staying away?

Campaigning for the February 20, 2004 Majlis elections gets under way on Saturday, when parliamentary hopefuls can start registering their candidacies.

But aside from fears that frustration with reforms may lead to an all-time low turnout, reformists will also be battling a tough vetting procedure imposed by the conservative-dominated Guardians Council -- a kind of unelected senate that over the past four years has blocked most reformist legislation.

Furthermore, they will have a hard time convincing voters they deserve a repeat victory in light of an economic track record tarnished by high inflation and high unemployment.

A clear warning was given to reformists -- who presently hold 210 out of the 290 seats in the Majlis -- during municipal elections in February 2003, when turnout hit a record low in a country more used to seeing participation figures that would impress many Western democracies.

In Tehran, Isfahan and Mashhad, turnout was just 12 percent. As a result, conservatives won in the sprawling capital and other major urban centres.

A repeat of that for the Majlis elections would likely see conservatives control parliament -- and therefore have the power to throw out reformist ministers -- as well as be a blow to the regime's legitimacy.

Hence both sides of the political divide are calling on Iranians to turn out in force, and the shock of many who now have their local councils run by hardliners busy turning popular cultural centres into prayer rooms and stepping up social controls may make those contemplating a boycott think again.

Voter participation was 69.25 percent in 2000's parliamentary elections. A number of opinion polls have put the February turnout just slightly lower -- between 50 and 60 percent.

But turnout is also seen as depending on whether the Guardians Council chooses to use its vetting power to weed out reformist candidates as it has done in the past.

The registration phase, which marks the start of pre-campaigning, lasts one week. After going through the reformist-run interior ministry, which manages the logistics of the elections, candidacies then go for approval to bodies appointed by the Guardians Council.

It was these bodies that were targetted by a reformist bill passed last year aimed at ending election vetting. The bill was subsequently shot down by the Guardians Council itself, leaving conservatives still having the last say on who can stand.

And recently, one conservative argued that "the Guardians Council should not repeat the same errors it has made in the past by approving the candidacies of those who do not deserve to be in parliament."

A top official in the judiciary, another key bastion of Iran's religious right, also called on "all those with cases before the courts" not to present themselves. The judiciary is known to have cases against large numbers of reformers.

The Guardians Council has also put in place a network of some 200,000 observers, and its head Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati in a sermon Friday warned that candidates "should not spend too much money... and in their speeches should not raise divisive issues."

But despite the pressures and threats -- including a string of attacks on reformist figures -- the pro-Khatami camp is not expected to boycott.

"Not taking part," asserted prominent reformist thinker Behzad Nabavi recently, "would be to concede defeat in advance."

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20523&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

Ebadi to defend liberal opposition leader

Friday, December 12, 2003 - ©2003 IranMania.com

TEHRAN, Dec 12 (AFP) - Iranian lawyer and Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi will help defend one of the Islamic Republic's main opponents, Ebrahim Yazdi, against charges of trying to overthrow the government, the defendant said Friday.

"Shirin Ebadi is one of the three lawyers who are going to defend me," Yazdi, secretary general of the Iran Freedom Movement, told AFP. There was no immediate confirmation from Ebadi.

Yazdi was due to appear before a revolutionary tribunal on Saturday for a closed chamber hearing on charges of damaging national security. But he said the court postponed the session without explanation.

His lawyers said Yazdi is facing up to 10 years in prison.

Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Wednesday, has taken on another sensitive case, concerning a Iranian-Canadian journalist who died after being beaten while in custody.

Yazdi, accused in November 2001 of attempting to overthrow the regime, has been interrogated 53 times since his return to Iran in April 2002 after spending several months in the United States and other countries.

He was one of the closest aides to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during his final exile in 1978 in France, and served as foreign minister in the provisional government of Mehdi Bazargan.

The Iran Freedom Movement, founded in the 1960s by Bazargan, is a liberal, nationalist opposition movement seen as close to Iran's reformers.

The group was tolerated until 2001 but is now banned in Iran because it questions certain principals of the Islamic Republic.

In March 2001, nearly 60 members and sympathisers were arrested on charges of wanting to "overthrow the regime" on the eve of presidential elections won by the reformist Mohammed Khatami.

Fifteen of them were condemned to sentences of up to 11 years in prison, and are awaiting the outcome of their appeal.

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=20527&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs

IRAQIS MUST JUDGE SADDAM

by Amir Taheri
NEW YORK POST
December 12, 2003

December 12, 2003 -- AFTER months of soul- searching, it now seems certain that the Iraq Governing Council is prepared to put the fallen Ba'athist regime on trial. The decision is important because it ends the debate over who should hold the trials and where.

The council seems confident enough that the Iraqis can handle the task themselves: No need for a court outside Iraq, with foreign judges. The tribunal will sit in Baghdad, with only Iraqi judges to try Saddam and his associates on charges ranging from corruption to crimes against humanity.

Although long overdue, the decision has drawn criticism from the European Union and the United Nations. Their beef: The tribunal would exclude the U.N. and ignore internationally accepted judicial norms and practices.

The Governing Council should note the criticism - but do what it thinks right.

The U.N. and E.U., after all, still refuse to recognize the Governing Council as a legitimate authority. Both are reluctant to acknowledge that the toppling of Saddam's regime was an act of liberation for the Iraqi people. Thus neither can claim moral authority in telling the Iraqis what to do.

There is no reason why the Iraqis should trust the U.N. or the E.U. - they did nothing to curb Saddam's criminal activities. In fact, several EU members helped Saddam build his death machine while the UN played cat-and-mouse with him for 13 years.

Nor should Iraqis take notice of those who claim to represent public opinion in the West.

The suggestion that Western opinion may regard an Iraqi tribunal as "questionable" is neither here nor there. If by "Western opinion" one means the newly created coalition of Islamists and Stalinists, plus the usual fellow-travelers, it is enough to remember that it never organized a single protest march when Saddam was killing thousands of women and children with his chemical weapons, and filling all those mass graves.

But "Western opinion" has held marches to lament the demise of Saddam and denounce the liberation of Iraq, in the words of the British playwright Harold Pinter, as "a blood-drinking tea-party" by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. This "Western opinion" would rather put Bush and Blair, and the entire Iraqi people, on trial than utter a harsh word against Saddam.

Having said all that, the Governing Council should make sure that the tribunal conforms to the highest standards of justice.

To start with, the tribunal must limit its scope to the former regime's most senior officials, including Saddam.

On paper, the old regime boasted a wide base. The Ba'ath Party had more than 1 million members. Millions more were linked to it via trade unions, professional associations and youth organizations. In despotic regimes such as Saddam's it is impossible to live anything resembling a normal life without being sullied by the party in power.

A closer look, however, would reveal the narrowness of the regime's decision-making apparatus. Saddam trusted no one, except (perhaps) his second son, Qusay. He never informed anyone of major decisions, such as invading Iran in 1980 and annexing Kuwait in 1990, in advance.

His was more of a one-man-show than Stalin's in the USSR.

The Governing Council would do well to narrow the tribunal's scope to no more than a dozen or so senior figures, including Saddam. Their trial would, in fact, be the trial of the whole Ba'athist regime and its 35-year criminal record.

Iraq will also have to deal with mid-ranking officials who helped keep the Ba'ath machine in operation. These may number around 3,000 and could be dealt with through a special body, modeled on South Africa's post-Apartheid "truth and reconciliation" commission. Iraq does not need endless trials in which thousands of people are paraded in front of judges for months if not years.

For the rest, the council should prepare a general amnesty covering political crimes committed before the liberation. This would make it possible to bring non-political charges against those involved in other crimes, such as embezzlement, torture, rape, kidnapping, confiscation of private property and racketeering.

The work of the tribunal and the commission should take place in public. The tribunal should allow the leaders of the former regime to choice their own defense lawyers, including from among European jurists.

The tribunal should also invite testimony by foreign citizens, including the families of tens of thousands of Iranians killed in Saddam's chemical attack, and of hundreds of Kuwaitis murdered by Saddam's henchmen in cold blood.

There is no reason why the U.N., the E.U. and other interested foreign organizations should not send observers to the tribunal while the international media is allowed to cover the proceedings on the basis of clear rules.

Whether or not the proceedings should be telecast live is still being debated.

Some Iraqis believe that live telecasts could remind the nation of the show trials organized by Abdul-Karim Qassem, the first post-monarchy dictator of Iraq.

Others, however, insist that live telecasts would have an educational impact, both for the Iraqis themselves and the international public at large. There are still people, especially in the West, who refuse to believe that Saddam headed one of the nastiest regimes in human history.

Another issue debated in Iraq is whether or not to get the tribunal started before an elected government is in place. Some argue that the tribunal may be presented as an instrument of the occupying powers. But that claim could be countered by the fact that the tribunal will have only Iraqi judges.

Despite the obvious difficulties involved, it is best is to start the tribunal as soon as possible. In an electoral atmosphere, the issue could become a partisan one, with some demanding a "sea of blood" to avenge the crimes of Ba'ath while others preach limitless forgiveness. Such a debate could divide the people at a time it needs to remain united in a delicate period of transition.

Holding the tribunal now would enable the interim government that is to be installed by the middle of next year to focus its attention on the future, rather than the past.

E-mail:amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/13193.htm