Iranian Alert -- January 3, 2004 -- IRAN LIVE THREAD --Americans for Regime Change in Iran

The Iranian Student Movement Up To The Minute Reports ^ | 1.3.2004 | DoctorZin

[DoctorZIn]

The US media almost entirely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, “this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year.” But most American’s are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East.

There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. Starting June 10th of this year, Iranians have begun taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy. Many even want the US to over throw their government.

The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.

In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.

This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.

I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.

If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.

If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.

DoctorZin

[freedom44]

2 new Satellite TV stations have recently appeared beamed into Iran by Iranian-Americans. One is Rang-a-rang from NY (social democrat) and the other is Lahse (constitutional monarchy), puts the total at 15. --3 new ones are due out soon. Estimates put the # of Iranians receiving satellite dishes at 15-20% despite the government ban.

Given the boring and biased nature of domestic programming(Iran's government offers 4 stations--all 4 are extremely hard-line offering only extremist programming), Iranians continue to ignore such restrictions and to tune in to Persian-language satellite broadcasts (beamed by Iranian-Americans abroad). Some of the stations available to them are: Appadana (http://www.appadana.com), Azadi TV (http://www.azaditv.com), Channel One TV (http://www.channelonetv.com), IPN TV (http://www.ipntv.com), Iran TV Network (http://www.irantvnetwork.com), IRTV (http://www.irtv.com), Jaam-e-Jam (http://www.jaamejam.com), Melli TV (http://www.mellitv.com), NITV (http://www.nitv.tv), Pars TV Network (http://www.parstvnetwork.com), Rang-a-Rang (http://www.rang-a-rang.com), and Tapesh TV (http://www.tapeshtv.com). All of these stations are based in the Los Angeles area, with the exception of Rang-a-Rang, which is based near Washington, D.C.

All stations support a change of regime in Iran. Some support a constitutional monarchy similar to spain and england mainly pushing for Shah's son Reza Pahlavi, while others support representative democracy --A Republic, still others are Social Democrats.

3 of the stations have just entertainment, but their entertainment is in itself extremely pre-1979 material.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Kazemi's death reminds me of Daniel Pearl. I wish the media would be sympathetic and rally around the cause.

[DoctorZIn]

Woman Pulled Alive from Iran Rubble After 8 Days

Reuters - World News (via Yahoo)
Jan 3, 2004

BAM - Iranian rescue workers pulled a woman alive and unscathed from the rubble in Bam Saturday, more than eight full days after an earthquake destroyed the city, a Red Crescent spokeswoman told Reuters Saturday.

"She doesn't have a single scratch on her face," said Red Crescent spokeswoman Masoumeh Malek. "She can talk to us and answer our questions. When I ask her something she says 'yes dear."'

The woman, aged about 90, was found in good condition despite long odds of surviving so long after the quake. She was located first by sniffer dogs Saturday afternoon -- more than 8 1/2 days after the quake buried her under a building.

Rescue workers then spent three hours excavating her from the rubble.

"She is now being treated in a Red Crescent center and is in good condition," Malek said.

There have been no survivors found in the devastated city since Thursday when three people were rescued despite long odds. Experts say it is extremely unlikely to survive even beyond three days without food or water in such conditions.

The tremor killed at least 30,000 people in Bam, an ancient Silk Road city that once had 103,000 inhabitants. Government officials have said the final toll may reach 50,000. Ninety percent of its buildings were also ruined.

In an attempt to restore a semblance of normality to the southeastern city, state media said at least three of Bam's 23 schools were reopened briefly Saturday -- the start of the week in Iran.

"We opened the school this morning but we decided to close again," Abbas Burunabadi, a consultant to the governor of Bam, told Reuters at a boys school in Rudab just outside the city that appeared undamaged. He said they would try again Monday.

"Less than 30 percent of the pupils attended classes today and I haven't seen many of the teachers," Burunabadi said, as several children played on the street in front of the one-story brick building. "Most lived in Bam and a number were killed."

CLASSES IN TENTS

One group of six boys between eight to 12 were kicking a stone around on the street in an impromptu football match while children in another slightly larger group played with sticks or leaned against the walls of the school beneath a yellow banner that said classes had been postponed until Monday.

"I went along this morning but it was canceled," said Aboljassen Nezamabaei, 7, on his bicycle outside school.

Mohammad Taqizadeh, head of education in the Kerman province, told the official IRNA news agency classes would start Monday in tents if there are enough pupils.

"There were 27,000 pupils in Bam before the earthquake, but we have no figures on the number now," he added. "More than 90 percent of the schools were damaged."

Burunabadi, in Rudab, said there were also other worries.

"From a psychological point some pupils are afraid to go back inside a building," he added.

The death toll was so high because even state buildings, which officials say may have been built in violation of construction codes, collapsed quickly in the quake.

Aid workers said the camps would eventually house some 40,000 to 60,000 homeless.

Camps offering better shelter than the flimsy cloth tents handed out in the immediate aftermath continued to take shape around the city and foreign aid efforts were also focused on keeping up the flow of food and medicine.

"There seems to be a pretty good supply of food thanks to the humanitarian donations," said Jonathan Dumont, spokesman for the U.N. World Food Program, which brought 40 tonnes of high energy biscuits from its stores in Italy and some 100 tonnes donated by India -- enough to feed 120,000 people for 12 days.

http://www.daneshjoo.org/generalnews/article/publish/article_4391.shtml

[DoctorZIn]

Iran Quake Survivors Suffering Psychological Disorders

January 03, 2004
The Associated Press
The Canadian Press

BAM, Iran -- Many survivors in the earthquake-razed city of Bam, Iran , are suffering psychological disorder after the deaths of their loved ones and the destruction of their homes, U.N. officials warned Saturday.

A situation report by the U.N. Disaster Assessment Coordination Team also said the confirmed death toll had risen to 29,700 with the addition of 1,700 burials in villages around the southeastern city of Bam. It said there are believed to be at least 5,000 unregistered burials.

"Post-traumatic stress disorder is highly prevalent," the U.N. report said. On Friday the U.S. field hospital operated on a young Iranian soldier who tried to commit suicide by shooting himself after discovering the Dec. 26 quake had wiped out his family.

"If we don't pay the best attention to this, it will lead to more cases of depression, suicide and other mental health problems," said Dr. Mohammad Farojpour, the head of Kerman province's mental health department.

French and German aid groups were flying in a total of 130 psychologists and psychiatrists to counsel survivors, the U.N. report said. The Iranian Red Crescent Society has already deployed 40 women counselors to Bam.

The quake of magnitude 6.6 damaged beyond repair as much as 85% of Bam's houses and buildings, the report said. Camps of tents with heating are being erected around the city, U.N. officials said. Up to now, the homeless have been living in unheated tents set up amid the ruins.

Farojpour said that among the many things disrupted by the quake was the supply of opium to the city's addicts. Before the temblor, an estimated 20% of people over the age of 15 in a population of 80,000 were believed to be addicted.

Methadone, codeine and sterile syringes were being given to drug addicts, Farojpour said.

The U.N. plans to complete within four days an assessment of the city's needs for water, sanitation, food and shelter. The facts are to be presented in an appeal to international donors.

At least five or six countries, including the U.S., are working on the review with the U.N.

Bill Garvelink, head of the US AID team in Bam, has said the destruction was worse than any quake-zone he had ever seen.

"It's incredible," Garvelink said. "Bam is literally a rubble pile. I haven't seen any business functioning and you don't see anybody living in their homes."

On Friday, Iran's state radio, which is controlled by conservatives, accused President George W. Bush of interference in Iran . Bush had said he was glad Iran accepted U.S. assistance, but its government must embrace democratic freedoms and turn over its detainees from the al-Qaida terror group. Iran says its handling of the al-Qaida detainees is an internal matter.

The U.S. team in Bam has been generally well received by local doctors and citizens. Washington and Tehran have had no diplomatic relations since militants seized the U.S. Embassy in the Iranian capital in 1979.

Figures for the overall dead have varied according to differing estimates of the number of bodies still under the rubble. Earlier this week a U.N. report said the death toll was at least 33,000, but only 28,000 people had been buried. A provincial government spokesman, Asadollah Iranmanesh, has predicted the final toll would be between 30,000 and 40,000.

http://www3.cjad.com/content/cjad_news/article.asp?id=w010321A

[DoctorZIn]

A Historic City Counts its Losses

January 03, 2004
BBC News
Jim Muir

An hour before dawn last Friday morning, the oasis town of Bam in south-east Iran was jolted by a massive earthquake. In the hours and days that followed, it became clear that the city, much of it made of mud-brick, had been largely destroyed.

More modern buildings fared better than traditional mud brick houses
The death toll is currently estimated at around 30,000, but it is feared that hundreds of people still lie entombed under the rubble of their own homes.

The disaster brought a flood of sympathy and relief efforts from the outside world, including from the United States, which has been at odds with the Islamic republic for more than two decades.

I have been living in Iran for the past four years and was among the first Western journalists to reach the scene of the disaster.

Rich history

When visiting friends would ask me where the best places in Iran to go were, I felt obliged, of course, to mention the country's most obvious glories.

In Isfahan, they would see the glittering, highly-ornate marvels produced by the Safavid dynasty at the height of its flowering about 400 years ago.

At Shiraz, near Persepolis, they could wander around the vast and lordly ruins left by the Achaemenid empire in the 6th Century BC.

But then I would always mention Bam and urge them to go there, because to me, it had something very special and quite different about it.

Perhaps it is because it had sprung out of, and survived in, an environment that could not be ignored or resisted.

It is an oasis, with thousands of beautiful palm trees producing the dates for which it is famous.

It is set in the desert hundreds of kilometres from anywhere.

In the old days, it was a vital staging-post on the ancient trade routes linking Eastern and Western civilisations.

And it remains so today, astride the main international road from Iran to Pakistan.

Pioneering architecture

What was fantastic about it was, of course, the city's heart: the citadel and the walled, largely medieval town which grew up around it.

With its bastions and crenellated towers, its domes and arches and alleyways, it was the biggest mud brick structure in the world.

It was a wonderful place to wander and fantasise about the past. Its accretions of centuries went back something like 2,000 years, but you felt that here was a place, divorced, neither from its past, nor from its environment: at one, with both time, and place.

It seemed close to the essence of life, growing out of the very soil in which it stood.

And of course, around the old city had grown up the new, housing about 80,000 people.

Most of this, too, was made of mud brick warrens, usually not more than one or two storeys high.

There had been a strong tremor at around 10pm the previous evening, making some people nervous enough to sleep outside despite the cold.

One survivor we met, Ali, told us how he tricked his own family by telling them there had been a broadcast ordering people to sleep in the open, so they did. He had a premonition.

He was right.

Just a few hours later, the earthquake struck.

In the space of about 10 seconds, the citadel, the old city, and huge areas of the new quarter of Bam, were reduced to jumbled oceans of dust and rubble.

Ali and his family survived.

But still uncounted thousands of others were simply buried as they slept.

The very mud brick, which had brought life to Bam, now brought it death, and on a massive scale.

Unlike modern reinforced concrete buildings, collapsing mud brick disintegrates into densely-packed mounds of rubble: there are no big slabs to create pockets and spaces where people might cling to life.

Struggle to survive

So after the first big wave of survivors were retrieved in the first day or two, the story was one of a diminishing handful of miracle survivals.

Almost always, it was the same grim story of whole families being dug out dead, one-by-one, from where they had been sleeping.

And then re-interred, hundreds at a time, in trenches being dug at the local cemetery.

One particular moment that got to me, and it was a random one, was watching the limp body of a young girl, perhaps 10 or 11 years old, being pulled from the rubble by relatives.

The men were sobbing loudly and openly, the women wailing inconsolably.

I imagined the girl in life, scampering among the palm trees, and imagined how I would feel if this were one of my own daughters.

It was hard to perform for the necessary correspondent's "piece to camera" after that.

One of the moving things about such horrendous disasters is the human response it brings.

Within little more than a day, hundreds of search-and-rescue experts from at least 26 different nations were already hard at work alongside thousands of Iranians trying to save lives in this remote desert oasis many had never heard of before.

Among them, of course, were around 80 Americans.

Both Tehran and Washington had agreed to set aside 25 years of hostility for the occasion, producing speculation that "earthquake diplomacy" might succeed in melting the political ice.

There is an outside chance that it might, though hardliners here, chanting "Death to America" again at Friday prayers just a week after the disaster, are clearly bent on stopping it.

As for Bam itself, there are official pledges to rebuild the citadel.

But it will be a reconstruction, and never quite the same thing. With enough effort and money, the city of Bam can be reconstructed too, along with the lives of the survivors.

But those lives too, all of them deeply touched by this tragedy, will also never be the same.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3365267.stm

[DoctorZIn]

Kharazi: World Should Pressure Israel to Disarm

January 03, 2004
The Associated Press
Herb Keinon

The world should put pressure on Israel to forsake nuclear weapons, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said Saturday in Damascus. "International pressure should be applied to Israel to eradicate its weapons of mass destruction, as this would be in the interest of the whole region," Kharrazi said.

He was speaking to reporters after holding talks with President Bashar Assad. Syria has proposed that the UN Security Council should declare the Middle East a zone free of nuclear weapons. The Security Council is divided on the question of taking up Syria's proposal.

The feeling in Jerusalem is that despite what is sure to be pressure from the Arab countries to focus world attention on Israel's nuclear program, it is unlikely to gain much traction because "the US won't sign on."

However, just as the Arabs succeeded in throwing the fence issue to the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Israel must prepare itself diplomatically to "fend off coordinated offensive to push Israel into the corner" on this matter, one source said.

Israel's official position on nuclear arms is that it will not be the first to introduce them to the region.

Recently government officials have added to this nearly four-decade old mantra the statement that weapons of mass destruction in and of themselves don't cause harm if they are in the hands of countries with democratic regimes, and that they are dangerous in the hands of rogue regimes with radical ideology and no proper checks and balances.

The United States has accused Syria of seeking weapons of mass destruction, in particular chemical weapons. Syria has denied the charge.

Iran has also been accused by the United States of seeking to build a nuclear bomb. Iran says its nuclear program is entirely for the generation of power. Last month it signed an agreement granting UN. inspectors the right to conduct surprise inspections of its facilities.

With reporting by and The Associated Press

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1073114052196&p=1008596981749

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks!

Keeping busy and trying to spend more quality time here!

[nuconvert]

"...put pressure on Israel to forsake nuclear weapons, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said"

Hey, they're just making eletricity......like you.

[nuconvert]

I'll be cursing at my T.V. for an hour, but I won't miss seeing this.
Thanks for posting.

[DoctorZIn]

Yes, great to see your back!

[DoctorZIn]

The good news about the PBS broadcast is that is is supposed to be the documentary shown in Britain recently.

That broadcast was based on footage smuggled out of Iran.

If so, it should be a very interesting broadcast and may be a great program to share with our friends.

[DoctorZIn]

Papers Probe US 'Earthquake Diplomacy'

January 03, 2004
BBC News
BBCi

More than a week after the ancient Iranian city of Bam was levelled by a devastating earthquake, the country's newspapers are at odds over the possibilities for better political relations with Washington, following Tehran's speedy acceptance of US humanitarian aid.

Hardline papers are dismissive about President Bush's motives. By contrast, the reformist press looks forward to a warming of ties between the US and Iran.

---

Some people have been excited about establishing relations with America... Witnessing such unrealistic reactions breaks the heart of a proud person who knows something about the tricks of the great Satan. Even if officials are in favour of establishing relations with America, they should not speak with such enthusiasm.

Jomhuri-ye Eslami (hardline)

---

These incitements to normalise political relations between Tehran and Washington are being made while a substantial amount of our country's assets are blocked by America.

Kayhan (hardline)

---

US efforts to hinder Iran's access to nuclear technology meant for peaceful purposes... and many other hostile measures show that Washington's proposal on negotiations with Iran is in fact impracticable.

Tehran Times

---

Who knows, perhaps the lives of our beloved Bam inhabitants were a huge sacrifice offered to God Almighty to save the homeland from sedition and a greater disaster. By respecting the lives of those who have been sacrificed, we should not give ground to extremist elements and political game-players, who, on different pretexts, seek to disturb the situation.

Kayhan (hardline)

---

The walls of mistrust between the two governments are as formidable as ever. The current steps do not appear to be sufficient to pave the way for political dialogue. Time will tell whether the White House is serious in wanting a new beginning with Tehran.

Iran News

---

Through his "earthquake diplomacy", George W Bush is trying to reaffirm his belief that America is a lighthouse that helps lost ships... The aim is to show that problems do not stem from American objectives, but rather from the values of the other side.

Shargh (reformist)

---

Iran and America are moving step by step - albeit slowly - towards improving relations; each asking the other to show good will and sincerity. Can anyone deny that the partial lifting of sanctions against Iran is a step towards this?

Mardom Salari (reformist)

---

Political observers and analysts looking at the new tendency in relations between America and Iran believe the two countries are standing on the threshold of new circumstances. But some of them believe that the Bam earthquake is only a pretext for resuming relations since, right now, the two countries are cooperating with each other in Iraq and Afghanistan. Khatami speaks otherwise.

Shargh (reformist)

---

We view America as the great Satan. And White House officials have labelled Iran a member of the axis of evil. Iran and America's relations with other countries clearly show that these myths are used to explain the unresolvable issues between the countries rather than act as the source of problems between them.

Yas-e Now (reformist)

---

The Americans, contrary to the viewpoints of many, mostly conservative, Iranian circles, do not need Iran for the administration of Iraq. But they clearly realise that peaceful relations with Iran would facilitate dialogue and contact with Iraq's Shias; that Iran's participation would help guarantee the end of tension in Afghanistan, and that Iran could help supervise hardline groups... Sooner or later an appropriate solution should be found.

Shargh (reformist)

---

BBC Monitoring, based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3365179.stm

[DoctorZIn]

A Strategy of Partnerships

January 03, 2004
Foreign Affairs
Colin L. Powell

When most people think about U.S. foreign policy these days, they think first and sometimes only about aspects of the war on terrorism: the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, the troubles of the Middle East, and the terror cells lurking in Southeast Asia, Europe, and even the United States. This preoccupation is natural. International terrorism literally hit home on September 11, 2001, and, for understandable reasons, an outraged American public wants those responsible brought to justice. The American people also want to understand why the attacks happened -- and demand a foreign policy that makes sure such events will never happen again.

It is also natural that the war on terrorism has become the United States' number one foreign policy priority. It will remain so for as long as necessary, because terrorism -- potentially linked to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- now represents the greatest threat to American lives. Defeating terrorism is a priority that drives not only military action to subdue individual terrorists and deter their state supporters but also multilateral cooperation in law enforcement and intelligence sharing. It encompasses efforts both to stigmatize terrorism as a political instrument and to reduce the underlying sources of terrorist motivation and recruitment.

But the breadth of U.S. strategy transcends the war on terrorism. Indeed, a strategy limited to dealing with immediate threats would in the end fail to defeat them -- just as bailing water out of a boat would not fix a leak. The sharp focus on the front lines of the war against terrorism, however, has made it harder than usual for people to grasp what American strategy is really all about. We all know the old aphorism that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. These days, it seems that an administration can develop a sound foreign policy strategy, but it can't get people to acknowledge or understand it.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S VISION

It is an unfailingly effective applause line for critics of any U.S. administration to charge that the president has no vision for the world, that he has no strategy. Every trouble is attributed to this failing, as though the world would otherwise be perfectly accommodating to U.S. purposes. Unfortunately, this criticism has come close to being true in some administrations. But it is not true in the present one. President George W. Bush does have a vision of a better world. And he also has a strategy for translating that vision into reality. I know -- I was present at its creation.

The president's strategy was first laid out publicly in September 2002, in the National Security Strategy of the United States (NSS). A succinct document of fewer than 40 pages, the NSS defines U.S. policy priorities in eight substantive sections. Together, these parts add up to an integrated strategy that is broad and deep, far ranging and forward looking, attuned as much to opportunities for the United States as to the dangers it faces.

Of course, a public strategy document cannot be entirely frank about all the choices that U.S. leaders make; we do ourselves and our allies no favors by telling our adversaries everything that we think and plan. Nonetheless, this administration's public pronouncements have been remarkably candid. They reflect the personality of the president himself, a man who, with great consistency, says what he means and means what he says.

It is somewhat odd, therefore, to discover that our foreign policy strategy is so often misunderstood by both domestic and foreign observers. U.S. strategy is widely accused of being unilateralist by design. It isn't. It is often accused of being imbalanced in favor of military methods. It isn't. It is frequently described as being obsessed with terrorism and hence biased toward preemptive war on a global scale. It most certainly is not.

These distortions are partly explained by context. The NSS made the concept of preemption explicit in the heady aftermath of September 11, and it did so for obvious reasons. One reason was to reassure the American people that the government possessed common sense. As President Bush has said -- and as any sensible person understands -- if you recognize a clear and present threat that is undeterrable by the means you have at hand, then you must deal with it. You do not wait for it to strike; you do not allow future attacks to happen before you take action.

A second reason for including the notion of preemption in the NSS was to convey to our adversaries that they were in big trouble. Instilling a certain amount of anxiety in terrorist groups increases the likelihood they will cease activity or make mistakes and be caught. Moreover, some states have been complicit in terrorism not for ideological reasons but for opportunistic ones. It was worth putting the leaders of such countries on notice that the potential costs of their opportunism had just gone way up.

Sensible as these reasons are, some observers have exaggerated both the scope of preemption in foreign policy and the centrality of preemption in U.S. strategy as a whole. As to preemption's scope, it applies only to the undeterrable threats that come from nonstate actors such as terrorist groups. It was never meant to displace deterrence, only to supplement it. As to its being central, it isn't. The discussion of preemption in the NSS takes up just two sentences in one of the document's eight sections.

Some at home have distorted the NSS for partisan reasons, attempting to make the Bush administration look bad by turning fear of preemption into an early twenty-first-century equivalent of the Cold War era's "rocket rattle." Some abroad, meanwhile, have distorted U.S. intentions through an apparent exercise in mirror imaging. Using their own mottled political histories as a reference point, they have asked what they would do with the power that the United States possesses and have mistakenly projected their own Hobbesian intentions onto our rather more Lockean sensibilities.

But however it has happened, the distortion of U.S. foreign policy strategy requires repair. This distortion does a disservice to honest observers trying to understand U.S. policy, and it contributes to irrational partisanship.

THE PRIMACY OF PARTNERSHIPS

The United States' National Security Strategy does commit us to preemption under certain limited circumstances. We stand by that judgment, the novelty of which lies less in its substance than in its explicitness. But our strategy is not defined by preemption. Above all, the president's strategy is one of partnerships that strongly affirms the vital role of NATO and other U.S. alliances -- including the UN.

Don't believe it? Perhaps this is because the commentariat widely claimed that the president's recent decision to seek a new UN Security Council resolution on the postwar reconstruction of Iraq was a sharp break with policy. To think this, one would have to ignore the fact that President Bush went before the UN on September 12, 2002, to make his case for the UN's enforcing its own resolutions (16 of them in total); that Security Council Resolution 1441 -- which warned the Iraqi regime to comply with its own obligations under previous UN resolutions -- passed unanimously in November 2002; that we tried for a further resolution to unite the international community in the months before Operation Iraqi Freedom began; that we went to the UN in May 2003 after Operation Iraqi Freedom to secure Resolution 1483, lifting sanctions against Iraq that had become obsolete; and that we sought and secured Resolution 1500 in August, recognizing the Iraqi Governing Council.

Had we not done all of these things, month after month, the president's decision to go to the UN Security Council in September 2003 -- and to persevere in his efforts until Resolution 1511 was approved by a 15-0 vote on October 16 -- would have been a significant departure from policy. But the administration did do all of these things. Indeed, it would have been a departure from policy not to go to the UN when, in our judgment, the next phase of Iraqi reconstruction was at hand. If there has been any departure here, it is the commentariat's departure from the basic rules of logic.

Partnership is the watchword of U.S. strategy in this administration. Partnership is not about deferring to others; it is about working with them. Beyond upholding the partnerships we have inherited, the president seeks new ones to deal with new challenges. Some are global in scope, such as the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS. Others are regional, such as the Middle East Partnership Initiative, which provides assistance for educational, economic, and political reform throughout the Arab world.

Beyond partnership comes principle. The president's strategy is rooted, above all, in the promotion of freedom and dignity worldwide. "America must stand firmly," the president wrote, "for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the absolute power of the state; free speech; freedom of worship; equal justice; respect for women; religious and ethnic tolerance; and respect for private property." We stand by these values now and always. They are the values served by the partnerships that we build and nurture.

Free trade and new American initiatives for economic development also figure prominently in the president's strategy. The Free Trade Area of the Americas, the expanded Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, and especially the Millennium Challenge Account are our policy vanguards in this area. Our efforts to control the proliferation of WMD also form part of the president's strategy. These efforts led to the Proliferation Security Initiative in May 2003, an 11-nation effort to seize materials related to WMD in transit to countries of concern. In September 2003, signatories were able to agree on basic implementation guidelines, and in the president's address to the UN General Assembly on September 24, he called other nations to join. I hope they will heed his invitation.

President Bush's strategy also demands that we play a role in helping to solve regional conflicts. Not only do such conflicts cause much suffering, but they can also spread to envelop societies now at peace and can stoke the fires of terrorism. Nowhere is the U.S. role in helping to resolve regional conflicts more important than in bringing Israelis and Palestinians to a stable peace settlement. We are obviously not there yet, but this administration's policies have brought peace closer.

The Bush administration was widely criticized during its first two years in office for not being more active in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. To many, "more active" meant spending presidential and secretarial capital on state visits and photo opportunities, as if nearly a decade of such activity had not already been tried without managing to resolve the conflict. But diplomacy can take other, more appropriate forms. In reality, we have worked hard on advancing peace, if often quietly, making the proper analysis of the situation and determining our tactics accordingly.

As a result, we created the Quartet -- another partnership -- made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the UN. We developed the "road map" out of this partnership, and the president went to Aqaba, Jordan, in June 2003 to commit the parties to it.

Most important, we recognized that there needed to be fundamental reform inside the Palestinian Authority if the forces for peace among Palestinians were to prevail. After it became clear that the United States would not obstruct Israel's efforts to defend itself from Palestinian terrorism, pressures for genuine reform grew within the Palestinian community. This convergence produced the hopeful premiership of Mahmoud Abbas.

Unfortunately, Abbas' efforts were aborted by Chairman Yasir Arafat, and Abbas' successor, Ahmed Qurei, has been obstructed as well. Chairman Arafat has not been a genuine interlocutor for peace; he has been an obstacle to it. Although our hopes for progress have been temporarily disappointed, it is now clear to all where the real problem lies. One way or another, we are bound eventually to get past this problem. Moreover, there is now a solid and growing constituency in Israel that supports prominent Palestinian leaders who genuinely seek an honorable and stable peace. Bleak as things often seem in this conflict, this does represent progress.

Conflicts in other regions have also demanded our attention -- and our compassion. The United States has not turned away from the suffering of the Liberian people, and we have been actively trying to end strife in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Nor have we forgotten the need for continued progress in the Balkans, in Northern Ireland, and in East Timor. We are making progress in most if not all of these areas, and we are often doing so by supporting other governments that are taking the lead. In other words, we are working as a partner.

AN AGE OF COOPERATION

Not least among the policy priorities laid out in the NSS is our determination to develop cooperative relations among the world's major powers. It is here, above all, that the key to a successful conclusion to the war against terrorism lies.

To say that the world has changed is a truism: the world, after all, is always changing. It is not so trivial, however, to specify just how it has changed. As I see it, the critical tipping point of recent years was the evening of November 9, 1989. That date is when the Berlin Wall was first breached, never to be repaired, marking the end of the Cold War and, before long, of the Soviet Union itself. These events, in turn, ended the epoch of intense struggle between liberty and totalitarianism that had shaped most of the twentieth century.

The president grasps the importance of these momentous events. As he wrote in the NSS, "today, the international community has the best chance since the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century to build a world where great powers compete in peace instead of continually prepare for war. Today, the world's great powers find ourselves on the same side."

This development is not just good news; it is revolutionary news. For too many years -- too many centuries -- the imperial habits of great powers squandered untold resources and talent by jousting for land, glory, and gold. The futility of such habits has become evident in the twenty-first century. The possession of vast territory, raw physical resources, and brute power guarantees neither prosperity nor peace. Investment in human capital, social trust, trade, and cooperation within and among nations does.

The sources of national strength and security for one nation thus need no longer threaten the security of others. An insight of the Enlightenment and a deep belief of the American founders -- that politics need not always be a zero-sum competition -- has at last been adopted by enough people worldwide to promise a qualitative difference in the character of international relations. If, instead of wasting lives and treasure by opposing each other as in the past, today's powers can pull in the same direction to solve problems common to all, we will begin to redeem history from much human folly.

One of these common problems is, of course, terrorism, and American strategy endeavors to solve it by integrating it into the management of our key international relationships. We do not see the war against terrorism and the nurturing of constructive relationships among the major powers as mutually exclusive tasks. We conduct the war on terrorism with an eye toward great-power cooperation, and we seek enhanced great-power cooperation with an eye toward success in the war on terrorism.

The logic of this dual approach rests on the fact that terrorism threatens the world order itself -- and thus creates a common interest among all powers that value peace, prosperity, and the rule of law. The civilized world has spent more than a thousand years trying to limit the destructiveness of war. Drawing a distinction between civilians and combatants has been an essential part of this process. But terrorism aims to erase that distinction. We cannot allow this to happen, not because we want to "make the world safe" again for major conventional war, but because we must reassure people everywhere that the world has not just traded one kind of danger for another with the end of the Cold War. The victory of freedom will turn hollow if new fears replace old ones.

The common interest of all major powers in defeating terrorism is one source of a rare and remarkable opportunity: the United States' chance to enjoy excellent relations with all the world's major powers simultaneously. Of course, we have a head start in this, because we are blessed with many enduring friendships. None is more important than those enshrined in NATO.

Some observers predicted that NATO would wither away after the Cold War, others that the United States and the European Union would even end up on a collision course. Neither prediction has, or will, come true. Not only has NATO survived, but both its membership and its mission have expanded. As for our relations with the EU, never has our common agenda been so large and mutually significant -- from advancing free trade to joint efforts in counterproliferation.

It is true that we have had differences with some of our oldest and most valued NATO allies. But these are differences among friends. The transatlantic partnership is based so firmly on common interests and values that neither feuding personalities nor occasional divergent perceptions can derail it. We have new friends and old friends alike in Europe. They are all, in the end, best friends, which is why the president continues to talk about partnerships, not polarities, when he speaks about Europe. Some authorities say that we must move to a multipolar world. We do not agree -- not because we do not value competition and diversity, but because there need be no poles among a family of nations that shares basic values. We believe that it is wiser to work at overcoming differences than to polarize them further.

EMBRACING MAJOR POWERS

We work hard to have the best relations we can with nations large and small, old and new. But for practical purposes we concentrate on relations with major powers, especially those with whom we have had difficult relationships in the past, notably Russia, India, and China.

Our relationship with Russia has been dramatically transformed since that November evening in 1989. Americans and Russians no longer point growing arsenals of missiles at each other. Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and President Vladimir Putin, we are now radically reducing our strategic weapons arsenals. Moscow is also a committed partner in fighting terrorism and in combating the global spread of WMD.

U.S.-Russia commercial relations have also expanded and will expand further to mutual benefit -- not least, we trust, in the energy sector. The new relationship that is developing between Russia and NATO has real substance as well. From sharing intelligence on terrorism to working together to deal with humanitarian crises and peacekeeping, the NATO-Russia Council is operational. That relationship can expand as far as our creativity and mutual effort will let it. We are closer than ever to a Europe whole, free, and at peace. Such a Europe definitely includes Russia, as well as the other new and reborn republics that emerged from the Soviet Union.

Perhaps most important, U.S. and Russian political and economic philosophies are converging. Today, Russia is more democratic than not. It is also more of a market economy than not. We should be patient as Russia develops its democratic institutions and as the remnants of Soviet-era corruption are rooted out and the rule of law firmly established.

We do not agree on everything, of course. We had hoped for more Russian support for our Iraq policy, and we still hope Russia will change its attitude toward the Iranian nuclear program. We also differ over aspects of Russian policy in Chechnya. But the relationship as a whole is no longer locked in knee-jerk antagonism. We now have the necessary level of trust to resolve even the most difficult issues between us.

Whereas Russia is still developing its democracy, India's democracy dates from its independence in 1947. With recent economic reforms setting institutional roots, India is developing into a mature market economy. As Indians themselves are the first to admit, however, their country still faces many challenges. Illiteracy, poverty, environmental degradation, and inadequate infrastructure all hamper progress. We want to help India overcome these challenges, and we want to help ourselves through a closer association with one of the world's venerable cultures. We have therefore worked to deepen our relationship with India. The two largest democracies on earth are no longer estranged. At the same time, we have also been able to advance our relations with Pakistan -- a country with domestic challenges of its own.

India and Pakistan still dispute who should control Kashmir. During 2002, a major war between them -- perhaps involving nuclear weapons -- seemed distinctly possible. So, working with partners in Europe and Asia, we mobilized to help end the crisis. We have since been trying to turn our parallel improvement of relations with India and Pakistan into a triangle of conflict resolution. We do not impose ourselves as a mediator. But we do try to use the trust we have established with both sides to urge them toward conciliation by peaceful means.

What the United States has done in South Asia is an example of "turning adversity into opportunity," to quote President Bush. In a different way, we have done the same with China.

Sino-American relations got off to a bad start in this administration when a certain American airplane made an unscheduled visit to Hainan Island in April 2001. Today, however, U.S. relations with China are the best they have been since President Richard Nixon first visited Beijing more than 30 years ago. This is not just because the September 11 attacks led us to shuffle priorities, nor only because we championed Chinese accession to the World Trade Organization; nor is it the result of the accession of a new generation of Chinese leaders. It is certainly not because we have ignored Chinese human rights abuses, China's still unacceptable weapons proliferation activities, or the reluctance of China's leadership to match political to economic reform. We have never downplayed these difficulties.

The Sino-American relationship has nonetheless improved for a reason that transcends all these particulars: neither we nor the Chinese believe that there is anything inevitable about our relationship any longer -- either inevitably bad or inevitably good. Instead, we now believe that it is up to us, together, to take responsibility for our common future. The NSS put it directly: "We welcome the emergence of a strong, peaceful, and prosperous China." We also seek a constructive relationship. Indeed, we welcome a global role for China, so long as China assumes responsibilities commensurate with that role. China's leaders know all this. Neither false fear about the future nor the overhang of Cold War enmity prevents us from cooperating where our interests coincide.

A case in point is North Korea. American and Chinese interests on the Korean Peninsula may not overlap completely, but they do so considerably. Neither side wishes to see nuclear weapons developed and deployed there. Neither side enjoys the spectacle of the dilapidated North Korean economy. Neither side wants the refugee crisis on China's border to worsen nor relishes a North Korean regime that smuggles drugs and weapons, counterfeits currencies, and engages in the periodic extortion of its neighbors through brinkmanship. And neither side, to be sure, has any interest in another Korean war.

Thus we have worked to transform our common interests with China into solid and productive cooperation over the challenges posed by Pyongyang. We are also cooperating with Japan, Russia, and South Korea on the issue. Our agenda is ambitious, but it is succeeding, as attested to by the six-party framework for talks over North Korea's nuclear program. We employed this framework in September 2003, and we will do so again soon. Beijing, as well as Washington, deserves credit for this achievement.

We still have a long way to go in dealing with North Korea's dangerous nuclear weapons program. As we have told the North Koreans, we have no intention of invading or attacking North Korea. During his trip to Asia in October 2003, President Bush suggested that he was even open to putting this intention in writing. We have stated our policy openly and honestly: we want peace, not war, and we want security, not fear, to envelop the Korean Peninsula and its neighbors. But we will not yield to threats and blackmail; if we did, we would only guarantee more threats and more attempts at blackmail. Nor will we take any options off the table.

It is now well past time for North Korea to alter its behavior, cease its threats, and end its nuclear weapons program in a verifiable manner. That is what all of North Korea's neighbors desire, which is why, in the end, a diplomatic solution to the problem can be achieved. When this happens, we will have demonstrated that American diplomacy is designed to satisfy not only our own national interests, but also those of international security as a whole. We will show that the equities of other powers can be best advanced along with American ones, not in opposition to them.

INTERESTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

We must not take the present peace among the world's nations for granted. Today's peace will not just take care of itself. We have to work at it with patience, mindful that major war has broken out in the past despite a widespread conviction that it simply could not happen again.

Of course, we want to promote human dignity and democracy in the world, to help people raise themselves from poverty, and to transform the inadequate system of global public health. We are pursuing these goals right now. But only if the deep peace of our era can be "preserved, defended, and expanded" -- to use the president's words -- can we pursue these goals for as long as it will take to achieve them.

And make no mistake, these are the central goals of American policy in the twenty-first century. We fight terrorism because we must, but we seek a better world because we can -- because it is our desire, and our destiny, to do so. This is why we commit ourselves to democracy, development, global public health, and human rights, as well as to the prerequisite of a solid structure for global peace. These are not high-sounding decorations for our interests. They are our interests, the purposes our power serves.

Because this is so, the United States' reputation for honesty and compassion will endure. Today, U.S. motives are impugned in some lands. But as we preserve, defend, and expand the peace that free peoples won in the twentieth century, we will see the United States vindicated in the eyes of the world in the twenty-first.

It would be churlish to claim that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been error-free from the start. We are human beings; we all make mistakes. But we have always pursued the enlightened self-interest of the American people, and in our purposes and our principles there are no mistakes.

Our enlightened self-interest puts us at odds with terrorists, tyrants, and others who wish us ill. From them we seek no advice or comity, and to them we will give no quarter. But our enlightened self-interest makes us partners with all those who cherish freedom, human dignity, and peace. We know the side on which the human spirit truly abides, and we take encouragement from this as our strategy unfolds. In the end, it is the only encouragement we really need.

From Foreign Affairs, January/February 2004

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83104/colin-l-powell/a-strategy-of-partnerships.html

[DoctorZIn]

A Strategy of Partnerships

January 03, 2004
Foreign Affairs
Colin L. Powell

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1050769/posts?page=34#34

[Pan_Yans Wife]

More and more pressure will be placed on the Israelis.

[windchime]

Bump!

[nuconvert]

"They say that since they have arrived they have not been allowed to help anyone, and the regime has taken up all of their time by having them pose for pictures and do interviews to show that foreignors are helping and they support the regime one aid worker says, "all they care about is propoganda for the regime instead of helping the victims." Aid workers are disgusted by how the regime is just using them for propoganda instead of letting them help.

One Italian rescue worker who is a veteran of helping in dozens of countries says he has never seen so much mismanagement, chaos and apathy on the part of any government in a disaster like this. Other aid workers complain that the government can't organise anything! Many just want to leave Bam at this point disgusted, because they believe their presence is useless and they will not be able to help anyone and they don't wish to be used as pawns by the government !"

Great post. Repugnant regime revealed.

[PhilDragoo]

We conduct the war on terrorism with an eye toward great-power
cooperation, and we seek enhanced great-power cooperation with an eye
toward success in the war on terrorism.

Freedom's first friend; Terror's worst enemy.

[nuconvert]

REZA PAHLAVI ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY MORNING!!!! --TOMORROW--
FOX NEWS ^ | Sat Jan 3 | FOX NEWS

posted on 01/03/2004 10:28:31 AM PST by faludeh_shirazi

"Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1050958/posts