Replies

Iran says oil prices 'good'
(AFP)

4 July 2004

TEHERAN - Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said yesterday that current oil prices were "good" and that Opec could consider delaying a scheduled production increase when it meets later this month.

"I think that at the moment the prices are good. Many people are happy about the current prices," Zanganeh told reporters.

"If at the end of this month we feel there is no need for extra oil, we can postpone the decision on the extra 500,000 barrels per day. It depends on the market situation and the prices," he said.

"We can make a new decision about if we want to suspend the August increase, otherwise the 500,000 bpd increase does not need to be approved again," he added.

"We have already said we want to have a balanced market situation."

Faced with record highs on world markets, Opec had announced June 3 it would raise production quotas by two million bpd on July 1, and by another 500,000bpd on August 1.

But signs of wavering on the promise from key group producers, including market kingpin Saudi Arabia, have kept prices buoyant.

Zanganeh's remarks followed similar comments on Wednesday from Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi, who said current prices were "fair" and that there was "no reason to take a measure to reduce or increase production" when Opec meets on July 21. Iran is the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries' number two exporter after Saudi Arabia.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/business/2004/July/business_July49.xml&section=business&col=

Britain Must Think Again On Iran

July 02, 2004
The Times
Leading Article

The trial of Saddam Hussein, which opened in dramatic fashion yesterday, should be an event that is as much about the future of the Middle East as in accounting for the past. It must be a further spur for change in a region with enormous potential that has not been realised. The notion that the Arab world is incapable of economic innovation, social progress and political pluralism is mistaken and deeply insulting. The best form of reform would be, however, as King Abdullah of Jordan makes clear in his interview in The Times today, "home-grown" and not an abstract model imposed by outsiders. The challenge for those in power across the Middle East is to recognise that the demand for a better life comes as much from their own people as Pentagon policy theorists.

King Abdullah himself has demonstrated that reform can be sweeping but sensitive. He has sensibly sought to promote liberal economics, including the most imaginative privatisation agenda in the Middle East, yet has made every effort to assist those temporarily hurt by these measures. His desire to stimulate higher standards in education and open more opportunities for women might take a generation to bear fruit, but they will prove to be a shrewd investment. His campaign to broaden political participation in carefully timed steps offers a model to others. It is as much in the interests of Washington and London to help to ensure that the Jordanian experiment succeeds and is seen to have succeeded as it is to make the transition in Iraq the template.

The reform drive in each of these countries could, nonetheless, be undermined by the intrigue of others. There has been legitimate outrage expressed here at the manner in which Iran treated the eight British ser-vicemen that it detained last month. The mischief of the political elite in Tehran indicates strongly that this was a diplomatic incident entirely of their intentional making.

It is also part of a disturbing pattern. Iran is not so much dabbling in Iraqi politics as stirring the pot with gusto. Hundreds, if not thousands, of its citizens seek to cross the border each day and this is very much one-way traffic. Nor are these people just enterprising traders or private religious zealots. They include senior military figures and intelligence officers plainly mandated to observe matters in Iraq and to take sides in factional politics and assist insurgent militia. Although UK commanders in the south of Iraq have, understandably, been pragmatic in their dealings with Iran, they and the Government in Baghdad should harbour no illusions about the Iranians' intent.

This must prompt a serious reassessment of policy in Whitehall. Britain has sought to pursue "constructive engagement" with Tehran. It is right that there should be a line of communication with Iran. Some political leaders there are indeed more reasonable than others and should be cultivated. The danger of the existing strategy is that Iran has decided that it has two lines of communication with the democratic world -one with Washington and another with the European Union, which is more pliable. If Tehran perceives a chance of playing the US and EU off against each other, it will.

A new approach must, therefore, become more consistent and tougher. It may well be that President Khatami of Iran disapproves of the drive to sabotage the Iraqi Government, but does he also know nothing of al-Qaeda's movements and the supply of arms to Palestinian terrorists? The key point here is that, despite his supposed objections, this behaviour is real and intensifying. The Bush Administration has made mistakes in Iraq over the past 15 months -some of which were avoidable if advice from allies such as King Abdullah had been taken. It is, though, right about Iran. Britain must shift its stance on Tehran towards that of Washington.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/

US Blocking Iran-Iraqi Oil Sector Cooperation [Excerpt]

July 03, 2004
Dow Jones Newswires
Hashem Kalantari

TEHRAN -- Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zangeneh said Saturday that although Iran can contribute substantially to developing Iraq's oil industry - the U.S. is blocking such help on political grounds.

"We can do much for Iraq, but the Americans have not so far opened the way for the two countries' exchange and cooperation in the oil sector," said Zangeneh in a press briefing at the Oil Ministry's headquarters in Tehran.

At the international donors conference on Iraq in Madrid last year, Iran offered to contribute to the reconstruction of its war-torn neighbor if Washington did not stand in the way.

An initial arrangement foresaw the transfer of 350,000 barrels per day of Iraqi light crude to Abadan refinery in southwest Iran near the Iraqi border. Then, an equivalent amount of light crude would be sold on behalf of Iraq.

So far, the two countries' oil industry exchanges have been limited the export of a limited amount of Iranian oil products to its neighbor to alleviate shortages.

According to an Iranian oil industry official, Iran currently has the capability for refining 180,000 b/d of Iraqi crude. That capacity can be raised to 320,000 b/d with minor adjustment at very low cost.

The U.S. has reservations about the involvement of the Iranian government in Iraq, fearing it might incite further insurgency in Iraq - particularly among the Shiite majority.

http://www.wsj.com/public/us

HASHEM AQAJARI ESCAPES DEATH PENALTY

Posted Saturday, July 3, 2004

TEHRAN, 3 July (IPS) Mr. Hashem Aqajari, an Iranian scholar and islamist thinker that had warned Iranians not to follow the clerics “blindfold” was saved from death after a court that was trying him on Saturday dropped charges of blasphemy and heretic.

Contrary to his expectations, the trial was held public, with the presence of his lawyer, Mr. Saleh Nikbakht, his wife and the press.

A Tehran University history professor, Mr. Aqajari was sentenced to death two years ago in a court in the western city of Hamadan for blasphemy, after he told a conference that “people are not monkey to follow the clerics blindfold”.

The speech was seen by fundamentalist ayatollahs as a direct attack on them and their privileged position, on he Shiite concept of emulation, on the very core of the Islamic Republic and above all, the very concept of the velayat faqih, or the absolute rule of the leader as the representative of God on earth who cannot be questioned and t

The sentence sparked massive uproar in Iran, students staged demonstrations in his support and the intelligentsia sharply criticised the Judiciary, as the international community, including the European Union, was also pressing the Islamic Republic to drop the charges.

As a result, Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, the leader of the present Iranian regime who controls directly the Judiciary demanded that Aqajari’s case to be reviewed, but the Hamadan court defiantly upheld its original ruling and the Judiciary waited for months before bowing to the leader, who’s decisions and rulings must be carried out without delay or discussion.

While dropping the apostasy charges, the deputy general prosecutor, Reza Ja’fari uphold accusations of “insulting Islam, activities and propaganda against the Islamic Republic and dissemination of false information disturbing the public opinion.

Mr. Aqajari, appearing weak, beard grown and wearing a skin hat, rejected all the charges and hoped that this would be his last trial.

“Considering all the pressures, I doubt you could be a neutral and independent judge”, he told Judge Mohammad Eslami, who had confirmed that the disabled war veteran who was held for months in solitary confinement no longer faced death penalty for having suggested that time has arrived for Islam to be also reformed.

Besides having pronounced the death sentence, the original court had also condemned the islamist reformer, often compared with Martin Luther, to 74 lashes of the whip, 10 years of ban from all professional activities and 8 years of solitary exile in a remote village.

“Mr. Aqajari, repeating Marx, argue that religion is the opium of the governments, but if this is the case, how come that in the past 100 years all the oppositions had came from the religion”, the deputy general prosecutor told the audience, without explaining what he meant?

“The accused has defended opium-stained ideas of (Karl) Marx stating that religion is the opium of the governments and states (sic); he has said that when a state cracks down on the science and religion, such a state is not a religious and Islamic; he has said that in a religious state, men are slaughtered on the name of God and religion and has dubbed the Council of Guardians to a form of political apartheid and said that when religion sits with power and wealth, it loses its values”, Hojjatoleslam Ja’fari told the court, charging the academic of “propaganda against the regime and insulting Islam”.

Using the unexpected public audience, Mr. Aqajari complained about his treatment in detention, asking "How can you put a history professor in solitary for more than 10 months, sometimes making him mate to criminals?".

"We have to see what the result is", he told reporters briefly after the hearing, adjourned until Monday.

Commenting the trial that was unexpectedly held public, to the point that even the accused had ignored it before the last minutes, observers said the Judiciary, being under heavy domestic and international pressures for the appalling situation of human rights, wanted to give itself “one positive point”.

ENDS AQAJARI TRIAL 3704

http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/july/aqajari_trial_3704.shtml

WANT A NEW TRIAL? WHY NOT TRY ISLAMIC LAW, SADDAM

by Amir Taheri
The Times, London
July 3, 2004

"LAW, what law?" sneered Saddam Hussein in the small courthouse in the grounds of al-Faw palace. At his arraignment on Thursday, the fallen despot denounced as a farce the legal proceedings and dismissed the power of the court to try him.

Saddam looks as if he will emulate his fellow dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, by using every trick and procedure available in a Western-style trial to turn it into a political soap opera, dragged out over months and years.

Muhammad Rashdan, a Jordanian lawyer hired by Saddam's wife Sajjidah, argues that no Iraq court has the authority to try a man who "remains the legal President of the Iraqi Republic". "The invasion was illegal," he says, "which means that all of its consequences, including the formation of the interim Government and the court that it is setting up, are also illegal."

But if Saddam refuses to recognise the legitimacy of the Iraqi Government, maybe he should submit himself to a higher authority? In his last years Saddam, despite having spent a lifetime fighting religion as a relic of feudalism, recast himself as "the sword of Islam".

Legalistic foot-dragging and grandstanding would not be possible if Saddam were tried under Islamic law, as has been demanded by several leading Arab lawyers and Saddam's eldest daughter, Raghd. One major feature of Islamic law is its emphasis on speedy trials. This is because, in its purest form, the Islamic penal system does not include imprisonment as a form of punishment. A man charged with a crime should be tried and sentenced before the sunset of the day of his arrest.

There were no prisons in early Islam and, according to most historians, Muslims learnt to build and maintain prisons only when they came into contact with the Persians and the Byzantines. In Islamic literature imprisonment is a form of inflicting humiliation, itself a sin, rather than punishment. In the Koran, the word sijjin (prison) is a synonym for Hell. And no mortal has the right to decree in this world a punishment inflicted by God in the next.

There are three categories of crime in Islam: those committed against individual believers, those committed against society, and those committed against God. (God, of course, may intervene in all three as one of the aggrieved parties.) Now imagine Saddam appearing in front of an Islamic court. The first thing he would notice is that there is only one judge. This is because having more than one judge might lead to a clash of interpretations that could cast doubt on the solidity (hikmah) of divine rules. He would also notice that there is no jury.

Next he would notice that the charges against him are spelt out by the judge himself. The judge would then call in two male witnesses (or four female ones) to testify to each of the charges. Saddam would then be asked to respond to speak in his defence. He would not have the services of a lawyer since there are none in Islamic jurisprudence. But he could question the testimony of witnesses and call two witnesses of his own.

Once he was sentenced there would be no appeal. His fate would be in the hands of the Commander of the Faithful, the ruler who may bear the title of Caliph or Wali al-Amr (Custodian of Affairs) of the community. He could lessen Saddam's sentence or even pardon him. One thing he could not do is to keep him in prison.

What are the charges that Saddam might face in a hypothetical Islamic court? He could be charged with "betrayal of trust" (khianah fil amanah). This means he breached the trust of the people as ruler of the country. The charge would also cover the plundering of the public treasury (beit al-maal), seizure of property from Muslims, wasting public funds for ostentatious living. The punishment in such cases includes restoration of stolen property, payment of compensation and fines and flogging. But it could also mean death by beheading.

Saddam could also be charged with murder. There is evidence that Saddam shot Izzat Mostafa, who had been Health Minister under him. Then there is film footage of Saddam ordering his henchmen to take rival Baath leaders, among them Abdul-Khaliq al- Samarrai, out of a party congress and shoot them in the courtyard of the conference hall. In both cases, the Islamic punishment is death by beheading.

Saddam could face the more serious charge of "spreading corruption on earth" (ifsad fil-ardh). This is a broad category and covers a variety of crimes, including a reign of terror, depriving Muslims of freedom and dignity and fomenting discord. The wars that Saddam triggered against the Kurds in 1969, 1975 and 1991, the massacre of the people of Halabja with chemical weapons in 1988 and the crushing of the Shia revolt in 1991 could fall in this category. Again the punishment is death by beheading.

The gravest charge that Saddam could face in an Islamic court is that of "waging war on God" (muharibah an-Allah). The charge includes the cult of personality that Saddam built, thus setting himself up as a rival to God in seeking men's devotion, which is a form of sherk (idolatry). Saddam could also be accused of having fought against the will of God by triggering wars against Iran and Kuwait and leading his people into decades of suffering and sorrow. Once again the punishment is beheading.

The fallen despot could, of course, be tried and punished under the laws in force in Iraq during his own presidency. One charge could be "high treason" (khianat al-kubra) for going into hiding and abandoning his people, which is punishable by death.

Whether Western, Iraqi or Islamic, Saddam's trial cannot but produce one verdict: guilty.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5618

New Iraq Government Accuses Iran And Syria of Backing Insurgents

July 04, 2004
Telegraph
Damien McElroy in Baghdad

The new Iraqi government will publish damning evidence this week linking foreign powers, including Iran and Syria, to the Muslim extremists and loyalists of the former regime who launched a bloody rebellion after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

Hoshyar Zebari, the foreign minister, told The Telegraph that the interim government had gathered intelligence detailing the support provided to insurgent groups by some neighbouring nations.

Although he did not name the countries, senior Iraqi officials indicated that Iran and Syria were the worst offenders. The accusation that governments in Teheran and Damascus have been aiding the insurgents could create an immediate diplomatic crisis for the Baghdad administration that assumed power only last week.

Insurgents had benefited from financial support, logistical assistance and training from neighbouring government agencies, said Mr Zebari. Baghdad also believed that up to 10,000 foreign spies and undercover agents had infiltrated the country since last year's war.

He even indicated that Iraq might not oppose attacks by American troops based in Iraq on neighbouring states if they were backing the insurgents.

"Since we started to look at the security situation, we have seen how foreign governments have been helping terrorists," said Mr Zebari. "Why they are doing it we cannot say, but we know where the support is coming from. We have plans to put this before the public within days and it will have substantial impact."

He said it was important for the new government to prove that it was in the "driving seat" in defending Iraqi security, despite the probable diplomatic fallout from such a step. Some neighbouring countries, he said, had written off the new Iraq, branding the prime minister, Ayad Allawi, and his ministers as American and British stooges.

"Foreign support for terrorists is ongoing, very risky and very dangerous," he added. "But it will backfire on those governments. A stable and peaceful Iraq is a better neighbour for them."

Powerful elements within Iran have been backing radical Shias in Iraq, including supporters of the militant cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, who has played a prominent role in the insurgency against the US-led coalition.

In a further signal that Iraq's new rulers will take a tough line with hostile neighbours, Adnan al-Assadi, the deputy interior minister, told The Telegraph that hundreds of former Ba'athist officials, who had fled to Syria, were supplying funds and volunteers to the resistance.

http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/04/wirq04.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/04/ixnewstop.html