Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

James Baker Works to Establish Direct USA - Iran Diplomatic Ties
Defense & Foreign Affairs via AntiMullah ^ | January 29th, 2007 | G. R. Copely

Posted on 01/30/2007 12:07:06 AM PST by FARS

MUST READ - James Baker Works to Establish Direct Diplomatic USA - Iran Ties

Former US Secretary of State Baker Attempts to Bypass Bush White House on Iran

Defense & Foreign Affairs

Analysis. By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS.

Former US Secretary of State James Baker, who co-chaired the recent US Iraq Study Group — the main recommendations of which were rejected by the George W. Bush Administration — is working indirectly and behind the scenes to bring about direct diplomatic ties between the US and Iran.

This is in defiance of Bush White House policy which essentially has said that encouraging direct negotiations with the Iranian clerical leaders would legitimize and strengthen the power of the Iranian mullahs, making it more difficult for Iran’s secular opposition to bring about democratic change in the country.

The visit on January 25-26, 2007, to Tehran by the Secretary-General of the Saudi National Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, for talks with his Iranian counterpart Ali Larijani on “the critical situation in Lebanon” was, in fact, to scope out a more broadly-based resolution to the Iran-US impasse along the lines of the so-called “Baker Plan” devised by the Iraq Study Group.

The Iraq Study Group recommendations had already been discounted and discarded by the George W. Bush White House, but the Bandar maneuver with Ali Larijani is an attempt to sidestep that in order to resume the process of US recognition of the clerical leadership in Iran.

The move highlights not only the ongoing Baker-Bandar link — which has been close on a financial and personal basis for decades — but also the growing power of Prince Bandar, the former Saudi Ambassador to the US and son of the Saudi Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister, Sultan bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud.

Prince Bandar in December 2006 caused to have removed his successor as Saudi Ambassador to the United States, former Director General of the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) Prince Turki al-Faisal, who he apparently saw as a rival.

Although Prince Bandar’s father is in line to succeed to the Throne, there have been recent suggestions that his father could — with the passing of King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud (should Sultan outlive him; they are both of similar ages) — step aside and push Bandar as the candidate to be the next King.

Moreover, Prince Bandar’s power in the Saudi structure is now such that suggestions that he replace Prince Sa’ud al-Faisal bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz Al Sa’ud as Foreign Minister are privately being sneered at as being beneath Prince Bandar’s power level.

The Bandar-Larijani talks, then, should be seen in the light of Bandar’s power and ambition, and in light of Bandar’s close personal connection with James Baker.

The talks between Bandar and Larijani, thus, gave Larijani, Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), and the Iranian clerical leadership considerable optimism that they could circumvent the public position of US Pres. George W. Bush by working with Baker — through Bandar — and with the Democratic Party leadership in the US Congress.

It seemed equally clear following initial talks between Bandar and Larijani that the Iranian official felt himself to be confident of his knowledge as to strategic approaches by the Bush White House with regard to Iran.

Although the January 26, 2007, talks in Tehran were ostensibly primarily related to the developing crisis in Lebanon, it was apparent that talks on the US-Iranian framework both incorporated and transcended the Lebanon issue. But it was the crisis in Beirut which provided the ostensible cause for the developing round of talks between Bandar and Larijani.

Larinjani had delivered a message to Saudi King ‘Abdallah on January 14, 2007, precipitating the visit by Bandar to Tehran where he met with “Supreme Leader” “Ayatollah” Ali Hoseini-Khamene‘i on January 25, 2007, before meeting at length next day with Larijani.

It was clear that Bandar’s contacts in Tehran excluded Pres. Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, who is now in open dispute with the “Supreme Leader”. [Saudi-Iranian links also took place in late January 2007 at the level of foreign ministers, between Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Sa’ud al-Faisal and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.]

Indeed, as an aside, the growing Baker/Bandar/Sultan links with the Khamene’i/Larijani links gives an implied boost to the position — currently informal — of former Iranian Pres. Ali Hashemi-Rafsanjani, now being projected as a “moderate” cleric, as opposed to the radical position of Ahmadi-Nejad.

Iranian secular opposition and military figures believe that this characterization suits the Baker approach in the US, but disguises the fact that Rafsanjani is, in reality, no moderate, but is being portrayed in that light in comparison with the current President.

Iranian sources said that offering up Rafsanjani as a leadership alternative to Ahmadi-Nejad could be portrayed in the West as a dampening down of Iranian anti-US strategic ambitions, although this was not the case: Rafsanjani has traditionally been one of the principal supporters of the use of terrorists as a proxy weapon against the West, and of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, much of which he pioneered.

The Iranians, for their part, made little or no pretence on January 26, 2007, that the Tehran talks were about Lebanon, citing almost exclusively the common areas of agreement on regional security with Saudi Arabia.

Not that Lebanon was excluded from the agenda. On the contrary, Iran used the consensus that the Bush Administration was incapable of stopping Tehran’s strategic momentum in order to bring Saudi Arabia — at least the Sultan-Bandar camp — into Iran’s fold by offering it more access, for example, to the Syrian leadership.

Moreover, Larijani’s visit to Beirut in late January 2006 gave evidence that he felt that Iran had absolutely succeeded in its strategies to dominate Lebanese politics and to assure the veto capability of its surrogate, HezbAllah, in Lebanese affairs.

Subsequently, Larijani also made it clear that he felt that the US could not — through the United Nations — stop Iranian plans for nuclear enrichment as part of Iran’s indigenous nuclear weapons program.

But it was Larijani’s belief that he had insight into US strategies toward Iran which highlighted the strong probability that Bandar reflected conversations which he had earlier had with James Baker, in which Baker clearly alluded to White House positions.

Larijani denigrated the US position against Iran as being merely “psychological warfare”, and dismissed the likelihood of a military threat from the two US Navy carrier battle groups in the region.

Larijani’s comments made it clear that he was aware that the White House favored a campaign of psychological operations against the Iranian clerics over the use of actual military force, the threat of which was ideally intended to be more symbolic.

Tehran was certainly proceeding with its power projection into Iraq and Lebanon based on this assumption, and was disregarding both the US and the United Nations accordingly.

However, although former Secretary of State Baker may have conveyed what he felt was the position of the Bush White House — based on his privileged position as a close friend of the current President’s father (former Pres. George H. W. Bush) and a colleague of the new US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, quite apart from his ongoing contacts in the State Dept. — it is clear that both Pres. Bush and Vice-Pres. Richard Cheney are, in fact, losing patience with Baker for advocating Iraq and Iran policies so at odds with those of the White House.

Moreover, the moves by Pres. Bush to authorize attacks in Iraq on Iranian personnel — essentially reversing a policy in place until a week or so earlier — showed that the US Executive Branch could still maneuver in ways to surprise Baker, Bandar, and the Iranian clerics.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: alilarijani; antiamerica; antiamerican; antisemite; baker; bakerplan; bandar; bush; democrats; dncvalues; hezballah; hezbollah; hizballah; hizbullah; hoseinikhamenei; iran; iraqstudygroup; iraqsurrendergroup; isg; jamesbaker; larijani; lebanon; princebandar; rafsanjani; saudiarabia; snsc; stuckonstupid; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last
Defense & Foreign Affairs articles are not available to the public and cannot be accessed over the Internet, so the link goes to AntiMullah, where it was posted with permission of the author.
1 posted on 01/30/2007 12:07:07 AM PST by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1035rep; 1curiousmind; 4woodenboats; 5Madman2; AdmSmith; Alamo-Girl; alaskamomma; ...

Is James Baker repeating Carter's stupidity with Khomeini?


2 posted on 01/30/2007 12:09:34 AM PST by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Appears that way.


3 posted on 01/30/2007 12:14:57 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

I wonder what/how the Saudi link will turn up to be?

Thanks for the ping.


4 posted on 01/30/2007 12:18:55 AM PST by Tainan (Talk is cheap. Silence is golden. All I got is brass...lotsa brass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS
At this point in time (the "Iraqi Study Group" having concluded its stellar studying) I don't believe James Baker has been elected, appointed or hired to any actual government position. So what, exactly, gives him the right or authority to "work to establish ties" with a nation, any more than I do?

Get a freakin' life, James Baker.

5 posted on 01/30/2007 12:19:12 AM PST by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS
That was a different man, different time, and such = a similar but wrong caparison.

I say that it cant hurt.

Wolf
6 posted on 01/30/2007 12:19:19 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Stunning.


7 posted on 01/30/2007 12:21:36 AM PST by STARWISE (They (Rats) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war-RichardMiniter, respected OBL author)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

8 posted on 01/30/2007 12:21:37 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life ;o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backhoe; piasa

ping


9 posted on 01/30/2007 12:31:05 AM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Hope springs eternal in your breast - and Iran's.

There is absolutely no point talking to someone who does not want to give up what they want. Nukes! With which to dominate the region and blackmail the world.

And if push comes to shove, use one or two of the half dozen they have already to "delete" Israel.

They want more because the six they have is like having six bullets in a revolver and then taking on a gang (the world community). You will take a half dozen down with you but then you are toast.

Also - to whom do you talk? There are suddenly (great!) several at odds schisms in the top clergy, each singing their own tune and refusing to hear any other.

Meanwhile there is the Hojatieh faction of Ahmadi-Nejad and ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who believe only death and destruction on a global scale will suffice to bring back their 12th Imam "Redeemer".

Want to talk to them? About what? They are hell bent on total destruction - Armageddon and Apocalypse.


10 posted on 01/30/2007 12:32:35 AM PST by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FARS
/ Hope springs eternal in your breast - and Iran's/

Back to you later, but that is a real cheap shot.

If you are going to put me in the same sentence like that, then take me off of your ping list.

Regards,

Wolf
11 posted on 01/30/2007 12:40:23 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Intended as tongue in cheek. Sorry.


12 posted on 01/30/2007 12:48:59 AM PST by FARS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FARS
Is James Baker repeating Carter's stupidity with Khomeini?

Certainly looks that way.

13 posted on 01/30/2007 1:08:35 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
That was a different man, different time, and such = a similar but wrong caparison.

Ahmadinejad ain't interested in talking with the west. The west wants to divert a crisis in the Middle East, and Ahmadinejad wants to build his nukes.

14 posted on 01/30/2007 1:13:41 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (There is no alternative to the GOP except varying degrees of insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FARS
President Bush is noted/admired/derided for his plain talk approach to foreign policy, and he has plainly told the world that US policy is steadfast in that there will be no talks with Iran until Iran has given verifiable proof that it has ended its nuclear enrichment program.

It can't get any plainer than that.

Baker is operating in direct conflict with and therefore seriously undermining US foreign policy.

That's simply not acceptable.

15 posted on 01/30/2007 2:09:52 AM PST by 4woodenboats ("Show me what 100 hours brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Baker is an idiot.


16 posted on 01/30/2007 2:17:47 AM PST by RaceBannon (Innocent until proven guilty: The Pendleton 8...down to 2...GWB, we hardly knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Baker is a moron just like Carter


17 posted on 01/30/2007 2:26:34 AM PST by freedom44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan; FARS
I don't believe James Baker has been elected, appointed or hired to any actual government position. So what, exactly, gives him the right or authority to "work to establish ties" with a nation, any more than I do?

That is what I want to know. Why aren't some of these people told to stand down or be denied entry back into the USA?

These 'shadow government' pretenders have to be stopped...

18 posted on 01/30/2007 2:47:14 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FARS
So what's up? He plans to negotiate away part or all of Israel without the approval of the American people or Israel itself?

Talk about your global dictator.

19 posted on 01/30/2007 3:06:39 AM PST by Earthdweller (All reality is based on faith in something.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

If the author's conclusions are accurate- this is breathtaking. James Baker is deliberately underminging the authority of the president..


20 posted on 01/30/2007 3:16:18 AM PST by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Why shouldnt James Baker undermine the President??

Everyone else is.

Kerry, Kennedy ,Pelosi, Murtha, Biden,Bill Clinton , Hillary, Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan, many more ,have been to see foreign agents without US permission.

It seems they all think they know more about Foreign relations than the President.
He and our Justice Department do nothing about it , so others like baker may as well take a shot too,.


21 posted on 01/30/2007 3:29:16 AM PST by sgtbono2002 (I will forgive Jane Fonda, when the Jews forgive Hitler.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Gimme another spike - I need my oil fix.


22 posted on 01/30/2007 3:52:00 AM PST by gotribe (There's still time to begin a war in Iraq.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

James Baker has been the chief fixer and consigliere of the Bush family for years. If he's doing this without direct instruction from the president, I'll eat my hat... without salt.


23 posted on 01/30/2007 4:01:04 AM PST by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Somebody has to be prepared to ask for their surrender AFTER THEY'RE NUKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


24 posted on 01/30/2007 4:06:12 AM PST by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS
Former US Secretary of State James Baker, who co-chaired the recent US Iraq Study Group — the main recommendations of which were rejected by the George W. Bush Administration — is working indirectly and behind the scenes to bring about direct diplomatic ties between the US and Iran.

This is in defiance of Bush White House policy which essentially has said that encouraging direct negotiations with the Iranian clerical leaders would legitimize and strengthen the power of the Iranian mullahs, making it more difficult for Iran’s secular opposition to bring about democratic change in the country.

The Logan Act:

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


25 posted on 01/30/2007 4:13:25 AM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowsislander; All

The Logan Act is THE definitive law on how American citizens are to conduct themselves when in contact with any foreign government.

Unfortunately, it is seldom if EVER enforced.

It could have been cited as a reason to arrest and convict one John F'in Kerry in 1971 after his illegal negotiations with the Communists in Paris, negotiations made with the full knowledge that they were not authorized by, nor were they condoned by, the United States Government.

As for our latter day Arabist James Baker, using the logic I've seen thus far in this thread, there seems to be the idea that it "never hurts" to talk to our enemies.

That is true under normal conditions.

The global jihad we are facing, supported, encouraged, and in many cases underwritten by the regime in Iran, does NOT constitute normal conditions.

The leadership in Tehran is in the grip of an ideology that is far more extreme than anything that we might have faced in the dictatorial regimes of the past like Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, or the Soviet Union. The jihadist mindset is one which believes in, and will accept, only ONE outcome which is the wholesale conversion of all infidels (that's you and me folks) to Islam, or the killing of all who will not bow to 'allah'.

Unlike the Shah of Iran who was a strong U.S. ally, the little runt running Iran now (Ahmanutjob) has threatened to exterminate Israel AND the United States, they are hell bent on obtaining a nuclear capability and only an utter fool and/or knave (like the aforementioned John F'in Traitor) believes otherwise.

Baker is either as naive a fool as Jimmy Carter, or he's been bought and paid for with Arab money. His illustrious Iraq Surrender Group was a total waste of time and effort, the bottom line of that empty-cranium-storming (because there was no 'brain' to storm) is that the United States should basically get the F outta Dodge (Iraq), leave the Iraqi people to their own devices, and watch the chaos from a safe distance.(you know, basically what Bush #41 did by not supporting Kurdish rebels and other groups who wanted to overthrow Saddam at the end of the Gulf War).

If Baker is acting on the authorization of the President of the United States, shame on both him AND George Walker Bush.

If Baker is NOT acting with authorization from our Government, he should be arrested and tried under the Logan Act.

But that would require much more in the way of gravitas that I suspect exists right now in Washington D.C.


26 posted on 01/30/2007 4:32:47 AM PST by mkjessup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: FARS
"... Also - to whom do you talk? There are suddenly (great!) several at odds schisms in the top clergy, each singing their own tune and refusing to hear any other.
Meanwhile there is the Hojatieh faction of Ahmadi-Nejad and ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who believe only death and destruction on a global scale will suffice to bring back their 12th Imam "Redeemer"..."

Good article and comments, FARS. Baker is no fool, and IMHO, is solidly in the Bush camp. He knows that the Iranian clergy are skillfull liars, and therefore knows that little or nothing will be gained by 'talking' with them.

But the act or appearance of dialogue with them shows the world that at least we're trying.

It takes time to build all the necessary 'Underground-Testing-Nukes' that we'll need to really finish-off their deep-bunker facilities. Maybe another month or so.

Stay well ........... FRegards

27 posted on 01/30/2007 4:40:16 AM PST by gonzo (I'm not confused anymore. Now I'm sure we have to completely destroy Islam, and FAST!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FARS
Is James Baker repeating Carter's stupidity with Khomeini?

As recently as two years ago Bush I has touted the Madrid/Oslo process as one of the great accomplishments of his Presidency. The man who resurrected Arafat from exile in Libya to lead the palestinian people doesn't need to emulate Carters stupidity, he's got plenty of his own.

28 posted on 01/30/2007 4:59:46 AM PST by SJackson (Let a thousand flowers bloom and let all our rifles be aimed at the occupation, Abu Mazen 1/11/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]

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

As I note on occasion, James Baker has no business anywhere near US foreign relations, other than as a Saudi lobbyist perhaps, while still a managing partner of Baker-Botts, his law firm with extensive interests in the region.

29 posted on 01/30/2007 5:04:04 AM PST by SJackson (Let a thousand flowers bloom and let all our rifles be aimed at the occupation, Abu Mazen 1/11/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber

People change, Zero, people change.


30 posted on 01/30/2007 5:20:21 AM PST by twonie (Just because there are fewer of us don't mean we are wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FARS; Nancee

The way I see it; this will only accelerate the need to bomb Iran sooner than later.

Regionally, Iran will NEVER quit supporting:

1- Hezbollah and Syria overthrowing the Lebanese government,
2- Hamas take over in Gaza and linking up with Hezbollah
3- Sadr's Mahdi army and swallowing Iraq whole

Internationally, Iran will carry on supporting the fight against the West protected by a nuclear umbrella.

How can Baker think that he can "negotiate" with a man who talks to a well? Is Baker attempting to bring in the well and expand it to three-way talks?

Iran is playing for time, a short time, and that can't be tolerated, especially with the RATs controlling Congress and threatening to take the Presidency in '08.

President Bush and the US can't afford for Baker's gambit.


31 posted on 01/30/2007 5:32:54 AM PST by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: melancholy

can't afford for Baker's gambit.

Should read:

can't afford to wait for Baker's gambit.


32 posted on 01/30/2007 5:34:08 AM PST by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
But the act or appearance of dialogue with them shows the world that at least we're trying.

Mornin' Gonzo,

Interesting. It sounds like a plan to camouflage what's coming, hopefully.

33 posted on 01/30/2007 5:39:01 AM PST by melancholy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FARS

My guess is that it is related to this snippet of an article that I read earlier tonight:

The Anti-War Movement

The United States has a growing antiwar movement. If one looks under the ‘covers’ we find that that this movement had its origins in the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance following the Gulf War of 2003.

Today, U.S. military deserters are going to Canada where a small group is growing. Once across the border, a network of Vietnam War-era draft evaders meets them, Quakers and anti-war activists, who are waiting with lawyers, free housing, job offers and organic groceries.

A described in Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad – The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance, on December 13 and 14, 2003, activist delegates from the West and the Middle East joined at a conference in Cairo to exchange ideas and debate plans for actions. The second Cairo Conference against Capitalist Globalization and U.S. Hegemony brought together anti-war activists from across the world. The conference discussed how best to support the Iraqi and Palestinian resistance movements and how to challenge the United States’ drive for power. (The third Cairo Conference took place March 24 to 27, 2005, sponsored by the Stop-the-War Coalition.)

As the news of Saddam Hussein’s capture spread, delegates reaffirmed their support for the Iraqi resistance to continue against the U.S. occupation. Hamdeen Sabahy, an Egyptian M.P., said, “The resistance in Iraq is not based on Saddam Hussein. It will continue after Saddam Hussein. It is there because there is an occupation. As long as there is an American occupation, there will be resistance.”

This was much bigger than the 2002 conference, attended by four hundred people. Left-wing groups, Arab nationalist groups, and the Muslim Brotherhood organized the conference. It was supported by a number of trade unions.

In the opening session, John Rees from the Stop-the-War Coalition in Britain received loud applause when he said: “We stopped George Bush from launching his re-election campaign in London last month. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people poured onto the streets. People have come from Britain in solidarity with you. This is not merely because we sympathize with your struggle, and that of Iraq and Palestine. We come because your struggle is our struggle; your enemy is our enemy. In the last year we have created an international mass movement. We will not let the rule of profit and arms destroy our world. Only ordinary people can stop the political elites.”

The chemistry between the conference’s left wing and Islamic currents was a revelation to many. Making a rare appearance in such a socialist-oriented gathering, Ma’moun El- Hodeibi, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme guide, spoke at the opening session. Slamming “the authoritative imperialist and aggressive capitalist systems,” Hodeibi hailed the “new [anti-globalization] global movement.”

Since this conference the Muslim Brotherhood achieved significant victories in Egypt through the election process.

Stop-the-War’s Yakoub described the anti-war movement as a “bridge between East and West. From Cairo to Birmingham, Muslim and Jew, we have more in common than we have differences, and it’s unity that gives us the potential to be the other superpower.” British M.P., George Galloway called the conference itself a bridge between East and West. “Across the bridge, in two-way traffic, should come experience and support. We learn from here and here will learn from us.”

Sona’ Allh Ibrahim, a famous Egyptian writer who turned down a major award recently in protest at the Egyptian government, also addressed the conference. Other speakers included former Labour M.P. Tony Benn, former United Nation’s humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Denis Halliday, Salma Yaqoob from Britain and Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general. The Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance was in full attendance.

The conference released the second Cairo declaration, calling for opposition to capitalist globalization and U.S. power. It also urged support for the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian intifada against Israeli occupation.

Ashraf El Bayoumi was one of the organizers. He is a campaigner based in Egypt who was arrested recently for joining an anti-war protest. He spoke to Socialist Workers about the importance of the event. The conference came from the belief that imperialist globalization must be met with people’s mobilization. The people who attended the conference in 2002, especially those who were invited to speak, gave an anti-imperialist flavor to the conference. There were some professors and academics who were irritated by the injustice in Iraq and Palestine, such as Thomas Nagy, a professor at George Washington University.

The Al-Ahram Weekly gave a picture of the events of the third international Cairo Anti-War Conference held March 24-27, 2005.

Perhaps it was not totally ironic that the third international Cairo Anti-War Conference ended on the same day that dozens of members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood were arrested for organizing a peaceful protest calling for constitutional reforms and the lifting of Egypt's 24-year-old state of emergency. For four days, almost 1,000 Egyptian, Arab and international activists representing anti-war and anti- globalization movements, had been arguing that the liberation of Palestine and Iraq should start with changing undemocratic regimes in the Arab world.

Activists from Islamist, secular, communist and socialist currents from across the globe sat together sharing their views, and absorbed in friendly conversation.

According to comparative literature professor, Abdel-Wahab El-Missiri, the author of many works on Zionism and Jewish thought, globalization is no more than a U.S. dynamic for hegemony. “Globalization reduces people into consumptive beings with no identity or history,” El-Missiri told the Weekly. “It is no wonder that the proponents of globalization are also those who invaded Pakistan and Iraq, and blindly support the Israeli occupation of Palestine.”

That rhetoric provided a new dimension to resistance in Iraq and Palestine as “the front-line” of fighting against imperialism and globalization.

According to John Rose, author of Myths of Zionism, “the Palestinian flag has come to symbolize the dispossession of the poor peoples of the world.”

“The flag adorns the great anti-globalization and anti-war mass demonstrations on every continent,” Rose said.

The general mood of the conference was one of defiance, where passionate speeches inspired a general spirit of hope and enthusiasm. John Rees, from the U.K.-based Stop-the-War Coalition, boasted of the fact that the global anti-war movement had forced many countries, including Holland, Poland, Hungary and Spain—and perhaps now Italy—to withdraw their troops from Iraq.

But there was also general consensus that resistance was the only way to liberate Palestine and Iraq. Most delegates seemed to share Galloway’s opinion that U.S. troops in Iraq would be destroyed between “the hammer of the anti-war movement and the anvil of resistance.”

Sheikh Hassan al-Zorqani, of the Sadri Shia resistance movement in Iraq, told the Weekly that the Iraqi resistance “still has a long way to go before it liberates Iraq.” He expressed enthusiasm, however, that the conference gives him “a platform to clear misconceptions about resistance.”

The conference again demonstrated the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance.


http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2030&cid=2&sid=2


34 posted on 01/30/2007 5:55:36 AM PST by nw_arizona_granny (Pray for peace, but prepare for the worst disaster. Protect your loved ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DAVEY CROCKETT; Founding Father; LucyT; Calpernia; milford421

Ping


35 posted on 01/30/2007 5:56:46 AM PST by nw_arizona_granny (Pray for peace, but prepare for the worst disaster. Protect your loved ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Take up the dumb-ass burden
And join with the
Appeasement breed
They'll show them oil
And leave them soiled
Defiled by their greed



36 posted on 01/30/2007 6:56:24 AM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Take up the dumb-ass burden
And join with the
Appeasement breed
They'll show them oil
And leave them soiled
Defiled by their greed



37 posted on 01/30/2007 6:56:28 AM PST by sheik yerbouty ( Make America and the world a jihad free zone!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

And where was Khomeini hiding? France, see the connection?


38 posted on 01/30/2007 8:01:01 AM PST by Sword_Svalbardt (Sword Svalbardt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Thanks for the ping!


39 posted on 01/30/2007 8:07:19 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: melancholy
"The way I see it; this will only accelerate the need to bomb Iran sooner than later."

I wish it would happen today!!

40 posted on 01/30/2007 8:20:37 AM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
I understand that but if we end up in hostilities later it is important that we have made the gesture now. Also Baker has a good read of people and he will give back valuable insight to Bush.
41 posted on 01/30/2007 8:46:46 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank fan

Baker loves anyone who hates the Jooooos.


42 posted on 01/30/2007 8:48:14 AM PST by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Berosus; Cincinatus' Wife; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; FairOpinion; Fedora; ..

Two-tracks, hard cop/soft cop; all with an eye on the 2008 election.


43 posted on 01/30/2007 9:12:01 AM PST by SunkenCiv ("In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they're not." -- John Rummel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freedom44
"Baker is a moron just like Carter"

I bet he's making a whole lot more money by being a moron than (even) Carter has/is/wlll.

44 posted on 01/30/2007 9:12:50 AM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Baker's shilling for the Saudis'


45 posted on 01/30/2007 2:28:28 PM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
"Two-tracks, hard cop/soft cop; all with an eye on the 2008 election."

More like hard cop/corrupt cop in Baker's case.

James Baker

Azerbaijan has formal involvement with James Baker as he serves on the Honorary Council of Advisers for the U.S. Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce

Azerbaijan's Riches Alter the Chessboard

Caspian oil also is central to the Clinton administration's internal debate over U.S. relations with Tehran. Some American oil companies view Iran as the cheapest, fastest exit route for Caspian oil; that's counter to other interests – and Clinton administration policy – favoring continued U.S. government efforts to isolate the Islamic state.

46 posted on 01/30/2007 3:02:25 PM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Baker, Iran's best PR man.


47 posted on 01/30/2007 3:02:44 PM PST by M. Espinola (Freedom is never free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nw_arizona_granny

James Baker is an a..


48 posted on 01/30/2007 3:54:37 PM PST by milford421 (U.N. OUT OF U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: FARS

"visit by Bandar to Tehran where he met with “Supreme Leader” “Ayatollah” Ali Hoseini-Khamene‘i on January 25, 2007, before meeting at length next day with Larijani."

I thought you said Khameinie was dead?


49 posted on 01/31/2007 8:08:56 AM PST by Brooklyn Kid (What's it to ya? ) ((....west of the Jordan, east of the Rock of Gibraltar.................))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FARS

Did Pakistan perfect nuclear technology while the west was fawning over their 'progressive' female led government of the time? Does the re-elevation of Rafshani ring any bells. Were we sent Ahmadinejad to make us all relieved when the good cop showed up? This is a set up, a cover for buying time, nothing more, nothing less.


50 posted on 01/31/2007 9:56:53 AM PST by kinghorse (calls them like I sees them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

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

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson