www.washingtonpost.com Monday, March 10, 2003; Page A20

The Post seems to have forgotten that, regardless of whether it approves, Hugo Chavez is the elected president of Venezuela [editorial, March 1].

The Post also seems to forget that a military coup last April, which had the tacit support of the Bush administration, received no international support and collapsed. And The Post ignores that the recent strike in Venezuela had the explicit objective of removing Mr. Chavez from office or forcing a change in the Venezuelan constitution.

Where would The Post stand if an illegal strike in this country tried to force President Bush from office because of his policies on Iraq?

Calling on the United States to meddle in Venezuela's affairs ignores the history of racism, economic oppression and corruption in that country (which resulted in the people choosing Mr. Chavez as their elected leader).

U.S. meddling has only worsened the situation in Latin America.

BILL FLETCHER JR.

President TransAfrica Forum Washington

www.malaysiakini.com Jim Lobe 12:53pm Mon Mar 10th, 2003

A study by four top defence consultants within the so-called JASON group, obtained and released oún Sunday by the California-based Nautilus Institute, found that the "political effects of US first use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) in Vietnam would be uniformly bad and could be catastrophic", given the concentration of US forces in Vietnam at the time and the ease with which Vietnamese guerrillas could deliver nuclear weapons obtained from the Soviet Union or China.

"The use of TNW in Southeast Asia is likely to result in greatly increased long-term risk of nuclear operations in other parts of the world," the scientists argued, citing possible attacks oún the Panama Canal, oil pipelines and storage facilities in Venezuela and even Israel's largest city, Tel Aviv.

"The main conclusion (of the report) is that the US offers to any likely adversary much better targets for nuclear weapons than these adversaries offer to the US," said Freeman Dyson, a Princeton University professor who was oúne of four authors of the 1966 report 'Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Southeast Asia'.

"This is even more true in the fight against terrorism than it was in Vietnam," he added in an interview with Nautilus director Peter Hayes.

The release of the report, for which Nautilus fought a 20-year battle with Freedom of Information Act officials at the Pentagon and the Energy Department, comes at a critical moment in US nuclear-weapons policy and the twin crises in Iraq and North Korea.

www.balochistanpost.com Monday, March 10, 2003     By David Duke

"How many towns have We destroyed (for their sins)? Our punishment took them on a sudden by night or while they slept for their afternoon rest." The Quran, Al-A'raf, 4

America under George Bush is rushing headlong toward war. This is a war that has been promoted for years by the most radical Jewish supremacists in Israel and America. Some people who oppose this war have taken up the slogan "no blood for oil," saying the coming war is being promoted by big American and European corporate oil interests.

Is oil the real reason for this war? Today, I will discuss the true driving force behind the Iraq War and why this war is actually one that that will be fought against the true interests of the United States of the America. First, let's deal with the "War for Oil" argument.

In actual fact, the Iraq war will more likely hurt Western oil companies than help them. After an initial flurry of oil prices, a regime change in Iraq would eventually let the oil flow freely again and oil prices would fall dramatically. That would hurt the Western oil companies by lowering the value of their underlying reserves. Western oil companies have almost all of their oil reserves outside of the Mideast. Their reserves are in places such as Texas, Alaska, Mexico, Venezuela, the North Sea, Siberia and elsewhere.

And don't suppose America will just go in and start stealing the oil, for that is not even a remote possibility. Oil will be sold by the new regime just as it always has been. It is true that there will be a division of spoils promised to the occupying powers as an inducement for their support of the war, but those spoils are in the form of contracts to buy oil, as well as to develop and refine oil products and other commercial concerns available in an non-embargoed

Iraq. In truth, big oil corporate interests will be harmed in a regime change accomplished by war or simply by normalization of relations with Iraq. In either case, the oil would flow freely again and ultimately hurt the big oil interests by increasing the oil supply and lowering the underlying value of their own reserves.

A war against Iraq threatens regime change not only in Iraq, but across the Mideast. It is likely the new regimes will be violently against European-American interests, and their targets will certainly include the large corporate oil companies. The millions of Americans who live and work overseas and the billions of dollars of American investments would be gravely threatened. The war on Iraq will certainly unleash a torrent of hatred and terrorism against Americans around the world. It will create exactly what bin Laden and other anti-American fanatics desire.

Bush also claims that the war could bring democracy to many nations in the Mideast. But, the truth is that the vast majority of people of almost every country of the world are far more anti-Israeli and anti-American than are their ruling entities, so more democracy would probably even produce more anti-Israeli and even more anti-American sentiment. Even in Turkey, where the ruling party recently supported bringing in American troops to use against Iraq, the people of that country are over 90 percent opposed to involvement in the Iraq war, and their recently-elected parliament voted against it.

So, the big oil companies have no interest in this war, but actually face huge long-term risks from the war. So who exactly does have an interest in war?

There is no credible evidence that Iraq poses any real threat to the United States. Dozens of other nations have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has had them for decades but never used any of them against the United States, even in the Gulf War. With UN inspectors roaming the country at will, and with the knowledge that the United States would knock Iraq into the stone age if it ever dared to use them, there is probably less risk from Iraq then from any other of a dozen other countries. North Korea, for example, has atomic warheads and the missiles to carry them to American cities. Furthermore, North Korea has openly threatened to use them against us if we move against them. Yet, we refrain even from embargo against North Korea. Iraq poses no real danger to the United States, but an Iraq war poses great dangers to American interests here at home and abroad.

One way the war will hurt us is by damaging our economy. For instance, American officials have sought to bribe Turkey with upwards of 26 billion American dollars. For what, you might ask? To simply use Turkey as a staging area for Bush's war against Iraq. That's six billion in immediate cash and 20 billion in loans, and these loans are almost never repaid. That's 26 billion dollars! That's a huge amount of money taken from the American taxpayer, and that incredible amount is only a tiny bit of the overall costs of this war.

The administration is also talking about giving Israel an additional 14 billion dollars on top of our normal payout of around 7 billion dollars a year. One must also factor in the military cost of the war and the occupation afterwards. That would certainly cost at least 200 billion dollars and probably a lot more. One must factor in the temporary huge increase in oil costs because of the war and the economic damage done by this war. That cost has already amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars and it climbs every day. Every time you take a drive, every time you pay an increased utility bill or any other bill, you are paying for this insane policy.

As badly as this war will hurt our economy (far from the stated purpose of protecting America) this war will make us far less secure. Our involvement in Mideastern conflicts and America's support for the criminal actions of Israel have caused millions of people around the world to hate America. Many of them are even willing to sacrifice their very lives to get at us. America's support for Israel's agenda directly led to the 911 attack upon America. America's Israeli-controlled foreign policy led to the carnage of thousands of lives lost on September 11. It has caused America to live under a constant threat of terrorism and threatens our most precious Constitutional freedoms.

By any standard, this Iraq war is of no benefit to the United States of America, nor is it of any benefit to the commercial oil industry. So, for whose benefit does America wage this war? The answer is Israel, Israel, Israel! Radical Jewish supremacists in Israel launched this drive for war. Their agents all over the world, both in government and media, have been the real power behind this war.

Pro-Israeli, Jewish supremacists are found in key government positions all over the world and they also hold powerful positions in the ownership and hierarchy of media. In the political sector, the hawks driving the push to war are called Neocons. Neocon is an abbreviation for neo-conservative. As crazy as it might sound, many of the leaders behind the Neocons are pro-communist Jews who once opposed the Viet Nam War. These Marxists were peaceniks who opposed the Vietnam War but radical hawks for Israel. That's right; many of them were former Marxists: such as the man behind the Jewish supremacist magazine, Commentary, Norman Podhoretz. Other radical Zionists pushing for this war include the former Marxist Daniel Horowitz, President Bush's official spokesman Ari Fleischer, his speechwriter David Frum, and close advisors Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser and Douglas J. Feith.

Back in 1996, long before the current push for war, a prominent Zionist group led by Richard Perle wrote a report titled: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. (www.israeleconomy.org) It called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the United States but for the incoming Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The report basically argues how destruction of Iraq will protect Israel's monopoly of nuclear weapons and give Israel a free hand to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Israel has in store.

Not only have Jewish agents in the government pushed for this war, but they drive the media push for war. The war could not be possible without the massive support it has gotten from the media. A great deal of the news reporting around the world is biased for the Iraq war and against the Palestinians. In America, there is an unrelenting call for war by thousands of pundits, editorial writers, news editors and pro-war reporters. And, make no mistake about it, there is no shortage of Jewish supremacists among them.

The fact is that almost all of the major media in America, and much of it in Europe, have been cheerleaders for this war. For instance, most of those in media never challenge any of the basic premises of the war.

When it is alleged that we must go to war against Iraq because it violated UN Resolution 1441, no major pundits retort by saying that if this is a valid reason to go to war, then we must go to war against Israel, a nation that has violated far more UN resolutions than has Iraq. For instance, for 35 years Israel has violated Resolution 242, a UN resolution that demanded that Israel leave the occupied West Bank, a resolution that was even supported by the United States.

When it is stated that Iraq must be attacked because it has, quote, "weapons of mass destruction," why do no television news authorities respond by saying, "If we go to war against Iraq for having weapons of mass destruction then we also must go to war against Israel, which has one of the world's biggest arsenals of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."

When it is said that there must be inspections in Iraq, no newspapers suggest that if we demand inspections of Iraq, the same demand should be made of Israel, a nation that has one of the world's deadliest arsenals of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. On this score, Iraq cooperates on this vital matter while Israel does not.

When it is said we should go to war against Iraq because its regime has invaded other countries, killed thousands of civilians and tortured thousands more in their jails, no TV networks suggest that we must also go to war against Israel, a nation led by war criminal Ariel Sharon and guilty of the same crimes.

When it is said that we should go to war against Iraq for not allowing freedom and self-government, no journalists suggest that we also must go to war against Israel for their brutal military occupation over 3 million Palestinian civilians, people not allowed even elementary freedoms.

This same news media tells us constantly, quote, "at least Israel is democratic," but we hear no voices responding by saying "How can Israel be called democratic, when 3 million Palestinians suffer under brutal military occupation for 35 years and are not allowed democratic control of their own society?"

In truth, Jewish supremacists in the media have even controlled the anti-war debate. They make a number of issues off limits. One is allowed to argue whether or not Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. One can argue whether or not Iraq is in material breach of UN resolutions. One can argue whether inspections should be given more time. But, it is forbidden to mention Israel's horrendous arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, Israeli's refusal to allow inspections, or even that Israel violated far more UN resolutions than has Iraq.

It is also off limits, of course, to suggest that the great weight of Jewish ownership and management of the mass media creates the media bias for war, and that this Jewish influence actually helps to shape the anti-war debate itself. It is verboten to point out the conflict of interest by the many Jewish supremacists who are key advisers to both Bush and Blair. Yes, there are certainly Gentiles who support the war for varying reasons, but how many of them have been influenced by the weight of Jewish power? Gentiles in government and media learn very quickly what they can and cannot say. If they go along with the Jewish hawks, they will prosper handily, but if they dare to expose Jewish supremacism, it is practically an act of self-immolation.

It is not big oil or capitalism that it leading the pro-Israel, pro-war voice of the media and government. It is Jewish supremacism.

These same Jewish media powers have decreed that it is quote, "anti-Semitic," unquote, to suggest that many of these Jews in the media and in critical positions in government could be more loyal to the interests of Israel than to the nations in which they live. In last week's broadcast, I quoted the words of Stephen Steinlight, the former head of national affairs of the largest and most influential Jewish organization in the United States, the American Jewish Committee. In a Jewish magazine article, Steinlight recently wrote that as a typical Jew of his generation, he was taught from childhood to salute a foreign flag, sing foreign national songs, to view Israel as the true homeland and that Gentiles are inferior to Jews.

It is true that in spite of the fact that Jews comprise the great bulk of the media and political forces driving it on, there are some Jews who oppose this war. They should be applauded, but even most of them don't talk about the real issues I discussed earlier. There is too little said about the real reasons we are being driven to war. You see, the pro-Israel media has made it permissible to oppose the war based on the "no war for oil argument." One can say that without incurring the wrath of the Jewish media.

If fact, the Israel-Firsters who are busily promoting this war must smile a little bit when they hear the oil argument, first because it is easily refutable, and secondly, because it deflects attention from the real driving force behind the war. War with Iraq, and upcoming wars with Iran, Syria, Lebanon and even Saudi Arabia have been long- standing objectives of Israel and its loyal servants in the United States.

So one can say, "No War for Oil," but just don't say, "No War for Israel," for if you do, all hell will break loose on you.

It is similar to the deception the Jewish media used after the attack on the World Trade Center. The kosher word-shapers of the media immediately told Americans that we were attacked, quote, "because the hijackers hated freedom!" In his many interviews before 911, bin Laden never criticized America's freedom: he criticized the fact that Americans had let themselves be controlled by the Zionists. Bin Laden and the hijackers had no hatred of freedom. Their hatred of America was born from America's support of Israel's brutal suppression of the Palestinian people.

One must respect the cleverness of these Jewish supremacists. If the world was told the truth that we were attacked because of our support of Israel, it might just dawn on millions of Americans to ask the unaskable: if supporting the criminal acts of Israel is really worth it? Is it worth the economic cost estimated by a writer for the Christian Science Monitor: one trillion dollars since the founding of Israel? Is it worth the thousands of lives lost on September 11? Is it worth the terroristic attacks of Israel against the United States such as the attack on the USS Liberty and the terrorism against America in the Lavon Affair? Is it worth the continued threat of terrorism to us and our children, and the loss of our most precious freedoms?

We must expose the Jewish supremacists as the ones behind this war. We also must expose their moral hypocrisy. On Sunday March 2, I watched a CNN program hosted by the very pro-Zionist, Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer hosts the Showdown Iraq show on that network and appears for hours every day shaping opinions for the war. He had an interview with none other than Elie Wiesel, survivor of Auschwitz and Noble Peace Prize recipient. This so-called, "man of peace," went on to advocate a massive Iraq war, a war that will kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and cause millions of innocents to suffer, as well as throwing much of the world into turmoil and hatred.

Blitzer treated Wiesel as though he was talking with a god. Wiesel went on to tell us that we had to attack Iraq because of what Iraq did to Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. Blitzer, of course, didn't dare ask fellow Jewish supremacist Wiesel the obvious question of why Mr. Wiesel did not speak out about the Iraqi slaughter of Iranians during the years when the war occurred. Wiesel did not speak out at that time, of course, because he is a Jewish supremacist who could care less about Iranian lives. He cares about Iranians only when he can point to their death in order to inspire us to kill the enemies of the Jews.

During the time of the Iraq-Iran war, Israel saw Iran as its most dangerous enemy. So Israel through its dutiful servant, the United States, supported the Iraqis as part of their divide-and-conquer strategy. America, at the behest of Israeli agents in the American government, actually gave Iraq the chemical and biological weapons Iraq used in that war. Sworn testimony in the United States Senate proves this fact. As soon as Iran was vanquished, Iraq, with its strong military might and oil reserves, suddenly went from American ally and friend to an enemy of America. Why? It is because after Iran became exhausted, Iraq at that time became Israel's number one enemy.

Wiesel and the other Jewish supremacists around the world are touted by the Jewish supremacist press to be moral paragons and men of peace, even when they support the worst sort of murder and hatred. In my book, My Awakening, I quote directly from writings of Elie Wiesel exposing the depth of racial hatred in his heart.

"Every Jew, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead."

Imagine if any Palestinian leader or spokesman would have said the same thing about Jews after Ariel Sharon's massacre in Lebanon:

Every Palestinian, somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate - healthy, virile hate - for what the Jew personifies and for what persists in the Jew. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.

Can you imagine the outrage that would erupt from such a statement?

Remember, it was not so long ago that Menachem Begin, a terrorist with the blood of thousands of innocent women and children on his hands, won the Nobel Peace Prize. And recently, President Bush called one of the worst war criminals one earth, Ariel Sharon, a "Man of Peace. "

Why is this war being waged against Iraq? It has nothing to do with the interests of the big oil companies and absolutely nothing to do with the real interests of the United States. In fact, this war will be terribly damaging to the safety, freedom and economic well-being of America and Americans. This crazy, insane, unpatriotic war could not go on without for the tremendous power exerted by the disloyal Jewish supremacists in our political process. It also would impossible to pursue this terrible war without the tremendous weight of Jewish supremacists and their agents in the world media.

When the history of the United States is written fifty years from now, I feel certain that it will be accepted fact that the Iraqi War became a critical turning point in American history.

The war, for all of the terrible damage it will inflict upon Iraq and ultimately upon America, will cause millions of Americans to finally see the ugly face of Jewish supremacy over our country. Even before the invasion has begun, this unjust war has already caused an awakening among millions people in Europe and around the world.

I believe that this evil war and all its subsequent damage to the United States -- will eventually help lead to our own liberation from the hatred and suppression of Jewish supremacism.

It is my hope that for the sake of our brave, young fighting men, and indeed, for the people of our nation, that by a miracle we can avoid this Jewish war. Our voice must now be raised in America and around the world:

No War for Israel!

www.balochistanpost.com Monday, March 10, 2003 By Linda Diebel, The Toronto Star

"Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan and the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law and source of guidance for legislation to be administered through laws enacted by the Parliament…" The Constitution, Article 2

WASHINGTON: Any day now, there will be bombs falling on Baghdad.

Conventional bombs like nothing the world has ever seen.

"The Third Mech will be driving down the main drag in Baghdad.''

"The bombs will still be ringing in their ears when the 'Third Mech' shows up,'' says U.S. military analyst John Pike, of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and whatever's left of his so-called elite Republican Guard after the first days of aerial pulverization.

Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, describes an assault on Saddam's regime that begins with "shock-and-awe'' aerial bombardment, and quickly moves into crush mode with the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) rolling up from the Kuwaiti desert and U.S. Marines storming the port city of Basra.

"Chances are 90 per cent it will go pretty quickly, and 10 per cent it will turn into one big holy mess,'' predicts Pike.

But, before turning to the combat debut of bombs that weigh about 9,000 kilos and can take out an entire battalion, consider why the United States is going to war.

Consider who drew up U.S. goals and objectives in the Persian Gulf, when, and why.

Consider oil.

This particular operation — Pentagon working title: "OpPlan 10-03-Victor" — has been on the drawing board for a year, according to defence officials. The immediate goal is disarming Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. It's expected to begin soon, this week or next. Hard to hold back more than 300,000 U.S. and British troops, in place and pumped to go.

But the long-term goal, say big-picture analysts, has been in the works for far more than the 23 years since former U.S. president Jimmy Carter linked American security — "the vital interests of the United States'' — to the Persian Gulf and its oil, and threatened military intervention.

This war, say analysts, is about power and oil. It's about control of the Gulf states by means of strategic Iraq and, by extension, a final post-Cold War shakeout to give the U.S. more economic clout over China and Russia by controlling the oil spigot.

This is the moment, Thomas Barnett, from the U.S. Naval War College, wrote recently in Esquire magazine, "when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.''

The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves.

"The only precedent to what is shaping up now is the Roman Empire,'' says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. "There is only one power. I don't think Britain, France or Spain even came close in other centuries to the United States today.

"If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy,'' adds Klare.

Washington is betting, Klare believes, that "controlling Gulf oil, combined with being a decade ahead of everybody else in military technology, will guarantee American supremacy for the next 50 to 100 years.''

These ideas aren't new.

For years, a small and powerful group, with corporate and political links, pushed the idea of controlling Persian Gulf oil. They did it publicly, at think-tanks and in the media. Now, this coterie of like-minded strategists controls both the Pentagon and the strategic aims of President George W. Bush's White House.

"You've got a team in the White House that is unafraid of world public opinion because they know it is unreliable, self-serving and hypocritical,'' says George Friedman, chair of the intelligence organization, Stratfor.

Originally, this was the "Kissinger plan,'' says James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He lost his state department job for publicly criticizing administration plans to control Arab oil back in 1975 when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state.

"I thought they were crazy then and they're crazy now,'' Akins tells the Star, adding that Congress studied plans to control Persian Gulf oil and concluded the idea was absolute madness.

"I thought this whole thing was dead. But now you've got all these `neo-cons' in power, and here we go again,'' says Akins, a Washington-based consultant. "They figure once they take over Iraq, they don't have to worry about the Saudis.''

Akins adds: "These people with their imperial ideas see themselves as part of the Great American Empire."

The players have moved steadily through the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush and Bush himself.

They include: Vice-president Richard Cheney, a former oilman, like Bush, and defence secretary during his father's Persian Gulf War in 1991; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, once Reagan's personal emissary to the Middle East when Saddam was a U.S. friend and staunch ally; Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who began publicly calling for war against Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks; and Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness'' for his political stick-handling.

They are joined by think-tankers, from fellows at the Project for the New American Century and the military and intelligence-oriented Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Bush recently chose a CSIS forum, rather than the White House, to deliver a major prime-time speech to the American people to make the case for war. The CSIS board includes, among other heavy-hitters, Kissinger, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director James Schlesinger.

Bush often mentions Iraqi oil, a jarring focus for a president on the brink of war.

"We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage from a dying regime and ensure they are used for the benefit of Iraq's own people,'' he said in last week's radio address.

Colin Robinson, an analyst with the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information, says: "The United States can stand well-accused of trying to dominate the whole region for its oil. But conspiracy theories are usually too complicated for everybody to carry them off."

Friedman says the 1991 war left unfinished business, the "status quo'' of Saddam in power. Not so this time, he says, in a war which, as U.N. diplomats dither, has already begun.

In recent weeks, British and U.S. warplanes strayed outside "no-fly'' zones to bomb Iraqi surface-to-air missiles. Robinson describes these zones, set up by the U.S. and Britain after Desert Storm as "barely legal'' in terms of international law.

As well, U.N. officials report violations of the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait by U.S. soldiers.

But the real devastation should begin within days.

"We've got everything we need. We're just waiting on the word, the decision from the president," Maj.-Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told the Washington Post last week from Kuwait.

First comes aerial bombardment, an extraordinary 1,500 bombs every 24 hours during the time it takes heavy mechanized divisions to move up from Kuwait to Baghdad.

Big heavy bombers, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, buttressed by screaming navy and air force jets will pound Iraqi sites, picked by aerial drones and U.S. and British Special Forces already in Iraq.

Defence contractors are eager to test out new gadgetry. One new bomb is the 9,000-kilo MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst).

"Well, it's very efficient,'' says Friedman. "Let's say you've got a large concentration of Republican Guard units, instead of having to do repeated bombing sorties, you can take out a battalion (500 to 600 troops) with one bomb.''

Friedman's sources in theatre tell him there are "terrific fights between defence department officials and field commanders who are raring to go now.''

He says time is the enemy of troops in the field. Sandstorms at the end of March, for example, could play havoc with laser targeting systems.

Without the anticipated "northern front'' through Turkey, there are plans for C-130s to ferry troops to northern Iraq, as well as missions for U.S. Marines and Special Forces to secure oil sites throughout Iraq.

"The U.S. military cannot be defeated on the conventional battlefield,'' says military analyst Pike.

But what about the variables?

How much of a threat is Saddam? What about chemical and biological weapons?

"We gonna find out,'' says Pike.

Meanwhile, Iraqi exiles, opposed to Saddam, have been meeting with U.S. and British oil executives, promising access and leases in return for political power.

And, the U.S., as Friedman points out, on the brink of world hegemony, is going to find out who its friends are.

"I do so enjoy Canadians (against the war) getting so obsessed with human rights, and then pay no attention to places like Venezuela,'' says Friedman, who thinks Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is next on Bush's military agenda.

"I read the Canadian press and I wonder what planet your country is on.

"We have allies, and we are going to see who they are,'' he concludes. "If France, if Canada, can't support us in opposition to Saddam Hussein, you can't say you are our allies. Canada consistently says it's an ally of the United States of America ... we'll see, won't we?''

www.infobrazil.com by John Fitzpatrick         Mar 08 - 14, 2003

John Fitzpatrick is an occasional guest Editor on InfoBrazil. He is a Scottish Journalist who first visited Brazil in 1987 and has been based in São Paulo since 1995. His 27-year career in journalism includes stints as a Reporter in Scotland and England, Deputy Editor of an English-language daily newspaper in Cyprus, News Editor of a radio station in Switzerland, Financial Correspondent in Zurich and São Paulo, and Editor of a magazine published by one of Switzerland's largest banks. He currently runs Celtic Comunicações, a São Paulo company which specializes in editorial and translation services for Brazilian and foreign clients.

None of Brazil’s neighbours has suffered as much as Colombia, which has experienced a savage guerrilla war for over thirty years. This has cost thousands of lives and involved a variety of left-wing guerrilla groups, right-wing paramilitaries, and security forces of the Colombian state. Countless peace talks have been held, but the main guerrilla group, called the FARC, has never abided by agreements and continued with its campaigns, killing civilian and soldiers, Colombians and foreigners alike.

The FARC is estimated to have at its disposal around 30 thousand armed men, who help it remain in control of a huge part of the country, ceded to it by the previous government in Colombia. The FARC routinely kidnap people, and have recently extended operations beyond the countryside and into cities, with deadly results. Most FARC operations are funded by the drug trade, itself a perpetrator of misery on the lives of millions, including Brazilians.

It should be recalled that Brazil’s most infamous criminal and drug lord, known as Fernandinho Beira-Mar, was extradited back to Brazil from Colombia, where he spent much of his time before being jailed. Drug bosses in Brazil are becoming as daring as the Colombian guerrillas, and their writ is law in their fiefs. Not only do they terrorise favela shanty towns, where they are usually based, but they have also shown they can bring business in large portions of a major city like Rio de Janeiro to a halt.

The conflict in Colombia is relevant to Brazil but, so far, the government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – like that of his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso – has done little to try and end it. Lula’s attitude has been that of a driver who stops at the scene of a terrible road accident, shakes his head ruefully and drives on.

In the past week, the recently elected President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, met in Brasilia with Lula and some of his ministers. The two leaders then emerged to announce an agreement to combat drug trafficking and the arms trade in their border area. Talks will also be held on allowing Colombia access to information from the Brazilian government’s SIVAM high-tech security system covering the Amazon region.

This sounds good at a glance, but the Colombians left for home frustrated with the Brazilian government’s refusal to adopt measures which the Colombians believe would bring more concrete results. Colombia wants Brazil to classify the FARC as a terrorist group, freeze its bank accounts in Brazil, and detain any of its members or supporters in Brazilian territory. In fact, according to Brazilian media who covered the meeting, this topic was not even raised.

One assumes the Colombians knew they were fighting a lost cause and wished to be diplomatic. Of course, the fact that it was not on the official agenda did not mean the Brazilians, as hosts, could not have raised it. But there was little chance of this since the Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim, in one of the most absurd explanations imaginable, said a few days earlier that Brazil did not have a list of prescribed terrorist groups and, therefore, could not “add” the FARC to it. Using weasel words while people’s lives are at risk has always been the diplomatic way, and Amorim was following in the long tradition of the Brazilian diplomatic corps.

Another ludicrous statement from one of Lula’s advisors was that if Brazil were to call the FARC a terrorist group, this could compromise any future role for the country as an intermediary. Instead of stating such nonsense, why does Brazil not offer to host talks, if it believes in peace, or start cracking down on Colombian guerrilla activities spilling onto its territory, to show that it will not just stand by and watch the continuation of this threat to regional security and democracy?

This lack of action and willingness to act when it comes to Colombia compares negatively with the flurry of activity at the start of the year, when Brazil announced its support for Venezuela’s besieged President Hugo Chavez. Brazil even sent technicians to break a strike in the Venezuelan oil industry.

There is a faction within the leftist Worker’s Party – the PT, whose main icon, Lula, is now president – that regards the FARC as a progressive force fighting for social justice in Colombia. The fact the Americans have been helping Colombia with arms, equipment and advisors makes these PT radicals mistrust any Colombian government, and in their minds, allows them to turn a blind eye to guerrilla atrocities. The U.S. maintains a list of proscribed terrorist groups and, in the view of these Brazilian leftists, this is another reason for Brazil not to have such a list.

Paradoxically, it is this very ideological aspect that could bring about a solution. If the FARC is an organization fighting for social justice, then why does it not ask Brazil, under the impeccably left-wing Lula, to try and broker a solution? And why, instead of complaining, do the PT radicals not also try and use their influence with the FARC to get peace talks started? The answer is simple – the FARC is not interested in peace talks or social justice, but only in maintaining its own power.

Trying to broker a peace agreement of any kind in Colombia would be a nightmare, just as cleaning up the mess after a car crash. But it would be to Brazil’s credit if it tried. 

Related sites: Itamaraty – Brazil’s Foreign Ministry www.mre.gov.br

SIVAM, the Amazon vigilance system - overview produced by its manufacturer, Raytheon www.raytheon.com

Resistencia, the official magazine of Colombia’s FARC (Spanish only) resistencianacional.org