<a href=www.theglobalist.com>The Globalist
Global Bite > Global Politics
By David Apgar | Saturday, April 26, 2003
U.S. President George W. Bush surprised all western intelligence agencies and major news outlets with his recent announcement that Syria harbors weapons of mass destruction. What was his message really intended to say? Was it the opening shot in a broader global campaign to rid the world of yet more of its ills? David Apgar takes a somewhat light-hearted look.
Some people believe that, in its decoded version, President Bush’s veiled threat to President Assad of Syria really reads: “Give up Saddam’s cousins and his sisters and his — or you are toast!”
A brilliant strategy
The Bush Administration has since softened its rhetorical assault on Damascus. But come to think of it, calling on other nations to clean up their act is a brilliant strategy.
Of course, President Nixon tried it as well, but he was no George Bush. His efforts were cut short because he scared Americans more than America’s foes.
President Bush is off to a much stronger start. The real question is this: How far will he go in his expansive mood and mindset? Which nation’s conflicts will not get tangled up in his web?
Real needs
In the view of many, Americans really need help with North Korean nukes — and Colombian drug traffickers.
North Korea presents a worse nuclear proliferation risk than anybody else, and Colombia festers on the edge of civil war in America’s backyard.
A tough goal
And while we’re at it, the United States could also help out its great ally, Britain. It is suffering mightily under all those farm seizures visited upon expatriates in Zimbabwe.
Resolving these prickly issues is a tough goal, but it is certainly within reach — now that the President of the mighty United States has caught the clean-up bug. Here is one correspondent’s guide to how events could unfold:
With North Korea, the United States needs help from both China and Russia. As things currently stand, it is still far too easy for both of these nations simply to sit back and say, “Let’s let America deal with the barking maniac in Pyongyang.”
Addressing complacency
To address their complacency, watch for the U.S. President to announce that the rising threat on the Korean peninsula has forced him to occupy Taiwan and Russia’s Kuril Islands.
He would claim that this move occurred purely out of self-defense, of course.
Rapid response
Normally, great nations would receive such an announcement with skeptical detachment. But the same cannot be said when the 101st Airborne is studying maps of the Syrian Desert.
With the 101st Airborne looking for suitable landing zones in the Syrian part of the Euphrates valley, a little hysteria would be in order.
Painful as it is to have to talk with Kim Jong-Il, one can imagine China’s and Russia’s leaders picking up the telephone to get the mad man of Pyongyang moving in the right direction. Either that or watch Marines roasting marshmallows on the beaches of Taiwan and the Kurils.
On to the New World
The Bush team will also want to turn its creativity to the boiling problems in the New World. Our good friends in Colombia need help in their war on drug terrorists, for example.
Venezuela would be in a great position to help the United States contain Colombian drug lords – but for one little problem.
Why not step in?
Under the stewardship of President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s government actually sympathizes with all those aging revolutionaries in Columbia who let their rebel organizations besiege civilian government.
Watch for the United States to step in — threatening to seize Venezuela’s ports, say, until its difficult President Chavez comes around and lends a hand in the Columbian campaign.
As it is, Venezuela’s ports are clogged with oil tankers. We could offer to relieve the congestion while President Chavez considers his options.
What about Fidel?
And then there is Fidel Castro, the unapologetic Cuban super-dictator, whose recent moves against his domestic opposition make him look like a latter-day revolutionary on a permanent overdose of Viagra.
Using the U.S. military — as it is on its way back from the Persian Gulf — in order to send Castro packing is always an option. But it would also be a true cheap shot.
An elegant solution
A more elegant solution might involve, say, the Argentines. With Argentina’s continuing economic crisis, the country needs all the help from the United States that it can possibly offer.
So the Bush Administration would only be wise to ask for a down payment in exchange for its favors. How about sending up the Argentine navy to seize Cuba - and free it?
After all, Argentina's Navy has a lot of experience in seizing islands. Just think back to 1982 — when the country seized the Falkland Islands from Britain.
Great torment
And speaking of Britain, what about Prime Minister Tony Blair?
It surely torments him to read daily dispatches of the latest abominations that Zimbabwe's liberator-turned-tyrant Robert Mugabe has committed against white farmers and black opponents.
An urgent mission
Virtually all of those farmers originally hale from Britain. The situation is awful — and, in asserting its geopolitical mission, the United States cannot forget about Britain, its primary ally. Sending the 82nd Airborne into Zimbabwe surely looks like an urgent humanitarian relief mission.
Of course, some might argue that President Bush could finally use his expansive mood to great effect — by convincing Israel to withdraw to its approximate old borders and focus on self-defense.
One could imagine the President declaring in a weekly radio address: "No offense intended, but the rising terrorist threat to Americans justifies U.S. occupation of the West Bank — as a trust reserved for Palestinians."
A price to pay
To accomplish this ambitious homeland security goal for the United States, the President in all likelihood would not even have to commit any troops. After all, while illegal settlements come and go, smart Israelis would not want to build new ones on the prospective turf of the 3rd Infantry Division.
But we should probably stop short of predicting this last gambit. Unlike fixing the rest of the world, fixing the West Bank would cost the President real political capital at home.
Venezuela's government refused yesterday to sign an agreement that would pave the way for a referendum on President Hugo Chavez's presidency.
Vice President Jose Vicente Rangel said the government objected to several points of the agreement, which was announced April 11 by the Organization of American States after five months of negotiations.
Rangel's statements cast doubt on prospects for any vote on Chavez's six-year term, which ends in 2007. In December and January, Venezuela's opposition staged a general strike that briefly shut down the world's No. 5 oil exporter to demand a vote. Chavez didn't budge.
Venezuela's opposition wants to ask citizens whether Chavez should resign. Such a vote is allowed in Venezuela's constitution.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell recently said that if Chavez agreed to the vote, "then he will be showing a commitment to democracy of the kind we believe is the correct form of democracy for our hemisphere."
Rangel countered yesterday: "We reject all pressure coming from here and abroad."
Saying "Venezuela is not a colony," Rangel objected to a proposal that the process be monitored by the OAS, the United Nations and the Atlanta, Georgia-based Carter Center.
An OAS-brokered proposal to disarm civilians before elections also violates Venezuelan sovereignty, Rangel said. Dozens have been killed in political violence over the past year. Chavez has been accused of arming thousands of civilians to defend his government.
<a href=worldnetdaily.com>worldnetdaily.com
Posted: April 26, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: By special, exclusive arrangement with Courcy's Intelligence Review, WorldNetDaily publishes excerpts of the latest reports of the world's most prestigious intelligence newsletter.
There has been surprise in some quarters that the U.S.-led attack on Iraq has not produced a major terrorist response.
The lack of a major terrorist response to the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in fact mirrors the experience of 1991, and the following points are germane:
Islamist-inspired terrorism is fuelled by grievances that long pre-date the U.S.-led attack on Iraq and that will long survive the restoration of Iraqi rule in Baghdad. The perpetration of major acts of anti-Western terrorism, therefore, is dependent on the capacity of the terrorists to act rather than the immediate result of any specific policy (such as the invasion of Iraq).
The downward trend in international terrorism since 9-11 indicates that the capacity of al-Qaida to strike against Western targets has been significantly diminished – and common-sense suggests this must be so for the following reasons:
The group's bases in Afghanistan have been destroyed and significant leaders have been killed or captured.
International intelligence agencies have been collaborating in a far more systematic way since 9-11. The positive effect that this can have was demonstrated at the time of the last Gulf War in 1991 when very few attacks on Western targets were successful. What attacks there were tended to be minor and on the periphery. That has been the case this time as well.
One major consequence of the Iraq war is that it has demonstrated to anyone who doubted that the current United States administration is not to be fooled with. This has had a salutary effect on all would-be state-sponsors of terrorism, and a severely degraded al-Qaida is now operating in a much less accommodating environment than was previously the case. No state wants to be found with an al-Qaida smoking gun in its hand.
Saudi Arabia, in particular, will have been frightened by the tone of last year's Rand Corporation report that stigmatized it as the "kernel of evil." The fact that the author of the report was subsequently released by Rand would not have diminished the impact of the report in Riyadh.
Likewise in Pakistan, President Musharraf is under no illusions as to what would happen if he were to go soft on al-Qaida. It is true that he is maintaining (even increasing) his support for Kashmiri militancy, but worrying though this is it remains a local issue.
Although the capacity of al-Qaida has been greatly reduced for the reasons given above, it could still strike at the periphery without too much trouble. But there are problems with this. The Bali bombing (committed by an affiliate organization) achieved little for the cause while producing widespread revulsion among Indonesia's moderate Muslims.
The huge success of the 9-11 attacks adds to the problem for al-Qaida. It would take something extraordinarily spectacular to top the impact of 9-11, whereas a thwarted attack or one that lacked the emotional significance of 9-11 would be seen as a failure.
The danger posed by non-state terrorism has always been the limitation of deterrence. States can be deterred, but groups of fanatics cannot be. However, they can be harried and hounded and spied upon – and their bases can be destroyed. Furthermore, mounting a major terrorist outrage is more difficult than it might at first sight be thought, and without the tacit support of rogue states, al-Qaida's task has become more difficult still.
This is not, for a moment, to say that there is no danger, but it explains the current quiescence and why less has been heard from al-Qaida in the present circumstances than some thought likely.
It goes almost without saying that there remain great dangers ahead, and the negatives include:
The Islamic world has an inexhaustible supply of grievances and therefore of potential recruits to the terrorist cause.
There are still many places where terrorist cells and networks can flourish – from the teeming cities of Indonesia, Pakistan, and even Europe to the remote places of South-East Asia, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa. The expatriate Arab communities as far afield as South America (in the tri-border area for instance and in Venezuela's Margarita island) provide funds and places of refuge.
Fanatics can now acquire the means to kill on an unprecedented scale.
The key to future security will be continuing international cooperation and relentless pressure on any states showing signs of renewed support for al-Qaida or similar groups. All the indications are that the Bush administration will continue to insist on the former and will not shy away from the latter (except possibly – and dangerously – in Pakistan). However, there is no such thing as an impregnable defense.
Readers of WorldNetDaily are eligible in April only for an exclusive promotional deal on new subscriptions to Courcy's Intelligence Review.
Trainer H. Graham Motion is not alone in his admiration for jockey Ramon Dominguez.
Motion, one of the nation's top young trainers, has won several big races in the past few years at Delaware Park with Dominguez aboard.
And therein lies the problem. The more Dominguez wins, the more other trainers want him for their horses.
As DelPark opens its 66th season of thoroughbred racing today, Dominguez will be riding for Motion and several other trainers at the Stanton track.
"I feel it's a big advantage to have Ramon on my horses. He is such an asset," Motion said.
Dominguez, a native of Venezuela, was leading the DelPark jockey standings last year with 104 wins before missing the last 3 1/2 months of the meet because of a broken wrist. He still finished fifth for the season and had purse earnings of $3,402,882.
After having surgery and going through intensive rehabilitation, Dominguez returned and has been one of the top riders in Maryland over the past five months.
"It's a shame what happened to him last year at Delaware," Motion said. "He was having a phenomenal year. He's a very good rider, but it is getting harder and harder to get him."
Dominguez, 26, said he is fit and ready to work harder than ever. With the retirement of Mike McCarthy, DelPark's leading rider six of the past seven years, Dominguez is the favorite to win his first jockey title at the track.
"I think some people assume it's a done deal that I'll be the leading rider at Delaware," said Dominguez, who rode 11 stakes winners at the track last year. "I think I have a very good chance, but it's not a sure thing. I never underestimate the competition.
Dominguez admitted he feared losing his edge after being injured.
"It was four months, and it was too long," he said. "My therapy after the surgery seemed to take longer than I expected. I was concerned at the time and hoping I would not lose too much business. You never know how horsemen are going to respond. If you don't get the mounts, you start to second-guess yourself.
"A lot of people in Maryland were supportive. I won with my first mount back at Laurel on Quick Punch. I was sure of myself again."
Mike Gill, the nation's leading thoroughbred owner, has used Dominguez on his horses and been impressed by his demeanor.
"For as good as he does, Ramon doesn't have an ego," said Gill, who has been barred from racing this year at DelPark. "I think he's the best in the Mid-Atlantic region. I'll still look to use him when I can. He's very approachable. I like this guy."
John Robb, a trainer for Gill in Maryland, said he also would like to use Dominguez more regularly.
"It gets so frustrating, and I wish I could get him to ride more for me," said Robb, who has been training for 30 years. "With such a big outfit, you would like to get the same riders. I'm loyal, and I want my riders to be loyal.
"Ramon is just doing what is best for his business. There are a lot of people out there who want him."
Dominguez has a strong family connection to horse racing, both thoroughbred and harness. His wife, Sharon, is an exercise rider for Motion at Fair Hill, Md. Bobby Wyatt, her father, is a harness trainer and owner from Harrington.
"I met my wife at Delaware Park when she was galloping horses," Dominguez said. "It's a great situation for us."
Dominguez said he wants to take advantage of any opportunities during the DelPark meet. That, he said, is why he doesn't limit himself to riding for a handful of trainers.
"I feel fortunate to ride for such good trainers like Graham Motion, but I really don't have a first call," Dominguez said. "I want to ride for a lot of trainers at Delaware Park."
The News Journal/JENNIFER CORBETT
Ramon Dominguez earned 104 wins before missing the last 3 1/2 months of last year's Delaware Park meet with of a broken wrist. He still finished fifth in the jockey standings and had purse earnings of $3,402,882.
LONDON: The OPEC oil cartel, having vowed to cut output but raise production quotas, has sent confusing signals to the oil market which is still wary of a glut of crude once Iraqi exports resume, analysts said on Friday. Members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries said on Thursday they would tighten the taps to the tune of two million barrels per day (bpd) to mop up excess crude on world markets after the Iraq war.
But, recognising that OPEC quotas are being flouted, the ministers meeting in Vienna also increased their official production ceiling by 900,000 bpd to bring it closer into line with reality. Both measures take effect on June 1. "What could have been a fairly straightforward announcement thoroughly confused people," said Bruce Evers, analyst at Investec Securities. "I think that's partly why the price has reacted the way that it has, because it smacks of smoke and mirrors."
Oil prices initially fell in response to the decision, but later recouped their losses. Reference Brent North Sea crude oil stood at $24.26 per barrel in late morning deals here, down four cents from the previous closing price.
Evers said that prices should remain fairly stable in the near term. "Underlying demand is a little bit fragile but it's a lot better than it was last year. You've got fairly low inventories and that's an important part of the jigsaw," he said. Although demand is expected to ease as winter thaws in the northern hemisphere, US oil stocks are low after a recent strike in Venezuela. Oil firms usually rely on spring to refill stocks.
But analysts said that although OPEC had probably done enough to stabilise the market in the short term, it could be storing up trouble for later in the year when oil from postwar Iraq hits world markets.
"In the near term, they probably have done sufficient to stabilise the market," said Paul Spedding, analyst at investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein. "I think the real problem for OPEC will come in the third quarter because there is a very high risk at that stage that Iraq will be exporting again and that means that the new quotas will have to be reduced to take Iraqi oil into account."
The ministers of 10 out of OPEC's 11 member countries indicated that they were ready to curb output again if needed, possibly as soon as at their June 11 meeting in Doha, Qatar.
Iraq has not been included in the OPEC quota system since UN sanctions were slapped on Baghdad in the wake of its 1990 invasion of Kuwait. But with the United States pushing for the sanctions to be scrapped, other OPEC members are hoping Iraq will re-enter the quota system. The last sustainable level of Iraqi production before the war had been about 1.5 million bpd, but the country was unlikely to regain such levels for several months, Evers said.
"Although the Americans talk of getting production back up and running any day, if one's sensible about it you're going to be looking at probably two to three months before getting back to a sustainable level of meaningful production," he said.