Clinton and Ashton: US-EU Girl Power Made Netanyahu Climb Down

The three "40+ breakthroughs"

• Hillary Clinton spent 40+ minutes on the telephone with Israeli PM Binjamin Netanyahu, making it perfectly clear that, this time, the Obama Administration would not accept "No" for an answer to its demands that Israel puts an end to its provocations.
• In a first show of which impact a united European stand can have on Washington's capacity to effectively change its policies in the Obama way, Catherine Ashton braved Israeli objections and visited Hamas-governed Gaza Strip on a 40+ hours' mission.
• Combined US and European action made the overconfident rightwing Netanyahu-Lieberman Government give in within another 40+ hours.

Israeli Government gives in and works at damage-control
This morning's Guardian brings a first evaluation: Israel's Binyamin Netanyahu in climbdown over US demands for peace.
The key issue of the clash between the US and Israel was the provocatively announced construction of 1.600 Jewish flats in the contested East Jerusalem area. The Guardian:

He [Netanyahu] did not announce, as the US had demanded, a freeze on the construction of Jewish homes in Ramat Shlomo, in East Jerusalem, the key point at issue.
But diplomats in Washington, Moscow and Jerusalem said Netanyahu had given a private promise that there will be a temporary freeze on any new construction. The work, while not cancelled, is to be postponed for several years.

Substantial negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are still far away. But this could be a turning point. The Guardian points out, that:

Obama and Clinton stand to gain from the Israeli retreat, which will heighten their reputation among the Palestinians and in the Arab world. Obama and Clinton were left looking weak after a similar stand-off with Israel last September when peace talks failed to get under way.

The EU as a whole is in an awkward position concerning the Middle East. They have big security interests at stake, much more important than those of the US.
During the G.W.Bush administrations, a divided Europe had to remain powerless at the side-lines, when its vital interests were put in danger by the 2003 Iraq invasion, by the Bush-supported killing of the remains of the Oslo arrangements, by the ill-inspired Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and, last but not least, the Cheney-handcrafted 2008 Georgian disaster (where Israeli "advisers" to the Georgian army played a key role).
A story of exacerbated European divisions
Most of the time, Europe was divided. In 2002/2003, divisions between the Blair-led UK and the other bigger EU powers France and Germany, were even exacerbated, as Blair harangued most fresh Eastern European EU-members and, to a still undisclosed measure, Balkenende's Holland, at the side of the US Neocon Iraq scheme. A lasting European rift was avoided, thanks to the stupidity of US post invasion policies in Iraq, that brought soon striking evidence of the underlying fraud and made it clear, how much the Iraq adventure was and is contrary to every possible European interest.
As part of the big powers' Oslo Quartet, the EU did not weigh much upon the steady dismantling of the two-state solution. As a "useful idiot", the EU furnished and still furnishes, the bulk of the international financial support to the Palestinian Authority, only to see its investments repeatedly destroyed by Israeli bombs (harbour, airport).
And Tony Blair again: As a Quartet appointed facilitator of negotiations in the region, what has he done?

During the 2006 Lebanon invasion, the EU found more of a common stand than before. It helped and helps, thanks to the wisdom of many Lebanese leaders, to maintain a shaky cease-fire at the Northern border of Israel. But proposals by the German Foreign Secretary Fischer, to extend the EU peace operation to areas of conflict between Israel and Palestine, fell on deaf ears.
Another result of the US failures, their pro-Likud stubbornness and their open contempt of the NATO allies, has been, now and then, a revival of outdated particular claims in the Middle East from former European colonizers and mandate-holders. France saw an opportunity, for instance, after the murder of Hariri in Lebanon, to reassert some of its former influence there, as the US hopelessly failed in understanding the particular dynamics of that multicultural society. That did not help to forge a common European stand, either.

Georgia: A turning point in retrospect
But Sarkozy's unique and rapid intervention (as he happened to be president of the EU in 2008) in the Georgian conflict, showed for the first time, that the EU can deal independently with its own interests in the wider region, if it acts quick and undivided.
While Cheney himself was desperately stoking conflict in defeated Tbilissi, France made for the EU an honorable compromise with Moscow that the Bush administration had to bow to.
This was exceptionally possible because of the halfheartedness of the US intrigue in Georgia.
For, in a general way, it is a hard fact, that the EU only can progress in its international security policy, if it is not going against the US and/or Russia's.
A united stand of the EU, even at this moment of the still fledgling Ashton mission, will also influence US and Russian positions, like it seems to me, that has happened now by way of the surprising Gaza initiative of the EU's Ashton.

Let us give the two-girls power a chance!

US embassy in Baghdad: We caused "expletives" in the State department and an order to remove the images from the Bechtel-Berger Website!

An AP press release, relayed by CNN today (June 1, 2007):

Web site offers too much detail on new U.S. Embassy

Story Highlights:

• Architectural firm posts detailed plans for U.S. Embassy being built in Baghdad
• State Department says images "detract" from security of new embassy
• Company says they were "conjectural" and you'd learn more from Google Earth
• Images were removed from Web site Thursday at State Department's request

But on this blog, they were published in full! (See yesterday's "Pharaonic US Embassy in Baghdad"). Here is one of them:

[Marine guards US Deputy Ambassador's villa in Baghdad. Computer drawing (design phase) from BTY website.]

We did not intend to do harm to US security. Really! Our post about the "Pharaonic US embassy in Baghdad" (29.5.07) was about its "hybris", its provocative grandeur and aloofness. Not about it's security provisions.
We deemed it a symbol of the new US "isolationism", an aggressive isolationism for export.

Just like the Project for an American Century of the NeoCons imagined it.

But, let us not exaggerate: Very few (too few!) people read "Legal Alien". Some more "At Home in Europe", and, practically nobody "huibslog", the very new comprehensive blog, I publish on another network than "blogger.com". It is difficult to imagine, that these marginal blogs caused such a "shock and awe" in the State Department...

Sudden nervous visiting from Washington on my blogs...
However... After publication of the drawings of the Kansas BTY Bureau in my blogs, I saw, on my monitoring site 'Motigo', some nervous visitors' movements from Washington and California on my 'blogger'-related websites. But not on "huibslog". I should work at my Technorati and Google ratings for that last blog...

In short, I think, that the main cause of the panic was the blog post by Tom Engelhardt, in the Tomdispatch Blog, a widely read anti-MSM publication, that also served as my link to the BTY drawings.

Tomdispatch blog did not publicize the images. Engelhardt only ridiculed them in a delicious way. I DID look them up and posted them here, with my comments and those of the BTY-Bechtel firm.

So, if I am not mistaken, this blog is now one of the few places in the world, where curious people (people who got curious because of the panicky Washington move), may see, copy and transfer those very dangerous images!

It was not at all my intention, to deliver blueprints for would-be attackers of the buildings! I am a peace-minded, anti-violence person. I loathe the Al Qaeda terrorists as much as I hate the racist protagonists of a "Clash Of Civilizations".

Much ado about nothing
In earnest: I do not think that the computer-generated drawings will learn anything new to evil people. That is also the opinion of US experts. (AP:)

Berger Devine Yaeger's parent company, the giant contractor Louis Berger Group, said the plans had been very preliminary and would not be of help to potential U.S. enemies.

"The actual information that was up there was purely conjectural and conceptual in nature," said Louis Berger spokesman Jeffrey Willis. "Google Earth could give you a better snapshot of what the site looks like on the ground."

But that is not the view of the secretive Washington administration of today:

"Expletives"

Some U.S. officials acknowledged that damage may have been done by the postings and used expletives to describe their personal reactions, but downplayed the overall risk posed.

In translation, that means, that self-imposed secretive rules have been broken by stupidity (hence the 'expletives'), but that, the 'officials' personally think, that it is much ado about nothing. Look:

"People are eventually going to figure out where all these places are, but you don't have to draw them a map," said one senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak about the embassy project.

The construction site in Baghdad is under heavy guard and treated with extreme secrecy. It is off-limits to all but those with special passes, surrounded by tall, concrete blast walls and impossible to see except from the air.

And, as if to refute this last statement AP and CNN publish this photo of the construction site:

If I am guilty of divulging US State secrets, then I am in excellent company!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Pharaonic US Embassy in Baghdad

The NeoCon-driven US imperial policy is building its pharaonic monuments, it's own Babel Tower, even before it can show any tangible positive result. I mean: a positive result measured at it's own designs. No cheap oil is flowing. No secure permanent military bases have been established. No way to intimidate Syria and Iran. No Iraqian oil money to pay for the astronomic costs (and wasted money) of the Iraq adventure, as promised by Paul Wolfowitz in 2003.

No better illustration of this, than the effort to build a Mesopotamian palace with tennis courts, swimming pools in the Baghdad Green Zone, under mortar fire, truck-bombs and failing supply of hamburgers by the Kowayt convoys that should arrive every week. That palace, cost: $592 millions, is to house "the largest embassy in the world". The Mother of All Embassies, so to say.

Tom Engelhardt, in the Tomdispatch Blog, writes about it in a superb style. Here is the beginning of his text:

Tomgram: The Mother Ship Lands in Iraq

The Colossus of Baghdad

Wonders of the Imperial World
By Tom Engelhardt

Of the seven wonders of the ancient Mediterranean world, including the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the Colossus of Rhodes, four were destroyed by earthquakes, two by fire. Only the Great Pyramid of Giza today remains.

We no longer know who built those fabled monuments to the grandiosity of kings, pharaohs, and gods; nowadays, at least, it's easier to identify the various wonders of our world with their architects. Maya Lin, for instance, spun the moving black marble Vietnam Memorial from her remarkable brain for the veterans of that war; Frank Gehry dreamt up his visionary titanium-covered museum in Bilbao, Spain, for the Guggenheim; and the architectural firm of BDY (Berger Devine Yaeger), previously responsible for the Sprint Corporation's world headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas; the Visitation Church in Kansas City, Missouri; and Harrah's Hotel and Casino in North Kansas City, Missouri, turns out to have designed the biggest wonder of all -- an embassy large enough to embody the Bush administration's vision of an American-reordered Middle East. We're talking, of course, about the still-uncompleted American embassy, the largest on the planet, being constructed on a 104-acre stretch of land in the heart of Baghdad's embattled Green Zone, now regularly under mortar fire. As Patrick Lenahan, Senior Architect and Project Manager at BDY, has put it (according to the firm's website): "We understand how to involve the client most effectively as we direct our resources to make our client's vision a reality."

And what a vision it was! What a reality it's turned out to be!

The Legal Alien wanted to know for himself, and went to the BDY website. We found a map of the construction area in Baghdad, along the river:

The (walled) area has the size of an urban district. The about a 1.000 strong staff (not counting family members to be housed in villas and apartment blocks on the site) and several 1.000s of other personnel (local staff, guards, maintenance) and protection (US army, American contractors). The building itself is done by kowaitian firms, employing cheap east-asian workers. It is not difficult to imagine, what the Baghdad man in the street feels about all that. Those feelings are probably stronger even, than they had against Saddam Hussein's frenetic palace-building. I suppose, that the New Orleans Katharina-victims, who are still waiting for reconstruction, will share those feelings.

The following images from the BDY Architects' website, need to be clicked on, to see them in full splendor:

1. An overview of the site.
2. residence of the Deputy Ambassador.
3. A Marine Guards an entrance.
4. Tennis- and Basketball facilities.
5. Apartments Building with palm garden.
6. Swimming Pool.

Accompanying text by BergerDevine+Yaeger Architects, Kansas, USA:

Baghdad US Embassy

Following successful completion of the preliminary concept plans and the full embassy master plan, Berger was commissioned to prepare the design-build “bridging documents” (based on 35% design) for construction of the self-contained embassy compound. Berger Devine Yaeger, Inc. (BDY) was the architect for this work. The construction (currently underway) is being executed in four concurrent packages. This self-contained compound will include the embassy itself, residences for the ambassador and staff, PX, commissary, cinema, retail and shopping, restaurants, schools, fire station and supporting facilities such as power generation, water purification system, telecommunications, and waste water treatment facilities. In total, the 104 acre compound will include over twenty buildings including one classified secure structure and housing for over 380 families.

In short: This construction was designed to symbolise the New American Century, the power of intimidation of the sole "superpower". It goes along with the huge US military command center "Camp Victory" that is housed, somewhat to the Nort-East of Baghdad, in a former Saddam palace, complete with zoo.

Imperial Isolationism?
During my whole life, from when I was a pupil in an Amsterdam high school, until the end of the century, when we criticised US policies, we were told that, perhaps we were right, but that it was dangerous to say it too loudly, for, otherwise, the US could return to "isolationism" - one of the causes of the European crises, leading to the Second World War, in the 20s and 30s.

The new European generation can no more be convinced of that: The US have, since 1990, and à fortiori, since 2001, already returned to an isolationism that is more agressive than 75 years ago. They are not only celebrating it at home. Now, they have also exported it.

A new phenomenon in history: An isolationist imperium!

Like Nietzschean "Übermenschen", unmoved by the feelings of others, even provokingly humiliating them, they offend allies, pretend to rob nations of their wealth in the name of some free-market principle.

No isolationism so dangerous as an exported isolationism...

Originally posted in A Legal Alien in New York

Wolfowitz: "Shaha told me that Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq occupation"

Wolfowitz and Riza (photo msn)

I am disappointed.

I had expected Wolfie to come up with a better justification for his wasting of public money on a pay rise for his 'long time companion' at the World Bank staff, than this:

"My girlfriend forced me to grant her that salary increase".
(Huffington Post, introducing a Washington Post comment, May 15, 2007).

How mean! How insipid! Even Bill Clinton, when blamed over Monica, never went as far, as to blame her for his break of ethics.

Remembering, how, as an assistant-defense minister in 2003, Paul Wolfowitz got the American Senate to accept another irresponsible spending of public money, saying that "Iraqi oil wealth would compensate largely" for the 31 billion dollars, the Pentagon was going to 'invest' (mostly via Halliburton's KBR and Bechtel) in Iraq, I expected an equally creative and original statement over this new unethical overspending issue.

Wolfowitz got a week extra to respond to the blame of the World Bank investigation commission over the exceptional pay rise he gave to his girlfriend Shaha Risa, when she had to leave the World Bank staff over the incompatibility of her function and her relationship to the newly appointed president.

He did not spend that week well. I suspect, he quarreled endlessly with Shaha, over the kitchen table. She can be terribly "intractable", when she is "extremely angry and upset".
(Quotes are from the 15 page written response by Wolfowitz to the WB investigation committee, as quoted by Peter S. Goodman in the Washington Post.)

Wolfie should have followed his own analysis of the reasons why the Bank's Ethics Committee did not want to deal with the harpy themselves: "It would only be human nature for them to want to steer clear of her." (Wolfowitz in his written response).

The bitch! She even scares to death a complete and very ethical consistory of bankers! Why, by all means, did you stay with her in such "a longtime relationship", Paul?

Maybe, Paul's famous 2003 Iraqi oil statement will provide a clue to that burning question. Few people know it, but I know for sure, that, basically, Paul D. Wolfowitz is a timid intellectual, absolutely unfit for a role within the jungle of dominating males that populate the Washington Administration and the Neocon cabals. Shaha, the untractable bitch, compensates for that otherwise potentially lethal handicap.

(Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in the Defense Secretary's office at the Pentagon, March 21, 2003, Photo D.H. Kennerly. [This is a placeholder for the copyrighted photo I will buy from that photographer, if it is not too expensive...] It illustrates perfectly the the relation between the two men. Wolfie arrives with a problem, gesticulating. Rummy, annoyed, stands up and starts arguing, dominating the scene with hard words words and broad gestures. It will take the genius of BagNews Notes to interpret the scene correctly. Note the little statue of Theodore Roosevelt in the corner. Th. Roosevelt was, during the first years of the XXst century, the first American president who extended the Monroe Doctrine to other parts of the world, colonizing the Philippines, for instance.)

When Donald Rumsfeld, his boss at the Pentagon (photo) had, once again, verbally abused his egghead assistant, urging him to speak plainly and strongly and not giving lectures, but to be quotable and soundbiting, a subdued Paul went home to his Washington suburb house, wanting to quit altogether and go fishing.

This is where Shaha comes in. She is indeed an intractable housewife, never doing the shopping for the household herself (that would be a "career break"). So, she started sending quivering Wolfie to the local supermarket to buy dinner.

It was at one of those many occasions of hubby been sent shopping, that a writer for the Dutch left-leaning weekly "De Groene Amsterdammer" met him and got charmed by Wolfowitz' helpless intellectual behavior. (Article, in Dutch, by the Washington correspondent of the weekly, May 2003).

Apparently longing to "stay clear" for a moment, from the company of dominating males and females, Paul D. had a little chat over coffee with this intelligent young man and was happy to make a show of his vast intellectual luggage, suggesting at the same time, how open he is to discussion with people from different intellectual and cultural horizons.

Wolfowitz' mood thus being restored, he could live up to go and see Shaha again. He told her his nightmare of having to meet with the Senate committee over the 31 billion dollars for Iraq (correction: for the Pentagon and its contractors). And how Donald Rumsfeld had offended him.

Shaha, probably entering once again into a fit of "extreme anger", then must have lectured Wolfowitz as follows: "I am the Middle East expert of the World Bank!", she cried, "I know everything about oil. For that is what the Middle East is about! Donnie Rumsfeld is right. Do like him! He told those sissy European diplomats the difference between 'old' and 'new' Europe. A truth, so embarrassing, that nobody dared to discuss it. That is how he got away with liquidating NATO. You, you try to get your way all the time by being nice, by trying to convince people. Sometimes, you have to be a nuisance, you have to offend, to shock, telling them the untold truth!"

"But, Shahi-dear," replied Wolfowitz, "we have been told by Cheney, that we should strictly avoid to use the word 'oil' in relation to the occupation of Iraq. If, ever, we are in a situation that we cannot avoid the o-word, we should say that we are talking about the protection of the property of the Iraqi people...".

- He couldn't finish his explanation, as Shaha Risa interrupted him: "And that is exactly what you are going to say, dumbhead! Tell the Senate, that the Iraqis are going to pay themselves for our occupation of their country. I am a banker. I can tell you that it is a clear-cut win-win situation. Your 31 billion will flow back into the American economy through the extra profits our oil companies are going to make on Iraqi oil."

"You know, there are many things they know,and also a lot that they know they do not know. There are even more that they do not know they do not know. But the most effective for you in keeping them quiet, are the things they know well, but do not dare to say! "

And she added: "Just as nobody is going to expect you to mention the embarrassing oil side of the question, nobody will dare to follow you on that tricky field. You'll have your famous quote. I give you a soundbite (this time, exceptionally, for free) that will ashame even Donnie. - And now, Paulie, do the dishes. You're interrupting my career."

And this is why I believe, that, when, some time soon, an investigating committee into the ethics of misleading the American people, Congress and the world, over the Iraq occupation, will grill Mr. Wolfowitz, he will again excuse himself, saying:

"It was Shaha who told me that Iraqi oil would pay for the Iraq occupation!"

Bush Terminator: How many Friends Eliminated?

This post originally appeared in "Legal Alien in New York". It may be interesting to our European friends, too.

Bush consulting angrily with officials (November 2006), while signing a law that protects his Guantanamo and torture politics. (BagNews)

The extremely good blog by Tony Karon: Rootless Cosmopolitan, publishes on May 2, "The Blind Spot in Israel's War Probe". What is the blind spot? It is the US intervention into Israeli politics and warfare during the Summer War of 2006 against Lebanon. The first part of the official report of an Israeli government-appointed commission about that war was published some days ago. It deals with the first five days of that catastrophic event. Calls for Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to step down are as yet unheeded, but a Tsipi Livni ultimatum (today, May 3) will probably do the job.
Olmert with his Patron...

How many foreign Friends of the Bush administration's casualties will add up, before there will be put an end to it? Olmert will for sure have to step down. He will neither be the first-, nor the last one of the leading politicians of a number of countries who'll have to pay a heavy penalty for their trust in Bush.
Blair with Balkenende, April 2007: Both will have to step down, sooner or later, because of their alliances with Bush.

Tony Blair, the British prime minister, will be the next one after Olmert. He announced that he will fix a date for his abandonment of power in Great-Britain one of the next days.
Former victims of loyalty to Bush were Spanish prime minister Aznar and Italian prime minister Berlusconi.
José Aznar, staunch supporter of Bush. Was ousted as PM in Spain in 2004, after lying about the background of the 11/3 terrorist murders in Madrid. Is now a featured speaker of the Washington Speakers Bureau.
Silvio Berlusconi, Italian Prime Minister. Was outraged as he was NOT invited to the Madeira conference in March 2003. A top secret agent of the Italian SS was killed by American soldiers in 2005. His distancing from the US afterwards did not help him: He lost the 2005 elections to Prodi, who retired all Italian military from Iraq.

A holocaust of falling heads of government accompanies the sunset of the Bush administration. Ironically, while Bush started his tenure with the objective "to take out Saddam", his list of persons taken out is populated mostly by his friends. In the US, we should mention Powell and Rumsfeld, Tenet and Harriet Miers. Although the latter never had a chance. John Bolton had to be added to the list a year later.
Tenet, former CIA director, who took his distance from Bush and Cheney recently, writing a book.
My favored portrait of Miers and Bush, announcing her candidature for the Court. Bush, just after his election for a second term, was confident, that he could do anything he wanted. Poor Miers was his first victim then.
Bolton - another victim of Bush' hubris. We are waiting for HIS version of what happened. His neocon friends at the Weekly Standard already let Bush' handling of Iraq and the Middle East down. What is he going to say for himself?

In Iraq itself, Allawi was abandoned, as well as that great friend of the neocons, who was to be president of the new Iraq, Achmad Chalabi, of whom we did not hear much, these times.
Allawi with friends, 2004, in the provisional authority of Iraq, at the signature of the new Iraqi Constitution ceremony.
Achmad Chalabi, master intriguer, who, as an Iranian agent, bedeviled all NeoCons in Washington. Was to become the first president of American Iraq, but ousted, when the Pentagon, who paid for his non-existent movement, discovered the truth in April 2003. Was offered a prominent seat behind president Bush when he gave his State of the Union in January 2004. His ties to the Mollahs were discovered, and, spring 2004, his offices raided by American troops. At this moment, he is biding his time, somewhere behind the screen of Grand Mollah Sistani.

Who will be the next on the list?
Mr. Balkenende, Dutch prime minister since 2002, is a fair candidate. A parliamentary commission will soon be created to research into his stubborn refusal to reveal the "personal", "for your eyes only" letter that he says, Tony Blair sent him in 2003, to make him join the Iraq coalition.
Balkenende with Dutch military in Afghanistan, 2006.

And what about the Polish twins? Poland set high hopes on its substantial contribution to the Iraq occupation. It was bitterly disappointed to discover, that all interesting contracts went to US firms. The former government was busy to reduce their implication to zero. The new, ultraconservative government resulting from the last elections froze that. Polish public opinion is vehemently opposed to the Iraq adventure. Will they stumble also over their alliance with Bush?

The twin Polish president and PM - next victims?

We may have missed some victims of Bush' mess. But it is an impressing list as it is.
Mr. Caligula will normally stay in power until 2009. We have space to make additions to our list...

The Valerie Plame Affair endangers Europe

Starting with "An 21st Century Caligula..." on November 2, 2005, on the Legal Alien in New York blog, I followed the deployment of the 2003 Valerie Plame affair closely.
In my opinion, the primary target of the White House smearing campaign was not, as commonly thought, Plame's husband Wilson, but the liquidation of the CIA front store in Istanbul, led by Plame.
The CIA-Agency involved, was a branch of a CIA-created American firm. Its Istanbul bureau monitored Middle East nuclear efforts. That includes: Turkey, Israel, Syria and Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. And, maybe, Saudi-Arabia and the Gulf States, as well as Egypt.

It is more than probable, that the Plame-Agency produced embarrassing information about Iraq: No nuclear program there, confirming the El-Baradei assessments. But the main embarrassment came from reports about Turkish-Israeli nuclear collaboration, that Cheney did not want to disturb, while the Iranian efforts to obtain a nuclear capacity should not, at that moment be too much published, for that would undermine the reasoning for an attack on Iraq.

Cheney saw a CIA conspiration against his designs. So, when Plame-spouse Wilson, former US ambassador to Iraq and presented as a hero in 1990, when Saddam Hussein took Western nationals as hostages, went public with a denial of Saddam's supposed deal with the Central African Republic for yellowcake, in June 2003, Cheney reacted as if the CIA were using the same methods as he does: His marginal remarks on the Wilson Op-Ed in the New York Times, revealed at the Libby trial, show a hysteric and revengeful psychopath, cought in his own intrigues.

Meanwhile, the CIA has been more or less dismantled. I have no reason to deplore that. The Agency was during 50 years across my way, in Holland and in Europe. But it's liquidation means also more freedom for the Bush cabal to manipulate information from abroad so as to lure the US into extremely dangerous adventures.

Juan Cole, the indefatigable Middle East Professor from the University of Michigan, daily blogger about Iraq and the Middle East region, produced Saturday an analysis, concise and clear, about the Plame affair. I left out the paragraphs about the details of the US juridical system. The main message is evident: The affair is not about an error of judgment, but it is about high treason. The US have been unnecessarily endangered by the Cheney intrigue. In my view, it is not by chance, that, in June 2003, Cheney obtained the (hitherto) presidential privilege of being allowed to mention undercover US agents.

Juan Cole:

Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy: the Plame Affair

Valerie Plame Wilson, whose career Karl Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney wanted destroyed in a fit of pique, was finally allowed to testify before Congress on Friday.
Some in the blogosphere are arguing that the outing of Plame Wilson was an impeachable offense. Defenders of Rove and Cheney say that if they did not know that Valerie Plame Wilson was an undercover operative, then they did not break the law by trying to out her.
[..]
Moreover, they did know that Plame Wilson was involved in counter-proliferation efforts, including against Iran. By leaking her name with the intent that journalists such as Judy Miller publish it, they were conveying information about a CIA operation to Iran. That is high treason, even if they did not know she was covert. All they had to know is that she was trying to impede Iran's nuclear program, and that the Iranians did not know that that was what she was doing. You can't make her public without also letting the Iranians know.
[..]
It aided and comforted Iran to know that Valerie Plame Wilson and her dummy CIA corporation, Brewster Jennings & Associates, had been engaged in counter-proliferation efforts against it. Bush put Iran in the Axis of Evil, thus declaring it an enemy of the US.
Therefore, Rove and Cheney (and maybe Bush himself) gave aid and comfort to an enemy of these United States by a deliberate act of outing a CIA operative who was not known to Iran and whose cover and activities had not been.
That's treason. That warrants impeachment.

With an internally divided and short Democrat majority in Congress, an impeachment of the Vice-President, and the more so of the President, is not soon to be expected.
As a two-thirds majority in the Senate is necessary, this option is still far away.

The European Union, endangered by the liquidation of the CIA anti-proliferation outpost in Istanbul, should act on its own now. The nuclear configuration of the Middle East, with Israel at it's core, should be monitored daily, for it is on Europe's doorstep. US adventurism, launching Israeli (and Turkish?) nuclear strikes against Iran, would provoke a nuclear response against Europe, the South-East (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Turkey) in the first place.
Where is our plan?

Afghanistan: Italy and Spain agree to abstain

The US, and the UK via NATO, are urging European countries to join the hopeless anti-guerrilla struggle in (Southern) Afghanistan. Two relatively big European powers, Italy and Spain, decided recently not to join in. Certainly one of the reasons, why the Blair Government, days after their announcement of the Iraq troop reduction, felt obliged to increase their number of military in Afghanistan.

In the European press, remarkably few attention has been paid to the Latin 'defection'. If any, there was some muttering about circumstantial causes:

• Change of government majorities since the 2003 Iraq intervention,
• Hostage taking of Italian and Spanish nationals (see Reppublica: Afghanistan: d'Alema, Situazione Confusa Serve Cautela Su Mastrogiacomo)
• Sneers about Latin opportunism and cowardice.

Such is not our view.
Both governments witness responsibility, diplomatic finesse and realistic assessment.
The Italians, for instance, are not afraid to take the lead in the UN Southern Lebanon dissuasion force. They rightly think, that that investment has a real impact upon a vital interest for Europe and that it has some chances to succeed. Spain, the home country of EU foreign Commissioner Solana, apparently has adopted a more EU-oriented international security policy, which is not made into an issue by its ferociously antisocialist opposition.

In the actual Afghanistan, the conditions are not open to a productive intervention by European states. What started as a popular uprising against a foreign oppressor, is being taken over by Pakistan-based 'Talibans'. That struggle cannot be won, either by terror (the American-British-Australian way), nor by appeasing (the Dutch way in Uruzgan).

The British and Dutch governments should sit down and listen to their European partners. A common European security policy is more needed than ever.

And If an Iranian Nuclear Bomb Were Good for Peace?

Unstoppable proliferation
Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers: Russia, Turkey (through NATO warranties and through the special arrangements that were made during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961), Israel, Saudi-Arabia (which country is, in all probability, co-proprietor of the Pakistani bomb) and Pakistan. On top of all that, the US fleet in the Gulf is stuffed with nuclear arms.

The USA and its Western allies, having tolerated, if not supported, an

• Israeli development of a considerable nuclear capacity since the sixties,
• it's transfer to Apartheid South Africa in the seventies,
• the Indian bomb,
• the Pakistani bomb, and
• just some weeks ago, tacitly accepted the North-Korean capacity of building nuclear weapons, -

why do they make such a fuzz about the coming-out of a new small nuclear power?

Owning the Bomb works two ways: it generates arrogance and stabilisation of rogue regimes AND it learns them, paradoxically, to behave...
As we saw above, Iran is far from being the first country to introduce non-great power owned nuclear arms in the region. And it is not the first one, either, to threaten Israel with a nuclear response, if it uses its nuclear capacity against it or its allies. In 1973, the Soviet Union, when Israel considered nuking Egypt (Cairo), put its nuclear missiles in the Caucasus on alert and let that be known. The appeasing mechanism of mutual destruction risk, main element of the Cold War Years did its work then, too: No nuclear arms were used and a truce, later peace, was concluded between Israel and Egypt.

If it were true, that the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the ending of a bipolar world, would have made any proliferation (further proliferation) of nuclear capacities, suddenly extremely dangerous, why then, have the US and their nuclear armed allies not profited from the window of opportunity that existed during the Nineties, to implement the treaties and arrangements that existed at that time, to impose nuclear disarmament on the world, beginning with the existing nuclear powers? It was not impossible, as has been shown by the successful, UN controlled, nuclear disarmament of post-apartheid South Africa, the Ukraine and possibly other post-Soviet countries. (Libya is another case: it is essentially a security deal between the existing regime and the Americans, piloted by the UK, bypassing French, Italian and Russian ambitions in that region.)

The only answer to that, I am able to imagine, is, that nuclear armament has become, under certain conditions, a vector of stability and security, and, even, a condition for peace.

A Chirac "lapse" (?)
Some weeks ago, I found a confirmation of that, at first view, paradoxical proposition. It was here, in At Home In Europe (Week 5: Chirac on Iran, etc.), that I mentioned the "gaffe" of French president Chirac. The old fox, talking with American and British press, said that a limited number of Iranian nuclear arms, would do not much harm, but that it would, on the contrary force Iran into a more responsible policy. The day after, he made 'amende honorable' and slipped hastily back into the ranks of the Western diplomatic orchestra that puts (with some dissonances) maximum pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear program. But it had been said. It is an expression of European uneasiness with the US brinkmanship in the Near East. Maybe, it was not a "gaffe" at all, but a voluntary statement of difference, intended to stay alive during one day only, for a small nuclear power like France cannot allow itself to appear dissociated from mainstream "international community" diplomatic opinion.

Which, if I am right, would draw attention another confirmation of the chiraquian proposition, i.e.: that even an established nuclear power like France, can only tell the naked truth about nuclear policy in a way, that the Germans would call "klammheimlich".

Before and after the collapse of the Soviet Union: the same rules apply?
And, considering the question from the experiences out of the Cold War era: Why should not a more complex and layered system of guaranteed mutual destruction, as it has come up after the Cold War, work out in the same way as the bipolar one has done from 1945 to 1990?

Apparently, it does!
- We mentioned the Israeli-Egyptian peace of 1979.
- We could also mention the consequences of the nearly contemporaneous accession of India and Pakistan to nuclear armament: Both countries are working out serious deals now on their eternal differences (Kashmir), have already a series of smaller détente measures in place for traffic and commerce, and are working out a major strategic deal about a gas and oil pipeline from Iran to India, running through Pakistan. Some years ago, this was unthinkable.
- Between Turkey and Israel, two potential foes, it is about a certainty, that (secret) nuclear deals grease the harmonious military and economic (and strategic: water!) relations that exist between them.
- We could continue: Nixon's travel to China (1972), Russian-Chinese peace after having warred over the Amour region, etc.

It is absolutely not my personal preference for the world, this nuclear mutual deterrent system, but it works. Undeniably. I am even nearly convinced, that, if Saddam Hussein really had possessed the nuclear capacities that the US and the UK ascribed to him, the actual invasion of that country would not have taken place. But about Iraq, later.

Mr. Chirac, probably, spoke out of his own experience as leader of a minor nuclear power, when he mentioned the appeasing effects the possession of this kind of armament by a given country, has on its behaviour in international policy.

Daring to think the logics of multi-layered proliferation
Anyhow, having missed the opportunity in the beginning of the nineties, I see no way to halt a further proliferation of nuclear armament to a number of countries. We have to live with that, and dare to think of how it works and how to deal with that.

That is how we arrive at North Korea. Part of the famous "axis of evil" (Bush, State of the Union, 2002). Like Libya, the North-Korean regime intends to make a deal with the US, in order to guarantee its security and the continuation of its despicable system. Nuclear armament is the only asset it sees, to force the US into such a deal. That worked more or less fine during the Clinton era. A deal, acceptable to South Korea, Japan and China, was in the works. With the coming of George W. Bush, all that changed radically. Why?

I see two reasons for that.

1. The Star Wars Illusion in 2001
The first has to do with star wars, the idea (illusion?) that the US could escape the constraints put upon a 'normal' nuclear power, protecting themselves against nuclear attack with an interception shield (missiles that kill incoming warheads at sufficient distance from the US (mainland). In a deal with the former Soviet Union, the development of this kind of systems had been forbidden at the end of the Reagan era. But Bush revived this effort, and could do so, as the Soviet Union did no more exist, and Russia was not interested at that time, to keep up the deal (got probably something in return for abandoning its opposition). Installation of that "shield", would (will?) indeed allow the president of the US to use nuclear arms, without the possibility of retaliation.

• (At least, not on the US mainland - The risk for allies located elsewhere, would substantially grow: A nuked Iran, not being able to reach the US, could, for instance, retaliate in stead in Israel, like Saddam Hussein symbolically did in 1991 with his Scuds. The adventurous British, Dutch, Polish, Danish, etc. policies like we have seen them in Iraq, could even endanger the whole European Union, in such a case, the American shield being unable to protect them, even if they have missiles in Lithuania and Poland. In the last case, a retaliation on Europe becomes even more likely!)

The existence of the "shield" would have allowed the US to forbid whomever they wanted to have nuclear arms, and thus policing the world without fear for retaliation: The illusion of the 'American Century' manifesto of the neoconservatives (1997). The first months of the Bush presidency (2001) were nearly exclusively dedicated to the development of this main geopolitical revolution in the making. Many witnesses confirm this, in relation to the lax treatment of the Al Qaeda warnings. Terrorism was not an issue. The Shield would change everything.

In retrospective, Bush acted in January 2002, as if he had already such a shield ready for use. This was to become one of his major errors: He did not intimidate Iran and North Korea. On the contrary: North Korea broke the Clinton-deal and rushed to make its own weapons. It was only in 2002, that Iran seriously started to create the conditions for producing nuclear armament of his own. Other countries may also have accelerated their efforts to become nuclear powers because of this new US policy.

CONCLUSION: The first reason for the US abandoning the use of balancing the nuclear terror of mutual destruction between regional nuclear powers, was, if I am right, the illusion of being (soon) protected against (nuclear) retaliation, abandoning at the same time its allies to greater risks of becoming victims of that. The US would go it alone. What they did. Ask the NATO allies who offered a broad coalition after 9/11, and were harshly rebutted.

2. Underestimating China and other not-so-second-rate nuclear powers
The second reason is to be found in China. A first warning came even before 9/11. An American spy plane was forced to land on Chinese soil (the island of Hainan, facing the Vietnamese coast). All its installations were practically intact. First efforts to intimidate the Chinese at returning plane and crew, proved useless. Bush had to accept the Chinese conditions and to acknowledge, that Chinese technological progress, backed by a nuclear capacity, was something to reckon with. But not all consequences of that were thought out in Washington. Especially concerning North Korea. Apparently nobody in Washington got the idea, that North Korean nuclear armament possibly was not as much directed against the USA as against their big Chinese neighbour. So, during six years, the US continued to do the 'dirty work' of protecting China against an independence-loving neighbour and helping its ambitions for regional domination, menacing North Korea, isolating and starving it.
Very recently, the State Department announced a sudden turnabout in the relations with an -in the mean time nuclearily armed- North Korea. Everything is going to be smooth. (If Mr. Cheney will not ultimately have his way.) A possible reason for this may be the successful interception operation China executed recently of an intercontinental ballistic missile. Shit! The US, if they will ever have their shield, they will not be the only ones to have it. The Chinese too... Which means, that it is of still more importance to the US than before, to dispose of a - be it a small one - nuclear power on China's doorstep! (North-) Korean warheads will be able to reach Beijing (at some hundreds of kilometers from the Jalu River), where American intercontinental missiles will fail.

CONCLUSION: The second explanation for the unreasonable Bush politics on local nuclear balances might be their underestimation of the capacities of other nuclear powers. This seems to have been repaired in the North-Korean case.

IRAN
Will such a turnabout also occur in the Iranian question? Difficult to say.
There are reasons enough for it. A nuclear Iran would help to reign in exaggerated Russian ambitions in the Caucasus and in Central Asia. It would feel free of the risk of Israeli operations like the 1981 one on the nuclear reactor in Baghdad, and thus become more open to the necessary Middle East overall peace deal as proposed by the Arab countries. To the east of Iran, in Afghanistan, hidden (or uncontrolled) Pakistani help to Sunni extremists suppressing the large Shiite minority in that country, would be discouraged, and, more in general, one of the main aims of NATO intervention in that country (curbing Pakistan-supported talibanwise tribal criminality) would come nearer, without having to loose another war against local insurgents.

Against it? Yes: Iran would control the Straits of Hormuz completely. A danger to oil supply? I think that this capacity does not alter much to the existing situation. The interest of Iran with ongoing oil export is much bigger than it could gain by blocking half of Saudi-, all of Kuwaiti-, 60% of its own- and 70% of Iraqi oil exports. And, yes, the execrable Mullahs' regime would stabilise itself somewhat more. In the beginning. But as much as the external enemies will decline in number and in risk, the strong democratic and liberal tendency among the Iranian people will have more chances to gain the upper hand against the theocracy.

Finally: IRAQ
The only real victim of an Iranian accession to nuclear armament, would be: IRAQ.
The centuries-old rivalry between Arabs, Kurds and Persians would get unbalanced in favour of the last ones. Only twenty years ago, Iraq, under Saddam Hussein (with American help, it is true), was a virtual victor over Iran in the horrible war both countries fought then against each other. The balance of power between the two countries would become nonexistent. That balance is one of the pivotal givens of regional stability. Bush' father still understood that well, when he decided in 1991, to keep Iraq alive, within its historical borders, taking advice from the Saudis. Son has tried to do it his way, with the consequences we see at this moment. Even without nuclear arms, Iran is more and more setting its law in Baghdad. With nuclear arms, this tendency will only be stronger.

The only solution to this, is a very ironical one: Let the Americans help the Iraqis to build a limited nuclear capacity of their own, thus doing the work, Saddam Hussein was prevented to do, and what, not having succeeded, but nevertheless accused of, was reason for murdering him.
It would be a monumental good-bye present by the US to suffering Iraq! (And it would not cost any more American life there...)

But, theoretical as my reasoning may be, and, however much I wish all nuclear armament to disappear from the earth, I believe that, geopolitically, given the unstoppable proliferation, my idea is sound. History goes from one unimaginable irony to another. It is unpredictable.

Which should not stop us thinking.

(This text is the third version of a commentary I published in German to a blogpost by BigBerta on Iran and the war that prepares itself against it [in DE] on February 25, 2007. In spite of what commonly happens, the text was not lost in the subsequent translations and rearrangements: The second German version in In Europa Zu Hause (2.25.07) is more balanced than the first, while the French version in L'Europe Chez Soi and in Toto Le Psycho (cross posted) of the same date, is better still. This English version here, of February 27 (also to be published in Legal Alien in New York), pleases me most. A Dutch version (upcoming), in In Europa Thuis) will, hopefully, crown this unusual excursion of mine into nuclear geopolitics.)

Week 5: Chrac on Iran; French internal presidential struggle; Europe and the Near East.

Chirac and the Iran Bomb
The best commentary I have seen on the incident around French president Chirac's declaration on Iran, is in @foe (A Fistful of Euros) by Alex Harrowell: Chirac has a transient dishonesty malfunction (4.2.07). The title is more cynical than the content is.
Basically, the author says, Chirac was right in what he said first, i.e., that Iran, having one or two bombs, wouldn't be a disaster:

"This is a pretty basic statement of nuclear deterrence, with the further point that in a sense, having one or two nuclear bombs makes you weaker than having zero nuclear bombs but the capacity to make them. Once you fire the one bomb, you have no further deterrent, and you’re definitely going to be nuked."

For, as he says, The US, Israel, but also France, Britain and Russia have the capability to retaliate. And do not forget Pakistan and India. He also mentions Jordan, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia as countries who have perhaps already nuclear capabilities, or who should be able to have them within short notice. Especially S.-Arabia, that, probably, financed the Pakistani bomb, could buy it (or, already have bought it) instantly.

It is strange however, that he forgets Turkey. One cannot suppose, that the Turks, surrounded in the West, the North and the South (Israel) by nuclear powers, and seeing them coming up in the East, should not have thought at obtaining an independent nuclear deterrent for themselves. It is more than possible, that the CIA frontstore in Istanbul, manned by the team of Valerie Plame, was observing those efforts and their possible collusion with Israel. It makes the 2003 denunciation of Plame by Cheney & Co. all the more suspect.

Was it part of the French presidential candidates' dance around the poll position?
Remains the enigma, if it was the old fox Chirac, who staged a short incident in order to see what happened and at the same time stress, for a moment, the independent French thinking, or, if it is senility that has overtaken the outgoing president?

The Financial Times, echoing US analysing, opts for the "senility" explanation. It goes as far as to discuss the legal (constitutional) possibilities of declaring the French president "inapt" and to be replaced by the French Senate president. But it also admits that it might have been a moment of undiplomatic "honesty":

Yet most experts said Mr Chirac’s gaffe sounded less like a mental aberration and more like an unguarded moment of honesty. “Jacques Chirac said what many experts in the world are saying, even in the US,” said Hubert Védrine, former Socialist foreign minister.

“He sounded like a man who knows it is almost over for him and was saying what he really thinks,” said Patrick Moreau Defarges, analyst at the French institute of foreign relations.

The worry for some analysts is whether Mr Chirac’s new free-speaking style will do more damage to France’s diplomatic relations in the short time left before his expected departure from office. “These were very irresponsible comments for a head of state to make,” said Mr Moreau Defarges.

But I bet on my first supposition. Chirac is subtly undermining his rival Sarkozy's position. He did so, with the apparently staged homeless manifestations at Christmas and his subsequent order to give them housing. That was a defeat for Sarkozy. Diverging so manifestly from the US-imposed policy regarding Iran, is another blow to Sarko, who suggests regularly a more "Atlantic" approach in international policy. On both issues, Chirac can be sure, to have the French public opinion at his side.

If I am right, one may expect a third intrigue from the old fox against Sarkozy on the economic field, where he could force the latter, as a member of the government until the end of March, to execute some symbolic anti-market measure.

And the French Socialists and their candidate Ségolène Royal? - They are nowhere, at this moment. They had no reply on the homeless issue and still less on the Iran bomb question.

Europe, Israel and the Bomb.
We should also link this to the Herzliya conference held recently in that Israeli bathing resort. There, a subtly composed mix of neoconservatives and mainstream US politicians have been brainwashed over the Iranian Bomb and its' dangers for Israel. There was no effort, as far as I have seen, to imply a significant European audience into this conference. An appeasing German, British or French intervention has been avoided. All seems to be set, to obtain a maximum US belligerence in face of Iran. Nonetheless, an Iranian nuclear capacity regards directly Europe and the Russians. Much more directly than the Americans.
In my opinion, this is a costly error, seen from the Israeli point of view. Europe and most of the rest of the world, will not accept another Iraq-like scenario. I am even sure, that the orthodox conservative mainstream US community is more and more against this eventuality. Israel should, in my view, accept, that it has to compose with its neighbours in order to safeguard its existence, and not rely on its nuclear blackmailing capabilities.

Could it be, that Chirac, who thinks that he might have found a restoration of French influence in the Near East through the shift of power in Lebanon and the (outgoing) French commandment of the UN troops in South Lebanon, was vexed, that he was not heard in Herzliya?

The growing European weight upon the Near and Middle East, caused by the American-British failure in Iraq and the dissociation of Turkey from the US policies, as well as the Afghan morass, doesn't express itself diplomatically, commonly and promptly. That is why, I think, an incident like this, ridiculous at first view, could produce itself.

On of the stumblings that will unheroically, but inevitably, lead to a common EU foreign policy.

Dutch torture in Iraq: New developments confirm it.

The Dutch prominent daily "NRC" today confirmed that Dutch army security agents tortured Iraqi detainees in 2003.
The paper obtained documents from the The Hague Defense Ministry (under a Law for Government Transparency, the "Wet Openbaarheid Bestuur" or "WOB") that tell a part of the story that was left out of the comments of Dutch Government in November, when the scandal broke.
The Dutch Marine Batallion that controlled the southern Al-Muthanna Province during eighteen months in 2003/2004 had a particular status. It was not part of the occupying powers (the "Coalition"). It had to restore and maintain law and order in the province under British supervision. Eventual detainees had to be handed over to Iraqi authorities (common criminals) or to the British army with headquarters in Basra (insurgents, Baath people, intruders from other countries).
The Dutch miltary Intelligence "MIVD" ("Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheids Dienst") people were also subject to those rules. In spite of that, they set up their own headquarters in the "Coalition" post in the provincial capital, where they "interviewed" detainees for some days, between their capture and their transfer to the British military in Basra.
When the Dutch commander was alerted about the "robust" methods of interrogation being used by the MIVD, he asked expanations, which he got.:

• Waterboarding of detainees was explained in that report as "the need to keep the detainee awaked" during nocturnal interrogations,
  
• while the use of deafening sound was justified by the need of avoiding communication between detainees.
  
• The use of darkened ski-goggles on detainees (as blindfolds) was needed to avoid identification by them of their interrogators.

The man accepted this, until he got another report from his liaison officer in Basra, saying that the MIVD had explained to the British, that the mentioned interrogation "techniques" had been used as a means of coercion. That was not only in contravention to the Dutch rules of engagement, but also of the Geneva Conventions.
The commander alerted the General Staff in The Hague. An inquiry was ordered by the Minister to be done by the Military Police.

And, after that, NOTHING. The stories differ. The Minister (still in office as caretaker after the general elections lost by his party, and the fall of the Balkenende III government), says that he got no further information and assumed, that a conclusion had been reached that there had not been any reprehensible conduct. The (former) Commander in Chief says that Military Justice did not see a reason to act in this case, while the Chief of the MP thinks, that the report wasn't even transmitted to Military Justice.

Our opinion is, that this is not merely a sad story of overzealous intelligence people.
It shows a state of mind that points to:

1. Contamination by the Guantanamo methods, transmitted by the American Commander of that camp to Iraq during his 2003 mission;
2. an undisciplinary attitude of the intelligence agents
3. their probable coverage by elements within the armed forces and, perhaps, the minister himself;
4. and, as their exactions remained unpunished, a probable continuation of those practices in Afghanistan during the Dutch "commando" support to the American campaign "Enduring Freedom", and:
5. a documented follow-up of these doings during the Dutch "reconstruction" mission in Afghanistan (Tarin Kowt, Uruzgan), where they effectively terrorize the populations, thus making any effort by the regular Dutch troops to do some peaceful reconstruction work, ineffective and impracticable.

My supposition is, that the actual General Staff provoked the "leak" about Iraq, in order to get rid of these undisciplined contingents in Afghanistan, and, probably, at the same time, of the Minister, who condoned tacitly this devious practice, in order to please the US, without hurting the Dutch Parliament, that had insisted on a peaceful mission, completely separate from the "Enduring Freedom" campaign.

The cunning Government Minister, Mr. Henk Kamp, may expect a similar fate as has befallen to his colleague Rumsfeld. The newly elected Parliament has a tiny progressive majority, and it seems improbable, that his party will take part in Government during the coming four years.

(This article was crossposted from A Legal Alien @ New York)

Uruzgan: Dutch commandos out of control

A 25 minutes television report "09.11 Zulu" on Dutch television (watch it here at uitzendinggemist.nl in Dutch) confirms the tensions that exist between the small commando unit at Tarin Kowt and the 1.200 strong Dutch Provincial Reconstruction Team at the same location. The PRT has rules of engagement that strictly forbid an active combat role. The Dutch Government promised Parliament in February 2006, that its PRT operation would be completely separated from the American-led "Enduring Freedom" operation.

But, apparently, at the same time they promised the US and/or NATO that they would join the struggle against "Taliban". But - stealthily. Method: Put local commanders in a position where they have to act aggessively and leave reponsability to them. Afterwards, either Parliament agrees with slice after slice of the salami leading to full-fledged participation in Enduring Freedom, or it doesn't, and then the political leadership washes its hands in innocence.

So it happened that we could see the Dutch Defence Minister, Henk Kamp, visiting the compounds, actually encouraging the Commandos to do their work "aggressively", and at the same time a lawyer of his ministry explaining to the commanders of the Special Forces Unit, that they could not open fire on insurgents, only in case they were directly attacked themselves.

This tongue-in-cheek method may work between state and local authorities in case of "tolerating" hash-vending coffeshops, or illegal brothels - it is absolutely irresponsible , when a military mission is at stake.

The film shows the frustrations of the bearded fighters. Their commanders, avoiding the risk of becoming scapegoats for the Government's hypocrisy, ask a "green light" from The Hague for every action. Thus returning responsability to the supreme command and the political level. Decision making takes weeks and most decisions are negative. In the field, the commandos are harrassed by the American units, with whom they cooperate, to act more aggressively.

Special Forces out of control....
So it is no wonder, that the commandos start risky provocations, exposing themselves in an open field, hoping to be attacked, so that they can "return enemy fire", make prisoners, interrogate them "robustly" (the film shows some examples of intimidation of witnesses and suspects).

Another alarming aspect is the relation that the commandos are developing with the Afghan police ANP. Like in Srebrenica for the local bosnian self-defense units, the Dutch are full of contempt for "those corrupt brigands", lead by commanders who have all their own lover boys with them. One of those boys is shown in the report. All of it seems to be true. Worse still, often local police seem to have an understanding with local insurgents.

The question is: Whom are you fighting FOR? - If you are all alone as an expeditionary force in a guerrilla war, your only chance is to get allies within the population, who eventually will help you isolate the insurgents. If you cannot trust your allies, if you loathe them, you are lost on beforehand.

A perfect example of 'double-dutch' ...
The image of two conflicting policies, personified

• by the PRT and the SF-Commandos in the field,
  
• by, roughly, the Foreign Ministry and the Defense Ministry on Government level, and
  
• by the majority of Parliament and a combative minority consisting of VVD and CDA-parliamentarians on the political level,

that we sketched in former posts, is confirmed. It is even worse than we imagined. They cripple each other. Such conflicts are a worse enemy than the enemy in the field.

The "leak" came from alarmed army staff, stuck in a deadlock ....
That is why it is very probable, that it was the Army Central Command in The Hague itself, who "leaked" the story about torturing practices on prisoners in Iraq in 2003, in order to put pressure via the press and via Parliament on Government, resulting in a clear choice for or against participating in "Enduring Freedom", for or against following a "German" peaceful PRT-strategy. Commander in Chief Dick Berlijn couldn't get such a decision from his Minister, nor from NATO (10 days ago), and he must fear for serious disciplinary problems with his Special Forces, that are left bungling. So somebody must have decided, to force a decision this way.

Parliament decided to discuss the problems with Government only next week, after the Wednesday parliamentary elections. Only the VVD-representative pleaded for a complete engagement of the Dutch forces with Enduring Freedom. A large majority seems to be set to put an end to the typical double-dutch situation, in favour of a reconstruction mission.

As one of the commando's in the film says: "If they really want to have a peaceful reconstruction team here, they should send us elsewhere and replace us with a team of social workers. I am here to kill Taliban. We have to show them, who is boss here."

Until the next elections, Mr. Karzai is boss in Afghanistan. Other bosses should leave.

Uruzgan: Dutch Military Intelligence tortured prisoners in 2003 - Is it still going on?

De Volkskrant, Dutch national daily, had a scoop today: Nederlanders martelden Irakezen. ("Dutch tortured Iraqis").
It happened in November 2003, during the 1,5 year Dutch pacification mission in the Southern Iraqi province of Al-Muthanna. Although the Dutch general Command in The Hague was alerted by the Military Police (marechaussée), it did not inform the miltary court, as it should have.
The description of the torturing methods ressembles awfully the Abu Ghreib practices that happened at the same time.

• Was the Dutch Defence Minister Henk Kamp informed?
• Is the Dutch Military Intelligence (MIVD) continuing those practices in Afghanistan?
  

The then Commander-in-Chief, Lieutenant-Admiral Kroon, retired, indirectly confirmed the facts.

As the coming 22 November Dutch Parliamentary elections are heating up the political climate in the country, a proposed parliamentary debate (Monday), if it takes place, will be dominated by the need for the Government parties CDA (Christian Democrat) and VVD (Conservative Liberal) to limit the damage to their election results.

The Balkenende Government got in 2002 and in 2005 a faltering parliamentary green light for its military support to the American-British interventions in respectively Iraq and Afghanistan, by declaring its position as "political, not military" support and as an UN-conform pacification-reconstruction mission.

It becomes clear now, that, from the beginning, both missions were also meant as a (stealthy) delivery of unconditional human and material reinforcements to the US (and the UK).

The Dutch MIVD torturing of Iraqis happened in a "Coalition Provisional Authority" facility in As-Samara, capital of the province Al Muthanna. The CPA was the American-led provisional Government of occupied Iraq at that time. It ended in 2004. It was utterly corrupt and its books are still under scrutiny.
Torture: From Iraq to.....>

A possible line of defence for the Dutch Government and its defence minister, is saying that they were not responsible for what the British, who led that CPA facility, did or commanded. That, however, would contradict many statements of the same Government, that the Dutch troops were exclusively governed by the Dutch rules of engagement. Rules that explicitly confirm the Geneva Agreements and make any transgression punishable.

The Dutch Governments' position is the more lamentable, while the same British, in contrast to the Americans, actively pursue in justice their soldiers and officers who have been engaged in torturing or indiscriminate killings. Several severe condemnations of British troops are already definitive.

And in Afghanistan?

....Uruzgan in Afghanistan? >

Since 2004, a mistery-clouded Dutch commando-engagement is going on at the side of the American Enduring Freedom operation in South-East Afghanistan. After the Bush proposals on the legalisation of torturing, and their partial acceptance by Congress, there is no more doubt that those practices have been going on (and still are) in that region.

• Is Dutch Military Intelligence still engaged in it?

It is more than probable. The Dutch commando units, even after the takeover by NATO, are being advised by an embedded American officer and are roaming around in the neighbourhood of the Dutch "reconstruction" mission at Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan.

Several witnesses confirm, that they are terrorizing the population and provoking engagements with "Taliban". In doing so, they minimize any chance of effective "reconstruction" in the region. It is an outright example of sabotage and American stubbornness.

The Afghan Government of Karzai itself, has objected to those practices. To no avail.

As we said earlier, NATO has become nothing more than an US frontshop for hiring mercenaries to do the dirty work.

Now, there is a clear-cut choice for the Dutch parliament: Either to go overtly along with the Bush-Cheney style terror, or to opt out, as the Poles, the Spanish and the Italians did before, and seek an European platform for military intervention on a civilised basis, and in the interests of collective European security.

[An earlier version in Dutch and Netherlands-oriented, appeared in De Lage Landen and in In Europa Thuis]