----- Original Message ----- From: Karen Watters Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 12:23 AM Subject: RE: Gulf War II/Israeli War IV
> Jan, Keith, Lawry et al: What does it mean to you that articles like this > are appearing in the mainstream press? A very good question. I'm actually on holidays and hoped to be left alone with this kind of stuff for a few weeks (I prayed there would be no new war started until 27th of august, as I would have to come back from holidays then for sure) but even 'at home' or 'at the computer' it doesn't seem to leave me in peace and I more or less brought this on my own head chiming in earlier. I didn't post in this place for quite a long while, but kept reading on and off when time permitted, and that means a very short leash usually. If stuff like that article is being published it can mean several things. Maybe 'People are being prepared for such an occurence'. The Huntington clash of civilizations scenario. It doesn't matter whether they are writing against war, they are certainly writing ABOUT it. So that could mean chances there will be; and of course there always is, as certain people may indeed harbour those opinions and think it is better to act now, while the enemie is still not strong enough to respond in kind. Those people are there, and sometimes they are more or less in power. There are checks and balances though, we are still a democracy, of kinds. On the other hand I read a lot of telexes from different agencies, French, English, Dutch, German... I prefer to get the information from them and not from what newspapers or Television stations make of it afterwards. I'm working on more than 'mainstream press', so I have something to compare against. That takes lots of time, but that's a luxury I have as foreign policy adviser to a European vice-prime minister. I can basically follow what I think needs be followed, and this is one of my absolute priorities, even during holidays, the world never stops. My first feeling with the article was: sounds a bit too much like 'left wing, -- in the US, that's 'democrat', -- banter', only I still think I belong to the left myself, so I should be more deferential, maybe, ... Where then is this kind of journalism 'right'? And where is it just creating an atmosphere? That's really a tough question, I can tell you, for it keeps me busy day and night. It's somehow the core of what I'm trying to do and what I'm being relatively well paid for: trying to figure out what information is reliable, and what is eventually going to happen and how should we, Belgium, the greens, Europe,... respond to it best. (Meanwhile I'm trying to listen to Ravels pianoconcerto for the left hand, for those who know it, impossible... this piece can't just be background music, one of the most marvelous pieces of music ever composed, if you didn't know it yet, get it) I'll answer the rest too further down, as far as I can at the time... you are asking the next to impossible you know ;>) > Also, did you see Henry Kissinger's piece relaying the history of the 1648 > Treat of Westphalia, establishing "the principle of nonintervention in the > domestic affairs of other states" to illustrate how revolutionary the Bush > doctrine may be and why it is necessary (WMD)? No, can you send it? His Eminence suggests that > Europe will grudgingly support Bush, if at all, but that "the most > interesting, and potentially fateful, reaction, may well be India's, which > will be tempted to apply the new principle of pre-emption against > akistan." - Karen > The fundamental difference with Iraq and Iran is they do not have nuclear deterrents, yet. If Musharaf would be overthrown by fundamentalist muslims like the Taliban, India would have to do just that indeed. Now, I think there is no defendable reason for it. Yet. And they didn't, didn't they. They were provoked. I believe Musharaf is able to contain the fundamentalists, he will have to, and he knows it. I deserves western support, and I have been willing to advise in favour of it, even though he is 'a military dictator', I think, I have strong reasons to believe, he's the best for Pakistan today. I hope I'm right. Call it an intuition. > Beyond Baghdad: [PARA]Expanding Target List[PARA]Washington looks at > overhauling the Islamic and Arab world[PARA][PARA][PARA][PARA]Iranian > President Mohammed Khatami's efforts at reform have been hindered by the > unelected mullahs who dominate public life > > By Roy Gutman and John Barry > NEWSWEEK > > Aug. 19 issue - While still wrangling over how to overthrow Iraq's Saddam > Hussein, the Bush administration is already looking for other targets. Read, the Bush administration wants war, they all agree (which they don't, so that's at best a partial truth and thus a semi lie too, and just meant to set the tune of the article) > President Bush has called for the ouster of Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. He has said different things on different occasions about that, I don't know what's the latest, I'm on holidays, but really, as long as Europeans don't want to drop him, he will stand. We also count for something. > Now some in the administration-and allies at D.C. think tanks-are eyeing > Iran and even Saudi Arabia. As one senior British official put it: "Everyone > wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." > I wonder strongly who would agree with that last one. A very old British colonialist? This is making up atmosphere but it doesn't mean anything. It is true some very critical articles have been written about the Saudi, and of course, they weren't really the 'reliable' ally they used to be when Saddam was treatening to invade them 10 years ago, but of course, they invested a lot in weaponry, and there is the ailing king and the fight for the trone... But I do not believe anyone is seriously considering taking on the Saudi if it is not necessary. Why would they? On the other hand, there is people being paid for making just such plans. Just in case scenario's and people paid to guess them out, the just inn case journalists..Maybe this is one such. > ... Richard Perle, chairman of Bush's Defense Policy Board, recently invited > a controversial French scholar to brief the outside advisers on "taking the > Saudi out of Arabia." That's his job in the light of what i just wrote > When word leaked to the press, I wonder, was this a secret visit then? otherwise it's just creating an atmosphere the Bush > administration strongly denied it wanted to oust the Saudi royal regime. There is no contradiction. One has to hear all experts. The decision is made later. Why would anyone want to oust the royals as long as they are loyal... so the whole point is, who'll come next after Fadh and how loyal is he -- we may safely assume it will not be a 'she' -- going to be to Western interests? > Still, some insiders continue to whisper about the possibility. Gutter journalism. Insiders always whisper about possibilities. So what? Syria and > even Egypt are now under discussion in neoconservative circles, along with > North Korea and Burma." No doubt, in some circles anything is under discussion. More atmosphere > > ...Tony Blair, the only foreign leader who might join in a U.S.-led > intervention in Iraq, is asking tough questions. "He wants to know a lot > more about what the administration's real agenda is," says a top Blair aide. > > http://www.msnbc.com/news/792516.asp > > > Well, I haven't read the article yet, only this abstract, but somehow I doubt it will be convincing. I'll read it later. It's 3.30 a.m. now, maybe I should call it a day, or night. Cheers Jan > > > >
