History > 2006 > USA > International (III)

Editorial

Out of the Mouths of Aides

September 30, 2006
The New York Times

It has taken five and a half years, but at least some of President Bush’s aides have begun to acknowledge the patently obvious: There needs to be a serious effort to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Without one, the United States has no chance of salvaging its battered reputation in the Islamic world. No chance of rallying moderate Arab leaders to fight extremists or contain Iran. And no chance of ensuring Israel’s lasting security. We just hope that Mr. Bush will now make the long neglected peace effort a central priority for the remaining years of his presidency.

With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveling to the region next week, Mr. Bush should give her an explicit mandate to press Israel, and not just the Palestinians, for real compromises. He should also give her the authority to talk to adversaries, and not just friends, about how to support the effort.

For years, Mr. Bush’s advisers have woven an entire mythology about how Middle East peace required tanks on the road to Baghdad, rather than diplomats on planes to Jerusalem, Ramallah and Damascus.

So it was surprising to hear one of Ms. Rice’s closest aides, Philip Zelikow, the State Department counselor, tell a think-tank audience that some sense of progress on the Arab-Israeli dispute is “just a sine qua non” for getting moderate Arabs and the Europeans to cooperate on Iran and the region’s many other dangerous problems. “We can rail against that belief. We can find it completely justifiable. But it’s fact,” Mr. Zelikow said.

We fear that Mr. Bush and his secretary of state haven’t yet caught up to that. As Ms. Rice prepared to leave, other aides said that the most she would do would be to rally support for the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and to solicit ideas on how to revive peace talks.

Ms. Rice should use this trip to commit herself to negotiating a comprehensive cease-fire. She can start by telling the Israelis they need to immediately end targeted killings and halt all settlement construction. Ms. Rice needs to make clear to the Palestinians that while words are important, she is less concerned with rhetoric than the ability and willingness of any Palestinian government to halt, rather than abet, all attacks on Israel.

Washington is already encouraging Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to meet with Mr. Abbas, for more symbolic support. Ms. Rice should instead tell all sides that President Bush’s goal is a full resumption of peace negotiations — and that he will commit the full resources of his presidency to the effort.

Ms. Rice should be willing to go to Damascus — or send a top aide — to tell President Bashar al-Assad that relations can improve if he restrains his clients Hamas and Hezbollah. The Europeans — who have been desperate for the United States to engage — should make the same trip to warn of real punishments should he refuse.

The lesson of this summer’s disastrous wars in Lebanon and Gaza is that the time for listening tours and tactical steps is far past. We hope that Mr. Zelikow’s bosses start paying attention.

    Out of the Mouths of Aides, NYT, 30.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30sat1.html

Bush and Kazakh Leader Play Up Partnership

September 30, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — President Bush took another step in his delicate foreign policy waltz with the authoritarian government of Kazakhstan on Friday, praising the oil-rich Central Asian country as “a free nation” while welcoming its president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, to the White House for lunch.

During a brief joint appearance in the Oval Office, Mr. Bush said the two presidents pledged to “support the forces of moderation throughout the world,” while Mr. Nazarbayev, speaking through a translator, reiterated his commitment to ridding his country of nuclear weapons and said the two nations had “truly become close partners.”

Neither man mentioned the sore points in that partnership: the absence of free elections in Kazakhstan, which became an independent state in 1991; state restrictions on the news media; and its recent decision to shut down two prominent American democracy organizations — a move that American officials are trying to reverse.

“We talked about our commitment to institutions that will enable liberty to flourish,” Mr. Bush said. “I have watched very carefully the development of this important country from one that was in the Soviet sphere to one that is now a free nation.”

Despite that transition, Kazakhstan also poses a diplomatic challenge for President Bush, who has made promoting democracy a central component of his foreign policy. On Friday morning, in his latest speech on fighting terrorism, Mr. Bush touted his efforts to build a free nation in Afghanistan and to push Pakistan toward free elections.

The White House views Kazakhstan, a state that has abundant oil and gas reserves and whose population is predominately Muslim, as a critical ally in promoting economic stability and security in that region. One-third of all foreign investment in Kazakhstan comes from the United States, and administration officials say the country has also been a strategic partner in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has a small ordnance removal team working in Iraq, and has given the United States fly-over rights so that military planes can take equipment to Afghanistan.

An administration official, granted anonymity to talk about the meeting, said “the issue of democracy was raised” during the visit. The leaders later put out a joint statement in which they agreed to “reaffirm the importance of democratic development” in institutions such as an independent news media and free and fair elections.

“They’re moving in the right direction,” the official said, “and we think that bringing them in close will give us greater prospects of expecting quicker progress.”

Mr. Bush invited Mr. Nazarbayev to a small lunch rather than holding a state dinner — a sign that Kazakhstan’s leader is working his way into the president’s inner foreign policy circle, but is not all the way there.

    Bush and Kazakh Leader Play Up Partnership, NYT, 30.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/asia/30prexy.html

For Kazakh Leader’s Visit, U.S. Seeks a Balance

September 28, 2006
The New York Times
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ILAN GREENBERG

ASTANA, Kazakhstan, Sept. 26 — When Vice President Dick Cheney came to this oil-rich Central Asian nation this spring he expressed admiration for what he called its “political development.” Yet just a day before his visit began, the authoritarian government effectively shut down the two most prominent American democracy organizations working here.

While American officials are negotiating to reverse the government’s decision, they have yet to complain about it publicly.

As President Bush prepares to receive the Kazakh president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, at a state dinner in Washington on Friday, the episode reflects the delicate balance the administration has struck with a country of growing strategic importance that has a record of corruption, flawed elections and rights violations, including the killings of two opposition leaders in the last year in disputed circumstances.

Critics here say the episode also illustrates the Bush administration’s willingness to sacrifice democracy, a centerpiece of its foreign policy, when it conflicts with other foreign policy goals.

“There are four enemies of human rights: oil, gas, the war on terror and geopolitical considerations,” said Yevgeny A. Zhovtis of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, an organization that has received financing from the American Embassy and the National Endowment for Democracy. “And we have all four.”

The Bush administration has promoted democratic reforms in Kazakhstan for years, but it also appears eager to mollify a president who has been a comparatively moderate Muslim leader in Central Asia, who has allowed NATO aircraft headed to Afghanistan to fly over the country and sent a company of soldiers to Iraq, and who controls vast resources of oil and gas, much of it extracted by American companies.

In a meeting on Monday in New York with Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke generally about democracy and human rights in Kazakhstan, a senior State Department official said, but did not raise the matter of the two democracy groups — the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the International Republican Institute.

In Washington, Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House was aware of the problem with the institutes but added that he could not say whether President Bush would raise it this week, since the discussions were not scripted in advance. Still, he said, “Democratization is a very important part of the agenda.”

The backlash against promotion of democracy is by no means limited to Kazakhstan. The institutes, which are nonprofit, nonpartisan groups financed by the United States government, have been eyed warily not just here but in Russia, China and an array of authoritarian Central Asian countries that were alarmed by the “color revolutions” in Serbia, Georgia and, particularly, Ukraine.

As outlined in a recent report by the National Endowment for Democracy, many of them, including Kazakhstan, have followed the lead of Russia and severely restricted nongovernmental organizations. Some countries, notably Belarus, but also the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain, have closed them down altogether.

For Kazakhstan, as for the Bush administration, the coming visit has created an opportunity for improving relations that have been strained in recent years, even as Russia has taken advantage of its own political and economic influence.

The strains have stemmed from American concerns over corruption, restrictions on the news media and President Nazarbayev’s consolidation of political control.

The Kazakh government has its own concerns with American policy. They include a criminal case in New York against James H. Giffen, an American businessman, that implicates Mr. Nazarbayev in a bribery scheme dating from the 1990’s, and lukewarm American support for Kazakhstan’s bid to preside over the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

Here in Kazakhstan, Mr. Nazarbayev’s visit has been portrayed as a chance for him to enhance his international prestige by improving relations with the United States. “The time has come when we can raise our relations to a completely new level,” Mr. Nazarbayev told reporters in Astana earlier this month.

Kazakhstan, the ninth largest country in the world in area but with only 15 million people, the majority of them Muslims, has experienced an energy-fueled economic boom that has transformed it into a regional power.

Mr. Nazarbayev is genuinely popular inside the country, though that popularity is certainly nurtured by the government’s control of television, which provides lavish, uncritical coverage. Even independent surveys of voters leaving the polls showed him winning re-election handily last December, with a vote as high as 82 percent, compared with the official result of 91 percent. The lower figure came from a poll financed by the International Republican Institute.

Mr. Nazarbayev’s opponents said the government’s need to pad what would have been a clear victory anyway highlighted a growing trend toward authoritarianism. Oraz Jandosov, a co-chairman of a democratic opposition party, True Bright Path, said the most disturbing consequences of the power and impunity enveloping Mr. Nazarbayev’s government were the deaths of two opposition leaders.

One, Zamanbek N. Nurkadilov, was found shot three times, once in the head, last November. His death was subsequently declared a suicide. The other, Altynbek Sarsenbaiuly, was killed in February along with two bodyguards on a road outside Almaty, the country’s biggest city.

In August, an aide in the upper house of Parliament, Yerzhan Utembayev, and several officers of the secret services were convicted of those killings, though few here believed the declared motive: that Mr. Utembayev had been angered that Mr. Sarsenbaiuly had accused him of being a drunk in a newspaper interview three years earlier.

The actions against the American democracy programs followed soon after Mr. Sarsenbaiuly’s killing, reflecting a trend to stifle any open discussion of the country’s problem.

In a letter to the American Embassy, a copy of which was shown to The New York Times, Kazakh prosecutors charged the two institutes under a law that forbids “material assistance” to political parties. The institutes were accused of “the handing over of materials” and “illegal instances of transport” during their work with political and civic groups.

The accusations fit a pattern of harassment in the months leading up to last year’s election, when government tax and financial agencies repeatedly investigated and audited dozens of private organizations. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the institution Mr. Nazarbayev hopes to lead as chairman in 2009, criticized the election for “a number of significant shortcomings,” including “an atmosphere of intimidation.”

Four American officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the continuing negotiations over the institutes, said neither institute had paid for or otherwise supported partisan activity.

Two people involved in the discussions said former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the chairwoman and chairman of the Democratic and Republican institutes respectively, had written a letter to Mr. Bush urging him to raise the issue with Mr. Nazarbayev during his visit.

American officials continue to express support for Kazakhstan’s opposition and for democracy here in general.

Mr. Cheney, when he visited, met over breakfast with opposition leaders for an hour and 20 minutes in a hotel in Astana, the capital. Mr. Jandosov, who was there, said he welcomed the chance to explain “what the real situation was,” but expressed regret that the meeting came the morning after Mr. Cheney appeared in public with Mr. Nazarbayev and expressed support for him.

Murat Laumulin of the Kazakhstan Institute of Strategic Studies, a research organization with close ties to the government, said Mr. Nazarbayev’s government had made concessions to the United States in the field of energy and in the Bush administration’s fight against Islamic terrorism, among other areas, and thus merited a reprieve in demands for swift democratization.

“Kazakhstan has gone along with a lot of the American oil agenda with the unspoken understanding that the Kazakhstan population is not going to be provoked,” Mr. Laumulin said. “There isn’t to be a ‘color revolution’ here, and for five to seven years we don’t have to worry about needing to introduce genuine democracy. We get a strategic pause.”

    For Kazakh Leader’s Visit, U.S. Seeks a Balance, NYT, 28.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28kazakh.html?hp&ex=1159502400&en=0acaf6f08f6cdaad&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush Plays Chaperon for Awkward Encounter

September 28, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — For the past week, the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan have been in the United States, circling one another like wary cats as they lobbed insults across the airwaves from a distance.

On Wednesday night, they stood glumly — more like caged cats — in the Rose Garden with President Bush, who had invited them to the White House for dinner and a little talking-to.

“We’ve got a lot of challenges facing us,” Mr. Bush said, with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan on his right and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan a safe distance away on his left. “All of us must protect our countries, but at the same time we all must work to make the world a more hopeful place.”

Having already met separately with the two men — he received General Musharraf on Friday and President Karzai on Tuesday — Mr. Bush used his three-minute speech to proclaim them both “personal friends of mine” and describe the intimate dinner as “a chance for us to strategize together.”

Peter Brookes, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation, put it another way. “They’re looking for marriage counseling,” he said, “and maybe President Bush will provide some of that.”

The strains in their relationship — each blames the other for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan — are so obvious that Mr. Bush openly joked about the breach in the East Room of the White House on Tuesday, with Mr. Karzai at his side.

“It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are,” Mr. Bush told reporters then, though he insisted later he was only teasing.

“I’ll be good,” Mr. Karzai responded.

Though Mr. Karzai politely referred to General Musharraf as “my brother,” that has been pretty much the extent of the politesse this week. As General Musharraf toured about, promoting his new autobiography on television programs as varied as “60 Minutes” and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” he has made clear his disdain for Mr. Karzai, whom he accuses of “turning a blind eye” to his own deteriorating political situation.

“He is like an ostrich with his head buried in the sand,” the general said.

Mr. Karzai was a tad more muted; asked by Wolf Blitzer of CNN on Friday whether he thought General Musharraf was himself “an ostrich,” he did not take the bait. But he has made no bones about the fact that he sees the Pakistani leader as giving the Taliban safe haven across the border.

Complicating matters is a deal General Musharraf recently signed with tribal chiefs along the Afghanistan border; Mr. Karzai views it as a pact to cede control to the Taliban.

“Terrorism has only enemies and knows no boundaries,” Mr. Karzai told the Council on Foreign Relations last week. “The only course is to kill it. You cannot train a snake to bite someone else.”

Whether Mr. Bush can tame the war of words is unclear, but foreign policy experts across the political spectrum give him credit for trying.

“You do have two leaders who want to have a good relationship with the United States and particularly George Bush,” said Ivo H. Daalder, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, “so that does provide Bush an opportunity to say, ‘You guys need to cooperate. We have a common enemy.’ I admire him for doing this. It’s the right thing to do.”

Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Mr. Bush’s primary challenge was “not only to broker a verbal cease-fire,” but also to get the two men to “deal with the core issue” of their dispute over the Taliban.

“What’s ironic is these two leaders need each other,” he said. “Their personal futures as well as their countries’ futures are very much intertwined, yet there is tremendous mistrust and bad blood.”

That much was evident Wednesday in the Rose Garden body language, which was as interesting as Mr. Bush had predicted. Although the two foreign leaders were handshake-distance apart — and some thought the president might prod them into one — no hands were extended.

Instead, both stood stiff and expressionless as the president spoke, their hands clasped tightly in front of them. When Mr. Bush ended the awkwardness by announcing, “Let’s go eat dinner,” General Musharraf gave a quick salute to the press corps. President Karzai extended his arms, palms up, in an empty embrace of the sky.

    Bush Plays Chaperon for Awkward Encounter, NYT, 28.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28prexy.html?hp&ex=1159502400&en=11f088d9441bc726&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush guests are allies — of the U.S.,at least

Updated 9/26/2006 10:55 PM ET
USA TODAY
By David Jackson

WASHINGTON — President Bush tests his mediation skills Wednesday when he brings together a pair of feuding neighbors who are both essential to the U.S. war on terrorism: Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan.

The White House dinner is an attempt at trilateral negotiations for Bush, who wants the two leaders to work on clearing out Taliban insurgents who camp in Pakistan and launch attacks in Afghanistan. He also wants to focus on areas where national interests coincide, including the capture of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"It will be a chance for us to work on how to secure the border," Bush said Tuesday after a meeting with Karzai.

The Taliban militia gained control of nearly all of Afghanistan in 1996 after a civil war that followed the withdrawal of Soviet forces. The Taliban ruled the country with Pakistan's backing until the regime was toppled by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Relations between Karzai, the Afghan president since shortly after the fall of the Taliban, and Musharraf, his Pakistani counterpart, have been testy at best.

Karzai has accused Musharraf and Pakistan of allowing safe havens for Taliban insurgents across the border from Afghanistan. Musharraf has said Karzai needs to look within his own country to quell the rising Taliban insurgency.

That insurgent violence threatens to undermine the post-9/11 victory over the Taliban, analysts say. "Afghanistan is on the brink of becoming a failed state once again," said Beth DeGrasse, senior program officer with the U.S. Institute of Peace, a non-partisan think tank funded by Congress. "It's ours to lose again."

DeGrasse said the Bush administration deserves a share of the blame for growing problems in Afghanistan, along with NATO, which leads the international stabilization force there, and other coalition members such as Britain, Germany and Italy.

"No one's in charge," she said. "It's an uncoordinated mess."

James Dobbins, a U.S. envoy to Afghanistan from 2001 to 2002, said the United States should do more to help Afghanistan pressure Pakistan to crack down on Taliban operations in Pakistani territory.

"It's better that we be the bad cop, and Karzai be the good cop," Dobbins said, "because the Karzai government is weaker."

Dobbins also said the United States and its allies "failed to take advantage of a period of relative tranquility" after their victory in 2001. He said a resurgent Taliban is "taking advantage of a weak government and a very light international troop presence."

The U.S.-led coalition dislodged the ruling Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda, which carried out the 9/11 attacks.

About 20,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan; the Pentagon has reported at least 335 American deaths since October 2001.

Bush met one-on-one with Karzai on Tuesday. They discussed a variety of challenges to the new democracy in Afghanistan, including production of opium and the illegal drug trade and the need to develop schools and hospitals.

Bush met with Musharraf on Friday, before the Pakistani leader told an audience at George Washington University that his government is in the process of "mainstreaming" religious schools in his country that breed extremism.

Karzai has protested these Islamic schools, called madrassas, in which he says young, poor children are "preached hatred and hatred alone."

"They are told, 'Go, kill yourself in Afghanistan, commit suicide and kill as many as you can of the international community or Afghans,' " Karzai said Monday.

In another shot at his neighbors, Musharraf charged in a speech Monday that more Afghans may be helping the Taliban with its attacks: "As soon as President Karzai understands his own country's environment, the easier it will be for him."

Given his guests' rhetoric, Bush said he is looking forward to the meeting. "It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are," he said.

    Bush guests are allies — of the U.S.,at least, UT, 26.9.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-bush-afghanistan_x.htm

Bush unaware of Musharraf's contention

Updated 9/23/2006 12:55 AM ET
AP
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush said Friday that if a U.S. official tried to strong-arm Pakistan into fighting the war on terror after the Sept. 11 attacks, he didn't know about it.

Standing beside Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, Bush brushed off any idea of disagreement, praising Musharraf for pursuing terrorists, including Osama bin Laden.

"We're on the hunt together," Bush said after an Oval Office meeting with the general who is leader of the world's second-largest Islamic nation.

VIDEO: Bush shows support for Pakistan

Musharraf has contended that after the Sept. 11 attacks, then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Pakistan's intelligence director that the United States would bomb the country if it didn't become a partner in the war against terrorism.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, "Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf told CBS' 60 Minutes in a report to air on Sunday. "I thought it was a very rude remark."

The president said he first learned of the purported conversation from news reports. "I just don't know about it," he said. "I guess I was taken aback by the harshness of the words."

Musharraf declined to comment further, citing a book deal.

"Buy the book," Bush quipped.

Armitage said he never threatened a military strike but did tell Pakistan firmly that "you are either for us or against us."

Armitage, who met with Musharraf on Thursday, told Associated Press Radio concerning the bombing quote: "I was not authorized to say something like that. I did not say it."

In Pakistan, Ameer ul-Azeem, a spokesman for the hard-line opposition Islamic coalition Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, said Musharraf's contention would anger Pakistani people who have long believed that they were forced "at gunpoint" into supporting the war on terror.

Bush's meeting with Musharraf, following the president's U.N. speech on Tuesday, gave the White House a new chance to persuade voters that Republicans have better credentials than Democrats on national security. However, with the November congressional elections approaching, it also offered a reminder that bin Laden is still on the loose five years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In a recent interview, Bush said he would order military action inside Pakistan if intelligence indicated that bin Laden or other top terror leaders were hiding there. Some Pakistani officials took issue with that, saying that Pakistan was a sovereign country.

"All I can tell you is, is that when Osama bin Laden is found, he will be brought to justice," Bush said.

Musharraf shrugged off the issue as an exercise in semantics.

"We will deal with it. We are on the hunt together," Musharraf said.

The Pakistani president later told students at The George Washington University that Pakistan "joined the war not so much for the world but for ourselves."

He described his government as moderate and progressive and said, "I am the greatest believer in democracy." Musharraf seized power in a 1999 coup.

Responding to a student's question, Musharraf acknowledged that "we are moving slowly" in reforming the Islamic madrassas, or extremist schools, in his country. But he said they accounted for only 5% of the country's schools.

The United States has urged Pakistan to do more to stop militants from crossing from its tribal regions into Afghanistan. Violence fanned by Taliban extremists has reached the deadliest level since the U.S.-led invasion that toppled the hard-line government in Afghanistan in 2001.

Pakistan, which has deployed 80,000 troops along the border, signed a truce this month with tribal figures in an area where bin Laden is believed to be hiding. Musharraf said the truce calls for no al-Qaeda or Taliban activity.

Some Afghan officials have labeled the truce as a deal with the Taliban, but Musharraf strongly rejected that.

"This deal is not at all with the Taliban," he said. "As I said, this is against the Taliban, actually."

Bush said Musharraf briefed him on the details of the truce.

"When the president looks me in the eye and says, the tribal deal is intended to reject the Talibanization of the people, and that there won't be a Taliban and won't be al-Qaeda, I believe him, you know?" Bush said.

Bush is playing the role of middle man between Pakistan and Afghanistan — two U.S. allies in the war on terror who accuse each other of not doing enough to crack down on extremism. Bush will follow his meeting with Musharraf with one next Tuesday with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Then the three will have a sit-down and working dinner at the White House on Wednesday.

Human rights activists are asking Bush to press Musharraf to restore civilian rule in Pakistan, end discrimination against women and stop using torture and arbitrary detention in counterterrorism operations.

Instead of giving up his military uniform in 2004 as promised, Musharraf changed the constitution so he could hold both his army post and the presidency until 2007.

Bush said that during their meeting, Musharraf renewed his commitment to holding elections in Pakistan next year.

    Bush unaware of Musharraf's contention, UT, 23.9.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-22-bush-musharraf_x.htm

U.S. Best Seller, Thanks to Rave by Latin Leftist

September 23, 2006
The New York Times
By MOTOKO RICH

All the authors currently clamoring for a seat on Oprah Winfrey’s couch might do well to send copies of their books to the latest publishing tastemaker: Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez.

Ever since Mr. Chávez held up a copy of a 301-page book by Noam Chomsky, the linguist and left-wing political commentator, during a speech at the United Nations on Wednesday, sales of the book have climbed best-seller lists at Amazon.com and BN.com, the online site for the book retailer Barnes & Noble, and booksellers around the country have noted a spike in sales.

The paperback edition of “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance,” a detailed critique of American foreign policy that Mr. Chomsky published two years ago, hit No. 1 on Amazon’s best-seller list yesterday, and the hardcover edition, published in 2003, climbed as high as No. 6. At both Borders Group and Barnes & Noble, sales of the title jumped tenfold in the last two days.

“It doesn’t normally happen that you get someone of the stature of Mr. Chávez holding up a book at a speech at the U.N.,” said Jay Hyde, a manager at Borders Group in Ann Arbor, Mich.

In his speech, in which Mr. Chávez excoriated President George W. Bush as the “devil,” he held up a copy of “Hegemony” and urged his audience “very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it.”

Calling it an “excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century,” Mr. Chávez added, “I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house.”

Julia Versau, 50, a real estate writer in Valparaiso, Ind., said she saw Mr. Chávez holding up the book during a newscast on CNN. Although she had read Mr. Chomsky’s work on propaganda at least a decade ago, she said, Mr. Chávez’s speech reminded her to try the book.

“I saw the title and I went darn, I haven’t read that one,” Ms. Versau said in a telephone interview. “If he’s reading that I better go check it out.” She said that she had previously found Mr. Chomsky’s work “a little dense,” but said that “our democracy could use more people telling the truth and more people taking the time to read and get themselves educated.”

Mr. Chomsky, who has retired from teaching full time at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, did not return calls or an e-mail message yesterday seeking comment. In an interview with The New York Times on Thursday, he said he would be happy to meet Mr. Chávez.

Demand for the book seemed to be spread across the country. In Florida, Mitchell Kaplan, owner of Books & Books, an independent bookseller with locations in Miami Beach, Coral Gables and Bal Harbour, said he had already ordered 50 more copies of “Hegemony,” while he usually keeps only about 3 per store. In Denver, Andrea Phillips, a manager at the Colfax Avenue branch of the bookseller the Tattered Cover, said “Hegemony” had sold three times as many copies this week as it normally would in a month.

On the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison, Rainbow Books, a workers’ collective that specializes in leftist topics and carries many of Mr. Chomsky’s works, the last copy of “Hegemony” was sold on Thursday.

Allen Ruff, a manager at Rainbow Books, said “Hegemony” had not sold particularly well when it was first published three years ago, because many regulars were already familiar with Mr. Chomsky’s other works. But Mr. Ruff said the recent news media attention has meant that “people are now discovering him for the first time,” and the store has ordered a dozen more copies.

Mr. Chomsky’s publisher, Metropolitan Books, a unit of Henry Holt & Company, is printing an additional 25,000 copies of “Hegemony,” of which it said there are currently 250,000 in print in hardcover and paperback. A Holt spokeswoman said that print run could go higher after consultation with booksellers.

Up until now, the book, which Samantha Power, writing in The New York Times Book Review in 2004, called “a raging and often meandering assault on United States foreign policy,” has been a steady seller but never hit the best-seller lists. To date it has sold about 66,000 copies in hardcover and nearly 55,000 in paperback, according to Nielsen BookScan, which tracks bookstores and other outlets that usually account for 60 to 70 percent of a title’s sales.

Mr. Chomsky, 77, is hardly an obscure writer. Many people have heard of the outspoken professor, who is a darling of the left, even if they have not yet read his work. “I think Chávez speaking to it renewed interest and made people say, ‘I know that author and I’m going to check it out,’ ” said Bob Wietrak, vice president of merchandising at Barnes & Noble.

But Alan M. Dershowitz, the lawyer and Harvard Law School professor, said he doubted whether many of the current buyers would ever actually read the book.

“I don’t know anybody who’s ever read a Chomsky book,” said Mr. Dershowitz, who said he first met Mr. Chomsky in 1948 at a Hebrew-speaking Zionist camp in the Pocono Mountains where Mr. Dershowitz was a camper and Mr. Chomsky was a counselor.

“You buy them, you put them in your pockets, you put them out on your coffee table,” said Mr. Dershowitz, a longtime critic of Mr. Chomsky. The people who are buying “Hegemony” now, he added, “I promise you they are not going to get to the end of the book.”

He continued: “He does not write page turners, he writes page stoppers. There are a lot of bent pages in Noam Chomsky’s books, and they are usually at about Page 16.”

Regardless, most authors would be happy for a plug like Mr. Chávez’s. “All world leaders should be enlisted in book publicity,” said David Rosenthal, publisher of Simon & Schuster.

As a matter of fact, it is a growing trend. At a press conference in the East Room of the White House yesterday, Pervez Musharraf, the president of Pakistan, dodged a few questions by joking that Simon & Schuster, which is publishing his memoirs on Sept. 25, had barred him from commenting until his book is out. President Bush played along: “In other words, ‘Buy the book’ is what he’s saying,” Mr. Bush said.

David Callender contributed additional reporting from Madison, Wis.

    U.S. Best Seller, Thanks to Rave by Latin Leftist, NYT, 23.9.006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/books/23chomsky.html?hp&ex=1159070400&en=9cc61599b3ae705d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

‘Hegemony or Survival’: A Sampler

September 23, 2006
The New York Times

In “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance,’’ Noam Chomsky offers a broad critique of American foreign policy from the 1950’s to the Bush administration’s war on terrorism, arguing that United States actions in Cuba, Nicaragua, the Far East and elsewhere are part of a long tradition of foreign interventions carried out by an oppressive power. Excerpts follow.

Those who want to face their responsibilities with a genuine commitment to democracy and freedom — even to decent survival — should recognize the barriers that stand in the way. In violent states these are not concealed. In more democratic societies barriers are more subtle. While methods differ sharply from more brutal to more free societies, the goals are in many ways similar: to ensure that the “great beast,” as Alexander Hamilton called the people, does not stray from its proper confines.

One can discern two trajectories in current history: one aiming toward hegemony, acting rationally within a lunatic doctrinal framework as it threatens survival; the other dedicated to the belief that “another world is possible,” in the words that animate the World Social Forum, challenging the reigning ideological system and seeking to create constructive alternatives of thought, action and institutions. Which trajectory will dominate, no one can foretell.

    ‘Hegemony or Survival’: A Sampler, NYT, 23.9.006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/books/23chombox.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Musharraf Defends Deal With Tribal Leaders

September 22, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 — President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan attempted to convince President Bush today that a deal he approved with tribal leaders in one of the country’s most lawless border areas would result in driving Al Qaeda and Taliban forces out of the area, rather than give them more freedom to operate.

Mr. Bush and his national security aides were clearly skeptical, according to administration officials, but at a press conference, Mr. Bush appeared to take Mr. Musharraf’s assurances at face value. Mr. Musharraf knew that there were enough questions in the air about what amounted to a face-saving retreat for the Pakistani Army that he felt compelled to explain, “This deal is not at all with the Taliban. As I said, this is against the Taliban, actually.’’

At the heart of the discussion in the Oval Office was a fear among American officials that Mr. Musharraf, whose political hold over sections of his own country is tenuous at best, is only episodically engaged in the battle against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That has been an increasingly contentious issue between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with Afghan leaders complaining that many of the attacks launched against Afghan targets are originating from Pakistan’s side of the border.

The visit marked the fifth anniversary of the radical change in Washington’s relationship with Islamabad after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the uneasiness of the alliance created out of those events was on full display today.

Mr. Musharraf, who has a book coming out on Monday, told “60 Minutes’’ in an interview to be broadcast this weekend that a top State Department official, Richard Armitage, had threatened Pakistan’s intelligence chief in September 2001 that the consequences of failing to side with the United States would be huge. He quoted the intelligence chief as recalling Mr. Armitage saying, “Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.’’

But Mr. Armitage said today that he had never made such a threat, and that he was not authorized to make any threats during that meeting. “I never made a threat in my life that I couldn’t back up,’’ he said on CNN. “Since I wasn’t authorized to say such a thing, hence, I couldn’t back up that threat. ‘’

When asked about the issue at the East Room news conference, Mr. Musharraf refused to answer the question — not on national security grounds, but on the grounds that it would violate his book contract. “I am launching my book on the 25th, and I am honor-bound to Simon & Schuster not to comment on the book before that day,’’ he said.

After laughter subsided, Mr. Bush said, “In other words, buy the book.’’

But Mr. Bush also said that he “was taken aback by the harshness of the words’’ of the threat, and doubted that events unfolded that way. He said he recalled that Mr. Musharraf was “one of the first leaders to step up and say that the stakes have changed.’’

Mr. Armitage did recall telling Pakistan’s leaders they had to make a choice — between supporting the Taliban and supporting the United States, which was clearly headed into conflict with the Taliban leaders of Afghanistan. But five years later, the loyalties of the tribal leaders in North Wariristan are divided, with many of the tribesmen allied with Taliban and Al Qaeda.

That subject took up much of the time between the two leaders today. Mr. Musharraf said that the agreement had “three bottom lines.’’ He said one was “no Al Qaeda activities in our tribal agencies or across the border in Afghanistan.’’ The second was “no Taliban activity’’ in the same areas. And the third was “no Talibanization, which is a — obscurantist thoughts or way of life.’’

It is unclear how he can enforce that, however, or even whether federal forces could go into the area to hunt down Osama bin Laden, the Qaeda leader. Tony Snow, the president’s spokesman, said after the news conference that he did not believe the discussion went into that level of detail, though the scope of Islamabad’s authority to send forces into the area is a key point of concern at the White House.

“He made it clear he is serious about going after the Taliban,’’ Mr. Snow said.

That is also a key concern of Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, who is supposed to have dinner with Mr. Musharraf and Mr. Bush at the White House next week. In a meeting with reporters and editors of The New York Times on Thursday, Mr. Karzai said that his government had provided Pakistan with “information on training ground, on operation, people, their phone numbers, their GPS locations,’’ in an effort to rout out Taliban forces.

“Our friends come back to us and say this information is old,’’ he said. “Maybe. But it means they were there.’’

Mr. Bush and Mr. Musharraf stepped around the question of whether American forces or intelligence agencies had the right to go into Pakistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden. Mr. Musharraf has bristled at the idea before, largely because of the unpopularity of giving American forces the right to operate inside Pakistan’s borders. Mr. Bush fudged the issue by saying “we’re on the hunt together.’’

On Thursday, asked if he knew the whereabouts of the Qaeda leader, Mr. Karzai smiled and said, “If I said he was in Pakistan, President Musharraf would be mad at me. And if I said he was in Afghanistan, it would not be true.’’

    Musharraf Defends Deal With Tribal Leaders, NYT, 22.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/asia/2cnd-prexy.html?hp&ex=1158984000&en=38537e43a4ab6cd1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Pakistani Leader Claims U.S. Threat After 9/11

September 22, 2006
By REUTERS
The New York Times

President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said yesterday that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with the American campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

General Musharraf, in an interview with “60 Minutes” that will be broadcast Sunday on CBS, said the threat came from Richard L. Armitage, then the deputy secretary of state, and was made to General Musharraf’s intelligence director.

General Musharraf said the intelligence director had told him that Mr. Armitage had said: “ ‘Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age.’ ”

General Musharraf added, “I think it was a very rude remark.”

Mr. Armitage was not immediately available to comment. A Bush administration official said there would be no comment on a “reported conversation between Mr. Armitage and a Pakistani official.”

But the official said: “After 9/11, Pakistan made a strategic decision to join the war on terror and has since been a steadfast partner in that effort. Pakistan’s commitment to this important endeavor has not wavered, and our partnership has widened as a result.”

General Musharraf is in Washington and is set to meet with President Bush at the White House today.

The Pakistani leader, whose remarks were released by CBS, said he had reacted to the threat in a responsible way. “One has to think and take actions in the interest of the nation, and that’s what I did,” he said.

Before the Sept. 11 attacks, Pakistan was one of the only countries to maintain ties with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which was harboring the Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden. But within days of the attacks, General Musharraf cut Pakistan’s ties to the Taliban government and cooperated with efforts by the United States to capture Qaeda and Taliban forces that had sought refuge in Pakistan.

The official 9/11 Commission Report, based largely on government data, said United States national security officials focused immediately on securing Pakistani cooperation as they planned a response.

Documents showed that Mr. Armitage met the Pakistani ambassador and the visiting leader of Pakistan’s military intelligence service in Washington on Sept. 13, 2001, and asked Pakistan to take seven steps.

They included ending logistical support for Mr. bin Laden and giving the United States blanket overflight and landing rights for military and intelligence flights.

The report did not discuss any threats the United States might have made, but it said that General Musharraf had agreed to all seven United States requests the same day.

Lisa Curtis, a South Asia specialist with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group in Washington, said she did not know exactly what Mr. Armitage had said, but was skeptical that he would have threatened to bomb Pakistan.

“The question of any bombing taking place, that question revolves around Afghanistan,” said Ms. Curtis, a former employee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

“I would find it difficult to believe he talked about bombing Pakistan specifically because, while I don’t know the exact contents of the conversation, I do know it was a pretty firm ultimatum” as far as taking sides with the United States or supporting the Taliban, she said.

With the Taliban still fighting in Afghanistan and statements by the Afghan government that Pakistan must do more to crack down on militants in its rugged border area, the issue is again a delicate one between Islamabad and Washington.

General Musharraf reacted with displeasure to comments by Mr. Bush on Wednesday that if he had firm intelligence that Mr. bin Laden was in Pakistan, he would issue the order to go into that country.

“We wouldn’t like to allow that,’’ General Musharraf said at a news conference. “We’d like to do that ourselves.”

    Pakistani Leader Claims U.S. Threat After 9/11, NYT, 22.9.2006,http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html?hp&ex=1158984000&en=be3c8cdb86a8e1c4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Chavez boosts heating oil program for U.S. poor; takes another swipe at Bush

Updated 9/21/2006 8:44 PM ET
AP
USA Today

NEW YORK (AP) — Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visited a Harlem church Thursday and promised to double the amount of discounted heating oil his country ships to needy Americans. But he also took another swipe at President Bush.
A day after he called Bush "the devil" in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Chavez said of the president: "He's an alcoholic and a sick man."

Bush has acknowledged that he had a drinking problem when he was young but gave up alcohol 20 years ago.

Chavez received a round of applause from the crowd at Mount Olivet Baptist Church, which included activists and other supporters as well as actor Danny Glover.

He called Bush's policies in Iraq criminal, adding he hopes Americans will before long "awaken" and elect a better president. While he opposes Bush, Chavez said the American people "are our friends."

Some in the church laughed and applauded when Chavez compared Bush to cowboy movie icon John Wayne.

Chavez also announced that Citgo, the U.S.-based refining arm of Venezuela's state-run oil company, plans to more than double the amount of heating oil it is making available under the program to 100 million gallons this winter, up from 40 million gallons.

He said the oil will reach people in 17 states, including Indians in Alaska, some of whom were flown to New York for the ceremony and attended in traditional dress. They performed a traditional dance for Chavez and offered him a walrus figurine carved out of whale bone as a gift.

"This will go a long way for a lot of families," said Ian Erlich, a leader of the Alaska Intertribal Council who said many people struggle to afford heating oil where he lives in Kotzebue, Alaska, north of the Artic Circle.

Chavez started the heating oil program last winter, accusing Bush of neglecting the poor. Citgo says up to 1.2 million people will benefit this winter.

While the program started mainly in the Northeast, this winter it is to expand to Alaska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Virginia, Maryland, and the cities of Washington, D.C., and Pittsburgh, Pa.

The United States continues to be the top buyer of Venezuelan oil, bringing the South American country billions of dollars in earnings that help fund Chavez's popular social programs.

Chavez's opponents at home accuse him of squandering the country's oil wealth through preferential oil deals overseas aimed at strengthening political alliances. But Chavez said he is giving away nothing, and that Venezuela also gains by receiving everything from cattle to medical equipment in exchange for oil shipments to Latin American countries.

"We're sharing the bread to try to live a bit better, with solidarity," said Chavez, who also defended Bolivia's right to cultivate coca for uses other than cocaine.

The Venezuelan president repeated his warning that if the U.S. government tries to oust him, his country would halt oil sales to the U.S. Chavez said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's position is the same.

"If that were to happen, the price of oil could reach $200 a barrel," Chavez said, adding that he'd like to see a U.S. president "who you could talk with."

Chavez said some people have warned him about his safety after he called Bush "the devil" in his speech Wednesday.

"They've told me since last night, because I said he was a devil ... to be careful, because they could kill me," Chavez said, without elaborating. "I'm in the hands of God. I'm not afraid."

House majority leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, called Chavez a "power-hungry autocrat" and said his speech was "an embarrassment and an insult to the American people."

    Chavez boosts heating oil program for U.S. poor; takes another swipe at Bush, UT, 21.9.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-09-21-us-chavez_x.htm

Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites

September 21, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 20 — In the end, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran lost the much-hyped war of words waged against President Bush at the General Assembly. A stealth opponent swooped in and took the prize.

Speaking on Wednesday from the same lectern Mr. Bush had occupied the day before, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela announced, to gasps and even giggles: “The devil came here yesterday, right here.

“It smells of sulfur still today, this table that I am now standing in front of,” he said.

Just hours before, Mr. Ahmadinejad took issue with the great Satan, too. But what a difference. Where Mr. Chávez was Khrushchevian, waving around books and stopping just short of shoe-banging, Mr. Ahmadinejad was flowery, almost Socratic in his description of behavior that only the devil would condone.

“By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth, while others endure poverty,” Mr. Ahmadinejad lectured. “Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats while others live in poverty. Some occupy the homelands of others, interfering in their affairs and controlling their oil and resources, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes, their children murdered in the streets.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad, who has been known for inflammatory language in his sound bites at home, suggesting that Israel should be wiped off the map and denying the Holocaust, was much less direct in his United Nations speech, asking question after question.

An example: “The question needs to be asked: if the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom, who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the U.N. can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened?”

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech received all the buildup beforehand, particularly since he was scheduled on Tuesday, the same day as Mr. Bush. At the end of his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad, as Mr. Bush did before him, received polite, diplomatic-style applause from the assembled officials, junior note-takers and various United Nations bureaucrats.

And for Mr. Chávez?

The gasps. The horrified giggles. The loud applause that lasted so long that the organization’s officials had to tell the cheering group to cut it out.

President Bush’s defenders noted that at least the United States had let Mr. Chávez and Mr. Ahmadinejad come here and say whatever they pleased without being thrown in jail. John R. Bolton, the American ambassador to the United Nations, who said that someone at the “junior note-taker” level was chronicling Mr. Chávez’s speech for the United States, offered: “You know, it’s a phenomenon of the United States that not only can he say those things in the General Assembly, he could walk over to Central Park and exercise freedom of speech in Central Park, too, and say pretty much whatever he wanted. Too bad President Chávez doesn’t extend the same freedom of speech to the people of Venezuela.”

For her part, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Mr. Chávez’s comments were “not becoming of a head of state.”

But compared with Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Chávez was just more colorful. He brandished a copy of Noam Chomsky’s “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” and recommended it to members of the General Assembly to read. Later, he told a news conference that one of his greatest regrets was not getting to meet Mr. Chomsky before he died. (Mr. Chomsky, 77, is still alive.)

At that same news conference, just after his speech, he made eyes at a pretty Colombian journalist who asked him why he went around calling President Bush names. “Are you Colombian?” Mr. Chávez asked, performing a quick merengue move with his upper body and flashing her a grin.

He suggested that Americans read Mr. Chomsky’s book instead of spending all their time “watching Superman and Batman” movies.

Minutes later, at the same news conference, Mr. Chávez offered to double the amount of heating oil Venezuela donates to poor communities in the United States. He reminded reporters that Citgo, which is owned by Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., delivered free and discounted oil to Indian tribal reservations and low-income neighborhoods in the United States, including the Bronx.

“We are ready to double our oil donations,” Mr. Chávez said. “That is a Christian gesture.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad did not offer any Iranian oil to poor United States neighborhoods.

    Iran Who? Venezuela Takes the Lead in a Battle of Anti-U.S. Sound Bites, NYT, 21.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/21/world/21speeches.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

At U.N., Chavez Calls Bush 'The Devil'

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:45 p.m. ET
September 20, 2006
The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush ''the devil.''

The impassioned speech by the leftist leader came a day after Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparred over Tehran's disputed nuclear program but managed to avoid a personal encounter.

''The devil came here yesterday,'' Chavez said, referring to Bush's address on Tuesday and making the sign of the cross. ''He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world.''

The leftist leader, who has joined Iran and Cuba in opposing U.S. influence, accused Washington of ''domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world.''

''We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head,'' he said.

The main U.S. seat in the assembly hall was empty as Chavez spoke. But there was a ''junior note taker'' there, as is customary ''when governments like that speak,'' the U.S. ambassador to the U.N said.

Ambassador John Bolton told The Associated Press that Chavez had the right to express his opinion, adding it was ''too bad the people of Venezuela don't have free speech.''

''I'm just not going to comment on this because his remarks just don't warrant a response,'' Bolton said. ''Serious people can listen to what he had to say and if they do they will reject it.''

Chavez drew tentative giggles at times from the audience, but also some applause when he called Bush the devil.

Chavez spoke on the second day of the annual ministerial meetings, which were overshadowed by an ambitious agenda of sideline talks.

The Mideast peace process also was in the spotlight, with ministers from the Quartet that drafted the stalled road map -- the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia -- planning to meet. The Security Council also was scheduled to hold a ministerial meeting Thursday that Arab leaders hope will help revive the Mideast peace process.

Bush tried to advance his campaign for democracy in the Middle East during his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, saying extremists were trying to justify their violence by falsely claiming the U.S. is waging war on Islam. He singled out Iran and Syria as sponsors of terrorism.

Bush also pointed to Tehran's rejection of a Security Council demand to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31 or face the possibility of sanctions. But he addressed his remarks to the Iranian people in a clear insult to the government.

''The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,'' the U.S. leader said.

''Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,'' he said. ''Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.''

He said he hoped to see ''the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.''

Ahmadinejad took the podium hours later, denouncing U.S. policies in Iraq and Lebanon and accusing Washington of abusing its power in the Security Council to punish others while protecting its own interests and allies.

The hard-line leader insisted that his nation's nuclear activities are ''transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye'' of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Earlier this month, Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Bush at the General Assembly's ministerial meeting after the White House dismissed a previous TV debate proposal as a ''diversion'' from serious concerns over Iran's nuclear program.

But even though the two leaders spoke from the same podium, they skipped each other's addresses and managed to avoid direct contact during the ministerial meeting.

Also on Wednesday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned that terrorism is rebounding in his country and said efforts to build democracy there had suffered setbacks over the past year as violence increased, especially in the volatile south where NATO forces have been battling Taliban militants in some of the fiercest battles since the hard-line government was toppled in 2001.

''We have seen terrorism rebounding as terrorists have infiltrated our borders to step up their murderous campaign against our people,'' he told the General Assembly.

He said the situation was so bad it had contributed to a rise in polio from four cases in 2005 to 27 this year because health workers were unable to reach the region.

But he said the problem had to be fought beyond Afghanistan's borders as well as within.

''We must look beyond Afghanistan to the sources of terrorism,'' he said. ''We must destroy terrorist sanctuaries beyond Afghanistan.''

He also expressed concern about ''the increased incidents of Islamophobia in the West,'' saying it does not ''bode well for the cause of building understanding and cooperation across civilizations.''

The crisis in the ravaged Sudanese region of Darfur also was on the agenda Wednesday, with the African Union's Peace and Security Council meeting to discuss breaking the deadlock over a plan to replace an AU force with U.N. peacekeepers.

The Sudanese president said his country won't allow the United Nations to take control of peacekeepers in Darfur under any circumstance, claiming that rights groups have exaggerated the crisis there in a bid for more cash.

But Omar al-Bashir did say that the African Union, which now runs the peacekeeping mission in Darfur, should be allowed to augment its forces with more logistics, advisers and other support.

''We want the African Union to remain in Darfur until peace is re-established in Sudan,'' al-Bashir said at a news conference. Those comments suggest that the African Union will not face any resistance in renewing the peacekeeping force's mandate, which expires Sept. 30.

Associated Press writers Ian James and Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this story.

    At U.N., Chavez Calls Bush 'The Devil', NYT, 20.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-UN-Venezuela.html?hp&ex=1158811200&en=525846319c57aae6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Iran Leader Says U.S. Abusing U.N. Power

September 19, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:48 p.m. ET
The New York Times

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took aim at U.S. policies in Iraq and Lebanon on Tuesday, and accused Washington of abusing its power in the U.N. Security Council to punish others while protecting its own interests and allies.

He addressed the annual U.N. General Assembly hours after President Bush spoke to the same forum. But while Ahmadinejad harshly criticized the United States, Bush directed his remarks to the Iranian people in a clear insult to the hard-line government.

In his speech, Bush pointed to the Iranian government's rejection of a Security Council demand to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31 or face sanctions.

''The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,'' the U.S. leader said.

''Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,'' he said. ''Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.''

He also said he hoped to see ''the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.''

Ahmadinejad insisted that his nation's nuclear activities are ''transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye'' of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

But even though the two leaders were addressing the same forum, they skipped each other's speeches and managed to avoid direct contact during the ministerial meeting.

Ahmadinejad also accused the United States and Britain of using their veto power on the Security Council to further their own interests and he said it had become an ''instrument of threat and coercion.''

''If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council,'' and assign themselves the roles of ''prosecutor, judge and executioner,'' Ahmadinejad said. ''Is this a just order?''

The U.S. and Britain played central roles in helping craft a U.N. Security Council resolution passed in July that gave Iran until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment and asked the IAEA to report on Tehran's compliance, dangling the threat of sanctions if Iran refused. Tehran made clear even before the deadline expired that it had no intention of suspending uranium enrichment.

The IAEA last week rejected a recent American report on Iran's nuclear capability, saying the Islamic republic has produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

Ahmadinejad also criticized the Security Council for failing to call for an immediate cease-fire after war broke out between Israel and the Islamic militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon. A truce was only reached on Aug. 14 to end the 34-day conflict.

''The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese ... Why?'' asked Ahmadinejad, whose government is one of Hezbollah's main backers.

He said the answer is self-evident: ''When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this council fulfill its responsibilities.''

The United States and Britain refused to call for a cease-fire during the monthlong war between Israel and Hezbollah, declaring it part of war on terror. Only after Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah and the deaths of nearly 1,000 Lebanese civilians did Washington and London agree to push for a truce by the U.N. Security Council.

The Iranian leader had harsh words about U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying ''the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq'' and every day hundreds of people get killed ''in cold blood.''

Ahmadinejad claimed that numerous terrorists apprehended by the Iraqi government were ''let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.''

Domestically, Ahmadinejad, who doesn't enjoy widespread popularity among his people, has been able to use America's uncompromising stand against Iran's nuclear program to his own benefit. Many Iranians, including those who are against the president's domestic policies, support him in his showdown with the United States on the nuclear issue.

In an interview with ''NBC Nightly News,'' Ahmadinejad was asked about Bush's appeal to the Iranian people.

''We have the same desire ... to be together for the cause of world peace,'' he said through a translator.

''We think that the American people are like our people. They're good people, they support peace, equality and brotherhood,'' he said.

He said his issue was with the U.S. administration.

''I explicitly say that I am against the policies chosen by the U.S. government to run the world because these policies are moving the world toward war,'' he said.

    Iran Leader Says U.S. Abusing U.N. Power, NYT, 20.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-UN-Iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Defiant Bush assails Iran, Syria at UN

Tue Sep 19, 2006 1:56 PM ET
Reuters
By Paul Taylor

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - President Bush accused Iran's rulers on Tuesday of using their people's resources to fund terrorists and pursue nuclear weapons but, facing uncertain international support, vowed to seek a diplomatic solution.

In a speech to the United Nations challenging critics of his muscular promotion of democracy in the Middle East, Bush assailed the leaders of Iran and Syria while appealing to their peoples over their heads.

"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," he told Iranians.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has defended his country's right to peaceful nuclear technology, was not in the chamber to hear Bush, but he was expected to respond in his own address to the U.N. General Assembly later in the day.

"Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions," Bush declared after telling reporters he would push for sanctions if Tehran continued to stall on U.N. demands to suspend uranium enrichment, which the West suspects is aimed at making a bomb.

But with international backing for punitive measures shaky, he stressed Washington would prefer to resolve the dispute diplomatically, allowing the European Union a little more time to seek a formula for launching negotiations.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said on Monday it would be wrong to push for a sanctions resolution against Iran when the Europeans were making "real progress" in talks with Tehran. He said he would meet Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, in New York later this week.

Bush said Syria's leaders had made their country "a crossroads for terrorism" and told Syrians: "In your midst, Hamas and Hizbollah are working to destabilize the region, and your government is turning your country into a tool of Iran."

The U.S. president vigorously rebutted critics, including many opposition Democrats at home, who argue his muscular drive for democracy has destabilized the Middle East from Iraq to the Palestinian territories, empowered Islamists and spread chaos.

'FALSE ASSUMPTION'

"This argument rests on a false assumption: that the Middle East was stable to begin with," Bush argued, rejecting what he called extremist "propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam."

Yet he faced growing skepticism over his policies for Iran and Iraq, with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warning Iraq is in grave danger of civil war while France, Russia and China argue against a rush to sanctions against Iran.

French President Jacques Chirac said in his address that "dialogue must prevail" in the stand-off with Iran. In contrast to Bush, he told the assembly: "We do not aim to call regimes into question."

Bush and Ahmadinejad slept at adjacent hotels and were to address the annual U.N. General Assembly session within hours of each other, but their paths did not cross.

The Iranian president, a strict Muslim, declined to attend a lunch for world leaders, including Bush, hosted by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, ostensibly because wine was on the menu. Other Muslim leaders attend but don't drink.

Asked in an interview with Time magazine why Iran would not suspend enrichment as a confidence-building measure, Ahmadinejad said: "Whose confidence should be built?"

"The world? Who is the world? The United States? The U.S. administration is not the entire world. Europe does not account for one-twentieth of the entire world," he said.

Annan used his final address to the General Assembly before leaving office after 10 years in December to plead for Security Council action to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, saying efforts to solve all other Middle East crises would face resistance while the Palestinian question remained unresolved.

A tearful Annan won a prolonged standing ovation from the 192-member General Assembly after declaring: "Together we have pushed some big rocks to the top of the mountain, even if others have slipped from our grasp and rolled back."

Jewish organizations and exiled Iranian opposition groups protested against Ahmadinejad's visit to New York over his calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, his questioning of the Nazi Holocaust and Iran's human rights record.

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Evelyn Leopold)

    Defiant Bush assails Iran, Syria at UN, R, 19.9.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-09-19T175603Z_01_N19330742_RTRUKOC_0_US-UN-ASSEMBLY.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-politicsNews-2

Bush accuses Iran of backing terror

Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:38 PM ET
Reuters

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Tuesday in a message to the Iranian people that the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is using their resources to fund terrorists and pursue nuclear weapons.

In his annual address to the U.N. General Assembly, Bush directed a portion of his remarks to Iranians, saying "you deserve an opportunity to determine your own future" and an economy that rewards their talents.

"The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," Bush said.

Bush has long sought to show his support for Iranians against a Tehran government that Washington sees as a major supporter of terrorism.

With the United States and Europeans pressuring Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, Bush told Iranians that "despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program."

"We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace," Bush said.

    Bush accuses Iran of backing terror, R, 19.9.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-19T183758Z_01_N19405827_RTRUKOC_0_US-UN-BUSH-IRAN.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2

Bush warns Iran to give up 'nuclear weapons ambition'

Updated 9/19/2006 2:43 PM ET
USA TODAY
By Douglas Stangin

UNITED NATIONS — President Bush, in a speech today to the United Nations General Assembly today, warned that Iran must give up its "nuclear weapons ambition" and called on moderates and reformers in the Middle East to marginalize extremists and terrorists.

Bush spoke to world leaders and diplomats at the opening of the 61st Assembly in the same venue he used four years ago to make the case for the world to stand firm against Saddam Hussein on charges that he possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Iran has emerged as a leading target in Bush's war on terrorism because of its nuclear program and support for militant groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The president said Tehran must heed a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Iran to suspend its program to make nuclear fuel. "Iran must abandon its nuclear weapon ambitions," Bush said.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes, while Bush says Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Although his remarks on Iran were pointed, Bush said he was working to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

His warning to Iran came in a sweeping overview of the Middle East in which the president called for a "world beyond terror."

"We must seek stability through a free and just Middle East, where the extremists are marginalized by millions of citizens in control of their own destinies," he said.

"America has made its choice," Bush told the assembly. "We will stand with the moderates and reformers.

The president spoke only hours before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was to address the same gathering.

Ahmadinejad challenged Bush to a debate last month. The White House rejected it as a publicity stunt and diversion from dealing with the nuclear issue. Their speeches may be the closest the two come to a debate.

Bush met earlier with French President Jacques Chirac. France is part of the coalition of nations working with the United States to try to stop Iran from taking steps that could lead to producing a nuclear weapon.

The United States wants the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran because it refused to meet an Aug. 31 council deadline to halt uranium enrichment.

Chirac, who is balking at the U.S. drive to sanction Iran for defying U.N. deadlines, proposed a compromise to kick-start talks between Iran and the international community. Chirac He suggested that the threat of U.N. sanctions be suspended if Tehran puts a freeze on its uranium enrichment work.

"I am not pessimistic," Chirac said. "I think that Iran is a great nation, an old culture, an old civilization, and that we can find solutions through dialogue."

In his speech, Bush also announced that Andrew Natsios, the former head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, will become Bush's special envoy for Sudan to help end the fighting in the Darfur region, where more than 200,000 people have been killed in three years of unrest.

Contributing: David Jackson and Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY; the Associated Press

    Bush warns Iran to give up 'nuclear weapons ambition' , UT, 19.9.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-19-Bush-UN_x.htm

Transcript

President Bush's United Nations Address

September 19, 2006
The New York Times
 

Following is the transcript of President Bush's address at the United Nations, as provided by CQ Transcriptions, Inc.



Mr. Secretary General, Madam President, distinguished delegates, and ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for the privilege of speaking to this General Assembly.



Last week America and the world marked the fifth anniversary of the attacks that filled another September morning with death and suffering. On that terrible day, extremists killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, including citizens of dozens of nations represented right here in this chamber.



Since then, the enemies of humanity have continued their campaign of murder. Al Qaida and those inspired by its extremist ideology have attacked more than two dozen nations. And recently a different group of extremists deliberately provoked a terrible conflict in Lebanon.



At the start of the 21st century, it is clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle between extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear and moderate people who work for peace.



Five years ago I stood at this podium and called on the community of nations to defend civilization and build a more hopeful future. This is still the great challenge of our time.



It is the calling of our generation.



This morning I want to speak about the more hopeful world that is within our reach, a world beyond terror, where ordinary men and women are free to determine their own destiny, where the voices of moderation are empowered, and where the extremists are marginalized by the peaceful majority.



This world can be ours, if we seek it and if we work together.



The principles of this world beyond terror can be found in the very first sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document declares that, The equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom and justice and peace in the world.



One of the authors of this document was a Lebanese diplomat named Charles Malik, who would go on to become president of this assembly.



Mr. Malik insisted that these principles applied equally to all people, of all regions, of all religions, including the men and women of the Arab world that was his home.



In the nearly six decades since that document was approved, we have seen the forces of freedom and moderation transform entire continents. Sixty years after a terrible war, Europe is now whole, free and at peace, and Asia has seen freedom progress and hundreds of millions of people lifted out of desperate poverty.



The words of the Universal Declaration are as true today as they were when they were written.



As liberty flourishes, nations grow in tolerance and hope and peace. And we're seeing that bright future begin to take root in the broader Middle East.



Some of the changes in the Middle East have been dramatic, and we see the results in this chamber.



Five years ago, Afghanistan was ruled by the brutal Taliban regime, and its seat in this body was contested.



Now this seat is held by the freely elected government of Afghanistan, which is represented today by President Karzai.



Five years ago, Iraq's seat in this body was held by a dictator who killed his citizens, invaded his neighbors and showed his contempt for the world by defying more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions.



Now Iraq's seat is held by a democratic government that embodies the aspirations of the Iraq people. It is represented today by President Talabani.



With these changes, more than 50 million people have been give an voice in this chamber for the first time in decades.



Some of the changes in the Middle East are happening gradually, but they are real.



Algeria has held its first competitive presidential election, and the military remained neutral.



The United Arab Emirates recently announced that half of its seats in the Federal National Council will be chosen by elections.



Kuwait held elections in which women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time.



Citizens have voted in municipal elections in Saudi Arabia and parliamentary elections in Jordan and Bahrain and in multiparty presidential elections in Yemen and Egypt.



These are important steps, and the governments should continue to move forward with other reforms that show they trust their people.



Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions.



But the destination is the same: a free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world.



Some have argued that the democratic changes we're seeing in the Middle East are destabilizing the region.



This argument rests on a false assumption: that the Middle East was stable to begin with.



The reality is that the stability we thought we saw in the Middle East was a mirage.



For decades, millions of men and women in the region had been trapped in oppression and hopelessness. And these conditions left a generation disillusioned and made this region a breeding ground for extremism.



Imagine what it's like to be a young person living in a country that is not moving toward reform. You're 21 years old, and while your peers in other parts of the world are casting their ballots for the first time, you are powerless to change the course of your government.



While your peers in other parts of the world have received educations that prepare them for the opportunities of a global economy, you have been fed propaganda and conspiracy theories that blame others for your country's shortcomings.



And everywhere you turn, you hear extremists who tell you that you can escape your misery and regain your dignity through violence and terror and martyrdom.



For many across the broader Middle East this is the dismal choice presented every day.



Every civilized nation, including those in the Muslim world, must support those in the region who are offering a more hopeful alternative.



We know that when people have a voice in their future, they are less likely to blow themselves up in suicide attacks. We know that when leaders are accountable to their people, they are more likely to seek national greatness in the achievements of their citizens, rather than in terror and conquest.



So we must stand with democratic leaders and moderate reformers across the broader Middle East. We must give them voice to the hopes of decent men and women who want for their children the same thing we want for ours.



We must seek stability through a free and just Middle East, where the extremists are marginalized by millions of citizens in control of their own destinies.



Today I'd like to speak directly to the people across the broader Middle East.



My country desires peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in a war against Islam.



This propaganda is false and its purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror.



We respect Islam, but we will protect our people from those who pervert Islam to sow death and destruction.



Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promotes the peace.



To the people of Iraq, nearly 12 million of you braved the car bombers and assassins last December to vote in free elections.



The world saw you hold up purple-ink-stained fingers. And your courage filled us with admiration.



You stood firm in the face of horrendous acts of terror and sectarian violence. And we will not abandon you and your struggle to build a free nation.



America and our coalition partners will continue to stand with the democratic government you elected. We will continue to help you secure the international assistance and investment you need to create jobs and opportunity, working with the United Nations and through the international compact with Iraq endorsed here in New York yesterday.



We will continue to train those of you who step forward to fight the enemies of freedom. We will not yield the future of your country to terrorists and extremists.



In return, your leaders must rise to the challenges your country is facing and make difficult choices to bring security and prosperity.



Working together, we will help your democracy succeed so it can become a beacon of hope for millions in the Muslim world.



To the people of Afghanistan, together we overthrew the Taliban regime that brought misery into your lives and harbored terrorists who brought death to the citizens of many nations.



Since then, we have watched you choose your leaders in free elections and build a democratic government.



You can be proud of these achievements.



We respect your courage and determination to live in peace and freedom. We will continue to stand with you to defend your democratic gains.



Today, forces from more than 40 countries, including members of the NATO alliance, are bravely serving side by side with you against the extremists who want to bring down the free government you've established. We'll help you defeat these enemies and build a free Afghanistan that will never again oppress you or be a safe haven for terrorists.



To the people of Lebanon, last year you inspired the world when you came out into the streets to demand your independence from Syrian dominance.



You drove Syrian forces from your country and you reestablished democracy.



Since then, you have been tested by the fighting that began with Hezbollah's unprovoked attacks on Israel. Many of you have seen your homes and your communities caught in crossfire.



We see your suffering and the world is helping you to rebuild your country and helping you deal with the armed extremists who are undermining your democracy by acting as a state within a state.



The United Nations has passed a good resolution that has authorized an international force, led by France and Italy, to help you restore Lebanese sovereignty over Lebanese soil.



For many years, Lebanon was a model of democracy and pluralism and openness in the region. And it will be again.



To the people of Iran, the United States respects you.



We respect your country. We admire your rich history, your vibrant culture and your many contributions to civilization.



You deserve an opportunity to determine your own future, an economy that rewards your intelligence and your talents, and a society that allows you to fulfill your tremendous potential.



The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons.



The United Nations has passed a clear resolution requiring that the regime in Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions.



Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.



We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis. And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.



To the people of Syria, your land is home to a great people with a proud tradition of learning and commerce. Today, your rulers have allowed your country to become a crossroad for terrorism.



In your midst, Hamas and Hezbollah are working to destabilize the region, and your government is turning your country into a tool of Iran. This is increasing your country's isolation from the world.



Your government must choose a better way forward by ending its support for terror and living at peace with your neighbors, and opening the way to a better life for you and your families.



To the people of Darfur, you have suffered unspeakable violence. And my nation has called these atrocities what they are: genocide.



For the last two years, America joined with the international community to provide emergency food aid and support for an African Union peacekeeping force. Yet your suffering continues.



The world must step forward to provide additional humanitarian aid. And we must strengthen the African Union force that has done good work, but is not strong enough to protect you.



The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the African Union force into a blue-helmeted force that is larger and more robust. To increase its strength and effectiveness, NATO nations should provide logistics and other support.



The regime in Khartoum is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly, the United Nations must act. Your lives and the credibility of the United Nations is at stake.



So today I'm announcing that I'm naming a presidential special envoy, former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, to lead America's efforts to resolve the outstanding disputes and help bring peace to your land.



The world must also stand up for peace in the Holy Land. I'm committed to two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.



I'm committed to a Palestinian state that has territorial integrity and will live peacefully with the Jewish state of Israel.



This is the vision set forth in the road map, and helping the parties reach this goal is one of the great objectives of my presidency.



The Palestinian people have suffered from decades of corruption and violence and the daily humiliation of occupation. Israeli citizens have endured brutal acts of terrorism and constant fear of attack since the birth of their nation.



Many brave men and women have made the commitment to peace, yet extremists in the region are stirring up hatred and trying to prevent these moderate voices from prevailing.



The struggle is unfolding in the Palestinian territories.



Earlier this year, the Palestinian people voted in a free election. The leaders of Hamas campaigned on a platform of ending corruption and improving the lives of the Palestinian people, and they prevailed.



The world is waiting to see whether the Hamas government will follow through on its promises or pursue an extremist agenda.



The world has sent a clear message to the leaders of Hamas: Serve the interests of the Palestinian people, abandon terror, recognize Israel's right to exist, honor agreements that work for peace.



President Abbas is committed to peace and to his people's aspirations for a state of their own.



Prime Minister Olmert is committed to peace and has said he intends to meet with President Abbas to make real progress on the outstanding issues between them.



I believe peace can be achieved and that a democratic Palestinian state is possible.



I hear from leaders in the region who want to help.



I directed Secretary of State Rice to lead a diplomatic effort to engage moderate leaders across the region to help the Palestinians reform their security services and support Israeli and Palestinian leaders in their efforts to come together to resolve their differences.



Prime Minister Blair has indicated that his country will work with partners in Europe to help strengthen the governing institutions of the Palestinian administration. We welcome his initiative.



Countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt have made clear they're willing to contribute the diplomatic and financial assistance necessary to help these efforts succeed.



I'm optimistic that, by supporting the forces of democracy and moderation, we can help Israelis and Palestinians build a more hopeful future and achieve the peace in the Holy Land we all want.



Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed.



It must be chosen.



From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom.



And the nations gathered in this chamber must make a choice as well. Will we support the moderates and reformers who are working for change across the Middle East, or will we yield the future to the terrorists and extremists?



America has made its choice. We will stand with the moderates and reformers.



Recently, a courageous group of Arab and Muslim intellectuals wrote me a letter. In it, they said this: The shore of reform is the only one on which any lights appear, even though the journey demands courage and patience and perseverance.



The United Nations was created to make that journey possible. Together, we must support the dreams of good and decent people who are working to transform a troubled region. And by doing so, we will advance the high ideals on which this institution was founded.



Thank you for your time. God bless.

    President Bush's United Nations Address, NYT, 19.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/19bush_transcript.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Canadians Fault U.S. for Its Role in Torture Case

September 19, 2006
The New York Times
By IAN AUSTEN

OTTAWA, Sept. 18 — A government commission on Monday exonerated a Canadian computer engineer of any ties to terrorism and issued a scathing report that faulted Canada and the United States for his deportation four years ago to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured.

The report on the engineer, Maher Arar, said American officials had apparently acted on inaccurate information from Canadian investigators and then misled Canadian authorities about their plans for Mr. Arar before transporting him to Syria.

“I am able to say categorically that there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Arar has committed any offense or that his activities constituted a threat to the security of Canada,” Justice Dennis R. O’Connor, head of the commission, said at a news conference.

The report’s findings could reverberate heavily through the leadership of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which handled the initial intelligence on Mr. Arar that led security officials in both Canada and the United States to assume he was a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist.

The report’s criticisms and recommendations are aimed primarily at Canada’s own government and activities, rather than the United States government, which refused to cooperate in the inquiry.

But its conclusions about a case that had emerged as one of the most infamous examples of rendition — the transfer of terrorism suspects to other nations for interrogation — draw new attention to the Bush administration’s handling of detainees. And it comes as the White House and Congress are contesting legislation that would set standards for the treatment and interrogation of prisoners.

“The American authorities who handled Mr. Arar’s case treated Mr. Arar in a most regrettable fashion,” Justice O’Connor wrote in a three-volume report, not all of which was made public. “They removed him to Syria against his wishes and in the face of his statements that he would be tortured if sent there. Moreover, they dealt with Canadian officials involved with Mr. Arar’s case in a less than forthcoming manner.”

A spokesman for the United States Justice Department, Charles Miller, and a White House spokesman traveling with President Bush in New York said officials had not seen the report and could not comment.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada planned to act on the report but offered no details. “Probably in the few weeks to come we’ll be able to give you more details on that,’’ he told reporters.

The Syrian-born Mr. Arar was seized on Sept. 26, 2002, after he landed at Kennedy Airport in New York on his way home from a holiday in Tunisia. On Oct. 8, he was flown to Jordan in an American government plane and taken overland to Syria, where he says he was held for 10 months in a tiny cell and beaten repeatedly with a metal cable. He was freed in October 2003, after Syrian officials concluded that he had no connection to terrorism and returned him to Canada.

Mr. Arar’s case attracted considerable attention in Canada, where critics viewed it as an example of the excesses of the campaign against terror that followed the Sept. 11 attacks. The practice of rendition has caused an outcry from human rights organizations as “outsourcing torture,” because suspects often have been taken to countries where brutal treatment of prisoners is routine.

The commission supports that view, describing a Mounted Police force that was ill-prepared to assume the intelligence duties assigned to it after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Arar, speaking at a news conference, praised the findings. “Today Justice O’Connor has cleared my name and restored my reputation,” he said. “I call on the government of Canada to accept the findings of this report and hold these people responsible.”

His lawyer, Marlys Edwardh, said the report affirmed that Mr. Arar, who has been unemployed since his return to Canada, was deported and tortured because of “a breathtakingly incompetent investigation.”

The commission found that Mr. Arar first came to police attention on Oct. 12, 2001, when he met with Abdullah Almalki, a man already under surveillance by a newly established Mounted Police intelligence unit known as Project A-O Canada. Mr. Arar has said in interviews that the meeting at Mango’s Cafe in Ottawa, and a subsequent 20-minute conversation outside the restaurant, was mostly about finding inexpensive ink jet printer cartridges.

The meeting set off a chain of actions by the police. Investigators obtained a copy of Mr. Arar’s rental lease. After finding Mr. Almalki listed as an emergency contact, they stepped up their investigation of Mr. Arar. At the end of that month, the police asked customs officials to include Mr. Arar and his wife on a “terrorist lookout” list, which would subject them to more intensive question when re-entering Canada.

However, the commission found that the designation should have only been applied to people who are members or associates of terrorist networks. Neither the police nor customs had any such evidence of that concerning Mr. Arar or his wife, an economist.

From there, the Mounted Police asked that the couple be included in a database that alerts United States border officers to suspect individuals. The police described Mr. Arar and his wife as, the report said, “Islamic extremists suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda movement.”

The commission said that all who testified before it accepted that the description was false.

According to the inquiry’s finding, the Mounted Police gave the F.B.I. and other American authorities material from Project A-O Canada, which included suggestions that Mr. Arar had visited Washington around Sept. 11 and had refused to cooperate with the Canadian police. The handover of the data violated the force’s own guidelines, but was justified on the basis that such rules no longer applied after 2001.

In July 2002, the Mounted Police learned that Mr. Arar and his family were in Tunisia, and incorrectly concluded that they had left Canada permanently.

On Sept. 26, 2002, the F.B.I. called Project A-O and told the Canadian police that Mr. Arar was scheduled to arrive in about one hour from Zurich. The F.B.I. also said it planned to question Mr. Arar and then send him back to Switzerland. Responding to a fax from the F.B.I., the Mounted Police provided the American investigators with a list of questions for Mr. Arar. Like the other information, it included many false claims about Mr. Arar, the commission found.

The Canadian police “had no idea of what would eventually transpire,’’ the commission said. “It did not occur to them that the American authorities were contemplating sending Mr. Arar to Syria.”

While the F.B.I. and the Mounted Police kept up their communications about Mr. Arar, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs was not told about his detention for almost three days. Its officials, acting on calls from worried relatives, had been trying to find him. Similarly, American officials denied Mr. Arar’s requests to speak with the Canadian Consulate in New York, a violation of international agreements.

Evidence presented to the commission, said Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo, its lead counsel, showed that the F.B.I. continued to keep its Canadian counterparts in the dark even while an American jet was carrying Mr. Arar to Jordan. The panel found that American officials “believed — quite correctly — that, if informed, the Canadians would have serious concerns about the plan to remove Mr. Arar to Syria.”

Mr. Arar arrived in Syria on Oct. 9, 2002, and was imprisoned there until Oct. 5, 2003. It took Canadian officials, however, until Oct. 21 to locate him in Syria. The commission concludes that Syrian officials at first denied knowing Mr. Arar’s whereabouts to hide the fact that he was being tortured. It says that, among other things, he was beaten with a shredded electrical cable until he was disoriented.

American officials have not discussed the case publicly. But in an interview last year, a former official said on condition of anonymity that the decision to send Mr. Arar to Syria had been based chiefly on the desire to get more information about him and the threat he might pose. The official said Canada did not intend to hold him if he returned home.

Mr. Arar said he appealed a recent decision by a federal judge in New York dismissing the suit he brought against the United States. The report recommends that the Canadian government, which is also being sued by Mr. Arar, offer him compensation and possibly a job.

Mr. Arar recently moved to Kamloops, British Columbia, where his wife found a teaching position.

Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington.

    Canadians Fault U.S. for Its Role in Torture Case, NYT, 19.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?hp&ex=1158724800&en=19cef65f49917a76&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.S. Asks Finance Chiefs to Limit Iran’s Access to Banks

September 17, 2006
The New York Times
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

SINGAPORE, Sept. 16 — The United States pressed the top finance officials of the world’s leading industrial nations on Saturday to crack down on what Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. said was the exploitation of their banking systems by at least 30 Iranian front companies involved in illicit activities.

Mr. Paulson said he had told the finance and economic ministers that the front companies were identified by American intelligence agencies as funneling money to terrororist groups using banks in Europe and elsewhere, many of them “blue chip banks.”

Mr. Paulson said that many leading trading companies in Iran with legitimate business operations were also involved in the illicit activities, and that it behooved any legitimate bank to realize that it was risky to continue doing even legitimate business with the companies.

He called on banks around the world to be “vigilant” in opposing such risks and to avoid “inadvertently facilitating the kinds of activities that they wouldn’t want to facilitate.”

“Iran is a country that has broad, deep and commercial relationships with much of the world that have gone on for some time,” Mr. Paulson told reporters here. “This was nothing more than an educational briefing to prepare financial institutions for dealing with some of the risks that are out there.”

He said banks around the world also needed to stop doing business with North Korea, but added that North Korea was already almost entirely isolated from the world’s financial system. By contrast, Iran is still a major player globally.

The Treasury chief’s comments came after he met with his counterparts from Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan and the European Union, who had come for the annual gathering of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The comments appeared to reflect the emerging Bush administration strategy on Iran as efforts to impose sanctions by the United Nations Security Council have faltered.

The administration charges that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program, a charge that Iran denies. Iran is also accused of transferring funds to Hezbollah and other Islamic militant organizations through regular commercial banks.

Last week, in what administration officials call a major escalation in the effort to squeeze Iran economically, the Treasury Department announced that Bank Saderat, a major bank in Iran, would no longer have even indirect access to the United States financial system.

Banking experts say that the decree means that Iran will have difficulty selling anything for dollars through Bank Saderat, because any commercial exchange that uses dollars normally obtains them from an American bank. Oil in particularly is always traded in dollars. Many banking experts say the administration may make other banks off-limits soon.

After the announcement on Bank Saderat, two senior Treasury officials visited Europe to try to persuade regulators and banks to stop doing business with Bank Saderat and any other banks that are alleged to be involved in illicit activities. Some European banks have already curtailed their activities with Iran, but many leading banks have refused.

Stuart Levey, under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence, visited Britain, France, Switzerland, Italy and Germany, and the deputy Treasury secretary, Robert Kimmitt, went to Germany. France, Italy and Germany have extensive commercial relations with Iran and its trading companies.

The Treasury Department has declined to say whom they met with.

Iran was only one of many subjects in Mr. Paulson’s meetings with the finance ministers. Also on the agenda was a discussion of the world economy, which Mr. Paulson said had grown in recent years at rates that he and others had not seen in a generation. Despite that, he acknowledged risks arising from the failure of recent global trade talks, high energy prices and the problem of what are called “economic imbalances.”

That phrase is a euphemism for a broad set of problems, including the fact that the United States imports much more than it exports and has thus become the world’s leading debtor, owing hundreds of billions of dollars to China, Japan and other trading partners. The United States says this problem can be remedied by the trading partners importing more from the United States and also by China allowing its currency to rise in value in relation to the dollar.

In a statement Saturday, the finance ministers of the leading industrial countries said, “Greater exchange rate flexibility is desirable in emerging economies with large current-account surpluses, especially China.”

As the finance ministers hold their meetings, representatives of more than 500 nongovernmental groups — many of them dissenting from the policies of the bank, the fund and rich countries — are holding meetings on the sidelines.

But Singapore’s initial refusal to allow many of the representatives into the country gave them too little time to get here, even after Singapore relented under political pressure. As a result, several of the most outspoken critics of globalization are not at the meetings.

    U.S. Asks Finance Chiefs to Limit Iran’s Access to Banks, NYT, 17.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/world/middleeast/17paulson.html?hp&ex=1158552000&en=66108ea9e144f9e6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Gunmen in Syria Hit U.S. Embassy; 3 Attackers Die

September 13, 2006
The New York Times
By CRAIG S. SMITH

DAMASCUS, Syria, Wednesday, Sept. 13 — Four gunmen attacked the American Embassy here early Tuesday, storming the compound with grenades and automatic weapons before being repelled by Syrian security forces. Three of the gunmen were killed and a fourth was wounded, Syrian and American officials said.

One Syrian security official was killed and about a dozen people were wounded, including three Syrian security officials and a Syrian guard employed by the embassy. No American personnel were injured and the attackers failed to detonate a vehicle packed with explosives.

The wounded attacker was being questioned by Syrian authorities. The identities of the attackers were not disclosed.

The attack, a rare instance of terrorist violence in the tightly controlled Syrian capital, marked the first time the American Embassy had been a target.

Coming a day after the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States and after recent threats by Al Qaeda, the attack sent shudders through a region already reeling from a season of violence. Anger toward the United States has surged in recent weeks over its support for Israel during the war in Lebanon this summer.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it was too early to say who might have been behind the attack. But she praised Syria for responding quickly. “The Syrians reacted to this attack in a way that helped to secure our people, and we very much appreciate that,” Ms. Rice said Tuesday during a visit to Canada.

Syria, however, was quick to blame the United States. “It is regrettable that U.S. policies in the Middle East have fueled extremism, terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment,” said a statement on Tuesday from the Syrian Embassy in Washington. “What has happened recently in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq is exacerbating the fight against global terrorism.”

Relations between Syria and the United States are strained. The United States recalled its ambassador after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri of Lebanon in February 2005, because Washington believes Damascus played a role. United States diplomatic representation has since been downgraded to the level of chargé d’affaires.

More recently, the United States has blamed Syria for helping to arm Hezbollah, whose attack on Israeli soldiers along the Lebanese border set off the war in July.

“I think you have to take a look at who is really responsible for the violence in the region,” said Tom Casey, the State Department’s acting spokesman, responding Tuesday to Syria’s statement. “The violence is the responsibility of those who do believe that the only response to any questions or concerns is to throw bombs, is to shoot bullets, is to assassinate people.”

He said Washington continued to consider Syria a sponsor of terrorism, alluding to its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas, both of which are considered terrorist organizations by the United States and many allies.

The attack on the embassy began at 10:10 a.m., when two vehicles approached, one drawing up in front of the compound, the other to an employees’ entrance in the rear.

The minister of information, Mohsen Bilal, said in a telephone interview that one man approached embassy guards with a bouquet. The man said “he would like to hand these flowers over to someone from the embassy, to show his solidarity with them and the victims of 9/11,” Mr. Bilal said.

He said that when the guards refused him entry, the attack began.

Ayman Abdel Nour, a Syrian political analyst, said he was about 25 yards away when he saw two men running away from the embassy, and heard gunfire and men shouting, “God is great!” He took refuge in another embassy nearby.

The sound of gunfire and explosions continued for about 15 minutes, he said. There was a second exchange of automatic-weapons fire and single gunshots after a few minutes of calm, he said, but it ended quickly.

When he emerged, the attackers’ car at the rear of the embassy had been gutted by fire, apparently after having been hit in the gun battle.

Mr. Abdel Nour said friends at the Italian Embassy nearby had seen the attackers lobbing grenades over the high wall surrounding the American Embassy and had seen smoke coming from inside the compound.

Television images from the scene showed pools of blood on the pavement and the remains of the burned-out car. A vehicle with explosives at the front of the embassy was apparently abandoned when one attacker ran to the back to aid other gunmen.

The television also showed Syrian security officials inspecting what appeared to be large propane gas canisters with pipes taped to them.

Mr. Casey, the State Department spokesman, said after the attack “some small unexploded improvised explosive devices” were found, in addition to those in the second vehicle.

“This is a flourishing business today,” Mr. Abdel Nour said of the attack. “If you want to open a terrorist cell here, it’s an easy business. You’ll find a lot of money because of the frustration in the region.”

Syria’s interior minister, Bassam Abdel Majeed, visited the embassy after the attack and met Tuesday with the new chargé d’affaires, Michael H. Corbin.

By nightfall, residents could see the rear wall scarred by bullets and the roadside blackened by the car fire. Syrian sentry boxes were riddled with shots, as was a window near the employee’s entrance.

The Rawda district, where the attack occurred, is one of the most heavily guarded parts of the capital. It houses security installations and the homes of many government officials. A number of foreign embassies are near the American compound, including the Chinese, Italian and the Iraqi missions, while the presidential palace is only about 150 yards away from the Americans.

At least 11 people were wounded in the attack. The local embassy employee wounded was hit by gunfire while checking the attackers’ cars when the assault began. The State Department said another embassy guard was slightly injured.

Seven Syrian telephone company employees working in the area were also wounded, as well as an Iraqi man and woman. A senior Chinese diplomat was hit by shrapnel while standing on top of a garage within the Chinese Embassy compound, the New China News Agency reported.

Syria, a strictly secular state, has had trouble with Islamic extremists. In April 2004, four people were killed in a clash between police officers and suspected bombers in the diplomatic quarter of Damascus. Authorities accused Islamic militants of trying to blow up an explosives-laden car near the Canadian Embassy.

The Syrian ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said Tuesday on CNN that the attackers might have links to a group known as Jund al-Sham, which means Soldiers of the Levant. Last year five of the group’s militants were killed in Hama when security agents raided their hideout, uncovering a stash of weapons and explosives.

American intelligence officials in Washington said it was too early to know with confidence who was responsible for the embassy attack, and said there was little evidence yet to support the claim of the Syrian government that Jund al-Sham might have carried it out.

Officials said there was also no evidence linking the attack to the recent message from Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, who said in a speech broadcast Monday that Al Qaeda would be carrying out attacks in the Middle East.

“This attack would be small beer by Al Qaeda standards,” said one intelligence official.

Contributing reporting were Souad Mekhennet in Frankfurt, Thom Shanker and Mark Mazzetti in Washington and Christine Hauser in New York.

    Gunmen in Syria Hit U.S. Embassy; 3 Attackers Die, NYT, 13.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/world/middleeast/13syria.html

Robert Fisk: 'America's aggression is fuelling extremism', says Iran's ex-president

Published: 04 September 2006
The Independent
By Robert Fisk in Chicago
 

As the West's "war on terror" burns across the Muslim world, one of Islam's most principled leaders - the former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami - issued a grave warning yesterday from the very heart of America, the country whose troops and allies are fighting Islamists across the Middle East in a war that is costing thousands of Muslim lives.

"The policies of the neo-conservatives have created a war that creates more extremists and radicals," he told The Independent in Chicago. "The events of 9/11 gave them this ability to create fear and anxiety ... and to create new policies of their own and now events are creating an expansion of extremists on both sides. A struggle is under way to dominate this world multilaterally ... We are a witness to war - with suppression from one side and extremist reaction in the form of terror from the other."

Mr Khatami might appear an improbable figure in the breakfast room of one of Chicago's smartest hotels, dressed in his black turban and long gown, his spectacles giving him t+he appearance of a university don - which he once was - rather than the seer of Iran, a man whose demands for a civil society and democracy at home were overwhelmed by the ascetic clerics who surround the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. Yet he is enormously important in the Sunni as well as the Shia Muslim worlds as a philosopher-scholar, which is probably why the Bush administration gave him a visa, and his message was the sharpest he has ever delivered to the Muslim world and the secular West.

The former president said: "We have to find ways to confront these people on both sides. We need public opinion to be influenced ... And now the neo-conservative policies have created this sort of war."

But Mr Khatami, who defended Iran's role in the nuclear crisis between the West and Tehran - he asked why Israel was allowed nuclear weapons while refusing to sign the nuclear non-proliferation pact - did not spare the perpetrators of what he called "the inhumane terrorist attacks" of 11 September 2001. "I was one of the first officials to condemn this barbaric act ... this inferno would only intensify extremism and one-sidedness and would have no outcome except to retard justice and intellect and sacrifice righteousness and humanity," he said.

Addressing 15,000 American Muslims at the weekend, Mr Khatami also made a clear assault on the influence of Israel's political lobby in the US. "We are unfortunately witnessing the emergence of policies that seek to confiscate public opinion in order to exploit all the grandeur of the nation and country of the United States ... policies that are the outcome of a point of view, that despite having no status in the US public arena as far as numbers are concerned, uses decisive lobby groups and influential centres to utilise the entirety of America's power and wealth to promote its own interest and to implant policies outside US borders that have no resemblance to the spirit of Anglo-American civilisation and the aspirations of its Founding Fathers or its constitution, causing crisis after crisis in our world."

When he spoke of "the vast and all-encompassing presence of powers who express concern for the world but implement policies aimed at devouring the world," there was a sense of shock among his audience. They had not expected such an epic denunciation of US hegemony from a divine known for his compassion rather than his anger.

"Any popular or democratic change or transformation that is outside the realm of their influence is not acceptable," he said, "for they find it far more convenient to deal with non-nationalistic and non-popular trends and regimes rather than popular ones, who naturally tend to care about the welfare and the physical interests of their people."

Thus did Mr Khatami dispose of America's cry for "democracy" in the "new" Middle East.

Needless to say, his words were given scarcely a few seconds on America's major news channels. Mr Khatami's wisdom is not wanted in Washington.

    Robert Fisk: 'America's aggression is fuelling extremism', says Iran's ex-president, I, 4.9.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1359829.ece