Letters to the editor, April 12, 2003

This website is not related to Al-Jazeera TV

More letters will be posted throughout the day

The Editor of Al-Jazeerah apologizes for not responding to all of the readers' letters because of shutting down of aljazeerah.info. He hopes to resume that next week when it migrates into a new server. Today's messages were received on April 10-11.

الجزيرة

Book reviews

News Archives 

Arab Cartoonists

Columnists

Documents

Editorials 

Opinion Editorials

letters to the editor

Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine

Islam

Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people 

Media Watch

Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah

News Photos

Peace Activists 

Poetry

Public Announcements 

   Public Activities 

Women in News

Cities, localities, and tourist attractions

After Iraq: The Ongoing Crisis

by Dr. George Friedman



Summary

As the war in Iraq moves toward a conclusion, the expectations
are that the end of the war will bring at least a pause in
international tensions. We do not believe this will be the case.
Given U.S. war goals, crises -- inside Iraq, with nations along
Iraq's border and between Europe and the United States -- can be
expected to flow directly from war termination, whenever it
comes. As we have said, Iraq is a campaign in a much larger war
and not a war in itself. We now will see what that means.

Analysis

Stratfor has argued that the United States had two fundamental
reasons for invading Iraq:

1. To transform the psychology of the Islamic world, which had
perceived the United States as in essence weak and unwilling to
take risks to achieve its ends.

2. To use Iraq as a strategic base of operations from which to
confront Islamic regimes that are either incapable of or
unwilling to deny al Qaeda and other Islamist groups access to
enabling resources.

The war in Iraq is not over: There are extraordinarily complex
politico-military missions to confront. This is particularly true
in the north, where some substantial Iraqi forces appear to
remain and where the political situation among various players --
Kurdish, Turkish, Iranian and Syrian -- remains complex, dynamic
and opaque. Nevertheless, it is possible to make some assessment
of the intended and unintended consequences of the war.

There already has been a strong impact on the psychology of the
Arab world in particular. During the run-up to the war and until
the last week, there existed a sense of growing anger and
radicalization. With the collapse of resistance in Baghdad, this
has given way to a sense of stunned disbelief. The Arab press
appears to be filled with four themes:

1. A sense of denial, and an insistence that resistance continued
but was being hidden by the world press.

2. A sense of betrayal by Saddam Hussein, whose failure to resist
effectively was seen as a sign of corruption.

3. A sense of hopelessness, expressing the view that resisting
the United States is beyond the capacity of Arabs. This was
coupled at times with an expression of determination to rectify
the situation.

4. Bitterness at Europe -- particularly France and Russia, which
abandoned Iraq to its fate.

U.S. leaders understand that the result of the war will be
increased bitterness, although some argue that Arab bitterness
was already maxed out anyway. What they are driving for with this
operation is a psychological capitulation -- a sense that
accommodation with the United States is the only path.

The United States certainly has inflicted a massive blow on the
Arab, if not the Islamic, psyche. The only comparable moment was
in June 1967, when Israeli forces defeated the Egyptians, Syrians
and Jordanians. It should be remembered that the defeat had
unintended consequences: Not only did Egypt and Syria attack
Israel with some effect in 1973, but the consequences of the
defeat energized the Palestinian movement. The Israelis have
begun warning the Palestinians to think through the lessons of
Iraq. On the other side, the United States must carefully think
through the lessons of 1967.

The simplistic idea that resentment of the United States will
generate effective action by Arabs misses a crucial point. Two
scales are at work here: the radicalism scale and the hope scale.
On the radicalism scale, the level of radicalism and anti-
Americanism in the Arab world has been off the chart for months.
Increasing the level would be difficult. However, radicalism by
itself does not lead to action. There must also be hope -- a
sense that there are weaknesses in the U.S. position that can be
exploited, that there is some possibility of victory, however
distant. So long as the hope scale tends toward hopelessness,
radicalism can be intense.

The United States was prepared to allow the radicalism scale to
go deep into the danger zone, but Washington has been trying to
keep the hope scale deeply in the green zone. Israel's failure
after 1967 was inherent in its position: The Israelis depended
heavily on outsiders for national security. The Arab perception
was that the Israelis could be attacked by splitting them from
their patrons. This sense of vulnerability led to an active
response to defeat.

The task facing the United States now is to avoid projecting a
sense of vulnerability. This is easier for Washington than it was
for Israel. The United States comes out of the war less dependent
on others; it also has a strong domestic consensus in favor of
the war. The United States presents, at the moment, a seamless
face to the Arab world: It is hated but feared. Washington now
must act now to maintain the fear, while reducing hatred. How it
manages Iraq will determine the outcome. If the United States
loses control of the situation, it quickly could lead to a
perception of vulnerability. It must control the situation in
Iraq while maintaining a benign administration. This will not be
as easy it sounds: Where Washington can choose between
unrelenting strength and the risk of perceived weakness, it will
have to carefully choose strength. That is implicit in the
strategy.

From a geopolitical perspective, we already have seen the United
States transiting from the Iraqi war phase toward confrontation
with the surrounding states. Saudi leaders capitulated in
fundamental ways before the United States went to war, permitting
U.S. aircraft to fly air strikes against Iraq and allowing U.S.
forces to pass through Saudi territory. Jordan and Kuwait are not
problems. But there are three issues: Syria, Turkey and Iran.

* Syria: Syrian behavior has become unpredictable. The Syrians
have long understood that, as a consequence of the war, their
country would be surrounded by three enemies: the United States,
Turkey and Israel. Rather than trying to reach an accommodation
with the United States, Damascus stepped up its aggressive
behavior during the war, permitting volunteers to go into Iraq to
fight coalition forces and apparently permitting Iraqi personnel
to seek shelter in Iraq. The Bush administration has made it
clear that it finds Syrian behavior intolerable, and Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has refused to rule out assertive
action against Syria. There was no question but that the United
States was going to confront Syria at some point from its bases
in Iraq, but the Syrians seem to have chosen to accelerate the
process -- perhaps feeling that a better settlement could be
reached earlier in the game.

* Turkey: Washington needs to defuse the bad end to the pre-war
confrontation. Turkey is a geopolitical foundation of U.S.
strategy -- not only in the Middle East, but also north of the
Caucasus, in southeastern Europe and Iran. A permanent rift with
Turkey would be intolerable. Similarly, the United States remains
the foundation of Turkish national security policy. Without it,
Turkey has fundamental problems. The two countries may not be
friends at the moment, but they share fundamental interests. Both
nations now will attempt to extract themselves from the
unacceptable situation they created for each other. The key will
be limiting Kurdish expectations.

* Iran: the extraordinarily complex game that Tehran is playing
makes Syrian foreign policy transparent. Iran has positioned
itself in such a way that its pro-Iranian Shiite groups in Iraq
could wage a guerrilla war against the United States, while
Tehran holds open the possibility of reaching implicit
accommodations with the United States -- all at the same time.
Iranian subtlety notwithstanding, Washington regards Iran as the
single most potentially dangerous regime in the region, because
of both its resources and the complexity of its politics and
policies. Iran has positioned itself to be fundamentally
unpredictable -- and having achieved this goal, it concerns the
United States tremendously.

Therefore, if the goal of the United States was to create a base
of operations in Iraq from which to influence the dynamics of the
region internally, the game is in play even before the war is
formally ended. The Syrian situation will probably be contained,
but it represents a fundamentally destabilizing factor to the
region. The Iranian situation is much more difficult to predict
in the long run, even as the Iranians practice their
traditionally complex prudence in the short run.

In a similar sense, unintended consequences of the war must be
managed. The U.S. relationship with Britain is fundamental to
U.S. national strategy -- and Britain, for a host of its own
reasons, does not want an outright breach either with the Franco-
German bloc or with multilateral organizations like the United
Nations. The United States must accommodate the British without
losing control of the situation in Iraq.

The primary purpose of the April 11-12 summit in St. Petersburg
between Russian, German and French leaders is to find a way to
limit the consequences of U.S. victory in Iraq. All of them
opposed the war, and the United States prosecuted it any way.
This demonstrated that Washington needs neither material support
from Europe nor political validation. For all three countries,
this represents a fundamental redefinition of their place in the
world. There had been a fixed assumption that in some sense, the
United States remained dependent on them, that they were
necessary enablers for global actions. Alliance for them was not
an American choice, but a necessity. Iraq represented a very
public demonstration that they were irrelevant to U.S.
policymaking, either individually or collectively. This
represents a geopolitical crisis of the first order to them.

These countries' solution will be to try to manipulate the United
States into accepting the United Nations as the primary manager
of Iraqi affairs. To do so, they will use the British desire to
maintain bridges to the Franco-German bloc as a means of forcing
the United States to shift policy. The United States cannot
abandon control of Iraq without abandoning the goals for which it
fought the war. This undoubtedly will lead to another round of
unpleasantness with the Euro Three, which would not bother
Washington a bit. U.S. President George W. Bush is positioned
domestically to take advantage of resentment -- particularly of
France -- so that their demand to participate in governing Iraq
will be taken as wanting the fruits of victory without taking the
risks. The British, however, will be another matter. We expect to
see growing strains between the two countries as Britain tries to
find balance.

What we are getting at is that no postwar lull is possible here,
even if there does emerge a clear-cut end to the war. The two
goals of the war need immediate management. The management of
Arab and Islamic public opinion requires exquisite care in the
management of internal Iraqi affairs. It also requires that U.S.
power in the region be perceived as irresistible. This means that
U.S. relations with Syria and Iran must be managed aggressively
but without crossing the line to unwarranted belligerence. It
means that the U.S.-Turkish relationship must be managed
dispassionately, in spite of underlying tensions. All of this is
urgent. None of it will wait. Finally, the pre-war battle with
the Europeans, while undoubtedly more subdued, still will define
much of the global rhetoric -- save that given its stakes in the
Islamic world, the United States will be even less able and less
inclined to cooperate with European demands.

Now things get really tricky.'

WAR PROFITEERS

Haliburton could make $7 billion from former boss' war

Islamic Institute Calls for Pipes to Apologize or Decline Nomination

US bomb mosque - believe Saddam is hiding in it

Where is Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi President?

Thank you, there's the door'

20 Bodies litter streets of Baghdad suburb

Dead bodies of children could be seen lying on side of road between

DON'T THINK IT'S ALL OVER

By Abdel Bari Atwan, Editor of UK-based Arabic paper al-Quds

"Catastrophic" Situation At Baghdad Hospital: ICRC

Children shot at checkpoint, traders fire on looters

Hope fades at Basra hospital

Subj: Re: [eFreePalestine] The Powerful Jew and American Foreign         Policy
Date: 4/11/03 9:23:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Cbrad4334
To: eFreePalestine@yahoogroups.com

April 11, 2003

Dear Friends:

We see much brilliance in Emma Rosenthal's writings.

It is true, different races and different groups must band together and fight stereotypes.

Ms. Rosenthal wishes to downgrade the importance of the Powerful Jew; however, living in the US all of our lives, we have seen professors thrown out of their jobs, newspapers fold, politicians brought down, movie stars bow on bended knee with apologies for saying what they feel, all due to a very real, intensive and ominous Jewish pressure that has gone on for decades. This is a very serious and mostly unchallenged problem.

We also see in our American news media a stubborn onesidedness that portrays only the "bad" Arabs as "terrorists" and never downgrades the Zionists, never even uses the word. Moreover, the suppression here in America by our news media (usually owned and controlled by the Zionists, and written very often, but not always, by Jewish people) is much more democratic in Europe and Asia. They get the news there. Our protestations matter not. We're smothered with junk media, day by day, and especially, now.

Mr. Rosenthal downgrades America's political elite, but denies a reality of Jewish Power. She sees America, or the money elite, running the war, and the wars and murder carried on in different countries, responsible. Well, as she has implied, many Jews are of the money elite, probably a very high percentage. So, therefore, the elite is very much the Jews. Money right now, runs everything.

What is of extreme importance now, is that the American people are suffering terribly, not able to pay bills, employment has gone down the sewer, and most Americans are one or two steps at best away from homelessness. People are fired and children must stay home from school for being "anti-war." The Iraqi innocents have been killed where there was no need for war, their country in total destruction. And Washington and Israel, very much with the ability and donations of the pro-Israeli lobbies and some American Jews, also our taxes, continues to aid the rich by keeping their taxes at a minimal low, and feed the foreign country of Israel with loans that will never be paid.

The pro-Israeli mating bringing influential monies into our Congress and our Senate, combined with the very Reverends Pat Robertson's and Falwell's powerful electronic fundraising through the unaware evangelistic and extremist Christian fundamentalists, is the most dangerous ideology to have entered American politics.

We see the world at its worst, presently in upheaval, due to the marriage of the United States and Israel. Even though there are many Jews that agree with the Arabs and are against the war and for peace, we would never defend Israel as does Ms. Rosenthal. Some of what she is correct, and parts are shaded with a slightly pro-Israeli twist on history.

Though we believe totally in anyone saying or writing what they wish, eFreePalestine is a website that protects the Arab and Palestinian people and allows them to say what they usually cannot in the American press. It definitely is not a site to defend Israel.

Sincerely,
The Media Monitors

Israeli Snipers Kill British Activist

  By Bradley Graham and Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 11, 2003; Page A01

Amid civil collapse and mounting chaos in Iraq, the Bush administration moved yesterday to enlist allied support for postwar reconstruction and financing and announced details of meetings of Iraqis that U.S. officials plan to organize inside the country to consider Iraq's future governance.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Pentagon has given the State Department a list of urgent needs from other countries, including police officers. Officials said the administration is also seeking doctors and nurses as well as engineers to help rebuild bridges, roads and buildings.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an interview with Dutch television, asked European countries to contribute peacekeeping forces, a prospect he also raised last week at NATO headquarters. U.S. diplomats have contacted more than 65 nations in recent weeks to ask for assistance and 58 have expressed support, a State Department spokesman said.

The administration's effort to enlist other countries to help restore order and rebuild Iraq comes in the wake of significant international opposition to the decision by the United States and Britain to go to war without an explicit authorization from the U.N. Security Council. But U.S. officials said they believe the dramatic collapse of the Iraqi government -- broadcast around the world Wednesday -- will galvanize broader international support for assisting in Iraq's reconstruction.

"We are going to pressure all of our friends and allies to contribute as much as they can," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz told the Armed Services Committee. Offers of military and financial help are already coming, Wolfowitz said, predicting a "larger coalition of the willing" for reconstruction than for the war.

Pressed on specifics by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), however, Wolfowitz cited none. "So far, we're still in the early stages of that," he said. "I think some people were, frankly, a bit taken by surprise by the images they saw on television [on Wednesday]."

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said he wants to use this weekend's meeting here of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to seek support for long-term financing of Iraq's reconstruction. Snow also said he hopes the Group of Seven industrialized countries -- the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy and Canada -- will press the IMF and the World Bank to assess Iraq's needs and begin the process of providing financing.

But World Bank President James D. Wolfensohn said a U.N. Security Council resolution according legitimacy to a new Iraqi government would be required before the financial institution could lend, underscoring the role that the United Nations could play in postwar Iraq, a contentious issue between the United States and many allies.

Such countries as France and Germany have advocated that the United Nations should manage the reconstruction effort, while the Bush administration has insisted that U.S. and British officials will control the process and turn it over as quickly as possible to the Iraqis.

Wolfowitz, welcoming some U.N. involvement, said U.N. agencies would be particularly useful in areas such as refugee assistance and humanitarian relief. He also said the United Nations could play a particularly important role in "helping to mobilize international support" for Iraq, noting that U.N. endorsement is a requirement for World Bank and IMF aid.

But citing such countries as Kosovo and Bosnia, where U.N.-led administrations have been in place for years, Wolfowitz argued for a more rapid move toward self-government in Iraq and said the country is able to support it. "We want to see a situation where power and responsibility is transferred as quickly as possible to the Iraqis themselves," Wolfowitz said. While the United Nations can be a "partner" in that effort, he said, "it can't be the managing partner; it can't be in charge."

The United Nations, meanwhile, continued to press U.S. and British forces to move quickly to restore law and order in Iraq. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that the military has "a responsibility for the welfare of the people. We have seen scenes of looting, and obviously law and order must be a major concern."

The unrest is severely limiting the delivery of essential supplies to hospitals and communities, according to international aid agencies. Until roads and neighborhoods are safer, officials said, the large-scale deliveries promised by the Bush administration cannot begin, nor would nongovernmental groups be willing to enter the country.

In the meantime, water is scarce and electricity is limited. Family food rations, which Iraqis had accumulated before the war, are declining, although aid specialists said the food situation has not reached the point of crisis.

Senior U.S. defense officials said it is far too early to tell how many U.S. and allied troops would be necessary to stabilize Iraq or how long they would have to remain. But they acknowledged that securing key facilities and transportation routes and providing protection for the Iraqi people would soon become critical.

"The end result of that has to be a safe and secure environment so that life can get on for the Iraqi people," said Army Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "We have got to be able to secure certain things so that they can get around and do what it is people have to do in a city just to live a life. And that will take some time."

As the fighting in Iraq subsides, tens of thousands of additional Army troops will continue to move into the country. Members of the 4th Infantry Division and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment are due to move north into Iraq from Kuwait soon. Next in line is the 1st Armored Division in Germany and possibly the 1st Cavalry Division in Texas.

These additional soldiers would raise the total number of ground forces in Iraq to levels approaching 200,000, which some Pentagon officials have said may be necessary to establish security, restore basic services and continue hunting down the remnants of the fallen Iraqi government.

The likely size of the postwar force has been a subject of dispute within the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, has predicted that several hundred thousand troops will be needed, while Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have suggested that a much smaller number is more probable. "There's been no hard and fast decision on numbers," a Pentagon official said. "It's going to be condition-dependent."

In his congressional testimony, Wolfowitz provided new details for what he called "town meetings" across Iraq that are intended to help identify new Iraqi leaders who could work with U.S. authorities and begin a lengthy process of establishing democratic rule.

His remarks provided the most specific picture so far of just how U.S. officials intend to restore a measure of stability and initiate a new process of self-rule. He said a meeting planned for next week in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah with a broad range of Iraqis is meant to start a "rolling dialogue" that would "define issues" and enable Iraqis to get a sense of "who are the people that can articulate positions well, who seem to speak for more than just themselves."

The meetings will be hosted by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, and will be organized in partnership with Britain, Australia and Poland, the other countries with substantial ground forces in the country. U.N. officials will be invited as observers, Wolfowitz said, although a U.N. spokesman said yesterday that the organization will not be sending a representative because the Security Council has yet to decide the United Nations' future role in Iraq.

The first meeting will involve Iraqi exile leaders and 40 Iraqis from within the country who have been identified by the CIA over the past six months as ethnic, religious or civic leaders, U.S. officials said. All of the participants have received invitations from Franks.

"The only criterion is that, to come to this, you need to have a commitment to a free and democratic Iraq and not be a Baathist killer," Wolfowitz said, referring to the Baath Party that was the foundation of Saddam Hussein's rule.

Eventually, U.S. officials hope the process will lead to a consensus on how to set up an interim authority that can serve as a bridge to a more permanent government by setting up local elections and organizing a constitutional convention. But Wolfowitz indicated that despite months of planning, the administration is still largely feeling its way along and has been caught off guard by the speed at which Hussein's government collapsed. "It's a process more than a blueprint," he said.

Wolfowitz also offered new specifics about the group set up by the Pentagon -- called the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance -- to supervise humanitarian aid and begin the restoration of such basic needs as water, electrical power and medical care. Headed by retired Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, the group was designed to mirror the structure of Iraqi government ministries, Wolfowitz said.

He said some ministries -- presumably those most closely associated with Hussein's security services -- will have to be dismantled. But most, he suggested, are likely to require substantially less change. Wolfowitz said Iraqi Americans may be appointed to head some of the ministries early on.

"Eventually, you would have all of the ministries reporting directly to the Iraqi interim authority and run by Iraqis," with Garner's office playing an increasingly advisory role, he said.

Staff writers Paul Blustein and Peter Slevin contributed to this report.

Links to above stories and more articles are found on our website at:
http://legitgov.org/index.html#breaking_news 

Arab American News Focus

Arab American Institute

Two Pakistani Men Released
This week a federal judge released two Pakistan nationals who were being held on immigration charges and whom federal authorities claimed had ties to terrorism. Citing a lack of convincing evidence presented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States District Court Judge Lewis Babcock ruled that the two men, Irfan Kamran and Sajjad Naseer, who had been living in Denver, Colorado when they were arrested, posed no threat and should be released. According to a Washington Post article on Wednesday, "Babcock noted that much of the evidence that prosecutors cited in arguing that the defendants were involved with terrorism came from statements the two men made in voluntary interviews with the FBI. Babcock also displayed skepticism when the prosecution introduced information provided by 'a confidential source.' When the judge asked from the bench whether the source was reliable, an FBI witness replied that this, too, was classified information." Of course. Isn't everything classified these days? Federal prosecutors are considering an appeal of Judge Babcock's ruling.

American Activist Hurt in Occupied Territories
An American peace activist has been severely hurt in the Occupied Territories. Twenty-four year old Brian Avery of Albuquerque, New Mexico left his apartment building in the devastated Palestinian city of Jenin to investigate sounds of gunfire. At the same time an Israeli Defense Force (IDF) armored personnel carrier came onto Avery's street. Then, according to fellow activist Tobias Karlsson, a Swede, who was with Avery, "We had our hands up and we were wearing vests that clearly identified us as international workers when they began firing. Brian was shot in the face, and it looks like he was hit by a heavy caliber bullet because of the extent of the wound." Avery was then taken to a Jenin hospital, but has since been transferred to an Israeli facility. The IDF claims that the bullet that hit Avery could have been either Israeli or Palestinian, as there was a firefight going on in the area. "The U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and our Jerusalem consulate are now following up to find out what happened as well as confirm the identity and determine the welfare of the individual," said State Department spokesperson Lou Fintor.

Troubling Bill in Florida Legislature
Once again, the Florida House of Representatives is considering a bill that would eliminate state funds for students who come from countries that allegedly support terrorism. Last year, the Arab American Institute (AAI) helped defeat an identical measure. This year's version of the legislation recently, though narrowly, passed the Florida House's Education Committee. The proposal, sponsored by Representative Dick Kravitz, (R-Orange Park), would stop funds from going to students from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and the Sudan as well as to Cubans who are not eligible for residency. "It sends the wrong message," said Representative Eleanor Sobel (D-Hollywood). "These students go back home and lead the revolution for America - it begins here." The bill's sponsor argued that there were no racist undertones to the legislation. "I spent two years with a Muslim family. I ate their food and lived with them. The only thing I regret is I didn't get to date one of their women." That's right folks, he actually said that...the struggle continues.

New Mexico House of Representatives Pass Civil Liberties Bill
Last month New Mexico's House of Representatives passed "A Joint Memorial Affirming Civil Rights and Liberties; Declaring Opposition to Federal Measures that Infringe on Civil Liberties," which expresses strong support for "fundamental constitutional rights and its opposition to federal measures that infringe on these rights and liberties" and "the rights of immigrants." It also opposes "measures that single out individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activity based on their country of origin." For full text of the bill, please go to http://legis.state.nm.us/session03.asp?chamber=H&type=JM&number=40&Submit=Search

Congressman Submits Resolution Condemning Syria and Russia on Iraq
Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) has introduced H.Con. Res 133, a resolution in the House of Representatives "Expressing the concern of Congress over Russian and Syrian actions in support of Iraq."  The resolution calls the government of Syria to task for its alleged transfer of military equipment to Iraq during the recent conflict as well as for allegedly allowing pro-Hussein fighters cross its border into Iraq. It also condemns the Russian Federation for failing to stop Russian firms from supplying the Hussein regime. The resolution has been referred to the House Committee on International Relations.

 
Of Note
 - Save the Date! The national office of the ACLU is pleased to announce a national training conference for lawyers on new strategies to advance human rights struggles in the United States.  The conference will familiarize lawyers and advocates with international human rights treaties, laws and organizing strategies that can strengthen domestic social justice work. For a preliminary program schedule, see http://www.aclu.org/humanrightsconference.

Don't forget the...

Khalil Gibran Spirit of Humanity Awards

Wednesday, April 23, 2003

This year we are honoring Amnesty International USA, Mercy Corps, MTV, former UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson, and prominent journalist Helen Thomas for their commitment to promoting co-existence, fairness, inclusion, and human rights.

Speakers include Senator Edward M. Kennedy and representatives from the White House and the Senate leadership. The dinner program includes appearances by human rights advocate Bianca Jagger; actress Wendie Malick, star of the hit TV series "Just Shoot Me"; and comedy performances by "The Arabian Knights," Ahmed Ahmed and Aron Kader.

Even if you can't join us in Washington, you can still make a difference in our efforts. Renew your AAI membership today, or make a donation - just click "Join AAI <http://www.aaiusa.org/join_now.htm>" on our website. And on the site, you'll find more information about the work on issues, elections, community building and more that your contribution allows us to do.

Order your tickets online <https://secure.aaiusa.org/gibran03_tickets.htm>!

Or contact Karim Shaaban at kshaaban@aaiusa.org <mailto:kshaaban@aaiusa.org> or (202) 429-9210 for tickets or more information

http://www.aljazeerah.info

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.