This is happening at a time when American forces are deployed at Iran’s doorstep which should be a cause for worry, especially with the Bush administration’s declared aim of reshaping the region to suit the exigencies of US foreign policy on the Middle East. Signals emanating from Washington and Tehran in recent days threaten to move Iran up in the list of the countries with which the US wants to settle scores. With the American forces deployed in Afghanistan in the east, Iraq in the west and the Gulf in the south, Tehran is virtually surrounded by a very hostile America in a belligerent mood. Washington’s allegations that Iran supports terrorism, harbours Al Qaida operatives and is developing nuclear weapons, have limited the conservatives’ options in regard to controlling the on-going demonstrations. The situation has sparked fears about Iran’s internal stability. Any destabilization of the Islamic republic at this point, however, is likely to benefit the US and Israel more than the Iranians themselves, or the region as a whole. Thus it is extremely necessary for the country to gain stability. It can only be hoped that all the parties involved show sanity and differentiate between interests of “others” and of their country.

EU Backs Use Of Force Against States Having WMDs
EU foreign ministers adopted a strategy to combat the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons for the first time, including a reference to possible military action as a last resort against states or “terrorists” that acquired such arms. In a significant shift towards US thinking, it stated that use of force might be necessary where diplomacy failed to address threats from weapons of mass destruction.

According to the strategy, preventive measures such as treaties, dialogue and inspections should be the first line of defence against the proliferation of the world’s most dangerous weapons. But “when these measures (including political dialogue and diplomatic pressure) have failed, coercive measures under Chapter VII of the UN charter and international law (sanctions, selective or global, interceptions of shipments and, as appropriate, the use of force) could be envisioned.

Ministers endorsed the strategy, coupled with an action plan giving the fight against WMD priority in EU relations with third countries, on the day they voiced serious concern at aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. But Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, who chaired the meeting, insisted the reference to possible use of force was not related to the separate statement on Iran.

Diplomats said the moves were part of an EU drive to take the WMD threat more seriously and repair transatlantic relations after a severe rift over the US-led invasion of Iraq. The EU document did, however, insist that action should be approved by the United Nations, whose Security Council it said “should play a central role”. Among key measures in the plan were boosting the budget of the International Atomic Energy Agency, tightening export controls and strengthening multilateral verification regimes.

Ex-US Official-Evidence Distorted for War
According to a report posted on the Internet the Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify the US invasion of Iraq. According to Greg Thielmann who was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, his office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA and other agencies about Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear programmes. In Thielmann’s view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to US security in two areas: either it was about to make a nuclear weapon or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists. Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush and others, Thielmann said in an interview. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said. The administration’s pre-war portrayal of Iraq’s weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network.

Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their pre-war performances.

Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the President and then provided to the public. The evidence of a renewed nuclear programme in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said. “When the administration did talk about specific evidence – it was basically declassified, sensitive information – it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest,” Thielmann said.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it. “I was very surprised to hear what he announced to the United States and the entire world,” he said. Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favourable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure. Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam’s government. Yet, the implication from Bush downwards was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden’s network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two.

The Twin Summits:
Roadmap to Nowhere?
The reciprocal promises made by the leaders of Israel and Palestine at the Jordanian port city of Aqaba on June 4, 2003 may sound good but do not provide any guarantee to the full and final settlement of their disputes that have plagued them over many decades. The pledges they made in the presence of the US President were at best seen as the rejection of the policy of violence that they have pursued.

Altogether the signs are not good at present. Sharon’s supporters and followers, mostly hardliners and orthodox Jews have displayed dejection over Sharon’s undertaking that unauthorized outposts would be vacated as per the roadmap. Another alarming aspect is the reported differences that have already emerged between him and Abbas over the number of outposts that are to be dismantled. The Sharon government had hesitated and faltered before finally announcing its acceptance of the roadmap expressing as many as 14 reservations. Despite Sharon’s undertaking, the settlement activities continue although the roadmap calls for a halt to such activity; it also proposes a dismantling of all Jewish settlements built after March 2001. It remains to be seen whether Israel will really do this.

Prime Minister Abbas also faces a daunting challenge on the home front. His assurance of reining in the militant groups was promptly rejected by Hamas and Islamic Jihad who refused to surrender arms until the total liberation of Palestine. Abbas is in a Catch-22 situation; he wants to stop the militant groups but does not have the means (security apparatus) to assert his will over these liberation groups. The ball is more or less in the Israeli court; if Israel is really interested in peace, perhaps it could match its words of peaceful coexistence with deeds without asking (or expecting) the Palestinian to act first, a way out could be found. But this may prove to be wishful thinking.

Meanwhile, President Bush’s comments at the Middle East Peace Summit in Egypt asking PM Mahmoud Abbas to “stop” the Palestinian resistance has outraged Hamas who has threatened to disavow PM Abbas as a representative of the Palestinians if he does not reject US President George W. Bush’s comments.

Sino-Russian Understanding
Russia and China are making a determined bid to come closer to each other. Chinese and Russian defence ministers agreed in Moscow to “widen” bilateral relations, including military ties. There has been a steady growth in the relations between these two countries who also share similar views on a number of major international issues such as their anti-war stand on Iraq, their opposition to American forces in Central Asia and their common views on the US-North Korean row over Pyongyang’s weapons programme. Both countries had also signed a friendship treaty in 2002 and are also members of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) which will be turned into a security organization by 2004. All these could be seen as a result of the widespread annoyance against the US for its unilateral war on Iraq.

UN to Press for Release of Aung San Suu Kyi
UN special envoy, Razali met Myanmar officials on June 5 to press for the release of pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi who was detained last week after a deadly clash between her followers and government supporters. The ruling generals have held the Nobel peace laureate at an undisclosed location since the violence as she toured a provincial town. Meanwhile the United States said it suspected Suu Kyi and her convoy were ambushed and attacked by “government-affiliated thugs”. Myanmar military says four people died and 50 were injured in the clashes but dissidents in exile suspect perhaps as many as 75 of Suu Kyi’s supporters were killed. Diplomats and dissidents fear Suu Kyi was injured in the May 30 violence but Myanmar officials have denied that.

Razali also wanted to see senior leaders of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy (NLD) who have been confined to their houses by the military for the past week. But he told reporters the military had not yet given any signal they would allow him access to the NLD leadership.

Razali has visited Myanmar several times in the past two years to try to encourage talks on a democratic transition in the country that the military has ruled since a 1962 coup. He was instrumental in persuading the generals to free Suu Kyi from a spell of house arrest in May 2002 after a series of “confidence-building” talks between the junta and the NLD.

The United States and Britain have stepped up diplomatic pressure for Suu Kyi’s release and called on the junta to allow Razali to meet her.

The NLD swept to a landslide election victory in 1990, but has never been allowed to rule.

US Opposition to Chirac’s Vision of Multi-polarity
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice attacked French President Jacques Chirac’s concept of a multi-polar world, dismissing it as a “theory of rivalry” that had never promoted peace. In an address to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), she said: “Multipolarity was never a unifying idea or vision... it was a necessary evil that sustained the essence of war but did not promote peace, it is a theory of rivalry, of competing interests and, at its very worst, of competing values. We tried it before... it led to the Great War, to the Second World War and to the Cold War.”

She questioned the motives of those who “nostalgically” sought to defend this concept of international relations. Although she did not refer specifically to France, Rice’s remarks represented thinly veiled criticism of Paris’ stance. Throughout the Iraq crisis, France defended its vision of a multi-polar world of various power centres, including the United States and Europe, to justify its right to express different views from those of Washington. At the G8 summit of the world’s leading industrial nations in the French town of Evian in June, Chirac – determined to promote his vision of a multi-polar world – invited leaders from a dozen emerging and developing states to join in the talks.

EU – Divided and Reluctant
The US appeal to the European Union (EU) to cut off funding to the Palestinian militant group Hamas is unlikely to find an unequivocal echo within the European Union, which is divided on the issue. At this week’s summit meeting between the US and European leaders, aimed at improving relations, President George W. Bush said that the dismantling of groups such as Hamas would be the “true test” of the roadmap to peace in the Middle East. He urged the leaders in Europe and around the world to take swift, decisive action against terrorist groups such as Hamas, to cut off their funding and support.

The EU delegation headed by Commission President Romano Prodi and Greek Prime Minister Constantine Simitis, included Javier Solana, High Representative for the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy. The meeting in Washington was the first formal EU-US summit since the Iraq war, which bitterly divided Washington and its European allies as France and Germany, two of the EU’s most powerful members, refused to back the US-led invasion. Although an extradition deal between the EU and the US was signed at the summit, authorizing the sharing of information and broadening the scope of crimes to which extradition would apply, continuing differences were apparent as President Bush pressed the EU to crack down on Hamas. Between 1994 and 2001, the EU gave 1.446 billion euros in aid to the Palestinians. EU member states supported the Palestinian Authority with an additional one billion euros. The US has listed Hamas on the whole as a “foreign terrorist organization” for many years, but the EU continues to distinguish between its military activities and its political and social role in the Palestinian territories.

The fissures within the 15-nation EU have been surfacing even before the EU-US summit. Britain, for example, has already indicated that it supports Washington’s stance over Hamas, but faces strong opposition from France. At a meeting in Luxembourg on June 17, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw pressed his EU colleagues to outlaw the political wing if their attacks do not cease. However, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin insisted that Hamas was a necessary player in the peace process.

Asked about differences within the European Union, a spokesperson for the EU, refused to indicate which member states were against the outlawing of Hamas and which were in favour. Michael Emmerson, expert in EU foreign policy and Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies, told IPS that the EU faces a “difficult decision”. But it might be just the right one. Emmerson said: “The EU is looking for ways to find areas of convergence with the US to mend relations after the war in Iraq and so the outlawing of Hamas could provide it with a good opportunity to improve these relations. It also wants to show the world that the EU is not just a soft power and that it is hardening up at the edges.”

The EU spokesperson said: “There is an active debate within Europe about the most useful way of applying pressure. All tactics will be considered and we will decide according to what is happening on the ground. Although there have been tense moments between the EU and US over the war in Iraq there is still a good relationship between the two. The test is not if you disagree but whether you can resolve problems.”

US Shifting Troops To Far-Flung Bases
According to a US Defence official, in the most extensive global realignment of US military forces since the end of the Cold War, the Bush administration is creating a network of far-flung military bases designed for the rapid projection of American military power against terrorists, hostile states and other potential adversaries. The withdrawal of US troops from the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea and the recent removal of most US forces from Saudi Arabia are the opening moves in a complex shift that should replace most large, permanent US bases overseas with smaller facilities that can be used as needed.

The bases are being built or expanded in countries such as Qatar, Bulgaria and Kyrgyzstan and the US territory of Guam. While existing US bases in Germany and South Korea, in place for more than 50 years, were designed to deter major communist adversaries, the new bases will become key nodes in the implementation of the administration’s doctrine of pre-emptive attack against terrorists and hostile states believed to have chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Their location is based on the premise that US forces must be able to strike rapidly against adversaries who may be armed with weapons of mass destruction before they can attack the United States or its allies. The basing strategy is also predicated on Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s oft-stated belief that the United States cannot predict who its adversaries are going to be.

The new network of bases corresponds to what Defence officials call an “arc of instability” that runs from the Andean region in the Southern Hemisphere through North Africa to the Middle East and into Southeast Asia. It is revealed that the new basing concept would require fundamental changes in the way US forces are structured and transported by air and sea. They would need to be deployed around the world in smaller units more much rapidly, often falling in on equipment already in place.

The United States would maintain a ring of permanent military “hubs” on US territory, such as Guam, and in closely allied countries, such as Britain and possibly Japan. But many of the major bases on which it had relied, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Germany and South Korea, will be replaced by dozens of spartan “forward operating bases” in southern Europe, the Middle East and Asia, maintained only by small, permanent support units. According to plan, beyond the hubs and forward operating bases would lie a ring of “forward operating locations,” or prearranged but unmaintained staging areas US forces would be allowed by host nations to occupy quickly in the event of a conflict. Officials said these forward facilities would be augmented by greater reliance on basing forces and equipment aboard ships at sea, and on pre-positioning forces and heavy combat equipment at staging areas along major shipping routes.

Defence officials cited a series of basing agreements developed in the Persian Gulf in anticipation of the Iraq war as a prototype for those they want in other parts of the world. Although US forces have vacated two large permanent air bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey which were used to patrol the northern and southern “no-fly” zones over Iraq for more than a decade, they have established forward operating bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Military personnel are stationed in all of these countries, with 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, a major Air Force operations centre in Qatar and two huge Army bases in Kuwait. But there are no combat units permanently based in any of those countries, as there are in Germany, home to the Army’s 1st Armoured and 1st Infantry divisions. The continued basing of 60,000 Army troops in Germany, where they have been since the end of World War II, is under review. Defence officials want to continue using Ramstein Air Base in southern Germany and view it as a critical hub facility for supporting deployments to more distant forward operating bases and locations.

Another scenario under consideration, Defence officials said, calls for the troops in Germany to be brought home and based in the United States. They could then be rotated on six-month assignments in countries such as Poland, Bulgaria and Romania, which are closer to the Balkans and Central Asia and less restrictive than Germany as training sites.

Defence officials are also interested in operating locations along southern European shipping routes in Italy, Spain and Portugal. Farther east, in Central Asia, the US plans on maintaining bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, which were established in 2001 to support the war in Afghanistan. In Asia, the relocation of 18,000 Army troops away from the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea to areas 75 miles south is designed to make them more mobile, freeing them to respond to other emergencies in the region. Ultimately, some of those troops might be brought to the United States and deployed to South Korea on six-month rotations.

Defence officials say there is no plan for moving all 20,000 Marines out of Okinawa. But they are looking at repositioning the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force from its current locations in Okinawa, Hawaii and Guam. The Pentagon is hoping to possibly re-establish bases or locations in the Philippines, although it is not clear how receptive the Philippines government will be. The Pentagon is also considering bases or staging areas in northeast Australia, where the US military has close ties and excellent training relationships with the Australian military. But one official said he doubted any forthcoming agreements would call for US Marines to be permanently based there.

Blair, Bush Lose Face over Iraq’s ‘mobile labs’
George Bush and Tony Blair face a fresh crisis over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, as evidence emerges that two vehicles that they have repeatedly claimed to be Iraqi mobile biological warfare production units are nothing of the sort. The intelligence agency MI6, British Defence officers and technical experts from the Porton Down microbiological research establishment have been ordered to conduct an urgent review of the mobile facilities, following US analysis which casts serious doubt on whether they really are germ labs.

The British review comes amid widespread doubts expressed by scientists on both sides of the Atlantic that the trucks could have been used to make biological weapons. Instead, it is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987.

The British review follows access by UK officials to the vehicles which were discovered by US troops in April and May. The claim, however, that the two vehicles are mobile germ labs has been repeated frequently by both Blair and George Bush in recent days in support of claims that they prove the existence of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

During his tour of the Gulf, Europe and Russia, Blair repeatedly briefed journalists that the trailers were germ production labs which proved that Iraq had WMD. But chemical weapons experts, engineers, chemists and military systems experts contacted by The Observer over the past week say the layout and equipment found on the trailers is entirely inconsistent with the vehicles being mobile labs. Both US Secretary of State Colin Powell, when he addressed the UN Security Council prior to the war, and the British Government alleged that Saddam had such labs.