IS290-1 News Media
ideology, myth, and
metaphor
3 ROLES and PERSPECTIVES found in the articles:
President Bush / USA: 1. savior of peace and all that is good; 2. tyrant/evil ; 3. duped by Israel
Terrorists / Axis of Evil countries: 1. evil doers; 2. standing up for their beliefs as persecuted; 3. diplomats who work with EU
Supporters of US from the Middle East: 1. stand up for all that is good in US; 2. part of the civilized world; 3. duped by the US for economic reasons
Terrorists
President Bush
Al Qaeda
US government officials
President Musharraf
Silent majority
USA
Axis of Evil states
Wrong People
Taliban
Pentagon Officials
Shadowy people
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
America
Israel
CIA
Middle East Forum at the Council on
Foreign Relations
Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt
http://www.dawn.com/2002/02/28/top5.htm
February 12, 2002
US to continue hunt for Osama, Omar
By Our
Correspondent
NEW YORK, Feb 27: The United States would continue to hunt down Osama bin
Laden, Taliban leader Mulla Omar and their "henchmen" throughout the
world.
Reiterating that the US war on terrorism would continue until Al Qaeda is
rooted out, State Department spokesman Philip Reeker said: "It's hard to
predict" whether there can be any closure without the arrest or death of
bin Laden. He was briefing news correspondents in New York on Tuesday following
President Bush's visit to China, Japan and South Korea.
Reeker, when asked to comment on reports that on Osama bin Laden is still alive
in Afghanistan, said: "I cannot verify the variety of reports other than
what the president had said that we would continue to hunt for him and Mulla
Mohammed Omar but also their henchmen, the Taliban, who were part and parcel of
Al-Qaeda for what they did to our country and many others in the civilized
world."
He said the campaign "won't end and certainly I cannot predict when it
would end." Asked about the fallout of President Musharraf's campaign to
rid the country of radical elements, Reeker said following Musharraf's address
(of Jan 12) "silent majority of Pakistanis have stood up with him, the
dire warnings were misplaced."
"The silent majority of Pakistanis has not only stood up not only with us,
the United States, in the aftermath of Sept 11 but with the civilized world
also seeing what is best for Pakistan."
© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2002
ARTICLE 2: From the Tribune, India
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020213/world.htm#6
USA fighting ‘fog of confusion’
Washington, February 12
The USA has admitted it was battling a fog of confusion in post-war Afghanistan
but signaled it could soon move into the next phase of its anti-terror campaign
— dealing with “axis of evil’’ states.
Pentagon officials,
responding to reports that US forces have targeted wrong people in mopping up
Al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants, said yesterday the truth was hard to establish
in Afghanistan.
“To say that...
conditions in Afghanistan are confusing is an understatement, you know,’’ said
spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, who addressed a briefing with Rear Adm. John
Stufflebeem.
Stufflebeem added: “It’s
a shadow war. These are shadowy people who don’t want to be found.’’
But the officials said
they were confident the latest attack about which questions had been raised, a
missile fired at a group of Al-Qaeda suspects by a remote controlled drone, had
been on target.
The Washington Post
yesterday quoted residents of the area as saying three innocent peasants had
been killed in the missile strike a week ago, not Al-Qaeda leaders as US
officials reported at the time.
Mr Clarke and Admiral Stufflebeem
said an investigation into another US attack three weeks ago on Afghans
believed, possibly mistakenly, to be Al-Qaeda or Taliban was being expanded to
look at charges that some detainees had been beaten while in US custody.
At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer suggested President George W. Bush wanted quick action against his “axis of evil’’ nations — Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein hit back at Washington. “The American behavior and conduct imply clear tyranny and evil hostility against people,’’ Iraqi television quoted him as saying at a meeting. Reuters
ARTICLE 3: From the
Tehran Times
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=2/28/02&Cat=14&Num=1
Iran, EU Opposed to U.S.
Hegemony
Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who
arrived in Berlin Tuesday for a two-day visit, held comprehensive talks with
German Parliament Speaker Wolfgang Thierse which focused on German-Iranian
ties, Afghanistan, the Middle East issue, and other global developments such as
U.S. unilateralism.
In addition, one day prior to Kharrazi's
talks with Thierse, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Euro-American Affairs
Ali Ahani held similar talks with the Austrian Parliament speaker and acting
foreign minister.
Germany and Austria are two countries that
have extensive relations with Iran at the bilateral level as well as within the
framework of cooperation between the European Union (EU) and the Islamic
Republic. In fact, the close views of Iran, Germany and Austria on the Middle
East issue and developments in Afghanistan have prepared an appropriate
groundwork for cooperation in maintaining regional security and stability and
in other areas such as fighting terrorism and drug trafficking.
As far as the Mideast issue is concerned,
the blind U.S. support for the Zionist regime's suppression of Palestinians has
escalated the crisis in the region. Therefore, it is the responsibility of
other major players on the international arena to intervene and seek a fair and
peaceful solution to the issue.
With regard to Afghanistan, maintaining
peace and security in that country requires contributions from all countries to
support Afghanistan's interim government, regardless of political
considerations.
Considering the efforts made by Iran at the
Bonn Conference to help form the interim government in Afghanistan, it is clear
that Tehran and Berlin hold similar positions on the above issue.
Therefore, in the light of the considerable
progress made in the comprehensive dialogue between the Islamic Republic and
the European Union, Kharrazi's negotiations with German officials and Ahani's
visit to Austria indicate that Iran and the EU have opted for continued
consultations and cooperation on major regional and international issues. This
cooperation aims to secure several objectives, the most important ones being
maintaining regional security and countering unilateralist and monopolistic
U.S. policies on the international scene.
ARTICLE 4: From the NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/weekinreview/24PURD.html?pagewanted=print
An old Middle East hand once likened the conflict there to riding a bicycle: If you're moving, however slowly, you don't fall down. But if you try to stand still, you fall.
After 17 months of intifada, suicide bombings, smuggled arms, unsparing Israeli reprisals and bloody stalemate, there is an inescapable sense that the bicycle is inches from the ground. And, as it always has at such times, the world is looking to America for forward momentum.
Washington's involvement has always been the crucial element in any breakthrough in the Middle East. From Harry S. Truman's swift recognition of the new state of Israel, through Jimmy Carter's Camp David summitry in the 1970's and Bill Clinton's handshake deal in the 1990's, American presidents have played a powerful role in molding the shape of Middle East negotiations. Peace has always seemed closest when America is most involved. Though this downward spiral of violence has generated doubts about any hope for a solution, a wide array of voices — representing many lands and views — are now suggesting that renewed American involvement is the key.
But what should the Bush administration do and, more important, can it accomplish what it desires?
"I think we have got to start with a pretty frank recognition that whatever we have been trying for the past year has not worked," said William B. Quandt, a national security official in the Nixon and Carter administrations. "We've kind of gone through a cycle of what you might call benign neglect — it's up to them to get their act together."
A sampling of opinion from academic experts and current and former government officials produced a variety of possible ideas for American action. Send in a new high-level American envoy, with the stature of, say, former Secretary of State James A. Baker. Press for a 10-day cooling off period in which Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel would ease the siege of Palestinian areas long enough to see if Yasir Arafat would crack down on violence — or face a cutoff of relations with the United States.
Howard Teicher, a former National Security Council official in the Reagan administration, said there are dangers for the administration in getting more involved. For example, American efforts could alienate Arab nations when their cooperation is vital. Mr. Bush would also risk political and diplomatic capital to broker an agreement in a region where American success has never been assured.
But the alternatives are worse. "The fundamental weakness of our policy now," Mr. Teicher said, "is that in saying, `It's up to Sharon and it's up to Arafat,' we're leaving it up to the extremists. That's what America did with Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists. We waited until 3,000 Americans were killed before we did anything. In the cold-war era, our fundamental vital interest was to prevent a dispute in the Middle East from becoming a U.S.- Soviet conflict. There could be some very high costs imposed on us by not continuing our efforts."
In fact, Shibley Telhami, a professor of government at the University of Maryland, just published a statistical study of 20 years of daily analysis of how Israelis and Palestinians react to each other. He said that from 1995 to 2000, when the peace process was progressing — with American leadership — terror declined every year in the Middle East. By 1999, it had the lowest level of incidents of any region on the globe, except North America.
"When breaks in the violence happen, it's usually because you have some extremely courageous leader, like Sadat or Rabin — people who give their own lives," Professor Telhami said. "But you can't depend on that. It's more likely if you have some external pressure."
Indeed, progress over the last decade has come only through American
pressure. In 1991, the first President Bush convened the Madrid peace
conference in fulfillment of a commitment to Arab nations who joined the
international coalition that ejected Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Madrid
conference, and the Oslo accords that followed in 1993, significantly advanced
the negotiating terms for a final settlement on a homeland for Palestinians in
the Israeli-occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza. But the momentum of
Madrid and Oslo foundered for many reasons, including government changes in
Israel and a rising tide of extremism among Palestinians.
YET Washington can play a role, and there could even be an opening. Last week,
the C.I.A. brokered secret talks between top-ranking Israeli and Palestinian
officials to discuss political and security issues. Seeking to lessen the
tension, Israeli officials said Friday that the government was considering
releasing Mr. Arafat, the Palestinian leader, from the West Bank city of
Ramallah, where it trapped him for more than two months.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, returning from a trip to Asia with President Bush, told reporters on Friday that he was concerned about the growing level of violence and planned to "spend a good part of the weekend re-engaging both sides." He said he saw promise in a recent peace overture by the ruling crown prince of Saudi Arabia.
But no one pretends the road back will be smooth. Vice President Dick Cheney plans a Middle East trip next month that the administration said will not focus on peacemaking but on broader American relationships in the region as the war on terrorism expands. The notion that the two can even be separated is controversial.
"He's going on the reigning theory that you can have a solution to the United States relationship to terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction without dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," said Stephen Cohen, a visiting professor at Princeton University. "This trip is going to test that assumption."
President Bush took office last year wary of deep involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not least because it was a priority for his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and one that ended in disappointment with the collapse of negotiations at Camp David.
Last fall, the administration began to take a more forward-leaning approach,
with Mr. Bush's pledge of support for a Palestinian state and the dispatch of a
special envoy, Anthony C. Zinni, a retired Marine general, to help negotiate a
cease-fire and resumption of peace talks.
FOR the last two months, especially since Israel's seizure of a 50-ton boatload
of Iranian- supplied arms that it said were bound for the Palestinian
Authority, Washington has had a single strategy: stand squarely with Mr. Sharon
to isolate and pressure Mr. Arafat to crack down on violence.
Yet the violence has only grown worse, and the administration withdrew General Zinni and has declined to send him back until it goes down again. "This is now Algeria," said Judith Kipper, director of the Middle East Forum at the Council on Foreign Relations here. "Each side is going to continue to escalate. Neither side can get the other to submit."
She added: "They've both been very good at saying no to us. But in the end, we're the big guys. We need to say we're sending Zinni back; and he's going to work with you to have an immediate cease-fire. And for those who do not cooperate, here are the consequences for you: whether it's public criticism, cutoff of contacts, no more phone calls, all the way up to whatever instruments the United States has at its command."
Many analysts said the administration should do all it can to explore the suggestion by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia that his kingdom would be prepared to fully normalize relations with Israel in exchange for full Israeli withdrawal from the territories it occupied at the end of the 1967 war, with suggestions of flexibility on other questions, including control of holy sites in Jerusalem.
Israeli officials have so far offered muted reaction, but the idea has been greeted with overwhelming support in the Arab world. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, which has traditionally seen itself as the principal Arab peace broker in the region, is due in Washington next week, and officials say he may well try to signal a willingness to up the ante.
And President Bush could then enter into the traditional role of an American president — by getting directly involved in seeking peace in the Middle East.