Andrew Hagen

There are more questions than answers in the wake of the news of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. The US slowly gathered evidence on the program since 2000. As a resource-hungry highly enriched uranium program, it would have been impossible to hide it from spy satellites for long. Once the evidence accumulated, the US went to North Korea, accused them of having the program, and thus of having breached the 1994 Agreed Framework. The US expected nothing but denial from North Korea. (*) Instead, North Korea admitted that they had the program.

This was shocking to the US. Perhaps the US had planned to go public with the evidence and spearhead a strong, multilateral effort aimed at forcing North Korea to admit weapons inspectors, just like in Iraq. This would have helped smooth the waters for the desired UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, because the US would be seen as addressing the same threat in Iraq and North Korea, one an Islamic country, the other not. This could have served as proof that the effort against Iraq is not part of any “war of civilizations.”

For whatever reason, North Korea did not deny the existence of their program, and even hinted that they already had nuclear weapons, despite not having carried out a weapons test. Had this information been released by the Bush Administration to the public in early October, it would have changed the character of the debate on Iraq. President Bush would have had to explain to Congress why Iraq is more threatening than North Korea, when North Korea might have nuclear weapons and Iraq does not. As an expansionary power with a serial killer for a leader, Iraq is indeed more threatening than North Korea, but explaining this to the public and to Congress would have been very difficult. Instead of risking a more challenging debate, the Bush Administration withheld the information of North Korea’s admission from Congress and the public. The information was only released hours after President Bush signed the joint resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Congress is annoyed. (†) Unconvincingly, White House officials deny any ill motive. (‡)

Constantly to our detriment, the spirit of partisanship again stalks our foreign policy. By withholding a basic fact from the Iraq debate, President Bush was most concerned with securing partisan advantage. By expending less political capital on the Iraq debate, the theory seems to go, he can expend more on electing Republicans this November. The victim is our foreign policy, which now not only has an occluded moral clarity, but also has been rendered less credible just as the need becomes sharpest for a new Security Council resolution on Iraq.

What direction should US policy now take? We return to the question of why North Korea admitted its nuclear weapons program. If we knew their motive, we could conceptualize a better strategy than otherwise.

We do know that North Korea did not make its admission to prevent Congress from authorizing force against Iraq. Had it wished to, North Korea could have made a public admission any time before Congress voted. We have no reason to believe that North Korea wished to prevent a new Security Council resolution on Iraq. It was American officials who leaked the story to the media.

That leaves other motives. There is speculation that Kim Jong Il wants to be thought of as a “new kind of leader” who doesn’t resort to terrorism or secrecy. (§) Others believe that North Korea has a habit of extracting concessions from the US. With this admission, North Korea plans to get more economic assistance without really dismantling its weapons programs. This appears to provide the animating idea behind Bush’s strategy, as it was recently described. The US would get together with China and Russia, and say to North Korea: you will get rid of your nukes or face a total economic embargo, even from your old friends. (**) This is not a situation just like sanctions against Iraq, however, because of the different threat presented by North Korea. Today, we can still snuff out Iraq’s WMD programs before they become truly threatening to us and the rest of the world, but North Korea is already a nuclear threat to US allies South Korea and Japan, and to the US itself.

The US reaction to North Korea’s admission is still under consideration.

To understand why North Korea made its admission, it’s important to understand that North Korea’s point of view is that the US is the real violator of the Agreed Framework. (††) The US made certain promises pursuant to the Framework. As some analysts have said, the primary responsibility for fulfilling the Agreed Framework falls on the United States. (‡‡)

Yet, Secretary of State Colin Powell has taken a different position. “When the North Koreans told a U.S. envoy of its nuclear program, they ‘blamed us for their actions and then said they considered that agreement nullified. . . . When you have an agreement between two parties, and one says it’s nullified, then it’s hard to see what you do with such an agreement.”’ (§§)

Powell misses the point. The North Koreans apparently said that they considered the agreement nullified because of inaction on the US end of the bargain.

I’m not a lawyer, but here in the US, a “nullified” agreement is permanently dead. If the US were merely behind schedule, the agreement would not necessarily be nullified. Compensation for the delay could make up the difference. That’s a point made on a pro-DPRK bulletin board. (***) If the North Koreans did not truly mean “nullified,” and somehow sent the wrong message, or something was lost in translation, then North Korea might not consider the agreement actually nullified, but merely suspended. I would hope that the US State Department is on top of any such potential miscommunication.

Maybe the DPRK government is in danger of collapse at any moment, and they made the admission in hopes of securing an economic lifeline. If a collapse were to take place, the US would likely send in massive humanitarian aid to the starving populace. (†††)

The official web site of the North Korean government is interesting. (‡‡‡). It portrays a solemn and proud, but obviously very lonely country. There is little sign on the web site that anyone in North Korea is happy. The souvenirs page practically begs visitors to be interested in the stamps and videos. The business information page encourages any business at all to send their brochures and business ideas, as if North Korea were so desperate for investment that anything goes. Yet, no address is left, as if they know few if any would consider writing. The site details the Korean Friendship Association, which is supposed to get the truth out about the real North Korea. In case you were wondering, they are so desperate for people, membership is free. What you don’t see is any suggestion that North Koreans might have any individuality.

My overall impression of the North Korean leadership is that they have a major inferiority complex. The regime’s exact motivation in admitting it nuclear weapons program is as yet unknowable. It is clear, though, that Kim Jong Il wants to preserve the regime in Korea, and to achieve unification with South Korea. He would probably prefer a peaceful resolution over a military one.

One analyst in 1995 detailed a scenario that chillingly parallels that of today.

An American departure from the nuclear accords would evoke immediate loud charges from the north Koreans and prompt them to resume their nuclear activities . If things are left intact as they are now, a full year will have passed on October 21 without any contract being signed with north Korea. A logical conclusion would be that the Americans are not as good as their word, and Kim Jong Il would feel free to order the suspended nuclear activities restarted, including the reprocessing of the spent fuel. This would alarm the Americans into asking the United Nations for a possible sanction against Pyongyang. Imposition of a sanction by the Americans would be viewed as declaration of war on the north Koreans in flagrant violation of the July 27, 1953 Korean armistice agreement. Pyongyang would readily react in full force.

(§§§) Through the fog looms a crisis.

The advantage of diplomacy is flexibility, and that advantage cannot be written off in Korea. (****) A diplomatic solution with North Korea would make it appear not that the US is fighting only Islamic countries, but that the US is fighting only countries that do not make deals with the US and keep their word. There is ample room for a revised deal that would put any North Korean nuclear weapons into cold storage, halt the North Korean nuclear weapons program, and allow the Korean peninsula to hurry along toward peaceful reunification, presumably along democratic lines.

On 7 December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor. For the next few decades, Indonesian soldiers massacred the East Timorese, until they killed over 200,000 of the islanders, the worst proportional genocide since World War II. (*) Noam Chomsky, a professor of Linguistics at MIT, made it his personal mission to prevent the world from ever forgetting the East Timorese. Along with others, he spoke and wrote with great passion in defense of East Timor. Finally, in 1999 the UN acted. (†) (‡) Indonesia was forced to withdraw its forces. Australian troops were sent into East Timor temporarily to keep the peace. Today, East Timor is an independent, sovereign nation.

A few years later, in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist assault upon the United States, Noam Chomsky stepped into the rhetorical breach and attempted to deflect blame for the terrorist assault from the terrorists themselves to the foreign policy of the US. For America’s offenses, including the missile strike on the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons, America had 9/11 coming, he might have said. To Chomsky, there was nothing terribly surprising about 9/11, because, as he had long asserted, the US was the “leading terrorist state,” and thus it should have expected terrorism in return. (§) As others have observed, Chomsky’s counter-narrative would be installed as the official truth were Al Qaeda to succeed in its plans for world domination.

Though it was not a particularly noted issue until fairly recently, Indonesia is a land of mostly Muslims and East Timor is a land of mostly Christians. In his 3 November 2001 television broadcast on Al Jazeera, Osama Bin Laden railed against the UN intervention in East Timor, saying that it was a plot—a conspiracy—against Islam, and stated his wrath toward Australia and Kofi Annan, a Christian himself. Bin Laden said:

This criminal, Kofi Annan, was speaking publicly and putting pressure on the Indonesian government, telling it: You have 24 hours to divide and separate East Timor from Indonesia. Otherwise, we will be forced to send in military forces to separate it by force. The crusader Australian forces were on Indonesian shores, and in fact they landed to separate East Timor, which is part of the Islamic world. Therefore, we should view events not as separate links, but as links in a long series of conspiracies, a war of annihilation in the true sense of the word.

(**) Osama Bin Laden viewed the UN action to protect East Timor from genocide as one of the many slights that Islam has recently suffered. These perceived slights are claimed by Al Qaeda as justifying its campaign of worldwide terror.

Almost a year after that broadcast, on 12 October 2002, a series of terrorist bombings hit Indonesia. In Kuta Beach, Bali, over 180 were killed and hundreds were wounded. The Sari Club, which exclusively admitted foreign tourists, bore the brunt of the bombs. Most of the dead were Western, and many were Australian. All of the evidence fingers Al Qaeda and its alleged surrogate group in Indonesia, Jemaah Islamiah, in the blasts.

Which side will Chomsky be on this time? Will Chomsky say that the West, including Australia, has done many bad things against Muslims, and thus they should expect terrorism such as the Bali bombings in return? If so, he risks implying that the liberation of East Timor was one of those bad things done to Muslims that supposedly brought on Bali. That would echo the position of Osama Bin Laden. Additionally, the sincerity of Chomsky’s decades-long mission to defend East Timor from genocide would be cast into doubt.

If Chomsky says that the liberation of East Timor was not an offense done against Muslims, but that the West nevertheless had the Bali bombings coming, then he would have to explain just what the West did to bring on the Bali bombings.

Will Chomsky unequivocally condemn the Bali bombings, saying that the West did not have them coming? Then he must explain why America had 9/11 coming, but the West did not have Bali coming.

I believe Dr. Chomsky has dug himself a hole.

Update: 20 June 2003: Further discussion. (††)

Update: 17 November 2003: Andrew Olmsted links. (‡‡) On the Third Hand links. (§§) C.D. Harris of Ipse Dixit links. (***) Tim Blair links. (†††)

Investigators now believe that there were three bombs that struck the tourist district of Kuta Beach, Bali, on October 12. (*) In response, the Indonesian government has expanded police powers as it ramps up its anti-terrorism efforts. (†) The police have arrested Abu Bakar Bashir, the one who offered no sympathy for the families of the victims of the Bali bombings, and told them to convert to Islam. They suspect he has ties to Al Qaeda and ties to the bombing. (‡) They are still looking for Riduan Isamuddin, also known as Hambali, who is said to be the bomb maker for Jemaah Islamiah, “Islamic Association,” the Indonesian branch of Al Qaeda. The bombers reportedly received money from the account of Osama Bin Laden to buy the explosives used in the attack. (§) The history of Jemaah Islamiah is long, bloody, and full of ties to Al Qaeda. (**) The Bali blasts killed over 180 people and wounded hundreds more.

There is progress in the hunt for the Philippines Al Qaeda branch, known as Abu Sayyaf. One of the leaders of Abu Sayyaf, Mark Bolkerin Gumbahale, 21, was reportedly captured. (††) It’s reasonable to believe that Abu Sayyaf has ties with Jemaah Islamiah on the basis of the timing of the October 12 Indonesia bombings. The Philippine consulate-general in Manado was attacked first. Manado is just across the Celebes Sea from Zamboanga in the Philippines, where other attacks have taken place. A few hours after the Manado bombing, the Bali bombings took place. All of the Bali attacks were aimed at “Western” targets, including the Sari Club and the US consulate in Denpasar. It could be that the bombings were carried out in Manado by Abu Sayyaf and in Bali by Jemaah Islamiah, being coordinated well enough to hit within hours of each other.

The Philippines have suffered a wave of small-scale, lethal bombings in the past few weeks. (‡‡) The bombing has continued even after Gumbahale’s arrest. (§§)

Unfortunately, the US news media has almost completely ignored the Indonesia and Philippine bombings. The reporting of international news here has returned to its dismally low, pre–9/11 levels.

It’s been 1,587 years, and finally the library at Alexandria has been rebuilt thanks to the Egyptian government and UNESCO—institutions that have only been in existence for a few decades, and already they have done what no preceding institution for the past fifteen centuries did. (*) The reconstruction of the great library is a very good reason to be optimistic about the future of the Middle East. The library was once the premier center of learning in all of human civilization. It was so grand, it had many volumes that existed nowhere else. When it was destroyed, reams of recorded knowledge was forever lost. This library should be made into a premier center for learning again, not only for Islam, but for all civilizations. Just one thing. This time, for all those exclusive volumes, let’s store backup copies offsite! What would ancient Egyptian scholars have thought if they could have accessed the library on the Internet from around the world? (†) Maybe they would be cheered that after thousands of years of writing, we would eventually have the ability through digital technology to preserve old writings against mold, must, and willful destruction, and still have the wisdom to build those palaces of culture called libraries.

The latest outrage is that the families of the victims of the Bali bombing have been ordered to convert to Islam by the lead suspect in the case, Abu Bakar Bashir. (*) This stance is not new. It has been Al Qaeda’s intention since its inception of killing the “infidels” and forcing the “kaffir” West to convert. There ought to be no response from the West, except total resistance, and the hunting down and killing of these terrorists.

CIA Director George Tenet says,

The threat environment we find ourselves in today is as bad as it was last summer, the summer before Sept. 11. . . . It is serious, they’ve reconstituted, they are coming after us, they want to execute attacks.

(*) Yet, the homeland security threat level is orange, elevated, as opposed to high or severe. (†) What gives? It is time for a Department of Homeland Security. Too bad partisan political maneuvers from both sides of the aisle are killing the chance for legislation. (‡)

The US is trying to get France on board with a new resolution that would automatically trigger a Security Council meeting if Iraq violates this new Security Council resolution. (*) This is a good approach because it puts the heat back on the UN Security Council, forcing it to make an undelayed decision that will allow a military campaign to get underway this winter should one prove necessary.

It’s not clear whether Iraq’s likely failure to list all WMD or lying about the list would constitute a violation. What really should be a violation, though, is if Iraq prevents inspectors from interviewing Iraqi scientists in a protected environment, as Khidir Hamza, an Iraqi scientist who defected, convincingly argues. (†) The scientists are the ones who would best know where the weapons programs are.

The 1994 agreement reached by the Clinton Administration with North Korea was intended to prevent Pyongyang from obtaining plutonium nuclear weapons. It succeeded, although by then they might have already had enough plutonium for two bombs. (*) The cost of preventing further production was to provide the regime with some uranium nuclear equipment. Apparently, that provided equipment was not sufficient by itself to create a new nuclear weapon, as some conservatives have charged. This marks the Clinton Administration approach as a partial, but not complete success. Unfortunately, the North Koreans cut a secret deal in the late 1990s with the Pakistanis. It was North Korean missiles for Pakistani highly enriched uranium equipment. The North Koreans got their equipment, and now they hint darkly that they have a uranium bomb, or at least a highly enriched uranium program. (†)

All is not lost. Going by recent actions by the North Koreans, they are eschewing aggression. American officials recently became convinced that North Korea had a uranium weapons program. (‡) They confronted North Korean officials. The North Koreans admitted to having at least a program. It was an admission, not a challenge. They have declared the 1994 agreement “nullified,” but it is not clear that they have accessed the plutonium that they set aside after 1994. North Korea has apologized for some of its aggressive acts in the past. North Korea has recently admitted to the kidnapping of some Japanese citizens between 1978 and 1983 . (§) The Koreas have set up a hotline to defuse military conflict. (**)

What must be done is diplomacy. The goal of the diplomatic efforts should be to reunite the Koreas. If North Korea might be convinced to give up its nuclear weapons before reunification. North Korea is a failing state. It can’t feed its people. It can’t participate in global trade. It is looking at its successful southern cousin wishing to experience its prosperity. More direct cultural interaction between Koreans of the north and south must take place.

The Bush Administration is choosing to forge a coalition, including South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia. (††) The coalition will attempt to pressure North Korea into giving up the nukes. This is a strategy fraught with peril. As with Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il may see his nuclear weapons program as the only sure method of preserving his power, and thus may never agree to give them up. What is most needed is a lasting solution to the Korean conflict, a peace treaty to succeed the armistice signed in 1953. This coalition being forged should have the ultimate goals of implementing a peace treaty and reuniting the Koreas. A peace treaty would be a great first step. On the basis of North Korea’s recent spate of peacemaking statements and policies, a peace treaty predicated on eventual reunification should be within reach.

The long-term strategy has got to be a renewed, updated Nonproliferation Treaty. The Bush Administration needs to face the fact that pure unilateralism is not effective in addressing the peculiar threat of nuclear proliferation, as the North Korean–Pakistani deal shows.

President Bush has challenged the UN to take action against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or become irrelevant, just as the League of Nations became irrelevant when it failed to challenge Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Now, a spokesman for the Arab League says the opposite.

An attack on Iraq would open a Pandora’s box. It will lead to civil and ethnic war in Iraq and also destabilize the whole Arab region, which is already outraged at the Israeli occupation. . . . The war on Iraq will negate the present world order, the charter of the United Nations and international law.

(*) Now that’s tough talk. What are they going to do? Withdraw from the United Nations?

I’m not a lawyer, so don’t take this as legal advice. An attack on Iraq will fall within the lines of international law as a preemptive strike. A new precedent is being set. It will be only slightly changed from previous precedents, and will be a badly needed, beneficial precedent. The precedent will be: a terrorism-supporting state with weapons of mass destruction will result in threatened nations having increased justification to carry out a preemptive strike, even if the terrorism-supporting state with WMD is not poised for imminent attack.

This talk of the negation of the UN Charter appears to be more huff and puff from the Arab League.

The Kim Jong Il regime has terminated an agreement it made with the US in 1994 “to freeze all nuclear weapons development activity,” in the words of the New York Times. (*) What is not clear is whether North Korea has withdrawn from the entire 1994 agreement or only part of it.

North Korean officials have hinted darkly that they have the bomb. The usual sign that a nation has the bomb is the carrying out of a nuclear bomb test, detected seismically by other nations. No test has been reported. Thus, there is no proof that North Korea has the bomb. On the basis of its admission, however, North Korea must have at least an unfrozen nuclear weapons development program.

This could monkeywrench a UN Security Council resolution on Iraq, because now, some will argue, resolutions are needed on both Iraq and North Korea. Under this line of reasoning, China could use its veto to protect North Korea, thus scuttling an Iraq resolution indirectly. A UN Security Council resolution should not be needed on North Korea, however.

President Bush should work diplomatically to get the North Koreans back on track to a peaceful relationship with South Korea, culminating in an armistice and reunification. North Korea has made commitments under “the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), its International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards agreement, and the Joint North-South Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” in the words of State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. (†) Reminding the North Koreans of their treaty commitments is exactly the right approach. Our approach should be diplomatic.

Another response could be to stop fuel oil shipments to North Korea. (‡) This only makes sense if the North Koreans have revoked the entire 1994 agreement. It is not clear whether they are opening containers of radioactive materials that were sealed since that 1994 agreement. If they are opening the containers, then we’re back to square one, and the US should halt fuel oil shipments.

The regime of Kim Jong Il is less threatening than that of Saddam Hussein. Kim Jong Il does not have the extensive relationships with terrorists that Saddam Hussein has. (§) Nor does Kim Jong Il have a track record of using weapons of mass destruction.

Kim Jong Il may want North Korea to become a major regional power. He must see his possession of a nuclear weapon as putting him in the same category as China, Russia, and the US, especially because regional rivals South Korea and Japan do not have nuclear weapons.

While right-wing commentators launch into a blame-it-all-on-Clinton approach, and in this case, Carter, too, because he helped forge the 1994 agreement, many nuclear reactors promised North Korea have never been delivered. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 1994 agreement helped North Korea’s weapons program.

In retrospect, could more have been done? Yes. President Bush could have continued the Clinton Administration’s policy of pursuing an armistice and reunification of the Korean peninsula. Such an outcome was ripe for the picking when Bush was inaugurated. Instead, Bush changed course 180°. Bush let the possibility of peaceful Korean reunification in 2001 slip through his fingers on the basis of domestic partisan politics—the desire to show Clinton up. How many times must it be said? Partisan politics is the bane of a successful US foreign policy.

The Iraqi foreign minister, Mohammed Aldouri, states his case. (*) He offers unconditional access for weapons inspectors, and denies that Iraq has any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, or wishes to acquire them. Furthermore, he says, “After so many years of fear from war, the threat of war and suffering, the people of Iraq and their government in Baghdad are eager for peace. We have no intention of attacking anyone, now or in the future, with weapons of any kind.”

Aldouri does not deny that after UNSCOM left Iraq in 1998, there were discrepancies about how large Iraq’s store of WMD was. Nor does he say what happened to that store, miniscule or otherwise. He gives no account of whether Iraq has had WMD between 1998 and yesterday, only that Iraq has none today. He does not condemn terrorism or forswear Iraq from cooperating with terrorists or pledge Iraq’s support in the War on Terrorism. Then there is the distinct possibility that he is lying, a practice of some number of Iraqi officials.

By all means, a tough team of inspectors should be sent in. Unconditional access is not enough, however. Iraq’s former practice of surveillance and harassment of inspectors must not continue. Unimpeded access is absolutely required.

How do you stop terrorists? Do you feed them? Do you clothe them? Do you kiss their hands and obey their orders? No, you kill them. (*)

That leaves open the question of how you prevent future terrorism. Two words: political emancipation. Imagine the US today without political freedom. Imagine that someone sort of like a violent Jerry Falwell was trying to stop abortion. Only in this nightmare scenario of political tyranny, this person would have to use guns and bombs, instead of relying on free speech and lobbying, as Jerry Falwell does. Of course, even in our free society, we have anti-abortion terrorists. Do not forget that these terrorists are kooks destined to be sentenced to long prison terms. The enforcement of the law has great social utility. That’s the answer. The big advantage of political emancipation is that it engenders peaceful resolution to social conflict. Neither tyranny nor anarchy can claim this overriding advantage.

Eric Raymond has posted a “Draft for an Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto.” (*)

Update: 4 April 2004: The location has changed. (†)

A few decades ago, a Tom Wolfe novel used the phrase “establishment left.” I’m happy to see more people use the term contemporaneously. It’s in a fine Washington Post column by Michael Kelly about the Nobel Peace Prize award to Jimmy Carter. (*) Kelly writes, “Many thoughts are unthinkable to the ideologically bankrupt establishment left that the Nobellians exemplify.” Nice shot!

The left-wing establishment has said time and again that Al Qaeda will be in a better position than they are today if the US attacks Iraq. Al Qaeda usually spreads its attacks out. This autumn, however, before the Iraq attack has begun, Al Qaeda has engaged in a terror spree around the world, from Kuwait to the French oil tanker to the rocket attack in Afghanistan to the Indonesia attacks and elsewhere. So why is Al Qaeda implementing a cluster of attacks now, before it accrues its alleged advantage when Iraq is attacked? The left-wing establishment has no solid response.

Some have said, Al Qaeda plans lots of attacks. Why can’t they attack in the autumn and continue attacking once Iraq is attacked? The point is, however, that Al Qaeda has initiated an unusually rapidfire campaign of terror this autumn. That Al Qaeda plans lots of attacks does not explain the increase in frequency this autumn. Some might say that Al Qaeda has suddenly gained strength, and this autumn’s campaign of frequent terrorist attacks will continue indefinitely. There is no evidence that Al Qaeda has suddenly gained strength, however. Where Al Qaeda formerly car-bombed hardened embassies, they are now car-bombing nightclubs. This change is indicative not that Al Qaeda has been suddenly strengthened, but weakened. I feel that the reduced potency of Al Qaeda’s attacks reflects a reduced capacity to carry out for very long a campaign of frequent terror attacks. If so, the frequency of attacks should soon slow.

If the left-wing establishment were right, and Al Qaeda will accrue an advantage when Iraq is attacked, then Al Qaeda should hold its fire until the attack on Iraq begins in a few months’ time. Either the Left is wrong about Al Qaeda benefitting from an American-led attack on Iraq, or Al Qaeda is blind to not comprehend that such an attack will actually help them.

Some might argue that an attack on Iraq will help Al Qaeda, that Al Qaeda perceives this, and that Al Qaeda is carrying out its autumn campaign of terror now to goad the US, the UK, and other countries into attacking Iraq so that Al Qaeda will gain the benefit. To the contrary, however, Ayman Zawahiri, an Al Qaeda leader, issued a statement about Iraq on Al Jazeera on October 7, the first anniversary of Operation Enduring Freedom. Zawahiri said:

The campaign against Iraq has goals that surpass Iraq and they are to conquer the Arab and Islamic world. The objective is the destruction of any effective military power close to Israel. Furthermore, America aims to establish Israel’s monopoly on weapons of mass destruction in the region, without any competitor, in order to ensure the submission of the Arab and Muslim countries to its desires and imperialistic [sic] ambitions.

(*) To say such a thing about Iraq would not be necessary if it were Zawahiri’s intent to goad the world into supporting an attack on Iraq. If he does sympathize with the Iraqi regime in this way, then he does not want an attack on Iraq. I cannot discern a motive for Zawahiri’s statement on Iraq except for his sincere belief in it. Some security analysts believe that Al Jazeera’s broadcast of Al Zawahiri’s statement actually triggered the Indonesia attacks. (†) The evidence suggests that Zawahiri does not want a US-led attack on Iraq.

Could Al Qaeda actually want to help Iraq? There is a possible motive. Al Qaeda could be provided with a permanent sanctuary from where to launch unlimited terrorist assaults should Iraq gain nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda have common enemies. There is also opportunity. By creating a large autumn campaign of terror, Al Qaeda could be attempting to play into the antiwar rhetoric that an Iraq attack will harm the overall War on Terrorism. Perhaps Al Qaeda believes that its attacks will derail world support for an Iraq attack. If this were their goal, their efforts appear to have failed. Popular support for an Iraq attack has grown, at least in Britain. (‡) This supposition that Al Qaeda wants to help Iraq cannot be proven, but must be considered in light of the recent behavior of Al Qaeda.

Another consideration, made by James Lindgren courtesy of Gareth Parker’s web log, is that while many left-wingers are blaming the Indonesia attacks on Australia’s support for the US effort against Iraq, the same left-wingers also claim that Iraq and Al Qaeda have no connection. (§) Something’s got to give.

In conclusion, it must be true either that Al Qaeda will not benefit from an Iraq attack, or that Al Qaeda does not recognize that they will benefit. Al Qaeda might have the ambition, yet unproven, to protect Iraq by launching terrorist strikes around the world in support of Iraq prior to and during an American-led attack on Iraq. Finally, if Al Qaeda and Iraq have no connection, then the Indonesia attacks cannot be blamed on Australia’s support for the US effort against Iraq.

This is no conspiracy theory. I’m not saying that Al Qaeda and Iraq are surely linked, but only that, going by Al Qaeda’s recent behavior, they could be. Notably, President Bush recently stated, “There is a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.” (**)

Last modified: 16 October 2002.

Update: 18 November 2003. I was attacked (††) for making this argument, but with the Al Qaeda attacks on coalition forces in Iraq, it appears I was on the mark.

Update: 4 May 2004. The Washington Times article that quoted President Bush is no longer online. Another site has the quotation from President Bush and lists the day and location: “10/14/2002 ‘There is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein,’ said Mr. Bush on the South Lawn of the White House.” (‡‡)

Four bomb blasts in Indonesia last Saturday night, October 12, on the second anniversary of the bombing of the USS Cole, have caused 183 confirmed deaths, and left more than 200 missing and 300 injured, all of them civilians. (*)

The first attack occurred at the Philippine consulate-general in Manado, in the northern part of the island of Sulawesi. It caused no casualties. (†) (‡)

The other three attacks took place on the Hindu-majority island of Bali. (§) The island of Bali is east of the large island of Java. (**) A few hours after the attack in Manado, a second bomb went off outside a discotheque, blowing out windows in the tourist district of Kuta Beach. A third bomb also went off in Kuta Beach, immediately after the second. It was a large car bomb that destroyed a nightclub frequented by foreign tourists. Gas canisters in the club ignited, creating an inferno that burned many people beyond recognition. At about the same time, a fourth bomb exploded outside of the US consulate in the nearby city of Denpasar in Bali. It caused no casualties. (††) (‡‡)

Prior to the attacks, the US State Department had issued several warnings relating to terrorism in Indonesia. It is likely that the US embassy and consulates in Indonesia had taken extra security precautions prior to the attacks. The fact that the US consulate was struck by a smaller bomb than the one that struck the nightclub lends itself to speculation that the original bombing target may have been the US consulate, but that after the extra security precautions were taken at the consulate, and it became impossible to hit the consulate with the car bomb, perhaps the main target was switched to the softer target of a nightclub full of foreign civilians.

As with the Al Qaeda 9/11 attack, the victims were international, coming from at least twenty nations. (§§) Al Qaeda has ties to an Indonesian group, Jemaah Islamiah. Jemaah Islamiah has softly denied involvement in the attacks. (***) The Indonesian government has blamed the attacks on Al Qaeda. (†††) An Al Qaeda link to the attacks has not been proven, however. Yesterday, Al Qaeda released a statement signed in the name of Osama Bin Laden praising the recent attacks in Kuwait and on the French oil tanker. The statement did not mention the attacks in Indonesia. (‡‡‡). Another suspicious group is Abu Sayyaf, an Al Qaeda–linked group based in the Philippines, and suspected in the October 2 bombing in the Philippine city of Zamboanga, which killed four, including an American Green Beret, and a bus station bomb October 10 that killed six. (§§§) While we don’t know exactly who carried out the Indonesia attacks, they appear linked to Al Qaeda. The bombings were certainly acts of terrorism, as there were four coordinated bombs, two of which hit diplomatic targets.

Many of the victims of the Kuta Beach blasts were Australian nationals. Mirroring the establishment Left’s despicable response to 9/11, many Australian left-wingers are blaming the attack on the Australian government’s foreign policy. The British journalist Robert Fisk has chimed in with his usual blame-the-victims approach. Australian journalist Tim Blair has provided exemplary coverage of the attack and its heartbreaking aftermath on his web log. (****)

Many left-wingers are charging that this autumn’s apparent campaign of terrorism, from Kuwait to the French oil tanker MV Limburg to the Philippines to Indonesia and to perhaps elsewhere, proves the assertion that the effort to dislodge the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq from power will negatively affect the War on Terrorism. This charge is usually made by those who do not wholeheartedly support the War on Terrorism. As Middle East expert Elliot Chodoff observes, however, this autumn’s campaign is likely designed by Al Qaeda to distract the world’s attention away from Iraq. (††††) Why else is Al Qaeda stepping up terror attacks now? According to the establishment Left, the war on Iraq will help Al Qaeda. So shouldn’t Al Qaeda want the US to focus on Iraq, so that Al Qaeda will be left alone? Shouldn’t Al Qaeda temporarily reduce the number of its attacks so that the world focuses on Iraq and forgets Al Qaeda? Instead, Al Qaeda appears to be stepping up attacks in hopes that the world will be dissuaded from pressuring Iraq. This is could be because once Iraq obtains nuclear weapons, Al Qaeda could have in Iraq a permanent, safe base from which to conduct unlimited terrorist operations. Fortunately, President Bush is not backing down. He says that the US will fight the War on Terrorism on both the Iraq and Al Qaeda fronts. (‡‡‡‡) I have an increasing feeling that we are going to find out that these are actually one single front.

The main attack was on a purely civilian target, a nightclub. It was designed to inflict maximum casualties on innocent people. While it is not yet clear exactly what terrorist group carried out the Indonesia attacks, it is clear that the attacks are contemptible, evil acts of premeditated murder. The Indonesia attacks ought to galvanize all those around the world who value peace and justice to join together and ally against whoever is responsible. The Indonesian government, especially, ought now to act more forcefully against terrorism than it has done in the past.

last modified 2002.10.20.

There is more delay in setting up a special commission to investigate what went wrong with national defense and security on 9/11. Some members of Congress are accusing the Bush Administration of secretly nixing any deal to create the commission. The Bush Administration denies obstructionism. Some consider it possible that the Bush Administration is attempting to fend off any blame that might attach to it, but the commission should not be set up to blame anyone. It should be designed to plug the holes and fix the problem. (*) All the while politicians squabble, the day when new attacks are set to strike the US and our allies draws nearer. For many years now, the bipartisan approach to basic foreign policy and national security decisions has been undermined. Highlights have included accusations by many, including myself, that Bill Clinton was “wagging the dog” when he fired missiles at the Sudan and Afghanistan during a tense moment in the Lewinsky scandal. As we now know, those missiles were meant for Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Had they successfully struck their targets, we might not have had 9/11 in the first place, and we could continue our pointless partisan bickering in peace. It is not only stupid political fights that have undermined our nation’s defense against external threats, however. It is also neglect. Our defense and security infrastructure is in desperate need of attention, repair, and refurbishment.

No one really knows what we could have done to prevent 9/11, and that is the problem. Without that information, we are in a poor position to stop the next attack. Considering the current level of Al Qaeda chatter and broadcasted threats, that next attack may already be very near. (†)

So can we hurry up and create an investigative commission and get back to the business of fighting the War on Terrorism, please?

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Jimmy Carter. (*) Carter deserves the award for his lifetime of work for peace. His many achievements have been detailed elsewhere. What is shocking is that the Norwegian Nobel Committee is now targeting the USA in the same way it used to target repressive regimes such as the Soviet Union and Burma. In the past, the Peace Prize was given to dissidents such as Andrei Sakharov and Aung San Suu Kyi with the purpose of raising awareness of a tyrannical regime. Now that the USA has come under the attack of Islamist fascists and has the arrogance to preemptively defend itself and its allies against terrorists who would target civilian population centers with nuclear weapons, the USA apparently must be hectored as if it were the world’s greatest threat to peace.

One month ago, Jimmy Carter said in speech that to attack Iraq without UN backing would be a “tragic mistake.” Yet, Carter

urged the United Nations to require Iraq to comply with previous resolutions calling for inspections to detect weapons of mass destruction. If that happens and Saddam once again flouts the United Nations, Carter said, the United States “would have massive support of other nations to force Iraq to comply.” “It’s absolutely crucial that we have unimpeded inspections,” he said.

(†) Unfortunately, Iraq has sent contradictory signals on whether it will allow unconditional inspections. (‡) At certain points, the Iraq regime has indicated its willingness to comply with unconditional inspections. (§). At other times, Iraq has noted its unwillingness to accept UN-mandated no-fly zones, and demanded that the UN, which is about to decide whether inspections will be tightened, must pay Iraq for the privilege of inspecting their weapons programs. (**) Such is the perfidy of the Iraqi regime. By never backing up their words with deeds, the Iraqi regime has made clear their real intention: to create confusion and thereby to weaken international resolve in inspecting Iraq’s programs for weapons of mass destruction, and delay a US-led attack for as long as possible. (††)

This Iraqi “FUD” (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) strategy is not what Jimmy Carter called for when he demanded that Iraq provide “unimpeded inspections.” Nevertheless, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is attempting to use Jimmy Carter as a pawn to prevent the UN Security Council from tightening weapons inspections. (‡‡) In the official award announcement, a veiled reference to Iraq was made. The chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee has since spoken to reporters. He called the selection of Jimmy Carter a deliberate “kick in the leg” to President Bush. (§§). In Norwegian, “kick in the leg” is an idiom with the same meaning as “slap in the face” in English. The prize was awarded a few hours after Congress voted to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq.

Carter’s statements regarding Iraq have been a minimal part of his vast body of peace-promoting work. Carter should consider declining the award on the basis that he is being used as a pawn—an ex-president being used to delegitimize the actions of the current president. Even if he does not decline the award, he should attempt to put himself above the fray by continuing to demand that Iraq allow “unimpeded inspections” and that the UN Security Council act to authorize force, if necessary.

On December 14, 2000, in Wichita, Kansas, a horrific, unparalleled sequence of savage, depraved acts occurred. The criminals were black; the victims white. On trial now are the two black men accused of the crime. Right-wingers are attempting to use the facts of the case to realign the ongoing discussion of racial politics in America more to their liking.
(more…)

Earlier this week, President Bush gave a speech that detailed the justification for using force against Iraq. (*) By this week’s end, Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to defend the national security of the United States and to enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions. (†) In the House, the vote was 296-133 with 3 abstentions. (‡) In the Senate, the vote was 77-23. (§)

The text of the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 114 in the House and S.J. Res. 45 in the Senate, is sharply drawn. It invokes the War Powers Act, and limits the authorization to Iraq proper.
(more…)