some thoughs

 
c est un hommage emu qu aujourd hui je porte a Jean Paul 2 , un grand du 20 eme siecle s est eteint a 85 ans. Un defenseur de la liberté , l un de ceux qui contribua a la liberation de l europe de l est de la tyrannie et de l oppression.

certains peuvent certes critiquer , insulter les positions prises par l eglise en son 1er lieu son chef spirituel , mais ces gens la ne comprenent pas par ignorance que l eglise se doit de tenir un discours hautement moral, ce qui fut la tache de Jean Paul 2.

oui un grand du 20eme siecle s est eteint, l un des derniers leaders de ce monde qui se revela en luttant, tout d abord pour la liberté, pour la moralité et surtout ensuite contre la malade.

la maladie .... tel d une certaine maniere il a lutté, il a connu sa passion personnelle du christ en souffrant terriblement a tel point qu a la fin ca faisait mal de le voir dans cet etat,
nous devons donc etre triste de le voir partir mais heureux qu un terme a cette souffrance soit arrivé, qu il ne souffre plus

un grand homme s est eteint mais soyons triste de l avoir perdu mais aussi heureux qu il est rejoint le seigneur.
posted by francois at dimanche, avril 03, 2005

 
la phase de liberation du liban est en route

ce que les armes n ont pu faire , ce que le sang qui a versé n a pas reussi a faire, aujourd hui cela meme , cette liberation est effectuée par le courage et des moyens pacifiques suite aux manifestations de la place de la liberté qui ont eu lui apres la mort du 1er ministre rafic hariri

il est important que les generations futures au liban s en souviennent de cela , s en souviennent pour eviter qu une nouvelle guerre puisse un jour secoué ce pays.
je me donne pour ma part cette mission de rappeler a tous ce que je pourrais rencontrer les circonstance de la guerre vecue pendant mon enfance et de leur dire de tout fait pour eviter la reedition de cette periode

aujourd hui, on arrive a la victoire d un liban libre , libre de toute presence etrangere qu elle soit syrienne ou israelienne

le liban ne peut se permettre de s allier a ses voisins , entre un etat expansionniste partageant des valeurs d etat pionniers au mepris des populations locales et un voisin qui ne l a jamais reconnu , qui a toujours estimé que le liban etait un territoire arraché a son propre territoire, celui n a pas d autres choix que de devoir affronter seul son avenir et j ai grand espoir aujourd hui a cause de l unité retrouvé entre les differentes communautées

en parlant de communauté , il faut que le sentiment d appartenance a une communauté s efface au profit de l appartenance a un pays , que les gens ne reagissent plus par des sentiments quasi feodaux d appartenances quasi claniques ou familials ou religieux mais par la notion d etat nation

il faut absolument y arriver, c est le challenge pour le futur du liban.

maintenant pour parler de la situation actuelle.
il y a des alertes a la bombe pratiquement ts les jours
ca commencé il y a 1 semaine maintenant a New Jdeidé , suivi par l attentat de Kaslik puis de seid el bauchieh
les attentats ont comme but de terroriser. ils se produisent la nuit , dans des endroits peu frequentés, ce qui explique le nombre restreint de morts , 2 morts de nationalité etrangere aussi le fait que des voies de communications importantes a proximité comme l autoroute ou encore des voies importantes de communication interieures , boulevard de new jeidé , route maritime et boulevard de sin el fil respectivement en faisaient des cibles de choix
le fait que ca soit des centres commerciaux ou industriels ou des rues commerciales veut egalement montrer et demontrer qu ils veulent s attaquer a l infrastructure economique du pays

je pense pas qu il s agisse de faire mourir comme je l ai deja dis mais de faire peur
hier j avais une reunion au starbucks de zalka , les personnes avec j avais rendez vous montraient leur peur , avaient qu une seule envie , celle de partir , les terroristes sont entrain d arriver a leur buts , faire peur aux gens alors que s annonce aujourd hui la liberté
la liberté et la peur sont antagonistes , il faut absolument vaincre sa peur pour gagner sa liberté

c est ce que je repete aujourd hui a mes amis

il faut certe etre prudent mais pas paranoiac observer mais pas avoir peur.

si je sors aujourd hui , ce que je continue a faire bien sur , je sors en essayant de ne pas mettre en danger d autres personnes que moi meme , je ne veux pas nuire a ceux que j aime
au contraire les proteger mais pas de me proteger

parlant maintenant comment je vois les choses evoluer
je pense que le regime syrien nous livre aujourd hui un combat d arriere garde
le 1er ministre pro syrien deja demissionnaire et chargé de former un nouveau gouvernement a decidé d abandonner l affaire
la constitution d un gouvernement de doyens et de sages est aujourd hui plus que probable ,ce gouvernement aura pour mission de conduire des elections sous la surveillance d observateurs internationaux dans un delais plus ou moins bref
ce que je crains c est que ces sages n aient pas de pouvoir , celui ci restant entre les mains d agents de la grande syrie , cette 5eme colonne dans les ministeres
il faut les eliminer administrativement.

les voitures piegées quand a elles continueront jusqu a ce qu un changement de regime se fasse a Damas meme

Damas en occupant le liban avait reussi a maintenir son regime pendant plus de 30 ans , pas un seul coup d etat en syrie ne s etait produit sans le liban. Occuper le liban etait donc un imperatif strategique de hafez el assad avait bien compris
le fait aujourd hui de ne plus occuper le liban va donc conduire le regime vers sa fin
elle peut etre soit pacifique avec une ouverture vers l opposition interieure syrienne
soit plus brutale avec une revolution et ce ne serait pas dans l interet du liban qu un regime islamique syrien genre freres musulmans s installe au pouvoir

il faut donc que la fin du regime baasiste soit pacifique et c est ce qui semble etre le choix de l opposition libanaise

plus qu une semaine et normalement les syriens sont dehors

plus que 2 mois et des elections devraient etre organisées pour mettre en dehors du parlement leur vassaux

ce que les armes et le sang n ont pas reussi a faire , les libanais reussissent aujourd hui a le faire avec des manifestations pacifiques , en reclamant la verité , la liberté et l independance

longue vie au liban libre
posted by francois at mercredi, mars 30, 2005

 
unpublished article that i ve wrote the 17 february 2005

madame, monsieurje vous ecris en francais vu que meme si je comprends l arabe, je ne suis pas tres a l aise dans cette langue.je vous ecris egalement pour vous livrer un peu de mes reactions face a ce crime qui a secoué le Liban.Les faits, tout le monde les connait, on a assassiné le President Rafic Hariri alors qu il allait rejoindre l opposition chretienne et druze en tant que personalité sunnite de poid , ce qui aurait donc donné le sentiment d union nationale pour demander le depart des troupes et des services syriens.de nombreuses hypotheses peuvent ici etre evoquées, israeliens , americains meme mais plus certainement syrienne pour les raisons que j evoquerais ici.Pourquoi la Syrie assassinerait elle un homme de ce poid ?il semble illogique que dans une politique rationelle elle reagisse par des methodes aujourd hui d une epoque resolue. cela dit la peur des consequences de la resolution 1559 et la paranoia que ca impliquerait a ses spheres dirigeantes pourraient expliquer que les Syriens auraient pu ordonner son assassinat.les symptomes de son implication seraient multiples , on a deja le mobile , maintenant les moyens.voiture piégée ... on a tout d abord estimé que la voiture piegée faisait partie du convoi , ce qui sous entend implication de services de renseignements vu qu il y avait 3 convois au depart du parlement , et il s agit du bon convoi qui a ete visé.cela dit , en ce moment une deuxieme hypothese de travail se renforce: explosion sous terrainne d explosifs emmagasinés 2 ou 10 jours plutot dans les egouts et qui auraient explosés au passage du convoi.ce qui implique: connaissance des differentes routes possible, et surtout qu on ait une personne pour enclencher un detonnateur qui ne soit pas brouillé par les dispositifs de securité du convoi. donc implication de services de renseignement pouvant controler le terrain ce qui nous amene a penser a une non implication israelienne mais plutot a une implication de services locaux.l attentat ayant ete fait , il fallait reagir , on nous a servi un plat bien immonde, un alibi , celui d une piste islamique que meme al qaida s est efforcée de dementir ainsi qu une autre organisation islamique.on nous a trouvé un suspect le jour meme , ce qui voulait dire que les autorités locales etaient donc au courant d un possible attentat contre le President Rafic Hariri et ou qu ils n ont rien fait pour l en empecher ou qu ils l ont meme encouragés.maintenant une enquete au liban, qui serait dirigée par un ministre de la justice qui a deja choisi son camps , celui de la syrie ou encore le frere du president de la republique, procureur general de la republique ou qq chose d approchant,ne serait qu entachée d erreurs multiples visant a camoufler les vrais coupables; il faut que le peuple exige une enquete internationaleaujourd hui , Monsieur Lahoud devrait demissionner pour son incompetence. Ce n est pas au gouvernement meme de demissionner mais au president Emile Lahoud de demissionner apres avoir brisé la constitution libanaise par sa reconduction , apres avoir placé sa famille a certains echelons clefs de la republique , ses gendres comme ministres et son fils au parlement , donc un clientelisme familial , apres avoir brisé l economie libanaise par des non reformes structurelles et pour avoir bloqué les reformes necessaires rendues possibles par Paris 2 et enfin apres avoir mis au ban de la communauté internationale le liban par cette meme reconduction au mepris de la constitution, il est responsable d avoir brisé, peut etre sans etre certe coupable mais en etant responsable politique au pouvoir, l un des derniers acquis de la periode post guerre civile : la securité.on se souviendra de ce president , dictateur depuis sa reconduction ou plutot homme de main de puissances etrangeres comme un petit president , executeur des basses oeuvres.Il faut rappeler aux dirigeants que c est l histoire et les generations futures qui jugent et je ne doute pas du faits qu un jour ces dirigeants seront mal jugés et peut etre meme jugés pour avoir trahi la confiance de leur peuple , de leur pays. C est aujourd hui cette generation qui a grandit pendant la guerre qui changera la realité libanaise par son action.en dernier mot, esperons que le Liban par sa faute ne rentrera pas dans une periode d instabilité voir de guerre civile.Esperons egalement que la paix certe relative qui a regnée ces dernieres années eloigneront ce spectre de guerre, et feront que les libanais ne reagissent plus par un communautarisme politique mais en tant que peuple solidaire , qu ils soient chretiens ou musulmans, qu ils soient enfin assez matures pour eviter la partition et l eclatement de ce pays comme le laisse esperer les manifestations d hier.amicalement
posted by francois at dimanche, mars 13, 2005

 
some thoughs about the current events passing through lebanon right now
first of all everything began the 14 of february , i was in france at that time, in paris more exactly and i wanted to come back to lebanon , to be next to the people i cherry , to be next to the people i do love , that were always protecting me and i was feeing my turn is now to protect them.i came back on the 19 of february and since that time i m discovered i m proud for once to be lebanesewhy is that?well for few reasons among thoses stated herei am first admiring people who said no to the defeat , people such as De Gaulle who was alone and fighted for the idea of a nation called france , he was alone and he incarnated the freedom when everything seem to be lost i m also admiring thoses 3 remaining soldiers of the Deaumont fortress during the 1914-1918 war that fighted against 10 000 germans , all of them died except 3 , their fighted till the end , they never gave up even if their situation was lost. the germans recognising their courage gave to the 3 remaining soldiers are defilé honoring them , we are calling that defilé "le defilé des flambeaux", it is the only time through germany history that such defilé was organised by the german troops for foreigners
i would say also no because of my genes , my father is a surgeon , during the war he was leaving our house , our home to save life , my grand father was in nazi camps because he said no to some gestapo officers that were proposing him to become german again.
i would also that i would desobey because i m not afraid of death, i saw death from my childhood , i was visiting my father while he was working in hospital and many times car bombing were happening bringing wounded and dead people by myself , many time i could have been dying but i m believing in my chance , i m believing in fighting if something that i m cheering is taken from me even if i would be deadying i know i ll be fighting till my adversary is also severily wounded it already happen and i m proud of it
also i m following few famous sentences in my life such as : faire face (st cyr) , such as honor , duty country (wespoint)
also i know i m of those that like to act when everything is lost , i like to be the one saving , acting pushing back and not believing in the defeat when i m believing strongly to thoses causes
about now the special circonstances in lebanon . to be honest i never felt myself to be lebanese and this is why i always refused to learn arabic how can we be proud of being lebanese , citizens of a country where every 50 years there is a civil war on community issues , where corruption, feodalism , clientelism are a common fact. How can we feel lebanese when most of people are trying to show off what they are but it s faked , when most of the elite left and the new rich , those who stealed , who assassinated are now in power , are now having the republic honors and they are not recognising the efforts of thoses who saved lifes during the worst parts of the war , and of thoses who believed so strongly in their country that they stayed (such as my father) when everyone else was leaving how can we be proud of being a citizen of a country when most of the citizens are talking about themself not as lebanese but as muslims, christians etc... how can we be proud of being a citizen of a country when the young people didnt still find that there is a peace in their mind ? well i think this is the time we can be proud of what is happening in downtown beirut, most of the people are not awaken , they are now united maybe with a negation , syria out , i hope , i think it s an opportunity now to build a nation , and not only a convergence of communities interest , i think it s now time to act to change all the bad sides of this country, and this hope would lead me to desobey also to that order. i think also that we do not only to desobey now because we are fighting not only for our parents but for the future generations , giving them back freedom , finaly erasing the idea of war that we lived through in our childhood , i do not want my child to grow in a country that would face in 50 years a new war , i dont want them to see what i saw during my childhood , i dont them to see burned bodies and bloodies bodies , cries du to the pain as i did
now what can happen in lebanon?
all what happened till now is that syria and its allies gained timethe PM was dismissed just for them to gain time by the constitution of a new governmentthe syria withdraw is to gain time as the bekaa valley is not yet concerned as well as till now the withdraw didnt concern the syrias secret services as well as the dismisal of their lebanese homologs
i believe that now it s time to manifest as i did since i went back it s time to go to the downtown , it s not the time to shut up but to face the threats as hariri assassination , who ever did it , is an opportunity to liberate lebanon.
to the question who did that assassination , i believe a syrian mafia did it.3 to 4 percent of each economical contract in lebanon is going into the hand of the syrians secret services which means that without that financial inflow , theses services wont be able to control the adversary of the syrian regime.the policy that hariri aimed to persuie was against this kind of bribery .Most probably syrian hand is involved as the chief of the SR of that country in lebanon went into hariri's place 2 days before he was killed and have put his gun on the face of that guy.at that level i want to say i m not pro hariri as i believe he could have been asking for the syrian withdraw when he was a PM and he didnt but as he death is leading to the current events i m seeing into that an opportunity to catch in order to unite lebanese around one flag , the lebanese one , to unite lebanese in a nation concept and no more into a community concept to end the war in the mind of the young people.this is what happening in downtown beirut.this is why i m going there at least 3 times a week , sometimes even more
now i believe also lebanon will have to face hard time first of all hezbollah lost its concensus status to become a pro syrian party as all the shiits parties. the shiits i believe will have to find a equilibrium to be back as a resistant party hezbollah , seens as sunnits , christians , druzes , was a resistant party , it lost this image and therefore the support of the others.what ll be the reaction ? i dont know yetsecond , syria will of course try to destibilize lebanon syria cant leave without lebanon and the lebanese economy 37% of foreign accounts in lebanon are hold by syrian citizens , its economy is maybe 40 years late.1 000 000 non qualified syrias are working in lebanon. in case of withdraw the unemployement will rise in syriathe SR as i already stated are financed by lebanese economical contracts , therefore without this they will be no more able to control internally syria.
the syrian regime needs lebanon to survive and will do everything to be able to stay in power in lebanon it can be by assassination as they might have already choosed by killing hariri it can be by threatening as we noticed lately many incidents that happened by people coming from the area of the syrian HQ in beirut , shooting in the air etc...but the time of threats are not over , people are no more afraid
it can be by manifestations as they had "1.6" millions people in the street last tuesday. I dont believe there was 1.6millions when paris was liberated there was a huge crowd in the champs elysée avenue , only 1 millions but all the champs elysée were full ,
the manifestation in beirut was only on 78 000 square meters , let them be only 300 000 , no more among them , some lebanese that went there were threatened in case they were not coming among them many syrians as the local channels and media showed
since the 11 september , the pentagone hired many lebanese in its arabic department , theses people are stating that everything ll be over for april by which means i dont know pacific or strengh i dont knowbut what i know is that whatever ll be happening in lebanon will make lebanese proud
that is it for the moment :)
posted by francois at dimanche, mars 13, 2005

 
i was published in a local newspaper:www.lorientlejour.com
here what they publishedDémocratie et alternance
Quand on lit et que l’on voit ce qui se passe à l’heure actuelle, on peut se poser quelques questions. Le Liban est-il vraiment une démocratie ? Lahoud est-il vraiment un garant de la constitution ?Il faut malheureusement répondre par la négative. Un garant de la constitution protégerait celle-ci et ne la changerait pas à son avantage, il la changerait pour son successeur. On pourrait aussi dire qu’une vrai democratie veut dire alternance, alternance au niveau politique. Or, cela n’existe pas au Liban (...). Le citoyen libanais, même s’il manque de maturité politique comme l’a prouvé la guerre civile, est privé de ses droits de vote par ceux-là même pour qui il vote.Le Liban n’a jamais autant reculé du point de vue technologique, puisque la technologie constitue aujourd’hui la manière de mesurer le progrès d’un pays. Mais le pire reste encore à venir, comme nous le prouvent les ratios bancaires de Bâle II qui nous montrent aujourd’hui, n’en déplaise à M. Riad Salamé, les risques de défaut de paiements du Liban dans les 3 ans à venir, défaut qui risque d’entraîner le système bancaire à la faillite à cause de décrets obligeant les banques à investir en bons du Trésor, en plus des réserves obligatoires. Il n y a que les Arabes qui investissent au Liban, simplement parce que le risque dans leurs pays est plus élevé qu’ici.
François el-BACHA

here what i wrote now
Madame, Monsieur, quand on lit et que l'on voit ce qu'il se passe à l'heure actuelle en ce qui concerne l'election présidentielle libanaise, on peut se poser quelques questions est ce que le Liban est il vraiment une démocratie ? Est ce que Lahoud est il vraiment un garant de la constitution ?Il faut malheureusement repondre par la négative, un garant de la constitution protègerait celle ci et ne la changerait pas à son avantage, il la changerait pour son successeur. Le président garant de la Démocratie, on devrait raconter cette blague à ces étudiants que l'on a tabassé au debut de son mandat et qui prouve que cet Etat n est pas un Etat de droitOn pourrait aussi dire qu'une vrai democratie veut dire alternance , alternance au niveau politique or ceci n'existe pas au Liban on a plutot une tyrannie parlementaire qui concentre tous les votes pour la présidentielle , pour le chef de législatif, et par la question de confiance pour le chef de l'executif , le Premier Ministre et qui en plus s'autorenouvelle par une loi electorale bidouillée . Le citoyen libanais , même s'il manque de maturité politique comme la prouvé la guerre civile, est privé de ses droits de votes par ceux la même pour qui il "vote". Bientot même plus besoin de voter , on choisirait les mêmes ou leur fils.Dans l'histoire de France, cette situation rappellerait le sombre jour ou le parlement français a donné les pleins pouvoirs a Phillipe Pétain. Encore qu'un régime qui aurait réussit serait un moindre mal... Cela dit je ne vois pas de réussite dans un régime corrompu , on n'a jamais eu autant de scandales que ceux qu'on a eu durant Lahoud 1 , pétrole , scandales bancaires, cellulaires comme on dit ici , corruption de personnes mêmes proches du cercle du pouvoir sans citer de nom , juste en citant l'Irak.Le Liban n'a jamais autant reculé du point de vue technologique , puisque la technologie constitue aujourd'hui la manière de mesurer le progrès d'un pays. Mais le pire reste encore à venir , comme nous prouve les ratios bancaires de Bale 2 qui nous montre aujourd'hui, ne déplaise Monsieur Riad Salémé, les risques de défauts de payments du Liban dans les 3 ans à venir, défault qui risque d'entrainer le système bancaire en faillite à cause de décrets les obligeant à investir en bonds du trésors , mis a part les réserves déja obligatoires.Il n y a que les arabes qui investissent au Liban simplement parce que le risque islamique de leur pays est plus élevé qu'ici. Je doute que cela continuera quand ils se rendreront compte du risque libanais. On nous cite des succés , par example la libération du Sud Liban. Est ce l'Armée Libanaise qui y a participé , ou une milice paramilitaire ? Même pas besoin de répondre .Est ce que finallement la réelection du Président de la République au mépris même de la constitution ne va contribuer à marginaliser le Liban aux yeux du Monde entier et mettre à mal l'image même du Liban si chèrement acquises par l'organisations des congrès arabes , francophones de Beyrouth amicalement F.E.B

posted by francois at mardi, août 31, 2004

 
besides patrick seal article (i ll be c/p) after
i think that now the shiits wont have anymore interest not to be in the resistance as long as resisting wont mean anymore being on saddam side

besides that , there are risk that iraq would be under ethnical tensions as far as we are hearing about fights btw sunnits , shiits etc...

here patrick seal article

Partitioning Iraq would exacerbate America’s blunders

Most observers of the Iraqi scene are agreed that the next six months will be crucial for the country’s future – and hence for the stability of the Middle East. Why six months? Because there are signs that the Bush administration is beginning to panic. Having stormed into Iraq last March with the triumphalist objective of redrawing the geopolitical map of the region to suit American and Israeli interests, the US is now desperately looking for an exit strategy from the Iraqi quagmire.
If George W. Bush wants to be re-elected, he needs to get out of Iraq and declare “victory” well before next November’s presidential elections. The mounting costs of the war and the daily toll of American dead and wounded are steadily eroding his political prospects. In spite of the bluster of staying on to “finish the job,” the temptation is to “cut and run.”
What is amazing is that, in spite of the gross failures of policy, the neoconservative architects of the war – in the Pentagon and in Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office – are still in place. The search for scapegoats is gaining pace in Washington, but heads have not yet rolled. No doubt they will.
The situation in Iraq presents a dangerous paradox: armed resistance to the American occupation has forced Washington to announce a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty, and to appeal for help to the once-reviled United Nations. The US has pledged to hand power back to the Iraqis by next June. This means that the ambitious plan to create a “democratic Iraq” to serve as a model for the entire region has been abandoned. This change of US strategy must be judged a victory for the resistance.
But to which Iraqis will power be given? It seems unlikely that the resistance will be able to fill the vacuum of power, seeing that it is composed of different groups fighting for different reasons, with no unified political or military leadership. If there is a unified command operating underground it has so far not shown its hand.
Some rumors suggest that Saddam Hussein himself is directing the resistance. But even diehard Iraqi Baathists do not believe he has the faintest chance of returning to power. As a prominent Iraqi told me this week, “Saddam is politically and morally dead!” The resistance is not fighting for Saddam. It is fighting against America. Iraqis of all communities have suffered too much from Saddam to contemplate his return, even for an instant.
To protect its forces from lethal attacks – such as the car-bomb that wounded nearly 50 GIs this week – there is talk of the United States withdrawing from the Falluja and Ramadi areas. But this would create a “capital of the resistance,” a safe haven from which even more lethal attacks could be mounted.
Having failed to turn Iraq into a stronghold of American and Israeli influence in the heart of the Arab world, some right-wing American strategists are now promoting what they see as the next best thing – a weak Iraq partitioned between its three major communities. That is what Leslie Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, advocated in an influential article entitled “The Three-State Solution” published in the Nov. 25 edition of The New York Times. His article sparked a vigorous debate about the merits and demerits of partition.
Gelb wants to create three mini-states – Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south – with boundaries drawn as closely as possible along ethnic and sectarian lines. He makes no secret that “the general idea is to strengthen the Kurds and Shiites and weaken the Sunnis.” America, he says, should put most of its money with the first two, while extricating its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle. Without oil or oil revenues, the “troublesome and domineering Sunnis” would be forced to moderate their ambitions. He recognizes that chopping up Iraq might be “a messy and dangerous enterprise,” but recommends that the US pay for the inevitable population movements and impose partition by force. He is in effect recommending that the US inflict on Iraq the horrors of ethnic cleansing.
In calling for the creation of three mini-states, Gelb goes beyond the federal or confederal solution that some neocons and their friends among former Iraqi exiles have long advocated. There is a lot wrong with dismantling the Iraqi state.
It is important to be aware that those promoting these ideas want to see Iraq weak rather than strong, and, by the same token, the Arab world weak rather than strong. The declared objective is to “de-Arabize” Iraq, to put an end to its pan-Arab ambitions, and thereby to fragment the Arab system, laying it open to penetration, manipulation and control. This is a recipe for destabilizing the Middle East, including such states as Israel and even Kuwait, which might imagine that they have something to gain from a weakened and partitioned Iraq. Yet an Iraq at war with itself and providing a haven for extremists of all colorings is in no one’s interest.
Of all Iraq’s communities, only the Kurds favor partition or, if that cannot be obtained, a federal solution. The trouble is that, as everyone knows, the Kurds would not be satisfied with the three provinces where they predominate. They want more. Although Kirkuk is a city of mixed population, the Kurds would claim they need it for its oil. Any such ambition would probably trigger Turkish intervention, as well as the armed opposition of other Iraqi communities. The division of Iraq’s oil resources and revenues between the various mini-states would be a major headache and an inevitable source of conflict. The Gelb “solution” could sow the seeds of civil war.
The Kurds have two major militias under arms, totaling some 70,000 men. All three Shiite parties have militias of their own. The Sunnis have a long tradition of serving in the army and could no doubt quickly assemble a major fighting force if the need arose. Their talent for guerrilla operations against an overwhelmingly strong American army has now been demonstrated.
The Americans have blundered in Iraq. Redrawing the Middle East map was always a pipe dream. Disbanding the Iraqi Army, apparently on Israel’s urging, has proved to be the greatest source of trouble. Sending home 150,000 officers with no pay has created the pool of angry talent from which the resistance has sprung. Adopting Israeli iron-fist tactics – sealing off towns and villages, destroying houses and training Special Forces to assassinate militants – is the best way to make oneself hated and to lose the “battle for hearts and minds.” Threatening Iran and Syria with sanctions and worse, instead of seeking their aid in stabilizing Iraq, is yet another strategic blunder. The two states have considerable assets in Iraq that they will not hesitate to use against the US if their vital interests are threatened.
Of all America’s blunders, however, partition would be the most grievous. It would be a disaster for Iraq and the final nail in the coffin of America’s reputation in the region.

Patrick Seale, a veteran Middle East analyst, wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR

posted by francois at lundi, décembre 15, 2003

 
well when i m reading that article , i m feeling that the US want to break Iraq in 3 parts based on secterian zoning

making me remembering of kissinger plan in the 70

Baghdad blast brings sectarian divide to surface
Sunni, Shiite Residents of Hurriyet witness First attack since Saddam Hussein’s ouster
2 rocket-propelled grenades kill 3, destroy long-standing communal unity between sects that had co-existed for years

Nicholas Blanford
Special to The Daily Star

BAGHDAD: The Sunni and Shiite residents of western Baghdad’s Hurriyeh neighborhood have lived in harmony for years. Their families intermarry. They attend each other’s weddings and funerals and pray in each others’ mosques. It is also a calm area, with not a single attack reported against the coalition forces since April.
That co-existence, however, came to an abrupt end early Tuesday morning. An explosion beside a Sunni mosque killed three people and ripped to shreds the brittle fabric of communal unity that bound both Shiites and Sunnis, exposing the deep-rooted sectarian divisions within Iraqi society.
The Sunnis blame the explosion on militant Shiites belonging to the Al-Dawa Party and the Badr Brigades, the military wing of the Iran-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The Shiites accuse Sunnis from the extremist Wahhabi sect of stirring up tensions between the two communities.
As the three victims were buried the next day, armed Sunni and Shiite gunmen took to the streets vowing revenge, while clerics pleaded for calm and grim-faced US troops, backed by Apache helicopter gunships, patrolled the neighborhood.
As Iraq struggles to replace decades of Baathist dictatorship with a new mechanism of rule that will accommodate the country’s myriad sects, faiths and ethnicities, the ominous specter of sectarian violence looms large.
“It is tragic that God’s house should be attacked,” said Sheikh Farouk al-Batawy, the imam of the Ahbab al-Mustafa Mosque. “Even nonbelievers condemn something like this.”
Claims differ over the circumstances of the deadly explosion at 6.45am Tuesday in the courtyard of the Ahbab al-Mustafa Mosque. The regular Sunni worshippers at the mosque say that two rocket-propelled grenades were fired from the roof of a neighboring school, no more than 20 meters away, killing three men standing outside the building.
“I knew all three of them. They prayed regularly at the mosque,” said Batawy, speaking in a dimly lit room beside the mosque filled with somber-looking Sunni clerics and supporters.
He says the explosion was the latest in a number of attacks against Sunnis in Baghdad.
“The relations with the Shiites have always been very good here. Only the Shiites who have come from outside Iraq want to cause problems, he said, referring to the Iran-trained Badr Brigades.
But local Shiite residents have a very different take on what happened.
“The people who died were Wahhabis and they were putting a bomb in the car,” said Abu Hussein, declining to give his full name. “No one fired RPGs at them. We had nothing to do with what happened.”
The Shiites say there have always been some Wahhabis living in the area, but they have grown more assertive since Saddam Hussein’s downfall in April.
The Shiite view that Islamic militants accidentally blew themselves up has some credence, says Lieutenant Colonel Frank Sherman, the commanding officer of the 1st Battalion, 13th Armor Brigade, which operates in the Hurriyeh district.
“The explosion was not caused by a fired RPG,” he said. “The school roof is too close, the rockets would not have had time to arm.”
Nonetheless, RPG fragments were recovered by the police, he adds, suggesting that it may have been a bomb of jerry-rigged RPG rounds of the type regularly used by militants against coalition troops.
Yet the truth behind the explosion mattered little, with Sunnis and Shiites content to believe the worst of each other.
As residents prepared to bury the victims of the blast, dozens of Sunni gunmen entered the neighborhood, clutching AK-47 rifles, their heads swathed in red-and-white scarves and wearing identity badges proclaiming them to belong to the Khaled ibn Walid Forces.
A group of them stormed a husseiniyeh, a Shiite prayer house and meeting place, forcing several families living on an upper floor out at gun point.
A crowd of around 3,000 Sunni mourners surged around the husseiniyeh as the outdoor funeral service began, armed guards standing on the roof and surrounding walls.
“Condemn the attack but don’t blame people at random and don’t suspect the Shiite clerics,” Sheikh Ahmed Dabboush, a prominent Sunni cleric, tells the crowd using a loudspeaker. “Some Shiite movements are accused of these acts and they must be stopped. But we must continue living with the Shiites and we must continue the harmony of Shiites and Sunnis and Arabs and Kurds.” As Dabboush spoke, two Apache helicopter gunships arrived and circled slowly overhead a few hundred meters from the ground, the clatter of the rotor blades all but drowning out his words.
“Lower your guns. Please don’t shoot into the air,” Dabboush implored the gunmen.
The throng of mourners file back onto the street, carrying aloft the three coffins draped in rugs and secured with rope.
Once the crowd disappeared, the local Shiites returned to the husseiniyeh as American troops fanned out in the streets.
“It’s been quiet here since April. We have had no problems at all … so it was a shock to me when I heard about the explosion,” Sherman said, adding that his soldiers will remain in the area for the next three or four days until tempers have cooled.
“We are talking with the local leaders. I don’t think it will develop. No one wants problems here,” he said.
But the Shiites inspecting the damaged husseiniyeh are furious, some calling for revenge.
“Look what they have done,” said one, pointing at a torn picture of Imam Ali, a cousin of the Prophet Mohammed and revered by Shiites.
The loudspeaker system attached to the minaret lies smashed, a black-painted throne lies splintered from repeated kicks and pictures of Shiite imams lie in shreds beside the front door.
Shiite gunmen have taken up position outside the Al-Allawi Mosque a few streets away. One of the gunmen argues with a furious Shiite who demands revenge for the damage to the Husseiniyeh.
“Any attack on a Shiite building is an attack on all Shiites,” said Yehya Abu Huda. “We don’t want trouble. This is a Shiite and Sunni area. But we must have an apology to achieve a peaceful end.” Sheikh Mehdi al-Mohammedawy, a senior Shiite cleric in the area, said he visited the Ahbab al-Mustafa Mosque after the explosion to pay condolences.
“They refused to let me in and told me to leave,” he said. “I told them I condemn the incident but they replied with cruel words. I forgive them for their actions because they were emotional.”
Mohammedawy, a soft-spoken cleric with a white turban and brown cloak, said he has told his followers to remain calm and not to resort to violence.
“I am facing a lot of pressure to let my people fight them,” he said. “But I reject this and call instead for a peaceful solution because otherwise the results will be seen in the graveyards and the hospitals.”
He says he hopes to meet with his Sunni counterparts soon and restore peace.

posted by francois at samedi, décembre 13, 2003

 
why the americans are weak ? they are attacking weak countries that cant make them any trouble back with some devastating weapons , assassins are doing so

Rights group criticizes coalition tactics in Iraq war
Report says cluster bombs, ‘decapitation’ strikes took heavy toll on civilians
Jim Lobe
Special to The Daily Star

Washington: Hundreds of civilians were killed by coalition cluster bombs and air strikes designed to “decapitate” the Iraqi leadership, according to a report by New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued Friday.
The report said the high costs in civilian casualties caused by the two tactics may have violated international law.
Although acknowledging that US-led coalition forces in Iraq generally tried to comply with international humanitarian law, the report concludes that US ground forces were too eager to use cluster munitions in populated areas, and that 50 “decapitation” attacks failed to hit their targets, but caused dozens of civilian deaths and injuries.
“Coalition forces generally tried to avoid killing Iraqis who weren’t taking part in combat,” said Kenneth Roth, HRW’s executive director. “But the deaths of hundreds of civilians could have been prevented.”
The 147-page report, Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq, also details numerous violations of international humanitarian law by Iraqi forces, including their use of human shields, the abuse of Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, the use of anti-personnel land mines, and the deployment of weapons and other military equipment in mosques, hospitals, archaeological and cultural sites.
The Iraqi military frequently failed to take adequate precautions to protect civilians from military operations, and its practice of donning civilian clothes inevitably put civilians at risk.
International humanitarian law requires that armed forces take all possible precautions to avoid harming civilians. It also calls for combatants to refrain from launching indiscriminate raids or attacks where the anticipated harm to civilians exceeds the possible military gain.
The report is based primarily on the research of three experts who conducted battle damage assessment (BDA) missions in the main areas of fighting in the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, where civilian deaths have been reported, and sites where cluster bombs were used. Hospital and US military records were also studied.
At the sites, the team examined the ballistic evidence and interviewed coalition soldiers, residents and victims. Finding Iraqi soldiers to interview on specific battles revealed itself to be virtually impossible, due to the fact that they dispersed during the war.
The team did not try to estimate the total number of civilian deaths that resulted from the war. A census of 60 out of Iraq’s 124 hospitals conducted by The Associated Press immediately after the cessation of hostilities estimated that well over 3,420 civilians were killed, while the Los Angeles Times concluded that at least 1,700 civilians were killed and more than 8,000 more wounded in Baghdad after it surveyed 27 hospitals there.
London-based Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, concluded in a study released last month that between 5,700 and 7,356 civilians were killed between March 20 and May 1 as a result of hostilities. The AP also reported Wednesday that an effort by the Iraqi Health Ministry to conduct an assessment of the total number of casualties was suspended this week, allegedly on orders from the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority.
The Human Rights Watch report concluded that the use of cluster weapons, particularly by US and British ground forces, caused the most civilian casualties during the coalition’s military campaign in March and April 2003. US and British forces together used almost 13,000 cluster munitions, containing a total of nearly 2 million bomblets, that killed or wounded more than 1,000 civilians.
Most of the civilian casualties resulting from the air war occurred during a total of 50 US attacks that targeted the Iraqi leadership, including two high-profile attacks against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein himself, one of which killed 18 civilians and destroyed three homes in the Mansour neighborhood of Baghdad. According to the report, each of the attacks missed their target, and Iraqis who spoke to HRW stated repeatedly that they believed the intended targets were not even present at the time of the strikes.
HRW found that the military’s “decapitation” strategy relied almost exclusively on intercepts of satellite phones backed up by “inadequate” corroborating intelligence. Thuraya satellite phones used by the Iraqi leadership provide geographical coordinates of only a 100-meter radius and thus US intelligence could not determine the origin of a call with a high degree of accuracy. Furthermore, the raids took place in areas of high population density.
“This flawed targeting strategy was compounded by a lack of effective assessment both prior to the attacks of the potential risks to civilians and after the attacks of their success and utility,” according to the report.
“The decapitation strategy was an utter failure on military grounds since it didn’t kill a single Iraqi in 50 attempts,” said Roth. “But it also failed on human rights grounds. It’s no good using a precise weapon if the target hasn’t been located precisely,” he added.
On the other hand, HRW found that coalition air strikes against pre-planned fixed targets caused few civilian casualties, and that US and British air forces generally avoided civilian infrastructure, although so-called “dual-use” targets that included electrical and media facilities were hit.
The report also praised the relative restraint on the part of the US Air Force in using cluster bombs, noting that the frequency of its use of such weapons has progressively declined from the 1999 Kosovo campaign and the 2001 Afghanistan war.
But US ground forces resorted much more readily to cluster munitions, according to Ross, who said they “need to learn the lesson that the air forces seems to have adopted: Cluster munitions cannot be used in populated areas without huge loss of civilian life.”
In a single day, US cluster munitions attacks in Hilla on March 31 killed at least 33 civilians and wounded 109, and caused high civilian casualties in Najaf and Nassariyah, as well. One hospital director told HRW that cluster munitions caused 90 percent of the civilian injuries that his hospital treated during the war.
Moreover, the coalition is believed to have left behind many tens of thousands of cluster munition “duds” that did not explode on impact, but become de facto land mines that have already caused dozens of casualties.
The report also heavily criticized the coalition forces for failing to secure vast arsenals of weapons that were abandoned by Iraqi forces during the war.



posted by francois at samedi, décembre 13, 2003

 
La "diplomatie Villepin" jugée par les intellectuels
LE MONDE | 03.12.03 | 13h35 • MIS A JOUR LE 03.12.03 | 17h21
UN AUTRE MONDE, de Dominique de Villepin, préface de Stanley Hoffmann, L'Herne, coll. "Théorie et stratégie", 660 pages, 26,50 €.

Avant comme après la crise irakienne, Dominique de Villepin s'est attaché à inscrire son action au Quai d'Orsay dans une réflexion sur les incertitudes du monde de l'après-guerre froide, les dangers de l'après-11 septembre 2001 et la façon d'y faire face. C'est une sorte de profession de foi dans les vertus d'un monde pluripolaire, multiculturel, et dans un effort multilatéral de règlement des conflits par le biais de l'ONU, instrument encore imparfait d'un droit international encore en formation.

Sous le titre Un autre monde, les éditions de L'Herne publient l'ensemble des discours, interventions et entretiens du ministre des affaires étrangères d'août 2002 à novembre 2003. Le lecteur pourra y juger la cohérence d'une pensée animée par la conviction que, face à l'administration américaine, "deux visions du monde" s'affrontaient dans la crise irakienne. Ce recueil est préfacé par le politologue américain Stanley Hoffmann, qui, "en vieux gaullien", se dit séduit par cet "idéaliste lucide", en qui il vit "un vrai révolutionnaire" dont l'inspiration mêlerait Jean Jaurès et Charles de Gaulle. Plaçant "la quête de l'universel" au cœur de l'identité française, l'avant-propos de Dominique de Villepin assigne à la diplomatie française "un devoir fondamental : celui de préserver l'extraordinaire diversité du peuple français, de ses apports et de ses héritages". Mais l'autre intérêt de l'ouvrage est qu'il se clôt sur une partie intitulée "Débat" où quatorze intellectuels, étrangers et français, jugent la "diplomatie Villepin". D'Antonio Tabucchi à Norman Mailer, de Régis Debray à Bernard-Henri Lévy, l'exercice, loin d'être complaisant, est d'une réelle diversité, riche de ses nuances et variantes. Le Monde en donne ici un aperçu à travers des extraits des contributions de l'Allemand Christoph Bertram, du Mexicain Carlos Fuentes et du Péruvien Mario Vargas Llosa.

UN PHARE, MAIS PAS UN REMORQUEUR par Christoph Bertram
Quand Dominique de Villepin, assis à l'honorable place de la France au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, le 14 février 2003, a livré ce qui fut la plus élégante et convaincante condamnation de la précipitation de l'Amérique à se lancer dans une guerre en Irak, je le regardais avec admiration et gratitude, en total accord avec lui, comme des millions de personnes dans le monde.

Enfin, il y avait là le représentant d'un pouvoir européen majeur qui, adroitement et pertinemment, prenait, un par un, tous les arguments concoctés dans l'avidité d'une guerre par une administration américaine qui ne voulait pas donner une autre chance aux inspecteurs de l'ONU dirigés par Hans Blix.

Les événements, depuis lors, ont fourni des preuves supplémentaires et, maintenant irréfutables, que l'action engagée par les Etats-Unis était injustifiée. Il n'y avait pas de danger évident et immédiat en préparation en Irak, il n'y avait pas de lien avec le terrorisme international - encore plus inquiétant -, le coup d'Etat contre le régime de Saddam n'a pas signifié le commencement de plus de stabilité dans la région troublée de l'Est, mais au contraire plus de conflits, plus de tueries, plus d'instabilité. Oui, un méchant tyran avait été chassé. Mais les arguments avancés pour le faire s'étaient révélés faux, comme cela était prévisible.

La France, un phare qui envoie des faisceaux de raison et de bon sens dans le monde obscur des préjugés et du fanatisme. En effet, c'est ainsi que la classe diplomatique française s'est présentée, et a souhaité être perçue par les autres nations. Mais comme les marins le savent bien, les faisceaux éclairent les bateaux pour les guider sur une route sans danger. Ce sont des indicateurs, peut-être même des inspirateurs. Mais ils dépendent des autres pour agir. La politique étrangère de la France, une nouvelle fois, a préféré choisir une belle apparence à une action efficace. Et la crise irakienne n'est pas une exception.

Rétrospectivement, ceci est encore plus évident. Depuis 1998, quand le régime irakien a obligé les inspecteurs de l'ONU à quitter le pays, la plupart des membres du Conseil de sécurité, France incluse, semblaient s'être désintéressés de ce problème. Conjointement avec la Russie, la France a même tenté d'obtenir une levée rapide des sanctions contre l'Irak, comme si l'expulsion des inspecteurs n'avait pas vraiment d'importance. Ce ne fut pas avant début 2002 que la question des inspections revint à l'ordre du jour - ce fut le résultat des pressions américaines et non pas celles de la France ou de l'Europe.

Peut-être y a-t-il eu une chance de former une coalition européenne sur la manière de procéder. S'il y en a eu une à ce moment-là, personne ne l'a tentée. Ni l'OTAN, ni le Conseil européen ne manifestèrent beaucoup de patience sur ce point. Le gouvernement allemand a déclaré catégoriquement, en août 2002, qu'il ne participerait à aucune pression militaire pour permettre aux inspecteurs de retourner en Irak. La France a laissé sa décision en suspens, et les deux pays ont soutenu la résolution 1441 du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU simplement comme une étape intermédiaire. Ils n'essayèrent pas non plus de bâtir un consensus au sein de l'Union européenne et des pays désireux d'y entrer. Au lieu de cela, ces derniers ont été réprimandés sur les marches du château de Versailles comme des enfants turbulents et ingrats. Peut-être eût-il été vain de vouloir rassembler l'Europe alors que l'administration Bush exerçait de fortes pressions. Mais l'effort ne fut jamais sérieusement entrepris, hormis lorsque le premier ministre britannique tenta vainement d'amener les autres gouvernements européens à soutenir les Etats-Unis. Quand cette tentative a échoué, aucun pays important de l'Union européenne, la France incluse, n'a semblé prêter beaucoup d'attention au désarroi de l'Europe.

Il y avait une dernière chance, bien que ténue, en mars 2003. Le gouvernement de Tony Blair, qui se battait alors pour un soutien politique dans le pays et à la Chambre des communes, s'était engagé à ne pas rejoindre les Etats-Unis dans une invasion de l'Irak sans une seconde résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU. Cette résolution aurait donné quelques semaines de plus à Hans Blix et à ses inspecteurs et aurait entraîné un ultimatum : l'Irak n'aurait pas fait preuve de bonne foi dans le temps prescrit, le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU aurait autorisé l'usage de la force contre Bagdad. Plus important encore, il aurait été impossible pour la Grande-Bretagne de rejoindre les Etats-Unis si ces derniers avaient agi malgré tout. L'Europe serait, miraculeusement, restée hors de la guerre, une fois de plus, unie.

Comme d'habitude en politique, les alternatives à ce qui se passait étaient inévitablement hypothétiques. En l'absence de certitude, nous dépendons de la plausibilité. Aujourd'hui, la plausibilité suggère qu'il y avait une réelle chance dans ces semaines tragiques de mars 2003, sinon de prévenir la guerre, du moins d'empêcher la Grande-Bretagne de se joindre aux Etats-Unis, et de réunir l'Europe.

A LA GLOIRE DE LA FRANCE par Carlos Fuentes
Que Donald Rumsfeld ait commencé par signer, en 1983, l'alliance des Etats-Unis avec Saddam Hussein, en lui fournissant les armes de destruction massive qui aujourd'hui ôtent le sommeil au Dracula du Pentagone, est une preuve supplémentaire de l'existence d'une double vérité. Les Etats-Unis sont le Dr Frankenstein du monde moderne, dont la spécialité est de créer des monstres qui, en fin de compte, se retournent contre leurs créateurs. Saddam en Irak, Ben Laden en Afghanistan sont les fils de la politique extérieure obtuse, mercenaire et contradictoire d'une nation qui, quand elle le veut, peut être à la fois éclairée et pragmatique. Imaginons ce que serait aujourd'hui le monde si Bill Clinton était toujours à la Maison Blanche ou si Al Gore avait gagné (comme ce fut le cas si on s'en tient au suffrage populaire) la dernière élection présidentielle. Bill Clinton a rempli ses incontournables obligations en tant que chef de la superpuissance avec une sagesse, une capacité de négociation et de conciliation totalement étrangères au tapage manichéen ("Avec nous ou contre nous", "L'Axe du Mal") de l'évangéliste enfouraillé qui lui a succédé à la Maison Blanche. Je suis persuadé que Clinton et Gore auraient concentré l'effort de leur pays, après le 11 septembre, sur la lutte contre le terrorisme - un ennemi non conventionnel et qui doit être combattu par des moyens non conventionnels -, au lieu de dévoyer leurs forces et de sacrifier la solidarité mondiale à la guerre contre l'Irak.

Bush et compagnie, par leurs actes atrabilaires et destructeurs de l'ordre international, vont transformer le monde en une pépinière de terroristes. Aujourd'hui Ben Laden possède, grâce à l'aveuglement du gouvernement actuel des Etats-Unis, une armée de terroristes potentiels qui, ô ! ironie, seront sans doute à l'abri de la répression antifondamentaliste de Saddam Hussein.

Mais, ce qui est évidemment encore plus grave, c'est la consécration par la Maison Blanche du principe de l'attaque préventive. La guerre froide n'est pas devenue chaude grâce au recours à la dissuasion et à la retenue. Une fois ces principes supplantés par un usage discrétionnel de la force, toute nation opposée à une autre peut se sentir autorisée à asséner le premier coup. Le meilleur exemple de l'attaque préventive a été fourni par le Japon à Pearl Harbour, le 7 décembre 1941. Un jour qui survivra dans l'infamie, a dit à l'époque le plus grand président nord-américain du XXe siècle, Franklin D. Roosevelt. L'attaque contre l'Irak deviendra-t-elle un autre "jour infâme" ? Je l'ignore. Mais, faute d'être infâme, ce sera, en revanche, le jour de tous les dangers. A moins que la communauté internationale unisse ses efforts pour créer un ordre juridique et politique solide pour le XXIe, nous basculerons de crise en crise jusqu'à un précipice qui, lui, a un nom : Apocalypse nucléaire.

C'est pour cette raison que la sage fermeté de la France, de son président, Jacques Chirac, et de son ministre des affaires étrangères, Dominique de Villepin, rend service non seulement au monde, mais aussi aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique, en ouvrant la perspective saccagée d'un ordre mondial fondé sur le droit. Oublieux, frivole, ignorant, le gouvernement nord-américain actuel n'entend rien à ce raisonnement. Les ultras du Nord croient offenser la France - de façon ridicule - en baptisant les pommes de terre frites - French Fries - pommes de terre libres - Freedom Fries. Peut-être cesseront-ils pour un temps de boire de l'Evian et, pour moins longtemps, du champagne.

Mais dès qu'on entre dans la baie de New York, la statue de la Liberté - présent de la France aux Etats-Unis - rappelle aux Nord-Américains que s'ils croient qu'ils ont sauvé la France au cours des deux guerres mondiales, de son côté la France a contribué de façon décisive à créer les Etats-Unis d'Amérique. (...)

L'espoir existe que la coterie qui s'est emparée de la Maison Blanche en soit expulsée en novembre 2004. Pour l'heure, cependant, ils auront fait tout le mal que peut faire un pouvoir sans limites externes, mais, à vrai dire - et c'est là la grande différence avec les pouvoirs impériaux de jadis - avec de sérieux garde-fous démocratiques internes. Au dehors, il n'y a personne pour se dresser face au gouvernement des Etats-Unis. Au dedans, l'électeur - même si les élections sont sous l'emprise du pouvoir de l'argent -, les médias - tout intimidés qu'ils sont par l'argument patriotique -, le Congrès et le pouvoir judiciaire - dans la mesure où ils revendiquent leurs droits -, font tous ensemble des Etats-Unis la seule superpuissance du monde globalisé, mais aussi le premier empire global doté de contrôles internes potentiels. Comment qualifier un pouvoir aussi étendu, aussi puissant et aussi contradictoire ? Quel nom donner à ses dirigeants presque anonymes ? Quel destin attribuer à la nation américaine ? Expansion ou explosion ?

LE MOINDRE MAL par Mario Vargas Llosa
Mon opposition à l'intervention militaire des Etats-Unis et de la Grande-Bretagne en Irak, exposée sans nulle ambiguïté le 16 février, a été fort nuancée, pour ne pas dire corrigée, après mon voyage -Le Monde a publié, du 3 au 9 août, le récit du séjour de M. Vargas Llosa en Irak-. C'était, précisément, l'une des deux raisons de mon séjour là-bas : vérifier sur le terrain - du point de vue irakien - si les arguments avancés par le ministre des affaires étrangères français pour condamner l'intervention militaire étaient toujours aussi convaincants que lorsque je raisonnais dans l'abstrait sur ce sujet, loin du théâtre des événements, en Europe.

Je persiste à croire que ce fut une très grave erreur de la part des gouvernements de la coalition de brandir, pour justifier l'action militaire, l'existence d'armes de destruction massive aux mains de Saddam Hussein et le lien de ce dernier avec Al-Qaida et les auteurs du massacre du 11 septembre, alors qu'en l'absence de preuves, en définitive, cela apparaît, dans l'état actuel des choses, plutôt comme des prétextes que comme des raisons concluantes.

Car la destruction de la dictature de Saddam Hussein, une des plus cruelles, corrompues et démentes de l'histoire moderne, était une raison en soi suffisante pour justifier l'intervention. Comme aurait été justifiée une action préventive des pays démocratiques contre Hitler et son régime avant que le nazisme précipite le monde dans l'apocalypse de la seconde guerre mondiale.

"Saddam Hussein devait tomber, mais par l'action interne des Irakiens eux-mêmes", a dit le président français Chirac, en manifestant par cette phrase une méconnaissance profonde du régime présidé par Saddam Hussein. Comme celui de Hitler ou de Staline - ses modèles -, le dictateur irakien avait dépossédé tout son peuple de sa souveraineté et, par l'exercice d'une terreur vertigineuse, colonisé les esprits des Irakiens jusqu'à annihiler, à plus ou moins long terme, toute possibilité réaliste de soulèvement efficace contre le régime ouvrant la voie à un processus de démocratisation. (...)

Criticable, sans doute, par son caractère unilatéral, et dépourvue qu'elle est du soutien des Nations unies, l'intervention militaire de la coalition a ouvert, néanmoins, pour la première fois dans l'histoire de l'Irak, la possibilité pour ce pays de briser le cercle vicieux de l'autoritarisme et du totalitarisme dans lequel il a sombré depuis que la Grande-Bretagne lui a accordé son indépendance. Malgré toutes les souffrances qu'a entraînées pour les Irakiens l'intervention militaire, celles-ci restent encore minimes si on les compare à celles qu'ils ont dû endurer en raison de la politique de génocide, d'abjection et de répression systématique du régime du Baas. (...)

Sans doute est-il dangereux d'établir comme norme le droit des nations démocratiques à agir militairement contre les dictatures, pour faciliter les processus de démocratisation, car dans certains cas pareil principe pourrait n'être qu'un écran de fumée pour des aventures à caractère colonial. Cette conduite ne peut être légitime que dans des cas exceptionnels, quand, par sa nature extrême, ses excès criminels, ses génocides, une dictature a colmaté les voies de liberté qui auraient permis au sein du peuple une action pacifique de résistance, ou quand elle devient, par ses initiatives belliqueuses contre ses voisins et ses atteintes aux droits de l'homme, un danger sérieux pour la paix mondiale. Les témoignages iraquiens unanimes que j'ai pu recueillir dans mon court séjour en Irak m'ont convaincu que le régime de Saddam Hussein présentait très exactement ce caractère d'exception.

Il est certain qu'une intervention de cette nature aurait dû être légitimée par la légalité internationale représentée par les Nations unies. Mais l'opposition de la France, qui a menacé d'opposer son veto au Conseil de sécurité, a fermé toutes les portes à cette possibilité.

La guerre d'Irak dépasse largement les frontières de l'ancienne Mésopotamie. Elle a servi à mettre en lumière, en les aggravant, les différences entre les Etats-Unis et ses anciens alliés, comme la France et l'Allemagne, et à attiser la haine contre les Etats-Unis, en légitimant un nouvel antiaméricanisme sous couleur de pacifisme et d'anticolonialisme où se côtoient nostalgiques du fascisme et du communisme et nationalistes, sociaux-démocrates, socialistes et mouvements antiglobalisation. Par un étrange retour de manivelle, la guerre d'Irak a permis, en Europe et en Amérique, de faire apparaître Saddam Hussein comme le David du tiers-monde résistant à l'aventure coloniale et pétrolière du Goliath-Bush, et de diaboliser les Etats-Unis comme la source première de la crise internationale que vit le monde depuis le 11 septembre 2001. Il est déplorable de voir la frivolité, assortie d'un nationalisme croissant, affichée par le gouvernement français dans cette affaire, contribuer à la dénaturalisation de la réalité historique, dont l'un des plus graves effets a été la division au sein de l'Union européenne, qui menace de retarder, voire de paralyser pour un temps indéfini le processus d'intégration de l'Europe.

• ARTICLE PARU DANS L'EDITION DU 04.12.03

posted by francois at jeudi, décembre 04, 2003

 
playing with fire


lately we got the new that the US army killed 56 "terrorists" that were trying to ambush them in the locality of Samara.
funny as
-there s no bobies except civilians
-even a colonel of the US army denied that they have killed "terrorists"

so i have heard the explanation that there was a small gun explosion , or tires dunno what , the US soldiers that were so stressed began to shoot on everything moving around. As a result they have killed 8 civilians. There were no ambush at all.
nice way to liberate people by killing them :s

Now after playing with fire , i m wondering if the US folks will realise that the arabic world were not against them as a general but were against them because of a non billateral equilibrium btw their policies with israel and the palestine. Morever i m wondering if they are understanding why even surveys made in europe makes the US appearing as a bigger threats then countries like North Corea or Iran.

Besides all that , the most funny thing is that even if they would like to retreat from Iraq, they cant retreat as most of the governments of countries supporting them in the Gulf would be overthrown

and if they are staying in Iraq , if they are really applying this democratie concept they were talking about , we would get the establishment of an islamic republic that would be shiit and arabic , contrary to Iran , therefore a bigger threat to theses gulf countries pro US

therefore they decision of making the war was a bad one and it would have been more intelligent to use pacific means to reach the result of overthrowing saddam which was as far as i know from few people involved in the latest discussion btw the US administration and the iraqi regime possible

i would finish this note by saying the following :

first of all i got ironic laugh when the general of the US army sanchez was stating that the number of attacks decreased by 30 percent that month , as far maybe it decreased by they are more efficient

second of all theses are personal thoughs about that situation

posted by francois at mercredi, décembre 03, 2003

 
well
here i m again
after a long absence, lot of reading etc...
first about me
i broke up with my girl friend for distance reasons. we were not able to see each other as much as we wished to
i went in summer in france , had some good time there
i got uncle for the second time again , i m now the uncle of a small girl called Marie. it s also the name of my mother.
i went back here , started a MBA , but i m not motivated at all , i m feeling that the people of the mba class are dumb , especially the fiancé of my cousin.
asking questions without senses , even not related to anything in the course, or on basic that we should know from BS. well he just entered there as far as his future mother in law is chairperson i think. the others are not better.
how can i be motivated in such situation ?there is no competition to motivate me . i need competition, i need to be with smart people

then i felt in love with a girl i know for more then 5 years , but as far we re just friends and she s asking me advises about the people she s going out with , i just told her that i would be feeling hypocrit to give her advises in such conditions , knowing i m beginning to have feelings for her
anyway , i m not feeling to begin a relation right now . i need to focus on studies and besides that i m not sure i ll stay here. so better in theses conditions not to begin

i ll also go soon to france for Xmas , in our strasbourg place. we decided that to avoid the family here , especially my cousin and her fiancé

hm we re going by that also to pass at least one xmas and new year in family , which wasnt done for so long

anyway , that s all for the moment
i dont know if i ll be very faithfull in writing here but it s all to be known for the moment :)
posted by francois at dimanche, novembre 30, 2003

 
Libération or Occupation ?





The current war in Iraq is leading me to think about the concept of liberation that is used by the US to explain their current operation in Iraq:

Is it a real liberation or another way to get ride of a current problem but in the same time sacrifying allies and destabilisation this part of the word?



First of all, we need to think about historical facts:



In 1944, the US sold East Europe to the Soviet Union in Yalta. We can just be disappointed that theses countries are now selling their soul to those that betrayed them.



The US in 1944 didn’t liberate Paris. As De Gaulle was saying: “Paris liberée par elle-meme”, they even prepared bank notes for an occupied France. This explains why the French policy is to be more pragmatic on its political actions in foreign policies.



Since that date and I’ll just take few recent examples, I won’t come back on the years 50, 60, 70 and 80,



The US sold Lebanon in 91 to Syria



The US betrayed the Shiites and the Kurds in 91



Theses 2 events after the first gulf war and the US sold the Palestinian land to Israel by identifying themselves in a “terrorist” plot.



In the future, I believe that they will betray again the Kurds by restricting their freedom in the Iraqi Kurdistan as they will need the Turks against or Iran or Syria.

Iran would be the next target as Rumsfelt accused lately that country to supply Iraq with troops and military supply. This country geostrategicaly is stuck between a future Iraq pro US, Turkey, the Pro US Gulf states, and of course Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Syria is also stuck between Turkey, a future Pro US Iraq and Israel.



This will make theses 2 countries a perfect future target for the actual US administration.



But to come back to the question, is this liberation or occupation, what is the goal of that administration?



It is not liberation for sure; the actual war in Iraq shows it:

Lately AFP news from the 03/27/2003 09:10:00

“US soldiers were present in Safwan in order to supervise the distribution of more then 20,000 packets of humanitarian help, […] a small group of civilians welcomed theses packets with the following slogan: “With our soul, with our blood, we will sacrify ourselves for you Saddam”

Some others news states that more then 5,000 Iraqi passed the Jordanian border to come back to Baghdad and to fight there for the Iraqi regime.

Theses news are showed, we have witnesses to prove it.



On the other side, the British forces are claiming that a beginning of Intifada started in Bassorah (this information was denied by the correspondent of Al Jazirra in Bassorah)

The coalition forces also claimed that the power is preventing the Iraqi to leave the cities, which is also denied but by occidental sources.



We are in a stage of intoxication of the information by the coalition.



The only thing till now that they succeed is that they were able to unify the Arab population of the Middle East behind Saddam.



Why is that?

Simply because the US lost the information war from the beginning.



I have heard lately an Arab saying:

“I would like to be liberated, but not by the US”

And I would add that it is because of the blind support of the US to Israel that the Arab population is reacting that way.

and as far it is not a liberation, it will turn to be an occupation of Iraq

and i avoided on purpose the reason of this occupation.



Coming up:

the reason of the occupation

posted by francois at jeudi, mars 27, 2003

 
i began that blog just to write and show few ideas about current international situation , the iraqi-US war ,

first of all , i m trying to be the most impartial in my point of view trying to watch occidental channels like french (LCI) or US channels like CNN and also arabic channels like al jazira, LBCI and even the iraqi official one

first of all , i would like to say that anything that the iraqi are saying on their channel is being realised (POW or helicopter shot) by on the US view of the war , we see that their forces were allegating that they were occuping Oum al Quasar since friday and seems that till now fights are continuing there. Same thing about the welcoming of their forces in Bassorah , which is more till now just a kick to their asses when they were excepting flowers and rize.
The fact that the iraqi forces are now resisting is a prooved and not to be discusted as shown bellow:

Violent one engagements in Nassiriyah 25/03/2003 14:14:18
After having a long time avoided letting itself involve in an urban war, the American forces finally penetrated in the town of Nassiriyah, crucial bolt towards Baghdad, which they crossed Tuesday in the medium of violent one engagements. More than one hundred corpses of Iraqis, it was impossible to say if it acts soldiers or the civil ones, were visible on the road going towards Baghdad at the exit of Nassiriyah, city of the south of Iraq crossed by the Marines Tuesday, brought back a journalist of the AFP. The corpses strewed the road with about fifteen kilometers in north with Nassiriyah (located at 350 km in south-east Baghdad) and an odor of burned flesh was perceptible in the air. According to an American officer, 40 wounded Iraqis were made prisoners on the road by the Navy. Vehicles destroyed by explosions were also visible. The American forces, which have lost at least ten men for Sunday, had been blocked for three days with the doors of, where the Iraqi forces oppose a savage resistance. Tuesday, a column of approximately 4.000 Navy American crossed Euphrate in this city located at 350 km in the south-east of Baghdad, in the medium of intense combat, according to a journalist of the AFP present with these units. At the semi-day, the American forces crossed the city of the south to north on a four-lane road, their progression accompanied from beginning to end by shootings to the automatic weapon, the machine-gun, the lance-grenade anti-tank device and the mortar, while American combat helicopters flew over the zone. The Americans crossed two bridges on Euphrate located in the city, approximately 500 Navy and about fifty tanks and transport of troops armoured making safe space between the two bridges on a distance of approximately two kilometers. Panicked women and children fled the zone, while the American soldiers passed from house in house to try to locate the stations of Iraqi shootings. In parallel, of the units of Marines also advanced on the roads bordering Nassiriyah by the west and is, but their progression was slowed down by a strong sandstorm. The convoys were to count on the whole to 4.000 soldiers, according to estimates' of the soldiers on the spot. The "essential goal" of the forces of the coalition is to reach Baghdad "as quickly as possible", underlined Monday evening British the Prime Minister Tony Blair. Besides the war seemed to approach the capital, which was submitted Tuesday to violent one bombardments with his southern and south-eastern periphery, having probably aimed at positions of the Iraqi republican Guard. But, terrestrial side, if an avant-garde of the American forces were Tuesday to a hundred km of Baghdad, the large one of the troops were still far behind, facing the resistance of the cities of the south of Iraq. The forces of the coalition were always Tuesday with the doors of Oum Qasr and Bassorah, two strategic cities of the south-east, which they had still not succeeded in "making safe" after five days of seat. According to a British spokesman in Qatar, the troops around Bassorah "consolidated their positions" Tuesday and tried to come to end from "sporadic pockets of resistance", which made at least British a side death. This soldier was touched Sunday evening at the time of an intervention aiming at subduing an Iraqi crowd civil in anger and it succumbed to its wounds Monday. In addition, two British soldiers have been reported missing for Sunday after having fallen into a ambush by Iraqi combatants in the town of Zubayr, in the west of Bassorah. With the need for going quickly for the troops, the "humane factor was added", added this British spokesman. Thus, in Bassorah, some 1,2 million inhabitants are threatened by a humane crisis because of cuts in the supply
(AFP news, translated from french)

The battle of Baghdad, an adventure which announces risky 25/03/2003 13:57:52
On the way towards Baghdad, the American and British troops prepare to penetrate there of force, but this operation of takeover of a metropolis of more than five million inhabitants, centers capacity in Iraq, is announced like an operation at the high military risks as well as political. Perception of what can await in the Iraqi capital the troops of the coalition américano-British, which act without specific mandate international, radically changed since the beginning on March 20 of the operation "Freedom of Iraq". The engagements in the south of the country indeed showed the will of resistance of structures related to the mode, like the militiamans of the Baas party, but as of the tribes ready to defend the idea as they are done of their independence. The neutrality of the populations Shiites, ordered by the political and religious framing of this majority community on which Washington and London counted, also gave the measurement of the mistrust with which the foreign troops are accomodated in Iraq. The prospect for an enthusiastic reception of Bagdadis, applauding on arrival of the American soldiers come to release them from Saddam Hussein, which would have been even quickly eliminated to him in targeted bombardments, seems disappeared today. The determination of the mode not to be yielded under the threat of a violent end seems whole after six days of bombardments. "the Iraqi direction was not decapitated", underlined Monday the Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Aziz. And it prevented that the American and British troops would be accomodated by the inhabitants of Baghdad "with the best music and the best flowers of Iraq", thus promising a strong resistance. The city itself is perfectly squared by the militiamans of the Baas party, of which the number is difficult to evaluate but which is omnipresent in each street and each block of houses of the capital. Around Baghdad, the defence system of the city has been subjected for 48 hours to intensive, supposed bombardments to erode the combativeness of the troops of elites charged to protect the mode. The Iraqis have surprised the experts, making proof in the south of a flexibility which enabled them to thwart the American fire power. It would be consequently astonishing that the army and the republican Guard preserved its tradition of static lines of defence, of regroupings of buried tanks to half, or campings with overdraft, target perfect for the American bombers. This change in the Iraqi strategy had been expressed by Iraqi soldiers before the beginning of the operations: they spoke about the will of "absorber the first shock "and"aspirer "the American troops towards the cities and in particular Baghdad. It is this challenge which will arise for the American strategists in a few days. They will be confronted with the choice to enter Baghdad and to risk a perilous confrontation without guarantee of a fast neutralization of Saddam Hussein and its principal lieutenants. Such a battle of streets would be accompanied by significant risks for the civil population and would be likely to carry the blow of thanks to the vision of an operation led for the benefit of the Iraqis. It could also reveal, like made the combat in the south, the even heterogeneous elements of a "national resistance", which would reveal the operation américano-British as an adventure of the colonial type. Another solution would be to encircle the city and to erode its resistance by bombardments, then offering the spectacle without precedent in the recent history of two Western nations besieging an Arab capital to change the mode it.
© 2003 AFP. All reproduction rights reserved and of representation.

The iraqi seems right now to follow Saddam , even if he s a dictator , as was saying an iraqi from south of iraq "better Saddam then the americans"
and lately more then 5 000 iraqi came back there from jordan to support the actual regime

this is the worst nightmare of the US administration , from liberators they ll appear as a colonialist power more then ever

so why are they still attacking iraq when they are only supported by 45 countries (when i m talking about countries i m talking about government , but mainly the public opinion of these countries are against the war) (so no legality for the war , no direct threat against them , no UN resolution for the war , no legal uninamity and even for those saying that there was the

lately the cost of the war is forecasted btw 490 to 2000 billions of US dollars , so why even attacking iraq?
oil is not explaining everything , the reconstruction market wont be enough to explain

first of all , the US troops ll have a strategic position in middle east
Syria ll be btw turkey , US (in iraq) and Israel , so in bad political situation to negociate with israel
so what will be also the effect on the Syrian dominion , Lebanon ?
the US are going to make strikes against Hisbollah ?
On the other side , Iran ll be also stuck btw the Afghanistan and Iraq (under USA control) so what are going to be the effect of that war on the iranian regime?
will it be more democratic ? i dont believe
what about the other gulf states? are they going to be switching to more democratic systems?
i dont believe it will and in case it will for sure nearly it will be toward islamic regimes and it ll be the result of the US administration policy in middle east

so still why the US are going to destabilise the current statu quo of the region ?
my opinion is that they ll support non democratic regime in the gulf that are close to them for sure
the US troops are on that floor for long , it ll increase the cost of maintening such troops in this region , and besides that this presence will reenforce islamic propaganda for al quaida or other islamic groups and increase the feeling of insecurity for the US around the world

it s not for the oil nor for the US that this administration is making this intervention, their insterest would be to maintain Saddam , and Iraq down , for political , economical and military reasons

about mass destruction weapons , there are prooves that the US forged the prooves against Iraq , and the best way to reply to the US point of view is that their sources of info are coming from the jerusalem post which partial and of course against that country
(we dont ve anymore to demonstrate that Iraq tried to devellop nuclear bomb as israel is owning 200 war heads and wont use it against its neighbours such as egypt , lebanon, jordan or syria but against far objectifs such as iran , saudia , lybia)
if Iraq had chemical weapons they would have been using them against the US troups in the desert but they didnt.
third there are still no prooves of any link btw al quaida and bagdad regime


Maybe the actual policy of the US is to make a clash btw the arabic world and the occidental world ,
maybe also it s to give to israel the leading power in that region

i still dont understand them .

posted by francois at mardi, mars 25, 2003