French President Jacques Chirac’s threat that France could use nuclear weapons to retaliate against terrorist attacks has provoked strong opposition. Members of the opposition Socialist party condemned Chirac’s threats. Jack Lang, nominee for Socialist candidature for the 2007 presidential elections said “a parliamentary and national debate should be organized to discuss the legitimacy of the French nuclear armament, and its enormous costs.“
The French nuclear weapons program costs up to four billion dollars a year. The annual state deficit is $56 billion and the total debt 1.1 trillion dollars.
“Many of our compatriots question the need to keep spending to maintain a nuclear weapons program, which, by definition, should never be used,“ Communist leader Helene Luc said.
Analyst Laurent Zecchini wrote in Le Monde that “the necessity of maintaining the ’force de frappe’ is less and less evident after the end of the Cold War.“ The ’force de frappe’ is the name given to the French nuclear weapons program.
“Russia, the former enemy, is now a French diplomatic partner and even NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is searching for a role,“ Zecchini said. Under these circumstances, “why should France maintain its nuclear weapons program?“
In a speech last week at the marine military base Ile Longue on the north-western Atlantic coast, Chirac announced that France would use nuclear weapons to “guarantee our strategic supplies and to defend our allies.“
Chirac also said France would use nuclear weapons against “state leaders who would take recourse to terrorist methods against us, and all others who would consider attacking France with weapons of mass destruction.“
Chirac did not spell out what represents “strategic supplies“ and which forces he thought could consider attacking France with weapons of mass destruction, but most people believe he was talking about oil, the Arab states and Iran.
The European Union, represented by France, Germany, and Britain, is currently leading negotiations with Iran to prevent authorities in Tehran from resuming a nuclear program.
Under the old French nuclear policy, its weapons would be a deterrent, and it would never strike first. That policy seems now to have changed.
“To think that France would use nuclear weapons against a country only because one of its leaders would consider attacking France is a geopolitical aberration,“ Green party leader Noel Mamerre said. “That would mean that we would be ready to let a whole population pay for the murderous folly of a handful of leaders.“
Mamerre said Chirac’s remarks call for a review of military policy. “We cannot leave the responsibility for the use of nuclear weapons to one single man,“ he said. “The best way to fight terrorism is to reinforce our own democratic values, and not believe in the chimera of impossible nuclear strikes.“
Luc said Chirac’s new nuclear weapons policy would “bring us back to the Cold War and to a new form of colonialism, now under the disguise of the defense of our strategic supplies.“
France should instead announce “strong new measures to encourage the largest possible number of countries to sign the non-proliferation treaty.“
Only five countries officially possess nuclear weapons --France, Britain, China, Russia, and the United States. Four other countries--India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea--are also thought to have nuclear weapons.
Chirac’s speech has caused concern abroad. In Germany leader of the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party Guido Westerwelle urged Chancellor Angela Merkel to “encourage Chirac to hold back“ from nuclear weapons.
Leftist foreign policy analyst Norman Peach said that “Germany and other European countries should stop France’s risky nuclear weapons policy.“
France is believed to possess up to 300 nuclear heads, and this arsenal has been modernized to allow pre-emptive strikes, military experts say.
IPSNEWS.NET

A Palestinian casts his vote in the Parliament elections at a polling station in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Jan. 21. (Reuters File Photo)

In spite of Israeli harassment and the arrest of several of its candidates, Hamas, the Islamist resistance movement, is widely expected to do well in Thursday’s important elections to the 132-member Palestinian Legislative Council.
The trend is clearly in Hamas’s favor. In the last four months, its support has climbed by 7 points, while support for Fatah has declined by 10 points.
Three factors would seem to explain Hamas’s growing popularity: its reputation for discipline and honesty, as compared to the chaos and suspicion of corruption which have discredited several of Fatah’s senior members as well as the institutions of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority; secondly, its network of social services, much appreciated by a population struggling to survive under Israel’s harsh occupation; and thirdly, its armed resistance.
These latest Palestinian elections are being held under the influence of two major new developments which, if their potential is grasped, could open the way to political progress. First and foremost is the disappearance of Ariel Sharon from the Israeli political scene; secondly, and perhaps equally significant for the future, is the move by Hamas towards greater pragmatism and moderation.
Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel until his recent stroke, was known for his utter refusal to engage in political negotiations with the Palestinians. His policy, was to undermine Palestinian moderates, like Mahmud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, by refusing all serious talks with him, let alone concessions, even if this meant driving Palestinian opinion into the Hamas camp. In fact, Sharon seemed to welcome, and even encourage, the rise of Palestinian extremism, as this ruled out negotiations and precluded the need to confront such contentious issues as the future of Israel’s West Bank settlements, the division of Jerusalem (Beit-Ul-Moqaddas) and the fate of the Palestinian refugees.
Sharon’s removal from the scene creates an opportunity for Israel, under more realistic leadership, to face up to the real issues which bedevil its relations with the Palestinians.
The second important development is Hamas’s evolution into a political force. This poses a formidable dilemma for the international community and for Israel itself. Under Israeli pressure, both the United States and the European Union placed Hamas on a list of terrorist organizations with which there could be no political contact.
But what if Hamas were to become part--perhaps an important part--of the Palestinian executive? Is the boycott to continue? Would aid funds to the already bankrupt Palestinian Authority dry up if Hamas became part of it?
On a visit to Ramallah on 16 January, Spain’s foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, a former EU envoy to the Middle East, suggested that the EU would have to revise its policy in the event of a Hamas breakthrough at the elections. This is the voice of reason.
Hamas has become a major force on the Palestinian scene. It already controls several Palestinian municipalities. Only by incorporating it into the political process might it be persuaded to give up armed struggle.
Thursday’s elections will be a test for everyone. If it does well, Hamas will have to show maturity and a sense of compromise. It will need to renew its ceasefire and consider merging its military wing with the security forces of the Palestinian Authority.
And the international community--especially the U.S. and the EU--must understand that Hamas has joined an emerging Palestinian national consensus which must now be recognized and addressed if there is to be any hope of moving towards a resolution of the century-old Arab-Israeli conflict.
AGENCEGLOBAL.COM

Has Bashar al Assad finally realized the importance of political reforms or is he simply raising hopes, again?
The Syrian president told an Arab lawyers’ meet in Damascus that he would speed up reforms, give more political freedom and better the democracy record, all in his own way, and not in ways dictated by the West. He admits that the pace of the reforms is slow, but “we are speeding it up as much as possible“.
It, however, is not a question of whether the West has asked for reforms or not. It is a question of whether Syria is willing to change with the changing times, or continue to follow the policies it had been pursuing in the past. What is important is that Syria must aim at progress, both for the nation and its people. And, reform is the way to that progress.
Some changes are evident in the style of governance there. For instance, the ruling Ba’ath party agreed at its last plenum, in June, to draft a new law that would allow independent political parties and overhaul the election laws so as to prove the country’s democratic credentials. The emergency that has been in place ever since the Ba’ath party seized power nearly half a century ago has been partially lifted, giving people more freedom. But, feelings are that Syria is short on action. It is “refusing to catch up with the times“, and is bundled with problems.
Promises were many in the past, but strong decisions were rare and their implementation tardy. Which is why Syria remains where it was many years ago.
When Bashar al Assad took power following the demise of his father five years ago, it was thought that Syria was on the threshold of major changes, and that more young blood would be injected into the administration. But, Bashar seems to be going slow also for the reason that he is still surrounded by the remnants of the old dispensation, the men close to his father’s government, who are the beneficiaries of the old order and may not favor change.
The release of five opposition political figures recently was an event, but it has happened under pressure from the West; and several thousands of men are still behind the bars for political dissent. The fate of over 17,000 men arrested in a government crackdown in the early 80s is not known. Where are they, is a question that is often asked.
Bashar says he’s committed to the strengthening of the (democratic) institutions, the rule of law, and judicial independence in a way as to activate political life and enrich national activities. If so, he is on the right lines, but promises alone will not do; it must happen that way. These are integral to the cause of reforms.
Syria will do well to change for the better and seize opportunities. Recent reports were that it was holding secret talks with Israel to settle its problems, on the same lines as Anwar Sadat had done some 25 years ago. Had it been ready for discussions in those days, chances were that it would have got back the whole of Golan Heights. That would have helped it to concentrate its full attention on economic development.
President Bashar is today in an unenviable situation, with the UN probe into the Hariri killing heading for tough times, and senior leaders once associated with his regime threatening to form a government in exile to overthrow him. Reforms are the way out. The more earnestly Bashar implements them, the better for him, the nation and the people.
Mohammed A. R. Galadari
KHALEEJTIMES.COM

Osama Bin Laden

What’s up with Osama bin Laden? Remember when capturing him “dead or alive“ and eliminating his Afghanistan-based al Qaeda, as President Bush promised, was what the war on terror was all about?
Instead, the president got distracted with his idiotic invasion of Iraq. Now we are left holding the bag in two desperate countries with bleak futures where perpetrators of Sept. 11 are reportedly thriving and guerrilla warfare and terrorist bombings have continued to increase.
“Al Qaeda is quickly changing, and we are not,“ Timothy J. Roemer, a member of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission appointed by Bush, warned last month. “Al Qaeda is highly dynamic, and we are not. Al Qaeda is highly imaginative, and we are not.“
Yet, in his speeches, Bush clings to the notion that the battle against terrorism is going well because, according to his spin, we have been able to eliminate it in Afghanistan and are now destroying the last vestiges of this scourge in Iraq. On his visit to Kabul last month, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld elaborated on this absurdity by declaring bloody, backward Afghanistan as a “model“ of progress in the war on terrorism--even as he was admitting that “Iraq is several years behind.“
Rumsfeld’s claim of progress was treated as ridiculous by Afghan security officials. “We are very worried now,“ one senior police official told the BBC. “The Taliban and al Qaeda are getting more threatening.“
Recently, U.S. sources claimed to have targeted Osama’s second-in-command with the bombing of a village on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan. But, as is so often the case when applying air power to nonmilitary targets, the corpses left in the debris of a devastated village did not include the intended target. In the aftermath, American flags were once again burning in the region as anti-American protests swept Pakistan.
Meanwhile, next door in Afghanistan, a new rash of suicide bombings--25 in four months, according to the Los Angeles Times--is providing evidence that al Qaeda’s old partners in crime, the Taliban, are back with a vengeance. Over the weekend, 20 civilians were killed by a suicide bomber, while a Canadian diplomat was killed in another attack. This month is on pace to be the bloodiest the country has seen since the U.S. invasion.
NATO members, with troops operating out of Kabul, are balking at sending more; at least one, Holland, is considering pulling out altogether of a much-hyped occupation that seems to be accomplishing little.
“What happened to the new roads and irrigation canals, the jobs we were told about?“ village elders plaintively inquired of a BBC correspondent.
Indeed, five years of “nation-building“ has left Afghanistan a festering wound, with primitive warlords still dominant, an isolated capital with no control of the countryside, no national infrastructure and a once-again booming opium trade the country’s only economic bright spot.
“Of course we’re growing poppy this year,“ one district chief said. “The government, the foreigners--they promised to help if we stopped. But where is it?“
This occupation is only the latest in centuries of cynical or, at best, ineffective meddling in Afghanistan. From the British to the Soviets to the Republicans, everybody has seen the place as useful to achieve ends that have nothing to do with making it a better place to live. As we once again draw down our annual economic commitment to Afghanistan’s rebuilding from $1 billion to $600 million annually, it is clear the Bush team is hoping the country will once again recede from the global stage into unseen anarchy.
Robert Scheer
ALTERNET.COM

The election on Sunday of Michelle Bachelet as Chile’s president completes a three-continent long jump for women in politics. Bachelet is the first woman elected president in Latin America who is not the widow of a political strongman. On Monday, when Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was inaugurated as president of Liberia, she became Africa’s first woman to be elected president. And with Angela Merkel’s election as chancellor of Germany, a woman now leads Western Europe’s most populous nation.
Bachelet, a socialist, an agnostic and a single mother, won the presidency of Chile, Latin America’s most socially conservative country, with the help of a compelling personal story. She is the daughter of an air force general who died in prison during General Augusto Pinochet’s rule after months of torture, and she herself was imprisoned and tortured. When she was named defense minister in the current government, she was put in charge of a military still very much shaped by Pinochet. She brought an unpretentious style to the post, and won a reputation for toughness without rancor.
These new chief executives are not the first women to lead major democracies. Margaret Thatcher of Britain and Indira Gandhi of India were vastly powerful politicians and global ideological icons as well.
But the women’s successes in Liberia, Chile and Germany are being celebrated in part because this kind of achievement is still rare. In most countries, women have yet to achieve the critical mass at the lower levels of government that will be necessary if their ascension is to be seen as part of the normal course of politics.
The recent elections are important because they stand in stark contrast with the other route women have taken to power: picking up the standard of a murdered father or husband. Most of those dynastic women have brought few qualifications to the job and have been dreadful leaders. Indira Gandhi was an exception. She won office as the daughter of the independence leader Jawaharlal Nehru, but transcended her status as a dynastic successor as a powerful--sometimes too powerful--leader.
The women who are now leading nations are the most independent and accomplished group of female leaders ever collected--with the possible exception of when Elizabeth I dined alone.
NYTIMES.COM