Saturday, May 20, 2006

Egypt's PM wants no Brotherhood block in parliament

May 20, 2006
By Jonathan Wright
Reuters

SHARM EL-SHEIKH, Egypt (Reuters) - The Egyptian government wants to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood forming a parliamentary group by winning seats as independents in future elections, Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif said on Saturday.

The Brotherhood, a well-established Islamist movement which says it is committed to political reform by peaceful means, won a fifth of the seats in the Egyptian parliament last November and December, putting the ruling party on the defensive.

The members stood as independents in the election because the government does not recognise the Brotherhood and has refused to let the organisation form a political party, on the grounds that it would be based on religion.

Nazif told Reuters in an interview: "Islamists who say they belong to an illegal organisation have been able to go into parliament and act in a format that would make them seem like a political party... We need to think clearly about how to prevent this from happening."

He said the government could not take way the right of individual citizens from running for parliament but members of the Brotherhood were different. "We have a secret organisation represented in parliament. They are not individuals," he said.

The prime minister's remarks were another indication the Egyptian government is having second thoughts about some of the concessions it made to the political opposition last year when it was under U.S. pressure to loosen up the political system.

In recent weeks Egyptian police have taken a much tougher approach to street protests. Plainclothes security men have beaten, kicked and clubbed people demonstrating peacefully in support of judges demanding independence from the executive.

ONLY "THUGS" PROTEST

Nazif dismissed multiple eyewitness accounts of attacks on protesters and said since there are other channels for expressing dissent only "thugs" would take to the streets.

"Why blame the police? I am frankly fed up by the fact that people are blaming those who are trying to keep the peace against the people who are trying to break the peace," he said.

Earlier on Saturday Nazif said his government was not in a hurry to change the country's political system.

"It doesn't take a month or two or six. It will take years... We have the time. We are not in a hurry," he told reporters at a breakfast before the opening of a World Economic Forum meeting in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

He said that after the electoral success of the Islamists, the government had to think again about the course of reform.

"You need to recalculate, you need to revisit some of your assumptions, to make sure you are really on the right track but in the end I don't think there is any way to go back on this."

The prime minister said one of his economic priorities was to reorganise the system of subsidies, which cost the government 40 billion Egyptian pounds a year for energy alone and are the biggest factor in a budget deficit running at about 9 percent of gross domestic product.

He said the strategy would be to target the poor with cash subsidies tied to the families sending their children to school and taking part in literacy and family planning programmes. But he gave no timetable for changing the system.

Nazif said he was confident the Egyptian stock market could ride out the effect of sharp declines in Gulf markets.

"Their price/earning ratios are three times as much as ours so our market is still very attractive one and I think it will continue to be so," he said.

"The market has reacted very gracefully so far and I think with the kind of growth that we are seeing here in Egypt I'm not worried. The market is developing in a solid way," he added.

Mubarak Chides U.S. on Double Standards

By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press Writer
May 20, 2006

SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt (AP) - President Hosni Mubarak opened the World Economic Forum in a booming Red Sea resort Saturday with a surprisingly tough speech that signaled deepening strains in the once-ironclad links with Egypt's American allies and benefactors.

The 78-year-old leader implied the United States was running a foreign policy that promoted double standards on nuclear issues, ignored international opposition to the invasion of Iraq and was meddling in the internal affairs of countries - including his own - by pressing for Western-style democratic reforms.

Mubarak also used the biggest gathering of foreign officials and business leaders this country has ever seen to deliver that message to the Americans, who have counted on him as an anchor for their policies in the Arab world.

Mubarak, who has faced repeated U.S. criticism in recent months for failing to follow through on promises of political reform, appears to have turned on the Bush administration on virtually every important Mideast policy issue with the exception of his efforts to mediate an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

``We shall never relax our efforts with either the Palestinians or Israelis in pushing them back toward the path of negotiations,'' Mubarak told the 1,300 assembled delegates to the first WEF on the Middle East to be held in Egypt.

As part of the 1979 Camp David peace accords Egypt signed with Israel, the United States agreed to send Cairo $3 billion in aid annually.

Gamal Mubarak, the president's son and viewed by many as his heir-apparent, made a secret trip to Washington May 12 for talks with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

There has been no clear explanation from either side about why the younger Mubarak made the trip and why it was kept secret until reported three days later by an Arab television correspondent, who chanced to see Gamal Mubarak going into the White House.

Before the official opening of the annual conference on Mideast issues, Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif described the son's journey as an effort at smoothing out relations.

``When the man goes there as a member of the ruling party, he's there in many cases either to start asking questions about U.S. policies, what are their intentions, what are they doing especially about the Middle East and to explain what we're doing in terms of reform politically and economically,'' Nazif said.

Given the criticism he leveled at Washington on Saturday, the elder Mubarak apparently was not pleased with what his son reported back.

The president said he saw a double standard in the U.S. nuclear policy, under which Washington maintains a resolute silence about the nuclear arsenal Israel is believed to possess while it conducts a campaign to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

He further challenged the Bush administration to work toward a world ``that fosters multilateralism, abides by international legitimacy and steers away from unilateral actions,'' a clear reference to his and other Arab leaders' distaste for the American invasion of Iraq.

The Egyptian leader hammered on the need for more equal economic and trade treatment for developing countries which he said have been forced to take on ``significant burdens'' to the advantage of the major economic powers.

Mubarak also said democratic reforms in the Middle East should ``emanate from within the region,'' a rejection of U.S. attempts to promote Western-style democracy among Arab governments.

Mubarak skirted the political and terrorist turmoil that has shaken his regime over the past few years, including deadly bombings at Sinai resorts.

Mubarak referred only obliquely to recent violence in the streets of Cairo, where his security forces have beaten pro-democracy demonstrators twice in the past two weeks. The United States openly criticized Mubarak's handling of the protests.

Instead, he said, he was confident his government was ``on the right path'' in its reform efforts, but he cautioned that the process should be gradual to avoid ``chaos and setbacks.''

Overwhelming security measures were in force throughout Sharm el-Sheik and around the conference center, venue for the three-day meeting - the first of its kind in this resort city, known for its splendid beaches and vibrant coral reefs.

At least 119 people have been killed in terrorist attacks at Sinai resorts, starting with the October 2004 bombings at Taba and Ras al-Shitan that killed 34 people at the tourist meccas near the Israeli border.

A triple bombing here in Sharm el-Sheik last summer killed 64, and just a month ago, another triple bombing killed at least 21 at Dahab, a scuba-diving resort not far north of Sharm.

All the attacks were claimed by a group calling itself ``Monotheism and Holy War,'' which is believed to be linked to or inspired by al-Qaida. Egyptian authorities have been at pains to claim the attacks were the work of local Bedouin tribesmen, apparently fearing the specter of al-Qaida would frighten tourists away.

A Palestinian Lifeline

Hamas has only benefited from the West's attempt to starve its government.
The Washington Post
Saturday, May 20, 2006; A22

A WESTERN effort to tame the Islamic government of the Palestinian Authority is foundering. The United States, European Union and Israel have been withholding aid -- and in Israel's case, customs receipts -- from an administration that depends on those funds to pay some 165,000 employees. The outside nations, the chief source of support for the Palestinian Authority before Hamas won an election, have been demanding that the Hamas movement accept Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by existing Israeli-Palestinian accords before funding is restored. But Palestinian leaders have a long tradition of exploiting the suffering of their own people for political ends; Hamas has been content to foster a humanitarian crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The result is that Israel and the Western donors are negotiating among themselves about how much funding should be restored to the Palestinians and in what form. They have little choice, since the collapse of the Palestinian Authority would do more damage to Israel, and lingering hopes for a Middle East peace, than it would to Hamas. But the governments need to be careful in their retrenchment: What's needed is an approach that spares average Palestinians from hunger and disease while continuing the political isolation of Hamas.

European governments are taking the lead in creating a new mechanism for international aid that would bypass Hamas-run ministries. In theory, money would be paid directly to institutions and their employees. All sides agree that Palestinian hospitals and clinics should be provided with funds to buy medicines and supplies and to pay the salaries of their staff, who make up about 8 percent of the government workforce. Some Europeans also would like to fund schools and teachers, who constitute another 22 percent of employees. Israel and the Bush administration are more skeptical; they question whether a Hamas-run curriculum should receive Western funding. And what of garbage workers? Gas stations? By increments, international donors could soon persuade themselves to fund most of the Palestinian government.

That may be necessary to avoid the authority's collapse: The Palestinians have scant revenue other than that collected -- and currently restricted -- by Israel. Despite its understandable rejection of Hamas, it is in Israel's larger interest to allow Palestinian money to be used for legitimate Palestinian needs and to ease its current chokehold on the movement of goods in and out of Gaza. But Western governments should draw the line at providing for Hamas cadres now installed in ministries or the salaries of the 75,000 gunmen who are on the Palestinian payroll -- unless these take decisive action against terrorism. Palestinians who are supplied with necessities but denied a government that can negotiate for their statehood will more likely place the blame where it belongs -- at home.

U.S. Seeks to Curb Iran With Neighbors' Help

The plan calls for missile defense systems and interceptions of nuclear technology. Gulf states are receptive but wary of angering Tehran.
By Paul Richter and Peter Spiegel
Los Angeles Times
May 20, 2006

WASHINGTON — Opening a new front in its effort against Iran, the Bush administration has begun developing a containment strategy with the Islamic state's Persian Gulf neighbors that aims to spread sophisticated missile defense systems across the region and to interdict ships carrying nuclear technology to the country.

Although the primary goal is to keep Tehran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, the defense effort also reflects the administration's planning for a day when Iran becomes a nuclear state and, officials fear, more aggressive in a region that provides oil exports to the world.

"Iran without nuclear arms is a threat…. With nuclear weapons it would become even more emboldened, in terms of moving forward with its aggressive designs," Robert Joseph, undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, said in an interview. "And that includes in the gulf, and many countries in the gulf are concerned about that."

Although Tehran insists that its uranium-enrichment program is aimed only at creating fuel for civilian use, gulf leaders are anxious about Iran's rising influence in the region and the possibility that it will develop nuclear weapons.

But they are also unwilling to appear provocative to Tehran, which is a major trading partner and an intermittent military threat.

U.S. officials will have to overcome that nervousness before they can persuade the nations to sign on to their full package of proposals, gulf officials and experts on the region say.

"They don't want to antagonize, so there is a degree to which they are conflicted," said a senior State Department official who requested anonymity.

However, he added, the gulf countries "as a whole are very receptive to the message."

U.S. officials say they see the initiative as a way to put additional pressure on Tehran while they press ahead with their primary diplomatic effort, which calls for the U.N. Security Council to take steps to halt Iran's enrichment program. The U.S. has so far failed to win enough support at the United Nations for sanctions.

Joseph rolled out the proposal during a trip last month to the gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

John Hillen, assistant secretary of State for political-military affairs, led a top-level U.S. delegation to the region last week for further discussions.

Hillen said the initiative was "really the first time in a while" the U.S. had been actively involved in trying to reshape a regional security system. The effort "could put pressure on Iran to behave responsibly," he said.

The United States has helped defend many of the gulf states since the 1970s and has large naval, air and intelligence operations in the area.

But officials say the joint defense efforts must be strengthened if they are to be effective in stemming the flow of nuclear technology to Iran and protecting neighboring nations.

U.S. officials want to help boost the gulf states' ability to monitor and control cargo on the high seas and goods transshipped from busy gulf ports. They want to help improve the countries' abilities to detect "front" companies for Iran, to use American-style export control regulations, and to identify and halt transactions that finance Iran's purchase of goods for its unconventional weapons programs.

The containment strategy aims to improve the countries' ability to protect oil facilities and other infrastructure and to train personnel in counter-terrorism and in handling attacks involving unconventional weapons.

The Bush administration is also eager to see wider use of sophisticated defenses against aircraft and missiles. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have Patriot antimissile batteries, but U.S. officials say other countries need them as well, especially in light of Iran's advanced ballistic missile program.

U.S. officials declined to provide specifics of their approach on missile defense for the region. It is unclear whether the U.S. would provide the military hardware or sell it to the nations.

Many of the region's countries have been apprehensive that Washington would soon pressure them to provide bases or other help to enable U.S. forces to attack Iran. U.S. officials insist that this effort is exclusively about defense.

The program is "defensive, defensive, defensive," Hillen said.

U.S. officials say one of the greatest dangers if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon is that it could give Tehran new confidence to act against its neighbors.

The senior State Department official said the Shiite-led country might mount terrorist attacks or try to destabilize gulf countries by appealing to their sympathetic Shiite minorities.

The Iranians have warned of their ability to halt oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passage between Oman and Iran through which much of the world's oil cargo passes.

Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior U.S. commander in the Middle East, told Congress in March that Iran had expanded the naval bases along its shores and arrayed large numbers of fast-attack ships armed with torpedoes and high-speed missiles.

In interviews this week, officials from some gulf nations acknowledged concern about Iran and their interest in U.S. defense assistance, but also emphasized their eagerness to avoid confrontation.

"We have good relations with our allies, but we are hoping that all confrontations can be avoided," Qatar's ambassador to the United States, Nasser bin Hamad al Khalifa, said in an interview.

Al Khalifa said he was skeptical that the gulf countries could be of much use in blocking Iran's access to nuclear goods, because they "don't have nuclear technology and they don't trade in them. To me it's a little surprising that people would think we could have an effect on this."

Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think tank, said one of the challenges for the administration in working out these arrangements was that the gulf countries preferred such steps to be taken as quietly as possible, whereas U.S. officials wanted to send a public message.

The gulf states "are receptive as long as we have the good taste to keep our mouths shut," said Clawson, a longtime Iran watcher.

"In this case, they are going to be even more eager to do this quietly because they know the Iranians will be upset about it."

The U.S., on the other hand, "will want to do this even more publicly than usual, because they want a maximum deterrent effect," he said.

Some analysts were skeptical that the United States would be able to sell the effort.

Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist with the Council on Foreign Relations, said he believed gulf officials were unlikely to risk antagonizing their far larger neighbor even if they might be privately sending positive signals to U.S. officials.

"This is a tough place for them to be in," Takeyh said. "At some point they might have to live with an Iran that has nuclear arms. They don't want to go back to the 1980s, when the Iranians were actively trying to subvert their countries. So they have to tread softly here."

Friday, May 19, 2006

The Teflon pharaoh

Brian Whitaker
Guardian (UK)
May 19, 2006

As the crackdown on freedom of speech continues in Egypt, the US is once again sending out the wrong signals.

Despite all the hoo-ha from President Bush about promoting democracy, the deal - at least where Egypt is concerned - is to criticise the Mubarak regime (politely) in public while fending off any threats of more serious action from Congress.

On the one hand, this placates Americans who are concerned about the recent turn of events in Cairo; on the other, it reassures the aged pharaoh that nothing untoward will happen if he carries on arresting, beating up and torturing people as usual.

Sections of the American media seem to be falling into line, too. I love the delicate way the Houston Chronicle, the San Jose Mercury and other subscribers to the Knight Ridder news service began their reports today: "Egypt's uneasy path to democratic reform received more setbacks Thursday ..."

Poor Mr Mubarak: he is trying to so hard to reform, but after 24 years it's not getting any easier.

There was also an interesting line in the BBC's report. Referring to the five-year jail sentence imposed on Ayman Nour, who was Mubarak's main rival in the presidential election last year, the BBC says the Egyptian prosecutor general "has denied any political motive" for Mr Nour's imprisonment.

This is what is known in the trade as adding "balance" to a story, and obviously it's necessary to give both sides if there is a genuine dispute about something. In Mr Nour's case, though, this looks like balance just for the sake of it, and it's misleading. I don't know any observer of Egyptian affairs who seriously believes Mr Nour's imprisonment was motivated by anything other than politics.

With Washington soft-pedalling over Mubarak, now would be the ideal moment for al-Jazeera, the free and fearless satellite channel, to show its mettle. But al-Jazeera, along with its main Arabic-language rival, al-Arabiya, seems reluctant to tackle the story with all guns blazing. Abu Aardvark (aka Marc Lynch, one of the best-informed commentators on the Arab media) writes:

I had heard many complaints from Egyptian activists that al-Jazeera had sold them out, presumably in exchange for the release of their correspondent who had been arrested over his coverage of the Sinai bombings. I had seen some coverage on al-Jazeera of the protests, and thought that this might be changing.

Evidently not. Having learned well the lessons of the potential power granted by Arab satellite TV, Egyptian security forces have been engaging in rather savage repression of television cameras attempting to cover the protests, attacks on journalists and intimidation of others.

But that repression of journalists on the ground isn't enough to explain the relative silence of al-Jazeera. Not a single episode of al-Jazeera's key nightly primetime news/interview programme Behind the News has been devoted to Egypt: issues deemed more important include the Kuwaiti parliamentary showdown, Somalia, the fourth European-Latin American summit, the war of words between America and Russia, American public diplomacy efforts and the Syrian opposition ... only two of which (Kuwait and Somalia) are even arguably of more pressing concern to Arab viewers than the Egyptian protests.

None of the other major programmes seems to have touched Egypt over the last couple of weeks.

That is not particularly surprising. There is a general reluctance in the Arab media to dwell on the internal problems of Arab countries (unless, of course, they are caused by external forces, as in Iraq and Palestine). Anti-government disturbances in Arab capitals are especially sensitive because there is always a chance they might give other people ideas elsewhere.

At least we still have the bloggers (apart from Alaa, the one in an Egyptian jail). The Arabist blog has a fine set of pictures of Mubarak's thugs in action yesterday.

Nationalities of detainees at Guantanamo Bay

U.S. Accused Of Backing Warlords In Somalia

Officials of the Horn of Africa nation say covert military aid aimed at countering Islamic forces makes it harder to quell deadly gun battles.
By Edmund Sanders, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times
May 19, 2006

NAIROBI, Kenya — The U.S. is facing growing criticism that it is secretly aiding one side behind the deadly clashes raging in Mogadishu, thwarting Somalia's attempts to restore peace and order.

Gun battles on the streets of Somalia's capital have killed nearly 140 people over the last two weeks. Eighty died in two fights in February and March, started when an alliance of Mogadishu warlords linked to the U.S. began battling Islamic leaders attempting to assert their authority in the capital.

Somalia plunged into anarchy in 1991 after the fall of the Mohamed Siad Barre regime. After the deaths of 18 American servicemen in Mogadishu in the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" fiasco, the U.S. withdrew its troops from the Horn of Africa country and has shied away from a hands-on diplomatic role.

Now leaders of a transitional government are blaming the U.S. for sparking what has become the deadliest outbreak of violence in years. Somalian government officials accuse U.S. intelligence agencies of secretly funding the Mogadishu warlords as part of anti-terrorism efforts.

"The warlords in Mogadishu are telling us that they were encouraged by the U.S. to fight the Islamists," said Asha Ahmed Abdalla, a parliament member representing the north.

Transitional President Abdullahi Yusuf and transitional Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Gedi are calling upon the U.S. to stop supporting the warlords and instead work with the official government, which was chosen by a transitional parliament meeting in Kenya in 2004.

"The U.S. strategy on terror is to use its own channels," Gedi said. "But it's only through the [transitional] government that we can address the issue of terrorism."

John Prendergast, senior advisor at the International Crisis Group, an independent policy organization based in Washington, said the U.S. policy was focused too heavily on covert military intervention, rather than attempting to restore Somalia's economic and political infrastructure.

"This is Cold War-style diplomacy at its worst," Prendergast said. "It just ends up throwing gasoline on the fire."

U.S. officials refused to confirm or deny any role in supporting the warlords, but reaffirmed the Bush administration's commitment to forging ties with "responsible" partners willing to assist in combating terrorism in Somalia.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Wednesday that the U.S. was "working across a spectrum of Somalis to make sure that Somalia isn't a safe haven for terrorism. We have a real interest in counter-terrorism efforts in Somalia."

The warlords, calling themselves the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and CounterTerrorism, deny receiving U.S. assistance.

United Nations officials said last week that they were looking into reports that an unnamed country had violated the U.N. arms embargo on Somalia by providing support to the warlord alliance. John R. Bolton, the American ambassador to the U.N., denied that the U.S. had violated the embargo.

Analysts say U.S. support for select warlords in Somalia has been an open secret since 2002. "They don't provide weapons, but they provide the cash, which is easier anyway," Prendergast said.

After Sept. 11, the Bush administration began to reexamine policy on Somalia, where lawlessness, uncontrolled borders and proximity to the Middle East had created conditions for terrorist activity.

U.S. officials believe that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists, including suspects in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, were being sheltered in Somalia as recently as a year ago.

In addition to establishing a large U.S. military base in nearby Djibouti in 2002 and earmarking $100 million for anti-terrorism campaigns in East Africa, the U.S. counter-terrorism campaign has sought help from Somalian warlords in hunting down suspected militants.

In 2003, warlord Mohammed Dheere, who is now part of the warlord alliance fighting in Mogadishu, helped capture terrorism suspect Suleiman Ahmed Hemed Salim and handed him over to the U.S., according to a report by the International Crisis Group.

American intelligence agencies have not uncovered evidence of a significant presence of Al Qaeda terrorists in Somalia and have reached out to moderate Islamic groups in the country, U.S. officials and analysts say.

But in recent months, hard-line Islamist groups in Somalia have been gaining power and popularity, establishing Islamic courts and raising their anti-Western rhetoric. They also are accused of being responsible for assassinations of several officials and peace advocates.

U.S. and U.N. officials say the Islamic courts have armed themselves and are leading the confrontations against the warlords with the help of money and soldiers from abroad. This week, the State Department warned of the possible presence of "foreign fighters" in Somalia.

The U.N. said last fall that it believed one of the senior leaders of the Islamic courts, Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, had received mines, rifles and grenades from an unnamed nearby country. U.S. officials say Aweys, a co-founder of the Islamic group Itihaad al Islamiya, has links to Al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Egyptian Policemen Arrest Protesters



Egyptian plainclothes policemen arrest protesters during clashes in Cairo May 18, 2006. Plainclothes security men beat, kicked and clubbed protesters demonstrating in support of Egyptian judges and judicial independence in central Cairo on Thursday. REUTERS/Tara Todras-Whitehill

Egyptian Police Beat Pro-Reform Protesters

By MARIAM FAM
The Associated Press
May 18, 2006

Despite U.S. criticism, police beat pro-reform protesters in the streets and arrested more than 300 for the second week in a row Thursday as Egyptian courts dealt new setbacks to activists seeking greater democracy.

While club-wielding police chased activists in downtown Cairo, a court rejected the appeal of prominent opposition leader Ayman Nour, the runner-up in last year's presidential elections. The ruling means Nour will have to serve a five-year prison sentence on forgery charges he says are intended to eliminate him from politics.

The United States sharply criticized the ruling, saying it and the violence "raise serious concerns about the path to political reform in Egypt."

"The Egyptian government's handling of (Nour's) case represents both a miscarriage of justice by international standards and a setback for the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Also Thursday, another court issued a reprimand against Hesham el-Bastawisy, a judge on Egypt's highest court who went public with accusations of fraud during parliament elections monitored by judges in November and December. A second judge was cleared by the disciplinary court.

The day's events were a new blow to already fading U.S. hopes that Egypt, a top ally, could be the centerpiece of America's push for greater democracy in the Middle East.

For Egypt's reform movement, the violence and court rulings only fueled their belief President Hosni Mubarak had reneged on promises of democracy.

"This is a punishment to every judge who has demanded free and fair elections," one pro-reform judge, Ahmed Mekky, said after the ruling on el-Bastawisi. The demand for an independent judiciary "has now become hard to realize contrary to all the political promises that were made," he said.

The prosecution of Nour has strained relations with the United States in the past, and Washington called for his case to be reconsidered after he was convicted in December.

U.S. officials also sharply criticized Egypt after police broke up similar protests last week in support of the judges, arresting more than 250 people.

On Thursday, police in anti-riot gear cordoned off several streets in downtown Cairo leading to the building where the two court sessions were being held separately.

Uniformed police and plainclothes security officers surged into groups of demonstrators, swinging batons. The activists — who included members of the pro-reform Kifaya movement and the Muslim Brotherhood — fled, some clambering over cars.

Some regrouped nearby, shaking their fists and chanting, "We are the (Muslim) Brotherhood. God is great."

About a dozen protesters took refuge on the balcony of an office of Nour's al-Ghad party, chanting, "Freedom for Ayman Nour" and "Down, down with Hosni Mubarak."

The Interior Ministry said it detained 314 people — most of them apparently Brotherhood members. But Brotherhood lawmaker Hamdi Hassan said police picked up 500 Brothers, including prominent members Essam el-Erian and Mohammed Morsi.

Nour, 41, was convicted Dec. 24 and sentenced to five years in prison on charges of forging signatures on petitions to register al-Ghad as a party in 2004.

The appeal court judge said the rejection of his appeal was final, and Nour's wife Gameela Ismail — also a prominent figure in the al-Ghad party — said there was no further legal recourse.

"There is nothing we can do except to continue to struggle for reform," she told AP.

This "reflects the Egyptian regime's persistent rejection of any serious reform and its exploitation of the international community's leniency with Egypt," al-Ghad Party chief Nagi el-Ghatrifi said after the verdict.

The two reform judges, el-Bastawisi and Mahmoud Mekki, had become heroes of the reform movement after they blew the whistle on fraud during parliament elections in November and December. Activists have been outraged that the government put them before a disciplinary court rather than investigate the reports of fraud.

Last year, Mubarak contested presidential elections on a platform promising political and constitutional reforms, including ending emergency laws that activists say are used to stifle opposition.

Since then, emergency laws have been extended, municipality elections have been postponed apparently to prevent Brotherhood gains and hundreds of activists have been arrested.

Egyptian officials deny the government is backpedalling on reforms and Mubarak has counseled patience, saying change takes time.

A welcome at the White House

Brian Whitaker
Guardian (UK)
May 17, 2006

Gamal Mubarak, son and probable successor of the Egyptian president, visited the US last week, allegedly to renew his pilot's licence. While in Washington, he happened to be passing the White House and decided to drop in and say hello. It's only courteous, and I must try it myself sometime.

Gamal - or Jimmy as his friends call him - had a chat with Steve Hadley, the president's national security adviser, and also met vice-president Dick Cheney and secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

While he was having his cup of tea with Mr Hadley, President Bush "dropped by to greet Mr Mubarak and convey his best regards to his father, President Hosni Mubarak", according to a White House spokesman.

What exactly was going on here is still a mystery. "Jimmy" holds no government post in Egypt, though he is assistant secretary-general of the ruling party - not the sort of post that usually opens doors to all the highest people in the United States.

But what on earth was President Bush doing, passing on "his best regards" to the Egyptian pharaoh just 24 hours after riot police and government thugs had been beating up demonstrators and journalists in Cairo? That's hardly in line with Mr Bush's "forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East", is it?

The protests in Cairo were sparked by government attempts to remove two judges who dared to speak out against the widespread fraud in last year's parliamentary elections. The judges, Mahmud Mekki and Hisham Bastawisi, wrote an article about it for Comment Is Free earlier this month.

The sad news today is that Judge Bastawisi suffered a heart attack this morning - quite possibly brought on by the strain of events - and is now in hospital. His exact medical condition is unclear.

The email informing me of Judge Bastawisi's illness also included a document circulated by "an anonymous group of Egyptians who seek to raise awareness over the judges crisis". It's long, but I think it's worth quoting in full:

Judges Crisis Background

Current events in Egypt represent an escalation in the conflict between a government intent on domesticating the judiciary, in order to expand the executive's dominance in political life, and the judiciary's attempts to ensure their independence and ability to act as a check on executive power.

In recent years, the judiciary has become an important actor in efforts to maintain the separation between government branches. In June 2000, Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court passed a landmark ruling that all elections must be supervised by judges. Then, in 2003, a decision by the Court of Cassation (the Highest Appeals court) null-and-voided parliamentary electoral results for a high-ranking executive official. In response, the government has pursued a number of strategies to isolate and intimidate proponents of judicial independence.

The Court of Cassation's president, who simultaneously represents the executive as the head of the presidential-appointed Supreme Judicial Council (SJC), has sent threatening letters to outspoken judges. The presidency is also implicated through appointments of known pro-executive judges to high positions throughout Egypt's court system as well as a presidential decree that increased the retirement age of bench judges from 66 to 68 (against the will of the Egyptian Judges Club). More recently, the executive drafted a new judiciary law that is scheduled to be passed by parliament before the current session ends in June. The bill, which was not subject to any consultations with judges, is rumored to ignore the demands of the Egyptian Judges Club for greater independence and to further accelerate the process of the executive's appropriation of the judiciary. The source of the current protests is the attempt to dismiss two judges (Hisham al-Bastawisi and Mahmoud Mekky) who have publicly argued for the autonomy of the judiciary from the executive branch.

The SJC has begun "competency" investigations into the two individuals on charges that they reported cases of election rigging in the country's three most recent elections last year, spoke to the media about political affairs, and 'disparaged' the executive-affiliated SJC. Such investigations are unprecedented in Egyptian history. At least five more judges have been formally named and could be investigated in future cases. The response of Egyptian society and the international community is crucial in determining the fate of Egypt's independent judges.

The executive has feigned all responsibility and refused to interfere in this matter by declaring that it is solely an internal judicial matter. This could not be further from the truth. Rather, these measures represent a culmination of the executive's recent attempts to control the judiciary. What is at stake is the future autonomy of an already embattled judiciary to assert itself as a check to executive power and will. At the core of this struggle is the state's attempt to nationalize the judiciary as its central legitimacy tool.

The Egyptian Judges Club has sought negotiation and compromise measures, which have all been rebuffed by the executive and led to an unavoidable showdown for control, power, and the future. The regime is determined, at seemingly any cost, to eliminate the independent judges from state ranks so that future governance - and an impending transition of presidential power - is unobstructed and declared legitimate by the judicial branch. This, in effect, has turned the situation into a zero-sum game in which the regime must increase the use of its repressive apparatus through detention and beatings of peaceful demonstrators, who are standing in solidarity with the judge's demand for autonomy.

The two judges currently under investigation are scheduled to appear in front of the SJC-appointed disciplinary board in Cairo on Thursday 18th of May. The judges say they will appear before no such body until the security forces are removed from the streets and nearly 400 activists - from all political trends - that have been detained since 24 April - are released.

Demonstrations, which have previously been met by severe repression and violence by the security services, are scheduled across the country. Yesterday, the Interior Ministry issued a statement banning "unlawful" protests, which is being understood as a threat of further escalation against demonstrators.

The interest of ordinary citizens in the judges is at unprecedented levels as the executive pursues its unprecedented measures against them. The judges - particularly those under investigation - have been catapulted into legendary hero status. The current events in Egypt are no mere crackdown on political parties, extra-parliamentary protest movements, or Islamist-leaning organizations - it is about the very nature of future governance.

A general protest, led by the judges, is scheduled for the 25th of May to mark the ongoing struggle between the executive and judiciary as well as to remember the one-year anniversary of the flawed referendum that amended the Egyptian constitution. These are occasions for those that care about the future of Egypt and the democratic rights of all to get involved.

World opinion of U.S. sinking

Dislike of everything American on the rise
By David Wood
Newhouse News Service
May 17, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The United States has often irritated the rest of the world, but lately it's gotten worse -- and more dangerous.

In increasing numbers, people around the globe resent American power and wealth and reject specific actions like the occupation of Iraq and the campaign against democratically elected Palestinian leaders, in-depth international polling shows.

Analysts say America's image problem is pervasive, deep and perhaps permanent, an inevitable outcome of being the world's only superpower.

But there is worse news. In the past, while Europeans, Asians and Arabs might have disliked American policies or specific U.S. leaders, they liked and admired Americans themselves.

Polls now show an ominous turn. Majorities around the world think Americans are greedy, violent and rude, and fewer than half in countries like Poland, Spain, Canada, China and Russia think Americans are honest.

"We found a rising antipathy toward Americans," said Bruce Stokes of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which interviewed 93,000 people in 50 countries over a four-year span.

The dislike is accelerating among youths, Stokes said. For instance, 20 percent of Britons under age 30 have an unfavorable opinion of Americans, double the percentage of 2002.

The 'ugly' stigma

The problem, Stokes said, "is Americans, not just (President) Bush."

Stokes and his colleagues at the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan public opinion group in Washington, found that fewer and fewer people see the United States as a land of high ideals and opportunity. More than half of those asked in France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Britain said the "spread of American ideas and customs" was a "bad thing."

This represents a major uphill challenge for the United States, which, after a period of aggressive "go-it-alone" foreign policy, is again coming to rely on allies and international partners.

For example, the United States has counted on Britain, France, Germany and the United Nations to persuade or coerce the Iranian government into abandoning its nuclear program. And it shares its military burden with 9,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan and 20,000 in Iraq.

Keeping the peace, winning the war on terrorism and other critical goals are achievable "only if people like you and trust you," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

Instead, Kohut and his associates find American credibility eroding, even among NATO allies.

Almost half of those polled in Britain, France and Germany dispute the whole concept of a global war on terrorism, and a majority of Europeans believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. More than two-thirds of Germans, French and Turks believe American leaders lied about the reasons for war and believe the United States is less trustworthy than it once was.

"There is great resentment at American power," Kohut said.

Plummeting image

Kohut finds a significant decline among those holding "favorable" views of the United States. In Brazil, 52 percent held a favorable view of the United States in 2002; by the following year that had dropped to 34 percent. In Russia, the pro-America portion of the population dropped from 61 percent to 36 percent over a year.

Beyond a growing antipathy toward American policies, people reject the American lifestyle portrayed in films and television.

Asked where to find the "good life," no more than one in 10 people recommended the United States in a poll conducted in 13 countries, Kohut said. More popular: Canada, Australia, Britain and Germany. Only in India did the United States still represent the land of opportunity, he found.

No question this is bad news, but put it into perspective, urged Richard Solomon, a veteran diplomat and negotiator who is president of the U.S. Institute of Peace, a federally funded think tank.

"It's an attractive aspect of our culture that we worry about what other people think," Solomon said. "The French couldn't care less if they make people unhappy."

Much of the enmity aimed at the United States is because Americans have tackled difficult jobs like removing Saddam Hussein from power, Solomon said, while the Germans and French took a pass.

"One of the costs we bear for taking on these responsibilities is that people get nervous when they see an 800-round gorilla willing to jump.

"But being liked is important," he added, because public support goes either "to us or to the bad guys."

Poor public diplomacy

That support seems in flux. While allied governments generally support the United States, their citizens increasingly do not.

Even among the United States' newest friends, such as India, where President Bush in March signed an agreement on nuclear cooperation, there is "uneasiness about whether we have come too close to America and surrendered independence of judgment to the sole superpower," said Ambassador Salman Haidar, former Indian foreign secretary and head of its diplomatic corps.

Among others, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has bemoaned the state of America's image and the efforts to improve it.

The United States spends about $1 billion a year on international broadcasting and the public relations campaign it calls "public diplomacy," run out of the State Department by former top Bush campaign operative Karen Hughes. Separately, the Pentagon directs its own "information operations" and psychological operations programs that have included paying journalists in Iraq to write favorable newspaper articles.

"We probably deserve a D or D-plus as a country as how well we're doing in the battle of ideas," Rumsfeld said March 27 at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. "We're going to have to find better ways to do it and thus far we haven't."

There have been 30 reports in recent years on the need to improve public diplomacy, including one in May by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. The GAO found that 15 percent of the critical public diplomacy positions around the world were vacant. Among those diplomats on the job, one in three lacked the foreign language skills to communicate effectively, the GAO said.

Few analysts expect more than marginal improvements in global public opinion, short of another 9/11.

"In my judgment, you're going to see a lot of this hostility disappear only when various countries really feel they need friendly relations with the United States, probably for their own security," said Solomon. "It will probably take some major event for that to take place."

Demonstration in Egypt Is Quieted by Force

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
The New York Times
May 18, 2006

CAIRO, May 17 — Riot police beat and arrested hundreds of demonstrators today who had gathered to support two judges facing disciplinary charge for charging publicly that parliamentary elections were fixed.

The Muslim Brotherhood, one of the opposition groups taking part in the protest, said that 180 of its members were injured and more than 500 arrested in the crackdown, news services reported.

The Associated Press quoted a photographer, Tara Todras-Whitehill, who said that thugs backed by riot police chased one group of about 800 protesters down the street and beat those who fell behind.

"I saw at least 20 people being beaten with fists and kicks and short clubs," she said.

The disciplinary panel moved to punish one of the judges, Hisham Bastawisi, by ordering that he be denied his next promotion, even though Mr. Bastawisi was unable to attend, having suffered a heart attack earlier in the week. The other judge, Mahmoud Mekki, was not punished.

The case was one of two being decided in separate courtrooms in downtown Cairo in cases that have called into question President Hosni Mubarak's promise to bring democratic practices to Egypt.

In the other proceeding, an appeals court refused to hear the case of Ayman Nour, the second-place presidential candidate sentenced to five years in prison.

Mr. Nour was arrested on charges of forging signatures to create his political party. The court's refusal dashed hopes of his wife and lawyer, who said they had detected a positive shift in the government's tone toward Mr. Nour in recent days .

Far more international attention, however, has been focused on the Egyptian government's war with nearly 7,000 judges and their supporters. The United States and the European Union have condemned Mr. Mubarak's government for beating and detaining demonstrators who support the judges' call for independence of the courts and for the right to oversee all elections.

Even while Mr. Mubarak and his inner circle have demonstrated that they are reluctant to appear to respond to foreign pressure, he faces another potentially embarrassing moment on Thursday between demonstrators and the police, a problem magnified because Egypt will serve as the host of the World Economic Forum, which begins Saturday.

Egypt's treatment of the judges and the demonstrators, its reauthorization of an emergency law and its decision to postpone local elections for two years all threaten to take attention away from a forum that officials hoped would highlight this country's efforts at economic reform. Recent decisions in Egypt, from arresting a popular blogger to postponing local elections, present a problem for the White House. Not only do they contradict President Bush's call for spreading democracy, but they complicate the administration's effort to maintain the nearly $2 billion a year that Egypt receives in military and development aid in the face of some calls from Congress to re-evaluate the package.The judges' demands have been widely seen as a direct challenge to the ability of the governing National Democratic Party's ability to maintain power and guarantee that its handpicked nominee will replace Mr. Mubarak, who turned 78 this month and has ruled Egypt for 25 years.

The call to have completely independent oversight of elections comes at a time when the governing party has appeared weak and divided, the president's popularity is low and the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood is strong and popular. Many supporters and opponents of Mr. Mubarak are discussing who will be the next president, even while the subject remains officially taboo.

"If the judges succeeded it would show how weak the N.D.P. is," said Salama Ahmed Salama, a political analyst and longtime columnist for the semiofficial daily Al Ahram. "It may call into question all those figures who govern us."

The speculation over succession has increased because while the government made it impossible for independent opposition parties or political leaders, like Mr. Nour, to build a following, the president's son, Gamal Mubarak, 42, has taken on an increasingly visible and important role in the party and the country. He recently made a private visit to the White House, where he was greeted by President Bush and met with Vice President Dick Cheney and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley.

The younger Mubarak has repeatedly said he has no intention to run for president, but his denials have been greeted skeptically.

Judge Mekki said in an interview that a friend inside the National Democratic Party had warned him that its leadership viewed the fight with the judges as one over succession.

The government has said the judges' dispute is an intra-judicial problem and has nothing to do with the government or the of succession issue. Muhammad Kamal, a member of the governing party and an ally of the younger Mubarak, said the party had not even begun to discuss the issue.

For more than 20 years, Egypt's judges have called for independence from the executive branch. But the judges' demands became of central concern to the governing party when the Constitutional Court ruled in 2000 that all elections must be supervised by judges. Since then judges have complained that they are allowed to monitor only polling places, but not vote counting.

The government plans to submit a proposed bill addressing some of the judges' concerns to Parliament in the next few days, said an official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the topic. But the official said judicial oversight of elections was not even on the table.

Mona el-Naggar contributed reporting for this article from Cairo and John O'Neil contributed reporting from New York.

A Safer Weapon, With Risks

A laser device used in Iraq to temporarily blind drivers who get too close to troops is meant to reduce deaths, but it also raises worries.
By James Rainey
Los Angeles Times
May 18, 2006

BAGHDAD — The U.S. military is deploying a laser device in Iraq that would temporarily blind drivers who fail to heed warnings at checkpoints, in an attempt to stem shootings of innocent Iraqis.

The pilot project will equip thousands of M-4 rifles with the 10 1/2 -inch-long weapon, which projects an intense beam of green light to "dazzle" the vision of oncoming drivers.

"I think this is going to make a huge difference in avoiding these confrontations," said Army Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander in charge of day-to-day operations in Iraq. "I promise you no one — no one — will be able to ignore it."

But so-called tactical laser devices have been controversial in the past. A protocol to the Geneva Convention bans the use of lasers that cause blindness, and human rights groups have protested previous U.S. attempts to employ such weapons.

A decade ago, the experimental use of tactical laser devices by U.S. Marines in Somalia was curtailed at the last minute for "humane reasons," according to the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which called their use "repugnant to the public conscience" in a 1995 report.

The Pentagon has canceled several programs for the stronger "blinding" lasers, in adherence to the Geneva protocol, according to Human Rights Watch. But the group has said that even less powerful "dazzling" lasers, similar to the one to be deployed in Iraq, can cause permanent damage.

One Washington-based defense analyst said American troops and commanders should not underestimate how the laser could complicate relations with Iraqis.

"If this 'safe' high-intensity laser damages retinas, we're in for a whole new type of [angry] Iraqi civilians," said Winslow T. Wheeler, who spent three decades as a Capitol Hill staffer and is now at the Center for Defense Information.

The military, however, has apparently decided the risks can be minimized through proper training and are worth taking to help U.S. troops ward off suicide attacks and to reduce accidental shootings of Iraqi civilians.

"I have no doubt," Chiarelli said, "that bullets are less safe."

A military standards panel analyzed the laser — a modification of a more powerful system used for aiming heavy machine guns — and found that the device could be harmful to the eyes when viewed from about 75 yards or closer, the manufacturer said.

Lt. Col. Richard Smith, deputy director of the Joint NonLethal Weapons Directorate at the Pentagon, said Wednesday that the deployment of the laser, which has been under development for a decade, marked an important milestone for nonlethal weapons.

"This is really the first time the visually overwhelming devices have actually been used," Smith said. "This was based off needs of war fighters and commanders in the field. They have several incidents a day where a vehicle is coming at a group of soldiers…. These dazzlers can reach out a couple hundred meters and give solders added security."

The laser being deployed in Baghdad is one of about six different models being tested by the directorate, Smith said.

In recent months, suicide bombings have been aimed mostly against Iraqis. The bulk of attacks on American troops, in contrast, have been made with explosives hidden along streets and highways.

But about eight times a day around Iraq, American soldiers still shoot in an attempt to stop vehicles that come too close to them, U.S. military statistics show. Although such confrontations are down from double that rate, commanders still worry about wounding or killing noncombatants.

The military has not released figures on the number of Iraqis killed and wounded in the confrontations, but Iraqi civilians frequently have protested what they consider reckless shootings. The Economist magazine quoted coalition military sources this year as saying that about 250 innocent Iraqis had died at vehicle checkpoints in the first three years after the U.S.-led March 2003 invasion.

Concern about the incidents increased as a result of several high-profile shootings early last year. The first came in January 2005, when a U.S. Army patrol in Tall Afar in northern Iraq opened fire on an Opel sedan that did not heed warnings to stop.

Killed as they tried to get home ahead of curfew were a husband and wife, Hussein and Kamila Hassan. Bullets paralyzed their 12-year-old son, Rakan. Four of their other children, ages 2 to 14, watched in terror from the back seat, along with a cousin. The shooting gained wide notoriety when pictures of the blood-soaked children ran in Newsweek magazine.

In March 2005, an Italian intelligence agent delivering a rescued hostage was shot and killed at a checkpoint near the Baghdad airport. The soldiers involved said the car was speeding and ignored warnings, but the freed hostage, journalist Giuliana Sgrena, said that the car was traveling at a moderate speed and that she did not see any warning from the troops.

Chiarelli and his subordinates have said they are determined to limit such incidents, not only to protect their troops and Iraqis but to improve relations between the two sides.

"Save an Iraqi life," the general recently told a group of soldiers newly arrived in Iraq and training at Camp Taji, north of Baghdad. "Because, I will tell you, most of the time he is just confused."

The laser that will be attached to soldiers' rifles here — known as the "green beam designator" — is manufactured by B.E. Meyers & Co. of Washington state. The firm calls the device the most powerful of its kind in production.

David Shannon, director of product development for the company, said that at a distance of 110 yards, the beam widens to cover an area about 16 inches in diameter — a little smaller than a regulation basketball hoop.

The beam can be fixed or set to pulse at two different rates. It can be seen from more than two miles. From 328 yards and closer, it's powerful enough to be "a strong deterrent," Shannon said.

In a recent demonstration at the U.S. military headquarters at Camp Victory near Baghdad, a soldier fired the beam across an indoor hallway. Even indirect exposure to the light as it bounced off the white marble floor left observers seeing stars for several minutes afterward.

Shannon agreed in a telephone interview that use of stronger lasers would be "cruel and unusual" even in warfare. But he said the green beam designator was considerably safer, particularly with proper training to limit its use with targets inside 75 yards.

"We know right now that people are dying and being maimed by bullets," he said. "This whole program is designed so that fewer people die and get hurt."

Added Matthew Murphy, who handles sales for the company, "It's almost like looking in the sun. They are going to know they are targeted and more likely than not they are going to stop."

Neither the company nor the military would say how much the units cost.

Army Sgt. Brendan Woolworth was one of the first soldiers to try the green laser. He said an Iraqi driver got too close to his convoy about 90 days ago and failed to heed shouts to stop. The soldier directed a pulsing beam at the car's windshield.

"He pulled off to the side of the road and stopped," Woolworth said. "He got the message. It looked like he just hadn't been paying attention."

Although he touted the laser as important in reducing death and injury, Chiarelli recently told troops that they would need to employ many other tools.

The general coached about three dozen troops on understanding Iraqi culture and on improving communications with local leaders. He stressed the importance, when all else failed, of firing warning shots.

He then asked how many in the classroom had been trained to fire a warning shot with the rifles that rested under their desks. Only a few hands went up.

"OK," responded Chiarelli. "Make sure that is one of the first things you do before you get out of your training here."

Times staff writer Julian E. Barnes in Washington contributed to this report.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Bush Administration Supports Continued Assistance to Egypt

But U.S. officials voice concern over nation's slow pace of political reform
By Jane Morse
Washington File Staff Writer
17 May 2006

Washington -- Egypt is "a cornerstone" of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and deserves ongoing assistance, despite its slow pace of political reform, senior U.S. officials say.

David Welch, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, and Michael Coulter, the deputy assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, testified May 17 before the House Committee on International Relations' Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

"We have been concerned by the postponement of municipal polls, the extension by two years of the Emergency Law, the prosecution of whistleblower judges, and the recent violence against peaceful demonstrators and round-ups of democracy activists," Welch said in prepared testimony. (See related article.)

Welch praised Egyptian President Mohammed HosniMubarak for amending Egypt's Constitution and holding multicandidate elections in September 2005 -- the country's first. But the parliamentary polls were marred by "irregularities" and "serious incidents of violence" in the last two rounds, he said.

Egypt's prime minister, Ahmed Mohamed Nazif, however, has appointed "a strong team of reformers to steer the key economic and social portfolios," Welch said. "The new Cabinet is working to implement an ambitious economic reform agenda designed to generate jobs and attract foreign investment," he said.

"We would like to see Egypt make the same kind of progress on political reform that it has made on economic reform, where gains have been impressive," Welch said.

Both Welch and Coulter noted Egypt's critical role in helping resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Egypt actively has engaged both parties, facilitated Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in summer 2005, and effectively curbed the smuggling of weapons into Gaza, they said.

Coulter voiced U.S. gratitude for Egypt's support to U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and noted that Egypt's support of U.S. goals in Iraq has not been without cost.

"After Egypt took the bold step of being the first Arab nation to send an ambassador to Iraq, the Egyptian ambassador was assassinated in Baghdad in July 2005," Coulter said.

Coulter said U.S. military assistance is "a key element" to the U.S.-Egypt strategic partnership. In addition to helping Egypt modernize its military and fight terrorism, U.S. military assistance provides training opportunities that foster mutual understanding and strong civil-military relations, reinforce the concept of civilian rule, and contribute to Egypt's stability, he said.

Each year the United States provides Egypt with $1.3 billion in foreign military financing (FMF) and approximately $1.2 million for international military education training (IMET) programs, Coulter said.

"Our assistance to Egypt," Coulter said, "contributes positively to U.S. goals in the region."

The full text of Welch's and Coulter's prepared testimony is available on the Web site of the Committee on International Relations' Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

Palestinian art exhibit: banned by Brandeis University

Israel's new plan: A land grab

By Jimmy Carter
USA TODAY
5/16/2006

New Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has announced that Israel will take unilateral steps to establish its own geographical boundaries during the next four years of his administration. His plan, as described during the recent Israeli election and the formation of a new governing coalition, would take about half of the Palestinian West Bank and encapsulate the urban areas within a huge concrete wall and the more rural parts of Palestine within a high fence. The barrier is not located on the internationally recognized boundary between Israel and Palestine, but entirely within and deeply penetrating the occupied territories.

The only division of territory between Israel and the Palestinians that is recognized by the United States or the international community awarded 77% of the land to the nation of Israel and the other small portion divided between the West Bank and Gaza. Only about twice the size of Washington, D.C., Gaza is now a politically and economically non-viable region, almost completely isolated from the West Bank, Israel and the outside world.

West Bank dissected

The Olmert plan would leave the remnant of the Palestinian West Bank with the same unacceptable characteristics. Deep intrusions would effectively divide it into three portions. The prime minister has also announced that Israeli soldiers will likely remain in the Palestinian territory, which will be completely encapsulated by Israel's control of its eastern border in the Jordan River valley.

It is inconceivable that any Palestinian, Arab leader, or any objective member of the international community could accept this illegal action as a permanent solution to the continuing altercation in the Middle East. This confiscation of land is to be carried out without resorting to peace talks with the Palestinians, and in direct contravention of the "road map for peace," which President Bush helped to initiate and has strongly supported.

Although former prime minister Ariel Sharon and the Israeli government rejected the key provisions of the road map by the Quartet of negotiators — the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia — it has been endorsed unequivocally by the moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel's government had adopted carefully negotiated agreements at Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993. Israeli leaders Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres received Nobel Peace Prizes for these major steps toward peace, along with their Arab counterparts. The basic terms of both of these historic accords would also be violated by Olmert's plan, as would all of the U.N. Security Council's resolutions on which the agreements were predicated and the nation of Israel was founded.

What is the alternative to this ill-advised move toward the unilateral confiscation and colonization of a major portion of the West Bank?

A better course

Good-faith negotiations should be initiated under the auspices of the international Quartet with President Abbas. During recent days, Abbas has been making the rounds of international capitals calling for the opportunity to find a path to permanent peace in the Holy Land. Although the recently elected Hamas legislators will neither recognize nor negotiate with Israel while Palestinian land is being occupied, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed approval for direct Olmert-Abbas peace talks. He said, "The problem is not the Palestinian side or its consent to negotiations. ... If the (Palestinian) Authority chairman, as the elected president, wants to get the negotiations moving, we have no objection to that. If what Abu Mazen (Abbas) presents to the people as a result of negotiations serves its interest, then we too will redefine our position."

Presumably, these talks would be monitored and orchestrated by the United States, and any successfully negotiated terms of the road map would subsequently be approved by both Israelis and Palestinians. Such approval of a final peace agreement was an important facet of the Camp David Accords.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the difficulty of finding a mutually acceptable agreement, but many Israelis, Palestinians and international representatives are familiar with what must be its ultimate basic terms. They include reasonable border compromises based on the swapping of land, which could leave a substantial number of Israeli settlers undisturbed on Palestinian land.

A mutual Israeli-Palestinian agreement would undoubtedly result in full recognition of Israel by all Arab nations, with normal diplomatic and economic relations, and permanent peace and justice for the Palestinians.

It would also remove one of the major causes of international terrorism and greatly ease tensions that could precipitate a regional or even global conflict.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter is founder of the non-profit Carter Center, advancing peace and health worldwide.

Democracy disconnect in Egypt

By Trudy Rubin
Philadelphia Inquirer
May 17, 2006

The disconnect between President Bush's public push for Mideast democracy and developments in the region was in full view last week in Washington and Cairo.

Last Friday, Gamal Mubarak, the son of Egypt's president and thus his presumed heir, was welcomed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney at the White House. The younger Mubarak is supposedly spearheading democratic reforms within his father's political party.

But on Thursday, right before Mubarak's White House confab, police in Cairo were beating demonstrators protesting the punishment of two reform-minded Egyptian judges. The judges' crime: They went public with allegations of massive fraud in Egyptian elections last year.

A State Department spokesman tepidly condemned the beatings. The White House seems spooked by the fact that Mideast elections have led to strong showings by Islamists - in Lebanon, in the Palestinian territories and even in Iraq. In Egyptian elections, candidates linked to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood took a sizeable bloc of votes.

So President Bush now seems willing to look the other way when Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak postpones local elections and renews emergency laws. But the repression of the Egyptian judges goes to the heart of the question that haunts the whole Middle East: Is it possible to introduce democratic government in the Arab world?

Egypt's 7,000 judges hold a special place in the struggle to democratize their system. They are pillars of the establishment who want to see a reformed Egypt governed by rule of law and democratic institutions - not by clerics.

The handsome white stone Judges Club in Cairo has remained a haven for democratic debate during years of dictatorial rule. The judges are required by the Egyptian constitution to monitor elections.

But a year ago this week, thousands of judges flooded into Cairo to protest the Mubarak regime's interference with judicial independence, and its efforts to prevent them from monitoring elections freely. The regime refused to listen and restricted the judges further. Now, two of the country's most senior judges are in the dock for accusing the government of electoral fraud.

A year ago, I had the good fortune of interviewing one of the accused judges, Hisham Bastawisi, in Cairo. This erudite man with gray hair and spectacles knew the risk he was taking in going public. But he said he could no longer accept the way the government was abusing the judges.

Bastawisi scoffs at the idea that religious radicals would win free elections in his country, saying extremism does not have roots in heavily rural and traditional Egypt. But Bastawisi adds that popular anger with the regime is rising. He makes another crucial point about the threat of theocracy: In Iran, the ayatollahs won because there was no foundation of democratic institutions.

"So what we want is [to build] a foundation, based on the constitution," the judge says. "If we had an independent judiciary and fair elections, everything would change. We are peacefully trying to change the institutions in our country."

Why is the Mubarak regime repressing judges who seek peaceful change and using violence against those who support this path?

And why are journalists who cover the protests being beaten? Last week, a courageous young woman named Abir al-Askari, whom I also interviewed last year, was slapped, punched and threatened by police as she covered the demonstration by the judges' supporters. Askari, who writes for the weekly Al-Dustour, was attacked and sexually molested last year by regime goons who also threatened her family. She has kept on reporting, but who knows what might happen to her next?

By repressing those who want to build a country based on parliamentary law, the Mubarak regime leaves the country only two choices: authoritarianism or theocratic rule. He guarantees that democratic reforms will go nowhere.

If the Bush team is serious about promoting democracy in the Middle East, it cannot let the repression of Egyptian judges and journalists pass unnoticed. Why not invite Judge Bastawisi to the White House as a symbol of those who fight to build a system based on rule of law?

Egypt judge facing hearing has heart attack

By Mohammed Abbas
Reuters
Wednesday, May 17, 2006

CAIRO (Reuters) - One of the judges at the center of a conflict between the Egyptian judiciary and the government had a heart attack on Wednesday, throwing into doubt the future of disciplinary proceedings against him.

In the Nile Delta town of Shibin el-Kom, police fired teargas to disperse protesters who gathered at the law courts in solidarity with the two judges and with a campaign for judicial independence from the executive, opposition leaders said.

Judges Club President Zakaria Abdel Aziz said judge Hesham Bastawisi was in serious condition in hospital after the heart attack at 3 a.m. Rights groups called on the authorities to postpone a disciplinary hearing set for Thursday.

"They gave him seven electric shocks ... Of course he cannot go on trial tomorrow," Abdel Aziz told Reuters.

Bastawisi and fellow judge Mahmoud Mekky face accusations of damaging the reputation of the judiciary by making remarks on satellite television about election abuses last year.

Opposition and civil rights groups have mobilised in support of the two judges, whose case is seen as part of the wider conflict which started last year over judicial independence.

Egyptian police have started to take a tougher line against protests in solidarity with the judges, drawing criticism from the United States and the European Union.

Opposition member of parliament Talaat Sadat, a nephew of late President Anwar Sadat, told parliament that police teargassed lawyers protesting on Wednesday in support of the judges in Shibin el-Kom, his home district.

Hamdi Hassan, spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood group in parliament, said 4,000 people took part in the Shibin el-Kom protests and police fired rubber bullets at them. Some of the protesters were detained, he added. A government minister said he had no information about the incident.

PUBLIC SUPPORT

Abdel Aziz said Mekky would not go to the hearing on Thursday alone. Judicial sources said Bastawisi would send a medical note to the disciplinary council, which would then decide whether to postpone the process.

"Of course it will affect the trial... The trial has to be postponed," Helmy Kaaoud of rights group Sawasia said.

"The heart attack is of course (due to) one of the psychological pressures on him," Kaaoud added.

Analysts say the judges have won public support because their opposition to election fraud is seen as a rare example of the Egyptian elite taking a stand on principle.

The judges also have the support of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's strongest opposition group, who along with other opposition politicians walked out of parliament in protest at a ban on discussing the judiciary and protest violence last week.

The speaker of parliament, Fathi Sorour, rejected on Wednesday another request for a debate on the judges, on the grounds that the house could not discuss the judiciary.

Security forces beat and detained activists and assaulted journalists at protests in support of the judges last Thursday.

Activists and Egyptian security forces had been heading for another showdown this Thursday, with activists planning protests despite warnings from the police and the Interior Ministry that any demonstrations or public gatherings would be illegal.

Activists said rare pre-demonstration warnings usually herald a more severe response from police.

(Additional reporting by Yara Bayoumy)

1918: No Comment

Arabs evading economic boycott of Israel

United Press International
May 16, 2006

DAMASCUS, Syria, May 16 (UPI) -- The Arab economic boycott of Israel is losing steam as many Arab countries, especially the oil-rich Gulf states, are evading embargo.

A source close to the four-day conference of the Arab Boycott Bureau convening in Damascus said Tuesday "the majority of Arab countries are evading the boycott, notably the Gulf states and especially Saudi Arabia."

Speaking to United Press International on condition of anonymity, the source said "an important reason for not observing the boycott rules by the Arab countries is the growing U.S. pressures in the direction of normalization with the Jewish state."

Washington backs Israel in its opposition to the Arab boycott on the grounds that it contradicted the basis of the U.S.-sponsored Middle East peace process.

The Arab Boycott Bureau suspended its activities in the early 1990's to give Israel a chance to engage in the peace process with the Arabs.

But after the peace process reached a deadlock, the Arab League-affiliated Bureau resumed its semi-annual meetings in 2001, though its resolutions remained largely formal and ineffective.

"The boycott deteriorated a lot, regressed and even almost collapsed... We should not lie on each other, because the boycott is quasi... paralyzed," the source said.

He warned Arab countries "not to give up this efficient arm which is the only weapon remaining in the hands of the Arabs even if they did not know how to use it."

The source projected that the conference will result in blacklisting a handful of companies while removing five. He said the companies which will be placed on the Bureau's black list are American, French, Italian and Swiss.

Under the rules of the Damascus-based Bureau, companies which deal with Israeli firms, have Israeli capital and export to Israel through a third party are placed on the black list.

U.S. Secretly Backing Warlords In Somalia

By Emily Wax and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post
May 17, 2006

More than a decade after U.S. troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, officials of Somalia's interim government and some U.S. analysts of Africa policy say the United States has returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.

The latest clashes, last week and over the weekend, were some of the most violent in Mogadishu since the end of the American intervention in 1994, and left 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. Leaders of the interim government blamed U.S. support of the militias for provoking the clashes.

U.S. officials have declined to directly address on the record the question of backing Somali warlords, who have styled themselves as a counterterrorism coalition in an open bid for American support. Speaking to reporters recently, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would "work with responsible individuals . . . in fighting terror. It's a real concern of ours -- terror taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don't want to see another safe haven for terrorists created. Our interest is purely in seeing Somalia achieve a better day."

U.S. officials have long feared that Somalia, which has had no effective government since 1991, is a desirable place for al-Qaeda members to hide and plan attacks. The country is strategically located on the Horn of Africa, which is only a boat ride away from Yemen and a longtime gateway to Africa from the Middle East. No visas are needed to enter Somalia, there is no police force and no effective central authority.

The country has a weak transitional government operating largely out of neighboring Kenya and the southern city of Baidoa. Most of Somalia is in anarchy, ruled by a patchwork of competing warlords; the capital is too unsafe for even Somalia's acting prime minister to visit.

Leaders of the transitional government said they have warned U.S. officials that working with the warlords is shortsighted and dangerous.

"We would prefer that the U.S. work with the transitional government and not with criminals," the prime minister, Ali Mohamed Gedi, said in an interview. "This is a dangerous game. Somalia is not a stable place and we want the U.S. in Somalia. But in a more constructive way. Clearly we have a common objective to stabilize Somalia, but the U.S. is using the wrong channels."

Many of the warlords have their own agendas, Somali officials said, and some reportedly fought against the United States in 1993 during street battles that culminated in an attack that downed two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters and left 18 Army Rangers dead.

"The U.S. government funded the warlords in the recent battle in Mogadishu, there is no doubt about that," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told journalists by telephone from Baidoa. "This cooperation . . . only fuels further civil war."

U.S. officials have refused repeated requests to provide details about the nature and extent of their support for the coalition of warlords, which calls itself the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism in what some Somalis say is a marketing ploy to get U.S. support.

But some U.S. officials, who declined to be identified by name because of the sensitivity of the issue, have said they are generally talking to these leaders to prevent people with suspected ties to al-Qaeda from being given safe haven in the lawless country.

"There are complicated issues in Somalia in that the government does not control Mogadishu and it has the potential for becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda and like-minded terrorists," said one senior administration official in Washington. "We've got very clear interests in trying to ensure that al-Qaeda members are not using it to hide and to plan attacks." He said it was "a very difficult issue" trying to show support for the fledgling interim government while also working to prevent Somalia from becoming an al-Qaeda base.

A senior U.S. intelligence official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said it was a "Hobbesian" situation -- that the transitional government operating from Kenya was in its "fifteenth iteration" and that it, too, was a "collection of warlords" that played both sides of the fence. The official said that it presented a classic "enemy of our enemy" situation.

The source said Somalia was "not an al-Qaeda safe haven" yet, adding, "There are some there, but it's so dysfunctional." U.S. officials specifically believe that a small number of al-Qaeda operatives who were involved in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania are now residing in Somalia.

Analysts said they were convinced the Bush administration was backing the warlords as part of its global war against terrorism.

"The U.S. relies on buying intelligence from warlords and other participants in the Somali conflict, and hoping that the strongest of the warlords can snatch a live suspect or two if the intelligence identifies their whereabouts," said John Prendergast, the director for African affairs in the Clinton administration and now a senior adviser at the nongovernmental International Crisis Group. "This strategy might reduce the short-term threat of another terrorist attack in East Africa, but in the long term the conditions which allow terrorist cells to take hold along the Indian Ocean coastline go unaddressed. We ignore these conditions at our peril."

"Are we talking to them and doing some of that? Yes," said Ted Dagne, the leading Africa analyst for the Congressional Research Service. "We fought some of these warlords in 1993 and now we are dealing with some of them again, perhaps supporting some of them against other groups. Somalia is still considered by some as an attractive location for terrorist groups."

The issue of U.S. backing came to the forefront this winter when warlords formed the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism after a fundamentalist Islamic group began asserting itself in the capital, setting up courts of Islamic law and building schools and hospitals.

Soon after, the coalition of warlords were well-equipped with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and antiaircraft guns, which were used in heavy fighting in the capital last week. It was the second round of fighting this year, following clashes in March that killed more than 90 people, mostly civilians, and emptied neighborhoods around the capital.

In a report to the U.N. Security Council this month, the world body's monitoring group on Somalia said it was investigating an unnamed country's secret support for an anti-terrorism alliance in apparent violation of a U.N. arms embargo.

The experts said they were told in January and February of this year that "financial support was being provided to help organize and structure a militia force created to counter the threat posed by the growing militant fundamentalist movement in central and southern Somalia."

In March, the State Department said in its terrorism report that the U.S. government was concerned about al-Qaeda fugitives "responsible for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam and the November 2002 bombing of a tourist hotel and attack on a civilian airliner in Kenya, who are believed to be operating in and around Somalia."

The United States relies on Ethiopia and Kenya for information about Somalia. Both countries have complex interests and long-standing ties and animosities in the country. In December 2002, the United States also established an anti-terrorism task force in neighboring Djibouti, with up to 1,600 U.S. troops stationed in the country.

Africa researchers said they were concerned that while the Bush administration was focused on the potential terrorist threat, little was being done to support economic development initiatives that could provide alternative livelihoods to picking up a gun or following extremist ideologies in Somalia. Somalia watchers and Somalis themselves said there has not been enough substantial backing for building a new government after 15 years of collapsed statehood.

"If the real problem is Somalia, then what have we done to change the situation inside Somalia? Are we funding schools, health care or helping establish an effective government?" Dagne said. "We have a generation of Somali kids growing up without education and only knowing violence and poverty. Unless there is a change, these could become the next warlords out of necessity for survival. That's perhaps the greatest threat we have yet to address."

Somalis far from the factional fighting in Mogadishu said they were waiting for anyone to help ease their destitute lives during the worst drought in a decade.

In Waajid, a dusty town about 200 miles northwest of the capital, thousands of villagers have left their farms for squalid camps, searching for water and living in open, rocky fields under low-lying, fragile shelters of sticks and rags that look like bird's nests.

Many people here say they feel that the United States has ignored Somalia since the failed 1993 military intervention. Today many Somalis said they regret that chapter in their history and thank the United States, the largest donor of food and funding for water trucks during this season's drought.

However, they said that news that the U.S. government was talking with warlords has awakened feelings of resentment.

"George W. Bush, we welcome the Americans. But not to back warlords. We need the U.S.A. to help the young government," said Isak Nur Isak, the district commissioner in Waajid. "We won't drag any Americans through the street like in 1993. We want to be clear: We don't want only food aid, but we do want political support for the new government, which is all we have right now to put our hopes in. We can't eat if everyone is dead."

Wax reported from Waajid, Somalia, and Nairobi. DeYoung reported from Washington.

Mentally Unfit, Forced To Fight

The military told Congress that medications aren't used to keep soldiers with serious mental illness in combat. But a Courant investigation reveals that drugs are increasingly being handed out.
By Lisa Chedekel and Matthew Kauffman
Hartford Courant
May 16, 2006

When Army Sgt. 1st Class Mark C. Warren was diagnosed with depression soon after his deployment to Iraq, a military doctor handed him a supply of the mood-altering drug Effexor.

Marine Pfc. Robert Allen Guy was given Zoloft to relieve the depression he developed in Iraq.

And Army Pfc. Melissa Hobart was dutifully taking the Celexa she was prescribed to ease the anxiety of being separated from her young daughter while in Baghdad.

All three were given antidepressants to help them make it through their tours of duty in Iraq - and all came home in coffins.

Warren, 44, and Guy, 26, committed suicide last year, according to the military; Hobart, 22, collapsed in June 2004, of a still-undetermined cause.

The three are among a growing number of mentally troubled service members who are being kept in combat and treated with potent psychotropic medications - a little-examined practice driven in part by a need to maintain troop strength.

Interviews with troops, families and medical experts, as well as autopsy and investigative reports obtained by The Courant, reveal that the emphasis on retention has had dangerous, and sometimes tragic, consequences.

Among The Courant's findings:

*Antidepressant medications with potentially serious side effects are being dispensed with little or no monitoring and sometimes minimal counseling, despite FDA warnings that the drugs can increase suicidal thoughts.

*Military doctors treating combat stress symptoms are sending some soldiers back to the front lines after rest and a three-day regimen of drugs - even though experts say the drugs typically take two to six weeks to begin working.

*The emphasis on maintaining troop numbers has led some military doctors to misjudge the severity of mental health symptoms.

Some of the practices are at odds with the military's own medical guidelines, which state that certain mental illnesses are incompatible with military service, and some medications are not suited for combat deployments. The practices also conflict with statements by top military health officials, who have indicated to Congress that psychiatric drugs are not being used to keep service members with serious disorders in combat.

In an interview Monday, Army Surgeon General Lt. Gen. Kevin C. Kiley insisted that the military uses psychiatric medications cautiously in the war zone, saying that medical professionals may prescribe them at low doses, "for very mild symptoms that might assist soldiers in transitioning through an event." He said the emphasis on keeping troubled troops close to the front lines is in the service members' best interests, because it helps them recover and avoid the stigma of abandoning their duty.

But many outside the chain of command see it differently.

"It's best - for the Army," said Paul Rieckhoff, a former platoon leader in Iraq who said he was overruled when he tried to have a mentally ill soldier evacuated. "But find me an independent mental health expert who thinks that that's a proper course of action."

Vera Sharav, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection, a patient advocacy group, said retaining troops with mental disorders serious enough to require medication is "completely irresponsible."

"It's really just plain dehumanizing. They are denying these guys a humane treatment, which is to get out of the battle," she said. "The best therapy for someone in that kind of stress is to get them out of the stress. The worst thing is to add a drug to this."

Distributing Drugs

Some soldiers' advocates and medical experts criticize the military for taking an overly pharmacological approach to mental illness in an effort to retain troops, without proper oversight.

Autopsy and investigative reports show that at least three service members who killed themselves in 2005, including Warren and Guy, were taking antidepressants.

Warren intentionally overdosed on his heart medication, the military ruled, and a medical examiner concluded he died of "mixed drug intoxication," finding that the combination of the heart drug and the Effexor, an antidepressant, had a "synergistic" effect that led to his death.

Guy was placed on Zoloft by a military doctor one month before he locked himself in a portable toilet and shot himself in the head, according to military reports. An investigator concluded that Guy's suicide was caused in part by the effects of Zoloft - a conclusion later rejected by a commanding general.

Zoloft, and other drugs in a class known as SSRIs, such as Prozac, Paxil and Celexa, are the most commonly prescribed antidepressants. But they can worsen depression and increase suicidal thinking, and the FDA says patients taking any antidepressant medication should be monitored carefully when the drugs are first prescribed - a task that can be difficult to accomplish in a war zone.

Families of some troops report that their loved ones were readily prescribed SSRIs by military doctors in Iraq, with no requirement for regular monitoring or counseling.

Marine Lance Cpl. Nickolas D. Schiavoni, 26, of Haverhill, Mass., earned a Purple Heart during his first deployment to Iraq in 2004, but came home shaky and anxious after seeing heavy combat, his parents said. Soon after he was deployed back to Iraq for his second tour, in September of 2005, he told his father in an e-mail that he had been prescribed Zoloft.

"He said, `I'm real angry. I can't take anything from anyone. They have me on Zoloft,'" David Schiavoni, of Ware, Mass., recalled. "I couldn't believe it - an antidepressant, while he's out there holding a gun? I told him, `Get off the Zoloft because I hear bad things about it.'"

Two months after that exchange, Schiavoni, who was married with two small children, was killed by a car bomb. David Schiavoni said he has been told that the incident occurred after the driver of the car ignored demands from his son's unit to stop.

"A lot of things go through my mind," the father said. "Maybe I'd rather him be angry than medicated. Maybe if he's angry, he grabs his gun and shoots."

Shelly Grice said her husband, Chris, a Fort Riley soldier, was put on Zoloft and the sleep aid Ambien after surviving an incident in February 2005 in which his close friend was killed by an improvised explosive device. She spent the rest of her husband's yearlong tour worried about his mental well-being.

"His [commanding officer] said, `If I could, I would ship you home right now,' but they lost two guys that day and five others were injured, so they needed him," Grice recounted. "It bothers me that these guys are just experiencing too much."

As part of an effort to avoid evacuations out of the war zone, the military's cadre of combat stress teams typically treat troubled troops with a 72-hour break from the front lines - three hots and a cot, in military parlance - sometimes with drugs prescribed. But medical experts and drug makers themselves say it often takes weeks for SSRIs to have any therapeutic value, while the side effects can kick in immediately.

"I have a fundamental problem with prescribing someone an SSRI and then, with a couple days' rest, allowing them to return to duty," said Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist in Harrisburg, Pa. "If you're newly introducing a drug, the most problematic side effects often occur right at the beginning. So at 72 hours or at 96 hours or at seven days, you may have more of a problem, not less, because of a drug-related side effect."

Dr. Jonathan Shay, an expert on combat stress who has served as a consultant to the military on ethics and personnel issues, said SSRIs generally do not impair a person's ability to think clearly or react to danger. But he said the use of such drugs should be accompanied by counseling, and patients should be monitored closely during the initial "window of danger," when they begin the medications.

Shay said there is no evidence that SSRIs such as Prozac or Paxil help with acute stress or would "protect someone in a traumatic situation" from developing post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression.

"There's nothing to suppose that it helps with an immediate trauma," said Shay, a Boston area psychiatrist who counsels Vietnam veterans. "I would expect to see it used for a previously deployed service member who has been diagnosed with PTSD" or other disorders.

Kruszewski agreed.

"It's not even a Band-Aid," he said. "It might make the doctor feel better, but the patient's not going to benefit."

Some Iraq war veterans say antidepressants and sleep aids were relatively easy to obtain, with no requirement for regular counseling or follow-up care.

Paul Scaglione, 23, an Army mechanic from the Detroit area, said he was put on Wellbutrin in 2003 after telling a medical worker at Tallil Air Base, "I'm not feeling so hot," and asking for "something to keep my mind off everything."

"It was no big deal," he said. "They just talk to you a little and give it to you. They say you can come back if you want, but they don't follow up or anything."

Kiley insisted that troops receiving medications are afforded a balance of care, including counseling.

He characterized the use of medications in Iraq as limited, saying some troops were allowed to deploy "on a low-dose SSRI," while others who developed problems in the war zone were placed on "a little bit of medication for a relatively short period of time, to get them through something."

He acknowledged that giving mood-altering drugs to troops in combat could be controversial.

"There are those out in the community who would be very concerned about that, as though you've altered the mental capacities of a soldier by putting them on those medications," he said. "My understanding . . . is that, in fact, is not what happens. When properly managed and properly dosed, with evidence that the soldiers are . . . doing well, there's no reason why they can't do their soldierly duties."

Fully Resolved?

Exactly how many troops are taking psychiatric drugs remains unclear. In response to a Freedom of Information Act request by The Courant for data on all prescriptions dispensed in Iraq, Defense Department officials were able to produce only limited records on medications.

Those records, as well as the Army's own reports, indicate that the availability and use of psychiatric drugs in Iraq has increased steadily. A 2004 report by a team of Army mental health professionals cited widespread complaints from combat doctors about a lack of psychotropic drugs, which prompted the military to approve making antidepressants including Prozac, Zoloft and Trazodone, and the sleep aid Ambien, more widely available. A follow-up report 13 months later cited far fewer complaints about access to drugs.

But in a little-noticed change a year ago, the Army revised its deployment guidelines to include a caution about deploying troops who are taking antidepressants for "moderate to severe" depression. The guidelines say such medications "are not usually suitable for extended deployments" and "could likely result in adverse health consequences."

Also, Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, characterized the use of psychotropic drugs as limited when he testified before a congressional committee last summer that service members were being allowed to deploy on "maintenance medication" if their conditions had "fully resolved."

"For example, it is prudent to continue antidepressants six to 18 months after an episode of major depression has fully resolved, in order to prevent relapse," he said.

How the military interprets "fully resolved" is in question.

"We have seen people diagnosed within three to four weeks [before] deployment, put on medications like Paxil, and their deployment schedule rolls along," said Kathleen Gilberd, a San Diego legal counselor for service members who heads the Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers Guild. "People are being deployed when there is no way to tell whether this potentially serious depression will have remitted or whether it will become a problem."

Melissa Hobart, the East Haven native who collapsed and died in June 2004, had enlisted in the Army in early 2003 after attending nursing school, and initially was told she would be stationed in Alaska, her mother, Connie Hobart, said.

When her orders were changed to Iraq, Melissa, the mother of a 3-year-old daughter, fell into a depression and sought help at Fort Hood, Texas, according to her mother.

"Just before she got deployed, she said she was getting really depressed, so I told her to go talk to somebody," Connie Hobart recalled. "She said they put her on an antidepressant."

Melissa, a medic, accepted her obligation to serve, even as her mother urged her to "go AWOL" and come home to Ladson, S.C., where the family had moved. But three months into her tour in Baghdad - and a week before she died - she told Connie she was feeling lost.

"She wanted out of there. She said everybody's morale was low," Connie recalled. "She said the people over there would throw rocks at them, that they didn't want them there. It was making her sad."

Around the same time, Melissa fainted and fell in her room, she told Connie in an e-mail. She said she had been checked out by a military doctor.

The next week, while serving on guard duty in Baghdad, Melissa collapsed and died of what the Army has labeled "natural" causes. The autopsy report lists the cause of death as "undetermined."

The report notes that the only medication found in Melissa's system was the antidepressant citalopram, the generic name for Celexa, at what appears to be a normal dosage level. It also suggests that because all other causes were ruled out, a heartbeat irregularity is a possibility.

But the report does not explore whether the medication might have played a role in her death - something Connie finds troubling.

"Maybe they don't want to know how a healthy young woman died - but I do," Connie said.

Tomas Young, 26, an infantry soldier from Kansas City, Mo., also was sent to Iraq in early 2004, from Fort Hood, with a mental condition that was not "fully resolved." He was diagnosed with depression about three months before he deployed, he said.

Young said a military doctor put him on Prozac and told him to continue the medication while in combat.

"It was, `Here's the Prozac.' I didn't get counseling or anything," said Young.

Young ended up forgoing the pills during his brief deployment. He was shot within a week of arriving in Iraq and was evacuated. He is now paralyzed from the chest down.

Emphasis On Retention

The use of medications is just one aspect of the military's emphasis on treating psychologically wounded troops close to the front and returning them to duty quickly.

Military combat-stress teams pride themselves on high "return to duty" rates, which are also touted in reports by a team of military mental health experts who were sent to Iraq after a spate of suicides in 2003.

But in 2004, top military health officials acknowledged shortcomings with a key principle of modern combat psychiatry, known as "PIES," which emphasizes treating troops who exhibit problems as close to the front lines as possible, with the expectation that they will return to duty.

"Unfortunately, the validity of these concepts has never been demonstrated in clinical trials," the group of officials acknowledged in a written report. They also said proponents of the principle frequently leave out its most important element - "respite." They said relief from stress "is the primary principle of acute combat-related behavioral and mental health [care] in theater."

Still, military leaders maintain faith in their decision to treat psychiatric wounds in the field, arguing that the approach is better for service members than "pathologizing" their stress by evacuating them to a hospital.

Col. Elspeth Ritchie, the psychiatric consultant to the Army surgeon general, acknowledged that the practice also serves the military.

"Historically, we've found patients evacuated out of theater don't return," said Ritchie. "In time of great difficulty - and there's no question the war over there is very difficult - sometimes anxiety and depression may overwhelm a soldier, and they feel like they've just got to get out of this place.

"But if they are evacuated out, they tend to have the stigma of leaving as a psychiatric case - and then it's a loss of manpower for the service."

Throughout the war, the military has evaluated the success of its mental health programs primarily on the basis of how many troops are retained in combat.

While Winkenwerder had assured Congress last summer that troops with severe mental illnesses were being sent out of the war zone, the Army's own reports indicate that the number of soldiers evacuated from Iraq for psychiatric problems has dropped steeply since the first year of the war, as combat-stress teams and medications have become more accessible.

Mental health evacuations have fallen from an average of 75 a month in 2003 to 46 a month in 2005, according to Army statistics. Overall, barely more than one-tenth of 1 percent of the 1.3 million troops who have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been evacuated because of psychiatric problems. Meanwhile, the mental health teams close to the front lines pride themselves on return-to-duty rates that typically exceed 90 percent.

But in some cases, the troubled troops who remain in the war zone never make it home.

Army Spec. Joshua T. Brazee, 25, of Sand Creek, Mich., had been in Iraq for less than three months when the military says he shot himself with his rifle in May 2005. According to his autopsy report, he had "talked with other soldiers about death and killing, and also about the idea of suicide."

His mother, Teresa Brazee, said she still has questions about how he died, and believes there were conflicts within his unit. She said one of Joshua's superiors told her that his death taught him to pay closer attention to his soldiers.

"It's a little too late for that," she said.

In another case, Pfc. David L. Potter was kept in the war zone despite a diagnosis of anxiety and depression, a suicide attempt and a psychiatrist's recommendation that he be separated from the Army.

Potter, 22, told friends that he believed the recommendation had been overruled, leading to a deepening of his depression, a fellow soldier said. On Aug 7, 2004 - 10 days after the psychiatrist recommended he be sent home - Potter took a gun from under another soldier's bed and killed himself.

The fellow soldier, who did not want his name used because he is still in the military, said Potter was clearly having trouble dealing with the stress of deployment, but wasn't getting the help he needed.

"We saw what was going on," he said, "but we couldn't do anything about it."

Ann Scheuerman knew her son Jason was having a rough time in Iraq, but she didn't know the depth of his despair until she awoke to a short e-mail from him last July that left her shaking with fear.

"I'm sorry, mom, but I just can't deal with this anymore," he wrote from his base in Muqdadiyah. "I love you, but goodbye."

After an agonizing morning of frantic phone calls, Scheuerman learned that officers and a chaplain had reached Jason in time, taking away his rifle, posting a guard and ordering a mental evaluation for the 20-year-old private first-class.

For the first time that day, Ann Scheuerman could breathe.

But her son's problems were just beginning.

Jason got a psychological evaluation, but afterward, he sent his mother another disturbing e-mail.

"He was very discouraged," said Scheuerman, of Lynchburg, Va. "He said, `Mom, they think that I'm making this up and that there was nothing wrong with me, that I needed to just be a man, be a soldier and quit wasting the Army's time.' He said they were going to court-martial him for treason, that sergeants said they were tired of people making up excuses to try to get out of combat and it wasn't fair to all the other real soldiers."

Jason was pulled off missions with his fellow soldiers, assigned menial jobs around the barracks and given his gun back.

He used the weapon three weeks later to become the 1,797th U.S. military fatality of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Ann Scheuerman, who, like Jason's father, is an Army veteran, strongly supports the military. But she wants to know how things could have gone so wrong in Jason's case.

"The enemy should not be dressed in a United States Army military uniform. That's not what the enemy looks like, and should never be what our soldiers see as the enemy," she said.

"If someone would have taken two or three days, if he would have just been in the hospital for a few days, where someone could have actually talked to him, I think that's all it would have taken," she said.

Kiley, the Army surgeon general, said he believes that mental-health professionals in Iraq are quick to evacuate troops who are at risk of hurting themselves or others, or who have "risen to the level of being moderately or severely depressed."

Who's Helping The Troops

After the spike in suicides in 2003, military officials said they had faith that teams of mental health specialists deployed to Iraq and Kuwait would be able to provide needed care to troops, and help to break the stigma associated with mental health issues.

But with the 2005 suicide rate in Iraq climbing to the highest level since the war began, some soldiers' advocates are now questioning whether the specialists have become too reliant on short-term treatments and medications, and not enough on one-to-one counseling.

Sandy Moreno, a Sacramento, Calif.-based psychiatric technician in the Army Reserve, was among the first combat-stress team members in Iraq. While her team prided itself on a return-to-duty rate of about 95 percent, she said counseling and respite - not medications - were the focus in the early months of the war.

"You can't start someone on antidepressants and then not see them again because their unit is moving around," Moreno said. "When you put them on those kinds of meds, a lot of times it takes six weeks before they take effect, or they can cause side effects. We could never keep that good track of a soldier."

The military has about 230 counselors dispatched in Iraq and Kuwait for about 100,000 troops, about the same number as in 2004, an Army spokesman said. But there are signs that the providers themselves are burning out.

A team of mental health experts reported in January 2005 that caregivers were experiencing "compassion fatigue," with one-third of behavioral health workers reporting high burnout, and one in six acknowledging that stress was hurting their ability to do their jobs.

"If our providers are impaired," the team wrote, "our ability to intervene early and assist Soldiers with their problems may be degraded."

Beyond burnout, military documents and interviews reveal a culture in which mental health professionals are constantly on the alert for troops faking mental illness to get out of duty.

"Clinicians must always maintain a keen eye for potential malingerers," instructs the Iraq War Clinician Guide, a 200-page bible compiled by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "Suspicions require close consultation with commanders to ensure proper diagnosis and disposition."

Some Iraq veterans say the military is too quick to dismiss mental health complaints, and still has a problem treating injuries to the mind the way it treats injuries to the body.

"If you break your leg over there, you're going to get treatment," said Georg-Andreas Pogany. "When they go for mental health services, they are belittled, they are shoved aside, they are called malingerers. Their experiences are completely invalidated."

In 2003, Pogany, a former Army interrogator, was charged with cowardice - a crime punishable by death - after suffering a panic attack and seeking counseling because he had seen the body of an Iraqi man who had been cut in half by American gunfire. The charge was later dropped.

Bob Johnson, former chief of combat stress control for an Army brigade of about 2,800 soldiers, said he would routinely review soldiers' work and disciplinary histories when they complained of serious mental problems. If a soldier with a history of antisocial behavior came in insisting he was going to shoot himself if he wasn't sent home, "then that's a pretty clear-cut case of malingering," he said.

Johnson said he took a punitive approach to dealing with those soldiers, taking away their guns - which he compared to "losing your manhood" - and forcing them to sleep at the command point, in the line of sight of commanders.

He said he had treated one soldier who threatened to starve himself to death, and later swallowed a handful of pills - both acts that Johnson deemed bogus attempts to get out of serving.

"There's no doubt about it, the guy had mental health issues," Johnson said. "But he wasn't going to get the treatment he wanted, which was to go home."

"The question is, do we want to reward this behavior? Because if we reward this behavior, more soldiers are going to do it."