WikiLeaks cables: Pope wanted Muslim Turkey kept out of EU

Vatican diplomats also lobbied against Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and wanted 'Christian roots' enshrined in EU constitution

Heather Brooke and Andrew Brown
guardian.co.uk
Friday 10 December 2010

The pope is responsible for the Vatican's growing hostility towards Turkey joining the EU, previously secret cables sent from the US embassy to the Holy See in Rome claim.

In 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger, the future pope, spoke out against letting a Muslim state join, although at the time the Vatican was formally neutral on the question.

The Vatican's acting foreign minister, Monsignor Pietro Parolin, responded by telling US diplomats that Ratzinger's comments were his own rather than the official Vatican position.

The cable released by WikiLeaks shows that Ratzinger was the leading voice behind the Holy See's unsuccessful drive to secure a reference to Europe's "Christian roots" in the EU constitution. The US diplomat noted that Ratzinger "clearly understands that allowing a Muslim country into the EU would further weaken his case for Europe's Christian foundations".

But by 2006 Parolin was working for Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and his tone had distinctly chilled. "Neither the pope nor the Vatican have endorsed Turkey's EU membership per se," he told the American charge d'affaires, "rather, the Holy See has been consistently open to accession, emphasising only that Turkey needs to fulfil the EU's Copenhagen criteria to take its place in Europe."

But he did not expect the demands on religious freedom to be fulfilled: "One great fear is that Turkey could enter the EU without having made the necessary advances in religious freedom. [Parolin] insisted that EU members – and the US – continue to press the [Turkish government] on these issues … He said that short of 'open persecution', it couldn't get much worse for the Christian community in Turkey."

The cables reveal the American government lobbying within Rome and Ankara for Turkish EU membership. "We hope a senior department official can visit the Holy See and encourage them to do more to push a positive message on Turkey and integration," concluded the 2006 cable.

But by 2009, the American ambassador was briefing in advance of President Barack Obama's visit, that "the Holy See's position now is that as a non-EU member the Vatican has no role in promoting or vetoing Turkey's membership. The Vatican might prefer to see Turkey develop a special relationship short of membership with the EU."

Roman Catholicism is the only religion in the world with the status of a sovereign state, allowing the pope's most senior clerics to sit at the top table with world leaders. The cables reveal the Vatican routinely wielding influence through diplomatic channels while sometimes denying it is doing so. The Vatican has diplomatic relations with 177 countries and has used its diplomatic status to lobby the US, United Nations and European Union in a concerted bid to impose its moral agenda through national and international parliaments.

The US charge d'affaires D Brent Hardt told Parolin, his diplomatic counterpart in Rome, of "the Holy See's potential to influence Catholic countries to support a ban on human cloning" to which Parolin emphasised his agreement with the US position and promised to support fully UN efforts for such a ban.

On other global issues such as climate change, the Vatican sought to use its moral authority as leverage, while refusing itself to sign formal treaties, such as the Copenhagen accord, that require reporting commitments.

At a meeting in January this year Dr Paolo Conversi, the pope's representative on climate change at the Vatican's secretariat of state, told an American diplomat that the Vatican would "encourage other countries discreetly to associate themselves with the accord as opportunities arise".

The Americans noted that Conversi's offer to support the US, even if discreetly, was significant because the Vatican was often reluctant to appear to compromise its independence and moral authority by associating itself with particular lobbying efforts.

"Even more important than the Vatican's lobbying assistance, however, is the influence the pope's guidance can have on public opinion in countries with large Catholic majorities and beyond."

The cables also reveal that the Vatican planned to use Poland as a trojan horse to spread Catholic family values through the structures of the European Union in Brussels.

The then US ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Rooney, briefed Washington in 2006, shortly after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, that "the Holy See hopes that Poland will hold the line at the EU on 'life and family' issues that arise" and would serve as a counterweight to western European secularism once the country had integrated into the EU.

The cable notes that Pope Benedict is preoccupied with Europe's increasing psychological distance from its Christian roots.

"He has continued to focus on Poland's potential in combating this trend. This was one of the themes of the visit of several groups of Polish bishops to the Vatican at the end of last year [2005]. 'It's a topic that always comes up,' explained Monsignor Michael Banach, the Holy See minister of foreign affairs country director for Poland. He told us that the two sides recognised that the Polish bishops needed to exert leadership in the face of western European secularism."

Across the Atlantic, the Vatican has told the Americans it wants to undermine the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, in Latin America because of worries about the deterioration of Catholic power there. It fears Chávez is seriously damaging relations between the Catholic church and the state by identifying the church hierarchy as part of the privileged class.

Monsignor Angelo Accattino, in charge of Caribbean and Andean matters for the Vatican, said Obama should reach out to Cuba "in order to reduce the influence of Chávez and break up his cabal in Latin America".In December last year, America's adviser for western Europe at the UN, Robert Smolik, said the Vatican observer was "as always active and influential behind the scenes" and "lobbied actively and influentially in the corridors and in informal consultations, particularly on social issues".

In 2001 another American diplomat to the Vatican stated: "The Holy See will continue to seek to play a role in the Middle East peace process while denying this intention." (1792)

New Contender Emerges in Egypt

BY CHARLES LEVINSON
Wall Street Journal
DECEMBER 10, 2010

CAIRO—A new face has emerged as a possible contender to follow Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as leader of the Arab world's most populous country.

Mr. Mubarak, 82 years old and recently recovered from gall-bladder surgery, hasn't named a successor, refusing even to appoint a vice president, ahead of presidential elections slated for next fall. For nearly a decade, there have been two presumed candidates in line to succeed him: Gamal Mubarak, the younger of his two sons, and Omar Suleiman, the country's powerful intelligence chief.

But some Western diplomats, senior members of Egypt's ruling National Democratic Party and political analysts in Cairo say a new contender has emerged: Ahmed Shafiq, the minister of civil aviation and a former commander of Egypt's air force, who spearheaded a turnaround begun in 2002 at the country's flagship carrier, Egypt Air.

"Shafiq has a good reputation. He's tough, honest, and low-key," a senior official in Egypt's ruling party said. "His name is definitely out there."

Diplomats cited a recent column by the editor-in-chief of the progovernment, state-controlled Mussawar magazine touting Mr. Shafiq's merits as a sign of his rise. Mr. Shafiq declined to comment for this article.

Mr. Mubarak, in power nearly three decades, hasn't said whether he will seek another term. If he doesn't, he could pick a successor to run at the top of the NDP ticket, making his choice the favorite to become Egypt's next president.

Rivals from outside the party, such as the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, have generated some enthusiasm, but currently appear to have little hope of posing a meaningful challenge to the political regime.

Mr. ElBaradei has said he views himself as a symbol for change and not a political leader. In a video posted on his Facebook page Wednesday, he called for a boycott of the election and for mass demonstrations.

Amid persistent questions about Mr. Mubarak's health, the lack of a known successor has worried Western diplomats and Egyptian officials.

"Everyone expected to have some clarity by now," said a Western military official in Cairo who works closely with Egypt's military, which has been the key power broker in Egyptian politics. "At any time, we can see a sudden power vacuum."

A vacuum would increase the chance of a protracted power struggle in the ruling party. Rivalries reach up to Mr. Mubarak's inner circle, according to officials in Cairo. That circle of military commanders, security and intelligence officials and party bosses would likely decide Egypt's next ruler if Mr. Mubarak dies or becomes incapacitated without naming a successor.

The succession prospects of Gamal Mubarak, 47-year-old head of the ruling party's policy committee, were once almost unquestionable, but appear to have faded in recent years, as a series of policy initiatives, including economic overhauls, have been stymied. He and his allies have long appeared locked in a power struggle with an old guard that has maintained a tight hold on Egypt military and security apparatus. Mr. Mubarak declined requests to be interviewed.

Many observers say Mr. Suleiman is the most likely successor. He is President Mubarak's closest aide, charged with handling the country's most sensitive issues. He also has close working relations with the U.S. and a lifetime of experience inside Egypt's military and intelligence apparatus.

But in recent months, his public profile has diminished, triggering speculation his star also may have faded. And his age, 74, could be an obstacle.

Mr. Shafiq, meanwhile, appears to be able to navigate between the two power centers inside the NDP. The 69-year-old is a former Air Force commander, as President Mubarak was, and served under Mr. Mubarak's command. He comes from a relatively limited cadre of powerful retired generals serving in influential civilian roles. He is a trusted Mubarak-family confidant, according to Western and Egyptian officials.

He has also proved his managerial skills, dragging Egypt's commercial air sector into the 21st century. He spearheaded massive upgrades to Cairo International Airport and transformed the country's once-rickety national air carrier.

"He's a very stable person, very balanced, and very quiet," says Osama Ghazali Harb, a former NDP official and ally of Gamal Mubarak, who broke with the regime in 2005 and now edits an influential political journal. "But most important, he's very trusted by Mubarak himself."
—Ashraf Khalil contributed to this article.

Write to Charles Levinson at charles.levinson@wsj.com

Jury convicts 3 officers in post-Katrina death

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 9, 2010; 11:32 PM

NEW ORLEANS -- A former New Orleans police officer was convicted Thursday of fatally shooting a man in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath and another officer was convicted of burning the man's body in a case that exposed one of the ugliest chapters in the police department's troubled history.

A federal jury also convicted a third officer of writing a false report on the deadly shooting of 31-year-old Henry Glover, but two others were acquitted of charges stemming from the alleged cover-up.

The jury of five men and seven women convicted former officer David Warren of manslaughter in the shooting death of 31-year-old Henry Glover outside a strip mall on Sept. 2, 2005. Prosecutors said Warren shot an unarmed man in the back.

Officer Gregory McRae was convicted of burning Glover's body in a car. Lt. Dwayne Scheuermann was acquitted of that charge. Both were cleared of charges they beat the men who had brought the dying Glover to a makeshift police compound in search of help.

Lt. Travis McCabe was convicted of writing a false report on the shooting and lying to the FBI and a grand jury. Lt. Robert Italiano was cleared of charges he submitted the false report and lied to the FBI.

"This was a case that needed to be aired," U.S. District Judge Lance Africk said after the verdicts were read aloud.

Some of the officers hugged each other before they left the courtroom, while their relatives tried to console each other. Glover's relatives sobbed as they embraced each other.

Rebecca Glover, Henry's aunt, said the verdict doesn't close the case for her.

"This has been a long, anguishing time," she said. "All of them should have been found guilty. They were all in on it."

Warren, who has been in custody since his indictment earlier this year, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. Prosecutors asked Africk to jail McRae and McCabe while they await sentencing. The judge set a hearing Friday on that request.

Warren's attorney, Julian Murray, said he planned to appeal.

"I don't think people understand the split-second decisions police officers sometime have to make," he said.

A total of 20 current or former New Orleans police officers have been charged this year in a series of Justice Department civil rights investigations. The probe of Glover's death was the first of those cases to be tried.

This isn't the first time federal authorities have tried to clean up the city's police department. The Justice Department launched a broad review of the force in the 1990s, when it was reeling from a string of lurid corruption cases. An officer, Antoinette Frank, was convicted of killing her patrol partner in a 1995 robbery. Another officer, Len Davis, was convicted of arranging the 1994 murder of Kim Groves, a woman who had filed a brutality complaint against him.

All five of the officers charged in the Glover case testified during the trial, describing the grueling, dangerous conditions they endured after the Aug. 29, 2005 storm, when thousands of desperate people were trapped in the flooded city.

Looting was rampant and bodies rotted on the streets for days because there was nowhere to take them, officers recalled. With lives on the line, the officers said they had no time to write reports or investigate anything but the most serious of crimes.

U.S. Attorney Jim Letten said the jury rejected the notion that stress from Katrina was a defense for the officers' actions.

"Tonight's verdict is a critical phase in the recovery and healing of this city, of the people of this region," Letten said.

The jury had to weigh the defendants' testimony against the words of several officers who admitted they initially lied to the FBI or a grand jury - or both - before cooperating with the government.

Warren, 47, said he was guarding a police substation at the mall and armed with his own assault rifle when Glover and a friend, Bernard Calloway, pulled up in what appeared to be a stolen truck. Warren claimed Glover and Calloway ran toward a gate that would have given them access to the building and ignored his commands to stop. He said he thought he saw a gun in Glover's hand before he fired one shot at him from a second-floor balcony.

But Warren's partner that day, Officer Linda Howard, testified Glover and Calloway weren't armed and didn't pose a threat. Calloway said he saw Glover leaning against the truck and lighting a cigarette, with his back facing the strip mall, just before he was shot.

It wasn't the only time Warren discharged his weapon that day. Earlier in the morning, Warren had fired a warning shot at a man on a bicycle. Warren said he felt threatened by the man because he kept circling and looking up at him.

After Warren shot Glover, a passing motorist, William Tanner, stopped and drove the wounded man, Calloway and Glover's brother, Edward King, to a school that members of the police department's SWAT team using in the storm's aftermath.

Tanner and Calloway testified they were ordered out of the car at gunpoint, handcuffed and beaten by officers who ignored their pleas to help Glover.

McRae, 49, admitted he drove Tanner's Chevrolet Malibu from the school to a nearby Mississippi River levee and set it on fire with Glover's body still in the back seat.

McRae said it was his idea to burn the car and did it because he was weary of seeing rotting corpses after the storm. Another officer testified he saw McRae laughing after he set the fire.

"We admitted he burned the car, because that's what he did," his attorney, Frank DeSalvo, said after the verdict. "What he denied was that he intended to violate anybody's civil rights.

Scheuermann, 48, said he was stunned when he saw McRae toss a flare into the front seat of the car and then shoot out the rear window to stoke the fire.

"Thank goodness that we had 12 jurors with the courage to vote their conscience in a climate like this," said Scheuermann's lawyer, Jeffrey Kearney.

Steven Lemoine, Italiano's attorney, said his client was a "terrific" police officer who served the city with distinction for nearly four decades.

"I think the jury saw him for who he is," he said.

McCabe's lawyers declined to comment.

Planet Gulag (#10)

The world has many Liu Xiaobos. Here are 15 who matter.

FOREIGN POLICY

TEXT BY FREEDOM HOUSE | DECEMBER 9, 2010

MIKHAIL KHODORKOVSKY AND PLATON LEBEDEV
Russia

On July 2, 2003, Lebedev, director of Group Menatep, a holdings company that was the majority shareholder of the Yukos oil company, was arrested from his hospital bed on charges of tax evasion, embezzlement, and fraud. This arrest was widely seen as a warning to Khodorkovsky, then president of Yukos. A mere four months later, on Oct. 25, 2003, Khodorkovsky -- who had become an influential advocate for economic and political reform -- was arrested at gunpoint on a private plane, on the same charges.

On May 31, 2005, both men were found guilty and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment, despite a ruling by the Supreme Court stating that Lebedev's arrest was illegal. Both men are subject to inhumane and degrading treatment in prison. Lebedev has repeatedly been refused independent medical attention despite his failing health. Both men are currently on trial together facing new embezzlement charges. If found guilty, both men could receive sentences of an additional 14 years in prison on top of the eight years they have already served. From prison, Khodorkovsky has gained significant attention writing and speaking out against Russia's current authoritarian path and arguing for greater adherence to the rule of law.

US embassy cables: Mubarak: Egypt's president-for-life

guardian.co.uk
Thursday 9 December 2010

Tuesday, 19 May 2009, 12:58
S E C R E T CAIRO 000874
NEA FOR FO; NSC FOR KUMAR AND SHAPIRO
EO 12958 DECL: 05/17/2019
TAGS PREL, PGOV, KDEM, ECON, EG, IS, IR, IZ
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER: PRESIDENT MUBARAK'S VISIT TO
WASHINGTON
Classified By: Ambassador Margaret Scobey for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).

1. (S/NF) Introduction: President Mubarak last visited Washington in April 2004, breaking a twenty year tradition of annual visits to the White House. Egyptians view President Mubarak's upcoming meeting with the President as a new beginning to the U.S.-Egyptian relationship that will restore a sense of mutual respect that they believe diminished in recent years. President Mubarak has been encouraged by his initial interactions with the President, the Secretary, and Special Envoy Mitchell, and understands that the Administration wants to restore the sense of warmth that has traditionally characterized the U.S.-Egyptian partnership. The Egyptians want the visit to demonstrate that Egypt remains America's "indispensible Arab ally," and that bilateral tensions have abated. President Mubarak is the proud leader of a proud nation. He draws heavily from his own long experience in regional politics and governance as he assesses new proposals and recommendations for change.

MUBARAK'S PROFILE

-----------------

2. (S/NF) Mubarak is 81 years old and in reasonably good health; his most notable problem is a hearing deficit in his left ear. He responds well to respect for Egypt and for his position, but is not swayed by personal flattery. Mubarak peppers his observations with anecdotes that demonstrate both his long experience and his sense of humor. The recent death of his grandson Mohammad has affected him deeply and undoubtedly will dampen his spirits for the visit which he very much wants to make. During his 28 year tenure, he survived at least three assassination attempts, maintained peace with Israel, weathered two wars in Iraq and post-2003 regional instability, intermittent economic downturns, and a manageable but chronic internal terrorist threat. He is a tried and true realist, innately cautious and conservative, and has little time for idealistic goals. Mubarak viewed President Bush (43) as naive, controlled by subordinates, and totally unprepared for dealing with post-Saddam Iraq, especially the rise of Iran,s regional influence.

3. (S/NF) On several occasions Mubarak has lamented the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the downfall of Saddam. He routinely notes that Egypt did not like Saddam and does not mourn him, but at least he held the country together and countered Iran. Mubarak continues to state that in his view Iraq needs a "tough, strong military officer who is fair" as leader. This telling observation, we believe, describes Mubarak's own view of himself as someone who is tough but fair, who ensures the basic needs of his people.

4. (S/NF) No issue demonstrates Mubarak,s worldview more than his reaction to demands that he open Egypt to genuine political competition and loosen the pervasive control of the security services. Certainly the public "name and shame" approach in recent years strengthened his determination not to accommodate our views. However, even though he will be more willing to consider ideas and steps he might take pursuant to a less public dialogue, his basic understanding of his country and the region predisposes him toward extreme caution. We have heard him lament the results of earlier U.S. efforts to encourage reform in the Islamic world. He can harken back to the Shah of Iran: the U.S. encouraged him to accept reforms, only to watch the country fall into the hands of revolutionary religious extremists. Wherever he has seen these U.S. efforts, he can point to the chaos and loss of stability that ensued. In addition to Iraq, he also reminds us that he warned against Palestinian elections in 2006 that brought Hamas (Iran) to his doorstep. Now, we understand he fears that Pakistan is on the brink of falling into the hands of the Taliban, and he puts some of the blame on U.S. insistence on steps that ultimately weakened Musharraf. While he knows that Bashir in Sudan has made multiple major mistakes, he cannot work to support his removal from power.

5. (S/NF) Mubarak has no single confidante or advisor who can truly speak for him, and he has prevented any of his main advisors from operating outside their strictly circumscribed spheres of power. Defense Minister Tantawi keeps the Armed Forces appearing reasonably sharp and the officers satisfied with their perks and privileges, and Mubarak does not appear concerned that these forces are not well prepared to face 21st century external threats. EGIS Chief Omar Soliman and Interior Minister al-Adly keep the domestic beasts at bay, and Mubarak is not one to lose sleep over their tactics. Gamal Mubarak and a handful of economic ministers have input on economic and trade matters, but Mubarak will likely resist further economic reform if he views it as potentially harmful to public order and stability. Dr. Zakaria Azmi and a few other senior NDP leaders manage the parliament and public politics.

6. (S/NF) Mubarak is a classic Egyptian secularist who hates religious extremism and interference in politics. The Muslim Brothers represent the worst, as they challenge not only Mubarak,s power, but his view of Egyptian interests. As with regional issues, Mubarak, seeks to avoid conflict and spare his people from the violence he predicts would emerge from unleashed personal and civil liberties. In Mubarak,s mind, it is far better to let a few individuals suffer than risk chaos for society as a whole. He has been supportive of improvements in human rights in areas that do not affect public security or stability. Mrs. Mubarak has been given a great deal of room to maneuver to advance women's and children's rights and to confront some traditional practices that have been championed by the Islamists, such as FGM, child labor, and restrictive personal status laws.

SUCCESSION

----------

7. (S/NF) The next presidential elections are scheduled for 2011, and if Mubarak is still alive it is likely he will run again, and, inevitably, win. When asked about succession, he states that the process will follow the Egyptian constitution. Despite incessant whispered discussions, no one in Egypt has any certainty about who will eventually succeed Mubarak nor under what circumstances. The most likely contender is presidential son Gamal Mubarak (whose profile is ever-increasing at the ruling party); some suggest that intelligence chief Omar Soliman might seek the office, or dark horse Arab League Secretary-General Amre Moussa might run. Mubarak's ideal of a strong but fair leader would seem to discount Gamal Mubarak to some degree, given Gamal's lack of military experience, and may explain Mubarak's hands off approach to the succession question. Indeed, he seems to be trusting to God and the ubiquitous military and civilian security services to ensure an orderly transition.

MUBARAK'S EGYPT: 1982 -- 2009

-----------------------------

8. (C) Egypt continues to be a major regional economic, political, and cultural power. However, economic problems have frustrated many Egyptians. Egypt's per capita GDP was on par with South Korea's 30 years ago; today it is comparable to Indonesia's. There were bread riots in 2008 for the first time since 1977. Political reforms have stalled and the GOE has resorted to heavy-handed tactics against individuals and groups, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, whose influence continues to grow.

9. (SBU) Economic reform momentum has slowed and high GDP growth rates of recent years have failed to lift Egypt's lower classes out of poverty. High inflation, coupled with the impact of the global recession, has resulted in an increase in extreme poverty, job losses, a growing budget deficit and projected 2009 GDP growth of 3.5% - half last year's rate.

10. (S/NF) Mubarak himself refuses to discuss economic assistance to Egypt, but other interlocutors may raise it. On May 7, Egypt formally and publicly accepted FY 2009 and FY 2010 assistance levels, ending a stalemate over the FY 2009 program, linked to levels, a perceived lack of consultation, and political conditionality. Based on our assessment of Egypt's most pressing assistance needs, and broad public consensus in Egypt that the educational system is seriously deficient, we would like to focus on education. We believe the Egyptians would welcome a new presidential level initiative in this area, which would also be in U.S. national interests given the critical role education will play in Egypt's political and economic development.

MUBARAK'S REGIONAL OUTLOOK

--------------------------

11. (S/NF) Israeli-Arab conflict: Mubarak has successfully shepherded Sadat,s peace with Israel into the 21st century, and benefitted greatly from the stability Camp David has given the Levant: there has not been a major land war in more than 35 years. Peace with Israel has cemented Egypt,s moderate role in Middle East peace efforts and provided a political basis for continued U.S. military and economic assistance ($1.3 billion and $250 million, respectively). However, broader elements of peace with Israel, e.g. economic and cultural exchange, remain essentially undeveloped.

12. (S/NF) Camp David also presented Mubarak with the perpetual challenge of balancing Egypt,s international image as a moderate with its domestic image as pan-Arab leader. Mubarak has managed this strategic dichotomy most effectively in times of regional stability. However, the Gulf wars, and especially post-Saddam regional crises, have taxed this equation. For example, during the 2006 Lebanon war, the Bush Administration asked Egypt to side against Hizballah; at the same time Egyptian protestors demanded the peace treaty with Israel be vacated. The Egyptians were frozen, and relegated to waiting for the situation to stabilize. More recently, with Iran bringing the battlefield closer with Hamas' actions in Gaza and discovery of the Hizballah cell in Egypt, the Egyptians appear more willing to confront the Iranian surrogates and to work closely with Israel.

13. (S/NF) Mubarak has been effective as an intermediary during various phases of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In the Arafat era, Egypt worked between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. At the outset of the Abbas era, Egypt,s role was unclear as the Israelis and Palestinians communicated directly, and Mubarak for a time was left with no deliverable either to the West or his public. He firmly believes, incorrectly, that the Bush Administration "forced" the Palestinian legislative elections of 2006 (which Hamas won). Hamas' June 2007 takeover of Gaza allowed the Egyptians back into the game as a go-between, and Mubarak,s team has made clear they will not cede the "Palestinian file" to another Arab state. In general, the Egyptian-Israeli strategic relationship is on solid ground, as they face a shared threat from Hamas.

14. (S/NF) The ongoing intra-Arab dispute, which pits Egypt and Saudi Arabia against Syria and Qatar and is primarily driven by Iran's regional influence, is the current test for Mubarak. For the moment the Egyptian-Saudi moderate camp is holding. Mubarak has maneuvered with reasonable effectiveness, brandishing Egyptian clout through a hastily prepared but effective summit in Sharm el Sheikh in February, but Iran,s Arab surrogates (especially Qatar) continue to unsettle the Egyptians. Mubarak will rail against President Bush,s decision to invade Iraq, contending that it opened the door to Iranian influence in the region. That said, the Egyptians recently told Special Envoy Ross they expect our outreach to Iran to fail, and that "we should prepare for confrontation through isolation." Mubarak and his advisors are now convinced that Tehran is working to weaken Egypt through creation of Hizballah cells, support of the Muslim Brotherhood, and destabilization of Gaza. Egypt has warned that it will retaliate if these actions continue.

15. (S/NF) Egypt views the stability and unity of Sudan as essential to its national security because of concern over its access to Nile waters and the potential for increased Sudanese refugee flows. The GOE is using development assistance in South Sudan to encourage unity. Here too, the Egyptians are jealous and sensitive to the Qatari foray into resolving Darfur, a crisis squarely in Egypt's backyard. Mubarak may ask about the potential for cooperation with the U.S. on Sudan and will probably want to hear how the Administration will approach the issue. If he agrees, Mubarak can use his stature and credibility with Bashir to make progress on Darfur and human rights issues.

16. (S/NF) MUBARAK REGIONAL TALKING POINTS

-----------------------------------------

Israeli-Arab peace: He will ask for continued U.S. leadership and highlight Egypt's role as moderate interlocutor. He will stress the primacy of the Palestinian track over efforts with Syria. He will press for concrete action on settlements and resist Arab gestures to Israel until the Arabs can see whether or not Netanyahu is credible.

Iran: He will rail against Iranian regional influence and express pessimism about U.S. outreach to Tehran. He will make clear that there should be no linkage between Israeli-Arab peace and Iran but will agree with the President's assessment that such linkage as does exist argues for progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track to undermine Hamas and Hizballah.

Sudan: He will highlight Egypt's role as provider of humanitarian and military assistance, and stress the need to maintain stability.

Intra-Arab strife: He may criticize Qatar, and perhaps Syria, as Iranian surrogates. He may ask about our plan to engage Damascus and suggest we coordinate our efforts.

Iraq: He may be circumspect, but harbors continuing doubts about Maliki and his Iranian ties. He will say Egypt is open to bilateral improvement but is awaiting Iraqi actions.

SCOBEY

WikiLeaks cables: Saudis proposed Arab force to invade Lebanon

Foreign minister wanted US, Nato and UN backing for offensive to end Iranian-backed Hezbollah's siege of government

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk
Tuesday 7 December 2010

Saudi Arabia proposed creating an Arab force backed by US and Nato air and sea power to intervene in Lebanon two years ago and destroy Iranian-backed Hezbollah, according to a US diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks.

The plan would have sparked a proxy battle between the US and its allies against Iran, fought in one of the most volatile regions of the world.

The Saudi plan was never enacted but reflects the anxiety of Saudi Arabia – as well as the US – about growing Iranian influence in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East.

The proposal was made by the veteran Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, to the US special adviser to Iraq, David Satterfield. The US responded by expressing scepticism about the military feasibility of the plan.

It would have marked a return of US forces to Lebanon almost three decades after they fled in the wake of the 1983 suicide attack on US marine barracks in Beirut that killed 299 American and French military personnel.

Faisal, in a US cable marked secret, emphasised the need for what he referred to as a "security response" to the military challenge to the Lebanon government from Hezbollah, the Shia militia backed by Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria.

The cable says: "Specifically, Saud argued for an 'Arab force' to create and maintain order in and around Beirut.

"The US and Nato would need to provide transport and logistical support, as well as 'naval and air cover'. Saud said that a Hezbollah victory in Beirut would mean the end of the Siniora government and the 'Iranian takeover' of Lebanon."

The discussion came just days after Hezbollah and other pro-Iranian and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon laid siege to Beirut, threatening the pro-western government of Fouad Siniora, after 17 months of street demonstrations.

Siniora survived, though only after making enormous concessions to Hezbollah. He was replaced by another pro-western leader, Saad Hariri, but Hezbollah remains a force in Lebanon, lionised by many Arabs after defeating Israel in the 2006 war along the Lebanese border.

According to the cable Saud argued that a Hezbollah victory against the Siniora government "combined with Iranian actions in Iraq and on the Palestinian front would be a disaster for the US and the entire region". Saud argued that the present situation in Beirut was "entirely military" and the solution must be military as well. The situation called for an "Arab force drawn from Arab 'periphery' states to deploy to Beirut under the 'cover of the UN'."

Saud said Siniora strongly backed the idea but the only Arab countries aware of it were Egypt and Jordan, along with the secretary general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa.

No contacts had been made with Syria on any Beirut developments, Saud said, adding: "What would be the use?"

Saud said that of all the regional fronts on which Iran was advancing, Lebanon would be an "easier battle to win" for the anti-Iranian allies.

Satterfield responded that the "political and military" feasibility of the undertaking Saud had outlined would appear very much open to question, particularly securing UN agreement, but the US would study any Arab decision.

Saud concluded by underscoring that a UN-Arab peacekeeping force coupled with US air and naval support would "keep out Hezbollah forever" in Lebanon.

Middle East peace talks stall as US fails to sway Israel over settlements

Process 'in crisis', says Mahmoud Abbas, as Binyamin Netanyahu refuses to back down on settlement freeze

Ian Black and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 8 December 2010

Palestinians and Israelis were tonight blaming each other for sabotaging peace talks after the US admitted it had failed to persuade Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze West Bank settlements to allow stalled negotiations to resume.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, who had insisted on a new moratorium on settlements before returning to direct negotiations, agreed the peace process was now "in crisis".

Abbas is due in Cairo on Thursday to consult the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Arab League. Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said discussions should now shift to an "endgame" for resolving the issue.

Palestinian spokesmen expressed dismay at the news that the Obama administration had formally decided to abandon its efforts to persuade Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, to ignore rightwing critics and back down over settlements.

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, is expected to insist in a speech in Washington on Friday that the US will not walk away from attempts to secure peace and the Obama administration remains committed to seeking a solution.

In the Middle East, Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestinian parliament, told al-Jazeera TV: "If the US fails to pressure Israel to abide by what … the international community demands – a complete freeze to settlement activities – then there is no peace process and the reason for this is Israel."

Yasser Abed Rabbo, of the PLO executive committee, said: "The policy and efforts of the US administration failed because of the blow it received from the Israeli government."

But Israel's cabinet secretary, Tzvi Hauser, warned: "The Palestinians need to understand, as the Americans do, that it is unacceptable for either side to set pre-conditions."

Tony Blair, representing the Quartet of United Nations, United States, European Union and Russia, called the US decision "sensible … in the light of the impasse that we reached."

Abbas had insisted there should be a halt to building outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – with Israel seeking to exclude the latter from any freeze – before agreeing to resume direct talks.

But there was no immediate sign that the PLO was preparing to pull out of talks, as its Islamist rival Hamas insisted it should. The US Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, is reportedly planning to meet separately with PLO and Israeli negotiators in the coming days. "We have been pursuing a moratorium as a means to create conditions for a return to meaningful and sustained negotiations," Philip Crowley, the state department spokesman, told reporters in a televised press briefing in New York City. "After a considerable effort, we have concluded that this does not create a firm basis to work towards our shared goal of a framework agreement."

Crowley denied that the US had been distracted by the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables.

Aaron David Miller, a Washington-based Middle East analyst who advised six secretaries of state, said he expected Clinton to concentrate in her speech mainly on the background to the US peace efforts rather than a new blueprint.

Miller, author of The Much Too Promised Land: America's Elusive Search for Arab-Israeli Peace, said: "The administration now has some pretty bad options. One is walking away and the other is laying out your own policy. Neither is possible. The middle way is to talk quietly to both sides on borders and security, and you might get traction and then conceivably work on Jerusalem and refugees."

He said domestic problems for the Israeli government, the Palestinians and the Obama administration do not bode well for a deal. "The Obama administration has so many headaches: jobs, the Republican party will have more senators, bogged down in two wars. The question for the administration is how important is this and are they ready to risk a high-profile failure," Miller said.

David Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, said it would be a mistake either to think the US is going to let the effort drop or to see it as a sign of failure on the part of the Obama administration. He expected the focus to shift away from settlements and the future of Jerusalem to issues on which agreement might be easier, namely security and borders.

"I see it as a refocusing and not a retreat," Makovsky said.

Palestinian officials have suggested that if there is no progress with Israel, they would take unilateral action, such as seeking to win international recognition for an independent state. That could involve lobbying for a UN security council resolution, or issuing their own unilateral declaration – though that would not be supported by Hamas or affect Gaza.

The dangers are that the first would be vetoed by the US or that Israel might retaliate by annexing parts of the West Bank and blaming the Palestinians for torpedoing negotiations.

Brazil and Argentina announced this week that they would recognise a Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders, and Uruguay pledged to do the same next year. The US quickly condemned these moves as "counterproductive".

Palestinians and other Arabs were furious when, in a last-ditch attempt to revive direct talks, Obama offered Israel a package of incentives including 20 F-35 fighter planes worth $3bn in exchange for a new three-month settlement ban. Washington also promised not to seek an additional freeze and pledged to provide Israel with diplomatic support, including vetoing anti-Israel resolutions at the UN.

WikiLeaks cables: Shell's grip on Nigerian state revealed

US embassy cables reveal top executive's claims that company 'knows everything' about key decisions in government ministries

David Smith in Lagos
guardian.co.uk
Wednesday 8 December 2010

The oil giant Shell claimed it had inserted staff into all the main ministries of the Nigerian government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.

The company's top executive in Nigeria told US diplomats that Shell had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew "everything that was being done in those ministries". She boasted that the Nigerian government had "forgotten" about the extent of Shell's infiltration and was unaware of how much the company knew about its deliberations.

The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity, and requesting information from the US on whether the militants had acquired anti-aircraft missiles.

Other cables released tonight reveal:

• US diplomats' fear that Kenya could erupt in violence worse than that experienced after the 2008 election unless rampant government corruption is tackled.

• America asked Uganda to let it know if its army intended to commit war crimes based on US intelligence – but did not try to prevent war crimes taking place.

• Washington's ambassador to the troubled African state of Eritrea described its president, Isaias Afwerki, as a cruel "unhinged dictator" whose regime was "one bullet away from implosion".

The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to WikiLeaks target MasterCard and Visa over their decision to block payments to the whistleblowers' website.

The website's founder, Julian Assange, spent a second night in jail after a judge refused him bail prior to an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges in Sweden.

Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria demonstrated the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of people live below the poverty line.

Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard, then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business competition in the contested Niger Delta – and how, with some prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the US government was "leaky".

But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into the Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders, as recorded in a confidential memo from the US embassy in Abuja on 20 October 2009.

At the meeting, Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil concessions from China. She said the minister of state for petroleum resources, Odein Ajumogobia, had denied the letter had been sent but Shell knew similar correspondence had taken place with China and Russia.

The ambassador reported: "She said the GON [government of Nigeria] had forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done in those ministries."

Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread pollution and environmental damage in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage have proliferated.

The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. "Shell and the government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin," said Celestine AkpoBari, of Social Action Nigeria. "Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the Nigerian government."

The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog Platform. "Shell claims to have nothing to do with Nigerian politics," he said. "In reality, Shell works deep inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria to its own advantage."

Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman for the state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation, said: "Shell does not control the government of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think anybody will lose sleep over it."

Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.

"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta," the cable said.

Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian market. In June last year, Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries, pipelines and gas power stations.

Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive intelligence about Gazprom, a possible rival, which she said had secured a promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17trn cubic feet of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves. "Pickard said that amount of gas was only available if the GON were to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target." Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting "from Russia", according to the memo.

The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. "Pickard has repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government] officials because the USG is 'leaky'." She may be concerned that ... bad news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out."

Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: "You are seeking our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any statements you say it contains."

WikiLeaks cables: Saudi princes throw parties boasting drink, drugs and sex

Royals flout puritanical laws to throw parties for young elite while religious police are forced to turn a blind eye

Heather Brooke
guardian.co.uk
Tuesday 7 December 2010

In what may prove a particularly incendiary cable, US diplomats describe a world of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll behind the official pieties of Saudi Arabian royalty.

Jeddah consulate officials described an underground Halloween party, thrown last year by a member of the royal family, which broke all the country's Islamic taboos. Liquor and prostitutes were present in abundance, according to leaked dispatches, behind the heavily-guarded villa gates.

The party was thrown by a wealthy prince from the large Al-Thunayan family. The diplomats said his identity should be kept secret. A US energy drinks company also put up some of the finance.

"Alcohol, though strictly prohibited by Saudi law and custom, was plentiful at the party's well-stocked bar. The hired Filipino bartenders served a cocktail punch using sadiqi, a locally-made moonshine," the cable said. "It was also learned through word-of-mouth that a number of the guests were in fact 'working girls', not uncommon for such parties."

The dispatch from the US partygoers, signed off by the consul in Jeddah, Martin Quinn, added: "Though not witnessed directly at this event, cocaine and hashish use is common in these social circles."

The underground party scene is "thriving and throbbing" in Saudi Arabia thanks to the protection of Saudi royalty, the dispatch said. But it is only available behind closed doors and for the very rich.

More than 150 Saudi men and women, most in their 20s and 30s, were at the party. The patronage of royalty meant the feared religious police kept a distance. Admission was controlled through a strict guest list. "The scene resembled a nightclub anywhere outside the kingdom: plentiful alcohol, young couples dancing, a DJ at the turntables and everyone in costume."

The dispatch said the bar featured a top shelf of well-known brands of liquor, the original contents reportedly replaced with sadiqi. On the black market, they reported, a bottle of Smirnoff vodka can cost 1,500 riyals (£250) compared with 100 riyals (£16) for the locally-made vodka.

In a venture into Saudi sociology, the diplomats explained why they thought their host was so attached to Nigerian bodyguards, some of whom were working on the door. "Most of the prince's security forces were young Nigerian men. It is common practice for Saudi princes to grow up with hired bodyguards from Nigeria or other African nations who are of similar age and who remain with the prince well into adulthood. The lifetime spent together creates an intense bond of loyalty"

The cable claimed it was easy for would-be partygoers to find a patron out of more than 10,000 princes in the kingdom. Some are "royal highnesses" with direct descent from King Abdul Aziz, while others are "highnesses" from less direct branches.

One young Saudi told the diplomat that big parties were a recent trend. Even a few years ago, he said, the only weekend activity was "dating" among small groups who met inside the homes of the rich. Some of the more opulent houses in Jeddah feature basement bars, discos and clubs. One high-society Saudi said: "The increased conservatism of our society over these past years has only moved social interaction to the inside of people's homes."

Ex-intelligence official blasts Pollard lobbying

By Jeff Stein
The Washington Post
Posted at 3:45 PM ET, 12/ 8/2010

Jonathan Pollard’s ex-wife Anne and her father were settled in Israel by the government there this week, the latest chapter in a renewed campaign to free the confessed spy.

Israel has angled periodically for Pollard’s release since 1998, when it admitted, after 13 years of denials, that the former naval intelligence analyst was not a rogue agent but an officially sanctioned spy.

Last September Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu relit the fires under the case when, according to Israeli Army Radio, he asked the Obama administration to release Pollard in exchange for a temporary halt in Israel's construction of Jewish settlements.

A month later Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense at the time of Pollard’s arrest in 1985, asked President Obama in a public letter to commute Pollard’s sentence to time served -- 25 years. A handful of members of Congress seconded the call, which has been bitterly resisted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

Now another key official at the time of Pollard’s arrest, former FBI and Navy lawyer M.E. “Spike” Bowman, is weighing in -- against his release -- in a forthcoming article.

“Since I was the only person who actually touched all aspects of the case I thought it was incumbent on me to lay out the facts,” Bowman, the top legal adviser to Navy intelligence at the time, and who later worked as senior counsel at the FBI and as deputy director of the National Counterintelligence Executive, told SpyTalk.

In a piece written for a forthcoming journal of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, founded years ago to support the CIA, Bowman notes that there have been “few rebuttals of this escalation of calls for Pollard’s release…mainly because so few were cognizant of the scope of Pollard’s disclosures, or the misuses of those disclosures, and the damage they did to our own operations and sources."

The true extent of the spy’s damage remains locked in government vaults, Bowman writes, “because when a plea agreement was reached, it was no longer necessary to litigate issues that could have exposed the scope of Pollard’s treachery -- and the exposure of classified systems.”

But the retired Navy captain singles out three of Pollard’s leaks, the first being “the daily report from the Navy’s Sixth Fleet Ocean Surveillance Information Facility (FOSIF) in Rota, Spain, a top-secret document filed every morning reporting all that had occurred in the Middle East during the previous twenty-four hours, as recorded by the NSA’s most sophisticated monitoring devices.”

“Probably the most serious disclosure (of those of which we are aware) was the TOP SECRET NSA RAISIN manual, which lists the physical parameters of every known signal [or electronic communication], notes how we collect signals around the world, and lists all the known communications links then used by the Soviet Union,” Bowman writes.

“It is certainly the thing that stood out in the mind of the sentencing judge; particularly when Pollard alleged at sentencing that there really was no harm done. The judge interrupted and brought him up short, pointing specifically to disclosure of the RAISIN manual.”

Bowman also writes that “Pollard disclosed information to the Israelis that could prevent the U.S. from monitoring Israeli activities in the Middle East -- clearly a foreign policy nightmare.”

Pollard admitted to prosecutors that his handlers at the Israeli Embassy often goaded him for better-quality information, Bowman says.

“[H]is initial handler told him that they already receive 'SECRET' level material from the United States. What they needed was the TOP SECRET data they were not yet receiving.”

Hard copies of the documents Pollard stole in 18 months could “fill a room that is six feet by six feet by ten,” Ronald Olive, the top Navy investigator in the Pollard case, told SpyTalk.

"No other spy in the history of the United States stole so many secrets, so highly classified, in such a short period of time," he maintains.

Bowman also takes aim at Korb’s contention that Pollard has been unduly punished, arguing in his open letter to Obama that "the average sentence for Pollard's offence” -- stealing secrets for “friendly” countries -- “is two to four years, and under current guidelines the maximum sentence is 10 years.”

But Bowman, as well as a counterintelligence officer involved in Pollard’s case who insisted on anonymity, says Korb’s math is skewed.

“The supporters who claim that the sentence of Pollard was disproportionate to the crime cite three to four cases where Americans sold or gave documents to non-adversary countries like Saudi Arabia, Ecuador and El Salvador,” the CIA officer said. “These were a handful of secrets, and those who committed the crime were sentenced proportionately. What Pollard's crew has done is to take these handfuls of cases and then extrapolated the sentences saying that Pollard has served far longer than the ‘average’ spy who spied for 'friendly services.' "

In fact, the average sentence for those caught spying for the Russians, not counting the 365-year term given to Jerry A. Whitworth, part of the infamous John Walker family spy ring, was over 36 years. Three spies other than Pollard, including Russian mole Aldrich Ames, were given life sentences.

Of course, Pollard didn’t just spy for Israel, although that was far and away his main benefactor.

“Intelligence officials have unofficially detailed instances of additional disclosures to other nations,” Bowman writes. “These officials said that Pollard had given classified documents to Pakistan, South Africa and two other countries they declined to identify.”

Some the documents Pollard gave Israel ended up in Moscow, according to various reports, but as one investigator in the case told SpyTalk, “there are only two countries that know the facts …Russia and Israel. Which leads me to believe we will never know the truth.”

Pollard’s current wife, Esther, wrote in the Jerusalem Post Monday that the statement of support by Korb, and another from his former Israeli handler Rafi Eitan claiming that Washington had reneged on a verbal pledge to release Pollard after 10 years, “provide Israel with the golden key to open Jonathan's jail cell."

It's long past time, she said, for Netanyahu to go public with a demand to Washington that Pollard be released.

So far, however, the prime minister has refused to pick up the megaphone. And judging by Bowman’s forthcoming piece, his private pleas will, likewise, fall short.

WikiLeaks avoids shutdown as supporters worldwide go on the offensive

By Joby Warrick and Rob Pegoraro
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 2:09 PM

Over the past several days, the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks has been hit with a series of blows that have seemed to threaten its survival. Its primary Web address was deactivated, its PayPal account was frozen and its Internet server gave it the boot.

The result: WikiLeaks is now stronger than ever, at least as measured by its ability to publish online.

Blocked from using one Internet host, WikiLeaks simply jumped to another. Meanwhile, the number of "mirror" Web sites - effectively clones of WikiLeaks' main contents pages - grew from a few dozen last week to 200 by Sunday. By early Wednesday, the number of such sites surpassed 1,000.

At the same time, WikiLeaks' supporters have apparently gone on the offensive, staging retaliatory attacks against Internet companies that have cut ties to the group, as well as other perceived enemies. On Wednesday, hackers briefly shut down access to the Web site for MasterCard, which announced it had stopped processing donations to the group.

WikiLeaks' long-term survival depends on a number of unknowns, including the fate of its principal founder, Julian Assange, who is being held in Britain while awaiting possible extradition to Sweden related to sexual assault allegations. But the Web site's resilience in the face of repeated attacks has underscored a lesson already absorbed by more repressive governments that have tried to control the Internet: It is nearly impossible to do.

Experts, including some of the modern online world's chief architects, say the very design of the Web makes it difficult for WikiLeaks' opponents to shut it down for more than a few hours.

"The Internet is an extremely open system with very low barriers to access and use," said Vint Cerf, Google's vice president and the co-author of the TCP/IP system, the basic language of computer-to-computer communication over the Internet. "The ease of moving digital information around makes it very difficult to suppress, once it is accessible."

Thus, despite the global uproar over the release of sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables, Assange's Web site remained defiantly intact Wednesday. Over the past week it has continued to publish a steady stream of leaked State Department documents with little visible evidence of injury from repeated, anonymous cyber-attacks, or the multiple attempts to cut off its access to funding and Web resources.

By contrast, companies that have pulled the plug on WikiLeaks have suffered publicly from cyber-attacks.

While a group of "hacktivists" targeted MasterCard - part of "Operation Payback" they called it - anonymous assailants have also staged attacks in recent days against PayPal and Visa, both of which also severed relations with WikiLeaks, citing violations of their terms of service.

Web sites for the Swedish prosecutor and a Swedish lawyer have also been hit, as has the banking arm of the Swiss postal service, which said it had frozen Assange's account.

WikiLeaks' seeming invulnerability to attacks is seen by experts as a demonstration of the power of new Web-based media to take on not only governments but also the traditional news media.

The group prides itself as an organization without a country - it has supporters worldwide, but no central headquarters that would be make vulnerable to legal and political pressure. The organization's Internet infrastructure is spread over several continents, making it harder for outsiders to knock the Web site offline.

For those reasons, experts say, WikiLeaks remained relatively unscathed last week when its main domain name - www.wikileaks.org - was deactivated by its New Hampshire-based domain-name manager. Within days, WikiLeaks had signed up with more than a dozen other firms scattered across Europe, Canada and Asia.

WikiLeaks also simultaneously posted an appeal to its supporters asking them to voluntarily host "mirror" sites. Hundreds of individual Web servers signed up, from countries around the world.

Similarly, WikiLeaks found new avenues for processing donations after PayPal and MasterCard announced they would no longer service payments for the group. The effect on the organization's financial health is not yet clear.

Inevitably, efforts to restrict sites such as WikiLeaks through financial and regulatory pressures will fall short, for the same reasons that government regulators have been unable to shut down purveyors of Internet spam, or various Web-based criminal enterprises, said Paul Vixie, president of Internet Systems Consortium, a nonprofit Internet infrastructure company in Redwood City, Calif.

"Something that's illegal in some countries but not others is very hard to keep off the Net, even though there's been some success in keeping it out of the countries where it's illegal," Vixie said. "If WikiLeaks is willing to spend as much money as e-criminals . . . they could probably remain online indefinitely."

The pressure on WikiLeaks is not insignificant. Amazon, the online retailer, canceled its Web hosting services with WikiLeaks after receiving a call of concern from the staff of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.). At a technical conference Wednesday in Paris, a PayPal executive said the company's decision to freeze WikiLeaks' account was based in part on the State Department's declaration that the group had acted illegally in publishing classified documents.

The isolation of WikiLeaks has prompted complaints of censorship and government interference.

"I can use my credit card to send money to the Ku Klux Klan, to antiabortion fanatics, or to anti-homosexual bigots, but I can't use it to send money to WikiLeaks," said Jeff Jarvis, a new-media critic and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism. "The New York Times published the same documents. Should we tell Visa and MasterCard to stop payments to the Times?"

It is ironic, Jarvis said, that the U.S. protests against Assange's campaign of leaks comes weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Chinese efforts to restrict freedom of the Internet. While Western governments are used to seeing secrets leaked through traditional media, they are struggling to adjust to a new era in which raw data can be easily and rapidly disseminated around the world.

"There is an information war, and it's about control," he said. "The choice is to either live in a transparent world, or shut down the Internet."

Hackers strike at MasterCard to support WikiLeaks

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER and JILL LAWLESS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 9:30 PM

LONDON -- Hackers rushed to the defense of WikiLeaks on Wednesday, launching attacks on MasterCard, Visa, Swedish prosecutors, a Swiss bank, Sarah Palin and others who have acted against the site and its jailed founder Julian Assange.

Internet "hacktivists" operating under the label "Operation Payback" claimed responsibility in a Twitter message for causing severe technological problems at the website for MasterCard, which pulled the plug on its relationship with WikiLeaks a day ago.

MasterCard acknowledged "a service disruption" involving its Secure Code system for verifying online payments, but spokesman James Issokson said consumers could still use their credit cards for secure transactions. Later Wednesday, Visa's website was inaccessible.

The online attacks are part of a wave of support for WikiLeaks that is sweeping the Internet. Twitter was choked with messages of solidarity for the group, while the site's Facebook page hit 1 million fans.

Late Wednesday, Operation Payback itself appeared to run into problems, as many of its sites went down. It was unclear who was behind the counterattack.

MasterCard is the latest in a string of U.S.-based Internet companies - including Visa, Amazon.com, PayPal Inc. and EveryDNS - to cut ties to WikiLeaks in recent days amid intense U.S. government pressure. PayPal was not having problems Wednesday but the company said it faced "a dedicated denial-of-service attack" on Monday.

Meanwhile, a website tied to former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin came under cyberattack, she said. In a posting on the social networking site Facebook last week, Palin called Assange "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands." An aide said staff moved quickly to secure the website and no data was compromised.

WikiLeaks' extensive releases of secret U.S. diplomatic cables have embarrassed U.S. allies, angered rivals, and reopened old wounds across the world. U.S. officials in Washington say other countries have curtailed their dealings with the U.S. government because of WikiLeaks' actions.

PayPal Vice President Osama Bedier said the company froze WikiLeaks' account after seeing a letter from the U.S. State Department to WikiLeaks saying that the group's activities "were deemed illegal in the United States."

Offline, WikiLeaks was under pressure on many fronts. Assange is in a British prison fighting extradition to Sweden over a sex crimes case. Recent moves by Swiss Postfinance, MasterCard, PayPal and others that cut the flow of donations to the group have impaired its ability to raise money.

Neither WikiLeaks nor Assange has been charged with any offense in the U.S., but the U.S. government is investigating whether Assange can be prosecuted for espionage or other offenses. Assange has not been charged with any offenses in Sweden either, but authorities there want to question him about the allegations of sex crimes.

Undeterred, WikiLeaks released more confidential U.S. cables Wednesday. The latest batch showed the British government feared a furious Libyan reaction if the convicted Lockerbie bomber wasn't set free and expressed relief when they learned he would be released in 2009 on compassionate grounds.

Another U.S. memo described German leader Angela Merkel as the "Teflon" chancellor, but she brushed it off as mere chatter at a party. American officials were also shown to be lobbying the Russian government to amend a financial bill they felt would disadvantage U.S. companies Visa and MasterCard.

The most surprising cable of the day came from a U.S. diplomat in Saudi Arabia after a night on the town.

"The underground nightlife of Jiddah's elite youth is thriving and throbbing," the memo said. "The full range of worldly temptations and vices are available - alcohol, drugs, sex - but all behind closed doors."

The pro-WikiLeaks vengeance campaign on Wednesday appeared to be taking the form of denial-of-service attacks in which computers are harnessed - sometimes surreptitiously - to jam target sites with mountains of requests for data, knocking them out of commission.

Per Hellqvist, a security specialist with the firm Symantec, said a network of web activists called Anonymous - to which Operation Payback is affiliated - appeared to be behind many of the attacks. The group, which has previously focused on the Church of Scientology and the music industry, is knocking offline websites seen as hostile to WikiLeaks.

"While we don't have much of an affiliation with WikiLeaks, we fight for the same reasons," the group said in a statement. "We want transparency and we counter censorship ... we intend to utilize our resources to raise awareness, attack those against and support those who are helping lead our world to freedom and democracy."

The website for Swedish lawyer Claes Borgstrom, who represents the two women at the center of Assange's sex crimes case, was unreachable Wednesday.

The Swiss postal system's financial arm, Postfinance, which shut down Assange's bank account on Monday, was also having trouble. Spokesman Alex Josty said the website buckled under a barrage of traffic Tuesday.

"Yesterday it was very, very difficult, then things improved overnight," he told the AP. "But it's still not entirely back to normal."

Ironically, the microblogging site Twitter - home of much WikiLeaks support - could become the next target. Operation Payback posted a statement claiming "Twitter you're next for censoring Wikileaks discussion."

Some WikiLeaks supporters accuse Twitter of preventing the term "WikiLeaks" from appearing as one of its popular "trending topics." Twitter denies censorship, saying the topics are determined by an algorithm.

Twitter's top trending topics are not the ones people are discussing the most overall, but those they are talking about more right now than they did previously, Twitter explained in an e-mail Wednesday. If tweets were ranked by volume alone, the weather or other mundane topics would dominate the trends.

WikiLeaks angered the U.S. government earlier this year when it posted a video showing U.S. troops on a helicopter gunning down two Reuters journalists in Iraq. Since then, the organization has leaked some 400,000 classified U.S. war files from Iraq and 76,000 from Afghanistan, which U.S. military officials say could put people's lives at risk. In the last few weeks, the group has begun leaking a massive trove of secret U.S. diplomatic cables.

U.S. officials have directed their anger at Assange, but others have begun to ask whether Washington shares the blame for the diplomatic uproar.

"The core of all this lies with the failure of the government of the United States to properly protect its own diplomatic communications," Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said Wednesday, criticizing the fact that tens of thousands of U.S. government employees had access to the cables.

Assange, meanwhile, faces a new extradition hearing in London next week where his lawyers plan to reapply for bail. The 39-year-old Australian denies two women's allegations in Sweden of rape, molestation and unlawful coercion, and is fighting his extradition to Sweden.

In a Twitter message Wednesday, WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson shrugged off the challenges.

"We will not be gagged, either by judicial action or corporate censorship ... WikiLeaks is still online," Hrafnsson said.

Obama's double-or-nothing moment in the Middle East

By Jackson Diehl
The Washington Post
Posted at 1:00 PM ET, 12/ 8/2010

The latest collapse of the Middle East peace process has underlined a reality that the Obama administration has resisted since it took office -- that neither the current Israeli government nor the Palestinian Authority shares its passion for moving quickly toward a two-state settlement. And it has left President Obama with a tough choice: quietly shift one of his prized foreign policy priorities to a back burner -- or launch a risky redoubling of U.S. efforts.

Israelis and Palestinians have conducted face-to-face peace talks off and on for 18 years without agreeing on the issue of Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Yet the prospect for a renewal of the negotiations that began in September collapsed Tuesday after the Obama administration was forced to announce the abandonment of its latest effort to strike a deal with the government of Binyamin Netanyahu on settlements. Netanyahu agreed in principle to a three-month partial freeze of building in the West Bank but demanded that the White House put its quid pro quo -- including $3 billion worth of advanced warplanes -- in writing. Meanwhile, the Palestinians preemptively announced that the deal wouldn't be good enough for them to end their walkout from the talks, because it didn't include Jerusalem.

As I have pointed out before, the settlements are mostly not material to a deal on a Palestinian state, since both sides accept that the majority of them will be annexed to Israel in exchange for land elsewhere. The issue has become an obstacle in large part because of Obama's misguided placement of emphasis on it, which forced Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to embrace a hard line.

But the fact that the administration has been unable to take the issue off the table -- even after offering gold-plated bribes to Israel in exchange for a 90-day freeze -- reflects the fact that both sides are happy to have an excuse not to talk to each other.

Abbas has resisted negotiating with Netanyahu ever since he took office early last year, saying he doesn't believe the right-wing Israeli leader will ever offer serious peace terms. But Abbas also turned down a far-reaching offer from Netanyahu's predecessor; and he's never spelled out his own terms for a settlement. By now it should be obvious: at age 75, he prefers ruling a quiet West Bank to going down in history as the Palestinian leader who granted final recognition to a Jewish state.

Netanyahu has made an effort to show that he is ready to negotiate seriously about Palestinian statehood. But the terms he has talked about -- including a long-term Israeli military presence on the West Bank -- are considerably more stringent than those Abbas already turned down. Even the suggestion by Netanyahu that he would consider concessions such as a division of Jerusalem would probably cause the collapse of his right-wing coalition.

U.S. officials are saying that they will continue to talk to the two sides separately, beginning with meetings next week in Washington with aides to Netanyahu and Abbas. They say they will set the settlement issue aside, and -- as Arab leaders have been urging both in public and private -- focus on the more fundamental issues of a final settlement.

Yet Obama will not meet his goal of an agreement on Palestinian statehood by next August through indirect talks. So this impasse presents him with a choice: He can slow the pace and ambition of his Mideast diplomacy, bowing to the reality that, as former Secretary of State James Baker famously put it, the United States cannot want peace more than the parties themselves. That would give U.S. and Israeli officials time to quietly continue working with Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad, who is trying to build the tangible institutions and security forces needed for statehood.

Or Obama could do what Abbas, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah have wanted all along: prepare a U.S. or international plan for Palestinian statehood and try to impose it on both sides. History -- including that of the last two years -- suggests that double-or-nothing bet would produce a diplomatic fiasco for Obama and maybe a new war in the Middle East. But given Obama's personal fascination with Middle East diplomacy, there's a reasonable chance he'll try it.

U.S. hurting peace chances by giving up on Israeli settlement freeze, analysts say

By Janine Zacharia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 3:23 PM

JERUSALEM - The Obama administration's decision to stop seeking a new Israeli settlement freeze as a way back into talks with the Palestinians has diminished prospects of achieving a peace accord within a year and eroded U.S. credibility in the region, analysts said Wednesday.

The decision also represented a belated recognition that even if they had persuaded Israel to renew a construction moratorium in the West Bank for three months, U.S. officials would have faced an even more difficult problem after that expired.

President Obama understood "that after three months of a second settlement freeze, he would have found himself without any kind of agreement and facing repeated demands to extend the freeze again, necessitating another exhausting bargaining session with [Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin] Netanyahu,'' Haaretz newspaper political commentator Akiva Eldar wrote Wednesday.

Israelis and Palestinians traded blame Wednesday over who was responsible for the U.S. decision, which has left both sides perplexed about the way forward and hoping for clarity from a speech on the Middle East that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will deliver in Washington on Friday.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said the U.S. decision would have "grave consequences in the region.''

"If you cannot have him stop settlements for a few months, what do you expect get out of him on Jerusalem or the 1967 borders,'' Erekat said of Netanyahu in an interview Wednesday. "I think Mr. Netanyahu knows the consequences for the American administration's credibility in the region.''

Israeli officials, who always were cool to extending a settlement freeze as a precursor to talks, said the Palestinians were to blame for insisting on including Jerusalem in the freeze. Still, the officials portrayed the change in American tactic as an opportunity for progress.

"That mechanism proved not to be effective and now we have to find an alternative mechanism to move this process forward,'' said an Israeli official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions. "As we go into this next stage of the peace process, we think the chances of it succeeding are even greater because of the close coordination with the United States.''

The administration, which in September set a one-year deadline for negotiations, expended enormous political capital over nearly two years by making a settlement freeze a priority. The effort rankled relations with Israel and inflated hopes in the Arab world that the United States could persuade Israel to halt construction in the West Bank and win further Israeli concessions down the road. Instead, the U.S. ended up spending more time haggling with Israel over a settlement freeze than negotiating between Israelis and Palestinians over the core issues that divide them, analysts said.

"Trying to get a freeze . . . was always the wrong focus,'' said Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. peace negotiator. "It forced the Obama team to either pummel the Israelis into one or bribe them. Neither worked. And now 20 months in, we have no freeze, no direct talks, no process, and no prospect of a quick agreement. Plus, our street credibility is now much diminished and our options are bad.''

After the 10-month Israeli partial moratorium expired in September, the Obama administration developed a package of incentives, including billions of dollars' worth advanced fighter jets, to entice Israel into extending the freeze for three more months. But talks on the extension collapsed, including over whether the United States would accept Israeli construction in parts of East Jerusalem that Israel occupied in the 1967 Middle East war.

"The significance of the U.S. decision to stop pushing for a moratorium . . . is that Obama is refusing to give Netanyahu a seal of approval to build in Jerusalem,'' Eldar wrote.

A Palestinian delegation, which was invited to Washington, won't travel there before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas consults in the coming days with the Palestine Liberation Organization's executive committee and Abbas's Fatah Party's central committee, Erekat said.

Erekat also said in light of the breakdown and decisions by Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay this week to unilaterally recognize Palestine as an independent state , the Palestinians would formally appeal to the U.S. to do the same.

As for West Bank construction, the Israeli official said Israel will continue to build in existing settlements in the West Bank but will not expropriate more land for new settlements.

Israel's security cabinet on Wednesday also decided to allow for expanded exports out of the Gaza Strip. An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter, said the policy would be fleshed out in the coming days, but that in principle, exports of agricultural produce, textiles and manufactured furniture would be among the items that Palestinians in Gaza would be permitted to export abroad or to the West Bank.

Israel has limited Gaza's exports as part of a blockade of the Gaza Strip that is designed in part to put pressure on the Hamas-led government that seized power there in 2007. The international community has pressured Israel to allow the resumption of exports.

Man arrested in Md. terror bomb plot

By Maria Glod
The Washington Post
Posted at 3:04 PM ET, 12/ 8/2010

A Baltimore man who is a recent convert to Islam has been charged with plotting to blow up a military recruiting office in Catonsville, Md., authorities said Wednesday, but the bomb was a fake provided by the FBI.

Antonio Martinez, 21, who changed his name to Muhammad Hussein when he converted, was charged with the attempted murder of federal employees and the attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against U.S. property. He faces life in prison if convicted.

Martinez was arrested Wednesday morning after he tried to remotely detonate what he believed to be explosives in a vehicle parked in the Armed Forces recruiting station parking lot, federal authorities said.

According to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court in Baltimore, Martinez wanted to fight jihad in the United States and specifically targeted the U.S. military because they were killing Muslims overseas.

He came to the FBI's attention through public postings on his Facebook page, the affidavit said.

He posted statements calling for violence to stop the oppression of Muslims. On Oct. 8, a person identified as a confidential source told the FBI about the postings.

That began a series of recordedconversations that would eventually include an undercover FBI agent whom Martinez thought was from Afghanistan and would help him make a vehicle bomb and teach him how to detonate it.

But the operation began with the FBI operative responding on Facebook to the calls for violence. In the Facebook communications, Martinez wrote that he wanted to go to Pakistan or Afghanistan, that it was his dream to be among the ranks of the mujahideen, and that he hoped Allah would open a door for him because all he thinks about is jihad.

The FBI then recorded a series of conversations between Martinez and the confidential operative. Martinez said he wanted to target the Armed Forces recruiting station on Route 40 in Catonsville.

The affidavit said Martinez tried to recruit at least three others into the operation, but they all declined. One even tried to talk Martinez out of the plot. When he couldn't get others to join, the confidential operative offered to introduce him to his "Afghani brother," who would help, the affidavit said.

That man actually was an undercover FBI agent, who suggested he could help Martinez make a vehicle bomb.

The plot came together, and on Wednesday, Martinez, the agent and the confidential informant drove to the recruiting station separately, the affidavit said. Martinez decided where to park the vehicle, inspected the fake bomb and tried to detonate it before he was arrested, the affidavit says.

The court papers describe a young man obsessed with jihad and fighting the U.S. military here and abroad. He is described as watching videos of Osama bin Laden and calls Anwar al-Aulaqi his "beloved sheikh." Aulaqi is on a terror watch list and was the spiritual inspiration behind the attempted bombing of a jetliner over Detroit and the shooting at Fort Hood that killed 13 people.

In fact, the affidavit says that Martinez referenced that attack, saying that killing those soldiers prevented them from killing Muslims overseas.

During a brief court hearing in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Martinez said he is married and works in construction.

Magistrate James K. Bredar asked Martinez to identify himself.

"My name is Muhammed Hussain," Martinez said.

The judge pressed, asking if he also goes by Antonio Martinez.

"That is my other name that I was born with," Martinez said.
Martinez,

He was ordered held pending a Dec. 13 detention hearing.

Officials said the plot is unrelated to incidents in October and early November in which someone shot at the Pentagon, two military recruiting stations and the Marine Corps Museum, all in Northern Virginia.

2 released from Guantanamo Bay by Obama administration return to terrorism, report says

By Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 7, 2010; 8:43 PM

Two former Guantanamo Bay detainees who were repatriated or resettled by the Obama administration have engaged in terrorist activities and another three former detainees are suspected of returning to the fight, according to a report released Tuesday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The detainees, who were not named in the unclassified version of a report sent to Congress, were among 66 detainees who were transferred out of the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since Obama took office in January 2009. An administration official said one and probably both of the confirmed recidivists were Afghans.

Of the 532 Guantanamo detainees released by the Bush administration, 79 are confirmed as having returned to the fight and an additional 66 are suspected of having reengaged in terrorist or insurgent activities, the report says. Thirteen detainees released from Guantanamo are now dead and 54 are in custody; 83 remain at large.

"Unfortunately, these latest numbers make clear that fulfilling a campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay is overriding what should be the administration's first priority: protecting Americans from terrorists," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). "It is unacceptable to continue transferring these dangerous detainees."

But the administration official pointed out that the last administration "knew of recidivism, too, but went ahead because they, too, wanted to close" Guantanamo.

"Our record is still good, and the effort to close Gitmo is still worth it," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the report publicly.

The report notes that the administration does not count anti-American statements or propaganda activities as recidivism. The report also says that it can take up to 2 1/2 years after leaving Guantanamo Bay before recidivism is reported and that the numbers may continue to rise.

Analysis: US wary of pushing Egypt on flawed vote

By TAREK EL-TABLAWY
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 1:44 AM

CAIRO -- Egypt's ruling party swept parliament elections through what observers call blatant vote fraud, and the United States raised only tepid objections - a sign both Cairo and Washington want no trouble as this key U.S. ally approaches a critical turning point over who will lead the country next.

With 82-year-old President Hosni Mubarak's health in question ahead of presidential elections next year, the Arab world's most populous nation could enter a period of tremendous uncertainty once its leader of nearly 30 years eventually leaves the political stage. The government appears determined to tighten its grip to ensure a smooth transition.

That posed a problem for the Americans: Lay on pressure for democracy, or accept the status quo and avoid unsettling a government that has kept stability in Egypt, maintained peace with Israel and generally backed the U.S. agenda in the region.

Weighing on the question are the unknowns of the future. There is no clear successor to Mubarak, raising worries over who has the clout to contain mounting dissatisfaction in the country amid frequent protests over economic woes. The most powerful opposition movement is the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and secular opposition parties are notoriously weak, mainly from government efforts to keep them that way.

"Who said that the Americans don't want the result that came about?" said Gehad Ouda, an Egyptian political scientist close to the ruling National Democratic Party. "This serves their interests in the long run. It lengthens the shadow of the regime, and my opinion is that this is their real desire - to prolong the shadow of the future of the regime."

Results of a run-off vote released Monday showed the NDP winning 83 percent parliament's 518 seats, a total likely to rise to 96 percent if many winning independent candidates join the ruling party after taking their posts, as expected.

The Brotherhood went from holding 20 percent of parliament to none - meaning that the voices of dissent in the legislature were quashed.

Allegations of vote rigging and ballot box stuffing in the Nov. 28 first round were so widespread that the Brotherhood boycotted last Sunday's run-off. Perhaps more damaging to the government's credibility, it was joined by the top secular opposition party, the Wafd.

In the U.S.'s most recent remarks, State Department spokeswoman Megan Mattson said Monday, "We hope that all necessary improvements will be made swiftly to ensure that future elections are free and fair."

With its mild prodding for a fair vote, the Obama administration seemed intent not to offend its ally after relations soured under the previous Bush administration, which for a time made Egypt the centerpiece of its calls for greater democracy in the Mideast.

"There's ... a calculation that criticizing the Egyptians in public wouldn't get us anything, and would anger the Egyptians," said Jon Alterman, director the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies' Mideast program.

Alterman said the Brotherhood and opposition likely wouldn't have posed much of a challenge to the regime even with a presence in parliament - so the ruling party's overkill against them was telling.

The election was "intended to be a show of strength but it strikes me overwhelmingly as a show of weakness," he said.

The NDP was likely betting condemnation would be mild - or just didn't care, more concerned with its professed goal of crushing the Brotherhood. Ahead of the election, authorities rounded up 1,400 Brotherhood supporters.

Increasing public discontent may have strengthened the regime's feeling it must tighten control. Protests over the past year have been fueled by Egyptians' complaints over unemployment, low wages, a soaring cost of living and a feeling of general neglect by the government. The demonstrations suggest that the government's ability to maintain quiet could be tested in any transition.

Earlier this year, Mubarak underwent gall bladder surgery in Germany. He has not said whether he will seek re-election, though NDP officials insist he will. Even if he does, some question if he will serve out a full 6-year term.

His younger son Gamal, an investment banker turned politician, is widely seen as next in line, though many analysts doubt he has the same clout with the powerful military establishment that his air force pilot father enjoyed.

Other potential contenders have popped up, including intelligence chief Omar Suleiman. But posters for Suleiman were ripped down almost as quickly as they appeared on Cairo's streets. Others, like the reform-minded former U.N. nuclear watchdog agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, are widely seen wishful thinking on the part of many Egyptians.

For the U.S., a smooth transition is key to ensuring its interests.

Egypt remains a major player in the Arab-Israeli peace process and has helped seal the Gaza Strip to put pressure on its Hamas leaders. Egypt controls the Suez Canal, a key international trade artery, allows the U.S. overflight access in military operations and is a main intelligence-gathering partner.

The ruling party, meanwhile, likely feels safe that any face lost in the election will have little effect. It may be counting on its economic reform program, launched in 2005, to be enough of a placebo to distract the population from political woes. The reforms have helped fuel strong growth rates for Egypt - projected at 6 percent this year. But the broader public has yet to feel the effects.

"The trickle down is still slow, even though it's getting faster," said Ouda, the political scientist. "But you still haven't reached the level of accumulation that allows you to take off. You have just enough to show off."

The thinking within the NDP, Ouda said, is "we have an agenda, and we want to complete it, and it appears to be a success."

----

Tarek el-Tablawi is AP's Mideast business editor and has covered the country since 1996.

5 Myths about federal workers

The Washington Post
Sunday, December 5, 2010; B03

Federal employees are overpaid compared with private-sector workers.

1 The notion that federal workers consistently earn higher salaries than comparable private-sector workers has become an accepted truth. Conservative think tanks, including the Cato Institute, make much of data that does not offer fair comparisons of similar public-sector and private-sector jobs or account for how experience and education affect pay. A pediatrician with a small practice in Des Moines and a doctor at the National Institutes of Health who is leading a team of 50 researchers trying to cure cancer both provide health care, for example, but we shouldn't expect that they be paid the same.

Though some critics question their accuracy, government analyses show that federal employees make on average 24 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. The Congressional Research Service reported in 2009 that private industry pays higher salaries than the government for PhD-level employees in computer science, information science, mathematics, statistics, biological sciences, environmental life sciences, chemistry, economics, and civil, architectural, electrical and computer engineering. In addition, the average private-sector salary in 2010 for a recent college graduate was $48,661. Entry-level federal workers start at $34,075, or $42,209 for candidates with superior academic achievement.

On the other hand, some federal blue-collar and clerical workers are paid more than those in the private sector. The ongoing debate about federal pay, however, does not address the root problem: The government does not have a pay system flexible enough to recruit the best talent and pay in accordance with the market.

The federal workforce is bigger than ever.

2 Not including the U.S. Postal Service, the federal government employs 2.1 million people. The workforce is now slightly smaller than it was in 1967, at the height of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and today there are 100 million more Americans to serve.

Even during the Reagan administration, when small government was a political mantra, there were still between 2.1 and 2.2 million federal workers. In fact, there was an increase of about 95,000 federal employees between 1981 and 1989.

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton reduced the workforce by nearly 350,000 to 1.8 million. Under George W. Bush, the federal workforce grew predominantly because of post-9/11 homeland security demands and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, two out of three federal civilian employees work for the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs or Justice. The vast majority of government hiring since 2003 has been in these four departments.

You can't fire a federal worker.

3 In the 2009 fiscal year, 11,275 federal employees were fired for poor performance or misconduct. In addition, a survey of federal managers by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board suggests that besides those who are formally terminated, there are a sizable number of employees who voluntarily leave after they are counseled that their performance is unacceptable.

Still, the myth persists that incompetent federal workers cannot be fired. Unfortunately, even federal managers buy into it, often believing that there is little they can do to deal with a poorly performing subordinate. The primary causes of this misunderstanding are that managers do not feel supported by top leadership and do not have clear performance expectations for their employees. Though the process is complex, there are rules in place across government allowing for the dismissal of workers not passing muster - and they should be used.
Most federal workers are paper-pushing clerks.

4 The vast majority of federal workers hold white-collar professional, administrative and technical jobs, and aren't just college dropouts archiving triplicates of your tax return. Approximately 20 percent√ of federal workers have a master's degree, professional degree or doctorate√, vs. 13 percent√ in the private sector. Fifty-one√ percent of federal employees have at least a college degree, compared with 35 percent√ in the private sector.

Remarkably, more than 50 current or former federal employees have received Nobel Prizes. In fact, about one in four American Nobel laureates have been federal workers. Their contributions have included the eradication of polio, the mapping of the human genome and the harnessing of atomic energy. Federal employees protect our food and drug supplies, manage airline traffic, foil terrorist attacks, care for our wounded veterans, and make sure the elderly and those with disabilities get their Medicare and Social Security benefits. This is hardly paper-pushing.

Pay or hiring freezes would help slash the federal budget.

5 Clearly, hard choices are needed to restore our nation's fiscal health. But across-the-board pay and hiring freezes avoid tough strategic decisions. The real question is not what can we cut, but how can we best save money.

History has taught us that arbitrary, broad hiring and pay freezes don't return significant cost savings. When the Clinton administration cut government jobs, overall federal spending still increased. Reagan's 1981 hiring freeze fell apart when routine exemptions were granted to fill urgent demands, such as for VA doctors or military support personnel.

How much will the government save by cutting 10 percent of the federal workforce - about 200,000 employees - as recommended by the president's deficit commission? If the work of federal employees is simply contracted to the private sector, the savings could be minimal or the move could even cost us more. If government employees are not replaced and their salaries are returned to the Treasury, the government would save at most $20 billion annually, or roughly 0.5 percent of total budget outlays.

Bottom line: We cannot come close to balancing the budget simply by cutting federal staffers or their salaries.

Max Stier is president and chief executive of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service. He has worked for all three branches of the federal government.