011106nakamura Comparative Policy Study (graduate school)
* Yuji Nakamura only colored, lined and gave a little comments, italic blue word.
Source¨New York Times (International)
g November 4, 2001
Bin Laden, in a Taped Speech, Says Attacks in Afghanistan Are a War Against Islam
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
KAIRO, Nov. 3 — In an attempt to play to Arab and Muslim popular opinion, Osama bin Laden portrayed the American military campaign in Afghanistan as a war against Islam, saying in a videotaped speech broadcast today that the Afghan people had done nothing to deserve such an onslaught. (=violent attack)
In addition, Mr. bin Laden used his first statement in nearly a month to denounce as infidels Muslim leaders who cooperate with the United Nations, accusing them of working with an organization that he said undermines Islamic interests. (infidels= an unbeliever with respect to a particular religion)
Mr. bin Laden, while praising what he called "great strikes" made against New York and Washington on Sept. 11, said the United States had failed to produce any evidence for its attacks against Afghanistan.
"This is a matter of religion and creed; it is not what Bush and Blair maintain, that it is a war against terrorism," he said on a tape broadcast by Al Jazeera, an Arab satellite channel based in Qatar. "There is no way to forget the hostility between us and the infidels. It is ideological, so Muslims have to ally themselves with Muslims."
(What does Osam bin Laden really intended in this statement?)
The Bush administration vehemently denies that the campaign against terrorism, begun after the Sept. 11 attacks, is directed against the Islamic faith.
Appearing in a white turban and camouflage jacket, with a rifle leaning against the wall behind him, Mr. bin Laden talked for about 20 minutes. In his trademark style that has proved popular with the young, he spoke slowly and evenly, drawing repeatedly from the Koran.
He described at length all the political problems suffered in Islamic lands in the last century, and said many of them could be traced back to the United Nations. He referred to its secretary general, Kofi Annan, as a "criminal."
(Does Osam bin Laden regard United Nation as enemy ?)
He used one of the strongest Islamic insults to condemn Muslim leaders who work through the organization. (= the United Nations ? )
"Those who want to solve our tragedies through the U.N. are hypocrites, deceiving God, the prophet and deceiving all believers," he said. "Who issued the resolution on the division of Palestine in 1947 which gave the Muslim country to the Jews? It was the U.N. Those who pretend they are leaders of the Arab world and remain members of the U.N. are infidels."
The tape, which the station said had been delivered to its offices in Kabul, was the first by Mr. bin Laden since Oct. 7, the day the bombing of Afghanistan started. As with previous messages, there was no way of telling exactly when it had been made. There have been three other statements, some made by other members of his Qaeda organization and including a letter apparently from Mr. bin Laden also released through Al Jazeera last week. Al Jazeera used its broadcast of the latest tape as an introduction to a long discussion about Mr. bin Laden's message.
An American official who appeared on the program, Christopher W. S. Ross, a former ambassador to Syria and Algeria, criticized the speech for about 15 minutes. Mr. Ross spoke in flawless classical Arabic, using religious terms, in answering Mr. bin Laden.
"The war is not against Islam; it is against the perpetrators of these crimes," he said. "The terrorists are twisting facts and forging history. They openly call for violence and murder and insist on making this war a religious war."
Mr. Ross also condemned the Taleban government for having "killed thousands of Afghans who do not share their extremist ideas."
In a related development, MBC, another Arab station, carried an unusual hourlong interview with Prince Turki bin Faisal, who served as the head of Saudi intelligence for nearly three decades until September.
The prince voiced support for the American effort in Afghanistan. "America is not there to occupy Afghanistan," he said. "It is there to fulfill a certain purpose stemming from the events that occurred over a month ago."
On television in the United States, Mr. Bin Laden's latest videotaped message received starkly different coverage on the 24-hour news channels than did the previous tapes released by Al Qaeda. This time, the release of the tape was not treated as important breaking news.
After meeting with White House officials last month, network executives agreed to treat statements from Al Qaeda with care. The White House had expressed concern that the tapes were a propaganda tool and even a device for sending hidden messages to operatives.
Fox News Channel first reported about the statement on its bottom-of- the-screen news zipper. Tim Gaughan, the weekend assignment manager, said Fox News was planning to show a picture of Mr. bin Laden later accompanied by a paraphrased version of his statement read by an anchor.
Of the initial 90 seconds shown on Al Jazeera, CNN showed only 5 seconds, without sound. It cited two of Mr. bin Laden's quotes, both critical of Muslim nations that belong to the United Nations. Matthew Furman, a spokesman for CNN, said news executives had decided that only those two quotes were newsworthy, and that the rest was along the lines of past statements by Al Qaeda. g
The New York Times
November 5. 2001
merica seems to be governed by two presidents. The George W. Bush who is commander in chief has been keeping the country united at a time when the war in Afghanistan has run into problems. But the George W. Bush running domestic policy is an entirely different person, less a leader than a narrowly focused politician. If America is to fight terrorism within its own borders and conquer the economic recession, the commander in chief is going to have to take control at home, too.
Americans trust Mr. Bush's leadership on foreign policy because his direction has been fair and nonpartisan, rising far above the ideology on which he campaigned. He has steered clear of political grandstanding, consulting Democrats as well as Republicans, and ignoring the hawks in his own party who have been demanding a wider war. On the home front, however, Mr. Bush acts as if he still cannot afford to alienate the right-wing leaders of the Republican Party and the big business and energy interests behind them.
Initially, Mr. Bush sent the appropriate signals to Congressional leaders to work together and produce legislation to rescue the economy, stiffen laws on terrorism and increase airport security. There was also a good initial response on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans cooperated to produce a criminal justice bill on terrorism. In the Senate, the two parties crafted a bipartisan approach on beefing up security at airports that included expanding the federal work force to handle the job. Then Mr. Bush abruptly backed an ideological approach pushed by House Republicans who could not stomach the idea of increasing the number of federal employees. The Republican bill squeaked through the House last week, prompting cheers of partisan joy at the White House.
It was sobering to see Mr. Bush throw himself into the lobbying for a victory that is important only to one wing of his own party, while undercutting Republicans who had worked in the Senate to fashion a bipartisan approach. The end result will be to delay, or endanger, the passage of any airport security bill, and to reduce Mr. Bush's credibility with Democrats as an objective mediator.
Even worse is the president's failure of leadership on economic stimulus. While urging Congress to work fast, Mr. Bush has guaranteed a legislative impasse by backing a bill that does nothing to help the immediate economy and gives out all but a fraction of its benefits to corporations, especially in the energy field, and to the wealthiest taxpayers.
The next issue requiring Mr. Bush's leadership relates to public spending. Of the $40 billion set aside after the terrorist attacks of September, only $7.7 billion is to be spent on homeland defenses, including airports, bioterrorism protections and improved safety. It is becoming increasingly obvious that this money will not be enough. A crash effort has to begin now to secure all transportation links, not simply airports, and to upgrade security of the nation's water supplies, food and nuclear facilities. There also needs to be a serious look at giving Tom Ridge's Office of Homeland Security real budgetary and operational authority over the functions now scattered in dozens of agencies.
When Democrats argue that money for these items should be attached to spending bills going through Congress now, the Bush administration wants to wait until next year, apparently because it feels the nation cannot afford the additional costs. But if that is the case, how can we afford multibillion-dollar tax cuts for corporations and the highest earners in the country? The nation needs its commander in chief to step in, and set priorities that meet the urgent current needs rather than one party's election promises.