Date: Apr 19, 1999 [ 0: 0: 0]

Subject: DNI-NEWS Digest - 18 Apr 1999

From: Automatic digest processor


Return-Path: <owner-DNI-NEWS@D-N-I.ORG>
Delivered-To: farhad@ALGONET.SE
Received: (qmail 25062 invoked from network); 19 Apr 1999 09:00:17 +0200
Received: from simorgh.gpg.com (205.158.6.22)
by tung.algonet.se with SMTP; 19 Apr 1999 09:00:17 +0200
Received: from simorgh (simorgh [205.158.6.22])
by simorgh.gpg.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id AAA00621;
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199904190700.AAA00621@simorgh.gpg.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 00:00:00 -0700
Reply-To: dni-disc@D-N-I.ORG
Sender: DNI news list <DNI-NEWS@D-N-I.ORG>
From: Automatic digest processor <D-N-I@D-N-I.ORG>
Subject: DNI-NEWS Digest - 18 Apr 1999
To: Recipients of DNI-NEWS digests <DNI-NEWS@D-N-I.ORG>

There are 4 messages totalling 518 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. Democracy And Islam
2. The Future of Internationalism
3. Behind Israel's Reach To Russia
4. Rushdie: New Book Out From Under Shadow Of Fatwa

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 01:41:00 EDT
From: Bobby Iri <Bobby@WWW.DCI.CO.IR>
Subject: Democracy And Islam

Democracy And Islam
===================

Economist April 17th - 23rd 1999
INTERNATIONAL
Iran
T E H R A N



THE country that 20 years ago prided itself on offering an
alternative model to western liberal democracy is now facing a
period of philosophical angst. Can an Islamic republic also be
modern and democratic? And if so, how much power should go to
the people? These two fundamental questions were being aired
this w fundamental questions were being aired
this week as Mohsen Kadivar, an intellectual cleric living in
Tehran, was summoned to trial before a Special Court for Clergy,
dominated by conservative thinkers.
Mr Kadivar is in the vanguard of a new movement some are calling
Iran’s slamic Reformatio“Islamic Reformation”. He believes that some
religious
definitions need fine-tuning. Political power, he argues, should
rest with the people, rather than with the small cadre of senior
Shia theologians, the mojtaheds, who interpret and apply holy
law to modern life. He is charged with spreading propaganda
against the Islamic republic, confusing public opinion, and
indirectly insulting the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

The charges stem from a series of essays Mr Kadivar published
last winter. ne of the ince“One of the incentives of the revolution was
to
give power to the people,” he wrote. ut I think some clerics
in “But I think some clerics
in power believe they have a mission from God to run people’s
affairs. It is not fair to have a revolution in the name of
religion and to promise a people-oriented government and then
gradually change directions.”

One commentator has compared Mr Kadivar to Galileo, a man of
science persecuted for beliefs that were radical for their
time.{M} Would-be reformers fear that hiould-be reformers fear that his
arrest is part of an
attempt to quash the new freedom of expression. But,
significantly, support is also coming from some of the
traditionally conservative seminaries in the holy city
of Qom,
with a number of senior clerics demanding Mr Kadivar’s release:
reinterpreting religious thought is not a crime in Islam, they
say.

When he was arrested in late February, Mr Kadivar said his
detention was the he p“the price we pay for freedom.” With his trial
under way, he is less resigned. In an open letter to President
Muhammed Khatami, he argued that his arrest violates the
constitution. Reminding the president that he was elected on a
promise to impose the rule of law, he called on him to take
action.
This was not a clever move. Mr Khatami has worked behind the
scenes to rescue Mr Kadivar, a former aide who shares many of
his own revisionist views. But now he has been put on a hot
seat. If he does nothing, he will be harshly criticised by his
supportersupporters, who feel their cause is under attack. But if he
calls for Mr Kadivar’s release, he will be charged by hardliners
with betraying the principles of the Islamic revolution.

Any defenderciples of the Islamic revolution.

Any defenderciples of the Islamic revolution.

Any defender of Mr Kadivar would be accused of questioning the
concept of velayat-e faqih, the sacred glue that holds the
Islamic republic together. The doctrine, laid down by Khomeini,
places ultimate political authority in the hands of a supreme
Shia Muslim jurist. But after Khomeini’s death, the institution
of the supreme leader has been showing signs of wear. It is now
facing its most serious challenge ever. Not only are many
secular Iranians pressing Mr Khatami and his allies to claim
more autsing Mr Khatami and his allies to claim
more authority for their elected representatives, but brave
Islamist intellectuals, such as Mr Kadivar, are stepping forward
to provide an Islamic pedigree for their fellow-countrymen’s
republican claims.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 01:42:22 EDT
From: Bobby Iri <Bobby@WWW.DCI.CO.IR>
Subject: The Future of Internationalism

The Future of Internationalism
==============================


A LOOK AT . . . The Future of Internationalism: Beyond National
Interests
By Bruce Zagaris

Sunday, April 18, 1999; Page B03
Nearly two weeks ago, two Libyan intelligence agents boarded
Italian plane in Tripoli and were flown under U.N. authority to
a naval base in the Netherlands. Wanted in the downing of Pan Am
Flight 103 and the deaths of its 259 passengers and crew members
as well as 11 residents of Lockerbie, Scotland, the two now face
trial on Dutch soil under Scottish law--a welcome sign of
progress in a 10-year-old international legal stalemate.

But the Lockerbie case also highlights an important question
that will not be solved by the conviction or acquittal of those
two men: How should disputes that fall under more than one
jurisdiction be settled?

Seeking refuge from the law, as the two accused terrorists
succeeded in doing for a decade, is nothing new, of course. From
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid to Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the
former shah of Iran, suspects have crossed borders to escape the
posse. But in recent years, the questions of where to try a
crime--and under whose law--have become more perplexing. In an
age of electronic commerce and international trade and
terrorism, incidents may take place in a country where they are
not illegal and have repercussions in another part of the world
where they are considered criminal acts.

These new kinds of crimes, combined with an increasing need to
present a united front against the internecine warfare and human
rights violations that plague the modern world, demand
international legal cooperation--and U.S. leadership--as never
before. Without it, transnational criminals will continue to
prosper, war crimes will continue to go unpunished and U.S.
actions, even in the name of humanitarian goals, will lack the
diplomatic support they need.

In recent months, a number of attention-catching crimes have
highlighted the complex problem of achieving justice when there
are overlapping jurisdictions. Think of the legal wrangling in
London leading up to the decision to extradite former Chilean
president Gen. Augusto Pinochet to face trial in Spain for
crimes he is accused of committing against Spanish citizens in
Chile; of the controversy over the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Tribunal for War Crimes in the former
Yugoslavia to investigate atrocities in Kosovo; or of the
outrage expressed by Americans at Israel's refusal to extradite
Maryland murder suspect Samuel Sheinbein to stand trial in this
country.

This last case is instructive. Israel's obligation under
international law is to prosecute or extradite the teenager, and
the Israelis seem prepared to do the former in a fair way. Thus,
Israel does no damage to international justice--even if it
strains international friendships and presents logistical
challenges--by holding the trial on its own soil.
Such a solution was out of the question in the Lockerbie case.
Since the United States believes the Libyan government was
complicit in, if not actually responsible for, the bombing,
there is no way a trial could be held in Libya. Hence the
protracted international negotiations with Libya, the use of
U.N. sanctions, and the resort to litigation in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague--the arbiter
on many international disagreements over issues such as
extradition treaties--over how and where the trial should be
held. Indeed, what the Lockerbie case best reflects is the
growing need for international institutions, such as the ICJ, to
resolve such difficult cases.
But resorting to the decision-making processes of such an
international institution requires giving up some degree of
sovereignty--something the United States has often seemed
unwilling to do. In the Lockerbie case, the United States tried
unilateral sanctions and fought to have the U.N. Security
Council, over which it has greater influence, act as arbiter.

In other instances, the United States has given mixed signals
about h States has given mixed signals
about how it asserts its legal influence overseas.

On the one hand, the United States has been an innovator and
leader in promoting the rule of law. With the establishment of
ad hoc war crimes tribunals after World War II and more recently
for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in
criminalizing transnational corruption with the 1976 Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, and in leading the negotiation of last
fall's Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) Anti-Corruption Convention, the United States has helped
develop creative laws and institutions to prevent and combat
transnational crime.

On the other hand, though, the United States has often
sacrificed law on the mantle of aggressive and illegal
Realpolitik. In some highly publicized incidents (with the loss
of life caused by the use of U.S. armed forces in Panama to
arrest President Manuel Noriega for drug trafficking, for
example) and some less well-known ones (including a case that I
have been involved in for the past five years in which a Cypriot
businessman, Hossein Alikhani, who was accused of violating U.S.
sanctions against Libya, was lured on board a plane in the
Bahamas in a U.S. Customs sting and abducted to Miami), the
United States has put self-interest before principle.

Indeed, the United States does not hesitate to pursue its own
interests overseas. It has always been the most aggressive
country in extending unilateral jurisdiction beyond its shores.
Initially this practice was restricted largely to antitrust and
economic cases, where the conduct occurs entirely abroad but has
"effects" in the United States. But in the 1980s and '90s, the
federal and state governments expanded their jurisdiction over
contraband, narcotics and gambling on "cruises to nowhere" (just
outside the U.S. maritime territory). And to combat the growing
threat of international terrorism, the United States has
continued to expand its jurisdiction over violent acts committed
abroad against U.S. nationals and property. From the 1987 arrest
of Fawaz Yunis, in which the FBI lured the Lebanese hijacker to
a boat in the Mediterranean from where he was taken to stand
trial in thnean from where he was taken to stand
trial in thnean from where he was taken to stand
trial in the United States, to last year's bombing of the
pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and the base camps of Osama bin
Laden in Afghanistan in retaliation for the attacks on the U.S.
embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the United States has refined
and increased its determination to act in its own interests
outside its own borders.

The reach of the U.S. extraterritorial jurisdiction, combined
with aggressive investigative techniques, means that for a wide
variety of crimes the United States now stations its own law
enforcement agents abroad, conducts wiretaps and undercover
stings, and arrests foreigners for conduct (such as export
control or Internet gambling) that is criminalized only in the
United States.

Even close allies sometimes find this hard to tolerate: So
infuriated was the Canadian government that it rejected a U.S.
request to convene an extradition hearing for a Canadian
citizen, Kenneth Walker, who had failed to return to the United
States for sentencing on charges of violating arms export laws.
(Walker had originally been lured from Canada and arrested in a
U.S. Customs sting.)

To many foreign governments, the United States' use of
extraterritorial enforcement simply seems to be out of control
and dangerous. This comes at a time when the sole surviving
superpower needs more than ever before to take the lead in
developing consistent policies to confront international crime.
On several key issues--from the proposed U.N. convention against
transnational crime, to the effective operation of war crimes
tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, as well as the
establishment of the proposed permanent international criminal
court--the United States' conduct and apparent desire to go it
alone risk marginalizing its leadership and eroding its
credibility.

Indeed, the United States' failure to pay the $1.6 billion it
owes in U.N. dues and its radical positions on international law
threaten to undermine diplomacy. The United States was one of
the few countries that refused to sign the 1997 convention to
prohibit the production, stockpiling, use and transfer of land
mines. But perhaps most troubling of all is the United States'
feeble protestations over the permanent international criminal
court's proposed jurisdiction. The court would obviate the need
for an ad hoc tribunal each time individuals are accused of war
crimes. It would adjudicate cases of genocide, crimes against
humanity and aggression only if the suspect's home country
refuses or is not able to prosecute and only after an elaborate
number of safeguards verify the existence of sufficient evidence
to proceed. The United States joined the company of China,
Libya, Iraq, Israel, Qatar and Yemen as the only seven countries
voting against the permanent international criminal court treaty
last year.

What's more, the United States' rigidity on many international
criminal issues threatens to compromise its authority on both
national security and key international economic issues,
jeopardizing its ability to build a consensus for its sanctions
policies (against Cuba, Iran, Iraq and Libya) and to gain
support for its frequent resort to bombing (in both Iraq and
Yugoslavia at the moment).

The fact is that, ultimately, economic sanctions only work when
the bulk of the world participates. The European Union has
initiated action in the World Trade Organization against Cuban
sanctions--a case that is currently suspended. Also, the
proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which would
provide for rules on direct investment, and whose negotiation
the United States promoted in the OECD, has been blocked, in
part because of the United States' refusal to agree on stricter
rules that would restrain the use of unilateral economic
sanctions.

The need to combat transnational crime must be addressed on both
global and regional scales. Today, the Western hemisphere and
regions outside of Europe cry out for a new architecture for
criminal justice. Establishing international enforcement bodies
does, of course, require each participating country to cede some
degree of sovereignty. But that is a small price to pay for what
the United States and the rest of the world stand to gain.

Bruce Zagaris, a specialist in international criminal law, is a
partner at the Washington law firm of Berliner, Corcoran and
Rowe.


© Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 01:43:04 EDT
From: Bobby Iri <Bobby@WWW.DCI.CO.IR>
Subject: Behind Israel's Reach To Russia

Behind Israel's Reach To Russia
===============================

Chrstian Science Monitor
Sunday, April 18,

Officials call it part of a long warming. Others point to
Netanyahu's need for the votes of Israel's Russian Jews.
By Ilene R. Prusher , Special to The Christian Science Monitor

Two years ago, when Russia's then-Foreign Minister Yevgeny
Primakov came to Israel to talk up Moscow's rejuvenated role in
the region, his pitch didn't find too wide an audience.

But today, Israel seems to be eagerly knocking at the door of
Mr. Primakov - now prime minister - seeking closer ties between
the two countries and offering to help Russia regain its rank as
a major player in the Middle East.

Israel's foreign minister, Ariel Sharon, has just returned from
a three-day visit to Moscow - his third mission since mid-March
- in a trip geared towar
- in a trip geared toward strengthening relations between the
two nations, because, as Mr. Sharon recently put it, "Russia is
returning to the Middle East."

But with the goals of Israel's new Russia initiative still
unclear, there is widespread estimation that the move is
primarily aimed at luring Russian immigrants to reelect Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu next month.

Either way, Israel's new glasnost toward Moscow is apparently
being met with frustration in Washington - especially at a time
when the US is at odds with Russia over NATO's air raids in
Yugoslavia.

Hints in Kosovo reaction

The Russian tilt became apparent when, as the NATO bombing
campaign began three weeks ago, Israel appeared sympathetic to
Moscow's point of view, neither condemning the Serbs nor
officially backing the NATO campaign. Mr. Netanyahu soon changed
his tune and offered support for the US, but Sharon refrained,
expressing concern that Israel could someday face the use of
international force in its own land dispute with the
Palestinians - and that an independent Kosovo would seed Islamic
fundamentalism in the heart of Europe.

Netanyahu has distanced himself from those statements, calling
them Sharon's own, but American officials who wished to remain
unnamed asked whether they should believe that Sharon is
"freelancing" foreign policy.

"It's not necessarily wrong to warm relations with Russia," says
one US official, "but do they have to do it in the period when
the US has the worst relations with Russia since the end of the
cold war?"

For Netanyahu's campaign strategists, in a rough race to save
the premier's job, the timing might make perfect sense. Analysts
here say that immigrants from the former Soviet Union - about
one-sixth of the electorate - like to see their new leaders
shaking hands with their old ones. Unlike Jewish refuseniks who
fled the Soviet regime in the 1970s, many in the most recent
wave of newcomers have maintained business and family ties in
Russia.

"People appreciate [Sharon's trip] because they want closer
relations to Russia, and a better understanding of the very
dubious situation of Jews still in Russia," says Marina
Solodkin, a member of parliament from Israeli Baaliya, the
Russian immigrant party. Ms. Solodkin says Netanyahu's new
initiative in Moscow will indeed win him points with Israel's
approximately 680,000 Russian-speaking voters.

'Not a change'

Sharon fueled the campaign connection last week when, in an
interview with New York Times columnist William Safire, he said
that if he could draw another 5 percent of Russian voters here
to Netanyahu - in addition to the two-thirds who already support
him - he would win the election.

Netanyahu's office says thain the election.

Netanyahu's office says that while Sharon's statements on Russia
sound more forthright than in the past, they do not represent a
policy shift.

"Sharon may have been more explicit, but it's not a change,"
says David Bar-Illan, Netanyahu's communications director.

"It's the continuation of a process of trying to attain a
friendlier relationship ever since the Soviet empire collapsed,"
he adds. "Russia has always had an interest in the Middle East.
Now, instead of putting all their eggs in the Arab basket, we
would rather see them put some in ours."

The Foreign Ministry says that one of the main objectives of the
trip was to encourage Russia to stop the flow of sophisticated
weapons technology to Iran and Syria.

Until recently, Israel had asked the US not to forgive any
additional Russian debt unless it agreed to stop the leakage of
technology that will help Iran develop long-range and nuclear
missiles.

Last week, however, Netanyahu asked the International Monetary
Fund to approve a $4.8 billion loan to Russia - eliciting
rumblings from Washington about lack of coordination.

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

Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 01:43:38 EDT
From: Bobby Iri <Bobby@WWW.DCI.CO.IR>
Subject: Rushdie: New Book Out From Under Shadow Of Fatwa

Rushdie: New Book Out From Under Shadow Of Fatwa
================================================


CNN
April 15, 1999
Web posted on: Thursday, April 15, 1999 6:32:35 PM

NEW YORK (CNN) -- British author Salman Rushdie says it gives
him pleasure to see his latest work "managing to make its way on
its own terms" rather than being tied to the death threat that
dogged him for years.

"... What happens with each successive book is that people look
less and less at those events," he said in an interview with
CNN's Jonathan Mann about his latest novel, "The Ground Beneath
Her Feet."

"The critical reception for this book barely mentions the fatwa,
and I think that the book itself, because it's from a completely
different world than the world of the fatwa -- because it's
about rock 'n' roll music, it's about New York, it's about the
crossover cultures between the east and the west -- I think the
book is managing to make its way on its own terms."

The Indian-born novelist is still getting used to a more visible
life. In 1989, Iran's revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini, issued a death edict against Rushdie for allegedly
blaspheming Islam in the book "The Satanic Verses."

Khomeini died soon afterward, but Rushdie went into hiding for
nearly a decade. It wasn't until last September that Tehran
disassociated it,self from Khomeini's edict, as part of a deal
aimed at restoring full diplomatic relations with Britain.

But is Rushdie still in danger?

"I think there still is some risk, yeah," he said, "though it
appears that the major threat is no longer posed by the Iranian
government." But since Iran has a splintered government, "there
are clearly elements ... which don't necessarily buy the deal
the government's done, so we have to be careful about that. But
in my view it's not comparable" to the years when he had to live
under the shadow of "state-sponsored terror."

Appearing in New York to promote his book is something that's
both new and enjoyable. "It's very nice to be able to
preannounce and come without some kind of a surprise. So, yes,
normal service is being resumed," Rushdie told a gathering of
nearly a thousand admirers in downtown Manhattan.

He showed up without a formerly characteristic droop to his
eyelids. Last month, he underwent surgery to correct a tendon
condition that had made it increasingly difficult for him to
open his eyes.

"If I hadn't had an operation, in a couple of years from now I
wouldn't have been able to open my eyes at all," he has said.

So what's his new book about?

"It's a novel of our age, I think," Rushdie has said. " It has a
life span of, roughly speaking, my own consciousness; it tries
to be an everything novel. To make that huge act of
pulling-together work I needed a vehicle which easily crossed
frontiers. That's why the music in the novel is not classical
music; its the music that I grew up with -- that grew up with
me. It's the music of our time, mainly rock music."
Why that music, and why that culture?

"I wanted the music that everybody believes is their own,"
Rushdie said. "In the '50s, listening to Elvis and others on the
radio in Bombay -- it didn't feel alien. Noises made by a truck
driver from Tupelo, Mississippi, seemed relevant to a
middle-class kid growing up on the other side of the world. That
has always fascinated me."

Rushdie also wrote lyrics for the book, which has had some
interesting results. "If you're going to claim that this is a
real band, and a very good band, the biggest gamble is to say
'Here are the lyrics!' But there's been an extraordinary
development -- I sent the book to my friend Bono, of U2, and
asked him what he thought. Lo and behold, he's written a couple
of melodies. He said he thought one of them was one of the most
beautiful songs they'd every written."

Reuters contributed to this report.

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

End of DNI-NEWS Digest - 18 Apr 1999
************************************