#40 Iran as the Real Israel

The common belief around the world (with some exceptions), is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of instability in the wider Middle East. Others go so far as to say the existence of the state of Israel is the cause of all that's wrong in the region. Indeed, Israel is used as a tool to strengthen government support in most, if not all Arab and even non-Arab Muslim countries on a daily basis. By depicting Israel as an incessant aggressor with aims of expanding from the Nile to the Euphrates and exterminating anyone that stands in its way (most notably the brave Palestinians), governments are able to draw attention away from internal societal ills and retain power. Today, however, the cracks in this flawed policy are beginning to show, as influential figures in the Middle East are openly speaking of a more serious threat; the Iranian threat.

Shiite Iran is increasingly becoming a rather aching sore in the behind of a number of predominantly Sunni nations. As duly noted by Judith Kipper, a Middle East expert at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, "What really concerns pro-U.S. Arab states is that Iran is setting the political agenda in the region." A rising Iran is not in the interest of regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This has even led to public gestures and overtures by Arab states to Israel; the sworn enemy of the Iranian regime.

Senior Egyptian journalist Youssef Ibrahim, who served for 24 years as a senior reporter for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and has interviewed almost every Arab leader, recently wrote in a letter that "the Arab world can continue to stand by the Palestinians ‘until it is blue in the face,’ but most ‘clever’ Arabs have abandoned the notion of the Palestinian conflict and the eternal struggle against Israel. In other words, the notion that Israel is here to stay is slowly gaining a foothold in the upper intellectual levels of Arab society. At even higher levels - at the end of a Spanish-Arab conference in Madrid - the Foreign Ministers of seven Arab countries (Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Tunisia) issued a joint statement expressing their desire to "advance together toward recognition and normalization of relations with Israel."

The fear of a powerful and nuclear Iran has even set the stage for a possible nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Jordan's King Abdullah II followed Egypt and Saudi Arabia's lead a few months ago in saying that in light of current events, Jordan would be looking to develop a nuclear program “for peaceful purposes." Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, as well as Gulf States such as Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman have also expressed a sudden interest in nuclear technology. In the almost 60 years that Israel has been enemy number one in the Middle East - and quite possibly already in possession of nuclear weapons - there was never such widespread talk of nuclear proliferation. This inadvertently shows the true colors of Arab leader's opinions, who apparently have always known that Israel is not a real threat to them.

Other signs that Arab nations view Israel more favorably than Iran include an incident in January this year, when Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's departing ambassador to the United States, attended a Washington reception sponsored by American Jewish organizations. The appearance of a Saudi diplomat at such an event is a first in Saudi history. Besides Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have also quietly stepped up contacts with Israel and pro-Israel Jewish groups in the USA. For example, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres met the Emir of Qatar in Doha after taking part in a debate organized by the BBC in the Qatari capital.

Despite the recent signals, however, there is still a very long way to go. For one, only three of 21 Arab nations recognize Israel: Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania. Furthermore, a very real hatred for the state of Israel exists in the region, thanks to decades of indoctrination. Israel remains a unifying factor for the diverse religious factions in the Middle East. Although some Sunni leaders have equated Shiites with the lowest form of being (كفّار kuffār; unbeliever), both sects would agree that the true enemy is Medinat Yisra'el. The Eilat bombings prove this as well, for just one day after the bombing, Hamas and Fatah managed to achieve what they hadn't been able to during the relative lull with the Israelis; namely implement a cease-fire.

Despite the difficulty in fostering healthy relationships between all countries of the Middle East, one thing has become clear: the fear of Iran at the top level of Arab politics is much more real than all the chewed up rhetoric about the 'Zionist entity.'

Please also have a look at the article "Israel as a Factor of Regional Stability" for examples of how the state has unified groups and nations that otherwise have few points of agreement.

#39 Time For EU to Sit Down With Mugabe

As Zimbabwean President Robert Gabriel Mugabe turns 83 today, there is little to celebrate for the citizens of the Southern African country. Annual inflation has skyrocketed to 1,593.6 percent, food shortages are gripping many parts of the country, badly-needed professionals have left, education and healthcare services, once the best on the continent, are deteriorating. The list goes on. Yet Mugabe seems unaffected by Zimbabwe’s predicament. If anything, Mugabe doesn’t think there are any problems in Zimbabwe. If there are any, then he believes the West is to blame.

It pains to see Zimbabwe sink to such low levels. Few would doubt Zimbabwe’s potential; statistics speak for themselves. Zimbabwe had the highest literacy rate in Africa put at 95.2 percent by UNICEF in 2000. With production levels of 237 million kg, Zimbabwe was the world’s third largest tobacco producer after Brazil and the United States prior to the land invasions in 2000. It remains the fifth largest producer of gold in the world. Unknown to many, Zimbabwe also possesses two-thirds of the world’s reserves for metallurgical grade chromite and until recently, Zimbabwe was the second largest producer of floriculture in Africa after Kenya. More so, Zimbabwe remains the world’s fifth largest producer of white asbestos, after Russia, Canada, China and Brazil.

So what has gone wrong? Mugabe’s hands are dirty. That’s a fact. The EU, on the other hand, is seeking to clean those hands with clearly logical yet unworkable tactics. Angered by Mugabe’s controversial distribution of white-owned commercial farms to mainly landless blacks and his disputed re-election in 2002, the EU introduced its so-called targeted sanctions against Mugabe and his top officials. The sanctions include an arms embargo, travel ban and asset freeze on Mugabe and members of his governing ZANU PF party. In sanctioning a dictator of Mugabe’s size and magnitude, the EU is hoping to change policy in Zimbabwe.

But frankly speaking, that’s not working: five years after the sanctions were introduced, Mugabe hasn’t changed his policy. In fact, it seems to have gotten worse. What people like me will never understand is the EU’s eagerness to continuously renew the sanctions when there is no credible evidence to prove Mugabe is shifting policy.

You don’t really hurt Mugabe much by telling him “Mr. Mugabe, you are banned from coming to the EU.” In this era of globalization, Mugabe and Jan Pieter Balkanende can wear similar suits from the same chain, only that Mugabe will buy his in Kuala Lumpur or Shanghai, while Balkanende will get his in The Hague or Amsterdam. Neither do you really expect Mugabe to change policy by telling him “Robert, you are not allowed to open a bank account in the EU.” He will simply say “Okay,” before taking a flight to Singapore. Even better, considering the power he has, there isn’t any need for Mugabe to keep his money and assets in a foreign bank. For him, the state house is perhaps nearer and more convenient. Worse still, Mugabe and his officials have travelled to the EU on several occasions during the sanctions’ five-year tenure, rendering them somewhat pointless. Portugal is reportedly prepared to invite Mugabe to the EU-Africa summit in April because it fears Mugabe’s failure to attend may influence other African nations to boycott. Most recently, the South African President cancelled his plans to attend the French-Africa summit, a day after it was revealed that Mugabe wasn’t invited. Of course Mbeki gave other reasons for a no-show, but some of us who are familiar with the cordial relationship of the two, won’t buy into them.

The Western media, politicians and NGOs working in Zimbabwe at times badly underestimate Mugabe’s support. I know many people will not agree with me, but I am confident when proclaiming that Mugabe has got what it takes to easily win a free and fair election in present day Zimbabwe. Here is how he does it: brainwash people. Mugabe is in control of the media, so it’s easy to indoctrinate them. In 2002, I told my late grandmother to vote for the opposition. You can guess what kind of answer I got. “You want the British to take over Zimbabwe again?” In African politics, rural dwellers should be on your side if you want to win a national election. Nobody knows that more than Mugabe. With a bit of some intimidation, rural folks are given food to vote for Mugabe. Of course, you wouldn’t call this ‘free and fair,’ but it is a tactic which seems acceptable in African politics. While Mugabe’s support is diminishing in big cities such as Harare and Bulawayo, the same cannot be said about the rural areas, where he enjoys huge support.

Then there are those who just support Mugabe for who he is. Mugabe is seen as a liberator, a true freedom fighter who somehow, like South Africa’s Nelson Mandela, fiercely fought for racial equality in Zimbabwe. After many years of white rule, it was Mugabe who in 1980 introduced equal education and healthcare for blacks in Zimbabwe. Although I can safely say he is partially destroying what he built, Mugabe is still seen as a hero by many people in Zimbabwe and beyond. Mugabe’s fierce rhetoric against ‘Western imperialism’ attracts some sympathy and support in Zimbabwe.

In short, sanctions have only helped Mugabe become more stubborn. Buoyed by his ‘Look East’ policy, he is eager to prove to the West that his regime can last as long as those of emerging economies like China exist. I spent two months in Zimbabwe late last year, and I was quite astounded by the ubiquitous presence of Chinese products in the country. Everywhere you go in Zimbabwe, you will be greeted by what locals have termed ‘zhing-zhongs,’ a derogatory word deriding Chinese goods’ lack of quality. With most of the industries closing shop, it was hardly surprising to note that even the toilet paper was coming from Beijing. China has become one of Mugabe’s last remaining friends. Clever as he has always been, Mugabe knows that with China on his side, the UN Security Council cannot question his policy.

So what’s the benefit of talking rather than isolating Mugabe? Perhaps the EU doesn’t realize Mugabe’s influence in African politics. Zimbabwe and Mugabe in particular, was heavily involved in ending the armed conflict in Mozambique in the late 1980s. Why not use Mugabe’s experience to end other conflicts in Africa? Even so, some African leaders feel Africa is incomplete without Zimbabwe, which is why Mugabe will certainly be lobbying for an African boycott of the EU-Africa summit. He has done it before and he will do it again.

Zimbabwe, whose economy also depends on tourism, cannot afford to have negative publicity anymore. Over the years, Western tourists have shunned Zimbabwe and millions working in the industry have lost their jobs. Although he is the target of EU sanctions, Mugabe isn’t affected by that in any way. Talking to him would help improve Zimbabwe’s battered image and bring in badly-needed foreign investors.

Zimbabwe, like the Great Lakes region of Africa and stubborn Sudan in particular, is a trouble spot. The EU’s foreign chief Javier Solana has appointed special representatives in many of these these hot spots, but has left out Zimbabwe. Why? Does that make Zimbabwe less troubled?

It’s not going to be easy to talk to Mugabe, but if the EU has another solution for Zimbabwe, they should table it now. Sanctions might be logical and right, but there are no signs that they will influence policy in Zimbabwe. Instead of isolating Mugabe, the sanctions indirectly isolate the Zimbabwean people. By talking with Mugabe, the EU is at a much better position to influence Zimbabwean policy. Talk to people who have links with Zimbabwe. Most of them will tell you, Zimbabwe will stay the same as long as Mugabe is in power. Negotiating with him may pave the way for his retirement. Talking to Mugabe may also help the position of the remaining 1000 white farmers, whose future looks bleak under his rule. And finally and more importantly, with Mugabe gone, educated professionals like me and over two million Zimbabweans living abroad, will be prepared to go back and rebuild the country that we dearly love and miss.

- This article was first published in the NRC Next (a Dutch national newspaper) on February 21, 2007. It was provided to the Weekend Economist by the author, Bruce Mutsvairo.

#38 Road (Pricing) Rage

It sometimes seems as if things could not get any worse for poor Tony Blair; an endless quagmire in Iraq, embarrassing police interviews, John Prescott (need I elaborate?) and now, yet again, the British public have voiced there disapproval: over 1.65 million people have signed an online e-petition to ‘scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.’

The Great British Motorist, whose rage was last expressed rather visibly in the national fuel protests in 2000, is something of a civil institution in the UK to be roundly whipped into a frenzy by various tabloid and/or political forces, as and when deemed necessary. We, unlike other Europeans, have had a long history of being rather unwilling to accept that motoring and fuel prices should in fact reflect the true socio-ecological costs of the activity itself. Perhaps we feel short changed in the ‘Blood for Oil’ War, with so little to show for it at the pumps.

What startled me most, however, was to receive from my mother one of the multitude of emails urging people to sign the petition. Far from being merely the bugbear of suburban bourgeois motorists (and the Conservative Party), this policy seems to have riled the nation up and down the land – either on the grounds of cost or privacy (as Peter Roberts, author of the petition, has stated, “the idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong…Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel, the more tax you pay”).

The rage was perhaps inevitable. But then again, maybe the shortsightedness and intellectual papacy underpinning it was also to be expected. Yes, there are serious privacy considerations inherent with the proposal, such as who will have access to the data? How will it be regulated? What safe guards will be in place? On closer inspection, however, the fact that the overwhelming majority of people in Britain are ready to accept ID cards, phone tapping, curfews, electronic tagging, the opening of private mail and extensions to detention without charge to fight the rather ethereal threat from the Al-Qaeda bogeyman proves just how hollow this argument is in reality.

Still, bloggers screamed a call to arms, demanding answers to questions like “are we prepared to be taxed for the privilege of going about our business? At what point do we turn round and say that something is a basic right rather than a privilege, and as such not something we expect to be taxed for?” In the process, of course, such outspoken opposition actually illustrated the very reasons why such a policy must, in fact, be implemented. Motoring, at least as it has been historically conceived, really is a privilege, not a right.

Without some kind of action, congestion on Britain’s roads is set to increase by 25% in less than a decade, in a country that has already seen road transport grow by a shocking 81% since 1980. We face a major transportation crisis, made all the more significant by the Stern Report last year that underscored the very grave financial (let alone human, social and environmental) costs of unrestrained global warming - of which transport accounts for 1/5th of all CO2 emitted. The transport study, led by Sir Rod Eddington, recommended a road pricing of around £1.28 per mile in direct recognition of this fact. According to the study, the world needs to "face up to the reality of climate change, and that implies learning to live within a carbon-constrained future.” People need to "feel the consequences of their decisions" and this is, contrary to rage-blinded motorists, neither patronizing nor authoritarian. The European Carbon Trading Scheme is already in place, and it is only a matter of time before this is extended to private individuals in the form of carbon credits.

It is, quite frankly, ridiculous to assert, as Austin Williams did in the Telegraph, that transport policy should follow a ‘predict and provide’ approach. Endlessly expanding the road system is not a sustainable solution. Nor is it morally or intellectually honest to dismiss Eddington’s conclusion that “some of the best projects are small-scale, such as walking and cycling.” Indeed, such changes in habits – requiring as they do first and foremost a change in mentality – will only be achieved with both the carrot and the financial stick. As the Prime Minister's official spokesman pointed out, whilst “people did feel strongly about this issue, feeling strongly was not a substitute for coming up with practical proposals.”

The supreme irony, of course, was in accusing Eddington of ‘Stalinist’ penny pinching, asking “since when have we ever reduced politics to such simple fiscal equations?” Williams himself articulated the crassest form of financial selfishness on behalf of the British Motorist, urging them to “downplay the so-called harm that carbon does” and, despite all the scientific evidence available, stress that global warming is a “potential problem.” Whilst that approach may save many motorists money and, sure, quite possibly a significant amount thereof, it is tantamount to mortgaging our future and gambling with the very sustainability and prosperity of our children, for they are the ones who will have to deal with our legacy of an infatuation with boundless mobility and endless consumption.

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Albert Einstein

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Stuart Reeve

#37 Turkmenbashi Lives On

With the death of Turkmen "President-for-life," Saparmurat Niyazov, last December, hope emerged that maybe Turkmenistan would be able to finally get a taste of Democracy. The election as new President last Sunday of heir-apparent, Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov - who won with the surreal number of 89.23% of the votes in a matter of only four hours of voting, with a 95% turnout according to the Central Election Commission - has put a quick damper on such hopes. On a more positive note (for Turkmenistan, that is), the continuation of Niyazov's legacy will mean that Turkmenistan will likely become neither a Russian nor a European proxy state.　

There was talk that the death of Niyazov provides a golden opportunity for the European Union to lessen its dependency on Russian gas, while also allowing for Russia to regain some of its lost Cold War influence in the hermit state. With Turkmenistan being home to the fifth-largest natural gas reserves in the world (proven reserves of 3 Trillion Cubic Meters) and substantial oil reserves as well (Turkmenistan has proven oil reserves of 546m barrels, estimated reserves of more than 2 bn barrels, and large areas that are yet to be explored), the Central Asian nation is of extreme interest particularly to the EU. It could serve as the perfect partner in the realization of an energy corridor from Central Asia to Europe.　

There are, however, doubts about Turkmenistan's oil and gas reserves, or at least the potential to make use it. Former vice Prime Minister and head of the Central Bank of Turkmenistan, Khudaiberdy Orazov, noted that "Everyone had to make do with information from Niyazov about Turkmenistan's gas reserves, which were said to be 22 trillion or even 44 trillion cubic meters. But in reality the only gas field in Turkmenistan was opened under the USSR and has been being exploited ever since...It is completely possible that Turkmenistan has a lot of gas. But first it has to be found, a gas field has to be opened, and extraction has to begin. And no one has done that for 15 years, and in the meantime the Geology Ministry has been disbanded and many specialists have left for Russia or let the profession lapse."

If we are to assume that the country is capable of becoming a major player in the world's energy market, recent signs provide no clue as to who will benefit most. Turkmenistan is scheduled to continue providing Gazprom with 50 billion cubic meters of gas a year at below-market prices through the old Soviet-era pipeline and, starting from 2009, the Chinese are to receive 30 billion cubic meters of a gas a year. On the political front, the current festivities in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, don't provide any hints either, as they are attended by leaders and senior diplomats from a wide range of countries, including European officials, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, a vice-chairman of China's parliament, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, the leaders of Ukraine and Georgia, and even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Turkmenbashi lives on for now, meaning little change within the country and no foreseeable near term impact on the energy and geopolitical chess boards. However, in the hopeful words of an unnamed Western Diplomat in Ashgabat who defended the policy of engagement, "You can take an obese person and tell them that they need to lose weight. Until you see the pounds coming off there's so proof they've absorbed the message...but a crash diet is bad, because you're looking for sustainable change." In other words, the West is choosing to grant Berdymukhamedov and co. the benefit of the doubt for now, allowing for time to implement the necessary changes. Or if you look at it another way, they are hoping to befriend the new leader so as not to alienate the gas-rich nation and increase their own chances of striking some juicy deals.

See also Post #5 Turkmenistan up for Grabs

#36 Average Joe and the New World Order

With the storybook ending of the Cold War that led to the disintegration of the U.S.S.R., the United States has thus far not fulfilled its potential as a unipolar world leader. Unwilling at first to be the world's policeman, it has failed to take heed of the complexity of the world beyond its borders. President Bush is more akin to a swashbuckling cowboy from a John Wayne Western movie than an eloquent, sage-like statesmen. Then again, it is these very average Joe-like qualities that made him such a likable character in the first place.

Fortunately, the current sentiment is that a growing majority of Americans have finally discovered that it takes more than an average Joe to steer America through complex domestic issues and the intricacies of international diplomacy and geopolitics. Unilateralism will most likely officially die when president Bush leaves the office, not only because it is ineffective and damaging to America, but also because America lacks the strength to pursue such an aggressive strategy.

Iraq has become America's 21st Century Vietnam and, instead of Communism, the presidency has branded terrorism as the enemy. Terrorism is not an enemy in itself; it is merely a means of aggressive, destructive diplomacy employed by those factions who lack conventional means to get what they want. What Bush really means, but dares not say in those words, is that his real enemies are various Nationalistic and Islamic fundamentalist groupings. Groups that oppose any Western (American) influence whatsoever.

The Iraq war seems more like a failed crusade, spearheaded by a political brigade of neo-cons who are politically just as backward as the enemy they are fighting. What the Holy land was for the crusaders in medieval times, is what Iraq today has become for America: a draining confrontation between East and West. Even worse is that American troops now find themselves in the crossfire of a civil war, with Iran in a perfect position to damage and pressure America without breaking a sweat.

Hopefully America will be wise enough not to elect another "average Joe," but a president with the qualities of a great statesman. In all likelihood this will be either the first female or the first African-American President of the nation, which in itself provides an interesting new development.

#35 Cold War Resurgence?

While action from Russia such as helping Tehran build a nuclear reactor in Bushehr and selling them anti-missile systems is commonplace, recent talk from Moscow has become increasingly anti-American as well.　

Of all people, Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States recently for the "almost uncontained" use of force in the world, and for encouraging other countries to acquire nuclear weapons. He went on to say that, "One state, the United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres - economic, political and humanitarian, and has imposed itself on other states...this is very dangerous; nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law." Whether he has a point or not, the old saying "get your own house in order before preaching to others" should really carry more weight.　

U.S. reaction has been quite diplomatic, with Secretary of Defence Robert Gates commenting, "Like your second speaker (Putin) yesterday, I have a career not in Diplomacy, but in the spy business. And I guess old spies have a habit of blunt speaking…But I have been to re-education camp." U.S. Republican senator and presidential hopeful, John McCain, was a little more stern, saying "In today's multi-polar world, there is no place for needless confrontation, and I would hope that Russian leaders understand this truth."

Whether today's world is uni-polar or not is a different matter, but McCain certainly has a point when mentioning Russian confrontation. Sure, global U.S. action garners so much attention that it seems they are the instigators of countless conflicts, but other large players such as Russia and China are no angels. Where do you think the bulk of the weapons found in countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Algeria, Syria, Myanmar and Iran come from?　

As for Putin's call for honouring "international law," lest us not forget Russia's spats with countries such as Ukraine and Georgia, or even their recent gas dispute with arch ally Belarus. NATO's expansion eastward has been a major point of contention in Russia's relationship with the West, as it cannot accept the loss of any more influence in former Soviet territory. Within her own borders, the handling of the Chechen issue certainly does not pale compared to U.S. policy in the War on Terror.　

The speech brought out into the open a major Russian grievance: that the country no longer enjoys the international clout it once did. Putin touted Russia's resurgence as a major player on the international stage capable of standing up to the United States and/or being a worthy alternative to the American giant. Such talk is clear provocation, as it calls for division rather than collaboration. This is especially so since a more likely candidate for global superpower, China, is pursuing a more measured foreign policy.　

Backing up his calls for a multi-polar world, Putin, who is soon to step down as President, has become the first Russian head of state to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan; all traditional U.S. allies. Given the long history of warm Russia-Middle East relations, the need to visit these three states in particular is not exactly pressing. It is therefore no coincidence that these visits coincide with his increasingly vocal anti-US rhetoric.　

Putin's speech comes on the backdrop of a recent U.S-Russia space row, when deputy head of the Russian space agency Roskosmos, Vitaly Davydov, sharply criticized what he said were U.S. plans to deploy weapons in space. While the White House has stated the policy does not call for the development or deployment of weapons in space, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov threatened retaliatory steps if any country put weapons in space.　

Quite possibly what has held the U.S. and Russia together is the friendship of Bush and Putin. With both men gone in just over a year, relations might begin to sour at the top level as well. It seems the stage has been set.

#34 France not Immune to Al-Qaeda

The ever presumptuous French President Chirac has countless times stressed the point that the French are good friends of the Arab and Muslim world, that they strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq and will do everything possible to avert the escalation of the US-Iran conflict, to the point of practically siding with the Iranians. These standpoints would make it clear that France should and could never be a target of Muslim extremists. Well, dear old Chirac has clearly misunderstood the threat of such extremism and his policies have been downright foolish.

Just last Friday the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat reported on a French intelligence report that stated France is being targeted by al-Qaeda. The report warned decision makers of a series of scenarios, including a terror attack which will take place ahead of the presidential elections in a bid to influence their results. In order to illustrate that the intelligence report was not based on thin air, a handwritten letter signed by Osama bin Laden was published, which instructed a radical Islamic organization in Algeria to "attack in eastern and southern France." The idea is reminiscent of the Madrid bombing in March 2004, which led to the election of Prime Minister Zapatero and the immediate withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq.

The intelligence information further points to the fact that one of the close assistants of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, confessed during an interrogation by the Iraqi intelligence that about 30 radical Islamic Moroccans carrying a European passport have secretly infiltrated France and several French-speaking countries in Africa in a bid to prepare terror attacks.

Once again it seems that we have to learn the hard way that appeasement really is not an option when dealing with certain types. History should have taught us this already, but with characters like Chirac, the French will possibly have to experience this first hand. France has made a noble and becoming effort to distinguish between Islamic terrorists and Islam as a whole, but the great Satan of the Islamic terrorists, President Bush, has done the same. The problem with France is that they have tried so hard to make this point, that the concept of Islamic terrorism has practically become imponderable in the French psyche. Granted, they do occasionally act on excessive incitement as in the case of the deportation of Imam Abdelkader Bouziane, but these incidents are always seen as a case in point. The idea that France could be a target of a larger international organisation that the country has not waged a war on, is unfathomable. The problem with the US, on the other hand, is that they have been poorly able to get their true intention and standpoint across to the Muslim world.

France will have to change its position if it is to retain any form of independence and not allow itself to be at the whim of terrorist petition the way the Spanish did. This means not having the knee-jerk reaction of opposing every activity and suggestion of the Americans in regard to the Middle East. This also means adopting a more critical standpoint when dealing with rogue states and organizations such as Iran and Hezbollah. Only by taking a clear and especially unbiased position on global issues can France be a worthy opponent of foreign and homegrown threats. Not through appeasement and not by "befriending" the enemy, as the intelligence report clearly shows.