Saturday, August 04, 2007

Romney attacks Obama over Pakistan warning

By Steve Holland Reuters Friday, August 3, 2007; 6:43 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized Democrat Barack Obama on Friday for vowing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan if necessary as the Obama camp issued a strident defense of his plan.

What had been an internecine foreign policy battle between rival Democrats Obama, an Illinois senator, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, spilled into the Republican arena in the heavily contested state of Iowa.

"I do not concur in the words of Barack Obama in a plan to enter an ally of ours... I don't think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort," Romney told reporters on the campaign trail.

Obama on Wednesday said if elected president in November 2008 he would be willing to launch military strikes against al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan with or without the approval of the Pakistani government of President Pervez Musharraf.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is one of the Republican front-runners, said U.S. troops "shouldn't be sent all over the world." He called Obama's comments "ill-timed" and "ill-considered."

"There is a war being waged by terrorists of different types and nature across the world," Romney said. "We want, as a civilized world, to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme with them."

The Obama campaign issued a memo that said the United States has deferred to the "cautious judgment" of Musharraf long enough on how to take out high-value al Qaeda targets like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

"By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page," said the memo written by an Obama foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, the founding executive director of the Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights policy.

The memo defended a number of statements by Obama in the last two weeks that have drawn criticism from Clinton and other Democratic candidates, such as his willingness to meet leaders of hostile nations without preconditions and his ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for president are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the (Washington area) Beltway," the memo said.

The Bush administration has also vowed to act against al Qaeda in Pakistan and elsewhere based on actionable intelligence. But it also is more inclined to work with and trust in the advice of Musharraf, who is struggling to deal with Islamic extremists in his country and has survived assassination attempts as a U.S. ally.

In Islamabad, the Pakistani government said Bush and Musharraf spoke by phone on Friday and that Bush described the prospect of U.S. strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan as unsavory.

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 2, 2007; A01

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Obama's warning to Musharraf drew sharp criticism from several of his rivals for the Democratic nomination, but not from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

Obama delivered a biting critique of President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq and of the administration's overall strategy for combating terrorism, while seeking to reassure Americans that his long-stated opposition to the Iraq war would not compromise his commitment to defending the country from the threat of Islamic extremists.

The muscular speech appeared aimed at inoculating him from criticism that he lacks the toughness to lead the country in a post-9/11 world, while attempting to show that an Obama presidency would herald an important shift in the United States' approach to the world, particularly the Middle East and nearby Asian nations.

The speech came a week after Clinton described Obama as "irresponsible and frankly naive" for saying during a Democratic debate that he would be prepared to meet during his first year as president with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. That set off a days-long argument between the two over diplomacy and the use of the presidency.

Obama described Clinton's approach to diplomacy as "Bush-Cheney light." She described that comparison as "silly." Their differences on the issue of dealing with nations such as Iran, North Korea and Syria, however, appear not to be significant. Both favor a much more energetic and open diplomatic strategy than they say Bush has followed.

Much of Obama's speech yesterday focused on steps designed to reinvigorate U.S. diplomatic efforts to combat terrorism, but the most noteworthy proposals dealt with military actions. Obama said he would deploy at least two more brigades -- about 7,000 troops -- to Afghanistan to combat what he said is the growing Taliban influence there while sending the Afghan government an additional $1 billion in nonmilitary aid.

But he said he would tie U.S. military aid to Pakistan to that country's success in closing down terrorist training camps, in blocking the Taliban from using its territory as a staging ground for attacks on Afghanistan and in getting rid of foreign fighters.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Obama offered no direct criticism of his leading rival for the Democratic nomination, but he indirectly rebuked Clinton and other Democrats who voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war. "With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war," he said.

Clinton did not respond yesterday to the issue of her Iraq vote, but she sought to show her toughness on dealing with terrorist threats without endorsing the idea of raids into Pakistan. In an interview with American Urban Radio News Networks, she said that if there were actionable intelligence showing Osama bin Laden or other prominent terrorist leaders in Pakistan, "I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured." She also said she long has favored sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Other Democratic candidates took issue with Obama's tough talk on Pakistan.

"It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) said in a statement.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, in a telephone interview, said that Obama's threat, if acted upon, could inflame the entire Muslim world. "My international experience tells me that we should address this issue with tough diplomacy first with Musharraf and then leave the military option as a last resort," he said.

Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) said in a statement that he would first apply "maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia" to do their utmost to combat the spread of terrorism. He also challenged both Obama and Clinton to block a proposed U.S. arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called Obama's threat misguided. "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty."

Obama said opposition to the war in Iraq should not lead Americans to turn their backs on threats of terrorism. "The terrorists are at war with us," he said. "The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real."

Beyond military measures aimed at defeating al-Qaeda, Obama outlined a series of other initiatives he would pursue to combat those threats. He repeated an earlier pledge to double U.S. foreign aid to $50 billion, said he would provide $2 billion to combat the influence of Islamic schools known as madrassas and launch a more ambitious public diplomacy initiative, which he promised to steer.

"As president, I will lead this effort," he said. "In the first 100 days of my administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle."

Obama also called for additional steps to protect the homeland from possible attack and a reassertion of American values, promising to prohibit torture "without exception," close the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ensure that all intelligence gathering is done within the letter of the law.

Rekindling last week's debate with Clinton, Obama said he would bring a new approach to diplomacy. "It's time to turn the page on Washington's conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward and that presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear."

Night Raid in Iraq: Seeking Militants, but Also Learning the Lay of the Land

By MICHAEL R. GORDON

FORWARD OPERATING BASE KALSU, Iraq — Capt. Eric Nylander passed the word down the line of soldiers in the darkened Chinook helicopter: “Ice,” meaning the landing area was free of enemy fighters.

The helicopter touched down, and the troops, night vision devices fixed to their helmets, scrambled over the canals and through a boggy field to the farmhouses in the distance.

The mission was to detain as many of the 31 militants on the soldiers’ target list as they could find, uncover arms caches and generally develop intelligence on an area where substantial numbers of American troops had not been for months.

The raid, involving 310 soldiers flown to multiple landing zones northeast of Iskandariya on July 16, was the largest air assault since the Third Combat Aviation Brigade of the Third Infantry Division arrived more than a month earlier.

As American forces hunt for insurgents in the Sunni-dominated belts surrounding Baghdad, air assaults have become an increasingly important tactic.

The helicopter operations have enabled American forces to leapfrog over bomb-seeded roads and difficult terrain to pursue insurgents in remote regions in rural Iraq. But the Americans have also had to contend with an elusive foe accustomed to fading away in the face of a determined attack. “It was a battle-tested way to operate in Vietnam, and it is still a viable technique for operating now in the current fight that we find ourselves in,” said Maj. Greg Kanicki, the operations officer for the Third Combat Aviation Brigade.

The area of the assault, Chaaka Three, is a stretch of soggy farmland northeast of Iskandariya. The canals that crisscross the area restrict the mobility of military vehicles. Some of the important roads have been blocked by powerful, buried bombs and cuts in the road.

The Third Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry, was based in the area, at Forward Operating Base Kalsu, late last year, but then was ordered to Anbar Province to establish control over the heavily contested town of Karma.

By the time the battalion returned to Kalsu in June, Sunni Arab militants had stepped up their activities in the Iskandariya area. The number of roadside bombs placed on Route Tampa, a major north-south supply route, increased. Sunni insurgents in the area had also begun to press the Shiites to the south. The air assault was a way for the battalion to re-establish its presence in an isolated area, detain insurgents and pick up intelligence on the region.

“We’ve been gone a long time, and nobody had really been in the area,” said Col. Valery Keaveny, the Third Battalion commander.

The Third Combat Aviation Brigade was to fly in the troops. During its first month in Iraq, the brigade had conducted more than 40 assaults. But this was to be the largest.

Four Chinooks and four Black Hawk helicopters were to fly from the aviation brigade’s base on the outskirts of Baghdad to Kalsu, where they would pick up two companies of soldiers. The troops would be ferried to their landing zones one company at a time, along with the “Shark,” communications gear mounted on a four-wheel-drive vehicle that would enable the battalion commander to control the operation.

Each Chinook can carry 30 soldiers, compared with 11 for a Black Hawk. But the larger helicopters require more time to unload the troops, making them more vulnerable.

Apache attack helicopters would use their night vision system to look for “squirters,” militants who try to run away, so a quick-reaction force on two Black Hawks could be whisked in to nab them. An unmanned aerial vehicle was kept on station.

The night of the raid there was no moon, but through the greenish hue of night vision goggles, the helicopters were visible as they flew in to pick up the troops. The soldiers sat waiting in darkness off to the side of the airstrip. The hot wash from the choppers buffeted them as they landed. The first company clambered into the aircraft. Captain Nylander’s company was the second wave.

A crucial part of air assaults is making the call on the safety of the landing zones: “cherry,” if there is too much enemy resistance to land, or “ice,” if it is safe to unload troops. But this night, the problem would not be enemy fire during landing, but rather finding the foe.

After Captain Nylander’s men rushed down the ramp, they moved in on nearby homes. One of the people who the Americans were looking for was suspected of arranging the travel of foreign fighters into the area. First Lt. Caleb Curlin spied the man’s photo, proudly displayed on the wall of one home.

But neither he nor any other Iraqi men were to be found. The homes were filled with anxious women and children who slept through the episode in the steamy heat on mats on the floor. The women insisted that the men in the area had left months ago or had been detained by the Americans. Lieutenant Curlin was not convinced.

Efforts to elicit cooperation were no more successful. The lieutenant asked the women if they felt safer with American troops nearby; they said that they did. The lieutenant offered money for help in finding arms caches. The women said they would be happy to volunteer such information without pay, but knew of none.

The lieutenant was unhappy that he did not have a mixed group of men and women to question. When men are present, he said, it was possible to question them separately and then check their accounts against those provided by women.

The Americans used a portable device to take the women’s fingerprints and scan their retinas, a standard practice to develop a biometric record of the Iraqis in the area. The soldiers searched a wall-high pile of linen and bed mats, leaving them in a heap in the floors, and went through drawers and wardrobes looking for incriminating materials.

Soon word came over the radio that other soldiers had had more luck. An arms cache had been located and destroyed. Other suspects had been detained, including two Iraqi men who were observed trying to sneak away along a canal. A small group of detainees were handcuffed, blindfolded and marched to a rendezvous point in the field so they could be flown away along with the troops.

There had been no exchange of fire, but far fewer detainees than the 31 people that the soldiers were looking for. Days later, the final tally was reported: Of 11 Iraqis who had been seized, 3 had been questioned and released. Of the 8 who remained in custody, 3 were considered “high-value targets,” meaning senior insurgents.

The Americans had also snatched several machine guns, found a car that was used to assemble roadside bombs, seized $2,700 sewn into a man’s suit, and found an Iraqi police uniform and a large number of identification cards.

Lieutenant Curlin took a philosophical view. The soldiers had learned more about the Iraqis who lived in the area, including a sheik. And they had a better understanding of the terrain for future operations. “It is good to get a little bit of lay of the land, what it looks like, for the next time you come,” he said.

European Company Close to Reaching Libyan Arms Deal

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

PARIS, Aug. 3 — European Aeronautic Defense and Space, Europe’s largest aerospace company, confirmed Friday that it was close to signing two weapons contracts with the government of Libya. It would be the first arms deal with the North African country since the European Union lifted military sanctions on it nearly three years ago.

The progress on contracts with the company, which is under French and German management, worth $405 million by some accounts, comes just a week after President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and his wife, Cécilia, helped secure the release of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor who had spent more than eight years in prison after being accused of infecting hundreds of Libyan children with H.I.V.

The case had long strained Libya’s relations with the European Union. But the French government denied Friday that any direct bargain for weapons contracts had been made with Libya for the medical workers’ freedom.

The French defense minister, Hervé Morin, said on RTL radio that the deals had been cleared by a French ministerial commission on weapons sales in February, well before Mr. Sarkozy succeeded Jacques Chirac as president in May.

But undercutting French officials, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, the son of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, disclosed the contracts in an interview in Le Monde. He said that during a recent visit by Mr. Sarkozy, the Libyans asked him to “accelerate things.”

More Violence In Pakistani Border Region

August 4, 2007 -- In Pakistan today, a suicide bomber blew up his explosives-laden car near a busy bus station, killing at least six people and wounding 30 others.

The attack took place in the city of Parachinar, near the Afghan border.

It followed overnight clashes between the Pakistani military and pro-Taliban militants at an army checkpoint in North Waziristan, also near the Afghan border.

The Pakistani military said four of its soldiers were killed in that shootout.

A military spokesman said 10 militants were killed in the clash overnight south of Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, which borders Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Pakistan says U.S. President George W. Bush has told President Pervez Musharraf that the United States fully respects Pakistan's sovereignty and appreciates Pakistan's resolve in fighting Al-Qaeda and other terrorist elements.

The Pakistani Foreign Ministry said Bush offered the comments in a telephone call with Musharraf.

Pakistan this week objected after U.S. Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama said the United States must be ready to launch possible strikes against extremist targets inside Pakistan if Pakistani forces fail to take action.

(compiled from agency reports)

14 Killed as Pakistan Army Clashes With Militants

By REUTERS

Filed at 12:12 a.m. ET

MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pro-Taliban tribesman attacked a Pakistani army checkpost in the troubled North Waziristan region on Saturday, killing four soldiers, but 10 militants were killed in the exchange of fire, an army spokesman said.

Four members of the security forces were also wounded in the pre-dawn clash in the Dosali area, some 40 km (25 miles) south of Miranshah, the main town of the tribal region bordering Afghanistan, Major-General Waheed Arshad said.

Slowly, Clinton Shifts on War, Quieting Foes

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and PATRICK HEALY

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 — A little more than a year ago, before Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton entered the race for the White House, she drew a storm of boos from an audience of liberal Democrats here as she declared that it would be a mistake to set a “date certain” for withdrawing American troops from Iraq.

But before another Democratic audience last month in Des Moines, Mrs. Clinton drew applause when she declared that it was time to begin “ending this war — not next year, not next month, but today.”

The senator, who voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq, has over the past year gradually repositioned herself on the war, the issue that her advisers have long viewed as the biggest obstacle to her winning the presidential nomination.

In a series of speeches, interviews and Senate votes, Mrs. Clinton has brought her stance much more in line with Democratic primary voters and the positions of most of her Democratic rivals — and has done it, so far, without sustained accusations of flip-flopping.

Her advisers said any evolution was the result of policy judgment reflecting the changing circumstances of the war, rather than a politically calculated repackaging. In many ways, her shift reflects changes in the nation’s view of whether a positive outcome is possible in Iraq.

The degree to which Mrs. Clinton has actually defused the issue will get a test on Saturday when she appears with fellow Democrats in a debate in Chicago before an audience of liberal bloggers, one of the most intensely antiwar constituencies in the party and one that has been particularly skeptical of — and often hostile toward — Mrs. Clinton.

But there is already evidence that she has made progress in reducing the intensity of the opposition to her among some of her most fervent antiwar opponents and in building support among the broader universe of Democrats who oppose the war.

A New York Times/CBS News poll in July 2006 found that among Democrats who said the invasion of Iraq had been a mistake, 56 percent said they had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton’s performance. A year later, that figure had risen to 69 percent. Her standing during that period among all Democrats has also shown improvement. On the campaign trail, antiwar protests at her appearances are less frequent and less loud.

“Thanks to her votes on defunding the war and supporting a timetable for withdrawal, she has defused the war issue as a problem for her, and her 2002 vote for the war, to quite an extent,” said Medea Benjamin, a leader of the antiwar group Code Pink, whose members once regularly booed and heckled Mrs. Clinton whenever she spoke about the war.

“There’s still a passionate minority of us who believe the fact she won’t apologize for her war vote is a big deal,” Ms. Benjamin said.

But, she added, “she has gone a long way to changing things.”

Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the liberal Daily Kos Web site, said Mrs. Clinton had “done a great job of blurring on the war.”

Mr. Moulitsas, whose Web site inspired this weekend’s gathering of bloggers in Chicago, cited Mrs. Clinton’s statements that she would leave a sizable military force in Iraq even after reducing the American military role there, saying that distinction was lost in the way she had presented her antiwar credentials.

“I don’t know if policy and rhetoric are aligned,” Mr. Moulitsas said. “But people don’t see the policy paper on our side; they hear what she says, and she talks a great game.”

Aides to Mrs. Clinton’s rivals argued she would still have a problem in the early voting states — Iowa and New Hampshire — where antiwar sentiments are high and Democrats are aware of her evolution on the issue.

“The people for whom the war is a No. 1 issue, she is always going to have a problem,” said Jonathan Prince, a deputy campaign manager for John Edwards. “The folks who are deciding their vote based on the war and are antiwar are quite aware that she has tacked back and forth on this.”

As a senator from North Carolina in 2002, Mr. Edwards also voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, but he later apologized for his vote — something Mrs. Clinton has not done — and has become an outspoken critic of the war.

Nonetheless, advisers to Mrs. Clinton’s opponents said she had made herself a much more elusive target. They said it had become more difficult to attack her for her history of supporting the war — and for refusing to apologize for her vote — than it had been when she had resisted setting a deadline for getting troops out.

The fact that Mrs. Clinton is not getting booed on the issue the way she was six months ago suggests, as some war critics and the senator’s advisers said on Friday, that it is not easy for an opponent of the war to jeer Mrs. Clinton as she is saying, “We need to bring our combat troops home from Iraq, starting right now,” as she did to a labor audience in Washington in June.

Mrs. Clinton has benefited because antiwar groups in Washington that have been pushing for Congress to cut off financing for the war have become more pragmatic, turning their heat on moderate Republicans who supported President Bush, and away from Democrats like Mrs. Clinton who once supported the war but have now changed.

Beyond that, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers suggested that she executed the shift with minimal political cost because there was no one moment in which she dramatically telegraphed a turn-around. From that perspective, they argued, her decision to resist calls from war opponents to apologize for her vote authorizing the war proved to be the right one, since it could have offered a critics an opportunity to label her as inconsistent — a line of attack that hurt Senator John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign and one that could have complicated Mrs. Clinton’s efforts to convince the nation that it can trust her to be commander in chief.

An adviser to one of Mrs. Clinton’s opponents, who did not want to be quoted by name offering praise for the way she was handling the issue, described the senator’s change as “more of a slide than a flip-flop.”

Mrs. Clinton’s advisers pointed to statements she has made and stances she has taken over the past year that have repositioned her. Those include her decision, this spring, to vote in favor of a troop withdrawal timetable, and her decision to support a cut off of money for the war. She signaled the shift with a speech to the Democratic National Committee in February saying, “If we in Congress don’t end this war before January of 2009, as president I will.”

Madeleine K. Albright, the former secretary of State, who is advising Mrs. Clinton on Iraq and other foreign policy issues, said, “Through the spring she became increasingly frustrated with the fact that the administration didn’t seem to listen.”

“You begin to kind of say, ‘O.K., now what? We need an answer,’ ” Ms. Albright said. “She was feeling a necessity to send a stronger and stronger message.”

Rice Backs Appointed Palestinian Premier and Mideast Democracy

By HELENE COOPER and STEVEN ERLANGER

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Aug. 2 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, embracing an appointed Palestinian prime minister here in the West Bank, said Thursday that the United States still supported democracy in the Middle East. But she defended the American refusal to recognize the earlier, elected, Hamas-led government.

Standing next to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, during a news conference here, Ms. Rice said, “We believe strongly in the right of people to express themselves and their desires, in elections.” But, she added, once elected, “ you have the obligation to govern responsibly.”

She said that the United States and other Western nations had been right to boycott Hamas and the elected Palestinian government. “You can’t have one foot in the path of terror and one foot in the path of politics,” she added.

Ms. Rice met with Salam Fayyad, the prime minister selected by Mr. Abbas after he ousted the Hamas-led government.

Mr. Abbas of Fatah has been seeking to consolidate his power since a June coup left the rival Hamas movement in power in the Gaza Strip. He has held out the prospect of new elections soon. He appointed Mr. Fayyad after firing the Hamas-led government of Ismail Haniya.

Hamas won a legislative majority in January 2006, but Fatah never agreed to accept it, and the United States and Israel refused to deal with Hamas, which they classify as a terrorist organization, unless it accepted Israel’s right to exist and agreed to give up violence.

Ms. Rice said it was up to the Palestinians to decide when to hold a new vote, but the Americans, like the Israelis, have told Mr. Abbas they will not accept a renewal of a unity government with Hamas.

Mr. Abbas said Thursday that he would not try to reconcile with Hamas unless they “reverse everything they did” and “apologize to the Palestinian people — then we might reconsider.”

It would be nearly impossible for Mr. Abbas to hold an early vote unless Hamas agreed to one. Mr. Abbas told Ms. Rice that he was ready to work with Israel on a “declaration of principles” as an interim step toward a full peace agreement, an idea floated last week by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. Such a declaration, as envisioned by Israel, would outline the contours of a future Palestinian state, without immediately tackling the most explosive issues, like final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees.

Mr. Abbas said Thursday that once such a declaration had been negotiated, “what is important is that we arrive at a result and that we know what that result is, what is the roof that we need to reach, but the stages of implementation can be agreed on later.”

Separately on Wednesday and Thursday, Ms. Rice met with Mr. Olmert and other senior Israeli officials to discuss plans for Mr. Bush’s fall conference on Palestinian-Israeli peace.

Her meetings in the West Bank ended a three-day swing through the region that included stops in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where she pressed for Arab support for the conference.

Ms. Rice’s trip was the first high-level American visit to Israel and the West Bank since the Gaza takeover.

Since then, Mr. Abbas — and the world — have largely left Gaza to itself to be governed by Hamas, focusing aid and diplomatic efforts on the West Bank, where Mr. Abbas’s Fatah forces remain in control. The United States, Israel and the European Union have all welcomed the dissolution of the Palestinian government.

Mr. Bush quickly unfroze $86 million in aid, which was put into the deep freeze after Hamas won the 2006 elections. On Thursday, Ms. Rice signed a so-called framework agreement with Mr. Fayyad, which ostensibly released the first $10 million in aid. The money is intended to strengthen Mr. Abbas’s security forces.

A spokesman for Hamas in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, criticized the Rice visit and the release of the aid.

“She came to incite one Palestinian side against another,” he said. “She came to provide $80 million to stamp out resistance forces. Rice did not come to the region to establish a Palestinian state, as she and her master Bush claimed, but instead she came to support one Palestinian party against another, and to support the Zionist occupation.”

In a statement, Mr. Olmert praised the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, who said Wednesday that his country was leaning toward attending the Middle East meeting, but wanted it to be substantive. Mr. Olmert “shares the same approach, that the international meeting will be serious and meaningful, and he welcomes the participation of leaders of Arab countries in the meeting,” his office said.

But Israeli officials also emphasized that, unlike the Saudis, the Israelis believe that the core issues of the conflict should be discussed in a bilateral format with the Palestinians, rather than in an international framework that might make them more difficult to solve.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said the most delicate issues should not be addressed immediately.

In Gaza City on Wednesday night, at least one Palestinian was killed when Hamas tried to arrest a member of Islamic Jihad after he fired into the air at a wedding.

Medical officials said that in subsequent clashes between Islamic Jihad and Hamas’s Executive Force, acting as the police, one Executive Force member was killed.

Helene Cooper reported from Ramallah, and Steven Erlanger from Jerusalem.

U.S. Airstrike on 2 Taliban Commanders in South Wounds at Least 18 Civilians, Afghans Say

By ABDUL WAHEED WAFA and TAIMOOR SHAH

KABUL, Afghanistan, Aug. 3 — The United States military said Friday that it had carried out an airstrike on two Taliban commanders during “a sizable meeting” of insurgents in a remote region of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, but that it could not be sure the men had been killed.

Local officials said that at least 18 Afghans were wounded in the attack.

A large number of the Taliban had gathered for a public execution near a shrine in the Baghran district and that members of the public were also present at the time of the bombing, 4 p.m. on Thursday, they said.

“The people say there were many people there,” the provincial police chief, Muhammad Hussain Andiwal, said in a telephone interview. “The Taliban were also in great numbers; some 16 to 17 vehicles belonging to the Taliban were present at the scene. There must be heavy casualties to the Taliban.”

“We have information from the wounded people who were brought to Bost Hospital in Lashkar Gah that the Taliban brought two men accused of spying and they were going to execute them publicly, and they forced the people to come and watch them,” the police chief said. “I don’t know the exact number of civilian casualties.”

The doctor on duty at the hospital in the provincial capital, Lashkar Gah, said at least 18 wounded civilians were being treated there, including an 8-year old boy.

The United States military released a statement from Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul, saying that it had information that two “notorious” Taliban commanders were at the gathering, and that it had monitored their movements in the village of Qaleh Chah, in the Baghran district.

“During a sizable meeting of senior Taliban commanders, coalition forces employed precision-guided munitions on their location after ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area,” the statement said.

“This operation shows that there is no safe haven for the insurgents,” said Maj. Chris Belcher, a spokesman for United States forces in Afghanistan. “It will take some time to determine if both targets were killed.”

The planes bombed a shrine known as Ibrahim Shah Baba, in the Baghran district, the police chief said. Baghran, one of the most remote and mountainous parts of Helmand, is a known Taliban stronghold where United States and NATO ground troops have not ventured recently. The area is so lawless that even local journalists cannot travel to the area to conduct independent reporting.

A tribal elder from the region, Hajji Zahir, speaking from Lashkar Gah, said that he had contacted people in the region and been told that hundreds were present at the Taliban execution of the men, who were charged with spying or working for the government. Taliban fighters and civilians were among the dead and wounded, he said.

“We have received 18 people, all wounded severely,” Dr. Rahmatullah, the duty officer at the provincial hospital in Lashkar Gah, said by telephone. “They are all men, there is only one 8-year-boy among them.

“One of the men, who had a serious trauma, died at the hospital,” he said.

The wounded had talked of very high casualties and said they had been near a shrine when the bombing occurred, the doctor said.

Carlotta Gall contributed from Islamabad, Pakistan.

Drug Gangs Use Violence to Sway Guatemala Vote

By MARC LACEY

GUATEMALA CITY — It is election time in Guatemala and that means rallies and banners — and body bags.

In the campaigning leading up to elections on Sept. 9, the authorities have reported 61 violent attacks on candidates and political activists. The death toll is 26, including seven national congressmen and numerous other office seekers.

The flurry of bullets, and the occasional machete attack, make this the bloodiest campaign season in the history of a country with a long tradition of political violence, including 36 years of civil war that ended in 1996. But what makes the bloodletting different this time is that it has been attributed to narcotics traffickers and their allies intent on infiltrating Guatemala’s political system.

So dangerous is campaigning that Álvaro Colom, the leading presidential candidate, flies in a helicopter to avoid being ambushed and travels with a physician with extensive experience in bullet wounds. He is careful what he eats, lest someone poison it. “I hate to say this, but it’s more violent now than during the war,” he said.

It is not only South America’s drug-producing countries that are at risk these days from the impact of the drug trade, or even of becoming narcostates. More and more, corrosive effects are being felt in the countries where the drugs transit, like Guatemala, Mexico and Haiti, as competition grows, in effect, to set up toll roads on the drug routes to the United States.

Somewhere between 60 and 90 percent of the South American cocaine that enters the United States now comes through Central America, American officials say, pulling rising levels of political instability, violence and corruption in its wake.

The most popular trafficking routes shift constantly to stay one step ahead of law enforcement efforts, the officials say. “If you attack the cockroach in one corner, the son of a gun shows up in another,” said a senior American counternarcotics official in the region, who spoke on background to avoid compromising future investigations.

Cartels active in Colombia, where much of the region’s cocaine is produced, have connections with politicians, military officers and others throughout the area to assist them in getting drugs and drug profits out, whether on small planes or boats.

Guatemala provides an increasingly important transit point, American officials say, as traffickers take advantage of the country’s dire poverty and lawlessness. They have already made considerable progress over the years, political analysts and law enforcement officials say, by installing sympathetic politicians in Congress and in local city halls.

“Controlling the political system is their goal,” said Iduvina Hernandez, an analyst at a Guatemalan research group called Security in Democracy. “If they can control a small town, they can build a landing strip there and use it as a base. If they have someone in Congress, all the better.”

With plenty of money to spend, drug dealers finance as many campaigns as they can and put forward candidates who are on the take. Resistance is met with gunfire.

José Carlos Marroquín, Mr. Colom’s chief strategist, might have joined the list of victims as well. Last year, as campaigning got under way, assailants lobbed three grenades at his motorcade and opened fire on the vehicles with automatic weapons. He survived but the threats against him and his family have not let up.

“Politics is dangerous here,” said Mr. Marroquín, a former newspaper editor. “Along with the regular campaigns, there is a campaign of fear.”

In addition to the traffickers, an array of other heavily armed groups, including rogue soldiers, paramilitary groups, street gangs and smugglers, are fueling the violence. None of them are trigger shy.

Street violence is part of life in Guatemala even when an election is not around the corner. People are shot by muggers, caught in the cross fire of rival gangs and taken out by hit men as a matter of course.

Campaign season brings a spike in the killing, although homicides are only rarely solved here and political crime is no exception. [Guatemala’s Congress voted Aug. 1 to approve an initiative backed by President Óscar Berger’s administration that would allow United Nations investigators to aid in the prosecution of armed groups. It is being called the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala.]

In one example of how hard it is to crack a case here, three Salvadoran members of the Central American Parliament and their driver were murdered in Guatemala in February. The suspected killers, four police officers, were themselves later murdered in prison. A police officer and five men with links to a drug cartel have been arrested, although the motive for the attacks and counterattacks remains unknown. Mr. Berger’s security minister resigned in the wake of the killings.

The effect of all the violence on the candidates is profound. They move around with their own private armies, usually in bullet-proof vehicles loaded with small arsenals.

One of those who feel most vulnerable is Mr. Colom, a businessman who is leading the pack in the presidential race. People affiliated with his party have suffered more attacks, 16 of the 61, than any other.

Besides the recent attacks on members of his party, he is haunted by the past. His uncle, Manuel Colom Argueta, was a leading presidential candidate in 1979, when he was gunned down.

One candidate forced out of Mr. Colom’s National Unity for Hope party in 2005 was Manuel de Jesús Castillo, a congressman who has been accused but never convicted of links to drug interests.

He is running for mayor of the provincial town of Jutiapa as an independent. It is a campaign he is expected to win, largely because of his precampaign giveaways of everything from farming tools to livestock. The raffles he sponsors even offer free plots of land to lucky residents — but only if he wins.

“I’m clean, and it’s a lie what they say about me,” Mr. Castillo, who has formed his own civic organization called El Castillo, or the Castle, has told reporters. He travels his rural district in a yellow Hummer and has burly men nearby to protect him.

With the murder rate at roughly 6,000 deaths a year, it is not hard to understand why security has emerged as the chief issue of the campaign.

“There are presidential candidates who are trying to scare the people,” Mr. Colom said the other day, an indirect attack at Otto Pérez Molina, a tough-talking former general who is considered to be No. 2 in the polls. “We have a plan to bring security but also health and education and jobs.”

Mr. Pérez Molina’s campaign symbol is a fist. He is all about “mano dura,” or “strong hand,” his shorthand for a no-holds-barred crackdown on delinquency. The tough message has appeal among crime-weary Guatemalans, who were shown in a recent survey to back extreme methods, even vigilantism, to cut the country’s murder rate.

The population applauded Alejandro Giammattei, a former director of prisons and the candidate of the ruling party, when he ordered a raid on a notorious prison last year that had become a center for organized crime. Subsequently, gunmen tried to end his life, Mr. Giammattei said.

After that, Guatemala’s top human rights official said there was evidence that the police had shot and killed seven prisoners after they had been detained in the raid. Mr. Giammattei denied that account, although public sympathy for the prisoners who were killed has been minimal.

Even the candidacy of Efraín Ríos Montt, a former dictator who is running for a congressional seat, has not prompted much of an uproar here. Mr. Ríos Montt is expected to win a seat, which will make it harder to prosecute him on charges of violating human rights during the country’s long civil war.

In April, 31 members of the United States Congress sent a letter to Guatemala’s attorney general calling for the immediate arrest of Mr. Ríos Montt, who ruled the country from 1982 to 1983, which was considered the bloodiest period of the civil war.

Warrants for Mr. Ríos Montt’s arrest, issued by a Spanish judge, stem from complaints filed by another presidential candidate, Rigoberta Menchú, winner of the 1992 Nobel Peace Prize for her work on behalf of Guatemala’s marginalized indigenous communities, which bore the brunt of the violence during the war.

With little in the way of resources, her campaign is struggling, despite its message of breaking with the country’s violent past. A Quiche Indian, she would be the first woman and the first indigenous person to serve as president.

As a symbol of the peace he wants, Mr. Colom, who is in his third bid for the presidency, threw a dove in the air at a recent campaign rally. It went up for a moment, its wings flapping furiously, then quickly plummeted to the ground.

Bush Sends Warning Meant for Syria: Don’t Meddle in Lebanon

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 — President Bush said Thursday that the United States would freeze the property and assets of anyone trying to undermine Lebanon’s democratically elected government — a move intended as a sharp warning to Syria and its ally Hezbollah.

The announcement, in an executive order and an accompanying letter to Congress, reflects heightened concern in Washington that Syria is trying to reassert control over Lebanon. It comes a little more than a month after the administration announced that it was enacting a travel ban, barring “those who have contributed to the breakdown of the rule of law in Lebanon,” possibly including leading Syrian intelligence officials, from entering the United States.

Taken together, the steps are an effort to ratchet up pressure on Syria at a time when the administration contends that it is helping to fuel the insurgency in Iraq, as well as creating instability in Lebanon. Mr. Bush’s order deems interference in Lebanon’s government to be an “extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States,” and declares it a “national emergency.”

Administration officials say they are especially concerned that the fragile democratic government in Lebanon, headed by Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, could splinter if the Lebanese president, Émile Lahoud, who has close ties to Syria, tries to establish an alternate government. That concern has grown in recent months, said an administration official involved in formulating the executive order.

“We think measures like this visa ban and the executive order not only allow us to target people who are behind this and complicit in it, but they raise the cost of going along with it,” said the official, who did not have authorization to speak on the record. “There are key figures in Lebanon who could go one way or the other, who are sitting on the fence, and this is a way to try to deter them.”

The White House, which has long regarded Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, is particularly incensed over Syrian support for Hezbollah, the militant group in Lebanon that waged war against Israel last summer. In the months since, Lebanese cabinet members aligned with Syria have resigned from the government, and the United Nations Security Council has voted to form a special tribunal to try Syrians suspected in the 2005 assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister.

Mr. Hariri, who was killed in a car bombing, had opposed Syria’s strong political and military presence in Lebanon. Protests after his death led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops, who had been in Lebanon since the 1970s.

The White House would not identify particular targets of the executive order, but they are likely to include those who were potentially under the travel ban. Among them was Gen. Asef Shawkat, a leading Syrian intelligence official and the brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. General Shawkat has been implicated in the murder of Mr. Hariri.

Experts say it is unclear what effect, if any, freezing property and assets will have. Jon B. Alterman, a Middle East expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington who visited President Assad about a month ago, said Mr. Assad and his associates were deeply concerned that the Siniora government could threaten his own.

“They are concerned that a hostile government in Lebanon will be a means to undermine the government of Syria, and they’re determined to undermine any government in Lebanon that they see as hostile,” Mr. Alterman said, adding, “I don’t think economic measures can deter people from what they regard as their strategic goals.”

'Depth of mistrust' in Iraq unforeseen

With Sunnis' exit from government, Pentagon chief Gates says the focus will be on achieving reconciliation at a provincial level.
By Peter Spiegel and Alexandra Zavis
Times Staff Writers

August 3, 2007

ABU DHABI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES — Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates acknowledged Thursday that the Bush administration underestimated the difficulty of getting a political truce in Iraq, where Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's government has been crippled by a walkout by Sunni Arab ministers.

Gates said he was optimistic about military progress in several Iraqi regions, particularly Al Anbar, a western province that was once a haven for insurgents.

But he said he was discouraged by the Shiite-dominated government's inability to reach a compromise to pass legislation aimed at reconciling the country's ethnic and sectarian groups. Reaching such political agreements, a central goal of the troop buildup strategy, may still be a long way off, he said.

"I just think in some ways we probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together," Gates said.

The Pentagon chief's remarks Thursday were his closest yet to acknowledging that the Bush administration's top political goals for Iraq may not materialize during the buildup, even if it is extended into next spring, the latest the military could sustain the increase. He also is the top Bush administration official to express such concerns publicly.

The Defense secretary was speaking to reporters aboard his plane as he headed back to Washington after a three-day, four-country visit to urge Sunni Arab allies in the region to do more to support the Maliki government.

Until now, Gates has been circumspect in his assessment of the "surge" strategy launched in February, and has been careful not to wade into the political fight between the White House and Capitol Hill over its duration.

Although Gates did say in testimony on Capitol Hill that he would like to see the "surge" end by December, a senior Defense official familiar with his thinking said those views had "been overtaken by events." Gates, the official said, is waiting for an evaluation due next month from Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, to decide how long to continue the security plan.

--

Political yardsticks

The Bush administration's benchmarks for progress include passing laws to divide the nation's oil wealth, set dates for provincial elections and allow former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, predominantly Sunni Arabs, to obtain government jobs and pensions.

Gates highlighted progress being made in local and provincial governments, another sign that Pentagon strategy may be shifting away from trying to impose a top-down solution to Iraq's sectarian conflict.

"The developments at the local level I think are more encouraging than I would have expected three or four months ago," he said.

Shifting focus away from the central government and toward provincial leaders would be a significant change for the administration, which has said the troop increase was aimed at calming violence enough to allow for political reconciliation at a national level.

Gates was careful not to say he had given up on national leaders.

"I think the developments on the political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level, and clearly the withdrawal of the Sunnis from the government is discouraging," he said. "My hope is it can all be patched back together."

But he said such progress would be dependent on Iraqi army and police forces holding difficult neighborhoods, an effort that has proved elusive.

In Baghdad, Maliki's party urged the main Sunni Arab bloc to reconsider its decision to quit the Cabinet. Maliki had not accepted the resignations Thursday, said Sami Askari, an aide to the prime minister and a member of his Islamic Dawa Party, a Shiite group.

In a statement, the Islamic Dawa Party said it was concerned that the Sunni bloc had quit "before exhausting all means of dialogue."

"The current situation in Iraq and the continued terrorist operations targeting innocent civilians and infrastructure demands national solidarity," the party said.

U.S. officials had hoped that including members of the Sunni Arab minority in the Cabinet would give them a stake in Iraq's political process and undercut support for the insurgency. But a year later, Sunni Muslim politicians complain that they have nothing to show for their participation.

"The issue cannot be resolved with appeals alone," said Iyad Samarrai, secretary-general of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a leading member of the Sunni coalition, known as the Iraqi Accordance Front, or Tawafiq. "The basis of the problem must be resolved."

The Sunni bloc, which had been boycotting Cabinet meetings since late June, had given the government a week to respond to a list of demands, including the release of detainees not charged with specific crimes, the disbanding of militias and inclusion of all major groups in security decisions. Maliki's office had called the move political blackmail.

President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd who led attempts to head off the walkout, used a meeting Thursday of the Political Council for National Security to try to kick-start a new round of talks to heal the rift, aides said.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. Petraeus discussed the political crisis with Maliki during a regular meeting Thursday, Askari and U.S. officials said. Talabani also briefed British Ambassador Dominic Asquith.

The Accordance Front has 44 seats in parliament, and Samarrai said it would remain engaged in the political process. He said the group planned to take part in a meeting of parliamentary bloc leaders in the coming days, at which all sides hope to work out differences on key legislation.

The Sunni bloc also is exploring possible alliances with moderate Shiite, Kurdish and other politicians, said its leader, Adnan Dulaimi.

--

Suicide attack

As talks continued, at least 28 Iraqis were reported killed in bomb blasts, mortar fire and other violence. In the worst of the incidents, a suicide bomber drove his explosives-laden car into a crowd of recruits at a police station northeast of the capital, killing at least 13 people and injuring 15 others, police said.

Police in Baghdad recovered at least 24 bodies, many of them apparent victims of sectarian killing in the city's western neighborhoods.

The U.S. military reported the deaths of two soldiers, one during combat operations Thursday in a western section of Baghdad, and another Wednesday near the southern port city of Basra.

At least 3,662 U.S. personnel have died since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, according to the website icasualties.org, which tracks military casualties.

North of the capital, more than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and police, backed by U.S. troops, launched a campaign Thursday to clear militants from Samarra, where the bombing of a revered Shiite Muslim shrine, which destroyed its golden dome, unleashed a vicious cycle of sectarian killing last year. The shrine's two minarets were destroyed in an attack in June.

--

peter.spiegel@latimes.com

alexandra.zavis@latimes.com

Spiegel reported from Abu Dhabi and Zavis from Baghdad. Times staff writer Saif Hameed in Baghdad and special correspondents in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Hillah contributed to this report.

Sudan rebel affects peace talks by sitting out

As other opposition leaders meet today to map strategy, Abdel Wahid will wield considerable clout -- from exile in Paris.
By Maggie Farley
Times Staff Writer

August 3, 2007

PARIS — At the moment, the headquarters of Abdel Wahid's faction of the Sudanese Liberation Movement is a cafe in Paris.

"I may be in exile, but my people know I am still with them," says Wahid, reaching into his bag and pulling out four cellphones and a chunky Thuraya satellite phone with its thumb-like antenna.

"This one is for the commanders, so I can tell them what to do and what not to do. This," he said, holding up a newer Nokia, "is for civil society so we can discuss their next move. This one is for [displaced people] and refugees. This one is for students. Sometimes I address their secret meetings by speakerphone."

And who is the satellite phone for? "I can't tell you." He smiles.

Wahid, a round-faced 39-year-old, is one of Darfur's original rebel leaders, and even from afar, a man of secrets, contradictions and considerable power. He is a holdout who gains influence over the conversation about peace by refusing to talk; a would-be peacemaker who threatens more war; a fighter for the rights of displaced people, yet a figure who derives his power from their misery. And he is one reason it is so hard to stabilize Sudan.

Wahid began the SLM in 1992 while a law student in Khartoum, the Sudanese capital, to agitate for a secular democratic state and a greater share of the country's power and wealth for the long-neglected people in the vast western region of Darfur. The group evolved into an armed movement, which along with other rebels attacked Sudanese forces in 2003. The rebellion resulted in widespread retaliation by militias known as janjaweed, widely believed to be backed by the Sudanese government. The militias terrorized the villages harboring rebels, resulting in more than 200,000 deaths and driving more than 2 million people from their homes into U.N.-run camps.

Though he has been living in Paris since 2004 for what he says are security reasons, Wahid remains one of the most influential leaders of the Fur tribe, which makes up the majority of Darfur's population and has been the main target of attacks.

In addition to working the phones, Wahid sends videotapes to camps, exhorting Darfur natives to press to return to the land from which they were forced, to hold out for compensation, to demand United Nations protection. It is a message of hope and defiance in a place where there is not much left but despair, and when you ask people in the camps who represents them, many still say, "Abdel Wahid."

Wahid's continued popularity explains why U.N. peace negotiators want him at the table at preliminary peace talks due to begin today in Arusha, Tanzania, not at this zinc cafe table sipping Coke Light. The talks are meant to help the splintered opposition find a common platform so they can face the government in negotiations this fall.

Unlike other rebel leaders, Wahid refused to sign the Darfur peace agreement in May 2006, holding out for additional compensation and a greater role in the central government for Darfur residents. Without the support of the Fur, the agreement quickly crumbled. But Wahid once again refuses to attend negotiations, even the Tanzania talks among fellow rebels, which run through Monday, saying that more signed paper is not the path to peace.

"There have been many agreements before and no change," he said, counting off 11 rounds of talks that yielded several unsuccessful cease-fire and peace agreements. "The government must show us they are serious by stopping the attacks.

"Just this week there were more attacks" by militias against villagers in Darfur, he said, his voice rising. "My trust of the government is under zero. I need to see action first. Once there is security in Darfur, we will know it is time to talk about peace."

Though past agreements have foundered — on account of violations by the janjaweed, the government and rebels alike — U.N. peace envoys believe that this time they have momentum.

On Tuesday, the U.N. Security Council authorized the deployment of 26,000 peacekeepers to help stabilize Darfur. The government, facing growing international pressure and seemingly losing support of some Arab and African allies, is willing to talk. Neighboring countries that have been stirring the pot have agreed to step back. Most of the dozen or so rebel groups are trying to come together for the sake of peace.

The main holdout is Wahid.

"Without him, I am afraid the talks won't go forward," said the U.N.'s special envoy for Sudan, Jan Eliasson, who has spent months trying to nudge all the players to the table. "This is the big chance."

Wahid seems to take pleasure in rejecting the high-ranking dignitaries from the U.N., the U.S. and France, who come to quietly court, or warn, him. They have let him know that if he blocks the move toward peace, he will be subject to sanctions, just as surely as if he violated a cease-fire. Specifically, France could revoke his right to stay here.

"France can go to hell," he said loudly, provoking looks from nearby patrons in the cafe. "Sanctions are for criminals. Sanction Khartoum! I am not a criminal. I am fully committed to a cease-fire, I am fully committed to the peace process, but I am in exile and I am already sanctioned. My people are in camps — those who are not are killed — and the rest are raped and hopeless. They are already sanctioned."

He gesticulates in his passion and smacks a passerby, who apologizes to him.

"If I can't stay in Paris, I can go anywhere," he said.

So why not go back to Darfur?

He stands and hikes up his beige button-down shirt to display the splash of a bullet wound scar on his right side, and rolls up his left sleeve to show another on his arm.

"To make peace, I have to be alive, not dead. That is why I am here," he said, tapping the table. "But if I have to, I will go back to my people and die with them."

Some of the other SLM factions have split from Wahid, and are anxious for peace. They would like Wahid to represent them, but appear ready to leave him behind.

"Abdel Wahid feels threatened as a leader. He has lost ground," said Ahmed Idriss, a member of the newly formed SLM/Unity faction led by Abdulla Yahyia. "He would rather remain a big fish in a small pond than be a big fish in a big pond."

Because Wahid's chair in Arusha will probably remain empty, U.N. envoys have been scrambling to ensure that other Fur leaders with popular credibility will be there: Ahmed Abdelshafie, who replaced Wahid a year ago in Darfur, and Ahmed Diraige, a godfather of the rebel movement who now heads the National Redemption Front alliance.

Wahid asserts that his ideas have formed the basis of the peacemakers' blueprints, and he says he is the only one who can ensure the backing of the Fur and the people in the camps for any agreement. He will not be left out in the cold.

"Three things will not work with me. Pressure, persuasion, and isolation," he said. "I don't get my power from the international community, I get my power from my people." He paused and frowned. "If they try to make peace without me, I will sabotage everything."

--

maggie.farley@latimes.com

Kurds pin hopes on election bloc victory

By Laura King
Times Staff Writer

5:29 PM PDT, August 3, 2007

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey -- Mehmet Adiyaman's eyes filled with tears of joy as he watched newly elected Kurdish lawmakers clasp hands with villagers who had come from miles around to offer their congratulations.

For more than a decade, Kurds, who make up roughly one-fifth of Turkey's population, have had no bloc of representatives in the nation's legislature. But when the new parliament convenes Saturday, 23 members of the Kurdish-rights Democratic Society Party are scheduled to take their seats.

That prospect has caused rejoicing here, along with hopes for reduced tensions, both within Turkey's Kurdish-dominated southeast and across the border with Iraq, where Kurds control a quasi-independent region.

"I feel that my happiness has given me wings," said Adiyaman, who lost several family members to Turkey's bloody 23-year conflict with Kurdish rebels. Virtually every family in his village, he said, had suffered the loss of land, or loved ones, or both.

For years, Turkey's Kurdish region has been the scene of violent clashes between Kurdish rebels and the Turkish military. Thousands have died on both sides. This year, alone, the military has lost more than 225 troops to skirmishes with Kurdish guerrillas based in the mountains of Southern Turkey and Northern Iraq. In recent months, senior Turkish army generals have been pushing hard for a major incursion into Northern Iraq to chase them down.

Kurdish hopes were buoyed not just by the success of their elected representatives, but by the overall results of the July 22 balloting, which was widely viewed as a rebuke to the military establishment.

Many Kurds believe Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is now in a better position to keep the powerful army in check. Erdogan's ruling Justice and Development Party, known by its Turkish initials, AKP, was the big winner in the vote. The party, an offshoot of the nation's Islamist movements, has tense relations with the military leadership, which is secular.

Kurds believe Erdogan views their cause with sympathy. Nearly two years ago, the prime minister traveled to Diyarbakir and delivered a groundbreaking speech saying Turkey needed to "face up to its past" regarding the Kurds.

"More democracy, not more repression, is the answer to the Kurds' long-running grievances," he said in the first such declaration ever by a Turkish leader.

Firat Anli, mayor of a district of Diyarbakir, the principal city in the southeast, said he thought the election results would strengthen Erdogan's hand.

"A big cross-border action seems less likely now -- the military was putting so much pressure on the government, but then the government got the people's vote of confidence," he said.

The United States, too, has been pressing Turkey to refrain from a major incursion. But Turkish public sentiment is inflamed by each new casualty report -- three more soldiers died this week -- and funerals occasionally turn into anti-U.S. rallies.

For the moment, the military tensions appear to have eased. Driving east out of Diyarbakir, in the direction of the Iraqi border, motorists encounter almost no checkpoints over the course of several hours -- a barometer of the threat level perceived by the army.

Local officials also disputed reports of a major buildup in recent weeks. Turkey keeps about 50,000 soldiers in the border region, but officials here say the comings and goings at area military bases, including tank convoys and air traffic, have appeared routine.

For Kurds, the military situation is not the only concern. Many are hoping that the election results will heighten external pressure on Turkey to ease repressive measures against them, including restrictions against use of the Kurdish language in public forums and in broadcasting.

Erdogan's party has been the prime mover behind Turkey's efforts to join the European Union, and the Europeans have made clear that the bid cannot move forward without the Kurds being granted greater cultural and political rights. Turkey's checkered human-rights record, another red flag for the Europeans, is deeply entwined with the Kurdish conflict.

But the newly altered political landscape holds peril as well as promise for the Kurds. Also to be represented in the parliament after a one-term absence is the far-right National Action Party, which won almost 15 percent of the vote.

The Kurdish cause is anathema to the nationalists, who believe the Kurds' insistence on a separate cultural identity threatens the foundations of the Turkish republic.

Some fear that when the new parliament holds its inaugural session, there could be a replay of the disastrous swearing-in of 1991. As that session opened, a Kurdish parliamentarian, Leyla Zana, caused an uproar by speaking Kurdish in the chambers -- forbidden under Turkish law -- and by wearing a hair ornament with the Kurdish colors of red, green and yellow. She and several other Kurdish lawmakers were accused of aiding the guerrillas of the PKK, or Kurdistan Workers Party, lost their parliamentary immunity and served long jail terms. By 1994, their party had been outlawed and the Kurdish parliamentary foothold had been lost.

This time, the incoming Kurdish parliamentarians have signaled they will take a more conciliatory stance, and some have said they welcome the presence of nationalists alongside them.

"We believe it is possible for different political views to co-exist," said Gultan Kisanak, a former journalist who will take her seat with the Kurdish contingent. "It's part of democracy."

But nationalists are likely to be inflamed by the mere presence of Kurdish lawmakers like Aysel Tugluk. She was a member of the defense team of Abdullah Ocalan, who is considered the architect of the Kurdish armed struggle and blamed by Turkey for tens of thousands of deaths. Captured in 1999, Ocalan was sentenced to death, but that was commuted to a life term.

Another incoming Kurdish lawmaker has charges of aiding the PKK pending against her, but was freed from prison in order to take her seat.

Among the Kurds, many leading figures believe that unless Turkey makes a fundamental decision to accept pluralism in its society, the conflict will rage on.

Abdullah Demirbas, a district mayor in Diyarbakir, recently was fired from his position by Turkish authorities for printing Kurdish-language brochures and organizing Kurdish-language public forums on such topics as domestic abuse. His entire local council was dismissed as well when they protested his firing.

"There is a notion that any kind of different culture is a threat to the state," said Demirbas. "They are ruling by fear, and it can't work -- in the long run people will insist on their own identity."

Prosperous Haven in Mexico Is Invaded by Drug Violence

By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, August 4, 2007; A01

MONTERREY, Mexico -- Biti Rodriguez could have gone anywhere for her 10-year-old's birthday party. But Incredible Pizza, a mammoth restaurant and fun house tucked into the corner of a strip mall here, offered her something that suddenly has become a consuming obsession: safety.

She herded her daughter, Alejandra, and a dozen other giggling girls through two metal detectors one recent afternoon at this pizza parlor that promises "incredible security for your children," then dumped bags of presents on a table to be probed by a guard. It took a while to actually get inside, but Rodriguez didn't care. She thinks all the extra security is "super bien" -- super good.

Not so long ago, metal detectors at a pizza place would have been unimaginable in Monterrey, Mexico's third-largest metropolitan area, with more than 3.6 million residents. The city once seemed as if it could do no wrong -- two years ago it was named the safest city in Latin America by an international consulting group, it boasted the region's wealthiest residential neighborhood, and it was a strong competitor for the Major League Baseball franchise that became the Washington Nationals.

But in the past year, the drug violence raging across Mexico has landed hard in Monterrey, jarring residents who once felt immune to the shootouts so common in other big Mexican cities.

In the first six months of 2007, Monterrey registered 162 killings, nearly as many as were recorded in all of last year and about 50 more than in all of 2004. But it wasn't just the killings that shook up the Biti Rodriguezes of this city -- it was the brazenness of the killers.

A hit man walked calmly into the landmark Gran San Carlos restaurant, past rows of Monterrey's signature hanging roasted cabrito, or goat, and shot dead a man seated at a table beneath the stained-glass cupola. Gunmen launched volleys of bullets into a popular seafood restaurant at the height of the lunch rush, and police officers were mowed down in broad daylight.

The killings triggered tremors of fear. Newspapers now run daily tallies of slayings. A roadside hotel has advertised bulletproof rooms. Heavily armored cars have become a new status symbol, with corporate chieftains dishing out as much as $400,000 for Mercedes-Benz sedans that ward off not only bullets but also grenades. In the San Pedro Garza Garcia suburb, where hillside palaces rival the mansions of Beverly Hills, a new saying was born: "There are no Tuesdays without killings."

"I can't say Monterrey is the safest city in Mexico anymore -- that would be a lie," Jesús Marcos Giacomán, president of the 122-year-old Monterrey Chamber of Commerce and Tourism, said in an interview. "I can say we're going to make it the safest again."
An Economic Powerhouse

Monterrey wraps around the stunning, rocky peaks of the Sierra Madre, 130 miles southwest of McAllen, Tex. Gleaming towers form its skyline, and U.S.-style malls and upscale restaurants line its wide boulevards.

Known as the "Sultanate of the North" because of its popularity with Middle Eastern businessmen, Monterrey revved into an economic powerhouse after the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 1994. The world's largest cement maker is here, as well as Mexico's biggest beer producer and one of the world's largest glass manufacturers. Major American corporations operate huge plants.

For the past five years, Monterrey stayed mostly peaceful while the rival Sinaloa and Gulf drug cartels fought over territory in other cities near the border, such as Nuevo Laredo. But something more complicated has happened here in the past year, Aldo Fasci Zuazua, deputy attorney general of Nuevo Leon state, said in an interview at his Monterrey office.

For unknown reasons, the local drug lords who warehouse cocaine, methamphetamines and marijuana for the big cartels began fighting each other, Fasci said. Their bloody battles unnerved the national and transnational cartels that counted on Monterrey's small-time operators to funnel tons of drugs into the United States.

A business that had run smoothly for years was suddenly a mess, and the national cartels felt compelled to sweep into Monterrey to "restore order," Fasci said. In the vernacular of organized crime, that meant killing people.
Fear Takes Hold

By April, assassinations were so rampant that the U.S. Embassy issued a travel warning for Monterrey noting that "Mexican and foreign bystanders" had been killed in Mexico. The next month, the business magazine America Economia dropped Monterrey from the top of its list of best places to do business in Latin America, a blow for a city that reaped a bonanza of publicity in 1999 when Fortune magazine dubbed it Latin America's top business locale.

Within days of America Economia's piece, Mexican President Felipe Calderón dispatched federal troops to patrol Monterrey's streets, one in a series of military assaults against cartel strongholds across the country.

Monterrey's wealthy -- the city is said to be home to more than a dozen of Mexico's most powerful families -- were well prepared to withstand the violence in their streets. Top corporations began hiring armed security forces. Executives and their families now travel in protective bubbles ringed by bodyguards and live behind high walls fitted with motion sensors and cameras.

But Monterrey's middle class, the pride of a state that boasts that its annual per-capita income of $14,000 is twice the national average, became frantic. Biti Rodriguez cringed each night when she watched the news. In her neighborhood, parents stopped letting their kids walk to school. School administrators tightened rules about who could pick up children.

Authorities know that private schools accept drug dealers' money to educate their kids, but "there's nothing that the government can do about it," Fasci said.

Rodriguez felt compelled to do something she'd never done before: She started locking the doors of her suburban Monterrey home.
Underworld Infiltration

With hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into the pockets of drug traffickers, authorities here suspect that organized crime has diversified, investing in criminal enterprises such as kidnapping and the smuggling of illegal immigrants, as well as legitimate businesses such as real estate.

The underworld has infiltrated state and municipal governments and police forces, damaging confidence in public institutions even though about 400 law enforcement officers suspected of corruption have been taken off the streets. One councilman here estimated that as many 200,000 people in the state of Nuevo Leon -- 5 percent of the population -- may be involved directly or indirectly in the drug trade.

Local politicians, especially in the many municipalities that abut Monterrey, say they feel like targets. One recent afternoon, a municipal councilman, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that he "feels threatened all the time" and that even the most minor decisions become complicating labyrinths that can paralyze local governments afraid of unknowingly angering drug lords.

To protect himself, he conducts extensive investigations, gaming out every possible scenario about the possible ripple effects of his votes. But those inquiries carry risks, too. "If you're asking all these questions," he said, "sometimes these narcos find out and get nervous."

Although he can afford to buy a car, he doesn't. He said driving the same car would make him easy to spot, so some days he grabs a taxi, other days he hops a bus. His route to the office varies from day to day -- it takes much longer, but he feels safer.

His municipality and others around Monterrey suffer from police shortages as officers quit rather than risk their lives at a time when several dozen officers have been killed. Authorities say police victims range from good cops who challenge the cartels to corrupt cops killed for favoring one cartel over another.

José Antonio Samaniego Hernández might have been one of those good cops, his family said in an interview. He survived one assassination attempt but was gunned down three months later while leaving the ramshackle home where he lived in a cramped bedroom with his wife, daughter and mother. Samaniego became a number that day -- execution victim No. 33 of 2007, according to the newspaper Milenio.

But to Anna Calderón Garcia, 15, he was the police officer down the street, the guy in the uniform who stopped to talk to all the kids. He was also one of half a dozen police officers she has known -- either as neighbors or because they spoke at her school -- who have been shot dead.

After never hearing a gunshot in her life, Calderón said, she has twice been startled by gunfire. One night while leaving a Wal-Mart, she and friends saw the bodies of two slain policemen lying in the parking lot.

"It changed my life forever," she said. "Now I'm always looking around me, wondering if I might get shot."

While most of the shooting victims in Monterrey have been alleged drug traffickers, innocent victims have also fallen, including a 42-year-old mother of five caught in the crossfire during a gun battle in December.

Kids in Calderón's class, like children in so many other places, once dreamed of being police officers, putting on uniforms, playing a glamorous real-life game of cops-and-robbers. Not anymore.

She lives three blocks from a funeral home and cups her ears when she hears sirens. Each time, she said, she whispers to herself: "Another dead one."

After Gaza

Middle East Report N°68
2 August 2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Hamas’s takeover of Gaza and President Abbas’s dismissal of the national unity government and appointment of one led by Salam Fayyad amount to a watershed in the Palestinian national movement’s history. Some paint a positive picture, seeing the new government as one with which Israel can make peace. They hope that, with progress in the West Bank, stagnation in Gaza and growing pressure from ordinary Palestinians, a discredited Hamas will be forced out or forced to surrender. They are mistaken. The Ramallah-based government is adopting overdue decisions to reorganise security forces and control armed militants; Israel has reciprocated in some ways; and Hamas is struggling with its victory. But as long as the Palestinian schism endures, progress is on shaky ground. Security and a credible peace process depend on minimal intra-Palestinian consensus. Isolating Hamas strengthens its more radical wing and more radical Palestinian forces. The appointment of Tony Blair as new Quartet Special Envoy, the scheduled international meeting and reported Israeli-Palestinian talks on political issues are reasons for limited optimism. But a new Fatah-Hamas power-sharing arrangement is a prerequisite for a sustainable peace. If and when it happens the rest of the world must do what it should have before: accept it.

The events in Gaza have given rise to wholly conflicting accounts. For Fatah and those close to Abbas, they were a murderous, illegitimate coup that exposed the Islamists’ true face. The plan, they say, was premeditated and carried out with Iranian backing. They claim to have video proof of a Hamas-led plot to assassinate Abbas. Hamas, too, denounces an attempted coup, though one planned by Fatah elements determined to rob the Islamists of their electoral victory and overturn the Mecca Agreement between the two rival organisations. They say those elements were fostering lawlessness in the Gaza Strip and that the U.S., Israel and several Arab countries conspired to isolate Hamas as well as arm and train forces loyal to Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan in anticipation of a showdown. Hamas’s actions, they insist, were preemptive.

There is truth to both accounts. Evidence and eye-witness stories collected by Crisis Group suggest Hamas’s armed forces – the Executive Security Force and the Qassam Brigades – were strengthening their arsenal and taking steps in preparation for a fight. Their brutality and disregard for human life at the height of the confrontation also is beyond doubt. But Fatah cannot escape blame. From the moment the Mecca Agreement was signed, several of its officials and presidential advisers undercut it. They urged European governments to neither end their boycott of Hamas nor too closely embrace the unity government. Security plans in Gaza understandably could be read by the Islamists as attempts to bolster a force intended to confront them.

The Mecca Agreement’s collapse reflected conflicting domestic agendas: Fatah’s inability to come to terms with the loss of hegemony over the political system coupled with Hamas’s inability to come to terms with the limitations of its own power. But it would be disingenuous in the extreme to minimise the role of outside players, the U.S. and the European Union in particular.

By refusing to deal with the national unity government and only selectively engaging some of its non-Hamas members, by maintaining economic sanctions and providing security assistance to one of the parties in order to outmanoeuvre the other, they contributed mightily to the outcome they now publicly lament. Through their words and deeds, they helped persuade important Fatah elements that the unity government was a transient phenomenon and that their former control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) could be restored. And they helped convince important Hamas elements that the unity government was a trap, that time was not on their side and they should act before their adversaries became too strong. The crisis was not produced by the Mecca Agreement but rather by deliberate and systematic attempts to undermine it.

Recent events present a mixed picture. In Gaza, Hamas has made undeniable strides in restoring order. Alan Johnston, the kidnapped British journalist, was released, and Gazans testify to feeling more secure than in a long time. But the Islamists’ takeover of virtually all PA institutions, the curtailment of basic freedoms and harassment of Fatah members bode ill. Nor has Hamas found a way to cope with the closing of vital crossing points, the sharp drop in trade and the accelerating humanitarian crisis. In the West Bank, too, there are signs of progress, including steps to reorganise the security sector, the infusion of international funds, renewed Israeli-Palestinian cooperation and talk of political negotiations. There is also a darker side, however, including the suspension of basic laws, separation between Gaza and the West Bank and revival of obsolete Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) institutions at the expense of elected PA bodies such as the parliament.

The basic question, to which neither Palestinians nor the international community has responded, is whether it is possible to ensure security and move toward a two-state settlement with a politically and geographically divided Palestinian polity. Paradoxically, the more successful the strategy of strengthening Abbas, the greater Hamas’s motivation to sabotage it. Progress thus would create its own threats. If past is prologue, putting Hamas under pressure without giving it a reasonable alternative would lead it to escalate violence against Israel in the expectation that renewed confrontation would embarrass Abbas, torpedo diplomatic progress and alter intra-Palestinian dynamics. How can Abbas deliver a ceasefire without the Islamists and their allies? How can he legitimise a political agreement with Israel – which must entail difficult and unpopular concessions – if Hamas’s significant constituency feels excluded? How can he move toward building a state if Gaza is left out?

A more promising course would be for Fatah and Hamas to immediately cease hostile action against each other and begin to reverse steps that are entrenching separation between Gaza and the West Bank and undermining democratic institutions. In the longer run, they should seek a new power-sharing arrangement, including:

*
a clearer political platform, explicitly endorsing the Arab Peace Initiative;
*
a commitment to a reciprocal and comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire;
*
reform of the security services, to include de-factionalisation and integration of Hamas’s Executive Security Force;
*
reform of the PLO, expanding it to include Hamas and Islamic Jihad;
*
formation of a new unified government approved by the parliament; and
*
consideration of early presidential and legislative elections, although not before one year before the establishment of new government.

To facilitate this, Arab states and other third parties should offer their mediation and monitoring of any agreement. If an agreement is reached, the Quartet should be prepared to engage with a new government politically and economically.

Under current circumstances and given outside interference from various parties, reconciliation is hard to contemplate. Fatah must accept a truly pluralistic system. Hamas owes the Palestinian people answers as to its ultimate political goals and how it wants the national movement to achieve them. Israel must internalise the need to bring the occupation to an end. The international community must accept the right of Palestinians to select their own leaders. Ultimately, a stable Palestinian consensus and the Islamists’ inclusion in the political system are vital to any peace process. That was Abbas’s original intuition. It led to the January 2006 elections and then to Mecca. The parties’ understandable current anger notwithstanding, it remains the right one.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the Palestinian National Liberation Movement (Fatah) and the PA Presidency:

1. Cease all mutual incitement and hostile actions and take appropriate disciplinary actions.

2. Refrain from measures in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank that affect the normal functioning, character and personnel of public institutions except where absolutely necessary to ensure law and order, and emphasise the temporary nature of any such measures.

3. Seek the reopening of Gaza crossings under a mechanism that could involve the Presidential Guard, a third party or the Palestinian private sector.

4. Seek return to status quo ante by:

(a) in the case of Hamas, agreeing to relinquish control over all PA and Fatah installations seized since 1 June 2007, immediately restituting private property to lawful owners; and

(b) in the case of Fatah and the PA presidency, agreeing to revoke the 19 June 2007 PLO Central Council resolution mandating early PA presidential and legislative elections as well as other presidential decrees and PLO Central Council resolutions issued since 14 June 2007.

5. Negotiate a new power-sharing agreement, including:

(a) formation of a new, unified government subject to Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) approval;

(b) a mandate for the PLO Chairman to negotiate with Israel on a political settlement of the conflict;

(c) commitment to present such a negotiated political agreement to a referendum or to national institutions for ratification and a pledge to respect the outcome of such a ratification process;

(d) commitment to a comprehensive and reciprocal Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire, including halt to all military operations, action against armed groups and effective measures to end weapons smuggling;

(e) endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative;

(f) integration of Hamas and Islamic Jihad into a reformed PLO;

(g) reform of the security services, including de-factionalising the PA security forces, integrating the Executive Security Force (ESF) into these forces and transforming them into a unified, coherent and disciplined force; and

(h) agreement to consider early presidential and parliamentary elections which, if held, would be no sooner than one year after establishment of the new unity government.

To Arab States, the League of Arab States and Third Parties in Contact with Both Sides (e.g., Turkey, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland):

6. Mediate between Fatah and Hamas, including by engaging with Hamas leaders.

7. Upon reaching an agreement, create a reporting, monitoring and dispute resolution mechanism to support implementation.

To the Quartet (U.S., EU, Russian Federation, UN):

8. Allow and encourage both Tony Blair and the future UN Middle East Envoy to engage in contacts with all relevant parties to the conflict, including the Hamas leadership and de facto authorities in Gaza.

9. Agree to engage politically and economically with any future Palestinian unity government formed on the basis of the Mecca Agreement.

To the Government of Israel:

10. Allow supplies and merchandise to move freely into and out of Gaza, including via the Karni crossing, under one of the arrangements mentioned above.

11. Facilitate the movement of goods and people within the West Bank and remove barriers that do not have a clear security function.

12. Pursue a comprehensive and reciprocal Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire and a speedy prisoner exchange.

13. Agree to begin negotiations with the PLO Chairman toward a two-state solution.

To the European Union and its Member States:

14. In all statements and contacts with the PA government in Ramallah, encourage reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas.

15. Provide assistance to both people and institutions in Gaza, as well as to those in the West Bank, and design assistance programs so as to avoid exacerbating the split between the West Bank and Gaza.

Amman/Jerusalem/Gaza/Brussels, 2 August 2007

Friday, August 03, 2007

Newly found Tomb may hold Aztec ruler

Could provide a window into empire

Last updated August 3, 2007 8:53 p.m. PT

By MARK STEVENSON
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

MEXICO CITY -- Mexican archaeologists using ground-penetrating radar have detected underground chambers they believe contain the remains of Emperor Ahuizotl, who ruled the Aztecs when Columbus landed in the New World. It would be the first tomb of an Aztec ruler ever found.

The find could provide an extraordinary window into Aztec civilization at its apogee. Ahuizotl (ah-WEE-zoh-tuhl), an empire-builder who extended the Aztecs' reach as far as Guatemala, was the last emperor to complete his rule before the Spanish Conquest.

Accounts written by Spanish priests suggest the area was used by the Aztecs to cremate and bury their rulers. But no tomb of an Aztec ruler has ever been found, in part because the Spanish conquerors built their own city atop the Aztec's ceremonial center, leaving behind colonial structures too historically valuable to remove for excavations.

One of those colonial buildings was so damaged in a 1985 earthquake that it had to be torn down, eventually giving experts their first chance to examine the site off Mexico City's Zocalo plaza, between the Metropolitan Cathedral and the ruins of the Templo Mayor pyramid.

Archaeologists told The Associated Press that they have located what appears to be a 6-foot-by-6-foot entryway into the tomb about 15 feet below ground. The passage is filled with water, rocks and mud, forcing workers to dig delicately while suspended from slings. Pumps work to keep the water level down.

"We are doing it very, very slowly ... because the responsibility is very great and we want to register everything," said Leonardo Lopez Lujan, the lead government archaeologist on the project. "It's a totally new situation for us, and we don't know exactly what it will be like down there."

As early as this fall, they hope to enter the inner chambers -- a damp, low-ceilinged space -- and discover the ashes of Ahuizotl, who was likely cremated on a funeral pyre in 1502.

By that time, Columbus had already landed in the New World. But the Aztecs' first contact with Europeans came 17 years later, in 1519, when Hernando Cortes and his band of conquistadors marched into the Mexico Valley and took hostage Ahuizotl's successor, his nephew Montezuma.

Ahuizotl's son Cuauhtemoc (kwow-TAY-mock) took over from Montezuma and led the last resistance to the Spaniards in the battle for Mexico City in 1521. He was later taken prisoner and killed. Like Montezuma, his burial place is unknown.

Because no Aztec royal tomb has ever been found, the archaeologists are literally digging into the unknown. Radar indicates the tomb has up to four chambers, and scientists think they will find a constellation of elaborate offerings to the gods on the floor.

"He must have been buried with solemn ceremony and rich offerings, like vases, ornaments ... and certainly some objects he personally used," said Luis Alberto Martos, director of archaeological studies at Mexico's National Institute of Anthropology and History.

The tomb's curse -- water -- may also be its blessing. Lopez Lujan said the constant temperature of the pH-neutral water in the flooded chambers, together with the lack of oxygen, discourages decomposition of materials such as wood and bone that have been found at other digs around the pyramid, which was all but destroyed in the conquest.

"This would be quite an important find for Aztec archaeology," said Michael Smith, an archaeologist at Arizona State University who is not connected to the dig.

"It would be tremendously important because it would be direct information about kingship, burial and the empire that is difficult to come by otherwise," Smith said.

All signs found so far point to Ahuizotl. The site lies directly below a huge, recently discovered stone monolith carved with a representation of Tlaltecuhtli (tlahl-tay-KOO-tlee), the Aztec god of the earth.

Depicted as a woman with huge claws and a stream of blood flowing into her mouth as she squats to give birth, Tlaltecuhtli was believed to devour the dead and then give them new life. The god was so fearsome that Aztecs normally buried her depictions face down in the earth. However, this one is face-up.

In the claw of her right foot, the god holds a rabbit and 10 dots, indicating the date "10 Rabbit" -- 1502, the year of Ahuizotl's death.

"Our hypothesis is precisely that this is probably the tomb of Ahuizotl," Lopez Lujan said.