Readers will recall the major gaffe made by CNN when in its zeal to support the American Establishment, telecast on CNN a clip of Palestinian children rejoicing over what was purported to be their joy at the terrorist attacks in the USA, on 11th September 2001. Later, it was proved conclusively to the embarrassment of CNN that these clips were 4 years old! Since that fateful day, the American media has projected events in a most biased manner to the extent of playing up the military regime of Pakistan and equally, playing down India's role.

A large chunk of Asia has been blanked out and this media coverage talks about the threat to Western Civilization led by the USA and faithfully followed by Britain and NATO. There has been hardly any coverage of the rest of Asia. Why so? Because it suits the US Government's policy to do so. The people of India, in an opinion poll, have indicated that it has been blown up beyond all proportions because American pride has been punctured as never before. This writer is privy to what a group of concerned Americans think of this obviously slanted reporting of the incident. They have posed 14 questions to President George W. Bush pertaining to America's Anti Terrorism Crusade, the term crusade being objected to strongly by the Islamic World because of its connotations to the earlier Christian Crusade against Islam. These 14 revealing questions are reproduced in the original leaving it to the reader of Freedom First to decide on their relevance to the on-going situation. The first 13 questions were raised by Severo Ornstein and Martin A. Lee on September 28, and the 14th by an American housewife.

Before the attacks in New York and Washington, your administration quietly tolerated Saudi Arabian and Pakistani military and financial aid for the Taliban regime, even though it harboured terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. But now you say fighting terrorism will be the main focus of our administration. By making counter-terrorism the top priority in bilateral relations, aren't you signalling to abusive governments in Sudan, Indonesia, Turkey and elsewhere that they need not worry much about their human rights performance as long as they join America's anti-terrorist crusade? Will you barter human rights violations, like corporations trade pollution credits? Will you condone, for example the brutalization of Chechnya in exchange for Russian participation in the war against terrorism? Or will you send a message loud and clear to America's allies that they must not use the fight against terrorism as a cover for waging repressive campaigns that smother democratic aspirations in their own countries?

Terrorists finance their operations by laundering their money through offshore banks and other hit money outlets. Yet your administration has undermined international efforts to crack down on tax havens. Last May, you withdrew support for a comprehensive initiative launched by Transparency International in tax and banking practices. In the wake of the September 11 massacre, will you reassess this decision and support the OECD proposal, even if it means displeasing wealthy Americans and campaign contributors who avoid paying taxes by hiding money in offshore accounts?

3. War on Drugs _ Changing Strategy?

Four months ago U.S officials announced that Washington was giving $43 million to the Taliban for its role in reducing the cultivation of opium poppies, despite the Taliban's heinous human rights record and its sheltering Islamic terrorists of many nationalities? Doesn't this make the U.S Government guilty of supporting a country that harbours terrorists? Do you think your obsession with the war on drugs has distorted U S foreign policy in Southwest Asia and other regions?

4. Regarding Safeguarding Nuclear materials in the USA

According U.S., Russian and German intelligence sources, Osama bin Laden's operatives have been trying to acquire enriched uranium and other weapons-grade radioactive materials for a nuclear bomb. There are reports that in 1993 bin Laden's well-financed organization tried to buy enriched uranium from poorly maintained Russian facilities that lacked sufficient controls. Why has your administration proposed cutting down funds for a programme to help safeguard nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union?

5. On Sharing Information

On September 23, you announced plans to make public a detailed analysis of the evidence gathered by U.S intelligence and police agencies, which proves that Osama bin Laden and his cohorts are guilty of the terrorist attacks in New York and the Pentagon. But the next day your administration backpedalled. As we look through (the evidence), explained Secretary of State Colin Powell, "we can find areas that are unclassified and it will allow us to share this information with the publicBut most of it is classified." Please explain this sudden flip-flop. How can we believe what you say about fighting terrorism if your administration can't make its case publicly with sufficient evidence? How do you expect to win the support of governments and people who otherwise might suspect Washington's motives, particularly some Muslim and Arab nations?

6. Who is a Terrorist _ Changing Definitions

Exactly who is a terrorist, and who is not? When the CIA was doling out an estimated $2 billion to support the Afghan mujahadeen in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues were hailed as anti-communist freedom fighters. During the cold war, U S national security strategists many of whom are riding top-saddle once again in your administration, didn't view bin Laden's fanatical religious beliefs as diametrically opposed to western civilization. But now bin Laden and his ilk are unabashed terrorists. Definitions of what constitutes terror and terrorism seem to change with the times. Before he became vice president Dick Cheney and the U.S State Department denounced Nelson Mandela, leader of the African National Congress, as a terrorist. Today Mandela, South Africa's president emeritus, is considered a great and dignified statesman. And what about Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, who bears significant responsibility for the 1982 massacre of 1,800 innocents at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon? What role will Sharon play in your crusade against international terrorism?

7. The CIA's Role

There's been a lot of talk lately about unshackling the CIA and lifting the alleged ban on CIA assassinations. Many U.S officials attribute the CIA's inability to thwart terrorist attacks in New York and Washington to rules that supposedly have prohibited the CIA from using gangsters, death squad leaders, and other unsavoury characters as sources and assets. Why don't you set the record straight Mr. President and acknowledge that there were always gaping loopholes in these rules, which allowed such activity to continue unabated? Its precisely this sort of dubious activity enlisting unsavoury characters to advance U.S foreign policy objectives _ that set the stage for the tragic events on September 11th. It's hardly a secret that the CIA trained and financed Islamic extremists to topple the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. Some of the extremists supported by the CIA, most notably bin Laden, have since turned their psychotic wrath against the United States. Instead of rewarding the CIA with billions of additional dollars to fight terrorism, shouldn't you hold accountable those shortsighted and perilously naive U.S intelligence officials who ran the covert operations in Afghanistan that got us into this mess?

8. Abetting State Terrorism in the Past

John Negroponte, the new U.S ambassador to the United Nations, says that he intends to build an international anti-terrorist coalition. During the mid-1980s, Negroponte was involved in covering up right-wing death squad activity and other human rights abuses in Honduras when he served as ambassador to that country. Doesn't Negroponte's role in aiding and abetting state terrorism in Central America undermine the moral authority of the United States as it embarks on its crusade against international terrorism?

9. Preventing Nuclear Disaster

The attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon brought home the frightening extent to which U.S citizens and installations are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. If the terrorists hit a nuclear power plant, it could result in an enormous public health disaster. In the interest of protecting national security, why have you not ordered the immediate phase out of 103 nuclear plants that are operating in the United States? Why doesn't your administration emphasize safe, renewable energy resources such as solar and wind power, which would not invite terrorism?

10. Airlines Bailout with Tax-payers' Money!

After years of lobbying against rigorous safety procedures, the heads of airline industries will receive multi billion-dollar taxpayer bailout for their ailing companies. Given your support for the airline rescue package, do you now agree that letting the free market run its course won't resolve all our economic and social problems? (That's what anti-globalization activists have been saying all along). And if airlines deserve a bail out, how about a multi billion-dollar rescue package for human needs like health and education? Why aren't we bailing out our under-funded public schools, our insolvent hospitals, our national railroads, and other elements of our dilapidated infrastructure?

11. About Kissinger and Pinochet

September 11 will be remembered as a day of infamy in the United States because of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. In Chile, September 11th is also remembered as the day a U.S backed coup toppled the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende in 1973, initiating a reign of terror by General Pinochet. Given your administration's avowed stance against terrorism, will you cooperate with the various international legal cases that are homing in on ex-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for colluding with Pinochet's murderous regime?

12. Do Two Wrongs Make One Right?

If the killing of innocent people in New York and Washington is indefensible, then why do U.S officials defend American air strikes that kill innocent civilians in Iraq, Sudan, Serbia, and Afghanistan? More than 50,000 Iraqi children under age 5 have died as a result of the 1990 Gulf War, subsequent economic sanctions, and on-going U.S bombing raids against Iraq. Will your planned actions lead to a similar fate for the children of Afghanistan?

13. Won't Bombing Lead to Create New Terrorists?

What will you accomplish if you bomb Afghanistan? Would this not galvanize Islamic fundamentalist movements that are already powerful in Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, the oil rich Arab monarchies, and the Balkans? Wouldn't a U.S led onslaught against Afghanistan be the fastest way to create a new generation of terrorists? Adept at manipulating real grievances, terrorist networks breed on poverty, despair, and social injustice.

14. What About the IRA?

Finally, an American housewife would like to add, "Will you question the President as to the monetary support Irish Americans give to the IRA? Will these donors be investigated as part of your anti-terrorist campaign? Do you think that you can wipe out or even reduce this scourge Mr. President, without seriously and systematically addressing the root cause of terrorism?

To these, this writer would like to add the following:

l Can Dubya define precisely what is the American interpretation of terrorism? Only those actions that hurt America?

l Why does the U.S persist in equating the world's largest democracy, warts and all, with a military dictatorship across our borders?

l Have any attempts been made to seek the involvement of China which has a stake in West and South Asia?

Maj.Gen. (Retd.) E. D'Souza is a regular contributor to Freedom First.

Publicity _ Terrorism's Nourishment

It is not so much the physical effect of Osama bin Laden's attack on the twin towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, that has spelt terrorism but the disruption of life and the fear and panic that followed it, and is still doing so. Within a week, capital goods shipment fell the lowest in two decades, 200,000 men were laid off, and the airlines and tourist trade fell by 50%.
The recent reported attacks of anthrax, real or hoax, made the Majority Leader, Tom Deschle close down Capitol Hill for four days, and the Mayor closed the whole of Baltimore town for a day. It must now be obvious that, the object of terrorism is not so much to kill, but to instill fear and cause panic disrupting normal life.

Thus terrorism thrives on publicity, and it is the media which gives it that publicity. If the U.S. government decides that for some time in future, the media will not be allowed to report all such incidences, but that the government will take all preventive and proactive action quiet and unostentatiously, and gives an impression of business as usual, it will automatically stifle and turn off the nourishment of publicity on which terrorism thrives. But then, this will go against the First Amendment of Freedom of Information. It is better to accept this temporary loss of freedom of the press than to live in a perpetual state of fear and panic.

Brig. N. B. Grant, AVSM (Retd.,),

Pune