AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EAST: AN APPRAISAL OF PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S ADMINISTRATION

A Research paper presented by
Asiegbu, Tochukwu. E

INTRODUCTION


With the creation of state of Israel in 1948, and ensuing attempts by the Arab world to end the existence of that state, United States successive governments have formulated policies that could be regarded as unfair and unjust in the eyes of Arab world which is prompted by US continued support for Israel as its strongest ally in that region. As a result of this, the foreign policies of United States towards the Middle East have received much criticism and viewed with great suspicion among Arab countries of the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. President Barack Obama’s powerful speech in Cairo University which addressed the Middle East crises from a different, but favorable dimension to the Arab world has also been received with mixed feelings as a result of implementation problems that may surround it.
The anniversary of the Cairo University address occasioned numerous and frequently contradictory appraisals of how Obama has measured up to his stated hopes and intentions. Some observed that he is proving to be little more than an ephemeral "phenomenon" in American politics -- chiefly a speech phenomenon. Others remarked that he is a talented actor capable of donning many masks.
This paper will try to examine whether Obama’s administration has actually addressed the Middle East crises in fair manner as his Cairo speech promised after more than a year in office


FOREIGN POLICY DEFINED

Foreign policy has been defined in various ways by different scholars, states and non state actors in International relations. As a result of its sensitive nature in the relations among different actors in the international scene, thousands of definitions abound.
According to Gab Ezeukwu, “all foreign policies denote a pattern of values expressed through government authoritative statements to give the home citizens and members of the international system a sense of the goals, objectives, hopes and aspirations of the issuing country in its relations with other countries”. 1 In the words of Goldstein, “foreign policies spell out the objectives state leaders have decided to pursue in a given relationship or situation as well as the general means by which they intend to pursue those objectives” 2 According to Wikipedia, “foreign policy consists of strategies chosen by the state to safeguard its national interests and to achieve its goals in international relations” 3 Lawrence Wright views foreign policy as “the totality of a state’s relations with, and polices toward other states”. 4 Hartman describes foreign policy as “a systematic statement of deliberately selected national interest” 5 Norman Hill observes that it is the content or substance of a nation’s efforts to promote its interests vis-a-vis other nations. 6 Ruthnaswany defines it “as the bundle of principles and practices that regulate the intercourse of a state with other states”. 7 George Modelski maintains that foreign policy is the systematic activities evolved by communities for changing the behaviour of other states and for adjusting their own activities to the environment”.8 According to C.C Rodee et al, “foreign policy involves the formulation and implementation of a group of principles which shape the behaviour pattern of a state while negotiating with other states to protect or further its vital interest.” 9 Other scholars defined foreign policy based on their understanding of its nature, but this paper will be restricted to the above stated definitions.

MIDDLE EAST AND US FOREIGN POLICY
The United States has long term national interests and vital engagements across the Arab World and with Israel and Iran. As a result of this long term national interest that US government has in this region, successive administrations have formulated policies that border on the protection of their interests which includes their continued support for the state of Israel as its major ally in that region. For most of the 20th century and now into the 21st, the U.S. has had global interests and a global reach to match. In the Middle East, the U.S. has made itself a key player by using its diplomatic, economic, and military power in support of its national interests. United States have had a long history with the Middle East which took a new dimension in the late 1940s prior to the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.
When the UN took up the question of Palestine, President Harry Truman explicitly said the United States should not "use threats or improper pressure of any kind on other delegations. According to Mitchell Bard, “Some pressure was nevertheless exerted and the U.S. played a key role in securing support for the partition resolution”. 10 Many members of the Truman Administration opposed partition, including Defense Secretary James Forrestal, who believed Zionist aims posed a threat to American oil supplies and its strategic position in the region. Mitchell Bard also observed that he Joint Chiefs of Staff worried that the Arabs might align themselves with the Soviets if they were alienated by the West. These internal opponents did a great deal to undermine U.S. support for the establishment of a Jewish state. 11
According to Robert Trice, “in 1953, CIA helped Iran's military stage a coup, deposing elected PM Mohammad Mossadeq, whom US sees as communist threat”. 12 US aided the installation of Shah Mohammad Reza Pavlavi as ruler of Iran. In 1966, US sold its first jet bombers to Israel, breaking with a 1956 decision not to sell arms to the Jewish state.
David Schoenbaum recorded that in 1976, the UN voted on a resolution accusing Israel of war crimes in occupied Arab territories. US casts lone "no" vote. 13 In 1978, Egypt and Israel signed US-brokered Camp David peace treaty. Eighteen Arab countries imposed an economic boycott on Egypt. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin received Nobel Peace Prize. In 1979 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led grass-roots Islamic revolution in Iran, deriding the US as "the great Satan." Iranian students storm US Embassy in Tehran, taking 66 Americans hostage for 15 months. US imposed sanctions. Protesters attacked US Embassies in Libya and Pakistan.
The foreign policies of the United States towards the Middle East have continued to increase the conflicts of that region even till date. The promises made by the current US president (Barack Obama) in his speech at Cairo University meant to address the Arab world have not had the full strengths of reducing the tension in the Middle East.
At this point, this paper will analyze the relations between the US government and the Middle East using two administrations in recent times in order to observe the nature of the foreign policy of the United States towards the Middle East.
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EAST IN CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION
Robert O. Freedman recorded that While U.S. President Bill Clinton achieved a number of successes in his Middle East policy during his first term in office -- most noticeably the Oslo peace agreement between Israel and the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) that was signed on the White House lawn in September 1993 -- during his second term U.S. Middle East policy has proved much more problematic.14 He also observed that not only has the Oslo peace process run into serious difficulty, but the U.S. "dual containment" policy toward Iran and Iraq which he inherited from the Bush Administration and then intensified during his first term, had also come close to collapse. 15
In September 1995, despite a series of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, Rabin and Arafat signed the Oslo II agreement that turned over the major Palestinian cities of the West Bank (except for Hebron) to Palestinian rule, a process that was completed by January 1996 and accompanied by elections for a Palestinian Parliament and Palestinian Executive, the latter won, to no one's surprise, by Arafat. Gerald Baker noted that As the peace process developed between 1993 and 1995, the U.S. took the lead in fostering multilateral working groups bringing representatives from Israel and 13 Arab countries, along with 30 countries from outside the Arab world to deal with problems that cut across the region as a whole, such as water, the environment, the refugee issue, and arms control and security. 16
In September 1997, after appearing to withdraw from the Middle East peace effort, the U.S. again intervened, this time with the peace process on the verge of total collapse after the two Hamas bombings. The then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who had been sworn in on January 23, 1997 but had not yet made an official visit to the Middle East, came to Israel in an effort to jump-start the stalled peace process. She appealed to Arafat to take unilateral action to root out the terrorist infrastructure, and called on Netanyahu for a "time-out" in settlement construction in the occupied territories, a plea Netanyahu rejected. Thomas Lippman pointed out that Netanyahu's ties to the Republicans in Congress, and to their allies on the religious right of the American political spectrum (such as Jerry Falwell whose Liberty University students regularly make pilgrimages to Israel helped insulate the Israeli leader from U.S. pressure, a process that would continue into 1998 as a weakened Clinton got bogged down in the Lewinsky scandal. 17
Clinton’s policies in the Middle East failed to establish a lasting peace in the region as the crises aggravated during and after he left office as the president of the United States. Thomas Lippman sums it up in this manner, “In sum, despite some small and perhaps transitory successes like the Wye agreement, American policy toward the Middle East during the first two years of President Clinton's second term has been a highly problematic one”.18

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE MIDDLE EAST
No president in American history has had as undistinguished a record as George W. Bush in the Middle East. From Afghanistan to the Maghreb, he leaves a region more unstable and more belligerent toward the United States than when he took office.
According to Pierre Tristam , “In the early months of the Bush administration, Bush's only Middle East concern was Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction”.19 Following 9/11 incident, Bush asked members of his administration to find any link between 9/11 and Saddam. None were found. Still, Bush pressed on with a two-front strategy: Uprooting al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, and removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Under the pretext of ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, Bush launched an attack against Iraq. In the end, US government failed to provide the weapons they claimed Iraq was in possession of.
Bush ordered an attack on Afghanistan's Taliban regime on Oct. 7, 2001. By early December, U.S.-backed Afghan forces had reclaimed the country's major cities. But U.S. and Afghan forces bogged down in the Afghan mountains around Tora Bora, near the Pakistani border. Osama bin Laden escaped to Pakistan, along with thousands of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters
In the case of Iran, in 2001, Iran supported the Bush administration in fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but later became an enemy of the bush administration a year later. In line with this assertion, Lesley J recorded that Iran provided tactical and intelligence support to the American effort in Afghanistan (Iran opposed the Taliban and al-Qaeda). And it made back-channel offers to resume diplomatic relations. 20 Bush answered in his 2002 State of the Union address by including Iran in the "Axis of Evil," with North Korea and Iraq. Iran rapidly radicalized again, and in 2005 elected the belligerently tempered Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president. This is one of the reasons why the Arab world finds it difficult to thrust any American president even when they have been promised so much by the current administration of Barack Obama.

AN APPRAISAL OF BARACK OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EAST
Barack Hussein Obama born on born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as the junior United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008. He was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday January 20, 2009.
After Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, he made a lot of promises that if implemented would have brought a positive change in world politics. These promises were made through his inaugural speech and the speech he made at Cairo University addressing the Muslim world on June 4, 2009 titled “A New Beginning”
More than a year into his administration, the promises made in the aforementioned speeches are yet to be fully implemented, just as Brian Whitmore noted, “one year after taking the oath of office, U.S. President Barack Obama still hasn't changed the world”. 21
Obama has promised change, both on the national and international fronts, but how will that translate in his future foreign policy, especially in the Middle East where US image has particularly suffered? While we can expect his administration to do many things differently, its take on other issues should be sensibly the same as before. In line with the above assertion, Robert Kagan asserted that in American foreign policy, there is more continuity than discontinuity in the policies of each successive administration. President Obama has added nearly 60,000 troops to the fight in Afghanistan – a policy that Kagan speculated President Bush would have pursued if he was in office for a third term – and has largely kept to the parameters of Bush’s withdrawal timeline for Iraq. 22 He also added that;
Obama has notably increased the use of Predator
drone attacks against terrorists and militants
in Afghanistan, with more strikes in 2009 than the
previous five years combined. 23
Obama's speech called for improved mutual understanding and relations between the Islamic world and the West and said both should do more to confront violent extremism. However, Israeli government has continued to build Jewish settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine, and Obama’s administration could do little or nothing to stop that. Just as Vincent Gagnon recorded, “Over Palestine, the US president has failed to press Israel to “freeze” settlement-building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and thus pave the way to a resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians” 24
Obama has promised a prompt and honorable exit from Iraq with the complete withdrawal of combat troops by summer of 2010, but this is not the case because withdrawal of troops from Iraq has become a more prolonged process, and subject to doubts over the status of the American troops due to remain there until December 2011.
Barack Obama faces two challenges. The first, and largest, is to translate rhetoric and well-intentioned statements on major issues into real politics and action. More than a year into his presidency the balance-sheet is mixed, and frustration is gathering. The second challenge facing Obama with regard to the Muslim world, and Islamists in particular, concerns “democracy-promotion” In line with this, Brian Whitmore noted that Islamists and other opposition forces in the Arab world were dismayed at Obama’s neglect in his Cairo speech of the issue of democratization (and more broadly reform) in Egypt. 25
The engagement with Iran on the nuclear issue has been difficult and contentious, narrowing Obama’s choices and perhaps rendering the entire “dialogue and engagement” approach obsolete. In the same vein, Robert Kagan recorded, “Iranian regime continues to thumb its nose at the international community, defiantly pursuing a nuclear program and viciously suppressing its opponents” 26
Peace between Israel and the Palestinians seems as distant as ever. Insurgent violence has worsened in Afghanistan, and spilled into neighboring Pakistan. Al-Qaeda continues to plot attacks against the United States and its allies.
Although it may not be totally right to judge any administration after a year of existence, Obama’s case is different because his inaugural speech and that of Cairo University made the world to look up to his administration with so much enthusiasm and expectation, just like Nikolas Gvosdev observed, "It's hard to point to any big successes or failures, because he has [only] started things. He's started processes that haven't worked themselves out yet." 27
What Obama has managed to accomplish, analysts say, is improving the tenor and tone of international relations, lowering the global political temperature, and dramatically reviving the United States' image in the world. These are all developments, the White House hopes that will pay dividends down the road.


CONCLUSION
After Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States, he made a wonderful inaugural speech that aroused the interest and anxiety of the world. His later speech at Cairo University on June 4, 2009 raised the hopes of Arab countries of the Middle East who thought that their saviour has finally come to their rescue from the hands of Israel, but more than a year into his administration, the crises situation in Middle East is far from being resolved.
The heady optimism that Obama's inauguration inspired in the United States and much of the world is already a distant memory. So as Obama continues with his second year in office, the lingering question is whether the fading glow of Obama's electrifying win will be replaced by a less dynamic, but more lasting, change in global politics.












REFERENCES
1 Gab Ezeukwu, Understanding International Relations, (Anambra: CPA & Gold Publishers, 1998). P 40.
J.S Goldstein International Relations (5th edition), (Washington, DC: American University, 2004). P 155.
3 Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, www.wikipedia.com May15, 2007.
4 Lawrence Wright “What Is Foreign Policy”, about.com, September 17, 2009.
5 Hartman In Prakash Chandra International Relations, (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House PVT ltd, 1983). P 1.
7 Ruthnaswany In Prakash Chandra, Ibid.
8 George Modelski In Prakash Chandra, Ibid.
9 C C Rodee et al in Prakash Chandra, Ibid.
10 Mitchell Bard, “Foreign Relations of the United States”, wikipedia.com, March 14, 1991
11 ibid
12 Robert Trice, "Domestic Political Interests and American Policy in the Middle East” about.com, May 12, 2010
13 David Schoenbaum, "The United States and the Birth of Israel," Wiener Library Bulletin, (1978), p. 144n.
14 Robert O. Freedman “U.S. Policy Toward The Middle East In Clinton's Second
Term “ ezinearticles.com March 1999.
15 Ibid

16 Gerald Baker, "Cynical view from Clinton opponents," Financial Times, December 17, 1998.

17 Thomas Lippman, "Two options for U.S. policy," Washington Post, December 24, 1998.

18 Ibid.
19 Pierre Tristam “President George W. Bush and the Middle East: What Went Wrong” about.com, April 4, 2010.
20 Lesley J. Remarks by the President on Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation February 11, 2004.
21 Brian Whitmore “Nudging The World: Obama's Foreign Policy, One Year On”, articlebase.com, January 20, 2010.
22 Robert Kagan, “The Obama Administration's Foreign Policy Concepts:
An Appraisal at One Year”, wikipedia.com, January 28, 2010.
23 Ibid.
24 Vincent Gagnon-Lefebvre, “Obama's Middle East Foreign Policy” about.com, March 2, 2010.
25 Brian Whitmore op cit
26 Robert Kagan, op cit.
27 Nikolas Gvosdev, “Did The World Get What It Wanted”, wikipedia.com, June 5, 2010.

Nigeria's most unfriendly business states

Most emerging economies around the world often see the World Bank as an unwelcome guest that will not leave even when its host is not happy with it. Why is that so, you may ask? It is because, almost always, reports from that global financial institution is seen as bad news.

The fact that from hindsight, many prescriptions or reports from the World Bank have not quite helped the economies of developing countries adds to this intrinsic fear that any report seen as unhealthy by developing countries may cause an economic overheating.

The worrying prospect for investment inflow is perhaps the most dreaded of any uncomforting report from the World Bank.
But as disturbing as some World Bank reports may seem to many third World economies, (Nigeria inclusive), reports from that financial institution do carry a lot of weight. They signal either how good or bad the level of business prospect is in any particular states country or states within that nation.
And since commonsense is an integral part of economics, investors don't joke with any bad report concerning any country or its component parts.

It is in that regard that the recent report by the World Bank about some states in Nigeria, as very unfriendly for business must elicit more than a passing interest. The Bank had in its report headlined: “ Doing Business in Nigeria 2010”, listed Anambra, Imo and Ogun states as the “most difficult states for business operations in Nigeria. Doing Business Report is a sub-national and regional publication that captures differences in business regulations and enforcement across locations within a country or region. For what matters, the report provides the necessary data on the ease of doing business, using selected indicators, ranks each location and recommends reforms that will enable these regions or states to improve performance.

Whether the states so categorized as unfriendly business terrains avail themselves of the necessary data to improve on the “afflicted' areas, is up to them.
Taken together, the World Bank Doing Business Report not only rates the ease of doing business across nation's or states, it also analyses regulations affecting the life-circle of domestic, small to medium size firms, from business start-ups and operations, to trading, paying taxes and the closure of such businesses whenever the need arises.

Specifically, in arriving at why Anambra, Imo and Ogun, states were the “most difficult” for business operations, the Bank's Vice-President and Head of Network, Financial and Private sector Development, Mr. Janamitra Devan, identified four main indicators used in its judgement. These pressure points he said, include the ease of starting a business, dealing with construction permits, registration of companies and enforcing contracts. Apart from Anambra, Imo and Ogun States, the report also noted that Ebonyi, Cross Rivers, Ekiti, Abia and Enugu states were very unfriendly for doing business. While the report explained that doing business in the Northern states are much easier that cannot be said of the states in the south, especially Anambra, Imo and Ogun States. These states (Anambra, Imo and Ogun), the report insists do not have competitive regulatory frameworks that make businesses to flourish. Kano state was listed as the top performer in three, out of the four criteria used in the ranking.

Though many will complain sensibly about the yardsticks used by the World Bank, a dispassionate view should not be a hoo-hah at the states so categorized as most difficult for business. Some business analysts have dubbed the report as a poor advert for global business. However, the report being the highest circulation publication of the bank is indeed, a veritable business guide with uncommon influence worldwide. It is not a surprise why all the five states in the South East were ranked unfavourably by this report. States like Abia and Imo are gradually becoming “ungovernable” as a result of spate of kidnappings and armed robberies. This can be a big disincentive to business operations. Only recently, all the banks in Aba, the commercial nerve centre of Abia state, were forced to close shop for days because of robbery attacks. Add that to the incidence of kidnappings, which has become a cottage industry of sorts in Aba cannot but make business a dangerous undertaking.

The situation in Abia is not different from that of neighbouring Imo state. Perhaps worse. For instance, last week, bank workers in Okigwe, embarked on a 5-day strike as a result of incessant armed robbery attacks on their banks and staff. Precisely on April 21, Okigwe recorded perhaps the most numbing spectacle when a simultaneous robbery attacks on nine banks left at least 9 persons dead. Millions of naira were also carted away by the robbers. In the past one year alone, such incidence has become a regular occurrence in both Abia and Imo states, and to a lesser degree, in Anambra as well. Interestingly, the World Bank report came the very week Gov. Ikedi Ohakim claimed at the state organised Economic Summit that Imo State was the most crime-free state in the country. Really? That cannot be comforting at all, because business thrives on security and stability. The citizens and business operators in these states have watched helplessly as things just go from bad to worse in these South East states, most disturbingly, in Abia and Imo states. And in the worst of these, this cannot be good news. Without saying so openly, the World Bank considered these happenings before arriving at its decision.

In the absence of security, rumours take over as business of its own. Such is the peddling of malicious rumours in Imo state, that the state Police Command had to issue a strong statement warning rumour mongers to stop. It was the Police quick response to the wide spread rumour that a mere handshake with a Hausa man could cause the disappearance of one's sexual organ.

Sound ridiculous, isn't it? The command's spokesman, Mr. Livinus Nwaiwu who issued the statement last week described the rumour as “unfounded and irresponsible fabrication”, attributing it to the “idle work of talebearers”. The difficulty here, indeed, more difficult than the indices the World Bank used, is that rumour as news without a discernible source, its peddlers are as hard to nail as nail itself. Three months ago, I wrote in this column on the 'evil reports' always coming from the South East, especially Imo State. That doesn't mean that Imo is more crime-prone than others, but I did warn that the political and socio-economic implications of the spate of kidnapping, bitter rivalries among the political elites could be foreboding enough, with the unintended consequence of scaring away potential entrepreneurs and even existing businessmen.

When recently a group of concerned citizens of Ihiala in Anambra state visited the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Ogbonna Onovo, they lamented that insecurity poses a present danger in all the South East states. The truth is that the present inclement environment in the South East is making businessmen to relocate to other states they consider as safe havens. The biggest loser is the South East economy which used to contribute the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the whole of West Africa. But not any more. Has politics got anything to do with the bad reports from the South East? Yes! It has to do with the 'do-or-die' politics by the politicians.

Today, there is a strong suspicion that the governors in the South East are not doing enough to contain the sense of insecurity in their domains. This recently prompted the IGP to deploy 10,000 police personnel to the South East. The World Bank report should task the governors to do something urgent to check the factors that are giving their states this terrible image. They should be reminded that of all issues on which their administrations would be judged by the electorate next year, security challenge tops, perhaps, above all things else.

Writing on Security Alert in the July - August 2009 edition of Harvard Business Review, two leading security experts, Messrs George K Campbell and Richard A. Lefler noted that the insider threats have historically accounted for the majority of economic losses incurred by business operators. They do collateral damage through such nefarious activities like frauds, theft and generally, making businesses too hard to function. What's the solution? Embrace transparency, quell rumours, communicate candidly and reduce levels of discontent by creating job opportunities. Unfortunately, some of the state governors are the masterminds and conspirators of the problems they are elected to solve.

PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

A RESEARCH PAPER ON THE PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: A CASE STUDY OF OSAMA BIN LADEN’S ALQAEDA NETWORK


BY

ASIEGBU, TOCHUKWU .E.


THE CONCEPT OF TERRORISM
Terrorism has no universally accepted definition, and the heated arguments and debates in regards to what constitute it have made terrorism a contested concept. The language used to describe terrorism play a role in how it is perceived. Most definitions are in line with state legitimacy which describes the use of force by states against other states non combatants or civilians as legitimate or necessary evil, but when non state actors or other individuals apply the same types of violent attacks to achieve their goals it is being seen as terrorist acts. On the other hand, individuals that are being referred to as terrorists call states who perpetrate acts of violence against their own people terrorists, and this brings us to the statement “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”.
International Terrorism and Security Research provided us with the definition of terrorism by The United States Department of Defense as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”1. According to this research, U.S. Department of State defines "terrorism" to be "premeditated politically-motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience’.2 For the fact that terrorism has no clear or universally acknowledged definition, thousands of definitions abound. Jason Franks defined terrorism as “the use of violence against civilians for political ends, including its use by states themselves“.3
This definition includes states that apply similar acts of violence in achieving their various interests as terrorists, and thus debunks states use of force against non combatants as legitimate action. Al-Abed Al-Jabbar, an Islamic scholar provided different definitions of terrorism by various international organizations as follows;
United Nations definition: Terrorism means” the acts that endanger the innocent human beings souls or threaten the basic freedoms or violates the human being dignity.”4
International law definition: Terrorism is “a group of acts that are forbidden by the national laws of most countries.”5
Arab Agreement definition: Terrorism means “each act of terrorism or threatening of such act, whatever the motives or purposes, implemented for crime project, individual or collective. It aims to spread terror between people and threatening them or endanger their lives or freedoms and their security. Also, it includes harm the environment or facilities or properties (private and public) or occupy them and conquer them or endanger any of the national sources.”6 In the words of Jason Franks, Terrorism can be seen as “a concept that is defined and understood relative to the legitimacy of state governance (as an illegal and illegitimate act), or as specific methods of political violence, such as hijack or bombing or as acts of violence against a specific target group, particularly civilians”.7
It is naturally proving difficult to establish a firm basis of research with which to investigate why it actually occurs. As Walter Laqueur has pointed out ‘disputes about a detailed, comprehensive definition of terrorism will continue for a long time and will make no noticeable contribution towards the understanding of terrorism’8 He also viewed terrorism as “violence generated by the conflict over the contention for political legitimacy. States believe they have legitimacy and brand any challenge to their authority as illegitimate.”9 States call groups terrorist, not necessarily because they use lethal violence to attempt to attain political goals but because they view their challenge as illegitimate. Equally groups label states terrorist not because they use lethal state violence to maintain their political position, but because they see it as illegitimate. Hence, the constant referral in the definition of terrorism debate to the expression, ‘one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist’. Sheikh Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hizballah suggests that terrorism is ‘fighting with special means against aggressor nations in religious and lawful warfare against world imperial powers’.10
The orthodox definition of terrorism is employed in this agenda to legitimize violence in this definition. Terrorism is not new, and even though it has been used since the beginning of recorded history it can be relatively hard to define. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being represented. Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. Due to the secretive nature and small size of terrorist organizations, they often offer opponents no clear organization to defend against or to deter. The cycle of terrorist violence and recrimination is a common characteristic in so-called terrorist conflicts and is clearly illustrated in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Israelis view Palestinian attacks as terrorism and respond with military violence, the Palestinians view this as terrorism and respond with violence. Both claim legitimacy of action, both view the other as terrorists.
According to Jason Franks, Many researchers agree that terrorism can be seen as the expression of a particular type of lethal violence and can be defined methodologically as a ‘special method’ of armed struggle or as a ‘weapons-system that incorporates recognized techniques such as assassinations and bombing, and is characteristically directed against people or property”11

The new war/new terrorism debates suggest that those involved in these types of violence are becoming increasingly hard to separate, especially as those involved in terrorism often perceive themselves to be in conflict. This conceivably accounts for the high lethality against non-combatants and the similarities in the type of violence used in both new war and new terrorism. The moral legitimacy debate on what terrorism constitutes has made it extremely difficult to come to a conclusion on a universally acknowledged concept. In line with this, Jason Franks pointed out that;
The problem is that whilst the study of conflict has moved
on and engaged with alternative methods of understanding
war and conflict, the orthodox terrorism understanding is still
constrained by the relative moral legitimacy debate, out of
which it is presently unable to break.12









REFERENCES

1) International Terrorism and Security Research. “What Is Terrorism”
http://www.about.com, March 05, 2005
2) International Terrorism and Security Research Ibid
3) Jason Franks Rethinking The Roots of Terrorism, (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan 2006), p1. 4) Adel Abdullah Al-Abed Al- Jabbar “Terrorism in Islam”
. http://www.saaid.com, web, August 14, 2005
5) Adel Abdullah Al-Abed Al- Jabbar Ibid.
6) Ibid.
7) Jason Franks op cit p2
8) Walter Laqueur in Jason Franks Rethinking The Roots of Terrorism,
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2006). p2
9) Ibid.
10) Sheikh Fadlallah in Jason Franks Rethinking The Roots of Terrorism,
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2006). p4
11) Jason Franks op cit p4
12) Ibid.






HISTORICAL CASES OF TERRORIST ACTIVITIES

Terrorism has surely existed since before the dawn of recorded history, but this assumed concept grew enormously in the twentieth century which came in the form of revolutions, liberation movements, rebellion, genocide, ethnic cleansing, military expeditions and other forms of violence perpetrated by both states and individuals alike against non combatants at different occasions and in different conditions.
At this point, it will be pertinent to point out some incidents of terrorism that occurred in ancient times before coming back to the twentieth century which witnessed series of terrorist attacks. Amy Zalman stated that;
The history of terrorism is as old as humans' willingness to use violence to affect politics. The Sicarii were a first century Jewish group who murdered enemies and collaborators in their campaign to oust their Roman rulers from Judea.1
He also noted that the Hashhashin, whose name gave us the English word "assassins," were a secretive Islamic sect active in Iran and Syria from the 11th to the 13th century who dramatically executed assassinations of Abbasid and Seljuk political figures terrified their contemporaries.2
Zealots and assassins were not, however, really terrorists in the modern sense. Terrorism is best thought of as a modern phenomenon. Its characteristics flow from the international system of nation-states, and its success depends on the existence of a mass media to create an aura of terror among many people. In the words of Brian M. Jenkins, “The word terrorism comes from the Reign of Terror instigated by Maxmilien Robespierre in 1793, following the French revolution. Robespierre, one of twelve heads of the new state, had enemies of the revolution killed, and installed a dictatorship to stabilize the country. He justified his methods as necessary in the transformation of the monarchy to a liberal democracy:”3
Robespierre's sentiment probably laid the foundations for modern terrorists, who believe violence will usher in a better system.
The rise of guerrilla tactics by non-state actors in the last half of the twentieth century was due to several factors. These included the flowering of ethnic nationalism (e.g. Irish, Basque, and Zionist), anti-colonial sentiments in the vast British, French and other empires, and new ideologies such as communism. In line with this, Brian M. Jenkins pointed out that Terrorist groups with a nationalist agenda have formed in every part of the world. For example, the Irish Republican Army grew from the quest by Irish Catholics to form an independent republic, rather than being part of Great Britain.4
The activities of a secret nationalist group based in Serbia (Black Hand or Union of death) could not be forgotten so soon, as it was a member of this group named Gavrilo Princip who actually succeeded in killing Archduke Francis Ferdinand on June 28, 1914 in the streets of Sarajevo, capital of Bosnia- Herzegovina, and the resultant effect combined with other factors caused the first World War. This action is nationalistic on one side, and rebellious on the other side, depending on individual opinions. Similarly, the Kurds, a distinct ethnic and linguistic group in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq, have sought national autonomy since the beginning of the 20th Century. The Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), formed in the 1970s, uses terrorist tactics to announce its goal of a Kurdish state. The Sri Lankan Liberation Tigers of Tamil are members of the ethnic Tamil minority. They use suicide bombing and other lethal tactics to wage a battle for independence against the Sinhalese majority government.
The age of modern terrorism might be said to have begun in 1968 when the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al airliner en route from Tel Aviv to Rome. While hijackings of airliners had occurred before, this was the first time that the nationality of the carrier (Israeli) and its symbolic value was a specific operational aim. Also a first was the deliberate use of the passengers as hostages for demands made publicly against the Israeli government. The combination of these unique events, added to the international scope of the operation, gained significant media attention. The founder of PFLP, Dr. George Habash observed that the level of coverage was tremendously greater than battles with Israeli soldiers in their previous area of operations. "At least the world is talking about us now.”5 Writing in similar manner, Arnaud Blin noted that International terrorism became a prominent issue in the late 1960s, when hijacking became a favored tactic. In 1968, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine hijacked an El Al Flight. Twenty years later, the bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, shocked the world.6 He also observed that the era also gave us our contemporary sense of terrorism as highly theatrical, symbolic acts of violence by organized groups with specific political grievances.7 Throughout the Cold War, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union made extensive use of violent nationalist organizations to carry on a war by proxy, just as Gustave LeBon rightly put it, “Soviet and Chinese military advisers provided training and support to the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War, while the U.S. funded groups such as the Contras in Nicaragua.”8 He also pointed out that ironically, many violent Islamic militants of the late 20th and early 21st century had been funded in the 1980s by the US and the UK because they were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.9 Fatah was organized as a Palestinian nationalist group in 1954, and exists today as a political party in Palestine. In 1967 it joined the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), an umbrella organization for secular Palestinian nationalist groups formed in 1964. Hoffman Bruce recorded that Factions of the PLO have advocated or carried out acts of terrorism.10 He also noted that Abu Iyad organized the Fatah splinter group Black September in 1970; the group is best known for seizing eleven Israeli athletes as hostages at the September 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich.11 All the athletes and five Black September operatives died during a gun battle with the West German police, in what was later known as the Munich massacre. In the 1980s and 1990s, Islamic militancy in pursuit of religious and political goals increased, many militants drawing inspiration from Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. Brian M. Jenkins recorded that In the 1990s, well-known violent acts that targeted civilians were the Tokyo subway sarin gas attack by Aum Shinrikyo and the bombing of Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Building.12 In the Americas, the activities of the Contras were also recorded. The Contras were a counter-revolutionary militia formed in 1979 to oppose Nicaragua's Sandinista government. According to Audrey Kurth’s observation, “The record of the contras in the field . . . is one of consistent and bloody abuse of human rights, of murder, torture, mutilation, rape, arson, destruction and kidnapping.”13 In the Middle=East, a lot of these groups assumed to be terrorists abound. Hezbollah ("Party of God") is an Islamic movement and political party founded in Lebanon shortly after that country's 1982 civil war. Inspired by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution, the group originally sought an Islamic revolution in Lebanon and has long fought for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Led by Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Kurth also asserted that since 1992, the group has kidnapped Israeli soldiers and carried out missile attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli military and civilian targets.14 Other groups that fight for their cause in the region include; Egyptian Islamic Jihad (a.k.a. Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiyya, Hamas, Al Qaeda which has Osama Bin laden as its leader etc
Terrorism continues to be a world issue even till date, and its existence does not seem to be coming to an end as more groups and individuals alike see the act as a way of achieving their different aims and objectives. The table below highlights terrorism timeline since the 1970s.

TERRORISM TIMELINE
Sources: TDO, USA News, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, FBI
Pictures by Sayyid Azim, AP by CNN

1970's to 1980's
Date, Place Type of Attack Casualties Who
January 1975: USA, NYC, Bar Bomb 4 killed It is one of a series of 49 bombings between 1974 and 1977 attributed to the Puerto Rican National Liberation Army.
December 1975: USA, NYC, La Guardia Airport Bomb planted in luggage department 11 dead, 75 injured
May 1981 : USA, NYC, JFK Airport, toilet of Pan Am terminal Bomb 1 dead Puerto Rican Resistance Army.
August 1982: Honolulu, Hawaii. Pan Am airplane. Bomb 1 killed, several injured Palestinian terrorist Mohammad Rashid
April 1983: Beirut, U.S. Embassy Suicide car bomb 63 killed Radical Shiite Muslim group takes credit
October 1983: Beirut, U.S. Marine barracks Bomb 241 killed Lebanese Party of God faction
December 1983: Kuwait City, U.S. Embassy Suicide truck bomb Six killed; dozens injured 17 pro-Iranian terrorists convicted
September 1984: Beirut, U.S. embassy Suicide car bomb 16 killed Islamic Jihad claims responsibility
April 1985: Spain, Restaurant near U.S. Air Base Bomb 17 Killed
June 1985: TWA flight 847 Hijacking to Beirut One killed Lebanese Party of God faction
June 1985: El Salvador Machine gun 13 killed
August 1985, Germany, American base in Frankfurt car bomb Two killed, 20 injured
October 1985: Egyptian coast, Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro Hostage situation One killed Palestine Liberation Front
November 1985: Egypt Air flight 648 Hijacking to Malta 60 killed Abu Nidal's Arab Revolutionary Command
December 1985: Rome and Vienna Airport attacks at U.S. and Israeli airport check-in desks 16 killed
February 1986: Lisbon, U.S. embassy Car bomb No injuries Leftist guerrillas take credit
April 1986: West Berlin night club Bomb Three killed, 150 injured A Libyan diplomat, two Palestinians and two Germans
April 1986: Rome to Athens TWA flight Bomb Four killed Mohammed Rashid, Palestinian terrorist, members of Iraqi backed May 15 organization
June 1987: Rome, U.S. Embassy Rocket fired on embassy Minor injuries Japan-based Red Army terrorists
February 1988: Southern Lebanon Kidnapping One U.S. Marine executed Lebanese Party of God
March 1988: Bogota, Colombia Rocket- propelled grenade Minor damage Guerrilla group

1990's to 2001
Date, Place Type of Attack Casualties Who
Feb 26 1993: USA, NYC, World Trade Center A bomb planted in an underground car parked at the World Trade Center 6 killed, 1000 injured Four Muslim fundamentalists are convicted of conspiracy and other charges related to the bombing, thought to have been ordered by Saudi terror master Osama bin Laden. In 1998, the so-called mastermind, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, is convicted and sentenced to life plus 240 years in prison.
July 1993: Lima, Peru Bomb explodes in bus outside embassy One killed Shining Path guerrillas suspected
March 1995: Karachi, Pakistan, U.S. Consulate Murder Two American diplomats killed Possible retaliation for World Trade Center bombing conviction
April 19 1995: USA, Oklahoma City Car bomb left outside a federal building 168 killed, 600 injured Timothy McVeigh, 33, a member of an anarchist group hostile to the federal government, is convicted of the attack in 1997 and is executed in June 2001.
September 1995: Moscow, U.S. Embassy Rocket-propelled grenade Minor damage No suspects
Oct 1995: USA, train travelling between Miami and Los Angeles and derailed in Arizona Derailed by sabotage. Two of the bolts on one of the joints of the track were removed. 1 killed, 80 injured Previously unknown group calling themselves "The Sons of the Gestapo".
November 1995: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, U.S. military headquarters Bomb Seven killed Four anti-royal Saudi Arabian dissidents, possible connections to Party of God an Iran; beheaded in Saudi Arabia
February 1996: Athens, U.S. Embassy Anti-tank missile attack No injuries National Struggle terrorist group
June 1996: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, Khobar Towers Truck bomb 19 U.S. airmen killed Unknown
July 1996: USA, Centenary Park in Atlanta, Georgia. Olympic Games. Bomb 2 killed, 110 injured
November 1997: Karachi, Pakistan Murder of American oil-company employees Five killed Possible revenge for U.S. conviction of Pakistani for murders of two CIA agents
May 1998: Unabomber sentenced to life Parcel bombings 3 killed, 28 injured Theodore Kaczynski, alias the "Unabomber", is sentenced to life imprisonment for an 18-year campaign of parcel bombings as part of an "anti-modernist" crusade
June 1998: Lebanon, U.S. Embassy Rocket-propelled grenades No injuries
August 1998: Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, U.S. embassies Simultaneous bombings 263 killed, 5000 injured Possibly Osama bin Laden, Saudi financier
October 2000: The Destroyer USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden Bomb blast 17 killed
September 11, 2001:
USA, NYC, World Trade Center, Pentagon, Pensylvania Airplane crashes Over 6000 killed, thousands injured Possibly Osama Bin Laden with the help of the Taliban and international cells and states.













REFERENCES
1. Amy Zalman, , “History of Terrorism- A Guide to the History of
Terrorism>” about.com, web, June 1, 2007.
2. Ibid.
3. Brian M. Jenkins “Terrorism & Terrorists: Introduction” helium.com,
web, May 25, 2004.
4. Ibid.

5. George Habash, “A history of terrorism” books.google.com, web,
April 15, 2010.
6. Arnaud Blin “A history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda”
books.google.com, web, Nay 28, 2006.
7. Ibid.
8. Gustave LeBon, The Psychology of the Great War,
books.google.com, web, October7, 2008.
9. Ibid.
10. Hoffman Bruce. Inside Terrorism. (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1988). p. 47
11. Ibid.
12. . Brian M. Jenkins, op cit.
13. Audrey Kurth Cronin “Terrorists and Suicide Attacks”
education.crs.org, web, August 29, 2003.
14. Ibid.



HISTORICAL EMERGENCE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS AL QAEDA NETWORK
Considered the world's foremost terrorist, Osama bin Laden is the leader of an assumed terrorist organization known as Al-Qaeda, or "The Base." Bin Laden is the alleged perpetrator of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center, damaged part of the Pentagon, and resulted in a plane crash in Pennsylvania. At first he denied involvement in the attacks, referring to them, through an aid, as "punishment from Allah." In recent years he has taken responsibility for "inspiring" the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
The origin of Al Qaeda is traced to the events following the invasion of Afghanistan by the defunct Soviet Union. Just as Michel Chossudovsky recorded, “the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks, Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, was recruited during the Soviet-Afghan war, "ironically under the auspices of the CIA, to fight Soviet invaders"1 He also noted that In 1979 the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA was launched in Afghanistan: "With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan Jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan’s fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually, more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad."2
The United States viewed the conflict in Afghanistan, with the Afghan Marxists and allied Soviet troops on one side and the native Afghan mujahideen on the other, as a blatant case of Soviet expansionism and aggression. According to Wright, Lawrence, “The U.S. channeled funds through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to the native Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviet occupation in a CIA program called Operation Cyclone”.3
Maktab al-Khidamat was established by Abdullah Azzam and Bin Laden in Peshawar, Pakistan, in 1984. Wright also stated that from 1986 it began to set up a network of recruiting offices in the United States, the hub of which was the Al Kifah Refugee Center at the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn's Atlantic Avenue. Among notable figures at the Brooklyn center were "double agent.4
According to Esposito, John, “Al-Qaeda evolved from the Maktab al-Khidamat, or the "Services Office", a Muslim organization founded in 1980 to raise and channel funds and recruit foreign mujahideen for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was founded by Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a Palestinian Islamic scholar and member of the Muslim Brotherhood.”5 Beginning in 1987, Azzam and bin Laden started creating camps inside Afghanistan. The Soviet Union finally withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. To the surprise of many, Mohammed Najibullah's communist Afghan government hung on for three more years before being overrun by elements of the mujahideen. With mujahideen leaders unable to agree on a structure for governance, chaos ensued, with constantly reorganizing alliances fighting for control of ill-defined territories, leaving the country devastated. Esposito also revealed that Toward the end of the Soviet military mission in Afghanistan, some mujahideen wanted to expand their operations to include Islamist struggles in other parts of the world, such as Israel and Kashmir.6 A number of overlapping and interrelated organizations were formed to further those aspirations. One of these was the organization that would eventually be called al-Qaeda, formed by Osama bin Laden with an initial meeting held on August 11, 1988. Bin Laden wished to establish nonmilitary operations in other parts of the world; Azzam, in contrast, wanted to remain focused on military campaigns. After Azzam was assassinated in 1989, the MAK split, with a significant number joining bin Laden's organization. In the words of Arnaud Blin, “From around 1992 to 1996, al-Qaeda and bin Laden based themselves in Sudan at the invitation of Islamist theoretician Hassan al Turabi.” 7 The move followed an Islamist coup d'état in Sudan, led by Colonel Omar al-Bashir, who professed a commitment to reordering Muslim political values. During this time, bin Laden assisted the Sudanese government, bought or set up various business enterprises, and established camps where insurgents trained. Due to bin Laden's continuous verbal assault on King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, on 5 March 1994 Fahd sent an emissary to Sudan demanding bin Laden's passport; bin Laden's Saudi citizenship was also revoked. His family was persuaded to cut off his monthly stipend, the equivalent of $7 million a year, and his Saudi assets were frozen. His family publicly disowned him. In 1996, al-Qaeda announced its jihad to expel foreign troops and interests from what they considered Islamic lands. Bin Laden issued a fatwa, which amounted to a public declaration of war against the United States of America and any of its allies, and began to refocus al-Qaeda's resources towards large-scale, propagandist strikes. Also occurring on June 25, 1996, was the bombing of the Khobar towers, located in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. Arnaud Blin also recorded that On February 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, a leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, along with three other Islamist leaders, co-signed and issued a fatwa (binding religious edict) calling on Muslims to kill Americans and their allies where they can, when they can. 8 It was this declaration of the Fatwas and the call for jihad against the US and Israel that instigated other attacks by the Al Qaeda which got to its height on September 11, 2001.
AL QAEDA ATTACKS
Al Qaeda attacks started in 1992, just as Chossudovsky recorded, “Al-Qaeda attacks (also al-Qa'ida) began in 1992, with coordinated bombings of two hotels in Aden, Yemen, killing one Australian tourist.”9 He also asserted that Bin Laden has claimed al-Qaeda responsibility for the 1993 attack on U.S. troops in Mogadishu, the bombing of the National Guard Training Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1995, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia.10 However, there is no solid evidence to support these claims from Bin Laden, though he may have provided financial support along with inspiration for the attackers.
Wright highlighted Al Qaeda alleged major attacks as follows;
• On December 29, 1992, the first attack by Al Qaeda was carried out in Aden, Yemen.11
• The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when Ramzi Yousef parked a rented van full of explosives in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center.12
According to David Johnson, “In 1996, bin Laden personally engineered a plot to assassinate Clinton while the president was in Manila for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation. However, intelligence agents intercepted a message just minutes before the motorcade was to leave, and alerted the United States Secret Service. Agents later discovered a bomb planted under a bridge” 13
He also stated that In October 2000, al-Qaeda militants in Yemen bombed the missile destroyer U.S.S. Cole in a suicide attack, killing 17 U.S. servicemen and damaging the vessel while it lay offshore.14
The September 11 attacks were the most devastating terrorist acts in American history, killing approximately 3,000 people. Two commercial airliners were deliberately flown into the World Trade Center towers, a third into The Pentagon, and a fourth, originally intended to target the United States Capitol, crashed in Pennsylvania. Wright recorded that the attacks were conducted by al-Qaeda, acting in accord with the 1998 fatwa issued against the United States and its allies by military forces under the command of bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and others. 15
He also revealed that evidence points to suicide squads led by al-Qaeda military commander Mohamed Atta as the culprits of the attacks, with bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Hambali as the key planners and part of the political and military command. 16
Messages issued by bin Laden after September 11, 2001, praised the attacks, and explained their motivation while denying any involvement.[ Bin Laden legitimized the attacks by identifying grievances felt by both mainstream and Islamist Muslims, such as the general perception that the United States was actively oppressing Muslims.
According to David Johnson, “It is thought that al-Qaeda was responsible for the bombing of the Madrid commuter train system, 911 days after the 9/11 attacks.”17 However, the group did not claim any responsibility of this attack. He also asserted that Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb claimed to have been responsible for the April 11, 2007 Algiers bombings.18
In the words of Chossudovsky, “Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan on 2 June 2008.”19 He also reported that On June 1, 2009, Muslim convert Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire in a drive-by shooting on a United States military recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, killing one US soldier and wounding another. At the time he stated that the act was "for the sake of Allah, the Lord of the entire world, and also retaliation on U.S. military" and law enforcement authorities concluded "there doesn't appear to be a wider conspiracy or, at this point in time, any indication that he's a part of a larger group or a conspiracy". However he later professed that he had conducted a "Jihad attack" as part of Al Qaeda.20
Shortly after the arrest of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the December 25, 2009 bombing attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, the suspect reportedly told officials he had traveled to Yemen for training by Al-Qaeda, although British counterterrorism officials dismissed the claims. According to David Johnson, “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility for the attack.”21
He also revealed that group released photos of Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab smiling in a white shirt and white Islamic skullcap with the Al Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula banner in the background.22
Al Qaeda network will continue to soar as long as there are devoted Islamic Fundamentalists who are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to actualize what they perceive as a just cause.




REFERENCES

1) Michel Chossudovsky “Al Qaeda and the "War on Terrorism",
globalresearch.ca, web, January 20, 2008
2) Ibid.
3) Wright, Lawrence. "The Rebellion Within". The New Yorker
http://www.newyorker.com, web, September
15, 2009
4) Ibid.
5) Esposito, John L. Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam.
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)
p.36
6) Ibid.
7) Arnaud Blin “A history of terrorism: from antiquity to al Qaeda”
books.google.com, web, Nay 28, 2006
8) Ibid.
9) Michel Chossudovsky, op cit.
10) Ibid.
11) Wright, Lawrence. Op cit.
12) Ibid.
13) David Johnson, op cit.
14) Ibid.
15) Wright, Lawrence. Op cit.
16) Ibid.
17) David Johnson, op cit.
18) Ibid.
19) Michel Chossudovsky, op cit.
20) Ibid.
21) David Johnson, op cit.
22) Ibid.















GRIEVANCES OF OSAMA BIN LADEN AND HIS AL QAEDA NETWORK AGAINST THE UNITED STATES AND HER ALLIES
Most liberation fighters of Arab origin trace the roots of their grievances against the US and her western allies to the Arab- Israeli conflict in the Middle- East, and Al Qaeda is not an exception to this fact. The support that US has continued to give the Israelis in respect of this conflict has brought anger and hatred against US and her allies by the Arabs. Consequently, the Arabs who perceive the war in Palestine as a holy one have continued to show all forms of retaliation against the US and her allies in order to seek redress.
In his 1998 fatwa entitled, "Jihad against Jews and Crusaders” Bin Laden identified three grievances against the US:
First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.1
If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.


Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.
So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.2


Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper state lets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.3
In respect to Bin Laden’s grievances against the Jews, He warned against alleged Jewish conspiracies: as Wright recorded it in his exact words, “These Jews are masters of usury and leaders in treachery. They will leave you nothing, either in this world or the next.4 He revealed that Osama has also made at least one clear denunciation of Christians: "Every Muslim, from the moment they realize the distinction in their hearts, hates American, hates Jews, and hates Christians. This is a part of our belief and our religion.” 5
As events of 9/11 unfolded, the first question asked was, “Why would anyone do this terrible thing?” The fact is that Usama bin Laden tried to explain, but few were listening. In 1996, bin Laden issued a “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." This statement set forth a number of his grievances. In 1998, his so-called World Islamic Front released a call for “Jihad against Jews and Crusaders.” And in November 2002, he tried again to make his points in a folksy sounding “Letter to America.” These statements outline the basic complaints:
• The US, Israel and Western Allies support Israel and persecute Palestinians • The US violates the sanctity of Muslim Holy Lands by placing troops in Saudi Arabia • The US undermines Islam by supporting secular regimes • The US undermines Islam by exporting Western values • The US obstructs establishment of Shariah (Islamic law) • The US, Israel and Western allies plunder the Middle East oil at paltry prices • The US and its allies are killing Muslims with impunity • The US and UN sanctions and bombing starved Iraqi children • The US has attacked us [Muslims] in Somalia, and supported the Russians in Chechnya, the Indian oppression in Kashmir, and Jewish aggression in Lebanon • The US imposed sanctions on Pakistan for developing nuclear weapons, but takes no action against Israel for developing nuclear weapons, missiles and submarines. 6
When you consider these grievances as outlined by Osama Bin Laden himself, you can agree with me that the end of terror or Al Qaeda oriented activities is not in sight as all parties involved in this new form of conflict are unlikely to surrender anytime in the near future.

REFERENCES

1) Osama Bin Laden, "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"
infoplease.com, web, February 13, 1999.
2) Ibid.
3) Ibid.
4) Wright, Lawrence. "Declaration of War against the Americans
Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places",
mideastweb.com, web, December 15, 1996. 5) Ibid.
6) Osama Bin Laden, “Letter to America.” mideastweb.com, web,
November 25, 2002













OBSTACLES TO ERADICATION OF AL QAEDA ORIENTED TERRORISM BY THE US AND HER ALLIES

Whenever an established government is confronted with terrorism they try to stop it (1) by imprisoning or killing terrorist leaders, (2) by bribing or appeasing terrorist leaders, or in extreme cases (3) by killing every male belonging to the group on behalf of which the terrorists operate (genocide).

It has been proved by the history of mankind, and it logically follows from the nature of terrorism, that it is impossible to stop terrorism by killing or imprisoning terrorist leaders. As long as the cause of terrorism (the feeling of injustice) remains, new terrorist leaders appear and replace those killed or imprisoned. Deutch was quite right when he stated that the very fact of killing or imprisoning terrorist leaders increases the feeling of injustice and hatred that feeds terrorism and arouses desire for revenge.1 He also noted that the killed terrorist leaders become symbols, martyrs, saints and role models for their followers. Occasional terrorist incidents become regular and increasingly frequent part of daily life, until they reach the proportions of a full scale civil war.2
It has been proved by the history of mankind, and it logically follows from the nature of terrorism, that it is impossible to stop terrorism by bribing or appeasing terrorist leaders. In line with this fact, Nicholas Berry stated that as long as the cause of terrorism (the feeling of injustice) remains, the bribed or appeased leaders will lose the support of their followers and will be replaced by new leaders.3 He also noted that the very fact of bribery or appeasement increases the feeling of disdain towards the established government and the resolve to continue the struggle.4
Theoretically genocide appears to be an effective way to eradicate terrorism: kill every terrorist and all the people on whose behalf terrorists fight their war, and terrorism will disappear. In practice such solution could be extremely difficult or even impossible to implement.
The very fact that terrorists have sanctuaries in most part of the world makes it difficult for the United States and her allies to track down all possible attacks against them.
The willingness of perpetrators of this act to sacrifice their lives in the process of carrying it out, and the belief in fighting for “a just cause” by these fundamentalists ensure the sustainability of the terrorists’ struggle. Osama Bin Laden and other Islamic leaders are aware of this fact as it could be noticed in the extract from Bin Laden’s 1996 Fatwa as recorded by Wright; “Those youths know that their rewards in fighting you, the USA, are double their rewards in fighting someone else not from the people of the book. They have no intention except to enter paradise by killing you. An infidel, and enemy of God like you, cannot be in the same hell with his righteous executioner. Our youths chanting and reciting the word of Allah, the most exalted: {fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the heart of a believing people}…5
Finally, as a result of the fact that the root causes of this violence has not been properly addressed by either the United Nations or anybody who has the power to do so, the end to this very act of violence does not seem to be in sight.

















REFERENCES
1) Carter Deutch, “Truth, Honesty and Justice: The Alternative to Wars,
Terrorism and Politics” worldjustice.org,
web, July 14, 2002.
2) Ibid.
3) Nicholas Berry, “Eliminating Terrorist Sanctuaries” worldjustice.org,
web, December 10, 2001.
4) Ibid.
5) Wright, Lawrence. "Declaration of War against the Americans
Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places",
mideastweb.com, web, December 15, 1996









RECOMMENDATIONS

The problems associated with terrorism are quite enormous. The term itself has also been subjected to overheated debates without arriving at a reasonable conclusion as to what it constitutes. In order to address this new threat to world peace, I hereby recommend that:
1. The United Nations should come up with a good definition of terrorism which will include all forms of violence directed against non- combatants and other civilians by both state and non state actors which should be done without sentiments or special preferences, and devise means of punishing perpetrators of the act accordingly.
2. The UN Security Council should re- visit the issue of Arab- Israeli conflict in the Middle- East and address the problem squarely without the involvement of either the US or Great Britain. It will be considered wise to bring in neutral bodies in respect to this.
3. The US should stay clear off the Middle- East crises in order not to attract further acts of aggression against its citizens or try as much as possible to maintain a neutral position in respect to these crises with particular reference to Palestinian- Israeli conflict.
4. The US should try as much as possible to respect the sovereignty of other states by allowing the UN to do its work in respect to conflict resolution and other related matters instead of carrying out series of invasions against weaker nations which is against International law.
5. All the Moslem world and Islamic Fundamentalists should not be allowed to use “Jihad” to instigate youths and direct acts of violence against non Moslems even when they are not involved in any conflict with them thereby threatening global peace and security.
6. Arabs and other Moslems should allow other existing religions to have their own freedom to accept their belief without striving to spread Islam to other states forcefully through Jihad or other means. They should be made to understand that this constant call for a global Jihad is a serious threat to world peace, and should be dealt with accordingly.

Obama may visit Nigeria soon

United States President Barack Obama may visit Nigeria soon.

A statement by the US State Department on Sunday, said that ahead of the expected visit, whose date was not given, the US Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. Jacob ‘Jack‘ Lew, would meet with President Goodluck Jonathan and the leadership of the National Assembly this week.

Although the statement did not state the exact reason for Lew’s visit, sources in the department said he would be expected to, among other things, discuss the impending visit of Obama, Empowered Newswire reports.

Lew, who will also be in Mali and France, was expected to arrive in Abuja on Monday (yesterday).

The statement reads, ”Deputy Secretary Lew travels to Nigeria, Mali and Paris through May 28. In Nigeria, Deputy Secretary Lew is meeting with the newly inaugurated President and senior members of parliament.

“In Mali, he is engaging the President on the status of counter- terrorism programmes and is visiting health programmes supported by PEPFAR and the United States Agency for International Development. In Paris, he is attending the OECD ministerial conference.”

Lew will be accompanied on the visits by the US Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Eric Goosby.

One of the sources said that Lew‘s meeting with Jonathan was because White House had “elevated the Nigerian file and concerns and assigned several top state officials to it like never before.”

For instance, the Nigerian file at the State Department is normally overseen by an Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Africa, an office that is usually the highest ranking office for all African nations in the department.

Empowered Newswire quoted the source on Monday as saying that the Obama visit was as a result of the increasing attention Nigeria was now getting from the White House.

He added that the US Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Clinton, might also be in Nigeria again before Obama, who was sworn in on January 20, 2009.

Obama had during his visit to Ghana in July 2009 stayed away from Nigeria.

Washington had defended the action, saying that he visited Ghana because it had become a model for democratic governance, with the success of its last general elections.

Clinton, who visited Nigeria in August 2009, had advised Nigeria to embrace broad political reform and ease tensions that resulted in the sectarian violence in parts of Northern Nigeria and disruption of oil production in the Niger Delta.

She had also called for concerted efforts to stem corruption in Nigeria, adding that the Obama administration was committed to evolving a special relationship with the country, that will warehouse US/Nigeria Bi-National Commission.

Clinton had said, ”We strongly support and encourage the government of Nigeria‘s efforts to increase transparency, reduce corruption and provide support for democratic processes, in preparation for the 2011 elections. Washington would do its best to endure that money from the earth and its riches are spent on the people.

“Being a sovereign nation, it is left to Nigerians to decide whether to learn from Botswana‘s example or not. Botswana has a vibrant democracy and a stable economy.”

But since the assumption of Jonathan in office, first as Acting President and now as President, the Obama administration has increased its Nigerian focus sharply.

Two US Under Secretaries who work directly under Clinton, according to Empowered Newswire, were detailed to handle different aspects of the Nigerian file shortly after the US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Ambassador Johnnie Carson, visited Nigeria in February.

The Under Secretaries of State are Mr. Williams Burns and Ms Maria Otero.

Burns is known to be working on the Nigerian file, partly, regarding the nuclear power global controversy between the US and Iran at the Security Council where Nigeria‘s vote is key to an upcoming resolution against Iran.

Otero is in charge of the US end of the newly signed US-Nigeria Bi-national Commission, which meets this week in Abuja for the first time.

It was learnt that a new Security Council vote against Iran, which is now being proposed by the US – imposing economic sanctions – may be one of the issues that Lew will raise with Jonathan.

Last week, Clinton announced to the US Senate that Russia and China had agreed to the proposed new resolution against Iran, to be tabled soon at the Security Council.

The US has not only secured their support, it also wants to get a unanimous Security Council resolution against Iran.

Nigeria is currently a non-permanent member of the council, which will be voting on the US drafted resolution soon. It will be the turn of Nigeria to preside over the council in July.

Last Thursday, the National Security Adviser, Lt-Gen. Aliyu Gusau, visited the White House where he was received by his US counterpart, Gen. James Jones. After their meeting, the US described Nigeria as a friend, ally and partner.

World Cup bomb plot detailed by al-Qaeda suspect

Mr Qahtani was arrested on 3 May after a note about the plot was found

An alleged al-Qaeda militant detained in Iraq has given details about a plan he had to attack the World Cup in South Africa next month.

The Saudi man, Abdullah Azam Saleh al-Qahtani, told reporters he had suggested an attack on the Dutch and Danish teams in revenge for cartoons drawn of the Prophet Muhammad.
But he said senior al-Qaeda leaders had not yet approved the plan.
On Monday Iraqi police claimed to have prevented an attack on the World Cup.
The claims prompted phone calls from South African police, trying to find out what was going on.
'Target fans' Mr Qahtani was arrested after Iraqi forces found a note detailing the plan in a hideout used by two senior al-Qaeda figures, killed in April.

Continue reading the main story 'Porous' SA air security exposed

"We discussed the possibility of taking revenge for the insults of the prophet by attacking Denmark and Holland," Mr Qahtani told the Associated Press.
"If we were not able to reach the teams, then we would target the fans."
The plan would have included car bombs and gun attacks.
The plan had not been approved, but had been awaiting the green light from al-Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mr Qahtani said.
"It was only an idea to blow up the World Cup," he said.
"It was relayed through other men, but I didn't get a reply."
Details discovered It is not clear if al-Qaeda in Iraq has the resources to carry out a complicated attack that far away from their home base.
A note detailing the plan and Mr Qahtani's name, was discovered in a joint US and Iraqi operation in which top al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.
Mr Qahtani was arrested by the Iraqi authorities on 3 May.
In 2006 a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, including one that showed a bomb in his turban.
In the Netherlands, anti-Islamic politicians have called the Koran a "fascist book".
Fifa has said it will not comment on any specific or potential threats to the World Cup.
South African police spokesman Vish Naidoo said the South African police had only heard about the plan through the media and had not received any information from the Iraqi authorities.
Mr Qahtani arrived in Iraq from Saudi Arabia in 2004 after the US invasion. He was arrested in 2007 and held for two years in Camp Bucca, AP reported.

Israeli soldiers clash with Palestinians

Israeli forces have clashed with Palestinians protesting against the construction of the apartheid wall and other Israeli policies.

On Friday, clashes erupted in two West Bank villages when Israeli soldiers fired tear gas to disperse the crowd, which caused a fire in olive groves.

Palestinians held rallies in the villages of Bilin and Nabi Saleh to protest Tel Aviv's land confiscation and settlement plans.

Protesters set out toward the wall carrying Palestinian flags and calling for national unity to resist the Israeli occupation.

A Palestinian protestor was injured and six others were arrested.

On Thursday, Palestinians and foreign activists also demonstrated against Israel's construction of an illegal apartheid wall in the West Bank.

Locals say the apartheid wall is being built on land the Israelis are confiscating from the Palestinians.

Strong quake strikes off coast of Chile

A 6.4 magnitude earthquake has struck off the coast of central Chile.

The quake's epicenter was located 151 kilometers southwest of Concepcion at a depth of 20.6 kilometers, the US Geological Survey said.

The temblor hit at around seven in the evening local time.

The city of Concepcion was near the epicenter of the 8.8-magnitude earthquake of February 27 that triggered a local tsunami and killed at least 452 people.

There have been no immediate reports of damage or injuries, AFP reported on Monday.

Carlos Tevez questions Mancini training methods

Manchester City striker Carlos Tevez has said the players are "not happy" with Roberto Mancini's training methods and claimed that former boss Mark Hughes should have been given more time.

GettyImages

Carlos Tevez has had his say on Man City's situation.

City are preparing for one of the most important games of the season - Saturday's derby against Manchester United - as they seek to claim fourth place in the Premier League, but Tevez took the chance to get a few things off his chest, especially about Mancini's training regime.
"The players are not happy with this," Tevez told the Daily Mail. "We are at the end of a long season, we have big matches, we are tired but there are still double training sessions, morning and afternoon. Then, the next day, we train for two hours. I do not understand. But, please, he is the coach and I am the player. He is in charge. I am okay with him."
Tevez showed his support for former boss Hughes, maintaining that he should not have been sacked by the club's Abu Dhabi owners.
"It is their club, their money. But, if you ask me if I thought it was the right decision, the answer is no,'' he said. ''I will play for any manager; I play for the shirt and must respect the right of the people who make decisions to change things, but a team does not form overnight.
''Mark should have been given more time. The decision was taken with too much haste. Did the directors think it through? You cannot invest so much and then sack the manager after five months. Mark brought us all here. He is a great manager and he will get another big club, 100%.''
Tevez also claimed that he was unhappy about City's decision to greet his £25.5 million signing by erecting a billboard saying 'Welcome to Manchester', a move that infuriated his old club.
"I never understood the intention of that poster,'' he said. ''What was the point? Was it to welcome me to Manchester City or was it to anger Manchester United? Nobody ever told me. I'm indifferent towards it but it is important you know I had nothing to do with the poster. I'd have preferred for it not to be there. I have respect for all the clubs I used to play for. That was not showing respect, was it? I did not transfer from United to City for the controversy."

ESPNSOCCERNET

Ancelotti tips England ahead of Italy

Carlo Ancelotti believes England are a better bet for success at this summer's World Cup than his native Italy.

GettyImagesAncelotti thinks England have a strong case

The Azzurri are the defending champions following their win in Germany four years ago but Chelsea boss Ancelotti likes the look of an England side moulded by his countryman Fabio Capello.
Ancelotti told Radio anch'io lo sport: "The England team has excellent credentials. They have players who play at a very high level and there are great expectations for the World Cup.
"In Italy the situation is different because they are going through a transitional period. (Coach Marcello) Lippi will do well to unite the players who are emerging within the squad and those who were successful in 2006.''
Ancelotti has been mentioned as a possible successor to Lippi after this summer's showpiece in South Africa but reiterated his desire to remain at Stamford Bridge.
"Me with the national team? No, I am fine here,'' he said. "I hope to stay at Chelsea, we have good chances to win things. I hope after Lippi it is an Italian coach but it is hard to say who the best candidate is.''

ESPNSOCCERNET

'Slim' prospects for climate deal this year

Developing nations are set to be hardest hit by rising temperatures

Prospects of finalising a new binding agreement on climate change by the end of the year are "slim", according to UN climate convention chief Yvo de Boer.

He said the process used to draw up the Copenhagen Accord, the document produced at the end of December's UN climate summit, had worsened distrust.
About 110 countries have endorsed the accord, with others rejecting it.
Mr de Boer was speaking at a three-day meeting here aimed at agreeing steps towards this year's summit in Mexico.
The place of the Copenhagen Accord has been one of the controversial issues, with developed nations such as the US and Australia praising it as useful and something that should be incorporated into any new global agreement.
But developing countries regard it as far too weak, and object to the "undemocratic" nature of the process that saw it drawn up and announced by a small group of nations on the last day of the mammoth Copenhagen summit.
"It has heightened the feeling of distrust within the process," Mr de Boer told BBC News.
"But what Copenhagen also demonstrated is that if a process or procedure is followed that a group of countries does not like, then they have the ability and the power to resist the outcome of such a process."
Two-step process
Clearly, the accord is being resisted by a large group of developing countries.
According to Bolivia's representative Pablo Solon, the carbon constraints are so weak that "we're going to have one half of humanity living in a very difficult situation - without water in some places, in others living underwater.
"Can you imagine - to present this as a solution?"
Many of the countries that have endorsed the accord have added the caveat that they see it only as a step towards a global, binding treaty, and that they want the treaty agreed at this year's summit, in Mexico's Cancun resort in November and December.
The chances of that happening, said Mr de Boer, were "very slim".
"I think that developing countries will want to see what the nature of an agreement is going to be before they will be willing to turn it into a legally-binding treaty, so that basically means a two-step process," he said.
"We first need to get the architecture agreed, and I think that can happen in Cancun; and then once if that architecture is sufficiently interesting to parties, there could be a decision in Cancun to turn it into a new treaty text, and that would have to be finalised later."
Running story
Developing countries have been asking for a intensive sequence of meetings during this year in order to allow enough time to reach the treaty stage.

Campaigners are calling for a binding agreement on emissions

India's delegate Vijai Sharma said that progress was being made on that, and on the process for developing a new agreement.
"It is a very involved process - it is not a sprint, it is a decathlon," he told BBC News.
"As to the character of the agreement - there are different opinions on that, but everyone wants a good outcome."
However, Mr de Boer flagged up one potential stumbling block - the US demand for "symmetry".
In order to placate concerns about losing competitiveness, the US is for example demanding that China and other developing countries should be subject to the same regime on verifying emissions curbs as the industrialised world.
"What the US has also indicated is that it would want to be treated on a par with major develoing countries, and that I think is going to be very difficult," said Mr de Boer.
After the busiest and most fraught period of climate negotiations since their inception two decades ago, Mr de Boer steps down later this year.
His successor is expected to be named soon - possibly later this month - with a number of former ministers in the frame.

BBC NEWS

True class tells at Bernabeu

Barcelona struck a potentially decisive blow in the Primera Division title race by ending Real Madrid's perfect home record to go three points clear at the summit.
Lionel Messi's 40th goal of the season in all competitions put the reigning Spanish and European champions on the road to victory in 'El Clasico', and Pedro Rodriguez completed the scoring 10 minutes after half-time.
The result ended Madrid's 12-match winning streak in La Liga and their 100% record at the Bernabeu, which had stood at 15 successive triumphs, but more importantly it put Barca in pole position to retain their league crown.
Not only are they three points clear of Madrid with seven games to go, but they also boast the better head-to-head record if the two clubs should finish level.
Barca coach Pep Guardiola sprang a surprise with his line-up, starting with just two recognised forwards in Messi and Pedro, and leaving Thierry Henry, Andres Iniesta and Bojan Krkic on the bench.
That perhaps contributed to a cagey first half which produced little goalmouth action.
In last season's corresponding fixture, which Barca won 6-2, there were three goals in the opening 20 minutes but the only incident of note in the opening half-hour tonight was a penalty claim by Messi.
The Argentinian went down in the area under a sliding challenge from Raul Albiol but his questioning look at referee Manuel Mejuto Gonzalez was answered in the negative.
Messi would be celebrating 20 minutes later, though, as he put Barca ahead following an incisive one-two with Xavi.
The World Player of the Year still had work to do as he brought down Xavi's return pass on his chest, but Albiol could not block as the Primera Division's leading scorer cut inside the Madrid centre-back before stabbing home right-footed past Iker Casillas.
That would be the only goal, and indeed the only real opportunity, of a stop-start opening period, although Madrid striker Gonzalo Higuain blazed a reasonable opening well over in the 40th minute after getting in behind Gerard Pique.
Madrid fans will have been concerned at half-time, but Manuel Pellegrini's men had gone behind in their previous three home games against Sevilla, Sporting Gijon, Atletico Madrid before hitting back to win all three.
The second half started with no new faces on the pitch, although Guardiola did re-shuffle his line-up, with Dani Alves returning to right-back from right wing being one of four position changes. Madrid immediately looked more purposeful after the restart and they finally gave Victor Valdes something to do in the 51st minute when Marcelo tried his luck.
However, three minutes after that Barca doubled their lead through Pedro - and it proved the beginning of the end for Madrid.
Xavi was again the creator, with his pass evading Alvaro Arbeloa and sending Pedro through, and the young winger coolly slotted past Casillas from the edge of the box.
Pellegrini responded to that by sending on Guti for Marcelo, and the veteran playmaker almost made an immediate impact as his pass put Rafael van der Vaart in the clear.
Valdes came to his side's rescue though as he parried Van der Vaart's shot.
Valdes would find himself increasingly busy in the next 15 minutes as Madrid desperately tried to find a foothold back into game.
Cristiano Ronaldo, who was starting to come alive, was twice denied by Valdes while Guti also tested the Barca custodian.
The more Madrid pushed forward, though, the more chance Barca had of notching a third on the break, and that almost proved the case in the 71st minute when Messi was left with only Casillas to beat.
Like Valdes at the other end, though, the Spain number one came out on top with a superb block.
It was an identical story in the 77th minute when Xavi picked out Messi's run into the area, with Casillas again deflecting the Argentinian's shot for a corner.
Barca, who will be hoping to return to the Bernabeu next month for the Champions League final - Inter Milan their opponents in the last four - could have been made to rue those misses if Raul's goal had stood late on.
However, that effort was chalked off for a debatable handball against Karim Benzema, and with it went Madrid's hopes of getting anything out of the match and possibly their title dreams as well.
ESPNSOCCERNET