ARE YOU IN NIGERIA AND WISH TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ONLINE?

There are simple things the experts did not tell you about online importation which really matters. If you have access to this info, you will have the power to negotiate directly with the manufacturers. You can request for the products to be branded in your name or business name. You can get the products at much cheaper rates to make maximum profit. You automatically become a wholesaler. If you need my ebook on online importation business call me on 08064004963

Making Money on the Internet is simple

In a time like this when the economy is so bad. Your salaries are no longer enough to meet your needs, the hope of getting a lucrative job is proving to be very difficult. When you are pushed against the wall and there seems to be no hope. That is the time to think outside the box. That is the time to be innovative. That is the time to take that risk you have been running away from for far too long. You have always been afraid of making money via the internet. You have always been skeptical about online money making opportunities. But that is where I am taking you to, as that will do you a lot of good. I am giving you the opportunity to add to your meager salaries, a chance to be self employed and a hope of achieving financial freedom. I have 3 incredible offers for you. You can start from one or combine the three for maximum profit. 1. How to start importation business with little capital. START IMPORTATION BUSINESS NOW 2. Own your bulk SMS website and make money from it like MTN, Glo, Airtel, Etisalat etc.BECOME A BULK SMS PROVIDER IN MINUTES 3. Join our affiliate programme and earn from 1 & 2 above. You also earn direct referral bonuses. The choice is yours. EARN FIVE THOUSAND NAIRA AND EXTRA BONUS FOR REFERRING PEOPLE TO OUR SITE

Get Your Own Bulk SMS Site in Minutes

You can now make a lot of money selling sms units to family, friends, different organisations and institutions You Don’t need to know about web designing. If you can operate your facebook account, you can do this A domain name e.g yourname.com will be registered for you. We will host your website for a year. You will buy units from us at a flat rate of 1.65 kobo per sms anytime your units elapse. Your units do not expire.Read More

GET THE BEST ONLIME PACKAGE THAT EARNS U A LOT OF CASH AS A NIGERIAN FROM THE COMFORT OF YOUR HOME

Get the best online beginners package & start earning instantly from the internet. These are the contents of the package- 1. Online Importation Biz manual 2. How to design a professional website from scratch without knowing the codes. 3. How to use your Nigerian ATM debit card for online shopping 4. How to use a facebook page to sell any product effectively 5. Online Forex Tutorial Manual and 6. A motivational book that will push you into action instantly without delay titled The Science of Getting Rich. How to order Pay the sum of 2000 (Two thousand) naira into my GTBank acct. Account Name: Tochukwu Asiegbu Ebuka Account Number: 0110-855-634 After payment send your deposit details eg Name of depositor, teller no, email address, name of the package paid for (online beginners package) to 08064004963 Your package will be sent to you on the same day after the confirmation of payment through the email address you provide. SEE U @ THE TOP!!! Please this package is for Nigerians only You can also join other Investors on our facebook page

Ribadu’s Report Drama: Who Says Jonathan Wants To Fight Corruption?

Posted: November 8, 2012 - 13:53 By Chinedu Ekeke Give President Goodluck Jonathan hundred years to rule Nigeria, he will not successfully prosecute even one person in his much vaunted fight against corruption. In fact, as a rule, there’ll be a sort of liberalization of corruption under his watch. The image of invincibility he creates about corruption helps him sustain his personal – but nauseatingly pedestrian – idea of corruption being a Nigerian thing that can never be tackled by anybody. This isn’t one simplistic assumption. I can stake anything for this claim. Mr Jonathan is a creation of the corruption he tells people that he’s fighting. In 2006, he was indicted for false declaration of assets by a Joint Task Force (JTF) on corruption that was set up by Obasanjo’s government. That powerful panel was headed by Nuhu Ribadu (yes, the same Ribadu you know) then as the chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). The Joint Task Force said Mr Jonathan was in possession of illegally-acquired property such as homes and exotic cars he could not explain within his legitimate income. While he was invited for hearing, he claimed he bought them from his “savings”. Meanwhile, he was a lecturer in the few years following his becoming a deputy governor. Now hear the worth of the properties which were brought from Mr Jonathan’s ‘savings’: a seven-bedroom duplex worth N18 million at Otuke Ogbia LGA acquired in2001; a four-bedroom duplex, valued at N15 million at Goodluck Jonathan Street, Yenegoa, acquired in 2003; and a five-bedroom duplex, at Citec Villas, Gwarimpa II – Abuja, valued at N25 million, also acquired in 2003. There were also two cars: a Lexus Jeep valued at N18 million; and a BMW 7351 Series worth N5.5 million. If you check the dates, the purchases were made starting from 2001, just two years after becoming a deputy to a criminal governor convicted for fleecing Bayelsa state. So Mr President, a candidate for prison who had no business being in Aso Rock ab initio, became appointed the running mate of Late President Yar’Adua by Obasanjo, the same president whose powerful committee indicted him. This is the core of the matter with corruption under Jonathan. He’s a cheerleader for the corrupt, and he seems, I have observed with deep concern, to always be excited whenever there’s a stage-managed drama to ridicule the outcome of serious probes that indict key members of his government. It is not that we all do not have a past that we may be ashamed of; it is about having a sad past we still live in and cherish. This president still resides in his past, a past he should not be proud of, but a past he desires, unfortunately, to have every public official under him share from. This is why Mr Jonathan is dangerous for Nigeria. Any country that values decency and is desirous of economic growth cannot afford to have as its leader a man who is an apostle of primitive acquisition of wealth. In my previous essays, I have insisted, and with proofs, that Nigeria cannot step out of where we are economically if we don’t wage a true war against corruption and impunity. The war I mean isn’t Jonathan’s committee’s setting approach. The war I know is the type that’ll be led by the president himself. It requires a certain depth of love for country by the head of the country’s government himself. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any sign from Mr Jonathan that he loves Nigeria. If he lays any claim to ’love for country’, then I can wager the reason: enough free oil money to corner. I don’t know of any administration in either pre or post-independence Nigeria that has been rocked by the weight of financial scandals under Mr Jonathan’s gleeful watch. He simply sets up a committee, and have aides arrange how to mock its outcome. Last year, the legislature approved for Nigeria N240b for fuel subsidy, and then before the year ran out, Mr Jonathan’s government had already spent over a trillion naira on that without batting an eyelid. Then when it appeared their recklessness had thrust illiquidity upon their faces, they pushed the cost of the roguery of their friends onto Nigerians and titled it subsidy removal. We vehemently refused that, and argued, as every average thinking person would, that the answer lied in prosecuting those who defrauded the Nation of trillions of its revenue, and recovering the funds from them. They pushed their way through. At a town-hall meeting to sell their untruths to Nigerians, Mrs Okonjo-Iweala even delved into the ridiculous when she alluded to the need for us to help them fish out those who sabotage the nation economically. Well, that comment ended up being one of the many jokes, albeit very unintelligent ones, that have been dropping out of her mouth since she joined this government. The push of Nigerians for transparency in the management of their oil revenue led the responsive House of Representatives into setting up an adhoc committee that probed the management of the subsidy regime. Headed by Farouk Lawan, the committee doubled-down on government’s complicity in the subsidy fraud, and even the roles played by key government agencies and parastatals in destroying the country they were set up to serve. But as the committee was at work, Femi Otedola, one of the three closest businessmen to the president (the other two are Aliko Dangote and Aig Aigboje Imoukhuede of Access Bank) was out to rubbish the report and render it useless. He set Farouk up and bribed him with some dollar bills. When it was time to use the ploy in the achievement of its original purpose, Femi Otedola proudly informed Nigerians that he gave bribe to a legislator. There was joy in Jonathan’s presidency. As you read these, Otedola is the president’s Man-Friday, walking freely on the streets and even attending some important state functions with him. The Jonathan camp changed the narrative. Farouk Lawan’s report was now labeled as lacking in credibility. It was shocking. Nobody talked about why it should be implemented while the culprits in the bribery saga get prosecuted for such massive economic sabotage. Don’t prosecute them since Femi was involved. Just rubbish Farouk and then kill the report. And then came the Petroleum Revenue Task Force headed by Nuhu Ribadu. It was set up by this same government to look into the affairs of the oil industry from 2002 – 2012. The committee’s report has long been ready. It was formally presented to the president on Friday where another comedy, in the manner of Otedola’s, played out. Mr. Steve Oronsaye, Nigeria’s former Head of Service and Vice Chairman of the Task Force played the spoiler. He was part of the committee but was not attending deliberations until it was time to discuss recovery of funds owed by some companies. He attended the meeting and then scuttled the Task Force’s efforts to recover $1.5billion from Addax Petroleum. Justifying his well calculated attempt to make nonsense of the report, Mr Oronsaye claimed he was a believer in processes, and that the process that led to the compilation of the report was flawed and so ‘unimplementable’. Oronsaye did not have the courage to tell Nigerians that he accepted appointment into the board of NNPC even while still serving as a member of the Task Force, and that such was a necessary condition to erode his objectivity on the matter. Oronsaye did not have the decency to resign his membership of that Task Force when he took up the board membership appointment. That must be how ‘credible’ people act in the world Mr Oronsaye happened from. Which leads to the next question: Who appointed Steve Oronsaye in the NNPC board while he was carrying out another task that entailed auditing the same NNPC? Was the presidency not aware of the conflict of interest in that regard? Was Steve the only Nigerian qualified to be a board member of NNPC such that he would need to serve in the committee that probes the corporation a board member of which he is? Mr Oronsaye must have been planted in that Task Force to discredit it. And if the only issue Mr Oronsaye has with the recommendations is the process in their compilation, and not the recommendations themselves, why did he declare them ‘unimplementable’? One would have thought that the real issue is in whether the recommendations were outside what the Task Force members collectively agreed upon. My understanding of how this corruption-building administration of Goodluck Jonathan works tells me this was designed to ensure corruption in the oil industry remains blossoming. The report reveals that between 2008 and 2011, Nigerian oil ministers handed out no fewer than seven discretionary licences and claimed that a total of $183 million (about N28.7 billion in signature bonuses was missing from the deals. The report also claimed that three of the oil licences in question were awarded within the tenure of the present Petroleum Minister, Mrs Diezani Alison-Madueke. Diezani was indicted by the Task Force. This isn’t the first time she’s being indicted in a probe of this manner. The whole drama is to rub it on our faces that Goodluck Jonathan is comfortable with corruption. He will neither sack Diezani nor give Nigerians any reason to assert that she is indeed corrupt even in the face of prima facie evidences. And there are always Oronsaye’s and Otedolas who are willing to help out. Those who are surprised – I wonder who should still be by now, anyway – about the game of deceit in President Goodluck Jonathan’s government may need to take time to study more the man they expect good governance from. A man who desires everybody around him to share from the proceeds of sleaze will not stop the growth of sleaze. What you tolerate you cannot exterminate. Any leader who doesn’t see as evil the mismanagement of public funds isn’t fit to lead even himself, let alone his household. This is the character that runs today’s Aso Rock. And this is unfortunate.

Among Achebe, Awo, Zik, Balewa and Ahmadu Bello

Wars, whether civil or international, are by their very nature, ever unpleasant, leaving in their trail, bitter memories with accounts, personal or official, ever partisan and even if credible, ever liable to be disputed. Every account depends on the author and the critic. There can never be an end to such accounts. Till today, Americans, whose grandparents were not yet born at the time of their country’s civil war, still engage in academic exercise of the war with special focus on their wartime leader, Abraham Lincoln, and the opposite confederals. There are also fresh books on the last two world wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. On the Nigerian civil war, which ended barely 42 years ago, the compelling need for various accounts and observations is, therefore, yet to be exhausted, especially by those who were directly involved or affected. Such accounts are ignoble if they do not generate controversy. The latest is Chinua Achebe’s book titled “There was a country.” Whatever the bad feelings of his critics, Achebe’s reputation, unlike his contemporaries, is that of a straightforward man. He has never been known to be cowardly, neither does he cringe before nor collaborate with any local or international establishment. Achebe’s character is definite as he does not charade in the day only to be settled at night. The author of the book “There was a country” should therefore be viewed from that angle. Notably, Chinua Achebe faulted one of Nigeria’s founding fathers, Obafemi Awolowo, for acclaiming starvation as a legitimate weapon in a war, specifically, Nigerian civil war. It is, by the way, wrong to accuse Achebe of writing his book over forty years after the civil war ended. Indeed, it will be a surprise if Achebe’s book is the last to be written on the civil war by a Nigerian. Furthermore, Chinua Achebe has never hidden his disagreement with Obafemi Awolowo. In fact, when the latter died in 1987 and was widely attributed as a nationalist, Achebe weighed in with his verdict that Awolowo was a tribalist. How correct is Chinua Achebe in his criticism of Obafemi Awolowo for acclaiming starvation as a weapon in a war? Even if Awolowo was not in the position to effect his belief in starvation as a weapon during the war, the fact remains that he (Awolowo) publicly took that position and was widely reported in the media in Nigeria and abroad. In fact, years after the war, critics of Awolowo, understandably from the Biafran side, so accused him and he could not deny as the evidence was there. For a devastating effect, Awolowo expressed his view on the starvation controversy as the second (though not necessarily most powerful) man in Nigerian government. As a major figure in Nigerian politics, Awolowo should therefore have counted both the short and long term omnibus consequences of such controversial views. The higher the position, the more the restraint or responsibilities. It is not as if in any war, starvation does not arise or is not employed by the stronger side to weaken the opponents. With blockade leading to shortages of essential items like food and drugs, surely starvation sets in and the stronger side pretends ignorance of the deteriorating situation on the other. In reality, therefore, starvation becomes a weapon. But such weapon is never officially or callously acknowledged as a weapon. In the build up to Second World War, German leader Adolph Hitler operated a concentration camp at Dachau under the most inhuman conditions, including starvation, mainly to contain or discourage dissidence at home. When the war began in 1939, Hitler opened another camp at Belsen, mainly for starving hundreds of thousands of Jews and other prisoners of war. But Hitler never officially or publicly hold out starvation as a deliberate or legitimate weapon of war. In Africa, starvation also emerged in civil wars in Congo and Rwanda. And less than twenty years ago during the Bosmian war in the defunct Yugoslavia, starvation and ethnic cleansing resulting in deaths of hundreds of thousands in Srebrenica, alarmed the world, such that culprit Bosnia leaders were later tried at International Criminal Court, Hague for crimes against humanity. Ex-Liberian President Charles Taylor was also tried in the same court for alleged crimes against humanity in the Sierra-Leone civil war. The difference therefore with these stated examples compared to the starvation in the Nigerian civil war was that no government official or public office holder came out to acknowledge that starvation was being employed as a deliberate and legitimate policy. Fortunately, during the Nigerian civil war, there was no International Criminal Court under which genocide (implication of starvation of opponents to death) is treated as crime against humanity. Is Chinua Achebe fair to Awolowo in his criticisms? The appropriate preceding question is: Was Awolowo fair to himself (not to mention federal side) when he publicly upheld starvation as a legitimate weapon in war, moreso during a civil war in which the outside world was disgusted with television visuals of thousands of starving and malnourished innocent children? Did Awolowo justify starvation as a weapon during a war, in his personal or official capacity as vice-chairman of Federal Executive Council headed by General Yakubu Gowon? In whatever capacity, even outside government, Awolowo, considering his high status in Nigerian politics especially as one of the country’s founding fathers, should not have endorsed starvation as a weapon. If Awolowo was ever to speak on the war, such view expressed publicly, must comply with government policy on the conduct of the war. Clearly because Awolowo’s endorsement of starvation was against the stated policy of Federal Government, General Yakubu Gowon, in great embarrassment, had to dispatch delegations to different parts of the world, even Africa, to re-assure that starvation was not his government’s policy on the civil war. In truth, Awolowo created the problem for himself, moreso as he was not the prosecutor of the war. The chief prosecutor of the war was General Yakubu Gowon, who, even if he endorsed starvation, never said so publicly or officially throughout the war. Instead, Gowon, thereafter, approved, perhaps under pressure from concerned foreign governments, the opening of safe corridors through which relief materials passed to the war victims. There were also high-ranking politicians of Obafemi Awolowo’s generation in Gowon’s government who concentrated on their assignment as federal commissioners. Among them were Aminu Kano, Shehu Shagari, Joseph Tarka, Winike Briggs, Shettima Ali Monguno, Dr. Adetoro, Femi Okunnu. Tony Enahoro, (erstwhile lieutenant of Obafemi Awolowo) as Federal Commissioner for Information and Culture, for some unknown reasons, sold to the outside world the idea of a Nigerian federation with strong centre except that not only did he break with Awolowo but also his last twenty years on earth in total regret of his federation with strong centre and therefore through NADECO and PRONACO sang a new tune of weakening of the centre in favour of more powers for the states. There was, of course, Admiral Wey as Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters. Since Admiral Wey, by the way a Yoruba, and other federal commissioners (except Tony Enahoro) did not make any provocative statements throughout their tenure and the war, nobody is criticising them today. Obafemi Awolowo should have realised that he was not a pedestrian figure in or out of government throughout the war and the weight of his every word, must consolidate an aspiring national leader in a complex country like Nigeria. Former North regional premier Ahmadu Bello, for example, could afford the luxury of his reservation about allowing an Igbo an inch of opportunity because, according to him (Ahmadu Bello) he, (Igbo) would from there occupy a yard. Ahmadu Bello made this view known in an interview with a BBC television correspondent now reproduced on You Tube. But then, Ahmadu Bello contented himself with a regional premiership. It was a completely different story with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa throughout his nine years (1957-1966) as Prime Minister of Nigeria, as he lived up to the national standing of that office. Even when Ahmadu Bello said he did not recognise the state of Israel, thereby creating diplomatic tension, Tafawa Balewa asserted himself as Prime Minister by assuring the world that Nigeria had friendly ties with all member countries of the United Nations including Israel. Another example was deputy leader of Action Group and later Premier of Western Region, S.L. Akintola who was more vitriolic than Awolowo on anything Igbo. But Akintola never aspired to lead Nigeria and could afford to alienate any section of the country, as undesirable as that might be. Akintola’s humorous analogy of the name of Dr. Ikejiani was classic. Whatever the meaning in Igbo, the translation of Ikejiani in Yoruba was politically convenient for Akintola to complain against majority federal appointments for Igbos. According to Akintola in his memorable broadcast on the regional radio, (now also available on You Tube) there might be nothing wrong in the first appointment (Ikini ani) second appointment (Ikeji ani) third appointment (Iketa ani) etc going to Igbos, but that Yoruba too must share in the appointments. Nobody wound reject such seeming justifiable submission except that, the humour apart, Akintola’s aim was to undermine Yoruba support for Awolowo in their supremacy battle in the defunct Western region. How about Daddy Onyeama, a prominent and well-respected independent-minded judge who in his younger days was enjoying an evening with friends (mainly Yoruba) at Island Club Lagos? Onyeama’s social friends teased him with the low status of Igbo in the scheme of things. Such ‘yappings’ are common among friends on those joyous occasions. Onyeama, innocently in return and perhaps to disarm his tormentors, assured that “Igbo domination is a question of time.” Complete political capital was thereafter made out of an otherwise social evening banter among friends, in total disregard of the circumstances. Is Chinua Achebe’s criticism of Awolowo necessarily evidence of his (Achebe’s) hatred for Yoruba? That cannot be because Achebe knows too well that on the federal side during the civil war, conscientious objectors were among only Yoruba, with some of them like Tai Solarin and Wole Soyinka clamped into indefinite detention. Also, at the end of the war, the first non-Igbo to appear in Biafra in a sole-rehabilitation effort was a Yoruba – Tai Solarin. Also, unknown to the public, even some close associates of Awolowo did not agree with him on the war. At least, one of them from Ijebu-Ode, now deceased, years after the end of the war, confided in me. That aside, Achebe’s critics on his latest book, especially Yoruba, should objectively read “AWO”, Obafemi Awolowo’s autobiography, in which throughout, there is not a single sentence complimentary to Nnamdi Azikiwe, portrayed as an ethnic jingoist. When I read the maiden edition of that book in 1961, I could then understand why NCNC (Zik’s party) rejected the offer of an alliance by Awo’s Action Group in 1959, even conceding Prime Ministership to Azikiwe. Similar offer of alliance between Awo’s party and Zik’s party in 1979 and 1983 was also laughable. The two men were uncompromisingly incompatible to give Nigeria a workable and durable political alliance. Yet, Awolowo’s criticisms of Azikiwe were never mischievously interpreted as hatred for Igbos. Nobody of Achebe’s status and with terrible experiences of the civil war could be expected to write his recollections without justifiable criticism of starvation as a weapon throughout the war. His critics just have to be realistic rather than being emotional. Awolowo’s election campaign pledge to ban importation of second hand clothes and stockfish could have been better sold (by Awolowo himself) to Nigerians than the impression that it was targeted at economically weakening a particular section of the country. Suppose the need to ban continued importation of the two items had been linked to a determination of (Awo’s) government to improve the living standard of the low class, such that it would no longer be necessary to dress in second-hand clothes and that with a stronger purchasing power, Nigerians would feed better on mainly nutritious items. Awolowo did not become head of Federal Government. Yet, since 1979, far less Nigerians today depend on second-hand clothes for their dresses. Equally, stockfish is no longer a delicacy at dinners or lunch. It is all due to the improvement in the living standard of Nigerians, the very aim of Awolowo in his pledge to ban the two items. Either by accident or by design, no aspiring head of Nigerian government can risk ambiguous or potentially misleading posture/controversy, which was the lot of Awolowo on sensitive issues like starvation as a weapon during a war, banning of second-hand clothes and stockfish, since all these touched on the physical and economic survival of a particular section of the country. By the way, some of Achebe’s critics are amusing as they don’t seem to understand why Biafra had to invade Mid-West and Ore on the way to Lagos. The logic is simple. Biafra initially said its war was with the North. But Yoruba salesmen on the federal side at home and abroad countered that it was a war of Nigeria’s survival. The war drumbeat was “To keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done.” At that stage, any part of Nigeria – Ijebu-Ode, Ore, Benin city, Paiko, Makurdi, Wushishi, Gombe, or Lasa – because a legitimate target for the opposite side.

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.