The release of the 1999 Annual "Patterns Of Global Terrorism" Report this month drew a wide-ranging discussion in the press in Europe, Asia and Latin America. In mixed, but mostly negative reaction, some found the document "fairly comprehensive" while others disagreed with its "methodology," complaining that its conclusions "avoided differentiating between 'terrorism' and 'struggle'" and put "blackmailing terrorist gangs" on equal footing with "movements motivated by religious and nationalist incentives." Of primary interest was the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan were not formally listed as terrorist states, although the report noted an eastward shift in terrorism's center of gravity from the Middle East to South Asia, particularly Afghanistan. Detractors contended that U.S. "strategic interests," particularly in the building of an oil pipeline in Central Asia, played a major role in the report's "categorization" of countries. Among the more positive assessments was a testimonial from a Lima daily that reported that Peru is finding ways to combat terrorism thanks to the report, which it said "is an example of how a well executed domestic policy can generate a positive foreign reaction." These were highlights in media from select countries:

AFGHANISTAN: Taking issue with Secretary Albright's remarks in Uzbekistan on the Taliban's violation of women's rights, support for terrorism and production of narcotic substances, Kabul's Shari'at maintained that the secretary's statement "illustrates the U.S. State Department's aversion to reality and unwarranted prejudices...which do not correspond with reality." Afghanistan, it contended, has shown "unprecedented patience and wisdom in fighting against all kinds of terrorism" and has extended its "co-operation" to the international community.

PAKISTAN: Pakistani papers found the report "hostile and unfriendly," judged that "Pakistan has been isolated due to a lack of democracy" and that "India has taken advantage of this situation." The Peshawar-based independent Frontier Post argued that the report led to General Musharraf's stating "for the first time" his position that Pakistan will not "distance itself from the fighters who are now challenging the no-holds-barred Indian hostilities in Kashmir" and that "his government will henceforth cease to be defensive about events in Kashmir."

GREECE: Both pro-government and opposition papers strongly objected to Greece's entry as "one of the weakest links in Europe's efforts against terrorism" and bristled that the report "paints a picture of Greece which bears no relation to reality." "It is not possible to link terrorism, for example, with the handling of the case involving Kurdish rebel leader Ocalan, or the protest rallies" against U.S. policy in the Balkans, independent, influential Kathimerini held.

RUSSIA: Reformist and financial papers in Moscow, noting the report's recognition that ethnic Chechens are supported by mujahideen with links to Islamist extremists in the Mideast and Asia, judged that "Washington and Moscow now virtually see eye to eye on extremists in Chechnya."

EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke

EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 35 reports from 16 countries, April 4-May 23. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.

SOUTH ASIA

AFGHANISTAN: "Mrs. Albright's Utterances And Realities In Afghanistan"

Kabul's Kabul Shari'at opined in part (4/19): "In a statement during her current visit to Uzbekistan, Mrs. Madeleine Albright, the U.S. secretary of state, has accused the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan [IEA] of violating women's rights, supporting terrorism and the production of narcotic substances. Thus she has again provided interesting propaganda material for the mass media of the enemies of Islam and Afghanistan. Mrs. Albright's statement illustrates the U.S. State Department's aversion to reality and unwarranted prejudices regarding the above issues, which do not correspond with reality and the wise policies of the IEA. Which country in the world has given women their natural and spiritual rights to the extent they have been granted by the IEA? Which other part of the world has given the necessary respect to the dignity and personality of women? Are women still not used in Mrs. Albright's civilized country to satisfy the satanic desires of rich capitalists?... As far as the dignity and prestige of women in the United States is concerned, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper, printed in Arabic, published a report, which said: an american millionaire, using the power of his wealth, recently inspected 50 young girls in the nude before choosing one as his wife.

"As far as the issue of supporting terrorism is concerned, it is quite obvious that the people of Afghanistan have for the last two decades been the victim of ruthless terrorist attacks at the international level, sustaining enormous losses. Despite this, the IEA and the Afghan Mojahed nation, with unprecedented patience and wisdom, have been fighting against all kinds of terrorism and in this connection have expressed their co-operation with regional and international communities.... Unrealistic and unfounded accusations will only serve to undermine the friendly relations between the two countries and the two nations."

PAKISTAN: "From Terrorism To Freedom Struggle"

An op-ed by I.V. returnee Asadullah Ghalib in largest, mass-circulation, Urdu-language Jang (5/19): "When U.S. officials are asked about their proof indicating Usama Bin Laden's involvement in terrorist activities, they take refuge by saying that since the information is highly confidential it can not be disclosed. We have met several American scholars and experts that laugh at the way the United States has made UBL an issue.... The Americans have no justification for the fact that they have abandoned the legacy of the Afghan Jihad by letting the trained and armed militant groups go off on their own. Neither are they willing to accept that it was all due to the United States that the future course for Afghanistan was decided upon then."

"General Musharraf On The Damning U.S. Report"

An editorial in the Peshawar-based independent Frontier Post held (5/5): "General Musharraf says those whom the report identifies as terrorists are not terrorists. It is matter of definition; we do not recognize them as terrorists.' This is the first time the military government has come out forthright on the allegations it now faces from the West about its growing involvement with the Kashmiri militants' cause. General Musharraf's reaction to the State Department report indicates that his government will henceforth cease to be defensive about events in Kashmir.... Musharraf is right. Pakistan is in no position to distance itself from the fighters who are now challenging the no-holds-barred Indian hostilities in Kashmir. That said, it is true that political and social dissension in Pakistan, particularly the imposition of military rule, have messed up

the turf for us.... The world will finally force its will on Pakistan, regardless of what the present Pakistani rulers say about terrorism in the region. We will go on rejecting one foreign report after another. The problem is that our rejection has little credibility. To put it bluntly, a money-starved and divided nation cannot put up a stout defense against foreign onslaughts, coming from afar and near."

"Politics Of Terrorism"

Shireen M. Mazari penned this op-ed piece in centrist News (5/3): "This is not to say that Pakistan should support terrorism--far from it. After all, Pakistan has been one of the worst victims of terrorism--not only within the domestic polity but also from across the border. However, Pakistan should realize that the publications of such reports by the United States are simply one more instrument of implementing the U.S. global politico-strategic agenda, which presently seeks to undermine states like Pakistan, Syria and others whom it sees as challenges to its regional agendas."

"U.S. State Department Report"

According to an editorial in Karachi's right-wing, pro-Islamic unity, Urdu-language Jasarat (5/2): "The concept of Jihad, the political dominance of Islam and Muslim Ummah, is unacceptable in the United States' New World Order. Those countries and states that do not mold their policies according to the U.S. system are included in the list of terrorist states. There was a time when Yasser Arafat's PLO and Nelson Mandela's African National Congress were terrorist organizations, but after a change in U.S. policies these have become the champions of peace. Syria is still included in the list of terrorist countries but the day it enters into an agreement with Israel it will be removed from this category. There is no denying the fact that the interests of the Islamic world, especially those of poor Asian and African countries, are conflicting with the hegemonistic interests of the United States."

"U.S. State Department Report: Hour Of Reflection"

Second-largest, Urdu-language Nawa-e-Waqt told its readers (5/2): "State terrorism is the sole purpose of 700,000 troops deployed in Indian-held Kashmir.... A while ago Indian military men slaughtered people in Pakistani Kashmir and took the heads of their victims away with them.... India has indulged in terrorism all along. The U.S. State Department Report should be rejected as hostile and unfriendly. Knowing well the difference between Jihad and terrorism, the United States does not want to understand the difference. We should not be apologetic about Jihad."

"Why The Accusations Against Pakistan?"

An editorial in pro-Muslim League, Urdu-language Pakistan stressed (5/2): "Pakistan's response to the U.S. State Department's report is right and based on truth. However, the report is a cause of concern for the Pakistani nation and government. It is right that Pakistan has been isolated due to a lack of democracy.... India has taken advantage of this situation.... The path adopted by the United States is replete with difficulties for Pakistan. We must harness these difficulties and face them; scoffing at America would not be of any use. We will have to take practical steps in order to have the Indian propaganda balloon deflated."

INDIA: "U.S. Rattling Pakistan"

An editorial in Chennai-based, independent, Tamil-language Dinamani said (5/5): "Pakistan, which earned condemnation by the international community in the Kargil war, has now been warned by the United States. Though the Clinton government did not name Pakistan a 'terrorist

state,' it did not hesitate to expose Pakistan abetting terrorist outfits.... The U.S. report on global terrorism openly says this. But it hesitates to include Pakistan and Afghanistan in the list of terrorist states. Since the United States has not recognized Afghanistan regime, the question of naming it as a terrorist state doesn't rise at all. But regarding Pakistan it has just shown its concern. Also the report says that Pakistan has been an ally for long. It looks like that Washington wants to give a chance for Pakistan to mend itself. The Clinton government also thinks that if it names Pakistan a terrorist state, it won't have the right to question the Musharraf regime. If it is named, Pakistan will have to face so many strict sanctions. The United States wants to avoid all those things.... It is consoling that the report warns Pakistan to put an end to all terrorist activities as a prelude to start dialogue with India."

"Terrorism And Pakistan"

An editorial in pro-Congress, Urdu-language Qaumi Awaz asserted (5/3): "For the first time the U.S. Department of State has openly called Pakistan and Afghanistan a major center for terrorist activities in South Asia and a sanctuary for various terrorist groups. Although the two countries have not been formally declared terrorist states, the State Department's latest report on the pattern of global terrorism clearly identifies them as the hosts of terrorist elements, including those active in Jammu and Kashmir.... Nothing is revealed in the report which India has not already brought to the attention of the international community.... The overall contents of the report vindicate India's stance on the issue and bring mental satisfaction to her people. A serious analysis will, however, show that the occurrences in Pakistan are not in the interest of the Asian region, India in particular. If Pakistan is declared a terrorist state, it will only give a more dangerous and explosive turn to the current situation.... Will push Pakistan into a serious economic crisis, giving impetus to religious extremists in Pakistan. In the context of Pakistan, India's national interests can be best served only if the latter undertakes a review of its current policy toward its neighbor. Declaring Pakistan an enemy is no solution. We should refrain from any action which may weaken the forces of reason and moderation in Pakistan."

"Meaningless Threats"

An editorial in pro-BJP, Urdu-language Pratap said (5/3): "There is an American pattern of raising a ruckus from time to time about Pakistan's involvement in promoting terrorism and fundamentalism, which is then followed by some kinds of threats and warnings of dire consequences. Without exception, these warnings have never been translated into concrete actions. The result is that these meaningless threats have no effect on Pakistan's attitude. Apparently, Pakistanis are quite convinced or have been assured that there will be no follow-up action on the frequently issued warnings by the United States. In continuation of this exercise, the U.S. Department of State has issued one more report clearly implicating Pakistan for harboring terrorists on its soil, including those engaged in terrorist attacks in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. Not withstanding this report, the United States is not ready to declare Pakistan a terrorist state and hence no sanctions can be imposed. Such a contradictory policy, which may well be a planned U.S. strategy, is bound to have an adverse effect on efforts to control terrorism."

"U.S. Report On Pakistan"

Pro-BJP Bengali Bartaman of Calcutta opined (5/4): "Though Pakistan was not termed as a terrorist state, the United States has said Pakistan supports terrorism.... The U.S. apprehension is that if it declares Pakistan a terrorist state, it will have to take steps which may result in the collapse of Pakistan. This is because the United States does not provide any support to 'terrorist states.' It does not even maintain trade relations with such states. If the United States initiates such a measure, it will be impossible for Pakistan to weather it. Its

economy will collapse. The very existence of the Pakistan state will be at stake. The United States does not want to bring Pakistan to such a state. The Clinton administration feels pushing Pakistan into such misery would mean an increase both in its anti-American attitude and terrorist activities. It will result in the Talibanization of Pakistan. If Pakistan splits, each portion will turn into a hotbed of terrorism. It is because of all these reasons that the United States does not want to put any additional pressure on Pakistan. The United States, however, is not unaware of Pakistan's character. It also knows Pakistan was primarily responsible for fomenting trouble in Kashmir. President Clinton himself said this in Pakistan.... There is little chance that there will be any convergence of opinion between the United States and Pakistan on terrorism. Pakistan will also not change its policies and strategies on Kashmir.... Whatever the United Statesmight say, Pakistan will continue its...effort to take control on Kashmir. It will continue its proxy war."

"U.S. Hopes Pakistan Will Get The Message"

An analysis in centrist Hindu (5/3) by Islamabad correspondent Amit Baruah said: "The United States appears to be using a classical 'carrot and stick' policy towards Pakistan as far as its concerns on the all-crucial issue of terrorism are concerned. The U.S. State Department report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1999, makes it clear that while using tough language and expressing American concerns in clear terms, Washington remains hopeful that Islamabad will fall in line with its agenda on counter-terrorism. As compared to the 1998 report, the United States no longer shies away from pointing the finger at Pakistan.... The issue of whether or not Pakistan would move to meet U.S. concerns on terrorism remains unclear. Given its total and blind support for militants operating in Kashmir, Islamabad will find it difficult to admit that its 'freedom fighters' are actually terrorists and need to be restrained. Already, the Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has said there are differences in perception between the United States and Pakistan on the definition of terrorism, categorically denying that Pakistan was 'harboring terrorists.'... In the days and weeks ahead, this 'distinction' between 'jIhad and terrorism,' first enunciated by Gen. Musharraf, will come under increasing pressure from abroad."

"Curate's Egg"

Nationalist Hindustan Times held (5/3): "The U.S. State Department's annual report on global terrorism is like a curate's egg--good in parts--and, as might be expected, intended to serve America's special interests rather than be a political guide for focused international action against the merchants of death who are targeting democratic societies.... The exercise is, to say the least, partly political. However, this year, Pakistan has effectively been cautioned in the U.S. report and has been asked to put its act together. But--and this is germane to us--the Pakistani state has escaped being designated as a sponsor of terrorism, though the 'continued official Pakistani support for organizations involved in terrorist activities' has been acknowledged. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has noted while releasing the report that the center of gravity of terrorism had shifted from the Middle East to South Asia. Interestingly, however, no South Asian country has been named.... An underlying realm of politics guides this fresh U.S. listing. In this scheme of things, Islamabad may extradite terrorists to the United States, but not to India. In this context, India has to devise its own ways to deal with Pakistan-engendered terrorism while sustaining a meaningful structure of dialogue with the U.S. on counter-terrorism."

"Change In American Outlook"

Mumbai-based, right-of-center Tarun Bharat held (5/2): "The latest U.S. government report on international terrorism has directly acknowledged that the epicenter of global terrorism has

shifted from the Middle East to the Pakistan-Afghanistan area in South Asia. As a matter of fact, the American government was well aware of Pakistan's involvement in terrorist activities in the Indian Punjab way back in the early 1980s as the U.S. government has been closely monitoring terrorist activities around the world since 1980. However, it chose not to put the blame on Pakistan in its earlier report as that country was pivotal to American interests in South Asia, particularly in Afghanistan during the Cold War and its fight against Communism around the world. The latest shift in the American outlook stems from that country's self interest. Pakistan has threatened America's interests in Central Asia by directly aiding and abetting terrorist and fundamentalist activities beyond the Caspian Sea. This region is rich in its oil and mineral resources. If it became unstable because of a terrorist menace, the American interests there could be seriously undermined. It is precisely for this reason that the American government is now serious about stopping Pakistan in its terrorist track. Having said this, one must also give a degree of credit for this change in the American outlook to Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh's persuasive diplomatic skills and the knack of establishing a rapport with the Americans. America is deeply concerned over the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, and it is keen that Pakistan should not join the ranks of Libya and Iraq as a result of this anarchy. It is therefore treating Pakistan with kid gloves. India understands the American dilemma. The Americans, too, understand India's sensitivities on the nuclear deterrent issues. Both India and America need to continue this mature understanding and cooperation to protect and promote their mutual interests in the region."

SRI LANKA: "Anti-Terrorism Commitments Of America"

The opposition, English-language Island held (5/3): "The report 'Patterns of Global Terrorism for 1999'...leaves no doubt about the LTTE being a terrorist organization.... If the Jaffna peninsula goes under LTTE control, it will not only result in serious consequences to this country but also cause regional problems in South Asia, as well. Can the world's only superpower, committed to fight international terrorism, look away from such a situation?... In the late 1970's when the pro-Western government of J.R. Jayewardene shifted from a rigidly controlled socialist economy to a market economy it sent alarm bells ringing in New Delhi which was, even at that time, fanatically clinging on to Nehruvian socialism. The pro-American stance of the Jayewardene government made New Delhi firmly believe--or at least it gave that impression--that Trincomalee Harbor was to be given to the Americans. No amount of assurances...could dispel that belief of the Indians. India armed, financed and sponsored a rudimentary band of terrorists into a formidable guerilla group and globalised it through active diplomacy as well in the 80's. Thus it was markedly pro-U.S. policy--however well intentioned though misguided it may have been--that partly contributed to the rise of Sri Lankan terrorism.... Both the United States and India are committed to the hilt to fight international terrorism. If that commitment was sincere shouldn't that commitment be expressed in more tangible ways?"

MIDDLE EAST

EGYPT: "Regression Of Islamic Fundamentalism"

Dr. Abdel Atti Mohamed wrote in pro-government Al Ahram (5/23): "Western political experts are currently talking about the regression of Islamic fundamentalism, while a short while ago they were talking about its rising threat. They believed that there is no hope for its political development and democratization.... The West deliberately has contributed to the rise of fundamentalism. All the writings and conferences held by Western capitals over the past decade prove that the West exaggerated the size of fundamentalism and made pre-judgments.... The West has adopted the examples of failures in Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan as proof of the regression of this phenomenon. This is true. However, those Western experts absolutely confirmed in the past that these regimes would not escape the

claws of fundamentalism. Many Western regimes also disregarded all wise calls to stop harboring extremists, as if they were deliberately seeking to maintain this phenomenon to drown Islamic countries in problems.... They did not realize the danger of this phenomenon until it hit them, and thus they started to cooperate in blockading extremist groups.... The main factor in the decline of extremism is the rising awareness of the nationalist regimes which were harmed by it...and thus working to eliminate it and correct their mistake."

BAHRAIN: "Arabs, Muslims Receive Most Of The Blame In Terrorism Report"

Semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij featured this comment (5/3) by Hafedh Al-Shaikh: "The U.S. State Department released its annual report on terrorism and this year too, the Arabs and Muslims received most of the blame. If what Arabs and Muslims are doing (fighting Israel) is called 'terrorism,' then it would be the good terrorism (Jihad) which is permissible and allowed by the holy book (Koran). As to the organizations which Washington considers 'terrorists,' they were established because--and to fight--European and imperialist injustice. So, who are the terrorists? The Arab and Muslim organizations were founded because of the American and European oppression or the oppressors. The real terrorists are the United States, its Zionist ally, and before them, European imperialism. They devastated our countries, stole our money, brought in the scattered Jews and planted them in Palestine which displaced the Palestinian people."

SAUDI ARABIA: "A New American Perspective On Terrorism"

London-based, internationally-circulated Al-Sharq Al-Awsat contended (5/2): "An important misgiving of the new report (on global terrorism) is its failure to develop a practical redefinition of what the State Department terms as terrorism in light of ideological and religious incentives and motivations which the report elaborated on extensively.... The report in its conclusions has avoided differentiating between 'terrorism' and 'struggle.' The report shows blackmailing terrorist gangs and movements motivated by religious and nationalist incentives as being equals."

EUROPE

BELGIUM: "One-Sided Report"

Erik Ziarczyk wrote in business-oriented De Financieel-Economische Tijd (5/6): "Two issues have dominated the foreign news this week: the start of the Lockerbie trial and the hostages in the Philippines. Both issues illustrate the message of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: international terrorism is increasingly being taken over by organizations which finance their activities through hostage taking and drugs traffic, no longer call on foreign governments. Moreover, South Asia is playing a more and more important role in international terrorism, as Albright said in her one-sided report.... Developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in particular, are of major concern to the United States. Yet, both countries are not on the list of countries that give support to international terrorism. The U.S. anti-terrorism service does not have an explanation for that. The head of that service, Mike Sheehan, underscored at the presentation of the report that he could not put Afghanistan on the list because Washington does not recognize the Taliban regime. The fact that the Taliban give shelter to America's Enemy No. 1--Saudi Osama Bin Laden--does not carry enough weight, according to the United States.... Pakistan did not come on the list either although the report says that the country gives shelter to terrorists and that it supports terrorism in Indian Kashmir. With such a manifest lack of consistency, it is no surprise that the same countries are mentioned again on the list of terrorist countries: Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba, all have been on that list since 1993.... It is also clear from that list that strategic interests are playing a major role in

the categorization of the world. So, Afghanistan and Pakistan receive some respite because of their major oil interests in Central Asia.... Washington gave priority to the construction of an oil pipeline from Central Asia, over Afghanistan, to Pakistan. Moreover, it is striking how closely international terrorism is linked to political and military developments. A few months ago, U.S. President Bill Clinton termed the Pakistani-India region of Kashmir as 'the most dangerous region in the world.' A few years earlier, Clinton's predecessors viewed the Middle East as the hotspot par excellence."

ITALY: "New Twists On Terrorism"

Anna Guaita filed from New York for Rome's centrist Il Messaggero (5/1): "For the first time, the State Department's report highlights that the most serious threats come...from independent groups acting for religious reasons rather than political ones.... Indeed, neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan is on the black list of countries that are openly considered enemies. Pakistan is an ally of the United States and is making a real effort to keep terrorism under control. As for Afghanistan, it does not have a government that is recognized by Washington. Therefore, the list remains the same as in 1993.... But, as in an effort to send a signal of openness to Castro, the report acknowledges that the Cuban regime decreased its contacts with terrorism."

GREECE: "Terrorism Report"

Apropos of the entry on Greece in the Department's report on terrorism, the lead editorial in independent, influential Kathimerini (5/3) said that: "This year's annual State Department report is openly aggressive and unreal. Merely the fact that this year's report contains more scathing remarks than last year's suggests it is permeated by political objectives. One need not be a specialist in order to see that 1999 was actually quite a peaceful year.... [The report] paints a picture of Greece which bears no relation to reality. It is not possible to link terrorism, for example, with the handling of the case involving Kurdish rebel leader Ocalan, or the protest rallies.... We are left with the impression that the sharp and scathing report is mainly due to its unhappiness with the fact that the overwhelming majority of Greeks supported the protest rallies against U.S. policy in the Balkans, which culminated in violent reactions to the bombardment of Yugoslavia."

"The American View On Terrorism"

The lead editorial in populist, pro-government Ethnos (5/3) opined: "The charges against our country in most cases bear no relation to the issue of terrorism. They pertain to...political choices made by both the government and the Greek people. For example, the Greek public had the inalienable right to react as it did to the reckless U.S.-NATO attack against Serbia last year. The public had the right to disavow a political leader [President Clinton] when he came our country at a time when Greek society objected to the military intervention in a neighboring country.... The American Embassy's line serves a variety of expediencies and goals not stated in the report."

"America's Terrorism"

Sensationalist, pro-main opposition Eleftheros Typos (5/3) ran a lead commentary by chief editor George Kouvaras, who wrote: "The American dream is often interrupted by nightmares, such as juvenile criminals who kill for fun or an extremist who makes up his mind to blow up the World Trade Center...But the State Department is our supreme judge. It calls American intervention in Yugoslavia 'humanitarian' and anything that runs counter to its geopolitical interests 'terrorism.'... If the United States was truly interested in our security, it would not worry about this paltry 'terrorism,' but...would renounce its Balkan policy, which engenders criminality

by abetting ethnic conflicts and awarding those political criminals who wear UCK masks. Washington's hypocrisy, nonetheless, by no means exempts the Greek government from responsibility. Counter-terrorism efforts in our country are indeed deficient; any pause in terrorist activity derives from factors other than government action. Additionally, the Greek government has sent the wrong message to Washington, letting it be known that Greece will gladly submit to U.S. plans for a 'new world order.'"

"Terrorism An Excuse For U.S. Pressure"

The lead editorial in influential, pro-government Eleftherotypia judged (5/2): "The aim of this year's State Department report on terrorism, in which Greece is accused of being second to Columbia in the number of anti-American attacks, is clear: Greece must sign a counter-terrorism cooperation agreement with the United States. The United States wants to control the Greek counter-terrorism squad via this agreement.... When the Americans say in the report that they want 'strong government leadership' and 'police initiatives,' they mean they want the Greek police to violate the country's democratic institutions in the name of the war against terrorism.... Terrorism, however, is the excuse. The United States seems especially upset about Greeks' anti-American attitude during the Kosovo crisis.... But anti-Americanism does not grow up all by itself. It is provoked by Washington's acts. Greeks cannot easily forget the acknowledged U.S. support to the junta or the U.S. stance on Cyprus. The Greeks objected to the war on Yugoslavia because it was barbaric, illegal and unfair. It is totally natural for Greeks to react to this blackmail, because counter-terrorism cooperation equals intervening in our domestic affairs."

"The Terrorism Cliche"

The lead editorial in populist, pro-government Ethnos (5/2) said: "Every year the State Department accuses our country of being ineffectual on terrorism, so the gist of this year's report comes as no surprise. What is surprising, however, is the intensity of the accusations. Maybe Greece shouldn't be commended, but terrorist activity has been decreasing to the levels seen in other countries. Consequently, the State Department's accusations can easily be interpreted as pressure to sign a counter-terrorism cooperation agreement. This agreement has been persistently pursued by the United States but Greece has refused and should continue to refuse, because it is unthinkable to transform the Greek police into a branch of U.S. authorities. It is also true that cooperation has so far produced poor results. Not to mention those who believe that closer cooperation with the United States could even trigger increased terrorist activity."

"American Exaggeration"

Sensationalist, pro-main opposition party Eleftheros Typos (5/2) detected a hidden agenda at work. Its lead editorial read: "It is a fact that Greece has not managed to fight terrorism. It is also a fact that political terrorism is declining and is thus not very influential. The U.S. government's criticism of Greece's admittedly poor counter-terrorism effort is selfish and exaggerated. Whatever the problems, we should not have been compared with Latin American countries which are in a state of undeclared civil war. The American exaggerations aim at weakening Greece's negotiating position, so that Greece will accept more easily limits on its sovereign rights to the benefit of the United States. We disagree with the superpower's methodology, and hope that the Simitis government will be able to keep its distance. Otherwise, we will indeed acquire the characteristics of a Latin American 'democracy,' in the sense that we will be dominated by a foreign power!"

RUSSIA: "U.S., Russia See Eye To Eye On Chechen Extremists"

Aleksandr Shaburkin had this to say in reformist Vremya MN (5/3): "Washington and Moscow now virtually see eye to eye on extremists in Chechnya. With the U.S. State Department listing Basayev and Hattab as international terrorists, Moscow will feel stronger when it faces its Western partners on Chechnya. This also gives it hope to coordinate better with the United States in fighting against the criminals. Acting together, they can search for and freeze the bank accounts used to fund the extremists, shut down their financial sources abroad, and use pressure against countries that offer their territories to support the separatists. Russia could also use financial aid to combat terrorism. By declaring Basayev and Hattab international malefactors, Washington has acknowledged a new threat to its national security. This gives the Americans a right to neutralize that threat. Their air strikes against Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia must have given them enough experience in that."

"Chechen War Lawful"

Under the above headline, Boris Volkhonsky contended in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (5/3): "The (U.S.) State Department has recognized that the (anti- terrorist) war in Chechnya is lawful.... The authors of the report could not but acknowledge that the Chechen rebels are connected with international terrorists in the Middle East, and Osama Bin Laden personally. For the United States to do that is a big step forward."

UZBEKISTAN: "IMU Mentioned In Report"

Major newspapers, including Russian-language dailies Pravda Vostoka and Narodnoe Slovo carried (5/5) a wire service story (5/5) from official, government information agency, UZA, on the inclusion of the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) in this year's edition of the "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report. Although the UZA piece quotes a Reuters story as its source, UZA, unlike Reuters, fails to note that the IMU is not on the State Department's list of designated terrorist organizations, but rather on its second list of non-designated organizations: "The U.S. Department of State has published a list of the largest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world. The list this year includes the so-called Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is described as a coalition of Islamic militants, whose goal is the establishment of an Islamic government in Uzbekistan.... The (State Department) document says that the IMU was responsible for a series of bombings in Tashkent in February {1999} and for terrorist incidents in Kyrgyzstan last year, including the taking, as hostages, of four Japanese and eight Kyrgyz citizens."

EAST ASIA

INDONESIA: "Terrorism's Changing Map?"

Nationalistic Merdeka held (5/4): "Of course, the [countries charged with committing terrorism] denied U.S. accusations. However, it is undeniable that in numerous countries and at certain times, tragedies and terrorism occur. The bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were quite horrible, taking considerable innocent life. The abduction of tourists on Sipadan Island certainly proves that terror can happen at any time in our region. The UN ought to be more active at stopping this terror."

"U.S. State Department Annual Report Reiterates Danger Of Terrorism"

Leading independent Kompas maintained (5/3): "Regardless of the pros and cons, the report...is fairly comprehensive.... One must admit that it does nothing at all to portray all the

world's terrorist threats and dangers in 1999. Such threats can be either tangible or latent. Every country is a potential source, and victim, of terrorism.... The actors are not solely extremists or bandits, but can also be rulers. History often attests that leaders and security apparatuses commit terror in the form of detainment, abduction, and murder of political opposition. That is the 'political terror' that raises our concern."

WESTERN HEMISPHERE