Monday, December 31, 2007

The unifying factor in Pakistan politics

Dec.31, 2007


The unifying factor in Pakistan politics

IT might seem untoward at first look that a 19-year-old youth has been appointed chairman of Pakistan's arguably strongest party at a time when the country's in in deep crisis following the Dec.27 assassination of a prime minister who also led the party. However, the youth happens to be the son of the assassinated former prime minister and party leader, Benazir Bhutto, and the Bhutto family name is the binding factor not only for the slain leader's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) but also for a majority of Pakistanis, including many who might owe allegiance to other political groups in the country.
It was no coincidence that Benzair Bhutto named her son, Bilawal, an Oxford University student, as her successor in the event of her death. She knew well that the mantle she inherited from her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, had to be handed down to her son, who would be known more for his maternal legacy than anything else as he goes ahead with his political career.
The PPP's decision to honour the late leader's desire, as expressed in her will that was read out by Bilawal on Sunday, meant that the party leadership follows the bloodline for a third generation, some four decades after it was founded Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
On the surface, the PPP is seen risking being marginalised by opting for a "dynasty-based" succession. But such is the nature of politics in the Indian sub-continent. It has happened in India, where Indira Gandhi inherited her premiership from her father Jawaharlal Nehru and passed it on to her son Rajiv Gandhi when she was assassinated in 1983. Today, the leadership of the Congress Party rests with Sonia Gandhi, the widow of Rajiv Gandhi — who was killed in a suicide blast in 1991 — and Rahul Gandhi, son of Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, is being groomed to take over the mantle when the conditions are right.
In Bangladesh, the two most prominent women and former prime ministers are widows of former heads of government.
In Sri Lanka, Chandrika Bandaranaike, a former president and currently a strong opposition leader, comes from a family of politicians. She inherited the politics of her father Solomon Bhanaranaike, and her mother Sirimavo Bhandaranaike, and her husband, movie star and politician Vijaya Kumaratunga.
Indeed, it would not at all be an easy ride for Bilawal, but his father Asif Ali Zardari, 51, will assist him as co-chairman of the party as announced by the PPP on Sunday.
Again, that is similar to what is happening in India. Just as Sonia Gandhi is running the Congress show to keep the place warm for Rahul, Zardari would be running the PPP show for Bilawal, who is too young to enter politics and needs to have a solid foundation in education before moving out of academics.
It is natural that his mother's politics have already turned him into politician's material. That much is evident in the few public statements he made in recent years.
When he was 16, Dilawal said in a press interview that he felt justice and democracy held the key to resolving Pakistan's problems.
Asked whether he would enter politics, he said he did not really know "but I would like to help the people of Pakistan, so I will decide when I finish my studies."
His mother's tragic death made the decision for him, and, hopefully, when the right time comes, he would be able to live up to his promise that regardless of whatever he does, he would "benefit the people of Pakistan."

Sunday, December 30, 2007

'Surge' in mindset will yield solutions

Dec.30, 2007


'Surge' in mindset will yield solutions


A CLOSE look at the elements in play in Iraq would show that the US declaration that its "surge" in troops since early this year has worked well in Baghdad and surrounding areas is an exaggeration. But then, the US could not be expected to admit that the relative calm has more to do with Iraqis themselves than the "surge."
In Baghdad itself, the number of suicide attacks and bombings has gone down. The main reason is that Baghdad is now a city of communal enclaves zealously guarded by sectarian militiamen who trust no one but their own.
However, this does not bode well for the future because of the communal division of the Iraqi capital that pre-empts interaction among its residents as fellow citizens of Iraq. The sectarian split should not be allowed to take such deep and physical roots if there is any hope of the country returning to normal at any point in time.
The order issued by firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr to his Mahdi Army militiamen to keep a low profile and cease attacks in the wake of the US "surge" was another factor that contributed to reducing violence in Baghdad.
However, the Mahdi Army remains one of the potent forces that could spring back to action when they feel the time is opportune for them to resume implementing their sectarian agenda.
The decline in violence in areas neighbouring Baghdad is mainly because of the alienation between the Sunnis and Al Qaeda and the emergence of neighbourhood groups backed by the US military. The US military started nurturing the Sunni groups months before the "surge" and gave them vehicles, uniforms, bullet-proof jackets and $300 a month.
Now the Sunni groups are said to number about 70,000, and they are demanding that they be incorporated into the country's regular security forces, something that the Iraqi government is not really interested in doing. A major crisis is brewing there, with the US finding itself unable to work out a compromise.
In general, the relative calm in western Iraq could be attributed to the fact that most areas there have been "ethnically cleansed" — accounting for the two million Iraqis who have been internally displaced.
In southern Iraq, tension runs high between the Mahdi Army and its main Shiite challenger, the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, both vying for dominance despite having signed an agreement to end fighting and to co-operate. The US does not have a large military presence in the south and the relative calm there could be attributed to the agreement signed by Sadr and Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council leader Abdul Aziz Hakim.
Notwithstanding any of these arguments, the US could indeed assert what matters is that there has been a marked drop in violence in Iraq. What the US would not want to admit is the fact that there are real and serious crises simmering just below the surface almost everywhere in Iraq. Washington on its own does not have any effective means to solve them because the crises are rooted in the very ethnic make-up of Iraq and the history of the country in the last century. The only way out perhaps is through a US acceptance that the strategic goals of its invasion and occupation of Iraq could never be achieved. If and when the US accepts this as a reality, then solutions for the Iraq crisis would materialise themselves.

Friday, December 28, 2007

Positive ground and foundation

Jan.28, 2007

Positive ground and foundation



CAUTIOUS optimism are the two key words to describe the outcome of this week's meeting between Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and Afghan leader Hamid Karzai. The two leaders, who have been criticising each other for "not doing enough" to check militancy, appear to have reached the conclusion that their co-operation holds the answer to the common problem of militancy both face, particularly among the unruly tribes living on their border.
Kabul had been accusing Islamabad of not preventing Taliban militants being trained and armed in Pakistan and sent across the border to attack Afghan security forces and the 60,000 international troops working with them.For its part, Islamabad, which has deployed 90,000 soldiers on the frontier, accused Kabul of not pressing for the enhanced deployment of Afghan and international troops the 2,500-kilometre border to stop infiltration by militants.
Pakistan and Afghanistan have witnessed a sharp escalation of violence, with some 6,000 people killed in the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan in 2007 while nearly 800 people died in militant attacks in Pakistan.
In a highly positive note, Musharraf announced after Wednesday's meeting that he and Karzai had developed "a strong understanding of each other's problems" and that they had also agreed on sharing intelligence information to fight "this menace of extremism and terrorism which is destroying both our countries."
Similar expressions also came from Karzai, indicating what could be a major breakthrough for both countries in their fight against militancy. "People in both the countries are suffering -- suffering a lot," Karzai said. "And it is incumbent upon us — the leadership of the two countries, the governments — to find ways to bring peace and stability to each home, each family, in both countries."
In order to convert their understanding of each other's problems into result-oriented action, both need work on the domestic front because some of their problems are internal. Both face difficult political situations at home that need careful handling. There are groups and individuals on both sides who do not approve of their government's role in the post-Sept.11, 2001 fight against extremism, and many sympathise with the Taliban and Al Qaeda if only because of what they see as state apathy towards social injustice.
Clearly, tough tasks are ahead for Musharraf and Karzai. They have crossed the first hurdle of having to work out an understanding between themselves. Hopefully, they would be able to advance towards their goals with the same positive spirit that was evident during their latest encounter.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

Tough and difficult but not impossible

Dec.27, 2007

Tough and difficult but not impossible

THE CONFLICT between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils in Sri Lanka is turning out be one of the most difficult crises. Repeated efforts to end the conflict have ended up nowhere, with both the government in Colombo and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) group now appear determined to gain the upper hand before anything else.
The government of President Mahinda Rajapakse has vowed to defeat the rebels militarily before any new peace talks while the rebel group has pledged not to allow the Sri Lankan military to make any advances. However, the military has indeed made gains in the ongoing confrontation and the government is moving ahead with a resolve to eliminate the rebel group's fighting ability.
Both sides have stepped up rhetoric and it is difficult to find any room for renewed dialogue to end the decades-old conflict that owes its origins to the days when the British colonial power moved Indian Tamil labourers to work on the island. The main grievance of today's Sri Lankan Tamil generation is that they are subjected to state discrimination and are denied what they consider as their legitimate rights. The government denies the charge and says it is open for peace talks with the LTTE but is also detemined to destroy the Tamil dissident group militarily. It has pulled all plugs and is pressing ahead with full-fledged war against the group.
The latest fighting came on Wednesday when Sri Lanka's navy clashed with LTTE vessels off the island's northern coast of Jaffna, and the defence ministry said 11 rebel boats were destroyed, leaving at least 40 guerrillas dead.
One of Rajapakse's ministers have declared that any attempt at having a dialogue with the LTTE's shadowy leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, is futile and there would be no peace in Sri Lanka unless Prabhakaran is killed.
Social Services and Welfare Minister Douglas Devananda, a Tamil vehemently opposed to the Tigers, does have a reason to say so. He has survived numerous assassination attempts, the latest on Nov.28, when a female bomber officials say was sent by Prabhakaran made her way into his ministry in central Colombo and blew herself up, killing one of his aides.
The failed assassination attempt bore all the trademarks of Prabhakaran, who is known for his use of suicide attackers as part of his campaign to create a separate state for Tamils in Sri Lanka's north and east.
It is clear that the two sides have no trust in each other's words and actions and hence the deadlock in efforts to restart the stalled peace process. It is indeed a tough task to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table.
But the international community could not sit back saying let the two sides fight it out until one of them is defeated or they come to their senses and will be ready accept solutions that does not compromise the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The least the world could do is to immediately ensure that weapons do not flow to Sri Lanka to feed the conflict and serve an ultimatum on both sides to halt attacks on each other and come to internationally mediated talks.
Would the UN have that kind of courage? Yes, it would, but it depends on the determination of the world at large to put an end once and for all to a self-destructing crisis where innocent civilians are paying the highest price.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Call could not be louder and clearer

Dec.26, 2007

Call could not be louder and clearer


Pope Benedict XVI could not have picked a better theme for his Christmas Day message to the world: An appeal to political leaders around the globe to find the "wisdom and courage" to end bloody conflicts. The Pope mentioned in particular the conflicts in the "tortured regions" of Darfur, Somalia, northern Congo, the Eritrea-Ethiopia border, Iraq, Lebanon and the Holy Land, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Balkans.
The head of the Roman Catholic Church also said he hoped Christmas would bring consolation to "those who are still denied their legitimate aspirations for a more secure existence, for health, education, stable employment, for fuller participation in civil and political responsibilities, free from oppression and protected from conditions that offend human dignity." Such injustices and discrimination are destroying the internal fabric of many countries and souring international relations, he said.
The theme of social injustice and bloody conflicts was reflected in almost every Christmas Day message in an emphatic reminder that while the world marked the birth of Jesus Christ with celebrations, the crises facing tens of millions of people remained static with little sign of solutions.
Indeed, the high number of pilgrims visting the Holy Land for this Christmas and the high turnout of Iraqi Christians for church services in the embattled country were particularly highlighted in the media as signs of positive turns. The launch of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations was cited as the reason for cheers in Palestine while a decline in violence was deemed to have kindled a new positive spirit among Iraqis.
Beneath the surface, however, the situation has changed little, whether in Palestine or in Iraq.
Despite the beginning of peace talks, the fear is high that Israeli intransigence and insistence on having its own way with the Palestinians would lead to a deadlock in negotiations. And the people of Gaza continue to suffer in isolation and increasing difficulties in daily life while the Hamas control of the territory remains yet another serious hurdle in the effort for peace in the Holy Land.
The relative calm in Baghdad is at best uneasy. The general feeling is that those waging the bloody war against the US military presence in the country are lying low in the face of the increased number of American soldiers and their crackdown against anyone coming under the slightest trace of suspicion, and the insurgents and sectarian militiamen could and would renew their campaign of bloodshed at the first opportune moment.
Tuesday's bombings in Iraq that killed nearly 30 people were a reminder of the terror that Iraqis have to live through on a daily basis.
As the Pope emphasised, the suffering of the people around the world is the direct result of political leaders taking the wrong decisions based on their vested interests — some may be national interests while others could be personal interests. Yet some others do not make sense at all.
The Pope's message was simple but eloquent: "May the child Jesus bring relief to those who are suffering and may he bestow upon political leaders the wisdom and courage to seek and find humane, just and lasting solutions."
Indeed, the world at large heard the message loud and clear. But the question is: Did those to whom the message was intended hear it at all?

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Preventing yet another disaster

Dec.25, 2007

Preventing yet another disaster


BRINGING Iraq's Sunni community into their country's mainstream politics and involving them in the governing process is one of the basic requirements for success of any effort for national reconciliation in the chaotic country. The US seems to have realised it and hence Washington's move to open doors to the Sunnis by setting up implicit ties through the so-called neighbourhood groups that are now fighting Al Qaeda militants, as the US military has reported.
A few Sunni political leaders remain in the government and the community is also represented in parliament.
However, it is not enough. The average Iraqi from the Sunni heartland would have to be drawn into the mainstream process and this could be achieved though bringing them into the fold of Iraq's security forces and sparking a political reconciliation that will allow more Sunnis to participate in the governing process.
In a way, Al Qaeda has been trying to prevent the Sunnis from taking part in the political process in the country and the the so-called awakening movement was a response to the Al Qaeda campaign.
The number of fighters in the so-called "awakening" councils as about 70,000 and rapidly growing. and it expected that t the number of Sunni fighters in Baghdad alone to grow to 45,000 next year.
Obviously, the Iraqi government fears that the Sunni fighters could grow into an uncontrollable force and eventually use their guns to escalate the sectarian war.
Defence Minister Abdul Qader Al Obeidi, himself a Sunni Arab, has offered a solution. While reaffirming that the Sunni groups would not be a "third force" — after the army and police — in the country, Obeidi has proposed that the bulk of them could be absorbed into the security forces and the rest would be given vocational training that would enable them to earn a living.
However, that proposal does not negate the fact that the Sunni leaders have sensed that they are being marginalised and they would not settle for anything less than their rightful place in the process of governing Iraq.
Continuing a campaign of "revenge" and oppression against any Iraqi group is not going to any good to any Iraqi group interested in protecting national interests.
The danger is high that the conflict could lead to a broadened battle which the US military would be able to do little to contain.
US strategists face the task of trying to repair the situation and prevent yet another catastrophe from striking the people of Iraq. They should shoulder that responsibility without hesitation. After all, the first catastrophe was of American making.

Sunday, December 23, 2007

Vigil and alert against deceit

Dec.23, 2007

Vigil and alert against deceit

ANY real movement towards serious peace negotiations between Israel and Palestinians hinges on the Jewish state freezing settlement activities in the occupied territories, which include Arab East Jerusalem despite the Israeli "annexation" of the area after seizing it in the 1967 war.
Israel could continiue to argue that expansion of the Har Homa settlement in the Jebel Abu Ghneim area of occupied Arab East Jerusalem does not come under the purview of the internationally backed "road-map" for peace. However, that argument does not do away with the fact that its "annexation" of the eastern half of the city has no legality under international law. And the very foundation for the Annapolis process launched under US auspices is international law.
The international community has never recognised the annexation and there is no legitimate ground for Israel to claim any right to any part of the occupied territories.
Israel is also trying a deceptive tactic by announcing plans for a new settlement in the Qalandia area of occupied Arab East Jerusalem and then saying that it was abandoning the proposal. Obviously, it is implicitly suggesting that the Palestinians should accept its expansion of the Jebel Abu Ghneim settlement in return for its move not to build the so-called Atarot settlement in Qalandia.
The US seems to be endorsing the Israeli grand plan. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the dropping of the Qalandia plan a "good step" in the context of the newly revived peace talks. She made no reference to the Jebel Abu Ghneim plan. Was it an oversight or deliberate sidestepping of an issue?
In simple and straight terms, Israel has no right or legitimacy to build or expand settlement anywhere in the occupied West Bank, whether in Arab East Jerusalem or anywhere else. But that is not seen as an issue for Israel, which believes that its physical control of the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, gives it the upper hand to dictate terms to the Palestinians and, by extension, to the world community at large.
What is happening in the Jebel Abu Ghneim-Qalandia equation highlights the difficulties that the Palestinians face in negotiating a fair, just and honourable peace with Israel, which is known to have some of the most cunning negotiating brains.
The Palestinians need to remain ever alert against all forms of deceptive Israeli tactics and they stand in need for consistent and strong international support at all levels and in all forms. Any let-up on any front would immediately be exploited by Israel to their disadvantage.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Address roots of the conflict

Dec.22, 2007

Address roots of the conflict

It was never a secret that there was something fundamentally wrong in the successive US administrations' thinking about the Middle East and overall Arab-Israeli conflict. That was all the more pronounced every move that the administration of President George W Bush Jr took in the Middle East, starting with a pronounced disinterest in efforts to solve the Palestinian problem, the post-Sept.11 approach to the region, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the confrontation-oriented dealings with Iran and Syria and many other issues of concern to the Arab World.
Of course, the initiative that the US took in organising a confererence on Middle East peace in Annapolis last month was a break from the pattern, although scepticism is the key word when it comes assessing the chances of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement being worked out before the end of 2008 as leaders from the two sides promised at the forum.
In the meantime, the pattern has been restored to the US behaviour where the only constant is what would seem to be an unwillingness to deal with the region on the basis of realities that could not be changed or ignored.
It was with great relief that the Arab World saw the Syrian participation at the Annapolis conference since it was a signal that there was an opening between Washington and Damascus that could possibly lead to resumption of Syrian-Israeli peace talks where the Lebanon crisis would be resolved on its own. But the relief proved to be short-lived. It would appear that Bush was interested only in using the Syrian presence in Annapolis to trumphet his "diplomatic" success in having a large Arab participation in the meeting as well as towards weakening the Iranian-Syrian relationship.
Syria's value, if there was any at all in the US eye, was limited to the Annapolis gathering. And now that the conference is over, Washington is back to its platform and has renewed charges that Syria is a destabilsing factor in the region. In this context, the meaning of destabilising should be read as not conducive to serving US strategic interests that have more to do with Israeli objectives than US interests.
That is what we get in a between-the-line reading of Bush's declaration on Thursday that his patience with Syrian President Bashar Al Assad had run out long ago. Bush has dusted off the same reasons that he had been citing as the reason for the aggressive US approach to Syria.
Damascus has links with Palestinian groups that are waging armed resistance against Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands, supports Lebanon's Hizbollah — which is definitely more than a thorn on Israel's side — allows "suiciders to go ... to Iraq and destabilises Lebanon."
There are inherent contradictions in Bush's charges against Syria, including recent statements by senior US officials that the Damascus government has taken firm measures to check infiltration of militants into Iraq and Syria's affirmations that it is trying to help resolve Lebanon's presidential crisis by publicly supporting the compromise that Michel Suleiman, the army chief, be the next president.
The US should realise that Syria's links with Palestinian and other Arab groups are linked mainly to the country's national strategies that in turn are closely related to the unresolved conflict over Israel's occupation of Syria's Golan Heights.
There are no magical words that would prompt Damascus to call off or suspend such relationships that are bothering the US. Indeed, these botherations would cease to exist if and when Israel and Syria make peace, and that is a reality on the ground that Washington has opted to brush aside.
As such, the Bush administration should be more interested in looking deeper at the roots of its problem with Syria with a view to solving the Israeli-Syrian conflict rather than simply addressing the symptoms as seen in Syrian policies and actions.

Friday, December 21, 2007

New breed of 'insurgents'

Dec.21, 2007


A new breed of 'insurgents'


The "surge" in US forces in Iraq — from 135,000 soldiers at the beginning of 2007 to 165,0000 soldiers today — is described as a success, with a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad. What is not being highlighted by the US military is the detention campaign that it launched along with the surge that now sees some 30,000 Iraqis being held at the two main prisons operated by the US military in Iraq, at Camp Bucca near Basra and Camp Cropper in Baghdad.
Many of these prisoners who were arrested mainly on suspicion rather then concret evidence that were involved in the insurgency.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the better level of security is a direct result of the higher numbers of detainees. In reality, however, the improvement in security could have also come from the shifting attitudes of Iraqis as the state of terror they are living through.
The Iraqi government is believed to hold some 20,000 people accused of having taken part in the insurgency. Again, their actual affiliation with any organised group is subject to debate, particularly given that many of them were detained by Iraqi government forces acting upon tipoffs from "informants" whose motivations have highly questionable.
At some point, the US military and the Iraqi government have to start releasing the prisoners, the bulk of whom have not been formally charged or subject to any other judicial process.
According to Major-General Doug Stone, who oversees detainees for the US-led force, many of the prisoners were motivated mostly by money and most only desire to live peacefully. Many can be safely released back to society, back to their families and in their neighbourhoods without straining security or their communities, he says. He could indeed be oversimplifying the situation because he overlooks that the result of detention and incarceration without trial would only be, among most victims, anger, desparation, frustration and hate for the system .
The "risk" that the US military and the Iraqi government see in releasing the prisoners is that some of whom who were never part of the insurgency could jump the fence and join the camp of the insurgents simply because of their detention and the treatment they received at the hands of their captors.
That was what Marine Commandant General James Conway means when he says: "If you roll up 150 guys in a village and you don't have probable cause, you've just created 150 little terrorists."
Given that the US military does not believe in any mass release of prisoners, many in detention are likely to remain in Camp Bucca and Camp Cropper for months, and we are talking about thousands of Iraqis who cannot be expected to have anything but resentment and hostility towards the US and their own government.
Detaining people on slightest suspicion and denying them the due process of law is definitely not the way to win an insurgency. The US is starting to learn the lesson a bit too late because the damage has been already done and adds to the problems created by the throughtless manner the US went about invading and occupying Iraq.

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Easy options, tough choices

Dec.20, 2007.

Easy options, tough choices


The Palestinian Hamas movement has said it wants genuine reunification of the ranks and heal the rift caused by its violent seizure of the Gaza Strip in June after defeating forces loyal to Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh also wants a cease-fire with Israel after months of rocket attacks against Israeli towns and retaliatory Israeli strikes that killed and wounded hundreds of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
On both counts, sceptics would say Hamas has been cornered into a position where it has no option but to make conciliatory gestures and even appeal through the Israeli media for an end to military strikes against the Gaza Strip.
On the first count, Abbas is going ahead with peace negotiations with Israel and has repeatedly turned down Hamas calls for talks saying no such dialogue could come as long as the group retains its control of the Gaza Strip. It does not make sense for Abbas to make any gestures towards Hamas, a group which resorted to violence in its challenge to his authority. As such, Hamas, if it wants genuine reconciliation with Fatah, should give up control of the Gaza Strip and rejoin the Palestinian political scene as a party, as far as Abbas is concerned.
Obviously, Hamas does not want any unconditional return of the Gaza Strip to the control of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) headed by Abbas. It would have its own conditions attached to any such possibility, particularly that it feels buoyed that it had trounced Fatah by winning 76 per cent of the votes in the 2006 Palestinian elections.
There could indeed be many arguments and counter-arguments against and in favour of Hamas, but the realities on the ground are stacked against Hamas.
For starters, it is difficult to see how Hamas could re-enter mainstream politics as long as it maintains its hard-line positions and challenges and defies the PNA by continuing to rule the Gaza Strip.
Abbas would definitely want to have the Palestinian constituency united behind him, but Hamas has yet to make the right gestures and moves towards this end.
Any PNA overture towards Hamas without the group reciprocating in equal terms and meeting the basic requisites for peace would be futile and would have a negative impact on the US-supported peace negotiations launched in Annapolis last month. The burden on Abbas has become all the more heavier — even as has his international support shot up — with the billions of dollars that donors pledged for the PNA this week.
In the Gaza Strip, the Hamas leaders are burdened with the responsibility of looking after the residents of the area in the face of the crippling Israeli blockade of the area.
Indeed, they do have the easy option of bowing to the Palestinian presdent's authority in order to reunify the Palestinian ranks and thus end the isolation of the Gaza Strip. They could also agree to accept realities on the ground as realities and change their hard-line positions.
At this point, we do not know whether behind-the-scene contacts and Arab mediation between Fatah and Hamas have made any breakthrough. Pending that, it is unlikely that Hamas would exercise the options available to it. And, in the meantime, trust Israel to continue to make life difficult for the Palestinian people.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Back to square one

Dec.19, 2007

Back to square one in Lebanon

With the postponement of Lebanon's presidential election for a ninth time on Monday, to Dec.22, the country has moved to what could be seen as a make-or-break point in efforts to salvage itself from factional strife.
The rival groups stood firm on their positions on Monday despite international efforts, including a last-ditch US move, to convince them to proceed to a vote and avoid plunging the country into further chaos.
It is not as if they do not agree on who should be the next president of Lebanon. They simply disagree on how to go through the constitutional process to elect army chief Michel Suleiman as the country's president to succeed Emile Lahoud, who stepped down at the end of his term with no elected successor last month.
The tug-of-war has deep political implications. The opposition does not want to give "legitimacy" to the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora by involving it in the constitutional process. The government is determined not to allow that to happen because it is very survival is at stake in the power struggle since the opposition insists on replacing it and having a say in deciding who would lead a new government and how many cabinet seats each camp would get.
There was hope until Monday that increased American and French pressure had led to a compromise that would see Suleiman being installed as president. However, as Christian leader Samir Geagea explained, it was only a rumour that was floated at easing the tension created by the American and French pressure.
Obviously, it would mean that the various parties involved do not have any serious intention to accept any compromise. They simply want to ward off pressure.
There was little public sign of either side stepping back on Monday although some politicians insisted that a solution could be found.
The government and opposition have five days to work on a solution. It is doubtful that they would to work out compromise in five days to solve a problem that has haunted the country for months now.
Surely, the feuding groups must have their own plans on how to go about if they did not have their way by Dec.22. However, they should realise that missing the deadline could create new facts on the ground that could make a compromise all the more difficult and perhaps even push the country beyond the brink towards civil strife.
The future of Lebanon is indeed at stake and it is the duty of the feuding politicians not to let that reality fade into the background as they pursue their conflicting agendas.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The irony of it all

Dec.18, 2007

The irony of it all

The US contention that Iranians are financing insurgents in Iraq and also supplying arms and ammunition to them could have some grain of truth because gun-running has always been a lucrative trade. Furthemore, Iranians could also have an interest in not allowing the US military pacify Iraq since they fear that they could be the next target if and when Washington manages to stabilise Iraq. Recent intelligence findings that Iran had dropped a nuclear weaponisation programme in 2003 have not eased the situation because Washington insists that Iran remains a threat to regional and international stability and security.
The US has cited the discovery of explosives, guns and roadside bombs of a particular kind to support its charge that Iran is backing the insurgency in Iraq.
It is known that Iraq was awash with weapons when the US invaded and occupied it in 2003. The weapons disappeared, only to reappear in the hands of insurgents. Today, there does not seem to be any shortage of weapons in Iraq for the insurgents to continue their anti-US war.
The irony is that many weapons that the insurgent are using are US-made and sent to Iraq for distribution to Iraqi security forces. According to reports, hundreds of thousands of guns, small and big, and entire consignments of ammunition that the US sent to Iraq have simply disappeared.
The latest such report has come from the US government's accountability office, which says that the US military in Iraq has lost track of another 12,000 weapons, including more than 800 machine-guns (not to mention 2,100 new electricity generators to half a dozen garbage trucks).
The same office revealed earlier this year that 190,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles and automatic pistols earmarked for Iraqi government forces had gone astray in 2004 and 2005 and could be in insurgent hands.
The question here is not why the US military is not more careful with weapons and equipment paid for by the American taxpayer and seems to be a key source for insurgents who are waging war against American soldiers.
The question is how the US military loses track of weapons and ammunition and how the missing items end up with the insurgents.
It does say something about the reliability of Iraqi forces that the US military is supposed to be training to take over security of the country somewhere down the line. Beyond that, however, is the reality that many of the Iraqi security forces, in service and under training, do not owe genuine allegiance to the US or the central government. It is acknowledged that a good number of Iraqi security forces came from the ranks of sectarian militias. For them, whatever is happening in Iraq is transitional and they owe their allegiance to their political leaders who they expect to protect their interests when the Americans are gone.
And still Washington believes — or at least insists — that it is on track to realising its strategic objectives of enthroning a US-friendly regime in Baghdad that would give priority to US interests over Iraqi interests.

Monday, December 17, 2007

People should feel the change

Dec.17, 2007




The first move to turn negative thinking to positive outlook among people is to convince them that they stand to lose something with negativism. Positive thinking among his people is something that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas needs as a priority as he seeks a negotiated peace agreement with Israel. However, negativism has become part of life for the Palestinians living under Israel's military occupation in the West Bank because of the stranglehold the Jewish state has on their daily life. The Israeli siege of the West Bank — including strict restrictions on Palestinian movement and the hundreds of roadblocks that have made life all but impossible in the territory — is one of the many realities of daily live for the Palestinians.
The finding of an Israeli military survey that one in four of Israeli troops serving at the checkpoints across the occupied West Bank have witnessed, heard about or taken part in physical or verbal abuse of Palestinians highlights the humiliation and suffering that the Palestinians are facing since the Jewish state occupied their territories in 1967.
The stymied economic growth in the West Bank is another reality of life, with unemployment and poverty growing to alarming rates. Couple these problems with the almost daily Israeli military raids aimed at killing or arresting Palestinian activists, and we have the best-ever breeding ground for negativism, frustration and despair. A feeling has set in among the Palestinian residents of the West Bank that they have little to lose or gain in supporting or opposing the renewed peace negotiations with Israel.
That is where Abbas needs all the help he could muster. He has to turn around the people's thinking by convincing them that there would be positive changes in their daily life under his leadership.
Today's conference of donors in Paris might produce pledges of the $5.6 billion in aid in three years that Abbas is seeking to support the Palestinian National Authority's economic and reform programme, but the money would be of little help if it could not make tangible changes in people's daily life. Freedom of movement and a sense of security are vital elements of economic development but they are missing in the West Bank today.
The best that Israel could come up while facing the reality of what Abbas needs at this juncture is a declaration that positive changes in Palestinian life in the West Bank could not come at "the expense of Israel's security."
Well, that posture had always been one of the biggest mistakes Israeli leaders have always made. They never entertained the thought that Israel's "security" could never be assured through the use of military force but that it would be the natural outcome of a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians.
Unless today's Israeli leaders turned away from the "military option" and started to think about the Palestinians as a people with legitimate rights, then peace would remain elusive, far beyond the one-year deadline that was announced at the Annapolis conference last month.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

How about opening the $500b war chest?

Dec.16, 2007


How about opening the $500b war chest?

"The Egyptians write, the Lebanese publish, the Iraqis read." This is a famous Arabic saying that highlights the Iraqi's legendary thirst for knowledge quoted in a McClatchy report that exposes yet another ugly impact of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.
At least 300,000 young Iraqis — the bulk of them 10 to 15 years of age — are not attending school in the countries where their families have sought safety from the terror and insecurity at home, according to aid workers. In Syria and Jordan, Iraqi children can attend public schools for little or no fees and needy families are eligible for UN assistance with books, uniforms and transportation. However, only 30,000 are enrolled in Syrian schools and 20,000 in Jordan since education becomes secondary when displaced and cash-strapped families scrounge for food and shelter. Many parents often rely on older children to help support the family by taking on odd jobs and helping at home. Survival is their priority.
As a result, there is a growing generation of Iraqis who cannot read of write — an irony for a country which once boasted some of the highest literacy rates in the Middle East.
Indeed, the problem started with the sweeping sanctions that were imposed on Iraq following its invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Many Iraqis lost their jobs as the sanctions tore into the economy, and they had to depend on state handouts of food while many children dropped out of schools and sought menial work to sustain themselves.
The impact of the sanctions was slightly eased when the UN launched its oil-for-food programme with Iraq in 1997, but the damage was already done. The situation turned worse with the external and internal displacement of more than four million Iraqis following the invasion of their country and the bloody insurgency and ethnic cleansing that brought them into life in terror.
The United Nations Childrens Fund, which cares for children's health and education around the world, is trying to determine the size of the problem. The agency, which is running youth programmes, says that about one of third of the Iraqi participants in the programmes are illiterate or close to illiterate.
The problem could be addressed to a large extent by a well-focused and well-planned effort, but it needs cash. The UN on its own is in no position to fund any such programme; nor could the Iraqi government, which is finding itself grappling with "graver" problems within the country. That leaves the international donor community, which is indeed helping out, but the gap between the need and supply is too wide.
That brings up the question of responsibility for the problem: The one-track minded US approach to the invasion and occupation of Iraq without planning and measures to cope with the consequences. The people of Iraq are paying the price for it.
But then, the US says it has already spent nearly $500 billion for the Iraq invasion and whatever followed it. How about Washington allocating a tiny faction of it — say a billion dollars — for the welfare of children who were thrown out of their schools and homes as a result of its "liberation" of Iraq?

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Arabs stand ready to help

Dec.15, 2007


Arabs stand ready to help

WITH Wednesday's meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators, the clock has started ticking towards an agreement that was promised by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at last month's conference in Annapolis.
We are seeing the same pattern of Israeli behaviour. In the run-up to the Wednesday's meeting, Israel reaffirmed that it was not going to be dissuaded from pursuing its policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank , including Arab East Jerusalem and that it would continue military operations against Palestinian armed resistance. The second part of the Israeli stand is based on the continuing rocket attacks against Israel coming from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. However, both approaches do not bode well for successful negotiations.
ON the other side, however, is a revelation in the Israeli media that Israelis and Palestinians came close to striking a peace deal at 2001 talks in Egypt, but gaps remained on the core issues of the conflict.
Essentially, both sides would have to make compromises. Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank, the Palestinians must agree to resettle refugees from the 1948 conflict inside their own state to be formed within the 1967 lines and the two sides must share Jerusalem.
If the revelation, as quoted from an agreement signed by Gilad Sher, the chief of staff to former Israeli premier Ehud Barak, is accurate, then it represents the closest that the two sides have ever come towards giving a definite shape to a peace agreement.
According to the report, both sides had agreed to the principle of adjusting the June 4, 1967 borders but differed on the details.
While Israel wanted to keep six to eight per cent of West Bank territory in order to maintain settlement blocks , the Palestinians were willing to exchange up to 2.3 per cent of the territory.
Both sides wanted sovereignty over the passage linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
They also agreed that sovereignty over Jerusalem, with two capitals for two states, but differed on the details of continuity of their respective neighbourhoods.
The two sides could not agree on the issues of the Al Haram Al Sharif complex which houses the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and the western wall, which Jews consider as their most sacred site.
On the question of Palestinian refugees, Israel said it would recognise the suffering of the refugees of 1948, when Israel was created, and to accept between 20,000 and 40,000 refugees based on humanitarian concerns, and to contribute financially to refugee rehabilitation.
The Palestinians demanded that Israel accept sole responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the refugee problem and to recognise the refugees' right of return.
Indeed, the agreements rather than the differing positions of the two sides give us hope that the Annapolis process could realise the objective of a peace accord. Both sides have to work hard and their leaders face huge obstacles from their own camps. There are no tailor-made solutions.
For its part, the Arab World has signalled its willingness to make compromises by offering the Arab peace initiative and attending the Annapolis conference. Today, the Arabs stand ready to do what it could to help achieve the objective of for just, fair and dignified peace with Israel without compromising the legitimate territorial rights of the Arabs, including the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. That position should weigh in heavily in favour of the Palestinians. Israel should not be seeking to achieve normalisation with the Arabs without working out just, fair and dignified peace with all parties involved. The first step has been taken with the Palestinians, and others should follow.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Added sense of urgency

Dec.13, 1007

Added sense of urgency

The despicable killing of Lebanese Brigadier General Francois Al Hajj in Beirut on Wednesday has shot up fears of further destabilisation of the country, which is in the grip of its worst political crisis since the 1975-1990 civil war.
Hajj was said to be close to army chief Michel Suleiman and tipped to succeed Suleiman if and when the latter is elected president. That adds to the speculation surrounding his killing.
The Lebanese army is indeed the sole unified and strong national institution that has stayed above the political bickering linked to the presidential election.
Was the murder aimed at demoralising and weakening the Lebanese army? If so, whose purpose is being served?
Or was it aimed at throwing a spanner in the works of ongoing efforts to bring the views of the government and the opposition closer on how to overcome the constitutional dispute over electing the next president.
The assassination could have a different bearing altogether.
Hajj is known to have survived several attempts on his life, starting with a 1976 bid said to have been engineered by Israel after he resisted its efforts to draw him into its orbit.
It is difficult to see any Lebanese group benefiting from Hajj's death. The only party which could be seen as having an interest in eliminating him is Israel, which had found in him a strong nationalist who could prove to be a formidable hurdle in the way of the Jewish state's efforts to realise its objectives in Lebanon after he succeeds Suleiman as the army chief.
Lebanon's Hizbollah group and the Syrian and Iranian governments have condemned the killing. Damascus, no doubt aware that accusing fingers could be pointed at it, moved quickly to quell any such possibility by issuing a strong statement denouncing the murder.
The Syrian position has to be seen in the context of the opening between Washington and Damascus in the wake of the Annapolis meeting on Middle East peace. Surely, the last thing Syria wants at this important juncture in Middle East peacemaking and ending its US-engineerd isolation is to be implicated in destabilisation efforts in Lebanon.
It might take some time before definite clues are offered as to who could have been behind the killing. In the meantime, however, the assassination adds a high sense of urgency to ending the political crisis in the country, because such killings and attempted murders could only contribute to further worsening the state of limbo that would result if Lebanese members of parliament failed to elect a new president on Dec.17.
The priority of the Lebanese MPs today is to bury their differences for the sake of national unity and ensure that they would elect a new president on Dec.17. There might be constitutional hurdles, but then the MPs have the authority and power to overcome them if they are united on one issue — the interests of the country and its people supercede everything else.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

First step taken, others should follow

Dec.14, 2007


First step taken, others should follow


WITH Wednesday's meeting of Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiators, the clock has started ticking towards an agreement that was promised by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at last month's conference in Annapolis.
We are seeing the same pattern of Israeli behaviour. In the run-up to the Wednesday's meeting, Israel reaffirmed that it was not going to be dissuaded from pursuing its policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank , including Arab East Jerusalem and that it would continue military operations against Palestinian armed resistance. The second part of the Israeli stand is based on the continuing rocket attacks against Israel coming from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. However, both approaches do not bode well for successful negotiations.
On the other side, however, is a revelation in the Israeli media that Israelis and Palestinians came close to striking a peace deal at 2001 talks in Egypt, but gaps remained on the core issues of the conflict.
Essentially, both sides would have to make compromises. Israel will have to give up most of the West Bank, the Palestinians must agree to resettle refugees from the 1948 conflict inside their own state to be formed within the 1967 lines and the two sides must share Jerusalem.
If the revelation, as quoted from an agreement signed by Gilad Sher, the chief of staff to former Israeli premier Ehud Barak, is accurate, then it represents the closest that the two sides have ever come towards giving a definite shape to a peace agreement.
According to the report, both sides had agreed to the principle of adjusting the June 4, 1967 borders but differed on the details.
While Israel wanted to keep six to eight per cent of West Bank territory in order to maintain settlement blocks , the Palestinians were willing to exchange up to 2.3 per cent of the territory.
Both sides wanted sovereignty over the passage linking the Gaza Strip to the West Bank.
They also agreed that sovereignty over Jerusalem, with two capitals for two states, but differed on the details of continuity of their respective neighbourhoods.
The two sides could not agree on the issues of the Al Haram Al Sharif complex which houses the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and the western wall, which Jews consider as their most sacred site.
On the question of Palestinian refugees, Israel said it would recognise the suffering of the refugees of 1948, when Israel was created, and to accept between 20,000 and 40,000 refugees based on humanitarian concerns, and to contribute financially to refugee rehabilitation.
The Palestinians demanded that Israel accept sole responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the refugee problem and to recognise the refugees' right of return.
Indeed, the agreements rather than the differing positions of the two sides give us hope that the Annapolis process could realise the objective of a peace accord. Both sides have to work hard and their leaders face huge obstacles from their own camps. There are no tailor-made solutions.
For its part, the Arab World has signalled its willingness to make compromises by offering the Arab peace initiative and attending the Annapolis conference. Today, the Arabs stand ready to do what it could to help achieve the objective of for just, fair and dignified peace with Israel without compromising the legitimate territorial rights of the Arabs, including the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese. That position should weigh in heavily in favour of the Palestinians. Israel should not be seeking to achieve normalisation with the Arabs without working out just, fair and dignified peace with all parties involved. The first step has been taken with the Palestinians, and others should follow.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Let the people breathe

Dec.11, 2007

Letting the people breathe


THE WELFARE of the Palestinian people under Israeli military occupation has always been the first to be sacrificed in the political and military confrontation in the ongoing Palestinian struggle for freedom and independence.
The case should have been different in the Gaza Strip, which is supposed to have been freed when Israel withdrew its military and settlers from the Mediterranean coastal strip last year. However, the situation in Gaza today is worse than that of the West Bank, which is under Israel's occupation.
Although Israel withdrew its military and settlers from Gaza, the coastal area remains very much under Israeli control. The Israeli army has sealed off all exits from the strip and controls the flow of everything into and out of Gaza, while the Israeli navy patrols the sea off the coast and prevents Gazan fishermen from going out to sea.
The people of Gaza are caught in the Israel-Hamas confrontation. Obviously, Israel is hoping to subdue Hamas into submission by subjecting the residents of Gaza suffering and thus forcing them into rising against Hamas. However, the game plan has little chance of success since such is the mindset of Palestinian resistance.
In the meantime, the Gazans continue to suffer. This was highlighted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which voiced alarm on Monday about the health consequences of the "intolerable" isolation of the Gaza Strip.
The cut in the flow of fuel to Gaza is creating the biggest concern because services have been affected in Gaza hospitals and Israel is blocking Gazans from acessing outside treatment.
The WHO says that 23 per cent of requests in October for treatment in Israel were refused, compared with 17 per cent in September and 10 per cent in June.
Palestinian health workers say 23 people have died in recent months.
The international community cannot and should not allow the situation to continue. Ordinary people who have committed no crime should not be punished. The world has the obligation to find some means to persuade Israel to call off its inhuman blockade of the Gaza Strip so that the people there could breathe as normal human beings.

Monday, December 10, 2007

Grasping the chance at hand

Dec.10, 2007

Grasping the chance at hand


PARALLEL to the strong signal in Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem's visit to Jordan that bilateral relations are improving, there is an equally strong sign that Damascus is trying to make the best of opportunity available to launch peace talks with Israel.
The visit came ahead of King Abdullah's talks with Turkish and Europen leaders who could play a strong role in regional peacemaking.
It is clear that last month's Annapolish conference offered a good opening between Syria and the US. It is reflected in their proxy tug-of-war in Lebanon, where US-backed and Syrian-supported factions have accepted army chief Michel Suleiman as the choice for president.
European leaders have been in touch with the Syrian leadership to help solve the stand-off and Damascus has responding positively, as is indicated in the compromise involving Suleiman.
The US has scaled down its charges that Syria has not been "doing enough" to prevent cross-border infiltrations into Iraq by militants seeking to wage war on the US forces ithere.
The overall impression that we get from the post-Annapolis scenario is that Syria is slowly moving to a point where it would not be left out of the overall peace process.
Syria has clearly stated that it is ready to resume negotiations, but Israeli leaders have been cautious in their public comments, mainly because of internal political considerations and in view of the deep rift the US-Syrian relationship. However, some of them have affirmed that it would be easier to make peace with Syria than with the Palestinians in view of the relatively less complex issues that need to be sorted out with the Syrians.
At the same time, it would be unrealistic to expect an immediate resumption of intense Syrian-Israeli peace talks because of the ground that needs to be covered. Syria has to build mutual confidence with the US first before there could be any hope of renewed peace talks to end the Israeli-Syrian conflict.
Russia is hosting a Annapolis follow-up meeting next year to try to revive Syrian-Israeli peacemaking. That could indeed offer the breakthrough for peace between Syria and Israel. The impression the world has is that Damascus would not be found wanting in seeking peace. The question is: How far would the Israeli leadership be willing to go in accepting international legitimacy as the basis for a peace agreement with the Syrians?

Friday, December 07, 2007

Signal of dissent from within

Dec.7, 2007

Signal of dissent from within




THE thought would not go away why the 16 US intelligence agencies decided to override all Bush administration objections and released their finding that Iran had suspended a programme to develop nuclear weapons in 2003 and that Tehran is not involved in any activity that suggests that it is currently pursuing nuclear weaponisation.
One of the arguments that are being heard sounds as good as any: There is a strong group within the US intelligence and security establishment, including the military, which opposes the neoconservative effort to use the US to serve Israeli purposes. Members of this group got together and decided to go public with its finding that seriously undermined the administration's claims that Iran's nuclear programme was aimed at developing weapons that it could use against Israel (or at least challenge Israel's nuclear supremacy in the region). That in turn deflated the administration's neo-con influenced drive towards military action against Iran in what would definitely turn out to be yet another imbroglio for the US military.
It is no secret that senior US military commanders are not at all happy with the way things are going in Iraq in a war that they know was launched on deceptive grounds. They do not want to add to the US military's woes by engaging Iran in a military conflict, which could expose tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan for Iranian retaliation. The best they could do to pre-empt such a course of events was to expose the reality that the reason that the administration could cite for action against Iran was not valid anymore.
The same applies to the US intelligence establishment, which was stung by the way the administration handled Iraq intelligence. The manipulation that a special office set up by Vice-President Dick Cheney did with honest intelligence reports in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a slap in the face of the intelligence establishment. Therefore, the seniors in the intelligence agencies decided that it was high time that the American people and the international community knew the truth and to leave no room for the neocons in the administration to twist and turn facts and realities into shapes that suited their purpose and deal yet another humiliating blow to the intelligence establishment.
The US military and intelligence agencies have done the best they thought they could do to set the record straight, Whether it would have the sought-for result is something that remains to be seen. The danger still lurks in the air of the neocons cooking something anew to rebuild "justifications" for military action against Iran, and the US military and intelligence agencies need to remain on constant alert to abort the case.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

A catastrophe in the making

Dec.6, 2007

A catastrophe in the making

THE residents of Gaza, already reeling under isolation and suffering from shortages of food and essential supplies as well as fuel, are facing yet another catastrophe. The Israeli army has announced that it has completed plans for a large offensive in the Gaza Strip and is only waiting for government approval for such action.
Israeli attacks have killed 31 Palestinians in Gaza in the last 10 days, with the army saying the assaults were in response to rocket attacks coming from the coastal strip.
Any Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip this time around would be sweeping and thus devastating for the people who live there, whether supporters of Hamas or otherwise. The reasoning is clear: The Israeli political and military establishments would use the opportunity to inflict as much harm as possible in the Gaza Strip in an intense bid to weaken Palestinian armed resistance and destroy Hamas. That would mean heavy casualties among the Palestinian civilians in Gaza, one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
The possibility of a sweeping Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip has become all the more strong in view of assertions that Fatah al Islam, which fought the Lebanese army for almost four months from a stronghold in the Palestinian Nahr Bared refugee camp in North Lebanon, has launched operations against Israel from the Gaza Strip. Reports also claim that Israeli military officers have observed new tactics on the Hamas side that recall the combat methods the Israeli army encountered in southern Lebanon in its war against Hizbollah in the summer of 2006.
No doubt, these reports, which are by nature difficult to verify, are Israel's way of preparing the ground for an allout assault on the Gaza Strip. It might not come this week or even the next, but it is definitely in the offing because Hamas and likeminded groups based in Gaza would not back down.
Indeed, the other side of the coin is that such an operation would also cause casualties among Israeli soldiers since Hamas and other fighters are no doubt prepared to fight to their last.
The political fallout of an Israeli incursion of such a scale would be too bitter for hopes attached to the renewed bid for peace launched in Annapolis last week.
On the ground, however, the real victims would be the ordinary people of Gaza, who would have to pay the heaviest price for Israel's quest to weaken all challenges to its efforts to impose its own solution on the Palestinian people.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Iran not off the US hook

Dec.5, 2007

Iran not off the US hook

A CONVENTIONAL approach would show that the finding of US spy agencies that Iran had halted a programme to build nuclear weapons in 2003 pulls the rug from under the Bush administration's aggressive campaign against Tehran based on its nuclear activities. It vindicates Tehran's long-standing claim that its nuclear programme had only peaceful civilian aims, and could be seen as a source of relief for the region.
However, it is highly unlikely that Iran has come off the American hook
although the intelligence report does away with all justifications and reasonings for continued pressure against Iran. As Tehran exults at the US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report, Washington, London and Paris are calling for continued international pressure on Tehran. US President George W Bush has no doubt that Iran is still developing its nuclear technology and could restart a covert weapons programme. He and his allies are trying to turn the post-NIE report tables around by arguing that the finding validates US pressure on Tehran to end its nuclear activities.
Clearly the NIE report has surprised everyone, given the consistent and strident rhetoric from Washington accusing Tehran of pursuing a covert nuclear weapons programme over the years. The report undercuts the Bush administration's efforts to convince other world powers, particularly UN Security Council members China and Russia, to support moves to impose further sanctions against Iran. It would be ironic at best that the US administration is implictly brushing aside the finding of its own intelligence agencies and pressing for more sanctions against Iran in the name of a non-existent programme.
The NIE report has led to a major shift in focus of foreign policy debate in Washington, with Democrats, critics of Bush and anti-war activists using the finding to expose flaws in the administration's approach.
But, Bush's comment shows that there would not be any shift as far his administration is concerned.
Well, the Bush administration could not do or say otherwise, because it is committed to the project of removing Iran as a challenge to the US/Israeli interests in the region.
Seen in that context and given the opinion of a world majority that the US is following the same deceptive approach as it did in the case of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction," there could indeed be a shift in Washington, but towards finding alternatives to continue its drive against Iran.
That thought is strengthened by the revelation in the authoritative Washington Post that Bush made his infamous warning about a "third world war" after "he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons programme."
The writing is clear on the wall: The Bush administration's will not entertain any second thought about its present approach to Iran. Such is the size of the Israeli hook in the US throat that Washington could not afford to be led in any other direction.
And, we have seen, Tehran is more than willing to help   the US and Israel — in the form of hard-line rhetoric and defiant postures — to strengthen their "case" against Iran. The Iranian leadership could do well to remember that the entire region would have to pay a heavy price for their defiance. The least they could do is should shift their course to mainstream diplomacy and stay away from helping rebuild the nuclear case or built yet another case against themselves.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Ball remains in Iran's court

Dec.4, 2007

Ball remains in the Iranian court


MUCH expectations were attached to the first appearance of an Iranian president at a summit of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) because of the challenges the region faces and the pressing need to work on clearing the atmosphere of all major outstanding issues with a view to building regional co-operation.
On the surface, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call at the GCC summit in Doha on Monday for Gulf states and Iran to work together towards establishing regional security and economic co-operation sounded great. In principle, the GCC has always remained committed to regional interaction that would benefit all sides concerned and strengthen regional stability and security under the right conditions and circumstances.
However, Ahmadinejad spoke at the Doha summit as if everything else was fine, all the elements were in place for regional co-operation and that it was only a matter of political will on the part of the GCC to build a strategic relationship with Iran.
The Iranian leader did not refer to any of the key issues of concern to the GCC. He did not refer to Iran's controversial nuclear programme and did not talk about Iran's intentions regarding Iraq. Nor did he refer to the three UAE islands that is under Iranian occupation.
The UAE has repeatedly called for bilateral discussions to resolve the outstanding issue or to refer it to international judgement. Tehran has consistently brushed aside the calls.
Kuwait has a maritime border dispute with Iran blocking the development of a gas field.
What Ahmadinejad did at the GCC summit was to put the cart before the horse. How could there be any talk about security and trade co-operation between the GCC and Iran before Iran assures its neighbours of peaceful intentions and settles territorial issues in an equitable manner?
The region needs to be assured of Iran's nuclear programme and Tehran's commitment to diplomacy to solve the dispute over the issue. Similarly, the region is anxious that the crisis in Iraq, a member of the Arab League, is addressed in the broader Arab aand UN context.
Tehran also has to move with seriousness to settle outstanding disputes with the GCC members, including the Iranian-occupation of the three UAE islands of Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa and Iran's dispute with Kuwait as well as other issues that are sources of regional concern.
Only then there could be any move towards building a better relationship between the GCC and Iran. Ahmadinejad's speech did not move the ball from the Iranian court.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Constants in peacemaking

Dec.2, 2007

Constants in peacemaking



US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is said to be seeking extensive advice from former US presidents and diplomats on how to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and avoiding pitfalls similar to those that had snagged earlier efforts.
Among those consulted are ex-presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and former secretaries of state James Baker III, Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger and other diplomats. Rice is also said to reading stacks of books and negotiating documents.
We do not really know how far Rice has advanced into understanding the roots of the Arab-Israeli conflict and whether her understanding is based on an objective study of history and recognition of the Palestinians as a people who are denied all their universal rights and international justice. It is also possible that Rice is moving ahead with a simple acceptance that Israel's interests have to served regardless of what the Palestinians get in any peace agreement.
Whatever the case, there are certain realities of the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict that Rice should not attempt to sidestep if she is seeking ways to work out genuine peace based on fairness and justice for all.
Rice should recognise that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process is lopsided under the present givens. Being the occupation power in physical control of the Palestinian territories, Israel is behaving as if the Palestinians should be thankful in the first place that the Israelis are willing to talk peace with them, albeit at its own terms. The almost unlimited support that Israel receives from the US on the diplomatic, political, and military fronts makes the equation all the more loaded against the Palestinians.
As such, Rice should be seeking to correct the imbalance by ensuring that international legitimacy — as enshrined in UN resolutions — and not Israel's self-professed claims backed by military might should be the basis for negotiations. It is as simple as that because international legitimacy is indeed the very basis for the Palestinians' right to independent statehood.
Another must for Rice's success is the recognition that little advance could be made on the Israeli-Palestinian track on its own without a parallel process under way to address the Israeli-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, again on the basis of international legitimacy.
Anything less than an unreserved acceptance of these facts as constants in any peacemaking would only abort every effort, no matter how intense, sincere and well-intented.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

It was and is all about water

Dec.1, 2007

It was and is all about water

AT LEAST one Israeli minister seems to have read the right message from Syria's decision to attend the Annapolis conference. Judging from the comments made on Saturday by a member of parliament from Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak's Labour Party, Danny Yatom, a former chief of Israel's Mossad secret service, Barak understood from Annapolis that Syria is ready to resume peace negotiations.
Well, it has been known for a long time that Syria wants peace with Israel, but on the basis of Israel returning the Golan Heights in its entirety to Syrian sovereignty, something past Israeli leaders were not ready to do.
What is new is Yatom's call on Israel to resume peace talks with Syria without preconditions. These preconditions include an end to Syria's relations with Palestinian resistance groups and Lebanon's Hizbollah. It is a catch-22 situation since the issues are closely linked to the Israeli-Syrian conflict and once that is solved then everything else could also be addressed sastisfactorily and Yatom seems to have come to appreciate it.
Obviously, Yatom was briefed by Barak after the minister returned from Annapolis, and hence it could be assumed to a large extent that the former Mossad chief's comment reflected Barak's thinking.
Yatom asserts that an Israel-Syria peace agreement would be easier to be worked out than an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. Israel and Syria had reached an advanced point in negotiations in 2000, when, according to Yatom, then US president Bill Clinton had offered to Syria, with Israeli backing, a peace deal that would have seen Israel withdrawiing to the 1967 borders, "except for a very slight modification in the north-eastern part of the Sea of Galilee."
Well, what Yatom might see as "very slight" would be very important for Syria, which has insisted that Israel withdraw to the border lines it held on June 4, 1967 ie. before the start of the war.
When Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, it claimed that the action was aimed at preventing Syrians from firing down at Israeli farmers. In reality, the Israelis seized the Golan Heights mainly because the strategic area holds the main source of water for Israel and they wanted absolute and unchallenged control of their water sources.
An Israeli general exploded a bombshell when he said in 2004 that the Israeli military is capable of ensuring the country's security without having control of the Golan Heights. But that comment, which seemed to have been hushed up without anyone further up in authority commenting on it, did not seem to take into consideration Israel's greed for water and the reality that the Israelis, whose per capita water consumption is among the highest in that region, are paranoid about their water sources (never mind that the sources are in other's territory and there are international conventions and agreements governing sharing of water).
As such, one of the key questions that follow Yatom's call is: Is there a realistic shift in Israeli thinking to keep their water paranoia at bay and accept good-faith negotiations with Syria?

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Twisted plans and hollow talks

Dec.1, 2006

Twisted plans and hollow talks


THE sole positive outcome of talks that US President George W Bush held with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki in Amman on Thursday was an agreement that Iraq should not be partitioned into separate, semiautonomous zones. None of the other agreements could be considered as positive since they are based on not only a continued US military presence in Iraq but also on increased use of military force to tackle the insurgency there. Those agreements sidestep the reality that there could be no military solution to the conflict in Iraq, and that the US would not be able to realise its prime objectives of pacifying the people of Iraq, stabilising the country and using it was a springboard for action against regional players (not to mention protecting US energy interests).
Even the Bush-Maliki agreement against autonomous regions in Iraq that would lead into eventual division of the country along ethnic lines could be described as wishful thinking because the lines drawn in post-war Iraq have already grown into deep chasms that are nearly impossible to be bridged. The concept has already been written into the post-war "constitution" of Iraq.
Hopes for a compromise that would be acceptable to the majority Shiites and the minority Sunnis and Kurds and would bring the three communities together back to the pre-war shape of Iraq are not based on realism. If the split does not happen today, it would happen tomorrow or someday but sooner than later, and there is nothing anyone could do about it. Such a view of the course of events is based on the historical realities of modern Iraq that the US and its allies overlooked/ignored/brushed aside when they drew up plans to invade and occupy that country as an advance military post in the Gulf that would serve American/Israeli interests in the region.
Surely, no regional player wants the division of Iraq because that would not but be coupled with major spillovers of the crisis across the borders to the country's neighbours and the wider region. The regional players, if they decide to get together in good faith, might be able to come up with a formula that could pre-empt a division of Iraq, but serious doubts cloud that possibility as long as the US military remains in Iraq.
In the short term, Bush's affirmation on Thursday after talks with Maliki was that the US would stay the course in Iraq and help the Iraqi prime minister boost his firepower against armed elements that challenge efforts to shore up internal security. The US president's assurances should been seen against the backdrop of his National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's opinion that "reality on the streets of Baghdad suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on, misrepresenting his intentions, or his capabilities are not yet sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
For all the world knows, Maliki might not find himself out a job when he returns to Baghdad because of the declared decision of Moqtada Sadr to withdraw his political support for the prime minister. Against that backdrop, whatever decisions and agreements made during the Amman meeting seem to have lost any relevance until and unless Maliki comes up with a formula to persuade Sadr not to quit the coalition in power.
No doubt, Bush was sending an implicit message to Iraqi groups when he described Maliki as "the right guy for Iraq," and pledged increased support for his efforts to shore up security, but the impact of such expressions of backing remains to be seen (barring a dramatic turnaround in the avowed US promise to "democratise" Iraq).
No matter what happens in the short-term in Iraq, nothing that the US does within the framework of realising its objectives of the invasion and occupation of that country would help stabilise the situation. Talk of genuine peace in Iraq through any other course of events could be nothing hollow.

Friday, November 30, 2007

Pressing need for rethinking strategy

Dec.1, 2007

Pressing need for rethinking strategy

IT IS worrying to note that a recent UN report says that militancy is on the rise around the world and Al Qaeda remains determined to mount major attacks and has extended its base of support.
The UN report also says that Al Qaeda has also become more adept at communicating its message and operational plans.
More than six years after the US declared its war on terrorism, there is little sign that it has ben effective in addressing the problem.
The UN report says that Taliban rebels fighting to regain control of Afghanistan have increased their influence not only in Afghanistan but also in north-western Pakistan.
Accrording to the report, the Taliban had money from the drug trade to pay its fighters and purchase weapons. The report refers to the arrest of people suspected of links with Al Qaeda in more than 40 countries as a source of worry since it shows a "high volume" of planning.
The report, prepared by experts working for the Security Council committee monitoring UN sanctions against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, asserts that Al Qaeda had established training centres in Pakistan, operating out of houses and small compounds, and had networks that channel people into the centres.
How and why the US fail in its fight to eliminate militancy despite having thrown all its weight behind the war on terror that had drawn support from many countries around the world?
Or was it that the US, which has the most advanced communication systems and surveillance equipment in the world, waged only a half-hearted campaign?
Even some of the seasoned American politicians are suggesting that there definitely major shortcomings in the post-Sept.11 US campaign and they could perhaps even be deliberate because keeping the threat of militacy alive serves the US purpose of justifying its military and intelligence presence in many countries. If that is indeed the case, then it is time the world started asking Washington to provide answers and explanations.
Having enlisted support from the international community in the wake of the devastating Sept.11 attacks in New York and Washington, the US has an obligation to explain why and how it was unsuccessful in its efforts.
One of the reasons cited by experts is that the US went on an almost blind rampage and did an overkill after Sept.11. Instead of quelling insurgent groups, the US approach created breeding grounds for militancy around the world, and many countries face increased threats today.
It is time Washington stood on its tracks and took in a broader view of its post-Sept.11 actions. Perhaps the right answers are right there. The sooner the Washington strategists did the exercise the better for everyone around.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

People should come first

Nov.29, 2007

People should come first



WITH Pervez Musharraf being sworn in as president after he gave up the powerful post of army chief, another page has been turned in Pakistan's tumultuous history. The next natural step is the lifting of the state of emergency that Musharraf declared on Nov.3 and easing the atmosphere for smooth, fair and free elections to parliament.
Indeed, the key demands that Musharraf faces today is for an end to emergency rule, release of political prisoners, restoration the constitution and reinstatement of judges whom he replaced in early November.
Many were sceptical whether Musharaff would live up to his pledge to give up his military uniform immediately after the country's highest court confirmed the validity of his candidacy in the September presidential election which he won.
He has lived up to his pledge, although some could find fault with the way he went about doing it by ensuring that nothing would stand in the way of the Supreme Court upholding the legality of his candidacy and thus the presidential election victory.
Musharraf has already signalled his willingness to work with the political leaders of the country, including Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and "move forward towards a conciliatory, civilised, democratic and political environment in the future."
Bhutto and Sharif were absent at the presidential swearing-in ceremony on Thursday and speculation is high whether they would live true to their threat to boycott the parliamentary elections in January and insist on purusing a campaign that could keep the country unstable. If that is the case, then Musharraf could be expected to maintain the state of emergency until after the Jan.8 elections, which he has vowed to hold "come hell or high water."
At the same time, an election boycott by Bhutto and Sharif would seriously undermine Musharraf's effort to legitimise his rule through a democratic ballot.
Musharraf is playing his cards close to his chest and so are Bhutto and Sharif, and everyone is carefully watching the other and planning moves.
Whatever happens, ending the state of emergency should be Musharraf's top priority because that would add to the growing conviction among Pakistanis and the rest of the world that he is a man of his word.
Musharraf and the country's political leaders face the task of nation-building and set a process in place that would improve the quality of life in the country through socio-economic development. Add to that the growing militancy that is posing serious challenges to not only to the law and order situation but also national security, and then the mission becomes all the more tougher.
It would be a pity if any political worth his or her salt insists on settling scores and spoke the wheels of democracy and undermine the drive towards consolidating the security and stability of the country.
Let us hope, for the sake of the ordinary people of Pakistan, it would not be the case.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Nothing short of a miracle

Nov.28, 2007

Nothing short of a miracle

LET us set aside all misgivings about Israel's real intentions about the shape of a peace agreement with the Palestinians and accept in good faith the pledge made by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Annapolis.
Given on the realities on the ground today, the end-2008 deadline for that they have set — obviously nudged to do so by US President George W Bush — for a final agreement is far from reality. Such is the complexity of the problems that they need to settle in the next 12 months that it would take nothing short of a miracle for them to deliver on their pledge.
It is not that there is any question that Olmert and Abbas want to meet the deadline, but that it seems next to impossible for them to do so.
Olmert faces tough political challenges from within his ruling coalition and of course from the rightwing hawks in the opposition on all the key issues that he needs to find solutions. The more than 250,000 Jewish settlers — most of them recent migrants — in the West Bank pose yet another formidable challenge to Olmert.
Similarly, Abbas faces the task of convincing his own constituency and the rejectionist Hamas and likeminded groups not only that there is indeed light for the Palestinians at the end of the tunnel but also that the light is not fire that is waiting to engulf them.
In practical terms, Abbas needs to persuade Olmert to agree to return Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinians — that would require slicing the Holy City against opposition from never-say-die Jewish fanatics for whom Palestinian rights mean less than nothing.
Abbas has also to find tens of billions of dollars to offer compensation to Palestinian refugees from the 1948 crisis sparked by Israel's creation. The third challenge he faces is equally difficult, if not tougher: Convincing Hamas to return the Gaza Strip to a united Palestinian leadership under him.
Indeed, let us take for granted that Bush would remain closely involved in the peacemaking process and throw the US weight behind it. That should ease the task a little but not enough because US intervention at whatever strength and level would have little effect on the positions of those who are determined to undermine the process.
Indeed, the entire scene could undergo a positive change if the Israelis and Palestinians accept without any reservation that co-existence could be based only on respect for each other's legitimate rights, with the onus more the Israelis to recognise that they are living in others' territories that were seized through the use of force. But they have not been able to accept or recognise it in the last 60 years.
Will they be able to do so in one year?

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Launhing pad for a realistic effort?

Nov.27, 2007

Launching pad for a realistic effort?

THE PROTESTS that were held on Tuesday in towns across the West Bank and Gaza City were not against the idea of making peace with Israel. Surveys and opinion polls have established that the vast majority of Palestinians favour a negotiated settlement to end the Israeli occupation of their land on the basis of their legitimate rights but they believe that the US initiative formally launched in Annapolis is stacked against their interests and rights.
Tuesday's demonstrations reflected the Palestinian frustration over what they see as the peace at gunpoint that they would being forced to enter with Israel at some point under the auspices of the United States.
The intensity of the protests would have been considerably less and more positive had the Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert been more forthcoming in conveying their "good-faith" intention — if indeed they do have it — by making more goodwill gestures as releasing Palestinian prisoners and easing the choking blockade that has paralysed Palestinian life in the West Bank. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would have gone to Annapolis with a stronger mandate to make peace had Olmert met his proposals for prisoner release and removal of blockades that cripple Palestinian movements and economic activities.
It is clear that Olmert has reserved such gestures to be made in piecemeal during the actual negotiations with Abbas that are expected to follow the Annapolis meeting. And the Palestinians are also aware that they would be forced to grant major concessions in return for every one of the piecemeal gestures.
The Palestinians understand very clearly that when US President George W Bush speaks of "difficult compromises" for peace in the Middle East he has only the Palestinians in mind because, in his thinking, they are the only ones expected to partly give up their territorial and political rights in the effort for an agreement with Israel.
That is at the root of the whole problem. The US is keeping a safe distance from living true to binding UN resolutions that reflect international legitimacy and various other documents related to conduct of nations based on the right of everyone to self-determination and to life in security, stability and dignity. Not only that, the US is helping and supporting Israel's refusal to live up to the same international commitments and obligations that Washington is demanding from other countries.
The Palestinian on the street is not really bothered whether Abbas and Olmert issued a joint statement on their intention to make peace. They want a realistic shift in Israel's adamant and stubborn insistence on peace on its own terms, and they have yet to see the slightest change in Israel's thinking and belief in military solutions to every problem.
The Palestinians should not be and could not be accused of being rejectionist. They believe that as things stand today, they stand to lose the most and gain the least.
They want genuine peace that is based on the rights that the UN Charter and every international convention, charter and treaty offer to everyone but that are denied to them. They refuse to accept assurances and promises that they know would not be honoured. They want realistic moves on the ground, and that is where the US faces the challenge if it is genuinely interested in salvaging its lost credibility. Would Annapolis be the launching pad for a genuine and realistic effort?

Monday, November 26, 2007

Why the world remains sceptical

Nov.26 2007

Why the world remains sceptical

US President George Bush has "personally committed" himself to his two-state vision for Israelis and Palestinians. Effectively, as his spokespersons took pains explaining on Sunday, Bush would be closely following up the process. As a sign of his "personal" involvement, Bush was meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Monday and Tuesday ahead of the Annapolis meeting and would receive them again on Wednesday at the White House. The US president was also in touch with several Arab leaders and playing a key role in securing the attendance of some 50 governments and groups at the Annapolis conference. So far so good.
There is no doubt that Bush wants an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in place before he quits the White House in early 2009. That is intented to be touted as his greatest accomplishment in his eight years at the White House (never mind the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos and the various other crises at home).
In principle, it is indeed a source of optimism for the Middle East that a US president has made Israeli-Palestinian peace a top priority with a definite timeframe — 14 months in this case — and has committed himself to remain involved in the process until its success.
However, there is a pessimistic rider to it: He has made it clear that it is upto the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate peace. That is the clincher. It is a message that it is strictly up to the negotiating skills of the Palestinians to secure Israeli acceptance of their demands. And that exposes the weakest flank of the Palestinians and casts a disturbingly negative cloud over the whole process.
By definition and in view of the realities on the ground in Israeli-occupied Palestine, the Palestinians are the underdog in any negotiation with Israel, which has made no secret that it wants a peace agreement on its own terms. By default, the Palestinians are not in an equal footing with the Israelis in order to have a just and fair negotiating process governed by international legitimacy as enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions and various conventions and charters and the inadmissibility of seizing other's territory through the use of force.
Israel is not willing to commit itself into accepting the minimum requirements for peace. Its track record since the 1993 Oslo agreement shows that it would continue to pile up pressure on the Palestinians into accepting its grand designs in Palestine while giving little in return to them.
A between-the-lines reading of Bush's stated position will show that the US would keep itself and all others out of post-Annapolis Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and thus leave the field free for the Israelis to pressure the Palestinians — who would be left without any recourse — and force down their throats the Israeli version of a peace agreement. Of course, it goes without saying that the US would be working behind the scenes to persuade the Palestinians that they would be better off accepting whatever Israel is willing to offer them because that is the best they would ever get. So much for the US-professed neutrality and role as honest broker.
That is what it boils down to when we remove all rhetoric and lofty statements linked to the expected Annapolis process.
We have yet to see any sign of the US stepping away from Israel's shadow and act in its capacity as the world's sole superpower to ensure fairness and justice for all. And hence the scepticism over the Annapolis exercise because all that the US is interested in is any agreement — be it fair or unfair, just or unjust — but one that could be the "jewel" in Bush's otherwise bare departing crown.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Not many options in Annapolis

Nov.25, 2007

Not many options at Annapolis

Arab officials are making their way to the United State to attend the US-sponsored Mideast peace talks in Annapolis with a clear message: There would be no normalisation with Israel without a comprehensive peace, and the Annapolis meeting would not be allowed to be turned into a forum where Israel could boast of being formally recognised by the Arab World.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal went to the extent of publicly making it clear that there would be no public handshakes with Israeli officials at the gathering.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, who is leading the first Arab League team to a peace conference with Israel, is in Washington with the message that "there can be no normalisation except in the framework of the Arab peace initiative and in the framework of total peace."
For their part, the key players —  Israel, the Palestinians and the US — have said that they would all make a strong effort to make sure that the Annapolis meeting does produce something trangible towards setting the Palestinian problem.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the key Bush administration official who visited the Middle East eight times this year, should know better than anyone else of the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace, particularly in view of the failure of the two sides to produce a joint statement because of Israel's stubborn positions.
Israel's refusal to commit itself to a binding framework for peace with the Palestinians does not bode well for the success of the meeting. Another negative point is the US failure to make clear even on Sunday whether the Golan Heights on the agenda saying Syria would be free to raise any issue it wants. The US stand implies that Washington would want to assume no role in the Syrian-Israeli context at this point in time. Syria could raise the point, but it is most likely that the US would be cool at best towards the issue.
The only point of reference for the Arabs at this juncture is a US assurance that there would be discussions on a "comprehensive" Arab-Israel peace deal. Rice has also promised that the Annapolis meeting "is going to be a serious and substantive conference that will advance the cause of the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Despite all such statements and assurance, scepticism would not go away. Adding more to the uncertainty are observations by Washington insiders that Rice wants to use the Annapolish meeting to project herself as a peace-seeker and do away with the setback her image suffered as the strongest Bush administration official publicly ruling out a ceasefire during the 34-day Israeli assault on Lebanon last year.
No one expects the meeting to produce an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The minimum expectation is of a firm framework for Arab-Israeli peace and a clear time-bound course towards final agreement. Hopefully, Rice would live up to her well-known adage that "failure is not an option."