Sept.23, 2007
Deception has a negative fallout
The UN has exposed that Israel has been lying to to the United States, to the European Union, to the UN itself and the rest of the world when it proclaimed that it would ease its stranglehold on the West Bank as a measure to improve the air for negotiations with the Palestinians.
It promised everyone that it would reduce the number of roadblocks in the West Bank. What it did in practice was to add more roadblocks that help strengthen its control of the movements of Palestinians within the occupied territories, according to the United Nations.
While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the promise to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, buoyed by a similar pledge by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, assured Abbas that Israel was to remove at least 24 roadblocks and adopt some measures to alleviate the restrictions on movement of Palestinians.
Today, according to a report in Israel's Haartez newspaper, there are 572 Israeli-controlled roadblocks in the West Bank compared with 376 in August 2005, and this has been recorded by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which also says that in the past two months alone, Israel put up 40 new roadblocks.
The UN agency did note that Israel Israel did away with 29 barricade in the Hebron region, but it put up 48 new roadblocks, mostly embankments preventing access to various roads.
Nearly 500 of the roadblocks are unmanned structures, mostly consisting of concrete cubes, earthen embankments and other barricades blocking roads and exits from villages and towns, the report notes.
The figures cited in the UN report do not include Israeli checkpoints on the "Green Line" — the frontier that the Jewish state controlled ast the time of the 1967 war when it occupied the West Bank.
The Israeli deception has serious repercussions on the ability of Abbas to muster support from the Palestinians ranks for peace talks that are expected to be given a boost at the US-proposed Middle East conference later this year. It was on the basis of the promises made by Olmert and the reassurance given by the US that Abbas had promised his people that the Israeli stranglehold on their lives would be eased soon. Now, not only that Israel did not keep its promise but it also made life more difficult for the Palestinians, many of whom have to travel through detours for hours for a trip that should normally take about 20 or 30 minutes.
Instead of shoring up Abbas and boosting his standing, Israel has actually done him harm, and the paradox is that Olmert still expects him to secure majority support from the Palestinian constituency for peace negotiations.
The UN is helpless to do anything about the situation, particularly that the US would not only reject any contemplated action against Israel for its blatant violations of UN resolutions but also offer the Jewish state an all-embracing protective umbrella against international action.
And still the world expects the US-proposed conference to produce a fair and just process to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If anytihing, Palestinian frustration and bitterness would only grow into increased militancy as a result of the Israeli failure to keep it promises.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Part and parce of a pattern
Sept.18, 2007
Part and parcel of a pattern
THE PRACTICE of American "security" contractors to follow their own law and open fire at "suspects" anywhere in Iraq has only been underlined with the Iraqi government order on Monday of the cancellation of US security firm Blackwater's operating licence.
The practice has to be seen in the same context as the torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at US detention facilities — as exposed by the Abu Ghraib revelations — and the many cases where US soldiers opened fire at unarmed Iraqi civilians and covered up the atrocity by filing false reports. The central vein that runs through this pattern of behaviour is the reality that the higher echelons of power have condoned such practices. Whatever action has been taken by the US military against some of the soldiers involved in such incidents was prompted by the hue and cry created by the media and human rights groups. Indeed, the exposed cases represent only a small part of the actual incidents. We could expect to hear of more cases in the days ahead from US soldiers who have returned home crippled from or traumatised by the brutal actions they witnessed in Iraq.
In the Blackwater cases, the company's guards, who provide personal security for US civilian officials working in Iraq, opened fire on a crowd in Baghdad's Al Yarmukh neighbourhood, killing at least eight people and wounded 13. The guards were part of what was described as a US diplomatic convoy. The US embassy explained that the shooting happened when the private security guards "reacted to a car bomb."
It said "the car-bomb was in proximity to where State Department personnel were meeting. This is the reason Blackwater responded to that."
We have yet to hear an Iraqi government confirmation that there was indeed a car bomb in the area at the time of the killings. In the meantime, the embassy is going out of its way to defend Blackwater and protect its interests. According to an embassy spokesman, there is no confirmation of the cancellation of Blackwater's licence and the diplomatic mission is "continuing to discuss with the Iraqi government." No doubt, the discussion aims at allowing Blackwater to continue whatever it was doing in Iraq.
In simpler terms, the US military and political establishment prosecuting the war in Iraq consider Iraqis as not worthy of consideration as human beings. As far as they are concerned, it is simple tough luck for those Iraqis unfortunate enough to cross the paths of private American contractors who seem to have the run of the country.
And yet we told of the US determination to bring democracy and respect for human dignity and rights to Iraq. We wonder who many Iraqis would be left to enjoy democracy and respect for human dignity and rights by the time the US finishes whatever it intends to accomplish in the post-war country.
Part and parcel of a pattern
THE PRACTICE of American "security" contractors to follow their own law and open fire at "suspects" anywhere in Iraq has only been underlined with the Iraqi government order on Monday of the cancellation of US security firm Blackwater's operating licence.
The practice has to be seen in the same context as the torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at US detention facilities — as exposed by the Abu Ghraib revelations — and the many cases where US soldiers opened fire at unarmed Iraqi civilians and covered up the atrocity by filing false reports. The central vein that runs through this pattern of behaviour is the reality that the higher echelons of power have condoned such practices. Whatever action has been taken by the US military against some of the soldiers involved in such incidents was prompted by the hue and cry created by the media and human rights groups. Indeed, the exposed cases represent only a small part of the actual incidents. We could expect to hear of more cases in the days ahead from US soldiers who have returned home crippled from or traumatised by the brutal actions they witnessed in Iraq.
In the Blackwater cases, the company's guards, who provide personal security for US civilian officials working in Iraq, opened fire on a crowd in Baghdad's Al Yarmukh neighbourhood, killing at least eight people and wounded 13. The guards were part of what was described as a US diplomatic convoy. The US embassy explained that the shooting happened when the private security guards "reacted to a car bomb."
It said "the car-bomb was in proximity to where State Department personnel were meeting. This is the reason Blackwater responded to that."
We have yet to hear an Iraqi government confirmation that there was indeed a car bomb in the area at the time of the killings. In the meantime, the embassy is going out of its way to defend Blackwater and protect its interests. According to an embassy spokesman, there is no confirmation of the cancellation of Blackwater's licence and the diplomatic mission is "continuing to discuss with the Iraqi government." No doubt, the discussion aims at allowing Blackwater to continue whatever it was doing in Iraq.
In simpler terms, the US military and political establishment prosecuting the war in Iraq consider Iraqis as not worthy of consideration as human beings. As far as they are concerned, it is simple tough luck for those Iraqis unfortunate enough to cross the paths of private American contractors who seem to have the run of the country.
And yet we told of the US determination to bring democracy and respect for human dignity and rights to Iraq. We wonder who many Iraqis would be left to enjoy democracy and respect for human dignity and rights by the time the US finishes whatever it intends to accomplish in the post-war country.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Real difference is between the lines
Sept.16, 2007
The real difference is between the lines
THE refusal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree on binding principles that would guide peace negotiations with the Palestinians is an emphatic pointer to his mindset against meeting the minimum requirements for a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Olmert is ready only to adopt a joint statement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the US-proposed conference on the Middle East expected to be held in Washington in November.
The Palestinians have had enough and more experience with Israeli declarations and contradictory actions. They saw it happening after the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel signed the "interim" Oslo agreement in 1993 after secret negotiations. The agreement put off any discussion on the core issues of the conflict until "final status" talks in 1998. Indeed, some progress was made under the Oslo agrements, but the scenario changed dramatically when the key architect of the accord, the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in late 1995. However, the key issues remained unaddressed, and whatever progress was made until then was reversed by the Israeli governments which succeeded the Rabin cabinet.
It is clear why Olmert is not ready to agree on principles. He knows too well that he would never be able to agree to the basic demands of the Palestinians, which include: creation of an independent Palestinian state with clearly defined borders and Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to return to their homeland or receive compensation in lieu of their lost property.
Any agreement on principles with Abbas would bind Olmert to these prerequisites for peace and would in fact ease the negotiating process since the objectives are clear. However, Olmert is not ready to undertake any commitment, and indications are strong that he sees the opportunity for peace only as a window to escape from his political troubles that should otherwise have no bearing whatsoever on making peace with the Palestinians.
As Olmert reportedly told a meeting of his Kadima party, "there is a difference between an agreement on principles and a declaration of intent." That might indeed be true, but it would apepar that there is little difference between his mindset and that of some of his "hard-line" predecessors and colleagues.
Obviously, it follows then that Olmert is trying to borrow a leaf from one of his Likud predecessors, Yitzhak Shamir, who took Israel to the famous 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid professing good faith and declared later that all he intended to do was to "continue negotiating with the Palestinians for the next 10 years while giving them nothing."
The real difference is between the lines
THE refusal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree on binding principles that would guide peace negotiations with the Palestinians is an emphatic pointer to his mindset against meeting the minimum requirements for a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Olmert is ready only to adopt a joint statement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the US-proposed conference on the Middle East expected to be held in Washington in November.
The Palestinians have had enough and more experience with Israeli declarations and contradictory actions. They saw it happening after the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel signed the "interim" Oslo agreement in 1993 after secret negotiations. The agreement put off any discussion on the core issues of the conflict until "final status" talks in 1998. Indeed, some progress was made under the Oslo agrements, but the scenario changed dramatically when the key architect of the accord, the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in late 1995. However, the key issues remained unaddressed, and whatever progress was made until then was reversed by the Israeli governments which succeeded the Rabin cabinet.
It is clear why Olmert is not ready to agree on principles. He knows too well that he would never be able to agree to the basic demands of the Palestinians, which include: creation of an independent Palestinian state with clearly defined borders and Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to return to their homeland or receive compensation in lieu of their lost property.
Any agreement on principles with Abbas would bind Olmert to these prerequisites for peace and would in fact ease the negotiating process since the objectives are clear. However, Olmert is not ready to undertake any commitment, and indications are strong that he sees the opportunity for peace only as a window to escape from his political troubles that should otherwise have no bearing whatsoever on making peace with the Palestinians.
As Olmert reportedly told a meeting of his Kadima party, "there is a difference between an agreement on principles and a declaration of intent." That might indeed be true, but it would apepar that there is little difference between his mindset and that of some of his "hard-line" predecessors and colleagues.
Obviously, it follows then that Olmert is trying to borrow a leaf from one of his Likud predecessors, Yitzhak Shamir, who took Israel to the famous 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid professing good faith and declared later that all he intended to do was to "continue negotiating with the Palestinians for the next 10 years while giving them nothing."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
Sept.13, 2007
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
MANY around the world and within the US itself were jubilant when the Democrats put up a strong showing in last year's mid-term elections and gained control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Many expected the Democrats to swiftly move ahead and have in place a legislative order for US military withdrawal from Iraq. However, the rule of the game of numbers in the US Congress did not allow that to happen. The Democrats could make a lot of noise and level high-decibel criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, but they could achieve little on the ground.
They are not even near the majority in Senate that they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is getting ahead on its prescripted course. President George Bush was poised to announce his endorsement of the recommendations made this week by General David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce US troop levels by some 30,000 — or only about 20 per cent — by August next year. That is a cosmetic move since the recall of 30,000 would still leave some 135,000 US soldiers and marines in place – about the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated in February. Again it is a game of numbers of sorts.
It is clear that the recall is designed to appease some of the Republican critics of the war who are growing more uneasy about the high number of soldiers present in Iraq. Under current regulations which limit to 15 months tours of duty in combat zones, 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and Petraeus is disguising their recall as a move prompted by the "success" of the surge.
There is little doubt that any substantial reduction of troops is unlikely while Bush bows out of the White House in January 2009.
Effectively, there is little the Democrats could do to end the war in Iraq or change the course of the US conduct there unless they get enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
There are 50 Democrats in the Senate, and they might be able to muster another 10 votes from Republicans who are disgruntled with the war and the way the Bush administration has taken the US towards disaster. But that is not enough to make any real difference.
This means that Bush's successor, who is most likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, given the current administration's disastrous governance of the country, would inherit the mission of extricating the US from its bloodiest and most costly overseas misadventure since its involvement in Vietnam. But the mission would not be taken up because US strategic interests are stake in the Middle East regardless of who occupies the White House, and the game in Washington would continue with players in reversed roles with unchanged rules.
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
MANY around the world and within the US itself were jubilant when the Democrats put up a strong showing in last year's mid-term elections and gained control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Many expected the Democrats to swiftly move ahead and have in place a legislative order for US military withdrawal from Iraq. However, the rule of the game of numbers in the US Congress did not allow that to happen. The Democrats could make a lot of noise and level high-decibel criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, but they could achieve little on the ground.
They are not even near the majority in Senate that they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is getting ahead on its prescripted course. President George Bush was poised to announce his endorsement of the recommendations made this week by General David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce US troop levels by some 30,000 — or only about 20 per cent — by August next year. That is a cosmetic move since the recall of 30,000 would still leave some 135,000 US soldiers and marines in place – about the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated in February. Again it is a game of numbers of sorts.
It is clear that the recall is designed to appease some of the Republican critics of the war who are growing more uneasy about the high number of soldiers present in Iraq. Under current regulations which limit to 15 months tours of duty in combat zones, 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and Petraeus is disguising their recall as a move prompted by the "success" of the surge.
There is little doubt that any substantial reduction of troops is unlikely while Bush bows out of the White House in January 2009.
Effectively, there is little the Democrats could do to end the war in Iraq or change the course of the US conduct there unless they get enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
There are 50 Democrats in the Senate, and they might be able to muster another 10 votes from Republicans who are disgruntled with the war and the way the Bush administration has taken the US towards disaster. But that is not enough to make any real difference.
This means that Bush's successor, who is most likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, given the current administration's disastrous governance of the country, would inherit the mission of extricating the US from its bloodiest and most costly overseas misadventure since its involvement in Vietnam. But the mission would not be taken up because US strategic interests are stake in the Middle East regardless of who occupies the White House, and the game in Washington would continue with players in reversed roles with unchanged rules.
Monday, September 10, 2007
No lapse at the expense of people
Sept.19, 2007
No lapse at the expense of people
THE LATEST player to assume a high-profile role in the UN efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's western Darfur region is China. The Beijing government has called for restraint on all sides to check the violence in Darfur and also offered to use its good offices towards finding a mediated solution to the crisis.
There has indeed been an increasing Western concern over China's growing profile in Africa, and Beijing faces allegations that it is turning a blind eye to bloodshed not only in the Sudanese region but also elsewhere in Africa out of economic self-interest.
China's envoy on Darfur, Liu Guijin, is now working on "correcting" what he describes as misconceptions about his country's relations with Sudan. He explains that Beijing's relations with Khartoum "are no more special than" its relations with other developing nations.
China, which is contributing a military unit to the UN peacekeeping force in southern Sudan, is also sending a 400-strong medical and engineering contingent to prepare for the deployment of the UN-proposed hybrid force of African and UN soldiers in Darfur. Earlier, China, the biggest buyer of Sudan's oil output, was influential in convincing the Sudanese government to accept the planned deployment of the hybrid force.
Beyond that, Liu on Tuesday also offered to involve his country in a "positive and active" manner in Darfur peace talks, including mediating between between the Khartoum government and rebel groups.
It would definitely seem that China is determined to do away with any ground for charges that it is abetting bloodshed in Darfur by maintaining big investments in Sudanese oil, selling Khartoum arms that end up in Darfur, and fending off stronger UN Security Council resolutions.
It is indeed a positive development and should be much helpful to the international community's efforts to solve the Darfur crisis, particularly in view of the latest UN report which highlighted that violence is on the increase in the troubled region.
The Sudanese government has its own concerns. So do the rebel groups, and it is the voice of the people of Darfur that get drowned in the bargain. And it is the people of Darfur who are paying the real price for whatever interests are play in their region.
The focus of all efforts is now on the upcoming Darfur peace talks in Libya. Hopefully, the key players would take advantage of the emerging Chinese willingness to contribute to the effort to put an end to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Darfur. Of course, external political and economic interests would have to play their role in the effort, but it should be at the minimum level and at no point should there be any lapse in the international approach at the expense of the people of Darfur.
No lapse at the expense of people
THE LATEST player to assume a high-profile role in the UN efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's western Darfur region is China. The Beijing government has called for restraint on all sides to check the violence in Darfur and also offered to use its good offices towards finding a mediated solution to the crisis.
There has indeed been an increasing Western concern over China's growing profile in Africa, and Beijing faces allegations that it is turning a blind eye to bloodshed not only in the Sudanese region but also elsewhere in Africa out of economic self-interest.
China's envoy on Darfur, Liu Guijin, is now working on "correcting" what he describes as misconceptions about his country's relations with Sudan. He explains that Beijing's relations with Khartoum "are no more special than" its relations with other developing nations.
China, which is contributing a military unit to the UN peacekeeping force in southern Sudan, is also sending a 400-strong medical and engineering contingent to prepare for the deployment of the UN-proposed hybrid force of African and UN soldiers in Darfur. Earlier, China, the biggest buyer of Sudan's oil output, was influential in convincing the Sudanese government to accept the planned deployment of the hybrid force.
Beyond that, Liu on Tuesday also offered to involve his country in a "positive and active" manner in Darfur peace talks, including mediating between between the Khartoum government and rebel groups.
It would definitely seem that China is determined to do away with any ground for charges that it is abetting bloodshed in Darfur by maintaining big investments in Sudanese oil, selling Khartoum arms that end up in Darfur, and fending off stronger UN Security Council resolutions.
It is indeed a positive development and should be much helpful to the international community's efforts to solve the Darfur crisis, particularly in view of the latest UN report which highlighted that violence is on the increase in the troubled region.
The Sudanese government has its own concerns. So do the rebel groups, and it is the voice of the people of Darfur that get drowned in the bargain. And it is the people of Darfur who are paying the real price for whatever interests are play in their region.
The focus of all efforts is now on the upcoming Darfur peace talks in Libya. Hopefully, the key players would take advantage of the emerging Chinese willingness to contribute to the effort to put an end to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Darfur. Of course, external political and economic interests would have to play their role in the effort, but it should be at the minimum level and at no point should there be any lapse in the international approach at the expense of the people of Darfur.
Trial run to regional chaos
Sept.10, 2007
Trial run to regional chaos
IT WOULD appear that the Israelis were running yet another rehearsal for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities as reports indicate an increasing clamour in Washington and Israeli circles for military action in the escalating tension with Tehran.
That is what is indicated by the presence of Israeli aviation fuel tanks that were apparently dropped in Turkey near the Turkish-Syrian border last week.
Obviously, Israel is planning a repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear plant, which it suspected of being building site for nuclear weapons. It is also known that Israel has acquired the long-range capability to strike at some of Iran's nuclear facilities, including those located underground. The Israeli air force is now equipped with refuelling planes for such missions and also "bunker-buster" bombs that could successfully target underground facilities protected by concrete layers.
Syria has reported that its air defences opened fire against Israeli aircraft which violated its airspace on Thursday. Israel has kept a pointed silence on the incident and some Israeli officials have used the opportunity to accuse Syria of seeking a war with the Jewish state and of sponsoring "terrorism." They also claim that Syria could never be expected to seek peace with Israel.
Well, the whole episode is deceitful, to say the least. Syria has clearly indicated that it is seeking peace with Israel, but not on terms set by the Jewish state. Israeli leaders might not want to acknowledge the reality, but that posture does not do away with the world's understanding of the Syrian position.
It is almost certain that Israel is planning military action against Iran, and Tehran has vowed that it would hold the US responsible for any strikes against its nuclear or other facilities regardless of who actually carries out the attack — in short a perfect recipe for worsening the instability in the region resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing crisis in the chaotic country.
The truth that Israeli aircraft were in Syrian space as part of a trial run for action against Iran also explains why the US has opted not to make any comment.
Something needs to be done and done fast. The situation threatens to send the regional situation spinning out of control and it is a prospect no one in the region or beyond wants, except of course Israel, whose leaders seem to have convinced themselves that their country would be able to ride out the repercussions of its actions.
The only party which could probably restrain Israel is the US, but it is Washington which supplied and equipped the Jewish state with the advanced weapons, equipment and technology for long-range military action. And it is also known that no US administration could ever restrain Israel when the Jewish state is determined and has made up its to do something.
Where does that leave the region? We could only hope that sensible minds would prevail in Washington in order to apply pressure of a level that is warranted in order to restrain Israel from pursuing its disasterous designs.
Trial run to regional chaos
IT WOULD appear that the Israelis were running yet another rehearsal for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities as reports indicate an increasing clamour in Washington and Israeli circles for military action in the escalating tension with Tehran.
That is what is indicated by the presence of Israeli aviation fuel tanks that were apparently dropped in Turkey near the Turkish-Syrian border last week.
Obviously, Israel is planning a repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear plant, which it suspected of being building site for nuclear weapons. It is also known that Israel has acquired the long-range capability to strike at some of Iran's nuclear facilities, including those located underground. The Israeli air force is now equipped with refuelling planes for such missions and also "bunker-buster" bombs that could successfully target underground facilities protected by concrete layers.
Syria has reported that its air defences opened fire against Israeli aircraft which violated its airspace on Thursday. Israel has kept a pointed silence on the incident and some Israeli officials have used the opportunity to accuse Syria of seeking a war with the Jewish state and of sponsoring "terrorism." They also claim that Syria could never be expected to seek peace with Israel.
Well, the whole episode is deceitful, to say the least. Syria has clearly indicated that it is seeking peace with Israel, but not on terms set by the Jewish state. Israeli leaders might not want to acknowledge the reality, but that posture does not do away with the world's understanding of the Syrian position.
It is almost certain that Israel is planning military action against Iran, and Tehran has vowed that it would hold the US responsible for any strikes against its nuclear or other facilities regardless of who actually carries out the attack — in short a perfect recipe for worsening the instability in the region resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing crisis in the chaotic country.
The truth that Israeli aircraft were in Syrian space as part of a trial run for action against Iran also explains why the US has opted not to make any comment.
Something needs to be done and done fast. The situation threatens to send the regional situation spinning out of control and it is a prospect no one in the region or beyond wants, except of course Israel, whose leaders seem to have convinced themselves that their country would be able to ride out the repercussions of its actions.
The only party which could probably restrain Israel is the US, but it is Washington which supplied and equipped the Jewish state with the advanced weapons, equipment and technology for long-range military action. And it is also known that no US administration could ever restrain Israel when the Jewish state is determined and has made up its to do something.
Where does that leave the region? We could only hope that sensible minds would prevail in Washington in order to apply pressure of a level that is warranted in order to restrain Israel from pursuing its disasterous designs.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Helpless in Sudan
Sept.9, 2007
Helpless in Sudan
HOPES of peace attached to the agreement signed in May between the Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur area are fading fast. The Khartoum government, which has been standing steadfast that it would not accept the proposed deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur, has boosted the ante by giving African Union troops a one-week ultimatum to accept a deal that would block the UN proposal or leave Sudan.
The ultimatum is mostly seen as an advance warning of Khartoum's options in its fight against the proposal to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur. Sudanese officials have since scaled down the talk, saying the African Union troops could stay within their mandate as long as they do not become part of the UN peacekeeping effort.
The Khartoum government has also intensified an offensive in Darfur against groups that did not sign the May peace agreement. Relief agencies and international watchdogs are reporting an increase in armed attacks in what is widely seen as an effort to finish off the rebellion in Darfur. They report increasing bombing raids on villages and ground attacks in order to clear the way for government forces to drive back rebels. Tens of thousands of civilians have been turned into refugees, further exacerbating the crisis, which has already seen upto two million, according to some reports, being displaced. The number of death is put at between 250,000 and 450,000 in the three-year conflict.
The world agrees that the only way out is deployment of a neutral force under UN auspices that would keep away the antagonists from each other while the political process would continue with the goal of working out a firm and permanent solution to the conflict, which effectively pits the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum with largely African tribes in the western region.
One of the main reasons for Khartoum's rejection of a UN force in Darfur is said to be apprehension that it would pave the way for detention and trial of military commanders and pro-Khartoum militiamen on charges of genocide.
Indeed, people responsible for crimes against humanity should face justice. That is a point well taken by the US-led camp that is pushing for deployment of a UN force in Darfur. However, the thrust is deflected when the same US pointedly keeps a blind eye to similar situations elsewhere in the world, particularly the Middle East where not only Israeli military officers and their agents but also Israeli politicians should be held responsible and tried on similar charges. Amnesty International, the same group which is pushing for a UN force to be sent to Darfur, has clearly stated that Israeli military commanders and those who ordered them into the recent 34-day blitz against Lebanon should be charged with war crimes. While opting to accept the Amnesty position on Darfur and ignoring the group's stand on Israel and Lebanon, the US is only reaffirming its biased policies.
In the meantime, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is worsening. The 7,000 African Union troops' role is limited to providing protection for food delivery and other relief work and not using force to prevent armed clashes. Government forces are also accused of cracking down on students and activists who have been staging rallies in support of the proposed UN peacekeeping effort.
The world is left as a bystander unable to do anything to influence the course of events that is in favour of the Khartoum government. Experts familiar with the situation say the government would gain the upper hand in the fight in Darfur and turn to consolidating and implementing the May peace agreement. As such, the only international option seems to be to wait until the situation clears itself. Let us only hope that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur would not get beyond the point of no return by then.
Helpless in Sudan
HOPES of peace attached to the agreement signed in May between the Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur area are fading fast. The Khartoum government, which has been standing steadfast that it would not accept the proposed deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur, has boosted the ante by giving African Union troops a one-week ultimatum to accept a deal that would block the UN proposal or leave Sudan.
The ultimatum is mostly seen as an advance warning of Khartoum's options in its fight against the proposal to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur. Sudanese officials have since scaled down the talk, saying the African Union troops could stay within their mandate as long as they do not become part of the UN peacekeeping effort.
The Khartoum government has also intensified an offensive in Darfur against groups that did not sign the May peace agreement. Relief agencies and international watchdogs are reporting an increase in armed attacks in what is widely seen as an effort to finish off the rebellion in Darfur. They report increasing bombing raids on villages and ground attacks in order to clear the way for government forces to drive back rebels. Tens of thousands of civilians have been turned into refugees, further exacerbating the crisis, which has already seen upto two million, according to some reports, being displaced. The number of death is put at between 250,000 and 450,000 in the three-year conflict.
The world agrees that the only way out is deployment of a neutral force under UN auspices that would keep away the antagonists from each other while the political process would continue with the goal of working out a firm and permanent solution to the conflict, which effectively pits the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum with largely African tribes in the western region.
One of the main reasons for Khartoum's rejection of a UN force in Darfur is said to be apprehension that it would pave the way for detention and trial of military commanders and pro-Khartoum militiamen on charges of genocide.
Indeed, people responsible for crimes against humanity should face justice. That is a point well taken by the US-led camp that is pushing for deployment of a UN force in Darfur. However, the thrust is deflected when the same US pointedly keeps a blind eye to similar situations elsewhere in the world, particularly the Middle East where not only Israeli military officers and their agents but also Israeli politicians should be held responsible and tried on similar charges. Amnesty International, the same group which is pushing for a UN force to be sent to Darfur, has clearly stated that Israeli military commanders and those who ordered them into the recent 34-day blitz against Lebanon should be charged with war crimes. While opting to accept the Amnesty position on Darfur and ignoring the group's stand on Israel and Lebanon, the US is only reaffirming its biased policies.
In the meantime, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is worsening. The 7,000 African Union troops' role is limited to providing protection for food delivery and other relief work and not using force to prevent armed clashes. Government forces are also accused of cracking down on students and activists who have been staging rallies in support of the proposed UN peacekeeping effort.
The world is left as a bystander unable to do anything to influence the course of events that is in favour of the Khartoum government. Experts familiar with the situation say the government would gain the upper hand in the fight in Darfur and turn to consolidating and implementing the May peace agreement. As such, the only international option seems to be to wait until the situation clears itself. Let us only hope that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur would not get beyond the point of no return by then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}