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.
Friday, November 30, 2007
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.
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?
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?
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.
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."
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."
Sunday, November 18, 2007
World deserves an explanation
Nov.18, 2007
World deserves an explanation
MORE than six years after the Sept.11 attacks in the US, the National Institute for Standards and Technology has admitted that the total free-fall collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers in New York cannot be explained. The admission, which came after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledged that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
The NIST was forced to make the admission in a letter to representatives of victims of the New York air assault. The letter states that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
While a 10,000-page study presents numerous theories about the collapse, it does not provide any clue to how such a strong and reinforced steel structures of the two towers could fall through as if a knife cutting through butter.
The report does not offer any explanation the sudden freefall collapse of a third structure, World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft but collapsed several hours after two airliners rammed into the two World Trade Center towers.
One of the most important findings of the NIST study is that virtually none of the steel in either of the two WTC towers reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees whereas steel starts to weaken at 1,000 degrees and melts at 1,500 degrees.
There are many other technicalities raised in the report, but the net but implicit conclusion that one gets from it is that the collapse of the towers could have come only through explosives of a self-contained scale and nature placed within the structure.
With so many confusing and complex theories still floating as to who, how and why the air assaults, many are likely to brush aside the NIST finding as yet another supposition despite the scentific evidence that rules out the argument that the steel structure simply melted in the blaze caused by aviation fuel and the towers collapsed.
The concerned authorities in the US might not feel compelled to offer any explanation or might even want to avoid offering any at all. After all, they represent the executive authority of the United States of America and the collapse happened in the territory of the USA.
However, given that the Sept.11 attacks triggered an unprecedented course of events which touched the life of everyone on this planet, directly or indirectly, the international community could not but be involved. The US declared a war against terror in the wake of the attacks and the world could not but join the US camp, given the ferocity of the attacks that killed about 2,800 people, the natural sympathy with the victims and a desire to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. The world could not but recognise that the US did have a cause and hence it put up with revelations after revelations of how the sole superpower went after everyone with a vengeance that violated human rights and every known provision in the international code of conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places.
Today, in light of the findings of the NIST that contradict some of the basic premises about the Sept.11 attacks and suggest that internal forces were at work on the ground to complement the assaults from air, the international community has the right to know what really happened. It is unlikely that this right would be acknowledged and respected, but let it go on international record that the world has not swallowed the official version of the Sept.11 attacks that changed the course of world history.
World deserves an explanation
MORE than six years after the Sept.11 attacks in the US, the National Institute for Standards and Technology has admitted that the total free-fall collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers in New York cannot be explained. The admission, which came after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledged that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
The NIST was forced to make the admission in a letter to representatives of victims of the New York air assault. The letter states that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
While a 10,000-page study presents numerous theories about the collapse, it does not provide any clue to how such a strong and reinforced steel structures of the two towers could fall through as if a knife cutting through butter.
The report does not offer any explanation the sudden freefall collapse of a third structure, World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft but collapsed several hours after two airliners rammed into the two World Trade Center towers.
One of the most important findings of the NIST study is that virtually none of the steel in either of the two WTC towers reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees whereas steel starts to weaken at 1,000 degrees and melts at 1,500 degrees.
There are many other technicalities raised in the report, but the net but implicit conclusion that one gets from it is that the collapse of the towers could have come only through explosives of a self-contained scale and nature placed within the structure.
With so many confusing and complex theories still floating as to who, how and why the air assaults, many are likely to brush aside the NIST finding as yet another supposition despite the scentific evidence that rules out the argument that the steel structure simply melted in the blaze caused by aviation fuel and the towers collapsed.
The concerned authorities in the US might not feel compelled to offer any explanation or might even want to avoid offering any at all. After all, they represent the executive authority of the United States of America and the collapse happened in the territory of the USA.
However, given that the Sept.11 attacks triggered an unprecedented course of events which touched the life of everyone on this planet, directly or indirectly, the international community could not but be involved. The US declared a war against terror in the wake of the attacks and the world could not but join the US camp, given the ferocity of the attacks that killed about 2,800 people, the natural sympathy with the victims and a desire to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. The world could not but recognise that the US did have a cause and hence it put up with revelations after revelations of how the sole superpower went after everyone with a vengeance that violated human rights and every known provision in the international code of conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places.
Today, in light of the findings of the NIST that contradict some of the basic premises about the Sept.11 attacks and suggest that internal forces were at work on the ground to complement the assaults from air, the international community has the right to know what really happened. It is unlikely that this right would be acknowledged and respected, but let it go on international record that the world has not swallowed the official version of the Sept.11 attacks that changed the course of world history.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Bottom lines are clear
Nov.17, 2007
The bottom lines are clear
It is no susprise that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has voiced pessimism about the planned US-sponsored Middle East conference. It is a feeling of many around the world since Israel has not done the minimum it could do to ensure the success of the gathering, which is widely seen as a make-or-break point in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
The Israeli leadership has only talked about their commitment to making peace. They have not really offered anything tangible that would allow Abbas to assure his people that the fresh effort could produce anything realistic for an end to their suffering under Israel's military occupation of their land.
As recent opinion polls have indicated, a majority of Palestinians support the planned conference as a forum where both Israel and the Palestinians not only declare to the world their serious and honest intention to work out a peace agreement but also the framework for such an accord. This should indeed be based on Israel's recognition and acceptance of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians as the basis for peace in Palestine. The Jewish state also has to agree on a timeframe and a deadline for an agreement. The Palestinians and indeed the world have had the experience of seeing Israel loudly proclaiming its seriousness to make peace at the famous 1991 Madrid conference but then do everything in its power to abort a just and fair agreement after a change in its leadership despite that it had signed an interim agreement.
Israel is refusing to make any public commitment on the basis for peace since it believes that it is in a position of strength and therefore it could dictate terms and force the Palestinians to settle far less than their demands in bilateral negotiations. That is one of the key reasons that do not give any reason for the Palestinians to believe that the US-sponsored exercise would be a waste of time.
The stubborn Israeli position is in fact weakening Abbas, who has yet to work out a formula to bring in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, into peacemaking.
Israel and the US should be taking their message from Friday's Hamas-led marc o he deserted Gaza City house of Abbas, warning of stepped-up armed resistance if he makes concessions to Israel at the planned conference. There are many ifs and buts concerning the Hamas stand on peace with Israel, but is clear that the movement would be willing to endorse a peace agreement that does not involve any compromise on the key issues such as Jerusalem and rights of Palestinian refugees.
Again, the onus is on the US, which should step in and put pressure on Israel, obliging it to comply with the terms of reference of the peace process — the internationallyb-backed roadmap, the Arab peace initiative and UN Security Council resolutions. Short of that the Annapolis would accomplish little.
The bottom lines are clear
It is no susprise that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has voiced pessimism about the planned US-sponsored Middle East conference. It is a feeling of many around the world since Israel has not done the minimum it could do to ensure the success of the gathering, which is widely seen as a make-or-break point in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
The Israeli leadership has only talked about their commitment to making peace. They have not really offered anything tangible that would allow Abbas to assure his people that the fresh effort could produce anything realistic for an end to their suffering under Israel's military occupation of their land.
As recent opinion polls have indicated, a majority of Palestinians support the planned conference as a forum where both Israel and the Palestinians not only declare to the world their serious and honest intention to work out a peace agreement but also the framework for such an accord. This should indeed be based on Israel's recognition and acceptance of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians as the basis for peace in Palestine. The Jewish state also has to agree on a timeframe and a deadline for an agreement. The Palestinians and indeed the world have had the experience of seeing Israel loudly proclaiming its seriousness to make peace at the famous 1991 Madrid conference but then do everything in its power to abort a just and fair agreement after a change in its leadership despite that it had signed an interim agreement.
Israel is refusing to make any public commitment on the basis for peace since it believes that it is in a position of strength and therefore it could dictate terms and force the Palestinians to settle far less than their demands in bilateral negotiations. That is one of the key reasons that do not give any reason for the Palestinians to believe that the US-sponsored exercise would be a waste of time.
The stubborn Israeli position is in fact weakening Abbas, who has yet to work out a formula to bring in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, into peacemaking.
Israel and the US should be taking their message from Friday's Hamas-led marc o he deserted Gaza City house of Abbas, warning of stepped-up armed resistance if he makes concessions to Israel at the planned conference. There are many ifs and buts concerning the Hamas stand on peace with Israel, but is clear that the movement would be willing to endorse a peace agreement that does not involve any compromise on the key issues such as Jerusalem and rights of Palestinian refugees.
Again, the onus is on the US, which should step in and put pressure on Israel, obliging it to comply with the terms of reference of the peace process — the internationallyb-backed roadmap, the Arab peace initiative and UN Security Council resolutions. Short of that the Annapolis would accomplish little.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Who will blink first?
Nov.16, 2007
Who will blink first in Lebanon?
A LAST-ditch effort is under way to resolve the crisis in Lebanon over who should be the country's next president. The latest to join the effort is UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon after Lebann's powerful Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has been thrust to the forefront of the bitter struggle between pro- and anti-Syrian — or between pro-US and anti-US political camps as some might want to see it.
For long, Sfeir has resisted being drawn into the crisis, but he was persuaded this week by former colonial power France to name presidential candidates. Surely, Sfeir could not remember but his bitter experience of 1988 when he tried to break a similar presidential deadlock by naming five candidates. Syria, the then dominant power in Lebanon, rejected the list. The dispute was eventually settled with a Syrian military assault on the presidential palace two years later.
Indeed, there is no such Syrian compulsion today. Coming under intense US-led pressure Syria has ended its military pressure in the country, and it is high unlikely that Damascus is entertaining any hope of regaining its lost dominance of Lebanon.
However, Syria is very much felt in Lebanese politics; and so do the US and, as such, there is a US compulsion in Lebanon today.
Both Washington and Damascus are accusing each other of interferring in Lebanese affairs but there could be no doubt that the US-Syrian confrontation is linked to the broader crises of the Middle East — the conflict between the Arabs and Israel, a "strategic ally" of the US and the brewing conflict between the US and Iran.
It is into this minefield that Sfeir has been forced to enter. A heavy responsibility that is beyond his call as a religious leader has been thrust onto his shoulders, with the church finding itself in the middle of a dangerous political conflict.
Indeed, it was a relatively better option for France to have thought of the Maronie Patriarchate as the last resort to settle the presidential feud among the country's Christians. However, the fact that the church had to be called in to solve the problem — with no certainty that it would be successful — shows the depth of the political problem.
Neither the US nor Syria would give up their respective positions. As far as Syria and its allies in Lebanon are concerned, the presidential tug-of-war would determine how far Damascus could influence Lebanese politics without maintaining a military presence i Lebanon.
As far as the US and the groups it supports are concerned, it is a matter of establishing that Syria does no longer command any influence of significance in Lebanon, and Israel is playing its own game from the sidelines.
With the Nov.24 presidential deadline fast approaching, all bets are off in Lebanon because the powers that are pulling the strings are very powerful and detemined.
At the same time, it could also turn out to be a question of who will blink first because the stakes are too high and consequences of the crisis left unresolved would be too negative.
Who will blink first in Lebanon?
A LAST-ditch effort is under way to resolve the crisis in Lebanon over who should be the country's next president. The latest to join the effort is UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon after Lebann's powerful Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has been thrust to the forefront of the bitter struggle between pro- and anti-Syrian — or between pro-US and anti-US political camps as some might want to see it.
For long, Sfeir has resisted being drawn into the crisis, but he was persuaded this week by former colonial power France to name presidential candidates. Surely, Sfeir could not remember but his bitter experience of 1988 when he tried to break a similar presidential deadlock by naming five candidates. Syria, the then dominant power in Lebanon, rejected the list. The dispute was eventually settled with a Syrian military assault on the presidential palace two years later.
Indeed, there is no such Syrian compulsion today. Coming under intense US-led pressure Syria has ended its military pressure in the country, and it is high unlikely that Damascus is entertaining any hope of regaining its lost dominance of Lebanon.
However, Syria is very much felt in Lebanese politics; and so do the US and, as such, there is a US compulsion in Lebanon today.
Both Washington and Damascus are accusing each other of interferring in Lebanese affairs but there could be no doubt that the US-Syrian confrontation is linked to the broader crises of the Middle East — the conflict between the Arabs and Israel, a "strategic ally" of the US and the brewing conflict between the US and Iran.
It is into this minefield that Sfeir has been forced to enter. A heavy responsibility that is beyond his call as a religious leader has been thrust onto his shoulders, with the church finding itself in the middle of a dangerous political conflict.
Indeed, it was a relatively better option for France to have thought of the Maronie Patriarchate as the last resort to settle the presidential feud among the country's Christians. However, the fact that the church had to be called in to solve the problem — with no certainty that it would be successful — shows the depth of the political problem.
Neither the US nor Syria would give up their respective positions. As far as Syria and its allies in Lebanon are concerned, the presidential tug-of-war would determine how far Damascus could influence Lebanese politics without maintaining a military presence i Lebanon.
As far as the US and the groups it supports are concerned, it is a matter of establishing that Syria does no longer command any influence of significance in Lebanon, and Israel is playing its own game from the sidelines.
With the Nov.24 presidential deadline fast approaching, all bets are off in Lebanon because the powers that are pulling the strings are very powerful and detemined.
At the same time, it could also turn out to be a question of who will blink first because the stakes are too high and consequences of the crisis left unresolved would be too negative.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Pakistan - something has to give
THE BATTLELINES in Pakistan have become clear, with detained former premier Benazir Bhutto trying to forge a coalition of opposition parties in an apparent bid to isolate President Pervez Musharraf ahead of elections. Bhutto has demanded that Musharraf to step down as president and ruled out serving as prime minister under the general.
She has also said that she is ready for an alliance with another ex-prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, held telephone talks with former cricket star Imran Khan and agreed with a key Islamist to launch a "joint struggle" against Musharraf.
Musharraf's response is also clear: He intends to pursue his own course in the country and is in no mood to make compromises. He has promised to hold elections but would not lift the state of emergency until then.
However, international pressure is building against him for imposing the state of emergency, suspending the constitution, dismissing most judges, detaining thousands of opposition and rights activists and lawyers and imposing sweeping curbs against the media.
It is clear that Musharraf is determined to stay the course. One of the reasons that might be behind his apparent one-track mind could be the realisation that giving up power and authority would expose him to being held responsible for what the current opposition could perceive and describe actions against the interests of the people. As such, he possibly fears that he faces a bleak future in Pakistan if without power and authority..
Musharraf signalled his determination yet again on Tuesday when he, acting through the foreign ministry, rejected a Commonwealth deadline to end emergency rule in 10 days or face suspension from the group.
Surely, Musharraf should be feeling the heat. He could indeed opt out if he lives up to his pledge that he would step down as army chief and be sworn in as a civilian president as soon as the Supreme Court, where new judges seen as friendly to the government have been appointed, ruled on challenges to his Oct.6 election as president.
It is definitely a stalemate in Pakistan, with neither side willing for compromise as Bhutto emphasised on Tuesday when she ruled out political co-existence with Musharraf.
"Negotiations between us have broken down over the massive use of police force against women and children," Bhutto declared. "There's no question now of getting this back on track because anyone who is associated with General Musharraf gets contaminated," she said.
However, it is no longer a simple political game. The crisis has raised serious international concern about the stability of Pakistan and its ability to sustain its fight against a growing militancy that has its roots in the socio-economic system of the country as much as in the crisis in neighbouring Afghanistan.
Something has to give, and the world wonders what would give and when.
She has also said that she is ready for an alliance with another ex-prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, held telephone talks with former cricket star Imran Khan and agreed with a key Islamist to launch a "joint struggle" against Musharraf.
Musharraf's response is also clear: He intends to pursue his own course in the country and is in no mood to make compromises. He has promised to hold elections but would not lift the state of emergency until then.
However, international pressure is building against him for imposing the state of emergency, suspending the constitution, dismissing most judges, detaining thousands of opposition and rights activists and lawyers and imposing sweeping curbs against the media.
It is clear that Musharraf is determined to stay the course. One of the reasons that might be behind his apparent one-track mind could be the realisation that giving up power and authority would expose him to being held responsible for what the current opposition could perceive and describe actions against the interests of the people. As such, he possibly fears that he faces a bleak future in Pakistan if without power and authority..
Musharraf signalled his determination yet again on Tuesday when he, acting through the foreign ministry, rejected a Commonwealth deadline to end emergency rule in 10 days or face suspension from the group.
Surely, Musharraf should be feeling the heat. He could indeed opt out if he lives up to his pledge that he would step down as army chief and be sworn in as a civilian president as soon as the Supreme Court, where new judges seen as friendly to the government have been appointed, ruled on challenges to his Oct.6 election as president.
It is definitely a stalemate in Pakistan, with neither side willing for compromise as Bhutto emphasised on Tuesday when she ruled out political co-existence with Musharraf.
"Negotiations between us have broken down over the massive use of police force against women and children," Bhutto declared. "There's no question now of getting this back on track because anyone who is associated with General Musharraf gets contaminated," she said.
However, it is no longer a simple political game. The crisis has raised serious international concern about the stability of Pakistan and its ability to sustain its fight against a growing militancy that has its roots in the socio-economic system of the country as much as in the crisis in neighbouring Afghanistan.
Something has to give, and the world wonders what would give and when.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Scratching the surface
Nov.13, 2007
Scratching the surface
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has to do more than releasing a few hundred Palestinians from Israeli jails if he is hoping that his move would be considered as a goodwill gesture to the Palestinians ahead of the US-sponsored conference on the Middle East to be held in Annapolis.
Release of Palestinians from Israeli prisons has always been a key Palestinian demand but there are many other manifestations of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank that have made life miserable for the residents of the territory. Olmert has to address them in a realistic manner in order to have any realistic impact for the people who live under Israel's military occupation.
Olmert might have internal political considerations for not making any concrete moves to lift the choking blockade of the West Bank.But that should not be a reason for him not to honour his commitments. Under US pressure, he had agreed during meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would remove most of the roadblocks maintained by the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and also ease restrictions on Palestinian movements within the occupied territories. It is one of the key points that the Palestinians have in mind when they call upon the US to do whatever is necessary to oblige Olmert to live up to his pledges. The Israeli prime minister should have the courage and will to confront his political problems away from linking them with the effort for peace with the Palestinians.
Indeed, Abbas has to be bolstered among his own people to secure popular support for the decisons that he takes durng the expected peace negotiations with Israel."Goodwill" gestures in bits and pieces are not going to have any serious impact on this count.
Take for example the fact that Olmert plans to release only a few hundred Palestinian prisoners from among the 11,000 and plus whereas Abbas has asked that at least 2,000 be freed.
Israel is also continuing frequent military raids of West Bank towns where Palestinians are taken into summary detention. The latest such action came on Monday when Israeli troops arrested nearly 20 Palestinians from West Bank towns, including two Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament.
Indeed, Olmert could argue that Hamas is opposed to peace talks with Israel and therefore the detention of its activists would help Abbas. However, it has to be remembered that Hamas holds the majority of the seats in the Palestinian parliament. The group's popularity might have slipped since then — because of a multitude of reasons — but it remains a strong and powerful force among the Palestinians.
The finding of an opinion poll that while 67.9 per cent of Palestinians support peace negotiations with Israel but 62 per cent expect the Annapolis conference to fail should be an eye-opener to the reality that Olmert could do a lot more to boost the chances of the forum's success before it is convened.
Scratching the surface
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has to do more than releasing a few hundred Palestinians from Israeli jails if he is hoping that his move would be considered as a goodwill gesture to the Palestinians ahead of the US-sponsored conference on the Middle East to be held in Annapolis.
Release of Palestinians from Israeli prisons has always been a key Palestinian demand but there are many other manifestations of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank that have made life miserable for the residents of the territory. Olmert has to address them in a realistic manner in order to have any realistic impact for the people who live under Israel's military occupation.
Olmert might have internal political considerations for not making any concrete moves to lift the choking blockade of the West Bank.But that should not be a reason for him not to honour his commitments. Under US pressure, he had agreed during meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would remove most of the roadblocks maintained by the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and also ease restrictions on Palestinian movements within the occupied territories. It is one of the key points that the Palestinians have in mind when they call upon the US to do whatever is necessary to oblige Olmert to live up to his pledges. The Israeli prime minister should have the courage and will to confront his political problems away from linking them with the effort for peace with the Palestinians.
Indeed, Abbas has to be bolstered among his own people to secure popular support for the decisons that he takes durng the expected peace negotiations with Israel."Goodwill" gestures in bits and pieces are not going to have any serious impact on this count.
Take for example the fact that Olmert plans to release only a few hundred Palestinian prisoners from among the 11,000 and plus whereas Abbas has asked that at least 2,000 be freed.
Israel is also continuing frequent military raids of West Bank towns where Palestinians are taken into summary detention. The latest such action came on Monday when Israeli troops arrested nearly 20 Palestinians from West Bank towns, including two Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament.
Indeed, Olmert could argue that Hamas is opposed to peace talks with Israel and therefore the detention of its activists would help Abbas. However, it has to be remembered that Hamas holds the majority of the seats in the Palestinian parliament. The group's popularity might have slipped since then — because of a multitude of reasons — but it remains a strong and powerful force among the Palestinians.
The finding of an opinion poll that while 67.9 per cent of Palestinians support peace negotiations with Israel but 62 per cent expect the Annapolis conference to fail should be an eye-opener to the reality that Olmert could do a lot more to boost the chances of the forum's success before it is convened.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Coalition of the not-so-willing
Nov.12, 2007
'Coalition of the not-so-willing'
IT is ironic that the US State Department has no option but to order Foreign Service officers to serve in Iraq against their will.
The State Department, which has sent out notifications to some ordering them to go to Iraq, is citing a a shortage of experienced diplomats in Iraq as the reason.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says many Foreign Service employees have volunteered for Iraq in the past four years, and that the media have overstated dissension in the ranks.
But, according to the director general of the Foreign Service, Harry Thomas, "the well of volunteers had finally run dry."
He has announced that, if volunteers could not be found for 48 remaining positions by mid-November, diplomats — under threat of dismissal — would be ordered to serve in Iraq. If carried out, it would be the largest diplomatic call-up since the Vietnam War era.
A more accurate reason for the move would be the unwillingness of many Foreign Service officers to serve in the chaotic country. Apart from considerations of personal security, they realise that government is pursuing a lost cause there and would only get deeper into trouble. They have had a ringside view of how the administration went about orchestrating the deceptive war and how it continues to flout almost every rule in the book on diplomatic conduct. They do not want any part of such a mess because it could lead to the destruction of their diplomatic carrier. As one of the "refuniks" called it, the new policy is tantamount to a "potential death sentence."
But the State Department is not ready to take no for an answer. It
has laid down the rules of the game: Those who have been notified that they have been selected for a one-year tenure in Iraq have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough accept, some will be ordered to go except those who could cite medical conditions or extreme personal hardship. Other face disciplinary action.
There would soon be a clash of wills, and it is most likely that some might resist going to Iraq, but they would have to deal with the tough stand adopted by Rice that "if I need somebody to serve in Iraq, they have to serve there."
When the US launched military action against Iraq, it said it would be carried out by a "coalition of the willing" that included foreign military personnel. Today, if the Bush administration is unable to find not many "willing" in its own ranks, then it could not blame anyone or anything else but its own folly of having taken Iraq and Iraqis for granted and then refusing to accept failure.
'Coalition of the not-so-willing'
IT is ironic that the US State Department has no option but to order Foreign Service officers to serve in Iraq against their will.
The State Department, which has sent out notifications to some ordering them to go to Iraq, is citing a a shortage of experienced diplomats in Iraq as the reason.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says many Foreign Service employees have volunteered for Iraq in the past four years, and that the media have overstated dissension in the ranks.
But, according to the director general of the Foreign Service, Harry Thomas, "the well of volunteers had finally run dry."
He has announced that, if volunteers could not be found for 48 remaining positions by mid-November, diplomats — under threat of dismissal — would be ordered to serve in Iraq. If carried out, it would be the largest diplomatic call-up since the Vietnam War era.
A more accurate reason for the move would be the unwillingness of many Foreign Service officers to serve in the chaotic country. Apart from considerations of personal security, they realise that government is pursuing a lost cause there and would only get deeper into trouble. They have had a ringside view of how the administration went about orchestrating the deceptive war and how it continues to flout almost every rule in the book on diplomatic conduct. They do not want any part of such a mess because it could lead to the destruction of their diplomatic carrier. As one of the "refuniks" called it, the new policy is tantamount to a "potential death sentence."
But the State Department is not ready to take no for an answer. It
has laid down the rules of the game: Those who have been notified that they have been selected for a one-year tenure in Iraq have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough accept, some will be ordered to go except those who could cite medical conditions or extreme personal hardship. Other face disciplinary action.
There would soon be a clash of wills, and it is most likely that some might resist going to Iraq, but they would have to deal with the tough stand adopted by Rice that "if I need somebody to serve in Iraq, they have to serve there."
When the US launched military action against Iraq, it said it would be carried out by a "coalition of the willing" that included foreign military personnel. Today, if the Bush administration is unable to find not many "willing" in its own ranks, then it could not blame anyone or anything else but its own folly of having taken Iraq and Iraqis for granted and then refusing to accept failure.
Call that needs to be heard
Nov.12, 2007
Call that needs to be heard
THE announcement by Hamas leader and former prime minister Ismail Haniyeh that Hamas would hold reconciliation talks with Fatah led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and hint that it might be ready to cede control of the Gaza Strip is the first sign of a thawing of the line purused by the group.
It is surprising that the announcement, which was made on in an urgent bulletin posted on a pro-Hamas Web site, was rejected by a senior Abbas aide. Obviously, there are behind-the-scene elements at play.
In any event, the most important aspect of Haniyeh's statement is that the Hamas "administration of Gaza is temporary." It signals an acceptance of the fact that there could not be two Palestinian entities — one controlled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the other by Fatah in the West Bank, and there needs to be a united Palestinian platform.
It is one of the conditions laid down by Abbas that any dialogue with Hamas is not possible until it submits anew to his authority and gives up Gaza, which it seized in mid-June after clashes with Fatah.
The Hamas statement comes against the backdrop of a flurry of diplomatic activities ahead of the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference, which is expected to be held in November.
Hamas, which refuses to meet the conditions placed by Israel and supported by the West, will not be invited to the conference, which is predicted to be a landmark in efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The group has been calling on Arab countries not to attend the conference.
As far as the Arab World is concerned, the most important factor is that the conference should tackle the core issues of the conflict such as the borders of a Palestinian state and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees. The forum should not be turned into a photo opportunity and allow Israel to advance its agenda of seeking legitimacy in the region without respecting and recognising Arab and Muslim rights.
Hamas's move for dialogue with Fatah is interpreted as the result of pressure the group brought about by international sanctions and an Israeli blockade that have made life difficult in the Gaza Strip. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Hamas would bend to pressure and make compromises on its positions, but it would definitely grab at any chance that would not require it to step back from its doctrines.
That is where the Abbas's statement that a Palestinian state should the West Bank and Gaza must cover the same amount of land as Israel seized in 1967 comes into play.
It would appear that Hamas, which insists on a Palestinian state in all of pre-1948 Palestine, has found a face-saving formula in Abbas's call and wants to work on it towards a compromise. Instead of rejecting the group's move, the other side should also move forward seeking common ground; that is the only realistic way for the peace process to move forward.
Call that needs to be heard
THE announcement by Hamas leader and former prime minister Ismail Haniyeh that Hamas would hold reconciliation talks with Fatah led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and hint that it might be ready to cede control of the Gaza Strip is the first sign of a thawing of the line purused by the group.
It is surprising that the announcement, which was made on in an urgent bulletin posted on a pro-Hamas Web site, was rejected by a senior Abbas aide. Obviously, there are behind-the-scene elements at play.
In any event, the most important aspect of Haniyeh's statement is that the Hamas "administration of Gaza is temporary." It signals an acceptance of the fact that there could not be two Palestinian entities — one controlled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the other by Fatah in the West Bank, and there needs to be a united Palestinian platform.
It is one of the conditions laid down by Abbas that any dialogue with Hamas is not possible until it submits anew to his authority and gives up Gaza, which it seized in mid-June after clashes with Fatah.
The Hamas statement comes against the backdrop of a flurry of diplomatic activities ahead of the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference, which is expected to be held in November.
Hamas, which refuses to meet the conditions placed by Israel and supported by the West, will not be invited to the conference, which is predicted to be a landmark in efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The group has been calling on Arab countries not to attend the conference.
As far as the Arab World is concerned, the most important factor is that the conference should tackle the core issues of the conflict such as the borders of a Palestinian state and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees. The forum should not be turned into a photo opportunity and allow Israel to advance its agenda of seeking legitimacy in the region without respecting and recognising Arab and Muslim rights.
Hamas's move for dialogue with Fatah is interpreted as the result of pressure the group brought about by international sanctions and an Israeli blockade that have made life difficult in the Gaza Strip. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Hamas would bend to pressure and make compromises on its positions, but it would definitely grab at any chance that would not require it to step back from its doctrines.
That is where the Abbas's statement that a Palestinian state should the West Bank and Gaza must cover the same amount of land as Israel seized in 1967 comes into play.
It would appear that Hamas, which insists on a Palestinian state in all of pre-1948 Palestine, has found a face-saving formula in Abbas's call and wants to work on it towards a compromise. Instead of rejecting the group's move, the other side should also move forward seeking common ground; that is the only realistic way for the peace process to move forward.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The legacy ofthe 'Kethyar' lives on
Nov.11, 2007
The legacy ofthe 'Kethyar' lives on
FOR many around the world, Yasser Arafat might have faded into distant memory, three years after his mysterious death in a Paris hospital. But not so for the Palestinian people and the larger Arab World.
Arafat, fondly called the "Kethyar" (old man), represented, led and symbolised the Palestinian struggle. Despite what critics saw as serious shortcomings in Arafat's dealings with the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the broader effort for liberating his land, he continues to live in the hearts of his people giving them inspiration to fight on.
Arafat was one of the Palestinian leaders who had realised early on that it would be a folly to militarily challenge US-supported Israel. Accordingly, he tried to play the political game always keeping an eye for an opening towards a negotiated end to Israel's military occupation of Palestinian land.
The 1993 Oslo agreement that the PLO signed with Israel was the opening he found, but the hardline leaders of the Jewish state and the US let him down thereafter. The Oslo accord was never the perfect blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian peace, but Arafat was manoeuvred into accepting it by apprehension that groups like Hamas and others were gaining on his Fatah movement in popularity among the Palestinian constituents. And indeed, the Oslo accord was the only available game in town, and Arafat made the mistake of trusting the US to twist the Israeli arm when it came to crucial points in post-Oslo negotiations. If anything, he found his own arm being twisted into accepting major compromises, but he always retained the hope of that somewhere, sometime, something would give, offering the Palestinians the breakthrough they were seeking.
At the time of Arafat's death on Nov.11, 2004, the Oslo agreement was dumped in the dustbin of history, and his people had resumed their Intifada after having seen Israel steadfastly refusing to accept their legitimate rights as the basis for peace. And, indeed, Hamas was gaining ground.
Arafat himself had fallen "out of favour" with the US and Israel because of his refusal to sign on Israeli-dotted and US-supported lines that would have sealed the fate of the Palestinian struggle far short of realising its goal of independent statehood with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
Arafat is no less a martyr than any of the tens of thousands of Palestinians who, before and after him sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and independent statehood.
Since his death, the struggle for liberation has taken many manifestations, but the cause and goal remain the same. The Palestinian will to continue resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is as strong as ever, and that is the best legacy that the late Palestinian president left behind for his people.
The legacy ofthe 'Kethyar' lives on
FOR many around the world, Yasser Arafat might have faded into distant memory, three years after his mysterious death in a Paris hospital. But not so for the Palestinian people and the larger Arab World.
Arafat, fondly called the "Kethyar" (old man), represented, led and symbolised the Palestinian struggle. Despite what critics saw as serious shortcomings in Arafat's dealings with the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the broader effort for liberating his land, he continues to live in the hearts of his people giving them inspiration to fight on.
Arafat was one of the Palestinian leaders who had realised early on that it would be a folly to militarily challenge US-supported Israel. Accordingly, he tried to play the political game always keeping an eye for an opening towards a negotiated end to Israel's military occupation of Palestinian land.
The 1993 Oslo agreement that the PLO signed with Israel was the opening he found, but the hardline leaders of the Jewish state and the US let him down thereafter. The Oslo accord was never the perfect blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian peace, but Arafat was manoeuvred into accepting it by apprehension that groups like Hamas and others were gaining on his Fatah movement in popularity among the Palestinian constituents. And indeed, the Oslo accord was the only available game in town, and Arafat made the mistake of trusting the US to twist the Israeli arm when it came to crucial points in post-Oslo negotiations. If anything, he found his own arm being twisted into accepting major compromises, but he always retained the hope of that somewhere, sometime, something would give, offering the Palestinians the breakthrough they were seeking.
At the time of Arafat's death on Nov.11, 2004, the Oslo agreement was dumped in the dustbin of history, and his people had resumed their Intifada after having seen Israel steadfastly refusing to accept their legitimate rights as the basis for peace. And, indeed, Hamas was gaining ground.
Arafat himself had fallen "out of favour" with the US and Israel because of his refusal to sign on Israeli-dotted and US-supported lines that would have sealed the fate of the Palestinian struggle far short of realising its goal of independent statehood with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
Arafat is no less a martyr than any of the tens of thousands of Palestinians who, before and after him sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and independent statehood.
Since his death, the struggle for liberation has taken many manifestations, but the cause and goal remain the same. The Palestinian will to continue resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is as strong as ever, and that is the best legacy that the late Palestinian president left behind for his people.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Lebanese pay the price for something they never bought
Nov.6, 2007
Lebanese pay the price for something they never bought
by pv vivekanand
THE simmering crisis in Lebanon appears to be ready to boil over, with the US and Syria warning each other not to meddle in Lebanese affairs and with little sign of a breakthrough in efforts to find a consensus candidate to be the next president of the country. However, the US could easily defuse the situation if it were to engage Syria in its proposed effort for peace in the Middle East.
All the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle are highly visible and within reach, but only if the powers that matter in Washington and European capitals are wise and matured enough to recognise them as such and pick them up. So far, we have seen little sign of such wisedom and maturity. Murkeying the scenario further is the Israeli drive to have its own way without compromising over any of what it sees as its interests.
Some pessimistic observers that the political deadlock in Lebanon could lead to yet another round of violent confrontation between Lebanese groups in favour of and opposed to Syrian influence in the country. That need not be an accurate assessment, given that the people of Lebanon are matured enough to realise that a civil strife would be too disastrous for themselves.
At the same time, the political crisis should not be allowed to continue because the central issue is not Lebanese interests but a powerplay of mainly the US and Syria in a broader scenario involving Israel and Iran as well as France, the former colonial power in the country, among others.
An important development this week was a show of force put up by Hizbollah that is interpreted as a warning to Israel against Israel from repeating its 2006 invasion of the south. Reportedly conducted under the direct supervision of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the manoeuvres held near the border with Israel were designed to allow the Jewish state to know more about its capabilities in a new deterrence strategy, according to reports.
It is highly unlikely that Hizbollah and its supporters are looking for a fight with Israel.
While the Lebanese government described the exercises involving unarmed Hizbollah fighters as merely "simulations on paper," it should not be forgotten that Israel would have received the Hizbhollah message, which according to sources quoted in the media, was that the group has regrouped with more strength than the case was before last year's Israeli invasion of the south. In sum, the message is a warning to Israel that any further military adventure into Lebanon would cost it more than what it paid last year.
One of the bottom lines in the broader picture is the Israeli-Syrian tug-of-war over the Golan Heights, which is under Israel's military occupation (never mind that Israel "annexed" the strategic area in 1981) since the 1967 war. The entire scenario in Lebanon would shift positively if there was to be genuine movement towards Israeli-Syrian peace.
Notwithstanding the tensions sparked by the recent Israeli air strike against a "mysterious" Syrian facility, it is clear that Damascus is ready for peace.
It is against this backdrop that Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter has posed the question whether whether Israel or the United States is ready for peace with Syria.
"We have information indicating that Syria is mentally prepared for a peace process with Israel. The question is whether we or the US are prepared for it," Dichter said at a public forum this week.
That was the reaffirmation of the international community's understanding of the situation. The Syrian leadership has declared, in public comments as well as behind-the-scene diplomatic exchanges, that Syria is willing for a honourable, just and fair peace agreement with Israel, but not without the return of the Golan in its entirety to Syrian sovereignty.
Well, the current Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Ehud Barak has signalled it is ready to discuss peace with Syria when its unofficial representatives engaged the Syrians in secret dialogue two years ago. However, the effort had to be called off under American pressure before it entered the stage of discussing the most serious issues at stake. Obviously, the hawks in Washington do not want any dealing with the Syrian leadership under President Bashar Al Assad.
It is also known that the US had actively encouraged and supported the Israeli war against Hizbollah last year, and even pressured the Jewish state not to halt its offensive even as Hizbollah was proving itself to be a formidable foe.
Washington had in fact made a strategic error by convincing itself that Israel could successfully eliminate Hizbollah as a military threat in the event of US military action against Iran.
However, the opportunity has presented itself for Washington to put itself right. The Bush administration could and indeed should formally invite Syria to the US-sponsored Middle East conference to be held in Annapolis later this month. The Syrian response would definitely be positive and would definitely include cancellation of a meeting planned to be held in Damascus as a parallel forum to the Annapolis conference.
However, the US does not seem to be in a mood to take note of the Syrian willingness to make peace with Israel. That was reflected in the latest Washington move — the imposition of sanctions on four Lebanese political figures, including a member of the Lebanese parliament, charging that they are undermining democracy in Lebanon by agitating for and promoting Syrian influence in the country. The US Department of the Treasury said it was freezing US-based assets belonging to Asaad Halim Hardan, a member of the Lebanese parliament and chief of the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP); Wi'am Wahhab, a former member of Lebanon's parliament; Hafiz Makhluf, a colonel in Syria's General Intelligence Directorate; and Mohammed Nasif Khayrbik, a key advisor to President Assad.
Against such obvious hostility as reflected in the US move, it would be naive to expect to Syria to make any compromise gesture on its own.
Lebanon is caught in the middle with no end in sight for the political crisis. Without genuine movement towards Israel-Syria peace, there is little expectation that the Lebanese would be spared from paying part of the price for the Washington-Damascus confrontation.
Lebanese pay the price for something they never bought
by pv vivekanand
THE simmering crisis in Lebanon appears to be ready to boil over, with the US and Syria warning each other not to meddle in Lebanese affairs and with little sign of a breakthrough in efforts to find a consensus candidate to be the next president of the country. However, the US could easily defuse the situation if it were to engage Syria in its proposed effort for peace in the Middle East.
All the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle are highly visible and within reach, but only if the powers that matter in Washington and European capitals are wise and matured enough to recognise them as such and pick them up. So far, we have seen little sign of such wisedom and maturity. Murkeying the scenario further is the Israeli drive to have its own way without compromising over any of what it sees as its interests.
Some pessimistic observers that the political deadlock in Lebanon could lead to yet another round of violent confrontation between Lebanese groups in favour of and opposed to Syrian influence in the country. That need not be an accurate assessment, given that the people of Lebanon are matured enough to realise that a civil strife would be too disastrous for themselves.
At the same time, the political crisis should not be allowed to continue because the central issue is not Lebanese interests but a powerplay of mainly the US and Syria in a broader scenario involving Israel and Iran as well as France, the former colonial power in the country, among others.
An important development this week was a show of force put up by Hizbollah that is interpreted as a warning to Israel against Israel from repeating its 2006 invasion of the south. Reportedly conducted under the direct supervision of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the manoeuvres held near the border with Israel were designed to allow the Jewish state to know more about its capabilities in a new deterrence strategy, according to reports.
It is highly unlikely that Hizbollah and its supporters are looking for a fight with Israel.
While the Lebanese government described the exercises involving unarmed Hizbollah fighters as merely "simulations on paper," it should not be forgotten that Israel would have received the Hizbhollah message, which according to sources quoted in the media, was that the group has regrouped with more strength than the case was before last year's Israeli invasion of the south. In sum, the message is a warning to Israel that any further military adventure into Lebanon would cost it more than what it paid last year.
One of the bottom lines in the broader picture is the Israeli-Syrian tug-of-war over the Golan Heights, which is under Israel's military occupation (never mind that Israel "annexed" the strategic area in 1981) since the 1967 war. The entire scenario in Lebanon would shift positively if there was to be genuine movement towards Israeli-Syrian peace.
Notwithstanding the tensions sparked by the recent Israeli air strike against a "mysterious" Syrian facility, it is clear that Damascus is ready for peace.
It is against this backdrop that Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter has posed the question whether whether Israel or the United States is ready for peace with Syria.
"We have information indicating that Syria is mentally prepared for a peace process with Israel. The question is whether we or the US are prepared for it," Dichter said at a public forum this week.
That was the reaffirmation of the international community's understanding of the situation. The Syrian leadership has declared, in public comments as well as behind-the-scene diplomatic exchanges, that Syria is willing for a honourable, just and fair peace agreement with Israel, but not without the return of the Golan in its entirety to Syrian sovereignty.
Well, the current Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Ehud Barak has signalled it is ready to discuss peace with Syria when its unofficial representatives engaged the Syrians in secret dialogue two years ago. However, the effort had to be called off under American pressure before it entered the stage of discussing the most serious issues at stake. Obviously, the hawks in Washington do not want any dealing with the Syrian leadership under President Bashar Al Assad.
It is also known that the US had actively encouraged and supported the Israeli war against Hizbollah last year, and even pressured the Jewish state not to halt its offensive even as Hizbollah was proving itself to be a formidable foe.
Washington had in fact made a strategic error by convincing itself that Israel could successfully eliminate Hizbollah as a military threat in the event of US military action against Iran.
However, the opportunity has presented itself for Washington to put itself right. The Bush administration could and indeed should formally invite Syria to the US-sponsored Middle East conference to be held in Annapolis later this month. The Syrian response would definitely be positive and would definitely include cancellation of a meeting planned to be held in Damascus as a parallel forum to the Annapolis conference.
However, the US does not seem to be in a mood to take note of the Syrian willingness to make peace with Israel. That was reflected in the latest Washington move — the imposition of sanctions on four Lebanese political figures, including a member of the Lebanese parliament, charging that they are undermining democracy in Lebanon by agitating for and promoting Syrian influence in the country. The US Department of the Treasury said it was freezing US-based assets belonging to Asaad Halim Hardan, a member of the Lebanese parliament and chief of the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP); Wi'am Wahhab, a former member of Lebanon's parliament; Hafiz Makhluf, a colonel in Syria's General Intelligence Directorate; and Mohammed Nasif Khayrbik, a key advisor to President Assad.
Against such obvious hostility as reflected in the US move, it would be naive to expect to Syria to make any compromise gesture on its own.
Lebanon is caught in the middle with no end in sight for the political crisis. Without genuine movement towards Israel-Syria peace, there is little expectation that the Lebanese would be spared from paying part of the price for the Washington-Damascus confrontation.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Checking the Israeli agenda
Nov.3, 2007
Checking the Israeli agenda
IT could indeed be argued that Israel has the capability to destroy or seriously cripple Iran's nuclear programme, as an unnamed Israeli general has been quoted as telling a group of selected journalists of Jewish origin during a briefing in Canada last week. Israel has US-supplied equipment and technology to do that, including long-range warplanes equipped with missiles and "bunker-buster" bombs as well as mid-air refuelling aircraft. The Jewish state also has one of its three German- supplied submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean with its missiles primed at Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel also possesses the technology that would help its warplanes evade radar detection while on their way to Iran and back through the region's airspace. It is suspected that the Israeli arsenal includes "tactical nuclear weapons" that could be used to bomb Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Indeed, Israel, which has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them, could unleash such firepower that could destroy a big chunk of Iran. These are known facts. But the question is not whether Israel has the capability to destroy Iranian targets, but of what happens if it does indeed do so.
Iranian leaders, including military commanders, have clearly stated that they would hold the US responsible for any military strike on its territory regardless of who carries out the actual attack and that they reserve the right to retaliate the way they find fit.
Effectively, it means that US interests in the region, including its 160,000 soldiers and bases in Iraq and another 20,000 soldiers and facilities in Afghanistan, could be considered as "legitimate" targets for Iranian firepower even if Israel mounts an attack against Iran.
Israel has made no secret that it is raring to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities. Reliable and credible reports indicate that the US is having a tough time holding it back from a repeat run of the 1981 attack that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant. Obviously, Washington has its own considerations and plans to deal with Iran and hence it is restraining Israel until the US itself is good and ready.
At the same time, the unnamed Israeli general's comment in Canada that "we don't see anyone trying to stop Iran" from pursuing its nuclear programme and that "we have to be prepared for any eventuality" is alarming.
It is an indication that Israel is growing increasingly angry and frustrated over the slow pace of diplomatic efforts and limited effect of UN sanctions aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis. It is anyone's guess how far and how long the Jewish state's political and military establishments are willing to accept US pressure to restrain themselves.
That makes it all the more important that Washington should appreciate that any Israeli action against Iran would have equally serious consequences for the region as the case would be in the event of US military action against the Iranians.
If the Bush administration is sincere and honest when it declares that it is not planning military strikes against Iran, then it should act promptly to hold back its strategic ally Israel from launching military adventures that would only undermine all hopes of restoring regional stability after the fiasco in Iraq.
Checking the Israeli agenda
IT could indeed be argued that Israel has the capability to destroy or seriously cripple Iran's nuclear programme, as an unnamed Israeli general has been quoted as telling a group of selected journalists of Jewish origin during a briefing in Canada last week. Israel has US-supplied equipment and technology to do that, including long-range warplanes equipped with missiles and "bunker-buster" bombs as well as mid-air refuelling aircraft. The Jewish state also has one of its three German- supplied submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean with its missiles primed at Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel also possesses the technology that would help its warplanes evade radar detection while on their way to Iran and back through the region's airspace. It is suspected that the Israeli arsenal includes "tactical nuclear weapons" that could be used to bomb Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Indeed, Israel, which has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them, could unleash such firepower that could destroy a big chunk of Iran. These are known facts. But the question is not whether Israel has the capability to destroy Iranian targets, but of what happens if it does indeed do so.
Iranian leaders, including military commanders, have clearly stated that they would hold the US responsible for any military strike on its territory regardless of who carries out the actual attack and that they reserve the right to retaliate the way they find fit.
Effectively, it means that US interests in the region, including its 160,000 soldiers and bases in Iraq and another 20,000 soldiers and facilities in Afghanistan, could be considered as "legitimate" targets for Iranian firepower even if Israel mounts an attack against Iran.
Israel has made no secret that it is raring to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities. Reliable and credible reports indicate that the US is having a tough time holding it back from a repeat run of the 1981 attack that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant. Obviously, Washington has its own considerations and plans to deal with Iran and hence it is restraining Israel until the US itself is good and ready.
At the same time, the unnamed Israeli general's comment in Canada that "we don't see anyone trying to stop Iran" from pursuing its nuclear programme and that "we have to be prepared for any eventuality" is alarming.
It is an indication that Israel is growing increasingly angry and frustrated over the slow pace of diplomatic efforts and limited effect of UN sanctions aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis. It is anyone's guess how far and how long the Jewish state's political and military establishments are willing to accept US pressure to restrain themselves.
That makes it all the more important that Washington should appreciate that any Israeli action against Iran would have equally serious consequences for the region as the case would be in the event of US military action against the Iranians.
If the Bush administration is sincere and honest when it declares that it is not planning military strikes against Iran, then it should act promptly to hold back its strategic ally Israel from launching military adventures that would only undermine all hopes of restoring regional stability after the fiasco in Iraq.
Will Bin Laden vote?
Nov.3, 2006
Will Bin Laden vote?
By PV Vivekanand
THE REPUBLICAN camp in the US seems to be waiting for a miracle -- a possible public condemnation of the Bush administration from Osama Bin Laden or his deputy Ayman Zawahiri that could turn the tide in the Nov.7 elections in the Republicans' favour. For it is absolutely necesssary for Al Qaeda to have the Republicans continue in power in Washington in order to press ahead with its "international jihad" that primarily targets the US.
President George W Bush and his neoconservative strategists assert that a Democratic triumph in the elections is a victory for "terrorists" and a loss "for America." That is a short-sighted vision that totally ignores the reality that the policies and approaches followed by the Bush administration are the best contributors to the growth of Al Qaeda and likeminded groups around the world.
Washington says Al Qaeda wants the US out of Iraq. It need not necessarily be so since a US departure from Iraq Ñ and indeed Afghanistan ÑÊwould pull the rug from under the feet of extremists because the American military presence in these two countries have become the cause celebre for them.
Within Iraq, Al Qaeda is believed to constitute less than 10 per cent of the insurgents there. The others represent a mixture of mainly Sunni groups waging a war to end the US occupation of their country. Their objectives are Iraq-specific and their raison d'etre ends when the last US soldier leaves Iraq.
If and when that happens, Al Qaeda would be left on its own with its anti-US agenda and find itself targeted by the former Sunni insurgents.
Intelligence reports and findings of congressional investigations have clearly established that Al Qaeda was not as strong as Bush himself painted it to be and it managed to consolidate its presence and operations in Iraq taking advantage of the US image as an invader and occupier of the country.
It is a widely shared thought among international political and terrorism experts that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was like a "dream coming true" for Al Qaeda.
A Dec. 11, 2005 letter written by a senior Al Qaeda operative known as ÒAtiyahÓ to the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, supports this argument.
In the letter, which was released by the director of national intelligence of the US, Atiyah says that Òthe most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.Ó
He asserted that a US withdrawal from Iraq in 2005 or earlier could have been disastrous for Al Qaeda because it would have deprived the group of the reasons to exist in Iraq.
Al Qaeda wants to keep the US bogged down in Iraq in order to strengthen its influence and continue to wage the bloody guerrilla war against American soldiers. The Bush administration's belligerent policies and refusal to "cut and run" from Iraq serve Bin Laden's interests. The longer the conflict lasts in Iraq the better for Al Qaeda because the US would only get sucked deeper to the imbroglio. Washington does not have a face-saving "exit strategy" that would also help realise even a scaled-down version of the objectives of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, the US is caught in its own trap. And the Iraq war has become a central issue ahead of Nov.7.
Election pundits predict that the Democrats would trounce the Republicans and wrench control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. The Republicans would definitely want a miracle to happen ahead of the elections, and this could be in the form of yet another belligerent and challenging call from Al Qaeda to the incumbent administration.
It is widely accepted that it was a video messsage from Bin Laden that surfaced on Oct.29, 2004 ÑÊfour days before the US presidential election ÑÊthat helped Bush to secure a second term at the White House.
US analysts always expect an "October surprise" in a presidential eleciton year that would help either of the two camps, and the Bin Laden video was indeed one in 2004.
In the video tape, Bin Laden denounced the administration and thumped his nose at Washington. It was a very healthy-looking Bin Laden who appeared in the videoÊwearing a gold-brocaided Arab dress that contradicted the media-portrayed image of a sick and ailing Al Qaeda leader hiding in a cave some place along the Pak-Afghanistan border. His "message" was also a departure from his usual style of shrouding the substance with rhetorics while making statements. He was blunt and straight as if an excellent spindoctor had coached him. He ridiculed Bush and vowed to intensify his fight against the US.
Republican spindoctors jumped at the opportunity. They turned around Bin Laden's "message" and highlighted it as representing his "endorsement" of Bush rival John Kerry who they depicted as too weak to confront extremists around the world. There was an immediate surge of five points in Bush's favour in opinion polls, and he was re-elected (This does not discount the contention by critics that "fradulent" voting took place in several states).
It did not take much imagination to figure out that Bin Laden, by condemning and challenging Bush, was in fact ensuring the president's re-election.
Today, a similar situation could be at hand. With the anti-war fever growing among the American public, the Democrats stand a good chance to dominate the US legislature. If that happens, then there would definitely be a scaling down of Washington's belligerence (although it could not be said that the Democrats would immediately work for an end to the US military presence in Iraq).
Surely, Bin Laden and his people, wherever they are, know this. Why take a chance by not helping the Republicans and thus ensure that the US continues to be seen as an invader and occupier?
The US "staying the course" in Iraq might mean a lot of things for the Bush administration, but for Al Qaeda it means "prolonging the war" ÑÊas Atiyeh put it ÑÊ and serving its own interest. Maintaining silence ahead of the US elections would definitely not be its course of action, which could indeed turn out to be a "November surprise" this election year.
Will Bin Laden vote?
By PV Vivekanand
THE REPUBLICAN camp in the US seems to be waiting for a miracle -- a possible public condemnation of the Bush administration from Osama Bin Laden or his deputy Ayman Zawahiri that could turn the tide in the Nov.7 elections in the Republicans' favour. For it is absolutely necesssary for Al Qaeda to have the Republicans continue in power in Washington in order to press ahead with its "international jihad" that primarily targets the US.
President George W Bush and his neoconservative strategists assert that a Democratic triumph in the elections is a victory for "terrorists" and a loss "for America." That is a short-sighted vision that totally ignores the reality that the policies and approaches followed by the Bush administration are the best contributors to the growth of Al Qaeda and likeminded groups around the world.
Washington says Al Qaeda wants the US out of Iraq. It need not necessarily be so since a US departure from Iraq Ñ and indeed Afghanistan ÑÊwould pull the rug from under the feet of extremists because the American military presence in these two countries have become the cause celebre for them.
Within Iraq, Al Qaeda is believed to constitute less than 10 per cent of the insurgents there. The others represent a mixture of mainly Sunni groups waging a war to end the US occupation of their country. Their objectives are Iraq-specific and their raison d'etre ends when the last US soldier leaves Iraq.
If and when that happens, Al Qaeda would be left on its own with its anti-US agenda and find itself targeted by the former Sunni insurgents.
Intelligence reports and findings of congressional investigations have clearly established that Al Qaeda was not as strong as Bush himself painted it to be and it managed to consolidate its presence and operations in Iraq taking advantage of the US image as an invader and occupier of the country.
It is a widely shared thought among international political and terrorism experts that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was like a "dream coming true" for Al Qaeda.
A Dec. 11, 2005 letter written by a senior Al Qaeda operative known as ÒAtiyahÓ to the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, supports this argument.
In the letter, which was released by the director of national intelligence of the US, Atiyah says that Òthe most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.Ó
He asserted that a US withdrawal from Iraq in 2005 or earlier could have been disastrous for Al Qaeda because it would have deprived the group of the reasons to exist in Iraq.
Al Qaeda wants to keep the US bogged down in Iraq in order to strengthen its influence and continue to wage the bloody guerrilla war against American soldiers. The Bush administration's belligerent policies and refusal to "cut and run" from Iraq serve Bin Laden's interests. The longer the conflict lasts in Iraq the better for Al Qaeda because the US would only get sucked deeper to the imbroglio. Washington does not have a face-saving "exit strategy" that would also help realise even a scaled-down version of the objectives of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, the US is caught in its own trap. And the Iraq war has become a central issue ahead of Nov.7.
Election pundits predict that the Democrats would trounce the Republicans and wrench control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. The Republicans would definitely want a miracle to happen ahead of the elections, and this could be in the form of yet another belligerent and challenging call from Al Qaeda to the incumbent administration.
It is widely accepted that it was a video messsage from Bin Laden that surfaced on Oct.29, 2004 ÑÊfour days before the US presidential election ÑÊthat helped Bush to secure a second term at the White House.
US analysts always expect an "October surprise" in a presidential eleciton year that would help either of the two camps, and the Bin Laden video was indeed one in 2004.
In the video tape, Bin Laden denounced the administration and thumped his nose at Washington. It was a very healthy-looking Bin Laden who appeared in the videoÊwearing a gold-brocaided Arab dress that contradicted the media-portrayed image of a sick and ailing Al Qaeda leader hiding in a cave some place along the Pak-Afghanistan border. His "message" was also a departure from his usual style of shrouding the substance with rhetorics while making statements. He was blunt and straight as if an excellent spindoctor had coached him. He ridiculed Bush and vowed to intensify his fight against the US.
Republican spindoctors jumped at the opportunity. They turned around Bin Laden's "message" and highlighted it as representing his "endorsement" of Bush rival John Kerry who they depicted as too weak to confront extremists around the world. There was an immediate surge of five points in Bush's favour in opinion polls, and he was re-elected (This does not discount the contention by critics that "fradulent" voting took place in several states).
It did not take much imagination to figure out that Bin Laden, by condemning and challenging Bush, was in fact ensuring the president's re-election.
Today, a similar situation could be at hand. With the anti-war fever growing among the American public, the Democrats stand a good chance to dominate the US legislature. If that happens, then there would definitely be a scaling down of Washington's belligerence (although it could not be said that the Democrats would immediately work for an end to the US military presence in Iraq).
Surely, Bin Laden and his people, wherever they are, know this. Why take a chance by not helping the Republicans and thus ensure that the US continues to be seen as an invader and occupier?
The US "staying the course" in Iraq might mean a lot of things for the Bush administration, but for Al Qaeda it means "prolonging the war" ÑÊas Atiyeh put it ÑÊ and serving its own interest. Maintaining silence ahead of the US elections would definitely not be its course of action, which could indeed turn out to be a "November surprise" this election year.
Friday, November 02, 2007
One-eyed act won't work
Nov.2, 2007
One-eyed act won't work
THE thriving piracy in and around Somalia is a blotch on the international law and order situation. Well-armed pirates roaming around in small boats off the coast of Somalia are thumping their nose at the world by hijacking and looting merchant vessels and then demanding ransom for releasing their crew and, quite often, getting away with it.
The International Maritime Bureau says piracy attaks on shipping have increased by 14 per cent in the first three quarters of this year mainly because of a jump in incidents off the west and east coasts of Africa, with Somalia again a key source of concern. Only Indonesia's waters are considered more prone to pirate attacks.
It would seem that we have gone back a century or more in time when notorious pirates roamed the seas. The only missing piece is probably one-eyed characters with hooks for hands going aboard hijacked ships in the high seas from vessels flying the infamous black flags with the deadly skull sign.
The rise in piracy attacks by Somali pirates may or may not have to do anything with the ouster in December of Somalia's Islamists, who cracked down on piracy while they held sway in the capital, Mogadishu, and much of the south of the country, last year. But the international community could not simply hold the interim government in Somalia responsible to take action against the pirates because the UN-backed regime itself is fighting for its survival and does not have what it takes to even think beyond its immediate protection.
Indeed, the best counter-action so far against piracy has come in the form of a French pledge to send a warship to waters off Somalia authorised to take whatever action deemed fit to counter the threat. The French warship is expected to be deployed in November. However, that is not enough. The number of pirate boats stalking commercial vessels is on the rise, and immediate action is needed to counter it.
We have seen the great enthusiasm to send warships to Middle Eastern waters to enforce the UN embargo on Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is only fair for the world to expect the same interest, seriousness and commitment from the same powers to ensure that international maritime shipping is not threatened by some ragtag gunmen who believe in nothing but violence.
One-eyed act won't work
THE thriving piracy in and around Somalia is a blotch on the international law and order situation. Well-armed pirates roaming around in small boats off the coast of Somalia are thumping their nose at the world by hijacking and looting merchant vessels and then demanding ransom for releasing their crew and, quite often, getting away with it.
The International Maritime Bureau says piracy attaks on shipping have increased by 14 per cent in the first three quarters of this year mainly because of a jump in incidents off the west and east coasts of Africa, with Somalia again a key source of concern. Only Indonesia's waters are considered more prone to pirate attacks.
It would seem that we have gone back a century or more in time when notorious pirates roamed the seas. The only missing piece is probably one-eyed characters with hooks for hands going aboard hijacked ships in the high seas from vessels flying the infamous black flags with the deadly skull sign.
The rise in piracy attacks by Somali pirates may or may not have to do anything with the ouster in December of Somalia's Islamists, who cracked down on piracy while they held sway in the capital, Mogadishu, and much of the south of the country, last year. But the international community could not simply hold the interim government in Somalia responsible to take action against the pirates because the UN-backed regime itself is fighting for its survival and does not have what it takes to even think beyond its immediate protection.
Indeed, the best counter-action so far against piracy has come in the form of a French pledge to send a warship to waters off Somalia authorised to take whatever action deemed fit to counter the threat. The French warship is expected to be deployed in November. However, that is not enough. The number of pirate boats stalking commercial vessels is on the rise, and immediate action is needed to counter it.
We have seen the great enthusiasm to send warships to Middle Eastern waters to enforce the UN embargo on Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is only fair for the world to expect the same interest, seriousness and commitment from the same powers to ensure that international maritime shipping is not threatened by some ragtag gunmen who believe in nothing but violence.
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}