Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Needed: Cool heads

Jan.31, 2007

Needed: Cool heads


WITH developments in Iraq since the US-led invation of 2003 going in Iran's way and the brewing crisis between the Beirut government and Hizbollah-led opposition plus whatever role the Iranians are playing in Palestine, fears are high of the region being destabilised further. Iran is riding high on its newfound status as a key regional power, raising concerns that it might want to pick up where it left off in trying to export its revolution in the early 1980s when it was checked by the war with Iraq.
We in the Arabian Gulf region want security and stability for all so that we could pursue long-term development objectives for our people.
We would like to see peace in Iraq, with the people of that country excercising their right to self-determination without external meddling and following their development agenda in a national framework after decades of strife and bloodshed.
We would like to see the feuding parties in Lebanon realising that their national interests are being shoved aside in their fight for power and authority, We would like to see them behaving in a manner that does not challenge the institutionalised democracy there or allow room for external intervention.
Similarly, we would like to see the Palestinian factions burying their differences and coming together on a common platform to face Israel and advance and realise their cause for liberation and independence.
We would also like to see the international community gathering enough courage and becoming bold enough to call a spade and spade and pull up Israel by the neck and force it to respect international law as the basis for a peace agreement with the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria.
We are the least interested in challenging or confronting anyone for whatever reason. We believe in diplomacy, dialogue and fair and just compromises as the means to settle differences. We do not want nuclear weapons for ourselves and do not want atomic bombs or any other type of weapons of mass destruction in our region.
We believe that there is little time for us to be wasted in the development process as the world is moving fast ahead in developing and absorbing new technologies while we are getting bogged down by actions that are not of our making.
We would like to be part of the global development march but without compromising our rights as a member of the international order.
And we could gladly do without the sabre-rattling between Washington and Tehran that seems to be taking the region and its people towards yet another disaster after the war against Iraq four years ago.
After a brief hiatus during which we felt wisdom, logic and reason were prevailing in Washington against imposing a new crisis on the Middle East region, the Bush administration has suddenly turned up the heat against Tehran.
Hours after Bush pledged that he will “respond firmly” if Iran “escalates its military action in Iraq,” Pentagon officials leaked what they called “proof positive” of Iranian involvement — Iranian serial numbers were allegedly found on explosive devices powerful enough to pierce the armour of American tanks in Iraq.
If true and substantiated, then this "proof" is definitely more than the unfounded claims that Saddam sought nuclear material from Niger that White House used to help justify invading Iraq.
What are we to learn from the emerging scenario, which has also seen the US assigning two naval task forces into the Gulf region?
There could be several interpretations: Bush is again laying the foundation for military action against Iran or he could be setting up Iran to share the blame for the US failure in Iraq.
The latter scenario is highly unlikely, given that the Democrats and the growing anti-war camp would not swallow the line.
Washington watchers are convinced that the White House is spoiling for a fight with Iran, while Tehran seems to be inviting military action with provocative rhetoric probably because it believes that it could wage a successful "defensive" war against the US.
Sidelined in the seen and heard and unseen and unheard drums of war are the concerns of the region's countries which stand to bear the repercussions of another possible US military adventure. That Washington and Tehran share equal responsibility for pushing towards that eventuality would be no consolation, let alone a shield against the regional fallout of a US-Iranian military conflict, with whatever that would entail.
Instead of desisting from provoking Washington, Tehran seems is going out of its way to invite trouble without any consideration for the Iranian people and the region as a whole. It should realise that the need of the hour is for cool heads to figure out how to defuse the mounting tensions through dialogue and diplomacy in order to avert certain disaster.
On the other side, Washington should not consider the region's concerns over nuclear proliferation and the rise of a sectarian agenda as having granted it a free hand. Being the superpower that it is, it is incumbent upon the US to act responsibly and not to undertake any action that would undermine regional stability.
The Europeans also have a stake in ensuring regional stability in the Middle East and they should assume a key role in the equation and avert a conflagration that would not be in anyone's interest.
Haste is the key word here, because, for many in the region and beyond, the ticking of the war clock is getting alarmingly intense.

Unloading a dirty legacy in advance

Jan.30, 2007

Unloading a dirty legacy in advance


Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton's insistence that President George W. Bush should find a way out of Iraq before he leaves office stems from a realisation that she could possibly inherit the legacy of war and would not be able to get rid of it. Hillary Clinton, if she wins the race for the White House, would be as bound as Bush himself by political imperatives to "stay the course" in Iraq regardless of whether she likes it or not. That would indeed be the case for anyone who succeeds Bush, whether Republican or Democrat.
Such is the game that Washington kicked off with its 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Notwithstanding all arguments and justifications put up by the Bush administration, it is now clear that the war against Iraq and ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime was part of the US quest to establish global supremacy and serve its geopolitical interests in the Middle East. Removing a potential threat to Israel's quest for regional dominance and gaining access to Iraq's oil reserves with a view to controlling the international energy market were among the other reasons for the US war against Iraq.
As such, the invasion and occupation of Iraq could not be classififed strictly as a Republican agenda. The Democrats would have to carry on with it if they happen to gain the White House in 2009.
In the meantime, the Bush administration has not only failed to realise its key objectives in Iraq but has also created such a mess that it would take decades to be sorted out, with the ethnic disintegration of the country looming ahead with no one seems to be able to prevent it. And American soldiers are getting killed every day in the bargain (not to mention hundreds of Iraqis dying every day).
Despite all this, Bush has refused to set a deadline for withdrawing the US military from Iraq and has said "this is going to be left to his successor." The reason for this posture is simple: The US has to retain its presence in Iraq no matter what and no matter who occupies the White House.
It would have been ideal if the US military had been able to pacify the Iraqi people and bring about a smooth transition of power from the Saddam Hussein regime to US-friendly individuals and groups in Iraq without challenge. But the Sunni-led insurgency exploded in Washington's face and led to a crisis that does not hold out any chance of a solution that is just, fair and acceptable to the key players.
The only option left for the Bush administration is to press ahead with an aggressive military approach regardless of the losses the US would have to absorb. That is precisely what Washington is doing.
Implicit in Bush's posture is that he would be contented if the situation continued as it is until his last day in the White House and he would be more than happy to hand over the dirty laundry to his successor.
He knows only too well that the neoconservatives who orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq have enough and more influence and clout in Washington to twist his successor's arm into picking up where he left off and continuing the drive to realise the strategic objectives in Iraq.
No doubt, Hillary Clinton is also acutely aware of this and hence her remark that Bush's option to leave the legacy of war to his successor is
"the height of irresponsibility" and her assertion that "we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office."
We have heard a lot of arguments that the Democrats, who won control of both houses of the US Congress in last year's elections, were dead bent upon not allowing the US to continue its military presence in Iraq and they would cut off funds for the war.
There might be many Democrats — as there would be Republicans —  who genuinely do not want to risk anymore American lives in Iraq, but they are restrained by taking practical action to stop the war since they are also string-pulled as much as the Republicans.
Democrats say that cutting funds for the military would expose them to the charge that they have abandoned American soldiers in the field without ammunition and without body armour and at the mercy of the insurgents in Iraq.
That is not an accurate assertion since the money appropriated for current military operations was voted on and disbursed some time ago.
The Democrats, if they are really determined to end the war, could set a timeframe for Bush to withdraw the US military from Iraq. Of course, Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have loudly declared that they would not feel bound by congressional resolutions. At the same time, the Democrats would be singling out the president for blame if US forces remained in Iraq after the expiry of the deadline.
Why are they not doing it then?
Indeed, let us watch how Senator Russ Feingol, who has withdrawn from the presidential race and has entered the national debate over the Iraq crisis, fares this week with his drive to introduce legislation to cut all funding for the war a few months down the line.
That would be the barometer that tests how far the neocons have mobilised themselves to tame the Democrats as they have already done with the Republicans.
In the meantime, Hillary wants Bush to throw the Iraq crisis as far as she could away from her because she knows that she would be stuck with it if she inherits the White House from Bush.