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.

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.