January 31, 2008
Again a hostage of Israeli politics
Few in the Arab World would shed any tears if Ehud Olmert is forced to resign as Israel's prime minister since most Israeli political leaders are of the same colour when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, it is a sobering thought that the man most likely to replace Olmert in the event of the latter's resignation is from among the most hard-line Israeli leaders dedicated to wrecking any prospects for a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians which involves return of Israeli-occupied territory. It is none other than Benjamiin Netanyahu of the Likud bloc who, as prime minister from June 1996 to July 1999, systematically engineered the collapse of the peace process that was launched with the signing of the interim Oslo agreement, flawed as it was indeed.
The release of the Winograd inquiry commission’s final conclusions on the management of the Lebanon war of summer 2006 has piled pressure on Olmert to step down. Olmert has been mustering support against demands for his resignation, but it is not clear how he could withstand the finding of a new opinion poll that some 73 per cent of the Israeli public want him to quit as prime minister.
If Olmert is forced to step down as prime minister without calling for general elections, then it is almost certain that his successor through direct prime ministerial elections would be Netanyahu, who has always insisted that Israel is doing the Palestinian people a magnanimous favour by permitting them to stay in the West Bank which he and likeminded Israelis consider as part of the "promised land."
The only other person from the present Israeli scene who has any fighting chance against Netanyahu is Labour leader Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and current minister of defence. However, Barak also seems to have burnt his bridges for having gone back on his pledge to respond to a negative Winograd commission report by quitting government or calling for an early election and amending it to saying that he would do what was best for the country. That posture has earned him the disapproval of 63 per cent of Israelis, who, according to the latest opinion poll, want him to join Olmert on the way out.
While close Olmert aides like Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On are insisting that an early election is not on the cards, all bets are off at this point in time.
Not that there is any immediate prospect of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations making any headway at all, given the deep rift in the Palestinian ranks. Instead of focusing their attention on the vital need for national unity for the common cause of liberation and independent statehood, Palestinian political leaders are arguing over who should be in control of the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt. That should show how internal Palestinian affairs have deteriorated to a stage where the Palestinians themselves are unable to work out an agreement among themselves, let alone even negotiating with the Israelis.
In the meantime, it seems to be abundantly clear that the Israeli voters want a total hard-line sweep of the country's leadership. That would naturally mean parliamentary elections as well as election of a prime minister. That in turn, given the political forces in play in Israel today, would see Netanyahu as Olmert's successor and his hard-line Likud and its natural allies forming the next government.
And that would be the end of any hope of a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in any foreseeable future, notwithstanding US President George W Bush's pledge — unconvincing as it is — to see such an agreement being signed before he leaves office next year.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Same old soup in same old bowl
January 30, 2008
Same old soup in same old bowl
US President George W. Bush's final annual State of the Union address on Monday was on predictable lines. He used the occasion to defend his deeply unpopular handling of what Americans say are their top two concerns: economic turmoil at home and the US military crisis in Iraq.
The president, who bows out of the White House in one year from now, could only promise the American people that help was on the way on the economic front. He shifted the onus to the US Congress by urging the speedy apporval of a $150-billion stimulus package he agreed last week with congressional leaders. That package, if an when approved — the Senate has come up with its own proposal — is unlikely to have an immediate impact on American lives, and the American people know that.
The American people have also come to realise that the Bush administration never drew up and does not have an exit strategy from Iraq and that the US military is likely to remain there for many years despite the steady loss of American soldiers.
On the whole, the Americans find the situation bleak with worries about a recession, soaring fuel costs, huge budget deficits, and the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a looming confrontation with Iran. Add to that the fear accummulated over the last decades that Americans, by definition, are in militant gunsights in many places around the world.
The situation was different when Bush took over the White House in January 2001. The US economy was booming with a budget surplus. Its military was not engaged in any active combat. And the president had a popularity rating of more than 60 per cent.
Today the same president's popularity rating is less than 35. The economy is troubled waters, the military is fighting on several fronts and the American people have more things to worry about than they did when Bush took over as president.
Bush offered nothing new in his State of the Union address. He simply defended his policies and spoke aggressive about the wars and confrontation that the US is facing. And, judging from the immediate American public reaction, few were impressed.
That Bush has left his own party in deep trouble is also evident.
The Bush name is seldom mentioned by Republican candidates in the ongoing presidential campaigning and they refer to Ronald
Reagan as the last Republican president. Ironically, walked over in the campaigning are the terms of both Bush and his father who suceeded Reagan.
Indeed, it would have been naive to have expected Bush to announce any dramatic shift in domestic or foreign policy in the twilight year of his presidency. But some did, and they were promptly disappointed.
Same old soup in same old bowl
US President George W. Bush's final annual State of the Union address on Monday was on predictable lines. He used the occasion to defend his deeply unpopular handling of what Americans say are their top two concerns: economic turmoil at home and the US military crisis in Iraq.
The president, who bows out of the White House in one year from now, could only promise the American people that help was on the way on the economic front. He shifted the onus to the US Congress by urging the speedy apporval of a $150-billion stimulus package he agreed last week with congressional leaders. That package, if an when approved — the Senate has come up with its own proposal — is unlikely to have an immediate impact on American lives, and the American people know that.
The American people have also come to realise that the Bush administration never drew up and does not have an exit strategy from Iraq and that the US military is likely to remain there for many years despite the steady loss of American soldiers.
On the whole, the Americans find the situation bleak with worries about a recession, soaring fuel costs, huge budget deficits, and the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a looming confrontation with Iran. Add to that the fear accummulated over the last decades that Americans, by definition, are in militant gunsights in many places around the world.
The situation was different when Bush took over the White House in January 2001. The US economy was booming with a budget surplus. Its military was not engaged in any active combat. And the president had a popularity rating of more than 60 per cent.
Today the same president's popularity rating is less than 35. The economy is troubled waters, the military is fighting on several fronts and the American people have more things to worry about than they did when Bush took over as president.
Bush offered nothing new in his State of the Union address. He simply defended his policies and spoke aggressive about the wars and confrontation that the US is facing. And, judging from the immediate American public reaction, few were impressed.
That Bush has left his own party in deep trouble is also evident.
The Bush name is seldom mentioned by Republican candidates in the ongoing presidential campaigning and they refer to Ronald
Reagan as the last Republican president. Ironically, walked over in the campaigning are the terms of both Bush and his father who suceeded Reagan.
Indeed, it would have been naive to have expected Bush to announce any dramatic shift in domestic or foreign policy in the twilight year of his presidency. But some did, and they were promptly disappointed.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
January 29, 2008
January 29, 2008
Building a viable economic structure
The European Union's (EU) decision on Monday to adjust its aid programme for the Palestinians to target the economic reforms and other specific aims of the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a highly positive move. It is one of the most concrete moves to support and implement the plans drawn up by Fayyad, who is known to be a no-nonsense economist with a vision.
By announcing the decision, the EU implicitly sent a message that there would be no room for any mismanagement of funds by certain groups within the Palestinian movement. Inefficiency and corruption had become a feature of the Palestinian administration and that was part of the reasons for the defeat that the mainstream Fatah suffered in the last general elections that were won by Hamas.
Indeed, the reality remains that uncertainty is the key feature of Hamas-ruled Gaza. An all-embracing compromise has to be found to end the rift within the Palestinian community. Stop-gap measures are not enough and the various parties involved have the responsibility towards their people to ensure that the fragmented Palestinian liberation movement does not suffer any more and is put back into shape with the common objective of setting up an independent Palestinian state.
The talks that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal held with Saudi officials in Riyadh on Monday would hopefully advance a compromise that would see the Gaza Strip being returned to PNA control. Short of that, all other proposals and plans would not make sense. And the process is likely to face snags because of what Hamas considers as its victory in breaching the Israeli lockdown on the Gaza Strip.
In the meantime, EU officials have said World Bank-monitored aid for fuel and hardship humanitarian cases in Gaza will continue because the EU is not making a distinction between Gaza and West Bank Palestinians. However, the Fatah-Hamas rift has to be sealed in order for any assistance to have the optimum effect through institutionalised channels.
The international community has signalled its support for the Palestinians by pledging $7.7 billion in aid for them in the next three years. It is definitely upto the Palestinians themselves to put their act together and get on with the process of regaining their land from Israel and set up an independent state there. Striking a just and fair deal with Israel is the toughest task that the Palestinians face. Parallel to that is the mission of building an infrastructure focusing on social and economic development of the Palestinian people. The EU decision is clearly based on that approach.
Building a viable economic structure
The European Union's (EU) decision on Monday to adjust its aid programme for the Palestinians to target the economic reforms and other specific aims of the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a highly positive move. It is one of the most concrete moves to support and implement the plans drawn up by Fayyad, who is known to be a no-nonsense economist with a vision.
By announcing the decision, the EU implicitly sent a message that there would be no room for any mismanagement of funds by certain groups within the Palestinian movement. Inefficiency and corruption had become a feature of the Palestinian administration and that was part of the reasons for the defeat that the mainstream Fatah suffered in the last general elections that were won by Hamas.
Indeed, the reality remains that uncertainty is the key feature of Hamas-ruled Gaza. An all-embracing compromise has to be found to end the rift within the Palestinian community. Stop-gap measures are not enough and the various parties involved have the responsibility towards their people to ensure that the fragmented Palestinian liberation movement does not suffer any more and is put back into shape with the common objective of setting up an independent Palestinian state.
The talks that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal held with Saudi officials in Riyadh on Monday would hopefully advance a compromise that would see the Gaza Strip being returned to PNA control. Short of that, all other proposals and plans would not make sense. And the process is likely to face snags because of what Hamas considers as its victory in breaching the Israeli lockdown on the Gaza Strip.
In the meantime, EU officials have said World Bank-monitored aid for fuel and hardship humanitarian cases in Gaza will continue because the EU is not making a distinction between Gaza and West Bank Palestinians. However, the Fatah-Hamas rift has to be sealed in order for any assistance to have the optimum effect through institutionalised channels.
The international community has signalled its support for the Palestinians by pledging $7.7 billion in aid for them in the next three years. It is definitely upto the Palestinians themselves to put their act together and get on with the process of regaining their land from Israel and set up an independent state there. Striking a just and fair deal with Israel is the toughest task that the Palestinians face. Parallel to that is the mission of building an infrastructure focusing on social and economic development of the Palestinian people. The EU decision is clearly based on that approach.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Afghan eyes for Afghan issues
Jan.28, 2008
Afghan eyes for Afghan issues
THE friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the British government is heating up, with Karzai reportedly blocking the appointment of Britain's Lord Ashdown as the UN special envoy in Afghanistan.
The immediate link the dispute might have is with Karzai’s criticism of the role of the 7,800 British troops in Afghanistan. He has charged that British forces had failed in their mission in Helmand province. British officials counter that had it not been for the British troops, Karzai would never have any control in the area and the flourishing poppy trade there.
Ashdown had been the top candidate to become a so-called “superenvoy” — an overall co-ordinator of international aid and political efforts in Afghanistan. But Karzai’s opposition has undermined Ashdown’s candidacy. There are others in the line, including a British general, and it would seem that his chances of becoming the envoy have also been undermined by Karzai's rift with the British government.
Well, these are issues on the surface. Deep within, Karzai seems to resent the US-led foreign domination of his country that has left him politically paralysed and unable to push his way towards national reconciliation.
Essentially, Karzai believes that things in Afghanistan have to be done the Afghan way and he has little faith in the Western/British approah to Afghanistan. The Afghan way dictates that the rulers in Kabul have to work with local warlords whereas the Western way has little room or patience for such arrangements. That was highlighted when the British forces objected to Karzai’s choice of local officials to run the Helmand administration and the security forces, particularly that of Sher Mohammed Akhunzada, his chosen and trusted governor in Helmand.
According to Karzai, his forces were in control of Helmand before the British forces deployed there. Now, he says, the province is under the control of the Taleban, who have staged a comeback as a result of what Kabul calls British inefficiency.
Afghanistan is unique in many ways and that has always been the reason the failure of external powers to control the country. The foreign powers now involved in Afghanistan with their own formulas and recipes to address the problems there do not seem to take into consideration that the goverment of Karzai knows better than them on how to deal with the situation. They seem to believe that the fact that they spent billions of dollars in trying to defeat the Taleban entitles them to second-guess the Kabul government.
This time around, Karzai seems to have put his foot down and made clear his position to some of the Western leaders during the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davois.
We do not know yet how the American and European leaders view Karzai's newfound toughness, but we do know that they need to use Afghan eyes to realise Afghan issues and come up with Afghan solutions.
Afghan eyes for Afghan issues
THE friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the British government is heating up, with Karzai reportedly blocking the appointment of Britain's Lord Ashdown as the UN special envoy in Afghanistan.
The immediate link the dispute might have is with Karzai’s criticism of the role of the 7,800 British troops in Afghanistan. He has charged that British forces had failed in their mission in Helmand province. British officials counter that had it not been for the British troops, Karzai would never have any control in the area and the flourishing poppy trade there.
Ashdown had been the top candidate to become a so-called “superenvoy” — an overall co-ordinator of international aid and political efforts in Afghanistan. But Karzai’s opposition has undermined Ashdown’s candidacy. There are others in the line, including a British general, and it would seem that his chances of becoming the envoy have also been undermined by Karzai's rift with the British government.
Well, these are issues on the surface. Deep within, Karzai seems to resent the US-led foreign domination of his country that has left him politically paralysed and unable to push his way towards national reconciliation.
Essentially, Karzai believes that things in Afghanistan have to be done the Afghan way and he has little faith in the Western/British approah to Afghanistan. The Afghan way dictates that the rulers in Kabul have to work with local warlords whereas the Western way has little room or patience for such arrangements. That was highlighted when the British forces objected to Karzai’s choice of local officials to run the Helmand administration and the security forces, particularly that of Sher Mohammed Akhunzada, his chosen and trusted governor in Helmand.
According to Karzai, his forces were in control of Helmand before the British forces deployed there. Now, he says, the province is under the control of the Taleban, who have staged a comeback as a result of what Kabul calls British inefficiency.
Afghanistan is unique in many ways and that has always been the reason the failure of external powers to control the country. The foreign powers now involved in Afghanistan with their own formulas and recipes to address the problems there do not seem to take into consideration that the goverment of Karzai knows better than them on how to deal with the situation. They seem to believe that the fact that they spent billions of dollars in trying to defeat the Taleban entitles them to second-guess the Kabul government.
This time around, Karzai seems to have put his foot down and made clear his position to some of the Western leaders during the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davois.
We do not know yet how the American and European leaders view Karzai's newfound toughness, but we do know that they need to use Afghan eyes to realise Afghan issues and come up with Afghan solutions.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
A mission for finance chiefs
Jan.27, 2008
A mission for finance chiefs
THE annual World Economic Forum (WEF) conference has concluded in Davos with a serious warning from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that "serious" response was required to counter the risk of a US recession and slowing global growth, including both monetary and fiscal measures.
The warning from IMF Director-General Dominique Strauss-Kahn has highlighted the gravity of the crisis the world faces in that it is the first time in more than 25 years that an IMF chief has called on countries increase their public spending, even countries with deficits, instead of fiscal consolidation.
He pulled no punches when he talked about the US economy. "Whatever the answer is on (the possibility) of a (US) recession, what is clear is there will be a serious slowdown and it needs a serious response," he said. "We cannot rely only on monetary policy."
Even the usually reserved Japanese prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda, warned that the world's economy faced growing downside risks. He emphasised that countries must co-ordinate policies to limit the effect of a global economic slowdown from the fallout in US subprime mortgages.
Indeed, this year's WEF meeting was in dark stark contrast to past gatherings held against a backdrop of bumper corporate profits, strong growth and inflation within relative control in most countries.
Senior US officials are talking about the "resilience" of the US economy, but the facts on the ground and figures in US and international books do not offer much room for optimism.
The international community could not overlook that the crisis facing the world economy came from the US housing sector which was hit by losses by banks which invested in complicated securities backed by high-risk US mortgages. That has led to a credit crunch in which bank lending has been restricted, and resulted in a negative impact on the global financial system and financial markets.
What has been noted but not reviewed in depth at Davos was that the losing streak in the US housing sector is likely to continue and the situation could get worse by the lack of transparency about the extent of the problems facing the US economy.
Throughout the Davos conference, there was a sense of urgency that something has to be done and done fast to check the meltdown, but few proposals with specific outline for action were heard, perhaps because no one wanted to call a spade and spade.
The intiative is now shifted to the Group of Seven countries — which control a big chunk of the world economy. The group's finance chiefs are meeting in Japan next month and this could be an opportunity for them to weed out realities from politics and come up with concrete and implementable ideas to check the downslide and rectify the course.
Of course, it is not an easy task, given the complexity of factors, whether in the US or any other major economy, but it is a task and mission facing those who take pride in themselves as being people who could determine the future of the global economy.
A mission for finance chiefs
THE annual World Economic Forum (WEF) conference has concluded in Davos with a serious warning from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that "serious" response was required to counter the risk of a US recession and slowing global growth, including both monetary and fiscal measures.
The warning from IMF Director-General Dominique Strauss-Kahn has highlighted the gravity of the crisis the world faces in that it is the first time in more than 25 years that an IMF chief has called on countries increase their public spending, even countries with deficits, instead of fiscal consolidation.
He pulled no punches when he talked about the US economy. "Whatever the answer is on (the possibility) of a (US) recession, what is clear is there will be a serious slowdown and it needs a serious response," he said. "We cannot rely only on monetary policy."
Even the usually reserved Japanese prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda, warned that the world's economy faced growing downside risks. He emphasised that countries must co-ordinate policies to limit the effect of a global economic slowdown from the fallout in US subprime mortgages.
Indeed, this year's WEF meeting was in dark stark contrast to past gatherings held against a backdrop of bumper corporate profits, strong growth and inflation within relative control in most countries.
Senior US officials are talking about the "resilience" of the US economy, but the facts on the ground and figures in US and international books do not offer much room for optimism.
The international community could not overlook that the crisis facing the world economy came from the US housing sector which was hit by losses by banks which invested in complicated securities backed by high-risk US mortgages. That has led to a credit crunch in which bank lending has been restricted, and resulted in a negative impact on the global financial system and financial markets.
What has been noted but not reviewed in depth at Davos was that the losing streak in the US housing sector is likely to continue and the situation could get worse by the lack of transparency about the extent of the problems facing the US economy.
Throughout the Davos conference, there was a sense of urgency that something has to be done and done fast to check the meltdown, but few proposals with specific outline for action were heard, perhaps because no one wanted to call a spade and spade.
The intiative is now shifted to the Group of Seven countries — which control a big chunk of the world economy. The group's finance chiefs are meeting in Japan next month and this could be an opportunity for them to weed out realities from politics and come up with concrete and implementable ideas to check the downslide and rectify the course.
Of course, it is not an easy task, given the complexity of factors, whether in the US or any other major economy, but it is a task and mission facing those who take pride in themselves as being people who could determine the future of the global economy.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Assertions conflict with ground realities
Jan.26, 2008
Assertions conflict with ground realities
BEHIND the headlines that show a see-sawing security situation in Iraq, a political drama is being played out with the goal of determining by July this year who is in charge of the country under an agreement under negotiation. It is a difficult process, given the conflicting interests of the various parties involved.
Obviously, the Shiite-led Iraqi government would like to maintain the US military presence in the country until such time that the Shiites are satisified that the Sunni-led insurgency is quashed for good and they are able to take absolute security control of the country. At this point in time, they do not see any other use for the US military except to fight the insurgents and protect the Shiites while they implement their own policies with a close eye on relations with Iran. They object of any US military move away from this objective.
Of course, different Shiite groups have their own agendas, but they all share the goal of assuming unchallenged authority and power now that the political equation is in their favour in post-war Iraq and almost all of them do have Iranian connections one way or another.
Similarly, the Kurds, another major component in the government, have their own seditionist agenda and they would like the US military to stay on as they press ahead with their designs and plans that have little room for Iraqi nationalism if there is such a thing at all today.
The Sunnis are divided, with one camp determined to continue the insurgency, perhaps with help from Al Qaeda, while the other wants to fight off foreign jihadists, including Al Qaeda, so that they could focus efforts on securing what they could in terms of their rights and interests in the country. Few of them are impressed by the recently adopted law on "rehabilitating" members of the defunct Baahist Party, and they want to guarantee their rights partly through fire-power. There the Awakening Councils, which are backed by the US, come into play through their co-operations with the US military in fighting off Al Qaeda from their respective areas. At the same time, the Shiites are apprehensive that the Awakening Councils would build themselves to be a Sunni fighting force to challenge the Shiite-led dominance of the country.
Finally, the US agenda in Iraq could be seen either as excluding the plans of the Iraqis or including all or some of them as long as it hopes to serve its objective of having almost absolute proxy control of the country, whether it takes any alliance with any group, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or any other.
Well, it is a laugh. We hear US commanders and strategists speaking authoritatively about Iraq and implictly suggesting that the US goals are being served there, but we know that they have understood very little about the country and its people even five years after invading and occupying the country. They are deliberately downplaying the crisis in Iraq or have not really understood the magnitude of the problem in the country.
Assertions conflict with ground realities
BEHIND the headlines that show a see-sawing security situation in Iraq, a political drama is being played out with the goal of determining by July this year who is in charge of the country under an agreement under negotiation. It is a difficult process, given the conflicting interests of the various parties involved.
Obviously, the Shiite-led Iraqi government would like to maintain the US military presence in the country until such time that the Shiites are satisified that the Sunni-led insurgency is quashed for good and they are able to take absolute security control of the country. At this point in time, they do not see any other use for the US military except to fight the insurgents and protect the Shiites while they implement their own policies with a close eye on relations with Iran. They object of any US military move away from this objective.
Of course, different Shiite groups have their own agendas, but they all share the goal of assuming unchallenged authority and power now that the political equation is in their favour in post-war Iraq and almost all of them do have Iranian connections one way or another.
Similarly, the Kurds, another major component in the government, have their own seditionist agenda and they would like the US military to stay on as they press ahead with their designs and plans that have little room for Iraqi nationalism if there is such a thing at all today.
The Sunnis are divided, with one camp determined to continue the insurgency, perhaps with help from Al Qaeda, while the other wants to fight off foreign jihadists, including Al Qaeda, so that they could focus efforts on securing what they could in terms of their rights and interests in the country. Few of them are impressed by the recently adopted law on "rehabilitating" members of the defunct Baahist Party, and they want to guarantee their rights partly through fire-power. There the Awakening Councils, which are backed by the US, come into play through their co-operations with the US military in fighting off Al Qaeda from their respective areas. At the same time, the Shiites are apprehensive that the Awakening Councils would build themselves to be a Sunni fighting force to challenge the Shiite-led dominance of the country.
Finally, the US agenda in Iraq could be seen either as excluding the plans of the Iraqis or including all or some of them as long as it hopes to serve its objective of having almost absolute proxy control of the country, whether it takes any alliance with any group, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or any other.
Well, it is a laugh. We hear US commanders and strategists speaking authoritatively about Iraq and implictly suggesting that the US goals are being served there, but we know that they have understood very little about the country and its people even five years after invading and occupying the country. They are deliberately downplaying the crisis in Iraq or have not really understood the magnitude of the problem in the country.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility
January 25, 2008
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility
Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai's suggestion that his country should relinquish all responsibility for the Gaza Strip, including the supply of electricity and water, seems to be a test of international receptiveness to such idea. It signals a yet another dramatic turn in the history of the Palestinian struggle that has seen so much unexpected developments in recent months.
Vilani's call follows the forced opening of Gaza's southern border with Egypt, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said he ordered his border security forces to allow Gazans to enter Egyptian territory so that they could get their essential supplies and thus partially offset Israel's total lockdown on the territory.
Essentially, Israel should be seeing the opening of the border as a blessing in disguise because it eases pressure on the Jewish state to allow basic supplies to enter the Gaza Strip and eventually lead to a total disconnection from the territory. That would mean a link between Egypt and the Gaza Strip — a return of sorts to the pre-1967 situation. Egypt wants no part of it, as its government made it clear on Thursday commenting on Vilani's suggestion.
It has never been a secret that Israel had always seen the Gaza Strip — whichit accupied in the 1967 war — as a burden for itself. The coastal strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and Palestinian resistance to Israel's occupation of the land has always been verry intense there, making it ungovernable for the occupation authorities. The former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was only grabbing the opportunity when he decided to withdraw the Israeli military from the Gaza Strip and remove the Jewish settlements built there since 1967.
No doubt, Israel will press ahead with moves to somehow disconnect itself completely from the Gaza Strip as soon as it assures itself that Palestinian based in the territory do not pose a threat. We would see the manifestations of the Israeli idea in the days and weeks ahead.
However, Israel cannot shirk its responsibility. Its occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank has been devastating for the Palestinians. The territories have seen very little development in any sector under Israel's occupation — except of course frustration-fuelled militancy contributing to strengthening Palestinian resistance. It has to be part and parcel of any solution to the problem it created. No one wants the Gazans to be dependent on Israel for anything, but the dependence is a reality now in view of Israel's territorial control of the area — it was not created by Egypt or the Palestinians — and it is incumbent upon the Jewish state to bear the responsibilty for the Gaza Strip until an equitable solution is found.
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility
Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai's suggestion that his country should relinquish all responsibility for the Gaza Strip, including the supply of electricity and water, seems to be a test of international receptiveness to such idea. It signals a yet another dramatic turn in the history of the Palestinian struggle that has seen so much unexpected developments in recent months.
Vilani's call follows the forced opening of Gaza's southern border with Egypt, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said he ordered his border security forces to allow Gazans to enter Egyptian territory so that they could get their essential supplies and thus partially offset Israel's total lockdown on the territory.
Essentially, Israel should be seeing the opening of the border as a blessing in disguise because it eases pressure on the Jewish state to allow basic supplies to enter the Gaza Strip and eventually lead to a total disconnection from the territory. That would mean a link between Egypt and the Gaza Strip — a return of sorts to the pre-1967 situation. Egypt wants no part of it, as its government made it clear on Thursday commenting on Vilani's suggestion.
It has never been a secret that Israel had always seen the Gaza Strip — whichit accupied in the 1967 war — as a burden for itself. The coastal strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and Palestinian resistance to Israel's occupation of the land has always been verry intense there, making it ungovernable for the occupation authorities. The former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was only grabbing the opportunity when he decided to withdraw the Israeli military from the Gaza Strip and remove the Jewish settlements built there since 1967.
No doubt, Israel will press ahead with moves to somehow disconnect itself completely from the Gaza Strip as soon as it assures itself that Palestinian based in the territory do not pose a threat. We would see the manifestations of the Israeli idea in the days and weeks ahead.
However, Israel cannot shirk its responsibility. Its occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank has been devastating for the Palestinians. The territories have seen very little development in any sector under Israel's occupation — except of course frustration-fuelled militancy contributing to strengthening Palestinian resistance. It has to be part and parcel of any solution to the problem it created. No one wants the Gazans to be dependent on Israel for anything, but the dependence is a reality now in view of Israel's territorial control of the area — it was not created by Egypt or the Palestinians — and it is incumbent upon the Jewish state to bear the responsibilty for the Gaza Strip until an equitable solution is found.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
World deserves truthful answers
January 24, 2008
World deserves truthful answers
THE finding by two nonprofit journalism organisations that senior US administration officials, including President George W Bush himself, issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the Sept.11 2001 attacks is perhaps the strongest evidence of the one-track mind that Washington followed towards the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The findings by the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism, vindicates the conviction of many in this part of the world that Washington had planned and orchestrated a campaign that "effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
Top administration officials have since suggested that they were "misled" by intelligence reports, but they could not really make that claim because enough evidence is already on record that they were party to falsiflying and doctoring intelligence reports that deliberately ignored and suppressed anything that weakened the case they were building against Iraq.
The report names, apart from Bush himself, Vice-President Dick Cheney, then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Defence secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of state Colin Powell, then deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan among those who had made the false statements.
Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz have since left the administration, but their roles in the campaign have been very pronounced while they were in office.
The study also affirms that the administration enlisted the corporate media in the campaign and received their wholehearted support in the false build-up to the war.
Well, we know most of the the media groups and individuals involved. Some of them have admitted that they had played an unwitting role in building a case that Iraq was somehow involved in the Sept.11 attacks and had weapons of mass destruction which it could deliver to terrorists to carry out more attacks — the two arguments that people in this part of the world always knew to be false but could not do much against the combined administration-media assault.
The study notes: "Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organisations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," says the report. "These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."
The findings bring to the front other nagging questions: How far falsified was the official report about the Sept.11 attacks ? Were the attacks an 'inside" job as claimed by many American and international experts? Who helped Al Qaeda — the group named as the culprit — to sidestep every aviation and security precaution that was in place? Why did the mighty US defences fail to even register the "hijackings" before it was too late? What was the role of the Israeli secret service Mossad in the attacks? Whose interests were served by the attacks?
The world needs truthful answers to these questions because the entire international community paid a heavy price for the way Washington went about in its self-proclaimed war against terror that it launched after the Sept.11 attacks. No one in the world was spared and that took the issue out of a strictly American context. Many around the world are continuing to pay the price, direct and indirect, for the no-holds-barred American push that came in the wake of the attacks. They need answers. Hopefully, someone as courageous and thorough as the authors of the study on the false statements on Iraq would come forth sooner than later and provide the right and truthful answers.
World deserves truthful answers
THE finding by two nonprofit journalism organisations that senior US administration officials, including President George W Bush himself, issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the Sept.11 2001 attacks is perhaps the strongest evidence of the one-track mind that Washington followed towards the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The findings by the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism, vindicates the conviction of many in this part of the world that Washington had planned and orchestrated a campaign that "effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
Top administration officials have since suggested that they were "misled" by intelligence reports, but they could not really make that claim because enough evidence is already on record that they were party to falsiflying and doctoring intelligence reports that deliberately ignored and suppressed anything that weakened the case they were building against Iraq.
The report names, apart from Bush himself, Vice-President Dick Cheney, then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Defence secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of state Colin Powell, then deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan among those who had made the false statements.
Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz have since left the administration, but their roles in the campaign have been very pronounced while they were in office.
The study also affirms that the administration enlisted the corporate media in the campaign and received their wholehearted support in the false build-up to the war.
Well, we know most of the the media groups and individuals involved. Some of them have admitted that they had played an unwitting role in building a case that Iraq was somehow involved in the Sept.11 attacks and had weapons of mass destruction which it could deliver to terrorists to carry out more attacks — the two arguments that people in this part of the world always knew to be false but could not do much against the combined administration-media assault.
The study notes: "Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organisations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," says the report. "These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."
The findings bring to the front other nagging questions: How far falsified was the official report about the Sept.11 attacks ? Were the attacks an 'inside" job as claimed by many American and international experts? Who helped Al Qaeda — the group named as the culprit — to sidestep every aviation and security precaution that was in place? Why did the mighty US defences fail to even register the "hijackings" before it was too late? What was the role of the Israeli secret service Mossad in the attacks? Whose interests were served by the attacks?
The world needs truthful answers to these questions because the entire international community paid a heavy price for the way Washington went about in its self-proclaimed war against terror that it launched after the Sept.11 attacks. No one in the world was spared and that took the issue out of a strictly American context. Many around the world are continuing to pay the price, direct and indirect, for the no-holds-barred American push that came in the wake of the attacks. They need answers. Hopefully, someone as courageous and thorough as the authors of the study on the false statements on Iraq would come forth sooner than later and provide the right and truthful answers.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Grand designs are unfolding
Jan.23, 2008
Grand designs are unfolding
THE ISRAELI gesture of "easing" its choking blockade of the Gaza Strip by allowing some fuel to enter the coastal area was so timed that the move could be highlighted during any international or regional debate on the humanitarian crisis that has gripped the Gazans. Obviously, Israel wanted to pre-empt any move to censure it at the UN Security Council and the "easing" of the blockade also helped the US to cite it and defend its "strategic partner" in the Middle East.
The fuel that Israel allowed to be sent to the Gaza Strip on Tuesday does in no way imply any shift in its drive to inflict as much damage to the people of Gaza living under Hamas rule.
The fuel is only a "painkiller" and does not solve the basic problem that has to do with the political and military crisis that followed Israel's rejection of the Hamas-led government that was formed after last year's parliament elections which saw the group gaining a sweeping majority. Beyond that, however, is the root conflict where Israel is determined to impose its version of "peace" on the Palestinians.
Israel claims that the blockade is aimed at pressuring Palestinian resistance groups to halt their rocket attacks against Israeli towns. However, it has sinister objectives and that include the total destruction of Hamas as a political and military body in the Gaza Strip. That is what has been made clear in the disclosure by an Israeli official on Tuesday that the Israeli army has been ordered to destroy Hamas structures in Gaza as part of a three-pronged strategy aimed at toppling the group.
The strategy was reportedly adopted by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak during a meeting last week. And we have seen the result already.
The Israeli military launched the plan with the rocketing on Friday of a buiding in Gaza City used by Hamas as its interior ministry. The building was empty at the time, but the strike killed a a nearby building and wounded dozens of others.
What we could expect to see is a continuation of attacks on ministries, police stations, army and government buildings that are used by Hamas in Gaza coupled with air and ground operations.
Israel seems to following the same strategy it tried during its assault on Lebanon's Hizbollah in 2006. It believed that it could deal a severely damaging military blow to Hizbollah, but it had to step back against the unexpected intensity of Hizbollah retaliation.
Of course, the Lebanon situation could not be compared with the crisis in Gaza where the elements at play are different, but it is clear that Israel is determined to have its way in Gaza through military means. and the physical blockade of the territory. And that would mean more suffering and misery for the people of Gaza, with the international community seemingly unable to make any difference.
Grand designs are unfolding
THE ISRAELI gesture of "easing" its choking blockade of the Gaza Strip by allowing some fuel to enter the coastal area was so timed that the move could be highlighted during any international or regional debate on the humanitarian crisis that has gripped the Gazans. Obviously, Israel wanted to pre-empt any move to censure it at the UN Security Council and the "easing" of the blockade also helped the US to cite it and defend its "strategic partner" in the Middle East.
The fuel that Israel allowed to be sent to the Gaza Strip on Tuesday does in no way imply any shift in its drive to inflict as much damage to the people of Gaza living under Hamas rule.
The fuel is only a "painkiller" and does not solve the basic problem that has to do with the political and military crisis that followed Israel's rejection of the Hamas-led government that was formed after last year's parliament elections which saw the group gaining a sweeping majority. Beyond that, however, is the root conflict where Israel is determined to impose its version of "peace" on the Palestinians.
Israel claims that the blockade is aimed at pressuring Palestinian resistance groups to halt their rocket attacks against Israeli towns. However, it has sinister objectives and that include the total destruction of Hamas as a political and military body in the Gaza Strip. That is what has been made clear in the disclosure by an Israeli official on Tuesday that the Israeli army has been ordered to destroy Hamas structures in Gaza as part of a three-pronged strategy aimed at toppling the group.
The strategy was reportedly adopted by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak during a meeting last week. And we have seen the result already.
The Israeli military launched the plan with the rocketing on Friday of a buiding in Gaza City used by Hamas as its interior ministry. The building was empty at the time, but the strike killed a a nearby building and wounded dozens of others.
What we could expect to see is a continuation of attacks on ministries, police stations, army and government buildings that are used by Hamas in Gaza coupled with air and ground operations.
Israel seems to following the same strategy it tried during its assault on Lebanon's Hizbollah in 2006. It believed that it could deal a severely damaging military blow to Hizbollah, but it had to step back against the unexpected intensity of Hizbollah retaliation.
Of course, the Lebanon situation could not be compared with the crisis in Gaza where the elements at play are different, but it is clear that Israel is determined to have its way in Gaza through military means. and the physical blockade of the territory. And that would mean more suffering and misery for the people of Gaza, with the international community seemingly unable to make any difference.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Keeping an open mind on UN reform
Jan.22, 2008
Keeping an open mind
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is said to have launched secret talks with other world leaders on moves towards creating a "new world order" and "global society." He intends to start this with far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council, including an expansion of the number of permanent members in bring in countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil and one or two African countries. It seems unclear at this point whether the newcomers would have the same veto power as enjoyed by the current permanent members of the Security Council — the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.
Brown is said to have discussed his plans with Chinese and Indian leaders during his ongoing visit to Asia.
We do not know at this point the details of what Brown has in mind.
Demands for reform at the UN have been heard for long, but none of the big powers, notably the US, did not want to touch one of the root issues — the status of the current five permanent members of the Security Council as the ultimate authority to decide on world issues as guaranteed by in-built and tailor-made provisions in the UN Charter.
It is undisputed that the current UN structure, as created in 1945, does not reflect the challenges that the world has accumulated since then. The question that arises in the context of Brown's initiative is whether it agrees with the world view that too much power rests with the Big Five of the Security Council and that has been grossly misused by them whenever it suited their purposes and interests. And they sidestepped the world body when it did not suit their intentions, as the Iraq case proved. When it became clear to US President George W. Bush in March 2003 that the Security Council could not agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq, he acted unilaterally with support from the then British prime minister, Tony Blair.
Brown is expected unveil a proposal for the UN to spend about $200 million a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. And it would involve the collective work of civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers as well as military peace-keepers.
In concept, it is a great idea. However, the first impression that we would get from the reported outline of Brown's initiative is that the "new world order" that he wants to shape would be geared to serve the interests of the Big Five plus the proposed newcomers as permanent members.
At this jucture, let us reserve our judgement until the skeleton proposal is fleshed out and determine whether it would be tailored to serve the interests of the world rather than its creators and masters.
After all, any reform in the UN would require 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the General Assembly, and everyone has grown smart enough to figure out the common interests of the international community.
Keeping an open mind
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is said to have launched secret talks with other world leaders on moves towards creating a "new world order" and "global society." He intends to start this with far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council, including an expansion of the number of permanent members in bring in countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil and one or two African countries. It seems unclear at this point whether the newcomers would have the same veto power as enjoyed by the current permanent members of the Security Council — the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.
Brown is said to have discussed his plans with Chinese and Indian leaders during his ongoing visit to Asia.
We do not know at this point the details of what Brown has in mind.
Demands for reform at the UN have been heard for long, but none of the big powers, notably the US, did not want to touch one of the root issues — the status of the current five permanent members of the Security Council as the ultimate authority to decide on world issues as guaranteed by in-built and tailor-made provisions in the UN Charter.
It is undisputed that the current UN structure, as created in 1945, does not reflect the challenges that the world has accumulated since then. The question that arises in the context of Brown's initiative is whether it agrees with the world view that too much power rests with the Big Five of the Security Council and that has been grossly misused by them whenever it suited their purposes and interests. And they sidestepped the world body when it did not suit their intentions, as the Iraq case proved. When it became clear to US President George W. Bush in March 2003 that the Security Council could not agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq, he acted unilaterally with support from the then British prime minister, Tony Blair.
Brown is expected unveil a proposal for the UN to spend about $200 million a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. And it would involve the collective work of civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers as well as military peace-keepers.
In concept, it is a great idea. However, the first impression that we would get from the reported outline of Brown's initiative is that the "new world order" that he wants to shape would be geared to serve the interests of the Big Five plus the proposed newcomers as permanent members.
At this jucture, let us reserve our judgement until the skeleton proposal is fleshed out and determine whether it would be tailored to serve the interests of the world rather than its creators and masters.
After all, any reform in the UN would require 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the General Assembly, and everyone has grown smart enough to figure out the common interests of the international community.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Hitting where it hurts most
Jan.21, 2008
Hitting where it hurts most
ISRAELI ministers have reacted as expected to Hizbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah at their weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, one day after Nasrallah claimed to possess the body parts of Israeli soldiers who fought during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. They have called for his assassination, but then the world knows that Nasrallah is on top of the hit-list of Israel's secret assassins. The new call only adds a sense of urgency to their task.
In his comments on Saturday during his first public appearance for nearly one year, Nasrallah — one of the most well-protected individuals in the world — hit the Israeli government and military where it hurt when he chided them for abandoning the bodies of soldiers killed in clashes with Hizbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
It is indeed natural that Israelis were hurt. Israel prides itself on doing everything to recover the remains of its soldiers from fields of battle and has in the past freed prisoners in exchange for remains of soldiers and civilians. To be publicly accused of not bothering about the bodies of Israeli soldiers slain in battle is unthinkable for Israeli leaders and military. It is a big blow not only their professional pride but also what they consider as a national commitment.
The accusation has yet another dimension. It comes a few days before the release of an investigation report on Israel's conduct during the war with Hizbollah in 2006. The report is expected to be critical of the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as the Israeli military. Obviously, the Israeli ministers are also mindful that the report would have a deep impact on the Israeli society at large since the military actions of 2006 marked the first time that a war was brought to Israeli population centres and villages and shook Israel's perceived image of invincibility. The Hizbollah claims could add to the heat on the Israeli political establishment led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, something it could do without at this point where it is already seeking compromise solutions to ensure the survival of the Olmert-led coalition.
By chiding the Israelis over the remains of soldiers now said to be in Hizbollah's possession, Nasrallah appeared to implicitly pressure Israel to accept a prisoner exchange. Israel is thought to be holding at least seven Lebanese prisoners while Hizbollah has two Israeli soldiers it captured in July 2006.
Israeli military officials have confirmed that Hizbollah could have the remains of about 10 soldiers were involved, but that Israel would not negotiate with Hizbollah over them. Some contacts are indeed under way for a possible swap involving the two captive Israeli soldiers, but, it would seem, Nasrallah is not satisfied with the pace of negotiations.
Why should there be so much fuzz over Nasrallah's comments?
The answer is simple: The Israeli political body and military establishment are still smarting from the surprisingly strong resistance Hizbollah put up against the Israeli assault in 2006 and they are still unsure how they would fare if they were told to repeat the action now.
Hitting where it hurts most
ISRAELI ministers have reacted as expected to Hizbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah at their weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, one day after Nasrallah claimed to possess the body parts of Israeli soldiers who fought during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. They have called for his assassination, but then the world knows that Nasrallah is on top of the hit-list of Israel's secret assassins. The new call only adds a sense of urgency to their task.
In his comments on Saturday during his first public appearance for nearly one year, Nasrallah — one of the most well-protected individuals in the world — hit the Israeli government and military where it hurt when he chided them for abandoning the bodies of soldiers killed in clashes with Hizbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
It is indeed natural that Israelis were hurt. Israel prides itself on doing everything to recover the remains of its soldiers from fields of battle and has in the past freed prisoners in exchange for remains of soldiers and civilians. To be publicly accused of not bothering about the bodies of Israeli soldiers slain in battle is unthinkable for Israeli leaders and military. It is a big blow not only their professional pride but also what they consider as a national commitment.
The accusation has yet another dimension. It comes a few days before the release of an investigation report on Israel's conduct during the war with Hizbollah in 2006. The report is expected to be critical of the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as the Israeli military. Obviously, the Israeli ministers are also mindful that the report would have a deep impact on the Israeli society at large since the military actions of 2006 marked the first time that a war was brought to Israeli population centres and villages and shook Israel's perceived image of invincibility. The Hizbollah claims could add to the heat on the Israeli political establishment led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, something it could do without at this point where it is already seeking compromise solutions to ensure the survival of the Olmert-led coalition.
By chiding the Israelis over the remains of soldiers now said to be in Hizbollah's possession, Nasrallah appeared to implicitly pressure Israel to accept a prisoner exchange. Israel is thought to be holding at least seven Lebanese prisoners while Hizbollah has two Israeli soldiers it captured in July 2006.
Israeli military officials have confirmed that Hizbollah could have the remains of about 10 soldiers were involved, but that Israel would not negotiate with Hizbollah over them. Some contacts are indeed under way for a possible swap involving the two captive Israeli soldiers, but, it would seem, Nasrallah is not satisfied with the pace of negotiations.
Why should there be so much fuzz over Nasrallah's comments?
The answer is simple: The Israeli political body and military establishment are still smarting from the surprisingly strong resistance Hizbollah put up against the Israeli assault in 2006 and they are still unsure how they would fare if they were told to repeat the action now.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Peace will cease to have any meaning
January 20, 2008
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
Peace will cease to have any meaning
January 20, 2008
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Elusive goal of safety, security
Jan.19, 2008
Elusive goal of safety, security
ISRAEL has declared open war on the Gaza Strip and is pressing ahead with military action that it says is retaliation for Palestinian rocket attacks from the territory. It has imposed a total lockdown on Gaza and is refusing to reopen crossings into the Mediterranean strip where residents are largely dependent on food aid to survive in view of the Israeli blockade that has brought economic activity there to a standstill.
The Israeli military machinery is working in earnest. Israeli strikes have killed dozens in three days, capping the hundreds killed and maimed in its attacks in the last few months, not to mention the thousands who lost their life since the Intifada was relaunched.
The Israeli army is also pressing ahead with forays into West Bank towns, killing and arresting Palestinians at the slightest suspicion of challeging the occupation forces.
Many of the Palestinian casualties were and are civilian, including women and children.
On the other side, Palestinian groups are continuing their armed resistance. They have fired dozens of rockets and
mortar shells into the Jewish state, lightly wounding more than 10
people, since Tuesday. They have no other way of keeping Israel reminded that there could be no security for its people without security for the Palestinian people.
Ignored in the din of military action are warning that the piralling escalation of armed conflict between the two sides could sink
revived peace efforts, and no one seems to be able to do anything to check the turn to the worse. The US, by maintaining that Israel is "exercising its right to to self-defence," is only encouraging the Israeli strikes.
It would appear that Israel is not ready for a full-scale assault on the Gaza Strip and reoccupy the area that it left two years ago. That is understandable if only because it is clear that Palestinian resistance had made the territory ungovernable for Israel since the 1970s and the occupation forces were looking for a way out of the quagmire by letting it go at the first given opportunity. The current Israeli posture would mean more air and land strikes against Gaza while the territory remains totally cut off from the rest of the world.
Whatever considerations the two sides have, the fact remains that the civilian residents of Gaza have been paying a high price for the confrontation in more ways than one.
And now Israel is refusing to reopen the border crossings to allow in
humanitarian aid despite the UN appeal for them to be reopened
"so that the dire situation in Gaza does not deteriorate further, inflicting further misery on one and a half million people" who live there.
What Israel needs to realise is that military strikes would not bring a cessation of the rocket fire. It is universal — all the more true for the determined Palestinian resistance — that violence and military solutions and collective punishment will only breed violence and more hatred and will never bring the safety and security that Israel says its wants for its people.
Elusive goal of safety, security
ISRAEL has declared open war on the Gaza Strip and is pressing ahead with military action that it says is retaliation for Palestinian rocket attacks from the territory. It has imposed a total lockdown on Gaza and is refusing to reopen crossings into the Mediterranean strip where residents are largely dependent on food aid to survive in view of the Israeli blockade that has brought economic activity there to a standstill.
The Israeli military machinery is working in earnest. Israeli strikes have killed dozens in three days, capping the hundreds killed and maimed in its attacks in the last few months, not to mention the thousands who lost their life since the Intifada was relaunched.
The Israeli army is also pressing ahead with forays into West Bank towns, killing and arresting Palestinians at the slightest suspicion of challeging the occupation forces.
Many of the Palestinian casualties were and are civilian, including women and children.
On the other side, Palestinian groups are continuing their armed resistance. They have fired dozens of rockets and
mortar shells into the Jewish state, lightly wounding more than 10
people, since Tuesday. They have no other way of keeping Israel reminded that there could be no security for its people without security for the Palestinian people.
Ignored in the din of military action are warning that the piralling escalation of armed conflict between the two sides could sink
revived peace efforts, and no one seems to be able to do anything to check the turn to the worse. The US, by maintaining that Israel is "exercising its right to to self-defence," is only encouraging the Israeli strikes.
It would appear that Israel is not ready for a full-scale assault on the Gaza Strip and reoccupy the area that it left two years ago. That is understandable if only because it is clear that Palestinian resistance had made the territory ungovernable for Israel since the 1970s and the occupation forces were looking for a way out of the quagmire by letting it go at the first given opportunity. The current Israeli posture would mean more air and land strikes against Gaza while the territory remains totally cut off from the rest of the world.
Whatever considerations the two sides have, the fact remains that the civilian residents of Gaza have been paying a high price for the confrontation in more ways than one.
And now Israel is refusing to reopen the border crossings to allow in
humanitarian aid despite the UN appeal for them to be reopened
"so that the dire situation in Gaza does not deteriorate further, inflicting further misery on one and a half million people" who live there.
What Israel needs to realise is that military strikes would not bring a cessation of the rocket fire. It is universal — all the more true for the determined Palestinian resistance — that violence and military solutions and collective punishment will only breed violence and more hatred and will never bring the safety and security that Israel says its wants for its people.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Kenya - what needs to be done
January 18, 2008
What needs to be done should be done
POLITICIANS never learn, particularly those in power, from history, and if and when they do, then it would be too late for many of their people. The developments in Kenya bear witness to this universal truth.
In Kenya, the government President Mwai Kibaki is determined to stay in power despite monitors' observation that the Dec.27 election was flawed. While the voting itself went without a hitch, the vote counting process was rigged, according to independent observers.
The government has brushed aside the charge and is putting up a show of force and the opposition is hitting back. At least 600 people have been killed in post-election violence linked to demonstrations staged by the opposition, whose leader Raila Odinga insists that he had won the elections. Odinga has offered to call off the protests if the government orders a transparent recount of the votes and if the results show that Kibaki had won. He has also said that he would be prepared to take part in a "transitional coalition government" tasked with organising new elections within six months.
However, the government is unmoved. It is determined to crush opposition protests by the use of force. On Thursday, several people were shot dead in Nairobi suburbs in clashes between opposition supporters and people. On the first day of the renewed protests on Wednesday, at least four people were killed.
That came after the opposition scored a small victory on Tuesday when its candidate was elected speaker of parliament, but that does not count for much in Kenya's political environment.
An overview of the crisis should begin with the final report of its observer team saying the Dec.27 polls "did not meet international standards." As such, it was incumbent on the government to clear the air by ordering a recount of the ballots. Its refusal to do so could be interpreted only as substantiation of the opposition charges that there was something wrong in the counting process.
It cannot be said with absolute accuracy that at stake in Kenya is democracy. The ongoing fight there is not for the sake of democracy as much as for power and the wealth that goes with authority. Odinga loyalists — most of them from his tribe — stand to benefit from him becoming president of the country; they would become ministers and fill the bureaucratic ranks wherever possible — a process that would be reversed if Kibaki emerges the victor in the next elections and names people from his tribe as ministers and replaces the bureaucratic ranks wherever possible with his people.
Businessmen stand to gain from the political gains of their respective tribes in the form of government contracts for goods, services and projects..
This is the political cycle in many countries and it is likely to continue for sometime before the people at large are more educated and start asking questions.
In the meantime, the international community could step in and help the Kenyans solve the crisis. It could start by restraining the opposition from engaging in provocative protests and holding to account the government for its high-handed approach while dealing with people exercising their democratic rights.
The situation in Kenya would only turn worse if the world remained silent and inadvertently encourage the government to continue its present course while also frustrating and the opposition into hardening its position.
Indeed, the US government has warned that it will not conduct "business as usual" with Kenya until there is an accord. The European Union has threatened sanctions, including the suspension of financial assistance. These are good first steps, but they should be followed up with determination and commitment in order to find an end to the suffering of the ordinary people of Kenya and work out a political settlement based on democratic principles. There could be no compromise.
What needs to be done should be done
POLITICIANS never learn, particularly those in power, from history, and if and when they do, then it would be too late for many of their people. The developments in Kenya bear witness to this universal truth.
In Kenya, the government President Mwai Kibaki is determined to stay in power despite monitors' observation that the Dec.27 election was flawed. While the voting itself went without a hitch, the vote counting process was rigged, according to independent observers.
The government has brushed aside the charge and is putting up a show of force and the opposition is hitting back. At least 600 people have been killed in post-election violence linked to demonstrations staged by the opposition, whose leader Raila Odinga insists that he had won the elections. Odinga has offered to call off the protests if the government orders a transparent recount of the votes and if the results show that Kibaki had won. He has also said that he would be prepared to take part in a "transitional coalition government" tasked with organising new elections within six months.
However, the government is unmoved. It is determined to crush opposition protests by the use of force. On Thursday, several people were shot dead in Nairobi suburbs in clashes between opposition supporters and people. On the first day of the renewed protests on Wednesday, at least four people were killed.
That came after the opposition scored a small victory on Tuesday when its candidate was elected speaker of parliament, but that does not count for much in Kenya's political environment.
An overview of the crisis should begin with the final report of its observer team saying the Dec.27 polls "did not meet international standards." As such, it was incumbent on the government to clear the air by ordering a recount of the ballots. Its refusal to do so could be interpreted only as substantiation of the opposition charges that there was something wrong in the counting process.
It cannot be said with absolute accuracy that at stake in Kenya is democracy. The ongoing fight there is not for the sake of democracy as much as for power and the wealth that goes with authority. Odinga loyalists — most of them from his tribe — stand to benefit from him becoming president of the country; they would become ministers and fill the bureaucratic ranks wherever possible — a process that would be reversed if Kibaki emerges the victor in the next elections and names people from his tribe as ministers and replaces the bureaucratic ranks wherever possible with his people.
Businessmen stand to gain from the political gains of their respective tribes in the form of government contracts for goods, services and projects..
This is the political cycle in many countries and it is likely to continue for sometime before the people at large are more educated and start asking questions.
In the meantime, the international community could step in and help the Kenyans solve the crisis. It could start by restraining the opposition from engaging in provocative protests and holding to account the government for its high-handed approach while dealing with people exercising their democratic rights.
The situation in Kenya would only turn worse if the world remained silent and inadvertently encourage the government to continue its present course while also frustrating and the opposition into hardening its position.
Indeed, the US government has warned that it will not conduct "business as usual" with Kenya until there is an accord. The European Union has threatened sanctions, including the suspension of financial assistance. These are good first steps, but they should be followed up with determination and commitment in order to find an end to the suffering of the ordinary people of Kenya and work out a political settlement based on democratic principles. There could be no compromise.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A non-starter on the political front
January 17, 2008
A non-starter on the political front
IT IS difficult to see what US President George W Bush reaped during his Middle East visit that came to a close on Wednesday except perhaps a hope that oil producers might increase output with a view to offsetting the record rise in prices. Even that sounds unlikely when seen against the Saudi comment that oil production could be increased when justified by market forces.
Indeed, Bush's trip did contribute to the bilateral front by opening new avenues towards strengthening US relations with the countries he visited during the trip. But those relations could not be turned around and fitted into a political context the way Bush obviously wanted to do.
Bush's confidence that he would be able to witness the signing of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement before he left the White House in January 2009 was never realistic, given the realiities on the ground and the complexities of the conflict. It was during his swing through the region this week that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that he did not think any peace deal was possible with the Palestinians but that he had no option to continue negotiations because of the dangerous implications of the status quo.
The situation has been further complicated on Wednesday with one partner bolting the coalition government in Israel and another poised to quit if Olmert went ahead with working out any deal with the Palestinians on the key issue of Jerusalem. And Bush's presence in the region did not dissuade Israel from launching a major operation that killed at least 18 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday.
Bush got a cool response to his call on Arab countries to "reach out" to Israel. The Arabs have already reached out to Israel with the Saudi-led peace initiative which offers peace in return for all the Arab territories it occupied in the 1967 war, but the Jewish state wanted it twisted its way.
Both Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, harped on the theme of Arabs "reaching out" to Israel during the presidential visit, but they could not persuade anyone to bury the belief that it would be like rewarding Israel even against the backdrop that it is not ready for a fair and just settlement its conflict with the Palestinians.
Finally, Bush could find little takers in the region for his campaign against Iran. While the region's countries do have its own concerns about Iran, they are not willing to adorn an Israeli-designed and American supplied eyeglass to look at Iran. Surely, Bush would have heard the message loud and clear and during the visit, particularly the declaration by the Saudi media that Saudi Arabia would not allow itself to be used as a launching pad for military action against Iran — essentially the centrepiece of the trip.
In sum, the presidential tour of the Middle East could de deemed as a high-profile protocolish success and big boost to bilateral relations, but the president's political mission in the Israeli and Iranian contexts was a non-starter.
A non-starter on the political front
IT IS difficult to see what US President George W Bush reaped during his Middle East visit that came to a close on Wednesday except perhaps a hope that oil producers might increase output with a view to offsetting the record rise in prices. Even that sounds unlikely when seen against the Saudi comment that oil production could be increased when justified by market forces.
Indeed, Bush's trip did contribute to the bilateral front by opening new avenues towards strengthening US relations with the countries he visited during the trip. But those relations could not be turned around and fitted into a political context the way Bush obviously wanted to do.
Bush's confidence that he would be able to witness the signing of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement before he left the White House in January 2009 was never realistic, given the realiities on the ground and the complexities of the conflict. It was during his swing through the region this week that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that he did not think any peace deal was possible with the Palestinians but that he had no option to continue negotiations because of the dangerous implications of the status quo.
The situation has been further complicated on Wednesday with one partner bolting the coalition government in Israel and another poised to quit if Olmert went ahead with working out any deal with the Palestinians on the key issue of Jerusalem. And Bush's presence in the region did not dissuade Israel from launching a major operation that killed at least 18 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday.
Bush got a cool response to his call on Arab countries to "reach out" to Israel. The Arabs have already reached out to Israel with the Saudi-led peace initiative which offers peace in return for all the Arab territories it occupied in the 1967 war, but the Jewish state wanted it twisted its way.
Both Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, harped on the theme of Arabs "reaching out" to Israel during the presidential visit, but they could not persuade anyone to bury the belief that it would be like rewarding Israel even against the backdrop that it is not ready for a fair and just settlement its conflict with the Palestinians.
Finally, Bush could find little takers in the region for his campaign against Iran. While the region's countries do have its own concerns about Iran, they are not willing to adorn an Israeli-designed and American supplied eyeglass to look at Iran. Surely, Bush would have heard the message loud and clear and during the visit, particularly the declaration by the Saudi media that Saudi Arabia would not allow itself to be used as a launching pad for military action against Iran — essentially the centrepiece of the trip.
In sum, the presidential tour of the Middle East could de deemed as a high-profile protocolish success and big boost to bilateral relations, but the president's political mission in the Israeli and Iranian contexts was a non-starter.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
UAE sets yet another model
Jan.16, 2008
UAE sets yet another model
THE agreement on nuclear co-operation signed by France and the UAE on Tuesday is a landmark in many bilateral and multilateral aspects.
It does not mean that the UAE would move with any haste to begin producing and using nuclear energy. The country will follow a steady and responsible course supported by research and experience and advice of leading international nuclear experts in order to ensure that there will be no room whatsoever for any eyebrows to be raised at its nuclear activities for peaceful purposes in absolute safety and security.
What stands out, as explained by Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed, is the UAE's firm commitment to follow a sound, well-planned and transparent nuclear programme in close consultation with all the concerned major world powers in the field and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The agreement with France provides for bilateral co-operation in nuclear activities with a view to evaluating and potential use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, including power production, water desalination, basic and applied research, agronomy, earth sciences, medicine and industry.
The UAE aims to "create a responsible framework for the evaluation and possible implementation of a peaceful nuclear programme, ensuring compliance with the highest standards of non-proliferation, safety and security," Sheikh Abdullah emphasised.
In yet another important move, the country is also seeking help from the IAEA to devise guidelines for management of radioactive waste in the oil and gas industries.
The nuclear watchdog of the UN will help the UAE in control and prevention in assessing natural radioactive waste originated from the oil and gas industries. The scope of work also includes classification of radioactive waste treatment, review of relevant legislations and assessment of infrastructure for radioactive waste management.
Indeed, the UAE's approach is a model that could be emulated by non-nuclear countries to have in place a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes with full support of the international community.
By adopting the multifaceted approach towards the peaceful use of nuclear energy and by committing itself to abiding by it, the UAE has yet again proved why it could assume a front-line position in the international community in a relatively short period and set an example for others to follow in many other aspects of international life in both bilateral and multilateral spheres.
UAE sets yet another model
THE agreement on nuclear co-operation signed by France and the UAE on Tuesday is a landmark in many bilateral and multilateral aspects.
It does not mean that the UAE would move with any haste to begin producing and using nuclear energy. The country will follow a steady and responsible course supported by research and experience and advice of leading international nuclear experts in order to ensure that there will be no room whatsoever for any eyebrows to be raised at its nuclear activities for peaceful purposes in absolute safety and security.
What stands out, as explained by Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed, is the UAE's firm commitment to follow a sound, well-planned and transparent nuclear programme in close consultation with all the concerned major world powers in the field and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The agreement with France provides for bilateral co-operation in nuclear activities with a view to evaluating and potential use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, including power production, water desalination, basic and applied research, agronomy, earth sciences, medicine and industry.
The UAE aims to "create a responsible framework for the evaluation and possible implementation of a peaceful nuclear programme, ensuring compliance with the highest standards of non-proliferation, safety and security," Sheikh Abdullah emphasised.
In yet another important move, the country is also seeking help from the IAEA to devise guidelines for management of radioactive waste in the oil and gas industries.
The nuclear watchdog of the UN will help the UAE in control and prevention in assessing natural radioactive waste originated from the oil and gas industries. The scope of work also includes classification of radioactive waste treatment, review of relevant legislations and assessment of infrastructure for radioactive waste management.
Indeed, the UAE's approach is a model that could be emulated by non-nuclear countries to have in place a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes with full support of the international community.
By adopting the multifaceted approach towards the peaceful use of nuclear energy and by committing itself to abiding by it, the UAE has yet again proved why it could assume a front-line position in the international community in a relatively short period and set an example for others to follow in many other aspects of international life in both bilateral and multilateral spheres.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Peace remains a political captive
Jan.15, 2008
Peace remains a political captive
IT is not diffcult to figure out why Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated on Monday that Israel may not reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, but will continue negotiations because maintaining the status quo is dangerous.
The danger is multi-fold. Palestinian hopes have been raised with the Annapolis conference and the recent visit by US President George W Bush that a peace agreement could be worked out sooner than later. Any setback to those hopes would result in militancy fuelled by frustration leading to undermining diplomacy, making it all the more difficult for any effort to work out a peace agreement.
The medium-term danger is demographic and would see Jews outnumbered by Arabs under Israel's control and thus undermine its claim to be "the Jewish state." That is essentially an Israeli problem, but with all that it entails in terms of Palestinian aspirations for independent statehood.
The situation highlighgts the uncertainty of the whole process launched under US auspices in Annapolis in November and brings into question Bush's confident promise that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be signed before he leaves office in January 2009.
Olmert, who is facing dire political straits, is trying to do several things at the same time. Facing pressure from his coalition partners against discussing core issues with the Palestinians, he wants to dilute Palestinian demands by suggesting that his coalition government could collapse if he were to grant "too many concessions" in the peace talks.
Olmert is also sending a message of assurance to hawkish coalition partners such as Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who has threatened to pull out of the coalition if the government begins discussing the questions at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Even if Lieberman — who controls 11 seats in the 120-member Israeli parliament — makes good this threat, Olmert's government would still command 67 seats. But then, Olmert faces a similar threat from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, which has seats. Shas says it would quit the coalition if Jerusalem comes up for discussion, and this would mean Olmert without a parliamentary majority and raises the prospect of snap parliamentary elections. Olmert's Kadima party is expected to do badly if elections were to be held today. The hard-line Likud bloc led by Benjamin Netanyahu is most likely to emerge as the leading vote-winner and could form the next coalition government, and there disappears the chance of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
On the other side, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has his own troubles. All he could count on at this point is Bush's assurance that the US would remain engaged in the peace negotiations and the international community's pledge of several billion dollars that, if properly utilised, should indeed make a positive difference to the daily life of the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. Abbas faces the task of of not only somehow regaining control of the Gaza Strip but also of keeping militancy in check, a tough task, given the Israeli refusal to entertain Palestinian demands that are key to any peace agreement.
Any Israeli-Palestinian peace process has always remained captive to internal Israeli politics as to internal Palestinian politics. It is now Olmert's turn to grapple with the issues at hand and the fate of the Annapolis process depends on his success or defeat to handle the political forces that are determined to maintain the status quo.
Peace remains a political captive
IT is not diffcult to figure out why Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated on Monday that Israel may not reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, but will continue negotiations because maintaining the status quo is dangerous.
The danger is multi-fold. Palestinian hopes have been raised with the Annapolis conference and the recent visit by US President George W Bush that a peace agreement could be worked out sooner than later. Any setback to those hopes would result in militancy fuelled by frustration leading to undermining diplomacy, making it all the more difficult for any effort to work out a peace agreement.
The medium-term danger is demographic and would see Jews outnumbered by Arabs under Israel's control and thus undermine its claim to be "the Jewish state." That is essentially an Israeli problem, but with all that it entails in terms of Palestinian aspirations for independent statehood.
The situation highlighgts the uncertainty of the whole process launched under US auspices in Annapolis in November and brings into question Bush's confident promise that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be signed before he leaves office in January 2009.
Olmert, who is facing dire political straits, is trying to do several things at the same time. Facing pressure from his coalition partners against discussing core issues with the Palestinians, he wants to dilute Palestinian demands by suggesting that his coalition government could collapse if he were to grant "too many concessions" in the peace talks.
Olmert is also sending a message of assurance to hawkish coalition partners such as Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who has threatened to pull out of the coalition if the government begins discussing the questions at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Even if Lieberman — who controls 11 seats in the 120-member Israeli parliament — makes good this threat, Olmert's government would still command 67 seats. But then, Olmert faces a similar threat from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, which has seats. Shas says it would quit the coalition if Jerusalem comes up for discussion, and this would mean Olmert without a parliamentary majority and raises the prospect of snap parliamentary elections. Olmert's Kadima party is expected to do badly if elections were to be held today. The hard-line Likud bloc led by Benjamin Netanyahu is most likely to emerge as the leading vote-winner and could form the next coalition government, and there disappears the chance of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
On the other side, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has his own troubles. All he could count on at this point is Bush's assurance that the US would remain engaged in the peace negotiations and the international community's pledge of several billion dollars that, if properly utilised, should indeed make a positive difference to the daily life of the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. Abbas faces the task of of not only somehow regaining control of the Gaza Strip but also of keeping militancy in check, a tough task, given the Israeli refusal to entertain Palestinian demands that are key to any peace agreement.
Any Israeli-Palestinian peace process has always remained captive to internal Israeli politics as to internal Palestinian politics. It is now Olmert's turn to grapple with the issues at hand and the fate of the Annapolis process depends on his success or defeat to handle the political forces that are determined to maintain the status quo.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Thank you and au revoir Mr President
Jan.14, 2008
History and geopolitics
IN PRINCIPLE and context, US President George W Bush's speech in Abu Dhabi on Sunday sounded great and befiting the president of the world's strongest power and a country founded on noble democratic principles and respect for human rights and dignity. His assertions and declarations on the region's crises and problems, whether in Palestine, Lebanon or Iraq, were perfect. His pledge of American support for peace between Israel and the Palestinians was a reaffirmation of the strong position he adopted at the Annapolis conference in November.
However, there were several dampners in what Bush told us. First of all, he linked Israeli-Palestinian peace directly with "security" of Israel. We know that Israel uses its "security" as the best smokescreen for its arbitrary positions and practices in the occupied territories and beyond. Our close understanding of the way Israel manipulates things to suit its interests prompts us to be sceptical how far the US would be able to brush aside Israeli arguments based on its "security" imperatives while negotiating peace with the Palestinians.
In fact, Bush should be trying to convince Israel that its "security" could not be guaranteed through the use of military might, but only through working out a just, fair and comprensive settlement with the Palestinians.
As was expected, Bush described Iran as the greatest sponsor of state terrorism in the world and underlined what he saw as the need to confront Iranian designs to destabilise the region. It is a view that is not necessarily shared by many in the region, which is also aware that Bush views Iran from a strictly Israeli perspective rather than even an American perspective. What we would have liked to hear from Bush was an understanding of the history of our region and the traditional relations that have prevailed in the Gulf for centuries. Iran, whether Israel likes it or not, is part and parcel of the region with strong ties with its neighbours in the Gulf that could not be negated for whatever purposes as dictated by external interests.
We would have expected Bush to offer to open a no-holds-barred diplomatic dialogue with Iran with the transparent objective of working out a modus vivendi between Washington and Tehran, particularly that the US president has been emphasising that he prefers diplomacy over military means in his approach to Iran.
Surely, Bush would and should have known before he set out to the region that he could not have hoped to secure the kind of Arab support that he sought against Iran. As such, he should have also realised that the whole objective of his reference to Iran was simply to restate the US position.
On the bilateral front, the Bush visit was indeed a landmark in US-UAE relations that were cemented with the US recognition of the UAE federation when it was launched in 1971.
As the US president winds up his visit to to the UAE today, both sides would be reflecting on the fact that it has given a major boost to bilateral relations in a way that also recognises that the UAE has come a long way from 1971 and has already claimed a prominent position among leaders of the international community in the 36 years of its existence as a federation. Indeed, Bush's visit to the UAE reaffirmed the progress and development that the country has made and is continuing to make at an unparallelled pace.
Thank you and au revoir Mr President
History and geopolitics
IN PRINCIPLE and context, US President George W Bush's speech in Abu Dhabi on Sunday sounded great and befiting the president of the world's strongest power and a country founded on noble democratic principles and respect for human rights and dignity. His assertions and declarations on the region's crises and problems, whether in Palestine, Lebanon or Iraq, were perfect. His pledge of American support for peace between Israel and the Palestinians was a reaffirmation of the strong position he adopted at the Annapolis conference in November.
However, there were several dampners in what Bush told us. First of all, he linked Israeli-Palestinian peace directly with "security" of Israel. We know that Israel uses its "security" as the best smokescreen for its arbitrary positions and practices in the occupied territories and beyond. Our close understanding of the way Israel manipulates things to suit its interests prompts us to be sceptical how far the US would be able to brush aside Israeli arguments based on its "security" imperatives while negotiating peace with the Palestinians.
In fact, Bush should be trying to convince Israel that its "security" could not be guaranteed through the use of military might, but only through working out a just, fair and comprensive settlement with the Palestinians.
As was expected, Bush described Iran as the greatest sponsor of state terrorism in the world and underlined what he saw as the need to confront Iranian designs to destabilise the region. It is a view that is not necessarily shared by many in the region, which is also aware that Bush views Iran from a strictly Israeli perspective rather than even an American perspective. What we would have liked to hear from Bush was an understanding of the history of our region and the traditional relations that have prevailed in the Gulf for centuries. Iran, whether Israel likes it or not, is part and parcel of the region with strong ties with its neighbours in the Gulf that could not be negated for whatever purposes as dictated by external interests.
We would have expected Bush to offer to open a no-holds-barred diplomatic dialogue with Iran with the transparent objective of working out a modus vivendi between Washington and Tehran, particularly that the US president has been emphasising that he prefers diplomacy over military means in his approach to Iran.
Surely, Bush would and should have known before he set out to the region that he could not have hoped to secure the kind of Arab support that he sought against Iran. As such, he should have also realised that the whole objective of his reference to Iran was simply to restate the US position.
On the bilateral front, the Bush visit was indeed a landmark in US-UAE relations that were cemented with the US recognition of the UAE federation when it was launched in 1971.
As the US president winds up his visit to to the UAE today, both sides would be reflecting on the fact that it has given a major boost to bilateral relations in a way that also recognises that the UAE has come a long way from 1971 and has already claimed a prominent position among leaders of the international community in the 36 years of its existence as a federation. Indeed, Bush's visit to the UAE reaffirmed the progress and development that the country has made and is continuing to make at an unparallelled pace.
Thank you and au revoir Mr President
Sunday, January 13, 2008
A 'message' in it somewhere?
Jan.13, 2008
A 'message' in it somewhere?
THE US-REPORTED threat that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made against three American warships in the Straits of Hormuz has injected more tension to the growing US-Iranian confrontation. It has become an international talking point at a time when US President George W Bush is visiting the region with a view to convincing Arab countries that Iran poses a threat to regional stability and security.
It is not that Iranians would not indulge in such actions. Their record shows that they have always played brinksmanship that have often shot up chances of an armed confrontation by mistake.
However, the facts available on last week's "incident" indicate something else.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that five small Iranian boats confronted big, well-armed US ships and threatened to blow up the American vessels. There many technical aspects to the reported Iranian threat that have been cited in the US media itself, raising suggestions that it could have been tailor-made to suit Washington's purposes.
These include the video released by the Pentagon showing small boats with no visible armaments and the absence of any footage showing anyone dumping white cartons into the water, as was initially alleged.
As to the audible threat — “I am coming to you,” and “You will explode after a few minutes" — even Pentagon officials have admitted that they could not say it with any certainty that the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere.
Others have said that the video and audio were recorded separately, then combined.
Even US Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted that he could not shed "any light as far as the radio transmission is concerned."
Apart from the warning issued by top US officials, what is equally alarming is the intensity with which the affair figured in the US presidential debate.
Almost all candidates, including front-runners for party nomination, simply accepted the first Pentagon version of the affair. They pulled all the plugs and used languages that are usually unheard from matured political leaders. It was remniscent of the bellicose language in reaction to an alleged naval exchange in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Vietnam War.
It is difficult to believe that the US is itching to go to war with Iran. That line of thought leads to the suggestion that the way the Hormuz affair was played out that it contained an implicit message indicating the shape of things around the corner if the Iranian "threat" did not meet a "proper" response with backing from others in the region.
Only time will tell what the reality was, but we in this part of the world already have enough troubles — most of them created by external meddling, direct and indirect — and have no intention to take on more crises created to serve foreign interests.
A 'message' in it somewhere?
THE US-REPORTED threat that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made against three American warships in the Straits of Hormuz has injected more tension to the growing US-Iranian confrontation. It has become an international talking point at a time when US President George W Bush is visiting the region with a view to convincing Arab countries that Iran poses a threat to regional stability and security.
It is not that Iranians would not indulge in such actions. Their record shows that they have always played brinksmanship that have often shot up chances of an armed confrontation by mistake.
However, the facts available on last week's "incident" indicate something else.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that five small Iranian boats confronted big, well-armed US ships and threatened to blow up the American vessels. There many technical aspects to the reported Iranian threat that have been cited in the US media itself, raising suggestions that it could have been tailor-made to suit Washington's purposes.
These include the video released by the Pentagon showing small boats with no visible armaments and the absence of any footage showing anyone dumping white cartons into the water, as was initially alleged.
As to the audible threat — “I am coming to you,” and “You will explode after a few minutes" — even Pentagon officials have admitted that they could not say it with any certainty that the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere.
Others have said that the video and audio were recorded separately, then combined.
Even US Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted that he could not shed "any light as far as the radio transmission is concerned."
Apart from the warning issued by top US officials, what is equally alarming is the intensity with which the affair figured in the US presidential debate.
Almost all candidates, including front-runners for party nomination, simply accepted the first Pentagon version of the affair. They pulled all the plugs and used languages that are usually unheard from matured political leaders. It was remniscent of the bellicose language in reaction to an alleged naval exchange in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Vietnam War.
It is difficult to believe that the US is itching to go to war with Iran. That line of thought leads to the suggestion that the way the Hormuz affair was played out that it contained an implicit message indicating the shape of things around the corner if the Iranian "threat" did not meet a "proper" response with backing from others in the region.
Only time will tell what the reality was, but we in this part of the world already have enough troubles — most of them created by external meddling, direct and indirect — and have no intention to take on more crises created to serve foreign interests.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Civilians should not pay the price
Jan.12, 2008
Civilians should not pay the price
IT would appear that Sri Lanka is destined to witness more bloodshed. The government in Colombo has rejected a call by separatist Tamil rebels to revive a 2002 cease-fire, a week after the authorities officially withdrew from the truce.
It is not that the offer by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam was any breakthrough. The 2002 truce existed only on paper in the last two years. The rebel group has a record of not respecting the 2002 cease-fire and the government has hit back with force. Violence linked to the Tamil revolt has claimed more than 5,000 people in the last two years.
Obviously, the government wants to gain the upper hand on the ground before renewing its hand at working out a political solution to the decades-old conflict stemming from the Tamils' complaints of discrimination at the hands of the majority Sinhalese.
The government strategy is clear: It wants to pull the military teeth of the rebel movement. Since the government withdrew from the truce on Jan.3, more than 204 people — 195 rebels, six soldiers and three civilians — have been killed, according to the military. While it is difficult to independently verify the authenticity of claims, it would seem certain that the rebels have suffered and are continuing to suffer from the major military offensive under way against their strongholds. That should explain the rebels' unsolicited promise that they were "ready to implement every clause"of the Norway-brokered truce and respect it "100 per cent."
The rebels also said they were "shocked and disappointed that the government of Sri Lanka has unilaterally abrogated" the 2002 cease-fire agreement.
Indeed, the government's rejection of the truce renewal offer is coupled with a promise that it would unveil a political plan on Feb.4, the anniversary of the island's independence from the then colonial power Britain.
The promise shows that the Colombo government is perfectly aware that there is no military solution to the conflict and that the protracted ethnic conflict requires a broad-based approach.
While we do not have details of the plan to be unveiled, we do know that Sri Lanka country a settlement of political, constitutional and other issues without infringing upon the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In order to work out a political solution, the government and the Tamil community have to move forward, with the former guaranteeing that the Tamils' grievances would be satisfactorily addressed within that framework and the latter publicly abandoning the drive for sedition. However, there is little trust lost between the two, and hence every effort becomes an uphill task even if the two sides proclaim their adherence to these pledges and commitments.
There is room for effective UN involvement. But, at this point in time, the Sri Lankan government is unlikely to accept any mediation because it would see any suspension of its military operations as benefiting the rebels.
Against that backdrop, the international community seems to have little choice in the matter. It will have to wait out until Colombo is good and ready. But in the meantime, there is a pressing need for civilians to be spared from more suffering. That is where the UN could step with observers to ensure that civilians do not pay the price for the conflict by being caught in the crossfire.
Civilians should not pay the price
IT would appear that Sri Lanka is destined to witness more bloodshed. The government in Colombo has rejected a call by separatist Tamil rebels to revive a 2002 cease-fire, a week after the authorities officially withdrew from the truce.
It is not that the offer by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam was any breakthrough. The 2002 truce existed only on paper in the last two years. The rebel group has a record of not respecting the 2002 cease-fire and the government has hit back with force. Violence linked to the Tamil revolt has claimed more than 5,000 people in the last two years.
Obviously, the government wants to gain the upper hand on the ground before renewing its hand at working out a political solution to the decades-old conflict stemming from the Tamils' complaints of discrimination at the hands of the majority Sinhalese.
The government strategy is clear: It wants to pull the military teeth of the rebel movement. Since the government withdrew from the truce on Jan.3, more than 204 people — 195 rebels, six soldiers and three civilians — have been killed, according to the military. While it is difficult to independently verify the authenticity of claims, it would seem certain that the rebels have suffered and are continuing to suffer from the major military offensive under way against their strongholds. That should explain the rebels' unsolicited promise that they were "ready to implement every clause"of the Norway-brokered truce and respect it "100 per cent."
The rebels also said they were "shocked and disappointed that the government of Sri Lanka has unilaterally abrogated" the 2002 cease-fire agreement.
Indeed, the government's rejection of the truce renewal offer is coupled with a promise that it would unveil a political plan on Feb.4, the anniversary of the island's independence from the then colonial power Britain.
The promise shows that the Colombo government is perfectly aware that there is no military solution to the conflict and that the protracted ethnic conflict requires a broad-based approach.
While we do not have details of the plan to be unveiled, we do know that Sri Lanka country a settlement of political, constitutional and other issues without infringing upon the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In order to work out a political solution, the government and the Tamil community have to move forward, with the former guaranteeing that the Tamils' grievances would be satisfactorily addressed within that framework and the latter publicly abandoning the drive for sedition. However, there is little trust lost between the two, and hence every effort becomes an uphill task even if the two sides proclaim their adherence to these pledges and commitments.
There is room for effective UN involvement. But, at this point in time, the Sri Lankan government is unlikely to accept any mediation because it would see any suspension of its military operations as benefiting the rebels.
Against that backdrop, the international community seems to have little choice in the matter. It will have to wait out until Colombo is good and ready. But in the meantime, there is a pressing need for civilians to be spared from more suffering. That is where the UN could step with observers to ensure that civilians do not pay the price for the conflict by being caught in the crossfire.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Optimism despite many ifs and buts
Jan.11, 2008
Optimism despite many ifs and buts
IT is indeed welcome news that US President George W. Bush has expressed confidence that Israel and the Palestinians would sign a peace treaty before he leaves office a year from now.
In fact, the US president has been saying the right things at the right time since the launch of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Annapolis in November. However, people in the Middle East — who have been and are living with the problems of the region for decades — are sceptical, given the realities on the ground, particularly the pervading belief that the US, which always underlines its "strategic partnership" with Israel, could not be expected to pressure Israel into making the compromises that are essential to peace. The Arab World has always seen the pattern of the US stepping in to protect Israel at various forums, including the United Nations, and pressuring the Palestinians into meeting Israeli demands.
There are many ifs and buts that are hanging in the air as the region looks ahead at the path towards peace, including the reality that the Palestinian community is split, with Hamas in control of the Gaza Strip and refusing to meet the prerequisites for being accepted as part of the effort for peace. However, there is also a conviction that the so-called hardliners would come around when the time is right in terms of significant shifts in the refusink Israeli positions and rejectionist conditions.
It is also uncertain at this juncture how far Israel is willing to go in accepting compromises — particularly in view of its positions on Arab East Jerusalem, Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and the fate of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.
It was also disturbing to note the finding of opinion polls released on Thursday that Israelis were overwhelmingly pessimistic that Bush's visit to Israel and the West Bank would move peace negotiations with Palestinians forward. One poll found that some 77 per cent of Israelis said they thought he would not succeed while another showed 50 per cent of those surveyed said the Bush visit would not advance peace talks, while 36 per cent said it would.
At the same time, the note of high confidence in the affirmation by Bush that Israeli-Palestinian peace could be achieved in one year indicates a determination, particularly in his comment that
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "have to come together and make tough choices" and "with proper help that the state of Palestine will emerge."
Bush's call on the Israeli leadership to help and not hinder the modernisation of Palestinian security forces and affirmation that the future Palestinian state has to be contiguous are also indicative of a clear understanding of the elements that have to fit into the broader picture of peace in the region.
The words are very encouraging to the people of the Middle East who are anxious to see peace and normalcy being restored to the region so that they could refocus their development efforts and catch up with the rest of the world in an era of enhanced regional and international co-operation.
Let us hope that the determination seen in Bush's proclamations while in the region would be reflected in every American move. All it takes is Washington's recognition and acceptance of the fact that the Palestinians — and indeed the broader Arab World — are not asking for the moon but a fair and just solution to the problem based on their inalienable and legitimtate rights that are enshrined in UN decisions and international conventions, treaties and charters. They are ready to make compromises that do not infringe upon their basic rights and expect Israel not to indulge in pressure tactics and deceptive moves.
The Arab World would not be found wanting at any point as long as fairness and justice is guaranteed for all on the basis of international legitimacy.
Optimism despite many ifs and buts
IT is indeed welcome news that US President George W. Bush has expressed confidence that Israel and the Palestinians would sign a peace treaty before he leaves office a year from now.
In fact, the US president has been saying the right things at the right time since the launch of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Annapolis in November. However, people in the Middle East — who have been and are living with the problems of the region for decades — are sceptical, given the realities on the ground, particularly the pervading belief that the US, which always underlines its "strategic partnership" with Israel, could not be expected to pressure Israel into making the compromises that are essential to peace. The Arab World has always seen the pattern of the US stepping in to protect Israel at various forums, including the United Nations, and pressuring the Palestinians into meeting Israeli demands.
There are many ifs and buts that are hanging in the air as the region looks ahead at the path towards peace, including the reality that the Palestinian community is split, with Hamas in control of the Gaza Strip and refusing to meet the prerequisites for being accepted as part of the effort for peace. However, there is also a conviction that the so-called hardliners would come around when the time is right in terms of significant shifts in the refusink Israeli positions and rejectionist conditions.
It is also uncertain at this juncture how far Israel is willing to go in accepting compromises — particularly in view of its positions on Arab East Jerusalem, Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and the fate of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.
It was also disturbing to note the finding of opinion polls released on Thursday that Israelis were overwhelmingly pessimistic that Bush's visit to Israel and the West Bank would move peace negotiations with Palestinians forward. One poll found that some 77 per cent of Israelis said they thought he would not succeed while another showed 50 per cent of those surveyed said the Bush visit would not advance peace talks, while 36 per cent said it would.
At the same time, the note of high confidence in the affirmation by Bush that Israeli-Palestinian peace could be achieved in one year indicates a determination, particularly in his comment that
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "have to come together and make tough choices" and "with proper help that the state of Palestine will emerge."
Bush's call on the Israeli leadership to help and not hinder the modernisation of Palestinian security forces and affirmation that the future Palestinian state has to be contiguous are also indicative of a clear understanding of the elements that have to fit into the broader picture of peace in the region.
The words are very encouraging to the people of the Middle East who are anxious to see peace and normalcy being restored to the region so that they could refocus their development efforts and catch up with the rest of the world in an era of enhanced regional and international co-operation.
Let us hope that the determination seen in Bush's proclamations while in the region would be reflected in every American move. All it takes is Washington's recognition and acceptance of the fact that the Palestinians — and indeed the broader Arab World — are not asking for the moon but a fair and just solution to the problem based on their inalienable and legitimtate rights that are enshrined in UN decisions and international conventions, treaties and charters. They are ready to make compromises that do not infringe upon their basic rights and expect Israel not to indulge in pressure tactics and deceptive moves.
The Arab World would not be found wanting at any point as long as fairness and justice is guaranteed for all on the basis of international legitimacy.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Alarm bells are ignored
Jan.10, 2008
Alarm bells are ignored
AT A time when US President George W Bush is paying a high-profile visit to the Middle East against the backdrop of the worsening crisis in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association says that nearly half of US diplomats unwilling to volunteer to work in Iraq say one reason for their refusal is they do not agree with Bush administration's policies in the country.
According to a survey conducted by the American Foreign Service Association, security concerns and separation from family ranked as the top reasons for not wanting to serve in Iraq. But 48 per cent cited "disagreement" with administration policy as a factor in their opposition.
The survey was conducted late last year among the 11,500 members of the US diplomatic corps and found deep frustration among more than 4,300 respondents over Iraq, safety and security issues elsewhere, pay disparities and the leadership of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top deputies.
Nearly 70 per cent of US diplomats who responded to the survey oppose forced assignments to Iraq, a prospect that was raised by the State Department with an implicit warning issued last year that those who do not accept to serve in Iraq could face disciplinary measures.
Of course, the State Department has that option, and many diplomats could face no choice but to serve in Iraq if they were to keep their jobs. However, how effectively they would perform under such conditions and in the chaotic atmosphere in Iraq is a major question, and this clearly points to non-accomplishment of US foreign policy objectives in the country.
Beyond the human elements at play in the diplomats' refusal to serve in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association survey has brought out a very significant aspect of the workings of the Bush administration: Heavy dissent in its diplomatic ranks against its policies.
That should be seen coupled with the obvious dissent in the US intelligence community that emerged to the surface with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which pulled the rug from under the administration's "case" against Iran.
But the Bush administration is brushing aside the dissent in the diplomatic and intelligence communities as if a handful of people at the helm of affairs know better. Abandoned on the fringes are veteran diplomats and intelligence experts whose decades of experience are ringing loud warning bells against the course followed by the administration. Surely, that in itself is unprecedented in US history and gives rise to the certainty that we have yet to see more dramatic developments before Bush leaves office in January 2009.
Alarm bells are ignored
AT A time when US President George W Bush is paying a high-profile visit to the Middle East against the backdrop of the worsening crisis in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association says that nearly half of US diplomats unwilling to volunteer to work in Iraq say one reason for their refusal is they do not agree with Bush administration's policies in the country.
According to a survey conducted by the American Foreign Service Association, security concerns and separation from family ranked as the top reasons for not wanting to serve in Iraq. But 48 per cent cited "disagreement" with administration policy as a factor in their opposition.
The survey was conducted late last year among the 11,500 members of the US diplomatic corps and found deep frustration among more than 4,300 respondents over Iraq, safety and security issues elsewhere, pay disparities and the leadership of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top deputies.
Nearly 70 per cent of US diplomats who responded to the survey oppose forced assignments to Iraq, a prospect that was raised by the State Department with an implicit warning issued last year that those who do not accept to serve in Iraq could face disciplinary measures.
Of course, the State Department has that option, and many diplomats could face no choice but to serve in Iraq if they were to keep their jobs. However, how effectively they would perform under such conditions and in the chaotic atmosphere in Iraq is a major question, and this clearly points to non-accomplishment of US foreign policy objectives in the country.
Beyond the human elements at play in the diplomats' refusal to serve in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association survey has brought out a very significant aspect of the workings of the Bush administration: Heavy dissent in its diplomatic ranks against its policies.
That should be seen coupled with the obvious dissent in the US intelligence community that emerged to the surface with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which pulled the rug from under the administration's "case" against Iran.
But the Bush administration is brushing aside the dissent in the diplomatic and intelligence communities as if a handful of people at the helm of affairs know better. Abandoned on the fringes are veteran diplomats and intelligence experts whose decades of experience are ringing loud warning bells against the course followed by the administration. Surely, that in itself is unprecedented in US history and gives rise to the certainty that we have yet to see more dramatic developments before Bush leaves office in January 2009.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Diplomacy not an option, but a must
Jan.9, 2008
Diplomacy not an option, but a must
THE reported dust-up between the US and Iranian navies in the Gulf on Sunday makes us believe that a US-Iranian military confrontation is getting closer. It is as if our hopes that there would be no military action are collapsing as a script of confrontation is being played out.
Both sides have firmed up their positions. Washington, citing its right for a routine passage in international waters, says its warships were threatened by Iranian navy boats and has warned against provocations.
Tehran denies that its boats threatened US warships and describes Monday's incident in the Strait of Hormuz as an "ordinary occurrence." It says it has the right to ask any ships to identify themselves upon entering or leaving the Gulf.
No doubt, the incident strengthens US President George W.Bush's argument, which he takes to the region this week, that Iran poses a threat to regional stability. Tehran rejects the charge and insists that the US is determined to follow a course of hostility towards Iran.
The war of words could continue, but the naval brush-off in the Gulf highlighted the danger of miscalculations sparking a military conflict in our neighbourhood. As we are given to understand, the US warships came close to opening fire against the Iranian boats that allegedly harassed them. It is anyone's guess what could have followed if the US warships had opened up their guns against the Iranian boats.
It is ironic that Iran's behaviour is not helping ease the tension. Often, the world gets the impression that the Iranians are daring the US to launch military action against them. They are either convinced that the US would not take military action against them or that they would be able to wage an effective "defensive war" in the event of a US military strike against them.
That is not the way others the region views the crisis. The region, which is living through the crises sparked by the US-led invasion of Iraq nearly five years ago, is anxious to avoide yet another military conflict that could plunge the area into chaos with unpredictable consequences.
Whatever their self-serving motivations and reasonings, neither the US nor Iran has any right to expose the region to further conflicts and crises. If they have any sense of their international obligations, they should resort to diplomacy and dialogue to settle their differences while respecting each other's rights as enshrined in international conventions and charters.
Diplomacy not an option, but a must
THE reported dust-up between the US and Iranian navies in the Gulf on Sunday makes us believe that a US-Iranian military confrontation is getting closer. It is as if our hopes that there would be no military action are collapsing as a script of confrontation is being played out.
Both sides have firmed up their positions. Washington, citing its right for a routine passage in international waters, says its warships were threatened by Iranian navy boats and has warned against provocations.
Tehran denies that its boats threatened US warships and describes Monday's incident in the Strait of Hormuz as an "ordinary occurrence." It says it has the right to ask any ships to identify themselves upon entering or leaving the Gulf.
No doubt, the incident strengthens US President George W.Bush's argument, which he takes to the region this week, that Iran poses a threat to regional stability. Tehran rejects the charge and insists that the US is determined to follow a course of hostility towards Iran.
The war of words could continue, but the naval brush-off in the Gulf highlighted the danger of miscalculations sparking a military conflict in our neighbourhood. As we are given to understand, the US warships came close to opening fire against the Iranian boats that allegedly harassed them. It is anyone's guess what could have followed if the US warships had opened up their guns against the Iranian boats.
It is ironic that Iran's behaviour is not helping ease the tension. Often, the world gets the impression that the Iranians are daring the US to launch military action against them. They are either convinced that the US would not take military action against them or that they would be able to wage an effective "defensive war" in the event of a US military strike against them.
That is not the way others the region views the crisis. The region, which is living through the crises sparked by the US-led invasion of Iraq nearly five years ago, is anxious to avoide yet another military conflict that could plunge the area into chaos with unpredictable consequences.
Whatever their self-serving motivations and reasonings, neither the US nor Iran has any right to expose the region to further conflicts and crises. If they have any sense of their international obligations, they should resort to diplomacy and dialogue to settle their differences while respecting each other's rights as enshrined in international conventions and charters.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
A lap-run but without victory
Jan.8, 2008
A lap-run but without victory
George W. Bush's comments on the eve of his last visit as US president to the Middle East have affirmed the belief of most people in the region that the trip is unlikely to produce realistic results to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process launched in Annapolis in November.
It has been clear for some time now that without a major shift in the pro-Israeli policy in Washington there was little hope of a just and fair settlement of the Palestinian problem. Some optimists were hoping that Bush would be coming to the Middle East with fresh ideas based on the recognition that Israel's refusal to respect the legitimate rights of the Palestinians is at the root of the conflict.
In his latest comments, Bush did not signal any shift in his position. If anything, he reaffirmed his commitment to the "security" of Israel by announcing that he would press ahead with his drive against Iran, which he described as a continued threat to regional stability.
The US president cited the recently released National Intelligence Estimate produced by US intelligence agencies as reaffirming the "threat" posed by Iran whereas the region saw the report as a clear indication that Tehran appears less determined to have nuclear weapons than the intelligence community believed it had been two years ago.
By maintaining his tirade against Iran, Bush is seeking to serve Israeli interests. It is evident that Israel, which sees its possession of nuclear weapons as a tool to advance its regional designs, is concerned that it would lose its military edge over all countries in the region if Iran develops a nuclear programme.
Bush will be trying to convince the region to accept the US view of Iran. He is sidestepping the history of the region where Iran has always been and remains a reality with established relations with other regional players who understand the Iranians better than most people.
Indeed, there are regional disputes, but the regional players have their own means to deal with the issues, whether multilateral or bilateral.
What is of immediate and prime concern for the region is the crisis in Iraq and the conviction that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would not get anywhere under the present geopolitics dictated by the pro-Israeli bias of the US.
Notwithstanding the loud US declaration that Iraq is being pacified, the region knows well that the crisis in that country is simmering just below the surface, ready to erupt again at the first opportune moment.
Bush has not offered the Middle East any sign that the US would adopt an independent and neutral approach to the Palestinian problem based on international legitimacy and UN resolutions and that he is willing to twist the Israeli arm. Short of that, there is little room for hope for a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Obviously, Bush has already turned his visit to the Middle East region into what he considers as a victory march marking his departure from the White House next year. The Middle East would see the march, but would still be searching for what Bush's victory was even after his departure from the region.
A lap-run but without victory
George W. Bush's comments on the eve of his last visit as US president to the Middle East have affirmed the belief of most people in the region that the trip is unlikely to produce realistic results to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process launched in Annapolis in November.
It has been clear for some time now that without a major shift in the pro-Israeli policy in Washington there was little hope of a just and fair settlement of the Palestinian problem. Some optimists were hoping that Bush would be coming to the Middle East with fresh ideas based on the recognition that Israel's refusal to respect the legitimate rights of the Palestinians is at the root of the conflict.
In his latest comments, Bush did not signal any shift in his position. If anything, he reaffirmed his commitment to the "security" of Israel by announcing that he would press ahead with his drive against Iran, which he described as a continued threat to regional stability.
The US president cited the recently released National Intelligence Estimate produced by US intelligence agencies as reaffirming the "threat" posed by Iran whereas the region saw the report as a clear indication that Tehran appears less determined to have nuclear weapons than the intelligence community believed it had been two years ago.
By maintaining his tirade against Iran, Bush is seeking to serve Israeli interests. It is evident that Israel, which sees its possession of nuclear weapons as a tool to advance its regional designs, is concerned that it would lose its military edge over all countries in the region if Iran develops a nuclear programme.
Bush will be trying to convince the region to accept the US view of Iran. He is sidestepping the history of the region where Iran has always been and remains a reality with established relations with other regional players who understand the Iranians better than most people.
Indeed, there are regional disputes, but the regional players have their own means to deal with the issues, whether multilateral or bilateral.
What is of immediate and prime concern for the region is the crisis in Iraq and the conviction that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would not get anywhere under the present geopolitics dictated by the pro-Israeli bias of the US.
Notwithstanding the loud US declaration that Iraq is being pacified, the region knows well that the crisis in that country is simmering just below the surface, ready to erupt again at the first opportune moment.
Bush has not offered the Middle East any sign that the US would adopt an independent and neutral approach to the Palestinian problem based on international legitimacy and UN resolutions and that he is willing to twist the Israeli arm. Short of that, there is little room for hope for a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Obviously, Bush has already turned his visit to the Middle East region into what he considers as a victory march marking his departure from the White House next year. The Middle East would see the march, but would still be searching for what Bush's victory was even after his departure from the region.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Iraqi agony at new heights
Jan.7, 2008
Iraqi agony at new heights
A REPORT prepared by Al Jazeera has exposed yet another ugly face of the US-invasion and occupation of Iraq — Iraqi parents are forced to sell their children with hopes that the children would have a better life outside Iraq. And organised groups seem to be at work specialising in buying and even kidnapping Iraqi children to be sold outside Iraq.
Particularly touching is the case of Abu Mohammed, a Baghdad resident, who opted to sell his youngest daughter for $10,000 to a visiting Swedish couple claiming to be part an international non-governmental organisation. The couple's Iraqi translator was the intermediary.
"The war disgraced my family. I lost relatives including my wife among thousands of victims of sectarian violence and was forced to sell my (two-year-old) daughter to give my other children something to eat," Al Jazeera quotes Abu Mohammed as saying in what partly sums up the typical sentiment of an Iraqi parent forced to sell his or her child.
According to Omar Khalif, vice-president of the Iraqi Families Association, (IFA), a NGO established in 2004 to register cases of those missing and trafficked, at least two children are sold by their parents every week and another four are reported missing every week.
Police investigations have revealed that many have been sold by their parents to foreign couples or specialised gangs who in turn sell the children to families in foreign countries, mainly European.
There was never any reported case of sale of babies in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion in 2004 — even during the bitter years during which Iraq remained under sweeping international sanctions that were imposed when it invaded Kuwait in 1990.
The Iraqis, who are proud of and have always lived true to their Arab Muslim traditions and values, have been now forced into doing things for which that their conscience — or that of any parent for that matter — would torment them for life.
The trafficking in babies is only one of the numerous problems and crises facing the Iraqi society today. As it is rightly observed throughout the world, children and women pay the price first for military misdventures, and it is all the more pronounced in Iraq.
The US, by virtue of it being the key power that led the war against Iraq, destabilised the country and exposed its people to untold suffering, has to shoulder the blame for the misery facing the Iraqis today.
It has to shoulder the responsibility is to offer the people of Iraq — who it says it "liberated" from tyranny — the social security that allows them to lead a dignified life.
However, in reality, neither the US nor the government in power in Baghdad today is in a position to shoulder that responsibility. Such is the chaos that is pervading in Iraq today in the absence of a strong system that gives priority to the people rather than the vested political interests of external powers and ethnical/communal interests of various groups within the country.
Iraqi agony at new heights
A REPORT prepared by Al Jazeera has exposed yet another ugly face of the US-invasion and occupation of Iraq — Iraqi parents are forced to sell their children with hopes that the children would have a better life outside Iraq. And organised groups seem to be at work specialising in buying and even kidnapping Iraqi children to be sold outside Iraq.
Particularly touching is the case of Abu Mohammed, a Baghdad resident, who opted to sell his youngest daughter for $10,000 to a visiting Swedish couple claiming to be part an international non-governmental organisation. The couple's Iraqi translator was the intermediary.
"The war disgraced my family. I lost relatives including my wife among thousands of victims of sectarian violence and was forced to sell my (two-year-old) daughter to give my other children something to eat," Al Jazeera quotes Abu Mohammed as saying in what partly sums up the typical sentiment of an Iraqi parent forced to sell his or her child.
According to Omar Khalif, vice-president of the Iraqi Families Association, (IFA), a NGO established in 2004 to register cases of those missing and trafficked, at least two children are sold by their parents every week and another four are reported missing every week.
Police investigations have revealed that many have been sold by their parents to foreign couples or specialised gangs who in turn sell the children to families in foreign countries, mainly European.
There was never any reported case of sale of babies in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion in 2004 — even during the bitter years during which Iraq remained under sweeping international sanctions that were imposed when it invaded Kuwait in 1990.
The Iraqis, who are proud of and have always lived true to their Arab Muslim traditions and values, have been now forced into doing things for which that their conscience — or that of any parent for that matter — would torment them for life.
The trafficking in babies is only one of the numerous problems and crises facing the Iraqi society today. As it is rightly observed throughout the world, children and women pay the price first for military misdventures, and it is all the more pronounced in Iraq.
The US, by virtue of it being the key power that led the war against Iraq, destabilised the country and exposed its people to untold suffering, has to shoulder the blame for the misery facing the Iraqis today.
It has to shoulder the responsibility is to offer the people of Iraq — who it says it "liberated" from tyranny — the social security that allows them to lead a dignified life.
However, in reality, neither the US nor the government in power in Baghdad today is in a position to shoulder that responsibility. Such is the chaos that is pervading in Iraq today in the absence of a strong system that gives priority to the people rather than the vested political interests of external powers and ethnical/communal interests of various groups within the country.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The only constant in Washington
Jan.6, 2008
The only constant in Washington
John McCain's comment during a a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, shortly before the the Iowa caucuses that the US military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," held no surprises. It only highlighted the neoconservative mindset that the US has the moral and global authority to stay in Iraq as long it wants. However, McCain qualified it by saying that he had no objection to US soldiers staying in Iraq "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed." That is something the neoconservatives are not worried about. For them, the life and death of American soldiers in Iraq is the price that the American political establishment should be willing to pay. Never mind that the American political establishment takes orders, direct and indirect, from Israel, and that it is in partly in Israel's interest that the US military continues to stay on in Iraq and consolidate its presence there as an advance base for intervention in the region when deemed fit without risking Israeli lives (not to mention that the US military's departure from Iraq would only strengthen Israeli foe Iran).
In the minds of people like McCain, a US military withdrawal from Iraq is defeat.
They are not bothered by the fact that their country violated all international conventions, charters, agreements and conventions as well the code of conduct of governments when it invaded and occupied Iraq, and that it is continuing the same violation as long as it remains there.
They are not bothered by the fact that their country does not have much credibility around the world except the reputation as the world's strongest military superpower that is terrifying many countries.
They are not bothered by the fact that the behaviour of their governments, whether Republican or Democrat, in recent decades contradicted the very founding principles of their country.
They are not bothered by the fact that their governments, whether Republican or Democrat, have been consistently forced into upholding Israeli interests above American interests and thus caused immense damage to their country's relations with the Middle East.
The list of ironies, paradoxes and contradictions in the neoconservative-nudged policies of the US government is endless, and the people in the Middle East have been and are continuing to pay a heavy price for them.
As the 2008 race for the White House picks up momentum, many of these vagaries of American politics would be exposed as American politicians bend backwards to placate and Israel and its powerful lobbyists in Washington.
Perhaps the only consolation is that the people of America are slowly waking up to the realities of their politics and politicians. Perhaps that was why those who took part in the Iowa causes did not opt to endorse McCain as their Republican candidate for presidency.
But the battle has only started, and the world is keenly watching the scene with hopes that the American majority mindset would reveal itself as it decides who should be their candidate for president.
Not that it would make any difference to US policy vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict whoever wins in the end if only because Washington's approach to the Middle East is non-partisan. That is perhaps the only constant in Washington.
The only constant in Washington
John McCain's comment during a a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, shortly before the the Iowa caucuses that the US military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," held no surprises. It only highlighted the neoconservative mindset that the US has the moral and global authority to stay in Iraq as long it wants. However, McCain qualified it by saying that he had no objection to US soldiers staying in Iraq "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed." That is something the neoconservatives are not worried about. For them, the life and death of American soldiers in Iraq is the price that the American political establishment should be willing to pay. Never mind that the American political establishment takes orders, direct and indirect, from Israel, and that it is in partly in Israel's interest that the US military continues to stay on in Iraq and consolidate its presence there as an advance base for intervention in the region when deemed fit without risking Israeli lives (not to mention that the US military's departure from Iraq would only strengthen Israeli foe Iran).
In the minds of people like McCain, a US military withdrawal from Iraq is defeat.
They are not bothered by the fact that their country violated all international conventions, charters, agreements and conventions as well the code of conduct of governments when it invaded and occupied Iraq, and that it is continuing the same violation as long as it remains there.
They are not bothered by the fact that their country does not have much credibility around the world except the reputation as the world's strongest military superpower that is terrifying many countries.
They are not bothered by the fact that the behaviour of their governments, whether Republican or Democrat, in recent decades contradicted the very founding principles of their country.
They are not bothered by the fact that their governments, whether Republican or Democrat, have been consistently forced into upholding Israeli interests above American interests and thus caused immense damage to their country's relations with the Middle East.
The list of ironies, paradoxes and contradictions in the neoconservative-nudged policies of the US government is endless, and the people in the Middle East have been and are continuing to pay a heavy price for them.
As the 2008 race for the White House picks up momentum, many of these vagaries of American politics would be exposed as American politicians bend backwards to placate and Israel and its powerful lobbyists in Washington.
Perhaps the only consolation is that the people of America are slowly waking up to the realities of their politics and politicians. Perhaps that was why those who took part in the Iowa causes did not opt to endorse McCain as their Republican candidate for presidency.
But the battle has only started, and the world is keenly watching the scene with hopes that the American majority mindset would reveal itself as it decides who should be their candidate for president.
Not that it would make any difference to US policy vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict whoever wins in the end if only because Washington's approach to the Middle East is non-partisan. That is perhaps the only constant in Washington.
Friday, January 04, 2008
It cannot be a zero-sum game
Jan.4, 2008
It cannot be a zero-sum game
THE DECISION by the Kenyan opposition party, the Orange Democratic Movement, to postpone what the group called a "million-man march" has averted what could have turned out to be the bloodiest event of the post-election chaos in the country.
However, there is no real sign of any end to the bloodletting has already killed more than 300 people and made 70,000 homeless.
The Orange Democratic Movement's leader, Raila Odinga, who was defeated in the presidential election against incumbent Mwai Kibaki, claims that the voting was rigged. Odinga has the backing of international observers who say the election process was flawed.
As is natural in such circumstances, the government and opposition are accusing each other of being behind the violence that is unprecedented in a country that had become known as a vibrant democracy and peacemaker in Africa, rather than a trouble spot.
In fact, Kenya is living true to the argument of many that in Africa there is no such thing as an incumbent president or prime minister losing a vote.
Pro-Kibaki MPs want Odinga and others to be charged by the International Criminal Court for "ethnic cleansing and genocide" while the Odinga camp contends that a police order to shoot during protests by its supporters was "bordering on genocide."
One thing is clear: The instigators of the violence that saw crazed killings, including the massacre of some 50 people inside a church, and those involved in the rampages in the country have little respect or consideration for the people of Kenya.
At the same time, it is also difficult to see how any group could stand to gain anything from the bloodletting.
In fact, the people of Kenya are being taken for a ride. None of the politicians could be expected to be anywhere near troublespots; they prefer to leave their supporters to confront police and their political rivals.The businesses, homes and families of the politicians are safe and secure while the people on the streets are turned into cannonfodder. Such is the politicians' greed for power and wealth that they brush aside all considerations for the faith their supporters have placed in them. Mass murders do not matter to them as long as their political interests are served.
Some contend that as in many other African countries, the politics in Kenya also has a tribal overtone, with Kibaki’s Kikuyu tribe pitted against Odinga’s Luo. They claim that the post-election violence brought to the front the latent tribalism present in daily life in the country.
Those claims and contentions overlook the reality that many of the African countries as they exist today are the creations of colonial powers with varying degrees of "democratic practices" mainly dictated by foreign powers in order to serve their own interests.
Indeed, the ferocity of the violence in Kenya — highlighted by reports of headless bodies being dragged from burnt-out shacks — has shocked the world, and that is what some could cite as supporting the theory that tribalism is showing its ugly head.
But that does not necessarily mean that old scores are being settled today. In reality, as could be assessed from the history of Kenya, the rival groups are fighting for control of local resources, and they are led by powerful politicians who also happen to be prominent tribal figures. The situation could easily be described as typical of Africa or any other part of the developing world.
The international community is desperate to find a compromise. But, with the core issue being the veracity of the voting and vote-counting process, the political leaders of Kenya have to accept to place the satety, security and welfare of the people and democratic interests of Kenya over everything else. They have to respect it cannot be a zero-sum game, where the winner takes it all and fight bitterly to keep it all.
The international community has to turn the heat until on the political leaders of all shades in Kenya are ready to accept the rules of democracy.
Until the time they are ready to do that, all efforts would be wasted.
It cannot be a zero-sum game
THE DECISION by the Kenyan opposition party, the Orange Democratic Movement, to postpone what the group called a "million-man march" has averted what could have turned out to be the bloodiest event of the post-election chaos in the country.
However, there is no real sign of any end to the bloodletting has already killed more than 300 people and made 70,000 homeless.
The Orange Democratic Movement's leader, Raila Odinga, who was defeated in the presidential election against incumbent Mwai Kibaki, claims that the voting was rigged. Odinga has the backing of international observers who say the election process was flawed.
As is natural in such circumstances, the government and opposition are accusing each other of being behind the violence that is unprecedented in a country that had become known as a vibrant democracy and peacemaker in Africa, rather than a trouble spot.
In fact, Kenya is living true to the argument of many that in Africa there is no such thing as an incumbent president or prime minister losing a vote.
Pro-Kibaki MPs want Odinga and others to be charged by the International Criminal Court for "ethnic cleansing and genocide" while the Odinga camp contends that a police order to shoot during protests by its supporters was "bordering on genocide."
One thing is clear: The instigators of the violence that saw crazed killings, including the massacre of some 50 people inside a church, and those involved in the rampages in the country have little respect or consideration for the people of Kenya.
At the same time, it is also difficult to see how any group could stand to gain anything from the bloodletting.
In fact, the people of Kenya are being taken for a ride. None of the politicians could be expected to be anywhere near troublespots; they prefer to leave their supporters to confront police and their political rivals.The businesses, homes and families of the politicians are safe and secure while the people on the streets are turned into cannonfodder. Such is the politicians' greed for power and wealth that they brush aside all considerations for the faith their supporters have placed in them. Mass murders do not matter to them as long as their political interests are served.
Some contend that as in many other African countries, the politics in Kenya also has a tribal overtone, with Kibaki’s Kikuyu tribe pitted against Odinga’s Luo. They claim that the post-election violence brought to the front the latent tribalism present in daily life in the country.
Those claims and contentions overlook the reality that many of the African countries as they exist today are the creations of colonial powers with varying degrees of "democratic practices" mainly dictated by foreign powers in order to serve their own interests.
Indeed, the ferocity of the violence in Kenya — highlighted by reports of headless bodies being dragged from burnt-out shacks — has shocked the world, and that is what some could cite as supporting the theory that tribalism is showing its ugly head.
But that does not necessarily mean that old scores are being settled today. In reality, as could be assessed from the history of Kenya, the rival groups are fighting for control of local resources, and they are led by powerful politicians who also happen to be prominent tribal figures. The situation could easily be described as typical of Africa or any other part of the developing world.
The international community is desperate to find a compromise. But, with the core issue being the veracity of the voting and vote-counting process, the political leaders of Kenya have to accept to place the satety, security and welfare of the people and democratic interests of Kenya over everything else. They have to respect it cannot be a zero-sum game, where the winner takes it all and fight bitterly to keep it all.
The international community has to turn the heat until on the political leaders of all shades in Kenya are ready to accept the rules of democracy.
Until the time they are ready to do that, all efforts would be wasted.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Never too late for genuine turn
Jan.3, 2008
Never too late for genuine turn
PAKISTAN's main political parties say they resent the postponement of general elections from Jan.8 to Feb.18, but that they would take part in the polls anyway. Their decision comes as a great relief since fears were high that the two major opposition parties would reject the move and wage continuous protests against the government over the delay.
Indeed, it is the first time in Pakistan’s history that an election had been postponed after the date had been announced.
The chief election commissioner announced the postponement saying that ir would not be possible to hold the vote as scheduled following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last week. Nearly 50 people have been killed in the spree of violence that followed the Bhutto assassination.
Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammed Farooq, who said the violent protests that had directly affected the organisation of the elections, has promised that the vote "in every respect will be clean and transparent."
There could be many arguments against the delay, including an assertion that the postponement is largely intended to deprive the two main opposition parties of a huge sympathy vote after Bhutto’s assassination.
On the other hand, the reasons cited by the authorities for the postponement seem to be fairly valid, including the destruction of polling stations, loss of election material and delays in printing election papers.
Understandably, the decision has disappointed Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), which was hoping to capitalise on the sympathy flowing in the wake of its leader's assassination.
Well, all political parties have no option but to accept the decision and hope they would be able to perform their best in the process to secure the people's mandate.
In the broader context, the international community is anxious to see normalcy returned to Pakistan as soon as possible. The world has been watching in horror as militancy took a turn to the worse in the past few months, with suicide bombings becoming frequent. The fear is that militants could exploiting the situation in the country to grow stronger roots with a view to staging "spectacular" attacks in retaliation for the country's commitment to fighting extremism and support for the US-led "war against terror."
Pakistan is facing a tough challenge: They have to defeat all forces of militancy and extremism, restore national stability and security and set the course towards democratic life with all that it entails. The election, delayed as it might be, is the first step towards that goal. The way ahead is not easy, but the objective could be realised if everyone concerned — the ordinary people, the government, the military, the judiciary and the intelligence community as well as the businesses that control the national economy — brush aside all differences and stand together to protect the genuine interests of the country. Time has already been wasted, but it is never too late.
Never too late for genuine turn
PAKISTAN's main political parties say they resent the postponement of general elections from Jan.8 to Feb.18, but that they would take part in the polls anyway. Their decision comes as a great relief since fears were high that the two major opposition parties would reject the move and wage continuous protests against the government over the delay.
Indeed, it is the first time in Pakistan’s history that an election had been postponed after the date had been announced.
The chief election commissioner announced the postponement saying that ir would not be possible to hold the vote as scheduled following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last week. Nearly 50 people have been killed in the spree of violence that followed the Bhutto assassination.
Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammed Farooq, who said the violent protests that had directly affected the organisation of the elections, has promised that the vote "in every respect will be clean and transparent."
There could be many arguments against the delay, including an assertion that the postponement is largely intended to deprive the two main opposition parties of a huge sympathy vote after Bhutto’s assassination.
On the other hand, the reasons cited by the authorities for the postponement seem to be fairly valid, including the destruction of polling stations, loss of election material and delays in printing election papers.
Understandably, the decision has disappointed Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), which was hoping to capitalise on the sympathy flowing in the wake of its leader's assassination.
Well, all political parties have no option but to accept the decision and hope they would be able to perform their best in the process to secure the people's mandate.
In the broader context, the international community is anxious to see normalcy returned to Pakistan as soon as possible. The world has been watching in horror as militancy took a turn to the worse in the past few months, with suicide bombings becoming frequent. The fear is that militants could exploiting the situation in the country to grow stronger roots with a view to staging "spectacular" attacks in retaliation for the country's commitment to fighting extremism and support for the US-led "war against terror."
Pakistan is facing a tough challenge: They have to defeat all forces of militancy and extremism, restore national stability and security and set the course towards democratic life with all that it entails. The election, delayed as it might be, is the first step towards that goal. The way ahead is not easy, but the objective could be realised if everyone concerned — the ordinary people, the government, the military, the judiciary and the intelligence community as well as the businesses that control the national economy — brush aside all differences and stand together to protect the genuine interests of the country. Time has already been wasted, but it is never too late.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Harming the cause boosts the enemy
Jan.2, 2008
Harming the cause boosts the enemy
THE Hamas-Fatah conflict is marking another unwanted bloody chapter contributing to weakening the Palestinian struggle for independence. By refusing to accept Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's call for dialogue for reconcliation and setting their conditions for any talks, Hamas leaders are showing that they are riding high on their physical control of the Gaza Strip. They know well that Hamas would be have to counted in any meaningly process involving the Palestinians as long the group remains in control of the Gaza Strip, and thus they feel that they hold the upper hand in any dealing with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) headed by Abbas.
On the other hand, Abbas is treading in delicate waters. He knows that the international community is supporting him in his endeavours for peace with Israel, but is handicapped by the Hamas control of the Gaza Strip and Israel's threat to suspend peace talks with him if the PNA launches dialogue with Hamas.
It was natural that Abbas qualified his call for dialogue with Hamas by insisting that the group had to return the Gaza Strip to PNA control before any dialogue could take place. That is also an implicit message to the Israelis that he is not offering reconciliation while accepting the Hamas seizure and control of the Gaza Strip as fait accompli.
Abbas's latest public attempt at reconciliation with Hamas received a resounding rebuff from the rulers of Gaza who rejected his conditions and demanded that the PNA free all "political detainees" — meaning Hamas activists in PNA detention — and halt its pursuit of Hamas loyalists in the West Bank.
Again, Abbas faces another dilemma. Under the "road map" peace plan that is the basis for the renewed peace talks with Israel, Abbas is supposed to rein in armed resistance against Israel. If he agrees to release Hamas fighters in PNA detention, he would be cited by Israel as not only not living up to his obligations but also as encouraging armed resistance. This in turn would be a pretext for Israel not to meet its obligations — mainly suspension of all settlement work in the occupied territories.
At this juncture in time, it would seem that Hamas leaders and Abbas are digging in their heels and the emerging picture does not leave room for hope for any Hamas-Fatah breakthrough.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is the hope that ongoing behind-the-scene Arab mediation could soon produce a positive result since the Palestinians, represented by Fatah, Hamas or any other group, could not but be aware that it is the strength of their struggle for freedom and independence that is being eroded by their in-fighting and that they are playing into Israel's hands.
Harming the cause boosts the enemy
THE Hamas-Fatah conflict is marking another unwanted bloody chapter contributing to weakening the Palestinian struggle for independence. By refusing to accept Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's call for dialogue for reconcliation and setting their conditions for any talks, Hamas leaders are showing that they are riding high on their physical control of the Gaza Strip. They know well that Hamas would be have to counted in any meaningly process involving the Palestinians as long the group remains in control of the Gaza Strip, and thus they feel that they hold the upper hand in any dealing with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) headed by Abbas.
On the other hand, Abbas is treading in delicate waters. He knows that the international community is supporting him in his endeavours for peace with Israel, but is handicapped by the Hamas control of the Gaza Strip and Israel's threat to suspend peace talks with him if the PNA launches dialogue with Hamas.
It was natural that Abbas qualified his call for dialogue with Hamas by insisting that the group had to return the Gaza Strip to PNA control before any dialogue could take place. That is also an implicit message to the Israelis that he is not offering reconciliation while accepting the Hamas seizure and control of the Gaza Strip as fait accompli.
Abbas's latest public attempt at reconciliation with Hamas received a resounding rebuff from the rulers of Gaza who rejected his conditions and demanded that the PNA free all "political detainees" — meaning Hamas activists in PNA detention — and halt its pursuit of Hamas loyalists in the West Bank.
Again, Abbas faces another dilemma. Under the "road map" peace plan that is the basis for the renewed peace talks with Israel, Abbas is supposed to rein in armed resistance against Israel. If he agrees to release Hamas fighters in PNA detention, he would be cited by Israel as not only not living up to his obligations but also as encouraging armed resistance. This in turn would be a pretext for Israel not to meet its obligations — mainly suspension of all settlement work in the occupied territories.
At this juncture in time, it would seem that Hamas leaders and Abbas are digging in their heels and the emerging picture does not leave room for hope for any Hamas-Fatah breakthrough.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is the hope that ongoing behind-the-scene Arab mediation could soon produce a positive result since the Palestinians, represented by Fatah, Hamas or any other group, could not but be aware that it is the strength of their struggle for freedom and independence that is being eroded by their in-fighting and that they are playing into Israel's hands.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Human spirit retains hopes
Jan.1, 2008
Human spirit retains hopes
THE year 2007 was tumultous, particularly for the Middle East and Arab region where new conflicts emerged and old conflicts got worse, with seemingly no fair and just solution in the horizon. Perhaps the only trace of a positive sign was the launch of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the Annapolis conference after a seven-year hiatus although the pattern of Israel's intrasigence and stubborn rejectionist postures threaten to undermine the process at any point. In real terms, the fear is that Israel would simply stuff its version of "peace" down the Palestinian throat at some point. The best of optimists could even hope for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, but that means little when it comes to dealing with Israel and trying to wrench the legitimate Palestinian rights.
In Iraq, violence has ebbed a little, but the overriding feeling is that the relative calm is short-lived, with the US showing no intention of ending its occupation of the country; Washington is talking only about a possible "draw-down" of its military presence in Iraq and refusing to set a deadline for departure. And the ordinary people of oil-rich Iraq continue to suffer in poverty and insecurity.
In Iran, the revelation by the US intelligence community that Tehran abandoned a nuclear weaponisation programme in 2003 has not really made any difference to Washington's resolve to maintain pressure on the country and eventually take action towards realising the US objective of "regime change" there.
Tehran itself is not helping reduce tensions. It is maintaining its defiance and rhetoric and thumping its nose and daring the US to take whatever action it finds fit.
In Lebanon, the crisis over electing a new president is persisting, with none of the key internal and external players signalling any meaningful move to lift the logjam. Indeed, everyone seems to believe that any compromise to end the crisis would be a make-or-break move as far as their vested interests are concerned.
The Lebanese crisis is closely tied to the Israeli-Syrian conflict, and the US has renewed pressure on Damascus, refusing to entertain Syrian overtures for resumption of peace talks with Israel.
In Somalia, the new year sees a worsening conflict that is causing the worst humanitarian crisis ever, according to the UN.
In Sudan, every move to solve the crisis in Darfur faces pitfalls while the people in the troubled region continuing to suffer despite the international will and effort to help them.
In Algeria, extremists have launched their own brand of insurgency that might or might not have to do with the decade-old violent revolt that many thought had ended.
Wherever we look at the troublespots in the Middle East and Arab region and beyond it, be in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka or wherever, the situation is gloomy. And we have seen too many new years come and go to expect 2008 would be any different.
But the human spirit urges us to be optimistic. Let us hope that the New Year would usher in enough political will among world leaders that would make a real and positive difference to the poor and suffering people of this planet.
Happy New Year.
Human spirit retains hopes
THE year 2007 was tumultous, particularly for the Middle East and Arab region where new conflicts emerged and old conflicts got worse, with seemingly no fair and just solution in the horizon. Perhaps the only trace of a positive sign was the launch of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the Annapolis conference after a seven-year hiatus although the pattern of Israel's intrasigence and stubborn rejectionist postures threaten to undermine the process at any point. In real terms, the fear is that Israel would simply stuff its version of "peace" down the Palestinian throat at some point. The best of optimists could even hope for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, but that means little when it comes to dealing with Israel and trying to wrench the legitimate Palestinian rights.
In Iraq, violence has ebbed a little, but the overriding feeling is that the relative calm is short-lived, with the US showing no intention of ending its occupation of the country; Washington is talking only about a possible "draw-down" of its military presence in Iraq and refusing to set a deadline for departure. And the ordinary people of oil-rich Iraq continue to suffer in poverty and insecurity.
In Iran, the revelation by the US intelligence community that Tehran abandoned a nuclear weaponisation programme in 2003 has not really made any difference to Washington's resolve to maintain pressure on the country and eventually take action towards realising the US objective of "regime change" there.
Tehran itself is not helping reduce tensions. It is maintaining its defiance and rhetoric and thumping its nose and daring the US to take whatever action it finds fit.
In Lebanon, the crisis over electing a new president is persisting, with none of the key internal and external players signalling any meaningful move to lift the logjam. Indeed, everyone seems to believe that any compromise to end the crisis would be a make-or-break move as far as their vested interests are concerned.
The Lebanese crisis is closely tied to the Israeli-Syrian conflict, and the US has renewed pressure on Damascus, refusing to entertain Syrian overtures for resumption of peace talks with Israel.
In Somalia, the new year sees a worsening conflict that is causing the worst humanitarian crisis ever, according to the UN.
In Sudan, every move to solve the crisis in Darfur faces pitfalls while the people in the troubled region continuing to suffer despite the international will and effort to help them.
In Algeria, extremists have launched their own brand of insurgency that might or might not have to do with the decade-old violent revolt that many thought had ended.
Wherever we look at the troublespots in the Middle East and Arab region and beyond it, be in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka or wherever, the situation is gloomy. And we have seen too many new years come and go to expect 2008 would be any different.
But the human spirit urges us to be optimistic. Let us hope that the New Year would usher in enough political will among world leaders that would make a real and positive difference to the poor and suffering people of this planet.
Happy New Year.
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}