Thursday, July 31, 2008

A problem that wouldn't go away

July 31, 2008

A problem that wouldn't go away

A move by the Israeli parliament (Knesset) to se up a cross-party caucus dealing with the rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees is a positive turn. It is the first time since Israel was created in 1948 that the issue of Palestinian refugees has been given that kind of Israeli attention.
In order to emphasise the Jewish presence in Palestine, Israel for long has resorted to minimising and denying the presence of others in the region and engaging in periodic announcements of archaeological findings designed to reinforce the cooked-up theory that Palestine was always Jewish.
It even created a "historical image" that projected Palestine as largely unpopulated when Israel was created there and suggested that the land was voluntarily abandoned by its Arab residents in 1948.
For former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, there was no such thing as the Palestinians.
However, the reality that stared Israel and indeed the rest of the world in the face in the last 60 years and continues to do so is the existence of some 4.5 million Palestinians categorised as refugees. They live in camps in the Middle East and are looked after by a special UN agency created for the purpose, the UN Refugees and Works Agency (UNRWA).
It is also known and widely accepted by all — except of course Israel — that there would never be peace in the Middle East without a just and fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem — that is through the implementation of UN Resolution 194, which upholds the right of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their ancestral homes that they were forced to abandon in 1948 or to receive compensation in lieu of that right.
Of course, any respect for the "right of return" of the Palestinian refugees is a nightmare for Israel since any large-scale influx of non-Jews would demographically negate its claim as "the Jewish state."
The official Israeli line had always been a refusal to accept any responsibility for the problem and suggestions that the Palestinian refugees be settled in the countries where they reside.
The newly formed Knesset caucus includes parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, including MKs from Labour, the Likud, Shas and other parties.
The move comes at a time of parliamentary activities led by the US and Canada to rechannel funding from UNRWA toward the resettlement of some of the refugees and their descendants in other countries.
It is not clear how the Knesset group — the Caucus for the Rehabilitation of Palestinian Refugees — intends to proceed. But it says it would work with UNRWA.
Let us hope that this move reflects realistic thinking on the part of the Israeli political establishment and the acceptance that side-stepping and ignoring the Palestinian refugee problem would only impede all efforts for peace in the Middle East.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Opportunity at hand in Tehran

July 30, 2008


Opportunity at hand in Tehran


THE ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran this week offers an opportunity for the movement to discuss the various pressing issues facing the developing world, notably the economic crises caused by soaring energy and food prices. Surely, the participating ministers are braced to review in depth various collective options that should help the countries involved in coming up with compromise solutions and means for better interaction to address common problems.
The Tehran meeting also offers a forum for NAM to explore the possibility of helping defuse the brewing nuclear dispute between Iran and the US. To start with, they could make it clear to the Iranian leadership that they do realise that the US has been resorting to deception in order to prepare the ground for military action against Iran and that they would not support Washington in this regard. At the same time, Tehran should also be told that the movement's endorsement of Iran's exercise of its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is linked to the Iranians moving to allay regional and international concerns over its nuclear programme. No country's right to exercise its international rights could be isolated from its international responsibilities.
At the outset of the Tehran meeting, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called for NAM support fir Iran's bid to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. The vote is to scheduled to be taken in the autumn. The US could be expected to fight Iran tooth and nail against the Middle Eastern country entering the UN Security Council and that is where the NAM could play a crucial role.
The NAM should meet the Iranian request and ensure that Iran enters the Security Council, a status that would help strengthen the UN-based negotiations on the country's nuclear activities and move the file back to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran's membership in the UN Security Council would also bring the country face to face with the council's resolutions on its nuclear programme.
The non-aligned ministers gathered in Tehran should tell the Iranian leadership that Iran should also reciprocate the movement's support by being flexible on regional as well as international issues within the framework of the various charters and conventions including respect for other's territorial rights and the inadmissibility of refusal to discuss bilateral disputes on the basis of international justice.
Such an all-embracing and transparent NAM approach could turn out to be a major landmark in the movement's efforts to reposition itself as the strong collective voice of the developing world.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

No easy answers to impossible demands

July 29, 2008

No easy answers to impossible demands


Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is under immense American pressure to move ruthlessly against his own people near the border with Afghanistan and allow foreign forces to operate out of Pakistani territory in the US-led "war against terror." But the pressure is not expected to produce the results that Washington desires because Gilani, representing a democratically elected government in a country that is trying to recover from the chaos of military rule, would not be able to deliver as demanded by the US. It would be political suicide for Gilani — or any other Pakistani politician for that matter — to hop on the US-led bandwagon in Washington's self-declared "war against terror." This reality was emphasised by the results of a poll conducted by the US-based International Republican Institute last month that Pakistanis overwhelmingly back the Gilani government's policy of favouring negotiations over military action.
Even military ruler General Pervez Musharraf, who was not bound by the imperatives of a politician in a democratic society, was careful not to go too far in his alliance with the US in the "war against terror." However, that did not stop Pakistanis from blaming the Afghanistan war and Musharraf's co-operation with the US for extremist attacks last year that killed more than 2,000 people.
Gilani's move on Sunday to take over control of the country's intelligence agencies is linked to the US pressure since the organisations are accused of involving themselves in the insurgency in Afghanistan. But that is not enough for the administration of George W Bush, who wants a no-holds-barred co-operation from Pakistan in its fight against militants.
The key point for the US is Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks in Afghanistan and the movement of militants from Pakistan across the border to Afghanistan. Surely, that point is coupled with an implied threat that the US is prepared to launch military "hot pursuit" raids into Pakistan's troubled tribal belt in pursuit of extremists.
Was it a pure accident that a suspected US missile strike on a Pakistani madrasa killed six people in a border town hours before Gilani was due to meet President George W. Bush in Washington on Monday?
Gilani did try to send a strong political message to Bush before Monday's meeting at the White House when he told the media that "it is in the interest of Pakistan to curb extremism and terrorism."
But such statements matter little to the US administration, which wants unfettered access and right of military action as it finds fit in Pakistani territory even it means the death and injury of hundreds of civilians living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal belt and untold damages to property. Washington could not be bothered to give any consideration to the political compulsions of the Gilani government as long as Islamabad is able to suppress popular sentiments, even through the use of military force if warranted.
Surely, Gilani finds himself hemmed in from all sides and has to come up with some fast answers. But the answers and actions that the US wants from him are something that he finds impossible to provide if he were to hope to maintain his political life. The best he could strike for is a little more time, but the Bush administration does not have any to spare either.
The only approach with any reasonable chance of success to address the problem is a regional effort that brings in all key players but that game could not be played under American rules.
Washington has to be bend and has to make compromises it might not want to make. But that is the only approach and the US knows the right addresses in the region to contact if and when it is ready to follow that route.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Going in the wrong lane

July 28, 2008


Going in the wrong lane

AFGHANISTAN is hitting out left and right with accusations that its neighbours are responsible for the raging insurgency in the country. Parallel to charges that elements in Pakistan's military and intelligence networks were plotting attacks in Afghanistan, the new contention is that
Iran has become the main transit route for militants trying to join insurgents in the chaotic country. The charge was made by an Afghan government daily, Anis.
Tehran now finds itself charged on two counts — fuelling the anti-US insurgency in Iraq and helping the Taliban militants in Afghanistan to fight the Afghan government forces and the US-led foreign forces present there. The international forces in Afghanistan have said that Iranian weapons destined for the Taliban have been seized in the country but they have qualified that assertion saying they were unsure whether Tehran knew about the shipments. Iran, which by no means is an angel, has rejected all charges.
Granted that Iran, which is locked in a bitter nuclear dispute with the US, might have a vested interest in keeping the US-led forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan unbalanced, but the charge against it need to be supported with concrete evidence. So do the contention made by Anis other countries were lax in checking support for the Taliban-led insurgency.
According to Anis, three foreign militants, two from the Middle East and one from Turkey, were captured during a recent operation in Afghanistan and investigations of the three showed they had come via Iran.
It proves that Iran had become a "tunnel for terrorists" to Waziristan, the tribal region of Pakistan, where the militants have sanctuaries and from where they enter Afghanistan to attack foreign and Afghan forces, according to the paper.
With no bearing on the authenticity of the charges, it would also seem that there is more to the situation than meets the eye, particularly that Iran has threatened to hit US interests in the region, if the US attacked Iran in the nuclear dispute.
The fact is that Afghanistan finds itself caught in the middle of a long-term conflict of foreign and regional interests. Making things worse is the intensified Taliban insurgency in the country. Instead of blaming others for its misfortunes, Kabul would be better off determining whether it has done the right things to address the woes of its people, who are otherwise denied the basics and are encouraged to embrace militancy. Then it would come up with the finding that the people of Afghanistan at large are no better off today in terms of their daily needs than they were while the Taliban or other regimes were in power. Kabul should be demanding that the international donors live up to their pledges while also ensuring that whatever foreign aid is reaching the country is channelled to the people who are in real need. That could perhaps prove to be the starting point of a long road to recovery for the Afghan people, who at this point in time feel they have nothing to lose if they joined the insurgents.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

A clear signal from Kurdistan

July 27, 2008


A clear signal from Kurdistan


The steady and strong effort of the Kurds of northern Iraq to break away from Iraq and set up an independent Kurdistan has entered a new phase. Following the Iraqi parliament's passage of a bill concerning provincial elections — that was subsequently vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd — the Kurdistan Alliance issued a statement denouncing the endorsement. It said the federal parliament had violated the constitution by allowing a secret voting process on the bill on regional elections.
Subsequently, the alliance has also moved to expand the territory under its control.
The committee in the Kurdistan Parliament in charge of revising the Kurdistan constitution has proposed language that would formally incorporate portions of four provinces into the Kurdistan Regional Government, according to a report in the Al Hayat newspaper. The four provinces to be dismembered are Diyala, Kirkuk, Mosul and Salahuddin, on the grounds that they have Kurdish populations. The language will be presented to the KRG parliament for consideration during its August recess. The Kurdistan constitution will be voted on in a referendum.
One of the keys to understanding the Kurdish move is that Tamim — the province centred on Kirkuk —  sits atop more than enough oil to support an independent Kurdish state. The Kurds are seeking to secure absolute control of Kirkuk along with its oil wealth that would be the central pillar of the economy of Kurdistan.
The move to expand the territory under Kurdish control is yet another affirmation that the conflict pitting Kurds against Arabs in Kirkuk is worsening, with Turkey throwing in its lot to defend what it considers as its interests vested with the Turkomen living in the area. Essentially, Ankara is worried that the Iraqi Kurdish move would eventually draw in Turkish Kurds and pose a threat to Turkey's territorial integrity.
It is continuing military attacks against the Turkish Kurdish rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is based on northern Iraq and stages frequent cross-border attack against Turkish targets. The latest Turkish action came on Thursday when Turkish warplanes bombed 13 Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq, with the Turkish military saying was determined to press ahead with anti-PKK operations both inside Turkey and across the border in Iraq "according to military needs."
The Kurdish Alliance is following a carefully charted game plan. At no point does it refer to an independent Kurdistan and always affirms its commitment to Iraq as a single entity. It reiterated its position in a July 23 statement which said in part:
"From the beginning of the post-Liberation political development of Iraq in 2003, the KRG has placed the interests of the wider Iraq first and foremost, and has shown a continual commitment to the principles of flexibility and compromise in order to peacefully and constitutionally solve problems created by the former Ba'ath regimes' policies."
Indeed, the Kurds have suffered a lot under the Saddam Hussein regime's reign. They have always pursued their dream of independence. With the move to expand their territorial control, they are signalling that they would not be dissuaded from their quest for an independent state of their own in Iraq, notwithstanding declarations and statements.

Despair, frustration and quest for revenge

July 27, 2008


Despair, frustration and quest for revenge

by 'Inad Khairallah

There is an increase in the number of women suicide bombers in Iraq. The US military and Iraqi security forces say Al Qaeda now recruit women who have lost their loved ones in the crackdown waged by US and allied forces in the country. Given that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died during and after the US-led invasion of their country in March 2003, the recruiters should be finding their task easy.
In an emphatic affirmation of the alarming trend on Monday, four female suicide bombers struck, killing at least 60 and wounding over 250.
What motivates women to undertake suicide missions?
It has been found that almost all of the women suicide bombers had lost their loved ones in the ongoing insurgency and security crackdown launched by the US and allied forces. Some of them lost their entire families and had nothing to look forward to life except perhaps revenge against those whom they consider as being responsible for the disaster that befell them.
Indeed, Al Qaeda is finding the ground fertile to recruit women driven by the quest for revenge in its war against the US military, Iraqi security forces and allied groups.
US and Iraqi officers have been quoted as saying that women without education, or even those who suffer from learning disabilities, are particularly targeted by insurgent leaders.
An American military officer says: "Al Qaeda look for this type of profile, then they train them and indoctrinate them."
"They keep them locked up and tell them over and over again that if they blow themselves up, they will go to paradise," says an Iraqi officer.
Few people are referring to the reality that Iraqi women's willingness to turn themselves as martyrs is yet another manifestation of the aggressive approach adopted by the US and allied forces that has little room for human considerations. More and more women are motivated by poverty, desperation or vengeance against the US-led military and allied forces they blame for the deaths of family members.
They don't need any indoctrination. They are following the natural course of human behaviour when there is nothing left to lose and someone could be seen as directly responsible for creating that situation.
Farhana Ali, an international policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, wrote in November 2005 (www.jamestown.org):
"While conflicts and motivations vary, a woman’s decision to pursue violent action is impacted by personal experiences and outcomes. Coupled with the absence of change to her own local conflict, of which she is a part of, a woman is more apt to volunteer or be recruited for an operation to end her own suffering or that of her people.
"Suicide becomes the preferred tactic when Muslim women perceive they have no other alternative to affect change to their local environment; coupled with a heightened sense of anger, disillusionment, and despair, some women choose suicide as a way to communicate and channel their frustration. This is particularly true for those who believe there are no other social, economic, or political opportunities available to them."


The Iraq experience

We have seen vivid images of how US and allied forces storm Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and search for suspected insurgents as terrified women and children cower in a corner. Males, including teenage boys, are hauled away, detained and tortured with no justifiable reason. In most cases, they are held indefinitely with no legal recourse and no communication with their families. In some cases, they are never heard of, leading the families to believe that they are dead.
Isn't that reason enough for their families to hate the US and allied forces that they see as responsible for such a course of events?
In simple terms, had the US military been humane in its approach to the people of Iraq and treated them with dignity under a respectable code of conduct, then there would not have been a situation where US soldiers and allied forces patrolling the streets of Iraq steer clear of women wearing long dresses.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Removing essence from hopes for peace

July 26, 2008


Removing essence from hopes for peace

PARALLEL TO its continued drive to increase Jewish presence through building and expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank, Israel is also engaged in a disinformation campaign. Reports are on the increase that Jewish settlers in the West Bank are confronting the government's (alleged) plans to evict them from their colonies there and are warning that they would challenge any such effort. Thus, the impression that one gets is that of some 200,000 armed settlers ready to engage the army in a battle and this poses a dilemma to the government's plans to demolish "illegal" settlements as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
That assertion could not be any more distant from the truth. First of all, Israel has no plans whatsoever to demolish any settlement in the occupied West Bank. On the contrary, it is carrying out plans to expand existing settlements and build new ones, thus creating new facts on the ground that would make it all the more difficutl to work out a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians. There is indeed confrontations between the army and settlers in the West Bank, but most of them are blown out of proportion in the media with the aim of convincing the world that Israel does have a serious problem in its hands when it comes to settlements in the occupied territory.
The overall conflict over settlements buries the reality that the Palestinians face on a daily basis in the West Bank. The arrogant and humiliating — and often violent — manner the settlers treat them. They are spat at and are the subject of abuse by armed settlers at every given opportunity. Anyone who poses the slightest challenge faces the risk of being assaulted with the assailants walking off without any fear of prosecution.
The latest such incident came last week when some 150 settlers attacked Palestinian farmers in a West Bank village, damaging crops and property. The settlers set fire to agricultural fields in what was called a "a full fledged pogrom" against the Palestinians, particularly in view of the fact that Israeli soldiers present in the area did not intervene.
Israel currently has some 150 Jewish-only settlements and more than 120 "outposts" in the West Bank. The occupation authorities say that some of the "outposts" are illegal and would be removed but are doing practically nothing to this effect. Nearly 400,000 Jews live in the settlements, including colonies that were built in occupied Arab East Jerusalem.
The Geneva Conventions state that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Underinternational law, "the establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe on the rights to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.'
Israel maintains that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the Palestinian territories, a position that is endorsed and supported by the US.
The inherent Israeli argument is that there was never a Palestinian state and that the land it occupied in 1967 was from Jordan. As such, Israel not only maintains but also believes, that Jews who lived in pre-1948 Palestine have as much right as Muslims and others who lived there before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 to settle there.
Given that is the foundation of the Israeli "claim" to the West Bank, it becomes all the more clear that there would or could never be a fair and just agreement with the Palestinians. And that was what was emphasised by the disclosure on Thursday of Israeli plans to build the so-called Maskiot settlements in the Jordan Rift Valley in the occupied West Bank.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Bid to be saltier than salt itself

July 25, 2008

Bid to be saltier than salt itself


AMERICAN politicians will never stop us wondering whether there is any limit to which they would go in order to please the Jewish lobby and voters by playing the Israeli card, which is a trump indeed in the game to win the White House.
The latest in that is a declaration by Republican presidential candidate John McCain that Israel faced the greatest threat in its history because of Iran while his Democratic rival Barack Obama described the Jewish state as a "miracle that has blossomed" since it was created in Palestine 60 years ago.
It was as if humility was finding new depths when Obama stated:
"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to its security, and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a ... senator or as a president, in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region."
If that was not enough, Obama, on a visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank, unequivocally stated that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.
It was all non-committal diplomacy when Obama said it was up to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate and decide whether the Holy City should should be all under Israeli control or divided with Palestinians and that it's not up to the United States to determine. Well, if that is indeed the case, let the US stop meddling with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (if there is a realistic one indeed) and remain strictly neutral and allow international legitimacy and conventions be the parameter for negotiations for peace in the Middle East.
And, not to be outdone by McCain in the Iranian context, Obama declared that "the world must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" and that "America must always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against those who threaten its people."
It was as if we were listening to the incumbent US president, George W Bush, when Obama warned pointedly that no options are "off the table" in confronting a nuclear threat from Iran. The only difference was that Obama suggested that Iran should be offered "big carrots" — something that Bush never mentioned — as well as "big sticks" and affirmed that he remained open to engaging the Iranian in dialogue, but it is an idea that we all know exists only in words.
We know that Bush is reckless enough to be ready to order military strikes against Iran in order to allay Israel's self-professed fears about Iranian intentions towards it and that McCain is right on toe behind Bush. Now, we are being repeatedly told
that Obama also favours the approach.
Indeed, Obama should but be aware that while he leads McCain in national polls back home, opinion surveys show that he may not be able to count on as wide a majority of Jewish supporters as is typical for Democrats. Polls also indicate that Israelis favour McCain over Obama on issues of Israel's "security." That should explain his anxiety to declare his eternal commitment to upholding Israel's interests and — not in so many words though — even at the expense of American interests.
The Israelis should be laughing their head off at the sight of the US presidential candidates bending backward and forward trying to be more Jewish and more Israeli than Jews and Israelis. They are confident that they would be able to make any US presidential candidate and, more importantly, whoever wins the race jump through any loops.
And here we hope as every US presidential election comes along that the new occupant of the White House would be honest to himself and his country and realise that there is something seriously wrong in continuing to provide almost unlimited political, military, financial and diplomatic support to Israel despite its refusal to abide by international law and unbridled use of military force in order to have its way.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Taking a cue from Dhaka

July 24, 2008

Taking a cue from Dhaka



Bangladesh's interim government deserves to be congratulated for having completed the mammoth task of preparing what is described as a fool-proof digital voters' list ahead of elections this year.
According to the country's election commission, the list includes the identities, photographs and fingerprints of 80.5 million voters after the commission removed some 12.7 million "fake names and duplicate entries" from the old list.
Given that elections in Bangladesh are routinely marred by widespread cheating including multiple voting, wildly doctored voter rolls, intimidation and bribery, the new list signals a landmark on the way towards the restoration of democracy in the country. It is expected to make vote-rigging and vote-stealing impossible in Bangladesh, which is rated as one of the most corrupt countries.
The preparation of the list at a cost of $65 million involved some 300,000 data operators, including 25,000 army personnel. It is part of the realisation of the interim government's pledge to clean up the country's political landscape and conduct fair and free elections by the year's end. It is also the biggest digital database prepared by a developing country.
There are indeed snags and troubles facing the interim government, which is accused by the political parties of seeking to cling on to power by organising local council elections before parliamentary elections. Some of the scandal-hit political leaders — whose corrupt practices, nepotism and favouritism have already been proven — have the audacity to demand that the interim government organise parliamentary elections first and then step down and hand over power to an elected government. They are in no position to make any demand because they have deprived themselves of such rights by their corrupt governance that plunged the country into chaos and made the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is indeed refreshing that the interim authorities are refusing to be initimidated or pressured into deviating from its pleges. They have already introduced new election rules making it compulsory for political parties to register to take part, and giving voters the chance to reject all candidates if they thought none were suitable.
The interim government in Dhaka has also set an example for many countries in the developing world where vote-rigging is routine. It is time clean-headed reformists — there should indeed be some in every country —  took their cue from Bangladesh and moved to streamline their electoral system.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Indian rope-trick in play

Indian rope-trick in play

by pv vivekanand



The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India has scored a resounding victory with Tuesday's parliamentary vote of confidence. Manmohan Singh, who had staked not only his future but also that of his government and party (and indeed the country), is now free to go ahead with the controversial nuclear agreement with the US.
The victory vindicates Manmohan Singh's clear determination to go ahead with the "deal" with the US even in the face of opposition from his colleagues in the Congress Party and partners in the coalition government.
At every point in the heated debate over the agreement, Manmohan Singh steadfastly maintained that deal was crucial to achieving energy security for the 1.1 billion people of India and it had no negative impact on the country's strategic military programme and its right to conduct nuclear tests.
However, it is clear that it is not a simple matter of India's energy security when seen in light of the extraordinarily secretive way New Delhi kept the details of the agreement and the brashness with which Washington pressured the Manmohan Singh government to conclude the deal.
Furthermore, the Indian government surreptitiously approached the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to secure approval for an inspection agreement it signed last year with the IAEA secretariat related to the country's to civilian nuclear reactors. That suspect approach should not have been made without approval by the Congress Party's ruling coalition partners. The government had made a promise not to move the IAEA board without considering the findings of a coalition committee on the nuclear deal set up last year.
In effect, the inspection agreement signed with the IAEA secretariat is not different from the standard safeguards agreement the IAEA signs with non-nuclear weapons states.
The finding undermines the Indian government's argument that the agreement with the IAEA is "India-specific."
According to MV Ramana, a senior analyst at the Bangalore-based Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development, "it fails to defend India's strategic autonomy as a de facto nuclear weapons state."
The secretive details of the US-India nuclear accord filtering out through the Internet — and released by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in a hurry thereafter — have pulled the rug from under New Delhi's summary argument that the agreement is heavily in favour of India's interest and it represents a magnanimous US gesture towards the country in view of its emerging status as a regional power.
The details of the actual agreement contradict provisions included the original text of the July 2005 accord signed by US President George W Bush and Manmohan Singh which assures India of "the same benefits and advantages" and the same obligations as other "states with advanced nuclear technology" — meaning nuclear weapons-states. That contradiction rejects the Indian government's argument that the agreement has no impact whatsoever on the country's military application of nuclear power.
However, the real clincher is beyond the nuclear context.
There are many ifs and buts in view of the restrictions and conditions that the US has included in the nuclear agreement that critics say are aimed at enslaving India and holding it hostage to US global strategies.
In simple terms, many say it is difficult to see India manoeuvring through the US nuclear labyrinth and still maintaining its tradition of an independent foreign policy.
MK Bhadrakumar, who served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, says: "The deal enables the US to selectively waive its embargo on dual-use technology to India, which, in turn, enables the American military-industrial complex to enter the huge Indian market as an arms supplier; and places India incrementally as an ally in the US's Asian strategies against Russia and China, or at the very least ensures against a future Russia-China-India entente cordiale." (www.atimes.com).
The nuclear agreement contains a provision where India undertakes to co-operate with the US in efforts to contain regional nuclear proliferation. That is very much relevant in the immediate context of the US-Iran stand-off where Washington could justify possible military action against Iran in the name of anti-proliferation efforts and demand Indian co-operation, critics say.
Some leftist leaders, who accuse Manmohan Singh of having "sold" his "soul" along with India to US interests, maintain that Indian territory would be used by the US to stage military action against Iran. However, it is highly unlikely, given the political experience and acumen of the Congress Party to which Manmohan Singh belongs. Any Indian government which supports and helps the US in actions aimed at defending and serving the superpower's narrow interests in this part of the world would not last for long. Popular sentiments would not allow it, and the Congress Party should but be perfectly aware of the political pitfall.
Rightists, including some leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argue that the nuclear deal irreversibly places India in the US orbit. That is indeed a laugh, given that the BJP had sought to build a strong "strategic alliance" with the US five years ago when it was in power and BJP leaders were more than willing to be part of a US-led axis that included Israel to fight "terrorism" and "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of dangerous missiles."
With the vote of confidence in his government, Manmohan Singh is now on his way to be seen as the brains behind two of the most important landmarks in India's history — sweeping reforms that turned around the country's economic fortunes in the early 90s and adopting nuclear energy as the country's mainstay source for power.
At the same time, he also risks being accused of sacrificing everything that India stood for, starting with its "non-aligned" status (which has become a hollow phrase anyway) and independent foreign and security policy. He would also be accused of firmly leading the country into the "American camp" that is hated among the "natural socialists" of the deprived classes not only in India but also around the world and of course the leftists and Muslims because of its aggressive foreign policies based on its belief in military solutions even to socially-rooted political conflicts.
Surely, Manmohan Singh and his strategic advisers could not but be aware of the delicate rope-trick facing them. That realisation gives rise to a belief that the Indian prime minister does have a pre-determined course of direction that would — hopefully — steer the country away from the pitfalls and undercurrents associated with any "strategic alliance" with the US at least until his term runs out in May 2009. What happens thereafter is anyone's guess since foreign policy has never been the determining factor for Indian voters.

The other side of international justice

July 23, 2008


The other side of international justice


THE ARREST of Radovan Karadzic, one of the world’s most wanted men, on Monday, 13 years after he was first indicted by the United Nations war crimes tribunal, should spark a sense of satisfaction to all of those who are interested in ensuring supremacy of international justice around the world.
Karadzic, 63, faces genocide charges for his role in the massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in Europe’s worst atrocity since World War II, and for organising the siege of Sarajevo which claimed 12,000 lives.
The UN war crimes tribunal, which says it has concrete evidence of Karadzic's guilt, has described him as the mastermind of "scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history."
Karadzic was detained by Serb forces inside the country on Monday, according to Serbian President Boris Tadic, for whom the arrest is a significant breakthrough. Serbia has faced international isolation while Karadzic and fellow war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb army commander, have remained at large. The European Union has made their hand-over a condition for any progress towards Serbia's membership in the bloc.
According to UN prosecutors, both Karadzic and Mladic and other Serbs suspected of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia were protected by Bosnian Serb nationalists. Karadzic's arrest is seen to have made possible after Serb nationalists lost power in Serbia when the pro-Western Tadic government took over last month.
Some reports speculate that those members of the Serbian security services who knew where Karadzic was hiding either passed on that information, or simply stepped aside to allow pro-Western agents to arrest him.
The replacement of the old head of Serbian intelligence, Rade Bulatovic, with a new man, Sasha Vukadinovic, must have played a significant role. says the BBC.
Karadzic led the self-proclaimed Serb administration of Bosnia in the early 1990s which resisted the country’s independence and suppressed other ethnic groups in some of the worst violence that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia.
His trial will be a very important event for the families of the victims of massacres and suppression carried out under Karadzic's directions. They have waited for his arrest for over a decade.
Technically, his arrest underlines that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that sooner or later all fugitives will be brought to justice. Still at large in the Serbian case is Karadzic's ally Ratko Mladic, who is also indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Only when he is arrested and tried would there be full accountability for the genocide at Srebrenica.
Also at large is Croatian Serb ex-rebel leader Goran Hadzic.
So far so good for Serbia and its new government, which is seeking to enter mainstream life in Europe through the EU, and for all the people in the world who want justice done.
For us in the Middle East, the arrest of Karadzic — and the ongoing effort to have Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al Bashir tried on genocide charges in Darfur — are reminders of the double standards of world powers.
Why isn't anyone blamed for the death of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as the direct and indirect result of the US invasion and occupation of their country more than five years ago? Why isn't anyone held responsible for the immense suffering that has been inflicted upon the people of Afghanistan?
Why isn't anyone blamed for the killings, summary detentions, demolition of homes and other atrocities committed against the people of Palestine who are exercising their legitimate right to resist the foreign military occupation of their land?

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Stakes too high in today's India vote

July 22, 2008


Stakes too high in today's India vote

TODAY is crucial for the future of India. The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is seeking a vote of confidence from parliament over a controversial agreement on nuclear co-operation with the US. It seemed to be touch and go yesterday, with leaders of the dominant Congress Party claiming they have secured 271 votes in the 541-seat parliament. That is only the half-way mark, and Congress hopes were pinned on "persuading" some members of opposition parties to abstain.
Indeed, it is all a game of numbers, but at stake is the political direction of the country on the international front. The issue that warranted the confidence vote today is the so-called "nuclear deal" with the US. Leftist parties, which have always ruled out "strategic co-operation" with the US, quit the ruling coalition, leaving the government with the task of mustering a majority in parliament without them. And that is what the government is trying to do today.
Critics say the nuclear agreement with the US is not desirable for India because the caveats associated with it would enslave the country to the sole superpower. Proponents argue that the only way India could be self-reliant for its energy needs is the nuclear route.
Manmohan Singh's determination to press ahead with the deal is uncharacteristic of Indian politicians because the US is not exactly the favourite country for Indian voters. It is even argued that the nuclear move with the US could cost the Congress party the next elections.
But Manmohan Singh, who is credited with switching India to the fast-track of economic development through liberal trade policies in the early 90s, does not seem to be bothered about elections: He was never directly elected to parliament in his two-decade-old public life. The Congress party took advantage of a constitutional provision that allows indirectly elected politicians to head the government and installed Manmohan Singh as prime minister.
Against that backdrop, he could be impervious to public opinion and capable of acting with decisiveness and foresight.
There is no doubt that Manmohan Singh is fully convinced that the nuclear deal is in India's interests. He expressed it clearly when he told parliament while presenting the confidence motion that "every single decision, every policy decision was taken in the fullest confidence that it was in the best interest of the people of the count
However, the bottom line is that the nuclear co-operation agreement, if implemented, will signal a dramatic shift in India's foreign police and bind the country with the US. Manmohan Singh, who is deemed to be convinced of the imperative of changing India's foreign policy, wants to make that transformation irreversible.
The elected representatives of the people of India are voting today not simply on whether the country needs nuclear power-generating plans to meet its needs of energy. They are voting on whether to change the "non-aligned" course that India had embraced for itself more than five decades ago and firm up its position in the US-led camp.
It parliament comes with a majority "yes" vote today, then would mean India sealing a "strategic partnership" with the US, whether desirable or otherwise. If it is a "no," then it would deal a severe blow to the country's efforts on the economic development front because of the paralysis that would follow in the absence of a strong and stable government.

Monday, July 21, 2008

The writing on the Zimbabwe wall is clear

July 21, 2008


The writing on the wall is clear


THE REPORTED decision by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's government to seize and transfer ownership of all foreign-owned firms that support Western sanctions against Zimbabwe worsens the long-running conflict between the Mugabe regime and Western governments.
According to the state-run Sunday Mail of Harare, the Mugabe government will transfer the ownership of all such companies to locals and investors from "friendly" countries. The decision seems to be already being implemented, according to the report, with the Harare government having begun auditing the ownership of Western firms in the country as part of a black empowerment drive "and to counter the possible withdrawal of investment under sanctions imposed and proposed by Britain and the US."
According to the report, the audit of foreign investments showed that 499 companies enjoyed British investments. Of these, 309 had majority shareholders in Britain and 97 were wholly owned by Britons.
The audit also found 353 firms with shareholders from other European countries.
The move follows another controversial law seeking to transfer majority ownership of foreign-owned firms to locals.
It is an understatement that Zimbabweans are living through a major economic crisis which owes its origins to the regime's policies. The inflation rate is seen at over 2.2 million per cent and the people of the country are facing chronic shortages of food and other basic needs.
The once-thriving commercial agricultural sector of the country is in ruins, about one-fourth of its 12 million people have fled and those who remain are largely dependent on foreign food aid.
Indeed, Harare blames the crisis on sabotage by enemies angry over the regime's seizures of white-owned farms for blacks but it overlooks that it was the land grab that created the problem.
On the political front, the regime is equally ruthless, with a policy of eliminating opponents. There was little legitimacy to the results of the recent presidential election from which opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew citing violence against his supporters.
Mugabe, 84, has led Zimbabwe in various capacitis since its independence in 1980 before becoming its president in 1988. He was initially hailed as a hero of African liberation, but over a period time his regime became corrupt, brutal and intolerant. And the situation has been growing worse with no sign of an end to the woes of the people of Zimbabwe.
Pressure and sanctions have not worked, mainly because of opposition to such moves by other African countries, some of whose leaders are as ruthless as Mugabe himself against political dissent. Obviously, they fear that they would also be targeted for ouster if they allowed Mugabe to be forced out by foreign powers. What they fail to see is the probability of the people of Zimbabwe rising up en masse against the regime and setting an example for their own people.
In any event, the onus is on Zimbabwe's neighbours and other African countries to persuade Mugabe to accept that it is time for him to leave the office which he occupies without legitimacy and that if he doesn't then they would not prevent others from forcing him to go.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Passing the buck will not work

July 18, 2008


Passing the buck will not work


According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organisation for Migration, almost five million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.5 million have vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million are living in Syria, and over one million refugees are living in Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf states.
The Iraqi government says that 1.2 million Iraqis were displaced before the US-led invasion and ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime because of government repression and economic hardships. Naturally, one would assume that most of them returned home after the regime was toppled. However, that does not seem to have happened. That would mean that at least six million Iraqis belong to the category of displaced, whether inside or outside the country.
The UN secretary general's representative, David Shearer, is calling for a national policy to deal with the issue, and the Iraqi government, represented by the minister of immigration and emigration, says efforts are under way to find a permanent solution for emigrants and displaced people's problems.
It is unlikely that there would be any early solution to the problem, which is compounded by security fears. Even the heavily fortified "Green Zone" in Baghdad is exposed to security risks that require a major effort that is a heavy drain on the strength of the US military occupying Iraq.
The Iraqi government say it has managed to bring back 10,000 displaced people to their residential areas, in addition to helping 5,000 physicians to return to Iraq. The figures sound simple, but even Shearer says that they cannot be heavily relied upon. The government has also warned that warned that it can’t accommodate large numbers of returns. Most of those who returned were subsequently displaced again.
The campaign of violent "ethnic cleansing" waged by the different communities in Iraq seems to be have ebbed, but that is no thanks to improved security as touted by the US military. It is because most the "ethnic cleansing" is over and many local communities are armed to defend themselves.
The problem needs to be addressed as a top priority by the government of Iraq as the international community because it heralds a major regional crisis. None of the countries hosting the Iraqi refugees, mainly Syria and Jordan, is in a position to offer even the basic facilities to its guests, most of whom live in abject poverty and misery. It is only a matter of time before their frustration explodes into unpredictable consequences. Furthermore, an entire generation of Iraqis is growing up with threadbare connections with their homeland.
Here is an excerpt from a letter that the Refugee International agency sent to US President George W Bush early this year.
"Iraqi refugees are overwhelming the basic infrastructure of Iraq’s neighbors, in particular Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, raising concerns about the potential for further destabilization of the region. Iraqis have no legal work options in most host countries and are increasingly desperate and in need of humanitarian assistance. Iraqis face challenges in obtaining food, and have trouble accessing host countries’ health and education systems. Women and children are increasingly vulnerable, and a sense of frustration, despair, and abandonment permeates communities of displaced Iraqis throughout the region."
Indeed, it is not only Refugee International but also most other refugee aid groups have underlined the US responsibility to help solve the problem.
The US, which led the invasion of Iraq and continues to occupy the country, should lead the effort to find an early solution to the crisis. It would be shear irresponsible behaviour if it continues to argue that it is a Iraqi government problem. No matter how hard the US tries to look the other way, the people of Iraq and of the Arab World at large and indeed the international community would never forget that it was the US which created the Iraq problem to start with.

Spare the world lectures on rights

July 18, 2008

Spare the world lectures on rights

AMNESTY International's call for the immediate release of a Canadian citizen being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has brought attention to the brutality with which the US treats those held in detention but also the indifference to conventions on treatment of minors.
It might not be surprising to the world — which has seen the images from Abu Ghraib in Iraq — that the US authorities have little time to respect human rights when it comes to people from this part of the world. But the case of Canadian Omar Khadr takes the abuse of rights to new heights.
The torture to which Omar Khadr was subjected to at Guantanamo was exposed when a Canadian court ordered Canadian intelligence to surrender videos of the teenager being questioned. Khadr was under 15 when he was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and was 16 when the video was taken as he was being questioned by Canadian intelligence agents in 2003. Khadr, who is of Egyptian roots, is facing charges of killing an American soldier with a grenade during fighting in Afghanistan. He was taken from the battlefield badly wounded and near death.
In the video-footage released by his lawyers, then-teenage captive sobs and repeatedly cries, "Help me." That is only a scratch on the surface.
According to his own account, reported by Amnesty International, “during interrogations a bag was placed over his head and US personnel brought military dogs into the room to frighten him.” He was “not allowed to use the bathroom and was forced to urinate on himself.” Like many other prisoners, he was also hung from his wrists, and “his hands were tied above a door frame and he was forced to stand in this position for hours.” An article in Rolling Stone, in August 2006, added further details, noting that he was “brought into interrogation rooms on stretchers, in great pain,” and was “ordered to clean floors on his hands and knees while his wounds were still wet.”
If this is the way the authorities treat a teenager in Guantanamo, it does not need much imagination how they treat adults.
That is not all. The US authorities designated Khadr in November 2005 as one of 10 Guantánamo detainees to be tried by a military commission, which is "empowered" to try detainees and even pass the death sentence using secret evidence that would never be revealed to either the detainees or their government-appointed defence lawyers.
Amnesty International's argument is very clear.
"The treatment of Omar Khadr throughout his detention violates the USA’s obligations under international law, which requires that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration," it says.
"No one who was a child at the time of their alleged crime should be tried by military commissions, which have no juvenile justice provisions whatsoever," the group said. "Omar Khadr should either be repatriated and tried in Canada by an ordinary court or released."
Regardless of the charge against Khadr and of the circumstances of his capture in Afghanistan, the US authorities should have treated him like a juvenile. His age might not have made a difference to the US authorities, but it did to lawyers and human rights groups and that is why the Bush administration finds itself again facing charges of abusing the rights of a minor.
The US could perhaps argue that since it has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is free to violate the human rights of juveniles in its "war on terror." It is highly unlikely that Washington would heed the call for Khadr's release from the Bay.
But the posture surely deprives the sole superpower of the world of any right to assume the high moral ground and lecture others on how to respect human rights.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Ill-founded belief, misguided approach

July 17, 2008

Ill-founded belief, misguided approach

YET another chapter in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict was closed on Wednesday with Lebanon's Hizbollah handing over the bodies of two Israeli soldiers whose capture by its fighters two years ago had sparked a devastating 34-day war.
In return for the bodies of the two soldiers, Israel is handing over the remains of 199 Palestinian
and Lebanese fighters and the five remaining Lebanese prisoners in its custody, including Samir Kantar who is the longest serving Arab prisoner behind Israeli bars. Among the remains that Israel handed over through the International Red Cross was the body of a 20-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed during a daring command attack in Israel in 1978 and who is known to her compatriots as "the bride of Palestine."
Predictably, critics in Israel are lamenting that the exchange deal gave a massive boost to Hizbollah, which will use it to promote itself as the most effective Arab group countering the Jewish state. To be sure, Hizbollah, which successfully withstood the Israeli war against them two years ago, is doing exactly that. And no one could deny the group the right to celebrate what it considers as a great victory.
The Israeli discomfort over the exchange deal highlights the importance that many Israelis attach to using every occasion of humiliate the Arabs with a view of denting their determination to resist the Jewish state's occupation of Arab territories.
That approach is reflected in every Israeli dealing with the Palestinians living under occupation on a daily basis, starting with abusing them and often spitting at them at military check-points and other forms of humiliation. It is deeply embedded in the Israeli psyche that no Arab should ever be allowed to "score" anything against the Jewish state. That psyche was dealt yet another blow on Wednesday.
"Despite the war that was waged against us and despite international pressure to reveal the fate of the two Israeli soldiers, no-one has known their fate until this moment," according to a Hizbollah official who spoke after handing over the remains of the two.
Indeed, Lebanon is celebrating. As a banner in the southern town of Naqura proclaimed: "Lebanon is shedding tears of joy," and "Israel is shedding tears of pain."
Beyond the celebrations, however, the region remembers only too well the intensity of the Israel-Hizbollah war of the summer on 2006 that claimed more than 1,000 lives in Lebanon and some 150 in Israel. Did they have to die? Was Israel unaware that it could negotiate the release of the two captive soldiers with Hizbollah rather than launch a war against Lebanon?
It is time for Israel to reflect. Its stubborn refusal to accept fairness and justice as the basis for any peace settlement with the Arabs and its arrogant belief in military power as the solution to all its problems are at the roots of the regional problem and also the reason for the absence of the sense of "security" for the people of Israel.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Key is in overhaul of thinking and policy

July 16, 2008

Key is in overhaul of thinking and policy


THE guerrilla assault that killed nine American soldiers on Sunday at a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan reaffirms that the main front in the US-led "war against terror" is not Iraq. Indeed, Iraq should never have figured in the "war against terror" because the Saddam Hussein regime was never involved in any anti-US attack anywhere in the world, least of all the Sept.11 assaults in New York and Washington.
Iraq was turned into a playground for anti-US militants as the direct result of the US invasion and occupation of that country in implementation of an agenda that had little do with the "war against terror." The repeated US emphasis that an American withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for "international terrorists" is simple deception aimed at justifying the military presence there.
The ongoing guerrilla war there is Iraq-specific and the Iraqis waging it do not have an agenda beyond the borders of their country. They are fighting a battle to end the American military presence in their country. Their is no reason to argue that Iraq would pose a direct or indirect threat to US national security.
Even as Washington hawks continue to insist that Iraq is the number one priority in the "war against terror," the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing beyond containment.
Many in the US have woken up to the reality that in his frenzy to gain control of Iraq, US President George W Bush did not maintain his focus on Afghanistan and the problem of militancy there before moving vital military resources to the Iraq front.
The biggest blunder the US made in Afghanistan was to convince itself that the problem could be solved through military means. It did not give attention to assisting the people of Afghanistan to improve their daily life while it continued its war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
As a result, most Afghans are worse off than they were before the US military action against their country in 2001 and are pushed into the arms of militant recruiters.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appears to have realised the nature of the problem. He is calling for a double-pronged approach to tackle the issue — an intensified military campaign supported by better intelligence gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to Afghanistan. That approach might or might not work, but the real key lies in a fundamental shift in Washington's thinking and policy and a better understanding of the people of this part of the world.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding

July 14, 2008


Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding



THE new Lebanese cabinet headed by Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora announced on Friday represents the compromise agreement reached in Qatar this year after many months of political paralysis in the country.
The 30-member cabinet includes 16 ministers representing the majority bloc led by Siniora and 11 from the opposition led by Hizbollah. The other three ministers were named by President Michel Suleiman, who exercised his prerogative to do so as contained in the May 21 Doha agreement.
Effectively, the opposition has gained veto power that would be reflected in any decision that the government takes from now on., and the new equation of power has far-reaching implications for prospects for peacemaking in the region.
Surely, the compromise was not to the liking of some, mainly the US which had tried to forestall any move that would strengthen Hizbollah arguing that the group was taking its orders from Damascus and Tehran. However, the ground support that Hizbollah has among the Lebanese, particularly after the group successfully withstood Israel's military assault against the country two years ago, helped it have its way in the political stand-off.
Predictably, the Israelis are upset because the strong Hizbollah and allied presence in the government undermines its secret designs to lure Lebanon into a "peace" agreement after giving up the occupied Shebaa Farms to UN control. The UN says the area is Syrian territory but Damascus insists it is Lebanese and this justifies the state of confrontation between Israel and Hizbollah as a Lebanese resistance group. Indeed, there are continued behind-the-scene moves for peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria. However, even if the moves are meaningful, there is little chance of any Israel-Lebanon agreement without a peace deal between Israel and Syria. The newfound strength of the Hizbollah-led opposition in the Beirut government has removed all doubts, if there existed any, that Israel could cut a seperate deal with Lebanon.
In a broader context, it is also unlikely that any concrete move would or could be made any soon towards peace in a Israel-Lebanon-Syria framework, given the complexities and regional developments involving Iran.
As Siniora declared on Friday, the government's first task is to restore confidence in political institutions and the Lebanese political system and the second is to make sure that next year's parliamentary elections will be held transparently and under a new electoral law that "guarantees justice and true representation."
Hopefully, Siniora would be able to accomplish the mission despite the contradictions in the make-up of the new cabinet.
In the meantime, what matters for the Lebanese at this point in time is stability and security. With the Hizbollah-led opposition having entered the cabinet, the tension that gripped the country since early last year and fears of renewed civil strife have faded.
At least that is what the signs in Lebanon indicate. It is then time for the Lebanese to resume the process of rebuilding their country.

Part of the reason, part of the problem

July 14, 2008

Part of the reason, part of the problem

America's top intelligence official has made some interesting comments about the US-Iranian stand-off that should be heard by every American particularly that they come amid signs of US/Israeli preparations for military action against Iran.
The comments by Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, clearly indicate that the US intelligence community does not believe there is a case for war against Iran. Beyond that, however, is a clear understanding of Iran's motivations in pursuing a hard line and why the US should take into consideration Tehran's genuine security concerns. He argued for US dialogue with Iran and engaging Tehran through multilateral institutions.
Fingar, who oversaw the production of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that Iran had likely halted the development of nuclear weapons in 2003, said that Iran had reasons to feel insecure because of the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Recognising that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point" for US policy, he said. "We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure."

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict

July 12, 2008


Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict

THE drums of war are getting louder, with Israeli sources revealing that Israeli warplanes are practising in Iraqi airspace and land in US airbases in the country as preparation for a potential strike on Iran.
The "revelation" follows a series of test-firing of missiles conducted by Iran that prompted Israel to threaten that it could launch pre-emptive strikes designed to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear programme which the West insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons — a charge that Tehran denies.
It goes without saying that the US would have a key role in any Israeli military strike against Iran.
The missile tests have also led to a disinformation/misinformation campaign suggesting Iran had faked some of the test-firings and questioning whether it has missiles with enough range to hit Israel.
However, such questions are not going to dissuade the US and Israel from undertaking military strikes against Iran, whose announcement of the test-firing of missiles was deemed to be a warning that it has enough missiles and launchers to keep on firing on consecutive days. Obviously, Tehran wants to talk from what it sees as a position of strength, and this has only strengthened the US and Israeli resolve for military action against Iran.
That is what is indicated by the report that Israeli warplanes are engaged in massive nocturnal activity in Iraqi airspace and several of them were spotted in American-held airbases in Iraq. The Israeli moves in Iraq follows reports of a massive exercise over the Mediterranean several weeks ago that Israeli officials described as "the dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
The latest report quoted former Iraqi military officers in the Anbar province as saying that Israeli airplanes are seen arriving during the night from the west, entering Iraq's airspace and landing on a runway near the city of Hadita. They said they believed that the jets were practising for a raid on
Iran's nuclear sites.
There is no doubt that Israel would use American bases in Iraq as a platform from which to attack Iran. In fact, it would not be much off the mark to suggest that securing an absolute military control of Iraq to allow its ally Israel to have it way in the region was one of the US objectives of the invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.
And now the region faces the prospect of further conflict and serious disruption of life if Israel and the US, individually or collectively, were to strike at Iran.
On the surface, it would appear that there is little anyone could do to check the US/Israel-Iran confrontation from worsening since both sides are determined not to have the other have its way.
However, the stakes are too high for everyone, with the region having to pay first for the chaos and crises resulting from any US/Israeli military action against Iran. Washington should be told in no uncertain terms that the region could not afford yet another military misadventure while Tehran should be told to take upon itself to stay away from provocation that would have disastrous consequences for everyone.
The US should drop its insistence that diplomacy means the other party capitulating and giving up everything. Iran should come to terms with the fact that it has the responsibility to address genuine concerns, if any, caused by its nuclear activities.
That are the bottom lines at this critical juncture in time.

Sunday, July 06, 2008

Easy option is toughest for US

July 6, 2008


Easy option is toughest for US


THERE ARE clear signs that the people of Iraq want nothing to do with the so-called status of forces agreement sought by the US and they simply want the US military to pack up and leave their country. However, the Bush administration does not want to acknowledge since it would mean admitting that it is no longer welcome in Iraq.
The status of forces agreement was actually drawn up even before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It clearly means that colonisation of Iraq was the central objective of the invasion and occupation of that country.
A majority of the people of Iraq have realised this and hence their rejection of the US-drafted status of forces agreement. Looking the other way, the US is continuing to pressure the Iraqi government to sign it regardless of whether the people of the country like it or otherwise.
The Shiite leaders of Iraq are aware of the US determination to force the agreement down the Iraqi throat and hence their call for a national referendum on the issue. Washington is bitterly opposed to the idea because it is aware that the people of Iraq would throw the draft agreement if it was put for a referendum. And that is why it is keeping the contents of the draft document a secret (although the international media have brought out the key details of the draft agreement, which, if signed, would place Iraq under the absolute political, diplomatic and military control of the US and give the US military and its contractors a free hand to behave the way they want in the country without question).
Speaking on behalf of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the supreme religious leader of Iraq's Shiites, Imam Sadreddin Al Kabandji underlined on Friday that the draft must be made public and it is unacceptable that the government and the US are negotiating it behind closed doors.
Another Sistani aide has publicly called on Baghdad not to sign the agreement..
"If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries," said Sheikh Abdul Al Mahdi Al Karbalae.
The Americans would be better off listening to the calls because Sistani and his aides are speaking the language of the people of Iraq and they represent the majority of the population.
All Iraqi parties and politicians, except the Kurds, have said they oppose the agreement. The Kurds, who seem to be moving towards carving out their own independent entity in northern Iraq, are in favour of the agreement. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, insists that the agreement would not compromise Iraqi sovereignty but that argument is a lame duck because the contents of the draft are no longer a secret.
The US faces tough options in Iraq. It could pressure the government into signing the document, but then it would alienate an overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq and that in turn would make life even more difficult for the US forces in the country.
Of course, there is an easy option, which the US does not even want to consider but which Washington would be forced to embrace sooner or later: Pack up and go home.

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Positive signs in a dangerous path

July 5, 2008


Positive signs in a dangerous path


IRAN'S response to proposals by Western powers to end the nuclear stand-off has come at a time when speculation is high that the US and Israel are steadily moving towards launching military action against that country.
We do not know yet how exactly Tehran has responded to the Western proposals, but its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has called the Iranian response "a constructive and creative view and a focus on common ground."
According to Western diplomats, the Western proposals, sent to Tehran by the European Union's top diplomat Javier Solana last month, would have Iran freeze its current level of enrichment capacity for a certain time period during which the European Union would refrain from floating new sanctions.
Iran could not install any new centrifuges used in enrichment, a step that can produce weapons-grade fuel, for the interim period.
We have yet to hear any Iranian official hinting that Tehran is ready to give ground on the key question of enrichment, but it is possible that Tehran might be amenable to the idea of freezing its nuclear enrichment programme at its current level.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the US endorsement of the compromise proposals given to Iran, it is difficult to swallow the argument that the Bush administration is ready to deal with the Iranian regime if it accepts the compromise.
In fact, there are only two constants in the US-Iran nuclear stand-off: The first is Tehran's insistence that it would never make any compromise over its right to develop nuclear energy as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) , and this includes nuclear enrichment. The second is the combined US-Israeli determination for military action leading to regime change in Tehran regardless of whether Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. One would even wager that the US and Israel are hoping that the Iranians would not accept any compromise and thus would offer "justification' for military action against the country. That was indeed the case when the US was dealing with Saddam Hussein and it was clear that there was nothing the late Iraqi leader could have done to avert the US-led invasion of occupation of his country in 2003.
No doubt, the Iranians are aware of the certainty of the US-Israeli intentions and hence their tough talk and repeated warnings that any military action against Iran would be considered an act of war that would draw predictable (and unpredictable) retaliation.
At the same time, Iranian political leaders are sending signals that they are ready for diplomacy to end the dispute.
The foreign policy adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, has said it would be in Iran's interest to accept negotiations as the means to resolve the conflict while Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has spoken of a "new process."
Everyone in the Middle East and beyond is aware of the consequences of yet another military conflict in this region and is anxious to avert it. Let us hope that the new signals coming from Tehran are the forerunners of a diplomatic solution that would spare the region from further conflict, bloodshed and upheavals.

Friday, July 04, 2008

Time to reflect on realistic options

July 4, 2008

Time to reflect on realistic options

ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
The claim of responsibility by the Galilee Liberation Brigades was broadcast by Hizballah’s Al Manar TV station in Lebanon.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statements without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words (However, there is no explanation why Hizbollah would stay away from claiming that it had fulfilled its pledge of revenge for the Mughniyeh killing).
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statement without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words.
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas movement and reimpose a blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Hamas's response to the attack was that it was not responsible for the action but that such assaults were the natural reaction to Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories.
There is no reason to believe that Hamas, which has demonstrated a firm commitment to the truce it agreed with Israel last month, would engage in actions that contradict its pledges. Of all people, the Israelis know it well. Hopefully, Israel would not resort to deception and use Thursday's attack as a pretext to inflict harm on the people of Gaza by reimposing its blockade of the territory.
Surely, the Israelis are wise enough not to undermine the state of relative calm on the Gaza front with actions that they know well would unfounded. It is time for all sides to reflect on their options with a view to figuring out whether confrontation or moderation is the means to work out peace, tranquillity and life in security, safety and indeed dignity for their people.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

No longer an African problem

July 3 2008


No longer an African problem

President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has reportedly told African leaders to examine their own records and claims to power before seeking to sanction him for his country's recent election violence. He told fellow leaders gathered at the two-day summit of the 53-nation African Union in Sharm Al Sheikh that their claims to power were no more legitimate than his and chastised President Umaru Yar'Adua of Nigeria for having "worse elections than I did."
No wonder the other leaders who attended the summit could not move ahead with their effort to impose sanctions on Mugabe's Zimbabwe under intense Western pressure. Nor could they issue a public rebuke or even address a planned news conference, Instead, they encouraged Mugabe to enter into dialogue and form a power-sharing government with the country's opposition.
The Western governments seeking to pressure Mugabe, his spokesman George Charamba said, "can go and hang a thousand times."
However, Mugabe seemed to have made a compromise by saying he is ready to negotiate with the opposition in line with the call made by the African Union leaders, who held their Sharm Al Sheikh summit three days after Mugabe forced Zimbabweans to the polls to vote for him in a presidential runoff. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who won 48 per cent to Mugabe's 43 per cent in the initial round of voting in March, pulled out of the runoff saying he feared further violence against his people.
On Wednesday, Tsvangirai rejected dialogue with Mugabe saying conditions were not yet right for talks on forming a unity government.
Surely, he has his own reasons for adopting that position. He is insisting that the results of a first round of voting on March 29, in which he defeated Mugabe, should be the basis for talks.
Most people had expected the African Union summit to pressure Mugabe into changing his ways. However, the Zimbabwean leader's direct charge against them took the steam out of their push. Many of them are in  no position to defend their policies and claim legitimate claim to the positions they hold.
Indeed, that is one of the key problems of Africa. Only a handful of the heads of state and government in the continent could justifiably defend their claims to power. Others have come to power through strong-arm tactics and exploitation of tribal rivalries. Most African leaders have seized power by force and have ruled for decades since. They are in position to point any critical finger at Mugabe since none of them would like to see their own records on rights and governance scrutinised. It is even funny that the US-led Western camp finds fault only with Mugabe while doing business as usual with other African leaders whose records are worse than the Zimbabwean leader's.
However, that does not mean that Mugabe, who has one of the worst records ever for any African ruler, should be allowed to have his way and the problem of Zimbabwe should be allowed to worsen.
There is strong international concern that Zimbabwe is nearing political and economic collapse. There has to be strong and effective international action to solve the Zimbabwean crisis since it has become clear that the people of Zimbabwe have been rendered helpless to help themselves against their own government and now it has been proved that the African Union could not help them either.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Get down from the high horse

July 1, 2008

Get down from the high horse

Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah have agreed on a prisoner exchange deal after nearly two years of negotiations. It is not the first such deal between the two sides, but it highlights the folly of Israel's belief in military action as the answer to its conflict with the Arabs.
Under the agreement, Hizbollah will release the remains of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture had triggered the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and provide information on an Israeli air force navigator who went missing while in action over Lebanon 22 years ago. In return, Israel will free five Lebanese, the remains of Hizbollah fighters and an undetermined number of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons as well as provide information of four Iranian diplomats who went "missing" in Lebanon at the height of the Lebanese civil war.
Predictably, Hizbollah hailed the deal as a victory for itself.
"The world could not achieve the Israeli goal of recovering its soldiers without the resistance dictating its terms: the release of prisoners," according to Hizbollah executive council chief Hashem Safieddin.
The agreement certainly highlights that the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in the summer of 2006 could have been averted had the Jewish state's leaders listened to reason.
Israel cited Hizbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers as the reason for having ordered a massive military blitz against Lebanon that caused the death of more than 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and some 140 Israelis, mostly soldiers and security men.
It was as if Israel was waiting for an opportunity to launch military action with a view to destroying or at least seriously weakening Hizbollah's power as a group waging armed resistance. It refused to accept repeated calls for a cease-fire and negotiations to have the two captive soldiers freed in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli jails.
Then it became clear that the Israeli political leadership was acting under American pressure not to accept a cease-fire and press ahead with military power to destroy Hizbollah, a potent power that could pose a serious threat to US and Israeli interests in the event of military action against Iran.
However, Hizbollah surprised Israel and indeed the rest of the world with its resilience and withstood 34 days of fierce military assaults that caused, apart from the civilian deaths, extensive damage to Lebanon's infrastructure. For the first time in the region's history, a war was taken to the people of Israel, forcing them to take to bomb shelters in the face of mortar attacks against their towns. Indeed, Israel seemed to have been shocked as anyone else that Hizbollah could sustain itself in a such a military campaign that pitted the group against a country deemed to be the fifth or sixth strongest in the world. And that shock led to the eventual cease-fire that came after more than a month of military action that resulted in heavy suffering for the people of Lebanon and Israel for no fault of their own.
The Lebanon experience of 2006 and the agreement it has now struck with Hizbollah should be an eye-opener for Israel that there are no military solutions to its problems with the Arabs and that it would be better off climbing down from its military high horse and sitting down to negotiations based on justice and fairness.