December 11, 2004
Iraq elections: Too many questions, too few answers
pv vivekanand
There is an air of superficiality in the run-up to elections in Iraq which Washington and the interim government in Baghdad insist would be held as scheduled on Jan.30. Indeed, there is little doubt that the elections will be held, barring a sweeping last-minute surprise of whatever nature. That much is clear, since both the Bush administration and the interim government are in a bind. They could not delay the elections if only because that would alienate the country's Shiites who are expecting to gain power by virtue of their majority in the population and thus set right what they consider to be as injustice done to them throughout recent Iraq history. Furthermore, delaying elections beyond Jan.31 will be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution adopted early this year, paving the way for some form of recognition of the American role in Iraq.
Political groups representing the Sunnis, who constitute about 18 per cent of the country's population, had called for a deferment of the elections, but some of them have now announced they would take part in the polls. One thing is clear: The Sunnis do not stand any chance of returning to the privileged position they had enjoyed under the Saddam Hussein regime. They are desperately seeking some assurance that they would not be written off as a political force in post-Saddam Iraq. For some of them, disrupting the election is an option.
The northern Kurds were initially seen as enthusiastic about the polls before they would be electing representatives to their own autonomous government in the north where they eventually want to set up an independent Kurdistan. In loose terms, it would not be an exaggeration that the Kurds could not care less what is happening in the rest of the country as long as their interests are not challenged. That is what their bitter history of aspirations and broken promises has taught them.
However, the two major Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, joined Adnan Pachachi, a former Sunni minister, who led a group of 17 political parties asking that the vote be delayed by six months because of the violence. Obviously, they are apprehensive that a Shiite victory in the elections under present conditions might impose constraints on their options.
Countering the call for postponement, a group of 42 mainly Shiite and Turkmen parties issued a statement declaring moves to delay the elections were illegal.
Election uncertainties
There are many uncertainties about the election that would see an assembly of 275 members chosen to write a permanent constitution for the country and lead the Iraqis to another election by the end of 2005 if the constitution is approved in a popular referendum.
These uncertainties include questions over how many of the country's 18 provinces will actually vote or where election is possible at all in view of the deteriorating security situation. The absence of any province in the process will immediately raise questions about the credibility and legitimacy of the elected assembly.
One of such provinces is Anbar, which includes Fallujah and Ramadi. where it is illogical to expect people to turn up for voting, given the devastation that they suffered in the recent American military assault aimed at "pacifying" the towns by purging "foreign militants." Mosul and Babil are seen as other "troublesome" provinces.
Writing in The Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer insisted that it would be the Sunnis' loss if they did not vote.
"There has been much talk that if the Iraqi election is held and some Sunni Arab provinces (perhaps three of the 18) do not participate, the election will be illegitimate," he wrote. "Nonsense. The election should be held. It should be open to everyone. If Iraq's Sunni Arabs -- barely 20 per cent of the population -- decide that they cannot abide giving up their 80 years of minority rule, which ended with 30 years of Saddam Hussein's atrocious tyranny, then tough luck. They forfeit their chance to shape and to participate in the new Iraq. "
Then there are questions over "foreign meddling" in Iraqi affairs that, to a large extent, could determine the shape of the region. Regional leaders and analysts are raising the spectre of an Iranian-influenced outcome of the elections that would create new realities in the region.
If indeed Iran is "meddling" in Iraqi politics with a view to having its allies gain power in the elections, then there is little sense or logic in the argument that the Iranians are also helping "foreign militants" undermine security and maintain the country unstable for polls. But that logic is missing from the arguments of many.
Voting process
Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, acknowledges that the situation in "three or four" of the country's provinces is problematic for elections and he also suggests that the voting process could be spread over 15 to 20 days to ensure maximum participation.
"I think one could envisage elections spread over 15 days, 20 days, with polling on different dates for different provinces. ... That would allow for adequate security arrangements to be put in place," he said.
However, phased elections might not be an option because the voting process could not go beyond Jan.31. If Allawi's proposal was to be entertained, then it would mean starting voting by mid-January.
Obviously, staggering the election would allow the interim government to move security forces from one place to another.
Initial response from Electoral Commission chief Adel Hussein Al Hinadwi was negative, but on Wednesday he kept silent after interior ministry spokesman Sabah Kazem described the Allawi proposal as "an excellent idea, which we support one hundred per cent."
"This would permit holding the elections on another date in those places where it is not possible to organise them for the planned date. It would also facilitate the work of international observers and guarantee the participation in the election of all regions of Iraq," said Kazem.
Canada is helping the interim government prepare for the elections. It will host a Dec.19-20 international forum in Ottawa on Iraqi election preparation and observation methods.
Among those questioning the viability of elections was UN election adviser Lakhdar Ibrahimi who said elections could not take place in the present circumstances.
"Elections are no magic potion, but part of a political process," he said late last month. "They must be prepared well and take place at the right time to produce the good effects that you expect from them.'
Asked if elections under present conditions were possible, Ibrahimi said: 'If the circumstances stay as they are, I personally don't think so. It is a mess in Iraq."
Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked how elections could be held in a country under foreign military occupation. "Honestly speaking, I cannot imagine how it is possible to organise elections under the conditions of occupation by foreign forces," Putin said during a Kremlin meeting with Allawi.
"At the same time, I don't understand how you alone can remedy the situation in the country and prevent its disintegration," Putin told Allawi, adding: "I hope we will succeed in examining all these complex and contradictory issues."
Security situation
The number of American soldiers in Iraq is expected to go up by 10,000 to 140,000 by mid-January. They are supported by some 20,000 allied soldiers.
In principle, the interim government has some 83,000 policemen and guardsmen, but only 47,000 of them are said to have undergone basic police training in security-linked tasks and crowd control.
Intelligence assessments have shaken Washington's declarations that the situation in Iraq would improve with the January elections.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has warned that Iraq would descend even deeper into violent chaos unless the interim government asserts its authority and improve the economy. It is a tall order, given the spiralling violence and almost daily attacks on the country's oil lifeline.
Another intelligence estimate prepared for the White House four months ago predicted that Iraq's security situation could remain tenuous at best until the end of 2005. It also warned Iraq faced the risk of civil war.
President George W Bush has sought to portray the increasing violence ahead of the elections as an effort by militants to undermine the polls.
"As election day approaches, we can expect further violence from the terrorists," Bush said on Tuesday. "You see, the terrorists understand what is at stake. They know they have no future in a free Iraq, because free people will never choose their own enslavement. They know democracy will give Iraqis a stake in the future of their country."
However, that assertion was seen in the Middle East as skirting the real issue since the insurgency should be seen in the broader context of anti-American sentiments and not as strictly Iraq-specific since those mounting guerrilla attacks against the US-led coalition forces are not exclusively Iraqis either.
Commentators also say that many Iraqis want the elections postponed. Egypt's Al Akbar daily wrote: "While the military operations are escalating in Iraq, disputes over elections are mounting, too. Different sects of the Iraqi people want to postpone them because their results wouldn't express the true will of the Iraqis ... All Arab and Muslim peoples have got many concerns over Iraq's stability, which will never be resolved except through the US withdrawal from the war-torn country."
Raad Alkadiri wrote in Lebanon's Daily Star: "There is arguably a large plurality -- if not a majority -- of the Iraqi Arab electorate that remains secular and nationalist in political orientation and that opposes the sectarian and ethnic agendas of the large parties, but that has no effective public voice. Without political vehicles to represent the views of these Iraqis, there is a real danger that they will opt out of the election altogether ...
"This is a troubling scenario ... The greatest number of Iraqis need to be brought on board, even if this means delaying elections temporarily ... Otherwise, the elections will simply serve to heighten the sense of disenfranchisement that many Iraqis have felt since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, creating a dangerous thorn in the side of successive Iraqi administrations, whose legitimacy they will contest."
Neighbours' pressure
In the meantime, the US and the interim government in Iraq are stepping up pressure against Syria as well as Iran by accusing them of allowing the guerrilla war against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq to be directed from their territories.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that American military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognised from Syria.
The report does not say the Syrian government is directly involved in guiding the insurgency but Damascus is accused of hosting former Saddam Hussein loyalists who are channeling money and other support to those fighting the US-led coalition forces in Iraq.
"Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency," said The Washington Post.
In Washington, Iraqi President Ghazi Al Yawar as well as King Abdullah of Jordan said after separate talks with Bush that external powers were meddling in Iraq.
Yawar said the guerrillas fighting in Iraq were getting help from Syria.
"There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," Yawar said. "They are not minding their business or living a private life. They are . . . disturbing or undermining our political process."
King Abdullah said that the governments of both the United States and Iraq believe that "foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border that have been trained in Syria."
A global positioning signal receiver was discovered in a bomb factory in the western part of Fallujah and this "contained waypoints originating in western Syria," said a US military statement last week.
In Baghdad, the interim deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, said that he was losing patience with Iraq's neighbours. He did not name Syria, but noted that Iraqi police had arrested a Syrian driving a car bomb packed with artillery shells and other explosives. "There is evidence indicating that some groups in some neighbouring countries are playing a direct role in the killing of the Iraqi people and such a thing is not acceptable to us," Saleh said.
"We have reached a stage in which if we do not see a real response from those countries, then we are obliged to take a decisive stance."
American officials have repeatedly complained that Syria is not doing enough to check the cross-border flow of insurgents to Iraq. The US government has also demanded that Syria either hand over the Saddam loyalists responsible for the insurgency or expel them from Syrian territory.
"The Syrians appear to have done a little bit to stem extremist infiltration into Iraq at the border, but clearly have not helped with regards to Baathists infiltrating back and forth," said a senior US military officer in the region quoted by the Washington Post. "We still have serious challenges there, and Syria needs to be doing a lot more."
Charges denied
Syria has rejected the charges outright. . "There is a sinister campaign to create an atmosphere of hostility against Syria," said Syrian Ambassador to the US Imad Moustapha.
In separate interviews, both Yawar and King Abdullah also said Iran is trying to influence the Iraqi elections with a view to creating an Islamic government that would dramatically shift the geopolitical balance between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the region.
Yawar charged that Iran is coaching candidates and political parties sympathetic to Tehran and pouring "huge amounts of money" into the campaign to produce a Shiite-dominated government in power in Baghdad.
According to King Abdullah, more than one million Iranians have crossed the border into Iraq since the Saddam regime was toppled and many of them would vote in the election -- with the encouragement of the Iranian government. "I'm sure there's a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome," he said.
He said Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment
"It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran," King Abdullah said.
He predicted that if an Iranian-influenced government assumes power in Baghdad, then a new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments will emerge, stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
"If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq. I'm looking at the glass half-full, and let's hope that's not the case. But strategic planners around the world have got to be aware that is a possibility," said the King.
He said Washington had communicated its concern to Iran through third parties and "there's going to be some sort of clash at one point or another."
"We hope it's just a clash of words and politics and not a clash of civilisations or peoples on the ground. We will know a bit better how it will play out after the election" in Iraq, he said.
Given that "regime change" in Iran is one of Bush's priorities in his second term, the outcome of the elections in Iraq is all the more important for Washington. But, as King Abdullah warned, the Bush administration might end up with a new Shiite-led axis running from the Gulf to the Mediterranean if Iranian-backed parties were to gain power in Iraq. That axis might indeed prove too formidable for the US to handle.
Saturday, December 11, 2004
Too few answers
December 11, 2004
Iraq elections: Too many questions, too few answers
pv vivekanand
There is an air of superficiality in the run-up to elections in Iraq which Washington and the interim government in Baghdad insist would be held as scheduled on Jan.30. Indeed, there is little doubt that the elections will be held, barring a sweeping last-minute surprise of whatever nature. That much is clear, since both the Bush administration and the interim government are in a bind. They could not delay the elections if only because that would alienate the country's Shiites who are expecting to gain power by virtue of their majority in the population and thus set right what they consider to be as injustice done to them throughout recent Iraq history. Furthermore, delaying elections beyond Jan.31 will be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution adopted early this year, paving the way for some form of recognition of the American role in Iraq.
Political groups representing the Sunnis, who constitute about 18 per cent of the country's population, had called for a deferment of the elections, but some of them have now announced they would take part in the polls. One thing is clear: The Sunnis do not stand any chance of returning to the privileged position they had enjoyed under the Saddam Hussein regime. They are desperately seeking some assurance that they would not be written off as a political force in post-Saddam Iraq. For some of them, disrupting the election is an option.
The northern Kurds were initially seen as enthusiastic about the polls before they would be electing representatives to their own autonomous government in the north where they eventually want to set up an independent Kurdistan. In loose terms, it would not be an exaggeration that the Kurds could not care less what is happening in the rest of the country as long as their interests are not challenged. That is what their bitter history of aspirations and broken promises has taught them.
However, the two major Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, joined Adnan Pachachi, a former Sunni minister, who led a group of 17 political parties asking that the vote be delayed by six months because of the violence. Obviously, they are apprehensive that a Shiite victory in the elections under present conditions might impose constraints on their options.
Countering the call for postponement, a group of 42 mainly Shiite and Turkmen parties issued a statement declaring moves to delay the elections were illegal.
Election uncertainties
There are many uncertainties about the election that would see an assembly of 275 members chosen to write a permanent constitution for the country and lead the Iraqis to another election by the end of 2005 if the constitution is approved in a popular referendum.
These uncertainties include questions over how many of the country's 18 provinces will actually vote or where election is possible at all in view of the deteriorating security situation. The absence of any province in the process will immediately raise questions about the credibility and legitimacy of the elected assembly.
One of such provinces is Anbar, which includes Fallujah and Ramadi. where it is illogical to expect people to turn up for voting, given the devastation that they suffered in the recent American military assault aimed at "pacifying" the towns by purging "foreign militants." Mosul and Babil are seen as other "troublesome" provinces.
Writing in The Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer insisted that it would be the Sunnis' loss if they did not vote.
"There has been much talk that if the Iraqi election is held and some Sunni Arab provinces (perhaps three of the 18) do not participate, the election will be illegitimate," he wrote. "Nonsense. The election should be held. It should be open to everyone. If Iraq's Sunni Arabs -- barely 20 per cent of the population -- decide that they cannot abide giving up their 80 years of minority rule, which ended with 30 years of Saddam Hussein's atrocious tyranny, then tough luck. They forfeit their chance to shape and to participate in the new Iraq. "
Then there are questions over "foreign meddling" in Iraqi affairs that, to a large extent, could determine the shape of the region. Regional leaders and analysts are raising the spectre of an Iranian-influenced outcome of the elections that would create new realities in the region.
If indeed Iran is "meddling" in Iraqi politics with a view to having its allies gain power in the elections, then there is little sense or logic in the argument that the Iranians are also helping "foreign militants" undermine security and maintain the country unstable for polls. But that logic is missing from the arguments of many.
Voting process
Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, acknowledges that the situation in "three or four" of the country's provinces is problematic for elections and he also suggests that the voting process could be spread over 15 to 20 days to ensure maximum participation.
"I think one could envisage elections spread over 15 days, 20 days, with polling on different dates for different provinces. ... That would allow for adequate security arrangements to be put in place," he said.
However, phased elections might not be an option because the voting process could not go beyond Jan.31. If Allawi's proposal was to be entertained, then it would mean starting voting by mid-January.
Obviously, staggering the election would allow the interim government to move security forces from one place to another.
Initial response from Electoral Commission chief Adel Hussein Al Hinadwi was negative, but on Wednesday he kept silent after interior ministry spokesman Sabah Kazem described the Allawi proposal as "an excellent idea, which we support one hundred per cent."
"This would permit holding the elections on another date in those places where it is not possible to organise them for the planned date. It would also facilitate the work of international observers and guarantee the participation in the election of all regions of Iraq," said Kazem.
Canada is helping the interim government prepare for the elections. It will host a Dec.19-20 international forum in Ottawa on Iraqi election preparation and observation methods.
Among those questioning the viability of elections was UN election adviser Lakhdar Ibrahimi who said elections could not take place in the present circumstances.
"Elections are no magic potion, but part of a political process," he said late last month. "They must be prepared well and take place at the right time to produce the good effects that you expect from them.'
Asked if elections under present conditions were possible, Ibrahimi said: 'If the circumstances stay as they are, I personally don't think so. It is a mess in Iraq."
Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked how elections could be held in a country under foreign military occupation. "Honestly speaking, I cannot imagine how it is possible to organise elections under the conditions of occupation by foreign forces," Putin said during a Kremlin meeting with Allawi.
"At the same time, I don't understand how you alone can remedy the situation in the country and prevent its disintegration," Putin told Allawi, adding: "I hope we will succeed in examining all these complex and contradictory issues."
Security situation
The number of American soldiers in Iraq is expected to go up by 10,000 to 140,000 by mid-January. They are supported by some 20,000 allied soldiers.
In principle, the interim government has some 83,000 policemen and guardsmen, but only 47,000 of them are said to have undergone basic police training in security-linked tasks and crowd control.
Intelligence assessments have shaken Washington's declarations that the situation in Iraq would improve with the January elections.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has warned that Iraq would descend even deeper into violent chaos unless the interim government asserts its authority and improve the economy. It is a tall order, given the spiralling violence and almost daily attacks on the country's oil lifeline.
Another intelligence estimate prepared for the White House four months ago predicted that Iraq's security situation could remain tenuous at best until the end of 2005. It also warned Iraq faced the risk of civil war.
President George W Bush has sought to portray the increasing violence ahead of the elections as an effort by militants to undermine the polls.
"As election day approaches, we can expect further violence from the terrorists," Bush said on Tuesday. "You see, the terrorists understand what is at stake. They know they have no future in a free Iraq, because free people will never choose their own enslavement. They know democracy will give Iraqis a stake in the future of their country."
However, that assertion was seen in the Middle East as skirting the real issue since the insurgency should be seen in the broader context of anti-American sentiments and not as strictly Iraq-specific since those mounting guerrilla attacks against the US-led coalition forces are not exclusively Iraqis either.
Commentators also say that many Iraqis want the elections postponed. Egypt's Al Akbar daily wrote: "While the military operations are escalating in Iraq, disputes over elections are mounting, too. Different sects of the Iraqi people want to postpone them because their results wouldn't express the true will of the Iraqis ... All Arab and Muslim peoples have got many concerns over Iraq's stability, which will never be resolved except through the US withdrawal from the war-torn country."
Raad Alkadiri wrote in Lebanon's Daily Star: "There is arguably a large plurality -- if not a majority -- of the Iraqi Arab electorate that remains secular and nationalist in political orientation and that opposes the sectarian and ethnic agendas of the large parties, but that has no effective public voice. Without political vehicles to represent the views of these Iraqis, there is a real danger that they will opt out of the election altogether ...
"This is a troubling scenario ... The greatest number of Iraqis need to be brought on board, even if this means delaying elections temporarily ... Otherwise, the elections will simply serve to heighten the sense of disenfranchisement that many Iraqis have felt since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, creating a dangerous thorn in the side of successive Iraqi administrations, whose legitimacy they will contest."
Neighbours' pressure
In the meantime, the US and the interim government in Iraq are stepping up pressure against Syria as well as Iran by accusing them of allowing the guerrilla war against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq to be directed from their territories.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that American military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognised from Syria.
The report does not say the Syrian government is directly involved in guiding the insurgency but Damascus is accused of hosting former Saddam Hussein loyalists who are channeling money and other support to those fighting the US-led coalition forces in Iraq.
"Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency," said The Washington Post.
In Washington, Iraqi President Ghazi Al Yawar as well as King Abdullah of Jordan said after separate talks with Bush that external powers were meddling in Iraq.
Yawar said the guerrillas fighting in Iraq were getting help from Syria.
"There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," Yawar said. "They are not minding their business or living a private life. They are . . . disturbing or undermining our political process."
King Abdullah said that the governments of both the United States and Iraq believe that "foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border that have been trained in Syria."
A global positioning signal receiver was discovered in a bomb factory in the western part of Fallujah and this "contained waypoints originating in western Syria," said a US military statement last week.
In Baghdad, the interim deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, said that he was losing patience with Iraq's neighbours. He did not name Syria, but noted that Iraqi police had arrested a Syrian driving a car bomb packed with artillery shells and other explosives. "There is evidence indicating that some groups in some neighbouring countries are playing a direct role in the killing of the Iraqi people and such a thing is not acceptable to us," Saleh said.
"We have reached a stage in which if we do not see a real response from those countries, then we are obliged to take a decisive stance."
American officials have repeatedly complained that Syria is not doing enough to check the cross-border flow of insurgents to Iraq. The US government has also demanded that Syria either hand over the Saddam loyalists responsible for the insurgency or expel them from Syrian territory.
"The Syrians appear to have done a little bit to stem extremist infiltration into Iraq at the border, but clearly have not helped with regards to Baathists infiltrating back and forth," said a senior US military officer in the region quoted by the Washington Post. "We still have serious challenges there, and Syria needs to be doing a lot more."
Charges denied
Syria has rejected the charges outright. . "There is a sinister campaign to create an atmosphere of hostility against Syria," said Syrian Ambassador to the US Imad Moustapha.
In separate interviews, both Yawar and King Abdullah also said Iran is trying to influence the Iraqi elections with a view to creating an Islamic government that would dramatically shift the geopolitical balance between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the region.
Yawar charged that Iran is coaching candidates and political parties sympathetic to Tehran and pouring "huge amounts of money" into the campaign to produce a Shiite-dominated government in power in Baghdad.
According to King Abdullah, more than one million Iranians have crossed the border into Iraq since the Saddam regime was toppled and many of them would vote in the election -- with the encouragement of the Iranian government. "I'm sure there's a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome," he said.
He said Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment
"It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran," King Abdullah said.
He predicted that if an Iranian-influenced government assumes power in Baghdad, then a new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments will emerge, stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
"If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq. I'm looking at the glass half-full, and let's hope that's not the case. But strategic planners around the world have got to be aware that is a possibility," said the King.
He said Washington had communicated its concern to Iran through third parties and "there's going to be some sort of clash at one point or another."
"We hope it's just a clash of words and politics and not a clash of civilisations or peoples on the ground. We will know a bit better how it will play out after the election" in Iraq, he said.
Given that "regime change" in Iran is one of Bush's priorities in his second term, the outcome of the elections in Iraq is all the more important for Washington. But, as King Abdullah warned, the Bush administration might end up with a new Shiite-led axis running from the Gulf to the Mediterranean if Iranian-backed parties were to gain power in Iraq. That axis might indeed prove too formidable for the US to handle.
Iraq elections: Too many questions, too few answers
pv vivekanand
There is an air of superficiality in the run-up to elections in Iraq which Washington and the interim government in Baghdad insist would be held as scheduled on Jan.30. Indeed, there is little doubt that the elections will be held, barring a sweeping last-minute surprise of whatever nature. That much is clear, since both the Bush administration and the interim government are in a bind. They could not delay the elections if only because that would alienate the country's Shiites who are expecting to gain power by virtue of their majority in the population and thus set right what they consider to be as injustice done to them throughout recent Iraq history. Furthermore, delaying elections beyond Jan.31 will be in violation of the UN Security Council resolution adopted early this year, paving the way for some form of recognition of the American role in Iraq.
Political groups representing the Sunnis, who constitute about 18 per cent of the country's population, had called for a deferment of the elections, but some of them have now announced they would take part in the polls. One thing is clear: The Sunnis do not stand any chance of returning to the privileged position they had enjoyed under the Saddam Hussein regime. They are desperately seeking some assurance that they would not be written off as a political force in post-Saddam Iraq. For some of them, disrupting the election is an option.
The northern Kurds were initially seen as enthusiastic about the polls before they would be electing representatives to their own autonomous government in the north where they eventually want to set up an independent Kurdistan. In loose terms, it would not be an exaggeration that the Kurds could not care less what is happening in the rest of the country as long as their interests are not challenged. That is what their bitter history of aspirations and broken promises has taught them.
However, the two major Kurdish parties, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, joined Adnan Pachachi, a former Sunni minister, who led a group of 17 political parties asking that the vote be delayed by six months because of the violence. Obviously, they are apprehensive that a Shiite victory in the elections under present conditions might impose constraints on their options.
Countering the call for postponement, a group of 42 mainly Shiite and Turkmen parties issued a statement declaring moves to delay the elections were illegal.
Election uncertainties
There are many uncertainties about the election that would see an assembly of 275 members chosen to write a permanent constitution for the country and lead the Iraqis to another election by the end of 2005 if the constitution is approved in a popular referendum.
These uncertainties include questions over how many of the country's 18 provinces will actually vote or where election is possible at all in view of the deteriorating security situation. The absence of any province in the process will immediately raise questions about the credibility and legitimacy of the elected assembly.
One of such provinces is Anbar, which includes Fallujah and Ramadi. where it is illogical to expect people to turn up for voting, given the devastation that they suffered in the recent American military assault aimed at "pacifying" the towns by purging "foreign militants." Mosul and Babil are seen as other "troublesome" provinces.
Writing in The Washington Post, columnist Charles Krauthammer insisted that it would be the Sunnis' loss if they did not vote.
"There has been much talk that if the Iraqi election is held and some Sunni Arab provinces (perhaps three of the 18) do not participate, the election will be illegitimate," he wrote. "Nonsense. The election should be held. It should be open to everyone. If Iraq's Sunni Arabs -- barely 20 per cent of the population -- decide that they cannot abide giving up their 80 years of minority rule, which ended with 30 years of Saddam Hussein's atrocious tyranny, then tough luck. They forfeit their chance to shape and to participate in the new Iraq. "
Then there are questions over "foreign meddling" in Iraqi affairs that, to a large extent, could determine the shape of the region. Regional leaders and analysts are raising the spectre of an Iranian-influenced outcome of the elections that would create new realities in the region.
If indeed Iran is "meddling" in Iraqi politics with a view to having its allies gain power in the elections, then there is little sense or logic in the argument that the Iranians are also helping "foreign militants" undermine security and maintain the country unstable for polls. But that logic is missing from the arguments of many.
Voting process
Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister, acknowledges that the situation in "three or four" of the country's provinces is problematic for elections and he also suggests that the voting process could be spread over 15 to 20 days to ensure maximum participation.
"I think one could envisage elections spread over 15 days, 20 days, with polling on different dates for different provinces. ... That would allow for adequate security arrangements to be put in place," he said.
However, phased elections might not be an option because the voting process could not go beyond Jan.31. If Allawi's proposal was to be entertained, then it would mean starting voting by mid-January.
Obviously, staggering the election would allow the interim government to move security forces from one place to another.
Initial response from Electoral Commission chief Adel Hussein Al Hinadwi was negative, but on Wednesday he kept silent after interior ministry spokesman Sabah Kazem described the Allawi proposal as "an excellent idea, which we support one hundred per cent."
"This would permit holding the elections on another date in those places where it is not possible to organise them for the planned date. It would also facilitate the work of international observers and guarantee the participation in the election of all regions of Iraq," said Kazem.
Canada is helping the interim government prepare for the elections. It will host a Dec.19-20 international forum in Ottawa on Iraqi election preparation and observation methods.
Among those questioning the viability of elections was UN election adviser Lakhdar Ibrahimi who said elections could not take place in the present circumstances.
"Elections are no magic potion, but part of a political process," he said late last month. "They must be prepared well and take place at the right time to produce the good effects that you expect from them.'
Asked if elections under present conditions were possible, Ibrahimi said: 'If the circumstances stay as they are, I personally don't think so. It is a mess in Iraq."
Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked how elections could be held in a country under foreign military occupation. "Honestly speaking, I cannot imagine how it is possible to organise elections under the conditions of occupation by foreign forces," Putin said during a Kremlin meeting with Allawi.
"At the same time, I don't understand how you alone can remedy the situation in the country and prevent its disintegration," Putin told Allawi, adding: "I hope we will succeed in examining all these complex and contradictory issues."
Security situation
The number of American soldiers in Iraq is expected to go up by 10,000 to 140,000 by mid-January. They are supported by some 20,000 allied soldiers.
In principle, the interim government has some 83,000 policemen and guardsmen, but only 47,000 of them are said to have undergone basic police training in security-linked tasks and crowd control.
Intelligence assessments have shaken Washington's declarations that the situation in Iraq would improve with the January elections.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has warned that Iraq would descend even deeper into violent chaos unless the interim government asserts its authority and improve the economy. It is a tall order, given the spiralling violence and almost daily attacks on the country's oil lifeline.
Another intelligence estimate prepared for the White House four months ago predicted that Iraq's security situation could remain tenuous at best until the end of 2005. It also warned Iraq faced the risk of civil war.
President George W Bush has sought to portray the increasing violence ahead of the elections as an effort by militants to undermine the polls.
"As election day approaches, we can expect further violence from the terrorists," Bush said on Tuesday. "You see, the terrorists understand what is at stake. They know they have no future in a free Iraq, because free people will never choose their own enslavement. They know democracy will give Iraqis a stake in the future of their country."
However, that assertion was seen in the Middle East as skirting the real issue since the insurgency should be seen in the broader context of anti-American sentiments and not as strictly Iraq-specific since those mounting guerrilla attacks against the US-led coalition forces are not exclusively Iraqis either.
Commentators also say that many Iraqis want the elections postponed. Egypt's Al Akbar daily wrote: "While the military operations are escalating in Iraq, disputes over elections are mounting, too. Different sects of the Iraqi people want to postpone them because their results wouldn't express the true will of the Iraqis ... All Arab and Muslim peoples have got many concerns over Iraq's stability, which will never be resolved except through the US withdrawal from the war-torn country."
Raad Alkadiri wrote in Lebanon's Daily Star: "There is arguably a large plurality -- if not a majority -- of the Iraqi Arab electorate that remains secular and nationalist in political orientation and that opposes the sectarian and ethnic agendas of the large parties, but that has no effective public voice. Without political vehicles to represent the views of these Iraqis, there is a real danger that they will opt out of the election altogether ...
"This is a troubling scenario ... The greatest number of Iraqis need to be brought on board, even if this means delaying elections temporarily ... Otherwise, the elections will simply serve to heighten the sense of disenfranchisement that many Iraqis have felt since the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, creating a dangerous thorn in the side of successive Iraqi administrations, whose legitimacy they will contest."
Neighbours' pressure
In the meantime, the US and the interim government in Iraq are stepping up pressure against Syria as well as Iran by accusing them of allowing the guerrilla war against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq to be directed from their territories.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that American military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognised from Syria.
The report does not say the Syrian government is directly involved in guiding the insurgency but Damascus is accused of hosting former Saddam Hussein loyalists who are channeling money and other support to those fighting the US-led coalition forces in Iraq.
"Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency," said The Washington Post.
In Washington, Iraqi President Ghazi Al Yawar as well as King Abdullah of Jordan said after separate talks with Bush that external powers were meddling in Iraq.
Yawar said the guerrillas fighting in Iraq were getting help from Syria.
"There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," Yawar said. "They are not minding their business or living a private life. They are . . . disturbing or undermining our political process."
King Abdullah said that the governments of both the United States and Iraq believe that "foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border that have been trained in Syria."
A global positioning signal receiver was discovered in a bomb factory in the western part of Fallujah and this "contained waypoints originating in western Syria," said a US military statement last week.
In Baghdad, the interim deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh, said that he was losing patience with Iraq's neighbours. He did not name Syria, but noted that Iraqi police had arrested a Syrian driving a car bomb packed with artillery shells and other explosives. "There is evidence indicating that some groups in some neighbouring countries are playing a direct role in the killing of the Iraqi people and such a thing is not acceptable to us," Saleh said.
"We have reached a stage in which if we do not see a real response from those countries, then we are obliged to take a decisive stance."
American officials have repeatedly complained that Syria is not doing enough to check the cross-border flow of insurgents to Iraq. The US government has also demanded that Syria either hand over the Saddam loyalists responsible for the insurgency or expel them from Syrian territory.
"The Syrians appear to have done a little bit to stem extremist infiltration into Iraq at the border, but clearly have not helped with regards to Baathists infiltrating back and forth," said a senior US military officer in the region quoted by the Washington Post. "We still have serious challenges there, and Syria needs to be doing a lot more."
Charges denied
Syria has rejected the charges outright. . "There is a sinister campaign to create an atmosphere of hostility against Syria," said Syrian Ambassador to the US Imad Moustapha.
In separate interviews, both Yawar and King Abdullah also said Iran is trying to influence the Iraqi elections with a view to creating an Islamic government that would dramatically shift the geopolitical balance between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the region.
Yawar charged that Iran is coaching candidates and political parties sympathetic to Tehran and pouring "huge amounts of money" into the campaign to produce a Shiite-dominated government in power in Baghdad.
According to King Abdullah, more than one million Iranians have crossed the border into Iraq since the Saddam regime was toppled and many of them would vote in the election -- with the encouragement of the Iranian government. "I'm sure there's a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome," he said.
He said Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment
"It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran," King Abdullah said.
He predicted that if an Iranian-influenced government assumes power in Baghdad, then a new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments will emerge, stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
"If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq. I'm looking at the glass half-full, and let's hope that's not the case. But strategic planners around the world have got to be aware that is a possibility," said the King.
He said Washington had communicated its concern to Iran through third parties and "there's going to be some sort of clash at one point or another."
"We hope it's just a clash of words and politics and not a clash of civilisations or peoples on the ground. We will know a bit better how it will play out after the election" in Iraq, he said.
Given that "regime change" in Iran is one of Bush's priorities in his second term, the outcome of the elections in Iraq is all the more important for Washington. But, as King Abdullah warned, the Bush administration might end up with a new Shiite-led axis running from the Gulf to the Mediterranean if Iranian-backed parties were to gain power in Iraq. That axis might indeed prove too formidable for the US to handle.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Syria, Iran on spotlight
December 8 2004
PV Vivekanand
THE US and the US-backed interim government in Iraq are stepping up pressure against Syria as well as Iran by accusing them of allowing the guerrilla war against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq to be directed from their territories.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that American military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognised from Syria.
The report does not say the Syrian government is directly involved in guiding the insurgency but Damascus is accused of hosting former Saddam Hussein loyalists who are channeling money and other support to those fighting the US-led coalition forces in Iraq.
"Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency," said the Washington Post.
In Washington, Iraqi President Ghazi Al Yawar as well as King Abdullah of Jordan said after separate talks with President George W Bush that external powers were meddling in Iraq.
Yawar said the guerrillas fighting in Iraq were getting help from Syria.
"There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," Yawar said. "They are not minding their business or living a private life. They are . . . disturbing or undermining our political process."
King Abdullah said that the governments of both the United States and Iraq believe that "foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border that have been trained in Syria."
A a global positioning signal receiver was discovered in a bomb factory in the western part of Falluja and this "contained waypoints originating in western Syria," said a US military statement last week.
In Baghdad, the interim deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh said on Tuesday that he was losing patience with Iraq’s neighbours. He did not name Syria, but noted that Iraqi police had arrested a Syrian driving a car bomb packed with artillery shells and other explosives. “There is evidence indicating that some groups in some neighbouring countries are playing a direct role in the killing of the Iraqi people and such a thing is not acceptable to us,” Saleh said.
“We have reached a stage in which if we do not see a real response from those countries, then we are obliged to take a decisive stance.”
American officials have repeatedly complained that Syria is not doing enough to check the cross-border flow of insurgents to Iraq. The US government has also demanded that Syria either hand over the Saddam loyalists responsible for the insurgency or expel them from Syrian territory.
"The Syrians appear to have done a little bit to stem extremist infiltration into Iraq at the border, but clearly have not helped with regards to Baathists infiltrating back and forth," said a senior US military officer in the region quoted by the Washington Post. "We still have serious challenges there, and Syria needs to be doing a lot more."
Syria has rejected the charges outright. . "There is a sinister campaign to create an atmosphere of hostility against Syria," said Syrian Ambasador to the US Imad Moustapha.
In separate interviews, both Yawar and King Abdullah also said Iran is trying to influence the Iraqi elections with a view to creating an Islamic government that would dramatically shift the geopolitical balance between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the region.
Yawar charged that Iran is coaching candidates and political parties sympathetic to Tehran and pouring "huge amounts of money" into the campaign to produce a Shiite-dominated government in power in Baghdad.
According to King Abdullah, more than one million Iranians have crossed the border into Iraq since the Saddam regime was toppled and many of them would to vote in the election -- with the encouragement of the Iranian government. "I'm sure there's a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome," he said.
He said Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment
"It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran," King Abdullah said.
He predicted that if an an Iranian-influenced government assumes power in Baghad, then a
new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments will emerge, stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
"If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq. I'm looking at the glass half-full, and let's hope that's not the case. But strategic planners around the world have got to be aware that is a possibility," said the King.
He said Washington had communicated its concern to Iran through third parties and "there's going to be some sort of clash at one point or another."
"We hope it's just a clash of words and politics and not a clash of civilisations or peoples on the ground. We will know a bit better how it will play out after the election" in Iraq, he said.
PV Vivekanand
THE US and the US-backed interim government in Iraq are stepping up pressure against Syria as well as Iran by accusing them of allowing the guerrilla war against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq to be directed from their territories.
The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that American military intelligence officials have concluded that the Iraqi insurgency is being directed to a greater degree than previously recognised from Syria.
The report does not say the Syrian government is directly involved in guiding the insurgency but Damascus is accused of hosting former Saddam Hussein loyalists who are channeling money and other support to those fighting the US-led coalition forces in Iraq.
"Based on information gathered during the recent fighting in Fallujah, Baghdad and elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle, the officials said that a handful of senior Iraqi Baathists operating in Syria are collecting money from private sources in Saudi Arabia and Europe and turning it over to the insurgency," said the Washington Post.
In Washington, Iraqi President Ghazi Al Yawar as well as King Abdullah of Jordan said after separate talks with President George W Bush that external powers were meddling in Iraq.
Yawar said the guerrillas fighting in Iraq were getting help from Syria.
"There are people in Syria who are bad guys, who are fugitives of the law and who are Saddam remnants who are trying to bring the vicious dictatorship of Saddam back," Yawar said. "They are not minding their business or living a private life. They are . . . disturbing or undermining our political process."
King Abdullah said that the governments of both the United States and Iraq believe that "foreign fighters are coming across the Syrian border that have been trained in Syria."
A a global positioning signal receiver was discovered in a bomb factory in the western part of Falluja and this "contained waypoints originating in western Syria," said a US military statement last week.
In Baghdad, the interim deputy prime minister, Barham Saleh said on Tuesday that he was losing patience with Iraq’s neighbours. He did not name Syria, but noted that Iraqi police had arrested a Syrian driving a car bomb packed with artillery shells and other explosives. “There is evidence indicating that some groups in some neighbouring countries are playing a direct role in the killing of the Iraqi people and such a thing is not acceptable to us,” Saleh said.
“We have reached a stage in which if we do not see a real response from those countries, then we are obliged to take a decisive stance.”
American officials have repeatedly complained that Syria is not doing enough to check the cross-border flow of insurgents to Iraq. The US government has also demanded that Syria either hand over the Saddam loyalists responsible for the insurgency or expel them from Syrian territory.
"The Syrians appear to have done a little bit to stem extremist infiltration into Iraq at the border, but clearly have not helped with regards to Baathists infiltrating back and forth," said a senior US military officer in the region quoted by the Washington Post. "We still have serious challenges there, and Syria needs to be doing a lot more."
Syria has rejected the charges outright. . "There is a sinister campaign to create an atmosphere of hostility against Syria," said Syrian Ambasador to the US Imad Moustapha.
In separate interviews, both Yawar and King Abdullah also said Iran is trying to influence the Iraqi elections with a view to creating an Islamic government that would dramatically shift the geopolitical balance between Shiite and Sunni Muslims in the region.
Yawar charged that Iran is coaching candidates and political parties sympathetic to Tehran and pouring "huge amounts of money" into the campaign to produce a Shiite-dominated government in power in Baghdad.
According to King Abdullah, more than one million Iranians have crossed the border into Iraq since the Saddam regime was toppled and many of them would to vote in the election -- with the encouragement of the Iranian government. "I'm sure there's a lot of people, a lot of Iranians in there that will be used as part of the polls to influence the outcome," he said.
He said Iranians are paying salaries and providing welfare to unemployed Iraqis to build pro-Iranian public sentiment
"It is in Iran's vested interest to have an Islamic republic of Iraq . . . and therefore the involvement you're getting by the Iranians is to achieve a government that is very pro-Iran," King Abdullah said.
He predicted that if an an Iranian-influenced government assumes power in Baghad, then a
new "crescent" of dominant Shiite movements or governments will emerge, stretching from Iran into Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
"If Iraq goes Islamic republic, then, yes, we've opened ourselves to a whole set of new problems that will not be limited to the borders of Iraq. I'm looking at the glass half-full, and let's hope that's not the case. But strategic planners around the world have got to be aware that is a possibility," said the King.
He said Washington had communicated its concern to Iran through third parties and "there's going to be some sort of clash at one point or another."
"We hope it's just a clash of words and politics and not a clash of civilisations or peoples on the ground. We will know a bit better how it will play out after the election" in Iraq, he said.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Right diagnonis, wrong medicine
December 7 2004
Right diagnosis, wrong medicine
TWO reports published this week underlined the reality that the US is losing its self-proclaimed war against terror as a result of misguided policies and deep flaws in its approach to the Middle East and in the handling of the situation in Iraq.
The first was comments by Michael Scheuer, a former American intelligence agent who used to chase Osama Bin Laden and author of the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. He argued that the US-led war against terrorism is failing because of Washington's policies in the Middle East and the American claims that more than two thirds of Al Qaeda's leadership are destroyed are hollow. If anything, he says, Al Qaeda has grown in concept to a global movement with far-reaching influence through the Internet.
The other was a "strategic communications" report, written by the Defence Science Board for US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The report says the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for Al Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the "self-serving hypocrisy" of the Bush administration over the Middle East.
We don't know whether Scheuer and the authors of the Defence Science Board collaborated with each other. Both have almost identical views and conclusions. But then, there need not be any collaboration to come up with the reality -- two and two always make four no matter who does the calculation.
Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer who once led the hunt for Bin Laden, observes that Al Qaeda's domination of the Internet in the Muslim world was leading to the US losing its battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide.
Scheuer, who wrote the book under the name "Anonymous" with CIA permission and quit the CIA because the agency would not allow him to give media interviews, was speaking to a group of journalists in Washington.
Lost chances
According to Scheuer, the US had at least eight chances to kill Bin Laden before Sept.11, 2001, but did not use the opportunity because of apathy or inaction by American decision-makers.
Today, Bin Laden's Al Qaeda enjoys wide support around the world, he says.
Asked whether the US-led war on terror could be won, he replied. "No. It can't be won. We're going to eventually lose it. And the problem for us is that we're going to lose it much more quickly if we don't start killing more of the enemy."
Among the points raised by Scheuer, Al Qaeda is winning the propaganda war, especially the Internet, with regular political, military and religious discourses and justification for many of its actions. The core of the movement was made up of true believers and it was controlling the debate in the Islamic world. It also had suspected success in infiltrating US military and security services, he said.
Another problem the US faces is the wide support that Bin Laden enjoys among the Muslims and Arabs that make it difficult for governments to take effective action against Bin Laden, he said.
The US-led war against and occupation of Iraq is unpopular in the Muslim world and is blocking American efforts to mobilise world opinion against Bin Laden without seeming to support US policies in the Middle East -- especially backing Israel -- the West's need for low oil prices, he said.
"Unless we change or at least consider changing our policies in the Middle East, the room for Bin Laden or Bin Ladenism to grow is virtually unlimited," Scheuer said.
Not against culture
He rejected Western claims that Bin Laden targeted the United States and Europe because he hated Western culture.
"They're attacking us because of our unqualified support for Israel. They're attacking us because we've helped cement on their heads tyrannies in the Arab world ... for the last 40 years," he said. "They're attacking us because we're in the Arabian Peninsula and it happens to be a holy place for them."
According to Scheuer, Al Qaeda served both as an organisation and as an umbrella for groups with similar ideals worldwide, adding Bin Laden's command and control goes very little beyond Al Qaeda itself.
"His goal is to more or less get everybody moving in the same direction -- moving them away from, kind of a away from, a more nationalist orientation ... and get the focused on the United States," he said. "And frankly he's been only 60 or 65 per cent successful in that."
Compare Scheuer's assertions with the findings of the Defence Science Report.
On "the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds," the report says, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended."
"American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies," it says.
Rejected repeated assertions by American administration officials that those hostile to the US hate "American freedoms" the report affirms: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedoms', but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights...."
Muslims also resent the American alliances with unpopular regimes, says the report.
"Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising ... in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination."
The most vital flaw of the American approach to Iraq was underlined by Patrick Cockburn, who, a correspondent for Britain's Independent newspaper, he has written regular reports from Iraq throughout the occupation.
In an interview carried on the website counterpunch.com, Cockburn puts his finger on the pulse when he states that the US has already lost the war to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq.
Rejecting the American theory that the US military needed to pacify the town of Fallujah in order to set the ground for elections in January, Cockburn says:
"This connection between the attack on Fallujah and the elections is one of the weirdest things I've heard. You go and smash up a city, you turn all of its population into refugees, you kill quite a number of them -- and somehow they're going to come out and vote? I think that was always kind of an absurdity."
"There should be no mystery about the nature of the resistance in Iraq. The situation is very simple, as it would be in most countries of the world -- when you have an occupation by a foreign power, you have resistance. And that's exactly what's happened in Iraq."
Widening support base
The Defence Science Board implicitly agrees with Scheuer that the way the Bush administration conducted foreign policy after the Sept.11 attacks benefited Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
"American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims." The result is that Al Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world, says the report, again an affirmation of Scheur's finding.
"Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic," the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is "no more than an extension of American domestic politics". The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that "whatever Americans do and say only serves ... the enemy."
Another fundamental flaw in the American approach is that it has divided the Muslim world in perception to "bad Muslims" and "good Muslims."
"Americans are convinced that the US is a benevolent 'superpower' that elevates values emphasising freedom ... deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam by overwhelming majorities at this time -- sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening."
However, the report also implicitly points out the infamous "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration do not realise that their direction is misguided.
It cites a report made in May by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary and one of the most known neocons, in which he observes: "Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism."
Biased policy
Ironically, no where in the report is any suggestion that the administration should address the core problem -- its biased approach to the Middle East conflict and open-ended support for Israel.
Instead, it suggests that in order to correct the situation, the US must make "strategic communication." This should include the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations. More importantly, it says, "presidential leadership" is needed in this "ideas war" and warns against "arrogance, opportunism and double standards."
"We face a war on terrorism," the report says, "intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America's tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America's power to persuade is in a state of crisis."
The US administration is ignoring the fact that the "image problem" that the US is suffering is linked "to perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self-indulgent" and calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies "will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences in ways that are credible."
As "Al Qaeda constantly outflanks the US in the war of information," the US should adopt more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in the Muslim World -- including writers, artists and singers -- and getting US private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating messages to Muslims with a pro-US "brand."
Well, both Scheuer and the Defence Science Board are accurate in their assessment of the situation, but wrong in their suggestions as to how to address it. As noted, Scheuer suggests "killing more of the enemy" while the Defence Science Board recommends a propaganda campaign.
Well, Scheuer as well as the Washington strategists who drew up the Defence Science Board report with fair accuracy have opted to turn away from the minefield of tackling the American bias in favour of Israel as the root of all problems that the administration faces. No killing of militants and/or "propaganda" will work to convince the world Muslims today that Washington has any good in mind for them unless it deals with a firm hand to put an end to Israel's intransigence and arrogance and its refusal to accept international legitimacy as the basis for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, be it on the Palestinian, Syrian or Lebanese fronts. And that would only be a beginning of the treatment to address the American ailment.
Right diagnosis, wrong medicine
TWO reports published this week underlined the reality that the US is losing its self-proclaimed war against terror as a result of misguided policies and deep flaws in its approach to the Middle East and in the handling of the situation in Iraq.
The first was comments by Michael Scheuer, a former American intelligence agent who used to chase Osama Bin Laden and author of the book Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror. He argued that the US-led war against terrorism is failing because of Washington's policies in the Middle East and the American claims that more than two thirds of Al Qaeda's leadership are destroyed are hollow. If anything, he says, Al Qaeda has grown in concept to a global movement with far-reaching influence through the Internet.
The other was a "strategic communications" report, written by the Defence Science Board for US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The report says the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for Al Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the "self-serving hypocrisy" of the Bush administration over the Middle East.
We don't know whether Scheuer and the authors of the Defence Science Board collaborated with each other. Both have almost identical views and conclusions. But then, there need not be any collaboration to come up with the reality -- two and two always make four no matter who does the calculation.
Scheuer, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer who once led the hunt for Bin Laden, observes that Al Qaeda's domination of the Internet in the Muslim world was leading to the US losing its battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide.
Scheuer, who wrote the book under the name "Anonymous" with CIA permission and quit the CIA because the agency would not allow him to give media interviews, was speaking to a group of journalists in Washington.
Lost chances
According to Scheuer, the US had at least eight chances to kill Bin Laden before Sept.11, 2001, but did not use the opportunity because of apathy or inaction by American decision-makers.
Today, Bin Laden's Al Qaeda enjoys wide support around the world, he says.
Asked whether the US-led war on terror could be won, he replied. "No. It can't be won. We're going to eventually lose it. And the problem for us is that we're going to lose it much more quickly if we don't start killing more of the enemy."
Among the points raised by Scheuer, Al Qaeda is winning the propaganda war, especially the Internet, with regular political, military and religious discourses and justification for many of its actions. The core of the movement was made up of true believers and it was controlling the debate in the Islamic world. It also had suspected success in infiltrating US military and security services, he said.
Another problem the US faces is the wide support that Bin Laden enjoys among the Muslims and Arabs that make it difficult for governments to take effective action against Bin Laden, he said.
The US-led war against and occupation of Iraq is unpopular in the Muslim world and is blocking American efforts to mobilise world opinion against Bin Laden without seeming to support US policies in the Middle East -- especially backing Israel -- the West's need for low oil prices, he said.
"Unless we change or at least consider changing our policies in the Middle East, the room for Bin Laden or Bin Ladenism to grow is virtually unlimited," Scheuer said.
Not against culture
He rejected Western claims that Bin Laden targeted the United States and Europe because he hated Western culture.
"They're attacking us because of our unqualified support for Israel. They're attacking us because we've helped cement on their heads tyrannies in the Arab world ... for the last 40 years," he said. "They're attacking us because we're in the Arabian Peninsula and it happens to be a holy place for them."
According to Scheuer, Al Qaeda served both as an organisation and as an umbrella for groups with similar ideals worldwide, adding Bin Laden's command and control goes very little beyond Al Qaeda itself.
"His goal is to more or less get everybody moving in the same direction -- moving them away from, kind of a away from, a more nationalist orientation ... and get the focused on the United States," he said. "And frankly he's been only 60 or 65 per cent successful in that."
Compare Scheuer's assertions with the findings of the Defence Science Report.
On "the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds," the report says, "American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended."
"American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature of, and support for, radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single digits in some Arab societies," it says.
Rejected repeated assertions by American administration officials that those hostile to the US hate "American freedoms" the report affirms: "Muslims do not 'hate our freedoms', but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favour of Israel and against Palestinian rights...."
Muslims also resent the American alliances with unpopular regimes, says the report.
"Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that 'freedom is the future of the Middle East' is seen as patronising ... in the eyes of Muslims, the American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. US actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination."
The most vital flaw of the American approach to Iraq was underlined by Patrick Cockburn, who, a correspondent for Britain's Independent newspaper, he has written regular reports from Iraq throughout the occupation.
In an interview carried on the website counterpunch.com, Cockburn puts his finger on the pulse when he states that the US has already lost the war to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq.
Rejecting the American theory that the US military needed to pacify the town of Fallujah in order to set the ground for elections in January, Cockburn says:
"This connection between the attack on Fallujah and the elections is one of the weirdest things I've heard. You go and smash up a city, you turn all of its population into refugees, you kill quite a number of them -- and somehow they're going to come out and vote? I think that was always kind of an absurdity."
"There should be no mystery about the nature of the resistance in Iraq. The situation is very simple, as it would be in most countries of the world -- when you have an occupation by a foreign power, you have resistance. And that's exactly what's happened in Iraq."
Widening support base
The Defence Science Board implicitly agrees with Scheuer that the way the Bush administration conducted foreign policy after the Sept.11 attacks benefited Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
"American actions have elevated the authority of the jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims." The result is that Al Qaeda has gone from being a marginal movement to having support across the entire Muslim world, says the report, again an affirmation of Scheur's finding.
"Muslims see Americans as strangely narcissistic," the report goes on, adding that to the Arab world the war is "no more than an extension of American domestic politics". The US has zero credibility among Muslims which means that "whatever Americans do and say only serves ... the enemy."
Another fundamental flaw in the American approach is that it has divided the Muslim world in perception to "bad Muslims" and "good Muslims."
"Americans are convinced that the US is a benevolent 'superpower' that elevates values emphasising freedom ... deep down we assume that everyone should naturally support our policies. Yet the world of Islam by overwhelming majorities at this time -- sees things differently. Muslims see American policies as inimical to their values, American rhetoric about freedom and democracy as hypocritical and American actions as deeply threatening."
However, the report also implicitly points out the infamous "neoconservatives" in the Bush administration do not realise that their direction is misguided.
It cites a report made in May by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary and one of the most known neocons, in which he observes: "Our military expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq are unlikely to be the last such excursion in the global war on terrorism."
Biased policy
Ironically, no where in the report is any suggestion that the administration should address the core problem -- its biased approach to the Middle East conflict and open-ended support for Israel.
Instead, it suggests that in order to correct the situation, the US must make "strategic communication." This should include the dissemination of propaganda and the running of military psychological operations. More importantly, it says, "presidential leadership" is needed in this "ideas war" and warns against "arrogance, opportunism and double standards."
"We face a war on terrorism," the report says, "intensified conflict with Islam, and insurgency in Iraq. Worldwide anger and discontent are directed at America's tarnished credibility and ways the US pursues its goals. There is a consensus that America's power to persuade is in a state of crisis."
The US administration is ignoring the fact that the "image problem" that the US is suffering is linked "to perceptions of the US as arrogant, hypocritical and self-indulgent" and calls for a huge boost in spending on propaganda efforts as war policies "will not succeed unless they are communicated to global domestic audiences in ways that are credible."
As "Al Qaeda constantly outflanks the US in the war of information," the US should adopt more sophisticated propaganda techniques, such as targeting secularists in the Muslim World -- including writers, artists and singers -- and getting US private sector media and marketing professionals involved in disseminating messages to Muslims with a pro-US "brand."
Well, both Scheuer and the Defence Science Board are accurate in their assessment of the situation, but wrong in their suggestions as to how to address it. As noted, Scheuer suggests "killing more of the enemy" while the Defence Science Board recommends a propaganda campaign.
Well, Scheuer as well as the Washington strategists who drew up the Defence Science Board report with fair accuracy have opted to turn away from the minefield of tackling the American bias in favour of Israel as the root of all problems that the administration faces. No killing of militants and/or "propaganda" will work to convince the world Muslims today that Washington has any good in mind for them unless it deals with a firm hand to put an end to Israel's intransigence and arrogance and its refusal to accept international legitimacy as the basis for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, be it on the Palestinian, Syrian or Lebanese fronts. And that would only be a beginning of the treatment to address the American ailment.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Alarm bells ringing for US
By PV Vivekanand
WHY doesn't the CIA's assessment and warning to the Bush administration that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and is not likely to rebound any time soon surprise us in this region? It is very simple: Commentators and analysts in the Middle East have known this for long and have been saying it at every given opportunity, but few in Washington seemed to care. Obviously, to admit that the US designs in Iraq have gone wrong wholesale and that Washington has a tiger by the tail in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would not fit in with the schemes of the neoconservatives who orchestrated the invasion and occupation of that country in the first place.
As reported by the New York Times, the CIA warning is "unusually candid" and presented a bleak assessment on "matters of politics, economic and security." It did admit "important progress" in the political process and "credited Iraqis with being resilient."
Again, the reference to political process is indeed linked to the strides made by the US-backed interim government in the broader Arab context rather than within Iraq. And it is no revelation that Iraqis are resilient. After all, the people of Iraq have lived through the suffering of three wars since 1980 and their plight is all the more tough and difficult today than anytime in recent history. They endured the eight difficult years of war with Iran, followed by the Kuwait crisis and the consequent United Nations sanctions that had their economy in a stranglehold since 1990 until last year's US-led invasion that toppled the Saddam regime and installed the US military presence in the country.
Everyone — except those in Washington who do not want to accept it — know that the term "security" has become alien to the people of Iraq.
Reports from Iraq clearly indicate that no one is feeling safe anymore. Let us put together a summary of the reports in our own way:
Even if you have nothing to do with the either side, the US-led coalition force or the insurgents, you are exposed and vulnerable to threats that are very much real and could end up in you being dead.
In every neighbourhood, someone is watching you for signs where you belong, whether you are dealing with the coalition forces and the Iraqi National Guard or the insurgents. If you are siding with the coalition forces, then insurgents put a bomb in your car or your house. If you are seen having any links with the insurgents, then the US forces and the Iraqi national guards would come and pick you up, and lock you up to be subjected to torture to reveal what you might know about the guerrillas waging the war of resistance against the US forces and their allies.
People disappear overnight, and the families do not know who are responsible.
It is as if Saddam Hussein's regime is back where a midnight knock at your door means you are wanted. Your family would have no recourse to know what happened to you once Saddam's forces had taken you away.
It is the same that is happening these days in a much worse manner.
Threats and warnings are written on your house walls asking you to stay away from co-operating with the US forces. You better take the threat seriously or pay the price with your life. If you are a member of the Iraqi National Guards, you could be killed any time, even as you step out of your house to buy grocery. No wonder Iraqi guards mask their faces whenever they are on duty. They don't want to be identified and marked for death. Dozens of Iraqi policemen who had the misfortune of having being filmed at the scene of bombings and seen on television news were killed in less than 48 hours because they were identified by the insurgents.
Such is the level of intimidation and terror that prevails in Baghdad and other Iraqi towns and cities.
No one can protect you, least of all the US forces.
The innocent looking car parked on the kerb as you walk to buy bread could explode as you pass by; or a rocket could fall next to you and kill you instantly. Or your neighbour is an Iraqi guard whose house is attacked and you become part of the victims caught in the crossfire.
No one trusts anyone. All are suspects. Insurgents as well as informers for the US forces are among you and they could determine whether you live or not.
The threats are increasing now, with the January elections approaching. Graffiti is everywhere asking people to boycott the elections of face the wrath of "sons of Iraq" as insurgents call themselves.
Add to that the difficulties of daily life: Water and power supplies are erratic. Jobs are scarce, and those who are indeed employed have to be on constant alert against dangers lurking round the corner. Women are not safe beyond their walls.
We don't know whether CIA warning was explicit on these realities on the ground. According to the New York Times, it does warn that
security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy.
We wonder how the interim government would go about consolidating its authority when its security forces are deliberately targeted in the guerrilla war. As to building the economy, one needs to look closer at the systematic attacks that are carried out against the country's lifeline — the pipelines that pump oil to export terminals. Those behind the attacks mark time until each bombing before damages are repaired before striking again. Obviously, they are aware of the importance of the pipelines to any effort to rebuild the country's economy.
The CIA warning becomes all the more significant, given that it was issued after the US military claimed "victory" in overpowering the restive town of Fallujah and touted it as a landmark in efforts to pacify the country.
Obviously, that should also explain why American Ambassador to Iraq John D. Negroponte was said to have objected to the CIA's findings as too harsh. At the same time, the top American military commander in Iraq, General. George W. Casey, is said to have initially offered no objections.
The CIA warning is also said to fit in with a National Intelligence Estimate drawn up by in July and sent to the White House in August by American intelligence agencies which presented a "dark forecast for Iraq's future through the end of 2005."
That assessment outlined three possible developments, with "the best case" being "tenuous stability and the worst case included a chain of events leading to civil war," according to the New York Times.
President George W Bush, who had dismissed that assessment as nothing more than guesswork, should be taking the CIA warning more seriously — that is, indeed, if he has been given an accurate summary of what the intelligence agency had to say. Again, it is a point to be remembered here that those who control the flow of intelligence information to the president are not exactly known to convey bad news; they opt instead to doctor intelligence reports in a way that suits the neocon objective of pressing ahead with the belligerent policies of the administration regardless of American interests based on realities on the ground.
We don't know how detailed the CIA warning to the White House is. However, here are a few pointers — unsolicited, unwanted and undesirable as they might be to the US administration — to the realities in Iraq.
1. To a majority of the Iraqis, the American military presence is not welcome. They might have seen the Americans and allied forces as their liberators when the Saddam regime was toppled, but that euphoria did not last more than a few days.
2. Under the American-backed governance of their country today, Iraqis find themselves in worse shape than they were under the Saddam regime; they have erratic/expensive supplies of basic needs of life such as food, water and power; more than 40 per cent of the work force do not have jobs or the jobs they have are nowhere near their basic expectations; they have no security and live in perpetual fear for their life; many resent that American-backed Iraqis who lived in exile during the Saddam regime are now controlling them while those who suffered the atrocities of the toppled regime because of their political opposition have been shoved aside.
3. Many Iraqis believe that the invasion and occupation of their country was and is aimed at exploiting their country's natural resources, particularly that they know how the US administration of Iraq led by overseer Paul Bremer is said to have misused/diverted proceeds from the country's oil exports while funds allocated by the US Congress for reconstruction of Iraq were left unused because spending that money needed accurate accounting. The Iraqis have also seen how American giants like Halliburton and others are making billions in the name of rebuilding their country while they benefit little from the process.
4. The insurgency against the US-led coalition forces is as much as Iraq-specific it is retaliation for the injustices that American allies — most prominently Israel — have inflicted upon Muslims and Arabs. The brutality with which the US-led forces are handling the insurgency and the US military's shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy has made it impossible for the people of Iraq to accept that Washington means them any good. Tens of thousands of Iraqi families have been turned destitute as a result of American actions, and they would never be able to come to terms with the US role in their country. A classic example is the town of Fallujah, which was shattered beyond recognition in the recent American assault, with the bulk of the killed and wounded being civilians — mostly women and children — while the US military claims it as a victory against insurgents.
5. There might indeed be truth in the American assertion that the stepped-up violence and guerrilla attacks against the coalition forces and their allies aim at aborting elections scheduled for January. But the situation has to be seen in the broader context of the militants' quest to fight Americans anywhere and anytime.
6. The Sunnis of Iraq fear that the political changes in their country would be at their expense and they are determined to put up a stiff fight to make their point, with hopes that something might happen at some point sooner or later that would serve their interests. Surely, they have no idea what that "something" would be, and this makes it all the more dangerous for the US.
7. There are regional players who fear that it would be their turn for "regime change" after the US "pacifies" Iraq. As such, their vested interest is to ensure that the US is not given an opportunity to "contain" Iraq and turn its guns on others; and hence the cross-border flow of militants volunteering to fight the Americans.
No doubt, the American intelligence agencies are aware of the formidable challenge the Bush administration is facing in Iraq. Perhaps the "unusually candid" CIA warning is their way of telling the emperor he is indeed naked.
WHY doesn't the CIA's assessment and warning to the Bush administration that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and is not likely to rebound any time soon surprise us in this region? It is very simple: Commentators and analysts in the Middle East have known this for long and have been saying it at every given opportunity, but few in Washington seemed to care. Obviously, to admit that the US designs in Iraq have gone wrong wholesale and that Washington has a tiger by the tail in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would not fit in with the schemes of the neoconservatives who orchestrated the invasion and occupation of that country in the first place.
As reported by the New York Times, the CIA warning is "unusually candid" and presented a bleak assessment on "matters of politics, economic and security." It did admit "important progress" in the political process and "credited Iraqis with being resilient."
Again, the reference to political process is indeed linked to the strides made by the US-backed interim government in the broader Arab context rather than within Iraq. And it is no revelation that Iraqis are resilient. After all, the people of Iraq have lived through the suffering of three wars since 1980 and their plight is all the more tough and difficult today than anytime in recent history. They endured the eight difficult years of war with Iran, followed by the Kuwait crisis and the consequent United Nations sanctions that had their economy in a stranglehold since 1990 until last year's US-led invasion that toppled the Saddam regime and installed the US military presence in the country.
Everyone — except those in Washington who do not want to accept it — know that the term "security" has become alien to the people of Iraq.
Reports from Iraq clearly indicate that no one is feeling safe anymore. Let us put together a summary of the reports in our own way:
Even if you have nothing to do with the either side, the US-led coalition force or the insurgents, you are exposed and vulnerable to threats that are very much real and could end up in you being dead.
In every neighbourhood, someone is watching you for signs where you belong, whether you are dealing with the coalition forces and the Iraqi National Guard or the insurgents. If you are siding with the coalition forces, then insurgents put a bomb in your car or your house. If you are seen having any links with the insurgents, then the US forces and the Iraqi national guards would come and pick you up, and lock you up to be subjected to torture to reveal what you might know about the guerrillas waging the war of resistance against the US forces and their allies.
People disappear overnight, and the families do not know who are responsible.
It is as if Saddam Hussein's regime is back where a midnight knock at your door means you are wanted. Your family would have no recourse to know what happened to you once Saddam's forces had taken you away.
It is the same that is happening these days in a much worse manner.
Threats and warnings are written on your house walls asking you to stay away from co-operating with the US forces. You better take the threat seriously or pay the price with your life. If you are a member of the Iraqi National Guards, you could be killed any time, even as you step out of your house to buy grocery. No wonder Iraqi guards mask their faces whenever they are on duty. They don't want to be identified and marked for death. Dozens of Iraqi policemen who had the misfortune of having being filmed at the scene of bombings and seen on television news were killed in less than 48 hours because they were identified by the insurgents.
Such is the level of intimidation and terror that prevails in Baghdad and other Iraqi towns and cities.
No one can protect you, least of all the US forces.
The innocent looking car parked on the kerb as you walk to buy bread could explode as you pass by; or a rocket could fall next to you and kill you instantly. Or your neighbour is an Iraqi guard whose house is attacked and you become part of the victims caught in the crossfire.
No one trusts anyone. All are suspects. Insurgents as well as informers for the US forces are among you and they could determine whether you live or not.
The threats are increasing now, with the January elections approaching. Graffiti is everywhere asking people to boycott the elections of face the wrath of "sons of Iraq" as insurgents call themselves.
Add to that the difficulties of daily life: Water and power supplies are erratic. Jobs are scarce, and those who are indeed employed have to be on constant alert against dangers lurking round the corner. Women are not safe beyond their walls.
We don't know whether CIA warning was explicit on these realities on the ground. According to the New York Times, it does warn that
security in the country is likely to deteriorate unless the Iraqi government makes significant progress in asserting its authority and building up the economy.
We wonder how the interim government would go about consolidating its authority when its security forces are deliberately targeted in the guerrilla war. As to building the economy, one needs to look closer at the systematic attacks that are carried out against the country's lifeline — the pipelines that pump oil to export terminals. Those behind the attacks mark time until each bombing before damages are repaired before striking again. Obviously, they are aware of the importance of the pipelines to any effort to rebuild the country's economy.
The CIA warning becomes all the more significant, given that it was issued after the US military claimed "victory" in overpowering the restive town of Fallujah and touted it as a landmark in efforts to pacify the country.
Obviously, that should also explain why American Ambassador to Iraq John D. Negroponte was said to have objected to the CIA's findings as too harsh. At the same time, the top American military commander in Iraq, General. George W. Casey, is said to have initially offered no objections.
The CIA warning is also said to fit in with a National Intelligence Estimate drawn up by in July and sent to the White House in August by American intelligence agencies which presented a "dark forecast for Iraq's future through the end of 2005."
That assessment outlined three possible developments, with "the best case" being "tenuous stability and the worst case included a chain of events leading to civil war," according to the New York Times.
President George W Bush, who had dismissed that assessment as nothing more than guesswork, should be taking the CIA warning more seriously — that is, indeed, if he has been given an accurate summary of what the intelligence agency had to say. Again, it is a point to be remembered here that those who control the flow of intelligence information to the president are not exactly known to convey bad news; they opt instead to doctor intelligence reports in a way that suits the neocon objective of pressing ahead with the belligerent policies of the administration regardless of American interests based on realities on the ground.
We don't know how detailed the CIA warning to the White House is. However, here are a few pointers — unsolicited, unwanted and undesirable as they might be to the US administration — to the realities in Iraq.
1. To a majority of the Iraqis, the American military presence is not welcome. They might have seen the Americans and allied forces as their liberators when the Saddam regime was toppled, but that euphoria did not last more than a few days.
2. Under the American-backed governance of their country today, Iraqis find themselves in worse shape than they were under the Saddam regime; they have erratic/expensive supplies of basic needs of life such as food, water and power; more than 40 per cent of the work force do not have jobs or the jobs they have are nowhere near their basic expectations; they have no security and live in perpetual fear for their life; many resent that American-backed Iraqis who lived in exile during the Saddam regime are now controlling them while those who suffered the atrocities of the toppled regime because of their political opposition have been shoved aside.
3. Many Iraqis believe that the invasion and occupation of their country was and is aimed at exploiting their country's natural resources, particularly that they know how the US administration of Iraq led by overseer Paul Bremer is said to have misused/diverted proceeds from the country's oil exports while funds allocated by the US Congress for reconstruction of Iraq were left unused because spending that money needed accurate accounting. The Iraqis have also seen how American giants like Halliburton and others are making billions in the name of rebuilding their country while they benefit little from the process.
4. The insurgency against the US-led coalition forces is as much as Iraq-specific it is retaliation for the injustices that American allies — most prominently Israel — have inflicted upon Muslims and Arabs. The brutality with which the US-led forces are handling the insurgency and the US military's shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy has made it impossible for the people of Iraq to accept that Washington means them any good. Tens of thousands of Iraqi families have been turned destitute as a result of American actions, and they would never be able to come to terms with the US role in their country. A classic example is the town of Fallujah, which was shattered beyond recognition in the recent American assault, with the bulk of the killed and wounded being civilians — mostly women and children — while the US military claims it as a victory against insurgents.
5. There might indeed be truth in the American assertion that the stepped-up violence and guerrilla attacks against the coalition forces and their allies aim at aborting elections scheduled for January. But the situation has to be seen in the broader context of the militants' quest to fight Americans anywhere and anytime.
6. The Sunnis of Iraq fear that the political changes in their country would be at their expense and they are determined to put up a stiff fight to make their point, with hopes that something might happen at some point sooner or later that would serve their interests. Surely, they have no idea what that "something" would be, and this makes it all the more dangerous for the US.
7. There are regional players who fear that it would be their turn for "regime change" after the US "pacifies" Iraq. As such, their vested interest is to ensure that the US is not given an opportunity to "contain" Iraq and turn its guns on others; and hence the cross-border flow of militants volunteering to fight the Americans.
No doubt, the American intelligence agencies are aware of the formidable challenge the Bush administration is facing in Iraq. Perhaps the "unusually candid" CIA warning is their way of telling the emperor he is indeed naked.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Palestine - window or pinhole?
Dec.1, 2004
Peace in Palestine: A window or a pinhole?
PV Vivekanand
THE death of Yasser Arafat last month is touted as having cleared the way for the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as if Arafat was blocking the talks. Indeed, that is the picture Israel had been trying to portray, but the realities on the ground are different. The "opportunity" for peace, as defined by the US, Europe and others, could be dashed as quickly as it emerged if Israel is not ready to drop its arrogance and intransigence and does not do what it takes to consolidate it. But is there a genuine political will in Israel to do that?
IT was an almost a foregone conclusion that Mahmoud Abbas, who inherited the chairmanship of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from Yasser Arafat, would also be elected Palestinian president in January elections until it was reported on Wednesday that Marwan Barghouti has registered himself as a candidate.
Abbas's chance would be seriously set back if Barghouti's name appears on the ballot paper. His wife filed the registration on his behalf.
Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison, had already acquired more than the 5,000 signatures necessary to put his name on the ballot.
Palestinian officials said last week that Barghouti, who enjoys immense popularity among young Palestinians, had decided to run. But he opted to drop his candidacy a day later after coming under pressure from Fatah officials worried about a split in their movement.
If Barghouti does indeed enter the fray, things would change dramatically and throw new elements to any assessment. For the moment, let us go with the assumption that Abbas is the front-runner in the elections.
However, the elections in themselves are not an end to anything. They will only signal the beginning of efforts to work out a negotiated settlement for the Palestinian problem.
That is where the biggest questions pose themselves.
Is there any good faith left on the Israeli side that would help the negotiations arrive at a just and fair solution?
Or will it be a one-sided negotiation where Israel and the US would be bent upon forcing down the Palestinian throat their version of peace that have little to do with the legitimate territorial and political rights of the Palestinian people?
Is it possible for Abbas to settle for less than what Arafat had held out throughout the years? Is that what Israel and the US describe as the "opening" for peace in Palestine now that Arafat has become part of history?
Is it possible for the European Union to make good its promise to ensure that fairness, justice and international legitimacy would be the guiding factors for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement?
Is the European Union ready to detach itself away from the US-imposed shackles and assume an influential political role in the peace process?
Why do Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and George W Bush, the American president, see "new hope" to negotiate "peace" with the Palestinians?
The answer might perhaps lie in the role that Abbas played in working out a secret agreement involving compromises on final status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and the character of the proposed State of Palestine.
This agreement, which Abbas and the then Israeli justice minister, Yossi Beilin, drew up in October 1995, is seen as the basis for all consecutive proposals, including the American-mediated offer made to Arafat during the Camp David negotiations of 2000 and the subsequent "Geneva Initiative."
The agreement also offers a compromise to allow some 120 to 130 Jewish settlements to remain in the West Bank and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.
Abbas was also seen as ready to compromise on the demand for Arab East Jerusalem and settle for the Abu Dis neighourhood on the outskirts of the Holy City.
Commentators also note that Abbas is a vehement opponent on armed resistance against the Israeli occupation - another "plus point" that makes him acceptable to Sharon and Bush.
He has indicated that he is ready to take action against the groups waging armed struggle. "Every nation has opposition groups, but there are also laws and institutions," he said. "I am committed to having one authority and only one army and political pluralism."
The rival groups might not see it that way.
Sharon has pledged to help ease the situation in the occupied territories to make it conducive for the elections, including allowing occupied Arab East Jerusalemites to vote. However, it is not clear yet whether he would allow polling centres in Arab East Jerusalem, which Israel considers as part of its "eternal and indivisible capital."
Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath put his finger on the pulse when he said Israeli promises must be matched now by action on the ground.
Speaking at a meeting with the EU foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, which was also attended by foreign ministers also drawn from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey as well as Israel, Shaath said the post-Arafat leadership faced "absolutely daunting but absolutely necessary" challenges.
"There is optimism all around regarding this new drive to get the peace process back on line," he said.
However, he affirmed, "time is short" if the Palestinians are to get the ingredients in place for a successful election.
"Really if Israel were to act in good faith, and I hope it will, Israel should immediately allow the reopening of the voter registration offices in (Arab East) Jerusalem," Shaath said.
Israel should also pullout of all towns occupied since the start of the current Palestinian Intifada in 2000, end "assassinations, violence (and) incursions" and lift "checkpoints and things that make life absolutely impossible if you are going to conduct an election."
The EU has promised all help for the Palestinian elections and thereafter for building a Palestinian people.
The task ahead was underlined by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer when he said the Palestinian election represented a "new opportunity" for Middle East peace, but "whether it could be used is an open question.
Indeed, it is as if Sharon and Bush could not wait to have Abbas in the hot seat of Palestinian presidency and extract concession after concession from him.
At the same time, the danger remains very much in view that Sharon might decide Abbas, if the Palestinian leader refused to accept the Israeli version of a peace agreement, is demanding too much and denounce him as a negotiating partner as he did with Arafat.
It needs no visionary powers to foresee that any sign of Abbas relenting to pressure on the basis of American-Israeli interpretations of what he accepted in the 1995 agreement would lead to an upheaval among the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Abbas has made it clear that he will be basis himself on the Quartet-backed "road map" for peace that envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state through internationally backed negotiations. It called for the establishment of an independent state next year, but has been stalled since it was signed in June 2003.
After his re-election US President George Bush spoke of pushing for a Palestinian state in the next four years.
However, Sharon has made his acceptance of the "road map" proposal conditional on its backers — the UN, the US, the European Union and Russia — accepting Israeli-proposed amendments to it. This would prove to be a major hurdle as and when negotiations get ahead.
The quartet has already met and discussed options.
“We are all encouraged. We reaffirmed our determination to work with the Palestinian leadership to support the election” for a successor to Arafat, UN chief Kofi Annan said after a meeting in Sharm Al Sheikh, Egypt, last week.
“We must give them all the necessary support. There is an opportunity to ... move ahead with the road map.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the blue print as the only peace plan on the table.
“The road map now is... the single plan that is being used by both parties as well as the international community to achieve a two-state settlement,” he said.
Palestinian sources said they expected the Americans to guarantee an Israeli withdrawal from all the main West Bank towns during the election period.
Powell has reassured the Palestinian officials that the US did not consider the Israeli proposed withdrawal from Gaza as a replacement for the road map.
For the moment, Sharon has promised to co-ordinate the planned Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). If he lives up to the pledge, then it could strengthen Abbas's hand against the potential challenge posed by Islamist groups which want the Gaza Strip under their control.
On the other hand, Sharon has the luxury of simply withdrawing the military and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and sit back and watch PNA forces and rivals vying for domination of the coastal strip.
Egypt has stepped into the equation by promising to deploy additional troops along its volatile border with Gaza to help ensure quiet after the pullout.
Such deployment requires in the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement signed in Camp David in 1978, which limits the Egyptian military presence in the area.
The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, which is vying for Palestinian hearts and minds in direct competition with the PLO, has announced it will boycott the elections.
A Hamas boycott could raise questions about the credibility and legitimacy of the elections. However, Hamas leader Ismail Hanieh made it clear the group would honor the outcome of the elections.
Hanieh said the group was not calling on the Palestinian people to boycott the election, but Hamas members will stay away from the polls.
Hamas has tens of thousands of supporters and is particularly strong in the Gaza Strip, but there is no accurate estimate of its actual members.
Hamas took the decision since the presidential election is not coupled with polls to the legislative assembly and municipal councils. Legislative elections could be held in May.
Hamas is expected to do well in the legislative and municipal elections whenever held.
Hamas stayed away from the first Palestinian general election in 1996 because it was a result of the Oslo agreements with Israel which the group rejects.
Earlier, Hamas politburo member Mohammed Ghazal had said the group might run in the presidential elections in January by nominating a candidate or supporting a certain runner if it serves best the interests of the Palestinian people.
“Everything is expected in politics. The movement would nominate a candidate to run for Palestinian National Authority’s president if it is in the public interest,” Ghazal said.
However, Ghazal reiterated Hamas’ position that called for holding presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections.
Fateh got a big boost in elections this week to the student council of the Al Najah University the West Bank.
The Hamas-led Islamic bloc lost significant ground from the 48 seats it had held since the last student election in 2001. It was also the first victory for Fateh since it lost a majority in a close race in 1995 when Hamas gained ground.
Al Najah is the West Bank's largest university and is often cited as a barometer of political sentiment among young Palestinians.
Indeed, the election could be seen as a sympathy vote: Arafat's death may have tipped the vote in favour of Fateh as a tribute to the man who for decades led the Palestinian struggle for statehood.
"Nobody expected this huge victory for Fateh, not even Fateh itself," political science professor Nayef Abu Khalaf said.
"We feel there are several factors. One is the death of Arafat, the emotional factor. Definitely it had an effect."
Negating all hopes expressed by the US, the West, Arabs, Palestinians and all others is an assumption by Israeli peace activist Uri Avneri, who argues that Sharon is only interested in reacting and adjusting himself to developments and has no intention of making peace based on Palestinian rights.
According to Avneri, Sharon's determined campaign to portray Arafat as the main obstacle to peace was aimed averting the need to engage the Palestinians in negotiations. Now that Arafat is gone, Sharon's bluff is called but it is only a matter of time before the Israeli prime minister would throw a spanner in the works for peace, says Avneri.
"Contrary to all Israeli predictions, the Palestinian transfer of power has taken place in an orderly manner, much as in any civilised country," writes Avneri. "Within two months, new elections are to take place.
"That puts Sharon on the spot. He cannot object to elections, since they are the apple of Bush’s eye. He must not raise the slightest suspicion that he is undermining them. Any complaint about the Israeli army hindering elections by incursions, roadblocks and 'targeted assassinations' may arouse the ire of the White House.
According to Avneri, "Sharon is hoping that the Palestinians will sabotage their elections themselves." However, so far the process has gone ahead well, and Bush, driven by his self-declared goal of "democracy" in the Middle East would support Abbas, thus undermining Sharon's plans, he says.
Therefore Sharon will put up a different face in public while he tries to undermine all chances of peace, according to Avneri.
"Sharon will do everything he can to destroy" Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen, before the American muster enough pressure on Israel to start negotiations.
"Let no one have any illusions: Sharon will use every means, overt and covert, in order to destroy any 'moderate' Palestinian leadership," Avneri writes. "His natural ally is Hamas, which opposes any negotiations with Israel. As of now, Abu Mazen is enemy number one."
As the powers that be play politics, the Palestinian people continue to suffer.
A World Bank report released in late November said the Palestinian economy remains stagnant and nearly half of all Palestinians live in poverty.
The report – Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis: An Assessment – noted that as many as 600,000 Palestinians cannot afford to meet their basic needs in food, clothing and shelter to survive, sets the unemployment rate in 2003 at 25 per cent and 37 among young people and the poverty rate at 47 per cent. It attributes the situation mainly to the Israeli-imposed closures in occupied territories.
“Closures are a key factor behind today’s economic crisis in the West Bank. They have fragmented Palestinian economic space, raised the cost of doing business and eliminated the predictability needed to conduct business.”
Add to that the Israeli policy of collective punishment.
The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reports that in the past four years 628 housing units, home to 3,983 people, were demolished by the Israeli army ostensibly because of the actions of 333 Palestinians. Forty-seven per cent of the houses demolished were not home to anyone suspected of involvement in attacks on Israelis, and in less than three per cent of cases were occupants given prior notice.
The world could only hope that the "changed" situation would offer them the chance for liberation and life in dignity, but those who really pull the strings are the Israelis and the Americans, and then the Israelis again in that order.
Hopes are indeed high in the post-Arafat era, but they seem fragile when seen in the light of the political realities. The "window" of opportunity for peace could easily turn out to be a pinhole that could be sealed off anytime.
Peace in Palestine: A window or a pinhole?
PV Vivekanand
THE death of Yasser Arafat last month is touted as having cleared the way for the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as if Arafat was blocking the talks. Indeed, that is the picture Israel had been trying to portray, but the realities on the ground are different. The "opportunity" for peace, as defined by the US, Europe and others, could be dashed as quickly as it emerged if Israel is not ready to drop its arrogance and intransigence and does not do what it takes to consolidate it. But is there a genuine political will in Israel to do that?
IT was an almost a foregone conclusion that Mahmoud Abbas, who inherited the chairmanship of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) from Yasser Arafat, would also be elected Palestinian president in January elections until it was reported on Wednesday that Marwan Barghouti has registered himself as a candidate.
Abbas's chance would be seriously set back if Barghouti's name appears on the ballot paper. His wife filed the registration on his behalf.
Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences in an Israeli prison, had already acquired more than the 5,000 signatures necessary to put his name on the ballot.
Palestinian officials said last week that Barghouti, who enjoys immense popularity among young Palestinians, had decided to run. But he opted to drop his candidacy a day later after coming under pressure from Fatah officials worried about a split in their movement.
If Barghouti does indeed enter the fray, things would change dramatically and throw new elements to any assessment. For the moment, let us go with the assumption that Abbas is the front-runner in the elections.
However, the elections in themselves are not an end to anything. They will only signal the beginning of efforts to work out a negotiated settlement for the Palestinian problem.
That is where the biggest questions pose themselves.
Is there any good faith left on the Israeli side that would help the negotiations arrive at a just and fair solution?
Or will it be a one-sided negotiation where Israel and the US would be bent upon forcing down the Palestinian throat their version of peace that have little to do with the legitimate territorial and political rights of the Palestinian people?
Is it possible for Abbas to settle for less than what Arafat had held out throughout the years? Is that what Israel and the US describe as the "opening" for peace in Palestine now that Arafat has become part of history?
Is it possible for the European Union to make good its promise to ensure that fairness, justice and international legitimacy would be the guiding factors for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement?
Is the European Union ready to detach itself away from the US-imposed shackles and assume an influential political role in the peace process?
Why do Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, and George W Bush, the American president, see "new hope" to negotiate "peace" with the Palestinians?
The answer might perhaps lie in the role that Abbas played in working out a secret agreement involving compromises on final status issues, such as Jerusalem, refugees, settlements and the character of the proposed State of Palestine.
This agreement, which Abbas and the then Israeli justice minister, Yossi Beilin, drew up in October 1995, is seen as the basis for all consecutive proposals, including the American-mediated offer made to Arafat during the Camp David negotiations of 2000 and the subsequent "Geneva Initiative."
The agreement also offers a compromise to allow some 120 to 130 Jewish settlements to remain in the West Bank and an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley.
Abbas was also seen as ready to compromise on the demand for Arab East Jerusalem and settle for the Abu Dis neighourhood on the outskirts of the Holy City.
Commentators also note that Abbas is a vehement opponent on armed resistance against the Israeli occupation - another "plus point" that makes him acceptable to Sharon and Bush.
He has indicated that he is ready to take action against the groups waging armed struggle. "Every nation has opposition groups, but there are also laws and institutions," he said. "I am committed to having one authority and only one army and political pluralism."
The rival groups might not see it that way.
Sharon has pledged to help ease the situation in the occupied territories to make it conducive for the elections, including allowing occupied Arab East Jerusalemites to vote. However, it is not clear yet whether he would allow polling centres in Arab East Jerusalem, which Israel considers as part of its "eternal and indivisible capital."
Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath put his finger on the pulse when he said Israeli promises must be matched now by action on the ground.
Speaking at a meeting with the EU foreign affairs chief, Javier Solana, which was also attended by foreign ministers also drawn from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia and Turkey as well as Israel, Shaath said the post-Arafat leadership faced "absolutely daunting but absolutely necessary" challenges.
"There is optimism all around regarding this new drive to get the peace process back on line," he said.
However, he affirmed, "time is short" if the Palestinians are to get the ingredients in place for a successful election.
"Really if Israel were to act in good faith, and I hope it will, Israel should immediately allow the reopening of the voter registration offices in (Arab East) Jerusalem," Shaath said.
Israel should also pullout of all towns occupied since the start of the current Palestinian Intifada in 2000, end "assassinations, violence (and) incursions" and lift "checkpoints and things that make life absolutely impossible if you are going to conduct an election."
The EU has promised all help for the Palestinian elections and thereafter for building a Palestinian people.
The task ahead was underlined by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer when he said the Palestinian election represented a "new opportunity" for Middle East peace, but "whether it could be used is an open question.
Indeed, it is as if Sharon and Bush could not wait to have Abbas in the hot seat of Palestinian presidency and extract concession after concession from him.
At the same time, the danger remains very much in view that Sharon might decide Abbas, if the Palestinian leader refused to accept the Israeli version of a peace agreement, is demanding too much and denounce him as a negotiating partner as he did with Arafat.
It needs no visionary powers to foresee that any sign of Abbas relenting to pressure on the basis of American-Israeli interpretations of what he accepted in the 1995 agreement would lead to an upheaval among the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Abbas has made it clear that he will be basis himself on the Quartet-backed "road map" for peace that envisions the creation of an independent Palestinian state through internationally backed negotiations. It called for the establishment of an independent state next year, but has been stalled since it was signed in June 2003.
After his re-election US President George Bush spoke of pushing for a Palestinian state in the next four years.
However, Sharon has made his acceptance of the "road map" proposal conditional on its backers — the UN, the US, the European Union and Russia — accepting Israeli-proposed amendments to it. This would prove to be a major hurdle as and when negotiations get ahead.
The quartet has already met and discussed options.
“We are all encouraged. We reaffirmed our determination to work with the Palestinian leadership to support the election” for a successor to Arafat, UN chief Kofi Annan said after a meeting in Sharm Al Sheikh, Egypt, last week.
“We must give them all the necessary support. There is an opportunity to ... move ahead with the road map.”
US Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed Washington’s commitment to the blue print as the only peace plan on the table.
“The road map now is... the single plan that is being used by both parties as well as the international community to achieve a two-state settlement,” he said.
Palestinian sources said they expected the Americans to guarantee an Israeli withdrawal from all the main West Bank towns during the election period.
Powell has reassured the Palestinian officials that the US did not consider the Israeli proposed withdrawal from Gaza as a replacement for the road map.
For the moment, Sharon has promised to co-ordinate the planned Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). If he lives up to the pledge, then it could strengthen Abbas's hand against the potential challenge posed by Islamist groups which want the Gaza Strip under their control.
On the other hand, Sharon has the luxury of simply withdrawing the military and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and sit back and watch PNA forces and rivals vying for domination of the coastal strip.
Egypt has stepped into the equation by promising to deploy additional troops along its volatile border with Gaza to help ensure quiet after the pullout.
Such deployment requires in the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement signed in Camp David in 1978, which limits the Egyptian military presence in the area.
The Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, which is vying for Palestinian hearts and minds in direct competition with the PLO, has announced it will boycott the elections.
A Hamas boycott could raise questions about the credibility and legitimacy of the elections. However, Hamas leader Ismail Hanieh made it clear the group would honor the outcome of the elections.
Hanieh said the group was not calling on the Palestinian people to boycott the election, but Hamas members will stay away from the polls.
Hamas has tens of thousands of supporters and is particularly strong in the Gaza Strip, but there is no accurate estimate of its actual members.
Hamas took the decision since the presidential election is not coupled with polls to the legislative assembly and municipal councils. Legislative elections could be held in May.
Hamas is expected to do well in the legislative and municipal elections whenever held.
Hamas stayed away from the first Palestinian general election in 1996 because it was a result of the Oslo agreements with Israel which the group rejects.
Earlier, Hamas politburo member Mohammed Ghazal had said the group might run in the presidential elections in January by nominating a candidate or supporting a certain runner if it serves best the interests of the Palestinian people.
“Everything is expected in politics. The movement would nominate a candidate to run for Palestinian National Authority’s president if it is in the public interest,” Ghazal said.
However, Ghazal reiterated Hamas’ position that called for holding presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections.
Fateh got a big boost in elections this week to the student council of the Al Najah University the West Bank.
The Hamas-led Islamic bloc lost significant ground from the 48 seats it had held since the last student election in 2001. It was also the first victory for Fateh since it lost a majority in a close race in 1995 when Hamas gained ground.
Al Najah is the West Bank's largest university and is often cited as a barometer of political sentiment among young Palestinians.
Indeed, the election could be seen as a sympathy vote: Arafat's death may have tipped the vote in favour of Fateh as a tribute to the man who for decades led the Palestinian struggle for statehood.
"Nobody expected this huge victory for Fateh, not even Fateh itself," political science professor Nayef Abu Khalaf said.
"We feel there are several factors. One is the death of Arafat, the emotional factor. Definitely it had an effect."
Negating all hopes expressed by the US, the West, Arabs, Palestinians and all others is an assumption by Israeli peace activist Uri Avneri, who argues that Sharon is only interested in reacting and adjusting himself to developments and has no intention of making peace based on Palestinian rights.
According to Avneri, Sharon's determined campaign to portray Arafat as the main obstacle to peace was aimed averting the need to engage the Palestinians in negotiations. Now that Arafat is gone, Sharon's bluff is called but it is only a matter of time before the Israeli prime minister would throw a spanner in the works for peace, says Avneri.
"Contrary to all Israeli predictions, the Palestinian transfer of power has taken place in an orderly manner, much as in any civilised country," writes Avneri. "Within two months, new elections are to take place.
"That puts Sharon on the spot. He cannot object to elections, since they are the apple of Bush’s eye. He must not raise the slightest suspicion that he is undermining them. Any complaint about the Israeli army hindering elections by incursions, roadblocks and 'targeted assassinations' may arouse the ire of the White House.
According to Avneri, "Sharon is hoping that the Palestinians will sabotage their elections themselves." However, so far the process has gone ahead well, and Bush, driven by his self-declared goal of "democracy" in the Middle East would support Abbas, thus undermining Sharon's plans, he says.
Therefore Sharon will put up a different face in public while he tries to undermine all chances of peace, according to Avneri.
"Sharon will do everything he can to destroy" Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen, before the American muster enough pressure on Israel to start negotiations.
"Let no one have any illusions: Sharon will use every means, overt and covert, in order to destroy any 'moderate' Palestinian leadership," Avneri writes. "His natural ally is Hamas, which opposes any negotiations with Israel. As of now, Abu Mazen is enemy number one."
As the powers that be play politics, the Palestinian people continue to suffer.
A World Bank report released in late November said the Palestinian economy remains stagnant and nearly half of all Palestinians live in poverty.
The report – Intifada, Closures and Palestinian Economic Crisis: An Assessment – noted that as many as 600,000 Palestinians cannot afford to meet their basic needs in food, clothing and shelter to survive, sets the unemployment rate in 2003 at 25 per cent and 37 among young people and the poverty rate at 47 per cent. It attributes the situation mainly to the Israeli-imposed closures in occupied territories.
“Closures are a key factor behind today’s economic crisis in the West Bank. They have fragmented Palestinian economic space, raised the cost of doing business and eliminated the predictability needed to conduct business.”
Add to that the Israeli policy of collective punishment.
The Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reports that in the past four years 628 housing units, home to 3,983 people, were demolished by the Israeli army ostensibly because of the actions of 333 Palestinians. Forty-seven per cent of the houses demolished were not home to anyone suspected of involvement in attacks on Israelis, and in less than three per cent of cases were occupants given prior notice.
The world could only hope that the "changed" situation would offer them the chance for liberation and life in dignity, but those who really pull the strings are the Israelis and the Americans, and then the Israelis again in that order.
Hopes are indeed high in the post-Arafat era, but they seem fragile when seen in the light of the political realities. The "window" of opportunity for peace could easily turn out to be a pinhole that could be sealed off anytime.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Fool me only once
Israeli deception
IN Israel's words, Iran poses the greatest threat to the existence of the Jewish state even without nuclear weapons, and the perceived danger could not even be described if the Iranians were to acquire atomic bombs; and hence Israel is determined not to allow Iran to have nuclear arms.
The Israeli argument could be summed up in three words: The greatest deception.
There is no logic behind the contention that Iran could attack Israel even if it acquired nuclear weapons.
The reasoning is clear: Israel is known to possess at least 200 nuclear warheads and have long-range missiles to deliver them. It shares a "strategic partnership" with the world's sole superpower, the US. Therefore, attacking Israel would invariably lead to massive retaliation from the Israelis themselves and backed by the US.
Are the Iranians so naive not to realise the gravity of retaliation for an attack on Israel?
Of course, Israel would like the world to believe so.
Is there any logic behind the argument that nuclear-armed Iran could secretly give an atomic weapons to a group hostile to Israel and this group could use it against the Jewish state?
Again, the first logic applies. The Iranians are not naive to believe that their involvement in the "clandestine" supply of atomic weapons to anti-Israeli groups could be kept a secret. But Israel would like the world to believe otherwise.
So, what could be the real reason for Israel vowing to pursue a relentless battle not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?
In an article appearing on antiwar.com, Roger Howards offers a possible answer. "Tel Aviv is deeply concerned that such a development could potentially create deep splits in the US-Israel alliance."
How so?
"Consider, for example, what would happen if Tehran, having developed a warhead and withdrawn from the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, offered to reduce the size of or even eliminate its own nuclear arsenal in return for similar moves – all UN-monitored – by Tel Aviv.
"This would be a typically calculating and manipulative ploy by an Iranian regime playing the Israeli card to bolster its support at home and in the Islamic world as a whole. But any such ploy by Tehran would also seek to divide the more moderate European governments from a US administration that has consistently been far more sceptical of Iranian nuclear assurances."
Such a situation could lead to American pressure on Israel, whose leaders for long "considered their nuclear arsenal as their best deterrent against what they regard as a hostile and numerically vastly superior Arab World."
Howard recalls that Israeli military chiefs had indeed ordered preparations for nuclear strikes against enemy forces during the 1967 and 1972 wars.
He admits that the Israelis are capable of fending off American pressure to downsize or eliminate its nuclear arsenal, as the American/Israeli track record shows.
"More important, perhaps, is the possibility that it would pose awkward questions, or even a far-reaching debate, in Washington and amongst the American public in general about the cost to America of an unquestioning loyalty to Israel," asserts Howard.
That theory finds common ground with the numerous investigations conducted by the American government, Congress and intelligence agencies into the Sept.11, 2001 attacks. All those investigations found that Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda carried out the attacks, how many were involved, where they trained and how they organised the assaults. Apart from these findings, which are now known to the world, the investigation reports singularly lacked the answer to the question "why 9/11?"
If indeed the reports contained the answer, then that part of their findings were classified.
Indeed, one could think of many reasons why the classification, but the most plausible one among them is again linked to Israel and that is the answer to the question: Why would a group of Muslims hijack a few airplanes and slam them into American landmarks in suicide operations?
Obviously, the pro-Israeli neoconservatives in the Bush administration did not want the Americans to even make a guess at what prompted the Sept.11 attacks and hence the answer to the question "why 9/11" was never allowed to be included in the findings of the investigations.
The neocon-led administration would like Americans — and indeed others around the world naive enoughto swallow it — that it was Muslim hatred for the way of American life behind Sept.11. They would not want the Americans in particular not even think, let alone debate, that their country's unflinching, unquestioning support for Israel might have had something to do with 9/11.
No doubt, they want a repeat run in the Iranian context, and, if reports in the mainstream American media are accurate, then the hawks have already begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets. And what is the evidence that Iran does have such plans? A "walk in source." No doubt an Iranian Ahmed Chalabi.
What is unfolding before us is a scenario that leads nowhere but action against Iran and further destablisation of the Gulf region and that is why we are concerned.
Well, it is apt perhaps at this point to remind the Americans of the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
IN Israel's words, Iran poses the greatest threat to the existence of the Jewish state even without nuclear weapons, and the perceived danger could not even be described if the Iranians were to acquire atomic bombs; and hence Israel is determined not to allow Iran to have nuclear arms.
The Israeli argument could be summed up in three words: The greatest deception.
There is no logic behind the contention that Iran could attack Israel even if it acquired nuclear weapons.
The reasoning is clear: Israel is known to possess at least 200 nuclear warheads and have long-range missiles to deliver them. It shares a "strategic partnership" with the world's sole superpower, the US. Therefore, attacking Israel would invariably lead to massive retaliation from the Israelis themselves and backed by the US.
Are the Iranians so naive not to realise the gravity of retaliation for an attack on Israel?
Of course, Israel would like the world to believe so.
Is there any logic behind the argument that nuclear-armed Iran could secretly give an atomic weapons to a group hostile to Israel and this group could use it against the Jewish state?
Again, the first logic applies. The Iranians are not naive to believe that their involvement in the "clandestine" supply of atomic weapons to anti-Israeli groups could be kept a secret. But Israel would like the world to believe otherwise.
So, what could be the real reason for Israel vowing to pursue a relentless battle not to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?
In an article appearing on antiwar.com, Roger Howards offers a possible answer. "Tel Aviv is deeply concerned that such a development could potentially create deep splits in the US-Israel alliance."
How so?
"Consider, for example, what would happen if Tehran, having developed a warhead and withdrawn from the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, offered to reduce the size of or even eliminate its own nuclear arsenal in return for similar moves – all UN-monitored – by Tel Aviv.
"This would be a typically calculating and manipulative ploy by an Iranian regime playing the Israeli card to bolster its support at home and in the Islamic world as a whole. But any such ploy by Tehran would also seek to divide the more moderate European governments from a US administration that has consistently been far more sceptical of Iranian nuclear assurances."
Such a situation could lead to American pressure on Israel, whose leaders for long "considered their nuclear arsenal as their best deterrent against what they regard as a hostile and numerically vastly superior Arab World."
Howard recalls that Israeli military chiefs had indeed ordered preparations for nuclear strikes against enemy forces during the 1967 and 1972 wars.
He admits that the Israelis are capable of fending off American pressure to downsize or eliminate its nuclear arsenal, as the American/Israeli track record shows.
"More important, perhaps, is the possibility that it would pose awkward questions, or even a far-reaching debate, in Washington and amongst the American public in general about the cost to America of an unquestioning loyalty to Israel," asserts Howard.
That theory finds common ground with the numerous investigations conducted by the American government, Congress and intelligence agencies into the Sept.11, 2001 attacks. All those investigations found that Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda carried out the attacks, how many were involved, where they trained and how they organised the assaults. Apart from these findings, which are now known to the world, the investigation reports singularly lacked the answer to the question "why 9/11?"
If indeed the reports contained the answer, then that part of their findings were classified.
Indeed, one could think of many reasons why the classification, but the most plausible one among them is again linked to Israel and that is the answer to the question: Why would a group of Muslims hijack a few airplanes and slam them into American landmarks in suicide operations?
Obviously, the pro-Israeli neoconservatives in the Bush administration did not want the Americans to even make a guess at what prompted the Sept.11 attacks and hence the answer to the question "why 9/11" was never allowed to be included in the findings of the investigations.
The neocon-led administration would like Americans — and indeed others around the world naive enoughto swallow it — that it was Muslim hatred for the way of American life behind Sept.11. They would not want the Americans in particular not even think, let alone debate, that their country's unflinching, unquestioning support for Israel might have had something to do with 9/11.
No doubt, they want a repeat run in the Iranian context, and, if reports in the mainstream American media are accurate, then the hawks have already begun discussing military action against Iran to neutralise its nuclear weapons threat, including possible strikes on leadership, political and security targets. And what is the evidence that Iran does have such plans? A "walk in source." No doubt an Iranian Ahmed Chalabi.
What is unfolding before us is a scenario that leads nowhere but action against Iran and further destablisation of the Gulf region and that is why we are concerned.
Well, it is apt perhaps at this point to remind the Americans of the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Major bumps ahead
November 28 2001
So far so smooth, but major bumps ahead
IT was indeed a smart move on the part of Mahmoud Abbas to have made a deal under which Marwan Barghouti eased himself out of the race for Palestinian presidency and endorsed Abbas's candidacy. In return, Abbas pledged to pump in young blood to the mainstream Fateh faction by holding elections to its Revolutionary Council for the first time in 16 years and to exert efforts to release Barghouti from Israeli detention.
While the given reason for the deal was that Fateh wanted to avert a split vote, Abbas would have surely realised that he would be in a vulnerable position if Barghouti were to be a candidate for president.
It was a foregone conclusion that Barghouti, even while in prison, would have given Abbas a tough time in the race for Palestinian presidency as Yasser Arafat's successor, for he has built a formidable reputation as a never-say-die freedom fighter in relatively few years. He has immense popularity both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and could even arrange truces from detention.
It is no exaggeration to assert that Barghouti would have attracted quite a few votes even from hard-line groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as leftist factions because they see his agenda for liberation as closer to theirs than anyone else's.
Barghouti, who can easily claim absolute loyalty from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- an offshoot of Fateh -- was not exactly one of the most prominent Palestinian political activists until the eruption of the second intifada in 2000.
He did make a name for himself as an organiser of the first (1987-1992) intifada -- he was expelled by the Israeli occupation authorities during the uprising -- and while in exile in Lebanon and Jordan until late 1994. He crossed the River Jordan back to the West Bank in the second half of 1994 under the Oslo agreements that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) signed with Israel.
Although he opposed the Oslo accords, he followed up the course of the process launched by that agreement, and soon realised that it was not going anywhere near the Palestinian aspirations for statehood. He started making the point to Arafat and also held many forums with fellow Palestinians to discuss the situation and weigh various options. And then came the collapse of the Oslo process in 2000 and he and his people were ready to resume armed resistance.
It was then his name repeatedly hit the headlines and his voice was repeatedly heard as one representing the younger Palestinian generation at public gatherings. He exhorted Palestinian youth to wage armed struggle for liberation at funerals of Palestinians killed in the confrontation with the occupation forces.
Soon he was elevated, in popular opinion, as a possible successor to Arafat, much to the surprise of many who had thought that the old guard around Arafat would have made sure that none other than one from among themselves could or would stake a claim as successor to the "Old Man."
Man of convictions
It was also clear that the Israeli feared Barghouti more than any other Palestinian fighter because such was his magnetism for the Palestinian youth. He rejected attacks against Israeli civilians but reserved and indeed exercised the legitimate rights of a people under occupation against the occupying forces.
Barghouti is not a man who simply happened to be at the right place at the right time in the Palestinian liberation struggle, but is a man of firm convictions and beliefs and who is capable of leading his people. That was made absolutely clear when he stood up in an Israeli court, raising his hands in chains and affirming that he did not recognise the jurisdiction of Israel over him or any of his people. He shocked the Israeli judges by declaring that the Israeli occupation forces were guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
By then, it also became known that he was using his time in Israeli detention on charges of murder to learn Hebrew and polish his English-language skills. He has displayed his skills in Hebrew while being on trial. Eventually, he was sentenced to five life terms in jail.
For many Palestinians, Barghouti is their natural leader. They have known him for many years as someone from among them, who has thrown stones at the Israeli army and who has opened fire at Israeli soldiers. That is a far cry from those "exiles" who returned to Palestine under the Oslo agreements.
Today, with Barghouti's endorsement and barring any last-minute surprises, Abbas is almost sure of winning the Jan.9 elections to Palestinian presidency.
While the deal was brokered by Palestinian cabinet minister Qaddoura Fares, who visited an Israeli jail in Beersheba on Friday to convince Barghouti to drop his campaign for presidency, Farouq Qaddoumi, head of the PLO's political department and Arafat successor as Fateh leader, is said to have played a major role in arranging it.
Abbas, who is now PLO chairman, and Qaddoumi is expected to meet in Damascus or Cairo this week to finalise the arrangement. The two were among the founders of Fateh along with Arafat and a few others in the late 50s, but they developed differences, particularly over the Oslo agreements and after Abbas tried to edge Qaddoumi out as Palestinian foreign minister during a four-month term he served as prime minister last year.
However, the two appeared to have buried the hatchet after Arafat's death: Hence Qaddoumi becoming Fateh leader and Abbas assuming PLO chairmanship.
Qaddoumi and Barghouti shared common views on the 1993 Oslo agreement and opposed amending the PLO charter that removed a clause calling for the elimination of the state of Israel. Both believe that recognising Israel as a legal entity in Palestine should have come only after Israel allowed the creation of an independent state for the Palestinians.
Barghouti's return to the West Bank in 1994 was natural since he was only going back home from where he was expelled only a few years earlier.
An important question that comes up is: Given a choice, who would Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon opt for as a "negotiating partner," Abbas or Barghouti?
Judging from Sharon's record, he would like to negotiate with Abbas but with Barghouti free and active on the sidelines. For, only then Sharon could put up a charade of talking peace with Abbas -- but presenting unacceptable terms -- with the dead certainty that Barghouti would step up armed resistance that would lead to a deadlock in the process.
That is one explanation that emerged from reports that followed Arafat's death early this month Israel was offering to release Barghouti in return for the US freeing convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard as well as Egypt freeing Azzam Azzam, an Israeli Druze jailed for spying for Israel in Egypt in 1997.
"The proposal is there in the pipeline," said a report in the Israeli press at that time. "Israel is ready to free Barghouti in return fro Pollard and Azzam. However, the US, Egypt and the Palestinians have to work out the details if they are so anxious for Barghouti's freedom."
While Egypt might agree to free Azzam, there strong opposition in the US against freeing Pollard, who was found to have given Israel important military intelligence data about the defensive and offensive military capabilities of the Soviet Union and Arab countries. He is serving a life term in the US.
Israel has implicitly acknowledged Pollard was its spy. It has given him Israeli nationality and has been lobbying the US administrations since Pollard was jailed 19 years ago for his release, but all successive presidents have refused to free him given the sensitivity of the issue for American voters.
Azzam was employed at an Israeli textile plant in Egypt in 1997 when he was arrested and charged with spying for Israel's Mossad intelligence service, using invisible ink hidden in dyed women's underwear. Israel has consistently denied he was a spy but worked hard for his release.
If Sharon were to release Barghouti under a hypothetical deal involving Pollard and Azzam, then the Palestinian armed struggle would only get revved up to new heights under Barghouti's leadership unless Sharon dropped his defiant refusal to accept international legitimacy as the basis for a solution to the Palestinian problem. Since Sharon does not seem to have any intention to shift his stand, the obviously result would be another deadlock.
Probably, Sharon would want that to happen if only to defend himself that he was ready for "negotiations" but the Palestinians asked for the sky and also continued armed attacks against Israelis and hence the deadlock.
That is a strong conclusion emerging from the scene. Otherwise, Sharon would not have allowed Fares and Arab Israeli legislator Jamal Sahalka to visit to visit Barghouti in the cell where he has been held in solitary confinement for 26 months. Sharon would definitely like to play one Palestinian against another while he consolidates his grip on Palestine and create new realities that could not be easily wiped out. That should be a constant source of concern and reason for vigilance for the Palestinian leadership.
So far so smooth, but major bumps ahead
IT was indeed a smart move on the part of Mahmoud Abbas to have made a deal under which Marwan Barghouti eased himself out of the race for Palestinian presidency and endorsed Abbas's candidacy. In return, Abbas pledged to pump in young blood to the mainstream Fateh faction by holding elections to its Revolutionary Council for the first time in 16 years and to exert efforts to release Barghouti from Israeli detention.
While the given reason for the deal was that Fateh wanted to avert a split vote, Abbas would have surely realised that he would be in a vulnerable position if Barghouti were to be a candidate for president.
It was a foregone conclusion that Barghouti, even while in prison, would have given Abbas a tough time in the race for Palestinian presidency as Yasser Arafat's successor, for he has built a formidable reputation as a never-say-die freedom fighter in relatively few years. He has immense popularity both in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and could even arrange truces from detention.
It is no exaggeration to assert that Barghouti would have attracted quite a few votes even from hard-line groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as leftist factions because they see his agenda for liberation as closer to theirs than anyone else's.
Barghouti, who can easily claim absolute loyalty from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades -- an offshoot of Fateh -- was not exactly one of the most prominent Palestinian political activists until the eruption of the second intifada in 2000.
He did make a name for himself as an organiser of the first (1987-1992) intifada -- he was expelled by the Israeli occupation authorities during the uprising -- and while in exile in Lebanon and Jordan until late 1994. He crossed the River Jordan back to the West Bank in the second half of 1994 under the Oslo agreements that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) signed with Israel.
Although he opposed the Oslo accords, he followed up the course of the process launched by that agreement, and soon realised that it was not going anywhere near the Palestinian aspirations for statehood. He started making the point to Arafat and also held many forums with fellow Palestinians to discuss the situation and weigh various options. And then came the collapse of the Oslo process in 2000 and he and his people were ready to resume armed resistance.
It was then his name repeatedly hit the headlines and his voice was repeatedly heard as one representing the younger Palestinian generation at public gatherings. He exhorted Palestinian youth to wage armed struggle for liberation at funerals of Palestinians killed in the confrontation with the occupation forces.
Soon he was elevated, in popular opinion, as a possible successor to Arafat, much to the surprise of many who had thought that the old guard around Arafat would have made sure that none other than one from among themselves could or would stake a claim as successor to the "Old Man."
Man of convictions
It was also clear that the Israeli feared Barghouti more than any other Palestinian fighter because such was his magnetism for the Palestinian youth. He rejected attacks against Israeli civilians but reserved and indeed exercised the legitimate rights of a people under occupation against the occupying forces.
Barghouti is not a man who simply happened to be at the right place at the right time in the Palestinian liberation struggle, but is a man of firm convictions and beliefs and who is capable of leading his people. That was made absolutely clear when he stood up in an Israeli court, raising his hands in chains and affirming that he did not recognise the jurisdiction of Israel over him or any of his people. He shocked the Israeli judges by declaring that the Israeli occupation forces were guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
By then, it also became known that he was using his time in Israeli detention on charges of murder to learn Hebrew and polish his English-language skills. He has displayed his skills in Hebrew while being on trial. Eventually, he was sentenced to five life terms in jail.
For many Palestinians, Barghouti is their natural leader. They have known him for many years as someone from among them, who has thrown stones at the Israeli army and who has opened fire at Israeli soldiers. That is a far cry from those "exiles" who returned to Palestine under the Oslo agreements.
Today, with Barghouti's endorsement and barring any last-minute surprises, Abbas is almost sure of winning the Jan.9 elections to Palestinian presidency.
While the deal was brokered by Palestinian cabinet minister Qaddoura Fares, who visited an Israeli jail in Beersheba on Friday to convince Barghouti to drop his campaign for presidency, Farouq Qaddoumi, head of the PLO's political department and Arafat successor as Fateh leader, is said to have played a major role in arranging it.
Abbas, who is now PLO chairman, and Qaddoumi is expected to meet in Damascus or Cairo this week to finalise the arrangement. The two were among the founders of Fateh along with Arafat and a few others in the late 50s, but they developed differences, particularly over the Oslo agreements and after Abbas tried to edge Qaddoumi out as Palestinian foreign minister during a four-month term he served as prime minister last year.
However, the two appeared to have buried the hatchet after Arafat's death: Hence Qaddoumi becoming Fateh leader and Abbas assuming PLO chairmanship.
Qaddoumi and Barghouti shared common views on the 1993 Oslo agreement and opposed amending the PLO charter that removed a clause calling for the elimination of the state of Israel. Both believe that recognising Israel as a legal entity in Palestine should have come only after Israel allowed the creation of an independent state for the Palestinians.
Barghouti's return to the West Bank in 1994 was natural since he was only going back home from where he was expelled only a few years earlier.
An important question that comes up is: Given a choice, who would Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon opt for as a "negotiating partner," Abbas or Barghouti?
Judging from Sharon's record, he would like to negotiate with Abbas but with Barghouti free and active on the sidelines. For, only then Sharon could put up a charade of talking peace with Abbas -- but presenting unacceptable terms -- with the dead certainty that Barghouti would step up armed resistance that would lead to a deadlock in the process.
That is one explanation that emerged from reports that followed Arafat's death early this month Israel was offering to release Barghouti in return for the US freeing convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard as well as Egypt freeing Azzam Azzam, an Israeli Druze jailed for spying for Israel in Egypt in 1997.
"The proposal is there in the pipeline," said a report in the Israeli press at that time. "Israel is ready to free Barghouti in return fro Pollard and Azzam. However, the US, Egypt and the Palestinians have to work out the details if they are so anxious for Barghouti's freedom."
While Egypt might agree to free Azzam, there strong opposition in the US against freeing Pollard, who was found to have given Israel important military intelligence data about the defensive and offensive military capabilities of the Soviet Union and Arab countries. He is serving a life term in the US.
Israel has implicitly acknowledged Pollard was its spy. It has given him Israeli nationality and has been lobbying the US administrations since Pollard was jailed 19 years ago for his release, but all successive presidents have refused to free him given the sensitivity of the issue for American voters.
Azzam was employed at an Israeli textile plant in Egypt in 1997 when he was arrested and charged with spying for Israel's Mossad intelligence service, using invisible ink hidden in dyed women's underwear. Israel has consistently denied he was a spy but worked hard for his release.
If Sharon were to release Barghouti under a hypothetical deal involving Pollard and Azzam, then the Palestinian armed struggle would only get revved up to new heights under Barghouti's leadership unless Sharon dropped his defiant refusal to accept international legitimacy as the basis for a solution to the Palestinian problem. Since Sharon does not seem to have any intention to shift his stand, the obviously result would be another deadlock.
Probably, Sharon would want that to happen if only to defend himself that he was ready for "negotiations" but the Palestinians asked for the sky and also continued armed attacks against Israelis and hence the deadlock.
That is a strong conclusion emerging from the scene. Otherwise, Sharon would not have allowed Fares and Arab Israeli legislator Jamal Sahalka to visit to visit Barghouti in the cell where he has been held in solitary confinement for 26 months. Sharon would definitely like to play one Palestinian against another while he consolidates his grip on Palestine and create new realities that could not be easily wiped out. That should be a constant source of concern and reason for vigilance for the Palestinian leadership.
Monday, November 22, 2004
A law unto self
November 21 2004
A law unto itself
pv vivekanand
THE video image of an American soldier shooting dead an unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque speaks volumes for the arbitrary manner in which the US military is conducting the war in Iraq with absolute insulation against international prosecution on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The insulation is in the form of protection for every American against being tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is empowered to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Had the international law enshrined in the ICC's statute been applicable to the US, then it is a safe bet that thousands of American soldiers would have been sent by now for ICC trial for their crimes in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unlike the International Court of Justice, which could try sovereign states, the ICC has the authority to charge individuals.
From day one more than a decade ago of discussions on creating such a court, Washington sought to exempt Americans from being governed by the proposed court.
It took many years of the world being unable to do anything except to voice condemnation and indignation over crimes against humanity perpetrated by autocratic governments, armies and mercenaries before the international community could agree, in July 1998, to set up the ICC under the so-called Rome Statute.
The court is complementary to national jurisdictions, and will act only when governments are unable or unwilling to genuinely carry out investigations or prosecutions of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The US refused to sign on to the ICC and launched an international effort to make sure that no country would send an American national to the ICC for trial. It has signed bilateral agreements with more than 80 countries to this effect (One of the first things that the US did after installing a provisional governing council in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq last year was to get the council sign the agreement. Obviously, Washington knew that charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity would be levelled against its military personnel in Iraq and that it was possible at some point in the future they would be asked to account for their action at an international forum).
Carrot and stick policy
The US used a carrot and stick policy to entice countries to sign agreements against extraditing Americans for trial by the ICC. On the one hand, it threatened to cut off aid to countries if they did not sign the agreement and on the other it offered assistance or additional aid to those which signed the accord.
War crimes and crimes against humanity include systematic attacks on civilians; most uses of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons; and violations of Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, such as torturing prisoners.
The ICC can only try cases that involve acts that occurred from July 1, 2002, and those found guilty could be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison to life in jail.
It was always known why the US had adopted and continues to adopt a position against Americans being tried by the ICC and insists on conducting trials involving Americans charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes in American courts: The US maintains military presence over 135 countries and, therefore it does not want to its soldiers to be pulled up and tried under international law regardless of whatever circumstances under which they were accused of committing war crimes.
The underlying motivation is also clear: Exposing Americans to international law on war crimes and crimes against humanity would seriously impede the American quest for global domination through the use of military power.
Over 135 countries have signed the ICC statute, and over 100 governments have already ratified it.
Notable among the countries which have not signed the statute of the ICC and are subject to its provisions are China, India and, sure enough, Israel.
These countries have their own concerns just as the US has its.
Israel, which routinely employs its soldiers in military actions against the Palestinians living under its occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, would be hit hard if it were to sign the ICC convention since its soldiers could be exposed to trials by the court.
The Indian refusal to accept the ICC statute stems from New Delhi's fear that its military personnel could be targeted by the ICC for their activities in Kashmir.
China has concerns that its use of its army and military personnel against dissenters could expose its people for trial at the ICC.
Publicly, the US argues that its demand for immunity against ICC prosecution for its soldiers is a safeguard against politically motivated prosecutions.
"A politicised or a loose cannon prosecutor in a court like that can impose enormous difficulties and disadvantages on people," according to US Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld points out the US has forces in countries all over the globe. "We have no intention of pulling back," said Rumsfeld, adding that it is Washington's prerogative to arrange for "immunities that will protect our forces before we go in" even for peacekeeping operations.
However, European countries like Britain and France which have signed the ICC statute affirm that the court has safeguards to prevent politicised prosecutions, but the US rejects the affirmation.
Judge Richard J Goldstone, who served as the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda from 1994-96, points out that the Rome Statute "contains built-in checks and balances and the treaty has strong mechanisms to ensure that the ICC is used as the court of last resort."
American law says that American soldiers who commit crimes abroad should be handled by US military courts.
However, by and large, the sentences handed down by the US military justice system is nowhere near what the ICC could impose. An example is the one-year sentence handed down to Sergeant Ivan Fredrick, who faced a charge that carried an eight-year sentence after he was found guilty in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.
Efforts at the UN
The US and the UK tried in vain this year to secure a UN Security Council exemption for UN peace-keepers from ICC jurisdiction.
The strongest opponent of the move was the London-based human rights group Amnesty International, which appealed to the UN Security Council that the joint American-British "proposals take away the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to decide these questions and as such violate the integrity of the Rome Statute and undermine the rule of law by in effect granting immunity to nationals of non-states parties to the Rome Statute responsible for the worst possible crimes," it said.
Amnesty International called all members of the Security Council to "reject this proposal or any proposal that would undermine the integrity of international justice."
Subsequently, the US withdrew the proposal when it became apparent that it would not win the nine votes needed for the resolution to pass. Several council members cited the allegations of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the strong opposition of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as the reasons behind their position.
It is quite clear that the US administration has been following a path that gives the US an exceptional exemption from international law. Some examples are: Washington's withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, the World Conference Against Racism, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and rejection of the Geneva Convention rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.
The Fallujah footage broadcast by embedded NBC reporter Kevin Sites could be immediately linked to the US stand on the Geneva Convention, which says that the wounded Iraqi should have been treated as a prisoner of war. The footage leaves no room for any justification whatsoever by the American soldier.
Sites himself said the Iraqi was severely injured, unarmed and did not pose any imminent threat.
Reports say that other Iraqis were found in Fallujah with single-bullet marks in their heads indicating a cold-blooded execution and suggesting that US soldiers are still committing war crimes in Iraq with immunity offered by their own government.
Amnesty International has documents several such incidents. It has expressed "deep concern" that "the rules of war protecting civilians and combatants have been violated in the current fighting between US and Iraqi forces and insurgents" in and around Fallujah.
Pierre Kraehenbuhl, director of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has affirmed that "as hostilities continue in Fallujah and elsewhere, every day seems to bring news of yet another act of utter contempt for the most basic tenet of humanity."
"Like any other armed conflict, this one is subject to limits, and they must be respected at all times," Kraehenbuhl said, adding that respect for international humanitarian law was "an obligation, not an option."
International human rights activists are calling for an in-depth investigation into the US military's behaviour in Iraq with a view to compiling a substantiated and documented record of American violations of international conventions governing the conduct of war and treatment of prisoners of war as well as people under occupation.
As Omar Barghouti, an independent political analyst based in Palestine, observes:
"Despite the fact that the US does not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, such an investigation may still present a crucial, indispensable forum that can exert moral and political pressure on the US and its occupation allies to better respect international law and the rules of war stipulated in it.....
"An American insistence on monopolising the use of arbitrary and overwhelming force with no consideration whatsoever to international law or the UN principles will be viewed by people around the globe as the ultimate proof that the US has actually become a pariah state, putting itself above, if not altogether outside, the law. This has the potential of triggering unprecedented lawlessness and terror across the globe with no universally accepted restraints to hold either in check."
A law unto itself
pv vivekanand
THE video image of an American soldier shooting dead an unarmed Iraqi in a Fallujah mosque speaks volumes for the arbitrary manner in which the US military is conducting the war in Iraq with absolute insulation against international prosecution on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The insulation is in the form of protection for every American against being tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is empowered to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Had the international law enshrined in the ICC's statute been applicable to the US, then it is a safe bet that thousands of American soldiers would have been sent by now for ICC trial for their crimes in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Unlike the International Court of Justice, which could try sovereign states, the ICC has the authority to charge individuals.
From day one more than a decade ago of discussions on creating such a court, Washington sought to exempt Americans from being governed by the proposed court.
It took many years of the world being unable to do anything except to voice condemnation and indignation over crimes against humanity perpetrated by autocratic governments, armies and mercenaries before the international community could agree, in July 1998, to set up the ICC under the so-called Rome Statute.
The court is complementary to national jurisdictions, and will act only when governments are unable or unwilling to genuinely carry out investigations or prosecutions of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The US refused to sign on to the ICC and launched an international effort to make sure that no country would send an American national to the ICC for trial. It has signed bilateral agreements with more than 80 countries to this effect (One of the first things that the US did after installing a provisional governing council in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq last year was to get the council sign the agreement. Obviously, Washington knew that charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity would be levelled against its military personnel in Iraq and that it was possible at some point in the future they would be asked to account for their action at an international forum).
Carrot and stick policy
The US used a carrot and stick policy to entice countries to sign agreements against extraditing Americans for trial by the ICC. On the one hand, it threatened to cut off aid to countries if they did not sign the agreement and on the other it offered assistance or additional aid to those which signed the accord.
War crimes and crimes against humanity include systematic attacks on civilians; most uses of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons; and violations of Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, such as torturing prisoners.
The ICC can only try cases that involve acts that occurred from July 1, 2002, and those found guilty could be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison to life in jail.
It was always known why the US had adopted and continues to adopt a position against Americans being tried by the ICC and insists on conducting trials involving Americans charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes in American courts: The US maintains military presence over 135 countries and, therefore it does not want to its soldiers to be pulled up and tried under international law regardless of whatever circumstances under which they were accused of committing war crimes.
The underlying motivation is also clear: Exposing Americans to international law on war crimes and crimes against humanity would seriously impede the American quest for global domination through the use of military power.
Over 135 countries have signed the ICC statute, and over 100 governments have already ratified it.
Notable among the countries which have not signed the statute of the ICC and are subject to its provisions are China, India and, sure enough, Israel.
These countries have their own concerns just as the US has its.
Israel, which routinely employs its soldiers in military actions against the Palestinians living under its occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, would be hit hard if it were to sign the ICC convention since its soldiers could be exposed to trials by the court.
The Indian refusal to accept the ICC statute stems from New Delhi's fear that its military personnel could be targeted by the ICC for their activities in Kashmir.
China has concerns that its use of its army and military personnel against dissenters could expose its people for trial at the ICC.
Publicly, the US argues that its demand for immunity against ICC prosecution for its soldiers is a safeguard against politically motivated prosecutions.
"A politicised or a loose cannon prosecutor in a court like that can impose enormous difficulties and disadvantages on people," according to US Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld points out the US has forces in countries all over the globe. "We have no intention of pulling back," said Rumsfeld, adding that it is Washington's prerogative to arrange for "immunities that will protect our forces before we go in" even for peacekeeping operations.
However, European countries like Britain and France which have signed the ICC statute affirm that the court has safeguards to prevent politicised prosecutions, but the US rejects the affirmation.
Judge Richard J Goldstone, who served as the chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda from 1994-96, points out that the Rome Statute "contains built-in checks and balances and the treaty has strong mechanisms to ensure that the ICC is used as the court of last resort."
American law says that American soldiers who commit crimes abroad should be handled by US military courts.
However, by and large, the sentences handed down by the US military justice system is nowhere near what the ICC could impose. An example is the one-year sentence handed down to Sergeant Ivan Fredrick, who faced a charge that carried an eight-year sentence after he was found guilty in the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.
Efforts at the UN
The US and the UK tried in vain this year to secure a UN Security Council exemption for UN peace-keepers from ICC jurisdiction.
The strongest opponent of the move was the London-based human rights group Amnesty International, which appealed to the UN Security Council that the joint American-British "proposals take away the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to decide these questions and as such violate the integrity of the Rome Statute and undermine the rule of law by in effect granting immunity to nationals of non-states parties to the Rome Statute responsible for the worst possible crimes," it said.
Amnesty International called all members of the Security Council to "reject this proposal or any proposal that would undermine the integrity of international justice."
Subsequently, the US withdrew the proposal when it became apparent that it would not win the nine votes needed for the resolution to pass. Several council members cited the allegations of torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the strong opposition of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as the reasons behind their position.
It is quite clear that the US administration has been following a path that gives the US an exceptional exemption from international law. Some examples are: Washington's withdrawal from the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, the World Conference Against Racism, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and rejection of the Geneva Convention rules governing the treatment of prisoners of war.
The Fallujah footage broadcast by embedded NBC reporter Kevin Sites could be immediately linked to the US stand on the Geneva Convention, which says that the wounded Iraqi should have been treated as a prisoner of war. The footage leaves no room for any justification whatsoever by the American soldier.
Sites himself said the Iraqi was severely injured, unarmed and did not pose any imminent threat.
Reports say that other Iraqis were found in Fallujah with single-bullet marks in their heads indicating a cold-blooded execution and suggesting that US soldiers are still committing war crimes in Iraq with immunity offered by their own government.
Amnesty International has documents several such incidents. It has expressed "deep concern" that "the rules of war protecting civilians and combatants have been violated in the current fighting between US and Iraqi forces and insurgents" in and around Fallujah.
Pierre Kraehenbuhl, director of the International Committee of the Red Cross, has affirmed that "as hostilities continue in Fallujah and elsewhere, every day seems to bring news of yet another act of utter contempt for the most basic tenet of humanity."
"Like any other armed conflict, this one is subject to limits, and they must be respected at all times," Kraehenbuhl said, adding that respect for international humanitarian law was "an obligation, not an option."
International human rights activists are calling for an in-depth investigation into the US military's behaviour in Iraq with a view to compiling a substantiated and documented record of American violations of international conventions governing the conduct of war and treatment of prisoners of war as well as people under occupation.
As Omar Barghouti, an independent political analyst based in Palestine, observes:
"Despite the fact that the US does not recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC, such an investigation may still present a crucial, indispensable forum that can exert moral and political pressure on the US and its occupation allies to better respect international law and the rules of war stipulated in it.....
"An American insistence on monopolising the use of arbitrary and overwhelming force with no consideration whatsoever to international law or the UN principles will be viewed by people around the globe as the ultimate proof that the US has actually become a pariah state, putting itself above, if not altogether outside, the law. This has the potential of triggering unprecedented lawlessness and terror across the globe with no universally accepted restraints to hold either in check."
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}