Nov.3, 2006
Will Bin Laden vote?
By PV Vivekanand
THE REPUBLICAN camp in the US seems to be waiting for a miracle -- a possible public condemnation of the Bush administration from Osama Bin Laden or his deputy Ayman Zawahiri that could turn the tide in the Nov.7 elections in the Republicans' favour. For it is absolutely necesssary for Al Qaeda to have the Republicans continue in power in Washington in order to press ahead with its "international jihad" that primarily targets the US.
President George W Bush and his neoconservative strategists assert that a Democratic triumph in the elections is a victory for "terrorists" and a loss "for America." That is a short-sighted vision that totally ignores the reality that the policies and approaches followed by the Bush administration are the best contributors to the growth of Al Qaeda and likeminded groups around the world.
Washington says Al Qaeda wants the US out of Iraq. It need not necessarily be so since a US departure from Iraq Ñ and indeed Afghanistan ÑÊwould pull the rug from under the feet of extremists because the American military presence in these two countries have become the cause celebre for them.
Within Iraq, Al Qaeda is believed to constitute less than 10 per cent of the insurgents there. The others represent a mixture of mainly Sunni groups waging a war to end the US occupation of their country. Their objectives are Iraq-specific and their raison d'etre ends when the last US soldier leaves Iraq.
If and when that happens, Al Qaeda would be left on its own with its anti-US agenda and find itself targeted by the former Sunni insurgents.
Intelligence reports and findings of congressional investigations have clearly established that Al Qaeda was not as strong as Bush himself painted it to be and it managed to consolidate its presence and operations in Iraq taking advantage of the US image as an invader and occupier of the country.
It is a widely shared thought among international political and terrorism experts that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was like a "dream coming true" for Al Qaeda.
A Dec. 11, 2005 letter written by a senior Al Qaeda operative known as ÒAtiyahÓ to the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, supports this argument.
In the letter, which was released by the director of national intelligence of the US, Atiyah says that Òthe most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.Ó
He asserted that a US withdrawal from Iraq in 2005 or earlier could have been disastrous for Al Qaeda because it would have deprived the group of the reasons to exist in Iraq.
Al Qaeda wants to keep the US bogged down in Iraq in order to strengthen its influence and continue to wage the bloody guerrilla war against American soldiers. The Bush administration's belligerent policies and refusal to "cut and run" from Iraq serve Bin Laden's interests. The longer the conflict lasts in Iraq the better for Al Qaeda because the US would only get sucked deeper to the imbroglio. Washington does not have a face-saving "exit strategy" that would also help realise even a scaled-down version of the objectives of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, the US is caught in its own trap. And the Iraq war has become a central issue ahead of Nov.7.
Election pundits predict that the Democrats would trounce the Republicans and wrench control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. The Republicans would definitely want a miracle to happen ahead of the elections, and this could be in the form of yet another belligerent and challenging call from Al Qaeda to the incumbent administration.
It is widely accepted that it was a video messsage from Bin Laden that surfaced on Oct.29, 2004 ÑÊfour days before the US presidential election ÑÊthat helped Bush to secure a second term at the White House.
US analysts always expect an "October surprise" in a presidential eleciton year that would help either of the two camps, and the Bin Laden video was indeed one in 2004.
In the video tape, Bin Laden denounced the administration and thumped his nose at Washington. It was a very healthy-looking Bin Laden who appeared in the videoÊwearing a gold-brocaided Arab dress that contradicted the media-portrayed image of a sick and ailing Al Qaeda leader hiding in a cave some place along the Pak-Afghanistan border. His "message" was also a departure from his usual style of shrouding the substance with rhetorics while making statements. He was blunt and straight as if an excellent spindoctor had coached him. He ridiculed Bush and vowed to intensify his fight against the US.
Republican spindoctors jumped at the opportunity. They turned around Bin Laden's "message" and highlighted it as representing his "endorsement" of Bush rival John Kerry who they depicted as too weak to confront extremists around the world. There was an immediate surge of five points in Bush's favour in opinion polls, and he was re-elected (This does not discount the contention by critics that "fradulent" voting took place in several states).
It did not take much imagination to figure out that Bin Laden, by condemning and challenging Bush, was in fact ensuring the president's re-election.
Today, a similar situation could be at hand. With the anti-war fever growing among the American public, the Democrats stand a good chance to dominate the US legislature. If that happens, then there would definitely be a scaling down of Washington's belligerence (although it could not be said that the Democrats would immediately work for an end to the US military presence in Iraq).
Surely, Bin Laden and his people, wherever they are, know this. Why take a chance by not helping the Republicans and thus ensure that the US continues to be seen as an invader and occupier?
The US "staying the course" in Iraq might mean a lot of things for the Bush administration, but for Al Qaeda it means "prolonging the war" ÑÊas Atiyeh put it ÑÊ and serving its own interest. Maintaining silence ahead of the US elections would definitely not be its course of action, which could indeed turn out to be a "November surprise" this election year.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Friday, November 02, 2007
One-eyed act won't work
Nov.2, 2007
One-eyed act won't work
THE thriving piracy in and around Somalia is a blotch on the international law and order situation. Well-armed pirates roaming around in small boats off the coast of Somalia are thumping their nose at the world by hijacking and looting merchant vessels and then demanding ransom for releasing their crew and, quite often, getting away with it.
The International Maritime Bureau says piracy attaks on shipping have increased by 14 per cent in the first three quarters of this year mainly because of a jump in incidents off the west and east coasts of Africa, with Somalia again a key source of concern. Only Indonesia's waters are considered more prone to pirate attacks.
It would seem that we have gone back a century or more in time when notorious pirates roamed the seas. The only missing piece is probably one-eyed characters with hooks for hands going aboard hijacked ships in the high seas from vessels flying the infamous black flags with the deadly skull sign.
The rise in piracy attacks by Somali pirates may or may not have to do anything with the ouster in December of Somalia's Islamists, who cracked down on piracy while they held sway in the capital, Mogadishu, and much of the south of the country, last year. But the international community could not simply hold the interim government in Somalia responsible to take action against the pirates because the UN-backed regime itself is fighting for its survival and does not have what it takes to even think beyond its immediate protection.
Indeed, the best counter-action so far against piracy has come in the form of a French pledge to send a warship to waters off Somalia authorised to take whatever action deemed fit to counter the threat. The French warship is expected to be deployed in November. However, that is not enough. The number of pirate boats stalking commercial vessels is on the rise, and immediate action is needed to counter it.
We have seen the great enthusiasm to send warships to Middle Eastern waters to enforce the UN embargo on Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is only fair for the world to expect the same interest, seriousness and commitment from the same powers to ensure that international maritime shipping is not threatened by some ragtag gunmen who believe in nothing but violence.
One-eyed act won't work
THE thriving piracy in and around Somalia is a blotch on the international law and order situation. Well-armed pirates roaming around in small boats off the coast of Somalia are thumping their nose at the world by hijacking and looting merchant vessels and then demanding ransom for releasing their crew and, quite often, getting away with it.
The International Maritime Bureau says piracy attaks on shipping have increased by 14 per cent in the first three quarters of this year mainly because of a jump in incidents off the west and east coasts of Africa, with Somalia again a key source of concern. Only Indonesia's waters are considered more prone to pirate attacks.
It would seem that we have gone back a century or more in time when notorious pirates roamed the seas. The only missing piece is probably one-eyed characters with hooks for hands going aboard hijacked ships in the high seas from vessels flying the infamous black flags with the deadly skull sign.
The rise in piracy attacks by Somali pirates may or may not have to do anything with the ouster in December of Somalia's Islamists, who cracked down on piracy while they held sway in the capital, Mogadishu, and much of the south of the country, last year. But the international community could not simply hold the interim government in Somalia responsible to take action against the pirates because the UN-backed regime itself is fighting for its survival and does not have what it takes to even think beyond its immediate protection.
Indeed, the best counter-action so far against piracy has come in the form of a French pledge to send a warship to waters off Somalia authorised to take whatever action deemed fit to counter the threat. The French warship is expected to be deployed in November. However, that is not enough. The number of pirate boats stalking commercial vessels is on the rise, and immediate action is needed to counter it.
We have seen the great enthusiasm to send warships to Middle Eastern waters to enforce the UN embargo on Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is only fair for the world to expect the same interest, seriousness and commitment from the same powers to ensure that international maritime shipping is not threatened by some ragtag gunmen who believe in nothing but violence.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Crimes against humanity
Oct.30, 2007
A case of crimes against humanity
THE ISRAELI move to tighten its siege on life in the Gaza Strip is as much politically motivated as it is security oriented as Israeli ministers claim. It is aimed at strengthening the isolation of the Hamas movement, which is in internal control of the Mediterranean coastal strip since mid-June, and pressuring the residents of Gaza to reject the Islamist movement as their political leaders.
More importantly, however, the decision to reduce fuel supplies and the intention to cut back on electricity have a deep humanitarian aspect in that it would deprive the Gazans of essential services and cripple the health sector.
Israeli ministers explain the move as their "only" option to pressure Gaza's Hamas rulers into halt near-daily rocket attacks by resistance groups against Israeli towns. The ministers stay away from mentioning the reality that the Palestinians are frustrated and angry over Israel's rejection of their legitimate political and territorial rights and the Jewish state's obvious determination to impose its will on them through military means. Their daily life is a nightmare, and the situation is not much different in the occupied West Bank either.
Their only option to keep the Israelis reminded of the illegality of their occupation of Palestinian lands is armed resistace as manifested in the rocket attacks that underline the theme that there would no security for Israelis as long as the Palestinians do not have security.
Obviously, Israel is hoping that the tightening of its siege of Gaza would increase the Gazans' frustration to a point where they would reject Hamas as their leaders. However, the Israeli leaders have not learnt from the experience elsewhere, particularly Iraq, where a majority of the people living through the international sanctions under the Saddam Hussein regime saw the US as their enemy. Indeed, the US solution to the problem was invasion and occupation, but that solution is not feasible for Israel in the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas movement has defiantly declared that Gaza could survive any Israeli siege, but it is obvious that it would not be the case as the Israelis tighten their stranglehold on the territory.
Given the deadlock that pre-empts any immediate change in the Israel-Hamas equation, the international community is left with the option to insist that the Jewish state respect international conventions and charters. Although Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it continues to control Gaza land, sea and air corridors. As such, it is responsible under international law and conventions to ensure that the people living under its control are not deprived of the basic necessities to survive. If it fails to live up to this responsibility and obligation, then there should be no doubt in the international conscience, including Israel's staunchest backers, that the political and military leaders of the Jewish state qualify to be tried on charges of crimes against humanity.
A case of crimes against humanity
THE ISRAELI move to tighten its siege on life in the Gaza Strip is as much politically motivated as it is security oriented as Israeli ministers claim. It is aimed at strengthening the isolation of the Hamas movement, which is in internal control of the Mediterranean coastal strip since mid-June, and pressuring the residents of Gaza to reject the Islamist movement as their political leaders.
More importantly, however, the decision to reduce fuel supplies and the intention to cut back on electricity have a deep humanitarian aspect in that it would deprive the Gazans of essential services and cripple the health sector.
Israeli ministers explain the move as their "only" option to pressure Gaza's Hamas rulers into halt near-daily rocket attacks by resistance groups against Israeli towns. The ministers stay away from mentioning the reality that the Palestinians are frustrated and angry over Israel's rejection of their legitimate political and territorial rights and the Jewish state's obvious determination to impose its will on them through military means. Their daily life is a nightmare, and the situation is not much different in the occupied West Bank either.
Their only option to keep the Israelis reminded of the illegality of their occupation of Palestinian lands is armed resistace as manifested in the rocket attacks that underline the theme that there would no security for Israelis as long as the Palestinians do not have security.
Obviously, Israel is hoping that the tightening of its siege of Gaza would increase the Gazans' frustration to a point where they would reject Hamas as their leaders. However, the Israeli leaders have not learnt from the experience elsewhere, particularly Iraq, where a majority of the people living through the international sanctions under the Saddam Hussein regime saw the US as their enemy. Indeed, the US solution to the problem was invasion and occupation, but that solution is not feasible for Israel in the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas movement has defiantly declared that Gaza could survive any Israeli siege, but it is obvious that it would not be the case as the Israelis tighten their stranglehold on the territory.
Given the deadlock that pre-empts any immediate change in the Israel-Hamas equation, the international community is left with the option to insist that the Jewish state respect international conventions and charters. Although Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it continues to control Gaza land, sea and air corridors. As such, it is responsible under international law and conventions to ensure that the people living under its control are not deprived of the basic necessities to survive. If it fails to live up to this responsibility and obligation, then there should be no doubt in the international conscience, including Israel's staunchest backers, that the political and military leaders of the Jewish state qualify to be tried on charges of crimes against humanity.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Oversight with undersight goals
Oct.24, 2007
Oversight with undersight goals
THE announcement that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered tougher oversight of private guards in Iraq, including tighter rules on the use of force, is part of a process leading to allowing US security contractor Blackwater and other foreign security firms to remain there and continue their lucrative contracts there.
The Iraqi government's decision on Tuesday to lift the immunity offered to foreign security contractors could not be retroactive, and hence Blackwater could not be taken to task for killings of Iraqi civilians last month in Baghdad and earlier incidents elsewhere. The best "compromise" could involve Blackwater removing its guards involved in the Baghdad shooting.
State Department officials are offering a detailed explanation of the measures ordered by Rice that include improved training and clearer rules of engagement, better co-ordination with the US military as well as cultural sensitivity training for guards and more Arabic speakers. More such measures are in the pipeline, they say.
These are definitely designed to appease the Iraqis in the build-up to the expected decision that the Iraqi government is dropping its insistence that Blackwater USA pack up and leave the country.
The whole exercise was prompted by the Iraqi finding that Blackwater guards were not provoked into opening fire and killing at least 17 innocent Iraqis in the heart of Baghdad on Sept.16 and the Iraqi government's insistence early this month that the US company should leave the country in six months.
The Iraqi government had no option but to take such a tough stand because of the heat of pressure from the Iraqi people amid serious differences with the US administration.
All indications are that there is more to it than meets the eye in the "business" relationship between the US government and Blackwater USA.
The facts are clear: Blackwater is currently the largest of the US State Department's three private security contractors, providing a total of about 1,000 security guards. At least 90 per cent of Blackwater's revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.
Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects US officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.
There is a possibly sinister aspect of the US administration's links with Blackwater. US Senator John Kerry has asked the administration to explain whether it played any role it played in the possible evasion of nearly $32 million in taxes by Blackwater USA.
Kerry accuses the administration of trying to protect the company.
The government "cannot hide Blackwater in the shadows anymore -- it's time to bring all of their dealings to light," he said.
The charge of "significant tax evasion" was first raised by another Democratic member of congress, Henry Waxman. The only defence Blackwater put up was an assertion that Waxman was incorrect in contending that Blackwater personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be treated as independent contractors but rather as employees for tax purposes.
It would seem, pending an explanation from the concerned authorities, that the administration went along and helped determine that for tax purposes Blackwater security contractors are not employees.
With the government having that kind of a relationship with a company which has a $1 billion "security contract" ÑÊeach Blackwater guard in Iraq costs the US taxpayers $450,000 a year ÑÊit is no wonder that Washington is pulling all the plugs in order to ensure that the company stays on in Iraq. The net result: The Iraqis could shout and scream against foreign security contractors having the run of their land and shooting and killing them at will, but little is going to change on the ground except meaningless investigations and inquiries and new "ground rules" that effectively mean maintaining the status quo.
After all, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq to allow itself to be pushed around by the people of Iraq.
Oversight with undersight goals
THE announcement that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered tougher oversight of private guards in Iraq, including tighter rules on the use of force, is part of a process leading to allowing US security contractor Blackwater and other foreign security firms to remain there and continue their lucrative contracts there.
The Iraqi government's decision on Tuesday to lift the immunity offered to foreign security contractors could not be retroactive, and hence Blackwater could not be taken to task for killings of Iraqi civilians last month in Baghdad and earlier incidents elsewhere. The best "compromise" could involve Blackwater removing its guards involved in the Baghdad shooting.
State Department officials are offering a detailed explanation of the measures ordered by Rice that include improved training and clearer rules of engagement, better co-ordination with the US military as well as cultural sensitivity training for guards and more Arabic speakers. More such measures are in the pipeline, they say.
These are definitely designed to appease the Iraqis in the build-up to the expected decision that the Iraqi government is dropping its insistence that Blackwater USA pack up and leave the country.
The whole exercise was prompted by the Iraqi finding that Blackwater guards were not provoked into opening fire and killing at least 17 innocent Iraqis in the heart of Baghdad on Sept.16 and the Iraqi government's insistence early this month that the US company should leave the country in six months.
The Iraqi government had no option but to take such a tough stand because of the heat of pressure from the Iraqi people amid serious differences with the US administration.
All indications are that there is more to it than meets the eye in the "business" relationship between the US government and Blackwater USA.
The facts are clear: Blackwater is currently the largest of the US State Department's three private security contractors, providing a total of about 1,000 security guards. At least 90 per cent of Blackwater's revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.
Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects US officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.
There is a possibly sinister aspect of the US administration's links with Blackwater. US Senator John Kerry has asked the administration to explain whether it played any role it played in the possible evasion of nearly $32 million in taxes by Blackwater USA.
Kerry accuses the administration of trying to protect the company.
The government "cannot hide Blackwater in the shadows anymore -- it's time to bring all of their dealings to light," he said.
The charge of "significant tax evasion" was first raised by another Democratic member of congress, Henry Waxman. The only defence Blackwater put up was an assertion that Waxman was incorrect in contending that Blackwater personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be treated as independent contractors but rather as employees for tax purposes.
It would seem, pending an explanation from the concerned authorities, that the administration went along and helped determine that for tax purposes Blackwater security contractors are not employees.
With the government having that kind of a relationship with a company which has a $1 billion "security contract" ÑÊeach Blackwater guard in Iraq costs the US taxpayers $450,000 a year ÑÊit is no wonder that Washington is pulling all the plugs in order to ensure that the company stays on in Iraq. The net result: The Iraqis could shout and scream against foreign security contractors having the run of their land and shooting and killing them at will, but little is going to change on the ground except meaningless investigations and inquiries and new "ground rules" that effectively mean maintaining the status quo.
After all, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq to allow itself to be pushed around by the people of Iraq.
Best-laid plans go awry
Oct.24, 2007
Best-laid plans poised to go awry
TURKEY's move to stage cross-border military operations against the Turkish Kurdish rebels operating out of northern Iraq poses a dilemma for the US on several fronts. The issue is of also of grave concern to Israel, which has its own agenda in northern Iraq.
It is clear that any Turkish military operation would lead to serious destabilisation of northern Iraq, which is administered by Iraqi Kurds and the only area in Iraq where relative tranquility prevails while the US grapples with the raging insurgency in other parts of the country.
The situation becomes more complicated when seen against the certainty that the Turkish move would not be limited to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are carrying out attacks against Turkish interests while based in the mountainous areas of northern Iraq. Ankara would definitely use the opportunity to strike at Iraqi Kurds whose dreams of independence pose serious threats Turkey, which has a sizeable Kurdish content in its population near the border with Iraq.
Acutely aware of the possibility of being targeted by Turkey, Iraqi Kurds have vowed to fight any Turkish move into northern Iraq.
The US has limited options in the situation. Washington has links with Iranian Kurdish rebels grouped under an organisation called PEJAK, which, according to expert reports, is another face of the PKK.
Iranian Kurds is a tool in the US campaign against the Tehran regime. Even members of American Congress have noted that PEJAK could not be operating successfully from northern Iraq against Iran without US knowledge, support, and co-ordination.
Washington has asked the Iraqi Kurds to prevent PKK cross-border attacks against Turkey, but has made no reference to the PEJAK; it could not have been expected to do so either.
Equally relevant here are Israel's connections with PEJAK. The Jewish state maintains a strong intelligence presence in northern Iraq near the border with Iran in order to monitor developments in Iran with help from PEJAK. The Israeli alliance with the Kurds has strained the Jewish state's relations with Turkey, with Ankara issuing public and private warnings against it.
However, the alliance is far too important for Israel to abandon.
The so-called Greater Kurdistan covers parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria and is an ideal base from which to carry out operations aimed at destabilising Israel's foes.
It was a well-oiled applecart of Kurdish links that the US and Israel had been operating in northern Iraq since the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003. The situation got out of hand because the PKK became overzealous in its operations against Turkey, and now the US and Israel find themselves facing the prospect of their applecart being overturned and hence the surge in American efforts to contain the situation.
Best-laid plans poised to go awry
TURKEY's move to stage cross-border military operations against the Turkish Kurdish rebels operating out of northern Iraq poses a dilemma for the US on several fronts. The issue is of also of grave concern to Israel, which has its own agenda in northern Iraq.
It is clear that any Turkish military operation would lead to serious destabilisation of northern Iraq, which is administered by Iraqi Kurds and the only area in Iraq where relative tranquility prevails while the US grapples with the raging insurgency in other parts of the country.
The situation becomes more complicated when seen against the certainty that the Turkish move would not be limited to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are carrying out attacks against Turkish interests while based in the mountainous areas of northern Iraq. Ankara would definitely use the opportunity to strike at Iraqi Kurds whose dreams of independence pose serious threats Turkey, which has a sizeable Kurdish content in its population near the border with Iraq.
Acutely aware of the possibility of being targeted by Turkey, Iraqi Kurds have vowed to fight any Turkish move into northern Iraq.
The US has limited options in the situation. Washington has links with Iranian Kurdish rebels grouped under an organisation called PEJAK, which, according to expert reports, is another face of the PKK.
Iranian Kurds is a tool in the US campaign against the Tehran regime. Even members of American Congress have noted that PEJAK could not be operating successfully from northern Iraq against Iran without US knowledge, support, and co-ordination.
Washington has asked the Iraqi Kurds to prevent PKK cross-border attacks against Turkey, but has made no reference to the PEJAK; it could not have been expected to do so either.
Equally relevant here are Israel's connections with PEJAK. The Jewish state maintains a strong intelligence presence in northern Iraq near the border with Iran in order to monitor developments in Iran with help from PEJAK. The Israeli alliance with the Kurds has strained the Jewish state's relations with Turkey, with Ankara issuing public and private warnings against it.
However, the alliance is far too important for Israel to abandon.
The so-called Greater Kurdistan covers parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria and is an ideal base from which to carry out operations aimed at destabilising Israel's foes.
It was a well-oiled applecart of Kurdish links that the US and Israel had been operating in northern Iraq since the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003. The situation got out of hand because the PKK became overzealous in its operations against Turkey, and now the US and Israel find themselves facing the prospect of their applecart being overturned and hence the surge in American efforts to contain the situation.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Priority of the day
Oct.20, 2007
The priority of the day
The despicable midnight suicide attack that killed about 150 people and shattered the homecoming of Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday is a stark reminder of the urgent need to tackle militancy and extremism linked to Afghanistan.
We do not know for sure yet who was behind the blast, but Pakistani authorities say that it might have been the work of Al Qaeda and the Taliban because it bore the hallmarks of militants linked to pro-Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud and Al Qaeda.
Mehsud, said to be the most prominent leader of militants destabilizing its northwestern border regions near Afghanistan ÑÊhad reportedly vowed to greet Bhutto's return to Pakistan with suicide attacks.
There were warnings of attack that were passed on to Bhutto's Pakistan's People's Party but PPP supporters, celebrating her return after eight years in exile, appeared not to have taken the need for security seriously, according to the authorities.
The real loosers in the back-to-back explosions are the families of those died and who were wounded in the attacks, which again underlined that there are forces at work which do not care for human life as long as their meaningless purposes are served. We wonder what purpose was served indeed by the suicide bombings except killing innocent people whose only fault was that they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
At the same time, Pakistan itself is a equal loser because the bombings also aimed at the country's democracy that should survive whatever the current crises and raised serious questions about the extent to which militants and sinister forces have penetrated the Pakistani society and body politik.
It is time for the people of Pakistan to bury all political differences and come together to confront the common challenge. The bombings should not be allowed to have any impact on reconciliation efforts between President General Pervez Musharraf and Bhutto or any other move towards addressing the political crises of the country. If anything the attack should toughen everyone's resolve to fight militancy together, and the first sign of such a positive move came with the news that Musharraf telephoned Bhutto on Friday to offer his condolences over the bombings and to "convey his deepest sorrow over the terrorist attack. "
While voting to arrest the culprits, Musharraf also cautioned that no one should exploit of the situation and start a blame game.
Fighting militancy is a tough mission that could never be completed. Pakistan's leaders and people should stand together with the common agenda of fighting militancy in the country with an iron hand. Everything else could come in due time.
The priority of the day
The despicable midnight suicide attack that killed about 150 people and shattered the homecoming of Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday is a stark reminder of the urgent need to tackle militancy and extremism linked to Afghanistan.
We do not know for sure yet who was behind the blast, but Pakistani authorities say that it might have been the work of Al Qaeda and the Taliban because it bore the hallmarks of militants linked to pro-Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud and Al Qaeda.
Mehsud, said to be the most prominent leader of militants destabilizing its northwestern border regions near Afghanistan ÑÊhad reportedly vowed to greet Bhutto's return to Pakistan with suicide attacks.
There were warnings of attack that were passed on to Bhutto's Pakistan's People's Party but PPP supporters, celebrating her return after eight years in exile, appeared not to have taken the need for security seriously, according to the authorities.
The real loosers in the back-to-back explosions are the families of those died and who were wounded in the attacks, which again underlined that there are forces at work which do not care for human life as long as their meaningless purposes are served. We wonder what purpose was served indeed by the suicide bombings except killing innocent people whose only fault was that they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
At the same time, Pakistan itself is a equal loser because the bombings also aimed at the country's democracy that should survive whatever the current crises and raised serious questions about the extent to which militants and sinister forces have penetrated the Pakistani society and body politik.
It is time for the people of Pakistan to bury all political differences and come together to confront the common challenge. The bombings should not be allowed to have any impact on reconciliation efforts between President General Pervez Musharraf and Bhutto or any other move towards addressing the political crises of the country. If anything the attack should toughen everyone's resolve to fight militancy together, and the first sign of such a positive move came with the news that Musharraf telephoned Bhutto on Friday to offer his condolences over the bombings and to "convey his deepest sorrow over the terrorist attack. "
While voting to arrest the culprits, Musharraf also cautioned that no one should exploit of the situation and start a blame game.
Fighting militancy is a tough mission that could never be completed. Pakistan's leaders and people should stand together with the common agenda of fighting militancy in the country with an iron hand. Everything else could come in due time.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Questions over a non-existent mission
Oct.18, 2007
Questions over a non-existent mission
AMONG the points being raised in the ongoing debate in the US over the Blackwater scandal is whether the security company's actions in Iraq have undermined what is conveniently described as the US mission in the country.
Let us put in the right perspective the Blackwater killing of 17 innocent Iraqis pm Sept.16 and the murder of two other Iraqis by the Australian Unity company this month. Blackwater, Unity and the horde of foreign security companies which flocked to post-war Iraq are nothing but hired mercenaries . The marked difference though is that both the uniformed American soldiers as well as the privatised mercenaries a are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping. They are eplaying the field like masters whose actions have little regard for human life in a land where the authorities are in no position to protect themselves let alone their people.
The simple reality is that the privatised mercenaries as well as the uniformed American soldiers are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq might indeed have beeen a mission for some people in the US, but for the international community it was an act of gross deception and an inexcusable violation of every code of conduct and international charters and conventions.
As such, the question linking the so-called US mission in Iraq to the behaviour of foreign security companies like Blackwater does not exist except in the minds of the hawks in Washington for whom the people of Iraq are only pawns in a sinister game involving US/Israeli geopolitical and energy interests and the American quest for global supremacy.
Well, for us in the Middle East and indeed in the broader global scene, there is no bad, good or better war. There should be no war except of course in cases where there is no other option but use of military force in defence of upholding human rights, international legitimacy and the rights of people and countries as enshrined in the UN Charter and all other related conventions and treaties. Again, there has to be a global consensus before exercising the option of use of military force.
The US war against Iraq has no relation whatsover to this basic premise. The US has no legitimacy in post-Iraq except as an occupation power. That also removes any ground for legitimacy in Iraq for anyone hired by the US.
Another point of debate in some of the mainstream reporting in the US is whether companies like Blackwater and Unity are turning a good war into a bad war and whether it is possible to wage a better war against the insurgency in Iraq.
Members of the US Congress are demanding to know "whether failures to hold Blackwater personnel accountable for misconduct undermine our efforts in Iraq." They assert that Blackwater's "actions may be undermining our mission in Iraq and really hurting the relationship and trust between the Iraqi people and the American military."
What an irony! It is naive at best for anyone to assume that there is a relationship of trust between the people of Iraq and the US military, for such has been the US behaviour in the country. There might be a handful of people who have allowed themselves to be enlisted to co-operate with the US military against foreign insurgents, but they represent only a small minority. For an overwhelming majority of Iraqis — including the dominant groups — the question is when the US military will pack up and leave the country and take along with them the privatised mercenaries.
Questions over a non-existent mission
AMONG the points being raised in the ongoing debate in the US over the Blackwater scandal is whether the security company's actions in Iraq have undermined what is conveniently described as the US mission in the country.
Let us put in the right perspective the Blackwater killing of 17 innocent Iraqis pm Sept.16 and the murder of two other Iraqis by the Australian Unity company this month. Blackwater, Unity and the horde of foreign security companies which flocked to post-war Iraq are nothing but hired mercenaries . The marked difference though is that both the uniformed American soldiers as well as the privatised mercenaries a are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping. They are eplaying the field like masters whose actions have little regard for human life in a land where the authorities are in no position to protect themselves let alone their people.
The simple reality is that the privatised mercenaries as well as the uniformed American soldiers are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq might indeed have beeen a mission for some people in the US, but for the international community it was an act of gross deception and an inexcusable violation of every code of conduct and international charters and conventions.
As such, the question linking the so-called US mission in Iraq to the behaviour of foreign security companies like Blackwater does not exist except in the minds of the hawks in Washington for whom the people of Iraq are only pawns in a sinister game involving US/Israeli geopolitical and energy interests and the American quest for global supremacy.
Well, for us in the Middle East and indeed in the broader global scene, there is no bad, good or better war. There should be no war except of course in cases where there is no other option but use of military force in defence of upholding human rights, international legitimacy and the rights of people and countries as enshrined in the UN Charter and all other related conventions and treaties. Again, there has to be a global consensus before exercising the option of use of military force.
The US war against Iraq has no relation whatsover to this basic premise. The US has no legitimacy in post-Iraq except as an occupation power. That also removes any ground for legitimacy in Iraq for anyone hired by the US.
Another point of debate in some of the mainstream reporting in the US is whether companies like Blackwater and Unity are turning a good war into a bad war and whether it is possible to wage a better war against the insurgency in Iraq.
Members of the US Congress are demanding to know "whether failures to hold Blackwater personnel accountable for misconduct undermine our efforts in Iraq." They assert that Blackwater's "actions may be undermining our mission in Iraq and really hurting the relationship and trust between the Iraqi people and the American military."
What an irony! It is naive at best for anyone to assume that there is a relationship of trust between the people of Iraq and the US military, for such has been the US behaviour in the country. There might be a handful of people who have allowed themselves to be enlisted to co-operate with the US military against foreign insurgents, but they represent only a small minority. For an overwhelming majority of Iraqis — including the dominant groups — the question is when the US military will pack up and leave the country and take along with them the privatised mercenaries.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
No more photo ops please
Oct.17, 2007
No more photo opportunities please
THE political leaders of Israel and the US are anxious that the proposed conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace is not only held but also produces something tangible that could be shown to to their constituencies and the international community even it leads to nowhere thereafter.
That is the bottom line. However, for the Arab World and the Palestinians it is imperative that the conference is turned into a solid platform for launching an irreversible process that would lead to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace by addressing all dimensions of the conflict.
US President George W Bush wants a diversion of world and domestic attention from the fiasco he created with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The conference itself and some sign of progress towards Israeli-Palestinian negotiations — even without any certainty of where the process would lead to — seem to be acceptable to Washington, which would soon enter the throes of presidential elections, and no one could be expected to give Arab-Israeli peace a priority.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is haunted by last year's Lebanon debacle and graft scandals, hopes that the conference would take some of the heat away from the political pressure that is being brought to bear upon him as allegations surface one after another. At the same time, he is playing his cards close to his chest and is also careful that he gives away little to the Palestinians in any peace agreement.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who received a serious setback with the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June that gave an ugly twist to the Palestinian struggle for independence, is anxious to lift the logjams and resume negotiations with Israel based on clearly defined goals which include the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital. Abbas seems to believe that an agreement with Israel on clearly defined principles for peace even while Hamas, which is calling for a boycott of the conference, remains in control of Gaza would be an answer in itself to his rivarly with the Islamist group and open doors for internal Palestinian compromises.
The Arab World is sceptical in the absence of a clear affirmation on the part of the US that the Arab initiative would be the central pillar of any Arab-Israeli peace agreement because the initiative offers the best terms for both sides if there is mutual trust and confidence and commitment to international legitimacy and UN resolutions.
That explains why Egypt has demanded that the conference be postponed if there is no prior agreement on the basis for the talks. Similarly, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have stated that they find the proposed meeting a wasted effort without clearly agreement in advance that justice, fairness, logic, reason and international legitimacy — as enshrined in the Arab initiative — would be the basis for peace in the Middle East.
It is the most valid and relevant demand at this point in time. There is no ambiguity there. The objective of the proposed meeting should not be serving the internal political agendas of the players involved, but creating a process based on solid grounds leading to just, fair, comprehensive and durable Arab-Israeli peace. If it takes time to set the proper ground and pave the way towards this objective, let it be so. The US-proposed conference or any other forum to discuss Arab-Israeli peace should not be turned into a photo opportunity. We have seen enough and more of that already.
No more photo opportunities please
THE political leaders of Israel and the US are anxious that the proposed conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace is not only held but also produces something tangible that could be shown to to their constituencies and the international community even it leads to nowhere thereafter.
That is the bottom line. However, for the Arab World and the Palestinians it is imperative that the conference is turned into a solid platform for launching an irreversible process that would lead to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace by addressing all dimensions of the conflict.
US President George W Bush wants a diversion of world and domestic attention from the fiasco he created with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The conference itself and some sign of progress towards Israeli-Palestinian negotiations — even without any certainty of where the process would lead to — seem to be acceptable to Washington, which would soon enter the throes of presidential elections, and no one could be expected to give Arab-Israeli peace a priority.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is haunted by last year's Lebanon debacle and graft scandals, hopes that the conference would take some of the heat away from the political pressure that is being brought to bear upon him as allegations surface one after another. At the same time, he is playing his cards close to his chest and is also careful that he gives away little to the Palestinians in any peace agreement.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who received a serious setback with the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June that gave an ugly twist to the Palestinian struggle for independence, is anxious to lift the logjams and resume negotiations with Israel based on clearly defined goals which include the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital. Abbas seems to believe that an agreement with Israel on clearly defined principles for peace even while Hamas, which is calling for a boycott of the conference, remains in control of Gaza would be an answer in itself to his rivarly with the Islamist group and open doors for internal Palestinian compromises.
The Arab World is sceptical in the absence of a clear affirmation on the part of the US that the Arab initiative would be the central pillar of any Arab-Israeli peace agreement because the initiative offers the best terms for both sides if there is mutual trust and confidence and commitment to international legitimacy and UN resolutions.
That explains why Egypt has demanded that the conference be postponed if there is no prior agreement on the basis for the talks. Similarly, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have stated that they find the proposed meeting a wasted effort without clearly agreement in advance that justice, fairness, logic, reason and international legitimacy — as enshrined in the Arab initiative — would be the basis for peace in the Middle East.
It is the most valid and relevant demand at this point in time. There is no ambiguity there. The objective of the proposed meeting should not be serving the internal political agendas of the players involved, but creating a process based on solid grounds leading to just, fair, comprehensive and durable Arab-Israeli peace. If it takes time to set the proper ground and pave the way towards this objective, let it be so. The US-proposed conference or any other forum to discuss Arab-Israeli peace should not be turned into a photo opportunity. We have seen enough and more of that already.
Kordofan could add to Sudan woes
Oct.17, 2007
Kordofan could add to Sudan woes
THE political crisis in Sudan sparked by the southerners' decision to quit the government and the escalation of violence in the western Darfur region has a graver dimension — it could trigger a a full-blown conflict in the oil-rich Sudanese region of Kordofan.
Reports say that Kordofan is already rife with discontent towards Khartoum, with an increasing number of groups claiming grievances very similar to those that led to the eruption of the Darfur revolt in early 2003. Kordofan residents complain that they have been for long neglected and marginalised. Unemployment is high in the area, leaving many young men there bitter and discontented. Shortcomings in the government's response to provide assistance and rehabilitation following recent floods there have raised the local residents' anger and frustration, reports say.
Darfur rebels are accused of trying to take their revolt to Kordofan and the Khartoum government is reportedly building a strong military forces there in order to counter the dissidents.
Haskanita, where 10 African Union (AU) peacekeepers were killed in September in an attack blamed on Darfur rebels, lies on the border with Kordofan. The attack followed a deadly raid against police inside Kordofan in August.
The oil-rich Abyei region, the status of which is still under dispute between the government and the southerners despite the 2005 north-south peace agreement, lies in South Kordofan. The unresolved question is whether the Abyei region belongs to the north or south. It is one of the key demands of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which suspended its participation in the country's unity government last week. The SPLM is also demanding a re-shuffle of ministerial posts inside the coalition government. The group is very active and popular in the area. As such, the failure of efforts to end the standoff between the Khartoum government and SPLM would have an immediate impact on the brewing crisis in Kordofan.
UN mediation seems to have produced a small opening. The SPLM has agreed to find a common ground with the government and presented a list of its demands to the government. It is unclear how the government was responding to the demands.
The Arab World and Sudan's neighbours Africa as well as the UN — plus of course countries with vested interests in Sudan's oil resources — are anxiously watching how the situation develops.
One thing is clear: The collapse of the unity government in Khartoum would have serious consequences, with the added prospect of a violent flare-up in the Kordofan region that would be a big blow to hopes that the people of Sudan were slowly moving out of the days of misery and suffering.
Kordofan could add to Sudan woes
THE political crisis in Sudan sparked by the southerners' decision to quit the government and the escalation of violence in the western Darfur region has a graver dimension — it could trigger a a full-blown conflict in the oil-rich Sudanese region of Kordofan.
Reports say that Kordofan is already rife with discontent towards Khartoum, with an increasing number of groups claiming grievances very similar to those that led to the eruption of the Darfur revolt in early 2003. Kordofan residents complain that they have been for long neglected and marginalised. Unemployment is high in the area, leaving many young men there bitter and discontented. Shortcomings in the government's response to provide assistance and rehabilitation following recent floods there have raised the local residents' anger and frustration, reports say.
Darfur rebels are accused of trying to take their revolt to Kordofan and the Khartoum government is reportedly building a strong military forces there in order to counter the dissidents.
Haskanita, where 10 African Union (AU) peacekeepers were killed in September in an attack blamed on Darfur rebels, lies on the border with Kordofan. The attack followed a deadly raid against police inside Kordofan in August.
The oil-rich Abyei region, the status of which is still under dispute between the government and the southerners despite the 2005 north-south peace agreement, lies in South Kordofan. The unresolved question is whether the Abyei region belongs to the north or south. It is one of the key demands of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which suspended its participation in the country's unity government last week. The SPLM is also demanding a re-shuffle of ministerial posts inside the coalition government. The group is very active and popular in the area. As such, the failure of efforts to end the standoff between the Khartoum government and SPLM would have an immediate impact on the brewing crisis in Kordofan.
UN mediation seems to have produced a small opening. The SPLM has agreed to find a common ground with the government and presented a list of its demands to the government. It is unclear how the government was responding to the demands.
The Arab World and Sudan's neighbours Africa as well as the UN — plus of course countries with vested interests in Sudan's oil resources — are anxiously watching how the situation develops.
One thing is clear: The collapse of the unity government in Khartoum would have serious consequences, with the added prospect of a violent flare-up in the Kordofan region that would be a big blow to hopes that the people of Sudan were slowly moving out of the days of misery and suffering.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Rendition - gross misuse of power
Oct.16, 2007
Rendition - gross misuse of power
By PV Vivekanand
THE CASE OF Khaled El Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, is a blaring example of how US agencies misuse their "authority" to kidnap and detain anyone suspected of having endangered American lives and use "secrecy laws" to pre-empt any legal proceedings against them.
Masri, a used-car salesman, was detained by Macedonian security agents while he was on vacation in Macedonia and then handed over
to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which in turn put him in a diaper, a belt with chains to his wrists and ankles, earmuffs, eye pads, a blindfold, and a hood. He was drugged and placed inside a plane, his legs and arms spread-eagled and secured to the floor and whisked off — "rendered" in US intelligence parlance — to a "black site" in Afghanistan, where was detained in secret, interrogated and tortured for five months.
Then the CIA realised that it had the wrong man. They had mistaken Khaled El Masri for Khalid Al Masri, a suspected member of the alleged Al Qaeda cell that carried out of the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. Someone, somewhere in a position of authority had simply refused to entertain the possibility of mistaken identity for five months during which the German citizen endured torture and agony.
The agency opted to fly the detainee to Albania and dump him in an isolated spot there. He was never charged with a crime.
Masri found his way back home from Albania and then launched a lawsuit against the CIA citing unlawful arrest, kidnap and detention. Masri, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sought an apology and monetary compensation the CIA.
The case named former CIA director George Tenet and other CIA officials. Also named were four US-based aviation corporations with violations of US and universal human rights laws by allowing their aircraft to be used to fly detainees under the CIA's policy of "extraordinary rendition."
However, a US Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the government's argument that state secrets might be jeopardised if the case were allowed to move forward and rejected the case. Masri took the issue to the US Supreme Court but was against rebuffed. The Supreme Court simply declined to overrule the lower court.
Another case of the US policy known as "extraordinary rendition" that was highlighted in the media is that of Maher Arar.
Arar , a Candian citizen of Arab origin, was detained by US officials at New York's JFK airport as he landed there from Switzerland in September 2002. He was interrogated, denied access to a lawyer or family (this privilege is offered only to US nationals), accused of terrorist links, and sent by special plane to Syria. (Arar says he was the only passenger in the luxury aircraft, but he was shackled).
He says he was tortured and humiliated while in Syrian detention before being released nearly one year later, with the Syrian authorities saying they found no links between him and terrorism.
After his release, Arar, like Masri, file a case against the US government. Again, the US government cited national security and the case was dismissed.
Arar is now is working with the Center for Constitutional Rights to appeal against the dismissal. (A detailed list of cases are available on www.wikipedia.org).
International human rights organisations have found that the US government stands in blatant violation of human rights and international conventions because of its policy of "extraordinary rendition," secret detention, and torture.
No one has any clear idea about how many persons were subjected the illegal practice of being illegally detained and secretly flown to third countries to be subjeced to human rights abuses including torture.
The operations are conducted in utmost secrecy and when they do come out as in the cases of Masri and Arar, the US government cites secrecy laws and national secuity and gets away with it.
The lesson to be learnt: The US administraton could violate any law without question and then prevent legal action by declaring that any disclosure of any fact in a court of law would violate the country's "secrecy laws" and thus jeopardise national security.
Indeed, in principle, every government needs the privilege of state secrets and special authority to cite national security to hold back sensitive details that could be used against the country. However, it is a different issue when it comes to citing secrecy laws to defend the government itself against charges of violating human rights.
As experts familar with the Masri and Arar cases have noted, there is no justifiable and legitimate room for the Bush administration to cite secrecy laws to defend its illegal action of kidnapping and torturing someone. The victims have the right to have their cases heard and the US government being asked to explain its position and reasons without being given the benefit of abusing the legitimacy of secrecy laws and interests of national security.
Rendition - gross misuse of power
By PV Vivekanand
THE CASE OF Khaled El Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, is a blaring example of how US agencies misuse their "authority" to kidnap and detain anyone suspected of having endangered American lives and use "secrecy laws" to pre-empt any legal proceedings against them.
Masri, a used-car salesman, was detained by Macedonian security agents while he was on vacation in Macedonia and then handed over
to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which in turn put him in a diaper, a belt with chains to his wrists and ankles, earmuffs, eye pads, a blindfold, and a hood. He was drugged and placed inside a plane, his legs and arms spread-eagled and secured to the floor and whisked off — "rendered" in US intelligence parlance — to a "black site" in Afghanistan, where was detained in secret, interrogated and tortured for five months.
Then the CIA realised that it had the wrong man. They had mistaken Khaled El Masri for Khalid Al Masri, a suspected member of the alleged Al Qaeda cell that carried out of the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington. Someone, somewhere in a position of authority had simply refused to entertain the possibility of mistaken identity for five months during which the German citizen endured torture and agony.
The agency opted to fly the detainee to Albania and dump him in an isolated spot there. He was never charged with a crime.
Masri found his way back home from Albania and then launched a lawsuit against the CIA citing unlawful arrest, kidnap and detention. Masri, who is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sought an apology and monetary compensation the CIA.
The case named former CIA director George Tenet and other CIA officials. Also named were four US-based aviation corporations with violations of US and universal human rights laws by allowing their aircraft to be used to fly detainees under the CIA's policy of "extraordinary rendition."
However, a US Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the government's argument that state secrets might be jeopardised if the case were allowed to move forward and rejected the case. Masri took the issue to the US Supreme Court but was against rebuffed. The Supreme Court simply declined to overrule the lower court.
Another case of the US policy known as "extraordinary rendition" that was highlighted in the media is that of Maher Arar.
Arar , a Candian citizen of Arab origin, was detained by US officials at New York's JFK airport as he landed there from Switzerland in September 2002. He was interrogated, denied access to a lawyer or family (this privilege is offered only to US nationals), accused of terrorist links, and sent by special plane to Syria. (Arar says he was the only passenger in the luxury aircraft, but he was shackled).
He says he was tortured and humiliated while in Syrian detention before being released nearly one year later, with the Syrian authorities saying they found no links between him and terrorism.
After his release, Arar, like Masri, file a case against the US government. Again, the US government cited national security and the case was dismissed.
Arar is now is working with the Center for Constitutional Rights to appeal against the dismissal. (A detailed list of cases are available on www.wikipedia.org).
International human rights organisations have found that the US government stands in blatant violation of human rights and international conventions because of its policy of "extraordinary rendition," secret detention, and torture.
No one has any clear idea about how many persons were subjected the illegal practice of being illegally detained and secretly flown to third countries to be subjeced to human rights abuses including torture.
The operations are conducted in utmost secrecy and when they do come out as in the cases of Masri and Arar, the US government cites secrecy laws and national secuity and gets away with it.
The lesson to be learnt: The US administraton could violate any law without question and then prevent legal action by declaring that any disclosure of any fact in a court of law would violate the country's "secrecy laws" and thus jeopardise national security.
Indeed, in principle, every government needs the privilege of state secrets and special authority to cite national security to hold back sensitive details that could be used against the country. However, it is a different issue when it comes to citing secrecy laws to defend the government itself against charges of violating human rights.
As experts familar with the Masri and Arar cases have noted, there is no justifiable and legitimate room for the Bush administration to cite secrecy laws to defend its illegal action of kidnapping and torturing someone. The victims have the right to have their cases heard and the US government being asked to explain its position and reasons without being given the benefit of abusing the legitimacy of secrecy laws and interests of national security.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Failure means disaster
Oct.15, 2007
Failure means disaster in Sudan
The world had heaved a sigh of relief when the Khartoum government and former dissidents in southern Sudan signed the so-called Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. It put an end to 21 years of war in southern Sudan and signalled a conclusive solution to the longest conflict in Africa that had caused gross misery and agony to the people of the area. Beyond that the conflict, which is said to have killed at least two million people and displaced millions more, sapped Sudan's resources and blocked the country from exploiting its natural resources.
Last week's decision by the former southern rebels — represented by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) — to suspend its participation in the government of national unity citing of a deadlock with the National Congress Party over implementation of the CPA has dealt a serious blow to the optimism sparked by the 2005 agreement.
One of the key reasons cited by the SPLM is the failure on the government's part to withdraw the army from the south as called for in the CPA. Others included charges that the government is stalling on deciding on the fate of the disputed oil-rich region of Abiye and "the evolution of democracy in Sudan."
There is no escape from seeing the development coupled with the escalation of conflict in the western region of Darfur ahead of crucial talks to be held in Libya this month on ending the crisis there between Darfurian dissidents and the government in Khartoum.
Any destabilisation of the south of Sudan would immediately have an immediate and adverse impact on the efforts for a solution to the Darfur conflict and could seriously set back the painstaking process led by the UN, and that would in turn mean more suffering for the people of Sudan.
Seen in a broader perspective, it would seem that vested interests are at work seeking to derail hopes of peace in Sudan after decades of conflict and recovery of its people from misery.
A ray of hope was raised on Saturday by the announcement that the UN's top official in Sudan, Taye-Brook Zerihoun, was visiting fthe southern capital Juba for talks with the SPLM on the crisis.
Hopefully, the UN official would be able to make the SPLM realise the dire consequences of its decision and persuade it not to go ahead with it while the world body would also intervene with the Khartoum government to address the concerns of the southerners in an equitable manner.
There has to be absolute and unquestionable commitment to the CPA on the part of everyone, whether the government in Khartoum or the southerners. That should the ground rule without compromise.
No party involved could afford to be passive in the quest to find an immediate solution because failure would turn the situation in Sudan far more uglier than than the case was before the 2005 agreement was signed.
Failure means disaster in Sudan
The world had heaved a sigh of relief when the Khartoum government and former dissidents in southern Sudan signed the so-called Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005. It put an end to 21 years of war in southern Sudan and signalled a conclusive solution to the longest conflict in Africa that had caused gross misery and agony to the people of the area. Beyond that the conflict, which is said to have killed at least two million people and displaced millions more, sapped Sudan's resources and blocked the country from exploiting its natural resources.
Last week's decision by the former southern rebels — represented by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) — to suspend its participation in the government of national unity citing of a deadlock with the National Congress Party over implementation of the CPA has dealt a serious blow to the optimism sparked by the 2005 agreement.
One of the key reasons cited by the SPLM is the failure on the government's part to withdraw the army from the south as called for in the CPA. Others included charges that the government is stalling on deciding on the fate of the disputed oil-rich region of Abiye and "the evolution of democracy in Sudan."
There is no escape from seeing the development coupled with the escalation of conflict in the western region of Darfur ahead of crucial talks to be held in Libya this month on ending the crisis there between Darfurian dissidents and the government in Khartoum.
Any destabilisation of the south of Sudan would immediately have an immediate and adverse impact on the efforts for a solution to the Darfur conflict and could seriously set back the painstaking process led by the UN, and that would in turn mean more suffering for the people of Sudan.
Seen in a broader perspective, it would seem that vested interests are at work seeking to derail hopes of peace in Sudan after decades of conflict and recovery of its people from misery.
A ray of hope was raised on Saturday by the announcement that the UN's top official in Sudan, Taye-Brook Zerihoun, was visiting fthe southern capital Juba for talks with the SPLM on the crisis.
Hopefully, the UN official would be able to make the SPLM realise the dire consequences of its decision and persuade it not to go ahead with it while the world body would also intervene with the Khartoum government to address the concerns of the southerners in an equitable manner.
There has to be absolute and unquestionable commitment to the CPA on the part of everyone, whether the government in Khartoum or the southerners. That should the ground rule without compromise.
No party involved could afford to be passive in the quest to find an immediate solution because failure would turn the situation in Sudan far more uglier than than the case was before the 2005 agreement was signed.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Ethnic cleansing
Oct.14, 2007
'Ethnic cleansing' in Iraq
An Arab affairs specialist has observed that the displacement of people within Iraq as a result of the post-war "ethnic cleansing" could be a key factor that helps the continuing fragmentation of the country.
Magdi Abdelhadi, a BBC Arab affairs analyst, quotes Ghaith Abdul Ahad, an Iraqi journalist, as saying that the areas where displaced Iraqis live have become fertile recruiting-grounds for militants.
"The insurgents in west Baghdad tell me that the hardest fighters are the Sunnis who have been kicked out of their homes by the Shiites," says Abdul Ahad.
With more than two million Iraqis displaced within the country (in addition to the more than two million who have fled the country are now refugees mainly in Syria and Jordan), there is no dearth of volunteers for insurgent recruiters. Taking up arms also offers them the opportunity exact revenge from those who displaced them from their homes.
The reluctance of the local authorities in the places of refugee to take in and care for the new arrivals is yet another contributor to the rising number of insurgents.
The displacement becomes all the more critical when we note that the plight of those who have fled their homes but have not been able to leave the country is dire, as noted by the UN refugee agency.
The central government insists that it has instructed the local authorities to take care of the displaced, but the instructions go unheeded because there is no effective means for the central authorities to exercise control over provincial officials. And then there is the local politicking where many seem to be detemined to funnel away state money to themselves since they don't believe that they would ever be called to account.
The displacement, unprecedented in the Middle Eastern history even beyond the Palestinian refugee crisis, has dangerous regional implications.
Syria has more than a million Iraqis in its territory and Jordan has some 750,000. Both governments are hard-pressed to deal with the influx and hence their move to prevent the entry of more Iraqis.
However, with little or no sign of an end to the insurgency being waged in Iraq, it would appear that the Iraqis in both countries are destined to remain stuck there for years to come. And it does not take much imagination to envisage what the presence of refugees would do to the national stability of the host countries.
'Ethnic cleansing' in Iraq
An Arab affairs specialist has observed that the displacement of people within Iraq as a result of the post-war "ethnic cleansing" could be a key factor that helps the continuing fragmentation of the country.
Magdi Abdelhadi, a BBC Arab affairs analyst, quotes Ghaith Abdul Ahad, an Iraqi journalist, as saying that the areas where displaced Iraqis live have become fertile recruiting-grounds for militants.
"The insurgents in west Baghdad tell me that the hardest fighters are the Sunnis who have been kicked out of their homes by the Shiites," says Abdul Ahad.
With more than two million Iraqis displaced within the country (in addition to the more than two million who have fled the country are now refugees mainly in Syria and Jordan), there is no dearth of volunteers for insurgent recruiters. Taking up arms also offers them the opportunity exact revenge from those who displaced them from their homes.
The reluctance of the local authorities in the places of refugee to take in and care for the new arrivals is yet another contributor to the rising number of insurgents.
The displacement becomes all the more critical when we note that the plight of those who have fled their homes but have not been able to leave the country is dire, as noted by the UN refugee agency.
The central government insists that it has instructed the local authorities to take care of the displaced, but the instructions go unheeded because there is no effective means for the central authorities to exercise control over provincial officials. And then there is the local politicking where many seem to be detemined to funnel away state money to themselves since they don't believe that they would ever be called to account.
The displacement, unprecedented in the Middle Eastern history even beyond the Palestinian refugee crisis, has dangerous regional implications.
Syria has more than a million Iraqis in its territory and Jordan has some 750,000. Both governments are hard-pressed to deal with the influx and hence their move to prevent the entry of more Iraqis.
However, with little or no sign of an end to the insurgency being waged in Iraq, it would appear that the Iraqis in both countries are destined to remain stuck there for years to come. And it does not take much imagination to envisage what the presence of refugees would do to the national stability of the host countries.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Guardians of life who kill
Oct.11, 2007
Guardians of life who kill
IT was unlikely that Tuesday's killing of two Iraqi women by guards working for a foreign security company in Baghdad would have been reported had it not been for the intense focus on Blackwater USA brought about by the Sept.16 gunning down of up to 17 Iraqi bystanders in the Iraqi capital.
There is every reason to believe that most foreign security guards working in Iraq — some 25,000 or so — are triggerhappy and behave in the same pattern as those of Blackwater USA did on Sept.16. The obvious explanation is that their job is to protect the life of people who pay them even it means taking no chance and killing at the first instance.
The reason that their actions go unreported in the media is that there is a deliberate suppression of any leak of such information and that such incidents occur in areas outside the reach of the media.
The Blackwater and Unity incidents happened in Baghdad, and eyewitnesses reported them, and hence they hit international headlines. Hundreds might have been killed in similar incidents elsewhere, but their deaths did not appear in the media because the media were not supposed to know about them. Whatever little we have indeed heard from areas outside Baghdad is only a scratch on the surface.
As commentators in the US emphasise, private security guards know their job all too well, which is to guard top US officials by any means necessary even it means casual gunning down of innocent Iraqis. They get paid six or seven times more than US soldiers.
Of course, US soldiers cannot do the job because the US military establishment has clearly laid-down the rules of engagement which are largely respected. On the other hand, private security guards operate outside of the restraints imposed on ordinary troops.
It was clearly observed in a post-Sept.16 report prepared by a US Congressional committee that the State Department offers private security guards protection. Here is the operative part of the report: “There is no evidence in the documents that the committee has reviewed that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater’s actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company’s high rate of shooting first, or detained contractors for investigation.”
The updated number of Iraqis killed in the invasion and the insurgency that followed it is said to be more than one million. Of course, there is no scientific data or accurate means to verify the numbers, and those who are in a position to be aware of the real situation are not talking if only because it is not in their interests to make the information public.
The long and short of it is simple: The mighty US military invaded Iraq and brought with it foreign mercenaries who go under the name of private security guards. They were given immunity from prosecution in Iraq or anywhere else. Since then, foreign security guards were having a free reign in Iraq, with no law or power to question their actions. The foremost question on the international mind is indeed: What did the Iraqis do to deserve this fate?
Guardians of life who kill
IT was unlikely that Tuesday's killing of two Iraqi women by guards working for a foreign security company in Baghdad would have been reported had it not been for the intense focus on Blackwater USA brought about by the Sept.16 gunning down of up to 17 Iraqi bystanders in the Iraqi capital.
There is every reason to believe that most foreign security guards working in Iraq — some 25,000 or so — are triggerhappy and behave in the same pattern as those of Blackwater USA did on Sept.16. The obvious explanation is that their job is to protect the life of people who pay them even it means taking no chance and killing at the first instance.
The reason that their actions go unreported in the media is that there is a deliberate suppression of any leak of such information and that such incidents occur in areas outside the reach of the media.
The Blackwater and Unity incidents happened in Baghdad, and eyewitnesses reported them, and hence they hit international headlines. Hundreds might have been killed in similar incidents elsewhere, but their deaths did not appear in the media because the media were not supposed to know about them. Whatever little we have indeed heard from areas outside Baghdad is only a scratch on the surface.
As commentators in the US emphasise, private security guards know their job all too well, which is to guard top US officials by any means necessary even it means casual gunning down of innocent Iraqis. They get paid six or seven times more than US soldiers.
Of course, US soldiers cannot do the job because the US military establishment has clearly laid-down the rules of engagement which are largely respected. On the other hand, private security guards operate outside of the restraints imposed on ordinary troops.
It was clearly observed in a post-Sept.16 report prepared by a US Congressional committee that the State Department offers private security guards protection. Here is the operative part of the report: “There is no evidence in the documents that the committee has reviewed that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater’s actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company’s high rate of shooting first, or detained contractors for investigation.”
The updated number of Iraqis killed in the invasion and the insurgency that followed it is said to be more than one million. Of course, there is no scientific data or accurate means to verify the numbers, and those who are in a position to be aware of the real situation are not talking if only because it is not in their interests to make the information public.
The long and short of it is simple: The mighty US military invaded Iraq and brought with it foreign mercenaries who go under the name of private security guards. They were given immunity from prosecution in Iraq or anywhere else. Since then, foreign security guards were having a free reign in Iraq, with no law or power to question their actions. The foremost question on the international mind is indeed: What did the Iraqis do to deserve this fate?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Iran not off gunsight
Iran off US hook for now,
but not the Israeli gunsight
by pv vivekanand
NORTH Korea's nuclear test has caught the US in a bind vis a-vis Iran. Washington has not ruled out military action against North Korea as a punitive measure for its defiance of international calls against going nuclear, but it is doubtful that the US would take that extreme step because of the ambiguity over whether the North Koreans do have nuclear weapons. If they do, then it is a certainty that they would use them against US allies in the neighbourhood if the US launches military action against them, and that in itself is its strongest deterrent.
With such constraints being imposed on its options, the Bush administration finds itself restrained from going ahead with plans to launch military action against Iran in the name of Tehran's refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment. The reason is simple: If the US insists on its hard line against any country outside the exclusive nuclear club that seeks to develop nuclear weapons, then the first candidate is North Korea since it has already conducted a test and has made no secret of its intention to acquire nuclear weapons. It is taken for granted that North Korea does have the ability to produce nuclear weapons and it might already have between four and 13 atomic weapons if some experts' assessments are correct. Others say North Korea is at least one year away from a nuclear bomb.
The "case" against North Korea is proved, and it is far stronger than the Iranian case because Pyongyang has opted out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Iran has retained its status a signatory to the NPT. The world knows that the case against Iran is based on assumptions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been able to come up with concrete charges against Iran.
Tehran has played its cards right, and it was an ace that it dealt on Monday by calling for a nuclear-weapons free world following the North Korean nuclear test.
Therefore, the US has to launch military action against North Korea — which is indeed a high-risk proposition to the US friends like Japan and South Korea — before it goes ahead with plans to eliminate or at least set back Iran's "suspicious" nuclear activities through military strikes.
Ironically, one way out of the deadlock is to establish that North Korea did not really conduct a nuclear test and has not reached a level in its nuclear programme to pose a genuine threat.
However, regional and international monitoring stations have affirmed that North Korea did conduct a nuclear test some 2,000 metres underground. As such, the US option of discrediting the North Korean claim has been set back.
South Korean monitors were first to report seismic activity in the area measuring 3.58 on the Richter scale, while the US Geological Survey recorded a 4.2-magnitude earthquake.
Russia has reported that the testing produced an explosion between five and 15 kilotons and that it was indeed nuclear in nature.
The angry Chinese reaction to the North Korean action is telling since Beijing is best placed to establish the authenticity of Pyongyang's claim.
These affirmations have not stopped US strategists trying an attempt by raising doubts whether the seismic event recorded in North Hamgyung province about 350 kilometres north-east of Pyongyang was indeed caused by a nuclear device.
If it is proved to be a dud, then it gets the US off the hook of having to act against North Korea before turning to Iran. Again, the US faces a firm Chinese stand against the military option.
In the meantime, Washington has to put up with humiliation that is emanating from bold North Korean statements and also faces pressure to end its painful crackdown on North Korean finances and finally agree to one-on-one negotiations, a demand that the US has consistently rejected if only because it would mean facing North Korean demands for a non-aggression pledge.
North Korea is cranking up the ratchet by suggesting that it only return to six-country talks to end its nuclear development if Washington made concessions.
"We are still willing to abandon nuclear programmes and return to six-party talks ... if the United States takes corresponding measures," a North Korean spokesman said on Tuesday.
However, the spokesman also talked tough. He said Pyongyang was prepared to put nuclear warheads on missiles and conduct additional nuclear tests "depending on how the situation develops."
Instead of making concessions, the US and Japan are pushing the UN Security Council to clamp harsh sanctions on North Korea. A US-drafted resolution calls for international inspections of North Korea’s incoming and outgoing cargoes, a freeze on transfers of materials and technology for military purposes and a ban on luxury goods. Japan wants a ban on North Korean ships and planes from all ports if they carried nuclear or ballistic missile-related materials. South Korea may also review its “sunshine policy” of engagement with the North.
Such a tough approach has Israel worried because it would only intensify the confrontation in Asia while the Israeli priority is Iran and wants the US to "take out" Iranian nuclear installations as prelude to possible wider action for "regime change" in Tehran to suit Israeli interests. Israeli experts have stepped into the fray by suggesting that it has not been confirmed that a nuclear test took place and that North Korea probably has enough fissile material to make six to eight nuclear bombs but lacks the technology to make one small enough to mount on a missile.
They assert that Tehran is using "the current climate of international passivity" to push ahead with its nuclear activities. They have accused China of supplying Iran with nuclear materials, and technology and advanced centrifuges, as well as technology for sophisticated weapons and missile systems.
The Israelis would rather have the US engage North Korea in dialogue than confronting it because confrontation means eventual US military action while the Iranian threat — as Israel perceives it — continues to grow.
Parallel to the thinking is the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. In fact, the possibility has grown in the wake of the unfolding events in the Korean Peninsula.
A revealing Israeli report says: "There is still a short time left to take action before Israelis wake up one morning — as did North Koreans and Japanese on Monday, Oct. 9 — to find they ware living under a dark nuclear shadow; but, only for Israel a nuclear Iran will be less a shadow than a mortal threat to its very existence."
Does one have to read between the lines?
but not the Israeli gunsight
by pv vivekanand
NORTH Korea's nuclear test has caught the US in a bind vis a-vis Iran. Washington has not ruled out military action against North Korea as a punitive measure for its defiance of international calls against going nuclear, but it is doubtful that the US would take that extreme step because of the ambiguity over whether the North Koreans do have nuclear weapons. If they do, then it is a certainty that they would use them against US allies in the neighbourhood if the US launches military action against them, and that in itself is its strongest deterrent.
With such constraints being imposed on its options, the Bush administration finds itself restrained from going ahead with plans to launch military action against Iran in the name of Tehran's refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment. The reason is simple: If the US insists on its hard line against any country outside the exclusive nuclear club that seeks to develop nuclear weapons, then the first candidate is North Korea since it has already conducted a test and has made no secret of its intention to acquire nuclear weapons. It is taken for granted that North Korea does have the ability to produce nuclear weapons and it might already have between four and 13 atomic weapons if some experts' assessments are correct. Others say North Korea is at least one year away from a nuclear bomb.
The "case" against North Korea is proved, and it is far stronger than the Iranian case because Pyongyang has opted out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Iran has retained its status a signatory to the NPT. The world knows that the case against Iran is based on assumptions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been able to come up with concrete charges against Iran.
Tehran has played its cards right, and it was an ace that it dealt on Monday by calling for a nuclear-weapons free world following the North Korean nuclear test.
Therefore, the US has to launch military action against North Korea — which is indeed a high-risk proposition to the US friends like Japan and South Korea — before it goes ahead with plans to eliminate or at least set back Iran's "suspicious" nuclear activities through military strikes.
Ironically, one way out of the deadlock is to establish that North Korea did not really conduct a nuclear test and has not reached a level in its nuclear programme to pose a genuine threat.
However, regional and international monitoring stations have affirmed that North Korea did conduct a nuclear test some 2,000 metres underground. As such, the US option of discrediting the North Korean claim has been set back.
South Korean monitors were first to report seismic activity in the area measuring 3.58 on the Richter scale, while the US Geological Survey recorded a 4.2-magnitude earthquake.
Russia has reported that the testing produced an explosion between five and 15 kilotons and that it was indeed nuclear in nature.
The angry Chinese reaction to the North Korean action is telling since Beijing is best placed to establish the authenticity of Pyongyang's claim.
These affirmations have not stopped US strategists trying an attempt by raising doubts whether the seismic event recorded in North Hamgyung province about 350 kilometres north-east of Pyongyang was indeed caused by a nuclear device.
If it is proved to be a dud, then it gets the US off the hook of having to act against North Korea before turning to Iran. Again, the US faces a firm Chinese stand against the military option.
In the meantime, Washington has to put up with humiliation that is emanating from bold North Korean statements and also faces pressure to end its painful crackdown on North Korean finances and finally agree to one-on-one negotiations, a demand that the US has consistently rejected if only because it would mean facing North Korean demands for a non-aggression pledge.
North Korea is cranking up the ratchet by suggesting that it only return to six-country talks to end its nuclear development if Washington made concessions.
"We are still willing to abandon nuclear programmes and return to six-party talks ... if the United States takes corresponding measures," a North Korean spokesman said on Tuesday.
However, the spokesman also talked tough. He said Pyongyang was prepared to put nuclear warheads on missiles and conduct additional nuclear tests "depending on how the situation develops."
Instead of making concessions, the US and Japan are pushing the UN Security Council to clamp harsh sanctions on North Korea. A US-drafted resolution calls for international inspections of North Korea’s incoming and outgoing cargoes, a freeze on transfers of materials and technology for military purposes and a ban on luxury goods. Japan wants a ban on North Korean ships and planes from all ports if they carried nuclear or ballistic missile-related materials. South Korea may also review its “sunshine policy” of engagement with the North.
Such a tough approach has Israel worried because it would only intensify the confrontation in Asia while the Israeli priority is Iran and wants the US to "take out" Iranian nuclear installations as prelude to possible wider action for "regime change" in Tehran to suit Israeli interests. Israeli experts have stepped into the fray by suggesting that it has not been confirmed that a nuclear test took place and that North Korea probably has enough fissile material to make six to eight nuclear bombs but lacks the technology to make one small enough to mount on a missile.
They assert that Tehran is using "the current climate of international passivity" to push ahead with its nuclear activities. They have accused China of supplying Iran with nuclear materials, and technology and advanced centrifuges, as well as technology for sophisticated weapons and missile systems.
The Israelis would rather have the US engage North Korea in dialogue than confronting it because confrontation means eventual US military action while the Iranian threat — as Israel perceives it — continues to grow.
Parallel to the thinking is the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. In fact, the possibility has grown in the wake of the unfolding events in the Korean Peninsula.
A revealing Israeli report says: "There is still a short time left to take action before Israelis wake up one morning — as did North Koreans and Japanese on Monday, Oct. 9 — to find they ware living under a dark nuclear shadow; but, only for Israel a nuclear Iran will be less a shadow than a mortal threat to its very existence."
Does one have to read between the lines?
No longer a Turkish bluff
Oct.10, 2007
No longer a Turkish bluff
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not bluffing when he says his government has authorised the military to take whatever measures as it deems fit, including a military incursion in northern Iraq , as part of stepped up measures against Kurdish rebel bases in the region.
The move came after the Erdogan government came under renewed pressure from the public following the killing of 15 Turkish soldiers by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are waging an cross-border insurgency from their bases located in northern Iraq.
The problem has been brewing for some time now, with Turkey issuing repeated warnings that it would not hesitate to stage military operations across the border in order to eliminate the PKK threat.
Iraqi Kurds, who have close relations with the US, have warned Turkey against any such incursion, but they are not seen to be effecively moving against the PKK in order to address the Turkish concerns.
The Washington response to the latest Turkish declaration was a reaffirmation that the US is committed to working with Turkey and Iraq to combat the PKK. But the US admnistration would not comment specifically on whether it would support Turkey authorising a possible incursion into northern Iraq.
Washington has its own considerations in northern Iraq, where it has indirect links with Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the mountainous Iraq-Iran border area through the PKK. It would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the Tehran regime at the right time, and a Turkish operation in northern Iraq would seriously dent the alliance.
Indeed, the US is caught in a bind. It cannot afford to have any destabilisation of the northern Kurdish regions of Iraq, but that is precisely what would happen if Turkish soldiers were to cross the border. It is highly unlikely that Turkey would limit its operations to the PKK if it orders it military across the border. Ankara would definitely like to cut down to size the Iraqi Kurds — who run their autonomous region without any interference from Baghdad while pursuing their ambitions of independent statehood in Kurdistan.
Kurdish independence is anathema to Turkey in view of its own Kurdish insurgency and separatist ambitions.
Indeed, the confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey is coming to a head-on clash by the end of the year when a referendum will decide the status of the oil-rich Kirkuk area. Ankara, which says it is determined to protect the interests of the nearly two million Turkomen population in the area, has cautioned against conducting the referendum and charged that the Kurds have changed the demography in order to secure the out of the plebscite in their favour.
No matter how we look at it, any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq would have serious destabilisation effects in the already volatile area. We would only hope that cool heads and moderation would prevail on all sides since the end losers would be the ordinary people living in the border region.
No longer a Turkish bluff
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not bluffing when he says his government has authorised the military to take whatever measures as it deems fit, including a military incursion in northern Iraq , as part of stepped up measures against Kurdish rebel bases in the region.
The move came after the Erdogan government came under renewed pressure from the public following the killing of 15 Turkish soldiers by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are waging an cross-border insurgency from their bases located in northern Iraq.
The problem has been brewing for some time now, with Turkey issuing repeated warnings that it would not hesitate to stage military operations across the border in order to eliminate the PKK threat.
Iraqi Kurds, who have close relations with the US, have warned Turkey against any such incursion, but they are not seen to be effecively moving against the PKK in order to address the Turkish concerns.
The Washington response to the latest Turkish declaration was a reaffirmation that the US is committed to working with Turkey and Iraq to combat the PKK. But the US admnistration would not comment specifically on whether it would support Turkey authorising a possible incursion into northern Iraq.
Washington has its own considerations in northern Iraq, where it has indirect links with Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the mountainous Iraq-Iran border area through the PKK. It would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the Tehran regime at the right time, and a Turkish operation in northern Iraq would seriously dent the alliance.
Indeed, the US is caught in a bind. It cannot afford to have any destabilisation of the northern Kurdish regions of Iraq, but that is precisely what would happen if Turkish soldiers were to cross the border. It is highly unlikely that Turkey would limit its operations to the PKK if it orders it military across the border. Ankara would definitely like to cut down to size the Iraqi Kurds — who run their autonomous region without any interference from Baghdad while pursuing their ambitions of independent statehood in Kurdistan.
Kurdish independence is anathema to Turkey in view of its own Kurdish insurgency and separatist ambitions.
Indeed, the confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey is coming to a head-on clash by the end of the year when a referendum will decide the status of the oil-rich Kirkuk area. Ankara, which says it is determined to protect the interests of the nearly two million Turkomen population in the area, has cautioned against conducting the referendum and charged that the Kurds have changed the demography in order to secure the out of the plebscite in their favour.
No matter how we look at it, any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq would have serious destabilisation effects in the already volatile area. We would only hope that cool heads and moderation would prevail on all sides since the end losers would be the ordinary people living in the border region.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
A shift towards the right course
October 9, 2007
A shift towards the right course
Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon's statement that the Israeli government would support sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians and might also consider allowing some Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homeland indicates a shift in the Israeli position.
Given than Ramon is a close confidant of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, his comment that Israel cannot miss the opportunity presented by the upcoming US-sponsored conference to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians should be seen as reflecting the Israeli government's thinking.
An equally signifcant part of Ramon's comment came when he said even the hawkish elements of the Israeli coalition government, like cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party, would go along with such an Israeli "concession."
Couple that with hawkish cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's affirmation that he would be ready to relinquish control of some Arab East Jerusalem areas to the Palestinians ÑÊbut not Jewish settlements in the West Bank and we can see that a new thought has emerged in Israeli thinking.
On the issue of Palestinian refugees, Ramon stated that Israel would in a "humanitarian gesture" consider permitting some Palestinian refugees to return to areas now under the control of Israel, but not agree to a large-scale return, he said.
"There is no debate in Israel that Israel will not take responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian refugees," Ramon said. "If a Palestinian refugee asks us on the basis of sympathy and grace to return we will debate this and we will not rule this out."
Ramon's comment on Jerusalem was also clear. "If we reach a deal with the Palestinians, the Arab World and the international community according to which the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem will be recognised as the capital of Israel and the Arab neighbourhoods as part of the Arab capital." This concept was what was once advocated by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Defining the Jewish and Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem could indeed pose a serious problem, particularly when it comes to some of the holiest places there and the steady Jewish encroachment into Arab areas of the Holy City since 1967. However, compromises could be and would be found if only because the Palestinians and Israelis would have put a long of things behind them and built enough confidence between them to reach a point where they are discussing the demographic and geographic features of Jerusalem with a view to working out a solution to the dispute.
Ramon's statements, if they are presented as formal proposals in actual good faith negotiations with the Palestinians, could be seen as Israel's opening gambit. They do fall short of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim demands, but they do indicate an Israeli shift towards the right course for peace in the region by recognising that the Jewish state could not hope to successfully dictate terms to the Arabs and have things its own way.
A shift towards the right course
Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon's statement that the Israeli government would support sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians and might also consider allowing some Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homeland indicates a shift in the Israeli position.
Given than Ramon is a close confidant of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, his comment that Israel cannot miss the opportunity presented by the upcoming US-sponsored conference to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians should be seen as reflecting the Israeli government's thinking.
An equally signifcant part of Ramon's comment came when he said even the hawkish elements of the Israeli coalition government, like cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party, would go along with such an Israeli "concession."
Couple that with hawkish cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's affirmation that he would be ready to relinquish control of some Arab East Jerusalem areas to the Palestinians ÑÊbut not Jewish settlements in the West Bank and we can see that a new thought has emerged in Israeli thinking.
On the issue of Palestinian refugees, Ramon stated that Israel would in a "humanitarian gesture" consider permitting some Palestinian refugees to return to areas now under the control of Israel, but not agree to a large-scale return, he said.
"There is no debate in Israel that Israel will not take responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian refugees," Ramon said. "If a Palestinian refugee asks us on the basis of sympathy and grace to return we will debate this and we will not rule this out."
Ramon's comment on Jerusalem was also clear. "If we reach a deal with the Palestinians, the Arab World and the international community according to which the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem will be recognised as the capital of Israel and the Arab neighbourhoods as part of the Arab capital." This concept was what was once advocated by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Defining the Jewish and Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem could indeed pose a serious problem, particularly when it comes to some of the holiest places there and the steady Jewish encroachment into Arab areas of the Holy City since 1967. However, compromises could be and would be found if only because the Palestinians and Israelis would have put a long of things behind them and built enough confidence between them to reach a point where they are discussing the demographic and geographic features of Jerusalem with a view to working out a solution to the dispute.
Ramon's statements, if they are presented as formal proposals in actual good faith negotiations with the Palestinians, could be seen as Israel's opening gambit. They do fall short of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim demands, but they do indicate an Israeli shift towards the right course for peace in the region by recognising that the Jewish state could not hope to successfully dictate terms to the Arabs and have things its own way.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Of Democrats and twisted hopes
Oct.1, 2007
Of Democrats and twisted hopes
by pv vivekanand
IT was with great jubiliation and fanfare that many within the US and around the world greeted the Democratic victory in last year's mid-term congressional elections in which the party gained "control" of both houses of the US legislature. They expected the Democrats to move swiftly to put an end to the US military presence in Iraq if only to avoid further loss of American lives and resources in the chaotic country — essentially ending the war.
Today, nearly one year later, we find not only that the Democrats have failed to end the war in Iraq but also that they have set the ground for a new war in the region, this time targeting Iran.
That is what the Democrats led by senators like Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer did when they voted in favour of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment" which in effect is the forerunner of a declaration of war against Iran disguised as a congressional move.
The amendment calls on the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a "foreign terrorist organisation . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
The amendment clears the way for placing sanctions on individual Iranian officials, but more significantly, it would gives the president extraordinary leeway in going after the Revolutionary Guards Corps militarily. It implictly authorises him to unilaterally wage war with Iran without seeking any further congressional authorisation. The operative argument here is that the amendment already grants the president the authority to go after "terrorists."
The "authorisation" goes hand-in-hand with the behind-the-scene build-up to war against Iran that seems to have reached an advanced stage.
According to Newsweek, David Wurmser, a former senior adviser to US Vice-President Dick Cheney, had told fellow neo-conservatives that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. The intention, it was said, would be to provoke a reaction from Tehran that would help justify wider US air strikes, according to Newsweek.
On the diplomatic front, the Sunday Telegraph reported this week that the Bush adminstration has told its diplomats at the UN to begin "searching for things that Iran has done wrong." The order is remniscent of the build-up to the war against Iraq, and one could easily expect intelligence reports to be tailored to suit the purpose of strengthening the call for military action against Iran.
The administration has also shifted gears. Its argument for action against Iran was Tehran's controversial nuclear programme, but the focus is now shifted to alleged Iranian support — training, arming and financing — for insurgents killing US soldiers in Iraq. Obviously, the administration has realised that the American people are not convinced that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to mainland America, and the argument that the US has to take action against any party or country killing American soldiers is a relatively easier sell to the public.
Surely, the Democrats must be aware of what is happening in the military and diplomatic corridors and realise that the US is edging closer to yet another catastrophe in the Middle East.
It might be easier to understand why the Democrats could not really make a difference to the Bush administration's determination to pursue a non-existent military option in Iraq. The Democrats have a simple majority in both houses of congress but that is not enough to counter administration decisions and the presidential veto power.
However, it is strange that the Democrats, having closely watched the way the US got drawn deep into the Iraq quagmire after a war that was launched on deceptive grounds, could allow themselves to be party to authorising another war that promises to be all the more ferocious with unpredictable consequences.
The only explanation is that the reach of the powerful neoconservative camp is not limited to the Republicans. Equally important is the Israeli element in the US-Iran equation. The US Congress, whether Republican- or Democrat-led, has always been an ardent Israel supporter.
All it takes is a quick glance at how emphatically Senator Joseph R. Biden, a Democrat from Delware, stated his commitment to Israel, calling the country "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East."
"I am a Zionist," he said. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."
Conventional wisdom dictates that the US would not want to get involved in yet another military conflict in the Middle East while it grapples with the Iraq crisis and the elusive hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. It has 155,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan, and the bulk of them are vulnerable — if not sitting ducks — for Iranian retaliation for any military strike, whether Israeli or US.
The repurcussions of a military conflict involving Iran would be too serious for the international oil market to handle and the consequences of a record shoot-up of oil prices would be devastating to the American currency and thus the US economy.
There are many other dreadful scenarios pursuant to a US-led military strike against Iran, and no one in the region wants even to think of them.
However, the Bush administration's track record shows that it cannot be expected to apply conventional wisdom, and that means military action against Iran regardless of the consequences.
The Democrats must but be aware of all these considerations and still they went ahead with granting the administration the green signal for military action against Iran.
But then, that line of thought is based on the assumption that the Democrats must be opposed to the Iraq war. The rug is pulled from under that assumption when we note how the three main presidential hopefuls replied to a question during a recent public debate among themselves.
The question put to the Democratic presidential hopefuls — including frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards — by moderator Tim Russert was whether they were committed to withdrawing American soldiers from Iraq: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no US troops in Iraq?"
Well, none of the three would undertake that pledge. They argued that it was difficult to predict what could happen in the next four or five years.
That much for our assumption that the Democrats are a committed anti-war party, and out through the window goes our hope that a "regime change" in Washington through the 2008 presidential elections would lead to an end to the crisis in Iraq and a major positive shift in the belligerent American posture and approach that we have seen since the day George W Bush Junior entered the White House in 2001.
Of Democrats and twisted hopes
by pv vivekanand
IT was with great jubiliation and fanfare that many within the US and around the world greeted the Democratic victory in last year's mid-term congressional elections in which the party gained "control" of both houses of the US legislature. They expected the Democrats to move swiftly to put an end to the US military presence in Iraq if only to avoid further loss of American lives and resources in the chaotic country — essentially ending the war.
Today, nearly one year later, we find not only that the Democrats have failed to end the war in Iraq but also that they have set the ground for a new war in the region, this time targeting Iran.
That is what the Democrats led by senators like Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer did when they voted in favour of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment" which in effect is the forerunner of a declaration of war against Iran disguised as a congressional move.
The amendment calls on the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a "foreign terrorist organisation . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
The amendment clears the way for placing sanctions on individual Iranian officials, but more significantly, it would gives the president extraordinary leeway in going after the Revolutionary Guards Corps militarily. It implictly authorises him to unilaterally wage war with Iran without seeking any further congressional authorisation. The operative argument here is that the amendment already grants the president the authority to go after "terrorists."
The "authorisation" goes hand-in-hand with the behind-the-scene build-up to war against Iran that seems to have reached an advanced stage.
According to Newsweek, David Wurmser, a former senior adviser to US Vice-President Dick Cheney, had told fellow neo-conservatives that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. The intention, it was said, would be to provoke a reaction from Tehran that would help justify wider US air strikes, according to Newsweek.
On the diplomatic front, the Sunday Telegraph reported this week that the Bush adminstration has told its diplomats at the UN to begin "searching for things that Iran has done wrong." The order is remniscent of the build-up to the war against Iraq, and one could easily expect intelligence reports to be tailored to suit the purpose of strengthening the call for military action against Iran.
The administration has also shifted gears. Its argument for action against Iran was Tehran's controversial nuclear programme, but the focus is now shifted to alleged Iranian support — training, arming and financing — for insurgents killing US soldiers in Iraq. Obviously, the administration has realised that the American people are not convinced that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to mainland America, and the argument that the US has to take action against any party or country killing American soldiers is a relatively easier sell to the public.
Surely, the Democrats must be aware of what is happening in the military and diplomatic corridors and realise that the US is edging closer to yet another catastrophe in the Middle East.
It might be easier to understand why the Democrats could not really make a difference to the Bush administration's determination to pursue a non-existent military option in Iraq. The Democrats have a simple majority in both houses of congress but that is not enough to counter administration decisions and the presidential veto power.
However, it is strange that the Democrats, having closely watched the way the US got drawn deep into the Iraq quagmire after a war that was launched on deceptive grounds, could allow themselves to be party to authorising another war that promises to be all the more ferocious with unpredictable consequences.
The only explanation is that the reach of the powerful neoconservative camp is not limited to the Republicans. Equally important is the Israeli element in the US-Iran equation. The US Congress, whether Republican- or Democrat-led, has always been an ardent Israel supporter.
All it takes is a quick glance at how emphatically Senator Joseph R. Biden, a Democrat from Delware, stated his commitment to Israel, calling the country "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East."
"I am a Zionist," he said. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."
Conventional wisdom dictates that the US would not want to get involved in yet another military conflict in the Middle East while it grapples with the Iraq crisis and the elusive hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. It has 155,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan, and the bulk of them are vulnerable — if not sitting ducks — for Iranian retaliation for any military strike, whether Israeli or US.
The repurcussions of a military conflict involving Iran would be too serious for the international oil market to handle and the consequences of a record shoot-up of oil prices would be devastating to the American currency and thus the US economy.
There are many other dreadful scenarios pursuant to a US-led military strike against Iran, and no one in the region wants even to think of them.
However, the Bush administration's track record shows that it cannot be expected to apply conventional wisdom, and that means military action against Iran regardless of the consequences.
The Democrats must but be aware of all these considerations and still they went ahead with granting the administration the green signal for military action against Iran.
But then, that line of thought is based on the assumption that the Democrats must be opposed to the Iraq war. The rug is pulled from under that assumption when we note how the three main presidential hopefuls replied to a question during a recent public debate among themselves.
The question put to the Democratic presidential hopefuls — including frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards — by moderator Tim Russert was whether they were committed to withdrawing American soldiers from Iraq: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no US troops in Iraq?"
Well, none of the three would undertake that pledge. They argued that it was difficult to predict what could happen in the next four or five years.
That much for our assumption that the Democrats are a committed anti-war party, and out through the window goes our hope that a "regime change" in Washington through the 2008 presidential elections would lead to an end to the crisis in Iraq and a major positive shift in the belligerent American posture and approach that we have seen since the day George W Bush Junior entered the White House in 2001.
Not a piece of real estate
Oct.1, 2007
Not a piece of real estate to be split
THEY CAME, they saw, they conquered and now they want to divide it. We don't know it for sure yet whether splitting Iraq into three ethnic entities was part of the Bush administration's ulterior objectives when it ordered the invasion of that country in 2003, but we do know that the move spells catastrophe for the people of Iraq and the entire Middle East region.
Since the first Gulf war in 1991, the region's leaders had repeatedly cautioned the US against invading Iraq because they had foreseen the consequences of such action. However, the US, which was determined to eliminate Iraq as a potential threat to Israel and which always wanted absolute control of a country with enough hydrocarbon resources to ensure American energy security, was in no mood to listen. It went ahead with the invasion and occupied Iraq. As a result, it is now caught in the jaws of a crisis that it would never be able to solve while keeping intact its strategic geopolitical interests in the region.
The pro-Israeli neoconservative hawks in Washington are aware that the US has lost the war in Iraq, but it matters to little to them because their first priority is to serve Israeli interests even it comes at the expense of American national interests. They would never concede in public that the US stands no chance of pacifying and stabilising Iraq while it maintains its military occupation of the country, or, more specifically, that the US presence is at the root of the problem in Iraq.
And now we have US senators successfully pushing through the Senate a resolution calling for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia.
No doubt, Senator Joseph R Biden Jr, a Democrat from Delaware who led the initiative, has as much in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of Iraq and the broader Middle East as someone from the North Pole would have about running a space station.
Indeed, there could be hidden influences and powers at play behind the Senate resolution. We could think of at least one group in Iraq which has set its eyes on independent statehood for themselves and that group is hoping to gain control of the bulk of oil reserves in the country. We also know that many American politicians have close ties with the American oil establishment.
Whether influenced by vested interests or otherwise, Biden and likeminded US politicians are trying to find a solution to the American problem at the expense of the people of Iraq. They are overlooking that Iraq did not create the problem for the US but their own political and administrative leadership did. No one invited the US to invade Iraq, but it did so on its own will and landed in boiling waters. Regardless of the intensity of the problems they face in Iraq, the US political establishment has the moral responsibility and is bound by international conventions and charters not to tamper the territorial intergrity and demographic features of the country. They have no right whatsoever to even suggest that the country be divided on whatever basis.
In simpler terms, US politicians badly need to accept and respect the fact that the American military occupation of Iraq does not mean that the country has become part of their ancestral property that could be disposed off as they find fit. They have to produce an exit strategy on their own without pushing Iraq into further chaos and worsening the regional instability. They have to recognise that the US military presence in Iraq is the problem and should be worrying about how to bring home their soldiers rather than setting the ground for the disintegration of the country.
Not a piece of real estate to be split
THEY CAME, they saw, they conquered and now they want to divide it. We don't know it for sure yet whether splitting Iraq into three ethnic entities was part of the Bush administration's ulterior objectives when it ordered the invasion of that country in 2003, but we do know that the move spells catastrophe for the people of Iraq and the entire Middle East region.
Since the first Gulf war in 1991, the region's leaders had repeatedly cautioned the US against invading Iraq because they had foreseen the consequences of such action. However, the US, which was determined to eliminate Iraq as a potential threat to Israel and which always wanted absolute control of a country with enough hydrocarbon resources to ensure American energy security, was in no mood to listen. It went ahead with the invasion and occupied Iraq. As a result, it is now caught in the jaws of a crisis that it would never be able to solve while keeping intact its strategic geopolitical interests in the region.
The pro-Israeli neoconservative hawks in Washington are aware that the US has lost the war in Iraq, but it matters to little to them because their first priority is to serve Israeli interests even it comes at the expense of American national interests. They would never concede in public that the US stands no chance of pacifying and stabilising Iraq while it maintains its military occupation of the country, or, more specifically, that the US presence is at the root of the problem in Iraq.
And now we have US senators successfully pushing through the Senate a resolution calling for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia.
No doubt, Senator Joseph R Biden Jr, a Democrat from Delaware who led the initiative, has as much in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of Iraq and the broader Middle East as someone from the North Pole would have about running a space station.
Indeed, there could be hidden influences and powers at play behind the Senate resolution. We could think of at least one group in Iraq which has set its eyes on independent statehood for themselves and that group is hoping to gain control of the bulk of oil reserves in the country. We also know that many American politicians have close ties with the American oil establishment.
Whether influenced by vested interests or otherwise, Biden and likeminded US politicians are trying to find a solution to the American problem at the expense of the people of Iraq. They are overlooking that Iraq did not create the problem for the US but their own political and administrative leadership did. No one invited the US to invade Iraq, but it did so on its own will and landed in boiling waters. Regardless of the intensity of the problems they face in Iraq, the US political establishment has the moral responsibility and is bound by international conventions and charters not to tamper the territorial intergrity and demographic features of the country. They have no right whatsoever to even suggest that the country be divided on whatever basis.
In simpler terms, US politicians badly need to accept and respect the fact that the American military occupation of Iraq does not mean that the country has become part of their ancestral property that could be disposed off as they find fit. They have to produce an exit strategy on their own without pushing Iraq into further chaos and worsening the regional instability. They have to recognise that the US military presence in Iraq is the problem and should be worrying about how to bring home their soldiers rather than setting the ground for the disintegration of the country.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Deception has a negative fallout
Sept.23, 2007
Deception has a negative fallout
The UN has exposed that Israel has been lying to to the United States, to the European Union, to the UN itself and the rest of the world when it proclaimed that it would ease its stranglehold on the West Bank as a measure to improve the air for negotiations with the Palestinians.
It promised everyone that it would reduce the number of roadblocks in the West Bank. What it did in practice was to add more roadblocks that help strengthen its control of the movements of Palestinians within the occupied territories, according to the United Nations.
While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the promise to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, buoyed by a similar pledge by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, assured Abbas that Israel was to remove at least 24 roadblocks and adopt some measures to alleviate the restrictions on movement of Palestinians.
Today, according to a report in Israel's Haartez newspaper, there are 572 Israeli-controlled roadblocks in the West Bank compared with 376 in August 2005, and this has been recorded by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which also says that in the past two months alone, Israel put up 40 new roadblocks.
The UN agency did note that Israel Israel did away with 29 barricade in the Hebron region, but it put up 48 new roadblocks, mostly embankments preventing access to various roads.
Nearly 500 of the roadblocks are unmanned structures, mostly consisting of concrete cubes, earthen embankments and other barricades blocking roads and exits from villages and towns, the report notes.
The figures cited in the UN report do not include Israeli checkpoints on the "Green Line" — the frontier that the Jewish state controlled ast the time of the 1967 war when it occupied the West Bank.
The Israeli deception has serious repercussions on the ability of Abbas to muster support from the Palestinians ranks for peace talks that are expected to be given a boost at the US-proposed Middle East conference later this year. It was on the basis of the promises made by Olmert and the reassurance given by the US that Abbas had promised his people that the Israeli stranglehold on their lives would be eased soon. Now, not only that Israel did not keep its promise but it also made life more difficult for the Palestinians, many of whom have to travel through detours for hours for a trip that should normally take about 20 or 30 minutes.
Instead of shoring up Abbas and boosting his standing, Israel has actually done him harm, and the paradox is that Olmert still expects him to secure majority support from the Palestinian constituency for peace negotiations.
The UN is helpless to do anything about the situation, particularly that the US would not only reject any contemplated action against Israel for its blatant violations of UN resolutions but also offer the Jewish state an all-embracing protective umbrella against international action.
And still the world expects the US-proposed conference to produce a fair and just process to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If anytihing, Palestinian frustration and bitterness would only grow into increased militancy as a result of the Israeli failure to keep it promises.
Deception has a negative fallout
The UN has exposed that Israel has been lying to to the United States, to the European Union, to the UN itself and the rest of the world when it proclaimed that it would ease its stranglehold on the West Bank as a measure to improve the air for negotiations with the Palestinians.
It promised everyone that it would reduce the number of roadblocks in the West Bank. What it did in practice was to add more roadblocks that help strengthen its control of the movements of Palestinians within the occupied territories, according to the United Nations.
While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the promise to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, buoyed by a similar pledge by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, assured Abbas that Israel was to remove at least 24 roadblocks and adopt some measures to alleviate the restrictions on movement of Palestinians.
Today, according to a report in Israel's Haartez newspaper, there are 572 Israeli-controlled roadblocks in the West Bank compared with 376 in August 2005, and this has been recorded by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which also says that in the past two months alone, Israel put up 40 new roadblocks.
The UN agency did note that Israel Israel did away with 29 barricade in the Hebron region, but it put up 48 new roadblocks, mostly embankments preventing access to various roads.
Nearly 500 of the roadblocks are unmanned structures, mostly consisting of concrete cubes, earthen embankments and other barricades blocking roads and exits from villages and towns, the report notes.
The figures cited in the UN report do not include Israeli checkpoints on the "Green Line" — the frontier that the Jewish state controlled ast the time of the 1967 war when it occupied the West Bank.
The Israeli deception has serious repercussions on the ability of Abbas to muster support from the Palestinians ranks for peace talks that are expected to be given a boost at the US-proposed Middle East conference later this year. It was on the basis of the promises made by Olmert and the reassurance given by the US that Abbas had promised his people that the Israeli stranglehold on their lives would be eased soon. Now, not only that Israel did not keep its promise but it also made life more difficult for the Palestinians, many of whom have to travel through detours for hours for a trip that should normally take about 20 or 30 minutes.
Instead of shoring up Abbas and boosting his standing, Israel has actually done him harm, and the paradox is that Olmert still expects him to secure majority support from the Palestinian constituency for peace negotiations.
The UN is helpless to do anything about the situation, particularly that the US would not only reject any contemplated action against Israel for its blatant violations of UN resolutions but also offer the Jewish state an all-embracing protective umbrella against international action.
And still the world expects the US-proposed conference to produce a fair and just process to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If anytihing, Palestinian frustration and bitterness would only grow into increased militancy as a result of the Israeli failure to keep it promises.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Part and parce of a pattern
Sept.18, 2007
Part and parcel of a pattern
THE PRACTICE of American "security" contractors to follow their own law and open fire at "suspects" anywhere in Iraq has only been underlined with the Iraqi government order on Monday of the cancellation of US security firm Blackwater's operating licence.
The practice has to be seen in the same context as the torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at US detention facilities — as exposed by the Abu Ghraib revelations — and the many cases where US soldiers opened fire at unarmed Iraqi civilians and covered up the atrocity by filing false reports. The central vein that runs through this pattern of behaviour is the reality that the higher echelons of power have condoned such practices. Whatever action has been taken by the US military against some of the soldiers involved in such incidents was prompted by the hue and cry created by the media and human rights groups. Indeed, the exposed cases represent only a small part of the actual incidents. We could expect to hear of more cases in the days ahead from US soldiers who have returned home crippled from or traumatised by the brutal actions they witnessed in Iraq.
In the Blackwater cases, the company's guards, who provide personal security for US civilian officials working in Iraq, opened fire on a crowd in Baghdad's Al Yarmukh neighbourhood, killing at least eight people and wounded 13. The guards were part of what was described as a US diplomatic convoy. The US embassy explained that the shooting happened when the private security guards "reacted to a car bomb."
It said "the car-bomb was in proximity to where State Department personnel were meeting. This is the reason Blackwater responded to that."
We have yet to hear an Iraqi government confirmation that there was indeed a car bomb in the area at the time of the killings. In the meantime, the embassy is going out of its way to defend Blackwater and protect its interests. According to an embassy spokesman, there is no confirmation of the cancellation of Blackwater's licence and the diplomatic mission is "continuing to discuss with the Iraqi government." No doubt, the discussion aims at allowing Blackwater to continue whatever it was doing in Iraq.
In simpler terms, the US military and political establishment prosecuting the war in Iraq consider Iraqis as not worthy of consideration as human beings. As far as they are concerned, it is simple tough luck for those Iraqis unfortunate enough to cross the paths of private American contractors who seem to have the run of the country.
And yet we told of the US determination to bring democracy and respect for human dignity and rights to Iraq. We wonder who many Iraqis would be left to enjoy democracy and respect for human dignity and rights by the time the US finishes whatever it intends to accomplish in the post-war country.
Part and parcel of a pattern
THE PRACTICE of American "security" contractors to follow their own law and open fire at "suspects" anywhere in Iraq has only been underlined with the Iraqi government order on Monday of the cancellation of US security firm Blackwater's operating licence.
The practice has to be seen in the same context as the torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at US detention facilities — as exposed by the Abu Ghraib revelations — and the many cases where US soldiers opened fire at unarmed Iraqi civilians and covered up the atrocity by filing false reports. The central vein that runs through this pattern of behaviour is the reality that the higher echelons of power have condoned such practices. Whatever action has been taken by the US military against some of the soldiers involved in such incidents was prompted by the hue and cry created by the media and human rights groups. Indeed, the exposed cases represent only a small part of the actual incidents. We could expect to hear of more cases in the days ahead from US soldiers who have returned home crippled from or traumatised by the brutal actions they witnessed in Iraq.
In the Blackwater cases, the company's guards, who provide personal security for US civilian officials working in Iraq, opened fire on a crowd in Baghdad's Al Yarmukh neighbourhood, killing at least eight people and wounded 13. The guards were part of what was described as a US diplomatic convoy. The US embassy explained that the shooting happened when the private security guards "reacted to a car bomb."
It said "the car-bomb was in proximity to where State Department personnel were meeting. This is the reason Blackwater responded to that."
We have yet to hear an Iraqi government confirmation that there was indeed a car bomb in the area at the time of the killings. In the meantime, the embassy is going out of its way to defend Blackwater and protect its interests. According to an embassy spokesman, there is no confirmation of the cancellation of Blackwater's licence and the diplomatic mission is "continuing to discuss with the Iraqi government." No doubt, the discussion aims at allowing Blackwater to continue whatever it was doing in Iraq.
In simpler terms, the US military and political establishment prosecuting the war in Iraq consider Iraqis as not worthy of consideration as human beings. As far as they are concerned, it is simple tough luck for those Iraqis unfortunate enough to cross the paths of private American contractors who seem to have the run of the country.
And yet we told of the US determination to bring democracy and respect for human dignity and rights to Iraq. We wonder who many Iraqis would be left to enjoy democracy and respect for human dignity and rights by the time the US finishes whatever it intends to accomplish in the post-war country.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Real difference is between the lines
Sept.16, 2007
The real difference is between the lines
THE refusal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree on binding principles that would guide peace negotiations with the Palestinians is an emphatic pointer to his mindset against meeting the minimum requirements for a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Olmert is ready only to adopt a joint statement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the US-proposed conference on the Middle East expected to be held in Washington in November.
The Palestinians have had enough and more experience with Israeli declarations and contradictory actions. They saw it happening after the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel signed the "interim" Oslo agreement in 1993 after secret negotiations. The agreement put off any discussion on the core issues of the conflict until "final status" talks in 1998. Indeed, some progress was made under the Oslo agrements, but the scenario changed dramatically when the key architect of the accord, the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in late 1995. However, the key issues remained unaddressed, and whatever progress was made until then was reversed by the Israeli governments which succeeded the Rabin cabinet.
It is clear why Olmert is not ready to agree on principles. He knows too well that he would never be able to agree to the basic demands of the Palestinians, which include: creation of an independent Palestinian state with clearly defined borders and Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to return to their homeland or receive compensation in lieu of their lost property.
Any agreement on principles with Abbas would bind Olmert to these prerequisites for peace and would in fact ease the negotiating process since the objectives are clear. However, Olmert is not ready to undertake any commitment, and indications are strong that he sees the opportunity for peace only as a window to escape from his political troubles that should otherwise have no bearing whatsoever on making peace with the Palestinians.
As Olmert reportedly told a meeting of his Kadima party, "there is a difference between an agreement on principles and a declaration of intent." That might indeed be true, but it would apepar that there is little difference between his mindset and that of some of his "hard-line" predecessors and colleagues.
Obviously, it follows then that Olmert is trying to borrow a leaf from one of his Likud predecessors, Yitzhak Shamir, who took Israel to the famous 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid professing good faith and declared later that all he intended to do was to "continue negotiating with the Palestinians for the next 10 years while giving them nothing."
The real difference is between the lines
THE refusal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree on binding principles that would guide peace negotiations with the Palestinians is an emphatic pointer to his mindset against meeting the minimum requirements for a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Olmert is ready only to adopt a joint statement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the US-proposed conference on the Middle East expected to be held in Washington in November.
The Palestinians have had enough and more experience with Israeli declarations and contradictory actions. They saw it happening after the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel signed the "interim" Oslo agreement in 1993 after secret negotiations. The agreement put off any discussion on the core issues of the conflict until "final status" talks in 1998. Indeed, some progress was made under the Oslo agrements, but the scenario changed dramatically when the key architect of the accord, the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in late 1995. However, the key issues remained unaddressed, and whatever progress was made until then was reversed by the Israeli governments which succeeded the Rabin cabinet.
It is clear why Olmert is not ready to agree on principles. He knows too well that he would never be able to agree to the basic demands of the Palestinians, which include: creation of an independent Palestinian state with clearly defined borders and Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to return to their homeland or receive compensation in lieu of their lost property.
Any agreement on principles with Abbas would bind Olmert to these prerequisites for peace and would in fact ease the negotiating process since the objectives are clear. However, Olmert is not ready to undertake any commitment, and indications are strong that he sees the opportunity for peace only as a window to escape from his political troubles that should otherwise have no bearing whatsoever on making peace with the Palestinians.
As Olmert reportedly told a meeting of his Kadima party, "there is a difference between an agreement on principles and a declaration of intent." That might indeed be true, but it would apepar that there is little difference between his mindset and that of some of his "hard-line" predecessors and colleagues.
Obviously, it follows then that Olmert is trying to borrow a leaf from one of his Likud predecessors, Yitzhak Shamir, who took Israel to the famous 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid professing good faith and declared later that all he intended to do was to "continue negotiating with the Palestinians for the next 10 years while giving them nothing."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
Sept.13, 2007
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
MANY around the world and within the US itself were jubilant when the Democrats put up a strong showing in last year's mid-term elections and gained control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Many expected the Democrats to swiftly move ahead and have in place a legislative order for US military withdrawal from Iraq. However, the rule of the game of numbers in the US Congress did not allow that to happen. The Democrats could make a lot of noise and level high-decibel criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, but they could achieve little on the ground.
They are not even near the majority in Senate that they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is getting ahead on its prescripted course. President George Bush was poised to announce his endorsement of the recommendations made this week by General David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce US troop levels by some 30,000 — or only about 20 per cent — by August next year. That is a cosmetic move since the recall of 30,000 would still leave some 135,000 US soldiers and marines in place – about the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated in February. Again it is a game of numbers of sorts.
It is clear that the recall is designed to appease some of the Republican critics of the war who are growing more uneasy about the high number of soldiers present in Iraq. Under current regulations which limit to 15 months tours of duty in combat zones, 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and Petraeus is disguising their recall as a move prompted by the "success" of the surge.
There is little doubt that any substantial reduction of troops is unlikely while Bush bows out of the White House in January 2009.
Effectively, there is little the Democrats could do to end the war in Iraq or change the course of the US conduct there unless they get enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
There are 50 Democrats in the Senate, and they might be able to muster another 10 votes from Republicans who are disgruntled with the war and the way the Bush administration has taken the US towards disaster. But that is not enough to make any real difference.
This means that Bush's successor, who is most likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, given the current administration's disastrous governance of the country, would inherit the mission of extricating the US from its bloodiest and most costly overseas misadventure since its involvement in Vietnam. But the mission would not be taken up because US strategic interests are stake in the Middle East regardless of who occupies the White House, and the game in Washington would continue with players in reversed roles with unchanged rules.
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
MANY around the world and within the US itself were jubilant when the Democrats put up a strong showing in last year's mid-term elections and gained control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Many expected the Democrats to swiftly move ahead and have in place a legislative order for US military withdrawal from Iraq. However, the rule of the game of numbers in the US Congress did not allow that to happen. The Democrats could make a lot of noise and level high-decibel criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, but they could achieve little on the ground.
They are not even near the majority in Senate that they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is getting ahead on its prescripted course. President George Bush was poised to announce his endorsement of the recommendations made this week by General David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce US troop levels by some 30,000 — or only about 20 per cent — by August next year. That is a cosmetic move since the recall of 30,000 would still leave some 135,000 US soldiers and marines in place – about the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated in February. Again it is a game of numbers of sorts.
It is clear that the recall is designed to appease some of the Republican critics of the war who are growing more uneasy about the high number of soldiers present in Iraq. Under current regulations which limit to 15 months tours of duty in combat zones, 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and Petraeus is disguising their recall as a move prompted by the "success" of the surge.
There is little doubt that any substantial reduction of troops is unlikely while Bush bows out of the White House in January 2009.
Effectively, there is little the Democrats could do to end the war in Iraq or change the course of the US conduct there unless they get enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
There are 50 Democrats in the Senate, and they might be able to muster another 10 votes from Republicans who are disgruntled with the war and the way the Bush administration has taken the US towards disaster. But that is not enough to make any real difference.
This means that Bush's successor, who is most likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, given the current administration's disastrous governance of the country, would inherit the mission of extricating the US from its bloodiest and most costly overseas misadventure since its involvement in Vietnam. But the mission would not be taken up because US strategic interests are stake in the Middle East regardless of who occupies the White House, and the game in Washington would continue with players in reversed roles with unchanged rules.
Monday, September 10, 2007
No lapse at the expense of people
Sept.19, 2007
No lapse at the expense of people
THE LATEST player to assume a high-profile role in the UN efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's western Darfur region is China. The Beijing government has called for restraint on all sides to check the violence in Darfur and also offered to use its good offices towards finding a mediated solution to the crisis.
There has indeed been an increasing Western concern over China's growing profile in Africa, and Beijing faces allegations that it is turning a blind eye to bloodshed not only in the Sudanese region but also elsewhere in Africa out of economic self-interest.
China's envoy on Darfur, Liu Guijin, is now working on "correcting" what he describes as misconceptions about his country's relations with Sudan. He explains that Beijing's relations with Khartoum "are no more special than" its relations with other developing nations.
China, which is contributing a military unit to the UN peacekeeping force in southern Sudan, is also sending a 400-strong medical and engineering contingent to prepare for the deployment of the UN-proposed hybrid force of African and UN soldiers in Darfur. Earlier, China, the biggest buyer of Sudan's oil output, was influential in convincing the Sudanese government to accept the planned deployment of the hybrid force.
Beyond that, Liu on Tuesday also offered to involve his country in a "positive and active" manner in Darfur peace talks, including mediating between between the Khartoum government and rebel groups.
It would definitely seem that China is determined to do away with any ground for charges that it is abetting bloodshed in Darfur by maintaining big investments in Sudanese oil, selling Khartoum arms that end up in Darfur, and fending off stronger UN Security Council resolutions.
It is indeed a positive development and should be much helpful to the international community's efforts to solve the Darfur crisis, particularly in view of the latest UN report which highlighted that violence is on the increase in the troubled region.
The Sudanese government has its own concerns. So do the rebel groups, and it is the voice of the people of Darfur that get drowned in the bargain. And it is the people of Darfur who are paying the real price for whatever interests are play in their region.
The focus of all efforts is now on the upcoming Darfur peace talks in Libya. Hopefully, the key players would take advantage of the emerging Chinese willingness to contribute to the effort to put an end to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Darfur. Of course, external political and economic interests would have to play their role in the effort, but it should be at the minimum level and at no point should there be any lapse in the international approach at the expense of the people of Darfur.
No lapse at the expense of people
THE LATEST player to assume a high-profile role in the UN efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's western Darfur region is China. The Beijing government has called for restraint on all sides to check the violence in Darfur and also offered to use its good offices towards finding a mediated solution to the crisis.
There has indeed been an increasing Western concern over China's growing profile in Africa, and Beijing faces allegations that it is turning a blind eye to bloodshed not only in the Sudanese region but also elsewhere in Africa out of economic self-interest.
China's envoy on Darfur, Liu Guijin, is now working on "correcting" what he describes as misconceptions about his country's relations with Sudan. He explains that Beijing's relations with Khartoum "are no more special than" its relations with other developing nations.
China, which is contributing a military unit to the UN peacekeeping force in southern Sudan, is also sending a 400-strong medical and engineering contingent to prepare for the deployment of the UN-proposed hybrid force of African and UN soldiers in Darfur. Earlier, China, the biggest buyer of Sudan's oil output, was influential in convincing the Sudanese government to accept the planned deployment of the hybrid force.
Beyond that, Liu on Tuesday also offered to involve his country in a "positive and active" manner in Darfur peace talks, including mediating between between the Khartoum government and rebel groups.
It would definitely seem that China is determined to do away with any ground for charges that it is abetting bloodshed in Darfur by maintaining big investments in Sudanese oil, selling Khartoum arms that end up in Darfur, and fending off stronger UN Security Council resolutions.
It is indeed a positive development and should be much helpful to the international community's efforts to solve the Darfur crisis, particularly in view of the latest UN report which highlighted that violence is on the increase in the troubled region.
The Sudanese government has its own concerns. So do the rebel groups, and it is the voice of the people of Darfur that get drowned in the bargain. And it is the people of Darfur who are paying the real price for whatever interests are play in their region.
The focus of all efforts is now on the upcoming Darfur peace talks in Libya. Hopefully, the key players would take advantage of the emerging Chinese willingness to contribute to the effort to put an end to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Darfur. Of course, external political and economic interests would have to play their role in the effort, but it should be at the minimum level and at no point should there be any lapse in the international approach at the expense of the people of Darfur.
Trial run to regional chaos
Sept.10, 2007
Trial run to regional chaos
IT WOULD appear that the Israelis were running yet another rehearsal for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities as reports indicate an increasing clamour in Washington and Israeli circles for military action in the escalating tension with Tehran.
That is what is indicated by the presence of Israeli aviation fuel tanks that were apparently dropped in Turkey near the Turkish-Syrian border last week.
Obviously, Israel is planning a repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear plant, which it suspected of being building site for nuclear weapons. It is also known that Israel has acquired the long-range capability to strike at some of Iran's nuclear facilities, including those located underground. The Israeli air force is now equipped with refuelling planes for such missions and also "bunker-buster" bombs that could successfully target underground facilities protected by concrete layers.
Syria has reported that its air defences opened fire against Israeli aircraft which violated its airspace on Thursday. Israel has kept a pointed silence on the incident and some Israeli officials have used the opportunity to accuse Syria of seeking a war with the Jewish state and of sponsoring "terrorism." They also claim that Syria could never be expected to seek peace with Israel.
Well, the whole episode is deceitful, to say the least. Syria has clearly indicated that it is seeking peace with Israel, but not on terms set by the Jewish state. Israeli leaders might not want to acknowledge the reality, but that posture does not do away with the world's understanding of the Syrian position.
It is almost certain that Israel is planning military action against Iran, and Tehran has vowed that it would hold the US responsible for any strikes against its nuclear or other facilities regardless of who actually carries out the attack — in short a perfect recipe for worsening the instability in the region resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing crisis in the chaotic country.
The truth that Israeli aircraft were in Syrian space as part of a trial run for action against Iran also explains why the US has opted not to make any comment.
Something needs to be done and done fast. The situation threatens to send the regional situation spinning out of control and it is a prospect no one in the region or beyond wants, except of course Israel, whose leaders seem to have convinced themselves that their country would be able to ride out the repercussions of its actions.
The only party which could probably restrain Israel is the US, but it is Washington which supplied and equipped the Jewish state with the advanced weapons, equipment and technology for long-range military action. And it is also known that no US administration could ever restrain Israel when the Jewish state is determined and has made up its to do something.
Where does that leave the region? We could only hope that sensible minds would prevail in Washington in order to apply pressure of a level that is warranted in order to restrain Israel from pursuing its disasterous designs.
Trial run to regional chaos
IT WOULD appear that the Israelis were running yet another rehearsal for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities as reports indicate an increasing clamour in Washington and Israeli circles for military action in the escalating tension with Tehran.
That is what is indicated by the presence of Israeli aviation fuel tanks that were apparently dropped in Turkey near the Turkish-Syrian border last week.
Obviously, Israel is planning a repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear plant, which it suspected of being building site for nuclear weapons. It is also known that Israel has acquired the long-range capability to strike at some of Iran's nuclear facilities, including those located underground. The Israeli air force is now equipped with refuelling planes for such missions and also "bunker-buster" bombs that could successfully target underground facilities protected by concrete layers.
Syria has reported that its air defences opened fire against Israeli aircraft which violated its airspace on Thursday. Israel has kept a pointed silence on the incident and some Israeli officials have used the opportunity to accuse Syria of seeking a war with the Jewish state and of sponsoring "terrorism." They also claim that Syria could never be expected to seek peace with Israel.
Well, the whole episode is deceitful, to say the least. Syria has clearly indicated that it is seeking peace with Israel, but not on terms set by the Jewish state. Israeli leaders might not want to acknowledge the reality, but that posture does not do away with the world's understanding of the Syrian position.
It is almost certain that Israel is planning military action against Iran, and Tehran has vowed that it would hold the US responsible for any strikes against its nuclear or other facilities regardless of who actually carries out the attack — in short a perfect recipe for worsening the instability in the region resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing crisis in the chaotic country.
The truth that Israeli aircraft were in Syrian space as part of a trial run for action against Iran also explains why the US has opted not to make any comment.
Something needs to be done and done fast. The situation threatens to send the regional situation spinning out of control and it is a prospect no one in the region or beyond wants, except of course Israel, whose leaders seem to have convinced themselves that their country would be able to ride out the repercussions of its actions.
The only party which could probably restrain Israel is the US, but it is Washington which supplied and equipped the Jewish state with the advanced weapons, equipment and technology for long-range military action. And it is also known that no US administration could ever restrain Israel when the Jewish state is determined and has made up its to do something.
Where does that leave the region? We could only hope that sensible minds would prevail in Washington in order to apply pressure of a level that is warranted in order to restrain Israel from pursuing its disasterous designs.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Helpless in Sudan
Sept.9, 2007
Helpless in Sudan
HOPES of peace attached to the agreement signed in May between the Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur area are fading fast. The Khartoum government, which has been standing steadfast that it would not accept the proposed deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur, has boosted the ante by giving African Union troops a one-week ultimatum to accept a deal that would block the UN proposal or leave Sudan.
The ultimatum is mostly seen as an advance warning of Khartoum's options in its fight against the proposal to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur. Sudanese officials have since scaled down the talk, saying the African Union troops could stay within their mandate as long as they do not become part of the UN peacekeeping effort.
The Khartoum government has also intensified an offensive in Darfur against groups that did not sign the May peace agreement. Relief agencies and international watchdogs are reporting an increase in armed attacks in what is widely seen as an effort to finish off the rebellion in Darfur. They report increasing bombing raids on villages and ground attacks in order to clear the way for government forces to drive back rebels. Tens of thousands of civilians have been turned into refugees, further exacerbating the crisis, which has already seen upto two million, according to some reports, being displaced. The number of death is put at between 250,000 and 450,000 in the three-year conflict.
The world agrees that the only way out is deployment of a neutral force under UN auspices that would keep away the antagonists from each other while the political process would continue with the goal of working out a firm and permanent solution to the conflict, which effectively pits the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum with largely African tribes in the western region.
One of the main reasons for Khartoum's rejection of a UN force in Darfur is said to be apprehension that it would pave the way for detention and trial of military commanders and pro-Khartoum militiamen on charges of genocide.
Indeed, people responsible for crimes against humanity should face justice. That is a point well taken by the US-led camp that is pushing for deployment of a UN force in Darfur. However, the thrust is deflected when the same US pointedly keeps a blind eye to similar situations elsewhere in the world, particularly the Middle East where not only Israeli military officers and their agents but also Israeli politicians should be held responsible and tried on similar charges. Amnesty International, the same group which is pushing for a UN force to be sent to Darfur, has clearly stated that Israeli military commanders and those who ordered them into the recent 34-day blitz against Lebanon should be charged with war crimes. While opting to accept the Amnesty position on Darfur and ignoring the group's stand on Israel and Lebanon, the US is only reaffirming its biased policies.
In the meantime, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is worsening. The 7,000 African Union troops' role is limited to providing protection for food delivery and other relief work and not using force to prevent armed clashes. Government forces are also accused of cracking down on students and activists who have been staging rallies in support of the proposed UN peacekeeping effort.
The world is left as a bystander unable to do anything to influence the course of events that is in favour of the Khartoum government. Experts familiar with the situation say the government would gain the upper hand in the fight in Darfur and turn to consolidating and implementing the May peace agreement. As such, the only international option seems to be to wait until the situation clears itself. Let us only hope that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur would not get beyond the point of no return by then.
Helpless in Sudan
HOPES of peace attached to the agreement signed in May between the Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur area are fading fast. The Khartoum government, which has been standing steadfast that it would not accept the proposed deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur, has boosted the ante by giving African Union troops a one-week ultimatum to accept a deal that would block the UN proposal or leave Sudan.
The ultimatum is mostly seen as an advance warning of Khartoum's options in its fight against the proposal to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur. Sudanese officials have since scaled down the talk, saying the African Union troops could stay within their mandate as long as they do not become part of the UN peacekeeping effort.
The Khartoum government has also intensified an offensive in Darfur against groups that did not sign the May peace agreement. Relief agencies and international watchdogs are reporting an increase in armed attacks in what is widely seen as an effort to finish off the rebellion in Darfur. They report increasing bombing raids on villages and ground attacks in order to clear the way for government forces to drive back rebels. Tens of thousands of civilians have been turned into refugees, further exacerbating the crisis, which has already seen upto two million, according to some reports, being displaced. The number of death is put at between 250,000 and 450,000 in the three-year conflict.
The world agrees that the only way out is deployment of a neutral force under UN auspices that would keep away the antagonists from each other while the political process would continue with the goal of working out a firm and permanent solution to the conflict, which effectively pits the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum with largely African tribes in the western region.
One of the main reasons for Khartoum's rejection of a UN force in Darfur is said to be apprehension that it would pave the way for detention and trial of military commanders and pro-Khartoum militiamen on charges of genocide.
Indeed, people responsible for crimes against humanity should face justice. That is a point well taken by the US-led camp that is pushing for deployment of a UN force in Darfur. However, the thrust is deflected when the same US pointedly keeps a blind eye to similar situations elsewhere in the world, particularly the Middle East where not only Israeli military officers and their agents but also Israeli politicians should be held responsible and tried on similar charges. Amnesty International, the same group which is pushing for a UN force to be sent to Darfur, has clearly stated that Israeli military commanders and those who ordered them into the recent 34-day blitz against Lebanon should be charged with war crimes. While opting to accept the Amnesty position on Darfur and ignoring the group's stand on Israel and Lebanon, the US is only reaffirming its biased policies.
In the meantime, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is worsening. The 7,000 African Union troops' role is limited to providing protection for food delivery and other relief work and not using force to prevent armed clashes. Government forces are also accused of cracking down on students and activists who have been staging rallies in support of the proposed UN peacekeeping effort.
The world is left as a bystander unable to do anything to influence the course of events that is in favour of the Khartoum government. Experts familiar with the situation say the government would gain the upper hand in the fight in Darfur and turn to consolidating and implementing the May peace agreement. As such, the only international option seems to be to wait until the situation clears itself. Let us only hope that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur would not get beyond the point of no return by then.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Wishes that will remain only listed
Aug.20, 2007
Wishes that will remain only listed
IT IS conventionally welcome news that Iraq's fractious leaders have agreed on the agenda for a political summit called by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, who is desperately trying to rescue his crumbling "national unity" government.
Maliki, who is under intense American pressure to salvage the government, is obviously hoping that the Sunnis who have quit the government would come around and opt to attend the proposed gathering if only because there is no other game in town.
It was not exactly a wise move by the Shiite prime minister to announced the formation of an alliance grouping his Dawa party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Kurdish groups — the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) but excluding all Sunni factions. The move underlined what many see as the inevitability of the country splintering along Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni lines. The record of the post-war crisis in Iraq is interpreted by many as having established that the three major sects are unable to co-exist with each other as long as the US maintains its presence there. The US presence is the not the solution; it is the problem.
Seasoned international experts agree with the assessment; so do many retired American and European generals.
But the world has not heard much from the people who actually deal with the situation on the ground on how to deal with the crisis and whether they feel something could be done to correct the American course in Iraq. The world did hear from them this week when the New York Times carried an article written by six US military personnel serving in Iraq — Army specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, sergeants Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora and Edward Sandmeier and staff sergeants Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy.
The article summarised what most people already knew but denied by the US administration: That the US is not winning is unlikely to win "hearts and minds" of Iraqis has ended up alienating everyone.
The article carries pointed references to the massive number of Iraqis who have fled their country and to similar number internally displaced. The article highlights the plight of the ordinary people of Iraq — the lack of electricity, services, drinking water, and above all security.
One of the most damaging revelations in the article is that the Iraqi security forces — which the writers find penetrated at the street level by Shiite militiamen and their supporters — have become not only totally unreliable in times of crisis but also a potential source of danger for US soldiers.
Add to that what we know already of the complexities of the Iraqi way of politics, the alliances and rivalries, the fortune-hunters and back-stabbers and opportunists, and the people at large who continue to pay the price of a foreign military misadventure and who have seen the "liberator" turning to an "occupier" and to an "oppressor."
Does the net image that emerges look like a war that could be won?
Of course, Maliki has little option but to hope and continue to try to salvage himself and his government so that the US could see at least one of its strategic objectives being pushed through: Approval of legislation that would effectively hand over control of Iraq's oil resources to foreign companies.
Indeed, there is nothing that could stop anyone drawing up a wishlist, but it is a dead certainty that the US wishes in Iraq would only remain on a list.
Wishes that will remain only listed
IT IS conventionally welcome news that Iraq's fractious leaders have agreed on the agenda for a political summit called by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, who is desperately trying to rescue his crumbling "national unity" government.
Maliki, who is under intense American pressure to salvage the government, is obviously hoping that the Sunnis who have quit the government would come around and opt to attend the proposed gathering if only because there is no other game in town.
It was not exactly a wise move by the Shiite prime minister to announced the formation of an alliance grouping his Dawa party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Kurdish groups — the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) but excluding all Sunni factions. The move underlined what many see as the inevitability of the country splintering along Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni lines. The record of the post-war crisis in Iraq is interpreted by many as having established that the three major sects are unable to co-exist with each other as long as the US maintains its presence there. The US presence is the not the solution; it is the problem.
Seasoned international experts agree with the assessment; so do many retired American and European generals.
But the world has not heard much from the people who actually deal with the situation on the ground on how to deal with the crisis and whether they feel something could be done to correct the American course in Iraq. The world did hear from them this week when the New York Times carried an article written by six US military personnel serving in Iraq — Army specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, sergeants Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora and Edward Sandmeier and staff sergeants Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy.
The article summarised what most people already knew but denied by the US administration: That the US is not winning is unlikely to win "hearts and minds" of Iraqis has ended up alienating everyone.
The article carries pointed references to the massive number of Iraqis who have fled their country and to similar number internally displaced. The article highlights the plight of the ordinary people of Iraq — the lack of electricity, services, drinking water, and above all security.
One of the most damaging revelations in the article is that the Iraqi security forces — which the writers find penetrated at the street level by Shiite militiamen and their supporters — have become not only totally unreliable in times of crisis but also a potential source of danger for US soldiers.
Add to that what we know already of the complexities of the Iraqi way of politics, the alliances and rivalries, the fortune-hunters and back-stabbers and opportunists, and the people at large who continue to pay the price of a foreign military misadventure and who have seen the "liberator" turning to an "occupier" and to an "oppressor."
Does the net image that emerges look like a war that could be won?
Of course, Maliki has little option but to hope and continue to try to salvage himself and his government so that the US could see at least one of its strategic objectives being pushed through: Approval of legislation that would effectively hand over control of Iraq's oil resources to foreign companies.
Indeed, there is nothing that could stop anyone drawing up a wishlist, but it is a dead certainty that the US wishes in Iraq would only remain on a list.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
US 'better off with Sadr'
Aug.19, 2007
US 'better off' with Sadr as an ally
ONE OF the most interesting theories that have come up recently is that the US would be better off working with firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr to restore the "state" in Iraq and with Iran to restore normal Washington-Tehran relations if it were to hope for a face-saving formula to get out of the Iraq crisis.
The strongest proponent of the theory is William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation in Washington.
The practical implementation of Lind's theory hinges on the precondition that the US administration accepts that its maximalist objectives of the invasion and occupation are not realisable, and it could no longer hope to dictate terms but could only hope to try influence things in a manner that reduces its losses and produces a way out of Iraq.
Essentially, Washington has to accept that the US is already defeated in Iraq and should act immediately in the light of that acceptance rather than wait for events to take their course towards the inevitability of having to eat crow in Iraq.
Indeed, that is where the problem is rooted. The US continues to believe that a victory in Iraq means the chaotic country being turned into an American satellite that is friendly to Israel and will guarantee US energy interests and offer military bases from which American forces can dominate the region.
That is where the neoconservatives who planned and orchestrated the Iraq war made their biggest mistake. None of these objectives were ever attainable and would never be attained regardless of how much military power the US throws into Iraq.
Let us start from point zero. The US-led invasion destroyed the "state" in Iraq and restoring it should be Washington's first priority. However, it would be unable to do so as long as it continues on its present course. The US would never be able to turn the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to be the unifying force capable of re-knitting Iraq because any association with the US becomes an immediate disqualifying factor for any Iraqi politician, whether Shiite or Sunni. The US remains an invader and occupier in most Iraqi eyes and it is simply impossible for Washington to be the creator of a post-Saddam Hussein state in Iraq. It has no option but to work with the country's Shiites to create a new state but only with a clear and public declaration of its intentions not to continue its occupation of Iraq and of a clear timeline for military withdrawal from that country. And Sadr, by his steadfast resistance against the US, is, at this juncture in time, the most credible Shiite leader in Iraq, no matter how Washington evaluates him in view of his known links with Iran.
Sadr has played his cards right. He has even reached out to Sunni groups by ordering his Mahdi Army militiamen to call off their violent campaign against the Sunnis and entering a de facto alliance with some of the Sunni factions.
There are many who believe that Sadr has already set his eyes on the highest position of power in Iraq and hence his strong emphasis on Shiite-Sunni unity against the US. They are suggesting that the time might not be more opportune for the US to make an overture to Sadr if indeed Washington is sincere in its declaration that it does not want to continue its military occupation indefinitely.
The US should essentially realise that it is no longer a question of ensuring that Iraq would remain US-friendly when the US forces withdraw from that country. It is simply impossible, given the way the US conducted itself in post-war Iraq. The question should indeed be how to ensure minimum losses and maxium protection for US forces as they withdraw from Iraq. In order to achieve that there should be a state that would co-operate with the clear understanding that the US military is leaving Iraq for good. In fact, the leaders of that new state would be more anxious than the American themselves to create an environment that is conducive to an accelerated US withdrawal from the country.
There would indeed be Sunni rejection of any US-Sadr deal. But then, the US should know that it could not please everyone. The Sunnis of Iraq have to accept that their days of domination are over and their only hope is to negotiate and bargain for the best deal they could get from whoever emerges as the political leader in a post-US occupation Iraq.
Of course, the strongest opposition to any US move to enter a compromise of sorts with Sadr would come from other Shiite leaders, but that is where Iran comes in with its clout with the Shiite community in Iraq in general to remove challenges to Sadr.
That is precisely the reason why the US should abandon its determination to subdue Iran and seek to launch an all-embracing dialogue aimed at settling most, if not all, differences and stabilise relations with the Islamic republic.
Washington should drop its belief that ending its in-built hostility towards Iran's theocratic regime and normalising relations with Tehran implies defeat for the US. Simply put, there would never be a US victory in Iraq as long as Washington pursues a belligerent course towards Iran.
Dropping hostility and negotiating an end to the tension with Iran is not seen as an option for the US at this point because Washington is convinced that it is not possible to co-exist with Tehran. The Iranian regime is similarly convinced, and Tehran could not be expected to help Washington to stabilise Iraq as long as the US military is present there. Instead, Iran believes that its interests of getting the US out of the region and emerging as a dominating regional power could be served only through continued destabilisation of Iraq. One could also throw in Afghanistan for good measures.
Within Iraq, the US could strike a deal with Moqtada Sadr, but that would be at the expense of accepting and acknowledging that it could not realise its objectives of the invasion of that country. Beyond that, it would simply mean giving up Iraq to be controlled by forces friendly to Iran, a much worse fate than being defeated in Iraq.
It is almost certain that with Sadr as the dominant Shiite political figure (under a hypothetical deal engineered by the US), there is no telling how the cookie will crumble in Iraq.
On the other hand, stabilising relations with Tehran and working out a face-saving formula by promoting Sadr, the US would be able to work out an exit strategy out of Iraq and also be assured that groups like Al Qaeda are significantly weakened because the new state in Iraq would make sure that such destabilising forces are chased out after the US quits the country.
It would indeed be a key scoring point in the US-led war against terror.
The Lind theory is an excellent suggestion for Washington because it offers the best way out of the US with the minimum loss of face. Washington and Tehran may not be become buddies, but they would be able to work out a formula under which they would avoid a confrontation and that is good news for the region.
However, the element that deflates all prospects for such course of events is the obvious determination among the Washington hard-liners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, to stage military action against Iran and not to allow anything to stand in their way of eliminating that country as a potential threat to US and Israeli interests in the region.
It is the same Washington camp that plotted and orchestrated the invasion of Iraq that is behind the campaign for military strike against Iran. And it is also clear that all they need is a pretext to launch action, and the neoconservatives are admitting it in public.
nother 9/11 attack.
In an article titled "To save America, we need another 9/11," Stu Bykofsky writes in the Philadelphia Daily News that the fight between the Republicans and Democrats over Iraq shows that the US is divided and that the unity of Americans brought about by the Sept.11 attacks has disappeared.
Therefore, Bykofsky argues, the US needs another 9/11 style attack "quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."
What Bykofsky falls short of suggesting is that Iran has already been lined up as the target for the "righteous rage" and "singular purpose."
Against that reality, theories and proposals such as those made by Lind have as much chance of consideration as the Iranians opting to buy Japanese caviar.
US 'better off' with Sadr as an ally
ONE OF the most interesting theories that have come up recently is that the US would be better off working with firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr to restore the "state" in Iraq and with Iran to restore normal Washington-Tehran relations if it were to hope for a face-saving formula to get out of the Iraq crisis.
The strongest proponent of the theory is William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation in Washington.
The practical implementation of Lind's theory hinges on the precondition that the US administration accepts that its maximalist objectives of the invasion and occupation are not realisable, and it could no longer hope to dictate terms but could only hope to try influence things in a manner that reduces its losses and produces a way out of Iraq.
Essentially, Washington has to accept that the US is already defeated in Iraq and should act immediately in the light of that acceptance rather than wait for events to take their course towards the inevitability of having to eat crow in Iraq.
Indeed, that is where the problem is rooted. The US continues to believe that a victory in Iraq means the chaotic country being turned into an American satellite that is friendly to Israel and will guarantee US energy interests and offer military bases from which American forces can dominate the region.
That is where the neoconservatives who planned and orchestrated the Iraq war made their biggest mistake. None of these objectives were ever attainable and would never be attained regardless of how much military power the US throws into Iraq.
Let us start from point zero. The US-led invasion destroyed the "state" in Iraq and restoring it should be Washington's first priority. However, it would be unable to do so as long as it continues on its present course. The US would never be able to turn the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to be the unifying force capable of re-knitting Iraq because any association with the US becomes an immediate disqualifying factor for any Iraqi politician, whether Shiite or Sunni. The US remains an invader and occupier in most Iraqi eyes and it is simply impossible for Washington to be the creator of a post-Saddam Hussein state in Iraq. It has no option but to work with the country's Shiites to create a new state but only with a clear and public declaration of its intentions not to continue its occupation of Iraq and of a clear timeline for military withdrawal from that country. And Sadr, by his steadfast resistance against the US, is, at this juncture in time, the most credible Shiite leader in Iraq, no matter how Washington evaluates him in view of his known links with Iran.
Sadr has played his cards right. He has even reached out to Sunni groups by ordering his Mahdi Army militiamen to call off their violent campaign against the Sunnis and entering a de facto alliance with some of the Sunni factions.
There are many who believe that Sadr has already set his eyes on the highest position of power in Iraq and hence his strong emphasis on Shiite-Sunni unity against the US. They are suggesting that the time might not be more opportune for the US to make an overture to Sadr if indeed Washington is sincere in its declaration that it does not want to continue its military occupation indefinitely.
The US should essentially realise that it is no longer a question of ensuring that Iraq would remain US-friendly when the US forces withdraw from that country. It is simply impossible, given the way the US conducted itself in post-war Iraq. The question should indeed be how to ensure minimum losses and maxium protection for US forces as they withdraw from Iraq. In order to achieve that there should be a state that would co-operate with the clear understanding that the US military is leaving Iraq for good. In fact, the leaders of that new state would be more anxious than the American themselves to create an environment that is conducive to an accelerated US withdrawal from the country.
There would indeed be Sunni rejection of any US-Sadr deal. But then, the US should know that it could not please everyone. The Sunnis of Iraq have to accept that their days of domination are over and their only hope is to negotiate and bargain for the best deal they could get from whoever emerges as the political leader in a post-US occupation Iraq.
Of course, the strongest opposition to any US move to enter a compromise of sorts with Sadr would come from other Shiite leaders, but that is where Iran comes in with its clout with the Shiite community in Iraq in general to remove challenges to Sadr.
That is precisely the reason why the US should abandon its determination to subdue Iran and seek to launch an all-embracing dialogue aimed at settling most, if not all, differences and stabilise relations with the Islamic republic.
Washington should drop its belief that ending its in-built hostility towards Iran's theocratic regime and normalising relations with Tehran implies defeat for the US. Simply put, there would never be a US victory in Iraq as long as Washington pursues a belligerent course towards Iran.
Dropping hostility and negotiating an end to the tension with Iran is not seen as an option for the US at this point because Washington is convinced that it is not possible to co-exist with Tehran. The Iranian regime is similarly convinced, and Tehran could not be expected to help Washington to stabilise Iraq as long as the US military is present there. Instead, Iran believes that its interests of getting the US out of the region and emerging as a dominating regional power could be served only through continued destabilisation of Iraq. One could also throw in Afghanistan for good measures.
Within Iraq, the US could strike a deal with Moqtada Sadr, but that would be at the expense of accepting and acknowledging that it could not realise its objectives of the invasion of that country. Beyond that, it would simply mean giving up Iraq to be controlled by forces friendly to Iran, a much worse fate than being defeated in Iraq.
It is almost certain that with Sadr as the dominant Shiite political figure (under a hypothetical deal engineered by the US), there is no telling how the cookie will crumble in Iraq.
On the other hand, stabilising relations with Tehran and working out a face-saving formula by promoting Sadr, the US would be able to work out an exit strategy out of Iraq and also be assured that groups like Al Qaeda are significantly weakened because the new state in Iraq would make sure that such destabilising forces are chased out after the US quits the country.
It would indeed be a key scoring point in the US-led war against terror.
The Lind theory is an excellent suggestion for Washington because it offers the best way out of the US with the minimum loss of face. Washington and Tehran may not be become buddies, but they would be able to work out a formula under which they would avoid a confrontation and that is good news for the region.
However, the element that deflates all prospects for such course of events is the obvious determination among the Washington hard-liners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, to stage military action against Iran and not to allow anything to stand in their way of eliminating that country as a potential threat to US and Israeli interests in the region.
It is the same Washington camp that plotted and orchestrated the invasion of Iraq that is behind the campaign for military strike against Iran. And it is also clear that all they need is a pretext to launch action, and the neoconservatives are admitting it in public.
nother 9/11 attack.
In an article titled "To save America, we need another 9/11," Stu Bykofsky writes in the Philadelphia Daily News that the fight between the Republicans and Democrats over Iraq shows that the US is divided and that the unity of Americans brought about by the Sept.11 attacks has disappeared.
Therefore, Bykofsky argues, the US needs another 9/11 style attack "quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."
What Bykofsky falls short of suggesting is that Iran has already been lined up as the target for the "righteous rage" and "singular purpose."
Against that reality, theories and proposals such as those made by Lind have as much chance of consideration as the Iranians opting to buy Japanese caviar.
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}