February 25, 2008
Powderkegs one too many
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has rightly observed that the Turkish military operation against Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq will not solve its problem with the separatist rebels. It is one of the rare public admissions that we have heard from senior US officials based on the US military's recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the world knows only too well that the US made a mess of things because it blindly exercised the military option and overlooked that it was equally important to address issues of daily life of the ordinary people in order not to allow frustration lead them into joining the militant camp. In fact, it takes a well-planned strategy and additional effort to ensure the saftey, security and well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflicts and it might not always be possible or easy. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US not only sidestepped this key aspect but also made life all the more difficult for the people by wanton destruction of infrastructure and denial of means to secure the basic essentials for daily life. And the US is today paying the price for its glaring shortcomings.
The problem between the Turkish government and dissidents among the minority Kurdish citizens of Turkey is not exactly of the same nature that the US confronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, what is common is that civilians are caught in the conflict and they pay the highest price for violence, and this prompts them into embracing militancy.
What might make a key difference here is that Turkey has said it is carrying out a limited operation against the separatist rebels, and US officials say Ankara has given assurances it will do all it can to avoid civilian casualties.
The battlefront between the Turkish military and the separatists is a remote mountainous area that is sparsely populated and far from any major urban area. And here has not been any confirmed report so far of any civilian casualties or displacement of villagers.
That does not negate the fact that Turkey should respect the sovereignty of Iraq. It is a sore point with the government in Baghdad, not to mention the growing anger of the Kurdish regional authority in the north which has warned that the Turkish incursion will be met with strong opposition if civilians or populated areas are attacked.
The underlying currents are strong and perceptible. Turkey needs to assure the Iraqi Kurds that the ongoing military operation is limited to the PKK and would in no way be used to undermine the Kurdish regional authority, which is locked in a dispute with Ankara over what the Turks see as the Kurds' steady move towards expanded autonomy and eventual declaration of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
On the other hand, the duration of the Turkish incursion could turn out to be so short that its objectives would need no explanation to anyone.
Either way, there needs to be more communication among all the parties involved so that potential powderkegs are defused and buried while the legitimate rights of all are respected and protected.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Yet another stone in build-up for action
February 24, 2008
Yet another stone in build-up for action
THE LATEST International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear activities does not add anything than to the agency's earlier conclusions that it was not in a position to determine the "full nature of Iran's nuclear programme." Surely, the agency has the resources to detect any suspected nuclear activity in Iran, but it has failed to find any. Hypothetically, the agency's "failure" could be attributed to either the skills of the Iranians to hide whatever they are doing or the absence of anything for the nuclear watchdog to be suspicious. Presumably, the agency has taken the easy way out by saying it was not in a position to arrive at any conclusions. It wants to protect its credibility while leaving the door open for the big powers to decide whatever course of action they want to take against Iran.
There is yet another aspect to the affair. The IAEA, which does not have any independent intelligence capabilities worth mentioning, could not sidestep the "evidence" that the US presented to it to support Washington's argument that Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weaponisation programme. If the agency does make a conclusive statement that its inspectors could not find any sign of Iran having a nuclear weaponisation programme, then it would be contradicting the "evidence" supplied by the US. And that is something the IAEA does not want to do.
But then, Washington is contradicting its own spying agencies, which concluded late last year in a National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had a nuclear weaponisation programme but dropped it in 2003 and that there was no indication that it has revived the programme.
As such, where did Washington come up with "evidence" to support its "case" against Iran? Does it have yet another secret intelligence arm other than the 16 which drew up the National Intelligence Estimate? Is there a "special operation office" in Washington similar to the one that existed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and produced fake intelligence reports and doctored others?
It was no coincidece that shortly before the IAEA issued its final report on Iran, the National Council of Resistance on Iran went public public with charges that Iran has recently established a "new command and control centre" at a military site at Mojdeh, a suburb of Tehran, and is actively pursuing "production of nuclear warheads" at a military site at Khojir.
The charges raise the questions whether the Iranian military is producing nuclear warheads in a suburb of Tehran and whether it has established a command and control centre just outside Tehran for its nuke-armed ballistic-missile force.
In simple terms, the charges are difficult to be swallowed even with what were described by the National Council of Resistance on Iran as space-satellite photo-images of the two alleged military sites.
According to knowledgeable sources and seasoned experts, the 'evidence" that the council produced originated with the Israelis, was then supplied to the United States, who provided it to the IAEA, urging the agency to present it to Iran for "explanation."
With the US and Britain having already submitted a draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for more sanctions against Iran, the IAEA report is yet another stone in the build-up to whatever the big powers are planning to do against Tehran, with Israel applauding from the wings.
Yet another stone in build-up for action
THE LATEST International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear activities does not add anything than to the agency's earlier conclusions that it was not in a position to determine the "full nature of Iran's nuclear programme." Surely, the agency has the resources to detect any suspected nuclear activity in Iran, but it has failed to find any. Hypothetically, the agency's "failure" could be attributed to either the skills of the Iranians to hide whatever they are doing or the absence of anything for the nuclear watchdog to be suspicious. Presumably, the agency has taken the easy way out by saying it was not in a position to arrive at any conclusions. It wants to protect its credibility while leaving the door open for the big powers to decide whatever course of action they want to take against Iran.
There is yet another aspect to the affair. The IAEA, which does not have any independent intelligence capabilities worth mentioning, could not sidestep the "evidence" that the US presented to it to support Washington's argument that Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weaponisation programme. If the agency does make a conclusive statement that its inspectors could not find any sign of Iran having a nuclear weaponisation programme, then it would be contradicting the "evidence" supplied by the US. And that is something the IAEA does not want to do.
But then, Washington is contradicting its own spying agencies, which concluded late last year in a National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had a nuclear weaponisation programme but dropped it in 2003 and that there was no indication that it has revived the programme.
As such, where did Washington come up with "evidence" to support its "case" against Iran? Does it have yet another secret intelligence arm other than the 16 which drew up the National Intelligence Estimate? Is there a "special operation office" in Washington similar to the one that existed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and produced fake intelligence reports and doctored others?
It was no coincidece that shortly before the IAEA issued its final report on Iran, the National Council of Resistance on Iran went public public with charges that Iran has recently established a "new command and control centre" at a military site at Mojdeh, a suburb of Tehran, and is actively pursuing "production of nuclear warheads" at a military site at Khojir.
The charges raise the questions whether the Iranian military is producing nuclear warheads in a suburb of Tehran and whether it has established a command and control centre just outside Tehran for its nuke-armed ballistic-missile force.
In simple terms, the charges are difficult to be swallowed even with what were described by the National Council of Resistance on Iran as space-satellite photo-images of the two alleged military sites.
According to knowledgeable sources and seasoned experts, the 'evidence" that the council produced originated with the Israelis, was then supplied to the United States, who provided it to the IAEA, urging the agency to present it to Iran for "explanation."
With the US and Britain having already submitted a draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for more sanctions against Iran, the IAEA report is yet another stone in the build-up to whatever the big powers are planning to do against Tehran, with Israel applauding from the wings.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Dice loaded from day one
February 23, 2008
Dice loaded from day one
IT would not be an exaggeration to state that the future of the US plans for Iraq depends to a large extent on Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's expected decision on whether or not to renew a six-month cease-fire widely credited for helping reduce violence.
Unless Sadr issues a statement on Saturday saying that the truce is extended, the ceasefire is over, according to his spokesmen.
Never before after the ouster of Saddam Hussein has the US military faced a situation in Iraq where it had to wait for a decision by one man.
It is clear that a return of Sadr's feared Mahdi Army into action would find Iraq in the same situation before the "surge" in US troops in Iraq in early 2007 — death squads on the rampage accounting for dozens being tortured to death on a daily basis as part of an ethnic cleansing.
The revival of the violence would it all the more tough for the US, which is trying to persuade the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach agreements on sharing power and wealth. On the domestic front, in the US, a surge in violence in Iraq would add fuel to the ongoing debate on whether and how quickly to withdraw troops.
The reality on the ground in Iraq is that if Sadr decides to extend the truce, then he would only be putting off an inevitable showdown with his Shiite rivals — the camp led by Abdul Aziz Al Hakim. The two are staying away from from each other's throats and are likely to do so as long as the US military maintains its strengthened presence in the country.
It has also been hinted in certain circles that the US military is in secret contacts with both Maliki and Hakim with a view to dissuading them from renewing their struggle for control of the south. The US military, critics say, is also trying to figure out which side to support in the event of an open warfare between Maliki and Hakim. In fact, in the eyes of many US military commanders both are bad news since they are closely linked to Iran. But is need not be so Washington political strategists who would embrace the devil if it serves their purpose.
In any event, in the long run, it would not make much difference for chances of US success or failure in Iraq whether the Mahdi Army returns to action today or remains in a freeze until later.
The dice was loaded against the US in Iraq from the word go, and players like Mahdi and Hakim would not have any bearing on the reality that the US is not welcome as far as the people of Iraq are concerned. Washington would not be able to hold 26 million Iraqis hostage for ever even with a doubling of its military presence in the country.
Dice loaded from day one
IT would not be an exaggeration to state that the future of the US plans for Iraq depends to a large extent on Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's expected decision on whether or not to renew a six-month cease-fire widely credited for helping reduce violence.
Unless Sadr issues a statement on Saturday saying that the truce is extended, the ceasefire is over, according to his spokesmen.
Never before after the ouster of Saddam Hussein has the US military faced a situation in Iraq where it had to wait for a decision by one man.
It is clear that a return of Sadr's feared Mahdi Army into action would find Iraq in the same situation before the "surge" in US troops in Iraq in early 2007 — death squads on the rampage accounting for dozens being tortured to death on a daily basis as part of an ethnic cleansing.
The revival of the violence would it all the more tough for the US, which is trying to persuade the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach agreements on sharing power and wealth. On the domestic front, in the US, a surge in violence in Iraq would add fuel to the ongoing debate on whether and how quickly to withdraw troops.
The reality on the ground in Iraq is that if Sadr decides to extend the truce, then he would only be putting off an inevitable showdown with his Shiite rivals — the camp led by Abdul Aziz Al Hakim. The two are staying away from from each other's throats and are likely to do so as long as the US military maintains its strengthened presence in the country.
It has also been hinted in certain circles that the US military is in secret contacts with both Maliki and Hakim with a view to dissuading them from renewing their struggle for control of the south. The US military, critics say, is also trying to figure out which side to support in the event of an open warfare between Maliki and Hakim. In fact, in the eyes of many US military commanders both are bad news since they are closely linked to Iran. But is need not be so Washington political strategists who would embrace the devil if it serves their purpose.
In any event, in the long run, it would not make much difference for chances of US success or failure in Iraq whether the Mahdi Army returns to action today or remains in a freeze until later.
The dice was loaded against the US in Iraq from the word go, and players like Mahdi and Hakim would not have any bearing on the reality that the US is not welcome as far as the people of Iraq are concerned. Washington would not be able to hold 26 million Iraqis hostage for ever even with a doubling of its military presence in the country.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Compromise is the need of the hour
February .22. 2008
Compromise is the need of the hour
REPORTS of intra-Arab differences over Lebanon ahead of next month's Arab summit are disturbing. The summit, to be held in Damascus, is deemed crucial to almost every Arab and Middle Eastern issue at this juncture in time. The Arab World faces the task of taking and implementing tough decisions on the worsening situations in Palestine and Iraq — notwithstanding US claims of stability there — as well as the seeming intractable problems in Somalia and elsewhere in the Arab region.
The Arabs could not afford to be bogged down now. They need to act collectively and the ground for action has to be set at the next Arab summit.
The key point of dispute is Lebanon, where fears are growing that violence could break out any time between the government forces and the fighters of the Hizbollah-led opposition. Twice in the last one month, they came to blows but stepped off from the brink at the last minute.
The Arab initiative to elect a consensus president in Lebanon, which has been left without a head of state since November amid the deadlock between the government and opposition, remains stalled over the two side's failure to agree on a revampled government structure.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal was referring to these differences when he called on "all those with influence to help with the success of the Arab initiative" for Lebanon and warned that the country is "on the verge of civil war."
There is a growing sense of uneasiness in Lebanon. Governments have warned their citizens there to be extra careful, with the US issuing a high-alert travel advisory. France has closed two of its cultural centres outside the capital. Kuwait has advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon shortly after its embassy in Beirut was evacuated following a reported threat of a bomb attack. Saudi Arabia has also advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon.
Obviously, the rising tension in Lebanon against the backdrop of the political deadlock is the direct result of the failure of the Arab initiative to solve the problem. That is turn is now threatening collective action to be launched at the Damascuc summit on the host of challenges facing the members of the Arab League. A way has to be found urgently to lift the logjam in order to ensure that the summit is held and it takes the right decisions of all the outstanding issues, whether in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere. And that puts the onus on the political leaders of Lebanon who should uphold Lebanese interests and stay away from being influenced by narrow considerations. Everyone will have accept that they will have to make compromises in order to avert a catastrophe befalling Lebanon and that would have far-reaching implications for the region as a whole.
Compromise is the need of the hour
REPORTS of intra-Arab differences over Lebanon ahead of next month's Arab summit are disturbing. The summit, to be held in Damascus, is deemed crucial to almost every Arab and Middle Eastern issue at this juncture in time. The Arab World faces the task of taking and implementing tough decisions on the worsening situations in Palestine and Iraq — notwithstanding US claims of stability there — as well as the seeming intractable problems in Somalia and elsewhere in the Arab region.
The Arabs could not afford to be bogged down now. They need to act collectively and the ground for action has to be set at the next Arab summit.
The key point of dispute is Lebanon, where fears are growing that violence could break out any time between the government forces and the fighters of the Hizbollah-led opposition. Twice in the last one month, they came to blows but stepped off from the brink at the last minute.
The Arab initiative to elect a consensus president in Lebanon, which has been left without a head of state since November amid the deadlock between the government and opposition, remains stalled over the two side's failure to agree on a revampled government structure.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal was referring to these differences when he called on "all those with influence to help with the success of the Arab initiative" for Lebanon and warned that the country is "on the verge of civil war."
There is a growing sense of uneasiness in Lebanon. Governments have warned their citizens there to be extra careful, with the US issuing a high-alert travel advisory. France has closed two of its cultural centres outside the capital. Kuwait has advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon shortly after its embassy in Beirut was evacuated following a reported threat of a bomb attack. Saudi Arabia has also advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon.
Obviously, the rising tension in Lebanon against the backdrop of the political deadlock is the direct result of the failure of the Arab initiative to solve the problem. That is turn is now threatening collective action to be launched at the Damascuc summit on the host of challenges facing the members of the Arab League. A way has to be found urgently to lift the logjam in order to ensure that the summit is held and it takes the right decisions of all the outstanding issues, whether in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere. And that puts the onus on the political leaders of Lebanon who should uphold Lebanese interests and stay away from being influenced by narrow considerations. Everyone will have accept that they will have to make compromises in order to avert a catastrophe befalling Lebanon and that would have far-reaching implications for the region as a whole.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fight for survival for Musharraf
February 21, 2008
Fight for survival for Musharraf
BATTLELINES are about to be drawn and swords are about to be unsheathed in Pakistan between President President Pervez Musharraf and victorious opposition parties. Indeed, Musharraf has his back to the wall, given the narrow option he has of either stepping down or prolonging the battle that would do no one any good.
However, for the moment, Musharraf is standing firm on his refusal to resign as president and is calling for a "harmonious coalition" while the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is cobbling together a two-thirds majority coalition that could topple him by impeaching him on grounds that he violated the constitution when he imposed emergency rule late last year.
The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) is trying to salvage his leadership by trying to persuade the PPP to take it into a coalition but PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out the possibility and is insisting that Musharraf should either step down or be ousted.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the PML-N which has emerged as the second largest party in parliament, is also dead bent on toppling Musharraf.
Musharraf's only defence is that he, in his capacity as the elected head of state of Pakistan, is determined to ensure that "a stable democratic government" is installed in the country and that he be allowed to do so. That position is backed by the US. President George W. Bush has described the vote, which was less violent and fairer than most people anticipated, as "a victory for the people of Pakistan." And the State Department is nudging the next government to work with Musharraf, who represents the best bet Washington has in continuing its "war against terror" by targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The only political solution seems to hinge on potential failure of Zardari and Sharif to agree on a coalition. In that eventuality, the PPP could be amenable to considering inclusion of PML-Q in the coalition and this could save Musharraf's political life.
All these scenarios are based on the assumption that this week's voting has placed Pakistan firm on the democratic path and there would not be any military surprises. Let us hope the assumption would not be proved wrong.
Fight for survival for Musharraf
BATTLELINES are about to be drawn and swords are about to be unsheathed in Pakistan between President President Pervez Musharraf and victorious opposition parties. Indeed, Musharraf has his back to the wall, given the narrow option he has of either stepping down or prolonging the battle that would do no one any good.
However, for the moment, Musharraf is standing firm on his refusal to resign as president and is calling for a "harmonious coalition" while the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is cobbling together a two-thirds majority coalition that could topple him by impeaching him on grounds that he violated the constitution when he imposed emergency rule late last year.
The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) is trying to salvage his leadership by trying to persuade the PPP to take it into a coalition but PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out the possibility and is insisting that Musharraf should either step down or be ousted.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the PML-N which has emerged as the second largest party in parliament, is also dead bent on toppling Musharraf.
Musharraf's only defence is that he, in his capacity as the elected head of state of Pakistan, is determined to ensure that "a stable democratic government" is installed in the country and that he be allowed to do so. That position is backed by the US. President George W. Bush has described the vote, which was less violent and fairer than most people anticipated, as "a victory for the people of Pakistan." And the State Department is nudging the next government to work with Musharraf, who represents the best bet Washington has in continuing its "war against terror" by targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The only political solution seems to hinge on potential failure of Zardari and Sharif to agree on a coalition. In that eventuality, the PPP could be amenable to considering inclusion of PML-Q in the coalition and this could save Musharraf's political life.
All these scenarios are based on the assumption that this week's voting has placed Pakistan firm on the democratic path and there would not be any military surprises. Let us hope the assumption would not be proved wrong.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Delicate rope-trick ahead in Pakistan
February 20, 2008
Delicate rope-trick ahead in Pakistan
The world has heaved a sigh of relief that barring a few incidents, the general elections in Pakistan took place without any major incidents of violence. Some 20 people were reported to have died in election-day violence, but there were none of the major bomb attacks which had marred the run-up to the polls although fear of violence restrained voter turnout at around 40 per cent.
According to international observers, the election process met "the basic threshold of credibility and legitimacy."
Indeed, the successful conclusion of the elections signals an end to yet another turbulent era in Pakistan's history. It places the country firmly on the democratic path and it is a great achievement for the people of Pakistan.
The first to express relief was the US, which said it was pleased that Monday's vote came off relatively peacefully and without major apparent fraud. Washington also affirmed that a free, fair and transparent vote is critical to the restoration of an elected, civilian democracy that represents the will of the Pakistani people.
The will of the people was defeat of the main party backing President Pervez Musharraf in the elections. For many Pakistanis, it was vote for or against Mushrraf although he himself was not a candidate.
The outcome of the polls sees the two key opposition parties, the Pakistan People's Party of late Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) headed by Nawaz Sharif, having a clear majority. The pro-Musharraf PML-Q have no option but to occupy the opposition seats in parliament although it has kept the option of forming a coalition. However, a government including PML-Q is highly unlikely, given the bitterness the opposition parties nurture against Musharraf and his allies. They are already calling for Musharraf's resignation, which the president's spokesman has rejected, pointing out that the former army chief was elected for a five-year term last year. But the opposition could override that argument by forming a coalition government with a two-thirds majority in parliament. That is bad news for Musharraf, because they seem to have set his ouster from power as one of their priorities and they could impeach him with their combined clout parliament.
Obviously, we could expect a lot of political bargaining and horse-trading in the days ahead.
In the meantime, there is little doubt that foremost in everyone's mind is Musharraf's political future that is key to the US-engineered "war on terror" being waged against Al Qaeda and Taliban militants based in Pakistan's tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.
Obviously, Washington would want to work with the to-be formed government in Islamabad regardless of who heads it because Pakistan is vital to its strategy in the region.
However, it would have to tone down its emphasis on the military option to solve the problem because neither the PPP nor the PML-N would be able to completely subdue the sentiment among many in Pakistan that the country should disassociate itself from the US-led "war on terror."
The next government, regardless of who heads it and who it includes, faces the difficult task of having to reconcile their internal political imperatives with the need to fight off militancy. But the military approach has to take a back seat because it would never be able to win over the hearts and minds of the people and would only breed popular anger and frustration. What Pakistan needs today , like many other countries in the developing world, is an intense and dedicated government effort to address the root cause of unrest among its people — denial of social justice.
Delicate rope-trick ahead in Pakistan
The world has heaved a sigh of relief that barring a few incidents, the general elections in Pakistan took place without any major incidents of violence. Some 20 people were reported to have died in election-day violence, but there were none of the major bomb attacks which had marred the run-up to the polls although fear of violence restrained voter turnout at around 40 per cent.
According to international observers, the election process met "the basic threshold of credibility and legitimacy."
Indeed, the successful conclusion of the elections signals an end to yet another turbulent era in Pakistan's history. It places the country firmly on the democratic path and it is a great achievement for the people of Pakistan.
The first to express relief was the US, which said it was pleased that Monday's vote came off relatively peacefully and without major apparent fraud. Washington also affirmed that a free, fair and transparent vote is critical to the restoration of an elected, civilian democracy that represents the will of the Pakistani people.
The will of the people was defeat of the main party backing President Pervez Musharraf in the elections. For many Pakistanis, it was vote for or against Mushrraf although he himself was not a candidate.
The outcome of the polls sees the two key opposition parties, the Pakistan People's Party of late Benazir Bhutto and the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) headed by Nawaz Sharif, having a clear majority. The pro-Musharraf PML-Q have no option but to occupy the opposition seats in parliament although it has kept the option of forming a coalition. However, a government including PML-Q is highly unlikely, given the bitterness the opposition parties nurture against Musharraf and his allies. They are already calling for Musharraf's resignation, which the president's spokesman has rejected, pointing out that the former army chief was elected for a five-year term last year. But the opposition could override that argument by forming a coalition government with a two-thirds majority in parliament. That is bad news for Musharraf, because they seem to have set his ouster from power as one of their priorities and they could impeach him with their combined clout parliament.
Obviously, we could expect a lot of political bargaining and horse-trading in the days ahead.
In the meantime, there is little doubt that foremost in everyone's mind is Musharraf's political future that is key to the US-engineered "war on terror" being waged against Al Qaeda and Taliban militants based in Pakistan's tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.
Obviously, Washington would want to work with the to-be formed government in Islamabad regardless of who heads it because Pakistan is vital to its strategy in the region.
However, it would have to tone down its emphasis on the military option to solve the problem because neither the PPP nor the PML-N would be able to completely subdue the sentiment among many in Pakistan that the country should disassociate itself from the US-led "war on terror."
The next government, regardless of who heads it and who it includes, faces the difficult task of having to reconcile their internal political imperatives with the need to fight off militancy. But the military approach has to take a back seat because it would never be able to win over the hearts and minds of the people and would only breed popular anger and frustration. What Pakistan needs today , like many other countries in the developing world, is an intense and dedicated government effort to address the root cause of unrest among its people — denial of social justice.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
No answer ever to Di 'mystery'
February 19, 2008
No answer ever to Di 'mystery'
Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of London's Harrods, is having his day the Royal Courts of Justice with "revelations" and allegations that there was a conspiracy behind the deaths of Princess Diana and his son Dodi Fayed in an air crash in Paris on Aug.31, 1997. These are not new. The world has been hearing Mohammed Al Fayed raising the charges since the day Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed died. The thrust of Mohammed Al Fayed's charges is that the princess and his son were murdered in a conspiracy involving the security services and the Duke of Edinburgh, who could not accept that an Egyptian Muslim as stepfather to the future king of England. French intelligence had helped British intelligence services to execute "the murder," according to Fayed.
Indeed, Fayed said a lot more to back his allegations during Monday's inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and his son. As he himself phrased it, he has been fighting for 10 years and "this is the moment for me to say exactly what I feel happened to my son and Diana."
Conspiracy theories have been too many since the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, and most of them lead everywhere and nowhere as was the case with the deaths of many other celebrities and world leaders including John F Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley.
Some say that Dodi Al Fayed was the target of an assassination plot linked to a business dispute and Prince Diana happened to be one of the unwary victims since she was with him at the time when the plotters carried out the scheme.
There are even those who argue that Diana is still alive. Proponents this theory content that the former wife of Prince Charles was fed up with the intrusions on her private life and used the resources of the Fayed family to fake her death. According to this theory, Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed are living on "a small tropical island near the Middle East," communicating with her sons by "satellite video conferencing."
From the early hours of dawn in this part of the world on Aug.31, 1997, when the news of Prince Diana broke, anyone and everyone who knew or even read anything about her life wanted to know more about her life and death. And clear answers eluded them. Now, 10 years later, many believe that the inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice might bring out the truth, whatever that might be. Others do not think that the inquest would learn all the details of her death if only because no one alive knows the details, and thus parts of the picture would have to be left blank for ever.
No matter what the Royal Courts of Justice verdict, there would never be an answer that would satisfy most, because the world always tends to find something strange in the way the rich and famous die. In this case, they have been and still are unable to accept that a commonplace accident killed someone as famous, celebrated and unique as Prince Diana and they are likely to remain so no matter what comes out of the inquest.
No answer ever to Di 'mystery'
Mohammed Al Fayed, the owner of London's Harrods, is having his day the Royal Courts of Justice with "revelations" and allegations that there was a conspiracy behind the deaths of Princess Diana and his son Dodi Fayed in an air crash in Paris on Aug.31, 1997. These are not new. The world has been hearing Mohammed Al Fayed raising the charges since the day Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed died. The thrust of Mohammed Al Fayed's charges is that the princess and his son were murdered in a conspiracy involving the security services and the Duke of Edinburgh, who could not accept that an Egyptian Muslim as stepfather to the future king of England. French intelligence had helped British intelligence services to execute "the murder," according to Fayed.
Indeed, Fayed said a lot more to back his allegations during Monday's inquest into the deaths of Princess Diana and his son. As he himself phrased it, he has been fighting for 10 years and "this is the moment for me to say exactly what I feel happened to my son and Diana."
Conspiracy theories have been too many since the death of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed, and most of them lead everywhere and nowhere as was the case with the deaths of many other celebrities and world leaders including John F Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley.
Some say that Dodi Al Fayed was the target of an assassination plot linked to a business dispute and Prince Diana happened to be one of the unwary victims since she was with him at the time when the plotters carried out the scheme.
There are even those who argue that Diana is still alive. Proponents this theory content that the former wife of Prince Charles was fed up with the intrusions on her private life and used the resources of the Fayed family to fake her death. According to this theory, Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed are living on "a small tropical island near the Middle East," communicating with her sons by "satellite video conferencing."
From the early hours of dawn in this part of the world on Aug.31, 1997, when the news of Prince Diana broke, anyone and everyone who knew or even read anything about her life wanted to know more about her life and death. And clear answers eluded them. Now, 10 years later, many believe that the inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice might bring out the truth, whatever that might be. Others do not think that the inquest would learn all the details of her death if only because no one alive knows the details, and thus parts of the picture would have to be left blank for ever.
No matter what the Royal Courts of Justice verdict, there would never be an answer that would satisfy most, because the world always tends to find something strange in the way the rich and famous die. In this case, they have been and still are unable to accept that a commonplace accident killed someone as famous, celebrated and unique as Prince Diana and they are likely to remain so no matter what comes out of the inquest.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Window for peace could become a door
Feb.18, 2008
Window for peace could become a door
THE window of "opportunity" for peace is shrinking. This was the thrust of the message that Israeli President Shimon Peres had for French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner when the two met on Sunday.
Peres also observed that people are losing faith in peace and that in the Middle East, "everybody talks, but nobody does anything." Perhaps Israel's way of doing something is reflected in its military operations that are killing scores of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
More importantly in this context, according to Peres, "only a fundamental change at the ground level, thousands of new workplaces and a raise in the quality of life in the West Bank will strengthen (Palestinian) President Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate peace camp."
Well, Peres sidestepped the reality that it also takes a "fundamental change at the ground level" among Israelis to accept that they are occupying Palestinian territories and they should not hope to live there for ever while the Palestinian problem disappears into history. That is no a realistic expectation and Israeli leaders like Peres should be preparing their people to accept the inevitability of having to relinquish the territories that Israel occupied in the 1967 war. Compromises would have to be made on both sides without infringing on the legitimate rights of all sides based on international law and conventions and mandatory resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council.
True, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are insisting on hard-line positions. Hamas is ready to accept only a long-term truce with Israel and not a lasting peace agreement that addresses the root conflict. That is a maximalist position and no one truly believes such a truce agreement is possible.
Of course, the hard-line position helps Israel to avoid dealing with the real issues related to Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and borders between a Palestinian entity and the Jewish state.
Israel also hopes that it could use the interim period before it would have to be really serious in peace negotiations to eliminate as many Palestinian resistance leaders as possible so that it would be in a better position to corner "the moderate peace camp" and force down the Israeli version of peace down the Palestinian throat.
A veteran politician like Peres should have been talking with Kouchner about the pressing need to remove reasons for frustration among the Palestinians. This should start with the removal of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank and lifting of travel restrictions on the Palestinians living there. Israel should also not place hurdles in the way of international funds being spent in order to improve the daily life of the Palestinians in terms of health, education, employment and business opportunities.
Many other actions have to follow these moves, but let Peres force his own political establishment to stop talking about wasted opportunities for peace and start doing what it takes for the Palestinians to feel that they stand to lose something in their life. The rest of the puzzle will fall in place with little nudging, but Israel has to stop asking others to act and start acting on its own. Then the widow of opportunity for peace would become a door without a lock.
Window for peace could become a door
THE window of "opportunity" for peace is shrinking. This was the thrust of the message that Israeli President Shimon Peres had for French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner when the two met on Sunday.
Peres also observed that people are losing faith in peace and that in the Middle East, "everybody talks, but nobody does anything." Perhaps Israel's way of doing something is reflected in its military operations that are killing scores of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
More importantly in this context, according to Peres, "only a fundamental change at the ground level, thousands of new workplaces and a raise in the quality of life in the West Bank will strengthen (Palestinian) President Mahmoud Abbas and the moderate peace camp."
Well, Peres sidestepped the reality that it also takes a "fundamental change at the ground level" among Israelis to accept that they are occupying Palestinian territories and they should not hope to live there for ever while the Palestinian problem disappears into history. That is no a realistic expectation and Israeli leaders like Peres should be preparing their people to accept the inevitability of having to relinquish the territories that Israel occupied in the 1967 war. Compromises would have to be made on both sides without infringing on the legitimate rights of all sides based on international law and conventions and mandatory resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council.
True, groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad are insisting on hard-line positions. Hamas is ready to accept only a long-term truce with Israel and not a lasting peace agreement that addresses the root conflict. That is a maximalist position and no one truly believes such a truce agreement is possible.
Of course, the hard-line position helps Israel to avoid dealing with the real issues related to Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees and borders between a Palestinian entity and the Jewish state.
Israel also hopes that it could use the interim period before it would have to be really serious in peace negotiations to eliminate as many Palestinian resistance leaders as possible so that it would be in a better position to corner "the moderate peace camp" and force down the Israeli version of peace down the Palestinian throat.
A veteran politician like Peres should have been talking with Kouchner about the pressing need to remove reasons for frustration among the Palestinians. This should start with the removal of Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank and lifting of travel restrictions on the Palestinians living there. Israel should also not place hurdles in the way of international funds being spent in order to improve the daily life of the Palestinians in terms of health, education, employment and business opportunities.
Many other actions have to follow these moves, but let Peres force his own political establishment to stop talking about wasted opportunities for peace and start doing what it takes for the Palestinians to feel that they stand to lose something in their life. The rest of the puzzle will fall in place with little nudging, but Israel has to stop asking others to act and start acting on its own. Then the widow of opportunity for peace would become a door without a lock.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Hopes at last for the Kenyans
Feb.17, 2008
Hopes at last for the Kenyans
THE power-sharing deal in Kenya being brokered by former UN chief Kofi Annan appears to be the best solution for the violent crisis in the country that was considered as one of the most stable in Africa but where tribal feuds leading to denial of social justice always simmered below the surface.
Annan's effort has won backing from US President George W. Bush, who is sending his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Nairobi to boost the former UN secretary-general effort to find an end to the dispute over the Dec.27 elections that sparked violence in which more than 1,000 people have died.
Annan, who is cautiously optimistic that the job could be done, is seeking to address the roots of the problem by nudging the government of President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to agree on reforms to improve the constitution, electoral laws and other areas of government. It is indeed a tough mission, given that the crisis is rooted in the long-running feud pitting Kibaki's tribe, the Kikuyu, and Odinga's Luo tribe and other ethnic groups which have been complaining of discrimination by the Kikuyu, which has dominated Kenyan politics and business since independence from Britain in 1963.
International experts are unanimous that while the dispute over the elections is clearly political — independent observers have accused the government of having rigged the polls — the root cause of some of the violence is hunger for fertile land that is expressed ethnicity or tribe.
In the opinion of international experts, the whole conflict stems from long-running income inequalities in the country. As such, a political solution that is bound with economic reforms wih an impact on the daily life of the people of Kenya seems to be the best step forward.
Kenyans are waiting for results of Annan's mediation — which, if successful, would lead to the formation of a coalition government. A positive atmosphere seems to have taken hold, with police reporting no violent incidents over the past week.
Indeed, Bush's backing for Annan's efforts is backed by earlier warnings from the United States and Britain which have threatened visa bans, an assets freeze and other sanctions. That should be a sharp reminder to all parties involved that they would have a deeply troubled country in their hands regardless of whoever wins if they were to continue their violent power struggle.
Hopes at last for the Kenyans
THE power-sharing deal in Kenya being brokered by former UN chief Kofi Annan appears to be the best solution for the violent crisis in the country that was considered as one of the most stable in Africa but where tribal feuds leading to denial of social justice always simmered below the surface.
Annan's effort has won backing from US President George W. Bush, who is sending his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Nairobi to boost the former UN secretary-general effort to find an end to the dispute over the Dec.27 elections that sparked violence in which more than 1,000 people have died.
Annan, who is cautiously optimistic that the job could be done, is seeking to address the roots of the problem by nudging the government of President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to agree on reforms to improve the constitution, electoral laws and other areas of government. It is indeed a tough mission, given that the crisis is rooted in the long-running feud pitting Kibaki's tribe, the Kikuyu, and Odinga's Luo tribe and other ethnic groups which have been complaining of discrimination by the Kikuyu, which has dominated Kenyan politics and business since independence from Britain in 1963.
International experts are unanimous that while the dispute over the elections is clearly political — independent observers have accused the government of having rigged the polls — the root cause of some of the violence is hunger for fertile land that is expressed ethnicity or tribe.
In the opinion of international experts, the whole conflict stems from long-running income inequalities in the country. As such, a political solution that is bound with economic reforms wih an impact on the daily life of the people of Kenya seems to be the best step forward.
Kenyans are waiting for results of Annan's mediation — which, if successful, would lead to the formation of a coalition government. A positive atmosphere seems to have taken hold, with police reporting no violent incidents over the past week.
Indeed, Bush's backing for Annan's efforts is backed by earlier warnings from the United States and Britain which have threatened visa bans, an assets freeze and other sanctions. That should be a sharp reminder to all parties involved that they would have a deeply troubled country in their hands regardless of whoever wins if they were to continue their violent power struggle.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Someone did want war and lied for it
Feb.16, 2008
Someone did want war and lied for it
TOP US officials continue to deny that they made false statements in order to strengthen their case against Saddam Hussein the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as charged by the non-partisan Centre for Public Integrity. According to the centre, President George W Bush himself and senior Bush administration officials made 935 false statements about Iraq before the invasion. The realities on the ground in post-invasion Iraq have established the falsehood of the statements.
The latest Bush administration official to face a congressional grilling in this context was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been accused of making 56 false statements on the "threat" posed by Saddam's Iraq.
The question was put to her by Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, who cited the report from the Centre for Public Integrity. He asked her: "This study has found that you, Madame Secretary, made 56 false statements to the American people where you repeatedly pump up the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and exaggerate the so-called relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Rice replied: "Congressman, I take my integrity very seriously and I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false, or that I thought to be false, in order to pump up anything. Nobody wants to go to war."
Now, here is the catch. No one is casting any doubt on Rice's integrity. It is her assumption that "Nobody wants to go to war" that is being brought under question.
There is evidence that has established beyond any trace of doubt that there was and is a hardline camp in Washington which plotted the war against Iraq even before Bush entered the White House in January 2001. The best evidence is the strategy paper drawn up by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in mid-2000, not to mention the 1996 recommendations made to Israel by the pro-Israeli camp in Washington. In both cases, several of the key people involved went to become top-level positions in the Bush administration. It has also been made clear that one of their common priorities and immediate missions after assuming office in the administration was to build a case against Iraq and orchestrate a US invasion of that country. And they were successful in their mission as we are witnessing in Iraq today.
Surely, Rice, who served as national security adviser for Bush during the president's first term before becoming his secretary of state in the second term, should have known about the existence of the neocon project for war against Iraq. There were indeed people in the administration and outside who wanted to go to war. Rice, who admitted that many of the intelligence assessments on Iraq were wrong, might not have been one of those who wanted to go to war and might not have made any statement that she knew to be false, but that does not negate the truth that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned and executed with a one-track mind by the neocons and there was nothing in the world that would have made them stop in their tracks even it meant outright lying, which they did, not once but on many occasions.
Someone did want war and lied for it
TOP US officials continue to deny that they made false statements in order to strengthen their case against Saddam Hussein the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq as charged by the non-partisan Centre for Public Integrity. According to the centre, President George W Bush himself and senior Bush administration officials made 935 false statements about Iraq before the invasion. The realities on the ground in post-invasion Iraq have established the falsehood of the statements.
The latest Bush administration official to face a congressional grilling in this context was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has been accused of making 56 false statements on the "threat" posed by Saddam's Iraq.
The question was put to her by Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, who cited the report from the Centre for Public Integrity. He asked her: "This study has found that you, Madame Secretary, made 56 false statements to the American people where you repeatedly pump up the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and exaggerate the so-called relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
Rice replied: "Congressman, I take my integrity very seriously and I did not at any time make a statement that I knew to be false, or that I thought to be false, in order to pump up anything. Nobody wants to go to war."
Now, here is the catch. No one is casting any doubt on Rice's integrity. It is her assumption that "Nobody wants to go to war" that is being brought under question.
There is evidence that has established beyond any trace of doubt that there was and is a hardline camp in Washington which plotted the war against Iraq even before Bush entered the White House in January 2001. The best evidence is the strategy paper drawn up by the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in mid-2000, not to mention the 1996 recommendations made to Israel by the pro-Israeli camp in Washington. In both cases, several of the key people involved went to become top-level positions in the Bush administration. It has also been made clear that one of their common priorities and immediate missions after assuming office in the administration was to build a case against Iraq and orchestrate a US invasion of that country. And they were successful in their mission as we are witnessing in Iraq today.
Surely, Rice, who served as national security adviser for Bush during the president's first term before becoming his secretary of state in the second term, should have known about the existence of the neocon project for war against Iraq. There were indeed people in the administration and outside who wanted to go to war. Rice, who admitted that many of the intelligence assessments on Iraq were wrong, might not have been one of those who wanted to go to war and might not have made any statement that she knew to be false, but that does not negate the truth that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was planned and executed with a one-track mind by the neocons and there was nothing in the world that would have made them stop in their tracks even it meant outright lying, which they did, not once but on many occasions.
Friday, February 15, 2008
No other way for Lebanon
Feb.15, 2008
No other way for Lebanon
THE people of Lebanon on Thursday survived a test of fire. They proved pessimists and gloom-forecasters wrong when they made sure that two highly charged gatherings did not lead to what could have triggered a course into further into chaos and a possible revival of civil war in the country.
Indeed, the two gathering that took place in Lebanon on Thursday symbolised the deep political divide among the Lebanese. One was to commemorate former prime minister Rafiq Hariri on the third anniversary of his assassination in a car explosion while the other was the funeral for Hizbollah's Imad Mughnieh, the man blamed for a number of anti-US and anti-Israeli attacks and who was killed a bombing in Damascus on Tuesday that bore an unmistakeable Israeli signature.
Hariri's 2005 assassination, which also bore an Israeli signature but was blamed on Syria, was an event that drastically changed the geopolitics of not only Lebanon and but of Syria and other countries with close links with the people of Lebanon.
Hariri had risen to the challenge of reuniting the people of Lebanon after 18 years of a devastating civil war that left the country in shambles and he had made success of it. Notwithstanding contentions that the reunification of the country came at a high economic cost, the fact remains that it was a tough mission and needed an iron will and the best of strategies. Hariri had both and the Lebanese and Arabs remember him as a leader who had what it took to put the country back together and place it on track to recovery. His departure from power was a blow to Lebanon because the plans that he had devised could not be implemented in full and they remained struck where they were.
On the political front, the Hariri assassination led to the end of the Syrian domination of Lebanon and depature of the Syrian military from the country after nearly three decades of presence there.
Today, Lebanon is at a crossroads and fears are high of a revived sectarian conflict stemming from the deadlock between the government and opposition over powersharing. While the two sides could agree on a consensus candidate as the next president of the country, they have yet to see eye to eye on the structure of the cabinet.
It was as if the Mughnieh killing was timed to coincide with the Hariri anniversary by whoever was behind it because Thursday's rival gathering offered the best flashpoint for violence between the two sides.
However, both sides exercised restraint and went out of their way to avoid conflict during Thursday's events. The ruling coalition leaders sent condolences to Hizbollah over Mughnieh's death in a move that helped cool nerves and ease tensions with the opposition. The Arab World held its breath with crossed fingers closely watching the happenings in Beirut and counting the minutes and hours that passed before curtains fell on the two gatherings and people went home.
No matter what develops ahead, the message that Rafiq Hariri's widow, Nazik, issued on the occasion of her husband's death anniversary warning against "falling into hatred" and calling for "unity to save the country" should be the beacon for the people of Lebanon. That is the only way ahead for anyone who loves Lebanon.
No other way for Lebanon
THE people of Lebanon on Thursday survived a test of fire. They proved pessimists and gloom-forecasters wrong when they made sure that two highly charged gatherings did not lead to what could have triggered a course into further into chaos and a possible revival of civil war in the country.
Indeed, the two gathering that took place in Lebanon on Thursday symbolised the deep political divide among the Lebanese. One was to commemorate former prime minister Rafiq Hariri on the third anniversary of his assassination in a car explosion while the other was the funeral for Hizbollah's Imad Mughnieh, the man blamed for a number of anti-US and anti-Israeli attacks and who was killed a bombing in Damascus on Tuesday that bore an unmistakeable Israeli signature.
Hariri's 2005 assassination, which also bore an Israeli signature but was blamed on Syria, was an event that drastically changed the geopolitics of not only Lebanon and but of Syria and other countries with close links with the people of Lebanon.
Hariri had risen to the challenge of reuniting the people of Lebanon after 18 years of a devastating civil war that left the country in shambles and he had made success of it. Notwithstanding contentions that the reunification of the country came at a high economic cost, the fact remains that it was a tough mission and needed an iron will and the best of strategies. Hariri had both and the Lebanese and Arabs remember him as a leader who had what it took to put the country back together and place it on track to recovery. His departure from power was a blow to Lebanon because the plans that he had devised could not be implemented in full and they remained struck where they were.
On the political front, the Hariri assassination led to the end of the Syrian domination of Lebanon and depature of the Syrian military from the country after nearly three decades of presence there.
Today, Lebanon is at a crossroads and fears are high of a revived sectarian conflict stemming from the deadlock between the government and opposition over powersharing. While the two sides could agree on a consensus candidate as the next president of the country, they have yet to see eye to eye on the structure of the cabinet.
It was as if the Mughnieh killing was timed to coincide with the Hariri anniversary by whoever was behind it because Thursday's rival gathering offered the best flashpoint for violence between the two sides.
However, both sides exercised restraint and went out of their way to avoid conflict during Thursday's events. The ruling coalition leaders sent condolences to Hizbollah over Mughnieh's death in a move that helped cool nerves and ease tensions with the opposition. The Arab World held its breath with crossed fingers closely watching the happenings in Beirut and counting the minutes and hours that passed before curtains fell on the two gatherings and people went home.
No matter what develops ahead, the message that Rafiq Hariri's widow, Nazik, issued on the occasion of her husband's death anniversary warning against "falling into hatred" and calling for "unity to save the country" should be the beacon for the people of Lebanon. That is the only way ahead for anyone who loves Lebanon.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Keeping our fingers crossed
Feb.13, 2008
Keeping our fingers crossed
ISRAEL is of course jubilant over the apparent assassination of Imad Fayez Mughnieh, head of Hizbollah’s operations, in Damascus late on Tuesday, but its denial of any role in the killing fails to be convincing.
The car-bomb attack in the Syrian capital bore all halmarks of an operation carried out by Israel's super-secret Mossad agency, which specialises in killing Israel's "enemies" around the world without leaving any evidence to prove its involvement but enough to suggest that it was the Jewish state's way of getting at its adversaries.
We have seen scores of such operations in the region. Among the first of them were the bombings that maimed West Bank leaders Bassam Al Shakaa and Fahad Qawasmeh in the early 80s, when the internal Israeli "security" services benefited from Mossad's technical expertise and used it against them.
Mossad agents were closely involved in the 1974-1992 Lebanese civil war and they played their roles in carrying out bombings and other attacks that added to the chaos and confusion of the strife there with no one being able to pinpoint who was doing what.
In the latest case also, it could and would never be proved that Mossad was behind Mughnieh's assassination (until and unless someone who was part of the team or whoever ordered it opts to recalls the killing some years down the line).
Israel may have its axe to grind against anyone, as the case was indeed with Mughnieh, who was described as plotter of major anti-US and anti-Israel operations in the last 25 years. However, by carrying out the killing in sovereign Syrian territory, Israel is challenging the established rules and code of international conduct. Charges that Mughnieh was behind anti-Israeli operations beyond the borders of Lebanon could not be any justification for Israel to take its fight beyond its own borders. The reason is simple: Israel is a state and it has a government which claims to be part of the civilised international community which is bound by a set of conventions and charters which do not permit a country to carry out acts of sabotage in the territory of another country. But then, that was never a consideration that bothered Israel and there is little reason to see any change in that position.
In the immediate context on the ground, we could expect an explosion of Hizbollah anger and vengence against the killing of Mughnieh, who ranked among the top leaders of the movement. We do not yet what form and shape the Hizbollah retaliation could take, but there is not much doubt that the group has the resources, both human and material, to carry out spectacular attacks.
Compounding the fears is today's rally in Lebanon marking the death anniversary of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Given the already high tensions in Lebanon, it would not take more than a strategically placed and timed Mossad operation for the situation to explode. We could only hope that nothing of the sort happens.
Keeping our fingers crossed
ISRAEL is of course jubilant over the apparent assassination of Imad Fayez Mughnieh, head of Hizbollah’s operations, in Damascus late on Tuesday, but its denial of any role in the killing fails to be convincing.
The car-bomb attack in the Syrian capital bore all halmarks of an operation carried out by Israel's super-secret Mossad agency, which specialises in killing Israel's "enemies" around the world without leaving any evidence to prove its involvement but enough to suggest that it was the Jewish state's way of getting at its adversaries.
We have seen scores of such operations in the region. Among the first of them were the bombings that maimed West Bank leaders Bassam Al Shakaa and Fahad Qawasmeh in the early 80s, when the internal Israeli "security" services benefited from Mossad's technical expertise and used it against them.
Mossad agents were closely involved in the 1974-1992 Lebanese civil war and they played their roles in carrying out bombings and other attacks that added to the chaos and confusion of the strife there with no one being able to pinpoint who was doing what.
In the latest case also, it could and would never be proved that Mossad was behind Mughnieh's assassination (until and unless someone who was part of the team or whoever ordered it opts to recalls the killing some years down the line).
Israel may have its axe to grind against anyone, as the case was indeed with Mughnieh, who was described as plotter of major anti-US and anti-Israel operations in the last 25 years. However, by carrying out the killing in sovereign Syrian territory, Israel is challenging the established rules and code of international conduct. Charges that Mughnieh was behind anti-Israeli operations beyond the borders of Lebanon could not be any justification for Israel to take its fight beyond its own borders. The reason is simple: Israel is a state and it has a government which claims to be part of the civilised international community which is bound by a set of conventions and charters which do not permit a country to carry out acts of sabotage in the territory of another country. But then, that was never a consideration that bothered Israel and there is little reason to see any change in that position.
In the immediate context on the ground, we could expect an explosion of Hizbollah anger and vengence against the killing of Mughnieh, who ranked among the top leaders of the movement. We do not yet what form and shape the Hizbollah retaliation could take, but there is not much doubt that the group has the resources, both human and material, to carry out spectacular attacks.
Compounding the fears is today's rally in Lebanon marking the death anniversary of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Given the already high tensions in Lebanon, it would not take more than a strategically placed and timed Mossad operation for the situation to explode. We could only hope that nothing of the sort happens.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Mindsets have to take a turn
Feb.13, 1008
Mindsets have to take a turn
WITH the Israeli threat/warning that all options remain open for it to bring an end to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, the world could expect to witness an intensified campaign of targeted killing and attempted assassination of Palestinian resistance leaders in the Mediterranean coastal strip in the days ahead.
Israeli leaders have admitted that their 'prime targets' include prominent Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Zahar, but, according to reports in the Israeli media, the renewed campaign is not likely, at this stage, to include members of the Hamas political leadership.
Indeed, the Israeli list could include people that the world never heard of but who the Jewish state's intelligence and security agencies consider as leaders of Palestinian armed resistance.
No doubt, leaders of the resistance movement are aware of the danger facing them and they have scaled back their public appearances and stepped up other security measures.
Israel could wreak havoc in the Gaza Strip, what with its US-supplied hi-tech surveillance and detection equipment and advanced weapons. However, the Palestinian retaliation would be equally intense and "unprecedented," as Hamas spokesmen warned on Monday. Surely, Palestinian resistance groups have also learnt a lesson or two and they could be expected to hit back with new methods, and a fresh cycle of killings and maimings would be launched.
It is with forboding frustration and a sense of helplessness that the international community, including the Arab World, is watching the developments unfold in Palestine because there is no readymade solution to the crisis there.
It is clear that short of "wiping Gaza off the map" — as demanded by some Israeli ministers — Israel would not be able to bring an end to the rocket attacks. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the combined Popular Resistance Committees based in Gaza would never accept surrender no matter how intense the expected Israeli action. For them, armed resistance is their raison d'etre because they realise that it would take much more than rocket attacks to force Israel to listen to logic and reason and accept a just, fair and comprehensive peace agreement that recognises and respects the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
At this juncture in time, it is incumbent upon the US, in its self-claimed capacity as a mediator for peace, to step in and restrain Israel from pursuing its sinister designs. It would be naive at best for Washington not to realise that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Hamas and all other likeminded Palestinian movements would have to part of any process for just and fair peace in Palestine. It would seem impossible for such groups to be brought in at this point, but then that is because of Israel's stubborn refusal to recognise and respect the rights of the Palestinians. Only Washington is in position to create the right conditions for reversing the bloody course of events in Palestine and setting the ground for a comprehensive process that addresses the roots of the problem. In order to do that, the US has to move away from the Israeli camp and call a spade and spade with all that it entails. But it is also clear that the mindset in Washington is no different from that of Israel and this in itself is the best recipe for bloodshed and violence.
Mindsets have to take a turn
WITH the Israeli threat/warning that all options remain open for it to bring an end to rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip, the world could expect to witness an intensified campaign of targeted killing and attempted assassination of Palestinian resistance leaders in the Mediterranean coastal strip in the days ahead.
Israeli leaders have admitted that their 'prime targets' include prominent Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh and Mahmoud Zahar, but, according to reports in the Israeli media, the renewed campaign is not likely, at this stage, to include members of the Hamas political leadership.
Indeed, the Israeli list could include people that the world never heard of but who the Jewish state's intelligence and security agencies consider as leaders of Palestinian armed resistance.
No doubt, leaders of the resistance movement are aware of the danger facing them and they have scaled back their public appearances and stepped up other security measures.
Israel could wreak havoc in the Gaza Strip, what with its US-supplied hi-tech surveillance and detection equipment and advanced weapons. However, the Palestinian retaliation would be equally intense and "unprecedented," as Hamas spokesmen warned on Monday. Surely, Palestinian resistance groups have also learnt a lesson or two and they could be expected to hit back with new methods, and a fresh cycle of killings and maimings would be launched.
It is with forboding frustration and a sense of helplessness that the international community, including the Arab World, is watching the developments unfold in Palestine because there is no readymade solution to the crisis there.
It is clear that short of "wiping Gaza off the map" — as demanded by some Israeli ministers — Israel would not be able to bring an end to the rocket attacks. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the combined Popular Resistance Committees based in Gaza would never accept surrender no matter how intense the expected Israeli action. For them, armed resistance is their raison d'etre because they realise that it would take much more than rocket attacks to force Israel to listen to logic and reason and accept a just, fair and comprehensive peace agreement that recognises and respects the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
At this juncture in time, it is incumbent upon the US, in its self-claimed capacity as a mediator for peace, to step in and restrain Israel from pursuing its sinister designs. It would be naive at best for Washington not to realise that there is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that Hamas and all other likeminded Palestinian movements would have to part of any process for just and fair peace in Palestine. It would seem impossible for such groups to be brought in at this point, but then that is because of Israel's stubborn refusal to recognise and respect the rights of the Palestinians. Only Washington is in position to create the right conditions for reversing the bloody course of events in Palestine and setting the ground for a comprehensive process that addresses the roots of the problem. In order to do that, the US has to move away from the Israeli camp and call a spade and spade with all that it entails. But it is also clear that the mindset in Washington is no different from that of Israel and this in itself is the best recipe for bloodshed and violence.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Established pattern has to be broken
February 11, 2008
Established pattern has to be broken
IT is a highly welcome development that the government of Sudan has accepted that UN-led peacekeepers will have full unrestricted movement in the troubled western Darfur region of the country.
Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed in Khartoum on Saturday by Foreign Minister Deng Alor and peacekeeping head Rodolphe Adada, Khartoum will permit night flights and full access across the western Sudanese province for United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) personnel, as well as easing restrictions in a number of areas including communications.
The signing of the agreement clears one of the key hurdles that were holding up the the Darfur peacekeeping force, which is meant to be 26,000-strong later this year — the UN's largest force.
One of the sticking points is Khartoum's refusal to accept non-African units, but that is a hurdle that could be partly set aside with Sudan ready to consider non-Africans on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed, the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement does not mean that everything is going ahead as planned in Darfur. There would be more hurdles popping up as the UN prepares for the full deployment of the peacekeeping unit.
On Friday the UN special envoy to Darfur, Jan Eliasson, warned that the region was edging towards full-scale war after Sudan launched a big operation attacking rebels in two towns in West Darfur. Eliason also noted that the Darfur rebels are not ready for serious talks with the government on settling the conflict. In reality, the rebel groups do not have a united platform, and that has one of the key problems for mediators trying to bring them all together for peace negotiations.
Another problem is that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for a junior Sudanese government minister and an allied militia leader accused of conspiring in war crimes in Darfur. Khartoum refuses to hand them over.
In the meantime, the joint AU-UN force, which has still to deply some 19,000 soldiers, is facing shortage of equipment and helicopters. Without quick means for transportation in the vast Darfur region, the peacekeepers would have serious problems doing their job and to respond to emergencies.
World governments which have been highly vocal about the crisis in Darfur do not seem to have the same enthusiasm when it comes to practical action that is now offered by countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia which are ready to provide the peacekeepers with some of the helicopters they need.
Apathy towards crisies where they do not have a direct stake has always been a feature of Western governments' behaviour, and what we are seeing in Sudan today is a continuation of the pattern. Meanwhile, valuable time is lost for the displaced people of Darfur who are hoping against hope that international action would help end their suffering and agony. Western countries which could easily plug the loopholes in the Darfur peacekeeping arrangements should act fast if they ever meant any word they said about the plight of the Darfurians.
Established pattern has to be broken
IT is a highly welcome development that the government of Sudan has accepted that UN-led peacekeepers will have full unrestricted movement in the troubled western Darfur region of the country.
Under the Status of Forces Agreement signed in Khartoum on Saturday by Foreign Minister Deng Alor and peacekeeping head Rodolphe Adada, Khartoum will permit night flights and full access across the western Sudanese province for United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) personnel, as well as easing restrictions in a number of areas including communications.
The signing of the agreement clears one of the key hurdles that were holding up the the Darfur peacekeeping force, which is meant to be 26,000-strong later this year — the UN's largest force.
One of the sticking points is Khartoum's refusal to accept non-African units, but that is a hurdle that could be partly set aside with Sudan ready to consider non-Africans on a case-by-case basis.
Indeed, the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement does not mean that everything is going ahead as planned in Darfur. There would be more hurdles popping up as the UN prepares for the full deployment of the peacekeeping unit.
On Friday the UN special envoy to Darfur, Jan Eliasson, warned that the region was edging towards full-scale war after Sudan launched a big operation attacking rebels in two towns in West Darfur. Eliason also noted that the Darfur rebels are not ready for serious talks with the government on settling the conflict. In reality, the rebel groups do not have a united platform, and that has one of the key problems for mediators trying to bring them all together for peace negotiations.
Another problem is that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for a junior Sudanese government minister and an allied militia leader accused of conspiring in war crimes in Darfur. Khartoum refuses to hand them over.
In the meantime, the joint AU-UN force, which has still to deply some 19,000 soldiers, is facing shortage of equipment and helicopters. Without quick means for transportation in the vast Darfur region, the peacekeepers would have serious problems doing their job and to respond to emergencies.
World governments which have been highly vocal about the crisis in Darfur do not seem to have the same enthusiasm when it comes to practical action that is now offered by countries like Bangladesh and Ethiopia which are ready to provide the peacekeepers with some of the helicopters they need.
Apathy towards crisies where they do not have a direct stake has always been a feature of Western governments' behaviour, and what we are seeing in Sudan today is a continuation of the pattern. Meanwhile, valuable time is lost for the displaced people of Darfur who are hoping against hope that international action would help end their suffering and agony. Western countries which could easily plug the loopholes in the Darfur peacekeeping arrangements should act fast if they ever meant any word they said about the plight of the Darfurians.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A warning of sinister plans
Feb.10, 2008
A warning of sinister plans
IT IS funny as well as ironic that Israel has opted to complain to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and to the UN Security Council about rocket attacks coming from the Gaza Strip into Israeli border areas. It is clear on the record of the UN that Israel never respected UN decisions, even the mandatory resolutions issued by the Security Council, and always complained that the world body was biased against it. It never co-operated with the UN on any issue related to the Palestinian problem and it got away with its defiant and arrogant behaviour because of the all-embracing protective umbrella offered by its "strategic partner," the US. Now, Israel is complaining to the same world about Palestinian armed resistance against its occupation of Palestinian territory and describing the rocket attacks as "a well-directed and continuous incitement by Hamas leaders, which is part of a campaign whose main goal is focused killing of Israeli residents."
One wonders how Israel would describe its systematic campaign to obliterate the Palestinian cause since the Jewish state was created on Palestinian land in 1948, starting with a frenzied seizure of territory far beyond that was given to it by the UN partition resolution and massacres to force Palestinian villagers to flee their ancestral land in order to make room for Jews arriving from various parts of the world. It followed up with the seizure of the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and Syria's Golan Heights in the 1967 war. Since then, it followed a policy of terrorising the Palestinians living under its occupation and used every dirty trick to evict as many Palestinians as possible from the occupied territories. However, it failed to realise its objectives, and today it only because of the impossibility of expelling the 2.34 million Palestinians from the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, that is not pursuing the policy of forced eviction. In essence, Israel's name should be on the top of the list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and it has no right to raise any complaint with the UN about the results of its own brutal policies against the Palestinians in the last 60 years. It is reaping what it sowed.
At the same time, there could indeed be a sinister aspect to the complaint it filed with the UN on Friday. Coming against the backdrop of plans to stage a major military offensive against the Gaza Strip, the letter of protest could indeed be an advance measure against any UN move to censure it as and when it expands the scope of its present military strikes against the people of Gaza. Not that any UN censure would matter much to Israel. However, it would appear that the size and impact of its planned offensive against Gaza will be of such an unprecedented nature that it would provoke a major international outcry and Israel is taking an anticipatory measure. That is the only conclusion one could draw from the Israeli protest sent to the UN. It is indeed a forewarning of the shape of things to come. As such, the international community has the moral responsibility prevent Israel from carrying out its military plans against the people of Gaza.
A warning of sinister plans
IT IS funny as well as ironic that Israel has opted to complain to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and to the UN Security Council about rocket attacks coming from the Gaza Strip into Israeli border areas. It is clear on the record of the UN that Israel never respected UN decisions, even the mandatory resolutions issued by the Security Council, and always complained that the world body was biased against it. It never co-operated with the UN on any issue related to the Palestinian problem and it got away with its defiant and arrogant behaviour because of the all-embracing protective umbrella offered by its "strategic partner," the US. Now, Israel is complaining to the same world about Palestinian armed resistance against its occupation of Palestinian territory and describing the rocket attacks as "a well-directed and continuous incitement by Hamas leaders, which is part of a campaign whose main goal is focused killing of Israeli residents."
One wonders how Israel would describe its systematic campaign to obliterate the Palestinian cause since the Jewish state was created on Palestinian land in 1948, starting with a frenzied seizure of territory far beyond that was given to it by the UN partition resolution and massacres to force Palestinian villagers to flee their ancestral land in order to make room for Jews arriving from various parts of the world. It followed up with the seizure of the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and Syria's Golan Heights in the 1967 war. Since then, it followed a policy of terrorising the Palestinians living under its occupation and used every dirty trick to evict as many Palestinians as possible from the occupied territories. However, it failed to realise its objectives, and today it only because of the impossibility of expelling the 2.34 million Palestinians from the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, that is not pursuing the policy of forced eviction. In essence, Israel's name should be on the top of the list of "state sponsors of terrorism" and it has no right to raise any complaint with the UN about the results of its own brutal policies against the Palestinians in the last 60 years. It is reaping what it sowed.
At the same time, there could indeed be a sinister aspect to the complaint it filed with the UN on Friday. Coming against the backdrop of plans to stage a major military offensive against the Gaza Strip, the letter of protest could indeed be an advance measure against any UN move to censure it as and when it expands the scope of its present military strikes against the people of Gaza. Not that any UN censure would matter much to Israel. However, it would appear that the size and impact of its planned offensive against Gaza will be of such an unprecedented nature that it would provoke a major international outcry and Israel is taking an anticipatory measure. That is the only conclusion one could draw from the Israeli protest sent to the UN. It is indeed a forewarning of the shape of things to come. As such, the international community has the moral responsibility prevent Israel from carrying out its military plans against the people of Gaza.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
No room for more bickering
February 9, 1008
No room for more bickering
Arab League chief Amr Mussa has renewed efforts to persuade the feuding Lebanese groups to agree steps to elect a new president and plug the constitutional vaccum and resulting crisis is bad news for the country. From his own words, Musa faces a uphill task since the ruling majority and the opposition parties are not willing to step back from their positions.
"There are some points on which there is an agreement but there are other points that need further discussion," Musa said after talks with majority leader Saad Hariri and opposition figure Michel Aoun. He has promised to continue his efforts.
Obviously, both sides see the situation as a make-or-break point in the power struggle that has to do with the very core of political life in the country. They consider any compromise has dealing a severe blow to themselves.
There are many firsts in the Lebanese crisis. Never in recent political history of any country has a parliament failed to elect a president despite 13 sessions. A 14th session set for Monday does not hold out any promise of success either.
Musa is trying to convince both sides to accept an Arab League endorsed proposal that involves a three-point plan calling for the election of consensus candidate army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, the formation of a national unity government in which no single party has a veto power and adoption of a new electoral law.
While the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has accepted the plan, the opposition remains firm on its demand for a third of the seats in the new government to secure veto power. The government, which has indeed a majority in parliament, does not see the need for accepting the demand.
As the impasse continues, the country is almost at a standstill, with the ordinary people of Lebanon praying that there would not be a repetition of the violence that hit the country last month originating in protests against power shortages in some areas.
That the protests led to violence underlines the tension prevailing in the country. Many see the crisis as a powderkeg ready to explode at the slighest provocation.
Indeed, it is up to the politicians of Lebanon to think and take decisions with the awareness that they are playing with the future of their country and people. Hopefully, they would responsibly shoulder the representative mandate — whether in power or as opposition — that is vested on them by their people. There is no room for continued deadlock.
No room for more bickering
Arab League chief Amr Mussa has renewed efforts to persuade the feuding Lebanese groups to agree steps to elect a new president and plug the constitutional vaccum and resulting crisis is bad news for the country. From his own words, Musa faces a uphill task since the ruling majority and the opposition parties are not willing to step back from their positions.
"There are some points on which there is an agreement but there are other points that need further discussion," Musa said after talks with majority leader Saad Hariri and opposition figure Michel Aoun. He has promised to continue his efforts.
Obviously, both sides see the situation as a make-or-break point in the power struggle that has to do with the very core of political life in the country. They consider any compromise has dealing a severe blow to themselves.
There are many firsts in the Lebanese crisis. Never in recent political history of any country has a parliament failed to elect a president despite 13 sessions. A 14th session set for Monday does not hold out any promise of success either.
Musa is trying to convince both sides to accept an Arab League endorsed proposal that involves a three-point plan calling for the election of consensus candidate army chief General Michel Suleiman as president, the formation of a national unity government in which no single party has a veto power and adoption of a new electoral law.
While the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora has accepted the plan, the opposition remains firm on its demand for a third of the seats in the new government to secure veto power. The government, which has indeed a majority in parliament, does not see the need for accepting the demand.
As the impasse continues, the country is almost at a standstill, with the ordinary people of Lebanon praying that there would not be a repetition of the violence that hit the country last month originating in protests against power shortages in some areas.
That the protests led to violence underlines the tension prevailing in the country. Many see the crisis as a powderkeg ready to explode at the slighest provocation.
Indeed, it is up to the politicians of Lebanon to think and take decisions with the awareness that they are playing with the future of their country and people. Hopefully, they would responsibly shoulder the representative mandate — whether in power or as opposition — that is vested on them by their people. There is no room for continued deadlock.
Monday, February 04, 2008
A call for more world attention
February 4, 2008
A call for more world attention
UAE Vice-President and Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum has underlined the need for more international attention on the Palestinian problem in a meeting with Tony Blair, the special envoy of the international Quartet — the US, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.
The calls underlines the reality that even now the international community is not focused on the decades-old conflict that has seen tens of thousands being killed, maimed and detained and millions turned into refugees and displaced. Many reasons could be seen behind the apparent apathy towards the conflict, but standing out among them is the US approach which sidelines all other parties from playing any effective role in the quest for peace in Palestine. And that includes the powerful European Union to which Blair belongs and which is still playing only a peripheral political role in the search for peace.
Hopes that were raised at the Annapolis conference late last year are fading fast in the wake of the unexpected developments in Palestine in the last few weeks and indeed the persistent Israeli determination to have its own way in any move for making peace with the Palestinians.
Sheikh Mohammed also called on Blair, the former prime minister of Britain, to use his rich political experience and exert great efforts to solve the problem.
Indeed, Blair is the best qualified among Western leaders to head the effort for peace in Palestine, which Britain ruled for three decades under a League of Nations mandate. All British leaders have had close familiarity with the Palestinian problem, which owes its origins to the former colonial power's policy and actions in the early 1900s. By the same token, they could not but be aware that there could not any hope for peace in the Middle East without an equitable solution based on justice and fairness.
As such, Blair's reaffirmation is comforting. He said that he is working on narrowing the differences between the Palestinians and Israelis, to reach a just and honourable solution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Blair has already shown that he is not confined to the American orbit in the context of the Palestinian problem by disagreeing with Washington's approach to the conflict. Hopefully, he would continue on the same path based on the understanding that the Palestinian people need all the help they could secure, given that their negotiating position is naturally weakened in view of Israel's physical control of the territories where they aspire to set up an independent state.
As Sheikh Mohammed underlined in his meeting with Blair on Sunday, the world needs to see the Palestinian cause as a just issue that deserves more attention from the United Nations and the major powers of the world with a view to achieving justice and equality for all the peoples in the region.
A call for more world attention
UAE Vice-President and Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum has underlined the need for more international attention on the Palestinian problem in a meeting with Tony Blair, the special envoy of the international Quartet — the US, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.
The calls underlines the reality that even now the international community is not focused on the decades-old conflict that has seen tens of thousands being killed, maimed and detained and millions turned into refugees and displaced. Many reasons could be seen behind the apparent apathy towards the conflict, but standing out among them is the US approach which sidelines all other parties from playing any effective role in the quest for peace in Palestine. And that includes the powerful European Union to which Blair belongs and which is still playing only a peripheral political role in the search for peace.
Hopes that were raised at the Annapolis conference late last year are fading fast in the wake of the unexpected developments in Palestine in the last few weeks and indeed the persistent Israeli determination to have its own way in any move for making peace with the Palestinians.
Sheikh Mohammed also called on Blair, the former prime minister of Britain, to use his rich political experience and exert great efforts to solve the problem.
Indeed, Blair is the best qualified among Western leaders to head the effort for peace in Palestine, which Britain ruled for three decades under a League of Nations mandate. All British leaders have had close familiarity with the Palestinian problem, which owes its origins to the former colonial power's policy and actions in the early 1900s. By the same token, they could not but be aware that there could not any hope for peace in the Middle East without an equitable solution based on justice and fairness.
As such, Blair's reaffirmation is comforting. He said that he is working on narrowing the differences between the Palestinians and Israelis, to reach a just and honourable solution that would lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Blair has already shown that he is not confined to the American orbit in the context of the Palestinian problem by disagreeing with Washington's approach to the conflict. Hopefully, he would continue on the same path based on the understanding that the Palestinian people need all the help they could secure, given that their negotiating position is naturally weakened in view of Israel's physical control of the territories where they aspire to set up an independent state.
As Sheikh Mohammed underlined in his meeting with Blair on Sunday, the world needs to see the Palestinian cause as a just issue that deserves more attention from the United Nations and the major powers of the world with a view to achieving justice and equality for all the peoples in the region.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Realisation hits too late, too far
February 3, 2008
Realisation hits too late, too far
The admission by the US ambassdor to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, that the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have made Iran stronger is the first by a senior Bush administration official. American and international commentators have been saying it for some time now, but no US official was ready to say so, at least not in public.
Among the many puzzling questions that emerged in the run-up to, during and after the US-led invasion of Iraq was how Washington strategists overlooked the many predictable consequences of its military action. The ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan worked in Iran's favour because the militant group had posed a serious challenge to Tehran. Iran almost declared war with the Taliban in the late 1990s, because of the then Afghan rulers' extremist theology and their killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. Today, Iran has managed to strengthen its influence among Afghan groups and plays a key behind-the-scene role in the country. Ironically, it is also accused of supplying arms to the Taliban in order to keep Afghanistan away from being pacified under American control.
Iran is also reaping economic benefits from the toppling of the Taliban. Iran's trade with Afghanistan has gone up dramatically and Iranians have helped build roads and power lines in its neighbour.
Indeed, Iran is the best beneficiary from the US-led military action that led to the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. The US not only removed what Iran saw as a hurdle to its regional ambitions but also helped install an Iran-friendly regime in Baghdad to the point that Washington, despite its massive military presence, is no position to call any shot in Iraq that Tehran deems to be conflicting with its interests.
Israel also benefited from the removal of the Saddam regime, which posed a challenge to the Jewish state and supported the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of their land. However, as things turned out, the threat to Israel, perceived or otherwise, has only grown in gravity. If the US were to end its military presence in Iraq today, Israel would find itself geographically closer to the Iranian "threat" because the Iranians would have access to Iraqi territory all the way to the western border.
Surely, these are some of the key considerations behind the apparent US quest to bring about fundamental changes in Iran, whether through military action or otherwise, and thus remove it as a challenge to US and Israeli interests.
Khalilzad's admission should be yet another eye-opener for Washington that it has only itself to blame for the predicament it confronts in the Middle East region today. Indeed, it might be an unintended consequence of US decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Washington should not have brushed aside the key questions in its frenzy to wage military action in the region.
Realisation hits too late, too far
The admission by the US ambassdor to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, that the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have made Iran stronger is the first by a senior Bush administration official. American and international commentators have been saying it for some time now, but no US official was ready to say so, at least not in public.
Among the many puzzling questions that emerged in the run-up to, during and after the US-led invasion of Iraq was how Washington strategists overlooked the many predictable consequences of its military action. The ouster of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan worked in Iran's favour because the militant group had posed a serious challenge to Tehran. Iran almost declared war with the Taliban in the late 1990s, because of the then Afghan rulers' extremist theology and their killing of Afghan Shiite Muslims. Today, Iran has managed to strengthen its influence among Afghan groups and plays a key behind-the-scene role in the country. Ironically, it is also accused of supplying arms to the Taliban in order to keep Afghanistan away from being pacified under American control.
Iran is also reaping economic benefits from the toppling of the Taliban. Iran's trade with Afghanistan has gone up dramatically and Iranians have helped build roads and power lines in its neighbour.
Indeed, Iran is the best beneficiary from the US-led military action that led to the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. The US not only removed what Iran saw as a hurdle to its regional ambitions but also helped install an Iran-friendly regime in Baghdad to the point that Washington, despite its massive military presence, is no position to call any shot in Iraq that Tehran deems to be conflicting with its interests.
Israel also benefited from the removal of the Saddam regime, which posed a challenge to the Jewish state and supported the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation of their land. However, as things turned out, the threat to Israel, perceived or otherwise, has only grown in gravity. If the US were to end its military presence in Iraq today, Israel would find itself geographically closer to the Iranian "threat" because the Iranians would have access to Iraqi territory all the way to the western border.
Surely, these are some of the key considerations behind the apparent US quest to bring about fundamental changes in Iran, whether through military action or otherwise, and thus remove it as a challenge to US and Israeli interests.
Khalilzad's admission should be yet another eye-opener for Washington that it has only itself to blame for the predicament it confronts in the Middle East region today. Indeed, it might be an unintended consequence of US decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Washington should not have brushed aside the key questions in its frenzy to wage military action in the region.
Friday, February 01, 2008
World cannot afford to fail
Feb.1, 2008
World cannot afford to fail
TWO years after a gathering in London chalked out a plan for billions of dollars in international assistance to Afghanistan and agreed to implement it, the situation has turned all the more worse, according to reports drawn up by experts.
The reports acknowledge that tens of billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan but for the wrong purposes. An immediate example is Washington's announced plans involving about $10.6 billion to spent on security and development in the country in the next two years. The bulk of the money — $8.6 billion — will be spent on training Afghan security forces -- meaning a chunk of it being channelled to US equipment and US contractors.The rest will be spent for reconstruction, again meaning contracts for US companies or firms allied with US companies. The US has already spent some $14 billion in aid to Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion which toppled the Taleban. Apart from that the US is spending about $100 million a month in Afghanistan in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The international community has spent an equal amount in Afghanistan.
With so much of money flowing into the country, one would expect the people of Afghanistan to be far better than their counterparts in other developing countries.
The ground reality is in dark contrast to the expectation. The ordinary people of Afghanistan have yet to feel any difference in their daily life.
Crops are poor, and unemployment is as high as 50 per cent in most of the country. Militant groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda find fertile ground for recruitment among the unemployed in Afghanistan. Many Afghans have turned to growing poppy despite efforts to stamp out the practice.
These are only cursory reviews of the situation in the country.
The Atlantic Council says that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan and the British charity Oxfam has warned that the country faces a humanitarian disaster. It points out that millions of dollars of development aid is being wasted and says that the international approach towards Afghanistan is lacking in direction and is "incoherent and uncoordinated."
Effectively, the reports have underlined the pressing need for a new approach to prevent Afghanistan becoming a "failed or failing state."
The warning by the US Atlantic Council is ominous:
"If Afghanistan fails, the possible strategic consequences will worsen regional instability, do great harm to the fight against jihadist and religious extremism, and put in grave jeopardy Nato's future as a credible, cohesive and relevant military alliance."
The American Afghanistan Study Group says that "resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, too few military forces and insufficient economic aid" were all contributing to the country's woes.
The international community, which professes keen interest in prevening states to fail, and the US, which leads the "war against terror" that it launched with the Afghan war in 2001, have to take these warning seriously and rethink strategies. If they fail to do so, then the world would have in its hands one of the worst disasters it ever faced.
World cannot afford to fail
TWO years after a gathering in London chalked out a plan for billions of dollars in international assistance to Afghanistan and agreed to implement it, the situation has turned all the more worse, according to reports drawn up by experts.
The reports acknowledge that tens of billions of dollars have been spent in Afghanistan but for the wrong purposes. An immediate example is Washington's announced plans involving about $10.6 billion to spent on security and development in the country in the next two years. The bulk of the money — $8.6 billion — will be spent on training Afghan security forces -- meaning a chunk of it being channelled to US equipment and US contractors.The rest will be spent for reconstruction, again meaning contracts for US companies or firms allied with US companies. The US has already spent some $14 billion in aid to Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion which toppled the Taleban. Apart from that the US is spending about $100 million a month in Afghanistan in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The international community has spent an equal amount in Afghanistan.
With so much of money flowing into the country, one would expect the people of Afghanistan to be far better than their counterparts in other developing countries.
The ground reality is in dark contrast to the expectation. The ordinary people of Afghanistan have yet to feel any difference in their daily life.
Crops are poor, and unemployment is as high as 50 per cent in most of the country. Militant groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda find fertile ground for recruitment among the unemployed in Afghanistan. Many Afghans have turned to growing poppy despite efforts to stamp out the practice.
These are only cursory reviews of the situation in the country.
The Atlantic Council says that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is not winning in Afghanistan and the British charity Oxfam has warned that the country faces a humanitarian disaster. It points out that millions of dollars of development aid is being wasted and says that the international approach towards Afghanistan is lacking in direction and is "incoherent and uncoordinated."
Effectively, the reports have underlined the pressing need for a new approach to prevent Afghanistan becoming a "failed or failing state."
The warning by the US Atlantic Council is ominous:
"If Afghanistan fails, the possible strategic consequences will worsen regional instability, do great harm to the fight against jihadist and religious extremism, and put in grave jeopardy Nato's future as a credible, cohesive and relevant military alliance."
The American Afghanistan Study Group says that "resurgent violence, weakening international resolve, too few military forces and insufficient economic aid" were all contributing to the country's woes.
The international community, which professes keen interest in prevening states to fail, and the US, which leads the "war against terror" that it launched with the Afghan war in 2001, have to take these warning seriously and rethink strategies. If they fail to do so, then the world would have in its hands one of the worst disasters it ever faced.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Again a hostage of Israeli politics
January 31, 2008
Again a hostage of Israeli politics
Few in the Arab World would shed any tears if Ehud Olmert is forced to resign as Israel's prime minister since most Israeli political leaders are of the same colour when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, it is a sobering thought that the man most likely to replace Olmert in the event of the latter's resignation is from among the most hard-line Israeli leaders dedicated to wrecking any prospects for a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians which involves return of Israeli-occupied territory. It is none other than Benjamiin Netanyahu of the Likud bloc who, as prime minister from June 1996 to July 1999, systematically engineered the collapse of the peace process that was launched with the signing of the interim Oslo agreement, flawed as it was indeed.
The release of the Winograd inquiry commission’s final conclusions on the management of the Lebanon war of summer 2006 has piled pressure on Olmert to step down. Olmert has been mustering support against demands for his resignation, but it is not clear how he could withstand the finding of a new opinion poll that some 73 per cent of the Israeli public want him to quit as prime minister.
If Olmert is forced to step down as prime minister without calling for general elections, then it is almost certain that his successor through direct prime ministerial elections would be Netanyahu, who has always insisted that Israel is doing the Palestinian people a magnanimous favour by permitting them to stay in the West Bank which he and likeminded Israelis consider as part of the "promised land."
The only other person from the present Israeli scene who has any fighting chance against Netanyahu is Labour leader Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and current minister of defence. However, Barak also seems to have burnt his bridges for having gone back on his pledge to respond to a negative Winograd commission report by quitting government or calling for an early election and amending it to saying that he would do what was best for the country. That posture has earned him the disapproval of 63 per cent of Israelis, who, according to the latest opinion poll, want him to join Olmert on the way out.
While close Olmert aides like Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On are insisting that an early election is not on the cards, all bets are off at this point in time.
Not that there is any immediate prospect of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations making any headway at all, given the deep rift in the Palestinian ranks. Instead of focusing their attention on the vital need for national unity for the common cause of liberation and independent statehood, Palestinian political leaders are arguing over who should be in control of the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt. That should show how internal Palestinian affairs have deteriorated to a stage where the Palestinians themselves are unable to work out an agreement among themselves, let alone even negotiating with the Israelis.
In the meantime, it seems to be abundantly clear that the Israeli voters want a total hard-line sweep of the country's leadership. That would naturally mean parliamentary elections as well as election of a prime minister. That in turn, given the political forces in play in Israel today, would see Netanyahu as Olmert's successor and his hard-line Likud and its natural allies forming the next government.
And that would be the end of any hope of a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in any foreseeable future, notwithstanding US President George W Bush's pledge — unconvincing as it is — to see such an agreement being signed before he leaves office next year.
Again a hostage of Israeli politics
Few in the Arab World would shed any tears if Ehud Olmert is forced to resign as Israel's prime minister since most Israeli political leaders are of the same colour when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. At the same time, it is a sobering thought that the man most likely to replace Olmert in the event of the latter's resignation is from among the most hard-line Israeli leaders dedicated to wrecking any prospects for a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians which involves return of Israeli-occupied territory. It is none other than Benjamiin Netanyahu of the Likud bloc who, as prime minister from June 1996 to July 1999, systematically engineered the collapse of the peace process that was launched with the signing of the interim Oslo agreement, flawed as it was indeed.
The release of the Winograd inquiry commission’s final conclusions on the management of the Lebanon war of summer 2006 has piled pressure on Olmert to step down. Olmert has been mustering support against demands for his resignation, but it is not clear how he could withstand the finding of a new opinion poll that some 73 per cent of the Israeli public want him to quit as prime minister.
If Olmert is forced to step down as prime minister without calling for general elections, then it is almost certain that his successor through direct prime ministerial elections would be Netanyahu, who has always insisted that Israel is doing the Palestinian people a magnanimous favour by permitting them to stay in the West Bank which he and likeminded Israelis consider as part of the "promised land."
The only other person from the present Israeli scene who has any fighting chance against Netanyahu is Labour leader Ehud Barak, a former prime minister and current minister of defence. However, Barak also seems to have burnt his bridges for having gone back on his pledge to respond to a negative Winograd commission report by quitting government or calling for an early election and amending it to saying that he would do what was best for the country. That posture has earned him the disapproval of 63 per cent of Israelis, who, according to the latest opinion poll, want him to join Olmert on the way out.
While close Olmert aides like Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On are insisting that an early election is not on the cards, all bets are off at this point in time.
Not that there is any immediate prospect of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations making any headway at all, given the deep rift in the Palestinian ranks. Instead of focusing their attention on the vital need for national unity for the common cause of liberation and independent statehood, Palestinian political leaders are arguing over who should be in control of the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt. That should show how internal Palestinian affairs have deteriorated to a stage where the Palestinians themselves are unable to work out an agreement among themselves, let alone even negotiating with the Israelis.
In the meantime, it seems to be abundantly clear that the Israeli voters want a total hard-line sweep of the country's leadership. That would naturally mean parliamentary elections as well as election of a prime minister. That in turn, given the political forces in play in Israel today, would see Netanyahu as Olmert's successor and his hard-line Likud and its natural allies forming the next government.
And that would be the end of any hope of a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in any foreseeable future, notwithstanding US President George W Bush's pledge — unconvincing as it is — to see such an agreement being signed before he leaves office next year.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Same old soup in same old bowl
January 30, 2008
Same old soup in same old bowl
US President George W. Bush's final annual State of the Union address on Monday was on predictable lines. He used the occasion to defend his deeply unpopular handling of what Americans say are their top two concerns: economic turmoil at home and the US military crisis in Iraq.
The president, who bows out of the White House in one year from now, could only promise the American people that help was on the way on the economic front. He shifted the onus to the US Congress by urging the speedy apporval of a $150-billion stimulus package he agreed last week with congressional leaders. That package, if an when approved — the Senate has come up with its own proposal — is unlikely to have an immediate impact on American lives, and the American people know that.
The American people have also come to realise that the Bush administration never drew up and does not have an exit strategy from Iraq and that the US military is likely to remain there for many years despite the steady loss of American soldiers.
On the whole, the Americans find the situation bleak with worries about a recession, soaring fuel costs, huge budget deficits, and the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a looming confrontation with Iran. Add to that the fear accummulated over the last decades that Americans, by definition, are in militant gunsights in many places around the world.
The situation was different when Bush took over the White House in January 2001. The US economy was booming with a budget surplus. Its military was not engaged in any active combat. And the president had a popularity rating of more than 60 per cent.
Today the same president's popularity rating is less than 35. The economy is troubled waters, the military is fighting on several fronts and the American people have more things to worry about than they did when Bush took over as president.
Bush offered nothing new in his State of the Union address. He simply defended his policies and spoke aggressive about the wars and confrontation that the US is facing. And, judging from the immediate American public reaction, few were impressed.
That Bush has left his own party in deep trouble is also evident.
The Bush name is seldom mentioned by Republican candidates in the ongoing presidential campaigning and they refer to Ronald
Reagan as the last Republican president. Ironically, walked over in the campaigning are the terms of both Bush and his father who suceeded Reagan.
Indeed, it would have been naive to have expected Bush to announce any dramatic shift in domestic or foreign policy in the twilight year of his presidency. But some did, and they were promptly disappointed.
Same old soup in same old bowl
US President George W. Bush's final annual State of the Union address on Monday was on predictable lines. He used the occasion to defend his deeply unpopular handling of what Americans say are their top two concerns: economic turmoil at home and the US military crisis in Iraq.
The president, who bows out of the White House in one year from now, could only promise the American people that help was on the way on the economic front. He shifted the onus to the US Congress by urging the speedy apporval of a $150-billion stimulus package he agreed last week with congressional leaders. That package, if an when approved — the Senate has come up with its own proposal — is unlikely to have an immediate impact on American lives, and the American people know that.
The American people have also come to realise that the Bush administration never drew up and does not have an exit strategy from Iraq and that the US military is likely to remain there for many years despite the steady loss of American soldiers.
On the whole, the Americans find the situation bleak with worries about a recession, soaring fuel costs, huge budget deficits, and the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a looming confrontation with Iran. Add to that the fear accummulated over the last decades that Americans, by definition, are in militant gunsights in many places around the world.
The situation was different when Bush took over the White House in January 2001. The US economy was booming with a budget surplus. Its military was not engaged in any active combat. And the president had a popularity rating of more than 60 per cent.
Today the same president's popularity rating is less than 35. The economy is troubled waters, the military is fighting on several fronts and the American people have more things to worry about than they did when Bush took over as president.
Bush offered nothing new in his State of the Union address. He simply defended his policies and spoke aggressive about the wars and confrontation that the US is facing. And, judging from the immediate American public reaction, few were impressed.
That Bush has left his own party in deep trouble is also evident.
The Bush name is seldom mentioned by Republican candidates in the ongoing presidential campaigning and they refer to Ronald
Reagan as the last Republican president. Ironically, walked over in the campaigning are the terms of both Bush and his father who suceeded Reagan.
Indeed, it would have been naive to have expected Bush to announce any dramatic shift in domestic or foreign policy in the twilight year of his presidency. But some did, and they were promptly disappointed.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
January 29, 2008
January 29, 2008
Building a viable economic structure
The European Union's (EU) decision on Monday to adjust its aid programme for the Palestinians to target the economic reforms and other specific aims of the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a highly positive move. It is one of the most concrete moves to support and implement the plans drawn up by Fayyad, who is known to be a no-nonsense economist with a vision.
By announcing the decision, the EU implicitly sent a message that there would be no room for any mismanagement of funds by certain groups within the Palestinian movement. Inefficiency and corruption had become a feature of the Palestinian administration and that was part of the reasons for the defeat that the mainstream Fatah suffered in the last general elections that were won by Hamas.
Indeed, the reality remains that uncertainty is the key feature of Hamas-ruled Gaza. An all-embracing compromise has to be found to end the rift within the Palestinian community. Stop-gap measures are not enough and the various parties involved have the responsibility towards their people to ensure that the fragmented Palestinian liberation movement does not suffer any more and is put back into shape with the common objective of setting up an independent Palestinian state.
The talks that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal held with Saudi officials in Riyadh on Monday would hopefully advance a compromise that would see the Gaza Strip being returned to PNA control. Short of that, all other proposals and plans would not make sense. And the process is likely to face snags because of what Hamas considers as its victory in breaching the Israeli lockdown on the Gaza Strip.
In the meantime, EU officials have said World Bank-monitored aid for fuel and hardship humanitarian cases in Gaza will continue because the EU is not making a distinction between Gaza and West Bank Palestinians. However, the Fatah-Hamas rift has to be sealed in order for any assistance to have the optimum effect through institutionalised channels.
The international community has signalled its support for the Palestinians by pledging $7.7 billion in aid for them in the next three years. It is definitely upto the Palestinians themselves to put their act together and get on with the process of regaining their land from Israel and set up an independent state there. Striking a just and fair deal with Israel is the toughest task that the Palestinians face. Parallel to that is the mission of building an infrastructure focusing on social and economic development of the Palestinian people. The EU decision is clearly based on that approach.
Building a viable economic structure
The European Union's (EU) decision on Monday to adjust its aid programme for the Palestinians to target the economic reforms and other specific aims of the government of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a highly positive move. It is one of the most concrete moves to support and implement the plans drawn up by Fayyad, who is known to be a no-nonsense economist with a vision.
By announcing the decision, the EU implicitly sent a message that there would be no room for any mismanagement of funds by certain groups within the Palestinian movement. Inefficiency and corruption had become a feature of the Palestinian administration and that was part of the reasons for the defeat that the mainstream Fatah suffered in the last general elections that were won by Hamas.
Indeed, the reality remains that uncertainty is the key feature of Hamas-ruled Gaza. An all-embracing compromise has to be found to end the rift within the Palestinian community. Stop-gap measures are not enough and the various parties involved have the responsibility towards their people to ensure that the fragmented Palestinian liberation movement does not suffer any more and is put back into shape with the common objective of setting up an independent Palestinian state.
The talks that Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal held with Saudi officials in Riyadh on Monday would hopefully advance a compromise that would see the Gaza Strip being returned to PNA control. Short of that, all other proposals and plans would not make sense. And the process is likely to face snags because of what Hamas considers as its victory in breaching the Israeli lockdown on the Gaza Strip.
In the meantime, EU officials have said World Bank-monitored aid for fuel and hardship humanitarian cases in Gaza will continue because the EU is not making a distinction between Gaza and West Bank Palestinians. However, the Fatah-Hamas rift has to be sealed in order for any assistance to have the optimum effect through institutionalised channels.
The international community has signalled its support for the Palestinians by pledging $7.7 billion in aid for them in the next three years. It is definitely upto the Palestinians themselves to put their act together and get on with the process of regaining their land from Israel and set up an independent state there. Striking a just and fair deal with Israel is the toughest task that the Palestinians face. Parallel to that is the mission of building an infrastructure focusing on social and economic development of the Palestinian people. The EU decision is clearly based on that approach.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Afghan eyes for Afghan issues
Jan.28, 2008
Afghan eyes for Afghan issues
THE friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the British government is heating up, with Karzai reportedly blocking the appointment of Britain's Lord Ashdown as the UN special envoy in Afghanistan.
The immediate link the dispute might have is with Karzai’s criticism of the role of the 7,800 British troops in Afghanistan. He has charged that British forces had failed in their mission in Helmand province. British officials counter that had it not been for the British troops, Karzai would never have any control in the area and the flourishing poppy trade there.
Ashdown had been the top candidate to become a so-called “superenvoy” — an overall co-ordinator of international aid and political efforts in Afghanistan. But Karzai’s opposition has undermined Ashdown’s candidacy. There are others in the line, including a British general, and it would seem that his chances of becoming the envoy have also been undermined by Karzai's rift with the British government.
Well, these are issues on the surface. Deep within, Karzai seems to resent the US-led foreign domination of his country that has left him politically paralysed and unable to push his way towards national reconciliation.
Essentially, Karzai believes that things in Afghanistan have to be done the Afghan way and he has little faith in the Western/British approah to Afghanistan. The Afghan way dictates that the rulers in Kabul have to work with local warlords whereas the Western way has little room or patience for such arrangements. That was highlighted when the British forces objected to Karzai’s choice of local officials to run the Helmand administration and the security forces, particularly that of Sher Mohammed Akhunzada, his chosen and trusted governor in Helmand.
According to Karzai, his forces were in control of Helmand before the British forces deployed there. Now, he says, the province is under the control of the Taleban, who have staged a comeback as a result of what Kabul calls British inefficiency.
Afghanistan is unique in many ways and that has always been the reason the failure of external powers to control the country. The foreign powers now involved in Afghanistan with their own formulas and recipes to address the problems there do not seem to take into consideration that the goverment of Karzai knows better than them on how to deal with the situation. They seem to believe that the fact that they spent billions of dollars in trying to defeat the Taleban entitles them to second-guess the Kabul government.
This time around, Karzai seems to have put his foot down and made clear his position to some of the Western leaders during the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davois.
We do not know yet how the American and European leaders view Karzai's newfound toughness, but we do know that they need to use Afghan eyes to realise Afghan issues and come up with Afghan solutions.
Afghan eyes for Afghan issues
THE friction between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the British government is heating up, with Karzai reportedly blocking the appointment of Britain's Lord Ashdown as the UN special envoy in Afghanistan.
The immediate link the dispute might have is with Karzai’s criticism of the role of the 7,800 British troops in Afghanistan. He has charged that British forces had failed in their mission in Helmand province. British officials counter that had it not been for the British troops, Karzai would never have any control in the area and the flourishing poppy trade there.
Ashdown had been the top candidate to become a so-called “superenvoy” — an overall co-ordinator of international aid and political efforts in Afghanistan. But Karzai’s opposition has undermined Ashdown’s candidacy. There are others in the line, including a British general, and it would seem that his chances of becoming the envoy have also been undermined by Karzai's rift with the British government.
Well, these are issues on the surface. Deep within, Karzai seems to resent the US-led foreign domination of his country that has left him politically paralysed and unable to push his way towards national reconciliation.
Essentially, Karzai believes that things in Afghanistan have to be done the Afghan way and he has little faith in the Western/British approah to Afghanistan. The Afghan way dictates that the rulers in Kabul have to work with local warlords whereas the Western way has little room or patience for such arrangements. That was highlighted when the British forces objected to Karzai’s choice of local officials to run the Helmand administration and the security forces, particularly that of Sher Mohammed Akhunzada, his chosen and trusted governor in Helmand.
According to Karzai, his forces were in control of Helmand before the British forces deployed there. Now, he says, the province is under the control of the Taleban, who have staged a comeback as a result of what Kabul calls British inefficiency.
Afghanistan is unique in many ways and that has always been the reason the failure of external powers to control the country. The foreign powers now involved in Afghanistan with their own formulas and recipes to address the problems there do not seem to take into consideration that the goverment of Karzai knows better than them on how to deal with the situation. They seem to believe that the fact that they spent billions of dollars in trying to defeat the Taleban entitles them to second-guess the Kabul government.
This time around, Karzai seems to have put his foot down and made clear his position to some of the Western leaders during the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davois.
We do not know yet how the American and European leaders view Karzai's newfound toughness, but we do know that they need to use Afghan eyes to realise Afghan issues and come up with Afghan solutions.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
A mission for finance chiefs
Jan.27, 2008
A mission for finance chiefs
THE annual World Economic Forum (WEF) conference has concluded in Davos with a serious warning from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that "serious" response was required to counter the risk of a US recession and slowing global growth, including both monetary and fiscal measures.
The warning from IMF Director-General Dominique Strauss-Kahn has highlighted the gravity of the crisis the world faces in that it is the first time in more than 25 years that an IMF chief has called on countries increase their public spending, even countries with deficits, instead of fiscal consolidation.
He pulled no punches when he talked about the US economy. "Whatever the answer is on (the possibility) of a (US) recession, what is clear is there will be a serious slowdown and it needs a serious response," he said. "We cannot rely only on monetary policy."
Even the usually reserved Japanese prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda, warned that the world's economy faced growing downside risks. He emphasised that countries must co-ordinate policies to limit the effect of a global economic slowdown from the fallout in US subprime mortgages.
Indeed, this year's WEF meeting was in dark stark contrast to past gatherings held against a backdrop of bumper corporate profits, strong growth and inflation within relative control in most countries.
Senior US officials are talking about the "resilience" of the US economy, but the facts on the ground and figures in US and international books do not offer much room for optimism.
The international community could not overlook that the crisis facing the world economy came from the US housing sector which was hit by losses by banks which invested in complicated securities backed by high-risk US mortgages. That has led to a credit crunch in which bank lending has been restricted, and resulted in a negative impact on the global financial system and financial markets.
What has been noted but not reviewed in depth at Davos was that the losing streak in the US housing sector is likely to continue and the situation could get worse by the lack of transparency about the extent of the problems facing the US economy.
Throughout the Davos conference, there was a sense of urgency that something has to be done and done fast to check the meltdown, but few proposals with specific outline for action were heard, perhaps because no one wanted to call a spade and spade.
The intiative is now shifted to the Group of Seven countries — which control a big chunk of the world economy. The group's finance chiefs are meeting in Japan next month and this could be an opportunity for them to weed out realities from politics and come up with concrete and implementable ideas to check the downslide and rectify the course.
Of course, it is not an easy task, given the complexity of factors, whether in the US or any other major economy, but it is a task and mission facing those who take pride in themselves as being people who could determine the future of the global economy.
A mission for finance chiefs
THE annual World Economic Forum (WEF) conference has concluded in Davos with a serious warning from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that "serious" response was required to counter the risk of a US recession and slowing global growth, including both monetary and fiscal measures.
The warning from IMF Director-General Dominique Strauss-Kahn has highlighted the gravity of the crisis the world faces in that it is the first time in more than 25 years that an IMF chief has called on countries increase their public spending, even countries with deficits, instead of fiscal consolidation.
He pulled no punches when he talked about the US economy. "Whatever the answer is on (the possibility) of a (US) recession, what is clear is there will be a serious slowdown and it needs a serious response," he said. "We cannot rely only on monetary policy."
Even the usually reserved Japanese prime minister, Yasuo Fukuda, warned that the world's economy faced growing downside risks. He emphasised that countries must co-ordinate policies to limit the effect of a global economic slowdown from the fallout in US subprime mortgages.
Indeed, this year's WEF meeting was in dark stark contrast to past gatherings held against a backdrop of bumper corporate profits, strong growth and inflation within relative control in most countries.
Senior US officials are talking about the "resilience" of the US economy, but the facts on the ground and figures in US and international books do not offer much room for optimism.
The international community could not overlook that the crisis facing the world economy came from the US housing sector which was hit by losses by banks which invested in complicated securities backed by high-risk US mortgages. That has led to a credit crunch in which bank lending has been restricted, and resulted in a negative impact on the global financial system and financial markets.
What has been noted but not reviewed in depth at Davos was that the losing streak in the US housing sector is likely to continue and the situation could get worse by the lack of transparency about the extent of the problems facing the US economy.
Throughout the Davos conference, there was a sense of urgency that something has to be done and done fast to check the meltdown, but few proposals with specific outline for action were heard, perhaps because no one wanted to call a spade and spade.
The intiative is now shifted to the Group of Seven countries — which control a big chunk of the world economy. The group's finance chiefs are meeting in Japan next month and this could be an opportunity for them to weed out realities from politics and come up with concrete and implementable ideas to check the downslide and rectify the course.
Of course, it is not an easy task, given the complexity of factors, whether in the US or any other major economy, but it is a task and mission facing those who take pride in themselves as being people who could determine the future of the global economy.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Assertions conflict with ground realities
Jan.26, 2008
Assertions conflict with ground realities
BEHIND the headlines that show a see-sawing security situation in Iraq, a political drama is being played out with the goal of determining by July this year who is in charge of the country under an agreement under negotiation. It is a difficult process, given the conflicting interests of the various parties involved.
Obviously, the Shiite-led Iraqi government would like to maintain the US military presence in the country until such time that the Shiites are satisified that the Sunni-led insurgency is quashed for good and they are able to take absolute security control of the country. At this point in time, they do not see any other use for the US military except to fight the insurgents and protect the Shiites while they implement their own policies with a close eye on relations with Iran. They object of any US military move away from this objective.
Of course, different Shiite groups have their own agendas, but they all share the goal of assuming unchallenged authority and power now that the political equation is in their favour in post-war Iraq and almost all of them do have Iranian connections one way or another.
Similarly, the Kurds, another major component in the government, have their own seditionist agenda and they would like the US military to stay on as they press ahead with their designs and plans that have little room for Iraqi nationalism if there is such a thing at all today.
The Sunnis are divided, with one camp determined to continue the insurgency, perhaps with help from Al Qaeda, while the other wants to fight off foreign jihadists, including Al Qaeda, so that they could focus efforts on securing what they could in terms of their rights and interests in the country. Few of them are impressed by the recently adopted law on "rehabilitating" members of the defunct Baahist Party, and they want to guarantee their rights partly through fire-power. There the Awakening Councils, which are backed by the US, come into play through their co-operations with the US military in fighting off Al Qaeda from their respective areas. At the same time, the Shiites are apprehensive that the Awakening Councils would build themselves to be a Sunni fighting force to challenge the Shiite-led dominance of the country.
Finally, the US agenda in Iraq could be seen either as excluding the plans of the Iraqis or including all or some of them as long as it hopes to serve its objective of having almost absolute proxy control of the country, whether it takes any alliance with any group, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or any other.
Well, it is a laugh. We hear US commanders and strategists speaking authoritatively about Iraq and implictly suggesting that the US goals are being served there, but we know that they have understood very little about the country and its people even five years after invading and occupying the country. They are deliberately downplaying the crisis in Iraq or have not really understood the magnitude of the problem in the country.
Assertions conflict with ground realities
BEHIND the headlines that show a see-sawing security situation in Iraq, a political drama is being played out with the goal of determining by July this year who is in charge of the country under an agreement under negotiation. It is a difficult process, given the conflicting interests of the various parties involved.
Obviously, the Shiite-led Iraqi government would like to maintain the US military presence in the country until such time that the Shiites are satisified that the Sunni-led insurgency is quashed for good and they are able to take absolute security control of the country. At this point in time, they do not see any other use for the US military except to fight the insurgents and protect the Shiites while they implement their own policies with a close eye on relations with Iran. They object of any US military move away from this objective.
Of course, different Shiite groups have their own agendas, but they all share the goal of assuming unchallenged authority and power now that the political equation is in their favour in post-war Iraq and almost all of them do have Iranian connections one way or another.
Similarly, the Kurds, another major component in the government, have their own seditionist agenda and they would like the US military to stay on as they press ahead with their designs and plans that have little room for Iraqi nationalism if there is such a thing at all today.
The Sunnis are divided, with one camp determined to continue the insurgency, perhaps with help from Al Qaeda, while the other wants to fight off foreign jihadists, including Al Qaeda, so that they could focus efforts on securing what they could in terms of their rights and interests in the country. Few of them are impressed by the recently adopted law on "rehabilitating" members of the defunct Baahist Party, and they want to guarantee their rights partly through fire-power. There the Awakening Councils, which are backed by the US, come into play through their co-operations with the US military in fighting off Al Qaeda from their respective areas. At the same time, the Shiites are apprehensive that the Awakening Councils would build themselves to be a Sunni fighting force to challenge the Shiite-led dominance of the country.
Finally, the US agenda in Iraq could be seen either as excluding the plans of the Iraqis or including all or some of them as long as it hopes to serve its objective of having almost absolute proxy control of the country, whether it takes any alliance with any group, Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or any other.
Well, it is a laugh. We hear US commanders and strategists speaking authoritatively about Iraq and implictly suggesting that the US goals are being served there, but we know that they have understood very little about the country and its people even five years after invading and occupying the country. They are deliberately downplaying the crisis in Iraq or have not really understood the magnitude of the problem in the country.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility
January 25, 2008
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility
Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai's suggestion that his country should relinquish all responsibility for the Gaza Strip, including the supply of electricity and water, seems to be a test of international receptiveness to such idea. It signals a yet another dramatic turn in the history of the Palestinian struggle that has seen so much unexpected developments in recent months.
Vilani's call follows the forced opening of Gaza's southern border with Egypt, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said he ordered his border security forces to allow Gazans to enter Egyptian territory so that they could get their essential supplies and thus partially offset Israel's total lockdown on the territory.
Essentially, Israel should be seeing the opening of the border as a blessing in disguise because it eases pressure on the Jewish state to allow basic supplies to enter the Gaza Strip and eventually lead to a total disconnection from the territory. That would mean a link between Egypt and the Gaza Strip — a return of sorts to the pre-1967 situation. Egypt wants no part of it, as its government made it clear on Thursday commenting on Vilani's suggestion.
It has never been a secret that Israel had always seen the Gaza Strip — whichit accupied in the 1967 war — as a burden for itself. The coastal strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and Palestinian resistance to Israel's occupation of the land has always been verry intense there, making it ungovernable for the occupation authorities. The former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was only grabbing the opportunity when he decided to withdraw the Israeli military from the Gaza Strip and remove the Jewish settlements built there since 1967.
No doubt, Israel will press ahead with moves to somehow disconnect itself completely from the Gaza Strip as soon as it assures itself that Palestinian based in the territory do not pose a threat. We would see the manifestations of the Israeli idea in the days and weeks ahead.
However, Israel cannot shirk its responsibility. Its occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank has been devastating for the Palestinians. The territories have seen very little development in any sector under Israel's occupation — except of course frustration-fuelled militancy contributing to strengthening Palestinian resistance. It has to be part and parcel of any solution to the problem it created. No one wants the Gazans to be dependent on Israel for anything, but the dependence is a reality now in view of Israel's territorial control of the area — it was not created by Egypt or the Palestinians — and it is incumbent upon the Jewish state to bear the responsibilty for the Gaza Strip until an equitable solution is found.
Israel cannot shirk its responsibility
Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai's suggestion that his country should relinquish all responsibility for the Gaza Strip, including the supply of electricity and water, seems to be a test of international receptiveness to such idea. It signals a yet another dramatic turn in the history of the Palestinian struggle that has seen so much unexpected developments in recent months.
Vilani's call follows the forced opening of Gaza's southern border with Egypt, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said he ordered his border security forces to allow Gazans to enter Egyptian territory so that they could get their essential supplies and thus partially offset Israel's total lockdown on the territory.
Essentially, Israel should be seeing the opening of the border as a blessing in disguise because it eases pressure on the Jewish state to allow basic supplies to enter the Gaza Strip and eventually lead to a total disconnection from the territory. That would mean a link between Egypt and the Gaza Strip — a return of sorts to the pre-1967 situation. Egypt wants no part of it, as its government made it clear on Thursday commenting on Vilani's suggestion.
It has never been a secret that Israel had always seen the Gaza Strip — whichit accupied in the 1967 war — as a burden for itself. The coastal strip is one of the most densely populated areas in the world and Palestinian resistance to Israel's occupation of the land has always been verry intense there, making it ungovernable for the occupation authorities. The former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was only grabbing the opportunity when he decided to withdraw the Israeli military from the Gaza Strip and remove the Jewish settlements built there since 1967.
No doubt, Israel will press ahead with moves to somehow disconnect itself completely from the Gaza Strip as soon as it assures itself that Palestinian based in the territory do not pose a threat. We would see the manifestations of the Israeli idea in the days and weeks ahead.
However, Israel cannot shirk its responsibility. Its occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank has been devastating for the Palestinians. The territories have seen very little development in any sector under Israel's occupation — except of course frustration-fuelled militancy contributing to strengthening Palestinian resistance. It has to be part and parcel of any solution to the problem it created. No one wants the Gazans to be dependent on Israel for anything, but the dependence is a reality now in view of Israel's territorial control of the area — it was not created by Egypt or the Palestinians — and it is incumbent upon the Jewish state to bear the responsibilty for the Gaza Strip until an equitable solution is found.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
World deserves truthful answers
January 24, 2008
World deserves truthful answers
THE finding by two nonprofit journalism organisations that senior US administration officials, including President George W Bush himself, issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the Sept.11 2001 attacks is perhaps the strongest evidence of the one-track mind that Washington followed towards the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The findings by the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism, vindicates the conviction of many in this part of the world that Washington had planned and orchestrated a campaign that "effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
Top administration officials have since suggested that they were "misled" by intelligence reports, but they could not really make that claim because enough evidence is already on record that they were party to falsiflying and doctoring intelligence reports that deliberately ignored and suppressed anything that weakened the case they were building against Iraq.
The report names, apart from Bush himself, Vice-President Dick Cheney, then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Defence secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of state Colin Powell, then deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan among those who had made the false statements.
Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz have since left the administration, but their roles in the campaign have been very pronounced while they were in office.
The study also affirms that the administration enlisted the corporate media in the campaign and received their wholehearted support in the false build-up to the war.
Well, we know most of the the media groups and individuals involved. Some of them have admitted that they had played an unwitting role in building a case that Iraq was somehow involved in the Sept.11 attacks and had weapons of mass destruction which it could deliver to terrorists to carry out more attacks — the two arguments that people in this part of the world always knew to be false but could not do much against the combined administration-media assault.
The study notes: "Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organisations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," says the report. "These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."
The findings bring to the front other nagging questions: How far falsified was the official report about the Sept.11 attacks ? Were the attacks an 'inside" job as claimed by many American and international experts? Who helped Al Qaeda — the group named as the culprit — to sidestep every aviation and security precaution that was in place? Why did the mighty US defences fail to even register the "hijackings" before it was too late? What was the role of the Israeli secret service Mossad in the attacks? Whose interests were served by the attacks?
The world needs truthful answers to these questions because the entire international community paid a heavy price for the way Washington went about in its self-proclaimed war against terror that it launched after the Sept.11 attacks. No one in the world was spared and that took the issue out of a strictly American context. Many around the world are continuing to pay the price, direct and indirect, for the no-holds-barred American push that came in the wake of the attacks. They need answers. Hopefully, someone as courageous and thorough as the authors of the study on the false statements on Iraq would come forth sooner than later and provide the right and truthful answers.
World deserves truthful answers
THE finding by two nonprofit journalism organisations that senior US administration officials, including President George W Bush himself, issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the Sept.11 2001 attacks is perhaps the strongest evidence of the one-track mind that Washington followed towards the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The findings by the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism, vindicates the conviction of many in this part of the world that Washington had planned and orchestrated a campaign that "effectively galvanised public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
Top administration officials have since suggested that they were "misled" by intelligence reports, but they could not really make that claim because enough evidence is already on record that they were party to falsiflying and doctoring intelligence reports that deliberately ignored and suppressed anything that weakened the case they were building against Iraq.
The report names, apart from Bush himself, Vice-President Dick Cheney, then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, then Defence secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of state Colin Powell, then deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan among those who had made the false statements.
Rumsfeld, Powell and Wolfowitz have since left the administration, but their roles in the campaign have been very pronounced while they were in office.
The study also affirms that the administration enlisted the corporate media in the campaign and received their wholehearted support in the false build-up to the war.
Well, we know most of the the media groups and individuals involved. Some of them have admitted that they had played an unwitting role in building a case that Iraq was somehow involved in the Sept.11 attacks and had weapons of mass destruction which it could deliver to terrorists to carry out more attacks — the two arguments that people in this part of the world always knew to be false but could not do much against the combined administration-media assault.
The study notes: "Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organisations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical," says the report. "These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq."
The findings bring to the front other nagging questions: How far falsified was the official report about the Sept.11 attacks ? Were the attacks an 'inside" job as claimed by many American and international experts? Who helped Al Qaeda — the group named as the culprit — to sidestep every aviation and security precaution that was in place? Why did the mighty US defences fail to even register the "hijackings" before it was too late? What was the role of the Israeli secret service Mossad in the attacks? Whose interests were served by the attacks?
The world needs truthful answers to these questions because the entire international community paid a heavy price for the way Washington went about in its self-proclaimed war against terror that it launched after the Sept.11 attacks. No one in the world was spared and that took the issue out of a strictly American context. Many around the world are continuing to pay the price, direct and indirect, for the no-holds-barred American push that came in the wake of the attacks. They need answers. Hopefully, someone as courageous and thorough as the authors of the study on the false statements on Iraq would come forth sooner than later and provide the right and truthful answers.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Grand designs are unfolding
Jan.23, 2008
Grand designs are unfolding
THE ISRAELI gesture of "easing" its choking blockade of the Gaza Strip by allowing some fuel to enter the coastal area was so timed that the move could be highlighted during any international or regional debate on the humanitarian crisis that has gripped the Gazans. Obviously, Israel wanted to pre-empt any move to censure it at the UN Security Council and the "easing" of the blockade also helped the US to cite it and defend its "strategic partner" in the Middle East.
The fuel that Israel allowed to be sent to the Gaza Strip on Tuesday does in no way imply any shift in its drive to inflict as much damage to the people of Gaza living under Hamas rule.
The fuel is only a "painkiller" and does not solve the basic problem that has to do with the political and military crisis that followed Israel's rejection of the Hamas-led government that was formed after last year's parliament elections which saw the group gaining a sweeping majority. Beyond that, however, is the root conflict where Israel is determined to impose its version of "peace" on the Palestinians.
Israel claims that the blockade is aimed at pressuring Palestinian resistance groups to halt their rocket attacks against Israeli towns. However, it has sinister objectives and that include the total destruction of Hamas as a political and military body in the Gaza Strip. That is what has been made clear in the disclosure by an Israeli official on Tuesday that the Israeli army has been ordered to destroy Hamas structures in Gaza as part of a three-pronged strategy aimed at toppling the group.
The strategy was reportedly adopted by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak during a meeting last week. And we have seen the result already.
The Israeli military launched the plan with the rocketing on Friday of a buiding in Gaza City used by Hamas as its interior ministry. The building was empty at the time, but the strike killed a a nearby building and wounded dozens of others.
What we could expect to see is a continuation of attacks on ministries, police stations, army and government buildings that are used by Hamas in Gaza coupled with air and ground operations.
Israel seems to following the same strategy it tried during its assault on Lebanon's Hizbollah in 2006. It believed that it could deal a severely damaging military blow to Hizbollah, but it had to step back against the unexpected intensity of Hizbollah retaliation.
Of course, the Lebanon situation could not be compared with the crisis in Gaza where the elements at play are different, but it is clear that Israel is determined to have its way in Gaza through military means. and the physical blockade of the territory. And that would mean more suffering and misery for the people of Gaza, with the international community seemingly unable to make any difference.
Grand designs are unfolding
THE ISRAELI gesture of "easing" its choking blockade of the Gaza Strip by allowing some fuel to enter the coastal area was so timed that the move could be highlighted during any international or regional debate on the humanitarian crisis that has gripped the Gazans. Obviously, Israel wanted to pre-empt any move to censure it at the UN Security Council and the "easing" of the blockade also helped the US to cite it and defend its "strategic partner" in the Middle East.
The fuel that Israel allowed to be sent to the Gaza Strip on Tuesday does in no way imply any shift in its drive to inflict as much damage to the people of Gaza living under Hamas rule.
The fuel is only a "painkiller" and does not solve the basic problem that has to do with the political and military crisis that followed Israel's rejection of the Hamas-led government that was formed after last year's parliament elections which saw the group gaining a sweeping majority. Beyond that, however, is the root conflict where Israel is determined to impose its version of "peace" on the Palestinians.
Israel claims that the blockade is aimed at pressuring Palestinian resistance groups to halt their rocket attacks against Israeli towns. However, it has sinister objectives and that include the total destruction of Hamas as a political and military body in the Gaza Strip. That is what has been made clear in the disclosure by an Israeli official on Tuesday that the Israeli army has been ordered to destroy Hamas structures in Gaza as part of a three-pronged strategy aimed at toppling the group.
The strategy was reportedly adopted by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defence Minister Ehud Barak during a meeting last week. And we have seen the result already.
The Israeli military launched the plan with the rocketing on Friday of a buiding in Gaza City used by Hamas as its interior ministry. The building was empty at the time, but the strike killed a a nearby building and wounded dozens of others.
What we could expect to see is a continuation of attacks on ministries, police stations, army and government buildings that are used by Hamas in Gaza coupled with air and ground operations.
Israel seems to following the same strategy it tried during its assault on Lebanon's Hizbollah in 2006. It believed that it could deal a severely damaging military blow to Hizbollah, but it had to step back against the unexpected intensity of Hizbollah retaliation.
Of course, the Lebanon situation could not be compared with the crisis in Gaza where the elements at play are different, but it is clear that Israel is determined to have its way in Gaza through military means. and the physical blockade of the territory. And that would mean more suffering and misery for the people of Gaza, with the international community seemingly unable to make any difference.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Keeping an open mind on UN reform
Jan.22, 2008
Keeping an open mind
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is said to have launched secret talks with other world leaders on moves towards creating a "new world order" and "global society." He intends to start this with far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council, including an expansion of the number of permanent members in bring in countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil and one or two African countries. It seems unclear at this point whether the newcomers would have the same veto power as enjoyed by the current permanent members of the Security Council — the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.
Brown is said to have discussed his plans with Chinese and Indian leaders during his ongoing visit to Asia.
We do not know at this point the details of what Brown has in mind.
Demands for reform at the UN have been heard for long, but none of the big powers, notably the US, did not want to touch one of the root issues — the status of the current five permanent members of the Security Council as the ultimate authority to decide on world issues as guaranteed by in-built and tailor-made provisions in the UN Charter.
It is undisputed that the current UN structure, as created in 1945, does not reflect the challenges that the world has accumulated since then. The question that arises in the context of Brown's initiative is whether it agrees with the world view that too much power rests with the Big Five of the Security Council and that has been grossly misused by them whenever it suited their purposes and interests. And they sidestepped the world body when it did not suit their intentions, as the Iraq case proved. When it became clear to US President George W. Bush in March 2003 that the Security Council could not agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq, he acted unilaterally with support from the then British prime minister, Tony Blair.
Brown is expected unveil a proposal for the UN to spend about $200 million a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. And it would involve the collective work of civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers as well as military peace-keepers.
In concept, it is a great idea. However, the first impression that we would get from the reported outline of Brown's initiative is that the "new world order" that he wants to shape would be geared to serve the interests of the Big Five plus the proposed newcomers as permanent members.
At this jucture, let us reserve our judgement until the skeleton proposal is fleshed out and determine whether it would be tailored to serve the interests of the world rather than its creators and masters.
After all, any reform in the UN would require 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the General Assembly, and everyone has grown smart enough to figure out the common interests of the international community.
Keeping an open mind
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is said to have launched secret talks with other world leaders on moves towards creating a "new world order" and "global society." He intends to start this with far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council, including an expansion of the number of permanent members in bring in countries like India, Germany, Japan and Brazil and one or two African countries. It seems unclear at this point whether the newcomers would have the same veto power as enjoyed by the current permanent members of the Security Council — the US, the UK, France, Russia and China.
Brown is said to have discussed his plans with Chinese and Indian leaders during his ongoing visit to Asia.
We do not know at this point the details of what Brown has in mind.
Demands for reform at the UN have been heard for long, but none of the big powers, notably the US, did not want to touch one of the root issues — the status of the current five permanent members of the Security Council as the ultimate authority to decide on world issues as guaranteed by in-built and tailor-made provisions in the UN Charter.
It is undisputed that the current UN structure, as created in 1945, does not reflect the challenges that the world has accumulated since then. The question that arises in the context of Brown's initiative is whether it agrees with the world view that too much power rests with the Big Five of the Security Council and that has been grossly misused by them whenever it suited their purposes and interests. And they sidestepped the world body when it did not suit their intentions, as the Iraq case proved. When it became clear to US President George W. Bush in March 2003 that the Security Council could not agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq, he acted unilaterally with support from the then British prime minister, Tony Blair.
Brown is expected unveil a proposal for the UN to spend about $200 million a year on setting up a "rapid reaction force" to stop "failed states" sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. And it would involve the collective work of civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers as well as military peace-keepers.
In concept, it is a great idea. However, the first impression that we would get from the reported outline of Brown's initiative is that the "new world order" that he wants to shape would be geared to serve the interests of the Big Five plus the proposed newcomers as permanent members.
At this jucture, let us reserve our judgement until the skeleton proposal is fleshed out and determine whether it would be tailored to serve the interests of the world rather than its creators and masters.
After all, any reform in the UN would require 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the General Assembly, and everyone has grown smart enough to figure out the common interests of the international community.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Hitting where it hurts most
Jan.21, 2008
Hitting where it hurts most
ISRAELI ministers have reacted as expected to Hizbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah at their weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, one day after Nasrallah claimed to possess the body parts of Israeli soldiers who fought during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. They have called for his assassination, but then the world knows that Nasrallah is on top of the hit-list of Israel's secret assassins. The new call only adds a sense of urgency to their task.
In his comments on Saturday during his first public appearance for nearly one year, Nasrallah — one of the most well-protected individuals in the world — hit the Israeli government and military where it hurt when he chided them for abandoning the bodies of soldiers killed in clashes with Hizbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
It is indeed natural that Israelis were hurt. Israel prides itself on doing everything to recover the remains of its soldiers from fields of battle and has in the past freed prisoners in exchange for remains of soldiers and civilians. To be publicly accused of not bothering about the bodies of Israeli soldiers slain in battle is unthinkable for Israeli leaders and military. It is a big blow not only their professional pride but also what they consider as a national commitment.
The accusation has yet another dimension. It comes a few days before the release of an investigation report on Israel's conduct during the war with Hizbollah in 2006. The report is expected to be critical of the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as the Israeli military. Obviously, the Israeli ministers are also mindful that the report would have a deep impact on the Israeli society at large since the military actions of 2006 marked the first time that a war was brought to Israeli population centres and villages and shook Israel's perceived image of invincibility. The Hizbollah claims could add to the heat on the Israeli political establishment led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, something it could do without at this point where it is already seeking compromise solutions to ensure the survival of the Olmert-led coalition.
By chiding the Israelis over the remains of soldiers now said to be in Hizbollah's possession, Nasrallah appeared to implicitly pressure Israel to accept a prisoner exchange. Israel is thought to be holding at least seven Lebanese prisoners while Hizbollah has two Israeli soldiers it captured in July 2006.
Israeli military officials have confirmed that Hizbollah could have the remains of about 10 soldiers were involved, but that Israel would not negotiate with Hizbollah over them. Some contacts are indeed under way for a possible swap involving the two captive Israeli soldiers, but, it would seem, Nasrallah is not satisfied with the pace of negotiations.
Why should there be so much fuzz over Nasrallah's comments?
The answer is simple: The Israeli political body and military establishment are still smarting from the surprisingly strong resistance Hizbollah put up against the Israeli assault in 2006 and they are still unsure how they would fare if they were told to repeat the action now.
Hitting where it hurts most
ISRAELI ministers have reacted as expected to Hizbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah at their weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday, one day after Nasrallah claimed to possess the body parts of Israeli soldiers who fought during the Israeli war on Lebanon in 2006. They have called for his assassination, but then the world knows that Nasrallah is on top of the hit-list of Israel's secret assassins. The new call only adds a sense of urgency to their task.
In his comments on Saturday during his first public appearance for nearly one year, Nasrallah — one of the most well-protected individuals in the world — hit the Israeli government and military where it hurt when he chided them for abandoning the bodies of soldiers killed in clashes with Hizbollah in southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006.
It is indeed natural that Israelis were hurt. Israel prides itself on doing everything to recover the remains of its soldiers from fields of battle and has in the past freed prisoners in exchange for remains of soldiers and civilians. To be publicly accused of not bothering about the bodies of Israeli soldiers slain in battle is unthinkable for Israeli leaders and military. It is a big blow not only their professional pride but also what they consider as a national commitment.
The accusation has yet another dimension. It comes a few days before the release of an investigation report on Israel's conduct during the war with Hizbollah in 2006. The report is expected to be critical of the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as the Israeli military. Obviously, the Israeli ministers are also mindful that the report would have a deep impact on the Israeli society at large since the military actions of 2006 marked the first time that a war was brought to Israeli population centres and villages and shook Israel's perceived image of invincibility. The Hizbollah claims could add to the heat on the Israeli political establishment led by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, something it could do without at this point where it is already seeking compromise solutions to ensure the survival of the Olmert-led coalition.
By chiding the Israelis over the remains of soldiers now said to be in Hizbollah's possession, Nasrallah appeared to implicitly pressure Israel to accept a prisoner exchange. Israel is thought to be holding at least seven Lebanese prisoners while Hizbollah has two Israeli soldiers it captured in July 2006.
Israeli military officials have confirmed that Hizbollah could have the remains of about 10 soldiers were involved, but that Israel would not negotiate with Hizbollah over them. Some contacts are indeed under way for a possible swap involving the two captive Israeli soldiers, but, it would seem, Nasrallah is not satisfied with the pace of negotiations.
Why should there be so much fuzz over Nasrallah's comments?
The answer is simple: The Israeli political body and military establishment are still smarting from the surprisingly strong resistance Hizbollah put up against the Israeli assault in 2006 and they are still unsure how they would fare if they were told to repeat the action now.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Peace will cease to have any meaning
January 20, 2008
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
Peace will cease to have any meaning
January 20, 2008
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
Peace will cease to have any meaning
IT would seem that the Israeli political establishment is being nudged towards launching an all-out offensive against Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups in the Gaza Strip. Reports and commentaries have appeared in the Israeli press suggesting that the ongoing Israeli air strikes and other forms of attacks against the Gaza Strip — which is under a total Israeli lockdown — would not lead to an end to Gaza-based Palestinian rocket attacks against Israeli targets. If anything, the reports and commentaries say, the current Israeli policy of "only nibbling at the fringes" of the Gaza Strip is helping Palestinian resistance to "hone their fighting skills "and would not eliminate their missile-launching capabilities.
It is clear that the extremists in the Israeli political establishment and military are pressuring the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to launch what they call the "long-delayed" land offensive against the Gaza Strip with all that it would entail, including heavy Palestinian civilian casualties in the coastal strip, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
On the other side, John Dugard, UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories, has called the Israeli attacks war crimes and has called for punishment for those responsible.
Dugard specifically referred to an Israeli attack on Friday targeted against a Hamas government office which caused serious casualties at a nearby wedding party. His comment left no doubt about how the world body viewed the Israeli actions. "The killing of some 40 Palestinians in Gaza in the past week, the targeting of a government office near a wedding party venue with what must have been foreseen loss of life and injury to many civilians, and the closure of all crossings into Gaza raise very serious questions about Israel's respect for international law and its commitment to the peace process," he said.
Well, Dugard is wasting his breath. There was never any Israeli respect for international law; nor is it committed to making peace with the Palestinians. As Olmert himself made it clear last week, he does not expect to be able to work out a peace agreement with the Palestinians — at least not the Israeli version of an agreement — but that he has no choice but to continue negotiations because the status quo would not serve Israel's interests.
It is against that backdrop that Olmert is being pushed into embarking on a military operation to invade and occupy areas of the Gaza Strip in order to end Palestinian missile attacks. It is even suggested that those areas be handed over to the forces of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Whatever the objective, such an Israeli military operation would result in unprecedented casualties among the civilians of Gaza, making the present suffering of the Gazans pale in comparison.
Surely, Washington is aware of the Israeli plans.
As the key sponsor of the Annapolis process launched in November, the US as well as others in the Quartet cannot escape from their legal and a moral obligation to compel Israel to cease its military assault against the Gaza Strip and lift its stranglehold on the territory.
If they do not live up to their responsibility, there is little sense in talking about their commitment to bringing about Israeli-Palestinian peace because peace would cease to have any meaning for the people of Gaza under the present course of events.
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}