June 17, 2008
War of words benefits enemy
IT was with great relief that the people of this region welcomed the outcome of a visit that Afghan President Hamid Karzai paid to Pakistan a few months ago and the talks he held with his Pakistani counterpart Pervez Musharraf on bilateral tensions.
However, the relief stemming from signs that the two leaders understood each other's problems dealing with militancy and were ready to work with each other was short-lived. It might or might not have to do with the political upheavals in Pakistan, but today, we find Pak-Afghan tensions hitting a new peak, with Islamabad and Kabul warning each other over cross-border militancy.
Karzai warned on Sunday that Afghan security forces would be justified to attack Taliban insurgents in Pakistan, his supposed ally in the US-led "war on terror," and said such action would be legitimate self-defence.
The Afghan president was reacting to a Taliban attack on an Afghan jail, freeing some 900 prisoners, including 350 Taliban members. While he has in the post criticised the Pak government, it was the first time that Karzai threatened to send troops over the border to Pakistan.
Pakistan hit back on Monday, summoning the Afghan ambassador in Islamabad and vowing to defend its sovereignty. And both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, popular anger grew against each other, with hundreds of Afghan tribesmen rallying on their side of the frontier to voice their support for Karzai's tough stance.
Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have never been smooth, and the situation turned worse after the post-9/11 US military action that ousted the Taliban from power in Kabul and changed the political and military shape of the country with Pakistan's support.
Afghan and Western officials accuse Pakistan, which backed the Taliban until the 2001 US war on Afghanistan of failing to curb Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists based in its troubled tribal belt in the border area. They say they are also worried over recent negotiations between the Pakistani government and Taliban commanders.
The Pakistanis dismiss the charges and blame Afghanistan for failing to curb militancy on its side of the border. Islamabad also points out that it has more than 90,000 troops along the border, with 1,000 Pakistani soldiers having died fighting insurgents since 200
At the root of the conflict is the lack of mutual trust between Kabul and Afghanistan. On the Pak side of things, the new government finds it imperative to work out some form of a deal with some of the "moderate" militant elements as it seeks to consolidate its security grip on the country. That explains the dialogue between the Islamabad government and Pakistani Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud, who was named by Karzai as one of the sources of cross-border trouble for Kabul.
Kabul and Islamabad seem to overlook that the beneficiary of their war of words are militants on either side of the border. Any effective action against militants, whether Afghan Taliban or Pak Taliban or any other, depends on security co-operation by the two governments. Threatening each other would only take the two in a negative direction with little hope of success in tackling the common problem of militancy that both sides face.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Monday, June 16, 2008
Turning clock back to chos
June 16 2008
Turning clock back to chos
It is disturbing to take note of signs that Bangladesh's self-styled military-backed "interim government" is easing up its campaign to clean up the country' politics. When the interim government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, took power in January 2007 and launched a crackdown against government and political corruption, Bangladeshis welcomed it with jubiliance. Since then, the interim government was able to restore some stability to the country but faces a long way ahead.
However, the government has not been able to do much to control rising prices food and other basic ccommodities and alleviate the suffering of the poor. But that has been the case with most Third World governments grappling with the record increase in international oil prices in the last 18 months.
It is against this backdrop that the interim government in Dhaka opted to release former prime minister Sheikh Hasina on parole and possibily offer a possible similar step for her rival Begum Khaleda Zia.
According to offcials, the government is reviewing the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) to allow people held on corruption charges to be given bail, and that even those convicted could be allowed to appeal and contest the election.
That is not very good news because it is widely held that Bangladeshi politics could not be cleaned up without removing corrupt and incompetent politicians from the scene and there could be no compromise whatsoever in this context.
It is known that many of the problems of Bangladesh owe their origins to the inefficiency and political acrobatics of Hasina and Khaleda, both former prime ministers, and their one-track mind to serve their party loyalists at the expense of national interests.
Neither of them, who head the two largest parties in the country, is known for focusing attention on issues of national development except to slam each other at every given opportunity. The 15 years during which they alternated power were marked by political unrest and rising corruption at every level.
Many Bangladeshis heaved a sigh of relief when they saw the interim government cracking down on the two former prime ministers and hordes of politicians and bureaucrats.
And now they are implictly told that the politicians are being allowed to stage a comeback if only to ensure participation of political parties in general elections scheduled to be held in December. The government seems to reckon that releasing the detained politicians — some 50 of the 170 political held in the crackdown have been convicted of corruption charges — and allowing them to move around freely could entice their parties to the elections.
That might indeed be the case, but that would also allow corrupt and incompetent politicians to re-enter the scene and regain their grip on the country. If that happens, then there is no hope of rescue for the people of Bangladesh, particularly that the politicians returning to power would carry with them a sword of vengeance against anyone and everyone they saw as challenging their vested interests.
Turning clock back to chos
It is disturbing to take note of signs that Bangladesh's self-styled military-backed "interim government" is easing up its campaign to clean up the country' politics. When the interim government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, took power in January 2007 and launched a crackdown against government and political corruption, Bangladeshis welcomed it with jubiliance. Since then, the interim government was able to restore some stability to the country but faces a long way ahead.
However, the government has not been able to do much to control rising prices food and other basic ccommodities and alleviate the suffering of the poor. But that has been the case with most Third World governments grappling with the record increase in international oil prices in the last 18 months.
It is against this backdrop that the interim government in Dhaka opted to release former prime minister Sheikh Hasina on parole and possibily offer a possible similar step for her rival Begum Khaleda Zia.
According to offcials, the government is reviewing the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) to allow people held on corruption charges to be given bail, and that even those convicted could be allowed to appeal and contest the election.
That is not very good news because it is widely held that Bangladeshi politics could not be cleaned up without removing corrupt and incompetent politicians from the scene and there could be no compromise whatsoever in this context.
It is known that many of the problems of Bangladesh owe their origins to the inefficiency and political acrobatics of Hasina and Khaleda, both former prime ministers, and their one-track mind to serve their party loyalists at the expense of national interests.
Neither of them, who head the two largest parties in the country, is known for focusing attention on issues of national development except to slam each other at every given opportunity. The 15 years during which they alternated power were marked by political unrest and rising corruption at every level.
Many Bangladeshis heaved a sigh of relief when they saw the interim government cracking down on the two former prime ministers and hordes of politicians and bureaucrats.
And now they are implictly told that the politicians are being allowed to stage a comeback if only to ensure participation of political parties in general elections scheduled to be held in December. The government seems to reckon that releasing the detained politicians — some 50 of the 170 political held in the crackdown have been convicted of corruption charges — and allowing them to move around freely could entice their parties to the elections.
That might indeed be the case, but that would also allow corrupt and incompetent politicians to re-enter the scene and regain their grip on the country. If that happens, then there is no hope of rescue for the people of Bangladesh, particularly that the politicians returning to power would carry with them a sword of vengeance against anyone and everyone they saw as challenging their vested interests.
US has a one-track mind
June 16 2008
US has a one-track mind and it shows
by pv vivekanand
US President George W Bush is facing perhaps the most daunting challenge in Iraq as he is trying to secure a "security" agreement that would seal his de facto colonisation of the country and place it under absolute American tulelage.
As he prepares to bow out of the White House in a few months' time, Bush is hoping that the sought-for agreement could vindicate his invasion and occupation of Iraq and could be touted as one of his most impressive presidential achievements.
A UN authorisation of the US-led foreign military presence in Iraq runs out on Dec.31 and the US-Iraq deal under negotiation would replace it and legitmise the US occupation of the country.
The draft agreement prepared by the US calls for creation of some 50 military bases officially described as Iraqi but with open-ended, unfrettered and unquestioned access to the US military. It also proposes absolute US control of Iraqi airspace upto 29,000 feet and freedom to carry out any military operation in the country without referring to the Iraqi government as well as total immunity for US soldiers and contractors from Iraqi law (Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zebari said last week that the US had dropped the demand for immunity for US contractors).
Securing absolute and permanent control of Iraq was one of the key objectives of the 2003 US military action that saw Saddam Hussein being toppled and the US taking over and occupying the country.
The Bush administration had not taken into consideration many of the geopolitical realities of Iraq while it ordered the military into Iraq. Today, it finds itself caught in a worsening crisis involving political and armed resistance from Iraqis and unable to realise any of its strategic objectives of the invasion and occupation.
Therefore, it would be a major point of triumph for Bush if the Iraqi government signs the agreement, particularly before July 31 ahead of the Republican and Democratic national conventions. The Republicans are hoping that it would boost Senator John McCain's chances against Democrat Barack Obama in the November presidential elections.
However, Bush is finding the going tough as he tries to manoeuvre through Iraqi resistance to the agreement, which most Iraqis find as unacceptable because it compromises the country's sovereignty.
Most Iraqis also see the US military bases in Iraq raqi as proof that Bush invaded Iraq to gain control of its oil wealth and to establish a new permanent military presence in the Middle East.
Indeed, the draft accord has a clause which states that the US is not planning to have "permanent bases" in Iraq. It is a deliberately misleading declaration because, as senior US officials have admitted, there is no US government definition for the term "permanent bases."
Similarly, the draft also says that the US military would not use Iraqi territory to stage "offensive" operations against any other country. But that leaves the door open for "defensive" operations. Effectively, there is nothing that will stop the US to launch military strikes against any country neighbouring Iraq and label the action as defensive.
Indeed such deception fits into the US pattern of dealing with Iraq. One of the most laughable US declarations concerning Iraq came last week when Bush asserted: "Of course we are there upon their invitation." The world knows only too well that the US marched into Iraq uninvited, toppled the Saddam regime, installed own agents in key positions, organised elections under its absolute control and pulled the strings of the government that emerged from the polls.
It made the government go through the motions of legitimising its militay presence in the country by requesting the UN to approve a mandate for the US.
It could never be considered as an invitation by any stretch of imagination.
In essence, nothing that the post-Saddam Iraqi government did could be deemed legal under international conventions because the government itself was elected while the country remained under foreign military occupation.
But the Bush administration is not worried about such legalities. Its prime concern is to coerce the Iraqi government into signing the security agreement, which is formally called "status of forces agreement."
However, the Iraq prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki, who is supposedly Uncle Sam's man in Baghdad, says that negotiations on the draft agreement are at an impasse and even suggests that his government has the option of asking the US to pack up and leave the country.
Most Iraqi politicians, including many who have to depend on US support for survival, say they oppose the draft accord.
That posture is seen to be linked to the realisation that it is not "politically correct" to be seen in Iraq as supporting the US, particularly ahead of local elections scheduled to be held this year.
Iraqis familiar with the negotiations say that it will take many weeks and more likely months before the agreement is completed and the US deadline of end of July is unrealistic.
Effectively, some of the Iraqi politicians who says they oppose the draft in its present form would have no problems with accepting permanent US military presence but only after the local elections are held.
However, the rejection of the accord by Shiite leaders Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani and Moqtada Sadr as well as the minority Sunni community makes it a non-starter for the US.
But the US has not learnt its lessons in Iraq.It is determined to secure the status of forces agreement with the Iraqis no matter what. Its blatant deception and misleading statements and actions underline only that it is ready to crawl, walk, run and leap in whatever direction to get what it wants.
US has a one-track mind and it shows
by pv vivekanand
US President George W Bush is facing perhaps the most daunting challenge in Iraq as he is trying to secure a "security" agreement that would seal his de facto colonisation of the country and place it under absolute American tulelage.
As he prepares to bow out of the White House in a few months' time, Bush is hoping that the sought-for agreement could vindicate his invasion and occupation of Iraq and could be touted as one of his most impressive presidential achievements.
A UN authorisation of the US-led foreign military presence in Iraq runs out on Dec.31 and the US-Iraq deal under negotiation would replace it and legitmise the US occupation of the country.
The draft agreement prepared by the US calls for creation of some 50 military bases officially described as Iraqi but with open-ended, unfrettered and unquestioned access to the US military. It also proposes absolute US control of Iraqi airspace upto 29,000 feet and freedom to carry out any military operation in the country without referring to the Iraqi government as well as total immunity for US soldiers and contractors from Iraqi law (Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zebari said last week that the US had dropped the demand for immunity for US contractors).
Securing absolute and permanent control of Iraq was one of the key objectives of the 2003 US military action that saw Saddam Hussein being toppled and the US taking over and occupying the country.
The Bush administration had not taken into consideration many of the geopolitical realities of Iraq while it ordered the military into Iraq. Today, it finds itself caught in a worsening crisis involving political and armed resistance from Iraqis and unable to realise any of its strategic objectives of the invasion and occupation.
Therefore, it would be a major point of triumph for Bush if the Iraqi government signs the agreement, particularly before July 31 ahead of the Republican and Democratic national conventions. The Republicans are hoping that it would boost Senator John McCain's chances against Democrat Barack Obama in the November presidential elections.
However, Bush is finding the going tough as he tries to manoeuvre through Iraqi resistance to the agreement, which most Iraqis find as unacceptable because it compromises the country's sovereignty.
Most Iraqis also see the US military bases in Iraq raqi as proof that Bush invaded Iraq to gain control of its oil wealth and to establish a new permanent military presence in the Middle East.
Indeed, the draft accord has a clause which states that the US is not planning to have "permanent bases" in Iraq. It is a deliberately misleading declaration because, as senior US officials have admitted, there is no US government definition for the term "permanent bases."
Similarly, the draft also says that the US military would not use Iraqi territory to stage "offensive" operations against any other country. But that leaves the door open for "defensive" operations. Effectively, there is nothing that will stop the US to launch military strikes against any country neighbouring Iraq and label the action as defensive.
Indeed such deception fits into the US pattern of dealing with Iraq. One of the most laughable US declarations concerning Iraq came last week when Bush asserted: "Of course we are there upon their invitation." The world knows only too well that the US marched into Iraq uninvited, toppled the Saddam regime, installed own agents in key positions, organised elections under its absolute control and pulled the strings of the government that emerged from the polls.
It made the government go through the motions of legitimising its militay presence in the country by requesting the UN to approve a mandate for the US.
It could never be considered as an invitation by any stretch of imagination.
In essence, nothing that the post-Saddam Iraqi government did could be deemed legal under international conventions because the government itself was elected while the country remained under foreign military occupation.
But the Bush administration is not worried about such legalities. Its prime concern is to coerce the Iraqi government into signing the security agreement, which is formally called "status of forces agreement."
However, the Iraq prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki, who is supposedly Uncle Sam's man in Baghdad, says that negotiations on the draft agreement are at an impasse and even suggests that his government has the option of asking the US to pack up and leave the country.
Most Iraqi politicians, including many who have to depend on US support for survival, say they oppose the draft accord.
That posture is seen to be linked to the realisation that it is not "politically correct" to be seen in Iraq as supporting the US, particularly ahead of local elections scheduled to be held this year.
Iraqis familiar with the negotiations say that it will take many weeks and more likely months before the agreement is completed and the US deadline of end of July is unrealistic.
Effectively, some of the Iraqi politicians who says they oppose the draft in its present form would have no problems with accepting permanent US military presence but only after the local elections are held.
However, the rejection of the accord by Shiite leaders Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani and Moqtada Sadr as well as the minority Sunni community makes it a non-starter for the US.
But the US has not learnt its lessons in Iraq.It is determined to secure the status of forces agreement with the Iraqis no matter what. Its blatant deception and misleading statements and actions underline only that it is ready to crawl, walk, run and leap in whatever direction to get what it wants.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Unfair pressure, unrealistic hopes
June 15, 2008
Unfair pressure, unrealistic hopes
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is back in the Middle East in what is described a a fresh bid to inject impetus into sluggish Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It is her sixth visit to the region after last year's Annapolis conference where President George W Bush pledged that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be in place before he leaves office in January 2009.
Her latest trip comes amid fears of a massive Israeli invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip amid talks of a truce under Egyptian mediation and renewed contacts between Hamas and the mainstream Fatah faction led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on ending the split in the Palestinian ranks.
Obviously, Rice is under pressure from the White House to produce some concrete sign of progress in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that have made little headway.
All that the Israelis and Palestinian negotiators have done so far is to meet in the presence of US mediators. The realisation of the Bush pledge to see an agreement before he quits office seems highly unlikely. The best Bush could hope for is perhaps a declaration of intentions by the two sides that would have little realistic meaning except as a document to help the outgoing US president to triumphantly wave as one of his "great achievements" in the Middle East. Even that might not be possible, given the worsening scene in Palestine. Add to that the growing political crisis in Israel involving corruption charges against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that is threatening the survival of his fragile coalition.
That Israel found it fit to announce plans to build more settlements in Arab East Jerusalem on the eve of Rice's latest visit highlights that it attaches little importance to any of its obligations in order to create the right atmosphere for negotiations.
Still, Bush says said he is confident the two sides can resolve their conflict by the end of the year.
"I firmly believe that, with leadership and courage, a peace agreement is possible this year," Bush said in Paris on Friday.
Well, the source of such confidence seems to be a conviction that it is only a matter of time before Israel and the US would be successful in pressuring the Palestinians into signing major compromises that would make their cause devoid of substance.
Rice is on her 17th visit to the region in less than two years and she could perhaps fly here for another 17 times before leaving office, but no real progress could be made towards peace in Palestine based on Palestinian compromises of Palestinian rights.
Unfair pressure, unrealistic hopes
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is back in the Middle East in what is described a a fresh bid to inject impetus into sluggish Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It is her sixth visit to the region after last year's Annapolis conference where President George W Bush pledged that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be in place before he leaves office in January 2009.
Her latest trip comes amid fears of a massive Israeli invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip amid talks of a truce under Egyptian mediation and renewed contacts between Hamas and the mainstream Fatah faction led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on ending the split in the Palestinian ranks.
Obviously, Rice is under pressure from the White House to produce some concrete sign of progress in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that have made little headway.
All that the Israelis and Palestinian negotiators have done so far is to meet in the presence of US mediators. The realisation of the Bush pledge to see an agreement before he quits office seems highly unlikely. The best Bush could hope for is perhaps a declaration of intentions by the two sides that would have little realistic meaning except as a document to help the outgoing US president to triumphantly wave as one of his "great achievements" in the Middle East. Even that might not be possible, given the worsening scene in Palestine. Add to that the growing political crisis in Israel involving corruption charges against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that is threatening the survival of his fragile coalition.
That Israel found it fit to announce plans to build more settlements in Arab East Jerusalem on the eve of Rice's latest visit highlights that it attaches little importance to any of its obligations in order to create the right atmosphere for negotiations.
Still, Bush says said he is confident the two sides can resolve their conflict by the end of the year.
"I firmly believe that, with leadership and courage, a peace agreement is possible this year," Bush said in Paris on Friday.
Well, the source of such confidence seems to be a conviction that it is only a matter of time before Israel and the US would be successful in pressuring the Palestinians into signing major compromises that would make their cause devoid of substance.
Rice is on her 17th visit to the region in less than two years and she could perhaps fly here for another 17 times before leaving office, but no real progress could be made towards peace in Palestine based on Palestinian compromises of Palestinian rights.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
'Floating prisoners' — a world challenge
June 14, 2008
'Floating prisoners' — a world challenge
Reprieve, a UK-based group offering legal help to prisoners deemed to have been denied justice, has reported that the US is using as many as 17 American warships as floating prisons to hold detainees in the "war on terror."
The first report of the "floating prisons" came in June 2005 the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism. The updated Reprieve report includes descriptions of detentions at sea from not only those released from the US detention camp in Guantánamo — who were held during and immediately after the US military action in Afghanistan — but also those who were held more recently on US warships, particularly in the Horn of Africa.
The legal group also reports that the US is continuing the practice of "rendition" — the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another without any legal reference — despite a 2006 declaration by President George W Bush of an end to it.
According to Reprieve, the "floating prisoners" are interrogated under torturous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations. "Details regarding the operation of prison ships have emerged through a number of sources, including the US military and other administration officials, the Council of Europe, various parliamentary bodies and journalists, as well as the testimonies of prisoners themselves," says Reprieve.
According to Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s director, “the US administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers."
The US government has admitted that it is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons. For all practical and technical purposes, it is determined to deny them any legal recourse and the families of many of the detainees believe them to be dead because of their long absence after unexplained disappearance.
The "floating prisons" are yet another example of the Bush administration's disrespect for international law, particularly the Third Geneva Convention states that "prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land." But then, the Bush administration does not have a record of respecting international laws and conventions.
Such practices as summary detention and torture while denying justice to detainees are salient features of the Bush administration, which seemed to have been waiting for an event like the Sept.11 attacks to bare its teeth and unleash a campaign devoid of respect for human rights.
Reprieve is expected to release a detailed report on detentions on warships for which there is no legal precedent for for federal courts exercising jurisdiction. While the expected report would be of a source of authentic information on US practices in its self-declared "war on terror," it is unlikely to make any real difference to those held in the "floating prisons" unless the international community takes it upon itself to put an end to such practices if only not to allow other governments feel encouraged to follow suit.
'Floating prisoners' — a world challenge
Reprieve, a UK-based group offering legal help to prisoners deemed to have been denied justice, has reported that the US is using as many as 17 American warships as floating prisons to hold detainees in the "war on terror."
The first report of the "floating prisons" came in June 2005 the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism. The updated Reprieve report includes descriptions of detentions at sea from not only those released from the US detention camp in Guantánamo — who were held during and immediately after the US military action in Afghanistan — but also those who were held more recently on US warships, particularly in the Horn of Africa.
The legal group also reports that the US is continuing the practice of "rendition" — the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another without any legal reference — despite a 2006 declaration by President George W Bush of an end to it.
According to Reprieve, the "floating prisoners" are interrogated under torturous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations. "Details regarding the operation of prison ships have emerged through a number of sources, including the US military and other administration officials, the Council of Europe, various parliamentary bodies and journalists, as well as the testimonies of prisoners themselves," says Reprieve.
According to Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s director, “the US administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers."
The US government has admitted that it is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons. For all practical and technical purposes, it is determined to deny them any legal recourse and the families of many of the detainees believe them to be dead because of their long absence after unexplained disappearance.
The "floating prisons" are yet another example of the Bush administration's disrespect for international law, particularly the Third Geneva Convention states that "prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land." But then, the Bush administration does not have a record of respecting international laws and conventions.
Such practices as summary detention and torture while denying justice to detainees are salient features of the Bush administration, which seemed to have been waiting for an event like the Sept.11 attacks to bare its teeth and unleash a campaign devoid of respect for human rights.
Reprieve is expected to release a detailed report on detentions on warships for which there is no legal precedent for for federal courts exercising jurisdiction. While the expected report would be of a source of authentic information on US practices in its self-declared "war on terror," it is unlikely to make any real difference to those held in the "floating prisons" unless the international community takes it upon itself to put an end to such practices if only not to allow other governments feel encouraged to follow suit.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Hawks on the vigil
June 13, 2008
Hawks on the vigil for bait
THERE COULD BE several explanations why Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be thumping his nose at the US with provocative/inciting comments in the nuclear stand-off. The latest was his declaration that Western threats and pressure had failed to stop Iran's nuclear programme, which which the US says involves producing atomic weapons.
"With God's help today (the Iranian nation) have gained victory and the enemies cannot do a damned thing," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday, one day after the US and the European Union said they were ready to impose more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.
Ahmadinejad definitely has an eye on the internal Iranian political front when he asserts that Western military threats and political pressure did not work with Iran and that "the Iranian nation is standing on the nuclear height."
Beyond that, he seems confident that the US would not launch military action against his country in the nuclear dispute because Washington knows that Iran could wage an intense "defensive war" that could be very damaging to the US.
Another explanation is that he believes that the hawkish camp in Washington pushing for military action against Iran has grown weak ahead of November's presidential elections. He also seems to be riding on a conviction that Israel would not opt for unilateral military action against his country.
The Iranian president could have many reasons and arguments of his own to feel himself strong and confident enough to implicitly challenge the US into launching military action. There could be many people who might share those thoughts and thus feel relieved that the region would not be subjected a new military conflict that it could ill afford. However, the thought could not be waived aside that there is an off-chance that the one-track-mind of the Washington hawks could use Iranian rhetoric as all the more reason for push for military action at a time when Republican fortunes seem to be sinking ahead of the presidential elections.
It will be in the interest of Iran and the rest of the Middle East that Iranian leaders refrain from offering the slightest pretext to the hawkish camp in the US to press their "case" for yet another disastrous military conflict in the region.
Hawks on the vigil for bait
THERE COULD BE several explanations why Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be thumping his nose at the US with provocative/inciting comments in the nuclear stand-off. The latest was his declaration that Western threats and pressure had failed to stop Iran's nuclear programme, which which the US says involves producing atomic weapons.
"With God's help today (the Iranian nation) have gained victory and the enemies cannot do a damned thing," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday, one day after the US and the European Union said they were ready to impose more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.
Ahmadinejad definitely has an eye on the internal Iranian political front when he asserts that Western military threats and political pressure did not work with Iran and that "the Iranian nation is standing on the nuclear height."
Beyond that, he seems confident that the US would not launch military action against his country in the nuclear dispute because Washington knows that Iran could wage an intense "defensive war" that could be very damaging to the US.
Another explanation is that he believes that the hawkish camp in Washington pushing for military action against Iran has grown weak ahead of November's presidential elections. He also seems to be riding on a conviction that Israel would not opt for unilateral military action against his country.
The Iranian president could have many reasons and arguments of his own to feel himself strong and confident enough to implicitly challenge the US into launching military action. There could be many people who might share those thoughts and thus feel relieved that the region would not be subjected a new military conflict that it could ill afford. However, the thought could not be waived aside that there is an off-chance that the one-track-mind of the Washington hawks could use Iranian rhetoric as all the more reason for push for military action at a time when Republican fortunes seem to be sinking ahead of the presidential elections.
It will be in the interest of Iran and the rest of the Middle East that Iranian leaders refrain from offering the slightest pretext to the hawkish camp in the US to press their "case" for yet another disastrous military conflict in the region.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Cheney - the man after Iran's blood
June 12, 2006
Cheney - the man after Iran's blood
By PV Vivekanand
Vice-President Dick Cheney had manoeuvred the US into considering
miilitary action against Iran in mid-2007 but was thwarted by Pentagon officials who stood firm against the idea citing the unpredictable consequences of such action, according to new revelations.
Cheney, one of the key architects of the neo-con inspired US invasion and occupation of Iraq, suggested "limited" military action against the Iranians but it was perceived that he was using it as a ploy to provoke Iranian retaliation that could used to justify a strategic attack on Iran, including possibly involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
However, that does not mean that Cheney has failed in his drive against Iran. He could still swing things around in the final months of the Bush administration, experts argue.
What has not been established beyond question yet is how far President George W Bush was and is ready to order military action against Iran. Surely, someone somewhere in the White House would definitely talk and offer more insights after Bush bows out next year. However, it is generally perceived that Bush does not need much persuasion to order military strikes against Iran.
What we do know is that in and around mid-2007, there was an air of expectation that US military action against Iran was immiment, with "leaked" information that senior commanders had already received orders to be ready to go into action at short notice. A strong US naval force was in the region, with reports suggesting that Iran would be subjected to mainly sea- and air-based strikes but there would not be an invasion by land.
Israel, the key proponent of military strikes against Iran, was keeping stepped-up pressure insisting that the Iranians were almost on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough and it was high time the country's "suspect" atomic processing facilities were bombed out.
There was a frenzy among European countries to find a negotiated end to the nuclear dispute with Iran. Perhaps, their intelligence agencies knew that Cheney and other Washington hawks were pushing for strikes against Iran, starting with Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) whom he accused of producing and supplying the highly lethal explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) and training to Iraqi guerrillas waging the anti-US war in Iraq.
According to the Interpress news agency (IPS), Cheney used his alliance with the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to advance his "EFP case" against Iran after Petraeus assumed his post in Iraq in early 2007.
IPS says that Cheney used Petraeus "to do an end run about the Washington national security bureaucracy to establish the propaganda line that Iran was manufacturing EFPs and shipping them to the Mahdi Army militiamen.
Cheney - the man after Iran's blood
By PV Vivekanand
Vice-President Dick Cheney had manoeuvred the US into considering
miilitary action against Iran in mid-2007 but was thwarted by Pentagon officials who stood firm against the idea citing the unpredictable consequences of such action, according to new revelations.
Cheney, one of the key architects of the neo-con inspired US invasion and occupation of Iraq, suggested "limited" military action against the Iranians but it was perceived that he was using it as a ploy to provoke Iranian retaliation that could used to justify a strategic attack on Iran, including possibly involving the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
However, that does not mean that Cheney has failed in his drive against Iran. He could still swing things around in the final months of the Bush administration, experts argue.
What has not been established beyond question yet is how far President George W Bush was and is ready to order military action against Iran. Surely, someone somewhere in the White House would definitely talk and offer more insights after Bush bows out next year. However, it is generally perceived that Bush does not need much persuasion to order military strikes against Iran.
What we do know is that in and around mid-2007, there was an air of expectation that US military action against Iran was immiment, with "leaked" information that senior commanders had already received orders to be ready to go into action at short notice. A strong US naval force was in the region, with reports suggesting that Iran would be subjected to mainly sea- and air-based strikes but there would not be an invasion by land.
Israel, the key proponent of military strikes against Iran, was keeping stepped-up pressure insisting that the Iranians were almost on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough and it was high time the country's "suspect" atomic processing facilities were bombed out.
There was a frenzy among European countries to find a negotiated end to the nuclear dispute with Iran. Perhaps, their intelligence agencies knew that Cheney and other Washington hawks were pushing for strikes against Iran, starting with Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) whom he accused of producing and supplying the highly lethal explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) and training to Iraqi guerrillas waging the anti-US war in Iraq.
According to the Interpress news agency (IPS), Cheney used his alliance with the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, to advance his "EFP case" against Iran after Petraeus assumed his post in Iraq in early 2007.
IPS says that Cheney used Petraeus "to do an end run about the Washington national security bureaucracy to establish the propaganda line that Iran was manufacturing EFPs and shipping them to the Mahdi Army militiamen.
Inability to call a spade a spade
June 12, 2008
Inability to call a spade a spade
Hostility towards the US is at record levels around the world not because of any rejection of US values but because of US government policies such as the war in Iraq, and Washington's apparent hypocrisy in abiding by its own democratic values. This is the finding of the House of Representatives the Subcommittee on International Organisations, Human Rights and Oversight.
The report, based on expert testimony and polling data, reveals US approval ratings have fallen to record lows across the world since 2002, particularly in the Islamic World and Latin America.
The congressional panel puts the finger right on the pulse when it says that the problem arises not from a rejection of US culture, values and power but primarily from its Washington's policies that run counter to its officially declared policy of promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
"Our physical strength has come to be seen not as a solace but as a threat, not as a guarantee of stability and order but as a source of intimidation, violence and torture," says Democrat Bill Delahunt, chairman of the panel.
The report affirms that specific policies are to blame for falling approval ratings and cites the 2003 invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq, support for some repressive governments around the world, and the torture and abuse of prisoners.
The report finds that "disappointment and bitterness" have grown from the impression that "proclaimed US values of democracy, human rights and rule of law have been selectively ignored by successive administrations" for national security or economic ends.
It also says that unilateralism, particularly in military action, has led to "anger and a fear of attack that are transforming disagreements with US policy into a broadening and deepening anti-Americanism."
These factors, as well as various US visa and immigration issues, have helped to create a "growing belief in the Islamic world that the United States is using the 'war on terror' as a cover for its attempts to destroy Islam," the report concludes.
Indeed, the report is an unusually frank and honest assessment of the US standing as the "leader of the free world" since it acknowledges the realities and is in stark contradiction to the usual line that the rest of the world hates the US because of envy for the "strength of the US economy, high standard of living and strong liberal values."
While we would like to tell the panel members that they have done an excellent job, we would also like to point out a glaring shortcoming in the report that is very typical and indeed a strong reason for the US to fall from grace in the Middle East. The shortcoming is that the report takes a low-key approach when it comes to the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a reason for its loss of credibility in the Middle East. As could be expected, the congressmen involved in preparing the report are not willing to call a spade a spade. Instead, they dare only to refer a "perception" of bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a reason for the drop in approval rating of the US.
That is so typical in US politics. Anything and everything is fine except the slightest hint that could be perceived as implicit criticism of the almost unlimited political, diplomatic, military, financial and moral support that the US extends to Israel. And that is indeed at the root of any even-handed effort to solve the Middle East conflict and thus a perennial source of "anti-Americanism."
Inability to call a spade a spade
Hostility towards the US is at record levels around the world not because of any rejection of US values but because of US government policies such as the war in Iraq, and Washington's apparent hypocrisy in abiding by its own democratic values. This is the finding of the House of Representatives the Subcommittee on International Organisations, Human Rights and Oversight.
The report, based on expert testimony and polling data, reveals US approval ratings have fallen to record lows across the world since 2002, particularly in the Islamic World and Latin America.
The congressional panel puts the finger right on the pulse when it says that the problem arises not from a rejection of US culture, values and power but primarily from its Washington's policies that run counter to its officially declared policy of promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
"Our physical strength has come to be seen not as a solace but as a threat, not as a guarantee of stability and order but as a source of intimidation, violence and torture," says Democrat Bill Delahunt, chairman of the panel.
The report affirms that specific policies are to blame for falling approval ratings and cites the 2003 invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq, support for some repressive governments around the world, and the torture and abuse of prisoners.
The report finds that "disappointment and bitterness" have grown from the impression that "proclaimed US values of democracy, human rights and rule of law have been selectively ignored by successive administrations" for national security or economic ends.
It also says that unilateralism, particularly in military action, has led to "anger and a fear of attack that are transforming disagreements with US policy into a broadening and deepening anti-Americanism."
These factors, as well as various US visa and immigration issues, have helped to create a "growing belief in the Islamic world that the United States is using the 'war on terror' as a cover for its attempts to destroy Islam," the report concludes.
Indeed, the report is an unusually frank and honest assessment of the US standing as the "leader of the free world" since it acknowledges the realities and is in stark contradiction to the usual line that the rest of the world hates the US because of envy for the "strength of the US economy, high standard of living and strong liberal values."
While we would like to tell the panel members that they have done an excellent job, we would also like to point out a glaring shortcoming in the report that is very typical and indeed a strong reason for the US to fall from grace in the Middle East. The shortcoming is that the report takes a low-key approach when it comes to the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a reason for its loss of credibility in the Middle East. As could be expected, the congressmen involved in preparing the report are not willing to call a spade a spade. Instead, they dare only to refer a "perception" of bias in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a reason for the drop in approval rating of the US.
That is so typical in US politics. Anything and everything is fine except the slightest hint that could be perceived as implicit criticism of the almost unlimited political, diplomatic, military, financial and moral support that the US extends to Israel. And that is indeed at the root of any even-handed effort to solve the Middle East conflict and thus a perennial source of "anti-Americanism."
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Serious warning from East
June 11, 2008
Serious warning from the East
THE US is making a major mistake by refusing to accept not only that its military action against Iraq has failed to achieve its strategic objectives but also that it faces further disasters if it contiues its military presence in the chaotic country. Most of the key players in Iraq — except of course the Kurds whose priorities are Kurd-specific — have made it clear that they oppose the so-called status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad, with some of them warning that the proposed pact could lead to an uprising in Iraq where those who support it would be targeted.
"It is not to the benefit of the US as a major power to dilute the sovereignty of Iraq," says Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Al Modarresi, a top Shiite cleric. "This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it," he says in an implicit warning to groups and individuals who back the agreement because their survival depends on US support.
The US wants to set up 50 military bases in Iraq, secure unchallenged immunity to security personnel from Iraqi law and maintain the right to conduct autonomous military operations as part of the proposed agreement.
Rejection of the draft agreement, which seeks to legitimise the US military's presence in Iraq after Dec. 31, when its UN mandate expires, has also come from others in the region.
The most serious albeit implicit warning has come from Iran, whose supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, added his voice to the opposition against the proposed accord by telling visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki on Monday that the presence of US forces in Iraq was the biggest obstacle to its development as a united country.
Whether the US likes it or not, the Iranian position is indeed supported the ability to keep the US military on its toes in Iraq. The bottom line is that Iran does not want total chaos in Iraq but nor does it want US forces to settle down in Iraq, something that Tehran feels would encourage Washington to consider military options against Iran, which the US sees as posing a hurdle on its way to its "strategic interests" in the region and a threat to Israel, the closest US ally in the Middle East.
Indeed, Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, is perfectly aware of the Iranian concerns and hence his assurance to Tehran that Iraq would not be used as a staging point for US-led military operations against Iran. But that is an assurance no one takes seriously because the realities on the ground dictate that Iraq would indeed be the central platform for US military action against its eastern neighbour across the Shatt Al Arab waterway.
Instead of applying pressure and trying to force-feed the Iraqis with the proposed agreement, Washington should be giving serious consideration to the clear warning from Khamenei that Iran would not allow the realisation of "Americans' dreams" in Iraq. Underestimating it could prove to be yet another but very damaging American blunder in the Middle East.
Serious warning from the East
THE US is making a major mistake by refusing to accept not only that its military action against Iraq has failed to achieve its strategic objectives but also that it faces further disasters if it contiues its military presence in the chaotic country. Most of the key players in Iraq — except of course the Kurds whose priorities are Kurd-specific — have made it clear that they oppose the so-called status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad, with some of them warning that the proposed pact could lead to an uprising in Iraq where those who support it would be targeted.
"It is not to the benefit of the US as a major power to dilute the sovereignty of Iraq," says Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Al Modarresi, a top Shiite cleric. "This treaty is humiliating to the Iraqi people, and might cause an uprising against it and those who support it," he says in an implicit warning to groups and individuals who back the agreement because their survival depends on US support.
The US wants to set up 50 military bases in Iraq, secure unchallenged immunity to security personnel from Iraqi law and maintain the right to conduct autonomous military operations as part of the proposed agreement.
Rejection of the draft agreement, which seeks to legitimise the US military's presence in Iraq after Dec. 31, when its UN mandate expires, has also come from others in the region.
The most serious albeit implicit warning has come from Iran, whose supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, added his voice to the opposition against the proposed accord by telling visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki on Monday that the presence of US forces in Iraq was the biggest obstacle to its development as a united country.
Whether the US likes it or not, the Iranian position is indeed supported the ability to keep the US military on its toes in Iraq. The bottom line is that Iran does not want total chaos in Iraq but nor does it want US forces to settle down in Iraq, something that Tehran feels would encourage Washington to consider military options against Iran, which the US sees as posing a hurdle on its way to its "strategic interests" in the region and a threat to Israel, the closest US ally in the Middle East.
Indeed, Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, is perfectly aware of the Iranian concerns and hence his assurance to Tehran that Iraq would not be used as a staging point for US-led military operations against Iran. But that is an assurance no one takes seriously because the realities on the ground dictate that Iraq would indeed be the central platform for US military action against its eastern neighbour across the Shatt Al Arab waterway.
Instead of applying pressure and trying to force-feed the Iraqis with the proposed agreement, Washington should be giving serious consideration to the clear warning from Khamenei that Iran would not allow the realisation of "Americans' dreams" in Iraq. Underestimating it could prove to be yet another but very damaging American blunder in the Middle East.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
First positive step
June 10, 2008
First positive step
This weekend's talks between Fatah and Hamas in the Senegalese capital Dakar could be seen as the first concrete step towards Palestinian reconciliation because both sides are saying the meeting had restored "an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect" between them. It followed an offer by Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas for unconditonal talks with Hamas out of concern for the "unity of the Palestinian people and their homeland." It was a surprise since Abbas had refused to negotiate with Hamas unless the movement gave up control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).
A senior Abbas aide said subsequently that Abbas was not shifting from his position.
In any event, the Dakar talks, held under the mediation of Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, seems to be the beginning of a dialogue.
It has to be seen against the backdrop of an Arab tour undertaken by Abbas with the declared objective of informing Arab leaders of the latest developments in the Palestinian scene, including the Gaza crisis and the status of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Abbas, according to his aides, is seeking Arab support for his latest initiative to end the Fatah-Hamas power struggle.
Obviously, Israel, which is seeking to divide Palestinian ranks, is watching closely from the sidelines the progress in Fatah-Hamas talks. Israeli media is emphasising that the Dakar talks made no breakthrough while the Senegalese mediators said in a statement that representatives of both groups were "direct and fraternal" in the first of seven planned rounds of talks in the Senegalese capital.
Others are ready to help the Palestinian factions. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is said to be ready to intervene at any point and use his influence with Hamas, which has said it is prepared to send representatives to Cairo as soon as they received an invitation from the Egyptians.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa has expressed willingness to host the Fatah-Hamas talks.
Wherever held, success of any Fatah-Hamas dialogue depends on restoring confidence in each other starting with goodwill gestures, including the release of hundreds of Hamas supporters who are being held in PNA jails in the West Bank and an end to what further arrests.
However, it will not be easy for Abbas to do that since Israel is pressuring him against reconciling with Hamas and freeing Hamas activists whom it accuses of waging armed resistance.
One key goodwill gestures came when Abbas's office instructed the PNA-controlled media to stop attacks on Hamas and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh ordered the Hamas-run media to stop attacks on Fatah.
We in the Arab World are hopeful that the Palestinian factions would move quickly to settle their differences so that the focus is not shifted from the common struggle for liberation. The only beneficiary from continued internal Palestinian strife is Israel.
First positive step
This weekend's talks between Fatah and Hamas in the Senegalese capital Dakar could be seen as the first concrete step towards Palestinian reconciliation because both sides are saying the meeting had restored "an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect" between them. It followed an offer by Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas for unconditonal talks with Hamas out of concern for the "unity of the Palestinian people and their homeland." It was a surprise since Abbas had refused to negotiate with Hamas unless the movement gave up control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).
A senior Abbas aide said subsequently that Abbas was not shifting from his position.
In any event, the Dakar talks, held under the mediation of Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, chairman of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, seems to be the beginning of a dialogue.
It has to be seen against the backdrop of an Arab tour undertaken by Abbas with the declared objective of informing Arab leaders of the latest developments in the Palestinian scene, including the Gaza crisis and the status of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Abbas, according to his aides, is seeking Arab support for his latest initiative to end the Fatah-Hamas power struggle.
Obviously, Israel, which is seeking to divide Palestinian ranks, is watching closely from the sidelines the progress in Fatah-Hamas talks. Israeli media is emphasising that the Dakar talks made no breakthrough while the Senegalese mediators said in a statement that representatives of both groups were "direct and fraternal" in the first of seven planned rounds of talks in the Senegalese capital.
Others are ready to help the Palestinian factions. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is said to be ready to intervene at any point and use his influence with Hamas, which has said it is prepared to send representatives to Cairo as soon as they received an invitation from the Egyptians.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa has expressed willingness to host the Fatah-Hamas talks.
Wherever held, success of any Fatah-Hamas dialogue depends on restoring confidence in each other starting with goodwill gestures, including the release of hundreds of Hamas supporters who are being held in PNA jails in the West Bank and an end to what further arrests.
However, it will not be easy for Abbas to do that since Israel is pressuring him against reconciling with Hamas and freeing Hamas activists whom it accuses of waging armed resistance.
One key goodwill gestures came when Abbas's office instructed the PNA-controlled media to stop attacks on Hamas and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh ordered the Hamas-run media to stop attacks on Fatah.
We in the Arab World are hopeful that the Palestinian factions would move quickly to settle their differences so that the focus is not shifted from the common struggle for liberation. The only beneficiary from continued internal Palestinian strife is Israel.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Bush game playing itself out
June 9, 2008
A Bush game that is playing itself out
US President George W Bush wants 50 military bases, absolute control of Iraqi airspace, unrestrained freedom of movement and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors in Iraq. This is the gist of the "secret" deal that the US is trying impose on the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to legitimise the continued US military presence in Iraq after a UN mandate runs out this year.
Parallel to the impact of the proposed deal on the situation in Iraq and the region, the outcome of Bush's quest has also become an important element on the internal US scene ahead of presidential election in a few months.
Clearly, the "strategic alliance" deal, formally called a "security agreement," is aimed at perpetuating the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely. It is known that American negotiators are under strict instructions not to allow any modifications or amendments in the draft accord.
The agreement, if signed in the next few weeks, will allow Bush to push it through by the end of next month and declare a military victory in Iraq. Effectively, he will claim that the strategic objectives of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq have been realised and thus his decision for military action against Iraq has has been vindicated.
The sought-for agreement will seriously undermine pledges made by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops from Iraq if he is elected president in November.
On the other side, the Republican candidate, John McCain, would get a boost if the agreement is signed now because it will vindicate his claim that the US is on the verge of victory in Iraq and that Obama would be abandoning the victory by a premature military withdrawal.
The Maliki government, aware that disclosure of the details of the deal to the people of Iraq could be politically explosive, is known to oppose some of the key elements of the agreement. However, Maliki and his associates would have little option when it comes to taking the final decision whether to accept or reject the agreement because their survival depends on American support. At the same time, their acceptance of the agreement would undermine whatever popular support they might have among the people, who would most definitely resent having to watch US troops setting up permanent bases, conducting military operations, arresting Iraqis and enjoying immunity from Iraqi law. Iraqi politicians are already arguing that if the security deal is signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American puppet.
Firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr has declared his rejection of the agreement, and his people are waging a political campaign against it.
The one man who could really make a difference at this point in time is Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, who is demanding that any agreement be put to a referendum in Iraq.
It is expected that it will be rejected if put to a referendum, and hence the US opposes the call.
Some expect Sistani to change his mind because at time point he would have to accept that the loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shiite community.
Whatver way the cookie crumbles, the reality remains that the proposed agreement will lead to a permanent US occupation of Iraq and render the people of Iraq with little power and authority in their affairs.
A Bush game that is playing itself out
US President George W Bush wants 50 military bases, absolute control of Iraqi airspace, unrestrained freedom of movement and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors in Iraq. This is the gist of the "secret" deal that the US is trying impose on the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to legitimise the continued US military presence in Iraq after a UN mandate runs out this year.
Parallel to the impact of the proposed deal on the situation in Iraq and the region, the outcome of Bush's quest has also become an important element on the internal US scene ahead of presidential election in a few months.
Clearly, the "strategic alliance" deal, formally called a "security agreement," is aimed at perpetuating the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely. It is known that American negotiators are under strict instructions not to allow any modifications or amendments in the draft accord.
The agreement, if signed in the next few weeks, will allow Bush to push it through by the end of next month and declare a military victory in Iraq. Effectively, he will claim that the strategic objectives of the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq have been realised and thus his decision for military action against Iraq has has been vindicated.
The sought-for agreement will seriously undermine pledges made by the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops from Iraq if he is elected president in November.
On the other side, the Republican candidate, John McCain, would get a boost if the agreement is signed now because it will vindicate his claim that the US is on the verge of victory in Iraq and that Obama would be abandoning the victory by a premature military withdrawal.
The Maliki government, aware that disclosure of the details of the deal to the people of Iraq could be politically explosive, is known to oppose some of the key elements of the agreement. However, Maliki and his associates would have little option when it comes to taking the final decision whether to accept or reject the agreement because their survival depends on American support. At the same time, their acceptance of the agreement would undermine whatever popular support they might have among the people, who would most definitely resent having to watch US troops setting up permanent bases, conducting military operations, arresting Iraqis and enjoying immunity from Iraqi law. Iraqi politicians are already arguing that if the security deal is signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American puppet.
Firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr has declared his rejection of the agreement, and his people are waging a political campaign against it.
The one man who could really make a difference at this point in time is Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, who is demanding that any agreement be put to a referendum in Iraq.
It is expected that it will be rejected if put to a referendum, and hence the US opposes the call.
Some expect Sistani to change his mind because at time point he would have to accept that the loss of US support would drastically weaken the Iraqi Shiite community.
Whatver way the cookie crumbles, the reality remains that the proposed agreement will lead to a permanent US occupation of Iraq and render the people of Iraq with little power and authority in their affairs.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
No more tolerance of denial of justice
June 8, 2008
No more tolerance of denial of justice
THE latest charge against the ruling junta in Myanmar is that its soldiers shot dead a number of prisoners in order to control the situation when some 1,000 detainees panicked after being forced inside a hall after its zinc roofs were torn off in last month's cyclone.
The charge was raised by the human rights expert for Myanmar, Tomas Ojea Quintana, in his first report to the UN Human Rights Council. Ojea Quintana called on the junta to investigate the charge, which follows a report by a Thailand-based rights group that soldiers and police had killed 36 prisoners to quell a riot at the notorious Insein prison.
While the allegation has yet to be proved as true (Yangon's envoy has denied it), it fits in well with the military junta's record of intolerance of dissent of any kind. We know about the brutal way the military generals handled protests led by monks and how they continue to suppress dissent with physical oppression.
The generals' refusal to allow easy access for foreign humanitarian relief workers to help the victims of the cyclone is nothing short of "a crime against humanity," as international relief agencies have declared. It is simply unacceptable that the rights of people to relief when caught in disasters are secondary to the prerogatives of "national sovereignty."
The military junta maintains that "unscrupulous" citizens and foreign media are providing a false picture of the effects of the cyclone, which left 134,000 dead or missing and 2.4 million people in desperate need of help without shelter, livelihood or possibly even sufficient food.
The Myanmar generals seem believe that the international community will allow them to act in any way they wished. It is not the case, many world governments say, but the reality is that the international community, which is ready with help for the cyclone victims, is left to stand by while the military generals continue to be derelict in their duties towards there own people.
The world should act with firm determination to spare the people of Mynmar from their oppressive regime. Thousands more could die if aid does not reach them in time while the military generals play their games to ward off what they see as potential threats to their continued stay in power. If the world fails to act now, then it would be a failure of empathy and perhaps even an act of moral cowardice on the part of the international community.
No more tolerance of denial of justice
THE latest charge against the ruling junta in Myanmar is that its soldiers shot dead a number of prisoners in order to control the situation when some 1,000 detainees panicked after being forced inside a hall after its zinc roofs were torn off in last month's cyclone.
The charge was raised by the human rights expert for Myanmar, Tomas Ojea Quintana, in his first report to the UN Human Rights Council. Ojea Quintana called on the junta to investigate the charge, which follows a report by a Thailand-based rights group that soldiers and police had killed 36 prisoners to quell a riot at the notorious Insein prison.
While the allegation has yet to be proved as true (Yangon's envoy has denied it), it fits in well with the military junta's record of intolerance of dissent of any kind. We know about the brutal way the military generals handled protests led by monks and how they continue to suppress dissent with physical oppression.
The generals' refusal to allow easy access for foreign humanitarian relief workers to help the victims of the cyclone is nothing short of "a crime against humanity," as international relief agencies have declared. It is simply unacceptable that the rights of people to relief when caught in disasters are secondary to the prerogatives of "national sovereignty."
The military junta maintains that "unscrupulous" citizens and foreign media are providing a false picture of the effects of the cyclone, which left 134,000 dead or missing and 2.4 million people in desperate need of help without shelter, livelihood or possibly even sufficient food.
The Myanmar generals seem believe that the international community will allow them to act in any way they wished. It is not the case, many world governments say, but the reality is that the international community, which is ready with help for the cyclone victims, is left to stand by while the military generals continue to be derelict in their duties towards there own people.
The world should act with firm determination to spare the people of Mynmar from their oppressive regime. Thousands more could die if aid does not reach them in time while the military generals play their games to ward off what they see as potential threats to their continued stay in power. If the world fails to act now, then it would be a failure of empathy and perhaps even an act of moral cowardice on the part of the international community.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Source of shame for 'free world'
June 7, 2008
Source of shame for 'free world'
WITH every military operation against Palestinian resistance, Israel is gaining more confidence that it would get away with anything and need not worry about killing any Palestinian, including women and children. That is what was underlined when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday referred to a full-scale military operation in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip even as Egypt sought to mediate a truce.
According to the Yediot Aharonot daily, a major military operation in Gaza would take place within days. Perhaps, it could be launched over this weekend even as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is visiting the US for talks with President George W Bush. It is even more ironic that the US is finalising a military aid package to Israel,, including advanced F-35 stealth fighter jets and radar system.
In the meantime, there is little chance of a truce in and around Gaza because of the almost impossible conditions laid down by the two sides.
Israel is demanding an end to Palestinian rocket attacks while Hamas insists on an end to the blockade of Gaza which Israel says is aimed at forcing Palestinians to stop firing mortars across the border at Israeli towns.
Israel also wants an end to arms smuggling from Egypt's Sinai peninsula, as well as progress in negotiations for the release of an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians in 2006.
It is highly unlikely that Israel or Hamas would step back from their demands. The cycle of violence will continue, with the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip paying the price with daily suffering.
The international community does not seem to be bothered that the government of a country is unleashing its military power on a people who have no means of defending themselves and are exercising their legitimate right to resist foreign occupation.
It is already a blemish in world history that the international community has allowed the situation to continue unchecked and it should be s source of shame for world leaders that they are not doing anything realistic to put an end to what is nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism against a people under occupation.
Source of shame for 'free world'
WITH every military operation against Palestinian resistance, Israel is gaining more confidence that it would get away with anything and need not worry about killing any Palestinian, including women and children. That is what was underlined when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday referred to a full-scale military operation in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip even as Egypt sought to mediate a truce.
According to the Yediot Aharonot daily, a major military operation in Gaza would take place within days. Perhaps, it could be launched over this weekend even as Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is visiting the US for talks with President George W Bush. It is even more ironic that the US is finalising a military aid package to Israel,, including advanced F-35 stealth fighter jets and radar system.
In the meantime, there is little chance of a truce in and around Gaza because of the almost impossible conditions laid down by the two sides.
Israel is demanding an end to Palestinian rocket attacks while Hamas insists on an end to the blockade of Gaza which Israel says is aimed at forcing Palestinians to stop firing mortars across the border at Israeli towns.
Israel also wants an end to arms smuggling from Egypt's Sinai peninsula, as well as progress in negotiations for the release of an Israeli soldier captured by Palestinians in 2006.
It is highly unlikely that Israel or Hamas would step back from their demands. The cycle of violence will continue, with the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip paying the price with daily suffering.
The international community does not seem to be bothered that the government of a country is unleashing its military power on a people who have no means of defending themselves and are exercising their legitimate right to resist foreign occupation.
It is already a blemish in world history that the international community has allowed the situation to continue unchecked and it should be s source of shame for world leaders that they are not doing anything realistic to put an end to what is nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism against a people under occupation.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Onus on Europe to rise to the challenge
June 6, 2008
Onus on Europe to rise to the challenge
HOPES of dialogue leading to a reconciliation between the mainstream Palestinian leadership under President Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas movement are very much in the air. However, the process faces major hurdles including the continued Hamas control of the Gaza Strip and Israel's warning to Abbas against reconciliation with Hamas. The issues are closely tied to each other in that Abbas regaining the control of the Gaza Strip would strengthen his position in negotiations with Israel, a prospect the Israelis are trying to ward off.
Abbas's call this week for reconciliation talks with Hamas without explicitly repeating previous demands it first give up the Gaza Strip fuelled speculation that two sides could be ready to discuss mending fences and address the biggest challenge facing the Palestinian liberation struggle.
However, the subsequent clarification by Abbas aide Saab Erakat that the president has not softened his position on reconciliation with Hamas threw cold water on the hopes. Erakat stated that any dialogue with Hamas still depends on the group returning the Gaza Strip to the control of the Palestinian National Authority under a Yemeni initiative.
The Hamas position is that the group is ready to resume dialogue but without preconditions and it reiterated this stand in response to Abbas's latest call.
Abbas has to follow a delicate line because he faces an Israeli warning that it could review its US-mediated engagement with Abbas if he were to mend relations with Hamas.
The Palestinian struggle for liberation turned a landmark point when Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip nearly one year ago today. It splintered the liberation movement and Israel encouraged talk about two Palestinian identities — one in the West Bank led by Abbas and the Gaza Strip under Hamas control.
Israel seems to be playing a mult-faceted game. It is trying to corner Abbas into signing a deal involving only the West Bank that would include major Palestinian compromises. At the same time, it says it is willing to sign a broader agreement including the Gaza Strip but that will be effectively only when Abbas regains control of the coastal area (that is what it means when it insists on Abbas ensuring an end to armed resistance against Israel). And then there is the certainty that no agreement could be signed this year as promised by US President George W Bush.
Indeed, there are only some of the key elements showing their snouts above the surface in the Israeli-Palestinian equation. Much more complex issues lurk below the surface and every indication is that all talk about Palestinian reconciliation and any progress in peace negotiations would remain just talk unless there are major shifts in fundamental positions. Again, the Palestinians are in no position to be too flexible, given that their legitimate rights are at stake, whereas Israel could shift its positions at will, given that it has the Palestinians in a military stranglehold. And that is why external players have to enter the scene but not the likes of the US, which has openly thrown its weight behind Israel. In simple terms, it is high time that the Europeans, who have more at stake in the region than the Americans, broke away from the US-imposed constraints that prevent them from assuming an effective and leading role in the quest for Arab-Israeli peace. Can they rise to the challenge?
Onus on Europe to rise to the challenge
HOPES of dialogue leading to a reconciliation between the mainstream Palestinian leadership under President Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas movement are very much in the air. However, the process faces major hurdles including the continued Hamas control of the Gaza Strip and Israel's warning to Abbas against reconciliation with Hamas. The issues are closely tied to each other in that Abbas regaining the control of the Gaza Strip would strengthen his position in negotiations with Israel, a prospect the Israelis are trying to ward off.
Abbas's call this week for reconciliation talks with Hamas without explicitly repeating previous demands it first give up the Gaza Strip fuelled speculation that two sides could be ready to discuss mending fences and address the biggest challenge facing the Palestinian liberation struggle.
However, the subsequent clarification by Abbas aide Saab Erakat that the president has not softened his position on reconciliation with Hamas threw cold water on the hopes. Erakat stated that any dialogue with Hamas still depends on the group returning the Gaza Strip to the control of the Palestinian National Authority under a Yemeni initiative.
The Hamas position is that the group is ready to resume dialogue but without preconditions and it reiterated this stand in response to Abbas's latest call.
Abbas has to follow a delicate line because he faces an Israeli warning that it could review its US-mediated engagement with Abbas if he were to mend relations with Hamas.
The Palestinian struggle for liberation turned a landmark point when Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip nearly one year ago today. It splintered the liberation movement and Israel encouraged talk about two Palestinian identities — one in the West Bank led by Abbas and the Gaza Strip under Hamas control.
Israel seems to be playing a mult-faceted game. It is trying to corner Abbas into signing a deal involving only the West Bank that would include major Palestinian compromises. At the same time, it says it is willing to sign a broader agreement including the Gaza Strip but that will be effectively only when Abbas regains control of the coastal area (that is what it means when it insists on Abbas ensuring an end to armed resistance against Israel). And then there is the certainty that no agreement could be signed this year as promised by US President George W Bush.
Indeed, there are only some of the key elements showing their snouts above the surface in the Israeli-Palestinian equation. Much more complex issues lurk below the surface and every indication is that all talk about Palestinian reconciliation and any progress in peace negotiations would remain just talk unless there are major shifts in fundamental positions. Again, the Palestinians are in no position to be too flexible, given that their legitimate rights are at stake, whereas Israel could shift its positions at will, given that it has the Palestinians in a military stranglehold. And that is why external players have to enter the scene but not the likes of the US, which has openly thrown its weight behind Israel. In simple terms, it is high time that the Europeans, who have more at stake in the region than the Americans, broke away from the US-imposed constraints that prevent them from assuming an effective and leading role in the quest for Arab-Israeli peace. Can they rise to the challenge?
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Pipedreaming in Iraq
June 5, 2008
Pipedreaming in Iraq
THE US is putting up a brave front and asserting that it is confident of working out a new security agreement with Iraq by July although negotiations have yet to make any headway. It wants to sign twin agreements with the Iraqi government on the status of US military forces in Iraq after 2008 and a framework for diplomatic relations. The agreements will give a legal basis to US troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations' mandate expires.
Effectively, the agreements will closely bind Iraq with the US, allowing Washington to call the shots in Baghdad in matters that involve US strategic interests and also offering some form of legitimacy for a permanent US military presence in the country.
Many Iraqis are opposed to the US plans. Last Friday, thousands of Iraqis answered a call by Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr to protest against the proposed agreements.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the senior most Shiite cleric in Iraq, is also against any such stratic tie-up with the US. In fact, Sistani has reportedly issued fatwas that endorse attacks against the US-led foreign forces in the country as resistance against occupiers.
The combined opposition of Sistani and Sadr makes it hardly likely that the US would realise its objectives in Iraq.
Indeed, the Iraqi government depends on the US for survival, but it could not sidestep the majority opinion in the country. It is seeking a compromise formula that would dilute opposition to the proposed agreements and that is why Washington and Baghdad could not agree even over what should be in the documents. No one is taken in by US officials' insistence that both agreements being negotiated with Iraq were based on "recognition of and respect for the fact of Iraqi sovereignty."
The problems that Washington faces in advancing towards the agreements highlight the reality yet again that the US has failed to achieve its strategic objectives of its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Washington is refusing to accept defeat and is still entertaining hopes that it could somehow bulldoze its way through while it is clear to the rest of the world that the US is fighting for a lost cause in Iraq. And that spells more trouble ahead.
Pipedreaming in Iraq
THE US is putting up a brave front and asserting that it is confident of working out a new security agreement with Iraq by July although negotiations have yet to make any headway. It wants to sign twin agreements with the Iraqi government on the status of US military forces in Iraq after 2008 and a framework for diplomatic relations. The agreements will give a legal basis to US troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations' mandate expires.
Effectively, the agreements will closely bind Iraq with the US, allowing Washington to call the shots in Baghdad in matters that involve US strategic interests and also offering some form of legitimacy for a permanent US military presence in the country.
Many Iraqis are opposed to the US plans. Last Friday, thousands of Iraqis answered a call by Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr to protest against the proposed agreements.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the senior most Shiite cleric in Iraq, is also against any such stratic tie-up with the US. In fact, Sistani has reportedly issued fatwas that endorse attacks against the US-led foreign forces in the country as resistance against occupiers.
The combined opposition of Sistani and Sadr makes it hardly likely that the US would realise its objectives in Iraq.
Indeed, the Iraqi government depends on the US for survival, but it could not sidestep the majority opinion in the country. It is seeking a compromise formula that would dilute opposition to the proposed agreements and that is why Washington and Baghdad could not agree even over what should be in the documents. No one is taken in by US officials' insistence that both agreements being negotiated with Iraq were based on "recognition of and respect for the fact of Iraqi sovereignty."
The problems that Washington faces in advancing towards the agreements highlight the reality yet again that the US has failed to achieve its strategic objectives of its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Washington is refusing to accept defeat and is still entertaining hopes that it could somehow bulldoze its way through while it is clear to the rest of the world that the US is fighting for a lost cause in Iraq. And that spells more trouble ahead.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Iraqi sovereignty at stake?
June 4, 2008
Iraqi sovereignty at stake?
by pv vivekanand
A RARE point of agreement of Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is rejection of the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States, and it is unlikely that Washington would be able to convince them to accept it. But then that is the least of the potential problems that the US faces as it desparately seeks to sucessfully close and seal some of the key files on Iraq, more than five years after invading and occupyng the country.
According to reports, one of the key points of dispute in negotiations between the US and Iraqi governments over the draft security agreement is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited.
The US wants to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. It also wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. The US wants to reserve the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission and wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.
The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack
The US-Iraq negotiations have not made any headway on the draft and thus it seems impossible for Washington to meet a July deadline for concluding and signing it.
Beyond that, however, the very nature of the agreement, which seeks to legitimise the US colonialisation of Iraq, makes it unacceptable to the Iraqis, whether Sunnis or Shiites. That removes the central pillar from the US designs and plans which essentially seek to turn Iraq into an advance base for the US military in the Gulf region.
Washington is emphatically denying that wants to set up permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is only a matter of semantics because, under the controversial draft agreement, the US would definitely have permanent military presence in the country.
The draft agreement is proposed to replace the United Nations authorisation of the US occupation that expires at the end of 2008.
Leading Iraqi opposition to the agreement is firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr, whose powerful movement staged a formidable protest last week against the draft agreement and also announced subsequent protests planned for the duration of the summer.
Voices of dissent against the draft are emerging from all parts of Iraqi society.
The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq describes it as "reflecting the US occupation's political, economic, military, and social hegemony over Iraq."
The Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council (IISC), one of the largest Shiit groups, has expressed reservations over the agreement. IISC leader Abdul Aziz Al Hakim says that "there are clauses in the agreement that encroach on Iraq's sovereignty."
Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, until recently a voice of moderation in fractious and chaotic Iraqi political system and widely described as the most powerful figure in Iraq, is demanding a national referendum on any agreement on the US military occupation of his country.
It is a demand that the US would not be able to reject, but the outcome is predictable: A massive "No" to any extension of the US military occupation Iraq. The Iraqis do have good reasons to vote "no." They are perfectly aware that a long-term US military occupation would erode their sovereignty. US occupations have passed the half-century mark in countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, and the Iraqis have a legitimate cause for concern that the US intends to add their country to its list of open-ended occupation.
The US also faces opposition to its plans from outside Iraq.
Iran, which wields high influence in Iraq, is concerned that any long-term US military occupation of its neighbour may be used as a springboard to attack Iran.
The least that could be expected from Iran is an intensification of efforts to keep the US engaged within Iraq and prevent it from shifting its gunsight eastwards.
The reported US assurance to Iraq that it would not use Iraqi territory for possible military action against Iran is not at all convincing because it is elementary that Iraq would find itself in the middle of any US-Iranian military conflict.
The US administration also faces congresssional opposition to the proposed agreement with Iraq despite its pledge that any agreement will not be binding on the new president or commit the US to maintain a minimum level of military presence to to prop up the Iraqi government. The US Congress is also unhappy over the administration's insistence that the proposed agreement with Iraq does not require Congressional ratification.
In general, the Bush administration seems to be satisfied that it would be able to circumvent and ride out any Congressional opposition to the draft accord with Iraq as it has done in the past.
Back in Iraq, the US could also expect a surge in violence against the talk of extended US military presence. Groups which have been fighting each other before putting away their guns until after an expected US departure would have no incentive to hold their fire and many of them would definitely target US soldiers.
As of now, there is little to show as progress in the US-Iraq negotiations, with Haidar Al Abadi, a member of parliament from Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, affirming this week that the Iraqis and the Americans were far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations "are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options."
"The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," according to Abadi. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement."
Clearly, most people, including groups which supported the US invasion of Iraq, are now talking about infringement of Iraqi sovereignty by the US. That raises a simple question: How come they did not raise any concern over Iraqi sovereignty when they not only invited the US to invade the country but also rode on the backs of US military tanks across the border into Iraq in March 2003?
Iraqi sovereignty at stake?
by pv vivekanand
A RARE point of agreement of Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is rejection of the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States, and it is unlikely that Washington would be able to convince them to accept it. But then that is the least of the potential problems that the US faces as it desparately seeks to sucessfully close and seal some of the key files on Iraq, more than five years after invading and occupyng the country.
According to reports, one of the key points of dispute in negotiations between the US and Iraqi governments over the draft security agreement is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited.
The US wants to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. It also wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. The US wants to reserve the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission and wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.
The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack
The US-Iraq negotiations have not made any headway on the draft and thus it seems impossible for Washington to meet a July deadline for concluding and signing it.
Beyond that, however, the very nature of the agreement, which seeks to legitimise the US colonialisation of Iraq, makes it unacceptable to the Iraqis, whether Sunnis or Shiites. That removes the central pillar from the US designs and plans which essentially seek to turn Iraq into an advance base for the US military in the Gulf region.
Washington is emphatically denying that wants to set up permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is only a matter of semantics because, under the controversial draft agreement, the US would definitely have permanent military presence in the country.
The draft agreement is proposed to replace the United Nations authorisation of the US occupation that expires at the end of 2008.
Leading Iraqi opposition to the agreement is firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr, whose powerful movement staged a formidable protest last week against the draft agreement and also announced subsequent protests planned for the duration of the summer.
Voices of dissent against the draft are emerging from all parts of Iraqi society.
The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq describes it as "reflecting the US occupation's political, economic, military, and social hegemony over Iraq."
The Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council (IISC), one of the largest Shiit groups, has expressed reservations over the agreement. IISC leader Abdul Aziz Al Hakim says that "there are clauses in the agreement that encroach on Iraq's sovereignty."
Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, until recently a voice of moderation in fractious and chaotic Iraqi political system and widely described as the most powerful figure in Iraq, is demanding a national referendum on any agreement on the US military occupation of his country.
It is a demand that the US would not be able to reject, but the outcome is predictable: A massive "No" to any extension of the US military occupation Iraq. The Iraqis do have good reasons to vote "no." They are perfectly aware that a long-term US military occupation would erode their sovereignty. US occupations have passed the half-century mark in countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, and the Iraqis have a legitimate cause for concern that the US intends to add their country to its list of open-ended occupation.
The US also faces opposition to its plans from outside Iraq.
Iran, which wields high influence in Iraq, is concerned that any long-term US military occupation of its neighbour may be used as a springboard to attack Iran.
The least that could be expected from Iran is an intensification of efforts to keep the US engaged within Iraq and prevent it from shifting its gunsight eastwards.
The reported US assurance to Iraq that it would not use Iraqi territory for possible military action against Iran is not at all convincing because it is elementary that Iraq would find itself in the middle of any US-Iranian military conflict.
The US administration also faces congresssional opposition to the proposed agreement with Iraq despite its pledge that any agreement will not be binding on the new president or commit the US to maintain a minimum level of military presence to to prop up the Iraqi government. The US Congress is also unhappy over the administration's insistence that the proposed agreement with Iraq does not require Congressional ratification.
In general, the Bush administration seems to be satisfied that it would be able to circumvent and ride out any Congressional opposition to the draft accord with Iraq as it has done in the past.
Back in Iraq, the US could also expect a surge in violence against the talk of extended US military presence. Groups which have been fighting each other before putting away their guns until after an expected US departure would have no incentive to hold their fire and many of them would definitely target US soldiers.
As of now, there is little to show as progress in the US-Iraq negotiations, with Haidar Al Abadi, a member of parliament from Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, affirming this week that the Iraqis and the Americans were far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations "are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options."
"The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," according to Abadi. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement."
Clearly, most people, including groups which supported the US invasion of Iraq, are now talking about infringement of Iraqi sovereignty by the US. That raises a simple question: How come they did not raise any concern over Iraqi sovereignty when they not only invited the US to invade the country but also rode on the backs of US military tanks across the border into Iraq in March 2003?
Turning point in US history
June 5, 2008
Turning point
in US history
Barack Obama has made history by securing the Democratic White House nomination as the first black candidate on a major-party ticket. Indeed, his erstwhile rival, Hillary Clinton, also would have made history if she had won the nomination because she would have been the first woman candidate to run for the US presidency on a major-party ticket. The possibility remains open that Hillary Clinton might make it as vice-president in an alliance with Obama.
Obama's victory in the Democratic race has brought forth debate over what lies in store for the US and indeed the world commity of nations if the senator from Illinois wins the presidency in November in a general election clash with Republican Senator John McCain.
His triumph within the Democratic party is tinged with a disbelief among his black American supporters: They never expected in their lifetimes to be able to support an African-American candidate with a real chance of winning the presidency.
Obama is seen as a standard-bearer of a new political generation that is emerging to the frontlines at a critical time for the US and indeed the rest of the world. Many are hoping that if he wins the White House he would adopt and follow policies that would spare the international community from paying the price for the misguided approach of the sole superpower under the current administration.
Son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father, Obama is perceived as a liberal at heart. He rose to prominence at the 2004 Democratic presidential convention with an emphatic call for unity, proclaiming "there is not a Black America and a White America ... there's the United States of America." Obama has been emphasising that he would change the direction of the country if he wins the presidency. Those promises should be music to the American people wearied by the Iraq war and stalked by fears of other conflicts and indeed economic recession.
Indeed, those who are hoping for change in the US direction should also lace their expectations with the realisation that the elements at work in the corridors of power in Washington are such that render presidents unable to deliver on election promises. However, that is no reason to be pessimistic since Obama could very well prove himself to be able beat all odds and live true to his promises and commitments.
Turning point
in US history
Barack Obama has made history by securing the Democratic White House nomination as the first black candidate on a major-party ticket. Indeed, his erstwhile rival, Hillary Clinton, also would have made history if she had won the nomination because she would have been the first woman candidate to run for the US presidency on a major-party ticket. The possibility remains open that Hillary Clinton might make it as vice-president in an alliance with Obama.
Obama's victory in the Democratic race has brought forth debate over what lies in store for the US and indeed the world commity of nations if the senator from Illinois wins the presidency in November in a general election clash with Republican Senator John McCain.
His triumph within the Democratic party is tinged with a disbelief among his black American supporters: They never expected in their lifetimes to be able to support an African-American candidate with a real chance of winning the presidency.
Obama is seen as a standard-bearer of a new political generation that is emerging to the frontlines at a critical time for the US and indeed the rest of the world. Many are hoping that if he wins the White House he would adopt and follow policies that would spare the international community from paying the price for the misguided approach of the sole superpower under the current administration.
Son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father, Obama is perceived as a liberal at heart. He rose to prominence at the 2004 Democratic presidential convention with an emphatic call for unity, proclaiming "there is not a Black America and a White America ... there's the United States of America." Obama has been emphasising that he would change the direction of the country if he wins the presidency. Those promises should be music to the American people wearied by the Iraq war and stalked by fears of other conflicts and indeed economic recession.
Indeed, those who are hoping for change in the US direction should also lace their expectations with the realisation that the elements at work in the corridors of power in Washington are such that render presidents unable to deliver on election promises. However, that is no reason to be pessimistic since Obama could very well prove himself to be able beat all odds and live true to his promises and commitments.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The ball is in Tehran
March 11, 2008
The ball is in Tehran
THE call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani for the Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Iran is very much part and parcel of the region and the Arab countries in the Gulf have maintained close relations with the Iranians since as far as anyone could recollect. Those relations are not and would never be subject to third party interests and there are no ifs and buts in the equation.
The Qatari prime minister's statement comes against the backdrop of US-led stepped-up pressure against Tehran in the name of Iran's nuclear activities. It is no secret that the nuclear dispute is only a smokescreen for Washington's drive towards its goal — as declared by President George W Bush a few days before his re-election for a second term in 2004 — of regime change in Tehran. Given that reality, the talk of diplomatic options coming out of Washington becomes meaningless. The current position of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible for Iran to step away from its defiant position, and that is what is precisely the objective of the UN exercise, which is part of the build-up to whatever the US has in mind for Iran.
It is in this context that Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani warned that Gulf Arabs should be careful to prevent misunderstandings or international machinations from pushing the region into another war. 'We should not enter into an international game in which we will be exploited ... and come out as the losers on both sides," he said.
Indeed, the Gulf Arabs have their own issues to be taken up with Iran, but these come in a bilateral context, and that is something that Tehran should also remember.
The Gulf Arabs have made no secret of their position that relations with Iran could be dramatically improved if the bilateral issues were settled in an amicable way.
It is absolutely necessary that Iran steps forward with creative ideas that should lead to the settlement of all outstanding issues with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Everyone stands to gain from a fair and just solution to these issues and it would also taken everyone towards the goal of clear understanding of each others' positions and respect for each other's rights and positions. and relations based on non-interference in the internal matters of each other.
Clearly, the ball is in the Iranian court.
The ball is in Tehran
THE call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani for the Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Iran is very much part and parcel of the region and the Arab countries in the Gulf have maintained close relations with the Iranians since as far as anyone could recollect. Those relations are not and would never be subject to third party interests and there are no ifs and buts in the equation.
The Qatari prime minister's statement comes against the backdrop of US-led stepped-up pressure against Tehran in the name of Iran's nuclear activities. It is no secret that the nuclear dispute is only a smokescreen for Washington's drive towards its goal — as declared by President George W Bush a few days before his re-election for a second term in 2004 — of regime change in Tehran. Given that reality, the talk of diplomatic options coming out of Washington becomes meaningless. The current position of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible for Iran to step away from its defiant position, and that is what is precisely the objective of the UN exercise, which is part of the build-up to whatever the US has in mind for Iran.
It is in this context that Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani warned that Gulf Arabs should be careful to prevent misunderstandings or international machinations from pushing the region into another war. 'We should not enter into an international game in which we will be exploited ... and come out as the losers on both sides," he said.
Indeed, the Gulf Arabs have their own issues to be taken up with Iran, but these come in a bilateral context, and that is something that Tehran should also remember.
The Gulf Arabs have made no secret of their position that relations with Iran could be dramatically improved if the bilateral issues were settled in an amicable way.
It is absolutely necessary that Iran steps forward with creative ideas that should lead to the settlement of all outstanding issues with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Everyone stands to gain from a fair and just solution to these issues and it would also taken everyone towards the goal of clear understanding of each others' positions and respect for each other's rights and positions. and relations based on non-interference in the internal matters of each other.
Clearly, the ball is in the Iranian court.
Monday, March 10, 2008
More strength to GCC dynamics
March 10, 2008
More strength to GCC dynamics
SAUDI ARABIA'S decision to restore full diplomatic relations with Qatar is a highly positive and welcome move in that it seals a gap in ties between the two members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Regardless of the reasons for the five-year hiatus in Riyadh-Doha diplomatic ties, it was unnatural that the two GCC countries were at odds.
Unity and collective action to face common changes and joint march towards development are the essence of relations among the GCC countries or any regional blocs for that matter. Any rift among the members, for whatever reason, often hinders the work of the bloc. We have witnessed it among the members of the much-heralded European Union.
The eventual restoration of Saudi-Qatari diplomatic relations was signalled by the presence of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz at the GCC summit in Doha in December following a visit to Saudi Arabia by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani three months earlier.
Saudi Ambassador Ahmed Bin Ali Al Qahtani has already taken up his post in Doha.
The restoration of diplomatic ties is being followed by a three-day visit to Doha by Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz for talks with Sheikh Hamad on the latest developments in the Gulf and the Arab World.
Prince Sultan, in a recent interview, has affirmed that relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia are deep-rooted and historical and therefore not dictated by developments in the region.
"Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two brotherly countries and the relations between them are historical and are governed by blood ties and common fate," said Prince Sultan.
"Our ties with Qatar are not the product of a day, nor the result of emerging circumstances, but a real expression of the depth of relations between the two countries which existed for long decades," he said.
That is indeed the spirit of the relationship among the six members of the GCC. There is every confidence in the air that the restoration of full relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar would add more strength to the dynamics of the GCC and the Arab League in general.
More strength to GCC dynamics
SAUDI ARABIA'S decision to restore full diplomatic relations with Qatar is a highly positive and welcome move in that it seals a gap in ties between the two members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Regardless of the reasons for the five-year hiatus in Riyadh-Doha diplomatic ties, it was unnatural that the two GCC countries were at odds.
Unity and collective action to face common changes and joint march towards development are the essence of relations among the GCC countries or any regional blocs for that matter. Any rift among the members, for whatever reason, often hinders the work of the bloc. We have witnessed it among the members of the much-heralded European Union.
The eventual restoration of Saudi-Qatari diplomatic relations was signalled by the presence of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz at the GCC summit in Doha in December following a visit to Saudi Arabia by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani three months earlier.
Saudi Ambassador Ahmed Bin Ali Al Qahtani has already taken up his post in Doha.
The restoration of diplomatic ties is being followed by a three-day visit to Doha by Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz for talks with Sheikh Hamad on the latest developments in the Gulf and the Arab World.
Prince Sultan, in a recent interview, has affirmed that relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia are deep-rooted and historical and therefore not dictated by developments in the region.
"Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two brotherly countries and the relations between them are historical and are governed by blood ties and common fate," said Prince Sultan.
"Our ties with Qatar are not the product of a day, nor the result of emerging circumstances, but a real expression of the depth of relations between the two countries which existed for long decades," he said.
That is indeed the spirit of the relationship among the six members of the GCC. There is every confidence in the air that the restoration of full relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar would add more strength to the dynamics of the GCC and the Arab League in general.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Paw in the Afghan bottle
March 9, 2008
Paw in the Afghan bottle
Arguably, the blaze of publicity for British Prince Harry's front-line assignment in Afghanistan gave a tough of glamour to the war there, but the harsh reality of the struggling military campaign there remains as bitter as ever.
One wonders whether the photographs of Queen Elizabeth's grandson firing a machine gun in Afghanistan were deliberately "leaked" into the cyberspace with a view to hailing Harry, the third in line to the throne, as a "veteran" of the Afghan war at some point in time. Of course, it could be argued that the British media remained committed to an undertaking not to publicise Prince Harry's 10-week stint in Afghanistan and it was a US website which put out the pictures. It is neither here nor there when seen from a non-British perspective.
However, within Britain, the emergence of pictures, deliberate or otherwise, helped give a "the most positive and glamorous coverage" for the Afghan war, as Peter Wilby, a political commentator for the Guardian, put it. "It was a marvellous boost for army recruitment and revived the legitimacy of a war for which support has been waning."
For one thing, the Afghan conflict has drawn the US-led foreign forces present in the country into a quagmire — as indeed is the case in Iraq notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. There are no magic solutions to end the conflict becasue the issues at stake are too complex and dense for the US or for the UK for that matter to call it quits and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves. The best analogy would be that of a money who gets caught with its paw wrapped around a fruit in inside a bottle. It could withdraw its paw without the fruit but it would not because of the lure of the fruit is too strong.
The reality on the ground in Afghanistan is that the foreign forces are there for a long spell because there is no possibility of a solution that would serve the interests of the US, but Washington would not let go.
In the meantime, the billions of dollars being spent in the name of reconstruction of Afghanistan are going to waste since there is little improvement in the daily life of the ordinary people.
The same goes true for the billions that are being spent in the hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.
The Taliban have staged a comeback and now control at least 10 per cent of Afghanistan, according to a US intelligence assessment, and are running their own checkpoints in one province in the south.
One of the reasons cited by the US is the lack of enough troops to fight an effective battle, but few countries are willing to contribute more since their governments have realised the folly of fighting a war that is already lost. Add to that the ongoing protests against Denmark and the Netherlands — which have troops present in the country — sparked by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and a Dutch film in the making, and what we have in Afghanistan is a perfect recipe for more trouble for the foreign troops deployed there.
Paw in the Afghan bottle
Arguably, the blaze of publicity for British Prince Harry's front-line assignment in Afghanistan gave a tough of glamour to the war there, but the harsh reality of the struggling military campaign there remains as bitter as ever.
One wonders whether the photographs of Queen Elizabeth's grandson firing a machine gun in Afghanistan were deliberately "leaked" into the cyberspace with a view to hailing Harry, the third in line to the throne, as a "veteran" of the Afghan war at some point in time. Of course, it could be argued that the British media remained committed to an undertaking not to publicise Prince Harry's 10-week stint in Afghanistan and it was a US website which put out the pictures. It is neither here nor there when seen from a non-British perspective.
However, within Britain, the emergence of pictures, deliberate or otherwise, helped give a "the most positive and glamorous coverage" for the Afghan war, as Peter Wilby, a political commentator for the Guardian, put it. "It was a marvellous boost for army recruitment and revived the legitimacy of a war for which support has been waning."
For one thing, the Afghan conflict has drawn the US-led foreign forces present in the country into a quagmire — as indeed is the case in Iraq notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. There are no magic solutions to end the conflict becasue the issues at stake are too complex and dense for the US or for the UK for that matter to call it quits and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves. The best analogy would be that of a money who gets caught with its paw wrapped around a fruit in inside a bottle. It could withdraw its paw without the fruit but it would not because of the lure of the fruit is too strong.
The reality on the ground in Afghanistan is that the foreign forces are there for a long spell because there is no possibility of a solution that would serve the interests of the US, but Washington would not let go.
In the meantime, the billions of dollars being spent in the name of reconstruction of Afghanistan are going to waste since there is little improvement in the daily life of the ordinary people.
The same goes true for the billions that are being spent in the hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.
The Taliban have staged a comeback and now control at least 10 per cent of Afghanistan, according to a US intelligence assessment, and are running their own checkpoints in one province in the south.
One of the reasons cited by the US is the lack of enough troops to fight an effective battle, but few countries are willing to contribute more since their governments have realised the folly of fighting a war that is already lost. Add to that the ongoing protests against Denmark and the Netherlands — which have troops present in the country — sparked by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and a Dutch film in the making, and what we have in Afghanistan is a perfect recipe for more trouble for the foreign troops deployed there.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
More threats and no solution
March 8, 2008
More threats and no solution
THERE COULD BE no justification of deliberate killing civilians in any conflict. This is the widely accepted universal convention and it has to be respected by all parties involved although it is widely ignored in most troublespots around the world. And when civilians do die in armed conflicts, the world reacts with sympathy and condemns the killing. For some reason, it becomes all the more relevant when it happens in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly so when the dead include Israelis.
It is difficult to find much of a difference between Thursday's killing of seven Israeli students at a school in occupied Jerusalem and the murder of innocent Palestinian children in Israeli military attacks in the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks. One of the marked differences was, of course, that while Israel used hi-tech military gear and bombs to carry out most of the killings, Thursday's attack involved a lone Palestinian and an assault rifle.
The world does sympathise with the families of those killed but does not have any sympthy for the Israeli political and military leaders who had no consideration for Palestinian civilians caught in the Israeli frenzy to destroy Palestinian resistance to the Jewish state's occupation of Palestinians.
More than 120 Palestinians — dozens of children and women — who were killed in Israeli military strikes in the Gaza Strip in the last two weeks. That is not to mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who died in the course of Israel's occupation of their land since 1947.
If the Israelis want to highlight that Thursday's dead included Israeli teenagers, then the obvious response would be that the Israeli military's Gazan victims included children as young as one month.
An immediate Israeli target for victimisation after Thursday's attack would be the Arab-Israeli community because the assailant was an Arab-Israeli. Having an Israeli ID and working as a delivery man, he did not have any problem moving around in occupied Arab East Jerusalem. The Kalashnikov assault rifle he used is available for cash in most Israeli towns. We have seen how Israel treats its Arab community and we could now expect the Israeli establishment to exploit the chance that has presented itself to tighten pressure on its Arab citizens.
But then, it does not take anyone near the sought-for peace agreement in Palestine that should do away with the very root of the conflict.
Instead of accepting that its brutality against the Palestinians is spawning more security threats rather than removing them, Israel is bent upon pursuing the military option. As things stand today, it requires a dramatic and drastic change in the Israeli mindset even to hope for a fair and just solution in Palestine anytime in the future.
More threats and no solution
THERE COULD BE no justification of deliberate killing civilians in any conflict. This is the widely accepted universal convention and it has to be respected by all parties involved although it is widely ignored in most troublespots around the world. And when civilians do die in armed conflicts, the world reacts with sympathy and condemns the killing. For some reason, it becomes all the more relevant when it happens in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly so when the dead include Israelis.
It is difficult to find much of a difference between Thursday's killing of seven Israeli students at a school in occupied Jerusalem and the murder of innocent Palestinian children in Israeli military attacks in the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks. One of the marked differences was, of course, that while Israel used hi-tech military gear and bombs to carry out most of the killings, Thursday's attack involved a lone Palestinian and an assault rifle.
The world does sympathise with the families of those killed but does not have any sympthy for the Israeli political and military leaders who had no consideration for Palestinian civilians caught in the Israeli frenzy to destroy Palestinian resistance to the Jewish state's occupation of Palestinians.
More than 120 Palestinians — dozens of children and women — who were killed in Israeli military strikes in the Gaza Strip in the last two weeks. That is not to mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who died in the course of Israel's occupation of their land since 1947.
If the Israelis want to highlight that Thursday's dead included Israeli teenagers, then the obvious response would be that the Israeli military's Gazan victims included children as young as one month.
An immediate Israeli target for victimisation after Thursday's attack would be the Arab-Israeli community because the assailant was an Arab-Israeli. Having an Israeli ID and working as a delivery man, he did not have any problem moving around in occupied Arab East Jerusalem. The Kalashnikov assault rifle he used is available for cash in most Israeli towns. We have seen how Israel treats its Arab community and we could now expect the Israeli establishment to exploit the chance that has presented itself to tighten pressure on its Arab citizens.
But then, it does not take anyone near the sought-for peace agreement in Palestine that should do away with the very root of the conflict.
Instead of accepting that its brutality against the Palestinians is spawning more security threats rather than removing them, Israel is bent upon pursuing the military option. As things stand today, it requires a dramatic and drastic change in the Israeli mindset even to hope for a fair and just solution in Palestine anytime in the future.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
March 4, 2008
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
A FEW Israeli soldiers might have left northern Gaza Strip, but the Israeli assault against the Mediterranean coastal strip is continuing, with Israeli aircraft pummelling targets in Gaza. Palestinians are hitting back with rockets with expanded range.
Israeli leaders are making no secret of their intention to inflict as much casualties and damages before even considering a lull in the offensive ahead of the expected arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the region in what is billed as a mission to salvage the Annapolis process.
No one in this region needs to be told that the Annapolis process is all but dead, and few are attaching any hope to the Rice effort after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suspended negotiations with Israel in protest against the Gaza bloodshed.
The real concern in the region is the suffering of the residents of the Gaza Strip. Images of the devastation — roads plowed up, cars crushed by tanks and electric poles toppled — give the world only a glimpse of the actual agony of the Gazans trapped in their homes, with many families having lost their loved ones while others have been seriously wounded. The world knows the pathetic conditions prevailing in the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, which is under an total Israeli lockdown.
The unanswered question is: What does Israel intend to gain from its brutality against the Gazans? Surely, the political and military establishment of the Jewish could not but be aware that they could not hope to subdue the Palestinians through the use of military force.
If anything, developments since Friday have shown that the military offensive has only worsened Israelis' "security" fears. Three rockets hit the city of Ashkelon, nearly 20 kilometres north of Gaza, on Monday morning. Although no casualties were reported, the attacks showed an
improvement in Hamas' rocket range that has put the 120,000 Israelis living in Ashkelon under daily fire.
Mediators like European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, are saying that an end to Palestinian rocket attacks is fundamental to finding a solution. They should take close note of the signal from Hamas leaders of a willingness to work out a truce. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has said that his group is in touch with an unidentified third party to discuss a cease-fire that would include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and an end to an Israeli blockade of Gaza. For the moment, the Hamas position seems to offer a slim hope of a way out only if Israel is forced to listen. And that is the challenge facing anyone with any influence with the Jewish state.
In the meantime, history is recording one of the worst carnages in recent history, with the world seemingly unable to do anything to check it.
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
A FEW Israeli soldiers might have left northern Gaza Strip, but the Israeli assault against the Mediterranean coastal strip is continuing, with Israeli aircraft pummelling targets in Gaza. Palestinians are hitting back with rockets with expanded range.
Israeli leaders are making no secret of their intention to inflict as much casualties and damages before even considering a lull in the offensive ahead of the expected arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the region in what is billed as a mission to salvage the Annapolis process.
No one in this region needs to be told that the Annapolis process is all but dead, and few are attaching any hope to the Rice effort after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suspended negotiations with Israel in protest against the Gaza bloodshed.
The real concern in the region is the suffering of the residents of the Gaza Strip. Images of the devastation — roads plowed up, cars crushed by tanks and electric poles toppled — give the world only a glimpse of the actual agony of the Gazans trapped in their homes, with many families having lost their loved ones while others have been seriously wounded. The world knows the pathetic conditions prevailing in the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, which is under an total Israeli lockdown.
The unanswered question is: What does Israel intend to gain from its brutality against the Gazans? Surely, the political and military establishment of the Jewish could not but be aware that they could not hope to subdue the Palestinians through the use of military force.
If anything, developments since Friday have shown that the military offensive has only worsened Israelis' "security" fears. Three rockets hit the city of Ashkelon, nearly 20 kilometres north of Gaza, on Monday morning. Although no casualties were reported, the attacks showed an
improvement in Hamas' rocket range that has put the 120,000 Israelis living in Ashkelon under daily fire.
Mediators like European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, are saying that an end to Palestinian rocket attacks is fundamental to finding a solution. They should take close note of the signal from Hamas leaders of a willingness to work out a truce. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has said that his group is in touch with an unidentified third party to discuss a cease-fire that would include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and an end to an Israeli blockade of Gaza. For the moment, the Hamas position seems to offer a slim hope of a way out only if Israel is forced to listen. And that is the challenge facing anyone with any influence with the Jewish state.
In the meantime, history is recording one of the worst carnages in recent history, with the world seemingly unable to do anything to check it.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The buck that can't be passed
March 3, 2008
The buck that can't be passed
No doubt the strategists in Washington watching the Iranian president's visit to Iraq this week would be trying to figure what went wrong with their careful planning that they thought had taken care of everything with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Every word Ahmadinejad spoke and every gesture he made while in Iraq was aimed as much as Washington as the people of Iraq and Iran.
There was an aura of triumph that accompanied the visit, and that is not superficial either. Iran is perhaps the best beneficiary from the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in that the US military removed two of Iran's key foes — the Taliban in Kabul and Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As such, Ahmadinejad has every reason to rejoice in the newfound Iranian-Iraqi relationship which he underlined it with seven memorandums of understanding between the two countries that were signed during his visit. The Iranian leader used every moment of the visit — he made four media appearances in 36 hours — to implicitly, and sometimes explictly, thump his nose at the US.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly harped on the theme of a "new era of relations" between Iran and Iraq, whose people he described as s world leaders in "justice and morality." That was only one of the many broadside salvoes that the Iranian president let off against the US.
Surely, those who in Washington who plotted and orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be hating themselves for their shortsightedness for having to listen to the Iranian leader declaring in Baghdad that the United States does not belong in Iraq whereas Iran does and it will help in the reconstruction of Iraq — where the US failed miserably despite having spent tens of billions of dollars.
One of the bleakest moments for the neoconservatives behind the war against Iraq must have been when Ahmadinejad suggested that Americans should take their money and leave Iraq so that "peace and stability will return to the region."
Another came when he said that unlike other foreign leaders who fly into Iraq secretly and unannounced, he had announced his visit to Iraq two months ago and there was no secrecy shrouding his schedule during the visit.
Well, the neocons have no one but themselves to blame for the humiliating but real situation they have deal with in Iraq. They brought it upon themselves in their eagerness to implement their "strategic plans" in the region that not only fell far short of their targets but went off in a direction that they least expected.
The buck that can't be passed
No doubt the strategists in Washington watching the Iranian president's visit to Iraq this week would be trying to figure what went wrong with their careful planning that they thought had taken care of everything with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Every word Ahmadinejad spoke and every gesture he made while in Iraq was aimed as much as Washington as the people of Iraq and Iran.
There was an aura of triumph that accompanied the visit, and that is not superficial either. Iran is perhaps the best beneficiary from the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in that the US military removed two of Iran's key foes — the Taliban in Kabul and Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As such, Ahmadinejad has every reason to rejoice in the newfound Iranian-Iraqi relationship which he underlined it with seven memorandums of understanding between the two countries that were signed during his visit. The Iranian leader used every moment of the visit — he made four media appearances in 36 hours — to implicitly, and sometimes explictly, thump his nose at the US.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly harped on the theme of a "new era of relations" between Iran and Iraq, whose people he described as s world leaders in "justice and morality." That was only one of the many broadside salvoes that the Iranian president let off against the US.
Surely, those who in Washington who plotted and orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be hating themselves for their shortsightedness for having to listen to the Iranian leader declaring in Baghdad that the United States does not belong in Iraq whereas Iran does and it will help in the reconstruction of Iraq — where the US failed miserably despite having spent tens of billions of dollars.
One of the bleakest moments for the neoconservatives behind the war against Iraq must have been when Ahmadinejad suggested that Americans should take their money and leave Iraq so that "peace and stability will return to the region."
Another came when he said that unlike other foreign leaders who fly into Iraq secretly and unannounced, he had announced his visit to Iraq two months ago and there was no secrecy shrouding his schedule during the visit.
Well, the neocons have no one but themselves to blame for the humiliating but real situation they have deal with in Iraq. They brought it upon themselves in their eagerness to implement their "strategic plans" in the region that not only fell far short of their targets but went off in a direction that they least expected.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
A tough Mideast mission
March 3, 2008
A tough Mideast mission for Rice
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces an almost impossible mission in her visit to the Middle East this week. With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas having declared a suspension of peace talks with Israel until the Israeli military calls off its brutal assault against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Rice's first task is to find an end to the Israeli operations. Given that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is one of US President George Bush's declared goals before he bows out of office in 2009, restoration of the so-called Annapolis process — Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — is one of Rice's top priorities. Surely, the US agreement to go along with a UN Security Council statement early on Sunday "condemning the escalation of violence" in Gaza was designed to somewhat placate the Palestinians but without any realistic change on the ground.
The Palestinians have already delcared that peace negotiations "are buried under the houses that were destroyed in Gaza...."
Indeed, as Jordan's King Abdullah II warned last week, "time is running out and we need the United States of America completely involved, to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress, and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008."
It should not have come as a shock or suprise for Washington to see its hopes of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2008 going up in the flames of Gaza. All the signs were clear for some time that a major Israeli assault against the Gaza Strip was in the offing, but the US did not even try its hand at defusing the situation. Instead, it went along with Israel's "military option" against the Hamas rulers of Gaza rather than exploring diplomatic possibilities. Obviously, the US-Israeli hope was and still is that piling pressure on the residents of the Gaza Strip would be like digging deep into the Hamas roots. We have yet to see any sign of that happening.
At the same time, there are some who expect Rice to somehow produce a formula to end the ongoing flare-up in the Gaza Strip.
They see the US secretary of state of being capable of achieving the impossible although we fail to see any such track record.
Rice is known for her regular assertions that her predecessors failed in the Middle East and she has her own methods to score success. The question is what is her definition of success in the Arab-Israeli context.
In any event, by now it should be more than clear to Rice that the very essence of the crisis in Palestine is linked to US inaction and the absence of a fair and just approach to the Palestinian problem. Washington left it to Israel to lead the way and offered it an all-protective umbrella. And Rice will find it very difficult to rein in the Israelis.
In the meantime, the carnage continues in Gaza, with fears of a wider conflict growing every day.
A tough Mideast mission for Rice
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces an almost impossible mission in her visit to the Middle East this week. With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas having declared a suspension of peace talks with Israel until the Israeli military calls off its brutal assault against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Rice's first task is to find an end to the Israeli operations. Given that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is one of US President George Bush's declared goals before he bows out of office in 2009, restoration of the so-called Annapolis process — Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — is one of Rice's top priorities. Surely, the US agreement to go along with a UN Security Council statement early on Sunday "condemning the escalation of violence" in Gaza was designed to somewhat placate the Palestinians but without any realistic change on the ground.
The Palestinians have already delcared that peace negotiations "are buried under the houses that were destroyed in Gaza...."
Indeed, as Jordan's King Abdullah II warned last week, "time is running out and we need the United States of America completely involved, to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress, and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008."
It should not have come as a shock or suprise for Washington to see its hopes of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2008 going up in the flames of Gaza. All the signs were clear for some time that a major Israeli assault against the Gaza Strip was in the offing, but the US did not even try its hand at defusing the situation. Instead, it went along with Israel's "military option" against the Hamas rulers of Gaza rather than exploring diplomatic possibilities. Obviously, the US-Israeli hope was and still is that piling pressure on the residents of the Gaza Strip would be like digging deep into the Hamas roots. We have yet to see any sign of that happening.
At the same time, there are some who expect Rice to somehow produce a formula to end the ongoing flare-up in the Gaza Strip.
They see the US secretary of state of being capable of achieving the impossible although we fail to see any such track record.
Rice is known for her regular assertions that her predecessors failed in the Middle East and she has her own methods to score success. The question is what is her definition of success in the Arab-Israeli context.
In any event, by now it should be more than clear to Rice that the very essence of the crisis in Palestine is linked to US inaction and the absence of a fair and just approach to the Palestinian problem. Washington left it to Israel to lead the way and offered it an all-protective umbrella. And Rice will find it very difficult to rein in the Israelis.
In the meantime, the carnage continues in Gaza, with fears of a wider conflict growing every day.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
March 1, 2008
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
The finding of an opinion poll this month that 64 per cent of Israelis say that the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas group in Gaza towards a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit shows an understanding among them that the Palestinian segment represented by Hamas should not be sidelined or ignored.
The relevance of the finding is that the people who have to live with the consequences of their choices as opposed to those who try to dictate to them without having to face the realities on the ground believe in dialogue with a group which is ostracised as a terrorist organisation by their government (whose position is supported only by 28 per cent).
The survey concludes that Israelis are fed up with seven years of Palestinian rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza and that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half. An increasing number of public figures, including senior military officers, have voiced similar positions on talks with Hamas.
The poll also found that the Likud voters, who are seen as the most rejectinist among all the Israelis, are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About 48 per cent of Likud voters support talks with Hamas.
The finding also sends a message to the Bush administration that it should reconsider its policy of seeking to isolate Hamas, which swept more than 75 per cent of votes in 2006 elections, and acting as if the group does not exist.
Of course, it is unrealistic to expect any serving American official to tell Israel to read the right signals in the poll's findings and initiate a dialogue with Hamas. It would be political suicide for anyone to do so.
Indeed, Hamas's refusal to accept the three basic conditions — renunciation of armed resistance, recognition of Israel and acceptance of past Israeli-Palestinian agreements — is a non-starter. At the same time, the Hamas calls for a "long-term" cease-fire with Israel indicates the group's willingness to deal with the Jewish state, which it is refusing to recognise.
Hamas is keeping Israel guessing about its intentions, but it is implicit that the group would be willing to enter realistic peace negotiations with the Jewish state provided that the latter makes it clear that it is willing to accept the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are the basis for any peace agreement. The people of Israel seem to have understood it while their government is continuing to feign otherwise.
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
The finding of an opinion poll this month that 64 per cent of Israelis say that the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas group in Gaza towards a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit shows an understanding among them that the Palestinian segment represented by Hamas should not be sidelined or ignored.
The relevance of the finding is that the people who have to live with the consequences of their choices as opposed to those who try to dictate to them without having to face the realities on the ground believe in dialogue with a group which is ostracised as a terrorist organisation by their government (whose position is supported only by 28 per cent).
The survey concludes that Israelis are fed up with seven years of Palestinian rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza and that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half. An increasing number of public figures, including senior military officers, have voiced similar positions on talks with Hamas.
The poll also found that the Likud voters, who are seen as the most rejectinist among all the Israelis, are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About 48 per cent of Likud voters support talks with Hamas.
The finding also sends a message to the Bush administration that it should reconsider its policy of seeking to isolate Hamas, which swept more than 75 per cent of votes in 2006 elections, and acting as if the group does not exist.
Of course, it is unrealistic to expect any serving American official to tell Israel to read the right signals in the poll's findings and initiate a dialogue with Hamas. It would be political suicide for anyone to do so.
Indeed, Hamas's refusal to accept the three basic conditions — renunciation of armed resistance, recognition of Israel and acceptance of past Israeli-Palestinian agreements — is a non-starter. At the same time, the Hamas calls for a "long-term" cease-fire with Israel indicates the group's willingness to deal with the Jewish state, which it is refusing to recognise.
Hamas is keeping Israel guessing about its intentions, but it is implicit that the group would be willing to enter realistic peace negotiations with the Jewish state provided that the latter makes it clear that it is willing to accept the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are the basis for any peace agreement. The people of Israel seem to have understood it while their government is continuing to feign otherwise.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
February 29, 2008
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
It does not really matter what the US presidential hopeful are promising today to end their country's military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some have already vowed to "bring home the boys" in months after entering the White House if elected as president. In reality, none of them — whether Republican or Democrat — would be able to deliver on the promise and the crisis will drag on for years, with even the 2013 occupant of the White House prosecuting the wars.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, has put it accurately:
"On Inauguration Day, 2013, Americans will find our ruling interventionists – Republican or Democrat – have US forces fighting in Iraq; have more forces fighting in Afghanistan; have committed forces in places like the Balkans and Darfur; and have motivated millions more Muslims to join the jihad by their policies' impact."
The reasons for the US being rendered unable to disengage itself from the wars are also clear.
Notwithstanding his/her pre-election promises, no successful US presidential candidate would be able to override the imperatives set by the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Those imperatives will continue to be based on the realisation that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created several monsters that Washington is no longer able to control. Worse still is that some of the monsters would pose serious threats to Israel and undo one of the basic goals of the US war against Iraq — remove Iraq as a potential threat to the Jewish state. If anything, the gravity of the threat today is larger than what Saddam Hussein had posed.
It is clear that militant groups like Al Qaeda, an avowed foe of Israel, have grown roots in Iraq and there is not much the US or the Iraqi authorities could do to uproot and evict it from the country. The intensity of Al Qaeda actions in Iraq might ebb or strengthen depending on particular situations, but it would continue to be an integral part of Iraq. That is one of the results of the interventionist policy that successive US administrations have followed in the Middle East for the past several decades.
Similarly, the pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, not to mention the angry and frustrated Sunnis of the country, are equally hostile to Israel. Effectively, it means that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be able to strengthen its presence there — and so would the Iranian proxy forces — and Israel's "security" interests would come under a stronger threat than that was the case when Iraq was under the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime and than is the case today. It would not be an exaggeration to envisage Iranian missiles and launchers stationed on Iraq's western border, bringing Israel that much closer to their range.
And that is why the US finds itself over a barrel in Iraq. And that is why no US president could even think of withdrawing the US military from Iraq as long as the threats to Israel remain. And those threats are as real as anything else and will remain so as long as no equitable solution is found to the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is also equally real that no US president would ever dream of "exposing" Israel's security to any potential threat, perceived or otherwise. And then it becomes crystal clear that the promises that today's presidential candidates make would turn out to be hollow once the presidential race is over and one of them enters the White House as its occupant for the next five years beginning in January 2009.
Of course, the new presidential tunes would be: The US needs to stay in Iraq to fight international terrorism, to democratise the country, to protect US energy interests and to do whatever else that could be cited as justifications, but all of them tailored to suit the occasion.
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
It does not really matter what the US presidential hopeful are promising today to end their country's military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some have already vowed to "bring home the boys" in months after entering the White House if elected as president. In reality, none of them — whether Republican or Democrat — would be able to deliver on the promise and the crisis will drag on for years, with even the 2013 occupant of the White House prosecuting the wars.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, has put it accurately:
"On Inauguration Day, 2013, Americans will find our ruling interventionists – Republican or Democrat – have US forces fighting in Iraq; have more forces fighting in Afghanistan; have committed forces in places like the Balkans and Darfur; and have motivated millions more Muslims to join the jihad by their policies' impact."
The reasons for the US being rendered unable to disengage itself from the wars are also clear.
Notwithstanding his/her pre-election promises, no successful US presidential candidate would be able to override the imperatives set by the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Those imperatives will continue to be based on the realisation that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created several monsters that Washington is no longer able to control. Worse still is that some of the monsters would pose serious threats to Israel and undo one of the basic goals of the US war against Iraq — remove Iraq as a potential threat to the Jewish state. If anything, the gravity of the threat today is larger than what Saddam Hussein had posed.
It is clear that militant groups like Al Qaeda, an avowed foe of Israel, have grown roots in Iraq and there is not much the US or the Iraqi authorities could do to uproot and evict it from the country. The intensity of Al Qaeda actions in Iraq might ebb or strengthen depending on particular situations, but it would continue to be an integral part of Iraq. That is one of the results of the interventionist policy that successive US administrations have followed in the Middle East for the past several decades.
Similarly, the pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, not to mention the angry and frustrated Sunnis of the country, are equally hostile to Israel. Effectively, it means that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be able to strengthen its presence there — and so would the Iranian proxy forces — and Israel's "security" interests would come under a stronger threat than that was the case when Iraq was under the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime and than is the case today. It would not be an exaggeration to envisage Iranian missiles and launchers stationed on Iraq's western border, bringing Israel that much closer to their range.
And that is why the US finds itself over a barrel in Iraq. And that is why no US president could even think of withdrawing the US military from Iraq as long as the threats to Israel remain. And those threats are as real as anything else and will remain so as long as no equitable solution is found to the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is also equally real that no US president would ever dream of "exposing" Israel's security to any potential threat, perceived or otherwise. And then it becomes crystal clear that the promises that today's presidential candidates make would turn out to be hollow once the presidential race is over and one of them enters the White House as its occupant for the next five years beginning in January 2009.
Of course, the new presidential tunes would be: The US needs to stay in Iraq to fight international terrorism, to democratise the country, to protect US energy interests and to do whatever else that could be cited as justifications, but all of them tailored to suit the occasion.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Hopes for better traffic discipline
February 28, 2008
Hopes for better traffic discipline
THE introduction of a "black point" system against motorists violating traffic regulations with effect from March 1 is a highly welcome move, given high number of accidents on UAE roads and the unruly traffic scenes that have become a feature of daily life in the country.
There is little doubt that misguided and arrogant driving styles with little regard for public saftey are behind the steady rise in fatalities from accidents in the country.
As statistics indicate, one person is killed every 30 to 36 hours on the country's roads.
The traffic deadlocks on many roads in the morning and evening hours have to be seen to be believed, but then that is not news for any motorist who ventures out during the peak periods. Everyone lives through it, but it is all the more frustrating to see some trying to be more "road smart" and others and causing great inconvenience to others. Not many would appear to be bothered about traffic signs and regulations beyond the moment they obtain a driving licence.
The problem needed a tough no-nonsense approach and that is what the authorities have adopted.
The introduction of "black points" system — which places the UAE in among the most advanced countries — will coincide with the enforcement of the newly-amended federal traffic law stipulating stricter penalties.
However, no one would be able to complain that the move comes as a surprise and that it caught anyone by surprise. The traffic authorities are planning an effective awareness campaign during which the newly amended law and the associated penalties will be highlighted. The ultimate goal of the campaign, as Ministry of Interior Under-Secretary Saif Abdullah Al Shafar explained, is to encourage a new culture of driving across the country.
Hopefully, the awareness campaign also targets pedestrians since there is a steady increase in the number of people who cross streets without following traffic rules. The number of pedestrians being killed, represent 30 to 40 per cent of total deaths on UAE roads every year. Indeed, it is as if it is no one's business that we see people crossing major highways and jumping over the barricade simply because it saves them some time and effort but such actions endanger not only those who practise it but also others who happen to be using the same roads at the same time.
Effectively, the UAE is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to violations of traffic regulations and reckless driving that is a serious threat to anyone and everyone using the country's roads.
And those who not get the message inherent in the "black points" system would get it when it hits them where it hurts the most. That is the one of the most effective means to address the problem.
Indeed, monetary losses might not matter at all for a few, but, hopefully, we would be able to see better traffic discipline on the country's roads soon.
Hopes for better traffic discipline
THE introduction of a "black point" system against motorists violating traffic regulations with effect from March 1 is a highly welcome move, given high number of accidents on UAE roads and the unruly traffic scenes that have become a feature of daily life in the country.
There is little doubt that misguided and arrogant driving styles with little regard for public saftey are behind the steady rise in fatalities from accidents in the country.
As statistics indicate, one person is killed every 30 to 36 hours on the country's roads.
The traffic deadlocks on many roads in the morning and evening hours have to be seen to be believed, but then that is not news for any motorist who ventures out during the peak periods. Everyone lives through it, but it is all the more frustrating to see some trying to be more "road smart" and others and causing great inconvenience to others. Not many would appear to be bothered about traffic signs and regulations beyond the moment they obtain a driving licence.
The problem needed a tough no-nonsense approach and that is what the authorities have adopted.
The introduction of "black points" system — which places the UAE in among the most advanced countries — will coincide with the enforcement of the newly-amended federal traffic law stipulating stricter penalties.
However, no one would be able to complain that the move comes as a surprise and that it caught anyone by surprise. The traffic authorities are planning an effective awareness campaign during which the newly amended law and the associated penalties will be highlighted. The ultimate goal of the campaign, as Ministry of Interior Under-Secretary Saif Abdullah Al Shafar explained, is to encourage a new culture of driving across the country.
Hopefully, the awareness campaign also targets pedestrians since there is a steady increase in the number of people who cross streets without following traffic rules. The number of pedestrians being killed, represent 30 to 40 per cent of total deaths on UAE roads every year. Indeed, it is as if it is no one's business that we see people crossing major highways and jumping over the barricade simply because it saves them some time and effort but such actions endanger not only those who practise it but also others who happen to be using the same roads at the same time.
Effectively, the UAE is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to violations of traffic regulations and reckless driving that is a serious threat to anyone and everyone using the country's roads.
And those who not get the message inherent in the "black points" system would get it when it hits them where it hurts the most. That is the one of the most effective means to address the problem.
Indeed, monetary losses might not matter at all for a few, but, hopefully, we would be able to see better traffic discipline on the country's roads soon.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
February 27, 2008
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
THE Feb.12 killing of the top Hizbollah commander, Imad Mugnieh, in Damascus seems to have been a well-designed and well-timed catalyst for a chain of events leading into chaos in Lebanon and disintegration of hopes for collective Arab action to address the spiralling crises in the region.
There is little doubt among a majority of the people in this part of the world that Israel was behind the Mughnieh killing that was carried out as part of a broader picture that involves Hizbollah retaliation leading to yet another violent flare-up in which the Jewish state hopes to accomplish the job it failed to do during its war on the Lebanese group in the summer of 2006.
In the word's of an expert on such issues, "the Israeli Mossad killed Mugnieh, and killed him for specific political reasons, at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government’s point of view."
Suggestions have appeared in the Israeli media that Hizbollah is planning retaliatory action for Mugnieh's killing in the fourth week of March. According to Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, Hizballah has timed its reprisal for March 22-23 — 40 days after Mughnieh was killed in the Syrian capital.
The very fact that Yadlin made the "revelation" during a meeting with the Israeli parliament'st foreign affairs and security committee indicates that he was telling the parliamentarians to expect another flare-up. What he might have stopped short of saying could be that Israel, , where strategists work overtime and round the clock, is well-prepared to handle any situation and the results of the expected clash with Hizbollah would make up for the stinging defeat Israel suffered in the summer of 2006.
That is not all. Given the way Iran has reacted to the Mughnieh killing, there is little doubt that it would add its weight to any revenge for the assassination. That has clearly emerged in the stepped-up hard talk coming from Tehran in recent days. It is difficult at best to predict the consequences of such Iranian action.
The worsening political deadlock in Lebanon, where neither the government and the Hizbollah-led opposition seems ready to budge from their positions, has turned the country into the perfect arena for Israel's desire to settle its scores with Hizbollah, particularly that its political leaders are under bitter fire for their conduct of the 2006 conflict.
Definitely, Yadlin, the Israeli military intelligence chief, has not overlooked that the next Arab summit is scheduled to be held in Damascus several days after the Israeli-expected Hizbollah reprisal for Mughnieh's killing.
Surely, Israel is cooking something, and it already smells worse than usual.
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
THE Feb.12 killing of the top Hizbollah commander, Imad Mugnieh, in Damascus seems to have been a well-designed and well-timed catalyst for a chain of events leading into chaos in Lebanon and disintegration of hopes for collective Arab action to address the spiralling crises in the region.
There is little doubt among a majority of the people in this part of the world that Israel was behind the Mughnieh killing that was carried out as part of a broader picture that involves Hizbollah retaliation leading to yet another violent flare-up in which the Jewish state hopes to accomplish the job it failed to do during its war on the Lebanese group in the summer of 2006.
In the word's of an expert on such issues, "the Israeli Mossad killed Mugnieh, and killed him for specific political reasons, at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government’s point of view."
Suggestions have appeared in the Israeli media that Hizbollah is planning retaliatory action for Mugnieh's killing in the fourth week of March. According to Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, Hizballah has timed its reprisal for March 22-23 — 40 days after Mughnieh was killed in the Syrian capital.
The very fact that Yadlin made the "revelation" during a meeting with the Israeli parliament'st foreign affairs and security committee indicates that he was telling the parliamentarians to expect another flare-up. What he might have stopped short of saying could be that Israel, , where strategists work overtime and round the clock, is well-prepared to handle any situation and the results of the expected clash with Hizbollah would make up for the stinging defeat Israel suffered in the summer of 2006.
That is not all. Given the way Iran has reacted to the Mughnieh killing, there is little doubt that it would add its weight to any revenge for the assassination. That has clearly emerged in the stepped-up hard talk coming from Tehran in recent days. It is difficult at best to predict the consequences of such Iranian action.
The worsening political deadlock in Lebanon, where neither the government and the Hizbollah-led opposition seems ready to budge from their positions, has turned the country into the perfect arena for Israel's desire to settle its scores with Hizbollah, particularly that its political leaders are under bitter fire for their conduct of the 2006 conflict.
Definitely, Yadlin, the Israeli military intelligence chief, has not overlooked that the next Arab summit is scheduled to be held in Damascus several days after the Israeli-expected Hizbollah reprisal for Mughnieh's killing.
Surely, Israel is cooking something, and it already smells worse than usual.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Yet another reminder of double standards
February 25, 2008
Yet another reminder of double standards
THE suggestion last week by a senior Palestinian political figure, Yasser Abed Rabbo, for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence might or might not be a good idea depending on how deep and close anyone opts to study its pros and cons. Other Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, were cool to the proposal and that seems to have settled the issue for the moment.
Surely, the idea would be broached upon on and off again in view of the certainty that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would be moving ahead only at snail's pace, with key issues left unaddressed, while the situation on the ground continues to worsen.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, critics say, would have negative consequences for the Palestinian struggle for an equitable, fair and just solution because the Palestinians are not in physical control of the proposed-to-be-independent territory. It will also let Israel off the hook since the Jewish state would no longer feel obliged to continue negotiations with the Palestinians and would be free to deal with the post-declaration situation in the way it finds fit.
By nature and definition, the Palestinian problem was never a bilateral issue involving the Israeli occupation authorities and the Palestinians who are denied their right to independent statehood despite the legitimacy of their cause as enshrined in the UN Charter and mandatory resolutions of the world body. The international community, particularly the US by virtue of its frenzied support for Israel, remained very much involved, casting a negative influence in the search for a fair and just solution to the problem.
And the US and the European Union are cool at best to the idea of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence — an irony and paradox when seen against their enthusiasm to help and recognise the Kosovars' unilateral declaration of independence.
At issue here is not whether the Kosovan move was right or wrong. The Kosovans exercised what they thought was the best for them and they would enjoy the fruits of their decision or bear negative consequences, if any.. However, what made a big difference in their case was the support they enjoyed from the US and European Union countries, who did not have any problem that the Kosovar move was unilateral and it led to the amputatation of a recognised member state of the UN whereas they argue against a similar move by the Palestinians. Never mind that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not recognised as part of the territory of a recognised member of the UN. Never mind that the Kosovan quest for independence was only nine years old whereas the Palestinian problem is more than 40 years old.
Never mind that 100 per cent of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip want independence whereas only less than 90 per cent of the residents of Kosova wanted separation from Serbia. Never mind that the US and European Union ignore Serbian objections to the Kosovar move whereas they insist the Palestinians should secure a Israeli agreement for whatever they want for the future of their territory.
Indeed, the double standards that the US and other big powers apply when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem has always been one of the key hurdles in the way to a fair and just solution to end the plight of the Palestinian people. Their approach to the Kosovar move has yet again underlined this reality and reminded the world of their selective application of rules for international justice and fairness.
Yet another reminder of double standards
THE suggestion last week by a senior Palestinian political figure, Yasser Abed Rabbo, for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence might or might not be a good idea depending on how deep and close anyone opts to study its pros and cons. Other Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, were cool to the proposal and that seems to have settled the issue for the moment.
Surely, the idea would be broached upon on and off again in view of the certainty that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would be moving ahead only at snail's pace, with key issues left unaddressed, while the situation on the ground continues to worsen.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, critics say, would have negative consequences for the Palestinian struggle for an equitable, fair and just solution because the Palestinians are not in physical control of the proposed-to-be-independent territory. It will also let Israel off the hook since the Jewish state would no longer feel obliged to continue negotiations with the Palestinians and would be free to deal with the post-declaration situation in the way it finds fit.
By nature and definition, the Palestinian problem was never a bilateral issue involving the Israeli occupation authorities and the Palestinians who are denied their right to independent statehood despite the legitimacy of their cause as enshrined in the UN Charter and mandatory resolutions of the world body. The international community, particularly the US by virtue of its frenzied support for Israel, remained very much involved, casting a negative influence in the search for a fair and just solution to the problem.
And the US and the European Union are cool at best to the idea of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence — an irony and paradox when seen against their enthusiasm to help and recognise the Kosovars' unilateral declaration of independence.
At issue here is not whether the Kosovan move was right or wrong. The Kosovans exercised what they thought was the best for them and they would enjoy the fruits of their decision or bear negative consequences, if any.. However, what made a big difference in their case was the support they enjoyed from the US and European Union countries, who did not have any problem that the Kosovar move was unilateral and it led to the amputatation of a recognised member state of the UN whereas they argue against a similar move by the Palestinians. Never mind that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not recognised as part of the territory of a recognised member of the UN. Never mind that the Kosovan quest for independence was only nine years old whereas the Palestinian problem is more than 40 years old.
Never mind that 100 per cent of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip want independence whereas only less than 90 per cent of the residents of Kosova wanted separation from Serbia. Never mind that the US and European Union ignore Serbian objections to the Kosovar move whereas they insist the Palestinians should secure a Israeli agreement for whatever they want for the future of their territory.
Indeed, the double standards that the US and other big powers apply when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem has always been one of the key hurdles in the way to a fair and just solution to end the plight of the Palestinian people. Their approach to the Kosovar move has yet again underlined this reality and reminded the world of their selective application of rules for international justice and fairness.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Powderkegs one too many
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.
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.
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.
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}