Iran nuclear dispute — only a facade

Iran nuclear dispute —  only a facade


By PV Vivekanand


The rather abrupt shift in media focus to the possibility of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities seems to indicate that the US is poised to use military force yet again in order to bring about "strategic" changes to serve its interests in the region.
With seven months to go before George W Bush bows out of the White House, there seems to be a growing sense of urgency for military action against Iran.
Given Washington's troubles in Iraq and its vulnerability in the region, it would seem unlikely that the Bush administration would approve or engage in military action against Iran. However, there is much more at stake than the nuclear dispute for the US to have decided to go for military action against Iran.
There is a host of compelling reasons for Washington to seek to change the geopolitical shape of Iran, beginning with the theocratic regime which the US sees as a perpetual challenge to its quest for regional dominance and a military threat to its "strategic ally" Israel.
Foremost in the minds of those hawks in Washington who orchestrated the 2001 war against Afghanistan and 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is that Iran benefited most from the US actions.
The Afghan war saw the hard-line Taliban, who were a nagging thorn on the Iranian side, being ousted from power. The invasion of Iraq removed Iran's foe Saddam Hussein from power and brought in Tehran's allies to power in Baghdad who are unable or unwilling to sever their bindings with the Iranian leadership. And it is also clear that Iran's proxy forces are indirectly engaged in the highly effective guerrilla war Iraq if only not to allow the US military to settle down there and train their guns eastwards.
Tehran has not only gained dominating influence in Iraq but is also using that clout to frustrate all American efforts to realise Washington's strategic objectives in Iraq and the rest of the region.
And the Washington hawks are painfully aware that they could be held accountable at some point, sooner than later, for their strategic failures and blunders in Iraq that led to Iran emerging as a dominating regional player at the expense of American interests.
And that is why the hawks seem to be clamouring for military action aimed at bringing about geopolitical changes that they hope would not only deprive Iran of its newfound regional dominance but also remove it as a threat and challenge to the US.
Obviously, the Washington hard-liners are hoping that the situation resulting from "regime change" in Iran would be vindicate their failures in Iraq.

Advance notice

Recent reports of Israeli preparations for military strikes against Iran seem to be intended as advance notice to prepare the international community for the US use of force to neutralise Iran.
However, a realistic assessment shows that Israel does not have the military capability to destroy all Iran's nuclear sites within a safe time span. It cannot effectively check the Iranian nuclear programme without drawing massive Iranian retaliation against US and allied interests in the region. Iranian leaders have said that they would hold the US responsible for any military action — including Israeli strikes — against their country.
In view of the finding that the Israeli air force may be too small to finish the job of bombing out Iranian nuclear installations — which experts say would take as many as 1,000 strikes to be destroyed since they are too distant, numerous and fortified — the consensus is that it has to be a joint US-Israeli operation.
Many observers in the US are convinced that the planned military operation would not be limited to crippling Iran's nuclear programme and would aim at "regime change" in Tehran by creating a situation where the people of Iran are encouraged to rise up and topple against the theocratic regime.

'Nuclear option'

Part of such action, observers argue, is the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" for the first time in history (The atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "tactical weapons," which were developed after World War II). Such weapons are supposed to have devastating results within limited areas and they would "take care" of most of Iran's underground nuclear facilities as well as defensive and offensive capabilties, according to experts.
Strengthening the argument is a growing belief that the US is edging closer to using nuclear weapons again, 63 years after it did so in Japan, in order to reaffirm its global dominance.
The American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement in 2006 expressing deep concern in this context: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for pre-emptive counter-proliferation purposes."
The society's concern is particularly relevant since Bush has refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.
At a White House press conference in April 2006, Bush was asked: "When you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
Bush replied: "All options are on the table."
Few people attach any meaning to repeated statements by Bush and other senior US officials that they want to solve the nuclear dispute with Iran through diplomatic means.
The key question now is: If the US is indeed determined to stage military action against Iran, then when could anyone expect it?
One of the re-election pledges that Bush made to his hard-line Republican camp in October 2004 was to effect "regime change" in Iran before he leaves office. That leaves us with a clear seven months from now. The rest is subject to speculation and conjecture.

Truce should not be a smokescreen

June 19, 2008

Truce should not be a smokescreen


A CEASEFIRE is supposed to take effect on Thursday between Israel and Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip with hopes that it would hold and contain tensions and check an expected Israeli military offensive against the Mediterrean coastal strip.
Egypt and Hamas, which controls the coastal strip, announced the the Egyptian-proposed ceasefire (tahadiyeh) on Tuesday and Israel officially confirmed it on Wednesday and promised to ease its blockade of Gaza next week.
The first beneficiary of the truce should be the ordinary Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip under the choking Israeli siege. Living conditions are reported to be at one of the worst points ever in the Gaza Strip and the promised easing of the Israeli blockade should be a major relief for them.
Residents of southern Israel should also be relieved since the ceasefire means an end to the daily rocket attacks against them coming from the Gaza Strip.
Hamas will be in charge of the Rafah border crossing — when it is reopened — and this should allow Gazans to secure their food and needs of basic commodities.
Israel has agreed to work separately on a a deal to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who is believed to be held by several groups, including Hamas allies.
Releasing Shalit will come only in return for freeing a large number of Palestinian prisoners.
Beyond an end to Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel and Israeli military strikes against the Gaza Strip as well as an easing of the Israeli blockade, the ceasefire deal has an impact on reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah.
It offers Hamas a political and diplomatic plus point that will also give it some leverage in dealing with Fatah. It offers Hamas, rather than Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, the power to force a cease-fire in the West Bank. Reports in the Israeli press acknowledge that if quiet is maintained in the south, Israel will have to extend the truce to the West Bank in another six months.
Abbas is expected to make his first visit to Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area last year, in an effort to negotiate an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Now he faces a politically strengthened Hamas. That is how many see the evolving situation.
However, the fact should not be overlooked that Hamas represents a major segment of the Palestinian community and it has proved its strength in legislative elections. As such, its involvement is essential in any serious and realistic effort for peace in Palestine. Fatah and other Palestinian groups have recognised it. Israel also needs to accept it and should not see the current ceasefire as a convenient and temporary arrangement that would allow it to come up with new measures to contain Palestinian resistance to its occupation of Palestinian territories.

More than meets the eye in Shebaa Farms offer

More than meets the eye in Shebaa Farms offer


by pv vivekanand

A GRAND scheme is said to be drawn up behind the scene for an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement starting with a face-to-face meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. However, the success of the French-inspired initiative depends on many factors, including the political fortunes of Olmert, who is caught up in a corruption scandal, and whether the Israeli political and military establishments would agree to any compromise that would lead to the return to Syria of the occupied Golan Heights.
An overriding element is a suspicion that the plan aims only at removing Lebanon from the Arab-Israeli conflict and weakening Syria's position in dealing with the Jewish state.
As the first step of the initiative, Olmert has reportedly told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he was ready to withdraw Israeli troops from the Shebaa Farms and hand over the area on the slopes of the Golan Heights to the UN.
The Shebaa Farms enclave was occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as part of the Golan and as such was later recognised by the UN. Syria later said the Shebaa Farms were part of Lebanon and this offered the Lebanese Hizbollah with the justification for continued armed resistance against Israel and the group's own existence as a resistance group. Israel, which quit Lebanon in 2000 after a 17-year occupation, giving up the Shebaa Farms area now would pull the rug from under the Syrian-backed Hizbollah argument.
Rice, who received Olmert's offer on Sunday, travelled to Beirut on Monday and delivered the message to Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister-designate Fuad Siniora with an emphatic statement that the US wishes to see " an early settlement to the Shebaa Farms issue.”
Olmert's offer is said to be part of the French-led effort to bring him face to face with Assad at a Mediterranean conference in Paris in mid-July in what could prove out to be a landmark in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Olmert has not presented the Shebaa Farms offer to his coalition government. It is known that Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli military commanders are opposed to the idea because they believe that Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms would expose its military positions on the northwestern slopes of the Golan Heights to the Syrian military.
The Israeli military also says that handing over the area to the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon will extend the force’s control over South Lebanon to this strategic sector and thus offer Hizbollah freedom of action in the area.
In a broader context, returning the Golan to Syria is a highly sensitive issue for Israel since the strategic plateau accounts for the sources of more than 70 per cent of the Jewish state's water needs. Olmert would find himself under immense political pressure not only from the hawkish Likud-led opposition but also from his coalition partners against any such compromise.
However, that has not stopped him from authorising indirect negotiations with Syria.
Israeli and Syrian officials have been meeting under Turkish mediation for what is described as indirect dialogue. The next meeting is scheduled to be held next month.
It is believed that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is behind the Shebaa Farms initiative and he secured US approval of the idea during US President George W Bush's visit to Paris last week.
Under the initiative, it is reported, Israel will make a formal announcement in early July that it is ready to give up the Shebaa Farms. Subsequently, a joint US-French-Israeli statement will be issued saying Israel’s willingness to give up the Shebaa Farms is part of an overall understanding that would lead to its evacuation of the Golan.
Two French emissaries, Sarkozy adviser Jean-David Levit and office manager Claude Gueant, travelled to Damascus and presented the offer to Assad. And two of the Israeli officials who took part in the Turkish-mediated indirect talks flew to Paris on Monday to brief the French government on the outcome of their effort.
None of the parties involved has officially acknowledged the French initiative, which Sarkozy hopes would be one of the highlights of the Conference of Mediterranean States in Paris on July 13. The French leader hopes that the event will be attended by Olmert and Assad, who will also be Sarkozy's guest at the Bastille Day parade the next day. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the French parliament this week that "Assad will be sitting at the same table as Olmert" next month's Paris conference. Syria has yet to confirm it.
Earlier, Assad reportedly told the two French envoys. Levit and Gueant, that the offer withdraw from the Shebaa Farms is not enough. There has to be an explicit Israeli declaration of intention to return the Golan Heights to Syria.
Obviously, Sarkozy is hoping that the promised joint US-French-Israeli statement expected to be issued in the first week of July should satisfy Assad and clear the way for direct peace negotiations between Syria and Israel.
Israeli President Shimon Peres has called on Syria to enter direct talks, citing the example of former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, who forged a peace agreement with the Jewish state after a visit to occupied Jerusalem in 1978.
However, Assad said this month that direct peace talks with Israel were unlikely before 2009 and depended on the political future of Olmert, who has been dogged by calls for his resignation over a corruption scandal.
Assad should also be mindful that Israel could limit the practical implementation of the plan to the Shebaa Farms and thus officially end the "Israeli-Lebanese conflict" and neutralise Hizbollah. That would see Syria losing its Lebanon card and on its own grappling with Israel over the Golan Heights.
Simply put, Syria is in a far better position to deal with Israel while the Lebanon front remains active and it would be much too weak if Lebanon is removed from the equation.
As such, it is natural that Assad is careful to the point of being sceptical of the US position that Washington is pressing for an Israeli withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms. Rice told Lebanese leaders during her recent visit to Beirut that the US is stepping up its efforts into pressing Israel to evacuate the Shebaa Farms.
Rice also said Bush is determined to resolve the Shebaa Farms issue and has requested the UN to send a mission to inspect the situation on the ground there.
The key to the success of the initiative is mutual trust among the players. Washington has to take into consideration that Damascus has every reason to be sceptical of the US motivations and intentions as well as Olmert's ability to deliver on any of his promises.
Clearly, it is up to Bush and Rice to convince Assad that next month's Israeli declaration would definitely lead to a serious and meaningful process involving an honourable and dignified peace agreement that covers every aspect of the Israeli-Syrian conflict. Only then, we could expect to see Assad "sitting at the same table as Olmert" as Kouchner has promised.

Back to chaos?

June 18, 2008

Back to chaos?

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.

War of words benefits enemy

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.