February 4, 2007
Self-denial? Ignorance?
Or secret strategy?
The consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies that even if US President George W. Bush's new Iraq plan succeeds militarily by quelling violence in Baghdad, the country's political leaders may fail to avert disaster places the finger right on the pulse of the crisis facing the US. The truth is that the situation is beyond salvation for the US and it has to blame only itself for the debacle. Any US effort to disengage itself from Iraq should start from the realisation that Washington has miserably failed to realise its objectives in post-war Iraq and it is too late for it to launch a fresh effort.
However, the Bush administration is not yet willing to do so. It still argues that the battle against insurgency in Iraq could be won and it could jump back to a position where it could have a US/Israeli-friendly government in Baghdad (never mind even if it is not acceptable to the people of the country) which will sign away lucrative oil contracts with US companies and act as a US proxy in the Arab World. In order to arrive at that point, the US has to pacify the Iraqis and hand over key control of the country to them. Washington still believes this could be done.
That is not a view shared by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), although it does buttress Bush's position by cautioning against a hasty US withdrawal -- but challenges some of the basic underpinnings of the president's plan for Iraq.
The NIE predicts that Iraqi security forces would not be in a position to take over control from the US military by this November as called for in Bush's latest Iraq plan.
And "even if violence is diminished, given the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene, Iraqi leaders will be hard pressed to achieve sustained political reconciliation," says the NIE.
The NIE also rejected the White House's efforts to pin the blame for the Iraq crisis on Iran.
The report agreed that "Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq." However, the involvement of Iran or Syria in Iraq "is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian dynamics," it said.
It is precisely the "internal sectarian dynamics" that spells failure for all American hopes and efforts to stabilise Iraq and advance Washington's objectives there.
Instead of acknowledging this reality and accepting the wisdom of the entire publicly known intelligence community of the US , the White House applied a selective approach. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley grabbed and used the NIS's warning of "spiralling violence and political disarray" in Iraq if US forces stage a hasty withdrawal to argue in favour of continued American presence in the country.
Withdrawal from Iraq would mean giving Al Qaeda a safe haven in Iraq and result in risk and threats to the United States, Hadley said, echoing Bush and others.
Defence Secretary Robert Gates enaged in semantics to argue against the term "civil war" to describe the ongoing Sunni-Shiite conflict there. Again, no matter how Washington might want to describe it, the conflict is nothing but civil war.
The NIE report was emphatic. It said "the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilisation, and population displacements."
The NIE report was not prepared by critics or enemies of the Bush administration. It was drawn up by experts after closely studying the developments and situation in Iraq with strong intelligence inputs. The White House's dismissal of its key observations consolidates the conviction that it is dead bent upon following a disastrous course in Iraq. Is it self-denial? Is it ignorance? Or is it a secret strategy? It could be any of the three or a combination of all, but it would make little difference to the catastrophe that awaits the US plans in Iraq, heralding with it more agony, grief and suffering for the people of that strife-torn country.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Saving troubles for all concerned
February 8, 2007
Saving troubles for all concerned
THE CASE OF 17 Sri Lankan migrant workers who paid $2,000 each for lucrative jobs in the Gulf but taken to Iraq instead is only the tip of an iceberg. There are thousands of Asian workers trapped in Iraq and forced to work for US military contractors at the risk of losing their lives in the strife-torn country.
Most Asian governments have imposed bans on their nationals taking up employment in Iraq. However, that has not really checked the flow of Asian workers who are enticed by offers of monthly salaries amounting to 10 times that they make at home.
In the case of the 17 Sri Lankans, the official version is that they believed they were being taken to a Gulf country to work and it was only when they were exposed to the bitter cold after landing that they realised it was Iraq. "It was up to two weeks before they actually realised that they were not in a country in the Gulf but actually in Iraq," according to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which rescued them and flew them back home.
The 17 were fortunate to have been able to contact the UN and through it the IOM. As long as they remained in Iraq, their life was at risk. There are thousands like them who were not as lucky as them.
A US investigation conducted two years ago established that many Asian workers were forced to work for US contractors at US military camps in Iraq. They were threatened and intimidated into continuing there, with the US authorities taking little or no action despite being aware of what was going on. In some cases, the US commanders of the camps knew that the contractors were not even paying the workers their salaries but did nothing arguing that it was an affair that involved only the contractors and workers.
Only a dozen or so cases have been reported so far of Asian workers getting caught in the crossfire between the US forces and insurgents and getting killed, but that is only a scratch on the surface. Such cases get reported only when the identity of the deceased has been established and the death reported to the concerned diplomatic mission.
In a country where dozens of tortured and mutilated bodies turn up every day, establishing the identities of the dead is a difficult task. Since morgues perennially out of space, bodies are kept for a day or two for families to identify. Unidentified bodies are buried without ceremony, with little or no documentation for any follow-up if ever it happens. Such is the chaos that prevails in Iraq today.
The irony is that there seems to be little that Asian governments could do to block the flow of workers to Iraq. We do come across reports once in a while of Asian workers being prevented from boarding Iraq-bound planes from Gulf airports. Again these are odd cases that are exposed, while the bulk of the flow goes unchecked and unreported.
Indeed, the main reasons are poverty and unemployment that drive Asians to seek unemployment abroad. And the culprits are unscrupulous "employment agents" who exploit them and the exploitation is not limited to Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines, India or Pakistan.
In most cases where exploitation of workers is exposed, corruption and political influence take the central stage, and the "agents" walk away without punishment. The governments of the countries involved bear the bulk of responsibility because they maintain a loose system.
The UAE has taken the lead in entering into bilateral agreements with Asian countries in order to prevent the exploitation of workers and check the unorganised flow of migrant labourers across borders. Such agreements benefit everyone concerned because loopholes in the system are plugged. Countries which host foreign workers remain updated of the flow and the countries of origin of workers could make sure that their nationals would not be taken for a ride. Workers themselves are spared the agony of having to pay hefty amounts for employment and then finding themselves left high and dry once they land in a foreign country dreaming of a better life ahead.
As such, the system looks and sounds ideal. However, the governments of countries of origin of workers have to live up to their side of the bargain by not only enacting tough rules and regulations but also enforcing them without compromise. Indeed, it could not be done overnight, but that does not mean the governments should give up or slacken their determination to stamp out exploitation.
Strengthening the pace and enforcement of rules and regulations would save everyone a lot of trouble on all sides.
Saving troubles for all concerned
THE CASE OF 17 Sri Lankan migrant workers who paid $2,000 each for lucrative jobs in the Gulf but taken to Iraq instead is only the tip of an iceberg. There are thousands of Asian workers trapped in Iraq and forced to work for US military contractors at the risk of losing their lives in the strife-torn country.
Most Asian governments have imposed bans on their nationals taking up employment in Iraq. However, that has not really checked the flow of Asian workers who are enticed by offers of monthly salaries amounting to 10 times that they make at home.
In the case of the 17 Sri Lankans, the official version is that they believed they were being taken to a Gulf country to work and it was only when they were exposed to the bitter cold after landing that they realised it was Iraq. "It was up to two weeks before they actually realised that they were not in a country in the Gulf but actually in Iraq," according to the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which rescued them and flew them back home.
The 17 were fortunate to have been able to contact the UN and through it the IOM. As long as they remained in Iraq, their life was at risk. There are thousands like them who were not as lucky as them.
A US investigation conducted two years ago established that many Asian workers were forced to work for US contractors at US military camps in Iraq. They were threatened and intimidated into continuing there, with the US authorities taking little or no action despite being aware of what was going on. In some cases, the US commanders of the camps knew that the contractors were not even paying the workers their salaries but did nothing arguing that it was an affair that involved only the contractors and workers.
Only a dozen or so cases have been reported so far of Asian workers getting caught in the crossfire between the US forces and insurgents and getting killed, but that is only a scratch on the surface. Such cases get reported only when the identity of the deceased has been established and the death reported to the concerned diplomatic mission.
In a country where dozens of tortured and mutilated bodies turn up every day, establishing the identities of the dead is a difficult task. Since morgues perennially out of space, bodies are kept for a day or two for families to identify. Unidentified bodies are buried without ceremony, with little or no documentation for any follow-up if ever it happens. Such is the chaos that prevails in Iraq today.
The irony is that there seems to be little that Asian governments could do to block the flow of workers to Iraq. We do come across reports once in a while of Asian workers being prevented from boarding Iraq-bound planes from Gulf airports. Again these are odd cases that are exposed, while the bulk of the flow goes unchecked and unreported.
Indeed, the main reasons are poverty and unemployment that drive Asians to seek unemployment abroad. And the culprits are unscrupulous "employment agents" who exploit them and the exploitation is not limited to Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, the Philippines, India or Pakistan.
In most cases where exploitation of workers is exposed, corruption and political influence take the central stage, and the "agents" walk away without punishment. The governments of the countries involved bear the bulk of responsibility because they maintain a loose system.
The UAE has taken the lead in entering into bilateral agreements with Asian countries in order to prevent the exploitation of workers and check the unorganised flow of migrant labourers across borders. Such agreements benefit everyone concerned because loopholes in the system are plugged. Countries which host foreign workers remain updated of the flow and the countries of origin of workers could make sure that their nationals would not be taken for a ride. Workers themselves are spared the agony of having to pay hefty amounts for employment and then finding themselves left high and dry once they land in a foreign country dreaming of a better life ahead.
As such, the system looks and sounds ideal. However, the governments of countries of origin of workers have to live up to their side of the bargain by not only enacting tough rules and regulations but also enforcing them without compromise. Indeed, it could not be done overnight, but that does not mean the governments should give up or slacken their determination to stamp out exploitation.
Strengthening the pace and enforcement of rules and regulations would save everyone a lot of trouble on all sides.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
The cause is at stake
February 7, 2007
The cause is at stake
TUESDAY's meeting in the Holy City of Makkah between Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Meshaal was portrayed by many was an effort to end the Hamas-Fatah struggle for power and the immediate focus is formation of a Palestinian national unity government to replace the Hamas-led administration. Indeed, these issues were in focus, but to limit the scope of the talks to them would be a narrow vision.
It was not as much as a deal to stop fighting with each other that was important as an agreement that addresses the deep roots of conflict between the two Palestinian streams represented by Hamas and Fatah.
At stake is the future of the Palestinian struggle for independence.
In a wider perspective, Fatah, which has adopted a secular platform, is ready to negotiate peace with Israel. The group is willing to accept compromises based on ground realities as long as the Palestinian right to set up an independent state in the territories that Israel occupied in the 1967 war with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital is recognised, respected and upheld as the basis for peace. Fatah is aware that the precise borders of the proposed state would have to take into consideration the Israeli insistence that it would not dismantle some of the largest Jewish settlements that dot the West Bank. Some form a trade-off would have to be agreed upon in order to solve the thorny issue of the future of the settlements. The status of Arab East Jerusalem and the right of the Palestinian refugees also pose serious problems in view of Israel's firm refusal to accept the Palestinian demands that Arab East Jerusalem should be their capital and the Palestinian refugees should be allowed to exercise their right to return to their ancestral land or to receive compensation for the properties they lost when Israel was created there in 1948.
On the other hand, Hamas, which bases itself of a strictly Islamist platform, want to set up an Islamic state in all of Palestine as it existed before the state of Israel was created. It argues that all those Jews who migrated to Israel should return to where they came from and the entire pre-1948 territory be handed over to the Palestinians to set up the proposed Islamic state. It is not willing to recognise Israel, renounce armed resistance and accept past agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel.
Hamas leaders are not naive to believe that these demands could be met. They have laid down these conditions as their opening gambit. Clear signals have come from various Hamas quarters that the group would be willing to accept a state within the 1967 lines, but it wants that state to be an Islamist caliphate, which Israel fears would continue to wage the quest for entire pre-1948 Palestine.
As such, the compromise that Fatah and Hamas needed to make in Makkah was clearly spelt out. They might or might not produce a breakthrough in Makkah, but they have to take the bull by the horns and come up with a common platform for the liberation of Palestine through negotiations with Israel. They need to remove their fundamental differences in approach. Forming a national unity government would indeed prove to be the soundest move but only as long as it is supported by a clear understanding of how to take forward the struggle for independence. It should not be a stop-gap tactic that would only put off to a future date a bitter fight to the finish.
The entire Arab World is appealing to the Fatah and Hamas leaders: The fate of the Palestinian people is in your hands, and do not play games with it. If you prove yourselves to be incapable of settling your differences for the sake of your people, then it also means that you are incapable of leading the Palestinian struggle. You have to clean up your act and put it together. You would be failing your own cause and your own people if you don't rise to the challenge.
The cause is at stake
TUESDAY's meeting in the Holy City of Makkah between Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader-in-exile Khaled Meshaal was portrayed by many was an effort to end the Hamas-Fatah struggle for power and the immediate focus is formation of a Palestinian national unity government to replace the Hamas-led administration. Indeed, these issues were in focus, but to limit the scope of the talks to them would be a narrow vision.
It was not as much as a deal to stop fighting with each other that was important as an agreement that addresses the deep roots of conflict between the two Palestinian streams represented by Hamas and Fatah.
At stake is the future of the Palestinian struggle for independence.
In a wider perspective, Fatah, which has adopted a secular platform, is ready to negotiate peace with Israel. The group is willing to accept compromises based on ground realities as long as the Palestinian right to set up an independent state in the territories that Israel occupied in the 1967 war with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital is recognised, respected and upheld as the basis for peace. Fatah is aware that the precise borders of the proposed state would have to take into consideration the Israeli insistence that it would not dismantle some of the largest Jewish settlements that dot the West Bank. Some form a trade-off would have to be agreed upon in order to solve the thorny issue of the future of the settlements. The status of Arab East Jerusalem and the right of the Palestinian refugees also pose serious problems in view of Israel's firm refusal to accept the Palestinian demands that Arab East Jerusalem should be their capital and the Palestinian refugees should be allowed to exercise their right to return to their ancestral land or to receive compensation for the properties they lost when Israel was created there in 1948.
On the other hand, Hamas, which bases itself of a strictly Islamist platform, want to set up an Islamic state in all of Palestine as it existed before the state of Israel was created. It argues that all those Jews who migrated to Israel should return to where they came from and the entire pre-1948 territory be handed over to the Palestinians to set up the proposed Islamic state. It is not willing to recognise Israel, renounce armed resistance and accept past agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel.
Hamas leaders are not naive to believe that these demands could be met. They have laid down these conditions as their opening gambit. Clear signals have come from various Hamas quarters that the group would be willing to accept a state within the 1967 lines, but it wants that state to be an Islamist caliphate, which Israel fears would continue to wage the quest for entire pre-1948 Palestine.
As such, the compromise that Fatah and Hamas needed to make in Makkah was clearly spelt out. They might or might not produce a breakthrough in Makkah, but they have to take the bull by the horns and come up with a common platform for the liberation of Palestine through negotiations with Israel. They need to remove their fundamental differences in approach. Forming a national unity government would indeed prove to be the soundest move but only as long as it is supported by a clear understanding of how to take forward the struggle for independence. It should not be a stop-gap tactic that would only put off to a future date a bitter fight to the finish.
The entire Arab World is appealing to the Fatah and Hamas leaders: The fate of the Palestinian people is in your hands, and do not play games with it. If you prove yourselves to be incapable of settling your differences for the sake of your people, then it also means that you are incapable of leading the Palestinian struggle. You have to clean up your act and put it together. You would be failing your own cause and your own people if you don't rise to the challenge.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Old tracks lead nowhere
February 5, 2007
Old tracks lead nowhere
THE ONGOING visit to the Middle East of German Chancellor Angela Merkel represents the strongest European Union (EU) effort at preparing the ground for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Obviously, the Europeans, who have had much longer experience with the Middle East than the Americans, have been prompted by the finding by the Iraq Study Group of the US that the prime issue that needs to be addressed in the Middle East is the Palestinian problem.
Althogh the recommendation by the group was directed at the administration of US President George W Bush, the EU realised its importance and relevance.
Of course, solving the Palestinian problem does not guarantee a solution to the other crises in the region, including the problem in Lebanon and the Israeli-Syrian conflict over the Golan Heights. However, Western goodwill in ensuring that Israel does not get away with its effort to impose its own version of a "peace agreement" on the Palestinians would go a long way in improving prospects for cooler heads to prevail while dealing with the other crises.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose country bears the bulk of the responsibility for having created the Palestinian problem in the first place, did try his hand at bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together, but did not really get anywhere, what with the divisions within the Palestinian ranks not to mention Israel's insistence on the Palestinians meeting its demands even before talks begin.
Merkel, whose country occupies the rotating EU presidency, reiterated the same conditions on Saturday as she began her visit to the Middle East in Cairo. Hamas has to recognise Israel's right to exist, renounce armed resistance and accept past agreements with the Jewish state, she said.
The German leader and most other EU leaders are overlooking or sidestepping the reality that Israel is imposing these demands even as it has pre-determined the outcome of peace talks: No return of occupied Arab East Jerusalem and no acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees. In the face of such a position, how could it be possible for Hamas to abandon what it considers as its trump card of refusing to recognise the Jewish state?
Instead of pressuring the Palestinians into compromises that undermine their legitimate rights, Merkel and other EU leaders should consider pressing Israel into accepting international conventions and the UN Charter as the basis for a settlement with the Palestinians.
In the meantime, there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel for hopes for an end to the Hamas-Fatah fighting.
In Cairo, Merkel stressed the importance of an end to the Hamas-Fatah fighting. Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas and exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal are expected to meet in Makkah on Tuesday in a bid to iron out their differences. Hopefully, Merkel would be hearing this week that the two leaders have agreed to settle their differences and to adopt a common platform to advance the Palestinian struggle for independence.
However, that does not solve the root problem.
Without Israel explictly moving away from its transigence and blatant rejection of recognising and respecting Palestinian rights, there is little hope of anyone making any realistic progress for peace in Palestine. That is what the German chancellor would find out, and we hope it would be sooner than later so that the EU could consider accepting realities as realities in Palestine and act accordingly.
Old tracks lead nowhere
THE ONGOING visit to the Middle East of German Chancellor Angela Merkel represents the strongest European Union (EU) effort at preparing the ground for a resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Obviously, the Europeans, who have had much longer experience with the Middle East than the Americans, have been prompted by the finding by the Iraq Study Group of the US that the prime issue that needs to be addressed in the Middle East is the Palestinian problem.
Althogh the recommendation by the group was directed at the administration of US President George W Bush, the EU realised its importance and relevance.
Of course, solving the Palestinian problem does not guarantee a solution to the other crises in the region, including the problem in Lebanon and the Israeli-Syrian conflict over the Golan Heights. However, Western goodwill in ensuring that Israel does not get away with its effort to impose its own version of a "peace agreement" on the Palestinians would go a long way in improving prospects for cooler heads to prevail while dealing with the other crises.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose country bears the bulk of the responsibility for having created the Palestinian problem in the first place, did try his hand at bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together, but did not really get anywhere, what with the divisions within the Palestinian ranks not to mention Israel's insistence on the Palestinians meeting its demands even before talks begin.
Merkel, whose country occupies the rotating EU presidency, reiterated the same conditions on Saturday as she began her visit to the Middle East in Cairo. Hamas has to recognise Israel's right to exist, renounce armed resistance and accept past agreements with the Jewish state, she said.
The German leader and most other EU leaders are overlooking or sidestepping the reality that Israel is imposing these demands even as it has pre-determined the outcome of peace talks: No return of occupied Arab East Jerusalem and no acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees. In the face of such a position, how could it be possible for Hamas to abandon what it considers as its trump card of refusing to recognise the Jewish state?
Instead of pressuring the Palestinians into compromises that undermine their legitimate rights, Merkel and other EU leaders should consider pressing Israel into accepting international conventions and the UN Charter as the basis for a settlement with the Palestinians.
In the meantime, there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel for hopes for an end to the Hamas-Fatah fighting.
In Cairo, Merkel stressed the importance of an end to the Hamas-Fatah fighting. Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas and exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal are expected to meet in Makkah on Tuesday in a bid to iron out their differences. Hopefully, Merkel would be hearing this week that the two leaders have agreed to settle their differences and to adopt a common platform to advance the Palestinian struggle for independence.
However, that does not solve the root problem.
Without Israel explictly moving away from its transigence and blatant rejection of recognising and respecting Palestinian rights, there is little hope of anyone making any realistic progress for peace in Palestine. That is what the German chancellor would find out, and we hope it would be sooner than later so that the EU could consider accepting realities as realities in Palestine and act accordingly.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Anti-war hopes: Height of naiveté
February 3, 2007
Anti-war hopes: Height of naiveté
TO criticise and oppose US President George W Bush's new plan for Iraq is treason in the US because it means undercutting the US military and help enemies of the country. To advocate any other course in Iraq is also treason because it means inviting international jihadists to wage a war terror inside the US.
This is the prevailing argument in Washington today. Bush himself, Vice-President Dick Cheney and their trusted aides and spokesman do not waste any opportunity to hammer home this theories when the Iraq crisis draws criticism.
Surprisingly, the ploy is working. Senior Democrat leaders are slowly backtracking from their threats of cutting off funds for the war. They have switched to a track where the US Congress would pass non-binding resolution criticising the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war but not calling for cutting off funds.
House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had talked about how the Democrats were determined to see an end to the war, signalled the shift last week upon her return from a trip to Iraq. She skirted a question about her opposition to the war and particularly the administration's plan to increase the number of US troops in Iraq, and said there was a possibility that the US would succeed in Iraq. There was a "last chance" for US victory in Iraq, she stated.
Earlier, Pelosi had indicated that she had seen through the administration's approach when she said: "The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way" by sending more of them to Iraq.
Several other Democrat leaders also have indicated that they have shifted postures. Most of them are now saying that they would only be favouring a bipartisan, symbolic resolution opposing the so-called "troop surge."
Bush, Cheney and others in the administration have already said that they would not be bound by such resolutions.
A compromise resolution being planned says that while the US legislature "disagrees with the 'plan' to augment" US troops, it should not cut off or reduce funding for the US military in Iraq.
The shift in Democrats' approach comes ahead of on a request Bush is likely to submit to Congress for an estimated $100 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The request will be presented in the form of a non-budgetary bill that excludes the mandatory requirements linked to the national budget. An earlier Democratic demand was that the US Congress make it mandatory for the administration to present funding requirements for the war through the regular budget, and this would have deprived the White House of the option of easy funding that it enjoyed with the Republican majority in both chambers of the legislature.
It is not as if the US soldiers would be denied food or arms and ammunition the day after the US Congress votes to cut funding for the war. The military has already been allocated funds to sustain itself in Iraq for several months more. Therefore the impact of suspending funding would be felt several months down the line during which the administration and military could plan an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.
As such, the argument becomes hollow that any member of congress voting to cut off funding for the war is abandoning US soldiers in a foreign land.
Hollow indeed is also the contention that "cutting and running" from Iraq means inviting international jihadist (like Al Qaeda and others) to wage a war of terrorism in the US. It sounds as if there is a breed in Iraq which churns out "terrorists" by the hundreds every day ready to wage a war of terror against Americans living in their homes and working in their offices in the US mainland.
The paradox is that the US is breeding anti-US extremism and militancy in Iraq by virtue of its military occupation of Iraq and high-handed action against the people of Iraq.
It should not take politicians who make it to the US Congress much to realise that they are being held hostage to their patriotism and political imperatives by the administration. When then are they not waking up?
The answer to the question is in the US media. Here are some of the typical comments that appeared in US newspapers in recent days:
"It's irresponsible in the extreme to reject Bush's last ditch attempt to stabilize Iraq out of hand without suggesting a better way to win."
Democratic legislators are "favouring defeat over victory in the Iraqi theater."
"The Democrats do not wish to win in Iraq and will do nothing to further the cause of victory."
Congressional resolutions of disapproval as intended "to undercut the war, endanger the troops and weaken the presidency."
Clearly, it was a wrong notion the US mainstream media that had championed the invasion and occupation of Iraq had mellowed in the wake of the collapse of the US approach to post-war Iraq.
The morale of the story: Those who pull the real strings in Washington are still powerful and influential enough to swing things their way no matter what, and anyone who expected otherwise was basing those expectations at the height of naiveté.
Anti-war hopes: Height of naiveté
TO criticise and oppose US President George W Bush's new plan for Iraq is treason in the US because it means undercutting the US military and help enemies of the country. To advocate any other course in Iraq is also treason because it means inviting international jihadists to wage a war terror inside the US.
This is the prevailing argument in Washington today. Bush himself, Vice-President Dick Cheney and their trusted aides and spokesman do not waste any opportunity to hammer home this theories when the Iraq crisis draws criticism.
Surprisingly, the ploy is working. Senior Democrat leaders are slowly backtracking from their threats of cutting off funds for the war. They have switched to a track where the US Congress would pass non-binding resolution criticising the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war but not calling for cutting off funds.
House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had talked about how the Democrats were determined to see an end to the war, signalled the shift last week upon her return from a trip to Iraq. She skirted a question about her opposition to the war and particularly the administration's plan to increase the number of US troops in Iraq, and said there was a possibility that the US would succeed in Iraq. There was a "last chance" for US victory in Iraq, she stated.
Earlier, Pelosi had indicated that she had seen through the administration's approach when she said: "The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way" by sending more of them to Iraq.
Several other Democrat leaders also have indicated that they have shifted postures. Most of them are now saying that they would only be favouring a bipartisan, symbolic resolution opposing the so-called "troop surge."
Bush, Cheney and others in the administration have already said that they would not be bound by such resolutions.
A compromise resolution being planned says that while the US legislature "disagrees with the 'plan' to augment" US troops, it should not cut off or reduce funding for the US military in Iraq.
The shift in Democrats' approach comes ahead of on a request Bush is likely to submit to Congress for an estimated $100 billion more for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The request will be presented in the form of a non-budgetary bill that excludes the mandatory requirements linked to the national budget. An earlier Democratic demand was that the US Congress make it mandatory for the administration to present funding requirements for the war through the regular budget, and this would have deprived the White House of the option of easy funding that it enjoyed with the Republican majority in both chambers of the legislature.
It is not as if the US soldiers would be denied food or arms and ammunition the day after the US Congress votes to cut funding for the war. The military has already been allocated funds to sustain itself in Iraq for several months more. Therefore the impact of suspending funding would be felt several months down the line during which the administration and military could plan an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.
As such, the argument becomes hollow that any member of congress voting to cut off funding for the war is abandoning US soldiers in a foreign land.
Hollow indeed is also the contention that "cutting and running" from Iraq means inviting international jihadist (like Al Qaeda and others) to wage a war of terrorism in the US. It sounds as if there is a breed in Iraq which churns out "terrorists" by the hundreds every day ready to wage a war of terror against Americans living in their homes and working in their offices in the US mainland.
The paradox is that the US is breeding anti-US extremism and militancy in Iraq by virtue of its military occupation of Iraq and high-handed action against the people of Iraq.
It should not take politicians who make it to the US Congress much to realise that they are being held hostage to their patriotism and political imperatives by the administration. When then are they not waking up?
The answer to the question is in the US media. Here are some of the typical comments that appeared in US newspapers in recent days:
"It's irresponsible in the extreme to reject Bush's last ditch attempt to stabilize Iraq out of hand without suggesting a better way to win."
Democratic legislators are "favouring defeat over victory in the Iraqi theater."
"The Democrats do not wish to win in Iraq and will do nothing to further the cause of victory."
Congressional resolutions of disapproval as intended "to undercut the war, endanger the troops and weaken the presidency."
Clearly, it was a wrong notion the US mainstream media that had championed the invasion and occupation of Iraq had mellowed in the wake of the collapse of the US approach to post-war Iraq.
The morale of the story: Those who pull the real strings in Washington are still powerful and influential enough to swing things their way no matter what, and anyone who expected otherwise was basing those expectations at the height of naiveté.
Friday, February 02, 2007
False flags or true signals?
February 28, 2007
False flags or true signals?
STRANGE as it may sound, the expectation propagated by many in the international media is that there would soon be an attack targeting American individuals/interests that would be traced to Tehran. The attack, which has to be of a scale and nature that would make an immediate international impact, would be used as the pretext for the US to launch military action against Iran along the same lines as the Sept.11 2001 suicide hijackings set the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Israel is an expert in false-flag operations. We have seen over the decades how Israeli agents have carried out deceptive operations in Arab countries, Europe and indeed the US, leaving accusing fingers pointing at Arabs. It could be the Israelis who would carry out the false-flag operation to set the ground for military action against Iraq. It could be American agents. Or it could be a group or groups whose strings are pulled from behind the scene by Israel or the US. This is the expert opinion making the rounds through the media today.
There could be an added sense of urgency for American/Israeli military action against Iran because there is a possibility that the theological Iranian leadership headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could step in to defuse the nuclear crisis by offering to suspend nuclear enrichment and engage in dialogue to solve the dispute despite opposition by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his hard-line supporters. If that happens, then the rug is pulled from under the feet of the American/Israeli argument for military action against Iran.
While the US invasion of Iraq was indeed expected, the launch of the US-led war against that country came at a time when the world was getting increasingly worried about the strength of Washington's contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was producing more by the tonnes. At that point, the US had to act fast lest it would be established that it did not have a real cause for war against Iraq, and we saw how the Bush administration withdrew all motions presented to the UN and launched the war against Iraq in 72 hours.
Somewhere along similar lines, powers from within Iran could foil the Israeli-engineered American plans for military action against Iran.
Reports from Tehran indicate a growing restlessness against Ahmedinejdad's rhetoric that seems designed to invite military action against the country in the name of its controversial nuclear programme.
Critics of the Iranian president have taken up particular issue with his recent comment that "the train of the Iranian nation is without brakes and a rear gear ... We dismantled the reverse gear and brakes of the train and threw them away some time ago."
The comment has drawn criticism not only from reformists who have long opposed Ahmadinejad, but also from conservatives who once backed the president but who now fear that he is provoking the West into military confrontation.
Indicative of the trend was a comment by the reformist daily Etemad-e-Melli, which asked:
"Why are you speaking a language that causes a person to be ashamed? A train's brakes are needed to reach its destination safely. You represent the voters of the great Iranian nation. Speak equal to the name and dignity of this nation."
Another was the conservative daily Resalat, which chided Ahmadinejad, saying "neither weakness nor unnecessarily offensive language is acceptable in foreign policy."
"Our foreign policy must reflect the ancient Iranian civilisation and rich Islamic culture of the Iranian nation. Therefore, delicacy ... rich diplomatic language and non-primitive policies must be part of a calculated combination to work," it said.
These comments should be seen coupled with the criticism levelled against Ahmedinejad by none other than Khamenei himself although in the context of government performance.
The overall picture that is gaining contours is that of an unexpected Iranian move to defuse the nuclear crisis and remove all justifications for any military action. We in this region would definitely welcome that development since it could also be used in a different context to address some of the other basic concerns of the Gulf region.
The key questions here are several:
What are the points that the Bush administration has taken from the criticism levelled against Ahmedinejad?
Do those points include optimism for a non-military solution to the nuclear crisis?
Is Washington prepared — in a long-term strategical context — to accept a peaceful resolution of the crisis with Iran, which the US sees as its worst opponent in the Middle East?
Will Israel keep to itself and watch from the sidelines as its grand designs for military action against Iran fade away?
False flags or true signals?
STRANGE as it may sound, the expectation propagated by many in the international media is that there would soon be an attack targeting American individuals/interests that would be traced to Tehran. The attack, which has to be of a scale and nature that would make an immediate international impact, would be used as the pretext for the US to launch military action against Iran along the same lines as the Sept.11 2001 suicide hijackings set the ground for the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq.
Israel is an expert in false-flag operations. We have seen over the decades how Israeli agents have carried out deceptive operations in Arab countries, Europe and indeed the US, leaving accusing fingers pointing at Arabs. It could be the Israelis who would carry out the false-flag operation to set the ground for military action against Iraq. It could be American agents. Or it could be a group or groups whose strings are pulled from behind the scene by Israel or the US. This is the expert opinion making the rounds through the media today.
There could be an added sense of urgency for American/Israeli military action against Iran because there is a possibility that the theological Iranian leadership headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could step in to defuse the nuclear crisis by offering to suspend nuclear enrichment and engage in dialogue to solve the dispute despite opposition by President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and his hard-line supporters. If that happens, then the rug is pulled from under the feet of the American/Israeli argument for military action against Iran.
While the US invasion of Iraq was indeed expected, the launch of the US-led war against that country came at a time when the world was getting increasingly worried about the strength of Washington's contention that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was producing more by the tonnes. At that point, the US had to act fast lest it would be established that it did not have a real cause for war against Iraq, and we saw how the Bush administration withdrew all motions presented to the UN and launched the war against Iraq in 72 hours.
Somewhere along similar lines, powers from within Iran could foil the Israeli-engineered American plans for military action against Iran.
Reports from Tehran indicate a growing restlessness against Ahmedinejdad's rhetoric that seems designed to invite military action against the country in the name of its controversial nuclear programme.
Critics of the Iranian president have taken up particular issue with his recent comment that "the train of the Iranian nation is without brakes and a rear gear ... We dismantled the reverse gear and brakes of the train and threw them away some time ago."
The comment has drawn criticism not only from reformists who have long opposed Ahmadinejad, but also from conservatives who once backed the president but who now fear that he is provoking the West into military confrontation.
Indicative of the trend was a comment by the reformist daily Etemad-e-Melli, which asked:
"Why are you speaking a language that causes a person to be ashamed? A train's brakes are needed to reach its destination safely. You represent the voters of the great Iranian nation. Speak equal to the name and dignity of this nation."
Another was the conservative daily Resalat, which chided Ahmadinejad, saying "neither weakness nor unnecessarily offensive language is acceptable in foreign policy."
"Our foreign policy must reflect the ancient Iranian civilisation and rich Islamic culture of the Iranian nation. Therefore, delicacy ... rich diplomatic language and non-primitive policies must be part of a calculated combination to work," it said.
These comments should be seen coupled with the criticism levelled against Ahmedinejad by none other than Khamenei himself although in the context of government performance.
The overall picture that is gaining contours is that of an unexpected Iranian move to defuse the nuclear crisis and remove all justifications for any military action. We in this region would definitely welcome that development since it could also be used in a different context to address some of the other basic concerns of the Gulf region.
The key questions here are several:
What are the points that the Bush administration has taken from the criticism levelled against Ahmedinejad?
Do those points include optimism for a non-military solution to the nuclear crisis?
Is Washington prepared — in a long-term strategical context — to accept a peaceful resolution of the crisis with Iran, which the US sees as its worst opponent in the Middle East?
Will Israel keep to itself and watch from the sidelines as its grand designs for military action against Iran fade away?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Hopes for Bangladesh
February 2, 2007
Hopes for Bangladesh
HOPES of a peaceful and credible parliamentary elections in Bangladesh have brightened with the resignation on Wednesday of the country's five top election officials who had been the centre of a row over alleged vote-rigging ahead of the polls that were originally scheduled to be held on Jan.22.
The international community has signalled it is ready to help the country.
European and UN election monitors who quit the country due to pre-poll violence are preparing to return to Bangladesh and the UN is said to be considering resumption of assistance. The European Commission is sending an advance observation team to Bangladesh this month to see whether a free and fair election could be held.
Casting a cloud over the democratic environment for elections is the imposition of severe restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly and the state of emergency that was imposed by the caretaker government last month.
It could indeed be argued that such constraints, coupled with warnings that anyone who breaks new media restrictions or a ban on political rallies imposed under emergency rule faces five years in jail, were central to the caretaker government's efforts to end the crisis over elections. Another justification for the curbs could be seen in the argument that the very politics of Bangladesh is so peculiar that it warrants such measures.
The government says it enacted the rules to “maintain security, peace and safety of the people and the state.”
However, restrictions of such basic freedoms run contrary to the very spirit of democracy. Hopefully, now that there crisis seems to be on the way to solution, the caretaker government would remove the measures and allow the people to exercise their democratic and constitutional rights.
In the meantime, however, the basic problems confronting Bangladesh remain unaddressed.
It is no secret that the country is inevitably held hostage to the personal enemity between two women — Sheikh Hasina Wajed, president of the Awami League and daughter of the late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the nationalist leader and the first president of Bangladesh, and Begum Khaleda Zia, the widow of the late general Ziaur Rahman. They have a running blood fued between linked to the killings of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman.
The two women have ruled the country as prime ministers since 1991.
Khaleda Zia led the BNP to parliamentary victories in 1991 and 2001 and was prime minister from 1991 to 1996 and again from 2001 to end of 2006. Sheikh Hasina was in power from 1996 to 2001.
Indeed, it is a distinction for Bangladesh that it has two female politicians leading national politics, but the crises besetting the country have only worsened in the last 16 years. Extensive corruption, disorder and political violence are the main features that characterise Bangladesh today, and local, regional and international experts and observers place the blame right at the doors of Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. Both women have their interpretations of democracy and governance and they have led their impoverished country towards more crises than solutions. The two women are accused of allowing politics-oriented favouritism rather than efficiency-oriented governance to guide their terms at the helm of power in the country. And their priority, according to insiders, is to inflict as much harm against each other rather than administration of the country aimed at helping it recover from crises and economic problems.
Many Bangladeshis are resigned to the conclusion that one of the two women leaders would emerge as victor in the next elections and assume office as prime minister, and the cycle of recrimination against each other starts all over again.
Against that prospect, it is difficult to envisage Bangladesh being placed on the right path any soon. The option is left to the people of Bangladesh to opt for a third front led by an efficient technocrat supported by administrators who could rise to the challenge of rescuing their country from further disasters. None fitting that discription has turned up so far. Hopefully, someone would turn up sooner than later to lead the Bangladeshis in the right direction towards an end to the chronic problems facing the country.
Hopes for Bangladesh
HOPES of a peaceful and credible parliamentary elections in Bangladesh have brightened with the resignation on Wednesday of the country's five top election officials who had been the centre of a row over alleged vote-rigging ahead of the polls that were originally scheduled to be held on Jan.22.
The international community has signalled it is ready to help the country.
European and UN election monitors who quit the country due to pre-poll violence are preparing to return to Bangladesh and the UN is said to be considering resumption of assistance. The European Commission is sending an advance observation team to Bangladesh this month to see whether a free and fair election could be held.
Casting a cloud over the democratic environment for elections is the imposition of severe restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly and the state of emergency that was imposed by the caretaker government last month.
It could indeed be argued that such constraints, coupled with warnings that anyone who breaks new media restrictions or a ban on political rallies imposed under emergency rule faces five years in jail, were central to the caretaker government's efforts to end the crisis over elections. Another justification for the curbs could be seen in the argument that the very politics of Bangladesh is so peculiar that it warrants such measures.
The government says it enacted the rules to “maintain security, peace and safety of the people and the state.”
However, restrictions of such basic freedoms run contrary to the very spirit of democracy. Hopefully, now that there crisis seems to be on the way to solution, the caretaker government would remove the measures and allow the people to exercise their democratic and constitutional rights.
In the meantime, however, the basic problems confronting Bangladesh remain unaddressed.
It is no secret that the country is inevitably held hostage to the personal enemity between two women — Sheikh Hasina Wajed, president of the Awami League and daughter of the late Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the nationalist leader and the first president of Bangladesh, and Begum Khaleda Zia, the widow of the late general Ziaur Rahman. They have a running blood fued between linked to the killings of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman.
The two women have ruled the country as prime ministers since 1991.
Khaleda Zia led the BNP to parliamentary victories in 1991 and 2001 and was prime minister from 1991 to 1996 and again from 2001 to end of 2006. Sheikh Hasina was in power from 1996 to 2001.
Indeed, it is a distinction for Bangladesh that it has two female politicians leading national politics, but the crises besetting the country have only worsened in the last 16 years. Extensive corruption, disorder and political violence are the main features that characterise Bangladesh today, and local, regional and international experts and observers place the blame right at the doors of Sheikh Hasina and Khaleda Zia. Both women have their interpretations of democracy and governance and they have led their impoverished country towards more crises than solutions. The two women are accused of allowing politics-oriented favouritism rather than efficiency-oriented governance to guide their terms at the helm of power in the country. And their priority, according to insiders, is to inflict as much harm against each other rather than administration of the country aimed at helping it recover from crises and economic problems.
Many Bangladeshis are resigned to the conclusion that one of the two women leaders would emerge as victor in the next elections and assume office as prime minister, and the cycle of recrimination against each other starts all over again.
Against that prospect, it is difficult to envisage Bangladesh being placed on the right path any soon. The option is left to the people of Bangladesh to opt for a third front led by an efficient technocrat supported by administrators who could rise to the challenge of rescuing their country from further disasters. None fitting that discription has turned up so far. Hopefully, someone would turn up sooner than later to lead the Bangladeshis in the right direction towards an end to the chronic problems facing the country.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Needed: Cool heads
Jan.31, 2007
Needed: Cool heads
WITH developments in Iraq since the US-led invation of 2003 going in Iran's way and the brewing crisis between the Beirut government and Hizbollah-led opposition plus whatever role the Iranians are playing in Palestine, fears are high of the region being destabilised further. Iran is riding high on its newfound status as a key regional power, raising concerns that it might want to pick up where it left off in trying to export its revolution in the early 1980s when it was checked by the war with Iraq.
We in the Arabian Gulf region want security and stability for all so that we could pursue long-term development objectives for our people.
We would like to see peace in Iraq, with the people of that country excercising their right to self-determination without external meddling and following their development agenda in a national framework after decades of strife and bloodshed.
We would like to see the feuding parties in Lebanon realising that their national interests are being shoved aside in their fight for power and authority, We would like to see them behaving in a manner that does not challenge the institutionalised democracy there or allow room for external intervention.
Similarly, we would like to see the Palestinian factions burying their differences and coming together on a common platform to face Israel and advance and realise their cause for liberation and independence.
We would also like to see the international community gathering enough courage and becoming bold enough to call a spade and spade and pull up Israel by the neck and force it to respect international law as the basis for a peace agreement with the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria.
We are the least interested in challenging or confronting anyone for whatever reason. We believe in diplomacy, dialogue and fair and just compromises as the means to settle differences. We do not want nuclear weapons for ourselves and do not want atomic bombs or any other type of weapons of mass destruction in our region.
We believe that there is little time for us to be wasted in the development process as the world is moving fast ahead in developing and absorbing new technologies while we are getting bogged down by actions that are not of our making.
We would like to be part of the global development march but without compromising our rights as a member of the international order.
And we could gladly do without the sabre-rattling between Washington and Tehran that seems to be taking the region and its people towards yet another disaster after the war against Iraq four years ago.
After a brief hiatus during which we felt wisdom, logic and reason were prevailing in Washington against imposing a new crisis on the Middle East region, the Bush administration has suddenly turned up the heat against Tehran.
Hours after Bush pledged that he will “respond firmly” if Iran “escalates its military action in Iraq,” Pentagon officials leaked what they called “proof positive” of Iranian involvement — Iranian serial numbers were allegedly found on explosive devices powerful enough to pierce the armour of American tanks in Iraq.
If true and substantiated, then this "proof" is definitely more than the unfounded claims that Saddam sought nuclear material from Niger that White House used to help justify invading Iraq.
What are we to learn from the emerging scenario, which has also seen the US assigning two naval task forces into the Gulf region?
There could be several interpretations: Bush is again laying the foundation for military action against Iran or he could be setting up Iran to share the blame for the US failure in Iraq.
The latter scenario is highly unlikely, given that the Democrats and the growing anti-war camp would not swallow the line.
Washington watchers are convinced that the White House is spoiling for a fight with Iran, while Tehran seems to be inviting military action with provocative rhetoric probably because it believes that it could wage a successful "defensive" war against the US.
Sidelined in the seen and heard and unseen and unheard drums of war are the concerns of the region's countries which stand to bear the repercussions of another possible US military adventure. That Washington and Tehran share equal responsibility for pushing towards that eventuality would be no consolation, let alone a shield against the regional fallout of a US-Iranian military conflict, with whatever that would entail.
Instead of desisting from provoking Washington, Tehran seems is going out of its way to invite trouble without any consideration for the Iranian people and the region as a whole. It should realise that the need of the hour is for cool heads to figure out how to defuse the mounting tensions through dialogue and diplomacy in order to avert certain disaster.
On the other side, Washington should not consider the region's concerns over nuclear proliferation and the rise of a sectarian agenda as having granted it a free hand. Being the superpower that it is, it is incumbent upon the US to act responsibly and not to undertake any action that would undermine regional stability.
The Europeans also have a stake in ensuring regional stability in the Middle East and they should assume a key role in the equation and avert a conflagration that would not be in anyone's interest.
Haste is the key word here, because, for many in the region and beyond, the ticking of the war clock is getting alarmingly intense.
Needed: Cool heads
WITH developments in Iraq since the US-led invation of 2003 going in Iran's way and the brewing crisis between the Beirut government and Hizbollah-led opposition plus whatever role the Iranians are playing in Palestine, fears are high of the region being destabilised further. Iran is riding high on its newfound status as a key regional power, raising concerns that it might want to pick up where it left off in trying to export its revolution in the early 1980s when it was checked by the war with Iraq.
We in the Arabian Gulf region want security and stability for all so that we could pursue long-term development objectives for our people.
We would like to see peace in Iraq, with the people of that country excercising their right to self-determination without external meddling and following their development agenda in a national framework after decades of strife and bloodshed.
We would like to see the feuding parties in Lebanon realising that their national interests are being shoved aside in their fight for power and authority, We would like to see them behaving in a manner that does not challenge the institutionalised democracy there or allow room for external intervention.
Similarly, we would like to see the Palestinian factions burying their differences and coming together on a common platform to face Israel and advance and realise their cause for liberation and independence.
We would also like to see the international community gathering enough courage and becoming bold enough to call a spade and spade and pull up Israel by the neck and force it to respect international law as the basis for a peace agreement with the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria.
We are the least interested in challenging or confronting anyone for whatever reason. We believe in diplomacy, dialogue and fair and just compromises as the means to settle differences. We do not want nuclear weapons for ourselves and do not want atomic bombs or any other type of weapons of mass destruction in our region.
We believe that there is little time for us to be wasted in the development process as the world is moving fast ahead in developing and absorbing new technologies while we are getting bogged down by actions that are not of our making.
We would like to be part of the global development march but without compromising our rights as a member of the international order.
And we could gladly do without the sabre-rattling between Washington and Tehran that seems to be taking the region and its people towards yet another disaster after the war against Iraq four years ago.
After a brief hiatus during which we felt wisdom, logic and reason were prevailing in Washington against imposing a new crisis on the Middle East region, the Bush administration has suddenly turned up the heat against Tehran.
Hours after Bush pledged that he will “respond firmly” if Iran “escalates its military action in Iraq,” Pentagon officials leaked what they called “proof positive” of Iranian involvement — Iranian serial numbers were allegedly found on explosive devices powerful enough to pierce the armour of American tanks in Iraq.
If true and substantiated, then this "proof" is definitely more than the unfounded claims that Saddam sought nuclear material from Niger that White House used to help justify invading Iraq.
What are we to learn from the emerging scenario, which has also seen the US assigning two naval task forces into the Gulf region?
There could be several interpretations: Bush is again laying the foundation for military action against Iran or he could be setting up Iran to share the blame for the US failure in Iraq.
The latter scenario is highly unlikely, given that the Democrats and the growing anti-war camp would not swallow the line.
Washington watchers are convinced that the White House is spoiling for a fight with Iran, while Tehran seems to be inviting military action with provocative rhetoric probably because it believes that it could wage a successful "defensive" war against the US.
Sidelined in the seen and heard and unseen and unheard drums of war are the concerns of the region's countries which stand to bear the repercussions of another possible US military adventure. That Washington and Tehran share equal responsibility for pushing towards that eventuality would be no consolation, let alone a shield against the regional fallout of a US-Iranian military conflict, with whatever that would entail.
Instead of desisting from provoking Washington, Tehran seems is going out of its way to invite trouble without any consideration for the Iranian people and the region as a whole. It should realise that the need of the hour is for cool heads to figure out how to defuse the mounting tensions through dialogue and diplomacy in order to avert certain disaster.
On the other side, Washington should not consider the region's concerns over nuclear proliferation and the rise of a sectarian agenda as having granted it a free hand. Being the superpower that it is, it is incumbent upon the US to act responsibly and not to undertake any action that would undermine regional stability.
The Europeans also have a stake in ensuring regional stability in the Middle East and they should assume a key role in the equation and avert a conflagration that would not be in anyone's interest.
Haste is the key word here, because, for many in the region and beyond, the ticking of the war clock is getting alarmingly intense.
Unloading a dirty legacy in advance
Jan.30, 2007
Unloading a dirty legacy in advance
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton's insistence that President George W. Bush should find a way out of Iraq before he leaves office stems from a realisation that she could possibly inherit the legacy of war and would not be able to get rid of it. Hillary Clinton, if she wins the race for the White House, would be as bound as Bush himself by political imperatives to "stay the course" in Iraq regardless of whether she likes it or not. That would indeed be the case for anyone who succeeds Bush, whether Republican or Democrat.
Such is the game that Washington kicked off with its 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Notwithstanding all arguments and justifications put up by the Bush administration, it is now clear that the war against Iraq and ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime was part of the US quest to establish global supremacy and serve its geopolitical interests in the Middle East. Removing a potential threat to Israel's quest for regional dominance and gaining access to Iraq's oil reserves with a view to controlling the international energy market were among the other reasons for the US war against Iraq.
As such, the invasion and occupation of Iraq could not be classififed strictly as a Republican agenda. The Democrats would have to carry on with it if they happen to gain the White House in 2009.
In the meantime, the Bush administration has not only failed to realise its key objectives in Iraq but has also created such a mess that it would take decades to be sorted out, with the ethnic disintegration of the country looming ahead with no one seems to be able to prevent it. And American soldiers are getting killed every day in the bargain (not to mention hundreds of Iraqis dying every day).
Despite all this, Bush has refused to set a deadline for withdrawing the US military from Iraq and has said "this is going to be left to his successor." The reason for this posture is simple: The US has to retain its presence in Iraq no matter what and no matter who occupies the White House.
It would have been ideal if the US military had been able to pacify the Iraqi people and bring about a smooth transition of power from the Saddam Hussein regime to US-friendly individuals and groups in Iraq without challenge. But the Sunni-led insurgency exploded in Washington's face and led to a crisis that does not hold out any chance of a solution that is just, fair and acceptable to the key players.
The only option left for the Bush administration is to press ahead with an aggressive military approach regardless of the losses the US would have to absorb. That is precisely what Washington is doing.
Implicit in Bush's posture is that he would be contented if the situation continued as it is until his last day in the White House and he would be more than happy to hand over the dirty laundry to his successor.
He knows only too well that the neoconservatives who orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq have enough and more influence and clout in Washington to twist his successor's arm into picking up where he left off and continuing the drive to realise the strategic objectives in Iraq.
No doubt, Hillary Clinton is also acutely aware of this and hence her remark that Bush's option to leave the legacy of war to his successor is
"the height of irresponsibility" and her assertion that "we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office."
We have heard a lot of arguments that the Democrats, who won control of both houses of the US Congress in last year's elections, were dead bent upon not allowing the US to continue its military presence in Iraq and they would cut off funds for the war.
There might be many Democrats — as there would be Republicans — who genuinely do not want to risk anymore American lives in Iraq, but they are restrained by taking practical action to stop the war since they are also string-pulled as much as the Republicans.
Democrats say that cutting funds for the military would expose them to the charge that they have abandoned American soldiers in the field without ammunition and without body armour and at the mercy of the insurgents in Iraq.
That is not an accurate assertion since the money appropriated for current military operations was voted on and disbursed some time ago.
The Democrats, if they are really determined to end the war, could set a timeframe for Bush to withdraw the US military from Iraq. Of course, Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have loudly declared that they would not feel bound by congressional resolutions. At the same time, the Democrats would be singling out the president for blame if US forces remained in Iraq after the expiry of the deadline.
Why are they not doing it then?
Indeed, let us watch how Senator Russ Feingol, who has withdrawn from the presidential race and has entered the national debate over the Iraq crisis, fares this week with his drive to introduce legislation to cut all funding for the war a few months down the line.
That would be the barometer that tests how far the neocons have mobilised themselves to tame the Democrats as they have already done with the Republicans.
In the meantime, Hillary wants Bush to throw the Iraq crisis as far as she could away from her because she knows that she would be stuck with it if she inherits the White House from Bush.
Unloading a dirty legacy in advance
Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton's insistence that President George W. Bush should find a way out of Iraq before he leaves office stems from a realisation that she could possibly inherit the legacy of war and would not be able to get rid of it. Hillary Clinton, if she wins the race for the White House, would be as bound as Bush himself by political imperatives to "stay the course" in Iraq regardless of whether she likes it or not. That would indeed be the case for anyone who succeeds Bush, whether Republican or Democrat.
Such is the game that Washington kicked off with its 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Notwithstanding all arguments and justifications put up by the Bush administration, it is now clear that the war against Iraq and ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime was part of the US quest to establish global supremacy and serve its geopolitical interests in the Middle East. Removing a potential threat to Israel's quest for regional dominance and gaining access to Iraq's oil reserves with a view to controlling the international energy market were among the other reasons for the US war against Iraq.
As such, the invasion and occupation of Iraq could not be classififed strictly as a Republican agenda. The Democrats would have to carry on with it if they happen to gain the White House in 2009.
In the meantime, the Bush administration has not only failed to realise its key objectives in Iraq but has also created such a mess that it would take decades to be sorted out, with the ethnic disintegration of the country looming ahead with no one seems to be able to prevent it. And American soldiers are getting killed every day in the bargain (not to mention hundreds of Iraqis dying every day).
Despite all this, Bush has refused to set a deadline for withdrawing the US military from Iraq and has said "this is going to be left to his successor." The reason for this posture is simple: The US has to retain its presence in Iraq no matter what and no matter who occupies the White House.
It would have been ideal if the US military had been able to pacify the Iraqi people and bring about a smooth transition of power from the Saddam Hussein regime to US-friendly individuals and groups in Iraq without challenge. But the Sunni-led insurgency exploded in Washington's face and led to a crisis that does not hold out any chance of a solution that is just, fair and acceptable to the key players.
The only option left for the Bush administration is to press ahead with an aggressive military approach regardless of the losses the US would have to absorb. That is precisely what Washington is doing.
Implicit in Bush's posture is that he would be contented if the situation continued as it is until his last day in the White House and he would be more than happy to hand over the dirty laundry to his successor.
He knows only too well that the neoconservatives who orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq have enough and more influence and clout in Washington to twist his successor's arm into picking up where he left off and continuing the drive to realise the strategic objectives in Iraq.
No doubt, Hillary Clinton is also acutely aware of this and hence her remark that Bush's option to leave the legacy of war to his successor is
"the height of irresponsibility" and her assertion that "we should expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office."
We have heard a lot of arguments that the Democrats, who won control of both houses of the US Congress in last year's elections, were dead bent upon not allowing the US to continue its military presence in Iraq and they would cut off funds for the war.
There might be many Democrats — as there would be Republicans — who genuinely do not want to risk anymore American lives in Iraq, but they are restrained by taking practical action to stop the war since they are also string-pulled as much as the Republicans.
Democrats say that cutting funds for the military would expose them to the charge that they have abandoned American soldiers in the field without ammunition and without body armour and at the mercy of the insurgents in Iraq.
That is not an accurate assertion since the money appropriated for current military operations was voted on and disbursed some time ago.
The Democrats, if they are really determined to end the war, could set a timeframe for Bush to withdraw the US military from Iraq. Of course, Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney have loudly declared that they would not feel bound by congressional resolutions. At the same time, the Democrats would be singling out the president for blame if US forces remained in Iraq after the expiry of the deadline.
Why are they not doing it then?
Indeed, let us watch how Senator Russ Feingol, who has withdrawn from the presidential race and has entered the national debate over the Iraq crisis, fares this week with his drive to introduce legislation to cut all funding for the war a few months down the line.
That would be the barometer that tests how far the neocons have mobilised themselves to tame the Democrats as they have already done with the Republicans.
In the meantime, Hillary wants Bush to throw the Iraq crisis as far as she could away from her because she knows that she would be stuck with it if she inherits the White House from Bush.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
The brighter side
THE FOCUS of speculation today is how Hamas, the Palestinian group which roots itself in armed resistance to Israel's occupation of Palestine, would behave once it enters the Palestinian cabinet in a coalition agreement with Fatah following the Jan.25 legislative elections.
Opinions are divided. Some believe that Hamas would never change its colours and would only work from within the government to undermine the Fatah leadership's efforts to work out a peace agreement with Israel. Others are convinced that Hamas leaders are pragmatic enough to accept realities and that there is no solution to the conflict except through negotiations with Israel.
Overlooked in the din of arguments and counter-arguments is an equally important aspect of Palestinian life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For more than a decade now, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), the de facto Palestinian government, has not really been able to address some of the key preoccupation of the people it governs.
Granted that the choking Israeli siege of the people living under its military occupation could be easily blamed for the daily suffering of the people of Palestine. However, the PNA also bears part of the responsibility, given the abundant evidence of corruption, nepotism and favouritism in the ranks of Fatah. The Fatah-led PNA has not been able to make a real difference to the quality of life of its people. If anything, the lot of the Palestinians under occupation in terms of daily life is worse than it was before the Oslo agreement was signed in September 1993.
That is where the strong showing of Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections comes into relevance. Its victory could only be partly attributed to the chaos that reigned in the PNA. The other part is the success with which the group had been running schools, schools and social welfare organisations in a systematic and most effective manner within the confinements attached to the situation under occupation.
It clear that Hamas wants to pursue and strengthen its approach to the Palestinian society at large. The group is among the most disciplined and organised movements in Palestine and its commitment and seriousness to addressing the problems of grassroot Palestinians could not be questioned. There is little doubt that Hamas would not only insist on taking over the health, education and social welfare portfolios in the Palestinian cabinet but would also make a success of its endeavours by shouldering the task with responsibility and dedication.
That should indeed be the brightest spot at this point in time for the Palestinian people facing the dark uncertainties of their struggle for freedom and statehood in view of the arrogant and stubborn positions adopted by Israel that holds out only the promise of on-again, off-again negotiations which could be run off the track at any point in time.
Opinions are divided. Some believe that Hamas would never change its colours and would only work from within the government to undermine the Fatah leadership's efforts to work out a peace agreement with Israel. Others are convinced that Hamas leaders are pragmatic enough to accept realities and that there is no solution to the conflict except through negotiations with Israel.
Overlooked in the din of arguments and counter-arguments is an equally important aspect of Palestinian life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. For more than a decade now, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), the de facto Palestinian government, has not really been able to address some of the key preoccupation of the people it governs.
Granted that the choking Israeli siege of the people living under its military occupation could be easily blamed for the daily suffering of the people of Palestine. However, the PNA also bears part of the responsibility, given the abundant evidence of corruption, nepotism and favouritism in the ranks of Fatah. The Fatah-led PNA has not been able to make a real difference to the quality of life of its people. If anything, the lot of the Palestinians under occupation in terms of daily life is worse than it was before the Oslo agreement was signed in September 1993.
That is where the strong showing of Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections comes into relevance. Its victory could only be partly attributed to the chaos that reigned in the PNA. The other part is the success with which the group had been running schools, schools and social welfare organisations in a systematic and most effective manner within the confinements attached to the situation under occupation.
It clear that Hamas wants to pursue and strengthen its approach to the Palestinian society at large. The group is among the most disciplined and organised movements in Palestine and its commitment and seriousness to addressing the problems of grassroot Palestinians could not be questioned. There is little doubt that Hamas would not only insist on taking over the health, education and social welfare portfolios in the Palestinian cabinet but would also make a success of its endeavours by shouldering the task with responsibility and dedication.
That should indeed be the brightest spot at this point in time for the Palestinian people facing the dark uncertainties of their struggle for freedom and statehood in view of the arrogant and stubborn positions adopted by Israel that holds out only the promise of on-again, off-again negotiations which could be run off the track at any point in time.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Overlooking the obvious
Jan.27, 2007
Overlooking the obvious
IT SEEMS to be taken for granted that the violent flare-up in Lebanon on Thursday was a spontaneous clash between pro-government forces and opposition supporters. Leaders of both sides — opposition Hizbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Saad Hariri, who heads the ruling coalition behind the government — have called on their people to abide by the law and to refrain from violence. Thursday's clashes were described as the natural culmination of tensions that have been building since Dec.1 when the Hizbollah-led opposition launched a sit-in strike in Beirut hoping to topple the government of Fuad Siniora. The violence came on the day when the international community pledged some $7.6 billion in loans and grants to the Siniora government at a conference in Paris to help Lebanon recover from the devastating impact of the Israeli-Hizbollah war in the summer of 2006.
A close look at the Lebanese scene would immediately show that bloodshed leading to a resumption of the civil strife is not in the interest of the government or the opposition. The Lebanese people know only too well how it is like to live through a civil war and few in Lebanon have the stomach to see it happen again.
The government knows that violent clashes could deteriorate and prompt the different groups to bring out their weapons to the street. We saw it happening on Thursday and keep our fingers crossed that it would recurr. If that happens again, then it is anyone's guess what could happen. However, one thing is sure: Factional fighting in Lebanon today would be the end of the country as we know it because the geopolitics of the Middle East region are ripe for yet another explosion.
Strife in Lebanon would cease to be Lebanon-specific and external forces would be calling the shots to suit their interests, and the government would cease to be an effective force in the country.
As far as Hizbollah is concerned, the group should know that it would be the first target for destruction at a time when it feels politically strong enough to insist on a change of government the country.
So, both sides stand to lose a lot if they were to engage in violent clashes and take the country to a civil war. This awareness is evident in the calls for calm issued by all factional leaders. The question then is who was stoking violent sentiments and provoked Thursday's clashes.
We could perhaps get a clue if we recall that the clashes started at Beirut's Arab University campus. Fighting between students with sticks and stones on the university campus spilled into nearby streets and developed into exchanges of gunfire from assault rifles and pistols involving students and residents from both sides, according to reports.
Well, we know that university campuses are the first targets of hostile elements seeking to start trouble because it is easy to blame "hot-headed" students for anything and everything, with police or university authorities being able even to identity the trouble-makers or to ascertain whether students themselves or external elements were involved.
As supporters of the government and opposition continue to blame each other for starting Thursday's clashes in Beirut, they would be better advised to investigate and pinpoint who had thrown the first stone and fired the first shot. It is a safe bet that they do not have to look too far to identify the culprits and establish their cross-border connections with the country's southern neighbour.
Israel has always played a key role in Lebanon's troubles and it would not be the first or last time that its operatives and agents poured fuel into tensions in the country. That realisation, we hope, would be enough to stop both sides in their advance towards open confrontation and recognise that no one who loves Lebanon could have thrown the first stone or fired the first shot. If they overlook the obvious, then they would be paying a much heavier price in the days and weeks ahead.
Overlooking the obvious
IT SEEMS to be taken for granted that the violent flare-up in Lebanon on Thursday was a spontaneous clash between pro-government forces and opposition supporters. Leaders of both sides — opposition Hizbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah and Saad Hariri, who heads the ruling coalition behind the government — have called on their people to abide by the law and to refrain from violence. Thursday's clashes were described as the natural culmination of tensions that have been building since Dec.1 when the Hizbollah-led opposition launched a sit-in strike in Beirut hoping to topple the government of Fuad Siniora. The violence came on the day when the international community pledged some $7.6 billion in loans and grants to the Siniora government at a conference in Paris to help Lebanon recover from the devastating impact of the Israeli-Hizbollah war in the summer of 2006.
A close look at the Lebanese scene would immediately show that bloodshed leading to a resumption of the civil strife is not in the interest of the government or the opposition. The Lebanese people know only too well how it is like to live through a civil war and few in Lebanon have the stomach to see it happen again.
The government knows that violent clashes could deteriorate and prompt the different groups to bring out their weapons to the street. We saw it happening on Thursday and keep our fingers crossed that it would recurr. If that happens again, then it is anyone's guess what could happen. However, one thing is sure: Factional fighting in Lebanon today would be the end of the country as we know it because the geopolitics of the Middle East region are ripe for yet another explosion.
Strife in Lebanon would cease to be Lebanon-specific and external forces would be calling the shots to suit their interests, and the government would cease to be an effective force in the country.
As far as Hizbollah is concerned, the group should know that it would be the first target for destruction at a time when it feels politically strong enough to insist on a change of government the country.
So, both sides stand to lose a lot if they were to engage in violent clashes and take the country to a civil war. This awareness is evident in the calls for calm issued by all factional leaders. The question then is who was stoking violent sentiments and provoked Thursday's clashes.
We could perhaps get a clue if we recall that the clashes started at Beirut's Arab University campus. Fighting between students with sticks and stones on the university campus spilled into nearby streets and developed into exchanges of gunfire from assault rifles and pistols involving students and residents from both sides, according to reports.
Well, we know that university campuses are the first targets of hostile elements seeking to start trouble because it is easy to blame "hot-headed" students for anything and everything, with police or university authorities being able even to identity the trouble-makers or to ascertain whether students themselves or external elements were involved.
As supporters of the government and opposition continue to blame each other for starting Thursday's clashes in Beirut, they would be better advised to investigate and pinpoint who had thrown the first stone and fired the first shot. It is a safe bet that they do not have to look too far to identify the culprits and establish their cross-border connections with the country's southern neighbour.
Israel has always played a key role in Lebanon's troubles and it would not be the first or last time that its operatives and agents poured fuel into tensions in the country. That realisation, we hope, would be enough to stop both sides in their advance towards open confrontation and recognise that no one who loves Lebanon could have thrown the first stone or fired the first shot. If they overlook the obvious, then they would be paying a much heavier price in the days and weeks ahead.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Compromises that are not
January 23, 2007
Compromises that are not
The United States has promised an "intense" diplomatic drive in the Middle East and lift the logjam in efforts for a Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
The move comes despite the many troubles that Washington faces in the Middle East: The four-year-old guagmire in Iraq, refusal to deal Syria, the crisis in Lebanon, and a looming confrontation with Iran. Riding over these issues is the anti-US sentiment among the people of the region who see Washington as determined to exploit their resouorces and not to allow them exercise their legitimate rights.
Bush administration officials seem to believe that the events since the US-led invasion of Iraq have clarified the situation to a point that Washington could launch a new drive for Israeli-Palestinian peace as the starting point.
That belated realisation manifested into the recent tour of the region undertaken by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders as well as other influential Arab leaders.
It would be naive for anyone to believe that Israeli-Palestinian peace could be achieved simply because Washington felt there was a need for it in order to help the US solve other problems it faces in the Middle East. However, it could help the US restore its credibility that is so vital before it could seriously address the other problems of the region.
The requirements for peace in Palestine are clear:
Israel should be ready to leave the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and to withdraw to the lines it held before the 1967 war. This means willingness to dismantle the Jewish colonies that dot the West Bank, but Israel could negotiate mutually acceptable arrangements with the Palestinians over the fate of some of the settlements.
Israel should be ready to accept that its insistence that "unified Jerusalem" is its "eternal and indivisible capital" is not viable, given that the eastern half of the Holy City is where the Palestinians should set up their capital. West Jerusalem is not an issue anymore in real terms. Neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs have any interest in the western half of the Holy City.
Israel should seek mutually acceptable arrangements with the Palestinian people to ensure that the religious sentiments of all faiths are respected in an international framework without jeopardising the Palestinians' right to exercise their political rights with Arab East Jerusalem as their capital.
Israel should be ready to accept the reality the Palestinian refugee problems is the direct result of its creation in Palestine in 1948 and the measures it used — including massacres and other terror tactics — in its "ethnic cleansing" drive on the land under its control after its creation. The refugees should be allowed to exercise their right to return home or receive compensation in lieu as provided for in UN Resolution 194 of 1948. This does not mean — nor is it feasible — that two or three million Palestinians would flock to their ancestral homes in land where Israel was created in 1948. It important for them to have their rights recognised, and an overwhelming majority of them would simply opt for receiving compensation. The small segment among them who desire to exercise the right of return should be allowed to do so, but under arrangements negotiated by the Palestinians and Israel and based on criteria like family reunion.
On the surface, the onus is on Israel to move forward, but these requirements also impose inherent compromises on the part of the Palestinians that many among them would find hard to accept. If the Israeli leaders believe that they would find it difficult to persuade their people to accept the minimum compromises, then the Palestinian leaders also face the same problem.
Tackling these issues with a view to surmounting them should be the task that is launched at the proposed triateral meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders proposed by Rice, the US secretary of state, in Washington next month.
Indeed, there are certain "compromises" that the US also have to make in order to advance the process, but these should not pose a problem if the Bush administration commits itself to upholding fairness and justice as a universal imperative.
Being fair and just to everyone should be the way of life for the sole superpower of this planet. For the US to be selective in determining who deserves justice based on its own interests and those of its allies without considering the facts and realities would only defeat the purpose. Washington has to make up its mind to be neutral and commit itself to abide by international legitimacy and adopt a tough and firm stand against any Israeli and pro-Israeli effort to influence it away from being fair and just to the Palestinian people. That is all the Arab World is asking of the Bush administration. Is it too tall a demand?
Compromises that are not
The United States has promised an "intense" diplomatic drive in the Middle East and lift the logjam in efforts for a Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
The move comes despite the many troubles that Washington faces in the Middle East: The four-year-old guagmire in Iraq, refusal to deal Syria, the crisis in Lebanon, and a looming confrontation with Iran. Riding over these issues is the anti-US sentiment among the people of the region who see Washington as determined to exploit their resouorces and not to allow them exercise their legitimate rights.
Bush administration officials seem to believe that the events since the US-led invasion of Iraq have clarified the situation to a point that Washington could launch a new drive for Israeli-Palestinian peace as the starting point.
That belated realisation manifested into the recent tour of the region undertaken by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week for talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders as well as other influential Arab leaders.
It would be naive for anyone to believe that Israeli-Palestinian peace could be achieved simply because Washington felt there was a need for it in order to help the US solve other problems it faces in the Middle East. However, it could help the US restore its credibility that is so vital before it could seriously address the other problems of the region.
The requirements for peace in Palestine are clear:
Israel should be ready to leave the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem, and to withdraw to the lines it held before the 1967 war. This means willingness to dismantle the Jewish colonies that dot the West Bank, but Israel could negotiate mutually acceptable arrangements with the Palestinians over the fate of some of the settlements.
Israel should be ready to accept that its insistence that "unified Jerusalem" is its "eternal and indivisible capital" is not viable, given that the eastern half of the Holy City is where the Palestinians should set up their capital. West Jerusalem is not an issue anymore in real terms. Neither the Palestinians nor the Arabs have any interest in the western half of the Holy City.
Israel should seek mutually acceptable arrangements with the Palestinian people to ensure that the religious sentiments of all faiths are respected in an international framework without jeopardising the Palestinians' right to exercise their political rights with Arab East Jerusalem as their capital.
Israel should be ready to accept the reality the Palestinian refugee problems is the direct result of its creation in Palestine in 1948 and the measures it used — including massacres and other terror tactics — in its "ethnic cleansing" drive on the land under its control after its creation. The refugees should be allowed to exercise their right to return home or receive compensation in lieu as provided for in UN Resolution 194 of 1948. This does not mean — nor is it feasible — that two or three million Palestinians would flock to their ancestral homes in land where Israel was created in 1948. It important for them to have their rights recognised, and an overwhelming majority of them would simply opt for receiving compensation. The small segment among them who desire to exercise the right of return should be allowed to do so, but under arrangements negotiated by the Palestinians and Israel and based on criteria like family reunion.
On the surface, the onus is on Israel to move forward, but these requirements also impose inherent compromises on the part of the Palestinians that many among them would find hard to accept. If the Israeli leaders believe that they would find it difficult to persuade their people to accept the minimum compromises, then the Palestinian leaders also face the same problem.
Tackling these issues with a view to surmounting them should be the task that is launched at the proposed triateral meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders proposed by Rice, the US secretary of state, in Washington next month.
Indeed, there are certain "compromises" that the US also have to make in order to advance the process, but these should not pose a problem if the Bush administration commits itself to upholding fairness and justice as a universal imperative.
Being fair and just to everyone should be the way of life for the sole superpower of this planet. For the US to be selective in determining who deserves justice based on its own interests and those of its allies without considering the facts and realities would only defeat the purpose. Washington has to make up its mind to be neutral and commit itself to abide by international legitimacy and adopt a tough and firm stand against any Israeli and pro-Israeli effort to influence it away from being fair and just to the Palestinian people. That is all the Arab World is asking of the Bush administration. Is it too tall a demand?
Sunday, January 21, 2007
There goes Somalia again
January 21, 2007
There goes Somalia again
THE attacks against the presidential residence in Mogadishu on Friday and against an Ethiopian military convoy on Saturday appear to signal the launch of a guerrilla war in Somalia along the lines of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such incidents are likely to delay the departure of the Ethiopian forces from Somalia and that in turn would be an added incentive for guerrilla war to the Islamist forces who were dislodged from their strongholds in the recent Ethiopian offensive backed by the US.
An African Union (AU) force is being assembled to be deployed in Somalia and it is also likely to be targeted by the Islamist forces.
If we were go by the US argument that the Islamists are aligned with Al Qaeda, then it follows that they would engage in suicide bombings and ambushes that have come to be associated with the group in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is no dearth of weapons available to the Islamists in order to wage an effective guerrilla war against the Ethiopian forces, government soliders and the African Union soldiers to be deployed in the Horn of African country.
Indeed, the Islamists appear to be trying to pre-empt the deployment of the African forces by staging attacks against the Ethiopian soldiers and landmarks of authority of the interim government in the country. A raging war of attrition in Somalia would stop the various African countries in their tracks from sending soldiers to keep peace there.
If anything, the Ethiopians are helping the Islamist goal of strengthening the insurgency.
From the accounts of Somali victims caught in Saturday's crossfire and eyewitnesses, the Ethiopian soldiers opened fire indiscriminately when they came under attack and killed four people and wounded several people.
As one of them recounted, "They shot at me and the others indiscriminately ... they shot everybody who was moving around."
If true, then such behaviour would only add to the intensity of the conflict. It is obvious in Iraq that many Iraqis who suffered heavily — most of them lost their entire families — from the highhanded behaviour of the US forces and allies have joined the ranks of insurgence simply for the sake of exacting revenge for their loss and agony. That is the very nature of civil conflicts as we have learnt from history.
The foreign forces present in Iraq are perfect targets for the larger groups of Iraqi Sunni insurgents and the much smaller groups of so-called international "jihadists" (a la Al Qaeda). The same is true for the Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan. In both cases, it is impossible to see an end to the conflict except when dealt from within an internal framework. The story is going to be repeated in Somalia, and no one seems to have any answers to the big questions that need to be answered before the world could feel that things are turning around for the halpless people of Somalia who have been paying and are continuing to pay a heavy price for the tribe-based politics and tug-of-war that once characterised their country's conflict.
Of course it does not mean that there is no optimism for Somalia. A released on Friday by an African Union fact-finding mission says that the recent developments in Somalia "represent a unique and unprecedented opportunity to re-establish the structures of governance and further peace and reconciliation in Somalia."
UN envoy Francois Fall, who concluded after a lightning visit to Mogadishu on Thursday, says that that "this is the best opportunity for peace for 16 years in Somalia and we must not waste it."
Indeed, it is mostly up to the people of Somalia to realise that it is their future that they would be playing with if they continued on the path of aggressive designs against each other.
The Islamists could not be expected to come around to accepting it easily, and the responsibility rests with the government of President Abdullahi Yusuf, the tribal warlords and their followers to accept that the future of their country depends on their willingness to pursue reconciliation rather than settle scores. Parallel to that the international community should step in with generous aid — distributed under strict supervision and away from the corruption that was associated with past efforts in the country — to kindle a feeling among the people of Somalia that they stand to lose something if they continued on their violent ways. Without a concerted push backed by the world, Somalia would slip deeper into crises and become breeding-ground for militancy and extremism.
There goes Somalia again
THE attacks against the presidential residence in Mogadishu on Friday and against an Ethiopian military convoy on Saturday appear to signal the launch of a guerrilla war in Somalia along the lines of what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such incidents are likely to delay the departure of the Ethiopian forces from Somalia and that in turn would be an added incentive for guerrilla war to the Islamist forces who were dislodged from their strongholds in the recent Ethiopian offensive backed by the US.
An African Union (AU) force is being assembled to be deployed in Somalia and it is also likely to be targeted by the Islamist forces.
If we were go by the US argument that the Islamists are aligned with Al Qaeda, then it follows that they would engage in suicide bombings and ambushes that have come to be associated with the group in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is no dearth of weapons available to the Islamists in order to wage an effective guerrilla war against the Ethiopian forces, government soliders and the African Union soldiers to be deployed in the Horn of African country.
Indeed, the Islamists appear to be trying to pre-empt the deployment of the African forces by staging attacks against the Ethiopian soldiers and landmarks of authority of the interim government in the country. A raging war of attrition in Somalia would stop the various African countries in their tracks from sending soldiers to keep peace there.
If anything, the Ethiopians are helping the Islamist goal of strengthening the insurgency.
From the accounts of Somali victims caught in Saturday's crossfire and eyewitnesses, the Ethiopian soldiers opened fire indiscriminately when they came under attack and killed four people and wounded several people.
As one of them recounted, "They shot at me and the others indiscriminately ... they shot everybody who was moving around."
If true, then such behaviour would only add to the intensity of the conflict. It is obvious in Iraq that many Iraqis who suffered heavily — most of them lost their entire families — from the highhanded behaviour of the US forces and allies have joined the ranks of insurgence simply for the sake of exacting revenge for their loss and agony. That is the very nature of civil conflicts as we have learnt from history.
The foreign forces present in Iraq are perfect targets for the larger groups of Iraqi Sunni insurgents and the much smaller groups of so-called international "jihadists" (a la Al Qaeda). The same is true for the Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan. In both cases, it is impossible to see an end to the conflict except when dealt from within an internal framework. The story is going to be repeated in Somalia, and no one seems to have any answers to the big questions that need to be answered before the world could feel that things are turning around for the halpless people of Somalia who have been paying and are continuing to pay a heavy price for the tribe-based politics and tug-of-war that once characterised their country's conflict.
Of course it does not mean that there is no optimism for Somalia. A released on Friday by an African Union fact-finding mission says that the recent developments in Somalia "represent a unique and unprecedented opportunity to re-establish the structures of governance and further peace and reconciliation in Somalia."
UN envoy Francois Fall, who concluded after a lightning visit to Mogadishu on Thursday, says that that "this is the best opportunity for peace for 16 years in Somalia and we must not waste it."
Indeed, it is mostly up to the people of Somalia to realise that it is their future that they would be playing with if they continued on the path of aggressive designs against each other.
The Islamists could not be expected to come around to accepting it easily, and the responsibility rests with the government of President Abdullahi Yusuf, the tribal warlords and their followers to accept that the future of their country depends on their willingness to pursue reconciliation rather than settle scores. Parallel to that the international community should step in with generous aid — distributed under strict supervision and away from the corruption that was associated with past efforts in the country — to kindle a feeling among the people of Somalia that they stand to lose something if they continued on their violent ways. Without a concerted push backed by the world, Somalia would slip deeper into crises and become breeding-ground for militancy and extremism.
Friday, January 19, 2007
More to it than meets the eye
Jan.19, 2007
More to it than meets the eye
A revelation by an Israeli newspaper that Israelis and Syrians were engaged in secret negotiations but did not resume the talks after last year's Israeli assault on Lebanon could be interpreted in many ways. The Israeli and Syrian governments have denied the report, but it has been more or less confirmed that bilateral talks did take place with government approval but no senior official attended the meetings.
The revelation remind us of the secret negotiations that Israel launched with the Palestinians that led to the 1993 Oslo agreement they signed. The negotiations were held in Norway parallel to formal talks that were launched at an international conference in Madrid in 1991. The Oslo agreement signed in September 1993 was then seen as a major breakthrough since it led to mutual recognition by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). It set out a process that should have led to negotiations on a final peace agreement in five years had it not been for political upheavals in Israel and the assumption of power by hardliners who had opposed the Oslo deal in the first place.
The secret Syrina-Israeli meetings that were held in Europe from September 2004 to June 2006 are described as an academic exercise by the Israelis. However, no such talks could take place without Israeli government approval.
The confirmation that Israel and Syria held secret talks indicates that there is an Israeli willingness to reopen the Syria file. In recent years, the file was believed to be closed forever because it was deemed impossible for either side to make compromises over their demands. Syria wants the entire Golan Heights — which Israel seized in 1967 — returned to its sovereignty and is willing to recognise the state of Israel and normalise relations with it in exchange for the strategic heights, which overlooks Lake Tiberias in northern Israel.
It is possible that the disclosure of talks was aimed at "exposing" Syria — that Damascus had held secret talks with Israel while engaging in anti-Israeli rhetorics to placate the Palestinians and Hizbollah. However, it would not have the desired effect because it is widely accepted that Israel and the Arabs would have to make peace sooner or later and there should be nothing untoward in Damascus exploring possibilities of securing its demands in return for normalisation of ties with the Jewish state.
Israel should be interested in exploring possibilities of making peace with Syria, but the problem is that it wants to impose conditions and wants to put the cart before the horse.
It wants Syria to expel Palestinian groups based in Syrian territory and stop backing Lebanon's Hizbollah group. Damascus could not meet the Israeli demand because it sees its links with the Palestinian groups and Hizbollah as strategically important. Its implicit argument is that its relations with the Palestinian groups and Hizbollah would cease to be an issue when it makes peace with Israel.
While denying the Israeli report of secret talks, the official Syrian media — which relay leadership thinking — said Damascus said it did not want secret negotiations, and what it wanted was an Israeli pledge to return the Golan Heights. That is the crux of the matter.
Perhaps the times is opportune for a new push towards Israeli-Syrian peace because the geopolitics have changed since the last time they met.
Israel should have learnt that it has lost its deterrent capabilities when it failed to break Hizbollahs' resistance during last year's war.
There is no doubt that Syria holds the key to preventing another Israeli war on Lebanon, and this realisation should be the motivating factor for Israeli leaders to re-engage the Syrians in negotiations — in secret or in public as long as they have accepted the inevitability of having to return the Golan to Syria.
More to it than meets the eye
A revelation by an Israeli newspaper that Israelis and Syrians were engaged in secret negotiations but did not resume the talks after last year's Israeli assault on Lebanon could be interpreted in many ways. The Israeli and Syrian governments have denied the report, but it has been more or less confirmed that bilateral talks did take place with government approval but no senior official attended the meetings.
The revelation remind us of the secret negotiations that Israel launched with the Palestinians that led to the 1993 Oslo agreement they signed. The negotiations were held in Norway parallel to formal talks that were launched at an international conference in Madrid in 1991. The Oslo agreement signed in September 1993 was then seen as a major breakthrough since it led to mutual recognition by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). It set out a process that should have led to negotiations on a final peace agreement in five years had it not been for political upheavals in Israel and the assumption of power by hardliners who had opposed the Oslo deal in the first place.
The secret Syrina-Israeli meetings that were held in Europe from September 2004 to June 2006 are described as an academic exercise by the Israelis. However, no such talks could take place without Israeli government approval.
The confirmation that Israel and Syria held secret talks indicates that there is an Israeli willingness to reopen the Syria file. In recent years, the file was believed to be closed forever because it was deemed impossible for either side to make compromises over their demands. Syria wants the entire Golan Heights — which Israel seized in 1967 — returned to its sovereignty and is willing to recognise the state of Israel and normalise relations with it in exchange for the strategic heights, which overlooks Lake Tiberias in northern Israel.
It is possible that the disclosure of talks was aimed at "exposing" Syria — that Damascus had held secret talks with Israel while engaging in anti-Israeli rhetorics to placate the Palestinians and Hizbollah. However, it would not have the desired effect because it is widely accepted that Israel and the Arabs would have to make peace sooner or later and there should be nothing untoward in Damascus exploring possibilities of securing its demands in return for normalisation of ties with the Jewish state.
Israel should be interested in exploring possibilities of making peace with Syria, but the problem is that it wants to impose conditions and wants to put the cart before the horse.
It wants Syria to expel Palestinian groups based in Syrian territory and stop backing Lebanon's Hizbollah group. Damascus could not meet the Israeli demand because it sees its links with the Palestinian groups and Hizbollah as strategically important. Its implicit argument is that its relations with the Palestinian groups and Hizbollah would cease to be an issue when it makes peace with Israel.
While denying the Israeli report of secret talks, the official Syrian media — which relay leadership thinking — said Damascus said it did not want secret negotiations, and what it wanted was an Israeli pledge to return the Golan Heights. That is the crux of the matter.
Perhaps the times is opportune for a new push towards Israeli-Syrian peace because the geopolitics have changed since the last time they met.
Israel should have learnt that it has lost its deterrent capabilities when it failed to break Hizbollahs' resistance during last year's war.
There is no doubt that Syria holds the key to preventing another Israeli war on Lebanon, and this realisation should be the motivating factor for Israeli leaders to re-engage the Syrians in negotiations — in secret or in public as long as they have accepted the inevitability of having to return the Golan to Syria.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Side-stepping the imperatives
January 17, 2007
Side-stepping the imperatives
THE US is barking at the wrong tree in Afghanistan. Not that it should be surprising, given the example of Iraq. The mistake that Washington is making is that it is not ready to accept that the insurgents it faces in Afghanistan are very much sons of the Afghan soil and they are fighting on their own territory and are not sent there by a foreign force to challenge the sole superpower in the world.
The US military is also unwilling to recognise that Pakistan has an interest in Afghanistan's stability and it does make sense to accuse Pakistan of helping the insurgents by sheltering them on the border.
Islambad has a problem on its own in its hands posed by the unruly and unweildy tribes living in areas straddling the border with Afghanistan, but it has to devise its own methods and means to deal with them. External solutions would not work.
The US should not expect or pressure Pakistan to unleash summary military action to "clean up" the suspected areas. Such action would only add to the instability of the border area and deprive the government in Islamadad of whatever popularity in has in those areas.
Pakistan is trying to do what it could. It did so again on Tuesday when it bombed five suspected Al Qaeda hideouts near the border as US Defence Secretary Robert Gates was visiting Afghanistan for the first time after assuming office.
Gates's talks with Afghan leaders are unlikely to produce any dramatic breakthrough in the effort to eliminate the Taliban-led insurgency.
By treating the Taliban insurgents as alien to Afghanistan and not working towards bringing them into the political process through dialogue, the US is compounding its problems in the country, which it invaded in late 2001 to dislodge the hardline group from power after it refused to hand over Osaman Bin Laden.
More than five years later, the US and allied forces find themselves caught in a vicious guerrilla war with Taliban fighters who, everyone thought at one point, had become part of the history of a land that had always eluded foreign efforts to control it.
In the short term, the International Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan (IFSA) and the US military could score a few hits against the insurgents as it did last week when it claimed it killed some 130 of them in one of the largest winter battles in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
The Taliban rejected the claim, and the group's purported spokesman who issued the rejection was said to have been arrested after he crossed into the country from Pakistan on Tuesday.
Questioning the man could produce clues to the whereabouts of Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar who are reportedly being sheltered somewhere along the porous Afghan-Pak border. Of course, securing a clue is something and actually capturing the fugitives is something else. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar have eluded capture for more than give years, and even US President George W Bush has suggested that it is no longer relevant whether they are captured.
That is of course an implicit and perhaps unwitting admission that the insurgency in Afghanistan — as the larger one in Iraq — has assumed an independent nature without having to wait for orders from a centralised leadership, which Al Qaeda never had in any event.
As such, it would apepar that the foreign forces would not be able to sustain the momentum against the Taliban, who enjoy support from the local residents. Such is the Afghan nature that there is always someone to replace a fallen fighter, and this means the ranks of insurgents will not remain vacant for long.
Most of these issues are peripheral to the key challenge the US and its allies face in deeply troubled Afghanistan — how to contain the insurgency and make the country governable. In order to arrive at that point, the US, the Afghan government and their supporters and allies have to turn attention to daily life issues of the people of Afghanistan parallel to engaging the Taliban in dialogue on an equal footing with all others. Not that the Taliban appear to be desparate or even anxious for dialogue. But keeping the Taliban at arms length would only turn the situation more vicious for the foreign soldiers and government forces in Afghanistan than it is today.
Side-stepping the imperatives
THE US is barking at the wrong tree in Afghanistan. Not that it should be surprising, given the example of Iraq. The mistake that Washington is making is that it is not ready to accept that the insurgents it faces in Afghanistan are very much sons of the Afghan soil and they are fighting on their own territory and are not sent there by a foreign force to challenge the sole superpower in the world.
The US military is also unwilling to recognise that Pakistan has an interest in Afghanistan's stability and it does make sense to accuse Pakistan of helping the insurgents by sheltering them on the border.
Islambad has a problem on its own in its hands posed by the unruly and unweildy tribes living in areas straddling the border with Afghanistan, but it has to devise its own methods and means to deal with them. External solutions would not work.
The US should not expect or pressure Pakistan to unleash summary military action to "clean up" the suspected areas. Such action would only add to the instability of the border area and deprive the government in Islamadad of whatever popularity in has in those areas.
Pakistan is trying to do what it could. It did so again on Tuesday when it bombed five suspected Al Qaeda hideouts near the border as US Defence Secretary Robert Gates was visiting Afghanistan for the first time after assuming office.
Gates's talks with Afghan leaders are unlikely to produce any dramatic breakthrough in the effort to eliminate the Taliban-led insurgency.
By treating the Taliban insurgents as alien to Afghanistan and not working towards bringing them into the political process through dialogue, the US is compounding its problems in the country, which it invaded in late 2001 to dislodge the hardline group from power after it refused to hand over Osaman Bin Laden.
More than five years later, the US and allied forces find themselves caught in a vicious guerrilla war with Taliban fighters who, everyone thought at one point, had become part of the history of a land that had always eluded foreign efforts to control it.
In the short term, the International Stabilisation Force in Afghanistan (IFSA) and the US military could score a few hits against the insurgents as it did last week when it claimed it killed some 130 of them in one of the largest winter battles in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001.
The Taliban rejected the claim, and the group's purported spokesman who issued the rejection was said to have been arrested after he crossed into the country from Pakistan on Tuesday.
Questioning the man could produce clues to the whereabouts of Bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar who are reportedly being sheltered somewhere along the porous Afghan-Pak border. Of course, securing a clue is something and actually capturing the fugitives is something else. Bin Laden and Mullah Omar have eluded capture for more than give years, and even US President George W Bush has suggested that it is no longer relevant whether they are captured.
That is of course an implicit and perhaps unwitting admission that the insurgency in Afghanistan — as the larger one in Iraq — has assumed an independent nature without having to wait for orders from a centralised leadership, which Al Qaeda never had in any event.
As such, it would apepar that the foreign forces would not be able to sustain the momentum against the Taliban, who enjoy support from the local residents. Such is the Afghan nature that there is always someone to replace a fallen fighter, and this means the ranks of insurgents will not remain vacant for long.
Most of these issues are peripheral to the key challenge the US and its allies face in deeply troubled Afghanistan — how to contain the insurgency and make the country governable. In order to arrive at that point, the US, the Afghan government and their supporters and allies have to turn attention to daily life issues of the people of Afghanistan parallel to engaging the Taliban in dialogue on an equal footing with all others. Not that the Taliban appear to be desparate or even anxious for dialogue. But keeping the Taliban at arms length would only turn the situation more vicious for the foreign soldiers and government forces in Afghanistan than it is today.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Region pays for US misadventures
Jan.16, 2007
Region pays for US misadventures
IT IS amusing yet disgusting to hear the Bush administration continuing to insist that critics of the administration's new strategy in Iraq and its refusal to quit the war-torn country are playing into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and global terrorism. It not only sounds like a cracked music record with a broken needle but also like a high-stinking stale dish served in a new plate.
Even the Americans know it. Here is a typical and telling commentary by McClatchy Newspapers: "President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq."
In simpler words, the writer is accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people and the international community at large.
The argument the Bush administration puts up is a blatant denial of the fact that it is the US military occupation of Iraq that is the root cause of the crisis that Washington is facing in the country. Iraq has become a breeding ground for militancy, with the US soldiers present there presenting a convenient target for the so-called "international jihadists," who, contrary to US arguments, represent less than 10 per cent of anti-US insurgents in the country. The others are Iraqis themselves whose agenda is Iraq-specific, and their number would only grow with every high-handed American military action in the country. They are fighting a guerrilla war against the foreign military occupiers of their country as much as whom them see as the local allies of the occupiers. Forgotten or sidestepped is the reality that they are also killing far more innocent Iraqis than American soldiers on a daily basis, and there could be no justification whatsover for it.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney, who played the leading role in the scenario that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and who is naturally the most ardent advocate of continued US military presence there, portrays the confrontation in Iraq as a conflict between the US and Osama Bin Laden.
"Bin Laden doesn't think he can beat us. He believes he can force us to quit," Cheney said on Sunday. "He believes after Lebanon and Somalia, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war and Iraq is the current central battlefield in that war, and it's essential we win there and we will win there," argued Cheney, who is described as the most influential and powerful vice-president in US history.
"They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," he said.
True indeed. What Cheney left unsaid in so many words was that withdrawing from Iraq would deal a severe blow to the US image as the world's sole superpower and leave a major dent in Washington's self-declared determination to fight global terrorism.
Simultaneously, there is the multi-billion-dollar angle, which, many critics of the war argue, was and is one of the key administration considerations in Iraq.
Cheney is actually targeting members of Congress who are threatening to withhold funds for the war in Iraq. Denial of funds would not only deadlock the US role in Iraq but also deprive Bush-administration-linked American corporates of business worth of billions of dollars.
These corporates make thousands of dollars per American soldier per day in Iraq. They invoice the US government for unsupplied goods and unoffered services and inflate bills by hundreds of millions of dollars and get paid without questions being asked. They should be rubbing their knuckles in glee in the wake of Bush's announcement last week that he was sending 21,500 soldiers to join the 132,000 US troops already deployed in Iraq. They and their patrons in the administration would be deeply disappointed if they are denied the easy chance to make billions of dollars in American taxpayers' money.
Indeed, it is the American system and money, and the people raising an uproar over being taken for a ride by the administration should be Americans themselves. But the issue ceases to be an all-American affair because the Gulf region and the wider Middle East have a key stake in it when the US ride is over an Arab country and Arab people and is leaving major waves in its wake that have serious regional implications.
Region pays for US misadventures
IT IS amusing yet disgusting to hear the Bush administration continuing to insist that critics of the administration's new strategy in Iraq and its refusal to quit the war-torn country are playing into the hands of Osama Bin Laden and global terrorism. It not only sounds like a cracked music record with a broken needle but also like a high-stinking stale dish served in a new plate.
Even the Americans know it. Here is a typical and telling commentary by McClatchy Newspapers: "President Bush and his aides, explaining their reasons for sending more American troops to Iraq, are offering an incomplete, oversimplified and possibly untrue version of events there that raises new questions about the accuracy of the administration's statements about Iraq."
In simpler words, the writer is accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people and the international community at large.
The argument the Bush administration puts up is a blatant denial of the fact that it is the US military occupation of Iraq that is the root cause of the crisis that Washington is facing in the country. Iraq has become a breeding ground for militancy, with the US soldiers present there presenting a convenient target for the so-called "international jihadists," who, contrary to US arguments, represent less than 10 per cent of anti-US insurgents in the country. The others are Iraqis themselves whose agenda is Iraq-specific, and their number would only grow with every high-handed American military action in the country. They are fighting a guerrilla war against the foreign military occupiers of their country as much as whom them see as the local allies of the occupiers. Forgotten or sidestepped is the reality that they are also killing far more innocent Iraqis than American soldiers on a daily basis, and there could be no justification whatsover for it.
US Vice-President Dick Cheney, who played the leading role in the scenario that led to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and who is naturally the most ardent advocate of continued US military presence there, portrays the confrontation in Iraq as a conflict between the US and Osama Bin Laden.
"Bin Laden doesn't think he can beat us. He believes he can force us to quit," Cheney said on Sunday. "He believes after Lebanon and Somalia, the United States doesn't have the stomach for a long war and Iraq is the current central battlefield in that war, and it's essential we win there and we will win there," argued Cheney, who is described as the most influential and powerful vice-president in US history.
"They're convinced that the United States will, in fact, pack it in and go home if they just kill enough of us," he said.
True indeed. What Cheney left unsaid in so many words was that withdrawing from Iraq would deal a severe blow to the US image as the world's sole superpower and leave a major dent in Washington's self-declared determination to fight global terrorism.
Simultaneously, there is the multi-billion-dollar angle, which, many critics of the war argue, was and is one of the key administration considerations in Iraq.
Cheney is actually targeting members of Congress who are threatening to withhold funds for the war in Iraq. Denial of funds would not only deadlock the US role in Iraq but also deprive Bush-administration-linked American corporates of business worth of billions of dollars.
These corporates make thousands of dollars per American soldier per day in Iraq. They invoice the US government for unsupplied goods and unoffered services and inflate bills by hundreds of millions of dollars and get paid without questions being asked. They should be rubbing their knuckles in glee in the wake of Bush's announcement last week that he was sending 21,500 soldiers to join the 132,000 US troops already deployed in Iraq. They and their patrons in the administration would be deeply disappointed if they are denied the easy chance to make billions of dollars in American taxpayers' money.
Indeed, it is the American system and money, and the people raising an uproar over being taken for a ride by the administration should be Americans themselves. But the issue ceases to be an all-American affair because the Gulf region and the wider Middle East have a key stake in it when the US ride is over an Arab country and Arab people and is leaving major waves in its wake that have serious regional implications.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Logic, reason in short supply
January 1, 2007
Logic and reason in acute short supply
The 135,000-strong US force could not overpower the Sunni insurgents — whose community represents around 20 per cent of the 25-million population in Iraq. How could a 155,000 or 165,000-strong US force — including the proposed 20,000-30,000-strong addition — take on the heavily armed Shiite militiamen — whose community represents over 55 per cent of the Iraqi population?
These are simple numbers. The strength of the Sunni insurgents and anti-US Shiite militiaman need not necessarily be proportionate to their percentage of the Iraqi population. However, it is simple logic that a force which failed to subdue the minority Sunnis would not be able to successfully take on the majority Shiites plus of course the Sunnis with a 20 per cent increase in the numerical strength (unless the US force is permitted to use weapons of mass destruction to carry out indiscriminate massacres of tens of thousands of Iraqis and reduce the population of Iraq by a few millions).
US military commanders have opposed, many in private and some in public, the proposed "surge" in troops planned by President George W Bush, who is not only listening to them but is also punishing them, both directly and indirectly, for speaking out.
Bush's obvious determination to "stay the course" in Iraq defies all political and military odds.
It was the popular sentiment against the war in Iraq that led to Bush's Republican camp's defeat in November's mid-term elections. The Democrats have taken over the US Congress and are threatening to withhold funds for the war. The Iraqi Study Group has recommended that the US should withdraw from Iraq. Recent opinion polls show that just around 20 per cent of American believe that there is any sense in continuing the US military presence in Iraq. And the number of American soldiers dying in action in Iraq is climbing.
Even in his alliances with Shiites in Iraq, Bush is finding it extremely difficult to proceed as is evident in the failure of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to check the ethnic cleansing campaign run largely by Shiite militiamen but also to a limited scale by Sunnis, or even to protect innocent civilians, both Shiites and Sunnis.
It is also clear that the Bush plan involves targeting the Shiite Mahdi Army of Moqtada Sadr for elimination, and that could trigger a series of events that would find the US military bogged down in a war of attrition from which there would be no easy escape.
Why should then Bush proceed with a plan that he should know is not going to make any real difference to the doomed military option in Iraq except increase the number of American (and Iraqi) casualties in the chaotic country?
Many Washington insiders, including named and unnamed White House aides and senior Pentagon officers, believe that Bush's decision to send 20,000-30,000 additional soldiers to Iraq is purely political with little regard to the reality on the ground in military terms. That would indicate that the president is willing to gamble with the lives of American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to serve whatever he thinks is his political priority. That priority seems to be his alliance with the neoconservative and pro-Israeli camp at the expense of his obligations to the American people and his responsibility as the chief executive officer and military commander of his country.
It has been reported that the neoconservative and pro-Israeli camp skillfully used the Bush administration's failure in Iraq (through hard-hitting neocon commentaries in the media among other means) in order to convince the president that the best way to fight the Iraq insurgency was an unprecedented aggressive counter-move supported by the buildup of troop levels. And we now see that Bush has embraced this proposal against the wise counsel of experience military officers.
General John Abizaid, who bowed out as head of the Central Command last week, could not have put it better when he told Republican Senator John McCain during a congressional hearing that it would not be wise to send more troops to Iraq.
Abizaid went on record telling McCain: "I met with every divisional commander, General (George) Casey, the core commander, General (Martin) Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."
No wonder Bush replaced Abizaid. The president does not want to hear anything opposed to his views. That is the biggest problem that the US faces today — a president who refuses to accept reality, logic and reason and who is taking his country on a path towards more catastrophes for his own people. But it also becomes the biggest problem not only for the people of Iraq but also the entire Middle East since they would all be caught in the direct and indirect fallout of the catastrophic course of the Bush administration's military misadventures.
Logic and reason in acute short supply
The 135,000-strong US force could not overpower the Sunni insurgents — whose community represents around 20 per cent of the 25-million population in Iraq. How could a 155,000 or 165,000-strong US force — including the proposed 20,000-30,000-strong addition — take on the heavily armed Shiite militiamen — whose community represents over 55 per cent of the Iraqi population?
These are simple numbers. The strength of the Sunni insurgents and anti-US Shiite militiaman need not necessarily be proportionate to their percentage of the Iraqi population. However, it is simple logic that a force which failed to subdue the minority Sunnis would not be able to successfully take on the majority Shiites plus of course the Sunnis with a 20 per cent increase in the numerical strength (unless the US force is permitted to use weapons of mass destruction to carry out indiscriminate massacres of tens of thousands of Iraqis and reduce the population of Iraq by a few millions).
US military commanders have opposed, many in private and some in public, the proposed "surge" in troops planned by President George W Bush, who is not only listening to them but is also punishing them, both directly and indirectly, for speaking out.
Bush's obvious determination to "stay the course" in Iraq defies all political and military odds.
It was the popular sentiment against the war in Iraq that led to Bush's Republican camp's defeat in November's mid-term elections. The Democrats have taken over the US Congress and are threatening to withhold funds for the war. The Iraqi Study Group has recommended that the US should withdraw from Iraq. Recent opinion polls show that just around 20 per cent of American believe that there is any sense in continuing the US military presence in Iraq. And the number of American soldiers dying in action in Iraq is climbing.
Even in his alliances with Shiites in Iraq, Bush is finding it extremely difficult to proceed as is evident in the failure of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to check the ethnic cleansing campaign run largely by Shiite militiamen but also to a limited scale by Sunnis, or even to protect innocent civilians, both Shiites and Sunnis.
It is also clear that the Bush plan involves targeting the Shiite Mahdi Army of Moqtada Sadr for elimination, and that could trigger a series of events that would find the US military bogged down in a war of attrition from which there would be no easy escape.
Why should then Bush proceed with a plan that he should know is not going to make any real difference to the doomed military option in Iraq except increase the number of American (and Iraqi) casualties in the chaotic country?
Many Washington insiders, including named and unnamed White House aides and senior Pentagon officers, believe that Bush's decision to send 20,000-30,000 additional soldiers to Iraq is purely political with little regard to the reality on the ground in military terms. That would indicate that the president is willing to gamble with the lives of American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to serve whatever he thinks is his political priority. That priority seems to be his alliance with the neoconservative and pro-Israeli camp at the expense of his obligations to the American people and his responsibility as the chief executive officer and military commander of his country.
It has been reported that the neoconservative and pro-Israeli camp skillfully used the Bush administration's failure in Iraq (through hard-hitting neocon commentaries in the media among other means) in order to convince the president that the best way to fight the Iraq insurgency was an unprecedented aggressive counter-move supported by the buildup of troop levels. And we now see that Bush has embraced this proposal against the wise counsel of experience military officers.
General John Abizaid, who bowed out as head of the Central Command last week, could not have put it better when he told Republican Senator John McCain during a congressional hearing that it would not be wise to send more troops to Iraq.
Abizaid went on record telling McCain: "I met with every divisional commander, General (George) Casey, the core commander, General (Martin) Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."
No wonder Bush replaced Abizaid. The president does not want to hear anything opposed to his views. That is the biggest problem that the US faces today — a president who refuses to accept reality, logic and reason and who is taking his country on a path towards more catastrophes for his own people. But it also becomes the biggest problem not only for the people of Iraq but also the entire Middle East since they would all be caught in the direct and indirect fallout of the catastrophic course of the Bush administration's military misadventures.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Somalia - long road to recovery
January 2, 2007
Long road to recovery
SOMALIA has taken yet another topsy-turvy turn in its turbulent history in the last 16 years, with the interim government, supported by powerful Ethiopian military forces, having taken control of the capital Mogadishu and most other towns after trouncing the Union of Islamic Courts.
It is the first time that the UN-recognised interim government has been able to expand its control beyond the small town of Baidoa, thanks to the Ethiopian intervention on its behalf backed by the US and European countries.
Most the Islamist fighters, according to reports, have fled across the border to Kenya or are hiding in the border area. The Somali government has asked Kenya to seat off its border and prevent the Islamists from entering Kenyan territory.
US warships patrolling off the Somali coast are also offering logistic and military support to the interim government and keeping an eye out for Islamist leaders — including those whom Washington describes as Al Qaeda suspects — from fleeing the country by sea.
In Mogadishu, Interim Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Gedi has offered an amnesty to remnants of the Islamist group if they surrender their weapons at specially set up collections points by Thursday.
Both Gedi and Ethiopian Prime Minister have said that the Ethiopian military presence in Somalia would be limited, but none of them gave any timeframe.
However, while the Ethiopian prime minister told his country's parliament that it would only be a matter of weeks before Ethiopian forces leave Somalia, Gedi suggested it could be a few months.
That uncertainty exposes the most vulnerable phase of efforts to restore law and order to Somalia for the first time since 1991 when Mohammed Siad Barre was ousted as president and warlords created their own fiefdoms across the country.
Indeed, a majority of the 10 million people of Somalia want peace and stability. Many of them welcomed the Union of Islamic Courts when its fighters chased out tribal warlords from their fiefdoms in Mogadishu and other major areas in the country in mid-2007 and promised to rebuild the country.
Somalis, who have suffered enough from the civil strife in the country coupled with natural calamities like drought and floods, were willing even to ignore that the Islamists went around enforcing tough rules based on a strict interpretation of Islamic laws in their areas they controlled.
However, the Islamists have been defeated now, with the interim government taking their place with Ethiopian support. However, the conflict seems to be far from being over.
The task of pacifying Somalia would not be easy, given that the Islamists have vowed to fight a guerrilla war — including suicide bombings and hit-and-run operations, that could deny the government the stability and security that it needs to offer the people. Further complicating the effort is the return of autocratic warlords who have never learnt to respect a central authority in the country and who used to "govern" their areas of influence the way they liked since the ouster of Siad Barre.
In Mogadishu itself, the order for residents to disarm themselves is aimed equally at Islamist fighters as well as followers of the warlords who reigned supreme in the capital and surrounding areas until they were driven out by the Islamists six months ago.
It is said that no Somali male is considered a man if he does not possess a gun. Being armed is an integral part of the Somali life if only for self-defence — in view of the on-again, off-again tribal warfare — as well as a symbol of manhood.
Today, Mogadishu is one of the most weapon-infested cities of the world, according to experts.
Giving up weapons would be unthinkable for many Somalis, whether Islamists or otherwise. As such, the government is likely to face a cool response to its offer of amnesty in return for weapons and would have to come up with a foolproof formula designed to convince the Somalis that the state is strong enough to offer them protection no matter what.
For the moment, many Somalis who are not aligned with any group seem to be sitting on the fence, watching closely whether the government victory over the Islamists is irreversible and how Gedi would cope with the potential threat of guerrilla war against the interim authority.
Seeking to exacerbate the crisis is Al Qaeda, which has called on all Muslims to join the Islamists to fight off Christian-dominated Ethiopia supported by Christian West in Somalia. That call might find resonance as long as the Ethiopian forces remain in Somalia. Therefore the first item on Gedi's agenda should be to have the Ethiopian military replaced by a neutral African force deployed in the country to assure the people of safety, security and stability. Parallel to that the UN should step up its relief operations and allow the Somalis to resume normal life after the suffering of many years. That would be the best first step Gedi could take in carrying out his mandate as interim prime minister tasked with leading the country on the long path towards recovery.
Long road to recovery
SOMALIA has taken yet another topsy-turvy turn in its turbulent history in the last 16 years, with the interim government, supported by powerful Ethiopian military forces, having taken control of the capital Mogadishu and most other towns after trouncing the Union of Islamic Courts.
It is the first time that the UN-recognised interim government has been able to expand its control beyond the small town of Baidoa, thanks to the Ethiopian intervention on its behalf backed by the US and European countries.
Most the Islamist fighters, according to reports, have fled across the border to Kenya or are hiding in the border area. The Somali government has asked Kenya to seat off its border and prevent the Islamists from entering Kenyan territory.
US warships patrolling off the Somali coast are also offering logistic and military support to the interim government and keeping an eye out for Islamist leaders — including those whom Washington describes as Al Qaeda suspects — from fleeing the country by sea.
In Mogadishu, Interim Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Gedi has offered an amnesty to remnants of the Islamist group if they surrender their weapons at specially set up collections points by Thursday.
Both Gedi and Ethiopian Prime Minister have said that the Ethiopian military presence in Somalia would be limited, but none of them gave any timeframe.
However, while the Ethiopian prime minister told his country's parliament that it would only be a matter of weeks before Ethiopian forces leave Somalia, Gedi suggested it could be a few months.
That uncertainty exposes the most vulnerable phase of efforts to restore law and order to Somalia for the first time since 1991 when Mohammed Siad Barre was ousted as president and warlords created their own fiefdoms across the country.
Indeed, a majority of the 10 million people of Somalia want peace and stability. Many of them welcomed the Union of Islamic Courts when its fighters chased out tribal warlords from their fiefdoms in Mogadishu and other major areas in the country in mid-2007 and promised to rebuild the country.
Somalis, who have suffered enough from the civil strife in the country coupled with natural calamities like drought and floods, were willing even to ignore that the Islamists went around enforcing tough rules based on a strict interpretation of Islamic laws in their areas they controlled.
However, the Islamists have been defeated now, with the interim government taking their place with Ethiopian support. However, the conflict seems to be far from being over.
The task of pacifying Somalia would not be easy, given that the Islamists have vowed to fight a guerrilla war — including suicide bombings and hit-and-run operations, that could deny the government the stability and security that it needs to offer the people. Further complicating the effort is the return of autocratic warlords who have never learnt to respect a central authority in the country and who used to "govern" their areas of influence the way they liked since the ouster of Siad Barre.
In Mogadishu itself, the order for residents to disarm themselves is aimed equally at Islamist fighters as well as followers of the warlords who reigned supreme in the capital and surrounding areas until they were driven out by the Islamists six months ago.
It is said that no Somali male is considered a man if he does not possess a gun. Being armed is an integral part of the Somali life if only for self-defence — in view of the on-again, off-again tribal warfare — as well as a symbol of manhood.
Today, Mogadishu is one of the most weapon-infested cities of the world, according to experts.
Giving up weapons would be unthinkable for many Somalis, whether Islamists or otherwise. As such, the government is likely to face a cool response to its offer of amnesty in return for weapons and would have to come up with a foolproof formula designed to convince the Somalis that the state is strong enough to offer them protection no matter what.
For the moment, many Somalis who are not aligned with any group seem to be sitting on the fence, watching closely whether the government victory over the Islamists is irreversible and how Gedi would cope with the potential threat of guerrilla war against the interim authority.
Seeking to exacerbate the crisis is Al Qaeda, which has called on all Muslims to join the Islamists to fight off Christian-dominated Ethiopia supported by Christian West in Somalia. That call might find resonance as long as the Ethiopian forces remain in Somalia. Therefore the first item on Gedi's agenda should be to have the Ethiopian military replaced by a neutral African force deployed in the country to assure the people of safety, security and stability. Parallel to that the UN should step up its relief operations and allow the Somalis to resume normal life after the suffering of many years. That would be the best first step Gedi could take in carrying out his mandate as interim prime minister tasked with leading the country on the long path towards recovery.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Moral obligations vs political imperatives
December 17, 2006
Moral obligations vs political imperatives
Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas's decision to call early presidential and parliamentary elections marks a serious turn in the battle between his Fatah group and the ruling Hamas movement.
Hamas has termed the call as a coup d'etat while Abbas has asserted his presidential authority to dismiss the government.
Obviously, Fatah feels confident of victory in snap elections held in the shadow of the suffering of the Palestinian people resulting from the international sanctions imposed on them after Hamas took office this year. By the same token, Hamas feels it is being deprived of its right to rule the Palestinian people who elected the group with a sweeping majority 11 months ago.
Abbas, in his capacity as president of his people, has the moral responsibility to correct course if it is in his power as and when he feels that his people are suffering. That was one of the key points he highlighted in his address to his people on Saturday.
"We are living through difficult and miserable times ... To break the vicious circle and prevent our lives from deteriorating further and our cause from eroding, I have decided to call early presidential and legislative elections," he said. "Basic law stipulates that the people are the source of power," he said.
In that sense, his move is very much democratic to leave it to the Palestinian people to decide whether they need a "change of regime" in order to address the plight under the choking economic blockade. By placing the presidency also in the race, Abbas also appeared to have signalled that he has no inclination to hang on to office. It is a different matter whether he feels confident of re-election — although he has said that he might not run for another term in office.
As Abbas explained in his speech, efforts for a "national unity" cabinet had failed and the way ahead was blocked by Hamas's refusal to accept the US/Europe-backed demands that it recognise Israel, renounce armed resistance and accept past agreements signed by the mainstream Palestinian leadership and the Jewish state.
Politics apart, the net impact of the deadlock is felt by the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as Israel's hostages since 1967. Few have the means to sustain without regular income, and the main employer in the government, which is not in a position to pay their wages because of the economic blockade placed against it. Life for most has hit the bottom line, with many families edging towards starvation.
As such, Abbas's move could be taken as made in good faith and stemming from his sense of responsibility towards his people.
However, the threat is very much real is that Hamas, which has a wide support base among the Palestinian constituents, would not allow itself to be ousted from power. Its armed wing could pose a serious threat to the law and order situation in the Palestinian territories, and Abbas would be placed in an almost impossible situation, particularly if his Fatah fighters decide to take on the Hamas challenge. The result would indeed be more Palestinian blood shed by Palestinians, with the real perpetrator of injustice, watching and applauding from the sides.
Indeed, Hamas leaders also have a responsibility towards the people and, judging from the group's record, they are aware of their obligation to alleviate the suffering of their people. Again, the danger here is of Hamas leaders deciding that accepting the president's decision means nothing but succumbing to the months of US/Israeli-European pressure and means a victory for the forces arrayed against them.
The small opening ahead is Abbas's announcement that the door is open to forming a government of national unity with Hamas — a cabinet of technocrats — in the interim period. It is "the first priority," he said.
This offers an opportunity for Hamas to soften its insistence on some of the key ministerial positions and join hands with Abbas to form an interim government without having to "lose face." If that happens, then the moral ground would be shaky for those are arguing against assistance to the Palestinians even if it means starving them do death.
Under the circumstances, that could turn out to be the only way out of the Palestinian deadlock. We in the Arab World could only hope that good sense would prevail among all Palestinian groups and there would be an early end to the suffering of the people living under Israeli occupation.
Moral obligations vs political imperatives
Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas's decision to call early presidential and parliamentary elections marks a serious turn in the battle between his Fatah group and the ruling Hamas movement.
Hamas has termed the call as a coup d'etat while Abbas has asserted his presidential authority to dismiss the government.
Obviously, Fatah feels confident of victory in snap elections held in the shadow of the suffering of the Palestinian people resulting from the international sanctions imposed on them after Hamas took office this year. By the same token, Hamas feels it is being deprived of its right to rule the Palestinian people who elected the group with a sweeping majority 11 months ago.
Abbas, in his capacity as president of his people, has the moral responsibility to correct course if it is in his power as and when he feels that his people are suffering. That was one of the key points he highlighted in his address to his people on Saturday.
"We are living through difficult and miserable times ... To break the vicious circle and prevent our lives from deteriorating further and our cause from eroding, I have decided to call early presidential and legislative elections," he said. "Basic law stipulates that the people are the source of power," he said.
In that sense, his move is very much democratic to leave it to the Palestinian people to decide whether they need a "change of regime" in order to address the plight under the choking economic blockade. By placing the presidency also in the race, Abbas also appeared to have signalled that he has no inclination to hang on to office. It is a different matter whether he feels confident of re-election — although he has said that he might not run for another term in office.
As Abbas explained in his speech, efforts for a "national unity" cabinet had failed and the way ahead was blocked by Hamas's refusal to accept the US/Europe-backed demands that it recognise Israel, renounce armed resistance and accept past agreements signed by the mainstream Palestinian leadership and the Jewish state.
Politics apart, the net impact of the deadlock is felt by the Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank as Israel's hostages since 1967. Few have the means to sustain without regular income, and the main employer in the government, which is not in a position to pay their wages because of the economic blockade placed against it. Life for most has hit the bottom line, with many families edging towards starvation.
As such, Abbas's move could be taken as made in good faith and stemming from his sense of responsibility towards his people.
However, the threat is very much real is that Hamas, which has a wide support base among the Palestinian constituents, would not allow itself to be ousted from power. Its armed wing could pose a serious threat to the law and order situation in the Palestinian territories, and Abbas would be placed in an almost impossible situation, particularly if his Fatah fighters decide to take on the Hamas challenge. The result would indeed be more Palestinian blood shed by Palestinians, with the real perpetrator of injustice, watching and applauding from the sides.
Indeed, Hamas leaders also have a responsibility towards the people and, judging from the group's record, they are aware of their obligation to alleviate the suffering of their people. Again, the danger here is of Hamas leaders deciding that accepting the president's decision means nothing but succumbing to the months of US/Israeli-European pressure and means a victory for the forces arrayed against them.
The small opening ahead is Abbas's announcement that the door is open to forming a government of national unity with Hamas — a cabinet of technocrats — in the interim period. It is "the first priority," he said.
This offers an opportunity for Hamas to soften its insistence on some of the key ministerial positions and join hands with Abbas to form an interim government without having to "lose face." If that happens, then the moral ground would be shaky for those are arguing against assistance to the Palestinians even if it means starving them do death.
Under the circumstances, that could turn out to be the only way out of the Palestinian deadlock. We in the Arab World could only hope that good sense would prevail among all Palestinian groups and there would be an early end to the suffering of the people living under Israeli occupation.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Living upto claims so tall
Dec.12, 2006
Living upto claims so tall
THE confrontation between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil dissidents is worsening, with the international community seemingly unable to do anything to help contain the crisis and help the tens of thousands of displaced civilians.
The kidnapping on Tuesday of more than 20 teenage students, the bulk of them girls, adds to the agony and misery of civilians caught in the cross-fire. At least 20,000 civilians who have fled the conflict zone are now crammed into schools, temples and camps set up by the government. Those left behind are said to be used as human shields by the rebels.
The army is said to be planning a massive assault aimed at rooting out the fighters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam from the rebel-held territory in the country's volatile east, and the rebels have warned the military of pre-emptive strikes.
The government says its priority is to clear the area of LTTE fighters so that the displaced civilians could be returned to their homes. The rebel group sees the move as aimed at totally eliminating what they see as the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka.
Independent estimates show that at least 3,000 troops, civilians and rebel fighters have been killed so far this year in land battles, air strikes, ambushes and attacks; more than 65,000 people have been killed in the conflict since 1983. It is yet another saga of failure of diplomacy and mutual distrust with neither side willing to back down.
At certain point in the decades-old crisis pitting the Tamils who complain of discrimination by the majority Sinhalese, the rebels had appeared to be ready to accept autonomy in Tamil-majority areas of the island. However, negotiations towards that end failed because of politicking on both sides. Today, the Tamils have openly declared that they are pushing for an independent entity for themselves in the areas they dominate. The government has vowed to counter the campaign and there does not seem to be room for common ground and compromises.
What is resoundingly missing in the equation is any trace of trust and good faith between the two sides, and that is what stymied Norwegian mediators in the crisis. Neither the government nor the dissident group seems to accept the reality that there could be no victory through military means. The military cannot single out LTTE fighters and finish them off without inflicting massive casualties on the civilian population. The rebels should not be hoping that their insurgency would eventually force the government to allow sedition.
The only way out perhaps is for the United Nations to intervene in a very transparent manner and be a mediator with the determination to see the whole process through to the point that a settlement is found without the break-up of the country. What the Sri Lankan crisis needs today is an honest mediator with established credentials acceptable to both sides. It is not easy, given the not very successful record of the UN in intervening and bringing about compromises and solutions acceptable to the warring sides in a civil strife.
However, that should not dissuade the international community from mandating and empowering the UN to launch afresh efforts to end the crisis through an equitable settlement. In the latest flare-up, the UN has limited itself to calling for a suspension of hostilities in order to allow the civilians remaining in the conflict zone to leave.
It is imperative that regional powers like India and others take the initiative in order to start from scratch if need be an intense and determined effort to find a solution that would end the Sri Lankan crisis once and for all. They have the moral responsibility to check Sri Lanka from sliding into further chaos and bloodshed. They should involve the rest of the international community through the UN and commit diplomatic and material support for the world body to act decisively to solve the crisis. That is what people around the world expect them to do if they live up to their claims of being "regional powerhouses" and "emerging superpowers."
The price for failure to act now would be so catastrophic that history would not forgive not only those who are in a position to lead such an the initiative but also those who prevent it from taking off.
Living upto claims so tall
THE confrontation between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil dissidents is worsening, with the international community seemingly unable to do anything to help contain the crisis and help the tens of thousands of displaced civilians.
The kidnapping on Tuesday of more than 20 teenage students, the bulk of them girls, adds to the agony and misery of civilians caught in the cross-fire. At least 20,000 civilians who have fled the conflict zone are now crammed into schools, temples and camps set up by the government. Those left behind are said to be used as human shields by the rebels.
The army is said to be planning a massive assault aimed at rooting out the fighters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam from the rebel-held territory in the country's volatile east, and the rebels have warned the military of pre-emptive strikes.
The government says its priority is to clear the area of LTTE fighters so that the displaced civilians could be returned to their homes. The rebel group sees the move as aimed at totally eliminating what they see as the Tamil cause in Sri Lanka.
Independent estimates show that at least 3,000 troops, civilians and rebel fighters have been killed so far this year in land battles, air strikes, ambushes and attacks; more than 65,000 people have been killed in the conflict since 1983. It is yet another saga of failure of diplomacy and mutual distrust with neither side willing to back down.
At certain point in the decades-old crisis pitting the Tamils who complain of discrimination by the majority Sinhalese, the rebels had appeared to be ready to accept autonomy in Tamil-majority areas of the island. However, negotiations towards that end failed because of politicking on both sides. Today, the Tamils have openly declared that they are pushing for an independent entity for themselves in the areas they dominate. The government has vowed to counter the campaign and there does not seem to be room for common ground and compromises.
What is resoundingly missing in the equation is any trace of trust and good faith between the two sides, and that is what stymied Norwegian mediators in the crisis. Neither the government nor the dissident group seems to accept the reality that there could be no victory through military means. The military cannot single out LTTE fighters and finish them off without inflicting massive casualties on the civilian population. The rebels should not be hoping that their insurgency would eventually force the government to allow sedition.
The only way out perhaps is for the United Nations to intervene in a very transparent manner and be a mediator with the determination to see the whole process through to the point that a settlement is found without the break-up of the country. What the Sri Lankan crisis needs today is an honest mediator with established credentials acceptable to both sides. It is not easy, given the not very successful record of the UN in intervening and bringing about compromises and solutions acceptable to the warring sides in a civil strife.
However, that should not dissuade the international community from mandating and empowering the UN to launch afresh efforts to end the crisis through an equitable settlement. In the latest flare-up, the UN has limited itself to calling for a suspension of hostilities in order to allow the civilians remaining in the conflict zone to leave.
It is imperative that regional powers like India and others take the initiative in order to start from scratch if need be an intense and determined effort to find a solution that would end the Sri Lankan crisis once and for all. They have the moral responsibility to check Sri Lanka from sliding into further chaos and bloodshed. They should involve the rest of the international community through the UN and commit diplomatic and material support for the world body to act decisively to solve the crisis. That is what people around the world expect them to do if they live up to their claims of being "regional powerhouses" and "emerging superpowers."
The price for failure to act now would be so catastrophic that history would not forgive not only those who are in a position to lead such an the initiative but also those who prevent it from taking off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}