July 25, 2007
ABCD of making
peace in Palestine
IT IS welcome news that former British prime minister and the international Quartet's special envoy Tony Blair is seeing "sense of possibility" for peace between Israel and Palestinians.
By his own admission, Blair, on his first visit to the Middle East in his capacity as the Quartet's envoy, intends at this stage "to listen, to learn and to reflect" in his talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Well, that is a good beginning as any because that posture would be an opportunity for Blair to learn of the respective positions of the two sides and explore means to advance from there and find common ground.
Surely, Blair needs no background lessons of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, it was Britain, wittingly or otherwise, which created the Palestinian problem in the first place and then did little to correct the injustices that were perpetrated on the Palestinians. Throughout his dealings with Middle Eastern leaders in his previous capacity as prime minister of Britain, Blair would have learnt not only about the core issues of the conflict but also the key reasons why the problem has not been solved.
For success in his Quartet mission, he should have the courage to call a spade a spade and accept that it was and is Israel's insistence that a settlement to the Palestinian problem should be at its own terms that has been and is blocking a just and fair peace agreement in Palestine. Blair should learn to deal with Israel and the Palestinians on equal footing
It would be a folly if Blair supports the Israeli argument that Palestinians are engaged in "terrorist" actions and the Jewish state "will not negotiate under fire." What Israel calls "terrorism" is a legitimate war of resistance waged by a people under foreign occupation against their occupiers. What is indeed terrorism is the Israeli state's use of its mighty military against the Palestinians in the name of quelling militancy. Israel has no right to be in the Palestinian territories in the first place and the only means for the Palestinians to oppose Israel's occupation of their land is to engage in armed resistance. It is particularly so after the experience the Palestinians had while dealing with Israel after signing the 1993 Oslo accords that laid a path towards negotiations on the final status of the occupied territories, including Arab East Jerusalem, and other issues such as the rights of Palestinian refugees. Israel has clearly established that it was not willing to concede anything substantial in return for peace with the Palestinians and that was why the Oslo process collapsed. Its refusal to dismantle the Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank is one of the clearest manifestations of its intentions to force down its own version of a peace agreement down the Palestinian throat.
Being in a position of miltiary strength and in physical control of the Palestinian territories, Israel has adopted a "take-it-or-leave-it" approach. Blair should be addressing this core point with a view to convincing Israel that there could never be a durable and fair settlement with the Palestinians if it continued to adopt this position.
Similarly, the Hamas-Fatah split in the Palestinian ranks should not be a reason for Blair to demand that the Palestinians set their house in order before moving towards peace with Israel.
That is not to say that the split among Palestinians could be easily healed. But it is an interal Palestinian affair that should be and could be sorted out among the Palestinian factions. Blair could actually facilitate the healing process by creating a situation where the Palestinians, whether Hamas or Fatah or any other group, know exactly what they would be getting in return for making peace with Israel and decide their course of action. He should be applying pressure on Israel and stay away from pressuring the Palestinians into accepting unacceptable compromises and concessions to their occupiers.
Equally important for Blair, who assumed the new mission at the insistenc of US President George W Bush, should assert his independence and steer clear of acting as a US representative seeking to impose Israeli-dictated terms on the Palestinians. Only then there is any meaningful hope for his mission for peace in Palestine.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The false facade of security
July 24, 2007
The false facade of security
THE US is planning to bribe Iraqi nationals working for the US government by granting them refugee status with a view to ensuring their loyalty and commitment to staying on in their jobs in chaotic Iraq.
This is what could be understood from a report that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Cocker has recommended that all Iraqis working for the US government to be granted refugee status by the US.
Being formally classified by the US as refugee clears the way for those given the status to proceed to the US when the US job is done in Iraq (Of course the question remains unanswered what exactly the US job in Iraq is and what would be a realistic timeline for it to be completed).
According to a cable sent by Cocker and a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Post, if Iraqi employees were not assured of safe haven in America, they would quit, weakening the ability of the US government to make an impact in Iraq even as it tries frantically to stabilise the country.
The cable says in part that Iraqis in US government employment "work under extremely difficult conditions, and are targets for violence including murder and kidnapping. Unless they know that there is some hope of a (migration to the US) in future, many will continue to seek asylum, leaving our mission lacking in one of our most valuable assets."
There is poetic justice in the recommendation. Iraqis working for the US government — meaning the occupation military — are risking their life. They are among the first targets along with US soldiers for the insurgents, who consider them as traitors since they work for the US.
They serve as interpreters, translators, and guides in for the US military. Many serve in various capacities for the US diplomatic mission in Iraq and others are intelligence agents and informants.
Few of the Iraqis in the US payroll in Iraq would volunteer the information that they work for the occupying power. Among the prime reasons is the fear that they could be targeted for killing by insurgents. Some might also be prompted to remain silent about their jobs since they realise that they are doing something not very right as Iraqis.
No definite numbers are available on how many Iraqis would qualify for refugee status as recommended by Cocker, but they would definitely run into several thousands, many of them living in the "safe and secure" environment of the fortified "Green Zone" in Baghdad and US military camps across the country.
The US record of accepting Iraqis as immigrants speaks for itself. Some 825 Iraqis have been given migration status in the US since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and tens of thousands of Iraqi applicants are pending with the US government, which is no longer accepting applications from Iraqis who have fled the country.
Washington promised to take in some 7,000 Iraqis during the fiscal year October 2006 to September 2007, but it has processed less than 140 applications by July 2007, with little or no hope of meeting even 10 per cent of the promised figure.
In simple terms, the US authorities do not trust Iraqis, perhaps except those who work under their direct control and whose credentials have been proved to suit US purposes. One could not really find fault with this argument. Every country has to put its interests first and that is precisely the US is doing, but in Iraq it has to be done at the expense of the people of Iraq as the disastrous US occupation has proven.
One also wonders what would be the fate of many Iraqi exiles who rode back into their country atop US military tanks in 2003. Many of them had to scale down their political ambitions as the realities of post-war Iraq set in. Would they dare to stay on in post-US Iraq or would they take the first flight to safety in their plush homes in Europe and elsewhere?
The Danish government seems to have set an example for other countries with military presence in Iraq. Denmark, which has some 450 soldiers serving with the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, accepted some 200 Iraqis and their families as immigrants this month ahead of the expected withdrawal of the Danish troops from Iraq. The airlifted Iraqis used to work with the Danish military unit in Iraq.
There is indeed suspicion that the disclosure about Cocker's cable was a "planned leak" in order to send an indirect message of reassurance to Iraqis in US government payroll in Iraq without any commitment on the part of the administration.
In any event, Cocker's implicit admission that Iraqis on US government pay in Iraq need assurances of their future highlights the reality that they realise that the US would be leaving behind a chaotic Iraq, if and when it decides to quit the country and there would be no future for anyone deemed to have worked for the US occupation authorities. That also exposes their understanding that the US would not be able to stabilise Iraq and leave the country with the satisfaction that the objectives of the invasion and occupation were achieved. Had the case been otherwise, then everyone in Iraq could be expected to be assured of their safety and security in a post-US Iraq.
Wasn't it — as we heard last from Washington — for the liberation of Iraqis from the Saddam Hussein regime and democratisation of Iraq that the US invaded the country? Shouldn't it follow then that whatever the US is doing in occupied Iraq is aimed at ensuring the freedom, safety and security of the liberated people of Iraq and safeguarding their future? Why then the Iraqis who are helping the US in that mission need any reassurance of their future?
When the people who are supposed to run Iraq themselves do not have faith in the declared US drive to hand over the country to Iraqis, then one should be wondering about the whole American exercise.
No that there ever was any realistic hope that the US would be able to pacify Iraq, what with the irreversible blunders it made at the very outset of its occupation of the country. The Cocker recommendation underlines that the US would not mind turning Iraqis into Americans as along as they serve Washington's purposes in Iraq. However, given that the US purposes in Iraq have faded away from the horizon of realism, reason and logic, Washington seems to be ready to try any gimmick to hang on in the country at least until the present administration remains in office.
The false facade of security
THE US is planning to bribe Iraqi nationals working for the US government by granting them refugee status with a view to ensuring their loyalty and commitment to staying on in their jobs in chaotic Iraq.
This is what could be understood from a report that US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Cocker has recommended that all Iraqis working for the US government to be granted refugee status by the US.
Being formally classified by the US as refugee clears the way for those given the status to proceed to the US when the US job is done in Iraq (Of course the question remains unanswered what exactly the US job in Iraq is and what would be a realistic timeline for it to be completed).
According to a cable sent by Cocker and a copy of which was obtained by the Washington Post, if Iraqi employees were not assured of safe haven in America, they would quit, weakening the ability of the US government to make an impact in Iraq even as it tries frantically to stabilise the country.
The cable says in part that Iraqis in US government employment "work under extremely difficult conditions, and are targets for violence including murder and kidnapping. Unless they know that there is some hope of a (migration to the US) in future, many will continue to seek asylum, leaving our mission lacking in one of our most valuable assets."
There is poetic justice in the recommendation. Iraqis working for the US government — meaning the occupation military — are risking their life. They are among the first targets along with US soldiers for the insurgents, who consider them as traitors since they work for the US.
They serve as interpreters, translators, and guides in for the US military. Many serve in various capacities for the US diplomatic mission in Iraq and others are intelligence agents and informants.
Few of the Iraqis in the US payroll in Iraq would volunteer the information that they work for the occupying power. Among the prime reasons is the fear that they could be targeted for killing by insurgents. Some might also be prompted to remain silent about their jobs since they realise that they are doing something not very right as Iraqis.
No definite numbers are available on how many Iraqis would qualify for refugee status as recommended by Cocker, but they would definitely run into several thousands, many of them living in the "safe and secure" environment of the fortified "Green Zone" in Baghdad and US military camps across the country.
The US record of accepting Iraqis as immigrants speaks for itself. Some 825 Iraqis have been given migration status in the US since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and tens of thousands of Iraqi applicants are pending with the US government, which is no longer accepting applications from Iraqis who have fled the country.
Washington promised to take in some 7,000 Iraqis during the fiscal year October 2006 to September 2007, but it has processed less than 140 applications by July 2007, with little or no hope of meeting even 10 per cent of the promised figure.
In simple terms, the US authorities do not trust Iraqis, perhaps except those who work under their direct control and whose credentials have been proved to suit US purposes. One could not really find fault with this argument. Every country has to put its interests first and that is precisely the US is doing, but in Iraq it has to be done at the expense of the people of Iraq as the disastrous US occupation has proven.
One also wonders what would be the fate of many Iraqi exiles who rode back into their country atop US military tanks in 2003. Many of them had to scale down their political ambitions as the realities of post-war Iraq set in. Would they dare to stay on in post-US Iraq or would they take the first flight to safety in their plush homes in Europe and elsewhere?
The Danish government seems to have set an example for other countries with military presence in Iraq. Denmark, which has some 450 soldiers serving with the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, accepted some 200 Iraqis and their families as immigrants this month ahead of the expected withdrawal of the Danish troops from Iraq. The airlifted Iraqis used to work with the Danish military unit in Iraq.
There is indeed suspicion that the disclosure about Cocker's cable was a "planned leak" in order to send an indirect message of reassurance to Iraqis in US government payroll in Iraq without any commitment on the part of the administration.
In any event, Cocker's implicit admission that Iraqis on US government pay in Iraq need assurances of their future highlights the reality that they realise that the US would be leaving behind a chaotic Iraq, if and when it decides to quit the country and there would be no future for anyone deemed to have worked for the US occupation authorities. That also exposes their understanding that the US would not be able to stabilise Iraq and leave the country with the satisfaction that the objectives of the invasion and occupation were achieved. Had the case been otherwise, then everyone in Iraq could be expected to be assured of their safety and security in a post-US Iraq.
Wasn't it — as we heard last from Washington — for the liberation of Iraqis from the Saddam Hussein regime and democratisation of Iraq that the US invaded the country? Shouldn't it follow then that whatever the US is doing in occupied Iraq is aimed at ensuring the freedom, safety and security of the liberated people of Iraq and safeguarding their future? Why then the Iraqis who are helping the US in that mission need any reassurance of their future?
When the people who are supposed to run Iraq themselves do not have faith in the declared US drive to hand over the country to Iraqis, then one should be wondering about the whole American exercise.
No that there ever was any realistic hope that the US would be able to pacify Iraq, what with the irreversible blunders it made at the very outset of its occupation of the country. The Cocker recommendation underlines that the US would not mind turning Iraqis into Americans as along as they serve Washington's purposes in Iraq. However, given that the US purposes in Iraq have faded away from the horizon of realism, reason and logic, Washington seems to be ready to try any gimmick to hang on in the country at least until the present administration remains in office.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
With aides like these
July 22, 2007
With aides like these....
CONTRARY to mainstream media reports, it was not the US Defence Department which criticised Hillary Clinton, a senator and presidential hopeful, for seeking a formal Pentagon briefing on contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq. It was Eric Edelman, an under-secretary of defence for planning, who sent a letter to Clinton reprimanding her for requesting information that she, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had every right and reason to seek. Clear in Edelman's reply was evidently the neoconservatives' distaste for anyone who dares to raise the issue of US withdrawal from Iraq.
It should have been Robert Gates, the defence secretary, who should have replied to Clinton's request for a Pentagon briefing. But Edelman seemed to have assumed the job for himself perhaps because he did not think his boss was up to the job of having to use the occasion to use the strongest of expressions rejecting any debate on withdrawal from Iraq. The question has not been satisfactorily answered whether Edelman had the authority to respond to a request from a member of congress, but then everything and anything goes in the neoconservative-run Washington.
A part of the letter appearing in cyberspace reads:
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. … Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risk in order to achieve compromises of national reconciliation."
A well-constructed paragraph but its contents are deceptive.
Edelman is willing concede only that the US is "perceived" to have abandoned its allies in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia whereas the truth is that the US had no option but to cut and run from the three countries when the going got real tough. It could not care less for its allies.
As to "unnerving" of the US's allies in Iraq, Edelman sidesteps the reality that it was "the very same Iraqi allies" that nose-led the US into the disaster in Iraq if only because they wanted to topple the Saddam Hussein regime not for the sake of the country or its people but to serve their self-interests of assuming positions of power, authority and wealth. Some of them were also found to be engaged in spying for foreign governments hostile to the US.
They are indeed assuming "enormous personal risk" but not to "achieve compromises of national reconciliation" as Edelman asserts.
Of course, a cursory glance at Edelman's record would explain how he came up with these views and how he, the third man in charge at the Pentagon, took the initiative of writing a letter to a member of congress that definitely establishes him as firmly entrenched in the Republican camp.
Edelman is one of the die-hard neoconservatives. He counts among his close friends and allies fellow neocons as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.
He served as Dick Cheney's national security adviser and, along with ex-Cheney aide Lewis Libby, was heavily involved in preparing the ground for the invasion of Iraq. He has a long record of coming up with all kinds of arguments and theories to defend the US decision to go to war and how every neocon involved in pulling the strings for war was acting in the best interests of the US.
By suggesting that Hillary Clinton was undermining national interests — many other phrases could be used as variations of the same thing — Edelman was only living true to his neoconservative identity that does not brooke criticism of whatever nature and whatever issue, least of all the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The neocons have made sure that their allies and friends are everywhere in the corridors of bureaucratic power in Washington. They know what they are doing and they are indeed doing a good job.
It is indeed people like Edelman and his neocon bosses and friends, past and present, who are blocking any serious and objective discussion of the realities on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and preventing any meaningful move towards addressing the core roots the problems the US faces in the region.
With aides like these....
CONTRARY to mainstream media reports, it was not the US Defence Department which criticised Hillary Clinton, a senator and presidential hopeful, for seeking a formal Pentagon briefing on contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq. It was Eric Edelman, an under-secretary of defence for planning, who sent a letter to Clinton reprimanding her for requesting information that she, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, had every right and reason to seek. Clear in Edelman's reply was evidently the neoconservatives' distaste for anyone who dares to raise the issue of US withdrawal from Iraq.
It should have been Robert Gates, the defence secretary, who should have replied to Clinton's request for a Pentagon briefing. But Edelman seemed to have assumed the job for himself perhaps because he did not think his boss was up to the job of having to use the occasion to use the strongest of expressions rejecting any debate on withdrawal from Iraq. The question has not been satisfactorily answered whether Edelman had the authority to respond to a request from a member of congress, but then everything and anything goes in the neoconservative-run Washington.
A part of the letter appearing in cyberspace reads:
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia. … Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risk in order to achieve compromises of national reconciliation."
A well-constructed paragraph but its contents are deceptive.
Edelman is willing concede only that the US is "perceived" to have abandoned its allies in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia whereas the truth is that the US had no option but to cut and run from the three countries when the going got real tough. It could not care less for its allies.
As to "unnerving" of the US's allies in Iraq, Edelman sidesteps the reality that it was "the very same Iraqi allies" that nose-led the US into the disaster in Iraq if only because they wanted to topple the Saddam Hussein regime not for the sake of the country or its people but to serve their self-interests of assuming positions of power, authority and wealth. Some of them were also found to be engaged in spying for foreign governments hostile to the US.
They are indeed assuming "enormous personal risk" but not to "achieve compromises of national reconciliation" as Edelman asserts.
Of course, a cursory glance at Edelman's record would explain how he came up with these views and how he, the third man in charge at the Pentagon, took the initiative of writing a letter to a member of congress that definitely establishes him as firmly entrenched in the Republican camp.
Edelman is one of the die-hard neoconservatives. He counts among his close friends and allies fellow neocons as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.
He served as Dick Cheney's national security adviser and, along with ex-Cheney aide Lewis Libby, was heavily involved in preparing the ground for the invasion of Iraq. He has a long record of coming up with all kinds of arguments and theories to defend the US decision to go to war and how every neocon involved in pulling the strings for war was acting in the best interests of the US.
By suggesting that Hillary Clinton was undermining national interests — many other phrases could be used as variations of the same thing — Edelman was only living true to his neoconservative identity that does not brooke criticism of whatever nature and whatever issue, least of all the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The neocons have made sure that their allies and friends are everywhere in the corridors of bureaucratic power in Washington. They know what they are doing and they are indeed doing a good job.
It is indeed people like Edelman and his neocon bosses and friends, past and present, who are blocking any serious and objective discussion of the realities on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and preventing any meaningful move towards addressing the core roots the problems the US faces in the region.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
End of an ordeal and wave of relief
July.18 2007
End of an ordeal and wave of relief
THE DEAL that led to the commuting of death sentences handed down to five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor convicted of infecting Libyan children with HIV into life terms has sent a wave of relief across the world.
The next step in the long drawn-out affair is expected to be the transfer from Libya to Bulgaria of the six under a prisoner transfer agreement signed between the two countries in the 1980s but never used before.
It might take some time before the formalities are completed and the five Bulgarian woman and the male Palestinian doctor Ñ who has been granted Bulgarian citizenship Ñ are sent to Bulgaria to serve out the remaining term. All six have been in Libyan detention since 1999, and were twice convicted of deliberately injecting 438 children Ñ 56 of them died Ñ in a Benghazi hospital with HIV-tainted blood. The death penalty had been confirmed for a third time by Libya's Supreme Court last week.
But Libya's top legal body, the Supreme Judicial Council, commuted the death sentences to life in prison on Tuesday after the families of the infected children received money under a compensation deal with the Qadhafi foundation.
The world kept a close watch on the proceedings, particularly that it was difficult to accept that six people had ganged up to infect hundreds of children with HIV as if part of a sinister plot against the people of Libya.
Experts suggested that the HIV infections started before the medics arrived at the hospital, and are more likely to have been a result of poor hygiene, a theory that was turned down during the trials of the six.
Indeed, we have heard the six allege that the confessions they signed were taken from them under duress and that they were innocent of any crimes. They also stood trial for slandering Libyan police for alleging that they were tortured while in custody.
Now their ordeal is coming to an end, and we could expect to hear more about what went behind the scenes once the six are out of Libya.
Libya acted wisely in accepting the compromise deal under which parents of the infected children will receive $1 million per child. Had Tripoli gone ahead with the death penalty, it would have been a huge black spot against Libya at a time when it is returning to the mainstream international diplomatic scene after more than 15 years of isolation in connection with the 1988 Lockerbie bombing case.
Few around the world failed to notice the similarity of sorts between the Lockerbie case and the HIV affair. Libya settled the Lockerbie case by accepting responsibility for the bombing and paying $10 million each to the 370 victims ÑÊ359 aboard the plane and nine on the ground. Many around the world read between the lines a Libyan determination to use the HIV case to implicitly highlight its "innocence" in the Lockerbie case notwithstanding the acceptance of responsibility. It was as if Libya was telling the world that if the six medics were innocent in the HIV case, then it was also true that Libya itself was innocent in the Lockerbie case.
All said and done, the affair is drawing to a relatively happy conclusion and the chapter would hopefully be closed when the six medics leave Libyan airspace under the transfer deal in the works.
End of an ordeal and wave of relief
THE DEAL that led to the commuting of death sentences handed down to five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor convicted of infecting Libyan children with HIV into life terms has sent a wave of relief across the world.
The next step in the long drawn-out affair is expected to be the transfer from Libya to Bulgaria of the six under a prisoner transfer agreement signed between the two countries in the 1980s but never used before.
It might take some time before the formalities are completed and the five Bulgarian woman and the male Palestinian doctor Ñ who has been granted Bulgarian citizenship Ñ are sent to Bulgaria to serve out the remaining term. All six have been in Libyan detention since 1999, and were twice convicted of deliberately injecting 438 children Ñ 56 of them died Ñ in a Benghazi hospital with HIV-tainted blood. The death penalty had been confirmed for a third time by Libya's Supreme Court last week.
But Libya's top legal body, the Supreme Judicial Council, commuted the death sentences to life in prison on Tuesday after the families of the infected children received money under a compensation deal with the Qadhafi foundation.
The world kept a close watch on the proceedings, particularly that it was difficult to accept that six people had ganged up to infect hundreds of children with HIV as if part of a sinister plot against the people of Libya.
Experts suggested that the HIV infections started before the medics arrived at the hospital, and are more likely to have been a result of poor hygiene, a theory that was turned down during the trials of the six.
Indeed, we have heard the six allege that the confessions they signed were taken from them under duress and that they were innocent of any crimes. They also stood trial for slandering Libyan police for alleging that they were tortured while in custody.
Now their ordeal is coming to an end, and we could expect to hear more about what went behind the scenes once the six are out of Libya.
Libya acted wisely in accepting the compromise deal under which parents of the infected children will receive $1 million per child. Had Tripoli gone ahead with the death penalty, it would have been a huge black spot against Libya at a time when it is returning to the mainstream international diplomatic scene after more than 15 years of isolation in connection with the 1988 Lockerbie bombing case.
Few around the world failed to notice the similarity of sorts between the Lockerbie case and the HIV affair. Libya settled the Lockerbie case by accepting responsibility for the bombing and paying $10 million each to the 370 victims ÑÊ359 aboard the plane and nine on the ground. Many around the world read between the lines a Libyan determination to use the HIV case to implicitly highlight its "innocence" in the Lockerbie case notwithstanding the acceptance of responsibility. It was as if Libya was telling the world that if the six medics were innocent in the HIV case, then it was also true that Libya itself was innocent in the Lockerbie case.
All said and done, the affair is drawing to a relatively happy conclusion and the chapter would hopefully be closed when the six medics leave Libyan airspace under the transfer deal in the works.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Symphony of another 'shock and awe'
July 16 2007
Symphony of another 'shock and awe'
by pv vivekanand
THE US administration has reportedly shifted back to the option of military action against Iran in the name of Tehran's nuclear programme before President George W Bush leaves office in 18 months. The shift, reported by the British Guardian newspaper on Tuesday, is seen as a triumph of the hawkish neoconservative camp working through senior administration officials headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The purported losers are the relative moderates led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates who favour diplomacy and sanctions to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.
Scott Horton, a New York attorney an expert in international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict who lectures at Columbia Law School, pins the blame directly on Cheney.
Horton writes on www.harpers.org:
"For the dead-ender neoconservatives (and indeed, neoconservatives are by their psychology just the sort of people who make excellent dead-enders), the solution to the current dilemma Ð a catastrophic failure in Iraq, badly miscast plans in Lebanon, an increasingly angry American electorate Ñ is simple: we need a new war. Nothing focuses the mind and silences the opposition quite like a good little war, they believe. And while times may be difficult for the neocons generally, not to worry Ð they still have the key man. One man is the 'decider' on questions respecting Iran. His name is Dick Cheney."
The elements at play have not changed much during the period when talk of military action against Iran was toned down at the insistence of Rice and Gates, with never-say-die Cheney looking for the right tool to silence the call for diplomacy.
Today, the US military remains bogged down in Iraq despite the "surge" in troop strength since February with little sign that the insurgency is being brought under control let alone being fought off.
Washington accuses Iran of fanning the flames of the insurgency by supplying arms and explosives to anti-US groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and training Iraqis in guerrilla warfare. The US administration's contentions, critics say, are designed to convince Americans to accept military action against Iran on the ground that Iran is behind the killing of American soldiers.
The charges, which are rejected outright by Iran, might or might not be true. It might also be possible that non-governmental Iranian groups are involved in anti-US activities in Iraq while the Tehran regime looks the other way.
Reason dictates that Iran wants a peaceful and stable Iraq ruled by its allied groups there, but they want an Iraq without the US military hanging around. Iran fears that it would be the next target for "regime change" if the US military is able to stabilise Iraq and hence it is understandable that Tehran is not exactly very anxious to help Washington pacify the Iraqis.
Parallel to the developments in Iraq, Iran continues to defy calls for suspending its nuclear enrichment programme and implicitly dares the US to take military action. Obviously, Tehran believes Washington knows it well that the Iranians and their proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere could wage a devastating defensive war against the US.
But then, concerns over how Iran would retaliate for military action might not figure much in the hard-line camp in Washington, some argue. The neocons wants the US to go to war with Iran and then let the conflict takes its own course regardless of what it might entail.
As Charlie Reese, an American journalist with 50 years of experience, observes: "The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law."
Indeed, we do have in Iraq the best example of the neocon posture, which refuses to acknowledge the realities on the ground and maintains that the US should continue to absorb heavy human and material losses and press ahead with the military option. It should be stunning to the international community that a handful of such people are calling the shots for the world's sole superpower.
In the immediate context, no one seems to have accurate information on the status of Iran's nuclear programme with varying estimates of how long it would take it to build nuclear weapons despite Tehran's denials that its nuclear activities are strictly for peaceful purposes.
Israel is growing impatient by the hour to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities because the Jewish state feels it cannot afford to have anyone in the Middle Eastern neighbourhood Ñ except itself Ñ to have even the technology that could lead to nuclear weaponisation and possibly challenge its nuclear-based military posture in the regional conflict.
Caught in the middle of the verbal fireworks are the region's countries, which are already reeling back from the direct and indirect impact of the crisis in Iraq and are anxious to avert yet another military conflict in the region.
Drowned in the din of the war of words between the US and Iran are reason and logic that call for serious and substantial dialogue to address the roots of the ever-growing US-Iranian hostility that has to do more with US policies in the Middle East than anything else.
The Iranians are no angels either. They have their own agenda, and many suspect that Tehran hard-liners have dusted off their campaign ÑÊthat was shelved because of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s ÑÊto export their "Islamic revolution" to the immediate Gulf region and beyond and thus threaten what the US considers as its strategic interests.
According to Monday's Guardian report, the Washington "moderates" prevailed over Bush until recently ÑÊand hence the freezing of military plans against Iran ÑÊbut an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department over the last month gave fresh life to the military option.
Cheney, who is known to favour military action against Iran, engineered the shift by convincing Bush by expressing "frustration" at the lack of progress in pressuring Iran and give up its nuclear programme and an assessment that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009, according to the Guardian.
"The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," according to a source quoted by the paper.
"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," says another source cited in the report.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is quoted as saying in the report.
No one is overlooking the Israeli angle.
"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," according to Cronin. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
However, despite the presence of a large US naval force in the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, no decision on military action is expected until next year as the State Department continues to pursue the diplomatic route. That seemed to be a concession given to the moderate camp led by Rice, the secretary of state.
As such, in the short term, efforts would be intensified for an agreement among UN Security Council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran, with Washington seeking tough measures and Russia and China favouring low-profile action.
In the meantime, the ground is being prepared for military action. The US Senate recently adopted a bill that contains an amendment deploring alleged Iranian anti-US activities in Iraq. The amendment accuses Iran of murdering American soldiers, and of committing other acts of war, and that is enough justification and implicit "authorisation" for the Bush administration to launch military action against that country.
Respected commentator Jim Lobe observes on www.antiwar.com: "It may be that the American people are opposed to another war in the Middle East: that may even be the last thing on their minds. Yet our elected 'representatives' could not care less about popular opinion, or else they would have gotten us out of Iraq last year. The lobby is plumbing for war with Iran, and the tom-toms are beating out their message of fear, intimidation, and vaunting Ñ the prelude to another symphony of 'shock and awe'."
Symphony of another 'shock and awe'
by pv vivekanand
THE US administration has reportedly shifted back to the option of military action against Iran in the name of Tehran's nuclear programme before President George W Bush leaves office in 18 months. The shift, reported by the British Guardian newspaper on Tuesday, is seen as a triumph of the hawkish neoconservative camp working through senior administration officials headed by Vice-President Dick Cheney.
The purported losers are the relative moderates led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defence Secretary Robert Gates who favour diplomacy and sanctions to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.
Scott Horton, a New York attorney an expert in international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict who lectures at Columbia Law School, pins the blame directly on Cheney.
Horton writes on www.harpers.org:
"For the dead-ender neoconservatives (and indeed, neoconservatives are by their psychology just the sort of people who make excellent dead-enders), the solution to the current dilemma Ð a catastrophic failure in Iraq, badly miscast plans in Lebanon, an increasingly angry American electorate Ñ is simple: we need a new war. Nothing focuses the mind and silences the opposition quite like a good little war, they believe. And while times may be difficult for the neocons generally, not to worry Ð they still have the key man. One man is the 'decider' on questions respecting Iran. His name is Dick Cheney."
The elements at play have not changed much during the period when talk of military action against Iran was toned down at the insistence of Rice and Gates, with never-say-die Cheney looking for the right tool to silence the call for diplomacy.
Today, the US military remains bogged down in Iraq despite the "surge" in troop strength since February with little sign that the insurgency is being brought under control let alone being fought off.
Washington accuses Iran of fanning the flames of the insurgency by supplying arms and explosives to anti-US groups in Iraq and Afghanistan and training Iraqis in guerrilla warfare. The US administration's contentions, critics say, are designed to convince Americans to accept military action against Iran on the ground that Iran is behind the killing of American soldiers.
The charges, which are rejected outright by Iran, might or might not be true. It might also be possible that non-governmental Iranian groups are involved in anti-US activities in Iraq while the Tehran regime looks the other way.
Reason dictates that Iran wants a peaceful and stable Iraq ruled by its allied groups there, but they want an Iraq without the US military hanging around. Iran fears that it would be the next target for "regime change" if the US military is able to stabilise Iraq and hence it is understandable that Tehran is not exactly very anxious to help Washington pacify the Iraqis.
Parallel to the developments in Iraq, Iran continues to defy calls for suspending its nuclear enrichment programme and implicitly dares the US to take military action. Obviously, Tehran believes Washington knows it well that the Iranians and their proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere could wage a devastating defensive war against the US.
But then, concerns over how Iran would retaliate for military action might not figure much in the hard-line camp in Washington, some argue. The neocons wants the US to go to war with Iran and then let the conflict takes its own course regardless of what it might entail.
As Charlie Reese, an American journalist with 50 years of experience, observes: "The neocons are not only idiots, they are evil. They show a complete disdain for peace, a callous disregard for human life, and utter contempt for the rule of law."
Indeed, we do have in Iraq the best example of the neocon posture, which refuses to acknowledge the realities on the ground and maintains that the US should continue to absorb heavy human and material losses and press ahead with the military option. It should be stunning to the international community that a handful of such people are calling the shots for the world's sole superpower.
In the immediate context, no one seems to have accurate information on the status of Iran's nuclear programme with varying estimates of how long it would take it to build nuclear weapons despite Tehran's denials that its nuclear activities are strictly for peaceful purposes.
Israel is growing impatient by the hour to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities because the Jewish state feels it cannot afford to have anyone in the Middle Eastern neighbourhood Ñ except itself Ñ to have even the technology that could lead to nuclear weaponisation and possibly challenge its nuclear-based military posture in the regional conflict.
Caught in the middle of the verbal fireworks are the region's countries, which are already reeling back from the direct and indirect impact of the crisis in Iraq and are anxious to avert yet another military conflict in the region.
Drowned in the din of the war of words between the US and Iran are reason and logic that call for serious and substantial dialogue to address the roots of the ever-growing US-Iranian hostility that has to do more with US policies in the Middle East than anything else.
The Iranians are no angels either. They have their own agenda, and many suspect that Tehran hard-liners have dusted off their campaign ÑÊthat was shelved because of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s ÑÊto export their "Islamic revolution" to the immediate Gulf region and beyond and thus threaten what the US considers as its strategic interests.
According to Monday's Guardian report, the Washington "moderates" prevailed over Bush until recently ÑÊand hence the freezing of military plans against Iran ÑÊbut an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department over the last month gave fresh life to the military option.
Cheney, who is known to favour military action against Iran, engineered the shift by convincing Bush by expressing "frustration" at the lack of progress in pressuring Iran and give up its nuclear programme and an assessment that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009, according to the Guardian.
"The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," according to a source quoted by the paper.
"Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," says another source cited in the report.
"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, is quoted as saying in the report.
No one is overlooking the Israeli angle.
"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," according to Cronin. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."
However, despite the presence of a large US naval force in the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, no decision on military action is expected until next year as the State Department continues to pursue the diplomatic route. That seemed to be a concession given to the moderate camp led by Rice, the secretary of state.
As such, in the short term, efforts would be intensified for an agreement among UN Security Council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran, with Washington seeking tough measures and Russia and China favouring low-profile action.
In the meantime, the ground is being prepared for military action. The US Senate recently adopted a bill that contains an amendment deploring alleged Iranian anti-US activities in Iraq. The amendment accuses Iran of murdering American soldiers, and of committing other acts of war, and that is enough justification and implicit "authorisation" for the Bush administration to launch military action against that country.
Respected commentator Jim Lobe observes on www.antiwar.com: "It may be that the American people are opposed to another war in the Middle East: that may even be the last thing on their minds. Yet our elected 'representatives' could not care less about popular opinion, or else they would have gotten us out of Iraq last year. The lobby is plumbing for war with Iran, and the tom-toms are beating out their message of fear, intimidation, and vaunting Ñ the prelude to another symphony of 'shock and awe'."
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Right signals, wrong reading
July.12, 2007
Right signals, wrong reading
WHEN ISRAELIS start expressing "fears" of an impending war, we would better sit up and take note. But what do we do when the source of such expressions of fears is the US?
The ground for such fears have been set in recent months with a flurry of mostly Israel-origin reports that the Syrians were acquiring advanced weapons, mainly from Russia.
To us in the Arab World, the reports are indicative of Syria's fears of an Israel-launched war rather than the Syrians beginning a military conflict with the Jewish state. Damascus is exercising its sovereign right to defend itself by making sure that Israel knows well that it would have to pay a heavy price if it launches military hostilities against Syria.
There are so many reasons for Syria not to go to war, including the fact that Damascus is perfectly aware that the US/Israel combine is waiting for an opportunity to bring about forced regime change in Syria. Surely, Syria is not going to give them the opening that they are looking for.
This time around, US officials and former officials are expressing fear that a confrontation between Syria and Israel may happen this summer. Foremost among them is Dennis Ross, a former senior US Middle East peace negotiator, who was quoted by an Israeli newspaper as saying he thinks "there is a risk of war" between Syria and Israel in the summer. "The Syrians are positioning themselves for war," according to Ross, who wants the Bush administration to "squeeze the Syrian economy" by using "sticks before carrots" in dealing with Damascus.
Let us not go into debating why the US should go after Syria for the sake of Israel. It has become part of life in this part of the world that the US has undertaken not only to defend and protect Israel but also to serve Israeli interests even at the cost of US interests (That is why we have seen the US steadily losing its credibility and getting into disasters after disasters in the Middle East under advice from the pro-Israeli camp in Washington).
Interestingly, the Israeli military does not share Ross's thoughts.
Its deputy chief, Moshe Kaplinsky says that he does not believe a war with Syria is imminent.
While expressing concerns over what he describes as a growing Iranian involvement in promoting regional instability and Syrian involvement in the rearming of Hizbollah following the war in Lebanon, Kaplinksy is also convinced that the Syrian procurement of weapons and intensified military training are part of Syria's defensive measures.
For the moment, let us assume that Kaplinsky means what he says, and Ross and others in Washington are shooting in the dark. And we know that Syria would not be the one to start a war with Israel.
Against the backdrop of all talk of war, Syria have been sending clear messages that it is genuinely interested in peace with Israel; the only problem is that Israel wants peace on its own terms that would be difficult for any self-respecting country to accept, least of all Syria.
Progress was indeed made in Syrian-Israeli peace talks before they were broken off in the late 1990s but secret contacts continued off and on, but it was the US which reportedly forbade Israel from advancing on the secret track.
US President George W. Bush has shown little enthusiasm for an Israeli-Syrian peace track, casting doubt on the chances of progress.
Probably, it is time he had a second thought.
According to the UN's Middle East envoy, Michael Williams, Syria has expressed willingness to change its relationship with Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas if progress were made towards a peace deal with Israel.
The reported Syrian willingness is not contradictory to the stated positions of Damascus since making fair, just and respectable peace with Israel would do away with any necessity to have any questionable relationship.
If Israel and the US have not taken note of Williams' impressions from talks with Syrian leaders in recent months, then it is time for them to do so and take it up from there and snuff out all talk of yet another conflict that the Middle East could ill afford.
Right signals, wrong reading
WHEN ISRAELIS start expressing "fears" of an impending war, we would better sit up and take note. But what do we do when the source of such expressions of fears is the US?
The ground for such fears have been set in recent months with a flurry of mostly Israel-origin reports that the Syrians were acquiring advanced weapons, mainly from Russia.
To us in the Arab World, the reports are indicative of Syria's fears of an Israel-launched war rather than the Syrians beginning a military conflict with the Jewish state. Damascus is exercising its sovereign right to defend itself by making sure that Israel knows well that it would have to pay a heavy price if it launches military hostilities against Syria.
There are so many reasons for Syria not to go to war, including the fact that Damascus is perfectly aware that the US/Israel combine is waiting for an opportunity to bring about forced regime change in Syria. Surely, Syria is not going to give them the opening that they are looking for.
This time around, US officials and former officials are expressing fear that a confrontation between Syria and Israel may happen this summer. Foremost among them is Dennis Ross, a former senior US Middle East peace negotiator, who was quoted by an Israeli newspaper as saying he thinks "there is a risk of war" between Syria and Israel in the summer. "The Syrians are positioning themselves for war," according to Ross, who wants the Bush administration to "squeeze the Syrian economy" by using "sticks before carrots" in dealing with Damascus.
Let us not go into debating why the US should go after Syria for the sake of Israel. It has become part of life in this part of the world that the US has undertaken not only to defend and protect Israel but also to serve Israeli interests even at the cost of US interests (That is why we have seen the US steadily losing its credibility and getting into disasters after disasters in the Middle East under advice from the pro-Israeli camp in Washington).
Interestingly, the Israeli military does not share Ross's thoughts.
Its deputy chief, Moshe Kaplinsky says that he does not believe a war with Syria is imminent.
While expressing concerns over what he describes as a growing Iranian involvement in promoting regional instability and Syrian involvement in the rearming of Hizbollah following the war in Lebanon, Kaplinksy is also convinced that the Syrian procurement of weapons and intensified military training are part of Syria's defensive measures.
For the moment, let us assume that Kaplinsky means what he says, and Ross and others in Washington are shooting in the dark. And we know that Syria would not be the one to start a war with Israel.
Against the backdrop of all talk of war, Syria have been sending clear messages that it is genuinely interested in peace with Israel; the only problem is that Israel wants peace on its own terms that would be difficult for any self-respecting country to accept, least of all Syria.
Progress was indeed made in Syrian-Israeli peace talks before they were broken off in the late 1990s but secret contacts continued off and on, but it was the US which reportedly forbade Israel from advancing on the secret track.
US President George W. Bush has shown little enthusiasm for an Israeli-Syrian peace track, casting doubt on the chances of progress.
Probably, it is time he had a second thought.
According to the UN's Middle East envoy, Michael Williams, Syria has expressed willingness to change its relationship with Iran, Hizbollah and Hamas if progress were made towards a peace deal with Israel.
The reported Syrian willingness is not contradictory to the stated positions of Damascus since making fair, just and respectable peace with Israel would do away with any necessity to have any questionable relationship.
If Israel and the US have not taken note of Williams' impressions from talks with Syrian leaders in recent months, then it is time for them to do so and take it up from there and snuff out all talk of yet another conflict that the Middle East could ill afford.
Monday, April 02, 2007
In search of a caucus belli?
April 4 2007
In search of a caucus belli?
It is known that the hawks in Washington are looking for a caucus belli to justify US military action against Iran, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair seems to be bent upon fetching it for them. Blair is seeking to turn the row over Iran's detention of 15 British sailors and marines into a territorial dispute even though it has not been established that this was indeed the case and experts disagree with him.
Blair Ñ and US President George Bush for that matter ÑÊhave no doubts in their mind that the Iranians caught the Britons in Iraqi territorial waters and thus the action was in violation of international law. However, Commodore Nick Lambert, the Royal Navy commander of the operation on which the Britons were captured, is not so sure. Lambert says: "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated."
Lambert's comments have to be seen against the reality that Iran and Iraq never drew up a map of their maritime boundary, and such a boundary shown on the British government map does not exist.
In strictly technical terms, the British map would have no relevance to either Iran or Iraq because only Terhan and Baghdad could agree on their bilateral boundary, and they have never done this in the Gulf. They have drawn their boundary only inside the Shatt Al Arab waterway ÑÊin the middle of it, to be precise ÑÊand it also represents their land borders.
What Blair is trying to do is to impose the British-drawn Iraq-Iran maritime boundary on the two countries with a view to escalating the crisis in a manner that suits the Washington hawks.
Bush has thrown his weight behind Blair describing Iran's capture of the Britons as "inexcusable" and demanding that Tehran "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.
The US president says he supports Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, but his critics accuse him of playing a game designed to justify military action against Iran.
A report highlighted in the Israeli media says that Russian intelligence the US will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4am until 4pm on April 6."
The source of the report is Russia's RIA Novosti news agency, which quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the ... Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory." At the same time, the way the Israeli media played up the report underlines the Jewish state's anxiety to have the US wage an Israeli war against Iran to the last American soldier.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a US group, has issued a clear warning:" The increasingly heavy investment of 'face' in the UK Marine capture situation is unquestionably adding to the danger of an inadvertent outbreak of open hostilities. One side or the other is going to be forced to surrender some of its pride if a more deadly confrontation is going to be averted. And there is no indication that the Bush administration is doing anything other than encouraging British recalcitrance.
"Unless one's basic intention is to provoke a hostile action to which the US and UK could 'retaliate,' getting involved in a tit-for-tat contest with the Iranians is a foolish and reckless game, for it may not prove possible to avoid escalation and loss of control. And we seem to be well on our way there. If one calls Iran 'evil,' arrests its diplomats, accuses it of promoting terrorism and unlawful capture, one can be certain that the Iranians will retaliate and raise the stakes in the process."
It is an uneasy situation at best in the region today as tension remains high whether the US/Israel would exploit the situation to launch military strikes against Iran. Conventional wisdom says military action against Iran would be disasterous but then the hawks in Washington, nudged by their Israeli counterparts, are not exactly known for applying conventional wisdom in their narrow, Israel-specific actions and that is what is worrying the region. And the defiant Iranian position is not helping ease the tension either.
In search of a caucus belli?
It is known that the hawks in Washington are looking for a caucus belli to justify US military action against Iran, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair seems to be bent upon fetching it for them. Blair is seeking to turn the row over Iran's detention of 15 British sailors and marines into a territorial dispute even though it has not been established that this was indeed the case and experts disagree with him.
Blair Ñ and US President George Bush for that matter ÑÊhave no doubts in their mind that the Iranians caught the Britons in Iraqi territorial waters and thus the action was in violation of international law. However, Commodore Nick Lambert, the Royal Navy commander of the operation on which the Britons were captured, is not so sure. Lambert says: "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may well claim that they were in their territorial waters. The extent and definition of territorial waters in this part of the world is very complicated."
Lambert's comments have to be seen against the reality that Iran and Iraq never drew up a map of their maritime boundary, and such a boundary shown on the British government map does not exist.
In strictly technical terms, the British map would have no relevance to either Iran or Iraq because only Terhan and Baghdad could agree on their bilateral boundary, and they have never done this in the Gulf. They have drawn their boundary only inside the Shatt Al Arab waterway ÑÊin the middle of it, to be precise ÑÊand it also represents their land borders.
What Blair is trying to do is to impose the British-drawn Iraq-Iran maritime boundary on the two countries with a view to escalating the crisis in a manner that suits the Washington hawks.
Bush has thrown his weight behind Blair describing Iran's capture of the Britons as "inexcusable" and demanding that Tehran "give back the hostages" immediately and unconditionally.
The US president says he supports Blair's efforts to find a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, but his critics accuse him of playing a game designed to justify military action against Iran.
A report highlighted in the Israeli media says that Russian intelligence the US will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4am until 4pm on April 6."
The source of the report is Russia's RIA Novosti news agency, which quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the ... Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory." At the same time, the way the Israeli media played up the report underlines the Jewish state's anxiety to have the US wage an Israeli war against Iran to the last American soldier.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), a US group, has issued a clear warning:" The increasingly heavy investment of 'face' in the UK Marine capture situation is unquestionably adding to the danger of an inadvertent outbreak of open hostilities. One side or the other is going to be forced to surrender some of its pride if a more deadly confrontation is going to be averted. And there is no indication that the Bush administration is doing anything other than encouraging British recalcitrance.
"Unless one's basic intention is to provoke a hostile action to which the US and UK could 'retaliate,' getting involved in a tit-for-tat contest with the Iranians is a foolish and reckless game, for it may not prove possible to avoid escalation and loss of control. And we seem to be well on our way there. If one calls Iran 'evil,' arrests its diplomats, accuses it of promoting terrorism and unlawful capture, one can be certain that the Iranians will retaliate and raise the stakes in the process."
It is an uneasy situation at best in the region today as tension remains high whether the US/Israel would exploit the situation to launch military strikes against Iran. Conventional wisdom says military action against Iran would be disasterous but then the hawks in Washington, nudged by their Israeli counterparts, are not exactly known for applying conventional wisdom in their narrow, Israel-specific actions and that is what is worrying the region. And the defiant Iranian position is not helping ease the tension either.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Yet another denial of truth
April 1 2007
Yet another denial of truth
IF you are sincere when you say you are open for a diplomatic solution to a crisis, then why should you object to an approach to dialogue that could possibly help open new avenues for a solution? That is the key question that the Bush administration should answer following its criticism of plans by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria and possibly meet President Bashar Al Assad.
It is yet again denial by the Bush administration, which is not ready to recognise that Syria, like other Arabs in the region, has a genuine cause: Liberation of its Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Dealing with Syria as a sovereign country entitled to all rights of a UN member state means applying logic, reason and international legitimacy to assess its position. If the Bush administration opted to do that, then it would be alienating its "strategic partner" in the region — Israel.
As such, the White House does not want anything to do with Syria. It has steadfastly refused to open a dialogue with Syria with a view to securing Syrian help in containing the insurgeny in Iraq in return for launching a sincere effort to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Dialogue with Syria was recommended by the Iraq Study Group headed by veteran diplomat James Baker, but the White House ruled that out even before Baker formally released his report.
A team of Republican and Democratic members of Congress visited Damascus and met President Assad in December against the backdrop of the Baker report.
The mission was condemned by the White House.
Now, the White House says it is not a good idea for Pelosi to visit Syria and hold talks with President Assad.
"We don't think it's a good idea," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders."
Let us take the US charges on their face value. Then it becomes all the more puzzling to see how the Bush administration intends to go about if it genuinely wants Syria help to end what it calls "state-sponsored terrorism," find a solution to the political crisis in Lebanon and check the insurgency in Iraq.
Syria has repeatedly affirmed that it is ready for an all-embracing dialogue with the US with a view to addressing the fundamental differences with them.
The Syrian position, coupled with Baker's expert recommendation, offers a perfect setting for Pelosi to launch a new initiative. Her office has acknowledged it.
Indeed, the White House, already in trouble with the Democrats dominating the US legislature, might not want to offer Pelosi any opening to score political points.
The White House is deliberately playing down the Syrian offer of dialogue by ridiculing President Assad. It is evident in the words of spokeswoman Perino: "I know that Assad probably really loves people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him and have discussions about where they're coming from."
Well, by maintaining its stubborn refusal to acknowledge ground realities and accept the course of logic, reason and diplomacy in dealing with Syria, the Bush administration is wasting yet another opportunity to help advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
Yet another denial of truth
IF you are sincere when you say you are open for a diplomatic solution to a crisis, then why should you object to an approach to dialogue that could possibly help open new avenues for a solution? That is the key question that the Bush administration should answer following its criticism of plans by US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit Syria and possibly meet President Bashar Al Assad.
It is yet again denial by the Bush administration, which is not ready to recognise that Syria, like other Arabs in the region, has a genuine cause: Liberation of its Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.
Dealing with Syria as a sovereign country entitled to all rights of a UN member state means applying logic, reason and international legitimacy to assess its position. If the Bush administration opted to do that, then it would be alienating its "strategic partner" in the region — Israel.
As such, the White House does not want anything to do with Syria. It has steadfastly refused to open a dialogue with Syria with a view to securing Syrian help in containing the insurgeny in Iraq in return for launching a sincere effort to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Dialogue with Syria was recommended by the Iraq Study Group headed by veteran diplomat James Baker, but the White House ruled that out even before Baker formally released his report.
A team of Republican and Democratic members of Congress visited Damascus and met President Assad in December against the backdrop of the Baker report.
The mission was condemned by the White House.
Now, the White House says it is not a good idea for Pelosi to visit Syria and hold talks with President Assad.
"We don't think it's a good idea," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders."
Let us take the US charges on their face value. Then it becomes all the more puzzling to see how the Bush administration intends to go about if it genuinely wants Syria help to end what it calls "state-sponsored terrorism," find a solution to the political crisis in Lebanon and check the insurgency in Iraq.
Syria has repeatedly affirmed that it is ready for an all-embracing dialogue with the US with a view to addressing the fundamental differences with them.
The Syrian position, coupled with Baker's expert recommendation, offers a perfect setting for Pelosi to launch a new initiative. Her office has acknowledged it.
Indeed, the White House, already in trouble with the Democrats dominating the US legislature, might not want to offer Pelosi any opening to score political points.
The White House is deliberately playing down the Syrian offer of dialogue by ridiculing President Assad. It is evident in the words of spokeswoman Perino: "I know that Assad probably really loves people to come and have a photo opportunity and have tea with him and have discussions about where they're coming from."
Well, by maintaining its stubborn refusal to acknowledge ground realities and accept the course of logic, reason and diplomacy in dealing with Syria, the Bush administration is wasting yet another opportunity to help advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
A forum for rattling sabres
March 10, 200t
A forum for rattling sabres
WASHINGTON says it will confront Syria and Iran directly at a regional meeting on Iraq this week with charges that they are actively fomenting the insurgency in the war-torn country. Tehran seems to think that the Baghdad meeting, which will bring together Iraq's neighbours plus Egypt as well as the UN, US and the UK, could be a forum to ease tensions with Washington. At the same time, Tehran remains wary of being targeted for criticism rather than creative contacts in Baghdad.
Indeed, the Baghdad conference offers a rare opportunity for both Washington and Tehran, which have not had diplomatic ties for more than a quarter of a century, to sit down at the same table as the first step towards launching a broad bilateral dialogue over their differences.
However, that prospect does not seem to be in the cards. Washington said it at first it was open for bilateral contacts with Tehran but then corrected itself and asserted that the issues to be discussed in Baghdad would be limited to those concerning the crisis in Iraq.
David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top adviser on Iraq, went a step further on Thursday and said the US delegation would press Iran and Syria to respond publicly to the accusations at the conference that they are fuelling the insurgency in Iraq.
At the same time, Satterfield also reaffirmed that US officials were ready to hold direct bilateral talks with the Iranians and Syrians only on issues related to Iraq.
Of course, the crisis in Iraq is a central issue for all players, but tackling it on its own is not feasible since there are differences between the Arab and Muslim worlds on the one hand and the US on the other concerning the broader conflict in the Middle East, including the problems in Palestine and Lebanon as well as the long-running fued between Iran and the US.
The US and the UK would be attending a regional meeting of the nature of that of the Baghdad conference for the first time. It could not be said earlier meetings made a serious breakthrough towards addressing the concerns of Iraq's neighbours. However, if there is any prospect for a breakthrough that would be negated if the US seeks to use the forum simply to pull up Iran and Syria over what Washington sees as their role in the Iraq crisis.
Applying public pressure on Iran and Syria and using the regional meeting simply to highlight their alleged meddling in Iraqi affairs could be part of Washington's build-up against them, particularly Tehran, in the wider scheme of things. The Baghdad forum could serve as yet another platform to serve Washington's case, if indeed there is one, against Iran and Syria. Faced with increasing criticism at home against the fiasco in Iran, it would be part of the US effort to blame others for its failures in Iraq.
The Iranian sentiment was summed up Amir Mohebian, the political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper, who said on Friday: “If the result of this meeting in Baghdad was good, maybe it will be the first step and a good start for negotiations in the future.
“If the result of this cooperation is a bad reaction from the United States, it will be a signal for any radical in Iran to say that cooperation with the United States has no result.”
Judging from Washington's approch, that is seems to be the predetermined outcome of the meeting. The Iranians are also aware of it, and this strengthens the feeling that the Baghdad meeting would be a forum more for sabre-rattling than the real purpose of seeking a way to end the raging violence in Iraq.
A forum for rattling sabres
WASHINGTON says it will confront Syria and Iran directly at a regional meeting on Iraq this week with charges that they are actively fomenting the insurgency in the war-torn country. Tehran seems to think that the Baghdad meeting, which will bring together Iraq's neighbours plus Egypt as well as the UN, US and the UK, could be a forum to ease tensions with Washington. At the same time, Tehran remains wary of being targeted for criticism rather than creative contacts in Baghdad.
Indeed, the Baghdad conference offers a rare opportunity for both Washington and Tehran, which have not had diplomatic ties for more than a quarter of a century, to sit down at the same table as the first step towards launching a broad bilateral dialogue over their differences.
However, that prospect does not seem to be in the cards. Washington said it at first it was open for bilateral contacts with Tehran but then corrected itself and asserted that the issues to be discussed in Baghdad would be limited to those concerning the crisis in Iraq.
David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top adviser on Iraq, went a step further on Thursday and said the US delegation would press Iran and Syria to respond publicly to the accusations at the conference that they are fuelling the insurgency in Iraq.
At the same time, Satterfield also reaffirmed that US officials were ready to hold direct bilateral talks with the Iranians and Syrians only on issues related to Iraq.
Of course, the crisis in Iraq is a central issue for all players, but tackling it on its own is not feasible since there are differences between the Arab and Muslim worlds on the one hand and the US on the other concerning the broader conflict in the Middle East, including the problems in Palestine and Lebanon as well as the long-running fued between Iran and the US.
The US and the UK would be attending a regional meeting of the nature of that of the Baghdad conference for the first time. It could not be said earlier meetings made a serious breakthrough towards addressing the concerns of Iraq's neighbours. However, if there is any prospect for a breakthrough that would be negated if the US seeks to use the forum simply to pull up Iran and Syria over what Washington sees as their role in the Iraq crisis.
Applying public pressure on Iran and Syria and using the regional meeting simply to highlight their alleged meddling in Iraqi affairs could be part of Washington's build-up against them, particularly Tehran, in the wider scheme of things. The Baghdad forum could serve as yet another platform to serve Washington's case, if indeed there is one, against Iran and Syria. Faced with increasing criticism at home against the fiasco in Iran, it would be part of the US effort to blame others for its failures in Iraq.
The Iranian sentiment was summed up Amir Mohebian, the political editor of the conservative Resalat newspaper, who said on Friday: “If the result of this meeting in Baghdad was good, maybe it will be the first step and a good start for negotiations in the future.
“If the result of this cooperation is a bad reaction from the United States, it will be a signal for any radical in Iran to say that cooperation with the United States has no result.”
Judging from Washington's approch, that is seems to be the predetermined outcome of the meeting. The Iranians are also aware of it, and this strengthens the feeling that the Baghdad meeting would be a forum more for sabre-rattling than the real purpose of seeking a way to end the raging violence in Iraq.
Friday, March 09, 2007
Catch-22 at every twis
March 9, 2007
Catch-22 at every twist
THE KEY problem that the Democrats, who now control the US Congress after winning November elections mostly on an anti-war platform, is how to end the US military involvement in Iraq. While a majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate say they are in favour of recalling the US troops home as early as possible, they are unable to come up with a workable idea to realise that goal.
Many of them are also concerned that chaos would follow a US withdrawal from Iraq and that refusing funds for the administration to continue the war would be seen as unpatriotic since it would deprive the US military of much-needed equipment and logistic support and expose them to dangers in the battlefield.
However, it is clear to everyone — except the Bush administration itself — that there is little viability to a military option to end the crisis in Iraq and it needs dramatic decisions and moves to disentangle the US from the mess the war-hungry, Israeli-driven neoconservatives created there.
The Republican camp is no different. As the Democrats, the Republicans also do no have a clue how to take their country out of the Iraq imbroglio, but they are in a relatively more comfortable position today because the onus is the Democrats to do so.
The best that the Democrats could come up with so far is the outine of a proposal which calls for bringing troops home early next year while removing remaining troops from combat by October 2008. That seems to be the best compromise that party leaders could produce, given that a good number of the Democrat members of congress — around 40, according to Washington insiders — have adopted a cautious attitude and would even bolt the anti-war camp if the party followed too aggressive a line in order to recall the troops home.
The proposal would make it binding on the Iraqi government to bring the situation under control in the chaotic country. In its final form, the proposal is expected to set tough benchmarks for the Iraqi regime to meet. It would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November this year, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. It would be required to spend up to $10 billion of Iraq's oil money on job-creating reconstruction and infrastructure projects and hold provincial elections this year.
On the reconciliation front, the government would have to liberalise laws that purged Baath Party members from the government and establish a fairer process for amending the Iraqi constitution.
These benchmarks have to be met by the end of this year. Otherwise, the US troops would begin leaving Iraq next spring, with all troops out of combat by the fall.
Well, if the Iraqi government could meet these benchmarks, then there would not be any need for the US soldiers to stay because the realisation of these goals means a pacified Iraq with a central government in control. As such, the Democrats' proposal is in contradiction with the very essence of ending the US military presence in Iraq.
Suffice it to say that the Iraqi government stands the chance of a snowball in fire to meet those benchmarks.
It is not a single war or enemy that the US-backed government faces in the country. Different ethnic groups with conflicting priorities and objectives are at work and it is a foregone conclusion that it is next to impossible to find common ground that meets the minimum demands of the various players involved.
Naturally, it means that the goals set in the Democrats' draft proposal are unmeetable and this in turn should lead to the US soldiers' packing up and boarding planes and ships to return home next year.
Washington has yet another tiger by the tail in Iraq. Setting a deadline for US departure from Iraq would play into the hands of the insurgents and sectarian militiamen, who would simply fade themselves into the society and lie low until the time is right for them to re-emerge. That is one of the key reasons that the Bush administration always balked at announcing a schedule for US withdrawal from Iraq, with senior officials suggesting that the US military would remain in the country as long as it takes for the situation to be contained and controlled.
There are many other ifs and buts facing any move for a US withdrawal from Iraq, but all these would cease to be hurdles if there is a realistic acceptance by the Bush administration that the conflict in Iraq is a lost war for the US and there is no option except withdrawal. As long as that political will is missing in Washington, there is nothing the Democrats or Republicans could do to disengage their country from Iraq with dignity for their country and its people and its military.
Catch-22 at every twist
THE KEY problem that the Democrats, who now control the US Congress after winning November elections mostly on an anti-war platform, is how to end the US military involvement in Iraq. While a majority of the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate say they are in favour of recalling the US troops home as early as possible, they are unable to come up with a workable idea to realise that goal.
Many of them are also concerned that chaos would follow a US withdrawal from Iraq and that refusing funds for the administration to continue the war would be seen as unpatriotic since it would deprive the US military of much-needed equipment and logistic support and expose them to dangers in the battlefield.
However, it is clear to everyone — except the Bush administration itself — that there is little viability to a military option to end the crisis in Iraq and it needs dramatic decisions and moves to disentangle the US from the mess the war-hungry, Israeli-driven neoconservatives created there.
The Republican camp is no different. As the Democrats, the Republicans also do no have a clue how to take their country out of the Iraq imbroglio, but they are in a relatively more comfortable position today because the onus is the Democrats to do so.
The best that the Democrats could come up with so far is the outine of a proposal which calls for bringing troops home early next year while removing remaining troops from combat by October 2008. That seems to be the best compromise that party leaders could produce, given that a good number of the Democrat members of congress — around 40, according to Washington insiders — have adopted a cautious attitude and would even bolt the anti-war camp if the party followed too aggressive a line in order to recall the troops home.
The proposal would make it binding on the Iraqi government to bring the situation under control in the chaotic country. In its final form, the proposal is expected to set tough benchmarks for the Iraqi regime to meet. It would have to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November this year, and adopt and implement oil-revenue-sharing legislation. It would be required to spend up to $10 billion of Iraq's oil money on job-creating reconstruction and infrastructure projects and hold provincial elections this year.
On the reconciliation front, the government would have to liberalise laws that purged Baath Party members from the government and establish a fairer process for amending the Iraqi constitution.
These benchmarks have to be met by the end of this year. Otherwise, the US troops would begin leaving Iraq next spring, with all troops out of combat by the fall.
Well, if the Iraqi government could meet these benchmarks, then there would not be any need for the US soldiers to stay because the realisation of these goals means a pacified Iraq with a central government in control. As such, the Democrats' proposal is in contradiction with the very essence of ending the US military presence in Iraq.
Suffice it to say that the Iraqi government stands the chance of a snowball in fire to meet those benchmarks.
It is not a single war or enemy that the US-backed government faces in the country. Different ethnic groups with conflicting priorities and objectives are at work and it is a foregone conclusion that it is next to impossible to find common ground that meets the minimum demands of the various players involved.
Naturally, it means that the goals set in the Democrats' draft proposal are unmeetable and this in turn should lead to the US soldiers' packing up and boarding planes and ships to return home next year.
Washington has yet another tiger by the tail in Iraq. Setting a deadline for US departure from Iraq would play into the hands of the insurgents and sectarian militiamen, who would simply fade themselves into the society and lie low until the time is right for them to re-emerge. That is one of the key reasons that the Bush administration always balked at announcing a schedule for US withdrawal from Iraq, with senior officials suggesting that the US military would remain in the country as long as it takes for the situation to be contained and controlled.
There are many other ifs and buts facing any move for a US withdrawal from Iraq, but all these would cease to be hurdles if there is a realistic acceptance by the Bush administration that the conflict in Iraq is a lost war for the US and there is no option except withdrawal. As long as that political will is missing in Washington, there is nothing the Democrats or Republicans could do to disengage their country from Iraq with dignity for their country and its people and its military.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
From the pan to the fire
March 8, 2007
Iraqis — from
the pan to fire
THE suicide attacks that killed more than 120 Iraqi Shiite pilgrims in Hila on their way to the holy city of Karbala on Tuesday have exposed yet another shortcoming on the part of the US-led coalition forces occupying Iraq.
There were major security lapses on the part of the coalition forces, who could not provide the right protection to the pilgrims.
It should be noted that the Hila attack came after gunmen and bombers hit group after group of Shiite pilgrims elsewhere - some in buses and others making the trek on foot to Karbala. At least 24 were killed in those attacks, which should have alerted the US military to adopt additional precautions to protest Karbala-bound pilgrims.
The first — and indeed valid — argument cited by the Iraqi Shiite community at large is that the US military, by dismantling part of Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and forcing the rest to go underground, had deprived the pilgrims of the tight-knit security that was until now offered to them by the Mahdi Army.
Mahdi Army militiamen, it could even be argued, were better organised than the US military in Iraq. At least they knew what they were doing and what they were supposed to be doing when they stood guard over pilgrimages to Karbala. Compare that with the obviously confused state of mind of fresh American reservists flown in from tens of thousands of kilometres away to fight in a land which is not their own and a faceless enemy waging an unconventional and unorthodox war (if indeed there could be one).
US military commanders should have known that they would be leaving a major security vacuum when they moved in to remove Mahdi Army militiamen from the streets at the outset of the new security crackdown. It is not that Mahdi Army militiamen are angels sent down to protect Iraqi Shiites, but in the absence of a properly structured and equipped security aparatus of the state, the best bet was on the Sadrists to protect the pilgrims. That was the case in the last three years (although the Mahdi Army also failed to prevent a major bombing attack against pilgrims two years ago).
This week's incident reminds us of the situation immediately after the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. One of the first missions of the invading forces was to dismantle the 800,000-strong Iraqi army, and that blunder is still remembered as one of the worst that the US military committed in Iraq. By dismantling the army, the US military removed one of the central pillars of Iraqi security under the reign of Saddam Hussein. The US-led coalition forces were not in a position to take over the role played by the ousted security forces, and this vacuum continued to grow since then. Today, it poses the biggest challenge to the US quest to limit its soldiers' exposure to enemy fire by handing over security responsibility to the Iraqi government forces.
It is ironic that the US military has been unable to provide security for its own soldiers despite the three-week-old crackdown in Baghdad.
Nine US soldiers were killed on Tuesday in two separate roadside bombings north of Baghdad, making it the deadliest day for US troops in Iraq in nearly a month and raising to 3,166 the number of American military deaths in the country since March 2003.
Even if one were to give the US military the benefit of the doubt, it would only be fair to observe that Washington's much-touted troop "surge" in Iraq has only made things worse for the suffering people of Iraq. They are now left more vulnerable than they were before the fresh crackdown was launched. What is even worse is the certainty that the "death squads" of Iraq have gone into hiding for the time being and would return to the scene when the US-induced heat cools down.
Iraqis — from
the pan to fire
THE suicide attacks that killed more than 120 Iraqi Shiite pilgrims in Hila on their way to the holy city of Karbala on Tuesday have exposed yet another shortcoming on the part of the US-led coalition forces occupying Iraq.
There were major security lapses on the part of the coalition forces, who could not provide the right protection to the pilgrims.
It should be noted that the Hila attack came after gunmen and bombers hit group after group of Shiite pilgrims elsewhere - some in buses and others making the trek on foot to Karbala. At least 24 were killed in those attacks, which should have alerted the US military to adopt additional precautions to protest Karbala-bound pilgrims.
The first — and indeed valid — argument cited by the Iraqi Shiite community at large is that the US military, by dismantling part of Moqtada Sadr's Mahdi Army and forcing the rest to go underground, had deprived the pilgrims of the tight-knit security that was until now offered to them by the Mahdi Army.
Mahdi Army militiamen, it could even be argued, were better organised than the US military in Iraq. At least they knew what they were doing and what they were supposed to be doing when they stood guard over pilgrimages to Karbala. Compare that with the obviously confused state of mind of fresh American reservists flown in from tens of thousands of kilometres away to fight in a land which is not their own and a faceless enemy waging an unconventional and unorthodox war (if indeed there could be one).
US military commanders should have known that they would be leaving a major security vacuum when they moved in to remove Mahdi Army militiamen from the streets at the outset of the new security crackdown. It is not that Mahdi Army militiamen are angels sent down to protect Iraqi Shiites, but in the absence of a properly structured and equipped security aparatus of the state, the best bet was on the Sadrists to protect the pilgrims. That was the case in the last three years (although the Mahdi Army also failed to prevent a major bombing attack against pilgrims two years ago).
This week's incident reminds us of the situation immediately after the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. One of the first missions of the invading forces was to dismantle the 800,000-strong Iraqi army, and that blunder is still remembered as one of the worst that the US military committed in Iraq. By dismantling the army, the US military removed one of the central pillars of Iraqi security under the reign of Saddam Hussein. The US-led coalition forces were not in a position to take over the role played by the ousted security forces, and this vacuum continued to grow since then. Today, it poses the biggest challenge to the US quest to limit its soldiers' exposure to enemy fire by handing over security responsibility to the Iraqi government forces.
It is ironic that the US military has been unable to provide security for its own soldiers despite the three-week-old crackdown in Baghdad.
Nine US soldiers were killed on Tuesday in two separate roadside bombings north of Baghdad, making it the deadliest day for US troops in Iraq in nearly a month and raising to 3,166 the number of American military deaths in the country since March 2003.
Even if one were to give the US military the benefit of the doubt, it would only be fair to observe that Washington's much-touted troop "surge" in Iraq has only made things worse for the suffering people of Iraq. They are now left more vulnerable than they were before the fresh crackdown was launched. What is even worse is the certainty that the "death squads" of Iraq have gone into hiding for the time being and would return to the scene when the US-induced heat cools down.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Mossad back to its tricks
March 7, 2007
Mossad back to its tricks
THE "disappearance" of a former deputy defence minister of Iran with detailed information about his country's military programmes adds to the intricacies of the Middle East. It comes at a time when speculation is rife over the shape and nature of a possible American/Israeli military action against Iran in the name of that country's controversial nuclear programme.
Ali Reza Asgari, 63, went missing after checking into an Istanbul hotel on Feb.7 at the outset of a visit to Turkey. According to Turkish officials, the Israeli secret service Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) might have had a hand in the disappearance.
Some accounts claim Asgari, who was a commander in the Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon before being deputy defence minister, "defected" and is now somewhere in Europe with his family and "singing like a canary" about his country's military secrets.
Other reports say that Mossad and the CIA spirited him out of Turkey and now he is in Israeli custody undergoing interrogation about his country's nuclear programme and defence capabilities. Another speculation is that Israelis are seeking information from him about Ron Arad, an Israeli air force pilot who went missing in Lebanon in the 80s when Asgari headed a Revolutionary Guards unit there.
Indeed, there could be a far simpler explanation as to how and why Asgari went missing, but the world at large is not privy to that yet.
The former Iranian minister's disappearance becomes all the more intriguing when seen coupled with the death under mysterious circumstances of an Iranian nuclear scientist in January.
Professor Ardashir Hosseinpour, 45, who was described as a world authority on electromagnetism, was working on uranium enrichment at the facility in Isfahan, one of the central processing sites in Iran's nuclear programme, when he died.
According to the US website - Stratfor.com - which features intelligence and security analysis by former US intelligence agents, Hosseinpour was killed by Mossad agents.
A website of expatriate Iranian communists reported that several other scientists were killed or injured in the operation to kill Hosseinpour at Isfahan, and were treated at nearby hospitals.
The Stratfor.com report says that Hosseinpour died from "radioactive poisoning" as part of a Mossad effort to halt the Iranian nuclear programme through "secret operations." That is indeed a tall claim because it is difficult to accept that Iran's nuclear activities depended solely on a scientist.
Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death gave the cause as “gas poisoning,” but did not say how or where he was poisoned.
At the same time, the claims that he was murdered could not be dismissed out of hand since Mossad does have a long record of eliminating whoever is deemed to be instrumental in posing a challenge to Israel.
It is a well-known secret that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Mossad agents were behind the deaths of scientists involved with the Iraqi nuclear programme.
In 1980, Yahya Meshad was found dead in his Paris hotel room. Over the next several months, two other Iraqi nuclear scientists were also killed as a result of poisoning. All killings bore Mossad hallmarks.
Indeed, Israel leaders have publicly vowed that they would stop at nothing to remove all potential threats to its ambitions in the region, and what we are seeing today is yet another manifestation of those "warnings." And the world, it seems, is unable to prevent Israel from getting what it wants.
Mossad back to its tricks
THE "disappearance" of a former deputy defence minister of Iran with detailed information about his country's military programmes adds to the intricacies of the Middle East. It comes at a time when speculation is rife over the shape and nature of a possible American/Israeli military action against Iran in the name of that country's controversial nuclear programme.
Ali Reza Asgari, 63, went missing after checking into an Istanbul hotel on Feb.7 at the outset of a visit to Turkey. According to Turkish officials, the Israeli secret service Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) might have had a hand in the disappearance.
Some accounts claim Asgari, who was a commander in the Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon before being deputy defence minister, "defected" and is now somewhere in Europe with his family and "singing like a canary" about his country's military secrets.
Other reports say that Mossad and the CIA spirited him out of Turkey and now he is in Israeli custody undergoing interrogation about his country's nuclear programme and defence capabilities. Another speculation is that Israelis are seeking information from him about Ron Arad, an Israeli air force pilot who went missing in Lebanon in the 80s when Asgari headed a Revolutionary Guards unit there.
Indeed, there could be a far simpler explanation as to how and why Asgari went missing, but the world at large is not privy to that yet.
The former Iranian minister's disappearance becomes all the more intriguing when seen coupled with the death under mysterious circumstances of an Iranian nuclear scientist in January.
Professor Ardashir Hosseinpour, 45, who was described as a world authority on electromagnetism, was working on uranium enrichment at the facility in Isfahan, one of the central processing sites in Iran's nuclear programme, when he died.
According to the US website - Stratfor.com - which features intelligence and security analysis by former US intelligence agents, Hosseinpour was killed by Mossad agents.
A website of expatriate Iranian communists reported that several other scientists were killed or injured in the operation to kill Hosseinpour at Isfahan, and were treated at nearby hospitals.
The Stratfor.com report says that Hosseinpour died from "radioactive poisoning" as part of a Mossad effort to halt the Iranian nuclear programme through "secret operations." That is indeed a tall claim because it is difficult to accept that Iran's nuclear activities depended solely on a scientist.
Iranian reports of Hassanpour’s death gave the cause as “gas poisoning,” but did not say how or where he was poisoned.
At the same time, the claims that he was murdered could not be dismissed out of hand since Mossad does have a long record of eliminating whoever is deemed to be instrumental in posing a challenge to Israel.
It is a well-known secret that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Mossad agents were behind the deaths of scientists involved with the Iraqi nuclear programme.
In 1980, Yahya Meshad was found dead in his Paris hotel room. Over the next several months, two other Iraqi nuclear scientists were also killed as a result of poisoning. All killings bore Mossad hallmarks.
Indeed, Israel leaders have publicly vowed that they would stop at nothing to remove all potential threats to its ambitions in the region, and what we are seeing today is yet another manifestation of those "warnings." And the world, it seems, is unable to prevent Israel from getting what it wants.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Calling the Israeli bluff
March 3, 2007
Calling the Israeli bluff
IT IS disturbing to note the delay in formation of a Palestinian national unity government. A cabinet line-up was expected to be announced on Friday, but both Fatah and Hamas said they need more time to do so.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas had asked the two groups to present names ahead of a planned meeting on Saturday with President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah in the Gaza Strip.
Again, there is no assurance that the Abbas-Haniyeh meeting would produce an agreement on the names. There was no immediate explanation for the delay and it was unclear how long it would take before a cabinet would be announced.
The only consolation, if any, is the pledge by both Hamas and Fatah that they are committed to forming a national unity government and that they would work on it intensely. Obviously, there is awareness on the two sides that there are opponents seeking to exploit opportunities and delays in order to scuttle last month's Makkah agreement that was a watershed in the intra-Palestinian feud and bloodshed that had cast the darkest cloud ever over the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel's brutal military occupation of their land and people.
What we have seen since the Makkah agreement was signed clearly shows that Hamas and Fatah are serious about coming together on a common platform although it might not encompass all aspects of their different political ideologies. However, the seriousness we have seen so far is enough to give the Arab and Muslim worlds hope that Palestinian blood would not be shed in intra-Palestinian feuds and serve the interests of the occupation power.
On the other hand, Israel is continuing its provocation as if with a view to draw Palestinian militants to launch actions that would further strengthen its argument against dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.
Its persistent raids against Palestinian towns and killing and detention of Palestinians seem to be designed to anger Palestinian groups into launching anti-Israeli attacks. Particularly disturbing was the murder of an Islamic Jihad leader and two others last week. Eyewitness accounts say that an undercover force in Jenin opened fire on a vehicle and killed Ashraf Al Saadi, 25, a senior Jihad leader, and Alaa Breiki, 26.
A third Palestinian, Mohammed Abu Naasa, 22, was wounded in the shooting, but an Israeli soldier finished him off with a bullet to the head, according to eyewitnesses.
These are kind of incidents which are designed to provoke the Palestinians.
Until now, the Palestinians have not responded with violence to the Israeli provocation, but it does not mean that they would stay put either.
In the meantime, every moment of delay in the formation of a Palestinian cabinet would be exploited by Israel and its agents in order to create new fait accompli in the occupied territories.
Hamas, Fatah and all other Palestinian groups should but be aware of the pitfall they face if they continue to haggle over cabinet positions. What is at stake is perhaps the only chance for them to call Israel's bluff that they could not get their act together.
Calling the Israeli bluff
IT IS disturbing to note the delay in formation of a Palestinian national unity government. A cabinet line-up was expected to be announced on Friday, but both Fatah and Hamas said they need more time to do so.
Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas had asked the two groups to present names ahead of a planned meeting on Saturday with President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah in the Gaza Strip.
Again, there is no assurance that the Abbas-Haniyeh meeting would produce an agreement on the names. There was no immediate explanation for the delay and it was unclear how long it would take before a cabinet would be announced.
The only consolation, if any, is the pledge by both Hamas and Fatah that they are committed to forming a national unity government and that they would work on it intensely. Obviously, there is awareness on the two sides that there are opponents seeking to exploit opportunities and delays in order to scuttle last month's Makkah agreement that was a watershed in the intra-Palestinian feud and bloodshed that had cast the darkest cloud ever over the Palestinian struggle for independence from Israel's brutal military occupation of their land and people.
What we have seen since the Makkah agreement was signed clearly shows that Hamas and Fatah are serious about coming together on a common platform although it might not encompass all aspects of their different political ideologies. However, the seriousness we have seen so far is enough to give the Arab and Muslim worlds hope that Palestinian blood would not be shed in intra-Palestinian feuds and serve the interests of the occupation power.
On the other hand, Israel is continuing its provocation as if with a view to draw Palestinian militants to launch actions that would further strengthen its argument against dealing with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas.
Its persistent raids against Palestinian towns and killing and detention of Palestinians seem to be designed to anger Palestinian groups into launching anti-Israeli attacks. Particularly disturbing was the murder of an Islamic Jihad leader and two others last week. Eyewitness accounts say that an undercover force in Jenin opened fire on a vehicle and killed Ashraf Al Saadi, 25, a senior Jihad leader, and Alaa Breiki, 26.
A third Palestinian, Mohammed Abu Naasa, 22, was wounded in the shooting, but an Israeli soldier finished him off with a bullet to the head, according to eyewitnesses.
These are kind of incidents which are designed to provoke the Palestinians.
Until now, the Palestinians have not responded with violence to the Israeli provocation, but it does not mean that they would stay put either.
In the meantime, every moment of delay in the formation of a Palestinian cabinet would be exploited by Israel and its agents in order to create new fait accompli in the occupied territories.
Hamas, Fatah and all other Palestinian groups should but be aware of the pitfall they face if they continue to haggle over cabinet positions. What is at stake is perhaps the only chance for them to call Israel's bluff that they could not get their act together.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Job half done, but other half is the key
February 27, 2007
Job half done, but other half is the key
'Inad Khairallah
THE US notched a key landmark in its goals in Iraq on Monday when the cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki endorsed the draft of new legislation on the country's energy reserves. Waiting in line to benefit from the draft bill, which is expected to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament in March, are international oil majors like ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell, with the US companies staking a claim to the lion's share while the European firms would get a relatively smaller share of the pie. Russians and Chinese might get bits and pieces for good behaviour.
Indeed, it cost the US more than $360 billion and 3,200 American lives — not to mention the more than 25,000 crippled and maimed US service personnel or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives — to arrive at this point. The US administration had expected the cost of war to be a few billion dollars, but it had no option but to continue to keep the war machine fuelled in the face of the unexpected intensity of the post-war insurgency. The result today is that the cost has now shot through the roof, making it all the more important for the US to "stay the course" in order not only to serve its strategic interests in the region but also to benefit US oil corporates with direct and indirect links with senior administration officials and the Republican camp.
That the original language of the draft law on oil is in English — and not Arabic, the national language of Iraq — shows that it was US-drafted and forced down on the Iraqi government, which was a willing recipient anyway.
According to some accounts, those involved in drafting the bill included
a American consultancy firm hired by Washington and representatives of oil giants, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank which is headed by former US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and the US Agency for International Development.
It does not need more substantiation that control of Iraq's rich oil resources was one of the several key US objectives than a 1999 statement made in London by Dick Cheney, the now US vice-president and then chief executive of Halliburton:
"By 2010 we will need (an additional) 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies."
The draft law calls for oil revenue throughout the country to be deposited in a central government account and redistributed to Iraq's 18 provinces, most likely on a per capita basis. A secondary bill will address in more detail the mechanisms of revenue distribution.
In the final form of distribution arrangements, both the Kurds and Shiites would have a strong say in negotiating production agreements and allocation of the oil proceeds. The Kurds, who have been aligned with the US since the 1991 war over Kuwait, have an edge over the Shiites in this matter. The Kurds could sign oil contracts with whatever companies they want while the Shi'ites enjoy limited privileges in this context, but they are rulers of the country anyway,
The Sunnis in central Iraq — which does not have much of hydrocarbon deposits — have to depend on the central government's oil ministry for any share of whatever oil cake is available.
Well, the arrangement appears the suit the geopolitical realities in Iraq.
However, there is a major catch: The Federal Oil and Gas Council — described as a panel made up of Iraqis and non-Iraqis — retains the final say in granting any oil concession to anyone.
Inevitably, the "non-Iraqi" members of the council will be top executives from the international oil giants who, along with other "US-friendly" Iraqi members, would ensure that only those who toe the US line would get to make money from Iraq's oil resources — 110 billion barrels proven, and unproven estimates running up to 280 billion barrels, more than world number one Saudi Arabia.
It follows then that the US and its proxies would have absolute control of Iraq's oil wealth granted to it by the government and legislative authority of the country.
The international oil giants would make money from Iraq's oil resources mainly through production-sharing agreements which industry experts say are outdated in principle and do not work to the benefit of the host country. But then, that argument is a non-starter because no foreign country is going to raise it and no one in Iraq has any clout to challenge any US-enforced decisions.
Independent experts say that it costs about @2 to produce a barrel of oil in the Kurdish areas of Iraq compared with $7 to $11 in the southern Shiite areas. With the oil price around $60 per barrel, no one is complaining, least of all the oil giants who could be expected to negotiate production sharing agreements based on the colonial-era parameters, including heavily inflated cost of production.
Well, the US has accomplished half the job in Iraq, but the other half — containing the insurgency, taking care of security and making sure the US-friendly credentials of any group that ever comes to power — has already turned out to be its undoing. Without successfully completing this half of the job, the first half would mean nothing.
Job half done, but other half is the key
'Inad Khairallah
THE US notched a key landmark in its goals in Iraq on Monday when the cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki endorsed the draft of new legislation on the country's energy reserves. Waiting in line to benefit from the draft bill, which is expected to be ratified by the Iraqi parliament in March, are international oil majors like ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell, with the US companies staking a claim to the lion's share while the European firms would get a relatively smaller share of the pie. Russians and Chinese might get bits and pieces for good behaviour.
Indeed, it cost the US more than $360 billion and 3,200 American lives — not to mention the more than 25,000 crippled and maimed US service personnel or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives — to arrive at this point. The US administration had expected the cost of war to be a few billion dollars, but it had no option but to continue to keep the war machine fuelled in the face of the unexpected intensity of the post-war insurgency. The result today is that the cost has now shot through the roof, making it all the more important for the US to "stay the course" in order not only to serve its strategic interests in the region but also to benefit US oil corporates with direct and indirect links with senior administration officials and the Republican camp.
That the original language of the draft law on oil is in English — and not Arabic, the national language of Iraq — shows that it was US-drafted and forced down on the Iraqi government, which was a willing recipient anyway.
According to some accounts, those involved in drafting the bill included
a American consultancy firm hired by Washington and representatives of oil giants, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank which is headed by former US deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and the US Agency for International Development.
It does not need more substantiation that control of Iraq's rich oil resources was one of the several key US objectives than a 1999 statement made in London by Dick Cheney, the now US vice-president and then chief executive of Halliburton:
"By 2010 we will need (an additional) 50 million barrels a day. The Middle East, with two-thirds of the oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize lies."
The draft law calls for oil revenue throughout the country to be deposited in a central government account and redistributed to Iraq's 18 provinces, most likely on a per capita basis. A secondary bill will address in more detail the mechanisms of revenue distribution.
In the final form of distribution arrangements, both the Kurds and Shiites would have a strong say in negotiating production agreements and allocation of the oil proceeds. The Kurds, who have been aligned with the US since the 1991 war over Kuwait, have an edge over the Shiites in this matter. The Kurds could sign oil contracts with whatever companies they want while the Shi'ites enjoy limited privileges in this context, but they are rulers of the country anyway,
The Sunnis in central Iraq — which does not have much of hydrocarbon deposits — have to depend on the central government's oil ministry for any share of whatever oil cake is available.
Well, the arrangement appears the suit the geopolitical realities in Iraq.
However, there is a major catch: The Federal Oil and Gas Council — described as a panel made up of Iraqis and non-Iraqis — retains the final say in granting any oil concession to anyone.
Inevitably, the "non-Iraqi" members of the council will be top executives from the international oil giants who, along with other "US-friendly" Iraqi members, would ensure that only those who toe the US line would get to make money from Iraq's oil resources — 110 billion barrels proven, and unproven estimates running up to 280 billion barrels, more than world number one Saudi Arabia.
It follows then that the US and its proxies would have absolute control of Iraq's oil wealth granted to it by the government and legislative authority of the country.
The international oil giants would make money from Iraq's oil resources mainly through production-sharing agreements which industry experts say are outdated in principle and do not work to the benefit of the host country. But then, that argument is a non-starter because no foreign country is going to raise it and no one in Iraq has any clout to challenge any US-enforced decisions.
Independent experts say that it costs about @2 to produce a barrel of oil in the Kurdish areas of Iraq compared with $7 to $11 in the southern Shiite areas. With the oil price around $60 per barrel, no one is complaining, least of all the oil giants who could be expected to negotiate production sharing agreements based on the colonial-era parameters, including heavily inflated cost of production.
Well, the US has accomplished half the job in Iraq, but the other half — containing the insurgency, taking care of security and making sure the US-friendly credentials of any group that ever comes to power — has already turned out to be its undoing. Without successfully completing this half of the job, the first half would mean nothing.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
No room for family vendetta
February 25, 2007
No room for family vendetta
IT seems that Fatah-Hamas rivalry has taken a backseat and personal vendetta rules the day in the Palestinian territories. In a society like that of the Palestinians, family and clan loyalties run high, and this has emerged as the key factor in the latest eruption of intra-Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip.
The leaderships of both Fatah and Hamas have accepted that they do not have a real blood feud and it is in the best interest of their common cause of liberation from Israeli occupation to join hands instead of taking up guns against each other in a senseless war that benefits no one but Israel.
The latest flare-up of violence is seen to be the result of families seeking revenge for the killing of their loved ones, whether Hamas or Fatah or any other group. The political leaders of the various groups do not really have a dominating role to put an end to the trend where a brother or cousin takes up arms and seeks to exact revenge from the group suspected of having killed a member of the family.
This is what is emerging in the latest clashes, which killed at least three Palestinians and wounded 15 others on Friday and Saturday, threatening to quash the calm in the occupied territories and undermining the power-sharing agreement that Fatah and Hamas agreed in Makkah this month.
A case in point is that of Mohammed Ghelban, a 28-year-old commander from Hamas' military wing, who was killed in a drive-by shooting outside of his home apparently in revenge the murder of a family member. Hamas accused "suspect figures hiding behind the cover of Karouah family" of executing Ghelban. The group called on the Karouah family "to stop protecting the killers" and said Hamas fighters reserved the right to punish the killers. Several hours later, a 22-year-old man from a Fatah family, Hazem Karouah, was killed, along with a bystander, and the cycle of killings does not seem to have ended there either.
Similar tales of family vendettas are becoming the order of the day in the Palestinian territories.
Parallel to the killings and violence, the political leaders of Fatah and Hamas are pursuing their efforts to form a Palestinian national unity government and pressure the West to accept it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. They could do without the cycle of killings and counter-killings. Preventing emotionally driven individuals from seeking revenge for the killing of a loved one is beyond the political realm of the Fatah and Hamas leader, and that is the danger confronting their efforts to produce a national unity government.
The Makkah agreement was seen as the only way to avert a Palestinian civil war, because of what was feared to be an unbridgeable chasm between Fatah and Hamas. Having heaved a sigh of relief over the Makkah agreement, the world now sees that the cycle of vendetta killings casting a dark cloud over hopes that the Palestinians have found a common platform to fight their cause.
Until the Makkah agreement was worked out, it was the political responsibility of the leaders of Fatah and Hamas to bury their differences. Now it is the individual responsibility of every Palestinians to understand and accept that family vendettas could prove to be deadly for their cause and struggle for liberation from foreign occupation.
No room for family vendetta
IT seems that Fatah-Hamas rivalry has taken a backseat and personal vendetta rules the day in the Palestinian territories. In a society like that of the Palestinians, family and clan loyalties run high, and this has emerged as the key factor in the latest eruption of intra-Palestinian violence in the Gaza Strip.
The leaderships of both Fatah and Hamas have accepted that they do not have a real blood feud and it is in the best interest of their common cause of liberation from Israeli occupation to join hands instead of taking up guns against each other in a senseless war that benefits no one but Israel.
The latest flare-up of violence is seen to be the result of families seeking revenge for the killing of their loved ones, whether Hamas or Fatah or any other group. The political leaders of the various groups do not really have a dominating role to put an end to the trend where a brother or cousin takes up arms and seeks to exact revenge from the group suspected of having killed a member of the family.
This is what is emerging in the latest clashes, which killed at least three Palestinians and wounded 15 others on Friday and Saturday, threatening to quash the calm in the occupied territories and undermining the power-sharing agreement that Fatah and Hamas agreed in Makkah this month.
A case in point is that of Mohammed Ghelban, a 28-year-old commander from Hamas' military wing, who was killed in a drive-by shooting outside of his home apparently in revenge the murder of a family member. Hamas accused "suspect figures hiding behind the cover of Karouah family" of executing Ghelban. The group called on the Karouah family "to stop protecting the killers" and said Hamas fighters reserved the right to punish the killers. Several hours later, a 22-year-old man from a Fatah family, Hazem Karouah, was killed, along with a bystander, and the cycle of killings does not seem to have ended there either.
Similar tales of family vendettas are becoming the order of the day in the Palestinian territories.
Parallel to the killings and violence, the political leaders of Fatah and Hamas are pursuing their efforts to form a Palestinian national unity government and pressure the West to accept it as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. They could do without the cycle of killings and counter-killings. Preventing emotionally driven individuals from seeking revenge for the killing of a loved one is beyond the political realm of the Fatah and Hamas leader, and that is the danger confronting their efforts to produce a national unity government.
The Makkah agreement was seen as the only way to avert a Palestinian civil war, because of what was feared to be an unbridgeable chasm between Fatah and Hamas. Having heaved a sigh of relief over the Makkah agreement, the world now sees that the cycle of vendetta killings casting a dark cloud over hopes that the Palestinians have found a common platform to fight their cause.
Until the Makkah agreement was worked out, it was the political responsibility of the leaders of Fatah and Hamas to bury their differences. Now it is the individual responsibility of every Palestinians to understand and accept that family vendettas could prove to be deadly for their cause and struggle for liberation from foreign occupation.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
The Iraq 'game' turns deadlier
February 24, 2007
The Iraq 'game' turns deadlier
THE recent attacks in Iraq targeting trucks carrying chlorine gas prove that the insurgency has taken a worse turn — if that term is applicable, given the already high intensity of violence in the strife-torn country.
The international media have aptly termed them "dirty" chemical attacks, which highlight the reality that the insurgents are remarkably adaptable and have learnt to switch tactics.
The "chemical" attacks, when seen coupled with the increasing firepower and expertise of the insurgents — as seen in the use of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rockets and heavy machine guns — strengthen the conviction that the US would never be able to "contain" Iraq through military means.
The "dirty" chemical attacks have raised fears that the insurgents could be turning to possible new and co-ordinated assaults using deadly toxics if they could lay their hands on them. Chlorine bombs are only just one threat on a long list of possible attacks that Iraqi insurgents may try to carry out.
No doubt, whoever is pulling the strings behind the insurgency, whether Iraqis — who account for an overwhelming majority in the groups waging the anti-US guerrilla war or the so-called international jihadists affiliated with Al Qaeda — should be aware of the turn that use of toxic material would signal. They could be expected to — and indeed they would be doing so even at this moment — to improvise on the "dirty" chemicals and come up with deadlier material that could inflict higher casualties, whether US or Iraqi soldiers or innocent bystanders.
We are not short of comments from US military commanders that the "success" of the three attacks against trucks carrying chlorine gas since Jan.28 would encourage copycats, and that reflects a "maliciousness, a desire to injure and kill innocent people in the vicinity."
Granted that it is indeed so. However, the US bears the sole responsibility to having turned Iraq into the deadliest spot on earth today. It was a unilateral (but Israeli-engineered) US decision to invade and occupy Iraq and to target other "rogue" states in the region despite, Arab and international warnings that it would not be able to finish what it started. The US military has proven itself incapable of offering the ordinary people of the security and protection that they rightfully deserve.
Instead of owning up its responsibility, accepting that it is part of the problem and not the solution, setting a definite timeframe for ending its military presence in Iraq and seeking alternative means to find an equitable solution, Washington is pursuing a non-existent military answer.
The emergence of new insurgent tactics and increasing intensity of attacks could be seen directly linked to US President George W Bush's "troop surge" plan for Iraq. We have repeatedly seen that the number of insurgent attacks go up whenever and wherever the US beefs up its military strength in Iraq. It has turned the insurgency into a deadly catch-me-if-you-can game with new players replacing the dead ones at every point.
It is not a new finding. We in this region have always known that the US drive in Iraq is going nowhere but disaster for itself. However, it is not a US affair on its own because it is the people of Iraq who are paying the price. Washington has no room to manoeuvre around the reality that it the US has to answer for the death and injury of every innocent Iraqi caught in the crossfire of the insurgency or sectarian blooshed. The US started it and it could not escape from its responsibility to end it, but not at the cost of innocent Iraqi lives.
The Iraq 'game' turns deadlier
THE recent attacks in Iraq targeting trucks carrying chlorine gas prove that the insurgency has taken a worse turn — if that term is applicable, given the already high intensity of violence in the strife-torn country.
The international media have aptly termed them "dirty" chemical attacks, which highlight the reality that the insurgents are remarkably adaptable and have learnt to switch tactics.
The "chemical" attacks, when seen coupled with the increasing firepower and expertise of the insurgents — as seen in the use of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rockets and heavy machine guns — strengthen the conviction that the US would never be able to "contain" Iraq through military means.
The "dirty" chemical attacks have raised fears that the insurgents could be turning to possible new and co-ordinated assaults using deadly toxics if they could lay their hands on them. Chlorine bombs are only just one threat on a long list of possible attacks that Iraqi insurgents may try to carry out.
No doubt, whoever is pulling the strings behind the insurgency, whether Iraqis — who account for an overwhelming majority in the groups waging the anti-US guerrilla war or the so-called international jihadists affiliated with Al Qaeda — should be aware of the turn that use of toxic material would signal. They could be expected to — and indeed they would be doing so even at this moment — to improvise on the "dirty" chemicals and come up with deadlier material that could inflict higher casualties, whether US or Iraqi soldiers or innocent bystanders.
We are not short of comments from US military commanders that the "success" of the three attacks against trucks carrying chlorine gas since Jan.28 would encourage copycats, and that reflects a "maliciousness, a desire to injure and kill innocent people in the vicinity."
Granted that it is indeed so. However, the US bears the sole responsibility to having turned Iraq into the deadliest spot on earth today. It was a unilateral (but Israeli-engineered) US decision to invade and occupy Iraq and to target other "rogue" states in the region despite, Arab and international warnings that it would not be able to finish what it started. The US military has proven itself incapable of offering the ordinary people of the security and protection that they rightfully deserve.
Instead of owning up its responsibility, accepting that it is part of the problem and not the solution, setting a definite timeframe for ending its military presence in Iraq and seeking alternative means to find an equitable solution, Washington is pursuing a non-existent military answer.
The emergence of new insurgent tactics and increasing intensity of attacks could be seen directly linked to US President George W Bush's "troop surge" plan for Iraq. We have repeatedly seen that the number of insurgent attacks go up whenever and wherever the US beefs up its military strength in Iraq. It has turned the insurgency into a deadly catch-me-if-you-can game with new players replacing the dead ones at every point.
It is not a new finding. We in this region have always known that the US drive in Iraq is going nowhere but disaster for itself. However, it is not a US affair on its own because it is the people of Iraq who are paying the price. Washington has no room to manoeuvre around the reality that it the US has to answer for the death and injury of every innocent Iraqi caught in the crossfire of the insurgency or sectarian blooshed. The US started it and it could not escape from its responsibility to end it, but not at the cost of innocent Iraqi lives.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Deserting a sinking ship
February 23, 2007
Deserting a sinking ship
THE US-led coalition in Iraq is definitely crumbling. Britain has announced it would reduce its troop mumbers by 1,600 in the coming months although it qualified itself by saying it would maintain its military presence in the strife-torn country
Denmark has said that it would withdraw its ground troops serving under British command in Basra. Lithuania, which has 53 soldiers in Iraq serving alongside the Danish battalion, has said it considering a pull-out.
A Romanian decision is expected in the next few days on the presence of its 600 soldiers in Iraq, mostly serving under British command.
Poland has already announced that it will bring home its 900 troops by the end of the year. Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Japan and New Zealand have already withdrawn their troops.
South Korea intends to withdraw half of its 1,300 soldiers by April, and its parliament is demanding a complete pull-out by the end of the year.
On the other side, Australia has said it will keep 1,400 soldiers in and around Iraq, and Bulgaria will keep its 155 troops beyond the expiry of their current mandate next month.
However, the US administration, typical of its self-denials, insists that the coalition is as strong as ever.
Of course, we could not expect the US administration to admit that it is facing major crises in Iraq, not the least the obvious failure of the "security crackdown" that was launched recently as part of President George W Bush's "new" plan involving a "troop surge."
It will be a useless exercise to try to make the point that the Bush administration is facing more disasters in Iraq, particularly at a time when the US military is preparing itself to launch yet another misadventure in the Gulf by striking at Iran. However, that does not negate the reality that the region would have also to face the negative consequences of the US continuing its belligerent approach to the issues of the Middle East.
Washington is ignoring advices from its own military commanders that it would not be wise to continue to believe in military might as the answer to its problems in Iraq and not to invite another catastrophe by sparking an armed conflict with Iran.
Administration officials argue that Iran is "threatening" to close the Strait of Hormuz and block the export of oil from the Gulf, but they are sidestepping the reality that Tehran's "threats" have come in response to unmistakeble signs that the US would launch military action as an answer in the nuclear stand-off with Iran.
One thing is clear: The consequences of a US-Iranian military conflict are unpredictable.
No one in the region wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons or to cause nuclear fallouts. The region's governments have made clear their concerns over the crisis but the US should remember that it does not have a carte blanche to take whatever action it deems fit in the stand-off.
Washington would be better off to focus on its efforts to address the crisis in Iraq through peaceful means. It should accept that it does not have a military answer to the problem there. Once it makes that wise acceptance, then it follows that misadventures in Iran would be much more disasterous than the imbroglio the US faces in Iraq.
The coalition partners have woken up to the reality in Iraq — and what could happen if the US launches military action against Iran — and hence their decision not to expose their soldiers to further danger. The UK has no option but to stick with its trans-Atlantic ally, but most others do not need much persuasion to quit the coalition. That is what is happening now regardless of how Washington tends to explain it.
Deserting a sinking ship
THE US-led coalition in Iraq is definitely crumbling. Britain has announced it would reduce its troop mumbers by 1,600 in the coming months although it qualified itself by saying it would maintain its military presence in the strife-torn country
Denmark has said that it would withdraw its ground troops serving under British command in Basra. Lithuania, which has 53 soldiers in Iraq serving alongside the Danish battalion, has said it considering a pull-out.
A Romanian decision is expected in the next few days on the presence of its 600 soldiers in Iraq, mostly serving under British command.
Poland has already announced that it will bring home its 900 troops by the end of the year. Italy, Spain, Ukraine, Japan and New Zealand have already withdrawn their troops.
South Korea intends to withdraw half of its 1,300 soldiers by April, and its parliament is demanding a complete pull-out by the end of the year.
On the other side, Australia has said it will keep 1,400 soldiers in and around Iraq, and Bulgaria will keep its 155 troops beyond the expiry of their current mandate next month.
However, the US administration, typical of its self-denials, insists that the coalition is as strong as ever.
Of course, we could not expect the US administration to admit that it is facing major crises in Iraq, not the least the obvious failure of the "security crackdown" that was launched recently as part of President George W Bush's "new" plan involving a "troop surge."
It will be a useless exercise to try to make the point that the Bush administration is facing more disasters in Iraq, particularly at a time when the US military is preparing itself to launch yet another misadventure in the Gulf by striking at Iran. However, that does not negate the reality that the region would have also to face the negative consequences of the US continuing its belligerent approach to the issues of the Middle East.
Washington is ignoring advices from its own military commanders that it would not be wise to continue to believe in military might as the answer to its problems in Iraq and not to invite another catastrophe by sparking an armed conflict with Iran.
Administration officials argue that Iran is "threatening" to close the Strait of Hormuz and block the export of oil from the Gulf, but they are sidestepping the reality that Tehran's "threats" have come in response to unmistakeble signs that the US would launch military action as an answer in the nuclear stand-off with Iran.
One thing is clear: The consequences of a US-Iranian military conflict are unpredictable.
No one in the region wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons or to cause nuclear fallouts. The region's governments have made clear their concerns over the crisis but the US should remember that it does not have a carte blanche to take whatever action it deems fit in the stand-off.
Washington would be better off to focus on its efforts to address the crisis in Iraq through peaceful means. It should accept that it does not have a military answer to the problem there. Once it makes that wise acceptance, then it follows that misadventures in Iran would be much more disasterous than the imbroglio the US faces in Iraq.
The coalition partners have woken up to the reality in Iraq — and what could happen if the US launches military action against Iran — and hence their decision not to expose their soldiers to further danger. The UK has no option but to stick with its trans-Atlantic ally, but most others do not need much persuasion to quit the coalition. That is what is happening now regardless of how Washington tends to explain it.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Real test has yet to come
February 18, 2007
Real test has yet to come
The White House's firm position that it would not feel deterred from pursuing its own course in Iraq by any congressional resolution has cast a dark cloud on the US's image as a democracy. After all, Congress represents the elected representatives of the people of the country, the administration's refusal to abide by its decision — although in the form of a non-abiding resolution — takes the substance out of the democratic principles that it should respect. Constitutional procedures and loopholes might favour the administration's stand, but questions are cast on the moral authorit of the White House when it refuses even to consider the decisions of Congress.
It was reported that President George W Bush would not even bother to watch the House of Representatives vote in favour of a resolution on Friday rebuking his strategy in Iraq. If true — and that it was revealed by the White House itself — it shows how indifferent the president could get towards positions adopted by the US Congress.
The Democrats, who claimed control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate of the US Congress in November elections, adopted the resolution with a 246-182 vote. Eight Republican representatives opted to go along with the Democrats in what a clear sign of a growing restlessness in the Republican camp that something is seriously wrong in the administration's conduct of the war.
A similar motion was to go before the Senate in a rare Saturday meeting. Regardless of whether the Senate succumbs to Republican tactics and does not take a vote on the issue, the Democrats could claim a moral victory. They could point out that they had brought the issue to the public arena and spoke their mind, but that the administration would not listen.
However, the real test has not been taken. The only way the US Congress could bring the US military's involvement in Iraq to an end is through refusing funds to finance the US-led war there. That is indeed a minefield for many US senators and representatives, whether Republican or Democrat. Any more to cut funds for the military could be interpreted as unpatrotic since it, in principle, would place US soldiers in a dangerous situation.
At the same time, denial of funds would not have an immediate impact on the US military since the administration has already appropriated the money for the immediate phase. A cut-off in funding would make its impact felt only after several months.
In the meantime, some Democratic strategists argue that denying funds for the war should be accompanied by another resolution demanding the recall of the US military from Iraq. Such a move would be dramatic and would raise serious questions about the powers of the president in his capacity as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That would be fought teeth and nail by the administration.
There are indeed Democratic represenatives and senators who are determined not only to pursue the effort to end the US involvement in Iraq but also to hold the administration to account for having launched the deceptive war against that country and expose the political forces which led the US into the disasterous conflict with little regard for US national interests. The Democrats "will demand the truth and accountability from this administration, about the costs of the war, about the reality of the war strategy and about the impact of the war on our larger national security," accordng to Representative Chris Carney, a Pennsylvania Democrat.
Indeed, that goes far beyond the immediate question of taking effective and practical action in order to block the continuation of the US war in Iraq beyond the timeline presented by budgetary requirements. That poses the real test: Will the Democrats and a few likeminded Republicans have the courage to deny funds for the neoconserative-designed war and also block their government from pursuing its misadventurism in the Middle East?
Real test has yet to come
The White House's firm position that it would not feel deterred from pursuing its own course in Iraq by any congressional resolution has cast a dark cloud on the US's image as a democracy. After all, Congress represents the elected representatives of the people of the country, the administration's refusal to abide by its decision — although in the form of a non-abiding resolution — takes the substance out of the democratic principles that it should respect. Constitutional procedures and loopholes might favour the administration's stand, but questions are cast on the moral authorit of the White House when it refuses even to consider the decisions of Congress.
It was reported that President George W Bush would not even bother to watch the House of Representatives vote in favour of a resolution on Friday rebuking his strategy in Iraq. If true — and that it was revealed by the White House itself — it shows how indifferent the president could get towards positions adopted by the US Congress.
The Democrats, who claimed control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate of the US Congress in November elections, adopted the resolution with a 246-182 vote. Eight Republican representatives opted to go along with the Democrats in what a clear sign of a growing restlessness in the Republican camp that something is seriously wrong in the administration's conduct of the war.
A similar motion was to go before the Senate in a rare Saturday meeting. Regardless of whether the Senate succumbs to Republican tactics and does not take a vote on the issue, the Democrats could claim a moral victory. They could point out that they had brought the issue to the public arena and spoke their mind, but that the administration would not listen.
However, the real test has not been taken. The only way the US Congress could bring the US military's involvement in Iraq to an end is through refusing funds to finance the US-led war there. That is indeed a minefield for many US senators and representatives, whether Republican or Democrat. Any more to cut funds for the military could be interpreted as unpatrotic since it, in principle, would place US soldiers in a dangerous situation.
At the same time, denial of funds would not have an immediate impact on the US military since the administration has already appropriated the money for the immediate phase. A cut-off in funding would make its impact felt only after several months.
In the meantime, some Democratic strategists argue that denying funds for the war should be accompanied by another resolution demanding the recall of the US military from Iraq. Such a move would be dramatic and would raise serious questions about the powers of the president in his capacity as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. That would be fought teeth and nail by the administration.
There are indeed Democratic represenatives and senators who are determined not only to pursue the effort to end the US involvement in Iraq but also to hold the administration to account for having launched the deceptive war against that country and expose the political forces which led the US into the disasterous conflict with little regard for US national interests. The Democrats "will demand the truth and accountability from this administration, about the costs of the war, about the reality of the war strategy and about the impact of the war on our larger national security," accordng to Representative Chris Carney, a Pennsylvania Democrat.
Indeed, that goes far beyond the immediate question of taking effective and practical action in order to block the continuation of the US war in Iraq beyond the timeline presented by budgetary requirements. That poses the real test: Will the Democrats and a few likeminded Republicans have the courage to deny funds for the neoconserative-designed war and also block their government from pursuing its misadventurism in the Middle East?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Faith in people of Lebanon
February 14, 2007
Faith in people to do the right thing
THE EXPLOSIONS on Tuesday in Bikfaya, a mainly Christian town in the hills north of Beirut, come at a time of acute political tension in Lebanon, and a day before the second anniversary of the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Even before the blasts, fears were running high that violent clashes could erupt between supporters of the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and opposition activists led by Hizbollah who have been staging a sit-in in the heart of Beirut since Dec.1
Organisers of a mass rally planned in downtown Beirut on Wednesday to mark the Hariri assassination are going ahead with the event. Pro-government activists are accusing Syria for the blasts saying Damascus wants a destabilised Lebanon so that it could exploit the situation for political purposes. However, one fails to see how Syria would want to stir up trouble in Lebanon when it knows well that the slightest slip-up on its part could be disasterous for itself. The US is waiting on the wings for the right opportunity to advance its effort for "regime change" in Damascus, and the government of Syrian President Bashar Al Asad could ill-afford any development that could lead to accusing fingers against Damascus as a force of destabilisation of the region.
The Bikfaya bombings have all halmarks of a deliberate operation designed and timed to trigger sectarian violence, possibly leading to a new civil war in the country, which is yet to recover from the blows it received during the 1975-1992 civil strife pitting sectarian militia forces.
Bikfaya is a Christian town and therefore the immediate assumption is that it could be none other than a Muslim group — Hizbollah is the ideal candidate — which carried out the bombing.
However, it should be noted that Hizbollah has emerged as a strong political force and it has become part and parcel of the political life in Lebanon. It has gained additional strength from last year's 34-day war waged by Israel and this is what emboldened the movement to launch the campaign in December to topple the Siniora government and form a new government where the group and its allies could somehow secure enough clout to call the shots in the country. A civil war in Lebanon would be disastrous for Hizbollah as any other group in the country because it would bring in external forces to play havoc with the situation. With Hizbollah remaining as strong as ever — notwithstanding the setbacks it received as a result of its welcome of the hanging of Saddam Hussein by Iraqi Shiites — and the group would receive the brunt of the political and military impact of the situation sliding into civil war.
Therefore, the perpetrators of Tuesday's boming have to be some quarters which would gain from chaos in Lebanon at the expense of Hizbollah, and the finger would automatically point southwards across the border.
It is the lesson that the Lebanese should learn from the bombings and should refrain themselves from being driven by emotions rather than calculated thinking.
A Lebanese woman cried out after Tuesday's bombing: "I am of neither political party in Lebanon, because I don't really care what is going to happen with seats and titles anymore, like most of the Lebanese population. All we want is to have peace of mind - to be able to go to work, earn a living and live our lives. I only have faith in my fellow Lebanese to stop this, and no one else."
Indeed, the responsibility not to let the situation generate into a revived civil war rests with the people of Lebanon. It is the world's fervent hope that they would live true to the faith — as highlighted by the woman from Bikfaya — that their compatriots have placed in them.
Faith in people to do the right thing
THE EXPLOSIONS on Tuesday in Bikfaya, a mainly Christian town in the hills north of Beirut, come at a time of acute political tension in Lebanon, and a day before the second anniversary of the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. Even before the blasts, fears were running high that violent clashes could erupt between supporters of the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and opposition activists led by Hizbollah who have been staging a sit-in in the heart of Beirut since Dec.1
Organisers of a mass rally planned in downtown Beirut on Wednesday to mark the Hariri assassination are going ahead with the event. Pro-government activists are accusing Syria for the blasts saying Damascus wants a destabilised Lebanon so that it could exploit the situation for political purposes. However, one fails to see how Syria would want to stir up trouble in Lebanon when it knows well that the slightest slip-up on its part could be disasterous for itself. The US is waiting on the wings for the right opportunity to advance its effort for "regime change" in Damascus, and the government of Syrian President Bashar Al Asad could ill-afford any development that could lead to accusing fingers against Damascus as a force of destabilisation of the region.
The Bikfaya bombings have all halmarks of a deliberate operation designed and timed to trigger sectarian violence, possibly leading to a new civil war in the country, which is yet to recover from the blows it received during the 1975-1992 civil strife pitting sectarian militia forces.
Bikfaya is a Christian town and therefore the immediate assumption is that it could be none other than a Muslim group — Hizbollah is the ideal candidate — which carried out the bombing.
However, it should be noted that Hizbollah has emerged as a strong political force and it has become part and parcel of the political life in Lebanon. It has gained additional strength from last year's 34-day war waged by Israel and this is what emboldened the movement to launch the campaign in December to topple the Siniora government and form a new government where the group and its allies could somehow secure enough clout to call the shots in the country. A civil war in Lebanon would be disastrous for Hizbollah as any other group in the country because it would bring in external forces to play havoc with the situation. With Hizbollah remaining as strong as ever — notwithstanding the setbacks it received as a result of its welcome of the hanging of Saddam Hussein by Iraqi Shiites — and the group would receive the brunt of the political and military impact of the situation sliding into civil war.
Therefore, the perpetrators of Tuesday's boming have to be some quarters which would gain from chaos in Lebanon at the expense of Hizbollah, and the finger would automatically point southwards across the border.
It is the lesson that the Lebanese should learn from the bombings and should refrain themselves from being driven by emotions rather than calculated thinking.
A Lebanese woman cried out after Tuesday's bombing: "I am of neither political party in Lebanon, because I don't really care what is going to happen with seats and titles anymore, like most of the Lebanese population. All we want is to have peace of mind - to be able to go to work, earn a living and live our lives. I only have faith in my fellow Lebanese to stop this, and no one else."
Indeed, the responsibility not to let the situation generate into a revived civil war rests with the people of Lebanon. It is the world's fervent hope that they would live true to the faith — as highlighted by the woman from Bikfaya — that their compatriots have placed in them.
United against external pressure
February 14, 2007
United against external pressure
It was unfortunate that last-minute hitches delayed the announcement of a formation of Palestinian national unity government on Thursday.
It might not be accurate to describe the snags as simple power politics. Differences over who should occupy key cabinet are only a feature of coalition politics anywhere in the world, but not so simple in Palestine. A case in point is the post of interior minister in the proposed Palestinian cabinet. Hamas has named two candidates and insists Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas commit himself to one of them. Abbas wants to review more candidates.
Obviously, whoever exerts control over the interior ministry also controls the security forces, and the Fatah-Hamas wrangle reveals that the two groups still retain deep suspicion about each other.
There are of course other differences that Abbas and Hamas leader and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh need to resolve before they could announce a cabinet agreement.
Forming a new national unity goverment is the first step on a long away. Israel has to accept that the government's actions, including recognition of the Jewish state, represent the Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has sensed that he is facing a critical moment in history. That is what he appears to have meant when he told a meeting with top ministers and intelligence chiefs:
"The agreement on the establishment of a unity government in the Palestinian Authority places the region at a juncture of a strategic decision of enormous significance, no less dramatic than what happened after Hamas' victory in the PA elections a year ago."
Signs so far after Hamas and Fatah worked out the Makkah agreement under Saudi auspices this month had been that Israel would not budge from the demands that Hamas should explicitly state that it recognises the Jewish state, renounces armed resistance and accepts the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). It is not enough for Olmert that Hamas has moved towards this demands by agreeing to form a unity cabinet with Fatah and accept that the unity government could negotiate peace with Israel.
Obviously, Olmert believes that he could pressure Abbas into forcing Hamas to be very explicit in its position. That might not be the case at all.
As far as Hamas leaders are concerned, by coming so far with Fatah the Islamist movement has already compromised a lot and any further move should be reciprocated by Israel. It is not an area where Abbas could do much. He is caught in the middle of historic tug-of-war which would determine the future of Palestine and everyone involved knows it only too well.
What the Palestinians need today is absolute unity without reservations. Their failure to do so would be Israel's advantage.
Abbas and Haniyeh should be able to see through the situation and come up with a more unified position that would deny Israel the opportunity to exploit their differences.
United against external pressure
It was unfortunate that last-minute hitches delayed the announcement of a formation of Palestinian national unity government on Thursday.
It might not be accurate to describe the snags as simple power politics. Differences over who should occupy key cabinet are only a feature of coalition politics anywhere in the world, but not so simple in Palestine. A case in point is the post of interior minister in the proposed Palestinian cabinet. Hamas has named two candidates and insists Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas commit himself to one of them. Abbas wants to review more candidates.
Obviously, whoever exerts control over the interior ministry also controls the security forces, and the Fatah-Hamas wrangle reveals that the two groups still retain deep suspicion about each other.
There are of course other differences that Abbas and Hamas leader and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh need to resolve before they could announce a cabinet agreement.
Forming a new national unity goverment is the first step on a long away. Israel has to accept that the government's actions, including recognition of the Jewish state, represent the Palestinians. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has sensed that he is facing a critical moment in history. That is what he appears to have meant when he told a meeting with top ministers and intelligence chiefs:
"The agreement on the establishment of a unity government in the Palestinian Authority places the region at a juncture of a strategic decision of enormous significance, no less dramatic than what happened after Hamas' victory in the PA elections a year ago."
Signs so far after Hamas and Fatah worked out the Makkah agreement under Saudi auspices this month had been that Israel would not budge from the demands that Hamas should explicitly state that it recognises the Jewish state, renounces armed resistance and accepts the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). It is not enough for Olmert that Hamas has moved towards this demands by agreeing to form a unity cabinet with Fatah and accept that the unity government could negotiate peace with Israel.
Obviously, Olmert believes that he could pressure Abbas into forcing Hamas to be very explicit in its position. That might not be the case at all.
As far as Hamas leaders are concerned, by coming so far with Fatah the Islamist movement has already compromised a lot and any further move should be reciprocated by Israel. It is not an area where Abbas could do much. He is caught in the middle of historic tug-of-war which would determine the future of Palestine and everyone involved knows it only too well.
What the Palestinians need today is absolute unity without reservations. Their failure to do so would be Israel's advantage.
Abbas and Haniyeh should be able to see through the situation and come up with a more unified position that would deny Israel the opportunity to exploit their differences.
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}