Sept.18, 2007
Part and parcel of a pattern
THE PRACTICE of American "security" contractors to follow their own law and open fire at "suspects" anywhere in Iraq has only been underlined with the Iraqi government order on Monday of the cancellation of US security firm Blackwater's operating licence.
The practice has to be seen in the same context as the torture and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners at US detention facilities — as exposed by the Abu Ghraib revelations — and the many cases where US soldiers opened fire at unarmed Iraqi civilians and covered up the atrocity by filing false reports. The central vein that runs through this pattern of behaviour is the reality that the higher echelons of power have condoned such practices. Whatever action has been taken by the US military against some of the soldiers involved in such incidents was prompted by the hue and cry created by the media and human rights groups. Indeed, the exposed cases represent only a small part of the actual incidents. We could expect to hear of more cases in the days ahead from US soldiers who have returned home crippled from or traumatised by the brutal actions they witnessed in Iraq.
In the Blackwater cases, the company's guards, who provide personal security for US civilian officials working in Iraq, opened fire on a crowd in Baghdad's Al Yarmukh neighbourhood, killing at least eight people and wounded 13. The guards were part of what was described as a US diplomatic convoy. The US embassy explained that the shooting happened when the private security guards "reacted to a car bomb."
It said "the car-bomb was in proximity to where State Department personnel were meeting. This is the reason Blackwater responded to that."
We have yet to hear an Iraqi government confirmation that there was indeed a car bomb in the area at the time of the killings. In the meantime, the embassy is going out of its way to defend Blackwater and protect its interests. According to an embassy spokesman, there is no confirmation of the cancellation of Blackwater's licence and the diplomatic mission is "continuing to discuss with the Iraqi government." No doubt, the discussion aims at allowing Blackwater to continue whatever it was doing in Iraq.
In simpler terms, the US military and political establishment prosecuting the war in Iraq consider Iraqis as not worthy of consideration as human beings. As far as they are concerned, it is simple tough luck for those Iraqis unfortunate enough to cross the paths of private American contractors who seem to have the run of the country.
And yet we told of the US determination to bring democracy and respect for human dignity and rights to Iraq. We wonder who many Iraqis would be left to enjoy democracy and respect for human dignity and rights by the time the US finishes whatever it intends to accomplish in the post-war country.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Real difference is between the lines
Sept.16, 2007
The real difference is between the lines
THE refusal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree on binding principles that would guide peace negotiations with the Palestinians is an emphatic pointer to his mindset against meeting the minimum requirements for a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Olmert is ready only to adopt a joint statement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the US-proposed conference on the Middle East expected to be held in Washington in November.
The Palestinians have had enough and more experience with Israeli declarations and contradictory actions. They saw it happening after the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel signed the "interim" Oslo agreement in 1993 after secret negotiations. The agreement put off any discussion on the core issues of the conflict until "final status" talks in 1998. Indeed, some progress was made under the Oslo agrements, but the scenario changed dramatically when the key architect of the accord, the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in late 1995. However, the key issues remained unaddressed, and whatever progress was made until then was reversed by the Israeli governments which succeeded the Rabin cabinet.
It is clear why Olmert is not ready to agree on principles. He knows too well that he would never be able to agree to the basic demands of the Palestinians, which include: creation of an independent Palestinian state with clearly defined borders and Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to return to their homeland or receive compensation in lieu of their lost property.
Any agreement on principles with Abbas would bind Olmert to these prerequisites for peace and would in fact ease the negotiating process since the objectives are clear. However, Olmert is not ready to undertake any commitment, and indications are strong that he sees the opportunity for peace only as a window to escape from his political troubles that should otherwise have no bearing whatsoever on making peace with the Palestinians.
As Olmert reportedly told a meeting of his Kadima party, "there is a difference between an agreement on principles and a declaration of intent." That might indeed be true, but it would apepar that there is little difference between his mindset and that of some of his "hard-line" predecessors and colleagues.
Obviously, it follows then that Olmert is trying to borrow a leaf from one of his Likud predecessors, Yitzhak Shamir, who took Israel to the famous 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid professing good faith and declared later that all he intended to do was to "continue negotiating with the Palestinians for the next 10 years while giving them nothing."
The real difference is between the lines
THE refusal by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to agree on binding principles that would guide peace negotiations with the Palestinians is an emphatic pointer to his mindset against meeting the minimum requirements for a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Olmert is ready only to adopt a joint statement with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the US-proposed conference on the Middle East expected to be held in Washington in November.
The Palestinians have had enough and more experience with Israeli declarations and contradictory actions. They saw it happening after the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and Israel signed the "interim" Oslo agreement in 1993 after secret negotiations. The agreement put off any discussion on the core issues of the conflict until "final status" talks in 1998. Indeed, some progress was made under the Oslo agrements, but the scenario changed dramatically when the key architect of the accord, the then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in late 1995. However, the key issues remained unaddressed, and whatever progress was made until then was reversed by the Israeli governments which succeeded the Rabin cabinet.
It is clear why Olmert is not ready to agree on principles. He knows too well that he would never be able to agree to the basic demands of the Palestinians, which include: creation of an independent Palestinian state with clearly defined borders and Arab East Jerusalem as its capital and acceptance of the right of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to return to their homeland or receive compensation in lieu of their lost property.
Any agreement on principles with Abbas would bind Olmert to these prerequisites for peace and would in fact ease the negotiating process since the objectives are clear. However, Olmert is not ready to undertake any commitment, and indications are strong that he sees the opportunity for peace only as a window to escape from his political troubles that should otherwise have no bearing whatsoever on making peace with the Palestinians.
As Olmert reportedly told a meeting of his Kadima party, "there is a difference between an agreement on principles and a declaration of intent." That might indeed be true, but it would apepar that there is little difference between his mindset and that of some of his "hard-line" predecessors and colleagues.
Obviously, it follows then that Olmert is trying to borrow a leaf from one of his Likud predecessors, Yitzhak Shamir, who took Israel to the famous 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid professing good faith and declared later that all he intended to do was to "continue negotiating with the Palestinians for the next 10 years while giving them nothing."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
Sept.13, 2007
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
MANY around the world and within the US itself were jubilant when the Democrats put up a strong showing in last year's mid-term elections and gained control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Many expected the Democrats to swiftly move ahead and have in place a legislative order for US military withdrawal from Iraq. However, the rule of the game of numbers in the US Congress did not allow that to happen. The Democrats could make a lot of noise and level high-decibel criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, but they could achieve little on the ground.
They are not even near the majority in Senate that they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is getting ahead on its prescripted course. President George Bush was poised to announce his endorsement of the recommendations made this week by General David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce US troop levels by some 30,000 — or only about 20 per cent — by August next year. That is a cosmetic move since the recall of 30,000 would still leave some 135,000 US soldiers and marines in place – about the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated in February. Again it is a game of numbers of sorts.
It is clear that the recall is designed to appease some of the Republican critics of the war who are growing more uneasy about the high number of soldiers present in Iraq. Under current regulations which limit to 15 months tours of duty in combat zones, 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and Petraeus is disguising their recall as a move prompted by the "success" of the surge.
There is little doubt that any substantial reduction of troops is unlikely while Bush bows out of the White House in January 2009.
Effectively, there is little the Democrats could do to end the war in Iraq or change the course of the US conduct there unless they get enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
There are 50 Democrats in the Senate, and they might be able to muster another 10 votes from Republicans who are disgruntled with the war and the way the Bush administration has taken the US towards disaster. But that is not enough to make any real difference.
This means that Bush's successor, who is most likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, given the current administration's disastrous governance of the country, would inherit the mission of extricating the US from its bloodiest and most costly overseas misadventure since its involvement in Vietnam. But the mission would not be taken up because US strategic interests are stake in the Middle East regardless of who occupies the White House, and the game in Washington would continue with players in reversed roles with unchanged rules.
Unfavourable rules in a game of numbers
MANY around the world and within the US itself were jubilant when the Democrats put up a strong showing in last year's mid-term elections and gained control of both the House of Representatives and Senate. Many expected the Democrats to swiftly move ahead and have in place a legislative order for US military withdrawal from Iraq. However, the rule of the game of numbers in the US Congress did not allow that to happen. The Democrats could make a lot of noise and level high-decibel criticism of the Bush administration's conduct of the war and occupation of Iraq, but they could achieve little on the ground.
They are not even near the majority in Senate that they need to overcome a veto by Bush of any legislation that would force him to change the military mission in Iraq, let alone withdraw more troops more quickly.
In the meantime, the Bush administration is getting ahead on its prescripted course. President George Bush was poised to announce his endorsement of the recommendations made this week by General David Petraeus, Washington's commander in Iraq, to reduce US troop levels by some 30,000 — or only about 20 per cent — by August next year. That is a cosmetic move since the recall of 30,000 would still leave some 135,000 US soldiers and marines in place – about the same number of troops deployed to Iraq before Bush's "surge" strategy was initiated in February. Again it is a game of numbers of sorts.
It is clear that the recall is designed to appease some of the Republican critics of the war who are growing more uneasy about the high number of soldiers present in Iraq. Under current regulations which limit to 15 months tours of duty in combat zones, 30,000 troops would have to be withdrawn from Iraq by late next spring in any event and Petraeus is disguising their recall as a move prompted by the "success" of the surge.
There is little doubt that any substantial reduction of troops is unlikely while Bush bows out of the White House in January 2009.
Effectively, there is little the Democrats could do to end the war in Iraq or change the course of the US conduct there unless they get enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto.
There are 50 Democrats in the Senate, and they might be able to muster another 10 votes from Republicans who are disgruntled with the war and the way the Bush administration has taken the US towards disaster. But that is not enough to make any real difference.
This means that Bush's successor, who is most likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, given the current administration's disastrous governance of the country, would inherit the mission of extricating the US from its bloodiest and most costly overseas misadventure since its involvement in Vietnam. But the mission would not be taken up because US strategic interests are stake in the Middle East regardless of who occupies the White House, and the game in Washington would continue with players in reversed roles with unchanged rules.
Monday, September 10, 2007
No lapse at the expense of people
Sept.19, 2007
No lapse at the expense of people
THE LATEST player to assume a high-profile role in the UN efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's western Darfur region is China. The Beijing government has called for restraint on all sides to check the violence in Darfur and also offered to use its good offices towards finding a mediated solution to the crisis.
There has indeed been an increasing Western concern over China's growing profile in Africa, and Beijing faces allegations that it is turning a blind eye to bloodshed not only in the Sudanese region but also elsewhere in Africa out of economic self-interest.
China's envoy on Darfur, Liu Guijin, is now working on "correcting" what he describes as misconceptions about his country's relations with Sudan. He explains that Beijing's relations with Khartoum "are no more special than" its relations with other developing nations.
China, which is contributing a military unit to the UN peacekeeping force in southern Sudan, is also sending a 400-strong medical and engineering contingent to prepare for the deployment of the UN-proposed hybrid force of African and UN soldiers in Darfur. Earlier, China, the biggest buyer of Sudan's oil output, was influential in convincing the Sudanese government to accept the planned deployment of the hybrid force.
Beyond that, Liu on Tuesday also offered to involve his country in a "positive and active" manner in Darfur peace talks, including mediating between between the Khartoum government and rebel groups.
It would definitely seem that China is determined to do away with any ground for charges that it is abetting bloodshed in Darfur by maintaining big investments in Sudanese oil, selling Khartoum arms that end up in Darfur, and fending off stronger UN Security Council resolutions.
It is indeed a positive development and should be much helpful to the international community's efforts to solve the Darfur crisis, particularly in view of the latest UN report which highlighted that violence is on the increase in the troubled region.
The Sudanese government has its own concerns. So do the rebel groups, and it is the voice of the people of Darfur that get drowned in the bargain. And it is the people of Darfur who are paying the real price for whatever interests are play in their region.
The focus of all efforts is now on the upcoming Darfur peace talks in Libya. Hopefully, the key players would take advantage of the emerging Chinese willingness to contribute to the effort to put an end to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Darfur. Of course, external political and economic interests would have to play their role in the effort, but it should be at the minimum level and at no point should there be any lapse in the international approach at the expense of the people of Darfur.
No lapse at the expense of people
THE LATEST player to assume a high-profile role in the UN efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's western Darfur region is China. The Beijing government has called for restraint on all sides to check the violence in Darfur and also offered to use its good offices towards finding a mediated solution to the crisis.
There has indeed been an increasing Western concern over China's growing profile in Africa, and Beijing faces allegations that it is turning a blind eye to bloodshed not only in the Sudanese region but also elsewhere in Africa out of economic self-interest.
China's envoy on Darfur, Liu Guijin, is now working on "correcting" what he describes as misconceptions about his country's relations with Sudan. He explains that Beijing's relations with Khartoum "are no more special than" its relations with other developing nations.
China, which is contributing a military unit to the UN peacekeeping force in southern Sudan, is also sending a 400-strong medical and engineering contingent to prepare for the deployment of the UN-proposed hybrid force of African and UN soldiers in Darfur. Earlier, China, the biggest buyer of Sudan's oil output, was influential in convincing the Sudanese government to accept the planned deployment of the hybrid force.
Beyond that, Liu on Tuesday also offered to involve his country in a "positive and active" manner in Darfur peace talks, including mediating between between the Khartoum government and rebel groups.
It would definitely seem that China is determined to do away with any ground for charges that it is abetting bloodshed in Darfur by maintaining big investments in Sudanese oil, selling Khartoum arms that end up in Darfur, and fending off stronger UN Security Council resolutions.
It is indeed a positive development and should be much helpful to the international community's efforts to solve the Darfur crisis, particularly in view of the latest UN report which highlighted that violence is on the increase in the troubled region.
The Sudanese government has its own concerns. So do the rebel groups, and it is the voice of the people of Darfur that get drowned in the bargain. And it is the people of Darfur who are paying the real price for whatever interests are play in their region.
The focus of all efforts is now on the upcoming Darfur peace talks in Libya. Hopefully, the key players would take advantage of the emerging Chinese willingness to contribute to the effort to put an end to the unprecedented humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Darfur. Of course, external political and economic interests would have to play their role in the effort, but it should be at the minimum level and at no point should there be any lapse in the international approach at the expense of the people of Darfur.
Trial run to regional chaos
Sept.10, 2007
Trial run to regional chaos
IT WOULD appear that the Israelis were running yet another rehearsal for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities as reports indicate an increasing clamour in Washington and Israeli circles for military action in the escalating tension with Tehran.
That is what is indicated by the presence of Israeli aviation fuel tanks that were apparently dropped in Turkey near the Turkish-Syrian border last week.
Obviously, Israel is planning a repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear plant, which it suspected of being building site for nuclear weapons. It is also known that Israel has acquired the long-range capability to strike at some of Iran's nuclear facilities, including those located underground. The Israeli air force is now equipped with refuelling planes for such missions and also "bunker-buster" bombs that could successfully target underground facilities protected by concrete layers.
Syria has reported that its air defences opened fire against Israeli aircraft which violated its airspace on Thursday. Israel has kept a pointed silence on the incident and some Israeli officials have used the opportunity to accuse Syria of seeking a war with the Jewish state and of sponsoring "terrorism." They also claim that Syria could never be expected to seek peace with Israel.
Well, the whole episode is deceitful, to say the least. Syria has clearly indicated that it is seeking peace with Israel, but not on terms set by the Jewish state. Israeli leaders might not want to acknowledge the reality, but that posture does not do away with the world's understanding of the Syrian position.
It is almost certain that Israel is planning military action against Iran, and Tehran has vowed that it would hold the US responsible for any strikes against its nuclear or other facilities regardless of who actually carries out the attack — in short a perfect recipe for worsening the instability in the region resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing crisis in the chaotic country.
The truth that Israeli aircraft were in Syrian space as part of a trial run for action against Iran also explains why the US has opted not to make any comment.
Something needs to be done and done fast. The situation threatens to send the regional situation spinning out of control and it is a prospect no one in the region or beyond wants, except of course Israel, whose leaders seem to have convinced themselves that their country would be able to ride out the repercussions of its actions.
The only party which could probably restrain Israel is the US, but it is Washington which supplied and equipped the Jewish state with the advanced weapons, equipment and technology for long-range military action. And it is also known that no US administration could ever restrain Israel when the Jewish state is determined and has made up its to do something.
Where does that leave the region? We could only hope that sensible minds would prevail in Washington in order to apply pressure of a level that is warranted in order to restrain Israel from pursuing its disasterous designs.
Trial run to regional chaos
IT WOULD appear that the Israelis were running yet another rehearsal for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities as reports indicate an increasing clamour in Washington and Israeli circles for military action in the escalating tension with Tehran.
That is what is indicated by the presence of Israeli aviation fuel tanks that were apparently dropped in Turkey near the Turkish-Syrian border last week.
Obviously, Israel is planning a repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear plant, which it suspected of being building site for nuclear weapons. It is also known that Israel has acquired the long-range capability to strike at some of Iran's nuclear facilities, including those located underground. The Israeli air force is now equipped with refuelling planes for such missions and also "bunker-buster" bombs that could successfully target underground facilities protected by concrete layers.
Syria has reported that its air defences opened fire against Israeli aircraft which violated its airspace on Thursday. Israel has kept a pointed silence on the incident and some Israeli officials have used the opportunity to accuse Syria of seeking a war with the Jewish state and of sponsoring "terrorism." They also claim that Syria could never be expected to seek peace with Israel.
Well, the whole episode is deceitful, to say the least. Syria has clearly indicated that it is seeking peace with Israel, but not on terms set by the Jewish state. Israeli leaders might not want to acknowledge the reality, but that posture does not do away with the world's understanding of the Syrian position.
It is almost certain that Israel is planning military action against Iran, and Tehran has vowed that it would hold the US responsible for any strikes against its nuclear or other facilities regardless of who actually carries out the attack — in short a perfect recipe for worsening the instability in the region resulting from the US-led invasion of Iraq and the ongoing crisis in the chaotic country.
The truth that Israeli aircraft were in Syrian space as part of a trial run for action against Iran also explains why the US has opted not to make any comment.
Something needs to be done and done fast. The situation threatens to send the regional situation spinning out of control and it is a prospect no one in the region or beyond wants, except of course Israel, whose leaders seem to have convinced themselves that their country would be able to ride out the repercussions of its actions.
The only party which could probably restrain Israel is the US, but it is Washington which supplied and equipped the Jewish state with the advanced weapons, equipment and technology for long-range military action. And it is also known that no US administration could ever restrain Israel when the Jewish state is determined and has made up its to do something.
Where does that leave the region? We could only hope that sensible minds would prevail in Washington in order to apply pressure of a level that is warranted in order to restrain Israel from pursuing its disasterous designs.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Helpless in Sudan
Sept.9, 2007
Helpless in Sudan
HOPES of peace attached to the agreement signed in May between the Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur area are fading fast. The Khartoum government, which has been standing steadfast that it would not accept the proposed deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur, has boosted the ante by giving African Union troops a one-week ultimatum to accept a deal that would block the UN proposal or leave Sudan.
The ultimatum is mostly seen as an advance warning of Khartoum's options in its fight against the proposal to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur. Sudanese officials have since scaled down the talk, saying the African Union troops could stay within their mandate as long as they do not become part of the UN peacekeeping effort.
The Khartoum government has also intensified an offensive in Darfur against groups that did not sign the May peace agreement. Relief agencies and international watchdogs are reporting an increase in armed attacks in what is widely seen as an effort to finish off the rebellion in Darfur. They report increasing bombing raids on villages and ground attacks in order to clear the way for government forces to drive back rebels. Tens of thousands of civilians have been turned into refugees, further exacerbating the crisis, which has already seen upto two million, according to some reports, being displaced. The number of death is put at between 250,000 and 450,000 in the three-year conflict.
The world agrees that the only way out is deployment of a neutral force under UN auspices that would keep away the antagonists from each other while the political process would continue with the goal of working out a firm and permanent solution to the conflict, which effectively pits the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum with largely African tribes in the western region.
One of the main reasons for Khartoum's rejection of a UN force in Darfur is said to be apprehension that it would pave the way for detention and trial of military commanders and pro-Khartoum militiamen on charges of genocide.
Indeed, people responsible for crimes against humanity should face justice. That is a point well taken by the US-led camp that is pushing for deployment of a UN force in Darfur. However, the thrust is deflected when the same US pointedly keeps a blind eye to similar situations elsewhere in the world, particularly the Middle East where not only Israeli military officers and their agents but also Israeli politicians should be held responsible and tried on similar charges. Amnesty International, the same group which is pushing for a UN force to be sent to Darfur, has clearly stated that Israeli military commanders and those who ordered them into the recent 34-day blitz against Lebanon should be charged with war crimes. While opting to accept the Amnesty position on Darfur and ignoring the group's stand on Israel and Lebanon, the US is only reaffirming its biased policies.
In the meantime, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is worsening. The 7,000 African Union troops' role is limited to providing protection for food delivery and other relief work and not using force to prevent armed clashes. Government forces are also accused of cracking down on students and activists who have been staging rallies in support of the proposed UN peacekeeping effort.
The world is left as a bystander unable to do anything to influence the course of events that is in favour of the Khartoum government. Experts familiar with the situation say the government would gain the upper hand in the fight in Darfur and turn to consolidating and implementing the May peace agreement. As such, the only international option seems to be to wait until the situation clears itself. Let us only hope that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur would not get beyond the point of no return by then.
Helpless in Sudan
HOPES of peace attached to the agreement signed in May between the Sudanese government and rebels in the Darfur area are fading fast. The Khartoum government, which has been standing steadfast that it would not accept the proposed deployment of UN peacekeepers in Darfur, has boosted the ante by giving African Union troops a one-week ultimatum to accept a deal that would block the UN proposal or leave Sudan.
The ultimatum is mostly seen as an advance warning of Khartoum's options in its fight against the proposal to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur. Sudanese officials have since scaled down the talk, saying the African Union troops could stay within their mandate as long as they do not become part of the UN peacekeeping effort.
The Khartoum government has also intensified an offensive in Darfur against groups that did not sign the May peace agreement. Relief agencies and international watchdogs are reporting an increase in armed attacks in what is widely seen as an effort to finish off the rebellion in Darfur. They report increasing bombing raids on villages and ground attacks in order to clear the way for government forces to drive back rebels. Tens of thousands of civilians have been turned into refugees, further exacerbating the crisis, which has already seen upto two million, according to some reports, being displaced. The number of death is put at between 250,000 and 450,000 in the three-year conflict.
The world agrees that the only way out is deployment of a neutral force under UN auspices that would keep away the antagonists from each other while the political process would continue with the goal of working out a firm and permanent solution to the conflict, which effectively pits the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum with largely African tribes in the western region.
One of the main reasons for Khartoum's rejection of a UN force in Darfur is said to be apprehension that it would pave the way for detention and trial of military commanders and pro-Khartoum militiamen on charges of genocide.
Indeed, people responsible for crimes against humanity should face justice. That is a point well taken by the US-led camp that is pushing for deployment of a UN force in Darfur. However, the thrust is deflected when the same US pointedly keeps a blind eye to similar situations elsewhere in the world, particularly the Middle East where not only Israeli military officers and their agents but also Israeli politicians should be held responsible and tried on similar charges. Amnesty International, the same group which is pushing for a UN force to be sent to Darfur, has clearly stated that Israeli military commanders and those who ordered them into the recent 34-day blitz against Lebanon should be charged with war crimes. While opting to accept the Amnesty position on Darfur and ignoring the group's stand on Israel and Lebanon, the US is only reaffirming its biased policies.
In the meantime, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan is worsening. The 7,000 African Union troops' role is limited to providing protection for food delivery and other relief work and not using force to prevent armed clashes. Government forces are also accused of cracking down on students and activists who have been staging rallies in support of the proposed UN peacekeeping effort.
The world is left as a bystander unable to do anything to influence the course of events that is in favour of the Khartoum government. Experts familiar with the situation say the government would gain the upper hand in the fight in Darfur and turn to consolidating and implementing the May peace agreement. As such, the only international option seems to be to wait until the situation clears itself. Let us only hope that the humanitarian crisis in Darfur would not get beyond the point of no return by then.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Wishes that will remain only listed
Aug.20, 2007
Wishes that will remain only listed
IT IS conventionally welcome news that Iraq's fractious leaders have agreed on the agenda for a political summit called by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, who is desperately trying to rescue his crumbling "national unity" government.
Maliki, who is under intense American pressure to salvage the government, is obviously hoping that the Sunnis who have quit the government would come around and opt to attend the proposed gathering if only because there is no other game in town.
It was not exactly a wise move by the Shiite prime minister to announced the formation of an alliance grouping his Dawa party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Kurdish groups — the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) but excluding all Sunni factions. The move underlined what many see as the inevitability of the country splintering along Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni lines. The record of the post-war crisis in Iraq is interpreted by many as having established that the three major sects are unable to co-exist with each other as long as the US maintains its presence there. The US presence is the not the solution; it is the problem.
Seasoned international experts agree with the assessment; so do many retired American and European generals.
But the world has not heard much from the people who actually deal with the situation on the ground on how to deal with the crisis and whether they feel something could be done to correct the American course in Iraq. The world did hear from them this week when the New York Times carried an article written by six US military personnel serving in Iraq — Army specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, sergeants Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora and Edward Sandmeier and staff sergeants Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy.
The article summarised what most people already knew but denied by the US administration: That the US is not winning is unlikely to win "hearts and minds" of Iraqis has ended up alienating everyone.
The article carries pointed references to the massive number of Iraqis who have fled their country and to similar number internally displaced. The article highlights the plight of the ordinary people of Iraq — the lack of electricity, services, drinking water, and above all security.
One of the most damaging revelations in the article is that the Iraqi security forces — which the writers find penetrated at the street level by Shiite militiamen and their supporters — have become not only totally unreliable in times of crisis but also a potential source of danger for US soldiers.
Add to that what we know already of the complexities of the Iraqi way of politics, the alliances and rivalries, the fortune-hunters and back-stabbers and opportunists, and the people at large who continue to pay the price of a foreign military misadventure and who have seen the "liberator" turning to an "occupier" and to an "oppressor."
Does the net image that emerges look like a war that could be won?
Of course, Maliki has little option but to hope and continue to try to salvage himself and his government so that the US could see at least one of its strategic objectives being pushed through: Approval of legislation that would effectively hand over control of Iraq's oil resources to foreign companies.
Indeed, there is nothing that could stop anyone drawing up a wishlist, but it is a dead certainty that the US wishes in Iraq would only remain on a list.
Wishes that will remain only listed
IT IS conventionally welcome news that Iraq's fractious leaders have agreed on the agenda for a political summit called by Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, who is desperately trying to rescue his crumbling "national unity" government.
Maliki, who is under intense American pressure to salvage the government, is obviously hoping that the Sunnis who have quit the government would come around and opt to attend the proposed gathering if only because there is no other game in town.
It was not exactly a wise move by the Shiite prime minister to announced the formation of an alliance grouping his Dawa party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Kurdish groups — the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) but excluding all Sunni factions. The move underlined what many see as the inevitability of the country splintering along Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni lines. The record of the post-war crisis in Iraq is interpreted by many as having established that the three major sects are unable to co-exist with each other as long as the US maintains its presence there. The US presence is the not the solution; it is the problem.
Seasoned international experts agree with the assessment; so do many retired American and European generals.
But the world has not heard much from the people who actually deal with the situation on the ground on how to deal with the crisis and whether they feel something could be done to correct the American course in Iraq. The world did hear from them this week when the New York Times carried an article written by six US military personnel serving in Iraq — Army specialist Buddhika Jayamaha, sergeants Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck, Omar Mora and Edward Sandmeier and staff sergeants Yance T. Gray and Jeremy A. Murphy.
The article summarised what most people already knew but denied by the US administration: That the US is not winning is unlikely to win "hearts and minds" of Iraqis has ended up alienating everyone.
The article carries pointed references to the massive number of Iraqis who have fled their country and to similar number internally displaced. The article highlights the plight of the ordinary people of Iraq — the lack of electricity, services, drinking water, and above all security.
One of the most damaging revelations in the article is that the Iraqi security forces — which the writers find penetrated at the street level by Shiite militiamen and their supporters — have become not only totally unreliable in times of crisis but also a potential source of danger for US soldiers.
Add to that what we know already of the complexities of the Iraqi way of politics, the alliances and rivalries, the fortune-hunters and back-stabbers and opportunists, and the people at large who continue to pay the price of a foreign military misadventure and who have seen the "liberator" turning to an "occupier" and to an "oppressor."
Does the net image that emerges look like a war that could be won?
Of course, Maliki has little option but to hope and continue to try to salvage himself and his government so that the US could see at least one of its strategic objectives being pushed through: Approval of legislation that would effectively hand over control of Iraq's oil resources to foreign companies.
Indeed, there is nothing that could stop anyone drawing up a wishlist, but it is a dead certainty that the US wishes in Iraq would only remain on a list.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
US 'better off with Sadr'
Aug.19, 2007
US 'better off' with Sadr as an ally
ONE OF the most interesting theories that have come up recently is that the US would be better off working with firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr to restore the "state" in Iraq and with Iran to restore normal Washington-Tehran relations if it were to hope for a face-saving formula to get out of the Iraq crisis.
The strongest proponent of the theory is William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation in Washington.
The practical implementation of Lind's theory hinges on the precondition that the US administration accepts that its maximalist objectives of the invasion and occupation are not realisable, and it could no longer hope to dictate terms but could only hope to try influence things in a manner that reduces its losses and produces a way out of Iraq.
Essentially, Washington has to accept that the US is already defeated in Iraq and should act immediately in the light of that acceptance rather than wait for events to take their course towards the inevitability of having to eat crow in Iraq.
Indeed, that is where the problem is rooted. The US continues to believe that a victory in Iraq means the chaotic country being turned into an American satellite that is friendly to Israel and will guarantee US energy interests and offer military bases from which American forces can dominate the region.
That is where the neoconservatives who planned and orchestrated the Iraq war made their biggest mistake. None of these objectives were ever attainable and would never be attained regardless of how much military power the US throws into Iraq.
Let us start from point zero. The US-led invasion destroyed the "state" in Iraq and restoring it should be Washington's first priority. However, it would be unable to do so as long as it continues on its present course. The US would never be able to turn the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to be the unifying force capable of re-knitting Iraq because any association with the US becomes an immediate disqualifying factor for any Iraqi politician, whether Shiite or Sunni. The US remains an invader and occupier in most Iraqi eyes and it is simply impossible for Washington to be the creator of a post-Saddam Hussein state in Iraq. It has no option but to work with the country's Shiites to create a new state but only with a clear and public declaration of its intentions not to continue its occupation of Iraq and of a clear timeline for military withdrawal from that country. And Sadr, by his steadfast resistance against the US, is, at this juncture in time, the most credible Shiite leader in Iraq, no matter how Washington evaluates him in view of his known links with Iran.
Sadr has played his cards right. He has even reached out to Sunni groups by ordering his Mahdi Army militiamen to call off their violent campaign against the Sunnis and entering a de facto alliance with some of the Sunni factions.
There are many who believe that Sadr has already set his eyes on the highest position of power in Iraq and hence his strong emphasis on Shiite-Sunni unity against the US. They are suggesting that the time might not be more opportune for the US to make an overture to Sadr if indeed Washington is sincere in its declaration that it does not want to continue its military occupation indefinitely.
The US should essentially realise that it is no longer a question of ensuring that Iraq would remain US-friendly when the US forces withdraw from that country. It is simply impossible, given the way the US conducted itself in post-war Iraq. The question should indeed be how to ensure minimum losses and maxium protection for US forces as they withdraw from Iraq. In order to achieve that there should be a state that would co-operate with the clear understanding that the US military is leaving Iraq for good. In fact, the leaders of that new state would be more anxious than the American themselves to create an environment that is conducive to an accelerated US withdrawal from the country.
There would indeed be Sunni rejection of any US-Sadr deal. But then, the US should know that it could not please everyone. The Sunnis of Iraq have to accept that their days of domination are over and their only hope is to negotiate and bargain for the best deal they could get from whoever emerges as the political leader in a post-US occupation Iraq.
Of course, the strongest opposition to any US move to enter a compromise of sorts with Sadr would come from other Shiite leaders, but that is where Iran comes in with its clout with the Shiite community in Iraq in general to remove challenges to Sadr.
That is precisely the reason why the US should abandon its determination to subdue Iran and seek to launch an all-embracing dialogue aimed at settling most, if not all, differences and stabilise relations with the Islamic republic.
Washington should drop its belief that ending its in-built hostility towards Iran's theocratic regime and normalising relations with Tehran implies defeat for the US. Simply put, there would never be a US victory in Iraq as long as Washington pursues a belligerent course towards Iran.
Dropping hostility and negotiating an end to the tension with Iran is not seen as an option for the US at this point because Washington is convinced that it is not possible to co-exist with Tehran. The Iranian regime is similarly convinced, and Tehran could not be expected to help Washington to stabilise Iraq as long as the US military is present there. Instead, Iran believes that its interests of getting the US out of the region and emerging as a dominating regional power could be served only through continued destabilisation of Iraq. One could also throw in Afghanistan for good measures.
Within Iraq, the US could strike a deal with Moqtada Sadr, but that would be at the expense of accepting and acknowledging that it could not realise its objectives of the invasion of that country. Beyond that, it would simply mean giving up Iraq to be controlled by forces friendly to Iran, a much worse fate than being defeated in Iraq.
It is almost certain that with Sadr as the dominant Shiite political figure (under a hypothetical deal engineered by the US), there is no telling how the cookie will crumble in Iraq.
On the other hand, stabilising relations with Tehran and working out a face-saving formula by promoting Sadr, the US would be able to work out an exit strategy out of Iraq and also be assured that groups like Al Qaeda are significantly weakened because the new state in Iraq would make sure that such destabilising forces are chased out after the US quits the country.
It would indeed be a key scoring point in the US-led war against terror.
The Lind theory is an excellent suggestion for Washington because it offers the best way out of the US with the minimum loss of face. Washington and Tehran may not be become buddies, but they would be able to work out a formula under which they would avoid a confrontation and that is good news for the region.
However, the element that deflates all prospects for such course of events is the obvious determination among the Washington hard-liners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, to stage military action against Iran and not to allow anything to stand in their way of eliminating that country as a potential threat to US and Israeli interests in the region.
It is the same Washington camp that plotted and orchestrated the invasion of Iraq that is behind the campaign for military strike against Iran. And it is also clear that all they need is a pretext to launch action, and the neoconservatives are admitting it in public.
nother 9/11 attack.
In an article titled "To save America, we need another 9/11," Stu Bykofsky writes in the Philadelphia Daily News that the fight between the Republicans and Democrats over Iraq shows that the US is divided and that the unity of Americans brought about by the Sept.11 attacks has disappeared.
Therefore, Bykofsky argues, the US needs another 9/11 style attack "quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."
What Bykofsky falls short of suggesting is that Iran has already been lined up as the target for the "righteous rage" and "singular purpose."
Against that reality, theories and proposals such as those made by Lind have as much chance of consideration as the Iranians opting to buy Japanese caviar.
US 'better off' with Sadr as an ally
ONE OF the most interesting theories that have come up recently is that the US would be better off working with firebrand Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr to restore the "state" in Iraq and with Iran to restore normal Washington-Tehran relations if it were to hope for a face-saving formula to get out of the Iraq crisis.
The strongest proponent of the theory is William S. Lind, director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation in Washington.
The practical implementation of Lind's theory hinges on the precondition that the US administration accepts that its maximalist objectives of the invasion and occupation are not realisable, and it could no longer hope to dictate terms but could only hope to try influence things in a manner that reduces its losses and produces a way out of Iraq.
Essentially, Washington has to accept that the US is already defeated in Iraq and should act immediately in the light of that acceptance rather than wait for events to take their course towards the inevitability of having to eat crow in Iraq.
Indeed, that is where the problem is rooted. The US continues to believe that a victory in Iraq means the chaotic country being turned into an American satellite that is friendly to Israel and will guarantee US energy interests and offer military bases from which American forces can dominate the region.
That is where the neoconservatives who planned and orchestrated the Iraq war made their biggest mistake. None of these objectives were ever attainable and would never be attained regardless of how much military power the US throws into Iraq.
Let us start from point zero. The US-led invasion destroyed the "state" in Iraq and restoring it should be Washington's first priority. However, it would be unable to do so as long as it continues on its present course. The US would never be able to turn the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to be the unifying force capable of re-knitting Iraq because any association with the US becomes an immediate disqualifying factor for any Iraqi politician, whether Shiite or Sunni. The US remains an invader and occupier in most Iraqi eyes and it is simply impossible for Washington to be the creator of a post-Saddam Hussein state in Iraq. It has no option but to work with the country's Shiites to create a new state but only with a clear and public declaration of its intentions not to continue its occupation of Iraq and of a clear timeline for military withdrawal from that country. And Sadr, by his steadfast resistance against the US, is, at this juncture in time, the most credible Shiite leader in Iraq, no matter how Washington evaluates him in view of his known links with Iran.
Sadr has played his cards right. He has even reached out to Sunni groups by ordering his Mahdi Army militiamen to call off their violent campaign against the Sunnis and entering a de facto alliance with some of the Sunni factions.
There are many who believe that Sadr has already set his eyes on the highest position of power in Iraq and hence his strong emphasis on Shiite-Sunni unity against the US. They are suggesting that the time might not be more opportune for the US to make an overture to Sadr if indeed Washington is sincere in its declaration that it does not want to continue its military occupation indefinitely.
The US should essentially realise that it is no longer a question of ensuring that Iraq would remain US-friendly when the US forces withdraw from that country. It is simply impossible, given the way the US conducted itself in post-war Iraq. The question should indeed be how to ensure minimum losses and maxium protection for US forces as they withdraw from Iraq. In order to achieve that there should be a state that would co-operate with the clear understanding that the US military is leaving Iraq for good. In fact, the leaders of that new state would be more anxious than the American themselves to create an environment that is conducive to an accelerated US withdrawal from the country.
There would indeed be Sunni rejection of any US-Sadr deal. But then, the US should know that it could not please everyone. The Sunnis of Iraq have to accept that their days of domination are over and their only hope is to negotiate and bargain for the best deal they could get from whoever emerges as the political leader in a post-US occupation Iraq.
Of course, the strongest opposition to any US move to enter a compromise of sorts with Sadr would come from other Shiite leaders, but that is where Iran comes in with its clout with the Shiite community in Iraq in general to remove challenges to Sadr.
That is precisely the reason why the US should abandon its determination to subdue Iran and seek to launch an all-embracing dialogue aimed at settling most, if not all, differences and stabilise relations with the Islamic republic.
Washington should drop its belief that ending its in-built hostility towards Iran's theocratic regime and normalising relations with Tehran implies defeat for the US. Simply put, there would never be a US victory in Iraq as long as Washington pursues a belligerent course towards Iran.
Dropping hostility and negotiating an end to the tension with Iran is not seen as an option for the US at this point because Washington is convinced that it is not possible to co-exist with Tehran. The Iranian regime is similarly convinced, and Tehran could not be expected to help Washington to stabilise Iraq as long as the US military is present there. Instead, Iran believes that its interests of getting the US out of the region and emerging as a dominating regional power could be served only through continued destabilisation of Iraq. One could also throw in Afghanistan for good measures.
Within Iraq, the US could strike a deal with Moqtada Sadr, but that would be at the expense of accepting and acknowledging that it could not realise its objectives of the invasion of that country. Beyond that, it would simply mean giving up Iraq to be controlled by forces friendly to Iran, a much worse fate than being defeated in Iraq.
It is almost certain that with Sadr as the dominant Shiite political figure (under a hypothetical deal engineered by the US), there is no telling how the cookie will crumble in Iraq.
On the other hand, stabilising relations with Tehran and working out a face-saving formula by promoting Sadr, the US would be able to work out an exit strategy out of Iraq and also be assured that groups like Al Qaeda are significantly weakened because the new state in Iraq would make sure that such destabilising forces are chased out after the US quits the country.
It would indeed be a key scoring point in the US-led war against terror.
The Lind theory is an excellent suggestion for Washington because it offers the best way out of the US with the minimum loss of face. Washington and Tehran may not be become buddies, but they would be able to work out a formula under which they would avoid a confrontation and that is good news for the region.
However, the element that deflates all prospects for such course of events is the obvious determination among the Washington hard-liners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, to stage military action against Iran and not to allow anything to stand in their way of eliminating that country as a potential threat to US and Israeli interests in the region.
It is the same Washington camp that plotted and orchestrated the invasion of Iraq that is behind the campaign for military strike against Iran. And it is also clear that all they need is a pretext to launch action, and the neoconservatives are admitting it in public.
nother 9/11 attack.
In an article titled "To save America, we need another 9/11," Stu Bykofsky writes in the Philadelphia Daily News that the fight between the Republicans and Democrats over Iraq shows that the US is divided and that the unity of Americans brought about by the Sept.11 attacks has disappeared.
Therefore, Bykofsky argues, the US needs another 9/11 style attack "quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."
What Bykofsky falls short of suggesting is that Iran has already been lined up as the target for the "righteous rage" and "singular purpose."
Against that reality, theories and proposals such as those made by Lind have as much chance of consideration as the Iranians opting to buy Japanese caviar.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
A threat that would be a reality
Aug.18, 2007
A threat that will soon be a reality
AMONG the many silent and not-so-silent drives undertaken by Israel to consolidate its grip on Palestinian land is a campaign to evict as many Arab residents from East Jerusalem in order to dilute the non-Jewish presence in the Holy City and strengthen the number of Jews there. It is indeed an integral part of Israel's quest to "legitimise" its occupation of Arab East Jerusalem and its claim that the eastern half of the city is an "indivisible" part of the "eternal capital" of the Jewish state.
According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the number of Palestinian residents of Arab East Jerusalem who had their permanent residency status revoked in 2006 increased dramatically — more than six fold. While the number stood at 272 in 2003 and was 222 in 2005, last year 1,363 residents of Arab East Jerusalem had their residency status revoked, according to the group, which quoted the figures from statistics available with the Israeli occupation authorities.
Israel applies a special formula while dealing with the Palestinian residents of Arab East Jerusalem, which it occupied in the 1967 war. Immediately after seizing the eastern part of the city from Jordan, Israel said it was granting the area's Arab residents full Israeli citizenship provided that they swear allegiance to the Jewish state and renounce any other citizenships they may have. It effectively meant that the city's Arab residents had to give up their Palestinian identity once and for all. Not many accepted the offer, and then came an offer of permanent residency status, which meant the Arab residents cannot vote in parliamentary elections, but they can vote in municipal elections and can work in Israel.
In 1996, as it became clear that Israel would have to negotiate peace with the Palestinians sooner or later, the Jewish state launched a quite drive to revoke the residency status in Arab East Jerusalem, starting with Arab residents who had moved outside of the city's municipal boundaries. It also applied an across-the-board policy of refusing Arabs to build new homes or expand existing buidlings. Parallel to that, it also encouraged Jews to buy Palestinian-owned property in Arab East Jerusalem.
Israel has always taken note of the fact that the growth of Arab population is far higher than that of Jews and it became Israel's need to keep the number of Arabs living in East Jerusalem as low as possible and hence the mass revocation of permanent residency status in what B'Tselem describes as a a policy of "quiet transfer."
The complex laws and regulations applied by Israel make it impossible for anyone to fight the revocation of permanent residency status in Arab East Jerusalem. In fact, the same situation applies to any fight against any aspect of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.
In the case of Arab East Jerusalem in particular, any delay in working out an Israeli-Palestinian agreement works in Israel's favour. The disarray in Palestinian ranks makes it all the more easy for Israel to carry out its plans.
No doubt, the Palestinian leaders, whether Fatah, Hamas, centre, left or right, are aware of the danger, but they are too busy fighting among themselves that they could not focus their efforts to deal with the real enemy, Israel. And the losers in the bid to regain Arab East Jersualem, which houses the third holiest shrine in Islam, would not be the Palestinians alone but the entire Muslim World.
A threat that will soon be a reality
AMONG the many silent and not-so-silent drives undertaken by Israel to consolidate its grip on Palestinian land is a campaign to evict as many Arab residents from East Jerusalem in order to dilute the non-Jewish presence in the Holy City and strengthen the number of Jews there. It is indeed an integral part of Israel's quest to "legitimise" its occupation of Arab East Jerusalem and its claim that the eastern half of the city is an "indivisible" part of the "eternal capital" of the Jewish state.
According to the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, the number of Palestinian residents of Arab East Jerusalem who had their permanent residency status revoked in 2006 increased dramatically — more than six fold. While the number stood at 272 in 2003 and was 222 in 2005, last year 1,363 residents of Arab East Jerusalem had their residency status revoked, according to the group, which quoted the figures from statistics available with the Israeli occupation authorities.
Israel applies a special formula while dealing with the Palestinian residents of Arab East Jerusalem, which it occupied in the 1967 war. Immediately after seizing the eastern part of the city from Jordan, Israel said it was granting the area's Arab residents full Israeli citizenship provided that they swear allegiance to the Jewish state and renounce any other citizenships they may have. It effectively meant that the city's Arab residents had to give up their Palestinian identity once and for all. Not many accepted the offer, and then came an offer of permanent residency status, which meant the Arab residents cannot vote in parliamentary elections, but they can vote in municipal elections and can work in Israel.
In 1996, as it became clear that Israel would have to negotiate peace with the Palestinians sooner or later, the Jewish state launched a quite drive to revoke the residency status in Arab East Jerusalem, starting with Arab residents who had moved outside of the city's municipal boundaries. It also applied an across-the-board policy of refusing Arabs to build new homes or expand existing buidlings. Parallel to that, it also encouraged Jews to buy Palestinian-owned property in Arab East Jerusalem.
Israel has always taken note of the fact that the growth of Arab population is far higher than that of Jews and it became Israel's need to keep the number of Arabs living in East Jerusalem as low as possible and hence the mass revocation of permanent residency status in what B'Tselem describes as a a policy of "quiet transfer."
The complex laws and regulations applied by Israel make it impossible for anyone to fight the revocation of permanent residency status in Arab East Jerusalem. In fact, the same situation applies to any fight against any aspect of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land.
In the case of Arab East Jerusalem in particular, any delay in working out an Israeli-Palestinian agreement works in Israel's favour. The disarray in Palestinian ranks makes it all the more easy for Israel to carry out its plans.
No doubt, the Palestinian leaders, whether Fatah, Hamas, centre, left or right, are aware of the danger, but they are too busy fighting among themselves that they could not focus their efforts to deal with the real enemy, Israel. And the losers in the bid to regain Arab East Jersualem, which houses the third holiest shrine in Islam, would not be the Palestinians alone but the entire Muslim World.
Friday, August 10, 2007
The only way to stability
Aug.10, 2007
The only way for stability
THE meeting of tribal leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan under way in Kabul is perhaps the best chance to stabilise Afghanistan in the face of a resurgent Taliban who are operating from near the border between the two countries. No doubt, the Taliban, who have become a source of perennial headache for the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the US-led Western coalition present in Afghanistan, have support from the tribes on both sides of the border and hence the significance of the jirga.
It is a tradition for centuries that the region has relied on jirgas among tribes to settle problems, but the Kabul forum marks the first time that neighbouring tribal elders have come together for talks on the growing militant violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However, any effort to stabilise Afghanistan has to have as its central pillar the acceptance of the fact that the Taliban are as Afghan as anyone else. There is no prospect of any success for any effort in Afghanistan while the Taliban are kept out.
The Taliban might have unwittingly posed themselves as models for other militant groups elsewhere, but the Afghan group's agenda had always been and remains Afghanistan specific. Taliban-linked militant actions in Pakistan were and are directly linked to the crisis in Afghanistan and not the result of the Taliban trying to export their brand of militancy abroad.
The growth of pro-Taliban sympathies in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border has to do with mainly the history of neglect, denial, ignorance and lack of development of the region and the group's emergence as a symbol of rebellion in the 1990s.
There has alwasy been a sense of social injustice felt by the residents of the region over the centuries. The rulers in power centres in the area could not be bothered to look into the way of life of people in the area. Even with the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan last century as they exist today, there was little effort to uplift the lot of the tribes in the border area.. Whatever effort that was exerted was thwarted by the tribal leaders who tried dictate their terms.
In the process, resentment and bitterness grew among the tribes towards whoever was in power and they became rebellious by nature.
Involving the tribes in the exercise of stabilising Afghanistan has hopefully started with the jirga in Kabul.
Political imperatives might be involved in the absence of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at the conference, but it need not be seen as a major blow to the effort because no overnight breakthroughs are expected, particularly that some of the important tribal leaders are also absent.
A good start has been given, but it would be counterproductive for anyone to pin all hopes on mobilising the tribes against the Taliban and succeeding in the effort. The exercise should not be aimed at intensifying the military fight against the Taliban but to deal with the group with a view to bringing them into mainstream politics. It is no easy mission, and compromises would have to made by all sides, but that is the only way for stability in Afghanistan and the border region.
The only way for stability
THE meeting of tribal leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan under way in Kabul is perhaps the best chance to stabilise Afghanistan in the face of a resurgent Taliban who are operating from near the border between the two countries. No doubt, the Taliban, who have become a source of perennial headache for the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the US-led Western coalition present in Afghanistan, have support from the tribes on both sides of the border and hence the significance of the jirga.
It is a tradition for centuries that the region has relied on jirgas among tribes to settle problems, but the Kabul forum marks the first time that neighbouring tribal elders have come together for talks on the growing militant violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However, any effort to stabilise Afghanistan has to have as its central pillar the acceptance of the fact that the Taliban are as Afghan as anyone else. There is no prospect of any success for any effort in Afghanistan while the Taliban are kept out.
The Taliban might have unwittingly posed themselves as models for other militant groups elsewhere, but the Afghan group's agenda had always been and remains Afghanistan specific. Taliban-linked militant actions in Pakistan were and are directly linked to the crisis in Afghanistan and not the result of the Taliban trying to export their brand of militancy abroad.
The growth of pro-Taliban sympathies in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border has to do with mainly the history of neglect, denial, ignorance and lack of development of the region and the group's emergence as a symbol of rebellion in the 1990s.
There has alwasy been a sense of social injustice felt by the residents of the region over the centuries. The rulers in power centres in the area could not be bothered to look into the way of life of people in the area. Even with the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan last century as they exist today, there was little effort to uplift the lot of the tribes in the border area.. Whatever effort that was exerted was thwarted by the tribal leaders who tried dictate their terms.
In the process, resentment and bitterness grew among the tribes towards whoever was in power and they became rebellious by nature.
Involving the tribes in the exercise of stabilising Afghanistan has hopefully started with the jirga in Kabul.
Political imperatives might be involved in the absence of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at the conference, but it need not be seen as a major blow to the effort because no overnight breakthroughs are expected, particularly that some of the important tribal leaders are also absent.
A good start has been given, but it would be counterproductive for anyone to pin all hopes on mobilising the tribes against the Taliban and succeeding in the effort. The exercise should not be aimed at intensifying the military fight against the Taliban but to deal with the group with a view to bringing them into mainstream politics. It is no easy mission, and compromises would have to made by all sides, but that is the only way for stability in Afghanistan and the border region.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Social injustice is the root
Aug.9, 2007
Social injustice is the root
THE meeting of tribal leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan under way in Kabul is perhaps the best chance to stabilise Afghanistan in the face of a resurgent Taliban who are operating from near the border between the two countries. No doubt, the Taliban, who have become a source of perennial headache for the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the US-led Western coalition present in Afghanistan, have support from the tribes on both sides of the border and hence the significance of the jirga.
It is indeed a tradition for centuries that the region has relied on jirgas among tribes to settle problems, but the Kabul forum marks the first time that neighbouring tribal elders have come together for talks on the growing militant violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However, any effort to stabilise Afghanistan has to have its central pillar the acceptance of the fact that the Taliban are as Afghan as anyone else and they have to be part of any power-sharing agreement in Kabul. There is no prospect of any success for any effort in Afghanistan while the Taliban are kept out.
The Taliban might have unwittingly posed themselves as models for other militant groups elsewhere, but the Afghan group's agenda has always been and remains Afghanistan specific. Taliban-linked militant actions in Pakistan were and are directly linked to the crisis in Afghanistan and not the result of the Taliban trying to export their brand of militancy abroad. The growth of pro-Taliban sympathies in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border has to do with mainly the history of neglect, denial, ignorance and lack of development of the region and the group's emergence as a symbol of rebellion in the 1990s.
There has alwasy been a sense of social injustice felt by the residents of the region over the centuries. The rulers in power centres in the area could not be bothered to look into the way of life of people in the area. Even with the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan last century as they exist today, there was little effort to uplift the lot of the tribes in the border area.. Whatever effort that was indeed exerted was thwarted by the tribal leaders who tried dictate their terms.
In the process, resentment and bitterness grew among the tribes towards whoever was in power and they became rebellious by nature.
Involving the tribes in the exercise of stabilising Afghanistan has hopefully started with the jirga in Kabul.
Political imperatives might be involved in the absence of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at the conference, but it need not be seen as a major blow to the effort because no overnight breakthroughs are expected, particularly that some of the important tribal leaders are also absent.
A good start has been given, but it would be counterproductive for anyone to pin all hopes on mobilising the tribes against the Taliban and succeeding in the effort. The exercise should not be aimed at intensifying the military fight against the Taliban but to deal with the group with a view to bringing them into mainstream politics. It is no easy mission, and compromises would have to made by all sides, but that is the only way for stability in Afghanistan and the border region.
Social injustice is the root
THE meeting of tribal leaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan under way in Kabul is perhaps the best chance to stabilise Afghanistan in the face of a resurgent Taliban who are operating from near the border between the two countries. No doubt, the Taliban, who have become a source of perennial headache for the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as the US-led Western coalition present in Afghanistan, have support from the tribes on both sides of the border and hence the significance of the jirga.
It is indeed a tradition for centuries that the region has relied on jirgas among tribes to settle problems, but the Kabul forum marks the first time that neighbouring tribal elders have come together for talks on the growing militant violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
However, any effort to stabilise Afghanistan has to have its central pillar the acceptance of the fact that the Taliban are as Afghan as anyone else and they have to be part of any power-sharing agreement in Kabul. There is no prospect of any success for any effort in Afghanistan while the Taliban are kept out.
The Taliban might have unwittingly posed themselves as models for other militant groups elsewhere, but the Afghan group's agenda has always been and remains Afghanistan specific. Taliban-linked militant actions in Pakistan were and are directly linked to the crisis in Afghanistan and not the result of the Taliban trying to export their brand of militancy abroad. The growth of pro-Taliban sympathies in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border has to do with mainly the history of neglect, denial, ignorance and lack of development of the region and the group's emergence as a symbol of rebellion in the 1990s.
There has alwasy been a sense of social injustice felt by the residents of the region over the centuries. The rulers in power centres in the area could not be bothered to look into the way of life of people in the area. Even with the creation of Afghanistan and Pakistan last century as they exist today, there was little effort to uplift the lot of the tribes in the border area.. Whatever effort that was indeed exerted was thwarted by the tribal leaders who tried dictate their terms.
In the process, resentment and bitterness grew among the tribes towards whoever was in power and they became rebellious by nature.
Involving the tribes in the exercise of stabilising Afghanistan has hopefully started with the jirga in Kabul.
Political imperatives might be involved in the absence of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf at the conference, but it need not be seen as a major blow to the effort because no overnight breakthroughs are expected, particularly that some of the important tribal leaders are also absent.
A good start has been given, but it would be counterproductive for anyone to pin all hopes on mobilising the tribes against the Taliban and succeeding in the effort. The exercise should not be aimed at intensifying the military fight against the Taliban but to deal with the group with a view to bringing them into mainstream politics. It is no easy mission, and compromises would have to made by all sides, but that is the only way for stability in Afghanistan and the border region.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Vision and courage for justice
Aug.8, 2007
Vision and courage for fairness, justice
IT IS WELCOME news that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is gathering support for a Middle East conference proposed by US President George W Bush in an intiative that could be prove to be a watershed for efforts to Arab-Israeli peace.
No doubt all key players will agree to attend the conference because the Saudi-intitiated Arab proposal is there as the only comprehensive approach to peace in Palestine and between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon.
Indeed, that is assuming that the Arab peace proposal would be the central theme at the proposed conference rather than the piecemeal approach favoured and demanded by Israel. If anyone has any other ideas, then the whole exercise would be wasted.
Therefore, it should be clear that Israel should not be using the conference to establish contacts and relations with the Arab World while it corners the Palestinians and tries to impose its version of a peace agreement on them.
The Arab peace plan envisions every things that is linked to Arab-Israeli co-existence in the region. The Arabs are offering the Jewish state the legitimacy it seeks as a member of the regional order in return for its return of the Arab territories it occupied in the 1967 war, co-operation in finding a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees and creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
Indeed, the key questions are the future of Jerusalem, the borders of a Palestinian state and the right of return for refugees.
When Israeli leaders balk at making a commitment that the negotiations would include these issues, then it is time that the Arabs and those wishing a fair and just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict took note.
We have used to Israel's deception-based strategies and tactics too long to accept anything at face value while dealing with the Jewish state.
There has to be a definite and irrevocable commitment on the Israeli side that these key issues would be placed on the table with the Palestinians with a view to working out an equitable solution that would not be at the expense of the Palestinians, who are the agrieved party.
Of course, some compromises would have to be made but nothing should infringe upon the core of the conflict — the inalienable and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
It requires willpower, courage and determination not only to propose peace on honourable terms but also to accept the challenge and do what it takes to settle a problem as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arabs have done their part. Can or will the Israelis do their part?
Vision and courage for fairness, justice
IT IS WELCOME news that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is gathering support for a Middle East conference proposed by US President George W Bush in an intiative that could be prove to be a watershed for efforts to Arab-Israeli peace.
No doubt all key players will agree to attend the conference because the Saudi-intitiated Arab proposal is there as the only comprehensive approach to peace in Palestine and between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon.
Indeed, that is assuming that the Arab peace proposal would be the central theme at the proposed conference rather than the piecemeal approach favoured and demanded by Israel. If anyone has any other ideas, then the whole exercise would be wasted.
Therefore, it should be clear that Israel should not be using the conference to establish contacts and relations with the Arab World while it corners the Palestinians and tries to impose its version of a peace agreement on them.
The Arab peace plan envisions every things that is linked to Arab-Israeli co-existence in the region. The Arabs are offering the Jewish state the legitimacy it seeks as a member of the regional order in return for its return of the Arab territories it occupied in the 1967 war, co-operation in finding a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees and creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
Indeed, the key questions are the future of Jerusalem, the borders of a Palestinian state and the right of return for refugees.
When Israeli leaders balk at making a commitment that the negotiations would include these issues, then it is time that the Arabs and those wishing a fair and just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict took note.
We have used to Israel's deception-based strategies and tactics too long to accept anything at face value while dealing with the Jewish state.
There has to be a definite and irrevocable commitment on the Israeli side that these key issues would be placed on the table with the Palestinians with a view to working out an equitable solution that would not be at the expense of the Palestinians, who are the agrieved party.
Of course, some compromises would have to be made but nothing should infringe upon the core of the conflict — the inalienable and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
It requires willpower, courage and determination not only to propose peace on honourable terms but also to accept the challenge and do what it takes to settle a problem as complicated as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Arabs have done their part. Can or will the Israelis do their part?
Saturday, August 04, 2007
The shame of the 'silent majority'
Aug.4, 2007
The shame of the 'silent' majority
by pv vivekanand
The alarming report that more than half of Iraq's population live in poverty and hunger and disease are growing in the country brings up the key question: Why is the US doing this to the people of Iraq?
Did the people of Iraq invade the US?
Did the people of Iraq threaten the US?
Did the people of Iraq challenge US interests anywhere in the world? Did the people of Iraq occupy homes in the US?
Did the people of Iraq rape American girls?
Let us for a moment consider the theory that the regime of Saddam Hussein was rogue and did not serve US interests in the region and that was the reason the US invaded Iraq.
Doesn't it follow that, having invaded the country and toppled the "rogue" regime, it becomes the responsibility and obligation of the invader and occupier to ensure that those who were oppressed during the ousted regime should enjoy the fruits of being "liberated" from a tyrant?
The US is behaving in a manner that it is nobody's business to question what it is doing in Iraq and how it is treating the people of Iraq. Washington seems to believe that the world should continue to celebrate that the poor suffering Iraqis were "liberated" and should be thankful to the sole superpower for having done so.
The US should not have shirked its responsibilities towards the people of Iraq. But Washington is not showing any sign of accepting that it did evade its responsibility. It is continuing to subject the people of Iraq not only to murder, abuse and gross oppressionand expose them to starvation and disease by denying them basic essentials to survive.
In post-war Iraq, prices of food have shot up so high that one third of Iraqis could not afford even a decent daily meal. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the government offered them most staples at subsidised prices.
In post-war Iraq, nearly 70 per cent of people do not have access to drinking water. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where there was no shortage of drinking water.
In post-war Iraq, people have an average of four to five hours of power supply and that too intermittently. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where there was no shortage power and even industries thrived.
In post-war Iraq, people did not have to cower inside their homes fearing they could get killed in bombings or they could be shot to death in their homes by storming troopers. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the fear of death is ever-present, whether at home or outside. One might be fortunate to escape a car-bombing in the street, then there is no escape from the fear that sectarian militias or occupation soldiers could simply knock at your door and shoot you down.
In post-war Iraq, children could go to schools and entertain dreams of good education and a fair career whether in the country or outside. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the country's education system is in shambles, with teachers and students living in perennial terror of being targeted by insurgents or of being caught in the cross-fire between the "good" and "bad" men (regardless how you define "good" and "bad").
Who bears the responsibility for this state of affairs in Iraq?
It is easy to hold the governments of the US and its allied countries responsible. But then, don't the people who elected those governments have any responsibility? If the people plead helplessness to influence their elected government against gross violations of the human rights, then they don't have the right to call themselves democracies.
There is something seriously wrong when only a small percentage of the world's six billion people have the willingness or inclination to publicly express their rejection of what their governments are doing to the people of Iraq. Doesn't that imply that the "silent" majority approve of whatever is happening in Iraq but that they still belong to the so-called civilised world.
It is hypocrasy of the tallest order, and the "silent" majority should be ashamed of themselves. Everyone of them is responsible for every Iraqi who gets killed or maimed, for every Iraqi who dies in the daily bombings or in the US-led military sweep, for every Iraqi who goes to sleep hungry, for every Iraqi who is detained and tortured, for every Iraqi who lives in perpetual terror, every Iraqi who dies because the country's health system functions no more, every Iraqi who had to flee his or her home, and for every Iraqi who has no school to go to.
The "silent" majority is also responsible for shoving Iraqis into the arms of groups like Al Qaeda, which has turned Iraq into killing grounds and a platform to wage a war of attrition against the US.
Al Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion and it is the US military presence there that is drawing "international jihadists" like a magnet.
It was the governments elected by the majority of the "civilised" world which pushed the people of Iraq and tipped them over into the bottomless abyss of denial, despair, frustration, anger, agony and suffering. And the majority of the "civilised" world have to answer for it.
The shame of the 'silent' majority
by pv vivekanand
The alarming report that more than half of Iraq's population live in poverty and hunger and disease are growing in the country brings up the key question: Why is the US doing this to the people of Iraq?
Did the people of Iraq invade the US?
Did the people of Iraq threaten the US?
Did the people of Iraq challenge US interests anywhere in the world? Did the people of Iraq occupy homes in the US?
Did the people of Iraq rape American girls?
Let us for a moment consider the theory that the regime of Saddam Hussein was rogue and did not serve US interests in the region and that was the reason the US invaded Iraq.
Doesn't it follow that, having invaded the country and toppled the "rogue" regime, it becomes the responsibility and obligation of the invader and occupier to ensure that those who were oppressed during the ousted regime should enjoy the fruits of being "liberated" from a tyrant?
The US is behaving in a manner that it is nobody's business to question what it is doing in Iraq and how it is treating the people of Iraq. Washington seems to believe that the world should continue to celebrate that the poor suffering Iraqis were "liberated" and should be thankful to the sole superpower for having done so.
The US should not have shirked its responsibilities towards the people of Iraq. But Washington is not showing any sign of accepting that it did evade its responsibility. It is continuing to subject the people of Iraq not only to murder, abuse and gross oppressionand expose them to starvation and disease by denying them basic essentials to survive.
In post-war Iraq, prices of food have shot up so high that one third of Iraqis could not afford even a decent daily meal. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the government offered them most staples at subsidised prices.
In post-war Iraq, nearly 70 per cent of people do not have access to drinking water. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where there was no shortage of drinking water.
In post-war Iraq, people have an average of four to five hours of power supply and that too intermittently. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where there was no shortage power and even industries thrived.
In post-war Iraq, people did not have to cower inside their homes fearing they could get killed in bombings or they could be shot to death in their homes by storming troopers. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the fear of death is ever-present, whether at home or outside. One might be fortunate to escape a car-bombing in the street, then there is no escape from the fear that sectarian militias or occupation soldiers could simply knock at your door and shoot you down.
In post-war Iraq, children could go to schools and entertain dreams of good education and a fair career whether in the country or outside. Compare that with the pre-war situation, where the country's education system is in shambles, with teachers and students living in perennial terror of being targeted by insurgents or of being caught in the cross-fire between the "good" and "bad" men (regardless how you define "good" and "bad").
Who bears the responsibility for this state of affairs in Iraq?
It is easy to hold the governments of the US and its allied countries responsible. But then, don't the people who elected those governments have any responsibility? If the people plead helplessness to influence their elected government against gross violations of the human rights, then they don't have the right to call themselves democracies.
There is something seriously wrong when only a small percentage of the world's six billion people have the willingness or inclination to publicly express their rejection of what their governments are doing to the people of Iraq. Doesn't that imply that the "silent" majority approve of whatever is happening in Iraq but that they still belong to the so-called civilised world.
It is hypocrasy of the tallest order, and the "silent" majority should be ashamed of themselves. Everyone of them is responsible for every Iraqi who gets killed or maimed, for every Iraqi who dies in the daily bombings or in the US-led military sweep, for every Iraqi who goes to sleep hungry, for every Iraqi who is detained and tortured, for every Iraqi who lives in perpetual terror, every Iraqi who dies because the country's health system functions no more, every Iraqi who had to flee his or her home, and for every Iraqi who has no school to go to.
The "silent" majority is also responsible for shoving Iraqis into the arms of groups like Al Qaeda, which has turned Iraq into killing grounds and a platform to wage a war of attrition against the US.
Al Qaeda never had a presence in Iraq prior to the US invasion and it is the US military presence there that is drawing "international jihadists" like a magnet.
It was the governments elected by the majority of the "civilised" world which pushed the people of Iraq and tipped them over into the bottomless abyss of denial, despair, frustration, anger, agony and suffering. And the majority of the "civilised" world have to answer for it.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
US vs Europe — new equations
US vs Europe
— new equations
THE NEW generation of leaders in Europe is definitely showing signs that they could put up a serious challenge to the implicit global domination of the United States, and this bodes well for the Middle East, which has been for long seeking a balance in the international approach to the region's crises.
There is a consensus among foreign-policy experts that Britain, France and Germany being all now under new leadership compared with four years ago, when the United States plunged it relations with Europ into their worst crisis for decades with its invasion of Iraq.
The new leaders of the three major European countries are seen to have fresh and assertive mindsets that could take them away from the US orbit, particularly given the disarray in Washington's international relations as well a domestic politics.
Indeed, the Bush administration is putting up a brave face and dismissing suggestions that the European countries are stepping into the diplomatic vacuum left by US difficulties in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
In the Middle East, the Europeans have already made their moves.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy played a key role in securing the release of six foreign medical personnel from Libya and is now involved in an intense effort to solve the political crisis in Lebanon. Sarkozy's government is also seeking the release of Myanmar's jailed democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Sarkozy has teamed up with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.
Brown, who was meeting President Bush in Washington on Sunday, has also announced that he would be naming his own envoy to the Middle East in what could trigger a dispute with his predecessor Tony Blair, who was always seen as too closely aligned with Bush and who was named the international Quartet's special envoy to the Middle East.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped in for international action on issues like global warming, where the US has suffered badly because of its insistence on having its own way regardless of how the rest of the world feels on issues that are of global concern.
While some international experts see the European moves as making up for the major shortcomings in US foreign policy, others believe that it would only be a matter of time that the Europeans demanded their rightful role in the international scene that would supercede that of the US.
For us in the Middle East, a strengthened Europe means better prospects for a fair and just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict and other crises in the region.
Nudged by Israel, the US has always kept the Europeans on the fringes of political efforts for peace in the Middle East, and called them in only to bankroll agreements. For long the Europeans had tried to assume a higher political profile in efforts for peace in the Middle East if only because they stand to bear the impact of all negative developments in the region.
It would seem that a door of opportunity is slowly opening for the Europeans to assume a role that befits their political, economic and military clout as well as the goodwill they enjoy among countries of the Middle East.
The Arab World could step in and accelerate the process by intensifying the ongoing Euro-Arab dialogue and setting up avenues for closer political co-operation with a view to building an international coalition that would not allow Israel to call all the shots in the Middle East through the US.
— new equations
THE NEW generation of leaders in Europe is definitely showing signs that they could put up a serious challenge to the implicit global domination of the United States, and this bodes well for the Middle East, which has been for long seeking a balance in the international approach to the region's crises.
There is a consensus among foreign-policy experts that Britain, France and Germany being all now under new leadership compared with four years ago, when the United States plunged it relations with Europ into their worst crisis for decades with its invasion of Iraq.
The new leaders of the three major European countries are seen to have fresh and assertive mindsets that could take them away from the US orbit, particularly given the disarray in Washington's international relations as well a domestic politics.
Indeed, the Bush administration is putting up a brave face and dismissing suggestions that the European countries are stepping into the diplomatic vacuum left by US difficulties in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
In the Middle East, the Europeans have already made their moves.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy played a key role in securing the release of six foreign medical personnel from Libya and is now involved in an intense effort to solve the political crisis in Lebanon. Sarkozy's government is also seeking the release of Myanmar's jailed democracy leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Sarkozy has teamed up with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in efforts to solve the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region.
Brown, who was meeting President Bush in Washington on Sunday, has also announced that he would be naming his own envoy to the Middle East in what could trigger a dispute with his predecessor Tony Blair, who was always seen as too closely aligned with Bush and who was named the international Quartet's special envoy to the Middle East.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped in for international action on issues like global warming, where the US has suffered badly because of its insistence on having its own way regardless of how the rest of the world feels on issues that are of global concern.
While some international experts see the European moves as making up for the major shortcomings in US foreign policy, others believe that it would only be a matter of time that the Europeans demanded their rightful role in the international scene that would supercede that of the US.
For us in the Middle East, a strengthened Europe means better prospects for a fair and just settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict and other crises in the region.
Nudged by Israel, the US has always kept the Europeans on the fringes of political efforts for peace in the Middle East, and called them in only to bankroll agreements. For long the Europeans had tried to assume a higher political profile in efforts for peace in the Middle East if only because they stand to bear the impact of all negative developments in the region.
It would seem that a door of opportunity is slowly opening for the Europeans to assume a role that befits their political, economic and military clout as well as the goodwill they enjoy among countries of the Middle East.
The Arab World could step in and accelerate the process by intensifying the ongoing Euro-Arab dialogue and setting up avenues for closer political co-operation with a view to building an international coalition that would not allow Israel to call all the shots in the Middle East through the US.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
A battle that is already
July 28, 2007
A battle that is already lost
THE US wants to handle the insurgency in Iraq the American way, enlisting friends and allies as it finds fit in order to in its bid to fight off Al Qaeda. The strategy includes forming alliances with Sunnis in the Sunni-dominated provinces and with Shiites in Shiite-majority areas. Parallel to that the US is also moving against hardline Shiite militiamen who are posing a key challenge to overall security in the country.
The US-backed Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki thinks it knows better and wants the US military to stay away from becoming friends with the Sunnis and stop recruiting Sunnis into the security apparatus without case-by-case approval by the Iraqi state intelligence apparatus. Also, the Iraqi government does not want the US military to take on Shiite militiamen alligned with Maliki's coalition partners and wants the US military commanders to keep it informed of planned operations against Shiite gunmen. It is even suggested that Maliki had advised Shiite groups like the Mahdi Army of anti-US firebrand cleric Moqtada Sadr to lie low, hide their weapons and not to offer themselves as targets in the US military crackdown that was launched in February.
Maliki has reportedly told the US side that if the top US commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, continues to build alliances with the Sunnis, then the Iraqi government would arm Shiites.
With such a dramatic difference in approach and conflicting interests, it is only natural that the rift between the Maliki government and the US military is widening. The latest in growing crisis is a report that Maliki has already requested Washington to withdraw Petraeus.
On the broader front, the US administration is unhappy with Maliki because his government has not been able to meet any of the "benchmarks" that Washington has set towards meetings its objectives in Iraq.
US Ambasador Ryan Crocker faces the almost impossible task of persuading the Iraqi parliament to endorse laws that Washington sees as central pillars of a post-crisis Iraq (if ever there could be one).
Crocker's mission has acquired an added sense of urgency because he has to report to the US Congress in September on "progress" made in Iraq and explain why American soldiers are fighting and dying to give Maliki political breathing space that the Iraqi prime minister will not or cannot capitalise on.
US President George W Bush has no option but to continue to back Maliki if only because replacing the Iraqi prime minister with a more "amenable" figure and working with him to achieve the US goals in Iraq before Bush bows out of office in 18 months is not a practical idea. As such, Bush and Maliki are stuck with each other, but it is obvious that they are and remain unable to make the best of their dependence on each other.
The relationship between Washington and the Maliki government is central central to the future of Iraq and the larger Middle East. That relationship is in deep trouble now, adding yet another huge hurdle in the way of the US realising its strategic goals of its invasion and occupation of Iraq.
A battle that is already lost
THE US wants to handle the insurgency in Iraq the American way, enlisting friends and allies as it finds fit in order to in its bid to fight off Al Qaeda. The strategy includes forming alliances with Sunnis in the Sunni-dominated provinces and with Shiites in Shiite-majority areas. Parallel to that the US is also moving against hardline Shiite militiamen who are posing a key challenge to overall security in the country.
The US-backed Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki thinks it knows better and wants the US military to stay away from becoming friends with the Sunnis and stop recruiting Sunnis into the security apparatus without case-by-case approval by the Iraqi state intelligence apparatus. Also, the Iraqi government does not want the US military to take on Shiite militiamen alligned with Maliki's coalition partners and wants the US military commanders to keep it informed of planned operations against Shiite gunmen. It is even suggested that Maliki had advised Shiite groups like the Mahdi Army of anti-US firebrand cleric Moqtada Sadr to lie low, hide their weapons and not to offer themselves as targets in the US military crackdown that was launched in February.
Maliki has reportedly told the US side that if the top US commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, continues to build alliances with the Sunnis, then the Iraqi government would arm Shiites.
With such a dramatic difference in approach and conflicting interests, it is only natural that the rift between the Maliki government and the US military is widening. The latest in growing crisis is a report that Maliki has already requested Washington to withdraw Petraeus.
On the broader front, the US administration is unhappy with Maliki because his government has not been able to meet any of the "benchmarks" that Washington has set towards meetings its objectives in Iraq.
US Ambasador Ryan Crocker faces the almost impossible task of persuading the Iraqi parliament to endorse laws that Washington sees as central pillars of a post-crisis Iraq (if ever there could be one).
Crocker's mission has acquired an added sense of urgency because he has to report to the US Congress in September on "progress" made in Iraq and explain why American soldiers are fighting and dying to give Maliki political breathing space that the Iraqi prime minister will not or cannot capitalise on.
US President George W Bush has no option but to continue to back Maliki if only because replacing the Iraqi prime minister with a more "amenable" figure and working with him to achieve the US goals in Iraq before Bush bows out of office in 18 months is not a practical idea. As such, Bush and Maliki are stuck with each other, but it is obvious that they are and remain unable to make the best of their dependence on each other.
The relationship between Washington and the Maliki government is central central to the future of Iraq and the larger Middle East. That relationship is in deep trouble now, adding yet another huge hurdle in the way of the US realising its strategic goals of its invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Words and deeds two different things
July 27, 2007
Words and deeds are different things
Last week's vote by the US House of Representatives preventing creation of permanent US military bases in Iraq and to bar US control of Iraqi oil was a strong blow to the core of the Bush administration's strategic objectives in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The motion, presented by Democrat Representative Barbara Lee of Oakland, is indeed the strongest sign yet of congressional opposition to maintaining American forces in foreign soil. At the same time, it also puts the Republicans on the spot with little option but to adopt a similar position.
The move might or might not be binding on the administration, which could use the Senate to scale down its impact. And we could expect a lot of Democrat-Republican wrangling not only on this issue but also many other aspects of the US military presence in Iraq.
But the political message is clear: The US has no business to seek a long-term presence in Iraq and the administration should not be a proxy for American oil companies to take control of Iraq's oil.
It is known that the US is building several huge military bases in Iraq with a view to keeping a 50,000-75,000-strong rapid deployment force ready to intervene anywhere in the Middle East against whatever Washington would see as detrimental to its strategic interests in the region. The massive US embassy that is being built on the banks of the River Tigris in Baghdad is an emphatic statement that the US intends to dig in its heels in Iraq.
Washington is also applying intense pressure on the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to persuade parliament to take up and endorse a draft legislation on the country's oil. The proposed bill, which has already been approved by the Maliki cabinet, is designed to hand over control of Iraq's rich hydrocarbon deposits to foreign — read American — companies through production sharing agreements that would undoubtedly favour the foreign partner than Iraq itself. Beyond that, it would also accelerate the northern Kurds' campaign for eventual independence once they secure authority to finalise oil agreements with foreign companies on their own.
Many arguments were heard during the House of Representatives debate on the Lee motion, including pointed Republican reminders that the US should be focusing on preventing Al Qaeda from establishing "permanent bases in Iraq and using them to stage terrorist attacks" against the US" and its allies.
Proponents of that argument are basing themselves on a wrong footing. As long as the US maintains a military presence in Iraq, it would continue to attract and encourage anti-US militants to inflict as much damage as possible on the American forces. The militants would be deprived of their main raison d'être if there is no American military presence in Iraq. If anything, one of the beneficiaries of the US military presence in Iraq is Al Qaeda itself, which is finding itself being offered US targets right in the region.
Another Republican argument is that there is no such thing as "permanent" US bases outside US territory since such facilities are subject to agreements with the host countries.
All that it needs to deflate that argument is the fact that the US is maintaining military bases in South Korea for more than 54 years, and there is no sign of the American forces leaving the Korean Peninsula. The motivations and reasoning might be different but "permanent" military bases are anything but what they are.
Of course, last week's House of Representatives vote was the latest in a series of Democratic moves against the Republican administration after the Democrats eliminated the latter's dominance of Congress in last year's elections.
Surely, we would be hearing a lot more from the Democrats. As the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, put it, the Democrats are determined to "go on record — every day if necessary — to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the president is taking in Iraq."
Given that there is little chance of the Bush administration moving to withdraw the US military from Iraq, the world would be watching closely how the Democrats would live up to their anti-war declarations and promises when, as widely expected, when they gain control of the White House in 2009.
Words and deeds are different things
Last week's vote by the US House of Representatives preventing creation of permanent US military bases in Iraq and to bar US control of Iraqi oil was a strong blow to the core of the Bush administration's strategic objectives in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The motion, presented by Democrat Representative Barbara Lee of Oakland, is indeed the strongest sign yet of congressional opposition to maintaining American forces in foreign soil. At the same time, it also puts the Republicans on the spot with little option but to adopt a similar position.
The move might or might not be binding on the administration, which could use the Senate to scale down its impact. And we could expect a lot of Democrat-Republican wrangling not only on this issue but also many other aspects of the US military presence in Iraq.
But the political message is clear: The US has no business to seek a long-term presence in Iraq and the administration should not be a proxy for American oil companies to take control of Iraq's oil.
It is known that the US is building several huge military bases in Iraq with a view to keeping a 50,000-75,000-strong rapid deployment force ready to intervene anywhere in the Middle East against whatever Washington would see as detrimental to its strategic interests in the region. The massive US embassy that is being built on the banks of the River Tigris in Baghdad is an emphatic statement that the US intends to dig in its heels in Iraq.
Washington is also applying intense pressure on the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to persuade parliament to take up and endorse a draft legislation on the country's oil. The proposed bill, which has already been approved by the Maliki cabinet, is designed to hand over control of Iraq's rich hydrocarbon deposits to foreign — read American — companies through production sharing agreements that would undoubtedly favour the foreign partner than Iraq itself. Beyond that, it would also accelerate the northern Kurds' campaign for eventual independence once they secure authority to finalise oil agreements with foreign companies on their own.
Many arguments were heard during the House of Representatives debate on the Lee motion, including pointed Republican reminders that the US should be focusing on preventing Al Qaeda from establishing "permanent bases in Iraq and using them to stage terrorist attacks" against the US" and its allies.
Proponents of that argument are basing themselves on a wrong footing. As long as the US maintains a military presence in Iraq, it would continue to attract and encourage anti-US militants to inflict as much damage as possible on the American forces. The militants would be deprived of their main raison d'être if there is no American military presence in Iraq. If anything, one of the beneficiaries of the US military presence in Iraq is Al Qaeda itself, which is finding itself being offered US targets right in the region.
Another Republican argument is that there is no such thing as "permanent" US bases outside US territory since such facilities are subject to agreements with the host countries.
All that it needs to deflate that argument is the fact that the US is maintaining military bases in South Korea for more than 54 years, and there is no sign of the American forces leaving the Korean Peninsula. The motivations and reasoning might be different but "permanent" military bases are anything but what they are.
Of course, last week's House of Representatives vote was the latest in a series of Democratic moves against the Republican administration after the Democrats eliminated the latter's dominance of Congress in last year's elections.
Surely, we would be hearing a lot more from the Democrats. As the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, put it, the Democrats are determined to "go on record — every day if necessary — to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the president is taking in Iraq."
Given that there is little chance of the Bush administration moving to withdraw the US military from Iraq, the world would be watching closely how the Democrats would live up to their anti-war declarations and promises when, as widely expected, when they gain control of the White House in 2009.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
ABCD of making peace in Palestine
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.
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.
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.
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}