Iran off US hook for now,
but not the Israeli gunsight
by pv vivekanand
NORTH Korea's nuclear test has caught the US in a bind vis a-vis Iran. Washington has not ruled out military action against North Korea as a punitive measure for its defiance of international calls against going nuclear, but it is doubtful that the US would take that extreme step because of the ambiguity over whether the North Koreans do have nuclear weapons. If they do, then it is a certainty that they would use them against US allies in the neighbourhood if the US launches military action against them, and that in itself is its strongest deterrent.
With such constraints being imposed on its options, the Bush administration finds itself restrained from going ahead with plans to launch military action against Iran in the name of Tehran's refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment. The reason is simple: If the US insists on its hard line against any country outside the exclusive nuclear club that seeks to develop nuclear weapons, then the first candidate is North Korea since it has already conducted a test and has made no secret of its intention to acquire nuclear weapons. It is taken for granted that North Korea does have the ability to produce nuclear weapons and it might already have between four and 13 atomic weapons if some experts' assessments are correct. Others say North Korea is at least one year away from a nuclear bomb.
The "case" against North Korea is proved, and it is far stronger than the Iranian case because Pyongyang has opted out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) while Iran has retained its status a signatory to the NPT. The world knows that the case against Iran is based on assumptions. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not been able to come up with concrete charges against Iran.
Tehran has played its cards right, and it was an ace that it dealt on Monday by calling for a nuclear-weapons free world following the North Korean nuclear test.
Therefore, the US has to launch military action against North Korea — which is indeed a high-risk proposition to the US friends like Japan and South Korea — before it goes ahead with plans to eliminate or at least set back Iran's "suspicious" nuclear activities through military strikes.
Ironically, one way out of the deadlock is to establish that North Korea did not really conduct a nuclear test and has not reached a level in its nuclear programme to pose a genuine threat.
However, regional and international monitoring stations have affirmed that North Korea did conduct a nuclear test some 2,000 metres underground. As such, the US option of discrediting the North Korean claim has been set back.
South Korean monitors were first to report seismic activity in the area measuring 3.58 on the Richter scale, while the US Geological Survey recorded a 4.2-magnitude earthquake.
Russia has reported that the testing produced an explosion between five and 15 kilotons and that it was indeed nuclear in nature.
The angry Chinese reaction to the North Korean action is telling since Beijing is best placed to establish the authenticity of Pyongyang's claim.
These affirmations have not stopped US strategists trying an attempt by raising doubts whether the seismic event recorded in North Hamgyung province about 350 kilometres north-east of Pyongyang was indeed caused by a nuclear device.
If it is proved to be a dud, then it gets the US off the hook of having to act against North Korea before turning to Iran. Again, the US faces a firm Chinese stand against the military option.
In the meantime, Washington has to put up with humiliation that is emanating from bold North Korean statements and also faces pressure to end its painful crackdown on North Korean finances and finally agree to one-on-one negotiations, a demand that the US has consistently rejected if only because it would mean facing North Korean demands for a non-aggression pledge.
North Korea is cranking up the ratchet by suggesting that it only return to six-country talks to end its nuclear development if Washington made concessions.
"We are still willing to abandon nuclear programmes and return to six-party talks ... if the United States takes corresponding measures," a North Korean spokesman said on Tuesday.
However, the spokesman also talked tough. He said Pyongyang was prepared to put nuclear warheads on missiles and conduct additional nuclear tests "depending on how the situation develops."
Instead of making concessions, the US and Japan are pushing the UN Security Council to clamp harsh sanctions on North Korea. A US-drafted resolution calls for international inspections of North Korea’s incoming and outgoing cargoes, a freeze on transfers of materials and technology for military purposes and a ban on luxury goods. Japan wants a ban on North Korean ships and planes from all ports if they carried nuclear or ballistic missile-related materials. South Korea may also review its “sunshine policy” of engagement with the North.
Such a tough approach has Israel worried because it would only intensify the confrontation in Asia while the Israeli priority is Iran and wants the US to "take out" Iranian nuclear installations as prelude to possible wider action for "regime change" in Tehran to suit Israeli interests. Israeli experts have stepped into the fray by suggesting that it has not been confirmed that a nuclear test took place and that North Korea probably has enough fissile material to make six to eight nuclear bombs but lacks the technology to make one small enough to mount on a missile.
They assert that Tehran is using "the current climate of international passivity" to push ahead with its nuclear activities. They have accused China of supplying Iran with nuclear materials, and technology and advanced centrifuges, as well as technology for sophisticated weapons and missile systems.
The Israelis would rather have the US engage North Korea in dialogue than confronting it because confrontation means eventual US military action while the Iranian threat — as Israel perceives it — continues to grow.
Parallel to the thinking is the possibility of Israeli military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. In fact, the possibility has grown in the wake of the unfolding events in the Korean Peninsula.
A revealing Israeli report says: "There is still a short time left to take action before Israelis wake up one morning — as did North Koreans and Japanese on Monday, Oct. 9 — to find they ware living under a dark nuclear shadow; but, only for Israel a nuclear Iran will be less a shadow than a mortal threat to its very existence."
Does one have to read between the lines?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
No longer a Turkish bluff
Oct.10, 2007
No longer a Turkish bluff
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not bluffing when he says his government has authorised the military to take whatever measures as it deems fit, including a military incursion in northern Iraq , as part of stepped up measures against Kurdish rebel bases in the region.
The move came after the Erdogan government came under renewed pressure from the public following the killing of 15 Turkish soldiers by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are waging an cross-border insurgency from their bases located in northern Iraq.
The problem has been brewing for some time now, with Turkey issuing repeated warnings that it would not hesitate to stage military operations across the border in order to eliminate the PKK threat.
Iraqi Kurds, who have close relations with the US, have warned Turkey against any such incursion, but they are not seen to be effecively moving against the PKK in order to address the Turkish concerns.
The Washington response to the latest Turkish declaration was a reaffirmation that the US is committed to working with Turkey and Iraq to combat the PKK. But the US admnistration would not comment specifically on whether it would support Turkey authorising a possible incursion into northern Iraq.
Washington has its own considerations in northern Iraq, where it has indirect links with Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the mountainous Iraq-Iran border area through the PKK. It would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the Tehran regime at the right time, and a Turkish operation in northern Iraq would seriously dent the alliance.
Indeed, the US is caught in a bind. It cannot afford to have any destabilisation of the northern Kurdish regions of Iraq, but that is precisely what would happen if Turkish soldiers were to cross the border. It is highly unlikely that Turkey would limit its operations to the PKK if it orders it military across the border. Ankara would definitely like to cut down to size the Iraqi Kurds — who run their autonomous region without any interference from Baghdad while pursuing their ambitions of independent statehood in Kurdistan.
Kurdish independence is anathema to Turkey in view of its own Kurdish insurgency and separatist ambitions.
Indeed, the confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey is coming to a head-on clash by the end of the year when a referendum will decide the status of the oil-rich Kirkuk area. Ankara, which says it is determined to protect the interests of the nearly two million Turkomen population in the area, has cautioned against conducting the referendum and charged that the Kurds have changed the demography in order to secure the out of the plebscite in their favour.
No matter how we look at it, any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq would have serious destabilisation effects in the already volatile area. We would only hope that cool heads and moderation would prevail on all sides since the end losers would be the ordinary people living in the border region.
No longer a Turkish bluff
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not bluffing when he says his government has authorised the military to take whatever measures as it deems fit, including a military incursion in northern Iraq , as part of stepped up measures against Kurdish rebel bases in the region.
The move came after the Erdogan government came under renewed pressure from the public following the killing of 15 Turkish soldiers by the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are waging an cross-border insurgency from their bases located in northern Iraq.
The problem has been brewing for some time now, with Turkey issuing repeated warnings that it would not hesitate to stage military operations across the border in order to eliminate the PKK threat.
Iraqi Kurds, who have close relations with the US, have warned Turkey against any such incursion, but they are not seen to be effecively moving against the PKK in order to address the Turkish concerns.
The Washington response to the latest Turkish declaration was a reaffirmation that the US is committed to working with Turkey and Iraq to combat the PKK. But the US admnistration would not comment specifically on whether it would support Turkey authorising a possible incursion into northern Iraq.
Washington has its own considerations in northern Iraq, where it has indirect links with Iranian Kurdish dissidents in the mountainous Iraq-Iran border area through the PKK. It would like to use the Iranian Kurds against the Tehran regime at the right time, and a Turkish operation in northern Iraq would seriously dent the alliance.
Indeed, the US is caught in a bind. It cannot afford to have any destabilisation of the northern Kurdish regions of Iraq, but that is precisely what would happen if Turkish soldiers were to cross the border. It is highly unlikely that Turkey would limit its operations to the PKK if it orders it military across the border. Ankara would definitely like to cut down to size the Iraqi Kurds — who run their autonomous region without any interference from Baghdad while pursuing their ambitions of independent statehood in Kurdistan.
Kurdish independence is anathema to Turkey in view of its own Kurdish insurgency and separatist ambitions.
Indeed, the confrontation between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey is coming to a head-on clash by the end of the year when a referendum will decide the status of the oil-rich Kirkuk area. Ankara, which says it is determined to protect the interests of the nearly two million Turkomen population in the area, has cautioned against conducting the referendum and charged that the Kurds have changed the demography in order to secure the out of the plebscite in their favour.
No matter how we look at it, any Turkish incursion into northern Iraq would have serious destabilisation effects in the already volatile area. We would only hope that cool heads and moderation would prevail on all sides since the end losers would be the ordinary people living in the border region.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
A shift towards the right course
October 9, 2007
A shift towards the right course
Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon's statement that the Israeli government would support sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians and might also consider allowing some Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homeland indicates a shift in the Israeli position.
Given than Ramon is a close confidant of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, his comment that Israel cannot miss the opportunity presented by the upcoming US-sponsored conference to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians should be seen as reflecting the Israeli government's thinking.
An equally signifcant part of Ramon's comment came when he said even the hawkish elements of the Israeli coalition government, like cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party, would go along with such an Israeli "concession."
Couple that with hawkish cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's affirmation that he would be ready to relinquish control of some Arab East Jerusalem areas to the Palestinians ÑÊbut not Jewish settlements in the West Bank and we can see that a new thought has emerged in Israeli thinking.
On the issue of Palestinian refugees, Ramon stated that Israel would in a "humanitarian gesture" consider permitting some Palestinian refugees to return to areas now under the control of Israel, but not agree to a large-scale return, he said.
"There is no debate in Israel that Israel will not take responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian refugees," Ramon said. "If a Palestinian refugee asks us on the basis of sympathy and grace to return we will debate this and we will not rule this out."
Ramon's comment on Jerusalem was also clear. "If we reach a deal with the Palestinians, the Arab World and the international community according to which the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem will be recognised as the capital of Israel and the Arab neighbourhoods as part of the Arab capital." This concept was what was once advocated by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Defining the Jewish and Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem could indeed pose a serious problem, particularly when it comes to some of the holiest places there and the steady Jewish encroachment into Arab areas of the Holy City since 1967. However, compromises could be and would be found if only because the Palestinians and Israelis would have put a long of things behind them and built enough confidence between them to reach a point where they are discussing the demographic and geographic features of Jerusalem with a view to working out a solution to the dispute.
Ramon's statements, if they are presented as formal proposals in actual good faith negotiations with the Palestinians, could be seen as Israel's opening gambit. They do fall short of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim demands, but they do indicate an Israeli shift towards the right course for peace in the region by recognising that the Jewish state could not hope to successfully dictate terms to the Arabs and have things its own way.
A shift towards the right course
Deputy Prime Minister Haim Ramon's statement that the Israeli government would support sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians and might also consider allowing some Palestinian refugees to return to their ancestral homeland indicates a shift in the Israeli position.
Given than Ramon is a close confidant of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, his comment that Israel cannot miss the opportunity presented by the upcoming US-sponsored conference to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians should be seen as reflecting the Israeli government's thinking.
An equally signifcant part of Ramon's comment came when he said even the hawkish elements of the Israeli coalition government, like cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu Party, would go along with such an Israeli "concession."
Couple that with hawkish cabinet minister Avigdor Lieberman's affirmation that he would be ready to relinquish control of some Arab East Jerusalem areas to the Palestinians ÑÊbut not Jewish settlements in the West Bank and we can see that a new thought has emerged in Israeli thinking.
On the issue of Palestinian refugees, Ramon stated that Israel would in a "humanitarian gesture" consider permitting some Palestinian refugees to return to areas now under the control of Israel, but not agree to a large-scale return, he said.
"There is no debate in Israel that Israel will not take responsibility for the fate of the Palestinian refugees," Ramon said. "If a Palestinian refugee asks us on the basis of sympathy and grace to return we will debate this and we will not rule this out."
Ramon's comment on Jerusalem was also clear. "If we reach a deal with the Palestinians, the Arab World and the international community according to which the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem will be recognised as the capital of Israel and the Arab neighbourhoods as part of the Arab capital." This concept was what was once advocated by the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
Defining the Jewish and Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem could indeed pose a serious problem, particularly when it comes to some of the holiest places there and the steady Jewish encroachment into Arab areas of the Holy City since 1967. However, compromises could be and would be found if only because the Palestinians and Israelis would have put a long of things behind them and built enough confidence between them to reach a point where they are discussing the demographic and geographic features of Jerusalem with a view to working out a solution to the dispute.
Ramon's statements, if they are presented as formal proposals in actual good faith negotiations with the Palestinians, could be seen as Israel's opening gambit. They do fall short of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim demands, but they do indicate an Israeli shift towards the right course for peace in the region by recognising that the Jewish state could not hope to successfully dictate terms to the Arabs and have things its own way.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Of Democrats and twisted hopes
Oct.1, 2007
Of Democrats and twisted hopes
by pv vivekanand
IT was with great jubiliation and fanfare that many within the US and around the world greeted the Democratic victory in last year's mid-term congressional elections in which the party gained "control" of both houses of the US legislature. They expected the Democrats to move swiftly to put an end to the US military presence in Iraq if only to avoid further loss of American lives and resources in the chaotic country — essentially ending the war.
Today, nearly one year later, we find not only that the Democrats have failed to end the war in Iraq but also that they have set the ground for a new war in the region, this time targeting Iran.
That is what the Democrats led by senators like Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer did when they voted in favour of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment" which in effect is the forerunner of a declaration of war against Iran disguised as a congressional move.
The amendment calls on the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a "foreign terrorist organisation . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
The amendment clears the way for placing sanctions on individual Iranian officials, but more significantly, it would gives the president extraordinary leeway in going after the Revolutionary Guards Corps militarily. It implictly authorises him to unilaterally wage war with Iran without seeking any further congressional authorisation. The operative argument here is that the amendment already grants the president the authority to go after "terrorists."
The "authorisation" goes hand-in-hand with the behind-the-scene build-up to war against Iran that seems to have reached an advanced stage.
According to Newsweek, David Wurmser, a former senior adviser to US Vice-President Dick Cheney, had told fellow neo-conservatives that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. The intention, it was said, would be to provoke a reaction from Tehran that would help justify wider US air strikes, according to Newsweek.
On the diplomatic front, the Sunday Telegraph reported this week that the Bush adminstration has told its diplomats at the UN to begin "searching for things that Iran has done wrong." The order is remniscent of the build-up to the war against Iraq, and one could easily expect intelligence reports to be tailored to suit the purpose of strengthening the call for military action against Iran.
The administration has also shifted gears. Its argument for action against Iran was Tehran's controversial nuclear programme, but the focus is now shifted to alleged Iranian support — training, arming and financing — for insurgents killing US soldiers in Iraq. Obviously, the administration has realised that the American people are not convinced that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to mainland America, and the argument that the US has to take action against any party or country killing American soldiers is a relatively easier sell to the public.
Surely, the Democrats must be aware of what is happening in the military and diplomatic corridors and realise that the US is edging closer to yet another catastrophe in the Middle East.
It might be easier to understand why the Democrats could not really make a difference to the Bush administration's determination to pursue a non-existent military option in Iraq. The Democrats have a simple majority in both houses of congress but that is not enough to counter administration decisions and the presidential veto power.
However, it is strange that the Democrats, having closely watched the way the US got drawn deep into the Iraq quagmire after a war that was launched on deceptive grounds, could allow themselves to be party to authorising another war that promises to be all the more ferocious with unpredictable consequences.
The only explanation is that the reach of the powerful neoconservative camp is not limited to the Republicans. Equally important is the Israeli element in the US-Iran equation. The US Congress, whether Republican- or Democrat-led, has always been an ardent Israel supporter.
All it takes is a quick glance at how emphatically Senator Joseph R. Biden, a Democrat from Delware, stated his commitment to Israel, calling the country "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East."
"I am a Zionist," he said. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."
Conventional wisdom dictates that the US would not want to get involved in yet another military conflict in the Middle East while it grapples with the Iraq crisis and the elusive hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. It has 155,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan, and the bulk of them are vulnerable — if not sitting ducks — for Iranian retaliation for any military strike, whether Israeli or US.
The repurcussions of a military conflict involving Iran would be too serious for the international oil market to handle and the consequences of a record shoot-up of oil prices would be devastating to the American currency and thus the US economy.
There are many other dreadful scenarios pursuant to a US-led military strike against Iran, and no one in the region wants even to think of them.
However, the Bush administration's track record shows that it cannot be expected to apply conventional wisdom, and that means military action against Iran regardless of the consequences.
The Democrats must but be aware of all these considerations and still they went ahead with granting the administration the green signal for military action against Iran.
But then, that line of thought is based on the assumption that the Democrats must be opposed to the Iraq war. The rug is pulled from under that assumption when we note how the three main presidential hopefuls replied to a question during a recent public debate among themselves.
The question put to the Democratic presidential hopefuls — including frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards — by moderator Tim Russert was whether they were committed to withdrawing American soldiers from Iraq: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no US troops in Iraq?"
Well, none of the three would undertake that pledge. They argued that it was difficult to predict what could happen in the next four or five years.
That much for our assumption that the Democrats are a committed anti-war party, and out through the window goes our hope that a "regime change" in Washington through the 2008 presidential elections would lead to an end to the crisis in Iraq and a major positive shift in the belligerent American posture and approach that we have seen since the day George W Bush Junior entered the White House in 2001.
Of Democrats and twisted hopes
by pv vivekanand
IT was with great jubiliation and fanfare that many within the US and around the world greeted the Democratic victory in last year's mid-term congressional elections in which the party gained "control" of both houses of the US legislature. They expected the Democrats to move swiftly to put an end to the US military presence in Iraq if only to avoid further loss of American lives and resources in the chaotic country — essentially ending the war.
Today, nearly one year later, we find not only that the Democrats have failed to end the war in Iraq but also that they have set the ground for a new war in the region, this time targeting Iran.
That is what the Democrats led by senators like Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer did when they voted in favour of the "Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment" which in effect is the forerunner of a declaration of war against Iran disguised as a congressional move.
The amendment calls on the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps as a "foreign terrorist organisation . . . and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
The amendment clears the way for placing sanctions on individual Iranian officials, but more significantly, it would gives the president extraordinary leeway in going after the Revolutionary Guards Corps militarily. It implictly authorises him to unilaterally wage war with Iran without seeking any further congressional authorisation. The operative argument here is that the amendment already grants the president the authority to go after "terrorists."
The "authorisation" goes hand-in-hand with the behind-the-scene build-up to war against Iran that seems to have reached an advanced stage.
According to Newsweek, David Wurmser, a former senior adviser to US Vice-President Dick Cheney, had told fellow neo-conservatives that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. The intention, it was said, would be to provoke a reaction from Tehran that would help justify wider US air strikes, according to Newsweek.
On the diplomatic front, the Sunday Telegraph reported this week that the Bush adminstration has told its diplomats at the UN to begin "searching for things that Iran has done wrong." The order is remniscent of the build-up to the war against Iraq, and one could easily expect intelligence reports to be tailored to suit the purpose of strengthening the call for military action against Iran.
The administration has also shifted gears. Its argument for action against Iran was Tehran's controversial nuclear programme, but the focus is now shifted to alleged Iranian support — training, arming and financing — for insurgents killing US soldiers in Iraq. Obviously, the administration has realised that the American people are not convinced that a nuclear Iran poses a threat to mainland America, and the argument that the US has to take action against any party or country killing American soldiers is a relatively easier sell to the public.
Surely, the Democrats must be aware of what is happening in the military and diplomatic corridors and realise that the US is edging closer to yet another catastrophe in the Middle East.
It might be easier to understand why the Democrats could not really make a difference to the Bush administration's determination to pursue a non-existent military option in Iraq. The Democrats have a simple majority in both houses of congress but that is not enough to counter administration decisions and the presidential veto power.
However, it is strange that the Democrats, having closely watched the way the US got drawn deep into the Iraq quagmire after a war that was launched on deceptive grounds, could allow themselves to be party to authorising another war that promises to be all the more ferocious with unpredictable consequences.
The only explanation is that the reach of the powerful neoconservative camp is not limited to the Republicans. Equally important is the Israeli element in the US-Iran equation. The US Congress, whether Republican- or Democrat-led, has always been an ardent Israel supporter.
All it takes is a quick glance at how emphatically Senator Joseph R. Biden, a Democrat from Delware, stated his commitment to Israel, calling the country "the single greatest strength America has in the Middle East."
"I am a Zionist," he said. "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."
Conventional wisdom dictates that the US would not want to get involved in yet another military conflict in the Middle East while it grapples with the Iraq crisis and the elusive hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan. It has 155,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan, and the bulk of them are vulnerable — if not sitting ducks — for Iranian retaliation for any military strike, whether Israeli or US.
The repurcussions of a military conflict involving Iran would be too serious for the international oil market to handle and the consequences of a record shoot-up of oil prices would be devastating to the American currency and thus the US economy.
There are many other dreadful scenarios pursuant to a US-led military strike against Iran, and no one in the region wants even to think of them.
However, the Bush administration's track record shows that it cannot be expected to apply conventional wisdom, and that means military action against Iran regardless of the consequences.
The Democrats must but be aware of all these considerations and still they went ahead with granting the administration the green signal for military action against Iran.
But then, that line of thought is based on the assumption that the Democrats must be opposed to the Iraq war. The rug is pulled from under that assumption when we note how the three main presidential hopefuls replied to a question during a recent public debate among themselves.
The question put to the Democratic presidential hopefuls — including frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John Edwards — by moderator Tim Russert was whether they were committed to withdrawing American soldiers from Iraq: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term more than five years from now, there will be no US troops in Iraq?"
Well, none of the three would undertake that pledge. They argued that it was difficult to predict what could happen in the next four or five years.
That much for our assumption that the Democrats are a committed anti-war party, and out through the window goes our hope that a "regime change" in Washington through the 2008 presidential elections would lead to an end to the crisis in Iraq and a major positive shift in the belligerent American posture and approach that we have seen since the day George W Bush Junior entered the White House in 2001.
Not a piece of real estate
Oct.1, 2007
Not a piece of real estate to be split
THEY CAME, they saw, they conquered and now they want to divide it. We don't know it for sure yet whether splitting Iraq into three ethnic entities was part of the Bush administration's ulterior objectives when it ordered the invasion of that country in 2003, but we do know that the move spells catastrophe for the people of Iraq and the entire Middle East region.
Since the first Gulf war in 1991, the region's leaders had repeatedly cautioned the US against invading Iraq because they had foreseen the consequences of such action. However, the US, which was determined to eliminate Iraq as a potential threat to Israel and which always wanted absolute control of a country with enough hydrocarbon resources to ensure American energy security, was in no mood to listen. It went ahead with the invasion and occupied Iraq. As a result, it is now caught in the jaws of a crisis that it would never be able to solve while keeping intact its strategic geopolitical interests in the region.
The pro-Israeli neoconservative hawks in Washington are aware that the US has lost the war in Iraq, but it matters to little to them because their first priority is to serve Israeli interests even it comes at the expense of American national interests. They would never concede in public that the US stands no chance of pacifying and stabilising Iraq while it maintains its military occupation of the country, or, more specifically, that the US presence is at the root of the problem in Iraq.
And now we have US senators successfully pushing through the Senate a resolution calling for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia.
No doubt, Senator Joseph R Biden Jr, a Democrat from Delaware who led the initiative, has as much in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of Iraq and the broader Middle East as someone from the North Pole would have about running a space station.
Indeed, there could be hidden influences and powers at play behind the Senate resolution. We could think of at least one group in Iraq which has set its eyes on independent statehood for themselves and that group is hoping to gain control of the bulk of oil reserves in the country. We also know that many American politicians have close ties with the American oil establishment.
Whether influenced by vested interests or otherwise, Biden and likeminded US politicians are trying to find a solution to the American problem at the expense of the people of Iraq. They are overlooking that Iraq did not create the problem for the US but their own political and administrative leadership did. No one invited the US to invade Iraq, but it did so on its own will and landed in boiling waters. Regardless of the intensity of the problems they face in Iraq, the US political establishment has the moral responsibility and is bound by international conventions and charters not to tamper the territorial intergrity and demographic features of the country. They have no right whatsoever to even suggest that the country be divided on whatever basis.
In simpler terms, US politicians badly need to accept and respect the fact that the American military occupation of Iraq does not mean that the country has become part of their ancestral property that could be disposed off as they find fit. They have to produce an exit strategy on their own without pushing Iraq into further chaos and worsening the regional instability. They have to recognise that the US military presence in Iraq is the problem and should be worrying about how to bring home their soldiers rather than setting the ground for the disintegration of the country.
Not a piece of real estate to be split
THEY CAME, they saw, they conquered and now they want to divide it. We don't know it for sure yet whether splitting Iraq into three ethnic entities was part of the Bush administration's ulterior objectives when it ordered the invasion of that country in 2003, but we do know that the move spells catastrophe for the people of Iraq and the entire Middle East region.
Since the first Gulf war in 1991, the region's leaders had repeatedly cautioned the US against invading Iraq because they had foreseen the consequences of such action. However, the US, which was determined to eliminate Iraq as a potential threat to Israel and which always wanted absolute control of a country with enough hydrocarbon resources to ensure American energy security, was in no mood to listen. It went ahead with the invasion and occupied Iraq. As a result, it is now caught in the jaws of a crisis that it would never be able to solve while keeping intact its strategic geopolitical interests in the region.
The pro-Israeli neoconservative hawks in Washington are aware that the US has lost the war in Iraq, but it matters to little to them because their first priority is to serve Israeli interests even it comes at the expense of American national interests. They would never concede in public that the US stands no chance of pacifying and stabilising Iraq while it maintains its military occupation of the country, or, more specifically, that the US presence is at the root of the problem in Iraq.
And now we have US senators successfully pushing through the Senate a resolution calling for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia.
No doubt, Senator Joseph R Biden Jr, a Democrat from Delaware who led the initiative, has as much in-depth knowledge of the intricacies of Iraq and the broader Middle East as someone from the North Pole would have about running a space station.
Indeed, there could be hidden influences and powers at play behind the Senate resolution. We could think of at least one group in Iraq which has set its eyes on independent statehood for themselves and that group is hoping to gain control of the bulk of oil reserves in the country. We also know that many American politicians have close ties with the American oil establishment.
Whether influenced by vested interests or otherwise, Biden and likeminded US politicians are trying to find a solution to the American problem at the expense of the people of Iraq. They are overlooking that Iraq did not create the problem for the US but their own political and administrative leadership did. No one invited the US to invade Iraq, but it did so on its own will and landed in boiling waters. Regardless of the intensity of the problems they face in Iraq, the US political establishment has the moral responsibility and is bound by international conventions and charters not to tamper the territorial intergrity and demographic features of the country. They have no right whatsoever to even suggest that the country be divided on whatever basis.
In simpler terms, US politicians badly need to accept and respect the fact that the American military occupation of Iraq does not mean that the country has become part of their ancestral property that could be disposed off as they find fit. They have to produce an exit strategy on their own without pushing Iraq into further chaos and worsening the regional instability. They have to recognise that the US military presence in Iraq is the problem and should be worrying about how to bring home their soldiers rather than setting the ground for the disintegration of the country.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Deception has a negative fallout
Sept.23, 2007
Deception has a negative fallout
The UN has exposed that Israel has been lying to to the United States, to the European Union, to the UN itself and the rest of the world when it proclaimed that it would ease its stranglehold on the West Bank as a measure to improve the air for negotiations with the Palestinians.
It promised everyone that it would reduce the number of roadblocks in the West Bank. What it did in practice was to add more roadblocks that help strengthen its control of the movements of Palestinians within the occupied territories, according to the United Nations.
While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the promise to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, buoyed by a similar pledge by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, assured Abbas that Israel was to remove at least 24 roadblocks and adopt some measures to alleviate the restrictions on movement of Palestinians.
Today, according to a report in Israel's Haartez newspaper, there are 572 Israeli-controlled roadblocks in the West Bank compared with 376 in August 2005, and this has been recorded by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which also says that in the past two months alone, Israel put up 40 new roadblocks.
The UN agency did note that Israel Israel did away with 29 barricade in the Hebron region, but it put up 48 new roadblocks, mostly embankments preventing access to various roads.
Nearly 500 of the roadblocks are unmanned structures, mostly consisting of concrete cubes, earthen embankments and other barricades blocking roads and exits from villages and towns, the report notes.
The figures cited in the UN report do not include Israeli checkpoints on the "Green Line" — the frontier that the Jewish state controlled ast the time of the 1967 war when it occupied the West Bank.
The Israeli deception has serious repercussions on the ability of Abbas to muster support from the Palestinians ranks for peace talks that are expected to be given a boost at the US-proposed Middle East conference later this year. It was on the basis of the promises made by Olmert and the reassurance given by the US that Abbas had promised his people that the Israeli stranglehold on their lives would be eased soon. Now, not only that Israel did not keep its promise but it also made life more difficult for the Palestinians, many of whom have to travel through detours for hours for a trip that should normally take about 20 or 30 minutes.
Instead of shoring up Abbas and boosting his standing, Israel has actually done him harm, and the paradox is that Olmert still expects him to secure majority support from the Palestinian constituency for peace negotiations.
The UN is helpless to do anything about the situation, particularly that the US would not only reject any contemplated action against Israel for its blatant violations of UN resolutions but also offer the Jewish state an all-embracing protective umbrella against international action.
And still the world expects the US-proposed conference to produce a fair and just process to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If anytihing, Palestinian frustration and bitterness would only grow into increased militancy as a result of the Israeli failure to keep it promises.
Deception has a negative fallout
The UN has exposed that Israel has been lying to to the United States, to the European Union, to the UN itself and the rest of the world when it proclaimed that it would ease its stranglehold on the West Bank as a measure to improve the air for negotiations with the Palestinians.
It promised everyone that it would reduce the number of roadblocks in the West Bank. What it did in practice was to add more roadblocks that help strengthen its control of the movements of Palestinians within the occupied territories, according to the United Nations.
While Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made the promise to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, buoyed by a similar pledge by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, assured Abbas that Israel was to remove at least 24 roadblocks and adopt some measures to alleviate the restrictions on movement of Palestinians.
Today, according to a report in Israel's Haartez newspaper, there are 572 Israeli-controlled roadblocks in the West Bank compared with 376 in August 2005, and this has been recorded by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which also says that in the past two months alone, Israel put up 40 new roadblocks.
The UN agency did note that Israel Israel did away with 29 barricade in the Hebron region, but it put up 48 new roadblocks, mostly embankments preventing access to various roads.
Nearly 500 of the roadblocks are unmanned structures, mostly consisting of concrete cubes, earthen embankments and other barricades blocking roads and exits from villages and towns, the report notes.
The figures cited in the UN report do not include Israeli checkpoints on the "Green Line" — the frontier that the Jewish state controlled ast the time of the 1967 war when it occupied the West Bank.
The Israeli deception has serious repercussions on the ability of Abbas to muster support from the Palestinians ranks for peace talks that are expected to be given a boost at the US-proposed Middle East conference later this year. It was on the basis of the promises made by Olmert and the reassurance given by the US that Abbas had promised his people that the Israeli stranglehold on their lives would be eased soon. Now, not only that Israel did not keep its promise but it also made life more difficult for the Palestinians, many of whom have to travel through detours for hours for a trip that should normally take about 20 or 30 minutes.
Instead of shoring up Abbas and boosting his standing, Israel has actually done him harm, and the paradox is that Olmert still expects him to secure majority support from the Palestinian constituency for peace negotiations.
The UN is helpless to do anything about the situation, particularly that the US would not only reject any contemplated action against Israel for its blatant violations of UN resolutions but also offer the Jewish state an all-embracing protective umbrella against international action.
And still the world expects the US-proposed conference to produce a fair and just process to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If anytihing, Palestinian frustration and bitterness would only grow into increased militancy as a result of the Israeli failure to keep it promises.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Part and parce of a pattern
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.
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.
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.
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}