Nov.25, 2007
Not many options at Annapolis
Arab officials are making their way to the United State to attend the US-sponsored Mideast peace talks in Annapolis with a clear message: There would be no normalisation with Israel without a comprehensive peace, and the Annapolis meeting would not be allowed to be turned into a forum where Israel could boast of being formally recognised by the Arab World.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal went to the extent of publicly making it clear that there would be no public handshakes with Israeli officials at the gathering.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Musa, who is leading the first Arab League team to a peace conference with Israel, is in Washington with the message that "there can be no normalisation except in the framework of the Arab peace initiative and in the framework of total peace."
For their part, the key players — Israel, the Palestinians and the US — have said that they would all make a strong effort to make sure that the Annapolis meeting does produce something trangible towards setting the Palestinian problem.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the key Bush administration official who visited the Middle East eight times this year, should know better than anyone else of the prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace, particularly in view of the failure of the two sides to produce a joint statement because of Israel's stubborn positions.
Israel's refusal to commit itself to a binding framework for peace with the Palestinians does not bode well for the success of the meeting. Another negative point is the US failure to make clear even on Sunday whether the Golan Heights on the agenda saying Syria would be free to raise any issue it wants. The US stand implies that Washington would want to assume no role in the Syrian-Israeli context at this point in time. Syria could raise the point, but it is most likely that the US would be cool at best towards the issue.
The only point of reference for the Arabs at this juncture is a US assurance that there would be discussions on a "comprehensive" Arab-Israel peace deal. Rice has also promised that the Annapolis meeting "is going to be a serious and substantive conference that will advance the cause of the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Despite all such statements and assurance, scepticism would not go away. Adding more to the uncertainty are observations by Washington insiders that Rice wants to use the Annapolish meeting to project herself as a peace-seeker and do away with the setback her image suffered as the strongest Bush administration official publicly ruling out a ceasefire during the 34-day Israeli assault on Lebanon last year.
No one expects the meeting to produce an Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The minimum expectation is of a firm framework for Arab-Israeli peace and a clear time-bound course towards final agreement. Hopefully, Rice would live up to her well-known adage that "failure is not an option."
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
World deserves an explanation
Nov.18, 2007
World deserves an explanation
MORE than six years after the Sept.11 attacks in the US, the National Institute for Standards and Technology has admitted that the total free-fall collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers in New York cannot be explained. The admission, which came after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledged that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
The NIST was forced to make the admission in a letter to representatives of victims of the New York air assault. The letter states that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
While a 10,000-page study presents numerous theories about the collapse, it does not provide any clue to how such a strong and reinforced steel structures of the two towers could fall through as if a knife cutting through butter.
The report does not offer any explanation the sudden freefall collapse of a third structure, World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft but collapsed several hours after two airliners rammed into the two World Trade Center towers.
One of the most important findings of the NIST study is that virtually none of the steel in either of the two WTC towers reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees whereas steel starts to weaken at 1,000 degrees and melts at 1,500 degrees.
There are many other technicalities raised in the report, but the net but implicit conclusion that one gets from it is that the collapse of the towers could have come only through explosives of a self-contained scale and nature placed within the structure.
With so many confusing and complex theories still floating as to who, how and why the air assaults, many are likely to brush aside the NIST finding as yet another supposition despite the scentific evidence that rules out the argument that the steel structure simply melted in the blaze caused by aviation fuel and the towers collapsed.
The concerned authorities in the US might not feel compelled to offer any explanation or might even want to avoid offering any at all. After all, they represent the executive authority of the United States of America and the collapse happened in the territory of the USA.
However, given that the Sept.11 attacks triggered an unprecedented course of events which touched the life of everyone on this planet, directly or indirectly, the international community could not but be involved. The US declared a war against terror in the wake of the attacks and the world could not but join the US camp, given the ferocity of the attacks that killed about 2,800 people, the natural sympathy with the victims and a desire to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. The world could not but recognise that the US did have a cause and hence it put up with revelations after revelations of how the sole superpower went after everyone with a vengeance that violated human rights and every known provision in the international code of conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places.
Today, in light of the findings of the NIST that contradict some of the basic premises about the Sept.11 attacks and suggest that internal forces were at work on the ground to complement the assaults from air, the international community has the right to know what really happened. It is unlikely that this right would be acknowledged and respected, but let it go on international record that the world has not swallowed the official version of the Sept.11 attacks that changed the course of world history.
World deserves an explanation
MORE than six years after the Sept.11 attacks in the US, the National Institute for Standards and Technology has admitted that the total free-fall collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers in New York cannot be explained. The admission, which came after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledged that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
The NIST was forced to make the admission in a letter to representatives of victims of the New York air assault. The letter states that "we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
While a 10,000-page study presents numerous theories about the collapse, it does not provide any clue to how such a strong and reinforced steel structures of the two towers could fall through as if a knife cutting through butter.
The report does not offer any explanation the sudden freefall collapse of a third structure, World Trade Center Building 7, which was not hit by any aircraft but collapsed several hours after two airliners rammed into the two World Trade Center towers.
One of the most important findings of the NIST study is that virtually none of the steel in either of the two WTC towers reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees whereas steel starts to weaken at 1,000 degrees and melts at 1,500 degrees.
There are many other technicalities raised in the report, but the net but implicit conclusion that one gets from it is that the collapse of the towers could have come only through explosives of a self-contained scale and nature placed within the structure.
With so many confusing and complex theories still floating as to who, how and why the air assaults, many are likely to brush aside the NIST finding as yet another supposition despite the scentific evidence that rules out the argument that the steel structure simply melted in the blaze caused by aviation fuel and the towers collapsed.
The concerned authorities in the US might not feel compelled to offer any explanation or might even want to avoid offering any at all. After all, they represent the executive authority of the United States of America and the collapse happened in the territory of the USA.
However, given that the Sept.11 attacks triggered an unprecedented course of events which touched the life of everyone on this planet, directly or indirectly, the international community could not but be involved. The US declared a war against terror in the wake of the attacks and the world could not but join the US camp, given the ferocity of the attacks that killed about 2,800 people, the natural sympathy with the victims and a desire to ensure that such atrocities do not happen again. The world could not but recognise that the US did have a cause and hence it put up with revelations after revelations of how the sole superpower went after everyone with a vengeance that violated human rights and every known provision in the international code of conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places.
Today, in light of the findings of the NIST that contradict some of the basic premises about the Sept.11 attacks and suggest that internal forces were at work on the ground to complement the assaults from air, the international community has the right to know what really happened. It is unlikely that this right would be acknowledged and respected, but let it go on international record that the world has not swallowed the official version of the Sept.11 attacks that changed the course of world history.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Bottom lines are clear
Nov.17, 2007
The bottom lines are clear
It is no susprise that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has voiced pessimism about the planned US-sponsored Middle East conference. It is a feeling of many around the world since Israel has not done the minimum it could do to ensure the success of the gathering, which is widely seen as a make-or-break point in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
The Israeli leadership has only talked about their commitment to making peace. They have not really offered anything tangible that would allow Abbas to assure his people that the fresh effort could produce anything realistic for an end to their suffering under Israel's military occupation of their land.
As recent opinion polls have indicated, a majority of Palestinians support the planned conference as a forum where both Israel and the Palestinians not only declare to the world their serious and honest intention to work out a peace agreement but also the framework for such an accord. This should indeed be based on Israel's recognition and acceptance of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians as the basis for peace in Palestine. The Jewish state also has to agree on a timeframe and a deadline for an agreement. The Palestinians and indeed the world have had the experience of seeing Israel loudly proclaiming its seriousness to make peace at the famous 1991 Madrid conference but then do everything in its power to abort a just and fair agreement after a change in its leadership despite that it had signed an interim agreement.
Israel is refusing to make any public commitment on the basis for peace since it believes that it is in a position of strength and therefore it could dictate terms and force the Palestinians to settle far less than their demands in bilateral negotiations. That is one of the key reasons that do not give any reason for the Palestinians to believe that the US-sponsored exercise would be a waste of time.
The stubborn Israeli position is in fact weakening Abbas, who has yet to work out a formula to bring in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, into peacemaking.
Israel and the US should be taking their message from Friday's Hamas-led marc o he deserted Gaza City house of Abbas, warning of stepped-up armed resistance if he makes concessions to Israel at the planned conference. There are many ifs and buts concerning the Hamas stand on peace with Israel, but is clear that the movement would be willing to endorse a peace agreement that does not involve any compromise on the key issues such as Jerusalem and rights of Palestinian refugees.
Again, the onus is on the US, which should step in and put pressure on Israel, obliging it to comply with the terms of reference of the peace process — the internationallyb-backed roadmap, the Arab peace initiative and UN Security Council resolutions. Short of that the Annapolis would accomplish little.
The bottom lines are clear
It is no susprise that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has voiced pessimism about the planned US-sponsored Middle East conference. It is a feeling of many around the world since Israel has not done the minimum it could do to ensure the success of the gathering, which is widely seen as a make-or-break point in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.
The Israeli leadership has only talked about their commitment to making peace. They have not really offered anything tangible that would allow Abbas to assure his people that the fresh effort could produce anything realistic for an end to their suffering under Israel's military occupation of their land.
As recent opinion polls have indicated, a majority of Palestinians support the planned conference as a forum where both Israel and the Palestinians not only declare to the world their serious and honest intention to work out a peace agreement but also the framework for such an accord. This should indeed be based on Israel's recognition and acceptance of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians as the basis for peace in Palestine. The Jewish state also has to agree on a timeframe and a deadline for an agreement. The Palestinians and indeed the world have had the experience of seeing Israel loudly proclaiming its seriousness to make peace at the famous 1991 Madrid conference but then do everything in its power to abort a just and fair agreement after a change in its leadership despite that it had signed an interim agreement.
Israel is refusing to make any public commitment on the basis for peace since it believes that it is in a position of strength and therefore it could dictate terms and force the Palestinians to settle far less than their demands in bilateral negotiations. That is one of the key reasons that do not give any reason for the Palestinians to believe that the US-sponsored exercise would be a waste of time.
The stubborn Israeli position is in fact weakening Abbas, who has yet to work out a formula to bring in the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, into peacemaking.
Israel and the US should be taking their message from Friday's Hamas-led marc o he deserted Gaza City house of Abbas, warning of stepped-up armed resistance if he makes concessions to Israel at the planned conference. There are many ifs and buts concerning the Hamas stand on peace with Israel, but is clear that the movement would be willing to endorse a peace agreement that does not involve any compromise on the key issues such as Jerusalem and rights of Palestinian refugees.
Again, the onus is on the US, which should step in and put pressure on Israel, obliging it to comply with the terms of reference of the peace process — the internationallyb-backed roadmap, the Arab peace initiative and UN Security Council resolutions. Short of that the Annapolis would accomplish little.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Who will blink first?
Nov.16, 2007
Who will blink first in Lebanon?
A LAST-ditch effort is under way to resolve the crisis in Lebanon over who should be the country's next president. The latest to join the effort is UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon after Lebann's powerful Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has been thrust to the forefront of the bitter struggle between pro- and anti-Syrian — or between pro-US and anti-US political camps as some might want to see it.
For long, Sfeir has resisted being drawn into the crisis, but he was persuaded this week by former colonial power France to name presidential candidates. Surely, Sfeir could not remember but his bitter experience of 1988 when he tried to break a similar presidential deadlock by naming five candidates. Syria, the then dominant power in Lebanon, rejected the list. The dispute was eventually settled with a Syrian military assault on the presidential palace two years later.
Indeed, there is no such Syrian compulsion today. Coming under intense US-led pressure Syria has ended its military pressure in the country, and it is high unlikely that Damascus is entertaining any hope of regaining its lost dominance of Lebanon.
However, Syria is very much felt in Lebanese politics; and so do the US and, as such, there is a US compulsion in Lebanon today.
Both Washington and Damascus are accusing each other of interferring in Lebanese affairs but there could be no doubt that the US-Syrian confrontation is linked to the broader crises of the Middle East — the conflict between the Arabs and Israel, a "strategic ally" of the US and the brewing conflict between the US and Iran.
It is into this minefield that Sfeir has been forced to enter. A heavy responsibility that is beyond his call as a religious leader has been thrust onto his shoulders, with the church finding itself in the middle of a dangerous political conflict.
Indeed, it was a relatively better option for France to have thought of the Maronie Patriarchate as the last resort to settle the presidential feud among the country's Christians. However, the fact that the church had to be called in to solve the problem — with no certainty that it would be successful — shows the depth of the political problem.
Neither the US nor Syria would give up their respective positions. As far as Syria and its allies in Lebanon are concerned, the presidential tug-of-war would determine how far Damascus could influence Lebanese politics without maintaining a military presence i Lebanon.
As far as the US and the groups it supports are concerned, it is a matter of establishing that Syria does no longer command any influence of significance in Lebanon, and Israel is playing its own game from the sidelines.
With the Nov.24 presidential deadline fast approaching, all bets are off in Lebanon because the powers that are pulling the strings are very powerful and detemined.
At the same time, it could also turn out to be a question of who will blink first because the stakes are too high and consequences of the crisis left unresolved would be too negative.
Who will blink first in Lebanon?
A LAST-ditch effort is under way to resolve the crisis in Lebanon over who should be the country's next president. The latest to join the effort is UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon after Lebann's powerful Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir has been thrust to the forefront of the bitter struggle between pro- and anti-Syrian — or between pro-US and anti-US political camps as some might want to see it.
For long, Sfeir has resisted being drawn into the crisis, but he was persuaded this week by former colonial power France to name presidential candidates. Surely, Sfeir could not remember but his bitter experience of 1988 when he tried to break a similar presidential deadlock by naming five candidates. Syria, the then dominant power in Lebanon, rejected the list. The dispute was eventually settled with a Syrian military assault on the presidential palace two years later.
Indeed, there is no such Syrian compulsion today. Coming under intense US-led pressure Syria has ended its military pressure in the country, and it is high unlikely that Damascus is entertaining any hope of regaining its lost dominance of Lebanon.
However, Syria is very much felt in Lebanese politics; and so do the US and, as such, there is a US compulsion in Lebanon today.
Both Washington and Damascus are accusing each other of interferring in Lebanese affairs but there could be no doubt that the US-Syrian confrontation is linked to the broader crises of the Middle East — the conflict between the Arabs and Israel, a "strategic ally" of the US and the brewing conflict between the US and Iran.
It is into this minefield that Sfeir has been forced to enter. A heavy responsibility that is beyond his call as a religious leader has been thrust onto his shoulders, with the church finding itself in the middle of a dangerous political conflict.
Indeed, it was a relatively better option for France to have thought of the Maronie Patriarchate as the last resort to settle the presidential feud among the country's Christians. However, the fact that the church had to be called in to solve the problem — with no certainty that it would be successful — shows the depth of the political problem.
Neither the US nor Syria would give up their respective positions. As far as Syria and its allies in Lebanon are concerned, the presidential tug-of-war would determine how far Damascus could influence Lebanese politics without maintaining a military presence i Lebanon.
As far as the US and the groups it supports are concerned, it is a matter of establishing that Syria does no longer command any influence of significance in Lebanon, and Israel is playing its own game from the sidelines.
With the Nov.24 presidential deadline fast approaching, all bets are off in Lebanon because the powers that are pulling the strings are very powerful and detemined.
At the same time, it could also turn out to be a question of who will blink first because the stakes are too high and consequences of the crisis left unresolved would be too negative.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Pakistan - something has to give
THE BATTLELINES in Pakistan have become clear, with detained former premier Benazir Bhutto trying to forge a coalition of opposition parties in an apparent bid to isolate President Pervez Musharraf ahead of elections. Bhutto has demanded that Musharraf to step down as president and ruled out serving as prime minister under the general.
She has also said that she is ready for an alliance with another ex-prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, held telephone talks with former cricket star Imran Khan and agreed with a key Islamist to launch a "joint struggle" against Musharraf.
Musharraf's response is also clear: He intends to pursue his own course in the country and is in no mood to make compromises. He has promised to hold elections but would not lift the state of emergency until then.
However, international pressure is building against him for imposing the state of emergency, suspending the constitution, dismissing most judges, detaining thousands of opposition and rights activists and lawyers and imposing sweeping curbs against the media.
It is clear that Musharraf is determined to stay the course. One of the reasons that might be behind his apparent one-track mind could be the realisation that giving up power and authority would expose him to being held responsible for what the current opposition could perceive and describe actions against the interests of the people. As such, he possibly fears that he faces a bleak future in Pakistan if without power and authority..
Musharraf signalled his determination yet again on Tuesday when he, acting through the foreign ministry, rejected a Commonwealth deadline to end emergency rule in 10 days or face suspension from the group.
Surely, Musharraf should be feeling the heat. He could indeed opt out if he lives up to his pledge that he would step down as army chief and be sworn in as a civilian president as soon as the Supreme Court, where new judges seen as friendly to the government have been appointed, ruled on challenges to his Oct.6 election as president.
It is definitely a stalemate in Pakistan, with neither side willing for compromise as Bhutto emphasised on Tuesday when she ruled out political co-existence with Musharraf.
"Negotiations between us have broken down over the massive use of police force against women and children," Bhutto declared. "There's no question now of getting this back on track because anyone who is associated with General Musharraf gets contaminated," she said.
However, it is no longer a simple political game. The crisis has raised serious international concern about the stability of Pakistan and its ability to sustain its fight against a growing militancy that has its roots in the socio-economic system of the country as much as in the crisis in neighbouring Afghanistan.
Something has to give, and the world wonders what would give and when.
She has also said that she is ready for an alliance with another ex-prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, held telephone talks with former cricket star Imran Khan and agreed with a key Islamist to launch a "joint struggle" against Musharraf.
Musharraf's response is also clear: He intends to pursue his own course in the country and is in no mood to make compromises. He has promised to hold elections but would not lift the state of emergency until then.
However, international pressure is building against him for imposing the state of emergency, suspending the constitution, dismissing most judges, detaining thousands of opposition and rights activists and lawyers and imposing sweeping curbs against the media.
It is clear that Musharraf is determined to stay the course. One of the reasons that might be behind his apparent one-track mind could be the realisation that giving up power and authority would expose him to being held responsible for what the current opposition could perceive and describe actions against the interests of the people. As such, he possibly fears that he faces a bleak future in Pakistan if without power and authority..
Musharraf signalled his determination yet again on Tuesday when he, acting through the foreign ministry, rejected a Commonwealth deadline to end emergency rule in 10 days or face suspension from the group.
Surely, Musharraf should be feeling the heat. He could indeed opt out if he lives up to his pledge that he would step down as army chief and be sworn in as a civilian president as soon as the Supreme Court, where new judges seen as friendly to the government have been appointed, ruled on challenges to his Oct.6 election as president.
It is definitely a stalemate in Pakistan, with neither side willing for compromise as Bhutto emphasised on Tuesday when she ruled out political co-existence with Musharraf.
"Negotiations between us have broken down over the massive use of police force against women and children," Bhutto declared. "There's no question now of getting this back on track because anyone who is associated with General Musharraf gets contaminated," she said.
However, it is no longer a simple political game. The crisis has raised serious international concern about the stability of Pakistan and its ability to sustain its fight against a growing militancy that has its roots in the socio-economic system of the country as much as in the crisis in neighbouring Afghanistan.
Something has to give, and the world wonders what would give and when.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Scratching the surface
Nov.13, 2007
Scratching the surface
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has to do more than releasing a few hundred Palestinians from Israeli jails if he is hoping that his move would be considered as a goodwill gesture to the Palestinians ahead of the US-sponsored conference on the Middle East to be held in Annapolis.
Release of Palestinians from Israeli prisons has always been a key Palestinian demand but there are many other manifestations of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank that have made life miserable for the residents of the territory. Olmert has to address them in a realistic manner in order to have any realistic impact for the people who live under Israel's military occupation.
Olmert might have internal political considerations for not making any concrete moves to lift the choking blockade of the West Bank.But that should not be a reason for him not to honour his commitments. Under US pressure, he had agreed during meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would remove most of the roadblocks maintained by the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and also ease restrictions on Palestinian movements within the occupied territories. It is one of the key points that the Palestinians have in mind when they call upon the US to do whatever is necessary to oblige Olmert to live up to his pledges. The Israeli prime minister should have the courage and will to confront his political problems away from linking them with the effort for peace with the Palestinians.
Indeed, Abbas has to be bolstered among his own people to secure popular support for the decisons that he takes durng the expected peace negotiations with Israel."Goodwill" gestures in bits and pieces are not going to have any serious impact on this count.
Take for example the fact that Olmert plans to release only a few hundred Palestinian prisoners from among the 11,000 and plus whereas Abbas has asked that at least 2,000 be freed.
Israel is also continuing frequent military raids of West Bank towns where Palestinians are taken into summary detention. The latest such action came on Monday when Israeli troops arrested nearly 20 Palestinians from West Bank towns, including two Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament.
Indeed, Olmert could argue that Hamas is opposed to peace talks with Israel and therefore the detention of its activists would help Abbas. However, it has to be remembered that Hamas holds the majority of the seats in the Palestinian parliament. The group's popularity might have slipped since then — because of a multitude of reasons — but it remains a strong and powerful force among the Palestinians.
The finding of an opinion poll that while 67.9 per cent of Palestinians support peace negotiations with Israel but 62 per cent expect the Annapolis conference to fail should be an eye-opener to the reality that Olmert could do a lot more to boost the chances of the forum's success before it is convened.
Scratching the surface
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has to do more than releasing a few hundred Palestinians from Israeli jails if he is hoping that his move would be considered as a goodwill gesture to the Palestinians ahead of the US-sponsored conference on the Middle East to be held in Annapolis.
Release of Palestinians from Israeli prisons has always been a key Palestinian demand but there are many other manifestations of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank that have made life miserable for the residents of the territory. Olmert has to address them in a realistic manner in order to have any realistic impact for the people who live under Israel's military occupation.
Olmert might have internal political considerations for not making any concrete moves to lift the choking blockade of the West Bank.But that should not be a reason for him not to honour his commitments. Under US pressure, he had agreed during meetings with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he would remove most of the roadblocks maintained by the Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank and also ease restrictions on Palestinian movements within the occupied territories. It is one of the key points that the Palestinians have in mind when they call upon the US to do whatever is necessary to oblige Olmert to live up to his pledges. The Israeli prime minister should have the courage and will to confront his political problems away from linking them with the effort for peace with the Palestinians.
Indeed, Abbas has to be bolstered among his own people to secure popular support for the decisons that he takes durng the expected peace negotiations with Israel."Goodwill" gestures in bits and pieces are not going to have any serious impact on this count.
Take for example the fact that Olmert plans to release only a few hundred Palestinian prisoners from among the 11,000 and plus whereas Abbas has asked that at least 2,000 be freed.
Israel is also continuing frequent military raids of West Bank towns where Palestinians are taken into summary detention. The latest such action came on Monday when Israeli troops arrested nearly 20 Palestinians from West Bank towns, including two Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament.
Indeed, Olmert could argue that Hamas is opposed to peace talks with Israel and therefore the detention of its activists would help Abbas. However, it has to be remembered that Hamas holds the majority of the seats in the Palestinian parliament. The group's popularity might have slipped since then — because of a multitude of reasons — but it remains a strong and powerful force among the Palestinians.
The finding of an opinion poll that while 67.9 per cent of Palestinians support peace negotiations with Israel but 62 per cent expect the Annapolis conference to fail should be an eye-opener to the reality that Olmert could do a lot more to boost the chances of the forum's success before it is convened.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Coalition of the not-so-willing
Nov.12, 2007
'Coalition of the not-so-willing'
IT is ironic that the US State Department has no option but to order Foreign Service officers to serve in Iraq against their will.
The State Department, which has sent out notifications to some ordering them to go to Iraq, is citing a a shortage of experienced diplomats in Iraq as the reason.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says many Foreign Service employees have volunteered for Iraq in the past four years, and that the media have overstated dissension in the ranks.
But, according to the director general of the Foreign Service, Harry Thomas, "the well of volunteers had finally run dry."
He has announced that, if volunteers could not be found for 48 remaining positions by mid-November, diplomats — under threat of dismissal — would be ordered to serve in Iraq. If carried out, it would be the largest diplomatic call-up since the Vietnam War era.
A more accurate reason for the move would be the unwillingness of many Foreign Service officers to serve in the chaotic country. Apart from considerations of personal security, they realise that government is pursuing a lost cause there and would only get deeper into trouble. They have had a ringside view of how the administration went about orchestrating the deceptive war and how it continues to flout almost every rule in the book on diplomatic conduct. They do not want any part of such a mess because it could lead to the destruction of their diplomatic carrier. As one of the "refuniks" called it, the new policy is tantamount to a "potential death sentence."
But the State Department is not ready to take no for an answer. It
has laid down the rules of the game: Those who have been notified that they have been selected for a one-year tenure in Iraq have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough accept, some will be ordered to go except those who could cite medical conditions or extreme personal hardship. Other face disciplinary action.
There would soon be a clash of wills, and it is most likely that some might resist going to Iraq, but they would have to deal with the tough stand adopted by Rice that "if I need somebody to serve in Iraq, they have to serve there."
When the US launched military action against Iraq, it said it would be carried out by a "coalition of the willing" that included foreign military personnel. Today, if the Bush administration is unable to find not many "willing" in its own ranks, then it could not blame anyone or anything else but its own folly of having taken Iraq and Iraqis for granted and then refusing to accept failure.
'Coalition of the not-so-willing'
IT is ironic that the US State Department has no option but to order Foreign Service officers to serve in Iraq against their will.
The State Department, which has sent out notifications to some ordering them to go to Iraq, is citing a a shortage of experienced diplomats in Iraq as the reason.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says many Foreign Service employees have volunteered for Iraq in the past four years, and that the media have overstated dissension in the ranks.
But, according to the director general of the Foreign Service, Harry Thomas, "the well of volunteers had finally run dry."
He has announced that, if volunteers could not be found for 48 remaining positions by mid-November, diplomats — under threat of dismissal — would be ordered to serve in Iraq. If carried out, it would be the largest diplomatic call-up since the Vietnam War era.
A more accurate reason for the move would be the unwillingness of many Foreign Service officers to serve in the chaotic country. Apart from considerations of personal security, they realise that government is pursuing a lost cause there and would only get deeper into trouble. They have had a ringside view of how the administration went about orchestrating the deceptive war and how it continues to flout almost every rule in the book on diplomatic conduct. They do not want any part of such a mess because it could lead to the destruction of their diplomatic carrier. As one of the "refuniks" called it, the new policy is tantamount to a "potential death sentence."
But the State Department is not ready to take no for an answer. It
has laid down the rules of the game: Those who have been notified that they have been selected for a one-year tenure in Iraq have 10 days to accept or reject the position. If not enough accept, some will be ordered to go except those who could cite medical conditions or extreme personal hardship. Other face disciplinary action.
There would soon be a clash of wills, and it is most likely that some might resist going to Iraq, but they would have to deal with the tough stand adopted by Rice that "if I need somebody to serve in Iraq, they have to serve there."
When the US launched military action against Iraq, it said it would be carried out by a "coalition of the willing" that included foreign military personnel. Today, if the Bush administration is unable to find not many "willing" in its own ranks, then it could not blame anyone or anything else but its own folly of having taken Iraq and Iraqis for granted and then refusing to accept failure.
Call that needs to be heard
Nov.12, 2007
Call that needs to be heard
THE announcement by Hamas leader and former prime minister Ismail Haniyeh that Hamas would hold reconciliation talks with Fatah led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and hint that it might be ready to cede control of the Gaza Strip is the first sign of a thawing of the line purused by the group.
It is surprising that the announcement, which was made on in an urgent bulletin posted on a pro-Hamas Web site, was rejected by a senior Abbas aide. Obviously, there are behind-the-scene elements at play.
In any event, the most important aspect of Haniyeh's statement is that the Hamas "administration of Gaza is temporary." It signals an acceptance of the fact that there could not be two Palestinian entities — one controlled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the other by Fatah in the West Bank, and there needs to be a united Palestinian platform.
It is one of the conditions laid down by Abbas that any dialogue with Hamas is not possible until it submits anew to his authority and gives up Gaza, which it seized in mid-June after clashes with Fatah.
The Hamas statement comes against the backdrop of a flurry of diplomatic activities ahead of the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference, which is expected to be held in November.
Hamas, which refuses to meet the conditions placed by Israel and supported by the West, will not be invited to the conference, which is predicted to be a landmark in efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The group has been calling on Arab countries not to attend the conference.
As far as the Arab World is concerned, the most important factor is that the conference should tackle the core issues of the conflict such as the borders of a Palestinian state and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees. The forum should not be turned into a photo opportunity and allow Israel to advance its agenda of seeking legitimacy in the region without respecting and recognising Arab and Muslim rights.
Hamas's move for dialogue with Fatah is interpreted as the result of pressure the group brought about by international sanctions and an Israeli blockade that have made life difficult in the Gaza Strip. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Hamas would bend to pressure and make compromises on its positions, but it would definitely grab at any chance that would not require it to step back from its doctrines.
That is where the Abbas's statement that a Palestinian state should the West Bank and Gaza must cover the same amount of land as Israel seized in 1967 comes into play.
It would appear that Hamas, which insists on a Palestinian state in all of pre-1948 Palestine, has found a face-saving formula in Abbas's call and wants to work on it towards a compromise. Instead of rejecting the group's move, the other side should also move forward seeking common ground; that is the only realistic way for the peace process to move forward.
Call that needs to be heard
THE announcement by Hamas leader and former prime minister Ismail Haniyeh that Hamas would hold reconciliation talks with Fatah led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and hint that it might be ready to cede control of the Gaza Strip is the first sign of a thawing of the line purused by the group.
It is surprising that the announcement, which was made on in an urgent bulletin posted on a pro-Hamas Web site, was rejected by a senior Abbas aide. Obviously, there are behind-the-scene elements at play.
In any event, the most important aspect of Haniyeh's statement is that the Hamas "administration of Gaza is temporary." It signals an acceptance of the fact that there could not be two Palestinian entities — one controlled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the other by Fatah in the West Bank, and there needs to be a united Palestinian platform.
It is one of the conditions laid down by Abbas that any dialogue with Hamas is not possible until it submits anew to his authority and gives up Gaza, which it seized in mid-June after clashes with Fatah.
The Hamas statement comes against the backdrop of a flurry of diplomatic activities ahead of the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference, which is expected to be held in November.
Hamas, which refuses to meet the conditions placed by Israel and supported by the West, will not be invited to the conference, which is predicted to be a landmark in efforts for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The group has been calling on Arab countries not to attend the conference.
As far as the Arab World is concerned, the most important factor is that the conference should tackle the core issues of the conflict such as the borders of a Palestinian state and the future of Jerusalem and millions of Palestinian refugees. The forum should not be turned into a photo opportunity and allow Israel to advance its agenda of seeking legitimacy in the region without respecting and recognising Arab and Muslim rights.
Hamas's move for dialogue with Fatah is interpreted as the result of pressure the group brought about by international sanctions and an Israeli blockade that have made life difficult in the Gaza Strip. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Hamas would bend to pressure and make compromises on its positions, but it would definitely grab at any chance that would not require it to step back from its doctrines.
That is where the Abbas's statement that a Palestinian state should the West Bank and Gaza must cover the same amount of land as Israel seized in 1967 comes into play.
It would appear that Hamas, which insists on a Palestinian state in all of pre-1948 Palestine, has found a face-saving formula in Abbas's call and wants to work on it towards a compromise. Instead of rejecting the group's move, the other side should also move forward seeking common ground; that is the only realistic way for the peace process to move forward.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The legacy ofthe 'Kethyar' lives on
Nov.11, 2007
The legacy ofthe 'Kethyar' lives on
FOR many around the world, Yasser Arafat might have faded into distant memory, three years after his mysterious death in a Paris hospital. But not so for the Palestinian people and the larger Arab World.
Arafat, fondly called the "Kethyar" (old man), represented, led and symbolised the Palestinian struggle. Despite what critics saw as serious shortcomings in Arafat's dealings with the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the broader effort for liberating his land, he continues to live in the hearts of his people giving them inspiration to fight on.
Arafat was one of the Palestinian leaders who had realised early on that it would be a folly to militarily challenge US-supported Israel. Accordingly, he tried to play the political game always keeping an eye for an opening towards a negotiated end to Israel's military occupation of Palestinian land.
The 1993 Oslo agreement that the PLO signed with Israel was the opening he found, but the hardline leaders of the Jewish state and the US let him down thereafter. The Oslo accord was never the perfect blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian peace, but Arafat was manoeuvred into accepting it by apprehension that groups like Hamas and others were gaining on his Fatah movement in popularity among the Palestinian constituents. And indeed, the Oslo accord was the only available game in town, and Arafat made the mistake of trusting the US to twist the Israeli arm when it came to crucial points in post-Oslo negotiations. If anything, he found his own arm being twisted into accepting major compromises, but he always retained the hope of that somewhere, sometime, something would give, offering the Palestinians the breakthrough they were seeking.
At the time of Arafat's death on Nov.11, 2004, the Oslo agreement was dumped in the dustbin of history, and his people had resumed their Intifada after having seen Israel steadfastly refusing to accept their legitimate rights as the basis for peace. And, indeed, Hamas was gaining ground.
Arafat himself had fallen "out of favour" with the US and Israel because of his refusal to sign on Israeli-dotted and US-supported lines that would have sealed the fate of the Palestinian struggle far short of realising its goal of independent statehood with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
Arafat is no less a martyr than any of the tens of thousands of Palestinians who, before and after him sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and independent statehood.
Since his death, the struggle for liberation has taken many manifestations, but the cause and goal remain the same. The Palestinian will to continue resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is as strong as ever, and that is the best legacy that the late Palestinian president left behind for his people.
The legacy ofthe 'Kethyar' lives on
FOR many around the world, Yasser Arafat might have faded into distant memory, three years after his mysterious death in a Paris hospital. But not so for the Palestinian people and the larger Arab World.
Arafat, fondly called the "Kethyar" (old man), represented, led and symbolised the Palestinian struggle. Despite what critics saw as serious shortcomings in Arafat's dealings with the different factions of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the broader effort for liberating his land, he continues to live in the hearts of his people giving them inspiration to fight on.
Arafat was one of the Palestinian leaders who had realised early on that it would be a folly to militarily challenge US-supported Israel. Accordingly, he tried to play the political game always keeping an eye for an opening towards a negotiated end to Israel's military occupation of Palestinian land.
The 1993 Oslo agreement that the PLO signed with Israel was the opening he found, but the hardline leaders of the Jewish state and the US let him down thereafter. The Oslo accord was never the perfect blueprint for Israeli-Palestinian peace, but Arafat was manoeuvred into accepting it by apprehension that groups like Hamas and others were gaining on his Fatah movement in popularity among the Palestinian constituents. And indeed, the Oslo accord was the only available game in town, and Arafat made the mistake of trusting the US to twist the Israeli arm when it came to crucial points in post-Oslo negotiations. If anything, he found his own arm being twisted into accepting major compromises, but he always retained the hope of that somewhere, sometime, something would give, offering the Palestinians the breakthrough they were seeking.
At the time of Arafat's death on Nov.11, 2004, the Oslo agreement was dumped in the dustbin of history, and his people had resumed their Intifada after having seen Israel steadfastly refusing to accept their legitimate rights as the basis for peace. And, indeed, Hamas was gaining ground.
Arafat himself had fallen "out of favour" with the US and Israel because of his refusal to sign on Israeli-dotted and US-supported lines that would have sealed the fate of the Palestinian struggle far short of realising its goal of independent statehood with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital.
Arafat is no less a martyr than any of the tens of thousands of Palestinians who, before and after him sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and independent statehood.
Since his death, the struggle for liberation has taken many manifestations, but the cause and goal remain the same. The Palestinian will to continue resisting the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is as strong as ever, and that is the best legacy that the late Palestinian president left behind for his people.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Lebanese pay the price for something they never bought
Nov.6, 2007
Lebanese pay the price for something they never bought
by pv vivekanand
THE simmering crisis in Lebanon appears to be ready to boil over, with the US and Syria warning each other not to meddle in Lebanese affairs and with little sign of a breakthrough in efforts to find a consensus candidate to be the next president of the country. However, the US could easily defuse the situation if it were to engage Syria in its proposed effort for peace in the Middle East.
All the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle are highly visible and within reach, but only if the powers that matter in Washington and European capitals are wise and matured enough to recognise them as such and pick them up. So far, we have seen little sign of such wisedom and maturity. Murkeying the scenario further is the Israeli drive to have its own way without compromising over any of what it sees as its interests.
Some pessimistic observers that the political deadlock in Lebanon could lead to yet another round of violent confrontation between Lebanese groups in favour of and opposed to Syrian influence in the country. That need not be an accurate assessment, given that the people of Lebanon are matured enough to realise that a civil strife would be too disastrous for themselves.
At the same time, the political crisis should not be allowed to continue because the central issue is not Lebanese interests but a powerplay of mainly the US and Syria in a broader scenario involving Israel and Iran as well as France, the former colonial power in the country, among others.
An important development this week was a show of force put up by Hizbollah that is interpreted as a warning to Israel against Israel from repeating its 2006 invasion of the south. Reportedly conducted under the direct supervision of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the manoeuvres held near the border with Israel were designed to allow the Jewish state to know more about its capabilities in a new deterrence strategy, according to reports.
It is highly unlikely that Hizbollah and its supporters are looking for a fight with Israel.
While the Lebanese government described the exercises involving unarmed Hizbollah fighters as merely "simulations on paper," it should not be forgotten that Israel would have received the Hizbhollah message, which according to sources quoted in the media, was that the group has regrouped with more strength than the case was before last year's Israeli invasion of the south. In sum, the message is a warning to Israel that any further military adventure into Lebanon would cost it more than what it paid last year.
One of the bottom lines in the broader picture is the Israeli-Syrian tug-of-war over the Golan Heights, which is under Israel's military occupation (never mind that Israel "annexed" the strategic area in 1981) since the 1967 war. The entire scenario in Lebanon would shift positively if there was to be genuine movement towards Israeli-Syrian peace.
Notwithstanding the tensions sparked by the recent Israeli air strike against a "mysterious" Syrian facility, it is clear that Damascus is ready for peace.
It is against this backdrop that Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter has posed the question whether whether Israel or the United States is ready for peace with Syria.
"We have information indicating that Syria is mentally prepared for a peace process with Israel. The question is whether we or the US are prepared for it," Dichter said at a public forum this week.
That was the reaffirmation of the international community's understanding of the situation. The Syrian leadership has declared, in public comments as well as behind-the-scene diplomatic exchanges, that Syria is willing for a honourable, just and fair peace agreement with Israel, but not without the return of the Golan in its entirety to Syrian sovereignty.
Well, the current Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Ehud Barak has signalled it is ready to discuss peace with Syria when its unofficial representatives engaged the Syrians in secret dialogue two years ago. However, the effort had to be called off under American pressure before it entered the stage of discussing the most serious issues at stake. Obviously, the hawks in Washington do not want any dealing with the Syrian leadership under President Bashar Al Assad.
It is also known that the US had actively encouraged and supported the Israeli war against Hizbollah last year, and even pressured the Jewish state not to halt its offensive even as Hizbollah was proving itself to be a formidable foe.
Washington had in fact made a strategic error by convincing itself that Israel could successfully eliminate Hizbollah as a military threat in the event of US military action against Iran.
However, the opportunity has presented itself for Washington to put itself right. The Bush administration could and indeed should formally invite Syria to the US-sponsored Middle East conference to be held in Annapolis later this month. The Syrian response would definitely be positive and would definitely include cancellation of a meeting planned to be held in Damascus as a parallel forum to the Annapolis conference.
However, the US does not seem to be in a mood to take note of the Syrian willingness to make peace with Israel. That was reflected in the latest Washington move — the imposition of sanctions on four Lebanese political figures, including a member of the Lebanese parliament, charging that they are undermining democracy in Lebanon by agitating for and promoting Syrian influence in the country. The US Department of the Treasury said it was freezing US-based assets belonging to Asaad Halim Hardan, a member of the Lebanese parliament and chief of the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP); Wi'am Wahhab, a former member of Lebanon's parliament; Hafiz Makhluf, a colonel in Syria's General Intelligence Directorate; and Mohammed Nasif Khayrbik, a key advisor to President Assad.
Against such obvious hostility as reflected in the US move, it would be naive to expect to Syria to make any compromise gesture on its own.
Lebanon is caught in the middle with no end in sight for the political crisis. Without genuine movement towards Israel-Syria peace, there is little expectation that the Lebanese would be spared from paying part of the price for the Washington-Damascus confrontation.
Lebanese pay the price for something they never bought
by pv vivekanand
THE simmering crisis in Lebanon appears to be ready to boil over, with the US and Syria warning each other not to meddle in Lebanese affairs and with little sign of a breakthrough in efforts to find a consensus candidate to be the next president of the country. However, the US could easily defuse the situation if it were to engage Syria in its proposed effort for peace in the Middle East.
All the pieces in the jigsaw puzzle are highly visible and within reach, but only if the powers that matter in Washington and European capitals are wise and matured enough to recognise them as such and pick them up. So far, we have seen little sign of such wisedom and maturity. Murkeying the scenario further is the Israeli drive to have its own way without compromising over any of what it sees as its interests.
Some pessimistic observers that the political deadlock in Lebanon could lead to yet another round of violent confrontation between Lebanese groups in favour of and opposed to Syrian influence in the country. That need not be an accurate assessment, given that the people of Lebanon are matured enough to realise that a civil strife would be too disastrous for themselves.
At the same time, the political crisis should not be allowed to continue because the central issue is not Lebanese interests but a powerplay of mainly the US and Syria in a broader scenario involving Israel and Iran as well as France, the former colonial power in the country, among others.
An important development this week was a show of force put up by Hizbollah that is interpreted as a warning to Israel against Israel from repeating its 2006 invasion of the south. Reportedly conducted under the direct supervision of Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, the manoeuvres held near the border with Israel were designed to allow the Jewish state to know more about its capabilities in a new deterrence strategy, according to reports.
It is highly unlikely that Hizbollah and its supporters are looking for a fight with Israel.
While the Lebanese government described the exercises involving unarmed Hizbollah fighters as merely "simulations on paper," it should not be forgotten that Israel would have received the Hizbhollah message, which according to sources quoted in the media, was that the group has regrouped with more strength than the case was before last year's Israeli invasion of the south. In sum, the message is a warning to Israel that any further military adventure into Lebanon would cost it more than what it paid last year.
One of the bottom lines in the broader picture is the Israeli-Syrian tug-of-war over the Golan Heights, which is under Israel's military occupation (never mind that Israel "annexed" the strategic area in 1981) since the 1967 war. The entire scenario in Lebanon would shift positively if there was to be genuine movement towards Israeli-Syrian peace.
Notwithstanding the tensions sparked by the recent Israeli air strike against a "mysterious" Syrian facility, it is clear that Damascus is ready for peace.
It is against this backdrop that Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter has posed the question whether whether Israel or the United States is ready for peace with Syria.
"We have information indicating that Syria is mentally prepared for a peace process with Israel. The question is whether we or the US are prepared for it," Dichter said at a public forum this week.
That was the reaffirmation of the international community's understanding of the situation. The Syrian leadership has declared, in public comments as well as behind-the-scene diplomatic exchanges, that Syria is willing for a honourable, just and fair peace agreement with Israel, but not without the return of the Golan in its entirety to Syrian sovereignty.
Well, the current Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Ehud Barak has signalled it is ready to discuss peace with Syria when its unofficial representatives engaged the Syrians in secret dialogue two years ago. However, the effort had to be called off under American pressure before it entered the stage of discussing the most serious issues at stake. Obviously, the hawks in Washington do not want any dealing with the Syrian leadership under President Bashar Al Assad.
It is also known that the US had actively encouraged and supported the Israeli war against Hizbollah last year, and even pressured the Jewish state not to halt its offensive even as Hizbollah was proving itself to be a formidable foe.
Washington had in fact made a strategic error by convincing itself that Israel could successfully eliminate Hizbollah as a military threat in the event of US military action against Iran.
However, the opportunity has presented itself for Washington to put itself right. The Bush administration could and indeed should formally invite Syria to the US-sponsored Middle East conference to be held in Annapolis later this month. The Syrian response would definitely be positive and would definitely include cancellation of a meeting planned to be held in Damascus as a parallel forum to the Annapolis conference.
However, the US does not seem to be in a mood to take note of the Syrian willingness to make peace with Israel. That was reflected in the latest Washington move — the imposition of sanctions on four Lebanese political figures, including a member of the Lebanese parliament, charging that they are undermining democracy in Lebanon by agitating for and promoting Syrian influence in the country. The US Department of the Treasury said it was freezing US-based assets belonging to Asaad Halim Hardan, a member of the Lebanese parliament and chief of the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party (SSNP); Wi'am Wahhab, a former member of Lebanon's parliament; Hafiz Makhluf, a colonel in Syria's General Intelligence Directorate; and Mohammed Nasif Khayrbik, a key advisor to President Assad.
Against such obvious hostility as reflected in the US move, it would be naive to expect to Syria to make any compromise gesture on its own.
Lebanon is caught in the middle with no end in sight for the political crisis. Without genuine movement towards Israel-Syria peace, there is little expectation that the Lebanese would be spared from paying part of the price for the Washington-Damascus confrontation.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Checking the Israeli agenda
Nov.3, 2007
Checking the Israeli agenda
IT could indeed be argued that Israel has the capability to destroy or seriously cripple Iran's nuclear programme, as an unnamed Israeli general has been quoted as telling a group of selected journalists of Jewish origin during a briefing in Canada last week. Israel has US-supplied equipment and technology to do that, including long-range warplanes equipped with missiles and "bunker-buster" bombs as well as mid-air refuelling aircraft. The Jewish state also has one of its three German- supplied submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean with its missiles primed at Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel also possesses the technology that would help its warplanes evade radar detection while on their way to Iran and back through the region's airspace. It is suspected that the Israeli arsenal includes "tactical nuclear weapons" that could be used to bomb Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Indeed, Israel, which has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them, could unleash such firepower that could destroy a big chunk of Iran. These are known facts. But the question is not whether Israel has the capability to destroy Iranian targets, but of what happens if it does indeed do so.
Iranian leaders, including military commanders, have clearly stated that they would hold the US responsible for any military strike on its territory regardless of who carries out the actual attack and that they reserve the right to retaliate the way they find fit.
Effectively, it means that US interests in the region, including its 160,000 soldiers and bases in Iraq and another 20,000 soldiers and facilities in Afghanistan, could be considered as "legitimate" targets for Iranian firepower even if Israel mounts an attack against Iran.
Israel has made no secret that it is raring to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities. Reliable and credible reports indicate that the US is having a tough time holding it back from a repeat run of the 1981 attack that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant. Obviously, Washington has its own considerations and plans to deal with Iran and hence it is restraining Israel until the US itself is good and ready.
At the same time, the unnamed Israeli general's comment in Canada that "we don't see anyone trying to stop Iran" from pursuing its nuclear programme and that "we have to be prepared for any eventuality" is alarming.
It is an indication that Israel is growing increasingly angry and frustrated over the slow pace of diplomatic efforts and limited effect of UN sanctions aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis. It is anyone's guess how far and how long the Jewish state's political and military establishments are willing to accept US pressure to restrain themselves.
That makes it all the more important that Washington should appreciate that any Israeli action against Iran would have equally serious consequences for the region as the case would be in the event of US military action against the Iranians.
If the Bush administration is sincere and honest when it declares that it is not planning military strikes against Iran, then it should act promptly to hold back its strategic ally Israel from launching military adventures that would only undermine all hopes of restoring regional stability after the fiasco in Iraq.
Checking the Israeli agenda
IT could indeed be argued that Israel has the capability to destroy or seriously cripple Iran's nuclear programme, as an unnamed Israeli general has been quoted as telling a group of selected journalists of Jewish origin during a briefing in Canada last week. Israel has US-supplied equipment and technology to do that, including long-range warplanes equipped with missiles and "bunker-buster" bombs as well as mid-air refuelling aircraft. The Jewish state also has one of its three German- supplied submarines patrolling the Indian Ocean with its missiles primed at Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel also possesses the technology that would help its warplanes evade radar detection while on their way to Iran and back through the region's airspace. It is suspected that the Israeli arsenal includes "tactical nuclear weapons" that could be used to bomb Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Indeed, Israel, which has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads and the capability to deliver them, could unleash such firepower that could destroy a big chunk of Iran. These are known facts. But the question is not whether Israel has the capability to destroy Iranian targets, but of what happens if it does indeed do so.
Iranian leaders, including military commanders, have clearly stated that they would hold the US responsible for any military strike on its territory regardless of who carries out the actual attack and that they reserve the right to retaliate the way they find fit.
Effectively, it means that US interests in the region, including its 160,000 soldiers and bases in Iraq and another 20,000 soldiers and facilities in Afghanistan, could be considered as "legitimate" targets for Iranian firepower even if Israel mounts an attack against Iran.
Israel has made no secret that it is raring to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities. Reliable and credible reports indicate that the US is having a tough time holding it back from a repeat run of the 1981 attack that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant. Obviously, Washington has its own considerations and plans to deal with Iran and hence it is restraining Israel until the US itself is good and ready.
At the same time, the unnamed Israeli general's comment in Canada that "we don't see anyone trying to stop Iran" from pursuing its nuclear programme and that "we have to be prepared for any eventuality" is alarming.
It is an indication that Israel is growing increasingly angry and frustrated over the slow pace of diplomatic efforts and limited effect of UN sanctions aimed at defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis. It is anyone's guess how far and how long the Jewish state's political and military establishments are willing to accept US pressure to restrain themselves.
That makes it all the more important that Washington should appreciate that any Israeli action against Iran would have equally serious consequences for the region as the case would be in the event of US military action against the Iranians.
If the Bush administration is sincere and honest when it declares that it is not planning military strikes against Iran, then it should act promptly to hold back its strategic ally Israel from launching military adventures that would only undermine all hopes of restoring regional stability after the fiasco in Iraq.
Will Bin Laden vote?
Nov.3, 2006
Will Bin Laden vote?
By PV Vivekanand
THE REPUBLICAN camp in the US seems to be waiting for a miracle -- a possible public condemnation of the Bush administration from Osama Bin Laden or his deputy Ayman Zawahiri that could turn the tide in the Nov.7 elections in the Republicans' favour. For it is absolutely necesssary for Al Qaeda to have the Republicans continue in power in Washington in order to press ahead with its "international jihad" that primarily targets the US.
President George W Bush and his neoconservative strategists assert that a Democratic triumph in the elections is a victory for "terrorists" and a loss "for America." That is a short-sighted vision that totally ignores the reality that the policies and approaches followed by the Bush administration are the best contributors to the growth of Al Qaeda and likeminded groups around the world.
Washington says Al Qaeda wants the US out of Iraq. It need not necessarily be so since a US departure from Iraq Ñ and indeed Afghanistan ÑÊwould pull the rug from under the feet of extremists because the American military presence in these two countries have become the cause celebre for them.
Within Iraq, Al Qaeda is believed to constitute less than 10 per cent of the insurgents there. The others represent a mixture of mainly Sunni groups waging a war to end the US occupation of their country. Their objectives are Iraq-specific and their raison d'etre ends when the last US soldier leaves Iraq.
If and when that happens, Al Qaeda would be left on its own with its anti-US agenda and find itself targeted by the former Sunni insurgents.
Intelligence reports and findings of congressional investigations have clearly established that Al Qaeda was not as strong as Bush himself painted it to be and it managed to consolidate its presence and operations in Iraq taking advantage of the US image as an invader and occupier of the country.
It is a widely shared thought among international political and terrorism experts that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was like a "dream coming true" for Al Qaeda.
A Dec. 11, 2005 letter written by a senior Al Qaeda operative known as ÒAtiyahÓ to the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, supports this argument.
In the letter, which was released by the director of national intelligence of the US, Atiyah says that Òthe most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.Ó
He asserted that a US withdrawal from Iraq in 2005 or earlier could have been disastrous for Al Qaeda because it would have deprived the group of the reasons to exist in Iraq.
Al Qaeda wants to keep the US bogged down in Iraq in order to strengthen its influence and continue to wage the bloody guerrilla war against American soldiers. The Bush administration's belligerent policies and refusal to "cut and run" from Iraq serve Bin Laden's interests. The longer the conflict lasts in Iraq the better for Al Qaeda because the US would only get sucked deeper to the imbroglio. Washington does not have a face-saving "exit strategy" that would also help realise even a scaled-down version of the objectives of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, the US is caught in its own trap. And the Iraq war has become a central issue ahead of Nov.7.
Election pundits predict that the Democrats would trounce the Republicans and wrench control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. The Republicans would definitely want a miracle to happen ahead of the elections, and this could be in the form of yet another belligerent and challenging call from Al Qaeda to the incumbent administration.
It is widely accepted that it was a video messsage from Bin Laden that surfaced on Oct.29, 2004 ÑÊfour days before the US presidential election ÑÊthat helped Bush to secure a second term at the White House.
US analysts always expect an "October surprise" in a presidential eleciton year that would help either of the two camps, and the Bin Laden video was indeed one in 2004.
In the video tape, Bin Laden denounced the administration and thumped his nose at Washington. It was a very healthy-looking Bin Laden who appeared in the videoÊwearing a gold-brocaided Arab dress that contradicted the media-portrayed image of a sick and ailing Al Qaeda leader hiding in a cave some place along the Pak-Afghanistan border. His "message" was also a departure from his usual style of shrouding the substance with rhetorics while making statements. He was blunt and straight as if an excellent spindoctor had coached him. He ridiculed Bush and vowed to intensify his fight against the US.
Republican spindoctors jumped at the opportunity. They turned around Bin Laden's "message" and highlighted it as representing his "endorsement" of Bush rival John Kerry who they depicted as too weak to confront extremists around the world. There was an immediate surge of five points in Bush's favour in opinion polls, and he was re-elected (This does not discount the contention by critics that "fradulent" voting took place in several states).
It did not take much imagination to figure out that Bin Laden, by condemning and challenging Bush, was in fact ensuring the president's re-election.
Today, a similar situation could be at hand. With the anti-war fever growing among the American public, the Democrats stand a good chance to dominate the US legislature. If that happens, then there would definitely be a scaling down of Washington's belligerence (although it could not be said that the Democrats would immediately work for an end to the US military presence in Iraq).
Surely, Bin Laden and his people, wherever they are, know this. Why take a chance by not helping the Republicans and thus ensure that the US continues to be seen as an invader and occupier?
The US "staying the course" in Iraq might mean a lot of things for the Bush administration, but for Al Qaeda it means "prolonging the war" ÑÊas Atiyeh put it ÑÊ and serving its own interest. Maintaining silence ahead of the US elections would definitely not be its course of action, which could indeed turn out to be a "November surprise" this election year.
Will Bin Laden vote?
By PV Vivekanand
THE REPUBLICAN camp in the US seems to be waiting for a miracle -- a possible public condemnation of the Bush administration from Osama Bin Laden or his deputy Ayman Zawahiri that could turn the tide in the Nov.7 elections in the Republicans' favour. For it is absolutely necesssary for Al Qaeda to have the Republicans continue in power in Washington in order to press ahead with its "international jihad" that primarily targets the US.
President George W Bush and his neoconservative strategists assert that a Democratic triumph in the elections is a victory for "terrorists" and a loss "for America." That is a short-sighted vision that totally ignores the reality that the policies and approaches followed by the Bush administration are the best contributors to the growth of Al Qaeda and likeminded groups around the world.
Washington says Al Qaeda wants the US out of Iraq. It need not necessarily be so since a US departure from Iraq Ñ and indeed Afghanistan ÑÊwould pull the rug from under the feet of extremists because the American military presence in these two countries have become the cause celebre for them.
Within Iraq, Al Qaeda is believed to constitute less than 10 per cent of the insurgents there. The others represent a mixture of mainly Sunni groups waging a war to end the US occupation of their country. Their objectives are Iraq-specific and their raison d'etre ends when the last US soldier leaves Iraq.
If and when that happens, Al Qaeda would be left on its own with its anti-US agenda and find itself targeted by the former Sunni insurgents.
Intelligence reports and findings of congressional investigations have clearly established that Al Qaeda was not as strong as Bush himself painted it to be and it managed to consolidate its presence and operations in Iraq taking advantage of the US image as an invader and occupier of the country.
It is a widely shared thought among international political and terrorism experts that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was like a "dream coming true" for Al Qaeda.
A Dec. 11, 2005 letter written by a senior Al Qaeda operative known as ÒAtiyahÓ to the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, supports this argument.
In the letter, which was released by the director of national intelligence of the US, Atiyah says that Òthe most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.Ó
He asserted that a US withdrawal from Iraq in 2005 or earlier could have been disastrous for Al Qaeda because it would have deprived the group of the reasons to exist in Iraq.
Al Qaeda wants to keep the US bogged down in Iraq in order to strengthen its influence and continue to wage the bloody guerrilla war against American soldiers. The Bush administration's belligerent policies and refusal to "cut and run" from Iraq serve Bin Laden's interests. The longer the conflict lasts in Iraq the better for Al Qaeda because the US would only get sucked deeper to the imbroglio. Washington does not have a face-saving "exit strategy" that would also help realise even a scaled-down version of the objectives of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, the US is caught in its own trap. And the Iraq war has become a central issue ahead of Nov.7.
Election pundits predict that the Democrats would trounce the Republicans and wrench control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. The Republicans would definitely want a miracle to happen ahead of the elections, and this could be in the form of yet another belligerent and challenging call from Al Qaeda to the incumbent administration.
It is widely accepted that it was a video messsage from Bin Laden that surfaced on Oct.29, 2004 ÑÊfour days before the US presidential election ÑÊthat helped Bush to secure a second term at the White House.
US analysts always expect an "October surprise" in a presidential eleciton year that would help either of the two camps, and the Bin Laden video was indeed one in 2004.
In the video tape, Bin Laden denounced the administration and thumped his nose at Washington. It was a very healthy-looking Bin Laden who appeared in the videoÊwearing a gold-brocaided Arab dress that contradicted the media-portrayed image of a sick and ailing Al Qaeda leader hiding in a cave some place along the Pak-Afghanistan border. His "message" was also a departure from his usual style of shrouding the substance with rhetorics while making statements. He was blunt and straight as if an excellent spindoctor had coached him. He ridiculed Bush and vowed to intensify his fight against the US.
Republican spindoctors jumped at the opportunity. They turned around Bin Laden's "message" and highlighted it as representing his "endorsement" of Bush rival John Kerry who they depicted as too weak to confront extremists around the world. There was an immediate surge of five points in Bush's favour in opinion polls, and he was re-elected (This does not discount the contention by critics that "fradulent" voting took place in several states).
It did not take much imagination to figure out that Bin Laden, by condemning and challenging Bush, was in fact ensuring the president's re-election.
Today, a similar situation could be at hand. With the anti-war fever growing among the American public, the Democrats stand a good chance to dominate the US legislature. If that happens, then there would definitely be a scaling down of Washington's belligerence (although it could not be said that the Democrats would immediately work for an end to the US military presence in Iraq).
Surely, Bin Laden and his people, wherever they are, know this. Why take a chance by not helping the Republicans and thus ensure that the US continues to be seen as an invader and occupier?
The US "staying the course" in Iraq might mean a lot of things for the Bush administration, but for Al Qaeda it means "prolonging the war" ÑÊas Atiyeh put it ÑÊ and serving its own interest. Maintaining silence ahead of the US elections would definitely not be its course of action, which could indeed turn out to be a "November surprise" this election year.
Friday, November 02, 2007
One-eyed act won't work
Nov.2, 2007
One-eyed act won't work
THE thriving piracy in and around Somalia is a blotch on the international law and order situation. Well-armed pirates roaming around in small boats off the coast of Somalia are thumping their nose at the world by hijacking and looting merchant vessels and then demanding ransom for releasing their crew and, quite often, getting away with it.
The International Maritime Bureau says piracy attaks on shipping have increased by 14 per cent in the first three quarters of this year mainly because of a jump in incidents off the west and east coasts of Africa, with Somalia again a key source of concern. Only Indonesia's waters are considered more prone to pirate attacks.
It would seem that we have gone back a century or more in time when notorious pirates roamed the seas. The only missing piece is probably one-eyed characters with hooks for hands going aboard hijacked ships in the high seas from vessels flying the infamous black flags with the deadly skull sign.
The rise in piracy attacks by Somali pirates may or may not have to do anything with the ouster in December of Somalia's Islamists, who cracked down on piracy while they held sway in the capital, Mogadishu, and much of the south of the country, last year. But the international community could not simply hold the interim government in Somalia responsible to take action against the pirates because the UN-backed regime itself is fighting for its survival and does not have what it takes to even think beyond its immediate protection.
Indeed, the best counter-action so far against piracy has come in the form of a French pledge to send a warship to waters off Somalia authorised to take whatever action deemed fit to counter the threat. The French warship is expected to be deployed in November. However, that is not enough. The number of pirate boats stalking commercial vessels is on the rise, and immediate action is needed to counter it.
We have seen the great enthusiasm to send warships to Middle Eastern waters to enforce the UN embargo on Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is only fair for the world to expect the same interest, seriousness and commitment from the same powers to ensure that international maritime shipping is not threatened by some ragtag gunmen who believe in nothing but violence.
One-eyed act won't work
THE thriving piracy in and around Somalia is a blotch on the international law and order situation. Well-armed pirates roaming around in small boats off the coast of Somalia are thumping their nose at the world by hijacking and looting merchant vessels and then demanding ransom for releasing their crew and, quite often, getting away with it.
The International Maritime Bureau says piracy attaks on shipping have increased by 14 per cent in the first three quarters of this year mainly because of a jump in incidents off the west and east coasts of Africa, with Somalia again a key source of concern. Only Indonesia's waters are considered more prone to pirate attacks.
It would seem that we have gone back a century or more in time when notorious pirates roamed the seas. The only missing piece is probably one-eyed characters with hooks for hands going aboard hijacked ships in the high seas from vessels flying the infamous black flags with the deadly skull sign.
The rise in piracy attacks by Somali pirates may or may not have to do anything with the ouster in December of Somalia's Islamists, who cracked down on piracy while they held sway in the capital, Mogadishu, and much of the south of the country, last year. But the international community could not simply hold the interim government in Somalia responsible to take action against the pirates because the UN-backed regime itself is fighting for its survival and does not have what it takes to even think beyond its immediate protection.
Indeed, the best counter-action so far against piracy has come in the form of a French pledge to send a warship to waters off Somalia authorised to take whatever action deemed fit to counter the threat. The French warship is expected to be deployed in November. However, that is not enough. The number of pirate boats stalking commercial vessels is on the rise, and immediate action is needed to counter it.
We have seen the great enthusiasm to send warships to Middle Eastern waters to enforce the UN embargo on Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein. It is only fair for the world to expect the same interest, seriousness and commitment from the same powers to ensure that international maritime shipping is not threatened by some ragtag gunmen who believe in nothing but violence.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Crimes against humanity
Oct.30, 2007
A case of crimes against humanity
THE ISRAELI move to tighten its siege on life in the Gaza Strip is as much politically motivated as it is security oriented as Israeli ministers claim. It is aimed at strengthening the isolation of the Hamas movement, which is in internal control of the Mediterranean coastal strip since mid-June, and pressuring the residents of Gaza to reject the Islamist movement as their political leaders.
More importantly, however, the decision to reduce fuel supplies and the intention to cut back on electricity have a deep humanitarian aspect in that it would deprive the Gazans of essential services and cripple the health sector.
Israeli ministers explain the move as their "only" option to pressure Gaza's Hamas rulers into halt near-daily rocket attacks by resistance groups against Israeli towns. The ministers stay away from mentioning the reality that the Palestinians are frustrated and angry over Israel's rejection of their legitimate political and territorial rights and the Jewish state's obvious determination to impose its will on them through military means. Their daily life is a nightmare, and the situation is not much different in the occupied West Bank either.
Their only option to keep the Israelis reminded of the illegality of their occupation of Palestinian lands is armed resistace as manifested in the rocket attacks that underline the theme that there would no security for Israelis as long as the Palestinians do not have security.
Obviously, Israel is hoping that the tightening of its siege of Gaza would increase the Gazans' frustration to a point where they would reject Hamas as their leaders. However, the Israeli leaders have not learnt from the experience elsewhere, particularly Iraq, where a majority of the people living through the international sanctions under the Saddam Hussein regime saw the US as their enemy. Indeed, the US solution to the problem was invasion and occupation, but that solution is not feasible for Israel in the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas movement has defiantly declared that Gaza could survive any Israeli siege, but it is obvious that it would not be the case as the Israelis tighten their stranglehold on the territory.
Given the deadlock that pre-empts any immediate change in the Israel-Hamas equation, the international community is left with the option to insist that the Jewish state respect international conventions and charters. Although Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it continues to control Gaza land, sea and air corridors. As such, it is responsible under international law and conventions to ensure that the people living under its control are not deprived of the basic necessities to survive. If it fails to live up to this responsibility and obligation, then there should be no doubt in the international conscience, including Israel's staunchest backers, that the political and military leaders of the Jewish state qualify to be tried on charges of crimes against humanity.
A case of crimes against humanity
THE ISRAELI move to tighten its siege on life in the Gaza Strip is as much politically motivated as it is security oriented as Israeli ministers claim. It is aimed at strengthening the isolation of the Hamas movement, which is in internal control of the Mediterranean coastal strip since mid-June, and pressuring the residents of Gaza to reject the Islamist movement as their political leaders.
More importantly, however, the decision to reduce fuel supplies and the intention to cut back on electricity have a deep humanitarian aspect in that it would deprive the Gazans of essential services and cripple the health sector.
Israeli ministers explain the move as their "only" option to pressure Gaza's Hamas rulers into halt near-daily rocket attacks by resistance groups against Israeli towns. The ministers stay away from mentioning the reality that the Palestinians are frustrated and angry over Israel's rejection of their legitimate political and territorial rights and the Jewish state's obvious determination to impose its will on them through military means. Their daily life is a nightmare, and the situation is not much different in the occupied West Bank either.
Their only option to keep the Israelis reminded of the illegality of their occupation of Palestinian lands is armed resistace as manifested in the rocket attacks that underline the theme that there would no security for Israelis as long as the Palestinians do not have security.
Obviously, Israel is hoping that the tightening of its siege of Gaza would increase the Gazans' frustration to a point where they would reject Hamas as their leaders. However, the Israeli leaders have not learnt from the experience elsewhere, particularly Iraq, where a majority of the people living through the international sanctions under the Saddam Hussein regime saw the US as their enemy. Indeed, the US solution to the problem was invasion and occupation, but that solution is not feasible for Israel in the Gaza Strip.
The Hamas movement has defiantly declared that Gaza could survive any Israeli siege, but it is obvious that it would not be the case as the Israelis tighten their stranglehold on the territory.
Given the deadlock that pre-empts any immediate change in the Israel-Hamas equation, the international community is left with the option to insist that the Jewish state respect international conventions and charters. Although Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, it continues to control Gaza land, sea and air corridors. As such, it is responsible under international law and conventions to ensure that the people living under its control are not deprived of the basic necessities to survive. If it fails to live up to this responsibility and obligation, then there should be no doubt in the international conscience, including Israel's staunchest backers, that the political and military leaders of the Jewish state qualify to be tried on charges of crimes against humanity.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Oversight with undersight goals
Oct.24, 2007
Oversight with undersight goals
THE announcement that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered tougher oversight of private guards in Iraq, including tighter rules on the use of force, is part of a process leading to allowing US security contractor Blackwater and other foreign security firms to remain there and continue their lucrative contracts there.
The Iraqi government's decision on Tuesday to lift the immunity offered to foreign security contractors could not be retroactive, and hence Blackwater could not be taken to task for killings of Iraqi civilians last month in Baghdad and earlier incidents elsewhere. The best "compromise" could involve Blackwater removing its guards involved in the Baghdad shooting.
State Department officials are offering a detailed explanation of the measures ordered by Rice that include improved training and clearer rules of engagement, better co-ordination with the US military as well as cultural sensitivity training for guards and more Arabic speakers. More such measures are in the pipeline, they say.
These are definitely designed to appease the Iraqis in the build-up to the expected decision that the Iraqi government is dropping its insistence that Blackwater USA pack up and leave the country.
The whole exercise was prompted by the Iraqi finding that Blackwater guards were not provoked into opening fire and killing at least 17 innocent Iraqis in the heart of Baghdad on Sept.16 and the Iraqi government's insistence early this month that the US company should leave the country in six months.
The Iraqi government had no option but to take such a tough stand because of the heat of pressure from the Iraqi people amid serious differences with the US administration.
All indications are that there is more to it than meets the eye in the "business" relationship between the US government and Blackwater USA.
The facts are clear: Blackwater is currently the largest of the US State Department's three private security contractors, providing a total of about 1,000 security guards. At least 90 per cent of Blackwater's revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.
Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects US officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.
There is a possibly sinister aspect of the US administration's links with Blackwater. US Senator John Kerry has asked the administration to explain whether it played any role it played in the possible evasion of nearly $32 million in taxes by Blackwater USA.
Kerry accuses the administration of trying to protect the company.
The government "cannot hide Blackwater in the shadows anymore -- it's time to bring all of their dealings to light," he said.
The charge of "significant tax evasion" was first raised by another Democratic member of congress, Henry Waxman. The only defence Blackwater put up was an assertion that Waxman was incorrect in contending that Blackwater personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be treated as independent contractors but rather as employees for tax purposes.
It would seem, pending an explanation from the concerned authorities, that the administration went along and helped determine that for tax purposes Blackwater security contractors are not employees.
With the government having that kind of a relationship with a company which has a $1 billion "security contract" ÑÊeach Blackwater guard in Iraq costs the US taxpayers $450,000 a year ÑÊit is no wonder that Washington is pulling all the plugs in order to ensure that the company stays on in Iraq. The net result: The Iraqis could shout and scream against foreign security contractors having the run of their land and shooting and killing them at will, but little is going to change on the ground except meaningless investigations and inquiries and new "ground rules" that effectively mean maintaining the status quo.
After all, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq to allow itself to be pushed around by the people of Iraq.
Oversight with undersight goals
THE announcement that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered tougher oversight of private guards in Iraq, including tighter rules on the use of force, is part of a process leading to allowing US security contractor Blackwater and other foreign security firms to remain there and continue their lucrative contracts there.
The Iraqi government's decision on Tuesday to lift the immunity offered to foreign security contractors could not be retroactive, and hence Blackwater could not be taken to task for killings of Iraqi civilians last month in Baghdad and earlier incidents elsewhere. The best "compromise" could involve Blackwater removing its guards involved in the Baghdad shooting.
State Department officials are offering a detailed explanation of the measures ordered by Rice that include improved training and clearer rules of engagement, better co-ordination with the US military as well as cultural sensitivity training for guards and more Arabic speakers. More such measures are in the pipeline, they say.
These are definitely designed to appease the Iraqis in the build-up to the expected decision that the Iraqi government is dropping its insistence that Blackwater USA pack up and leave the country.
The whole exercise was prompted by the Iraqi finding that Blackwater guards were not provoked into opening fire and killing at least 17 innocent Iraqis in the heart of Baghdad on Sept.16 and the Iraqi government's insistence early this month that the US company should leave the country in six months.
The Iraqi government had no option but to take such a tough stand because of the heat of pressure from the Iraqi people amid serious differences with the US administration.
All indications are that there is more to it than meets the eye in the "business" relationship between the US government and Blackwater USA.
The facts are clear: Blackwater is currently the largest of the US State Department's three private security contractors, providing a total of about 1,000 security guards. At least 90 per cent of Blackwater's revenue comes from government contracts, two-thirds of which are no-bid contracts.
Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects US officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.
There is a possibly sinister aspect of the US administration's links with Blackwater. US Senator John Kerry has asked the administration to explain whether it played any role it played in the possible evasion of nearly $32 million in taxes by Blackwater USA.
Kerry accuses the administration of trying to protect the company.
The government "cannot hide Blackwater in the shadows anymore -- it's time to bring all of their dealings to light," he said.
The charge of "significant tax evasion" was first raised by another Democratic member of congress, Henry Waxman. The only defence Blackwater put up was an assertion that Waxman was incorrect in contending that Blackwater personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be treated as independent contractors but rather as employees for tax purposes.
It would seem, pending an explanation from the concerned authorities, that the administration went along and helped determine that for tax purposes Blackwater security contractors are not employees.
With the government having that kind of a relationship with a company which has a $1 billion "security contract" ÑÊeach Blackwater guard in Iraq costs the US taxpayers $450,000 a year ÑÊit is no wonder that Washington is pulling all the plugs in order to ensure that the company stays on in Iraq. The net result: The Iraqis could shout and scream against foreign security contractors having the run of their land and shooting and killing them at will, but little is going to change on the ground except meaningless investigations and inquiries and new "ground rules" that effectively mean maintaining the status quo.
After all, the US did not invade and occupy Iraq to allow itself to be pushed around by the people of Iraq.
Best-laid plans go awry
Oct.24, 2007
Best-laid plans poised to go awry
TURKEY's move to stage cross-border military operations against the Turkish Kurdish rebels operating out of northern Iraq poses a dilemma for the US on several fronts. The issue is of also of grave concern to Israel, which has its own agenda in northern Iraq.
It is clear that any Turkish military operation would lead to serious destabilisation of northern Iraq, which is administered by Iraqi Kurds and the only area in Iraq where relative tranquility prevails while the US grapples with the raging insurgency in other parts of the country.
The situation becomes more complicated when seen against the certainty that the Turkish move would not be limited to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are carrying out attacks against Turkish interests while based in the mountainous areas of northern Iraq. Ankara would definitely use the opportunity to strike at Iraqi Kurds whose dreams of independence pose serious threats Turkey, which has a sizeable Kurdish content in its population near the border with Iraq.
Acutely aware of the possibility of being targeted by Turkey, Iraqi Kurds have vowed to fight any Turkish move into northern Iraq.
The US has limited options in the situation. Washington has links with Iranian Kurdish rebels grouped under an organisation called PEJAK, which, according to expert reports, is another face of the PKK.
Iranian Kurds is a tool in the US campaign against the Tehran regime. Even members of American Congress have noted that PEJAK could not be operating successfully from northern Iraq against Iran without US knowledge, support, and co-ordination.
Washington has asked the Iraqi Kurds to prevent PKK cross-border attacks against Turkey, but has made no reference to the PEJAK; it could not have been expected to do so either.
Equally relevant here are Israel's connections with PEJAK. The Jewish state maintains a strong intelligence presence in northern Iraq near the border with Iran in order to monitor developments in Iran with help from PEJAK. The Israeli alliance with the Kurds has strained the Jewish state's relations with Turkey, with Ankara issuing public and private warnings against it.
However, the alliance is far too important for Israel to abandon.
The so-called Greater Kurdistan covers parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria and is an ideal base from which to carry out operations aimed at destabilising Israel's foes.
It was a well-oiled applecart of Kurdish links that the US and Israel had been operating in northern Iraq since the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003. The situation got out of hand because the PKK became overzealous in its operations against Turkey, and now the US and Israel find themselves facing the prospect of their applecart being overturned and hence the surge in American efforts to contain the situation.
Best-laid plans poised to go awry
TURKEY's move to stage cross-border military operations against the Turkish Kurdish rebels operating out of northern Iraq poses a dilemma for the US on several fronts. The issue is of also of grave concern to Israel, which has its own agenda in northern Iraq.
It is clear that any Turkish military operation would lead to serious destabilisation of northern Iraq, which is administered by Iraqi Kurds and the only area in Iraq where relative tranquility prevails while the US grapples with the raging insurgency in other parts of the country.
The situation becomes more complicated when seen against the certainty that the Turkish move would not be limited to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), whose fighters are carrying out attacks against Turkish interests while based in the mountainous areas of northern Iraq. Ankara would definitely use the opportunity to strike at Iraqi Kurds whose dreams of independence pose serious threats Turkey, which has a sizeable Kurdish content in its population near the border with Iraq.
Acutely aware of the possibility of being targeted by Turkey, Iraqi Kurds have vowed to fight any Turkish move into northern Iraq.
The US has limited options in the situation. Washington has links with Iranian Kurdish rebels grouped under an organisation called PEJAK, which, according to expert reports, is another face of the PKK.
Iranian Kurds is a tool in the US campaign against the Tehran regime. Even members of American Congress have noted that PEJAK could not be operating successfully from northern Iraq against Iran without US knowledge, support, and co-ordination.
Washington has asked the Iraqi Kurds to prevent PKK cross-border attacks against Turkey, but has made no reference to the PEJAK; it could not have been expected to do so either.
Equally relevant here are Israel's connections with PEJAK. The Jewish state maintains a strong intelligence presence in northern Iraq near the border with Iran in order to monitor developments in Iran with help from PEJAK. The Israeli alliance with the Kurds has strained the Jewish state's relations with Turkey, with Ankara issuing public and private warnings against it.
However, the alliance is far too important for Israel to abandon.
The so-called Greater Kurdistan covers parts of Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria and is an ideal base from which to carry out operations aimed at destabilising Israel's foes.
It was a well-oiled applecart of Kurdish links that the US and Israel had been operating in northern Iraq since the ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003. The situation got out of hand because the PKK became overzealous in its operations against Turkey, and now the US and Israel find themselves facing the prospect of their applecart being overturned and hence the surge in American efforts to contain the situation.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Priority of the day
Oct.20, 2007
The priority of the day
The despicable midnight suicide attack that killed about 150 people and shattered the homecoming of Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday is a stark reminder of the urgent need to tackle militancy and extremism linked to Afghanistan.
We do not know for sure yet who was behind the blast, but Pakistani authorities say that it might have been the work of Al Qaeda and the Taliban because it bore the hallmarks of militants linked to pro-Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud and Al Qaeda.
Mehsud, said to be the most prominent leader of militants destabilizing its northwestern border regions near Afghanistan ÑÊhad reportedly vowed to greet Bhutto's return to Pakistan with suicide attacks.
There were warnings of attack that were passed on to Bhutto's Pakistan's People's Party but PPP supporters, celebrating her return after eight years in exile, appeared not to have taken the need for security seriously, according to the authorities.
The real loosers in the back-to-back explosions are the families of those died and who were wounded in the attacks, which again underlined that there are forces at work which do not care for human life as long as their meaningless purposes are served. We wonder what purpose was served indeed by the suicide bombings except killing innocent people whose only fault was that they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
At the same time, Pakistan itself is a equal loser because the bombings also aimed at the country's democracy that should survive whatever the current crises and raised serious questions about the extent to which militants and sinister forces have penetrated the Pakistani society and body politik.
It is time for the people of Pakistan to bury all political differences and come together to confront the common challenge. The bombings should not be allowed to have any impact on reconciliation efforts between President General Pervez Musharraf and Bhutto or any other move towards addressing the political crises of the country. If anything the attack should toughen everyone's resolve to fight militancy together, and the first sign of such a positive move came with the news that Musharraf telephoned Bhutto on Friday to offer his condolences over the bombings and to "convey his deepest sorrow over the terrorist attack. "
While voting to arrest the culprits, Musharraf also cautioned that no one should exploit of the situation and start a blame game.
Fighting militancy is a tough mission that could never be completed. Pakistan's leaders and people should stand together with the common agenda of fighting militancy in the country with an iron hand. Everything else could come in due time.
The priority of the day
The despicable midnight suicide attack that killed about 150 people and shattered the homecoming of Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday is a stark reminder of the urgent need to tackle militancy and extremism linked to Afghanistan.
We do not know for sure yet who was behind the blast, but Pakistani authorities say that it might have been the work of Al Qaeda and the Taliban because it bore the hallmarks of militants linked to pro-Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud and Al Qaeda.
Mehsud, said to be the most prominent leader of militants destabilizing its northwestern border regions near Afghanistan ÑÊhad reportedly vowed to greet Bhutto's return to Pakistan with suicide attacks.
There were warnings of attack that were passed on to Bhutto's Pakistan's People's Party but PPP supporters, celebrating her return after eight years in exile, appeared not to have taken the need for security seriously, according to the authorities.
The real loosers in the back-to-back explosions are the families of those died and who were wounded in the attacks, which again underlined that there are forces at work which do not care for human life as long as their meaningless purposes are served. We wonder what purpose was served indeed by the suicide bombings except killing innocent people whose only fault was that they happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
At the same time, Pakistan itself is a equal loser because the bombings also aimed at the country's democracy that should survive whatever the current crises and raised serious questions about the extent to which militants and sinister forces have penetrated the Pakistani society and body politik.
It is time for the people of Pakistan to bury all political differences and come together to confront the common challenge. The bombings should not be allowed to have any impact on reconciliation efforts between President General Pervez Musharraf and Bhutto or any other move towards addressing the political crises of the country. If anything the attack should toughen everyone's resolve to fight militancy together, and the first sign of such a positive move came with the news that Musharraf telephoned Bhutto on Friday to offer his condolences over the bombings and to "convey his deepest sorrow over the terrorist attack. "
While voting to arrest the culprits, Musharraf also cautioned that no one should exploit of the situation and start a blame game.
Fighting militancy is a tough mission that could never be completed. Pakistan's leaders and people should stand together with the common agenda of fighting militancy in the country with an iron hand. Everything else could come in due time.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Questions over a non-existent mission
Oct.18, 2007
Questions over a non-existent mission
AMONG the points being raised in the ongoing debate in the US over the Blackwater scandal is whether the security company's actions in Iraq have undermined what is conveniently described as the US mission in the country.
Let us put in the right perspective the Blackwater killing of 17 innocent Iraqis pm Sept.16 and the murder of two other Iraqis by the Australian Unity company this month. Blackwater, Unity and the horde of foreign security companies which flocked to post-war Iraq are nothing but hired mercenaries . The marked difference though is that both the uniformed American soldiers as well as the privatised mercenaries a are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping. They are eplaying the field like masters whose actions have little regard for human life in a land where the authorities are in no position to protect themselves let alone their people.
The simple reality is that the privatised mercenaries as well as the uniformed American soldiers are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq might indeed have beeen a mission for some people in the US, but for the international community it was an act of gross deception and an inexcusable violation of every code of conduct and international charters and conventions.
As such, the question linking the so-called US mission in Iraq to the behaviour of foreign security companies like Blackwater does not exist except in the minds of the hawks in Washington for whom the people of Iraq are only pawns in a sinister game involving US/Israeli geopolitical and energy interests and the American quest for global supremacy.
Well, for us in the Middle East and indeed in the broader global scene, there is no bad, good or better war. There should be no war except of course in cases where there is no other option but use of military force in defence of upholding human rights, international legitimacy and the rights of people and countries as enshrined in the UN Charter and all other related conventions and treaties. Again, there has to be a global consensus before exercising the option of use of military force.
The US war against Iraq has no relation whatsover to this basic premise. The US has no legitimacy in post-Iraq except as an occupation power. That also removes any ground for legitimacy in Iraq for anyone hired by the US.
Another point of debate in some of the mainstream reporting in the US is whether companies like Blackwater and Unity are turning a good war into a bad war and whether it is possible to wage a better war against the insurgency in Iraq.
Members of the US Congress are demanding to know "whether failures to hold Blackwater personnel accountable for misconduct undermine our efforts in Iraq." They assert that Blackwater's "actions may be undermining our mission in Iraq and really hurting the relationship and trust between the Iraqi people and the American military."
What an irony! It is naive at best for anyone to assume that there is a relationship of trust between the people of Iraq and the US military, for such has been the US behaviour in the country. There might be a handful of people who have allowed themselves to be enlisted to co-operate with the US military against foreign insurgents, but they represent only a small minority. For an overwhelming majority of Iraqis — including the dominant groups — the question is when the US military will pack up and leave the country and take along with them the privatised mercenaries.
Questions over a non-existent mission
AMONG the points being raised in the ongoing debate in the US over the Blackwater scandal is whether the security company's actions in Iraq have undermined what is conveniently described as the US mission in the country.
Let us put in the right perspective the Blackwater killing of 17 innocent Iraqis pm Sept.16 and the murder of two other Iraqis by the Australian Unity company this month. Blackwater, Unity and the horde of foreign security companies which flocked to post-war Iraq are nothing but hired mercenaries . The marked difference though is that both the uniformed American soldiers as well as the privatised mercenaries a are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping. They are eplaying the field like masters whose actions have little regard for human life in a land where the authorities are in no position to protect themselves let alone their people.
The simple reality is that the privatised mercenaries as well as the uniformed American soldiers are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq might indeed have beeen a mission for some people in the US, but for the international community it was an act of gross deception and an inexcusable violation of every code of conduct and international charters and conventions.
As such, the question linking the so-called US mission in Iraq to the behaviour of foreign security companies like Blackwater does not exist except in the minds of the hawks in Washington for whom the people of Iraq are only pawns in a sinister game involving US/Israeli geopolitical and energy interests and the American quest for global supremacy.
Well, for us in the Middle East and indeed in the broader global scene, there is no bad, good or better war. There should be no war except of course in cases where there is no other option but use of military force in defence of upholding human rights, international legitimacy and the rights of people and countries as enshrined in the UN Charter and all other related conventions and treaties. Again, there has to be a global consensus before exercising the option of use of military force.
The US war against Iraq has no relation whatsover to this basic premise. The US has no legitimacy in post-Iraq except as an occupation power. That also removes any ground for legitimacy in Iraq for anyone hired by the US.
Another point of debate in some of the mainstream reporting in the US is whether companies like Blackwater and Unity are turning a good war into a bad war and whether it is possible to wage a better war against the insurgency in Iraq.
Members of the US Congress are demanding to know "whether failures to hold Blackwater personnel accountable for misconduct undermine our efforts in Iraq." They assert that Blackwater's "actions may be undermining our mission in Iraq and really hurting the relationship and trust between the Iraqi people and the American military."
What an irony! It is naive at best for anyone to assume that there is a relationship of trust between the people of Iraq and the US military, for such has been the US behaviour in the country. There might be a handful of people who have allowed themselves to be enlisted to co-operate with the US military against foreign insurgents, but they represent only a small minority. For an overwhelming majority of Iraqis — including the dominant groups — the question is when the US military will pack up and leave the country and take along with them the privatised mercenaries.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
No more photo ops please
Oct.17, 2007
No more photo opportunities please
THE political leaders of Israel and the US are anxious that the proposed conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace is not only held but also produces something tangible that could be shown to to their constituencies and the international community even it leads to nowhere thereafter.
That is the bottom line. However, for the Arab World and the Palestinians it is imperative that the conference is turned into a solid platform for launching an irreversible process that would lead to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace by addressing all dimensions of the conflict.
US President George W Bush wants a diversion of world and domestic attention from the fiasco he created with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The conference itself and some sign of progress towards Israeli-Palestinian negotiations — even without any certainty of where the process would lead to — seem to be acceptable to Washington, which would soon enter the throes of presidential elections, and no one could be expected to give Arab-Israeli peace a priority.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is haunted by last year's Lebanon debacle and graft scandals, hopes that the conference would take some of the heat away from the political pressure that is being brought to bear upon him as allegations surface one after another. At the same time, he is playing his cards close to his chest and is also careful that he gives away little to the Palestinians in any peace agreement.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who received a serious setback with the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June that gave an ugly twist to the Palestinian struggle for independence, is anxious to lift the logjams and resume negotiations with Israel based on clearly defined goals which include the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital. Abbas seems to believe that an agreement with Israel on clearly defined principles for peace even while Hamas, which is calling for a boycott of the conference, remains in control of Gaza would be an answer in itself to his rivarly with the Islamist group and open doors for internal Palestinian compromises.
The Arab World is sceptical in the absence of a clear affirmation on the part of the US that the Arab initiative would be the central pillar of any Arab-Israeli peace agreement because the initiative offers the best terms for both sides if there is mutual trust and confidence and commitment to international legitimacy and UN resolutions.
That explains why Egypt has demanded that the conference be postponed if there is no prior agreement on the basis for the talks. Similarly, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have stated that they find the proposed meeting a wasted effort without clearly agreement in advance that justice, fairness, logic, reason and international legitimacy — as enshrined in the Arab initiative — would be the basis for peace in the Middle East.
It is the most valid and relevant demand at this point in time. There is no ambiguity there. The objective of the proposed meeting should not be serving the internal political agendas of the players involved, but creating a process based on solid grounds leading to just, fair, comprehensive and durable Arab-Israeli peace. If it takes time to set the proper ground and pave the way towards this objective, let it be so. The US-proposed conference or any other forum to discuss Arab-Israeli peace should not be turned into a photo opportunity. We have seen enough and more of that already.
No more photo opportunities please
THE political leaders of Israel and the US are anxious that the proposed conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace is not only held but also produces something tangible that could be shown to to their constituencies and the international community even it leads to nowhere thereafter.
That is the bottom line. However, for the Arab World and the Palestinians it is imperative that the conference is turned into a solid platform for launching an irreversible process that would lead to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace by addressing all dimensions of the conflict.
US President George W Bush wants a diversion of world and domestic attention from the fiasco he created with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The conference itself and some sign of progress towards Israeli-Palestinian negotiations — even without any certainty of where the process would lead to — seem to be acceptable to Washington, which would soon enter the throes of presidential elections, and no one could be expected to give Arab-Israeli peace a priority.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is haunted by last year's Lebanon debacle and graft scandals, hopes that the conference would take some of the heat away from the political pressure that is being brought to bear upon him as allegations surface one after another. At the same time, he is playing his cards close to his chest and is also careful that he gives away little to the Palestinians in any peace agreement.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who received a serious setback with the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June that gave an ugly twist to the Palestinian struggle for independence, is anxious to lift the logjams and resume negotiations with Israel based on clearly defined goals which include the creation of an independent Palestinian state with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital. Abbas seems to believe that an agreement with Israel on clearly defined principles for peace even while Hamas, which is calling for a boycott of the conference, remains in control of Gaza would be an answer in itself to his rivarly with the Islamist group and open doors for internal Palestinian compromises.
The Arab World is sceptical in the absence of a clear affirmation on the part of the US that the Arab initiative would be the central pillar of any Arab-Israeli peace agreement because the initiative offers the best terms for both sides if there is mutual trust and confidence and commitment to international legitimacy and UN resolutions.
That explains why Egypt has demanded that the conference be postponed if there is no prior agreement on the basis for the talks. Similarly, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have stated that they find the proposed meeting a wasted effort without clearly agreement in advance that justice, fairness, logic, reason and international legitimacy — as enshrined in the Arab initiative — would be the basis for peace in the Middle East.
It is the most valid and relevant demand at this point in time. There is no ambiguity there. The objective of the proposed meeting should not be serving the internal political agendas of the players involved, but creating a process based on solid grounds leading to just, fair, comprehensive and durable Arab-Israeli peace. If it takes time to set the proper ground and pave the way towards this objective, let it be so. The US-proposed conference or any other forum to discuss Arab-Israeli peace should not be turned into a photo opportunity. We have seen enough and more of that already.
Kordofan could add to Sudan woes
Oct.17, 2007
Kordofan could add to Sudan woes
THE political crisis in Sudan sparked by the southerners' decision to quit the government and the escalation of violence in the western Darfur region has a graver dimension — it could trigger a a full-blown conflict in the oil-rich Sudanese region of Kordofan.
Reports say that Kordofan is already rife with discontent towards Khartoum, with an increasing number of groups claiming grievances very similar to those that led to the eruption of the Darfur revolt in early 2003. Kordofan residents complain that they have been for long neglected and marginalised. Unemployment is high in the area, leaving many young men there bitter and discontented. Shortcomings in the government's response to provide assistance and rehabilitation following recent floods there have raised the local residents' anger and frustration, reports say.
Darfur rebels are accused of trying to take their revolt to Kordofan and the Khartoum government is reportedly building a strong military forces there in order to counter the dissidents.
Haskanita, where 10 African Union (AU) peacekeepers were killed in September in an attack blamed on Darfur rebels, lies on the border with Kordofan. The attack followed a deadly raid against police inside Kordofan in August.
The oil-rich Abyei region, the status of which is still under dispute between the government and the southerners despite the 2005 north-south peace agreement, lies in South Kordofan. The unresolved question is whether the Abyei region belongs to the north or south. It is one of the key demands of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which suspended its participation in the country's unity government last week. The SPLM is also demanding a re-shuffle of ministerial posts inside the coalition government. The group is very active and popular in the area. As such, the failure of efforts to end the standoff between the Khartoum government and SPLM would have an immediate impact on the brewing crisis in Kordofan.
UN mediation seems to have produced a small opening. The SPLM has agreed to find a common ground with the government and presented a list of its demands to the government. It is unclear how the government was responding to the demands.
The Arab World and Sudan's neighbours Africa as well as the UN — plus of course countries with vested interests in Sudan's oil resources — are anxiously watching how the situation develops.
One thing is clear: The collapse of the unity government in Khartoum would have serious consequences, with the added prospect of a violent flare-up in the Kordofan region that would be a big blow to hopes that the people of Sudan were slowly moving out of the days of misery and suffering.
Kordofan could add to Sudan woes
THE political crisis in Sudan sparked by the southerners' decision to quit the government and the escalation of violence in the western Darfur region has a graver dimension — it could trigger a a full-blown conflict in the oil-rich Sudanese region of Kordofan.
Reports say that Kordofan is already rife with discontent towards Khartoum, with an increasing number of groups claiming grievances very similar to those that led to the eruption of the Darfur revolt in early 2003. Kordofan residents complain that they have been for long neglected and marginalised. Unemployment is high in the area, leaving many young men there bitter and discontented. Shortcomings in the government's response to provide assistance and rehabilitation following recent floods there have raised the local residents' anger and frustration, reports say.
Darfur rebels are accused of trying to take their revolt to Kordofan and the Khartoum government is reportedly building a strong military forces there in order to counter the dissidents.
Haskanita, where 10 African Union (AU) peacekeepers were killed in September in an attack blamed on Darfur rebels, lies on the border with Kordofan. The attack followed a deadly raid against police inside Kordofan in August.
The oil-rich Abyei region, the status of which is still under dispute between the government and the southerners despite the 2005 north-south peace agreement, lies in South Kordofan. The unresolved question is whether the Abyei region belongs to the north or south. It is one of the key demands of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which suspended its participation in the country's unity government last week. The SPLM is also demanding a re-shuffle of ministerial posts inside the coalition government. The group is very active and popular in the area. As such, the failure of efforts to end the standoff between the Khartoum government and SPLM would have an immediate impact on the brewing crisis in Kordofan.
UN mediation seems to have produced a small opening. The SPLM has agreed to find a common ground with the government and presented a list of its demands to the government. It is unclear how the government was responding to the demands.
The Arab World and Sudan's neighbours Africa as well as the UN — plus of course countries with vested interests in Sudan's oil resources — are anxiously watching how the situation develops.
One thing is clear: The collapse of the unity government in Khartoum would have serious consequences, with the added prospect of a violent flare-up in the Kordofan region that would be a big blow to hopes that the people of Sudan were slowly moving out of the days of misery and suffering.
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}