A non-starter on the political front

January 17, 2008

A non-starter on the political front

IT IS difficult to see what US President George W Bush reaped during his Middle East visit that came to a close on Wednesday except perhaps a hope that oil producers might increase output with a view to offsetting the record rise in prices. Even that sounds unlikely when seen against the Saudi comment that oil production could be increased when justified by market forces.
Indeed, Bush's trip did contribute to the bilateral front by opening new avenues towards strengthening US relations with the countries he visited during the trip. But those relations could not be turned around and fitted into a political context the way Bush obviously wanted to do.
Bush's confidence that he would be able to witness the signing of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement before he left the White House in January 2009 was never realistic, given the realiities on the ground and the complexities of the conflict. It was during his swing through the region this week that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared that he did not think any peace deal was possible with the Palestinians but that he had no option to continue negotiations because of the dangerous implications of the status quo.
The situation has been further complicated on Wednesday with one partner bolting the coalition government in Israel and another poised to quit if Olmert went ahead with working out any deal with the Palestinians on the key issue of Jerusalem. And Bush's presence in the region did not dissuade Israel from launching a major operation that killed at least 18 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday.
Bush got a cool response to his call on Arab countries to "reach out" to Israel. The Arabs have already reached out to Israel with the Saudi-led peace initiative which offers peace in return for all the Arab territories it occupied in the 1967 war, but the Jewish state wanted it twisted its way.
Both Bush and his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, harped on the theme of Arabs "reaching out" to Israel during the presidential visit, but they could not persuade anyone to bury the belief that it would be like rewarding Israel even against the backdrop that it is not ready for a fair and just settlement its conflict with the Palestinians.
Finally, Bush could find little takers in the region for his campaign against Iran. While the region's countries do have its own concerns about Iran, they are not willing to adorn an Israeli-designed and American supplied eyeglass to look at Iran. Surely, Bush would have heard the message loud and clear and during the visit, particularly the declaration by the Saudi media that Saudi Arabia would not allow itself to be used as a launching pad for military action against Iran — essentially the centrepiece of the trip.
In sum, the presidential tour of the Middle East could de deemed as a high-profile protocolish success and big boost to bilateral relations, but the president's political mission in the Israeli and Iranian contexts was a non-starter.

UAE sets yet another model

Jan.16, 2008

UAE sets yet another model

THE agreement on nuclear co-operation signed by France and the UAE on Tuesday is a landmark in many bilateral and multilateral aspects.
It does not mean that the UAE would move with any haste to begin producing and using nuclear energy. The country will follow a steady and responsible course supported by research and experience and advice of leading international nuclear experts in order to ensure that there will be no room whatsoever for any eyebrows to be raised at its nuclear activities for peaceful purposes in absolute safety and security.
What stands out, as explained by Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed, is the UAE's firm commitment to follow a sound, well-planned and transparent nuclear programme in close consultation with all the concerned major world powers in the field and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The agreement with France provides for bilateral co-operation in nuclear activities with a view to evaluating and potential use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, including power production, water desalination, basic and applied research, agronomy, earth sciences, medicine and industry.
The UAE aims to "create a responsible framework for the evaluation and possible implementation of a peaceful nuclear programme, ensuring compliance with the highest standards of non-proliferation, safety and security," Sheikh Abdullah emphasised.
In yet another important move, the country is also seeking help from the IAEA to devise guidelines for management of radioactive waste in the oil and gas industries.
The nuclear watchdog of the UN will help the UAE in control and prevention in assessing natural radioactive waste originated from the oil and gas industries. The scope of work also includes classification of radioactive waste treatment, review of relevant legislations and assessment of infrastructure for radioactive waste management.
Indeed, the UAE's approach is a model that could be emulated by non-nuclear countries to have in place a nuclear programme for peaceful purposes with full support of the international community.
By adopting the multifaceted approach towards the peaceful use of nuclear energy and by committing itself to abiding by it, the UAE has yet again proved why it could assume a front-line position in the international community in a relatively short period and set an example for others to follow in many other aspects of international life in both bilateral and multilateral spheres.

Peace remains a political captive

Jan.15, 2008


Peace remains a political captive

IT is not diffcult to figure out why Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated on Monday that Israel may not reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians, but will continue negotiations because maintaining the status quo is dangerous.
The danger is multi-fold. Palestinian hopes have been raised with the Annapolis conference and the recent visit by US President George W Bush that a peace agreement could be worked out sooner than later. Any setback to those hopes would result in militancy fuelled by frustration leading to undermining diplomacy, making it all the more difficult for any effort to work out a peace agreement.
The medium-term danger is demographic and would see Jews outnumbered by Arabs under Israel's control and thus undermine its claim to be "the Jewish state." That is essentially an Israeli problem, but with all that it entails in terms of Palestinian aspirations for independent statehood.
The situation highlighgts the uncertainty of the whole process launched under US auspices in Annapolis in November and brings into question Bush's confident promise that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be signed before he leaves office in January 2009.
Olmert, who is facing dire political straits, is trying to do several things at the same time. Facing pressure from his coalition partners against discussing core issues with the Palestinians, he wants to dilute Palestinian demands by suggesting that his coalition government could collapse if he were to grant "too many concessions" in the peace talks.
Olmert is also sending a message of assurance to hawkish coalition partners such as Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who has threatened to pull out of the coalition if the government begins discussing the questions at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Even if Lieberman — who controls 11 seats in the 120-member Israeli parliament — makes good this threat, Olmert's government would still command 67 seats. But then, Olmert faces a similar threat from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, which has seats. Shas says it would quit the coalition if Jerusalem comes up for discussion, and this would mean Olmert without a parliamentary majority and raises the prospect of snap parliamentary elections. Olmert's Kadima party is expected to do badly if elections were to be held today. The hard-line Likud bloc led by Benjamin Netanyahu is most likely to emerge as the leading vote-winner and could form the next coalition government, and there disappears the chance of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
On the other side, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has his own troubles. All he could count on at this point is Bush's assurance that the US would remain engaged in the peace negotiations and the international community's pledge of several billion dollars that, if properly utilised, should indeed make a positive difference to the daily life of the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. Abbas faces the task of of not only somehow regaining control of the Gaza Strip but also of keeping militancy in check, a tough task, given the Israeli refusal to entertain Palestinian demands that are key to any peace agreement.
Any Israeli-Palestinian peace process has always remained captive to internal Israeli politics as to internal Palestinian politics. It is now Olmert's turn to grapple with the issues at hand and the fate of the Annapolis process depends on his success or defeat to handle the political forces that are determined to maintain the status quo.

Thank you and au revoir Mr President

Jan.14, 2008

History and geopolitics

IN PRINCIPLE and context, US President George W Bush's speech in Abu Dhabi on Sunday sounded great and befiting the president of the world's strongest power and a country founded on noble democratic principles and respect for human rights and dignity. His assertions and declarations on the region's crises and problems, whether in Palestine, Lebanon or Iraq, were perfect. His pledge of American support for peace between Israel and the Palestinians was a reaffirmation of the strong position he adopted at the Annapolis conference in November.
However, there were several dampners in what Bush told us. First of all, he linked Israeli-Palestinian peace directly with "security" of Israel. We know that Israel uses its "security" as the best smokescreen for its arbitrary positions and practices in the occupied territories and beyond. Our close understanding of the way Israel manipulates things to suit its interests prompts us to be sceptical how far the US would be able to brush aside Israeli arguments based on its "security" imperatives while negotiating peace with the Palestinians.
In fact, Bush should be trying to convince Israel that its "security" could not be guaranteed through the use of military might, but only through working out a just, fair and comprensive settlement with the Palestinians.
As was expected, Bush described Iran as the greatest sponsor of state terrorism in the world and underlined what he saw as the need to confront Iranian designs to destabilise the region. It is a view that is not necessarily shared by many in the region, which is also aware that Bush views Iran from a strictly Israeli perspective rather than even an American perspective. What we would have liked to hear from Bush was an understanding of the history of our region and the traditional relations that have prevailed in the Gulf for centuries. Iran, whether Israel likes it or not, is part and parcel of the region with strong ties with its neighbours in the Gulf that could not be negated for whatever purposes as dictated by external interests.
We would have expected Bush to offer to open a no-holds-barred diplomatic dialogue with Iran with the transparent objective of working out a modus vivendi between Washington and Tehran, particularly that the US president has been emphasising that he prefers diplomacy over military means in his approach to Iran.
Surely, Bush would and should have known before he set out to the region that he could not have hoped to secure the kind of Arab support that he sought against Iran. As such, he should have also realised that the whole objective of his reference to Iran was simply to restate the US position.
On the bilateral front, the Bush visit was indeed a landmark in US-UAE relations that were cemented with the US recognition of the UAE federation when it was launched in 1971.
As the US president winds up his visit to to the UAE today, both sides would be reflecting on the fact that it has given a major boost to bilateral relations in a way that also recognises that the UAE has come a long way from 1971 and has already claimed a prominent position among leaders of the international community in the 36 years of its existence as a federation. Indeed, Bush's visit to the UAE reaffirmed the progress and development that the country has made and is continuing to make at an unparallelled pace.

Thank you and au revoir Mr President

A 'message' in it somewhere?

Jan.13, 2008

A 'message' in it somewhere?

THE US-REPORTED threat that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards made against three American warships in the Straits of Hormuz has injected more tension to the growing US-Iranian confrontation. It has become an international talking point at a time when US President George W Bush is visiting the region with a view to convincing Arab countries that Iran poses a threat to regional stability and security.
It is not that Iranians would not indulge in such actions. Their record shows that they have always played brinksmanship that have often shot up chances of an armed confrontation by mistake.
However, the facts available on last week's "incident" indicate something else.
First of all, it is difficult to believe that five small Iranian boats confronted big, well-armed US ships and threatened to blow up the American vessels. There many technical aspects to the reported Iranian threat that have been cited in the US media itself, raising suggestions that it could have been tailor-made to suit Washington's purposes.
These include the video released by the Pentagon showing small boats with no visible armaments and the absence of any footage showing anyone dumping white cartons into the water, as was initially alleged.
As to the audible threat — “I am coming to you,” and “You will explode after a few minutes" — even Pentagon officials have admitted that they could not say it with any certainty that the transmission came from the speedboats or elsewhere.
Others have said that the video and audio were recorded separately, then combined.
Even US Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted that he could not shed "any light as far as the radio transmission is concerned."
Apart from the warning issued by top US officials, what is equally alarming is the intensity with which the affair figured in the US presidential debate.
Almost all candidates, including front-runners for party nomination, simply accepted the first Pentagon version of the affair. They pulled all the plugs and used languages that are usually unheard from matured political leaders. It was remniscent of the bellicose language in reaction to an alleged naval exchange in the Gulf of Tonkin that led to the Vietnam War.
It is difficult to believe that the US is itching to go to war with Iran. That line of thought leads to the suggestion that the way the Hormuz affair was played out that it contained an implicit message indicating the shape of things around the corner if the Iranian "threat" did not meet a "proper" response with backing from others in the region.
Only time will tell what the reality was, but we in this part of the world already have enough troubles — most of them created by external meddling, direct and indirect — and have no intention to take on more crises created to serve foreign interests.

Civilians should not pay the price

Jan.12, 2008

Civilians should not pay the price


IT would appear that Sri Lanka is destined to witness more bloodshed. The government in Colombo has rejected a call by separatist Tamil rebels to revive a 2002 cease-fire, a week after the authorities officially withdrew from the truce.
It is not that the offer by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam was any breakthrough. The 2002 truce existed only on paper in the last two years. The rebel group has a record of not respecting the 2002 cease-fire and the government has hit back with force. Violence linked to the Tamil revolt has claimed more than 5,000 people in the last two years.
Obviously, the government wants to gain the upper hand on the ground before renewing its hand at working out a political solution to the decades-old conflict stemming from the Tamils' complaints of discrimination at the hands of the majority Sinhalese.
The government strategy is clear: It wants to pull the military teeth of the rebel movement. Since the government withdrew from the truce on Jan.3, more than 204 people — 195 rebels, six soldiers and three civilians — have been killed, according to the military. While it is difficult to independently verify the authenticity of claims, it would seem certain that the rebels have suffered and are continuing to suffer from the major military offensive under way against their strongholds. That should explain the rebels' unsolicited promise that they were "ready to implement every clause"of the Norway-brokered truce and respect it "100 per cent."
The rebels also said they were "shocked and disappointed that the government of Sri Lanka has unilaterally abrogated" the 2002 cease-fire agreement.
Indeed, the government's rejection of the truce renewal offer is coupled with a promise that it would unveil a political plan on Feb.4, the anniversary of the island's independence from the then colonial power Britain.
The promise shows that the Colombo government is perfectly aware that there is no military solution to the conflict and that the protracted ethnic conflict requires a broad-based approach.
While we do not have details of the plan to be unveiled, we do know that Sri Lanka country a settlement of political, constitutional and other issues without infringing upon the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In order to work out a political solution, the government and the Tamil community have to move forward, with the former guaranteeing that the Tamils' grievances would be satisfactorily addressed within that framework and the latter publicly abandoning the drive for sedition. However, there is little trust lost between the two, and hence every effort becomes an uphill task even if the two sides proclaim their adherence to these pledges and commitments.
There is room for effective UN involvement. But, at this point in time, the Sri Lankan government is unlikely to accept any mediation because it would see any suspension of its military operations as benefiting the rebels.
Against that backdrop, the international community seems to have little choice in the matter. It will have to wait out until Colombo is good and ready. But in the meantime, there is a pressing need for civilians to be spared from more suffering. That is where the UN could step with observers to ensure that civilians do not pay the price for the conflict by being caught in the crossfire.

Optimism despite many ifs and buts

Jan.11, 2008

Optimism despite many ifs and buts


IT is indeed welcome news that US President George W. Bush has expressed confidence that Israel and the Palestinians would sign a peace treaty before he leaves office a year from now.
In fact, the US president has been saying the right things at the right time since the launch of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Annapolis in November. However, people in the Middle East — who have been and are living with the problems of the region for decades — are sceptical, given the realities on the ground, particularly the pervading belief that the US, which always underlines its "strategic partnership" with Israel, could not be expected to pressure Israel into making the compromises that are essential to peace. The Arab World has always seen the pattern of the US stepping in to protect Israel at various forums, including the United Nations, and pressuring the Palestinians into meeting Israeli demands.
There are many ifs and buts that are hanging in the air as the region looks ahead at the path towards peace, including the reality that the Palestinian community is split, with Hamas in control of the Gaza Strip and refusing to meet the prerequisites for being accepted as part of the effort for peace. However, there is also a conviction that the so-called hardliners would come around when the time is right in terms of significant shifts in the refusink Israeli positions and rejectionist conditions.
It is also uncertain at this juncture how far Israel is willing to go in accepting compromises — particularly in view of its positions on Arab East Jerusalem, Jewish settlements in the occupied territories and the fate of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war.
It was also disturbing to note the finding of opinion polls released on Thursday that Israelis were overwhelmingly pessimistic that Bush's visit to Israel and the West Bank would move peace negotiations with Palestinians forward. One poll found that some 77 per cent of Israelis said they thought he would not succeed while another showed 50 per cent of those surveyed said the Bush visit would not advance peace talks, while 36 per cent said it would.
At the same time, the note of high confidence in the affirmation by Bush that Israeli-Palestinian peace could be achieved in one year indicates a determination, particularly in his comment that
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "have to come together and make tough choices" and "with proper help that the state of Palestine will emerge."
Bush's call on the Israeli leadership to help and not hinder the modernisation of Palestinian security forces and affirmation that the future Palestinian state has to be contiguous are also indicative of a clear understanding of the elements that have to fit into the broader picture of peace in the region.
The words are very encouraging to the people of the Middle East who are anxious to see peace and normalcy being restored to the region so that they could refocus their development efforts and catch up with the rest of the world in an era of enhanced regional and international co-operation.
Let us hope that the determination seen in Bush's proclamations while in the region would be reflected in every American move. All it takes is Washington's recognition and acceptance of the fact that the Palestinians — and indeed the broader Arab World — are not asking for the moon but a fair and just solution to the problem based on their inalienable and legitimtate rights that are enshrined in UN decisions and international conventions, treaties and charters. They are ready to make compromises that do not infringe upon their basic rights and expect Israel not to indulge in pressure tactics and deceptive moves.
The Arab World would not be found wanting at any point as long as fairness and justice is guaranteed for all on the basis of international legitimacy.

Alarm bells are ignored

Jan.10, 2008

Alarm bells are ignored

AT A time when US President George W Bush is paying a high-profile visit to the Middle East against the backdrop of the worsening crisis in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association says that nearly half of US diplomats unwilling to volunteer to work in Iraq say one reason for their refusal is they do not agree with Bush administration's policies in the country.
According to a survey conducted by the American Foreign Service Association, security concerns and separation from family ranked as the top reasons for not wanting to serve in Iraq. But 48 per cent cited "disagreement" with administration policy as a factor in their opposition.
The survey was conducted late last year among the 11,500 members of the US diplomatic corps and found deep frustration among more than 4,300 respondents over Iraq, safety and security issues elsewhere, pay disparities and the leadership of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top deputies.
Nearly 70 per cent of US diplomats who responded to the survey oppose forced assignments to Iraq, a prospect that was raised by the State Department with an implicit warning issued last year that those who do not accept to serve in Iraq could face disciplinary measures.
Of course, the State Department has that option, and many diplomats could face no choice but to serve in Iraq if they were to keep their jobs. However, how effectively they would perform under such conditions and in the chaotic atmosphere in Iraq is a major question, and this clearly points to non-accomplishment of US foreign policy objectives in the country.
Beyond the human elements at play in the diplomats' refusal to serve in Iraq, the American Foreign Service Association survey has brought out a very significant aspect of the workings of the Bush administration: Heavy dissent in its diplomatic ranks against its policies.
That should be seen coupled with the obvious dissent in the US intelligence community that emerged to the surface with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which pulled the rug from under the administration's "case" against Iran.
But the Bush administration is brushing aside the dissent in the diplomatic and intelligence communities as if a handful of people at the helm of affairs know better. Abandoned on the fringes are veteran diplomats and intelligence experts whose decades of experience are ringing loud warning bells against the course followed by the administration. Surely, that in itself is unprecedented in US history and gives rise to the certainty that we have yet to see more dramatic developments before Bush leaves office in January 2009.

Diplomacy not an option, but a must

Jan.9, 2008

Diplomacy not an option, but a must



THE reported dust-up between the US and Iranian navies in the Gulf on Sunday makes us believe that a US-Iranian military confrontation is getting closer. It is as if our hopes that there would be no military action are collapsing as a script of confrontation is being played out.
Both sides have firmed up their positions. Washington, citing its right for a routine passage in international waters, says its warships were threatened by Iranian navy boats and has warned against provocations.
Tehran denies that its boats threatened US warships and describes Monday's incident in the Strait of Hormuz as an "ordinary occurrence." It says it has the right to ask any ships to identify themselves upon entering or leaving the Gulf.
No doubt, the incident strengthens US President George W.Bush's argument, which he takes to the region this week, that Iran poses a threat to regional stability. Tehran rejects the charge and insists that the US is determined to follow a course of hostility towards Iran.
The war of words could continue, but the naval brush-off in the Gulf highlighted the danger of miscalculations sparking a military conflict in our neighbourhood. As we are given to understand, the US warships came close to opening fire against the Iranian boats that allegedly harassed them. It is anyone's guess what could have followed if the US warships had opened up their guns against the Iranian boats.
It is ironic that Iran's behaviour is not helping ease the tension. Often, the world gets the impression that the Iranians are daring the US to launch military action against them. They are either convinced that the US would not take military action against them or that they would be able to wage an effective "defensive war" in the event of a US military strike against them.
That is not the way others the region views the crisis. The region, which is living through the crises sparked by the US-led invasion of Iraq nearly five years ago, is anxious to avoide yet another military conflict that could plunge the area into chaos with unpredictable consequences.
Whatever their self-serving motivations and reasonings, neither the US nor Iran has any right to expose the region to further conflicts and crises. If they have any sense of their international obligations, they should resort to diplomacy and dialogue to settle their differences while respecting each other's rights as enshrined in international conventions and charters.

A lap-run but without victory

Jan.8, 2008

A lap-run but without victory

George W. Bush's comments on the eve of his last visit as US president to the Middle East have affirmed the belief of most people in the region that the trip is unlikely to produce realistic results to advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process launched in Annapolis in November.
It has been clear for some time now that without a major shift in the pro-Israeli policy in Washington there was little hope of a just and fair settlement of the Palestinian problem. Some optimists were hoping that Bush would be coming to the Middle East with fresh ideas based on the recognition that Israel's refusal to respect the legitimate rights of the Palestinians is at the root of the conflict.
In his latest comments, Bush did not signal any shift in his position. If anything, he reaffirmed his commitment to the "security" of Israel by announcing that he would press ahead with his drive against Iran, which he described as a continued threat to regional stability.
The US president cited the recently released National Intelligence Estimate produced by US intelligence agencies as reaffirming the "threat" posed by Iran whereas the region saw the report as a clear indication that Tehran appears less determined to have nuclear weapons than the intelligence community believed it had been two years ago.
By maintaining his tirade against Iran, Bush is seeking to serve Israeli interests. It is evident that Israel, which sees its possession of nuclear weapons as a tool to advance its regional designs, is concerned that it would lose its military edge over all countries in the region if Iran develops a nuclear programme.
Bush will be trying to convince the region to accept the US view of Iran. He is sidestepping the history of the region where Iran has always been and remains a reality with established relations with other regional players who understand the Iranians better than most people.
Indeed, there are regional disputes, but the regional players have their own means to deal with the issues, whether multilateral or bilateral.
What is of immediate and prime concern for the region is the crisis in Iraq and the conviction that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would not get anywhere under the present geopolitics dictated by the pro-Israeli bias of the US.
Notwithstanding the loud US declaration that Iraq is being pacified, the region knows well that the crisis in that country is simmering just below the surface, ready to erupt again at the first opportune moment.
Bush has not offered the Middle East any sign that the US would adopt an independent and neutral approach to the Palestinian problem based on international legitimacy and UN resolutions and that he is willing to twist the Israeli arm. Short of that, there is little room for hope for a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
Obviously, Bush has already turned his visit to the Middle East region into what he considers as a victory march marking his departure from the White House next year. The Middle East would see the march, but would still be searching for what Bush's victory was even after his departure from the region.

Iraqi agony at new heights

Jan.7, 2008

Iraqi agony at new heights

A REPORT prepared by Al Jazeera has exposed yet another ugly face of the US-invasion and occupation of Iraq — Iraqi parents are forced to sell their children with hopes that the children would have a better life outside Iraq. And organised groups seem to be at work specialising in buying and even kidnapping Iraqi children to be sold outside Iraq.
Particularly touching is the case of Abu Mohammed, a Baghdad resident, who opted to sell his youngest daughter for $10,000 to a visiting Swedish couple claiming to be part an international non-governmental organisation. The couple's Iraqi translator was the intermediary.
"The war disgraced my family. I lost relatives including my wife among thousands of victims of sectarian violence and was forced to sell my (two-year-old) daughter to give my other children something to eat," Al Jazeera quotes Abu Mohammed as saying in what partly sums up the typical sentiment of an Iraqi parent forced to sell his or her child.
According to Omar Khalif, vice-president of the Iraqi Families Association, (IFA), a NGO established in 2004 to register cases of those missing and trafficked, at least two children are sold by their parents every week and another four are reported missing every week.
Police investigations have revealed that many have been sold by their parents to foreign couples or specialised gangs who in turn sell the children to families in foreign countries, mainly European.
There was never any reported case of sale of babies in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion in 2004 — even during the bitter years during which Iraq remained under sweeping international sanctions that were imposed when it invaded Kuwait in 1990.
The Iraqis, who are proud of and have always lived true to their Arab Muslim traditions and values, have been now forced into doing things for which that their conscience — or that of any parent for that matter — would torment them for life.
The trafficking in babies is only one of the numerous problems and crises facing the Iraqi society today. As it is rightly observed throughout the world, children and women pay the price first for military misdventures, and it is all the more pronounced in Iraq.
The US, by virtue of it being the key power that led the war against Iraq, destabilised the country and exposed its people to untold suffering, has to shoulder the blame for the misery facing the Iraqis today.
It has to shoulder the responsibility is to offer the people of Iraq — who it says it "liberated" from tyranny — the social security that allows them to lead a dignified life.
However, in reality, neither the US nor the government in power in Baghdad today is in a position to shoulder that responsibility. Such is the chaos that is pervading in Iraq today in the absence of a strong system that gives priority to the people rather than the vested political interests of external powers and ethnical/communal interests of various groups within the country.

The only constant in Washington

Jan.6, 2008

The only constant in Washington

John McCain's comment during a a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, shortly before the the Iowa caucuses that the US military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," held no surprises. It only highlighted the neoconservative mindset that the US has the moral and global authority to stay in Iraq as long it wants. However, McCain qualified it by saying that he had no objection to US soldiers staying in Iraq "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed." That is something the neoconservatives are not worried about. For them, the life and death of American soldiers in Iraq is the price that the American political establishment should be willing to pay. Never mind that the American political establishment takes orders, direct and indirect, from Israel, and that it is in partly in Israel's interest that the US military continues to stay on in Iraq and consolidate its presence there as an advance base for intervention in the region when deemed fit without risking Israeli lives (not to mention that the US military's departure from Iraq would only strengthen Israeli foe Iran).
In the minds of people like McCain, a US military withdrawal from Iraq is defeat.
They are not bothered by the fact that their country violated all international conventions, charters, agreements and conventions as well the code of conduct of governments when it invaded and occupied Iraq, and that it is continuing the same violation as long as it remains there.
They are not bothered by the fact that their country does not have much credibility around the world except the reputation as the world's strongest military superpower that is terrifying many countries.
They are not bothered by the fact that the behaviour of their governments, whether Republican or Democrat, in recent decades contradicted the very founding principles of their country.
They are not bothered by the fact that their governments, whether Republican or Democrat, have been consistently forced into upholding Israeli interests above American interests and thus caused immense damage to their country's relations with the Middle East.
The list of ironies, paradoxes and contradictions in the neoconservative-nudged policies of the US government is endless, and the people in the Middle East have been and are continuing to pay a heavy price for them.
As the 2008 race for the White House picks up momentum, many of these vagaries of American politics would be exposed as American politicians bend backwards to placate and Israel and its powerful lobbyists in Washington.
Perhaps the only consolation is that the people of America are slowly waking up to the realities of their politics and politicians. Perhaps that was why those who took part in the Iowa causes did not opt to endorse McCain as their Republican candidate for presidency.
But the battle has only started, and the world is keenly watching the scene with hopes that the American majority mindset would reveal itself as it decides who should be their candidate for president.
Not that it would make any difference to US policy vis-a-vis the Arab-Israeli conflict whoever wins in the end if only because Washington's approach to the Middle East is non-partisan. That is perhaps the only constant in Washington.

It cannot be a zero-sum game

Jan.4, 2008

It cannot be a zero-sum game


THE DECISION by the Kenyan opposition party, the Orange Democratic Movement, to postpone what the group called a "million-man march" has averted what could have turned out to be the bloodiest event of the post-election chaos in the country.
However, there is no real sign of any end to the bloodletting has already killed more than 300 people and made 70,000 homeless.
The Orange Democratic Movement's leader, Raila Odinga, who was defeated in the presidential election against incumbent Mwai Kibaki, claims that the voting was rigged. Odinga has the backing of international observers who say the election process was flawed.
As is natural in such circumstances, the government and opposition are accusing each other of being behind the violence that is unprecedented in a country that had become known as a vibrant democracy and peacemaker in Africa, rather than a trouble spot.
In fact, Kenya is living true to the argument of many that in Africa there is no such thing as an incumbent president or prime minister losing a vote.
Pro-Kibaki MPs want Odinga and others to be charged by the International Criminal Court for "ethnic cleansing and genocide" while the Odinga camp contends that a police order to shoot during protests by its supporters was "bordering on genocide."
One thing is clear: The instigators of the violence that saw crazed killings, including the massacre of some 50 people inside a church, and those involved in the rampages in the country have little respect or consideration for the people of Kenya.
At the same time, it is also difficult to see how any group could stand to gain anything from the bloodletting.
In fact, the people of Kenya are being taken for a ride. None of the politicians could be expected to be anywhere near troublespots; they prefer to leave their supporters to confront police and their political rivals.The businesses, homes and families of the politicians are safe and secure while the people on the streets are turned into cannonfodder. Such is the politicians' greed for power and wealth that they brush aside all considerations for the faith their supporters have placed in them. Mass murders do not matter to them as long as their political interests are served.
Some contend that as in many other African countries, the politics in Kenya also has a tribal overtone, with Kibaki’s Kikuyu tribe pitted against Odinga’s Luo. They claim that the post-election violence brought to the front the latent tribalism present in daily life in the country.
Those claims and contentions overlook the reality that many of the African countries as they exist today are the creations of colonial powers with varying degrees of "democratic practices" mainly dictated by foreign powers in order to serve their own interests.
Indeed, the ferocity of the violence in Kenya — highlighted by reports of headless bodies being dragged from burnt-out shacks — has shocked the world, and that is what some could cite as supporting the theory that tribalism is showing its ugly head.
But that does not necessarily mean that old scores are being settled today. In reality, as could be assessed from the history of Kenya, the rival groups are fighting for control of local resources, and they are led by powerful politicians who also happen to be prominent tribal figures. The situation could easily be described as typical of Africa or any other part of the developing world.
The international community is desperate to find a compromise. But, with the core issue being the veracity of the voting and vote-counting process, the political leaders of Kenya have to accept to place the satety, security and welfare of the people and democratic interests of Kenya over everything else. They have to respect it cannot be a zero-sum game, where the winner takes it all and fight bitterly to keep it all.
The international community has to turn the heat until on the political leaders of all shades in Kenya are ready to accept the rules of democracy.
Until the time they are ready to do that, all efforts would be wasted.

Never too late for genuine turn

Jan.3, 2008

Never too late for genuine turn


PAKISTAN's main political parties say they resent the postponement of general elections from Jan.8 to Feb.18, but that they would take part in the polls anyway. Their decision comes as a great relief since fears were high that the two major opposition parties would reject the move and wage continuous protests against the government over the delay.
Indeed, it is the first time in Pakistan’s history that an election had been postponed after the date had been announced.
The chief election commissioner announced the postponement saying that ir would not be possible to hold the vote as scheduled following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto last week. Nearly 50 people have been killed in the spree of violence that followed the Bhutto assassination.
Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammed Farooq, who said the violent protests that had directly affected the organisation of the elections, has promised that the vote "in every respect will be clean and transparent."
There could be many arguments against the delay, including an assertion that the postponement is largely intended to deprive the two main opposition parties of a huge sympathy vote after Bhutto’s assassination.
On the other hand, the reasons cited by the authorities for the postponement seem to be fairly valid, including the destruction of polling stations, loss of election material and delays in printing election papers.
Understandably, the decision has disappointed Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP), which was hoping to capitalise on the sympathy flowing in the wake of its leader's assassination.
Well, all political parties have no option but to accept the decision and hope they would be able to perform their best in the process to secure the people's mandate.
In the broader context, the international community is anxious to see normalcy returned to Pakistan as soon as possible. The world has been watching in horror as militancy took a turn to the worse in the past few months, with suicide bombings becoming frequent. The fear is that militants could exploiting the situation in the country to grow stronger roots with a view to staging "spectacular" attacks in retaliation for the country's commitment to fighting extremism and support for the US-led "war against terror."
Pakistan  is facing a tough challenge: They have to defeat all forces of militancy and extremism, restore national stability and security and set the course towards democratic life with all that it entails. The election, delayed as it might be, is the first step towards that goal. The way ahead is not easy, but the objective could be realised if everyone concerned — the ordinary people, the government, the military, the judiciary and the intelligence community as well as the businesses that control the national economy — brush aside all differences and stand together to protect the genuine interests of the country. Time has already been wasted, but it is never too late.

Harming the cause boosts the enemy

Jan.2, 2008

Harming the cause boosts the enemy

THE Hamas-Fatah conflict is marking another unwanted bloody chapter contributing to weakening the Palestinian struggle for independence. By refusing to accept Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's call for dialogue for reconcliation and setting their conditions for any talks, Hamas leaders are showing that they are riding high on their physical control of the Gaza Strip. They know well that Hamas would be have to counted in any meaningly process involving the Palestinians as long the group remains in control of the Gaza Strip, and thus they feel that they hold the upper hand in any dealing with the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) headed by Abbas.
On the other hand, Abbas is treading in delicate waters. He knows that the international community is supporting him in his endeavours for peace with Israel, but is handicapped by the Hamas control of the Gaza Strip and Israel's threat to suspend peace talks with him if the PNA launches dialogue with Hamas.
It was natural that Abbas qualified his call for dialogue with Hamas by insisting that the group had to return the Gaza Strip to PNA control before any dialogue could take place. That is also an implicit message to the Israelis that he is not offering reconciliation while accepting the Hamas seizure and control of the Gaza Strip as fait accompli.
Abbas's latest public attempt at reconciliation with Hamas received a resounding rebuff from the rulers of Gaza who rejected his conditions and demanded that the PNA free all "political detainees" — meaning Hamas activists in PNA detention — and halt its pursuit of Hamas loyalists in the West Bank.
Again, Abbas faces another dilemma. Under the "road map" peace plan that is the basis for the renewed peace talks with Israel, Abbas is supposed to rein in armed resistance against Israel. If he agrees to release Hamas fighters in PNA detention, he would be cited by Israel as not only not living up to his obligations but also as encouraging armed resistance. This in turn would be a pretext for Israel not to meet its obligations — mainly suspension of all settlement work in the occupied territories.
At this juncture in time, it would seem that Hamas leaders and Abbas are digging in their heels and the emerging picture does not leave room for hope for any Hamas-Fatah breakthrough.
The only light at the end of the tunnel is the hope that ongoing behind-the-scene Arab mediation could soon produce a positive result since the Palestinians, represented by Fatah, Hamas or any other group, could not but be aware that it is the strength of their struggle for freedom and independence that is being eroded by their in-fighting and that they are playing into Israel's hands.

Human spirit retains hopes

Jan.1, 2008

Human spirit retains hopes

THE year 2007 was tumultous, particularly for the Middle East and Arab region where new conflicts emerged and old conflicts got worse, with seemingly no fair and just solution in the horizon. Perhaps the only trace of a positive sign was the launch of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the Annapolis conference after a seven-year hiatus although the pattern of Israel's intrasigence and stubborn rejectionist postures threaten to undermine the process at any point. In real terms, the fear is that Israel would simply stuff its version of "peace" down the Palestinian throat at some point. The best of optimists could even hope for reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, but that means little when it comes to dealing with Israel and trying to wrench the legitimate Palestinian rights.
In Iraq, violence has ebbed a little, but the overriding feeling is that the relative calm is short-lived, with the US showing no intention of ending its occupation of the country; Washington is talking only about a possible "draw-down" of its military presence in Iraq and refusing to set a deadline for departure. And the ordinary people of oil-rich Iraq continue to suffer in poverty and insecurity.
In Iran, the revelation by the US intelligence community that Tehran abandoned a nuclear weaponisation programme in 2003 has not really made any difference to Washington's resolve to maintain pressure on the country and eventually take action towards realising the US objective of "regime change" there.
Tehran itself is not helping reduce tensions. It is maintaining its defiance and rhetoric and thumping its nose and daring the US to take whatever action it finds fit.
In Lebanon, the crisis over electing a new president is persisting, with none of the key internal and external players signalling any meaningful move to lift the logjam. Indeed, everyone seems to believe that any compromise to end the crisis would be a make-or-break move as far as their vested interests are concerned.
The Lebanese crisis is closely tied to the Israeli-Syrian conflict, and the US has renewed pressure on Damascus, refusing to entertain Syrian overtures for resumption of peace talks with Israel.
In Somalia, the new year sees a worsening conflict that is causing the worst humanitarian crisis ever, according to the UN.
In Sudan, every move to solve the crisis in Darfur faces pitfalls while the people in the troubled region continuing to suffer despite the international will and effort to help them.
In Algeria, extremists have launched their own brand of insurgency that might or might not have to do with the decade-old violent revolt that many thought had ended.
Wherever we look at the troublespots in the Middle East and Arab region and beyond it, be in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka or wherever, the situation is gloomy. And we have seen too many new years come and go to expect 2008 would be any different.
But the human spirit urges us to be optimistic. Let us hope that the New Year would usher in enough political will among world leaders that would make a real and positive difference to the poor and suffering people of this planet.

Happy New Year.

The unifying factor in Pakistan politics

Dec.31, 2007


The unifying factor in Pakistan politics

IT might seem untoward at first look that a 19-year-old youth has been appointed chairman of Pakistan's arguably strongest party at a time when the country's in in deep crisis following the Dec.27 assassination of a prime minister who also led the party. However, the youth happens to be the son of the assassinated former prime minister and party leader, Benazir Bhutto, and the Bhutto family name is the binding factor not only for the slain leader's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) but also for a majority of Pakistanis, including many who might owe allegiance to other political groups in the country.
It was no coincidence that Benzair Bhutto named her son, Bilawal, an Oxford University student, as her successor in the event of her death. She knew well that the mantle she inherited from her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, had to be handed down to her son, who would be known more for his maternal legacy than anything else as he goes ahead with his political career.
The PPP's decision to honour the late leader's desire, as expressed in her will that was read out by Bilawal on Sunday, meant that the party leadership follows the bloodline for a third generation, some four decades after it was founded Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
On the surface, the PPP is seen risking being marginalised by opting for a "dynasty-based" succession. But such is the nature of politics in the Indian sub-continent. It has happened in India, where Indira Gandhi inherited her premiership from her father Jawaharlal Nehru and passed it on to her son Rajiv Gandhi when she was assassinated in 1983. Today, the leadership of the Congress Party rests with Sonia Gandhi, the widow of Rajiv Gandhi — who was killed in a suicide blast in 1991 — and Rahul Gandhi, son of Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi, is being groomed to take over the mantle when the conditions are right.
In Bangladesh, the two most prominent women and former prime ministers are widows of former heads of government.
In Sri Lanka, Chandrika Bandaranaike, a former president and currently a strong opposition leader, comes from a family of politicians. She inherited the politics of her father Solomon Bhanaranaike, and her mother Sirimavo Bhandaranaike, and her husband, movie star and politician Vijaya Kumaratunga.
Indeed, it would not at all be an easy ride for Bilawal, but his father Asif Ali Zardari, 51, will assist him as co-chairman of the party as announced by the PPP on Sunday.
Again, that is similar to what is happening in India. Just as Sonia Gandhi is running the Congress show to keep the place warm for Rahul, Zardari would be running the PPP show for Bilawal, who is too young to enter politics and needs to have a solid foundation in education before moving out of academics.
It is natural that his mother's politics have already turned him into politician's material. That much is evident in the few public statements he made in recent years.
When he was 16, Dilawal said in a press interview that he felt justice and democracy held the key to resolving Pakistan's problems.
Asked whether he would enter politics, he said he did not really know "but I would like to help the people of Pakistan, so I will decide when I finish my studies."
His mother's tragic death made the decision for him, and, hopefully, when the right time comes, he would be able to live up to his promise that regardless of whatever he does, he would "benefit the people of Pakistan."

'Surge' in mindset will yield solutions

Dec.30, 2007


'Surge' in mindset will yield solutions


A CLOSE look at the elements in play in Iraq would show that the US declaration that its "surge" in troops since early this year has worked well in Baghdad and surrounding areas is an exaggeration. But then, the US could not be expected to admit that the relative calm has more to do with Iraqis themselves than the "surge."
In Baghdad itself, the number of suicide attacks and bombings has gone down. The main reason is that Baghdad is now a city of communal enclaves zealously guarded by sectarian militiamen who trust no one but their own.
However, this does not bode well for the future because of the communal division of the Iraqi capital that pre-empts interaction among its residents as fellow citizens of Iraq. The sectarian split should not be allowed to take such deep and physical roots if there is any hope of the country returning to normal at any point in time.
The order issued by firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr to his Mahdi Army militiamen to keep a low profile and cease attacks in the wake of the US "surge" was another factor that contributed to reducing violence in Baghdad.
However, the Mahdi Army remains one of the potent forces that could spring back to action when they feel the time is opportune for them to resume implementing their sectarian agenda.
The decline in violence in areas neighbouring Baghdad is mainly because of the alienation between the Sunnis and Al Qaeda and the emergence of neighbourhood groups backed by the US military. The US military started nurturing the Sunni groups months before the "surge" and gave them vehicles, uniforms, bullet-proof jackets and $300 a month.
Now the Sunni groups are said to number about 70,000, and they are demanding that they be incorporated into the country's regular security forces, something that the Iraqi government is not really interested in doing. A major crisis is brewing there, with the US finding itself unable to work out a compromise.
In general, the relative calm in western Iraq could be attributed to the fact that most areas there have been "ethnically cleansed" — accounting for the two million Iraqis who have been internally displaced.
In southern Iraq, tension runs high between the Mahdi Army and its main Shiite challenger, the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, both vying for dominance despite having signed an agreement to end fighting and to co-operate. The US does not have a large military presence in the south and the relative calm there could be attributed to the agreement signed by Sadr and Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council leader Abdul Aziz Hakim.
Notwithstanding any of these arguments, the US could indeed assert what matters is that there has been a marked drop in violence in Iraq. What the US would not want to admit is the fact that there are real and serious crises simmering just below the surface almost everywhere in Iraq. Washington on its own does not have any effective means to solve them because the crises are rooted in the very ethnic make-up of Iraq and the history of the country in the last century. The only way out perhaps is through a US acceptance that the strategic goals of its invasion and occupation of Iraq could never be achieved. If and when the US accepts this as a reality, then solutions for the Iraq crisis would materialise themselves.

Positive ground and foundation

Jan.28, 2007

Positive ground and foundation



CAUTIOUS optimism are the two key words to describe the outcome of this week's meeting between Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and Afghan leader Hamid Karzai. The two leaders, who have been criticising each other for "not doing enough" to check militancy, appear to have reached the conclusion that their co-operation holds the answer to the common problem of militancy both face, particularly among the unruly tribes living on their border.
Kabul had been accusing Islamabad of not preventing Taliban militants being trained and armed in Pakistan and sent across the border to attack Afghan security forces and the 60,000 international troops working with them.For its part, Islamabad, which has deployed 90,000 soldiers on the frontier, accused Kabul of not pressing for the enhanced deployment of Afghan and international troops the 2,500-kilometre border to stop infiltration by militants.
Pakistan and Afghanistan have witnessed a sharp escalation of violence, with some 6,000 people killed in the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan in 2007 while nearly 800 people died in militant attacks in Pakistan.
In a highly positive note, Musharraf announced after Wednesday's meeting that he and Karzai had developed "a strong understanding of each other's problems" and that they had also agreed on sharing intelligence information to fight "this menace of extremism and terrorism which is destroying both our countries."
Similar expressions also came from Karzai, indicating what could be a major breakthrough for both countries in their fight against militancy. "People in both the countries are suffering -- suffering a lot," Karzai said. "And it is incumbent upon us — the leadership of the two countries, the governments — to find ways to bring peace and stability to each home, each family, in both countries."
In order to convert their understanding of each other's problems into result-oriented action, both need work on the domestic front because some of their problems are internal. Both face difficult political situations at home that need careful handling. There are groups and individuals on both sides who do not approve of their government's role in the post-Sept.11, 2001 fight against extremism, and many sympathise with the Taliban and Al Qaeda if only because of what they see as state apathy towards social injustice.
Clearly, tough tasks are ahead for Musharraf and Karzai. They have crossed the first hurdle of having to work out an understanding between themselves. Hopefully, they would be able to advance towards their goals with the same positive spirit that was evident during their latest encounter.

Tough and difficult but not impossible

Dec.27, 2007

Tough and difficult but not impossible

THE CONFLICT between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamils in Sri Lanka is turning out be one of the most difficult crises. Repeated efforts to end the conflict have ended up nowhere, with both the government in Colombo and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) group now appear determined to gain the upper hand before anything else.
The government of President Mahinda Rajapakse has vowed to defeat the rebels militarily before any new peace talks while the rebel group has pledged not to allow the Sri Lankan military to make any advances. However, the military has indeed made gains in the ongoing confrontation and the government is moving ahead with a resolve to eliminate the rebel group's fighting ability.
Both sides have stepped up rhetoric and it is difficult to find any room for renewed dialogue to end the decades-old conflict that owes its origins to the days when the British colonial power moved Indian Tamil labourers to work on the island. The main grievance of today's Sri Lankan Tamil generation is that they are subjected to state discrimination and are denied what they consider as their legitimate rights. The government denies the charge and says it is open for peace talks with the LTTE but is also detemined to destroy the Tamil dissident group militarily. It has pulled all plugs and is pressing ahead with full-fledged war against the group.
The latest fighting came on Wednesday when Sri Lanka's navy clashed with LTTE vessels off the island's northern coast of Jaffna, and the defence ministry said 11 rebel boats were destroyed, leaving at least 40 guerrillas dead.
One of Rajapakse's ministers have declared that any attempt at having a dialogue with the LTTE's shadowy leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, is futile and there would be no peace in Sri Lanka unless Prabhakaran is killed.
Social Services and Welfare Minister Douglas Devananda, a Tamil vehemently opposed to the Tigers, does have a reason to say so. He has survived numerous assassination attempts, the latest on Nov.28, when a female bomber officials say was sent by Prabhakaran made her way into his ministry in central Colombo and blew herself up, killing one of his aides.
The failed assassination attempt bore all the trademarks of Prabhakaran, who is known for his use of suicide attackers as part of his campaign to create a separate state for Tamils in Sri Lanka's north and east.
It is clear that the two sides have no trust in each other's words and actions and hence the deadlock in efforts to restart the stalled peace process. It is indeed a tough task to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table.
But the international community could not sit back saying let the two sides fight it out until one of them is defeated or they come to their senses and will be ready accept solutions that does not compromise the country's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The least the world could do is to immediately ensure that weapons do not flow to Sri Lanka to feed the conflict and serve an ultimatum on both sides to halt attacks on each other and come to internationally mediated talks.
Would the UN have that kind of courage? Yes, it would, but it depends on the determination of the world at large to put an end once and for all to a self-destructing crisis where innocent civilians are paying the highest price.