June 5, 2008
Pipedreaming in Iraq
THE US is putting up a brave front and asserting that it is confident of working out a new security agreement with Iraq by July although negotiations have yet to make any headway. It wants to sign twin agreements with the Iraqi government on the status of US military forces in Iraq after 2008 and a framework for diplomatic relations. The agreements will give a legal basis to US troops to stay in Iraq after Dec. 31, when their United Nations' mandate expires.
Effectively, the agreements will closely bind Iraq with the US, allowing Washington to call the shots in Baghdad in matters that involve US strategic interests and also offering some form of legitimacy for a permanent US military presence in the country.
Many Iraqis are opposed to the US plans. Last Friday, thousands of Iraqis answered a call by Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr to protest against the proposed agreements.
Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the senior most Shiite cleric in Iraq, is also against any such stratic tie-up with the US. In fact, Sistani has reportedly issued fatwas that endorse attacks against the US-led foreign forces in the country as resistance against occupiers.
The combined opposition of Sistani and Sadr makes it hardly likely that the US would realise its objectives in Iraq.
Indeed, the Iraqi government depends on the US for survival, but it could not sidestep the majority opinion in the country. It is seeking a compromise formula that would dilute opposition to the proposed agreements and that is why Washington and Baghdad could not agree even over what should be in the documents. No one is taken in by US officials' insistence that both agreements being negotiated with Iraq were based on "recognition of and respect for the fact of Iraqi sovereignty."
The problems that Washington faces in advancing towards the agreements highlight the reality yet again that the US has failed to achieve its strategic objectives of its invasion and occupation of Iraq. Washington is refusing to accept defeat and is still entertaining hopes that it could somehow bulldoze its way through while it is clear to the rest of the world that the US is fighting for a lost cause in Iraq. And that spells more trouble ahead.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Iraqi sovereignty at stake?
June 4, 2008
Iraqi sovereignty at stake?
by pv vivekanand
A RARE point of agreement of Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is rejection of the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States, and it is unlikely that Washington would be able to convince them to accept it. But then that is the least of the potential problems that the US faces as it desparately seeks to sucessfully close and seal some of the key files on Iraq, more than five years after invading and occupyng the country.
According to reports, one of the key points of dispute in negotiations between the US and Iraqi governments over the draft security agreement is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited.
The US wants to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. It also wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. The US wants to reserve the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission and wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.
The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack
The US-Iraq negotiations have not made any headway on the draft and thus it seems impossible for Washington to meet a July deadline for concluding and signing it.
Beyond that, however, the very nature of the agreement, which seeks to legitimise the US colonialisation of Iraq, makes it unacceptable to the Iraqis, whether Sunnis or Shiites. That removes the central pillar from the US designs and plans which essentially seek to turn Iraq into an advance base for the US military in the Gulf region.
Washington is emphatically denying that wants to set up permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is only a matter of semantics because, under the controversial draft agreement, the US would definitely have permanent military presence in the country.
The draft agreement is proposed to replace the United Nations authorisation of the US occupation that expires at the end of 2008.
Leading Iraqi opposition to the agreement is firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr, whose powerful movement staged a formidable protest last week against the draft agreement and also announced subsequent protests planned for the duration of the summer.
Voices of dissent against the draft are emerging from all parts of Iraqi society.
The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq describes it as "reflecting the US occupation's political, economic, military, and social hegemony over Iraq."
The Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council (IISC), one of the largest Shiit groups, has expressed reservations over the agreement. IISC leader Abdul Aziz Al Hakim says that "there are clauses in the agreement that encroach on Iraq's sovereignty."
Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, until recently a voice of moderation in fractious and chaotic Iraqi political system and widely described as the most powerful figure in Iraq, is demanding a national referendum on any agreement on the US military occupation of his country.
It is a demand that the US would not be able to reject, but the outcome is predictable: A massive "No" to any extension of the US military occupation Iraq. The Iraqis do have good reasons to vote "no." They are perfectly aware that a long-term US military occupation would erode their sovereignty. US occupations have passed the half-century mark in countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, and the Iraqis have a legitimate cause for concern that the US intends to add their country to its list of open-ended occupation.
The US also faces opposition to its plans from outside Iraq.
Iran, which wields high influence in Iraq, is concerned that any long-term US military occupation of its neighbour may be used as a springboard to attack Iran.
The least that could be expected from Iran is an intensification of efforts to keep the US engaged within Iraq and prevent it from shifting its gunsight eastwards.
The reported US assurance to Iraq that it would not use Iraqi territory for possible military action against Iran is not at all convincing because it is elementary that Iraq would find itself in the middle of any US-Iranian military conflict.
The US administration also faces congresssional opposition to the proposed agreement with Iraq despite its pledge that any agreement will not be binding on the new president or commit the US to maintain a minimum level of military presence to to prop up the Iraqi government. The US Congress is also unhappy over the administration's insistence that the proposed agreement with Iraq does not require Congressional ratification.
In general, the Bush administration seems to be satisfied that it would be able to circumvent and ride out any Congressional opposition to the draft accord with Iraq as it has done in the past.
Back in Iraq, the US could also expect a surge in violence against the talk of extended US military presence. Groups which have been fighting each other before putting away their guns until after an expected US departure would have no incentive to hold their fire and many of them would definitely target US soldiers.
As of now, there is little to show as progress in the US-Iraq negotiations, with Haidar Al Abadi, a member of parliament from Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, affirming this week that the Iraqis and the Americans were far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations "are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options."
"The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," according to Abadi. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement."
Clearly, most people, including groups which supported the US invasion of Iraq, are now talking about infringement of Iraqi sovereignty by the US. That raises a simple question: How come they did not raise any concern over Iraqi sovereignty when they not only invited the US to invade the country but also rode on the backs of US military tanks across the border into Iraq in March 2003?
Iraqi sovereignty at stake?
by pv vivekanand
A RARE point of agreement of Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is rejection of the draft of a security agreement proposed by the United States, and it is unlikely that Washington would be able to convince them to accept it. But then that is the least of the potential problems that the US faces as it desparately seeks to sucessfully close and seal some of the key files on Iraq, more than five years after invading and occupyng the country.
According to reports, one of the key points of dispute in negotiations between the US and Iraqi governments over the draft security agreement is that the US wants its troops to have complete freedom of movement in the country, whereas the Iraqis want it to be limited.
The US wants to retain the right to dominate Iraqi air space up to 29,000 feet, and to gain open access to the land, air and water of Iraq. It also wants to retain the right to arrest and detain any Iraqi whom the US believes represents a security threat. The US wants to reserve the right to launch military operations to chase terrorists without seeking Iraqi government permission and wants immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for American troops, contractors and corporations in Iraq.
The US also wants to retain the right to define terrorism against Iraq. It does not want to give any undertaking that it will defend Iraq from any outside attack unless it is convinced about the nature of that attack
The US-Iraq negotiations have not made any headway on the draft and thus it seems impossible for Washington to meet a July deadline for concluding and signing it.
Beyond that, however, the very nature of the agreement, which seeks to legitimise the US colonialisation of Iraq, makes it unacceptable to the Iraqis, whether Sunnis or Shiites. That removes the central pillar from the US designs and plans which essentially seek to turn Iraq into an advance base for the US military in the Gulf region.
Washington is emphatically denying that wants to set up permanent military bases in Iraq, but it is only a matter of semantics because, under the controversial draft agreement, the US would definitely have permanent military presence in the country.
The draft agreement is proposed to replace the United Nations authorisation of the US occupation that expires at the end of 2008.
Leading Iraqi opposition to the agreement is firebrand Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr, whose powerful movement staged a formidable protest last week against the draft agreement and also announced subsequent protests planned for the duration of the summer.
Voices of dissent against the draft are emerging from all parts of Iraqi society.
The Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq describes it as "reflecting the US occupation's political, economic, military, and social hegemony over Iraq."
The Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council (IISC), one of the largest Shiit groups, has expressed reservations over the agreement. IISC leader Abdul Aziz Al Hakim says that "there are clauses in the agreement that encroach on Iraq's sovereignty."
Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, until recently a voice of moderation in fractious and chaotic Iraqi political system and widely described as the most powerful figure in Iraq, is demanding a national referendum on any agreement on the US military occupation of his country.
It is a demand that the US would not be able to reject, but the outcome is predictable: A massive "No" to any extension of the US military occupation Iraq. The Iraqis do have good reasons to vote "no." They are perfectly aware that a long-term US military occupation would erode their sovereignty. US occupations have passed the half-century mark in countries such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea, and the Iraqis have a legitimate cause for concern that the US intends to add their country to its list of open-ended occupation.
The US also faces opposition to its plans from outside Iraq.
Iran, which wields high influence in Iraq, is concerned that any long-term US military occupation of its neighbour may be used as a springboard to attack Iran.
The least that could be expected from Iran is an intensification of efforts to keep the US engaged within Iraq and prevent it from shifting its gunsight eastwards.
The reported US assurance to Iraq that it would not use Iraqi territory for possible military action against Iran is not at all convincing because it is elementary that Iraq would find itself in the middle of any US-Iranian military conflict.
The US administration also faces congresssional opposition to the proposed agreement with Iraq despite its pledge that any agreement will not be binding on the new president or commit the US to maintain a minimum level of military presence to to prop up the Iraqi government. The US Congress is also unhappy over the administration's insistence that the proposed agreement with Iraq does not require Congressional ratification.
In general, the Bush administration seems to be satisfied that it would be able to circumvent and ride out any Congressional opposition to the draft accord with Iraq as it has done in the past.
Back in Iraq, the US could also expect a surge in violence against the talk of extended US military presence. Groups which have been fighting each other before putting away their guns until after an expected US departure would have no incentive to hold their fire and many of them would definitely target US soldiers.
As of now, there is little to show as progress in the US-Iraq negotiations, with Haidar Al Abadi, a member of parliament from Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, affirming this week that the Iraqis and the Americans were far apart on the security agreement. He said negotiations "are at a standstill, and the Iraqi side is studying its options."
"The Americans have some demands that the Iraqi government regards as infringing on its sovereignty," according to Abadi. "This is the main dispute, and if the dispute is not settled, I frankly tell you there will not be an agreement."
Clearly, most people, including groups which supported the US invasion of Iraq, are now talking about infringement of Iraqi sovereignty by the US. That raises a simple question: How come they did not raise any concern over Iraqi sovereignty when they not only invited the US to invade the country but also rode on the backs of US military tanks across the border into Iraq in March 2003?
Turning point in US history
June 5, 2008
Turning point
in US history
Barack Obama has made history by securing the Democratic White House nomination as the first black candidate on a major-party ticket. Indeed, his erstwhile rival, Hillary Clinton, also would have made history if she had won the nomination because she would have been the first woman candidate to run for the US presidency on a major-party ticket. The possibility remains open that Hillary Clinton might make it as vice-president in an alliance with Obama.
Obama's victory in the Democratic race has brought forth debate over what lies in store for the US and indeed the world commity of nations if the senator from Illinois wins the presidency in November in a general election clash with Republican Senator John McCain.
His triumph within the Democratic party is tinged with a disbelief among his black American supporters: They never expected in their lifetimes to be able to support an African-American candidate with a real chance of winning the presidency.
Obama is seen as a standard-bearer of a new political generation that is emerging to the frontlines at a critical time for the US and indeed the rest of the world. Many are hoping that if he wins the White House he would adopt and follow policies that would spare the international community from paying the price for the misguided approach of the sole superpower under the current administration.
Son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father, Obama is perceived as a liberal at heart. He rose to prominence at the 2004 Democratic presidential convention with an emphatic call for unity, proclaiming "there is not a Black America and a White America ... there's the United States of America." Obama has been emphasising that he would change the direction of the country if he wins the presidency. Those promises should be music to the American people wearied by the Iraq war and stalked by fears of other conflicts and indeed economic recession.
Indeed, those who are hoping for change in the US direction should also lace their expectations with the realisation that the elements at work in the corridors of power in Washington are such that render presidents unable to deliver on election promises. However, that is no reason to be pessimistic since Obama could very well prove himself to be able beat all odds and live true to his promises and commitments.
Turning point
in US history
Barack Obama has made history by securing the Democratic White House nomination as the first black candidate on a major-party ticket. Indeed, his erstwhile rival, Hillary Clinton, also would have made history if she had won the nomination because she would have been the first woman candidate to run for the US presidency on a major-party ticket. The possibility remains open that Hillary Clinton might make it as vice-president in an alliance with Obama.
Obama's victory in the Democratic race has brought forth debate over what lies in store for the US and indeed the world commity of nations if the senator from Illinois wins the presidency in November in a general election clash with Republican Senator John McCain.
His triumph within the Democratic party is tinged with a disbelief among his black American supporters: They never expected in their lifetimes to be able to support an African-American candidate with a real chance of winning the presidency.
Obama is seen as a standard-bearer of a new political generation that is emerging to the frontlines at a critical time for the US and indeed the rest of the world. Many are hoping that if he wins the White House he would adopt and follow policies that would spare the international community from paying the price for the misguided approach of the sole superpower under the current administration.
Son of a white American mother and a black Kenyan father, Obama is perceived as a liberal at heart. He rose to prominence at the 2004 Democratic presidential convention with an emphatic call for unity, proclaiming "there is not a Black America and a White America ... there's the United States of America." Obama has been emphasising that he would change the direction of the country if he wins the presidency. Those promises should be music to the American people wearied by the Iraq war and stalked by fears of other conflicts and indeed economic recession.
Indeed, those who are hoping for change in the US direction should also lace their expectations with the realisation that the elements at work in the corridors of power in Washington are such that render presidents unable to deliver on election promises. However, that is no reason to be pessimistic since Obama could very well prove himself to be able beat all odds and live true to his promises and commitments.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The ball is in Tehran
March 11, 2008
The ball is in Tehran
THE call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani for the Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Iran is very much part and parcel of the region and the Arab countries in the Gulf have maintained close relations with the Iranians since as far as anyone could recollect. Those relations are not and would never be subject to third party interests and there are no ifs and buts in the equation.
The Qatari prime minister's statement comes against the backdrop of US-led stepped-up pressure against Tehran in the name of Iran's nuclear activities. It is no secret that the nuclear dispute is only a smokescreen for Washington's drive towards its goal — as declared by President George W Bush a few days before his re-election for a second term in 2004 — of regime change in Tehran. Given that reality, the talk of diplomatic options coming out of Washington becomes meaningless. The current position of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible for Iran to step away from its defiant position, and that is what is precisely the objective of the UN exercise, which is part of the build-up to whatever the US has in mind for Iran.
It is in this context that Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani warned that Gulf Arabs should be careful to prevent misunderstandings or international machinations from pushing the region into another war. 'We should not enter into an international game in which we will be exploited ... and come out as the losers on both sides," he said.
Indeed, the Gulf Arabs have their own issues to be taken up with Iran, but these come in a bilateral context, and that is something that Tehran should also remember.
The Gulf Arabs have made no secret of their position that relations with Iran could be dramatically improved if the bilateral issues were settled in an amicable way.
It is absolutely necessary that Iran steps forward with creative ideas that should lead to the settlement of all outstanding issues with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Everyone stands to gain from a fair and just solution to these issues and it would also taken everyone towards the goal of clear understanding of each others' positions and respect for each other's rights and positions. and relations based on non-interference in the internal matters of each other.
Clearly, the ball is in the Iranian court.
The ball is in Tehran
THE call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani for the Gulf Arab countries to maintain clear and frank relations with Iran is very much in line with the long-held policy of the UAE. Iran is very much part and parcel of the region and the Arab countries in the Gulf have maintained close relations with the Iranians since as far as anyone could recollect. Those relations are not and would never be subject to third party interests and there are no ifs and buts in the equation.
The Qatari prime minister's statement comes against the backdrop of US-led stepped-up pressure against Tehran in the name of Iran's nuclear activities. It is no secret that the nuclear dispute is only a smokescreen for Washington's drive towards its goal — as declared by President George W Bush a few days before his re-election for a second term in 2004 — of regime change in Tehran. Given that reality, the talk of diplomatic options coming out of Washington becomes meaningless. The current position of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible for Iran to step away from its defiant position, and that is what is precisely the objective of the UN exercise, which is part of the build-up to whatever the US has in mind for Iran.
It is in this context that Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim Bin Jabr Al Thani warned that Gulf Arabs should be careful to prevent misunderstandings or international machinations from pushing the region into another war. 'We should not enter into an international game in which we will be exploited ... and come out as the losers on both sides," he said.
Indeed, the Gulf Arabs have their own issues to be taken up with Iran, but these come in a bilateral context, and that is something that Tehran should also remember.
The Gulf Arabs have made no secret of their position that relations with Iran could be dramatically improved if the bilateral issues were settled in an amicable way.
It is absolutely necessary that Iran steps forward with creative ideas that should lead to the settlement of all outstanding issues with the Gulf Co-operation Council countries. Everyone stands to gain from a fair and just solution to these issues and it would also taken everyone towards the goal of clear understanding of each others' positions and respect for each other's rights and positions. and relations based on non-interference in the internal matters of each other.
Clearly, the ball is in the Iranian court.
Monday, March 10, 2008
More strength to GCC dynamics
March 10, 2008
More strength to GCC dynamics
SAUDI ARABIA'S decision to restore full diplomatic relations with Qatar is a highly positive and welcome move in that it seals a gap in ties between the two members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Regardless of the reasons for the five-year hiatus in Riyadh-Doha diplomatic ties, it was unnatural that the two GCC countries were at odds.
Unity and collective action to face common changes and joint march towards development are the essence of relations among the GCC countries or any regional blocs for that matter. Any rift among the members, for whatever reason, often hinders the work of the bloc. We have witnessed it among the members of the much-heralded European Union.
The eventual restoration of Saudi-Qatari diplomatic relations was signalled by the presence of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz at the GCC summit in Doha in December following a visit to Saudi Arabia by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani three months earlier.
Saudi Ambassador Ahmed Bin Ali Al Qahtani has already taken up his post in Doha.
The restoration of diplomatic ties is being followed by a three-day visit to Doha by Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz for talks with Sheikh Hamad on the latest developments in the Gulf and the Arab World.
Prince Sultan, in a recent interview, has affirmed that relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia are deep-rooted and historical and therefore not dictated by developments in the region.
"Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two brotherly countries and the relations between them are historical and are governed by blood ties and common fate," said Prince Sultan.
"Our ties with Qatar are not the product of a day, nor the result of emerging circumstances, but a real expression of the depth of relations between the two countries which existed for long decades," he said.
That is indeed the spirit of the relationship among the six members of the GCC. There is every confidence in the air that the restoration of full relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar would add more strength to the dynamics of the GCC and the Arab League in general.
More strength to GCC dynamics
SAUDI ARABIA'S decision to restore full diplomatic relations with Qatar is a highly positive and welcome move in that it seals a gap in ties between the two members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). Regardless of the reasons for the five-year hiatus in Riyadh-Doha diplomatic ties, it was unnatural that the two GCC countries were at odds.
Unity and collective action to face common changes and joint march towards development are the essence of relations among the GCC countries or any regional blocs for that matter. Any rift among the members, for whatever reason, often hinders the work of the bloc. We have witnessed it among the members of the much-heralded European Union.
The eventual restoration of Saudi-Qatari diplomatic relations was signalled by the presence of Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz at the GCC summit in Doha in December following a visit to Saudi Arabia by Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani three months earlier.
Saudi Ambassador Ahmed Bin Ali Al Qahtani has already taken up his post in Doha.
The restoration of diplomatic ties is being followed by a three-day visit to Doha by Saudi Crown Prince Sultan Bin Abdul Aziz for talks with Sheikh Hamad on the latest developments in the Gulf and the Arab World.
Prince Sultan, in a recent interview, has affirmed that relations between Qatar and Saudi Arabia are deep-rooted and historical and therefore not dictated by developments in the region.
"Saudi Arabia and Qatar are two brotherly countries and the relations between them are historical and are governed by blood ties and common fate," said Prince Sultan.
"Our ties with Qatar are not the product of a day, nor the result of emerging circumstances, but a real expression of the depth of relations between the two countries which existed for long decades," he said.
That is indeed the spirit of the relationship among the six members of the GCC. There is every confidence in the air that the restoration of full relations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar would add more strength to the dynamics of the GCC and the Arab League in general.
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Paw in the Afghan bottle
March 9, 2008
Paw in the Afghan bottle
Arguably, the blaze of publicity for British Prince Harry's front-line assignment in Afghanistan gave a tough of glamour to the war there, but the harsh reality of the struggling military campaign there remains as bitter as ever.
One wonders whether the photographs of Queen Elizabeth's grandson firing a machine gun in Afghanistan were deliberately "leaked" into the cyberspace with a view to hailing Harry, the third in line to the throne, as a "veteran" of the Afghan war at some point in time. Of course, it could be argued that the British media remained committed to an undertaking not to publicise Prince Harry's 10-week stint in Afghanistan and it was a US website which put out the pictures. It is neither here nor there when seen from a non-British perspective.
However, within Britain, the emergence of pictures, deliberate or otherwise, helped give a "the most positive and glamorous coverage" for the Afghan war, as Peter Wilby, a political commentator for the Guardian, put it. "It was a marvellous boost for army recruitment and revived the legitimacy of a war for which support has been waning."
For one thing, the Afghan conflict has drawn the US-led foreign forces present in the country into a quagmire — as indeed is the case in Iraq notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. There are no magic solutions to end the conflict becasue the issues at stake are too complex and dense for the US or for the UK for that matter to call it quits and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves. The best analogy would be that of a money who gets caught with its paw wrapped around a fruit in inside a bottle. It could withdraw its paw without the fruit but it would not because of the lure of the fruit is too strong.
The reality on the ground in Afghanistan is that the foreign forces are there for a long spell because there is no possibility of a solution that would serve the interests of the US, but Washington would not let go.
In the meantime, the billions of dollars being spent in the name of reconstruction of Afghanistan are going to waste since there is little improvement in the daily life of the ordinary people.
The same goes true for the billions that are being spent in the hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.
The Taliban have staged a comeback and now control at least 10 per cent of Afghanistan, according to a US intelligence assessment, and are running their own checkpoints in one province in the south.
One of the reasons cited by the US is the lack of enough troops to fight an effective battle, but few countries are willing to contribute more since their governments have realised the folly of fighting a war that is already lost. Add to that the ongoing protests against Denmark and the Netherlands — which have troops present in the country — sparked by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and a Dutch film in the making, and what we have in Afghanistan is a perfect recipe for more trouble for the foreign troops deployed there.
Paw in the Afghan bottle
Arguably, the blaze of publicity for British Prince Harry's front-line assignment in Afghanistan gave a tough of glamour to the war there, but the harsh reality of the struggling military campaign there remains as bitter as ever.
One wonders whether the photographs of Queen Elizabeth's grandson firing a machine gun in Afghanistan were deliberately "leaked" into the cyberspace with a view to hailing Harry, the third in line to the throne, as a "veteran" of the Afghan war at some point in time. Of course, it could be argued that the British media remained committed to an undertaking not to publicise Prince Harry's 10-week stint in Afghanistan and it was a US website which put out the pictures. It is neither here nor there when seen from a non-British perspective.
However, within Britain, the emergence of pictures, deliberate or otherwise, helped give a "the most positive and glamorous coverage" for the Afghan war, as Peter Wilby, a political commentator for the Guardian, put it. "It was a marvellous boost for army recruitment and revived the legitimacy of a war for which support has been waning."
For one thing, the Afghan conflict has drawn the US-led foreign forces present in the country into a quagmire — as indeed is the case in Iraq notwithstanding all claims to the contrary. There are no magic solutions to end the conflict becasue the issues at stake are too complex and dense for the US or for the UK for that matter to call it quits and leave the Afghans to fend for themselves. The best analogy would be that of a money who gets caught with its paw wrapped around a fruit in inside a bottle. It could withdraw its paw without the fruit but it would not because of the lure of the fruit is too strong.
The reality on the ground in Afghanistan is that the foreign forces are there for a long spell because there is no possibility of a solution that would serve the interests of the US, but Washington would not let go.
In the meantime, the billions of dollars being spent in the name of reconstruction of Afghanistan are going to waste since there is little improvement in the daily life of the ordinary people.
The same goes true for the billions that are being spent in the hunt for Taliban and Al Qaeda militants.
The Taliban have staged a comeback and now control at least 10 per cent of Afghanistan, according to a US intelligence assessment, and are running their own checkpoints in one province in the south.
One of the reasons cited by the US is the lack of enough troops to fight an effective battle, but few countries are willing to contribute more since their governments have realised the folly of fighting a war that is already lost. Add to that the ongoing protests against Denmark and the Netherlands — which have troops present in the country — sparked by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and a Dutch film in the making, and what we have in Afghanistan is a perfect recipe for more trouble for the foreign troops deployed there.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
More threats and no solution
March 8, 2008
More threats and no solution
THERE COULD BE no justification of deliberate killing civilians in any conflict. This is the widely accepted universal convention and it has to be respected by all parties involved although it is widely ignored in most troublespots around the world. And when civilians do die in armed conflicts, the world reacts with sympathy and condemns the killing. For some reason, it becomes all the more relevant when it happens in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly so when the dead include Israelis.
It is difficult to find much of a difference between Thursday's killing of seven Israeli students at a school in occupied Jerusalem and the murder of innocent Palestinian children in Israeli military attacks in the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks. One of the marked differences was, of course, that while Israel used hi-tech military gear and bombs to carry out most of the killings, Thursday's attack involved a lone Palestinian and an assault rifle.
The world does sympathise with the families of those killed but does not have any sympthy for the Israeli political and military leaders who had no consideration for Palestinian civilians caught in the Israeli frenzy to destroy Palestinian resistance to the Jewish state's occupation of Palestinians.
More than 120 Palestinians — dozens of children and women — who were killed in Israeli military strikes in the Gaza Strip in the last two weeks. That is not to mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who died in the course of Israel's occupation of their land since 1947.
If the Israelis want to highlight that Thursday's dead included Israeli teenagers, then the obvious response would be that the Israeli military's Gazan victims included children as young as one month.
An immediate Israeli target for victimisation after Thursday's attack would be the Arab-Israeli community because the assailant was an Arab-Israeli. Having an Israeli ID and working as a delivery man, he did not have any problem moving around in occupied Arab East Jerusalem. The Kalashnikov assault rifle he used is available for cash in most Israeli towns. We have seen how Israel treats its Arab community and we could now expect the Israeli establishment to exploit the chance that has presented itself to tighten pressure on its Arab citizens.
But then, it does not take anyone near the sought-for peace agreement in Palestine that should do away with the very root of the conflict.
Instead of accepting that its brutality against the Palestinians is spawning more security threats rather than removing them, Israel is bent upon pursuing the military option. As things stand today, it requires a dramatic and drastic change in the Israeli mindset even to hope for a fair and just solution in Palestine anytime in the future.
More threats and no solution
THERE COULD BE no justification of deliberate killing civilians in any conflict. This is the widely accepted universal convention and it has to be respected by all parties involved although it is widely ignored in most troublespots around the world. And when civilians do die in armed conflicts, the world reacts with sympathy and condemns the killing. For some reason, it becomes all the more relevant when it happens in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, particularly so when the dead include Israelis.
It is difficult to find much of a difference between Thursday's killing of seven Israeli students at a school in occupied Jerusalem and the murder of innocent Palestinian children in Israeli military attacks in the Gaza Strip in the last few weeks. One of the marked differences was, of course, that while Israel used hi-tech military gear and bombs to carry out most of the killings, Thursday's attack involved a lone Palestinian and an assault rifle.
The world does sympathise with the families of those killed but does not have any sympthy for the Israeli political and military leaders who had no consideration for Palestinian civilians caught in the Israeli frenzy to destroy Palestinian resistance to the Jewish state's occupation of Palestinians.
More than 120 Palestinians — dozens of children and women — who were killed in Israeli military strikes in the Gaza Strip in the last two weeks. That is not to mention the tens of thousands of Palestinians who died in the course of Israel's occupation of their land since 1947.
If the Israelis want to highlight that Thursday's dead included Israeli teenagers, then the obvious response would be that the Israeli military's Gazan victims included children as young as one month.
An immediate Israeli target for victimisation after Thursday's attack would be the Arab-Israeli community because the assailant was an Arab-Israeli. Having an Israeli ID and working as a delivery man, he did not have any problem moving around in occupied Arab East Jerusalem. The Kalashnikov assault rifle he used is available for cash in most Israeli towns. We have seen how Israel treats its Arab community and we could now expect the Israeli establishment to exploit the chance that has presented itself to tighten pressure on its Arab citizens.
But then, it does not take anyone near the sought-for peace agreement in Palestine that should do away with the very root of the conflict.
Instead of accepting that its brutality against the Palestinians is spawning more security threats rather than removing them, Israel is bent upon pursuing the military option. As things stand today, it requires a dramatic and drastic change in the Israeli mindset even to hope for a fair and just solution in Palestine anytime in the future.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
March 4, 2008
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
A FEW Israeli soldiers might have left northern Gaza Strip, but the Israeli assault against the Mediterranean coastal strip is continuing, with Israeli aircraft pummelling targets in Gaza. Palestinians are hitting back with rockets with expanded range.
Israeli leaders are making no secret of their intention to inflict as much casualties and damages before even considering a lull in the offensive ahead of the expected arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the region in what is billed as a mission to salvage the Annapolis process.
No one in this region needs to be told that the Annapolis process is all but dead, and few are attaching any hope to the Rice effort after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suspended negotiations with Israel in protest against the Gaza bloodshed.
The real concern in the region is the suffering of the residents of the Gaza Strip. Images of the devastation — roads plowed up, cars crushed by tanks and electric poles toppled — give the world only a glimpse of the actual agony of the Gazans trapped in their homes, with many families having lost their loved ones while others have been seriously wounded. The world knows the pathetic conditions prevailing in the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, which is under an total Israeli lockdown.
The unanswered question is: What does Israel intend to gain from its brutality against the Gazans? Surely, the political and military establishment of the Jewish could not but be aware that they could not hope to subdue the Palestinians through the use of military force.
If anything, developments since Friday have shown that the military offensive has only worsened Israelis' "security" fears. Three rockets hit the city of Ashkelon, nearly 20 kilometres north of Gaza, on Monday morning. Although no casualties were reported, the attacks showed an
improvement in Hamas' rocket range that has put the 120,000 Israelis living in Ashkelon under daily fire.
Mediators like European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, are saying that an end to Palestinian rocket attacks is fundamental to finding a solution. They should take close note of the signal from Hamas leaders of a willingness to work out a truce. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has said that his group is in touch with an unidentified third party to discuss a cease-fire that would include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and an end to an Israeli blockade of Gaza. For the moment, the Hamas position seems to offer a slim hope of a way out only if Israel is forced to listen. And that is the challenge facing anyone with any influence with the Jewish state.
In the meantime, history is recording one of the worst carnages in recent history, with the world seemingly unable to do anything to check it.
No easy key to Gaza deadlock
A FEW Israeli soldiers might have left northern Gaza Strip, but the Israeli assault against the Mediterranean coastal strip is continuing, with Israeli aircraft pummelling targets in Gaza. Palestinians are hitting back with rockets with expanded range.
Israeli leaders are making no secret of their intention to inflict as much casualties and damages before even considering a lull in the offensive ahead of the expected arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the region in what is billed as a mission to salvage the Annapolis process.
No one in this region needs to be told that the Annapolis process is all but dead, and few are attaching any hope to the Rice effort after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas suspended negotiations with Israel in protest against the Gaza bloodshed.
The real concern in the region is the suffering of the residents of the Gaza Strip. Images of the devastation — roads plowed up, cars crushed by tanks and electric poles toppled — give the world only a glimpse of the actual agony of the Gazans trapped in their homes, with many families having lost their loved ones while others have been seriously wounded. The world knows the pathetic conditions prevailing in the hospitals in the Gaza Strip, which is under an total Israeli lockdown.
The unanswered question is: What does Israel intend to gain from its brutality against the Gazans? Surely, the political and military establishment of the Jewish could not but be aware that they could not hope to subdue the Palestinians through the use of military force.
If anything, developments since Friday have shown that the military offensive has only worsened Israelis' "security" fears. Three rockets hit the city of Ashkelon, nearly 20 kilometres north of Gaza, on Monday morning. Although no casualties were reported, the attacks showed an
improvement in Hamas' rocket range that has put the 120,000 Israelis living in Ashkelon under daily fire.
Mediators like European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, are saying that an end to Palestinian rocket attacks is fundamental to finding a solution. They should take close note of the signal from Hamas leaders of a willingness to work out a truce. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar has said that his group is in touch with an unidentified third party to discuss a cease-fire that would include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and an end to an Israeli blockade of Gaza. For the moment, the Hamas position seems to offer a slim hope of a way out only if Israel is forced to listen. And that is the challenge facing anyone with any influence with the Jewish state.
In the meantime, history is recording one of the worst carnages in recent history, with the world seemingly unable to do anything to check it.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The buck that can't be passed
March 3, 2008
The buck that can't be passed
No doubt the strategists in Washington watching the Iranian president's visit to Iraq this week would be trying to figure what went wrong with their careful planning that they thought had taken care of everything with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Every word Ahmadinejad spoke and every gesture he made while in Iraq was aimed as much as Washington as the people of Iraq and Iran.
There was an aura of triumph that accompanied the visit, and that is not superficial either. Iran is perhaps the best beneficiary from the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in that the US military removed two of Iran's key foes — the Taliban in Kabul and Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As such, Ahmadinejad has every reason to rejoice in the newfound Iranian-Iraqi relationship which he underlined it with seven memorandums of understanding between the two countries that were signed during his visit. The Iranian leader used every moment of the visit — he made four media appearances in 36 hours — to implicitly, and sometimes explictly, thump his nose at the US.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly harped on the theme of a "new era of relations" between Iran and Iraq, whose people he described as s world leaders in "justice and morality." That was only one of the many broadside salvoes that the Iranian president let off against the US.
Surely, those who in Washington who plotted and orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be hating themselves for their shortsightedness for having to listen to the Iranian leader declaring in Baghdad that the United States does not belong in Iraq whereas Iran does and it will help in the reconstruction of Iraq — where the US failed miserably despite having spent tens of billions of dollars.
One of the bleakest moments for the neoconservatives behind the war against Iraq must have been when Ahmadinejad suggested that Americans should take their money and leave Iraq so that "peace and stability will return to the region."
Another came when he said that unlike other foreign leaders who fly into Iraq secretly and unannounced, he had announced his visit to Iraq two months ago and there was no secrecy shrouding his schedule during the visit.
Well, the neocons have no one but themselves to blame for the humiliating but real situation they have deal with in Iraq. They brought it upon themselves in their eagerness to implement their "strategic plans" in the region that not only fell far short of their targets but went off in a direction that they least expected.
The buck that can't be passed
No doubt the strategists in Washington watching the Iranian president's visit to Iraq this week would be trying to figure what went wrong with their careful planning that they thought had taken care of everything with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Every word Ahmadinejad spoke and every gesture he made while in Iraq was aimed as much as Washington as the people of Iraq and Iran.
There was an aura of triumph that accompanied the visit, and that is not superficial either. Iran is perhaps the best beneficiary from the US wars against Afghanistan and Iraq in that the US military removed two of Iran's key foes — the Taliban in Kabul and Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. As such, Ahmadinejad has every reason to rejoice in the newfound Iranian-Iraqi relationship which he underlined it with seven memorandums of understanding between the two countries that were signed during his visit. The Iranian leader used every moment of the visit — he made four media appearances in 36 hours — to implicitly, and sometimes explictly, thump his nose at the US.
Ahmadinejad repeatedly harped on the theme of a "new era of relations" between Iran and Iraq, whose people he described as s world leaders in "justice and morality." That was only one of the many broadside salvoes that the Iranian president let off against the US.
Surely, those who in Washington who plotted and orchestrated the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be hating themselves for their shortsightedness for having to listen to the Iranian leader declaring in Baghdad that the United States does not belong in Iraq whereas Iran does and it will help in the reconstruction of Iraq — where the US failed miserably despite having spent tens of billions of dollars.
One of the bleakest moments for the neoconservatives behind the war against Iraq must have been when Ahmadinejad suggested that Americans should take their money and leave Iraq so that "peace and stability will return to the region."
Another came when he said that unlike other foreign leaders who fly into Iraq secretly and unannounced, he had announced his visit to Iraq two months ago and there was no secrecy shrouding his schedule during the visit.
Well, the neocons have no one but themselves to blame for the humiliating but real situation they have deal with in Iraq. They brought it upon themselves in their eagerness to implement their "strategic plans" in the region that not only fell far short of their targets but went off in a direction that they least expected.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
A tough Mideast mission
March 3, 2008
A tough Mideast mission for Rice
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces an almost impossible mission in her visit to the Middle East this week. With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas having declared a suspension of peace talks with Israel until the Israeli military calls off its brutal assault against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Rice's first task is to find an end to the Israeli operations. Given that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is one of US President George Bush's declared goals before he bows out of office in 2009, restoration of the so-called Annapolis process — Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — is one of Rice's top priorities. Surely, the US agreement to go along with a UN Security Council statement early on Sunday "condemning the escalation of violence" in Gaza was designed to somewhat placate the Palestinians but without any realistic change on the ground.
The Palestinians have already delcared that peace negotiations "are buried under the houses that were destroyed in Gaza...."
Indeed, as Jordan's King Abdullah II warned last week, "time is running out and we need the United States of America completely involved, to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress, and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008."
It should not have come as a shock or suprise for Washington to see its hopes of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2008 going up in the flames of Gaza. All the signs were clear for some time that a major Israeli assault against the Gaza Strip was in the offing, but the US did not even try its hand at defusing the situation. Instead, it went along with Israel's "military option" against the Hamas rulers of Gaza rather than exploring diplomatic possibilities. Obviously, the US-Israeli hope was and still is that piling pressure on the residents of the Gaza Strip would be like digging deep into the Hamas roots. We have yet to see any sign of that happening.
At the same time, there are some who expect Rice to somehow produce a formula to end the ongoing flare-up in the Gaza Strip.
They see the US secretary of state of being capable of achieving the impossible although we fail to see any such track record.
Rice is known for her regular assertions that her predecessors failed in the Middle East and she has her own methods to score success. The question is what is her definition of success in the Arab-Israeli context.
In any event, by now it should be more than clear to Rice that the very essence of the crisis in Palestine is linked to US inaction and the absence of a fair and just approach to the Palestinian problem. Washington left it to Israel to lead the way and offered it an all-protective umbrella. And Rice will find it very difficult to rein in the Israelis.
In the meantime, the carnage continues in Gaza, with fears of a wider conflict growing every day.
A tough Mideast mission for Rice
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice faces an almost impossible mission in her visit to the Middle East this week. With Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas having declared a suspension of peace talks with Israel until the Israeli military calls off its brutal assault against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, Rice's first task is to find an end to the Israeli operations. Given that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is one of US President George Bush's declared goals before he bows out of office in 2009, restoration of the so-called Annapolis process — Israeli-Palestinian peace talks — is one of Rice's top priorities. Surely, the US agreement to go along with a UN Security Council statement early on Sunday "condemning the escalation of violence" in Gaza was designed to somewhat placate the Palestinians but without any realistic change on the ground.
The Palestinians have already delcared that peace negotiations "are buried under the houses that were destroyed in Gaza...."
Indeed, as Jordan's King Abdullah II warned last week, "time is running out and we need the United States of America completely involved, to influence the course of discussions, monitor progress, and help bridge the gaps to ensure a final agreement by the end of 2008."
It should not have come as a shock or suprise for Washington to see its hopes of creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel by the end of 2008 going up in the flames of Gaza. All the signs were clear for some time that a major Israeli assault against the Gaza Strip was in the offing, but the US did not even try its hand at defusing the situation. Instead, it went along with Israel's "military option" against the Hamas rulers of Gaza rather than exploring diplomatic possibilities. Obviously, the US-Israeli hope was and still is that piling pressure on the residents of the Gaza Strip would be like digging deep into the Hamas roots. We have yet to see any sign of that happening.
At the same time, there are some who expect Rice to somehow produce a formula to end the ongoing flare-up in the Gaza Strip.
They see the US secretary of state of being capable of achieving the impossible although we fail to see any such track record.
Rice is known for her regular assertions that her predecessors failed in the Middle East and she has her own methods to score success. The question is what is her definition of success in the Arab-Israeli context.
In any event, by now it should be more than clear to Rice that the very essence of the crisis in Palestine is linked to US inaction and the absence of a fair and just approach to the Palestinian problem. Washington left it to Israel to lead the way and offered it an all-protective umbrella. And Rice will find it very difficult to rein in the Israelis.
In the meantime, the carnage continues in Gaza, with fears of a wider conflict growing every day.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
March 1, 2008
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
The finding of an opinion poll this month that 64 per cent of Israelis say that the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas group in Gaza towards a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit shows an understanding among them that the Palestinian segment represented by Hamas should not be sidelined or ignored.
The relevance of the finding is that the people who have to live with the consequences of their choices as opposed to those who try to dictate to them without having to face the realities on the ground believe in dialogue with a group which is ostracised as a terrorist organisation by their government (whose position is supported only by 28 per cent).
The survey concludes that Israelis are fed up with seven years of Palestinian rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza and that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half. An increasing number of public figures, including senior military officers, have voiced similar positions on talks with Hamas.
The poll also found that the Likud voters, who are seen as the most rejectinist among all the Israelis, are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About 48 per cent of Likud voters support talks with Hamas.
The finding also sends a message to the Bush administration that it should reconsider its policy of seeking to isolate Hamas, which swept more than 75 per cent of votes in 2006 elections, and acting as if the group does not exist.
Of course, it is unrealistic to expect any serving American official to tell Israel to read the right signals in the poll's findings and initiate a dialogue with Hamas. It would be political suicide for anyone to do so.
Indeed, Hamas's refusal to accept the three basic conditions — renunciation of armed resistance, recognition of Israel and acceptance of past Israeli-Palestinian agreements — is a non-starter. At the same time, the Hamas calls for a "long-term" cease-fire with Israel indicates the group's willingness to deal with the Jewish state, which it is refusing to recognise.
Hamas is keeping Israel guessing about its intentions, but it is implicit that the group would be willing to enter realistic peace negotiations with the Jewish state provided that the latter makes it clear that it is willing to accept the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are the basis for any peace agreement. The people of Israel seem to have understood it while their government is continuing to feign otherwise.
Tell-tale finding of Israeli mindset
The finding of an opinion poll this month that 64 per cent of Israelis say that the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas group in Gaza towards a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit shows an understanding among them that the Palestinian segment represented by Hamas should not be sidelined or ignored.
The relevance of the finding is that the people who have to live with the consequences of their choices as opposed to those who try to dictate to them without having to face the realities on the ground believe in dialogue with a group which is ostracised as a terrorist organisation by their government (whose position is supported only by 28 per cent).
The survey concludes that Israelis are fed up with seven years of Palestinian rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza and that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half. An increasing number of public figures, including senior military officers, have voiced similar positions on talks with Hamas.
The poll also found that the Likud voters, who are seen as the most rejectinist among all the Israelis, are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About 48 per cent of Likud voters support talks with Hamas.
The finding also sends a message to the Bush administration that it should reconsider its policy of seeking to isolate Hamas, which swept more than 75 per cent of votes in 2006 elections, and acting as if the group does not exist.
Of course, it is unrealistic to expect any serving American official to tell Israel to read the right signals in the poll's findings and initiate a dialogue with Hamas. It would be political suicide for anyone to do so.
Indeed, Hamas's refusal to accept the three basic conditions — renunciation of armed resistance, recognition of Israel and acceptance of past Israeli-Palestinian agreements — is a non-starter. At the same time, the Hamas calls for a "long-term" cease-fire with Israel indicates the group's willingness to deal with the Jewish state, which it is refusing to recognise.
Hamas is keeping Israel guessing about its intentions, but it is implicit that the group would be willing to enter realistic peace negotiations with the Jewish state provided that the latter makes it clear that it is willing to accept the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are the basis for any peace agreement. The people of Israel seem to have understood it while their government is continuing to feign otherwise.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
February 29, 2008
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
It does not really matter what the US presidential hopeful are promising today to end their country's military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some have already vowed to "bring home the boys" in months after entering the White House if elected as president. In reality, none of them — whether Republican or Democrat — would be able to deliver on the promise and the crisis will drag on for years, with even the 2013 occupant of the White House prosecuting the wars.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, has put it accurately:
"On Inauguration Day, 2013, Americans will find our ruling interventionists – Republican or Democrat – have US forces fighting in Iraq; have more forces fighting in Afghanistan; have committed forces in places like the Balkans and Darfur; and have motivated millions more Muslims to join the jihad by their policies' impact."
The reasons for the US being rendered unable to disengage itself from the wars are also clear.
Notwithstanding his/her pre-election promises, no successful US presidential candidate would be able to override the imperatives set by the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Those imperatives will continue to be based on the realisation that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created several monsters that Washington is no longer able to control. Worse still is that some of the monsters would pose serious threats to Israel and undo one of the basic goals of the US war against Iraq — remove Iraq as a potential threat to the Jewish state. If anything, the gravity of the threat today is larger than what Saddam Hussein had posed.
It is clear that militant groups like Al Qaeda, an avowed foe of Israel, have grown roots in Iraq and there is not much the US or the Iraqi authorities could do to uproot and evict it from the country. The intensity of Al Qaeda actions in Iraq might ebb or strengthen depending on particular situations, but it would continue to be an integral part of Iraq. That is one of the results of the interventionist policy that successive US administrations have followed in the Middle East for the past several decades.
Similarly, the pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, not to mention the angry and frustrated Sunnis of the country, are equally hostile to Israel. Effectively, it means that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be able to strengthen its presence there — and so would the Iranian proxy forces — and Israel's "security" interests would come under a stronger threat than that was the case when Iraq was under the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime and than is the case today. It would not be an exaggeration to envisage Iranian missiles and launchers stationed on Iraq's western border, bringing Israel that much closer to their range.
And that is why the US finds itself over a barrel in Iraq. And that is why no US president could even think of withdrawing the US military from Iraq as long as the threats to Israel remain. And those threats are as real as anything else and will remain so as long as no equitable solution is found to the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is also equally real that no US president would ever dream of "exposing" Israel's security to any potential threat, perceived or otherwise. And then it becomes crystal clear that the promises that today's presidential candidates make would turn out to be hollow once the presidential race is over and one of them enters the White House as its occupant for the next five years beginning in January 2009.
Of course, the new presidential tunes would be: The US needs to stay in Iraq to fight international terrorism, to democratise the country, to protect US energy interests and to do whatever else that could be cited as justifications, but all of them tailored to suit the occasion.
Why the US cannot and will not quit Iraq
It does not really matter what the US presidential hopeful are promising today to end their country's military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some have already vowed to "bring home the boys" in months after entering the White House if elected as president. In reality, none of them — whether Republican or Democrat — would be able to deliver on the promise and the crisis will drag on for years, with even the 2013 occupant of the White House prosecuting the wars.
Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror, has put it accurately:
"On Inauguration Day, 2013, Americans will find our ruling interventionists – Republican or Democrat – have US forces fighting in Iraq; have more forces fighting in Afghanistan; have committed forces in places like the Balkans and Darfur; and have motivated millions more Muslims to join the jihad by their policies' impact."
The reasons for the US being rendered unable to disengage itself from the wars are also clear.
Notwithstanding his/her pre-election promises, no successful US presidential candidate would be able to override the imperatives set by the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Those imperatives will continue to be based on the realisation that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has created several monsters that Washington is no longer able to control. Worse still is that some of the monsters would pose serious threats to Israel and undo one of the basic goals of the US war against Iraq — remove Iraq as a potential threat to the Jewish state. If anything, the gravity of the threat today is larger than what Saddam Hussein had posed.
It is clear that militant groups like Al Qaeda, an avowed foe of Israel, have grown roots in Iraq and there is not much the US or the Iraqi authorities could do to uproot and evict it from the country. The intensity of Al Qaeda actions in Iraq might ebb or strengthen depending on particular situations, but it would continue to be an integral part of Iraq. That is one of the results of the interventionist policy that successive US administrations have followed in the Middle East for the past several decades.
Similarly, the pro-Iranian elements in Iraq, not to mention the angry and frustrated Sunnis of the country, are equally hostile to Israel. Effectively, it means that if the US withdraws its military from Iraq, Al Qaeda would be able to strengthen its presence there — and so would the Iranian proxy forces — and Israel's "security" interests would come under a stronger threat than that was the case when Iraq was under the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime and than is the case today. It would not be an exaggeration to envisage Iranian missiles and launchers stationed on Iraq's western border, bringing Israel that much closer to their range.
And that is why the US finds itself over a barrel in Iraq. And that is why no US president could even think of withdrawing the US military from Iraq as long as the threats to Israel remain. And those threats are as real as anything else and will remain so as long as no equitable solution is found to the Palestinian problem and the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is also equally real that no US president would ever dream of "exposing" Israel's security to any potential threat, perceived or otherwise. And then it becomes crystal clear that the promises that today's presidential candidates make would turn out to be hollow once the presidential race is over and one of them enters the White House as its occupant for the next five years beginning in January 2009.
Of course, the new presidential tunes would be: The US needs to stay in Iraq to fight international terrorism, to democratise the country, to protect US energy interests and to do whatever else that could be cited as justifications, but all of them tailored to suit the occasion.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Hopes for better traffic discipline
February 28, 2008
Hopes for better traffic discipline
THE introduction of a "black point" system against motorists violating traffic regulations with effect from March 1 is a highly welcome move, given high number of accidents on UAE roads and the unruly traffic scenes that have become a feature of daily life in the country.
There is little doubt that misguided and arrogant driving styles with little regard for public saftey are behind the steady rise in fatalities from accidents in the country.
As statistics indicate, one person is killed every 30 to 36 hours on the country's roads.
The traffic deadlocks on many roads in the morning and evening hours have to be seen to be believed, but then that is not news for any motorist who ventures out during the peak periods. Everyone lives through it, but it is all the more frustrating to see some trying to be more "road smart" and others and causing great inconvenience to others. Not many would appear to be bothered about traffic signs and regulations beyond the moment they obtain a driving licence.
The problem needed a tough no-nonsense approach and that is what the authorities have adopted.
The introduction of "black points" system — which places the UAE in among the most advanced countries — will coincide with the enforcement of the newly-amended federal traffic law stipulating stricter penalties.
However, no one would be able to complain that the move comes as a surprise and that it caught anyone by surprise. The traffic authorities are planning an effective awareness campaign during which the newly amended law and the associated penalties will be highlighted. The ultimate goal of the campaign, as Ministry of Interior Under-Secretary Saif Abdullah Al Shafar explained, is to encourage a new culture of driving across the country.
Hopefully, the awareness campaign also targets pedestrians since there is a steady increase in the number of people who cross streets without following traffic rules. The number of pedestrians being killed, represent 30 to 40 per cent of total deaths on UAE roads every year. Indeed, it is as if it is no one's business that we see people crossing major highways and jumping over the barricade simply because it saves them some time and effort but such actions endanger not only those who practise it but also others who happen to be using the same roads at the same time.
Effectively, the UAE is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to violations of traffic regulations and reckless driving that is a serious threat to anyone and everyone using the country's roads.
And those who not get the message inherent in the "black points" system would get it when it hits them where it hurts the most. That is the one of the most effective means to address the problem.
Indeed, monetary losses might not matter at all for a few, but, hopefully, we would be able to see better traffic discipline on the country's roads soon.
Hopes for better traffic discipline
THE introduction of a "black point" system against motorists violating traffic regulations with effect from March 1 is a highly welcome move, given high number of accidents on UAE roads and the unruly traffic scenes that have become a feature of daily life in the country.
There is little doubt that misguided and arrogant driving styles with little regard for public saftey are behind the steady rise in fatalities from accidents in the country.
As statistics indicate, one person is killed every 30 to 36 hours on the country's roads.
The traffic deadlocks on many roads in the morning and evening hours have to be seen to be believed, but then that is not news for any motorist who ventures out during the peak periods. Everyone lives through it, but it is all the more frustrating to see some trying to be more "road smart" and others and causing great inconvenience to others. Not many would appear to be bothered about traffic signs and regulations beyond the moment they obtain a driving licence.
The problem needed a tough no-nonsense approach and that is what the authorities have adopted.
The introduction of "black points" system — which places the UAE in among the most advanced countries — will coincide with the enforcement of the newly-amended federal traffic law stipulating stricter penalties.
However, no one would be able to complain that the move comes as a surprise and that it caught anyone by surprise. The traffic authorities are planning an effective awareness campaign during which the newly amended law and the associated penalties will be highlighted. The ultimate goal of the campaign, as Ministry of Interior Under-Secretary Saif Abdullah Al Shafar explained, is to encourage a new culture of driving across the country.
Hopefully, the awareness campaign also targets pedestrians since there is a steady increase in the number of people who cross streets without following traffic rules. The number of pedestrians being killed, represent 30 to 40 per cent of total deaths on UAE roads every year. Indeed, it is as if it is no one's business that we see people crossing major highways and jumping over the barricade simply because it saves them some time and effort but such actions endanger not only those who practise it but also others who happen to be using the same roads at the same time.
Effectively, the UAE is adopting a zero-tolerance approach to violations of traffic regulations and reckless driving that is a serious threat to anyone and everyone using the country's roads.
And those who not get the message inherent in the "black points" system would get it when it hits them where it hurts the most. That is the one of the most effective means to address the problem.
Indeed, monetary losses might not matter at all for a few, but, hopefully, we would be able to see better traffic discipline on the country's roads soon.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
February 27, 2008
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
THE Feb.12 killing of the top Hizbollah commander, Imad Mugnieh, in Damascus seems to have been a well-designed and well-timed catalyst for a chain of events leading into chaos in Lebanon and disintegration of hopes for collective Arab action to address the spiralling crises in the region.
There is little doubt among a majority of the people in this part of the world that Israel was behind the Mughnieh killing that was carried out as part of a broader picture that involves Hizbollah retaliation leading to yet another violent flare-up in which the Jewish state hopes to accomplish the job it failed to do during its war on the Lebanese group in the summer of 2006.
In the word's of an expert on such issues, "the Israeli Mossad killed Mugnieh, and killed him for specific political reasons, at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government’s point of view."
Suggestions have appeared in the Israeli media that Hizbollah is planning retaliatory action for Mugnieh's killing in the fourth week of March. According to Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, Hizballah has timed its reprisal for March 22-23 — 40 days after Mughnieh was killed in the Syrian capital.
The very fact that Yadlin made the "revelation" during a meeting with the Israeli parliament'st foreign affairs and security committee indicates that he was telling the parliamentarians to expect another flare-up. What he might have stopped short of saying could be that Israel, , where strategists work overtime and round the clock, is well-prepared to handle any situation and the results of the expected clash with Hizbollah would make up for the stinging defeat Israel suffered in the summer of 2006.
That is not all. Given the way Iran has reacted to the Mughnieh killing, there is little doubt that it would add its weight to any revenge for the assassination. That has clearly emerged in the stepped-up hard talk coming from Tehran in recent days. It is difficult at best to predict the consequences of such Iranian action.
The worsening political deadlock in Lebanon, where neither the government and the Hizbollah-led opposition seems ready to budge from their positions, has turned the country into the perfect arena for Israel's desire to settle its scores with Hizbollah, particularly that its political leaders are under bitter fire for their conduct of the 2006 conflict.
Definitely, Yadlin, the Israeli military intelligence chief, has not overlooked that the next Arab summit is scheduled to be held in Damascus several days after the Israeli-expected Hizbollah reprisal for Mughnieh's killing.
Surely, Israel is cooking something, and it already smells worse than usual.
Israel is cooking and it smells bad
THE Feb.12 killing of the top Hizbollah commander, Imad Mugnieh, in Damascus seems to have been a well-designed and well-timed catalyst for a chain of events leading into chaos in Lebanon and disintegration of hopes for collective Arab action to address the spiralling crises in the region.
There is little doubt among a majority of the people in this part of the world that Israel was behind the Mughnieh killing that was carried out as part of a broader picture that involves Hizbollah retaliation leading to yet another violent flare-up in which the Jewish state hopes to accomplish the job it failed to do during its war on the Lebanese group in the summer of 2006.
In the word's of an expert on such issues, "the Israeli Mossad killed Mugnieh, and killed him for specific political reasons, at a well-chosen time and place that would make perfect sense from the Israeli government’s point of view."
Suggestions have appeared in the Israeli media that Hizbollah is planning retaliatory action for Mugnieh's killing in the fourth week of March. According to Israel’s military intelligence chief, Major General Amos Yadlin, Hizballah has timed its reprisal for March 22-23 — 40 days after Mughnieh was killed in the Syrian capital.
The very fact that Yadlin made the "revelation" during a meeting with the Israeli parliament'st foreign affairs and security committee indicates that he was telling the parliamentarians to expect another flare-up. What he might have stopped short of saying could be that Israel, , where strategists work overtime and round the clock, is well-prepared to handle any situation and the results of the expected clash with Hizbollah would make up for the stinging defeat Israel suffered in the summer of 2006.
That is not all. Given the way Iran has reacted to the Mughnieh killing, there is little doubt that it would add its weight to any revenge for the assassination. That has clearly emerged in the stepped-up hard talk coming from Tehran in recent days. It is difficult at best to predict the consequences of such Iranian action.
The worsening political deadlock in Lebanon, where neither the government and the Hizbollah-led opposition seems ready to budge from their positions, has turned the country into the perfect arena for Israel's desire to settle its scores with Hizbollah, particularly that its political leaders are under bitter fire for their conduct of the 2006 conflict.
Definitely, Yadlin, the Israeli military intelligence chief, has not overlooked that the next Arab summit is scheduled to be held in Damascus several days after the Israeli-expected Hizbollah reprisal for Mughnieh's killing.
Surely, Israel is cooking something, and it already smells worse than usual.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Yet another reminder of double standards
February 25, 2008
Yet another reminder of double standards
THE suggestion last week by a senior Palestinian political figure, Yasser Abed Rabbo, for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence might or might not be a good idea depending on how deep and close anyone opts to study its pros and cons. Other Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, were cool to the proposal and that seems to have settled the issue for the moment.
Surely, the idea would be broached upon on and off again in view of the certainty that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would be moving ahead only at snail's pace, with key issues left unaddressed, while the situation on the ground continues to worsen.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, critics say, would have negative consequences for the Palestinian struggle for an equitable, fair and just solution because the Palestinians are not in physical control of the proposed-to-be-independent territory. It will also let Israel off the hook since the Jewish state would no longer feel obliged to continue negotiations with the Palestinians and would be free to deal with the post-declaration situation in the way it finds fit.
By nature and definition, the Palestinian problem was never a bilateral issue involving the Israeli occupation authorities and the Palestinians who are denied their right to independent statehood despite the legitimacy of their cause as enshrined in the UN Charter and mandatory resolutions of the world body. The international community, particularly the US by virtue of its frenzied support for Israel, remained very much involved, casting a negative influence in the search for a fair and just solution to the problem.
And the US and the European Union are cool at best to the idea of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence — an irony and paradox when seen against their enthusiasm to help and recognise the Kosovars' unilateral declaration of independence.
At issue here is not whether the Kosovan move was right or wrong. The Kosovans exercised what they thought was the best for them and they would enjoy the fruits of their decision or bear negative consequences, if any.. However, what made a big difference in their case was the support they enjoyed from the US and European Union countries, who did not have any problem that the Kosovar move was unilateral and it led to the amputatation of a recognised member state of the UN whereas they argue against a similar move by the Palestinians. Never mind that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not recognised as part of the territory of a recognised member of the UN. Never mind that the Kosovan quest for independence was only nine years old whereas the Palestinian problem is more than 40 years old.
Never mind that 100 per cent of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip want independence whereas only less than 90 per cent of the residents of Kosova wanted separation from Serbia. Never mind that the US and European Union ignore Serbian objections to the Kosovar move whereas they insist the Palestinians should secure a Israeli agreement for whatever they want for the future of their territory.
Indeed, the double standards that the US and other big powers apply when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem has always been one of the key hurdles in the way to a fair and just solution to end the plight of the Palestinian people. Their approach to the Kosovar move has yet again underlined this reality and reminded the world of their selective application of rules for international justice and fairness.
Yet another reminder of double standards
THE suggestion last week by a senior Palestinian political figure, Yasser Abed Rabbo, for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence might or might not be a good idea depending on how deep and close anyone opts to study its pros and cons. Other Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, were cool to the proposal and that seems to have settled the issue for the moment.
Surely, the idea would be broached upon on and off again in view of the certainty that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would be moving ahead only at snail's pace, with key issues left unaddressed, while the situation on the ground continues to worsen.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence, critics say, would have negative consequences for the Palestinian struggle for an equitable, fair and just solution because the Palestinians are not in physical control of the proposed-to-be-independent territory. It will also let Israel off the hook since the Jewish state would no longer feel obliged to continue negotiations with the Palestinians and would be free to deal with the post-declaration situation in the way it finds fit.
By nature and definition, the Palestinian problem was never a bilateral issue involving the Israeli occupation authorities and the Palestinians who are denied their right to independent statehood despite the legitimacy of their cause as enshrined in the UN Charter and mandatory resolutions of the world body. The international community, particularly the US by virtue of its frenzied support for Israel, remained very much involved, casting a negative influence in the search for a fair and just solution to the problem.
And the US and the European Union are cool at best to the idea of a unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence — an irony and paradox when seen against their enthusiasm to help and recognise the Kosovars' unilateral declaration of independence.
At issue here is not whether the Kosovan move was right or wrong. The Kosovans exercised what they thought was the best for them and they would enjoy the fruits of their decision or bear negative consequences, if any.. However, what made a big difference in their case was the support they enjoyed from the US and European Union countries, who did not have any problem that the Kosovar move was unilateral and it led to the amputatation of a recognised member state of the UN whereas they argue against a similar move by the Palestinians. Never mind that the West Bank and Gaza Strip are not recognised as part of the territory of a recognised member of the UN. Never mind that the Kosovan quest for independence was only nine years old whereas the Palestinian problem is more than 40 years old.
Never mind that 100 per cent of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip want independence whereas only less than 90 per cent of the residents of Kosova wanted separation from Serbia. Never mind that the US and European Union ignore Serbian objections to the Kosovar move whereas they insist the Palestinians should secure a Israeli agreement for whatever they want for the future of their territory.
Indeed, the double standards that the US and other big powers apply when it comes to dealing with the Palestinian problem has always been one of the key hurdles in the way to a fair and just solution to end the plight of the Palestinian people. Their approach to the Kosovar move has yet again underlined this reality and reminded the world of their selective application of rules for international justice and fairness.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Powderkegs one too many
February 25, 2008
Powderkegs one too many
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has rightly observed that the Turkish military operation against Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq will not solve its problem with the separatist rebels. It is one of the rare public admissions that we have heard from senior US officials based on the US military's recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the world knows only too well that the US made a mess of things because it blindly exercised the military option and overlooked that it was equally important to address issues of daily life of the ordinary people in order not to allow frustration lead them into joining the militant camp. In fact, it takes a well-planned strategy and additional effort to ensure the saftey, security and well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflicts and it might not always be possible or easy. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US not only sidestepped this key aspect but also made life all the more difficult for the people by wanton destruction of infrastructure and denial of means to secure the basic essentials for daily life. And the US is today paying the price for its glaring shortcomings.
The problem between the Turkish government and dissidents among the minority Kurdish citizens of Turkey is not exactly of the same nature that the US confronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, what is common is that civilians are caught in the conflict and they pay the highest price for violence, and this prompts them into embracing militancy.
What might make a key difference here is that Turkey has said it is carrying out a limited operation against the separatist rebels, and US officials say Ankara has given assurances it will do all it can to avoid civilian casualties.
The battlefront between the Turkish military and the separatists is a remote mountainous area that is sparsely populated and far from any major urban area. And here has not been any confirmed report so far of any civilian casualties or displacement of villagers.
That does not negate the fact that Turkey should respect the sovereignty of Iraq. It is a sore point with the government in Baghdad, not to mention the growing anger of the Kurdish regional authority in the north which has warned that the Turkish incursion will be met with strong opposition if civilians or populated areas are attacked.
The underlying currents are strong and perceptible. Turkey needs to assure the Iraqi Kurds that the ongoing military operation is limited to the PKK and would in no way be used to undermine the Kurdish regional authority, which is locked in a dispute with Ankara over what the Turks see as the Kurds' steady move towards expanded autonomy and eventual declaration of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
On the other hand, the duration of the Turkish incursion could turn out to be so short that its objectives would need no explanation to anyone.
Either way, there needs to be more communication among all the parties involved so that potential powderkegs are defused and buried while the legitimate rights of all are respected and protected.
Powderkegs one too many
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has rightly observed that the Turkish military operation against Kurdish guerrillas in northern Iraq will not solve its problem with the separatist rebels. It is one of the rare public admissions that we have heard from senior US officials based on the US military's recent experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both cases, the world knows only too well that the US made a mess of things because it blindly exercised the military option and overlooked that it was equally important to address issues of daily life of the ordinary people in order not to allow frustration lead them into joining the militant camp. In fact, it takes a well-planned strategy and additional effort to ensure the saftey, security and well-being of civilians caught in the crossfire of armed conflicts and it might not always be possible or easy. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, the US not only sidestepped this key aspect but also made life all the more difficult for the people by wanton destruction of infrastructure and denial of means to secure the basic essentials for daily life. And the US is today paying the price for its glaring shortcomings.
The problem between the Turkish government and dissidents among the minority Kurdish citizens of Turkey is not exactly of the same nature that the US confronts in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, what is common is that civilians are caught in the conflict and they pay the highest price for violence, and this prompts them into embracing militancy.
What might make a key difference here is that Turkey has said it is carrying out a limited operation against the separatist rebels, and US officials say Ankara has given assurances it will do all it can to avoid civilian casualties.
The battlefront between the Turkish military and the separatists is a remote mountainous area that is sparsely populated and far from any major urban area. And here has not been any confirmed report so far of any civilian casualties or displacement of villagers.
That does not negate the fact that Turkey should respect the sovereignty of Iraq. It is a sore point with the government in Baghdad, not to mention the growing anger of the Kurdish regional authority in the north which has warned that the Turkish incursion will be met with strong opposition if civilians or populated areas are attacked.
The underlying currents are strong and perceptible. Turkey needs to assure the Iraqi Kurds that the ongoing military operation is limited to the PKK and would in no way be used to undermine the Kurdish regional authority, which is locked in a dispute with Ankara over what the Turks see as the Kurds' steady move towards expanded autonomy and eventual declaration of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
On the other hand, the duration of the Turkish incursion could turn out to be so short that its objectives would need no explanation to anyone.
Either way, there needs to be more communication among all the parties involved so that potential powderkegs are defused and buried while the legitimate rights of all are respected and protected.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Yet another stone in build-up for action
February 24, 2008
Yet another stone in build-up for action
THE LATEST International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear activities does not add anything than to the agency's earlier conclusions that it was not in a position to determine the "full nature of Iran's nuclear programme." Surely, the agency has the resources to detect any suspected nuclear activity in Iran, but it has failed to find any. Hypothetically, the agency's "failure" could be attributed to either the skills of the Iranians to hide whatever they are doing or the absence of anything for the nuclear watchdog to be suspicious. Presumably, the agency has taken the easy way out by saying it was not in a position to arrive at any conclusions. It wants to protect its credibility while leaving the door open for the big powers to decide whatever course of action they want to take against Iran.
There is yet another aspect to the affair. The IAEA, which does not have any independent intelligence capabilities worth mentioning, could not sidestep the "evidence" that the US presented to it to support Washington's argument that Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weaponisation programme. If the agency does make a conclusive statement that its inspectors could not find any sign of Iran having a nuclear weaponisation programme, then it would be contradicting the "evidence" supplied by the US. And that is something the IAEA does not want to do.
But then, Washington is contradicting its own spying agencies, which concluded late last year in a National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had a nuclear weaponisation programme but dropped it in 2003 and that there was no indication that it has revived the programme.
As such, where did Washington come up with "evidence" to support its "case" against Iran? Does it have yet another secret intelligence arm other than the 16 which drew up the National Intelligence Estimate? Is there a "special operation office" in Washington similar to the one that existed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and produced fake intelligence reports and doctored others?
It was no coincidece that shortly before the IAEA issued its final report on Iran, the National Council of Resistance on Iran went public public with charges that Iran has recently established a "new command and control centre" at a military site at Mojdeh, a suburb of Tehran, and is actively pursuing "production of nuclear warheads" at a military site at Khojir.
The charges raise the questions whether the Iranian military is producing nuclear warheads in a suburb of Tehran and whether it has established a command and control centre just outside Tehran for its nuke-armed ballistic-missile force.
In simple terms, the charges are difficult to be swallowed even with what were described by the National Council of Resistance on Iran as space-satellite photo-images of the two alleged military sites.
According to knowledgeable sources and seasoned experts, the 'evidence" that the council produced originated with the Israelis, was then supplied to the United States, who provided it to the IAEA, urging the agency to present it to Iran for "explanation."
With the US and Britain having already submitted a draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for more sanctions against Iran, the IAEA report is yet another stone in the build-up to whatever the big powers are planning to do against Tehran, with Israel applauding from the wings.
Yet another stone in build-up for action
THE LATEST International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran's nuclear activities does not add anything than to the agency's earlier conclusions that it was not in a position to determine the "full nature of Iran's nuclear programme." Surely, the agency has the resources to detect any suspected nuclear activity in Iran, but it has failed to find any. Hypothetically, the agency's "failure" could be attributed to either the skills of the Iranians to hide whatever they are doing or the absence of anything for the nuclear watchdog to be suspicious. Presumably, the agency has taken the easy way out by saying it was not in a position to arrive at any conclusions. It wants to protect its credibility while leaving the door open for the big powers to decide whatever course of action they want to take against Iran.
There is yet another aspect to the affair. The IAEA, which does not have any independent intelligence capabilities worth mentioning, could not sidestep the "evidence" that the US presented to it to support Washington's argument that Iran does have a clandestine nuclear weaponisation programme. If the agency does make a conclusive statement that its inspectors could not find any sign of Iran having a nuclear weaponisation programme, then it would be contradicting the "evidence" supplied by the US. And that is something the IAEA does not want to do.
But then, Washington is contradicting its own spying agencies, which concluded late last year in a National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had a nuclear weaponisation programme but dropped it in 2003 and that there was no indication that it has revived the programme.
As such, where did Washington come up with "evidence" to support its "case" against Iran? Does it have yet another secret intelligence arm other than the 16 which drew up the National Intelligence Estimate? Is there a "special operation office" in Washington similar to the one that existed in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and produced fake intelligence reports and doctored others?
It was no coincidece that shortly before the IAEA issued its final report on Iran, the National Council of Resistance on Iran went public public with charges that Iran has recently established a "new command and control centre" at a military site at Mojdeh, a suburb of Tehran, and is actively pursuing "production of nuclear warheads" at a military site at Khojir.
The charges raise the questions whether the Iranian military is producing nuclear warheads in a suburb of Tehran and whether it has established a command and control centre just outside Tehran for its nuke-armed ballistic-missile force.
In simple terms, the charges are difficult to be swallowed even with what were described by the National Council of Resistance on Iran as space-satellite photo-images of the two alleged military sites.
According to knowledgeable sources and seasoned experts, the 'evidence" that the council produced originated with the Israelis, was then supplied to the United States, who provided it to the IAEA, urging the agency to present it to Iran for "explanation."
With the US and Britain having already submitted a draft resolution at the UN Security Council calling for more sanctions against Iran, the IAEA report is yet another stone in the build-up to whatever the big powers are planning to do against Tehran, with Israel applauding from the wings.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Dice loaded from day one
February 23, 2008
Dice loaded from day one
IT would not be an exaggeration to state that the future of the US plans for Iraq depends to a large extent on Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's expected decision on whether or not to renew a six-month cease-fire widely credited for helping reduce violence.
Unless Sadr issues a statement on Saturday saying that the truce is extended, the ceasefire is over, according to his spokesmen.
Never before after the ouster of Saddam Hussein has the US military faced a situation in Iraq where it had to wait for a decision by one man.
It is clear that a return of Sadr's feared Mahdi Army into action would find Iraq in the same situation before the "surge" in US troops in Iraq in early 2007 — death squads on the rampage accounting for dozens being tortured to death on a daily basis as part of an ethnic cleansing.
The revival of the violence would it all the more tough for the US, which is trying to persuade the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach agreements on sharing power and wealth. On the domestic front, in the US, a surge in violence in Iraq would add fuel to the ongoing debate on whether and how quickly to withdraw troops.
The reality on the ground in Iraq is that if Sadr decides to extend the truce, then he would only be putting off an inevitable showdown with his Shiite rivals — the camp led by Abdul Aziz Al Hakim. The two are staying away from from each other's throats and are likely to do so as long as the US military maintains its strengthened presence in the country.
It has also been hinted in certain circles that the US military is in secret contacts with both Maliki and Hakim with a view to dissuading them from renewing their struggle for control of the south. The US military, critics say, is also trying to figure out which side to support in the event of an open warfare between Maliki and Hakim. In fact, in the eyes of many US military commanders both are bad news since they are closely linked to Iran. But is need not be so Washington political strategists who would embrace the devil if it serves their purpose.
In any event, in the long run, it would not make much difference for chances of US success or failure in Iraq whether the Mahdi Army returns to action today or remains in a freeze until later.
The dice was loaded against the US in Iraq from the word go, and players like Mahdi and Hakim would not have any bearing on the reality that the US is not welcome as far as the people of Iraq are concerned. Washington would not be able to hold 26 million Iraqis hostage for ever even with a doubling of its military presence in the country.
Dice loaded from day one
IT would not be an exaggeration to state that the future of the US plans for Iraq depends to a large extent on Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr's expected decision on whether or not to renew a six-month cease-fire widely credited for helping reduce violence.
Unless Sadr issues a statement on Saturday saying that the truce is extended, the ceasefire is over, according to his spokesmen.
Never before after the ouster of Saddam Hussein has the US military faced a situation in Iraq where it had to wait for a decision by one man.
It is clear that a return of Sadr's feared Mahdi Army into action would find Iraq in the same situation before the "surge" in US troops in Iraq in early 2007 — death squads on the rampage accounting for dozens being tortured to death on a daily basis as part of an ethnic cleansing.
The revival of the violence would it all the more tough for the US, which is trying to persuade the country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach agreements on sharing power and wealth. On the domestic front, in the US, a surge in violence in Iraq would add fuel to the ongoing debate on whether and how quickly to withdraw troops.
The reality on the ground in Iraq is that if Sadr decides to extend the truce, then he would only be putting off an inevitable showdown with his Shiite rivals — the camp led by Abdul Aziz Al Hakim. The two are staying away from from each other's throats and are likely to do so as long as the US military maintains its strengthened presence in the country.
It has also been hinted in certain circles that the US military is in secret contacts with both Maliki and Hakim with a view to dissuading them from renewing their struggle for control of the south. The US military, critics say, is also trying to figure out which side to support in the event of an open warfare between Maliki and Hakim. In fact, in the eyes of many US military commanders both are bad news since they are closely linked to Iran. But is need not be so Washington political strategists who would embrace the devil if it serves their purpose.
In any event, in the long run, it would not make much difference for chances of US success or failure in Iraq whether the Mahdi Army returns to action today or remains in a freeze until later.
The dice was loaded against the US in Iraq from the word go, and players like Mahdi and Hakim would not have any bearing on the reality that the US is not welcome as far as the people of Iraq are concerned. Washington would not be able to hold 26 million Iraqis hostage for ever even with a doubling of its military presence in the country.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Compromise is the need of the hour
February .22. 2008
Compromise is the need of the hour
REPORTS of intra-Arab differences over Lebanon ahead of next month's Arab summit are disturbing. The summit, to be held in Damascus, is deemed crucial to almost every Arab and Middle Eastern issue at this juncture in time. The Arab World faces the task of taking and implementing tough decisions on the worsening situations in Palestine and Iraq — notwithstanding US claims of stability there — as well as the seeming intractable problems in Somalia and elsewhere in the Arab region.
The Arabs could not afford to be bogged down now. They need to act collectively and the ground for action has to be set at the next Arab summit.
The key point of dispute is Lebanon, where fears are growing that violence could break out any time between the government forces and the fighters of the Hizbollah-led opposition. Twice in the last one month, they came to blows but stepped off from the brink at the last minute.
The Arab initiative to elect a consensus president in Lebanon, which has been left without a head of state since November amid the deadlock between the government and opposition, remains stalled over the two side's failure to agree on a revampled government structure.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal was referring to these differences when he called on "all those with influence to help with the success of the Arab initiative" for Lebanon and warned that the country is "on the verge of civil war."
There is a growing sense of uneasiness in Lebanon. Governments have warned their citizens there to be extra careful, with the US issuing a high-alert travel advisory. France has closed two of its cultural centres outside the capital. Kuwait has advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon shortly after its embassy in Beirut was evacuated following a reported threat of a bomb attack. Saudi Arabia has also advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon.
Obviously, the rising tension in Lebanon against the backdrop of the political deadlock is the direct result of the failure of the Arab initiative to solve the problem. That is turn is now threatening collective action to be launched at the Damascuc summit on the host of challenges facing the members of the Arab League. A way has to be found urgently to lift the logjam in order to ensure that the summit is held and it takes the right decisions of all the outstanding issues, whether in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere. And that puts the onus on the political leaders of Lebanon who should uphold Lebanese interests and stay away from being influenced by narrow considerations. Everyone will have accept that they will have to make compromises in order to avert a catastrophe befalling Lebanon and that would have far-reaching implications for the region as a whole.
Compromise is the need of the hour
REPORTS of intra-Arab differences over Lebanon ahead of next month's Arab summit are disturbing. The summit, to be held in Damascus, is deemed crucial to almost every Arab and Middle Eastern issue at this juncture in time. The Arab World faces the task of taking and implementing tough decisions on the worsening situations in Palestine and Iraq — notwithstanding US claims of stability there — as well as the seeming intractable problems in Somalia and elsewhere in the Arab region.
The Arabs could not afford to be bogged down now. They need to act collectively and the ground for action has to be set at the next Arab summit.
The key point of dispute is Lebanon, where fears are growing that violence could break out any time between the government forces and the fighters of the Hizbollah-led opposition. Twice in the last one month, they came to blows but stepped off from the brink at the last minute.
The Arab initiative to elect a consensus president in Lebanon, which has been left without a head of state since November amid the deadlock between the government and opposition, remains stalled over the two side's failure to agree on a revampled government structure.
Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al Faisal was referring to these differences when he called on "all those with influence to help with the success of the Arab initiative" for Lebanon and warned that the country is "on the verge of civil war."
There is a growing sense of uneasiness in Lebanon. Governments have warned their citizens there to be extra careful, with the US issuing a high-alert travel advisory. France has closed two of its cultural centres outside the capital. Kuwait has advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon shortly after its embassy in Beirut was evacuated following a reported threat of a bomb attack. Saudi Arabia has also advised its citizens against travelling to Lebanon.
Obviously, the rising tension in Lebanon against the backdrop of the political deadlock is the direct result of the failure of the Arab initiative to solve the problem. That is turn is now threatening collective action to be launched at the Damascuc summit on the host of challenges facing the members of the Arab League. A way has to be found urgently to lift the logjam in order to ensure that the summit is held and it takes the right decisions of all the outstanding issues, whether in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere. And that puts the onus on the political leaders of Lebanon who should uphold Lebanese interests and stay away from being influenced by narrow considerations. Everyone will have accept that they will have to make compromises in order to avert a catastrophe befalling Lebanon and that would have far-reaching implications for the region as a whole.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fight for survival for Musharraf
February 21, 2008
Fight for survival for Musharraf
BATTLELINES are about to be drawn and swords are about to be unsheathed in Pakistan between President President Pervez Musharraf and victorious opposition parties. Indeed, Musharraf has his back to the wall, given the narrow option he has of either stepping down or prolonging the battle that would do no one any good.
However, for the moment, Musharraf is standing firm on his refusal to resign as president and is calling for a "harmonious coalition" while the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is cobbling together a two-thirds majority coalition that could topple him by impeaching him on grounds that he violated the constitution when he imposed emergency rule late last year.
The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) is trying to salvage his leadership by trying to persuade the PPP to take it into a coalition but PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out the possibility and is insisting that Musharraf should either step down or be ousted.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the PML-N which has emerged as the second largest party in parliament, is also dead bent on toppling Musharraf.
Musharraf's only defence is that he, in his capacity as the elected head of state of Pakistan, is determined to ensure that "a stable democratic government" is installed in the country and that he be allowed to do so. That position is backed by the US. President George W. Bush has described the vote, which was less violent and fairer than most people anticipated, as "a victory for the people of Pakistan." And the State Department is nudging the next government to work with Musharraf, who represents the best bet Washington has in continuing its "war against terror" by targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The only political solution seems to hinge on potential failure of Zardari and Sharif to agree on a coalition. In that eventuality, the PPP could be amenable to considering inclusion of PML-Q in the coalition and this could save Musharraf's political life.
All these scenarios are based on the assumption that this week's voting has placed Pakistan firm on the democratic path and there would not be any military surprises. Let us hope the assumption would not be proved wrong.
Fight for survival for Musharraf
BATTLELINES are about to be drawn and swords are about to be unsheathed in Pakistan between President President Pervez Musharraf and victorious opposition parties. Indeed, Musharraf has his back to the wall, given the narrow option he has of either stepping down or prolonging the battle that would do no one any good.
However, for the moment, Musharraf is standing firm on his refusal to resign as president and is calling for a "harmonious coalition" while the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto is cobbling together a two-thirds majority coalition that could topple him by impeaching him on grounds that he violated the constitution when he imposed emergency rule late last year.
The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) is trying to salvage his leadership by trying to persuade the PPP to take it into a coalition but PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari has ruled out the possibility and is insisting that Musharraf should either step down or be ousted.
Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who heads the PML-N which has emerged as the second largest party in parliament, is also dead bent on toppling Musharraf.
Musharraf's only defence is that he, in his capacity as the elected head of state of Pakistan, is determined to ensure that "a stable democratic government" is installed in the country and that he be allowed to do so. That position is backed by the US. President George W. Bush has described the vote, which was less violent and fairer than most people anticipated, as "a victory for the people of Pakistan." And the State Department is nudging the next government to work with Musharraf, who represents the best bet Washington has in continuing its "war against terror" by targeting Taliban and Al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The only political solution seems to hinge on potential failure of Zardari and Sharif to agree on a coalition. In that eventuality, the PPP could be amenable to considering inclusion of PML-Q in the coalition and this could save Musharraf's political life.
All these scenarios are based on the assumption that this week's voting has placed Pakistan firm on the democratic path and there would not be any military surprises. Let us hope the assumption would not be proved wrong.
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}