July 16, 2008
Key is in overhaul of thinking and policy
THE guerrilla assault that killed nine American soldiers on Sunday at a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan reaffirms that the main front in the US-led "war against terror" is not Iraq. Indeed, Iraq should never have figured in the "war against terror" because the Saddam Hussein regime was never involved in any anti-US attack anywhere in the world, least of all the Sept.11 assaults in New York and Washington.
Iraq was turned into a playground for anti-US militants as the direct result of the US invasion and occupation of that country in implementation of an agenda that had little do with the "war against terror." The repeated US emphasis that an American withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for "international terrorists" is simple deception aimed at justifying the military presence there.
The ongoing guerrilla war there is Iraq-specific and the Iraqis waging it do not have an agenda beyond the borders of their country. They are fighting a battle to end the American military presence in their country. Their is no reason to argue that Iraq would pose a direct or indirect threat to US national security.
Even as Washington hawks continue to insist that Iraq is the number one priority in the "war against terror," the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing beyond containment.
Many in the US have woken up to the reality that in his frenzy to gain control of Iraq, US President George W Bush did not maintain his focus on Afghanistan and the problem of militancy there before moving vital military resources to the Iraq front.
The biggest blunder the US made in Afghanistan was to convince itself that the problem could be solved through military means. It did not give attention to assisting the people of Afghanistan to improve their daily life while it continued its war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
As a result, most Afghans are worse off than they were before the US military action against their country in 2001 and are pushed into the arms of militant recruiters.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appears to have realised the nature of the problem. He is calling for a double-pronged approach to tackle the issue — an intensified military campaign supported by better intelligence gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to Afghanistan. That approach might or might not work, but the real key lies in a fundamental shift in Washington's thinking and policy and a better understanding of the people of this part of the world.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding
July 14, 2008
Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding
THE new Lebanese cabinet headed by Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora announced on Friday represents the compromise agreement reached in Qatar this year after many months of political paralysis in the country.
The 30-member cabinet includes 16 ministers representing the majority bloc led by Siniora and 11 from the opposition led by Hizbollah. The other three ministers were named by President Michel Suleiman, who exercised his prerogative to do so as contained in the May 21 Doha agreement.
Effectively, the opposition has gained veto power that would be reflected in any decision that the government takes from now on., and the new equation of power has far-reaching implications for prospects for peacemaking in the region.
Surely, the compromise was not to the liking of some, mainly the US which had tried to forestall any move that would strengthen Hizbollah arguing that the group was taking its orders from Damascus and Tehran. However, the ground support that Hizbollah has among the Lebanese, particularly after the group successfully withstood Israel's military assault against the country two years ago, helped it have its way in the political stand-off.
Predictably, the Israelis are upset because the strong Hizbollah and allied presence in the government undermines its secret designs to lure Lebanon into a "peace" agreement after giving up the occupied Shebaa Farms to UN control. The UN says the area is Syrian territory but Damascus insists it is Lebanese and this justifies the state of confrontation between Israel and Hizbollah as a Lebanese resistance group. Indeed, there are continued behind-the-scene moves for peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria. However, even if the moves are meaningful, there is little chance of any Israel-Lebanon agreement without a peace deal between Israel and Syria. The newfound strength of the Hizbollah-led opposition in the Beirut government has removed all doubts, if there existed any, that Israel could cut a seperate deal with Lebanon.
In a broader context, it is also unlikely that any concrete move would or could be made any soon towards peace in a Israel-Lebanon-Syria framework, given the complexities and regional developments involving Iran.
As Siniora declared on Friday, the government's first task is to restore confidence in political institutions and the Lebanese political system and the second is to make sure that next year's parliamentary elections will be held transparently and under a new electoral law that "guarantees justice and true representation."
Hopefully, Siniora would be able to accomplish the mission despite the contradictions in the make-up of the new cabinet.
In the meantime, what matters for the Lebanese at this point in time is stability and security. With the Hizbollah-led opposition having entered the cabinet, the tension that gripped the country since early last year and fears of renewed civil strife have faded.
At least that is what the signs in Lebanon indicate. It is then time for the Lebanese to resume the process of rebuilding their country.
Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding
THE new Lebanese cabinet headed by Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora announced on Friday represents the compromise agreement reached in Qatar this year after many months of political paralysis in the country.
The 30-member cabinet includes 16 ministers representing the majority bloc led by Siniora and 11 from the opposition led by Hizbollah. The other three ministers were named by President Michel Suleiman, who exercised his prerogative to do so as contained in the May 21 Doha agreement.
Effectively, the opposition has gained veto power that would be reflected in any decision that the government takes from now on., and the new equation of power has far-reaching implications for prospects for peacemaking in the region.
Surely, the compromise was not to the liking of some, mainly the US which had tried to forestall any move that would strengthen Hizbollah arguing that the group was taking its orders from Damascus and Tehran. However, the ground support that Hizbollah has among the Lebanese, particularly after the group successfully withstood Israel's military assault against the country two years ago, helped it have its way in the political stand-off.
Predictably, the Israelis are upset because the strong Hizbollah and allied presence in the government undermines its secret designs to lure Lebanon into a "peace" agreement after giving up the occupied Shebaa Farms to UN control. The UN says the area is Syrian territory but Damascus insists it is Lebanese and this justifies the state of confrontation between Israel and Hizbollah as a Lebanese resistance group. Indeed, there are continued behind-the-scene moves for peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria. However, even if the moves are meaningful, there is little chance of any Israel-Lebanon agreement without a peace deal between Israel and Syria. The newfound strength of the Hizbollah-led opposition in the Beirut government has removed all doubts, if there existed any, that Israel could cut a seperate deal with Lebanon.
In a broader context, it is also unlikely that any concrete move would or could be made any soon towards peace in a Israel-Lebanon-Syria framework, given the complexities and regional developments involving Iran.
As Siniora declared on Friday, the government's first task is to restore confidence in political institutions and the Lebanese political system and the second is to make sure that next year's parliamentary elections will be held transparently and under a new electoral law that "guarantees justice and true representation."
Hopefully, Siniora would be able to accomplish the mission despite the contradictions in the make-up of the new cabinet.
In the meantime, what matters for the Lebanese at this point in time is stability and security. With the Hizbollah-led opposition having entered the cabinet, the tension that gripped the country since early last year and fears of renewed civil strife have faded.
At least that is what the signs in Lebanon indicate. It is then time for the Lebanese to resume the process of rebuilding their country.
Part of the reason, part of the problem
July 14, 2008
Part of the reason, part of the problem
America's top intelligence official has made some interesting comments about the US-Iranian stand-off that should be heard by every American particularly that they come amid signs of US/Israeli preparations for military action against Iran.
The comments by Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, clearly indicate that the US intelligence community does not believe there is a case for war against Iran. Beyond that, however, is a clear understanding of Iran's motivations in pursuing a hard line and why the US should take into consideration Tehran's genuine security concerns. He argued for US dialogue with Iran and engaging Tehran through multilateral institutions.
Fingar, who oversaw the production of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that Iran had likely halted the development of nuclear weapons in 2003, said that Iran had reasons to feel insecure because of the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Recognising that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point" for US policy, he said. "We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure."
Part of the reason, part of the problem
America's top intelligence official has made some interesting comments about the US-Iranian stand-off that should be heard by every American particularly that they come amid signs of US/Israeli preparations for military action against Iran.
The comments by Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, clearly indicate that the US intelligence community does not believe there is a case for war against Iran. Beyond that, however, is a clear understanding of Iran's motivations in pursuing a hard line and why the US should take into consideration Tehran's genuine security concerns. He argued for US dialogue with Iran and engaging Tehran through multilateral institutions.
Fingar, who oversaw the production of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that Iran had likely halted the development of nuclear weapons in 2003, said that Iran had reasons to feel insecure because of the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Recognising that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point" for US policy, he said. "We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure."
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict
July 12, 2008
Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict
THE drums of war are getting louder, with Israeli sources revealing that Israeli warplanes are practising in Iraqi airspace and land in US airbases in the country as preparation for a potential strike on Iran.
The "revelation" follows a series of test-firing of missiles conducted by Iran that prompted Israel to threaten that it could launch pre-emptive strikes designed to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear programme which the West insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons — a charge that Tehran denies.
It goes without saying that the US would have a key role in any Israeli military strike against Iran.
The missile tests have also led to a disinformation/misinformation campaign suggesting Iran had faked some of the test-firings and questioning whether it has missiles with enough range to hit Israel.
However, such questions are not going to dissuade the US and Israel from undertaking military strikes against Iran, whose announcement of the test-firing of missiles was deemed to be a warning that it has enough missiles and launchers to keep on firing on consecutive days. Obviously, Tehran wants to talk from what it sees as a position of strength, and this has only strengthened the US and Israeli resolve for military action against Iran.
That is what is indicated by the report that Israeli warplanes are engaged in massive nocturnal activity in Iraqi airspace and several of them were spotted in American-held airbases in Iraq. The Israeli moves in Iraq follows reports of a massive exercise over the Mediterranean several weeks ago that Israeli officials described as "the dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
The latest report quoted former Iraqi military officers in the Anbar province as saying that Israeli airplanes are seen arriving during the night from the west, entering Iraq's airspace and landing on a runway near the city of Hadita. They said they believed that the jets were practising for a raid on
Iran's nuclear sites.
There is no doubt that Israel would use American bases in Iraq as a platform from which to attack Iran. In fact, it would not be much off the mark to suggest that securing an absolute military control of Iraq to allow its ally Israel to have it way in the region was one of the US objectives of the invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.
And now the region faces the prospect of further conflict and serious disruption of life if Israel and the US, individually or collectively, were to strike at Iran.
On the surface, it would appear that there is little anyone could do to check the US/Israel-Iran confrontation from worsening since both sides are determined not to have the other have its way.
However, the stakes are too high for everyone, with the region having to pay first for the chaos and crises resulting from any US/Israeli military action against Iran. Washington should be told in no uncertain terms that the region could not afford yet another military misadventure while Tehran should be told to take upon itself to stay away from provocation that would have disastrous consequences for everyone.
The US should drop its insistence that diplomacy means the other party capitulating and giving up everything. Iran should come to terms with the fact that it has the responsibility to address genuine concerns, if any, caused by its nuclear activities.
That are the bottom lines at this critical juncture in time.
Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict
THE drums of war are getting louder, with Israeli sources revealing that Israeli warplanes are practising in Iraqi airspace and land in US airbases in the country as preparation for a potential strike on Iran.
The "revelation" follows a series of test-firing of missiles conducted by Iran that prompted Israel to threaten that it could launch pre-emptive strikes designed to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear programme which the West insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons — a charge that Tehran denies.
It goes without saying that the US would have a key role in any Israeli military strike against Iran.
The missile tests have also led to a disinformation/misinformation campaign suggesting Iran had faked some of the test-firings and questioning whether it has missiles with enough range to hit Israel.
However, such questions are not going to dissuade the US and Israel from undertaking military strikes against Iran, whose announcement of the test-firing of missiles was deemed to be a warning that it has enough missiles and launchers to keep on firing on consecutive days. Obviously, Tehran wants to talk from what it sees as a position of strength, and this has only strengthened the US and Israeli resolve for military action against Iran.
That is what is indicated by the report that Israeli warplanes are engaged in massive nocturnal activity in Iraqi airspace and several of them were spotted in American-held airbases in Iraq. The Israeli moves in Iraq follows reports of a massive exercise over the Mediterranean several weeks ago that Israeli officials described as "the dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
The latest report quoted former Iraqi military officers in the Anbar province as saying that Israeli airplanes are seen arriving during the night from the west, entering Iraq's airspace and landing on a runway near the city of Hadita. They said they believed that the jets were practising for a raid on
Iran's nuclear sites.
There is no doubt that Israel would use American bases in Iraq as a platform from which to attack Iran. In fact, it would not be much off the mark to suggest that securing an absolute military control of Iraq to allow its ally Israel to have it way in the region was one of the US objectives of the invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.
And now the region faces the prospect of further conflict and serious disruption of life if Israel and the US, individually or collectively, were to strike at Iran.
On the surface, it would appear that there is little anyone could do to check the US/Israel-Iran confrontation from worsening since both sides are determined not to have the other have its way.
However, the stakes are too high for everyone, with the region having to pay first for the chaos and crises resulting from any US/Israeli military action against Iran. Washington should be told in no uncertain terms that the region could not afford yet another military misadventure while Tehran should be told to take upon itself to stay away from provocation that would have disastrous consequences for everyone.
The US should drop its insistence that diplomacy means the other party capitulating and giving up everything. Iran should come to terms with the fact that it has the responsibility to address genuine concerns, if any, caused by its nuclear activities.
That are the bottom lines at this critical juncture in time.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Easy option is toughest for US
July 6, 2008
Easy option is toughest for US
THERE ARE clear signs that the people of Iraq want nothing to do with the so-called status of forces agreement sought by the US and they simply want the US military to pack up and leave their country. However, the Bush administration does not want to acknowledge since it would mean admitting that it is no longer welcome in Iraq.
The status of forces agreement was actually drawn up even before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It clearly means that colonisation of Iraq was the central objective of the invasion and occupation of that country.
A majority of the people of Iraq have realised this and hence their rejection of the US-drafted status of forces agreement. Looking the other way, the US is continuing to pressure the Iraqi government to sign it regardless of whether the people of the country like it or otherwise.
The Shiite leaders of Iraq are aware of the US determination to force the agreement down the Iraqi throat and hence their call for a national referendum on the issue. Washington is bitterly opposed to the idea because it is aware that the people of Iraq would throw the draft agreement if it was put for a referendum. And that is why it is keeping the contents of the draft document a secret (although the international media have brought out the key details of the draft agreement, which, if signed, would place Iraq under the absolute political, diplomatic and military control of the US and give the US military and its contractors a free hand to behave the way they want in the country without question).
Speaking on behalf of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the supreme religious leader of Iraq's Shiites, Imam Sadreddin Al Kabandji underlined on Friday that the draft must be made public and it is unacceptable that the government and the US are negotiating it behind closed doors.
Another Sistani aide has publicly called on Baghdad not to sign the agreement..
"If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries," said Sheikh Abdul Al Mahdi Al Karbalae.
The Americans would be better off listening to the calls because Sistani and his aides are speaking the language of the people of Iraq and they represent the majority of the population.
All Iraqi parties and politicians, except the Kurds, have said they oppose the agreement. The Kurds, who seem to be moving towards carving out their own independent entity in northern Iraq, are in favour of the agreement. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, insists that the agreement would not compromise Iraqi sovereignty but that argument is a lame duck because the contents of the draft are no longer a secret.
The US faces tough options in Iraq. It could pressure the government into signing the document, but then it would alienate an overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq and that in turn would make life even more difficult for the US forces in the country.
Of course, there is an easy option, which the US does not even want to consider but which Washington would be forced to embrace sooner or later: Pack up and go home.
Easy option is toughest for US
THERE ARE clear signs that the people of Iraq want nothing to do with the so-called status of forces agreement sought by the US and they simply want the US military to pack up and leave their country. However, the Bush administration does not want to acknowledge since it would mean admitting that it is no longer welcome in Iraq.
The status of forces agreement was actually drawn up even before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It clearly means that colonisation of Iraq was the central objective of the invasion and occupation of that country.
A majority of the people of Iraq have realised this and hence their rejection of the US-drafted status of forces agreement. Looking the other way, the US is continuing to pressure the Iraqi government to sign it regardless of whether the people of the country like it or otherwise.
The Shiite leaders of Iraq are aware of the US determination to force the agreement down the Iraqi throat and hence their call for a national referendum on the issue. Washington is bitterly opposed to the idea because it is aware that the people of Iraq would throw the draft agreement if it was put for a referendum. And that is why it is keeping the contents of the draft document a secret (although the international media have brought out the key details of the draft agreement, which, if signed, would place Iraq under the absolute political, diplomatic and military control of the US and give the US military and its contractors a free hand to behave the way they want in the country without question).
Speaking on behalf of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the supreme religious leader of Iraq's Shiites, Imam Sadreddin Al Kabandji underlined on Friday that the draft must be made public and it is unacceptable that the government and the US are negotiating it behind closed doors.
Another Sistani aide has publicly called on Baghdad not to sign the agreement..
"If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries," said Sheikh Abdul Al Mahdi Al Karbalae.
The Americans would be better off listening to the calls because Sistani and his aides are speaking the language of the people of Iraq and they represent the majority of the population.
All Iraqi parties and politicians, except the Kurds, have said they oppose the agreement. The Kurds, who seem to be moving towards carving out their own independent entity in northern Iraq, are in favour of the agreement. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, insists that the agreement would not compromise Iraqi sovereignty but that argument is a lame duck because the contents of the draft are no longer a secret.
The US faces tough options in Iraq. It could pressure the government into signing the document, but then it would alienate an overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq and that in turn would make life even more difficult for the US forces in the country.
Of course, there is an easy option, which the US does not even want to consider but which Washington would be forced to embrace sooner or later: Pack up and go home.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Positive signs in a dangerous path
July 5, 2008
Positive signs in a dangerous path
IRAN'S response to proposals by Western powers to end the nuclear stand-off has come at a time when speculation is high that the US and Israel are steadily moving towards launching military action against that country.
We do not know yet how exactly Tehran has responded to the Western proposals, but its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has called the Iranian response "a constructive and creative view and a focus on common ground."
According to Western diplomats, the Western proposals, sent to Tehran by the European Union's top diplomat Javier Solana last month, would have Iran freeze its current level of enrichment capacity for a certain time period during which the European Union would refrain from floating new sanctions.
Iran could not install any new centrifuges used in enrichment, a step that can produce weapons-grade fuel, for the interim period.
We have yet to hear any Iranian official hinting that Tehran is ready to give ground on the key question of enrichment, but it is possible that Tehran might be amenable to the idea of freezing its nuclear enrichment programme at its current level.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the US endorsement of the compromise proposals given to Iran, it is difficult to swallow the argument that the Bush administration is ready to deal with the Iranian regime if it accepts the compromise.
In fact, there are only two constants in the US-Iran nuclear stand-off: The first is Tehran's insistence that it would never make any compromise over its right to develop nuclear energy as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) , and this includes nuclear enrichment. The second is the combined US-Israeli determination for military action leading to regime change in Tehran regardless of whether Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. One would even wager that the US and Israel are hoping that the Iranians would not accept any compromise and thus would offer "justification' for military action against the country. That was indeed the case when the US was dealing with Saddam Hussein and it was clear that there was nothing the late Iraqi leader could have done to avert the US-led invasion of occupation of his country in 2003.
No doubt, the Iranians are aware of the certainty of the US-Israeli intentions and hence their tough talk and repeated warnings that any military action against Iran would be considered an act of war that would draw predictable (and unpredictable) retaliation.
At the same time, Iranian political leaders are sending signals that they are ready for diplomacy to end the dispute.
The foreign policy adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, has said it would be in Iran's interest to accept negotiations as the means to resolve the conflict while Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has spoken of a "new process."
Everyone in the Middle East and beyond is aware of the consequences of yet another military conflict in this region and is anxious to avert it. Let us hope that the new signals coming from Tehran are the forerunners of a diplomatic solution that would spare the region from further conflict, bloodshed and upheavals.
Positive signs in a dangerous path
IRAN'S response to proposals by Western powers to end the nuclear stand-off has come at a time when speculation is high that the US and Israel are steadily moving towards launching military action against that country.
We do not know yet how exactly Tehran has responded to the Western proposals, but its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has called the Iranian response "a constructive and creative view and a focus on common ground."
According to Western diplomats, the Western proposals, sent to Tehran by the European Union's top diplomat Javier Solana last month, would have Iran freeze its current level of enrichment capacity for a certain time period during which the European Union would refrain from floating new sanctions.
Iran could not install any new centrifuges used in enrichment, a step that can produce weapons-grade fuel, for the interim period.
We have yet to hear any Iranian official hinting that Tehran is ready to give ground on the key question of enrichment, but it is possible that Tehran might be amenable to the idea of freezing its nuclear enrichment programme at its current level.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the US endorsement of the compromise proposals given to Iran, it is difficult to swallow the argument that the Bush administration is ready to deal with the Iranian regime if it accepts the compromise.
In fact, there are only two constants in the US-Iran nuclear stand-off: The first is Tehran's insistence that it would never make any compromise over its right to develop nuclear energy as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) , and this includes nuclear enrichment. The second is the combined US-Israeli determination for military action leading to regime change in Tehran regardless of whether Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. One would even wager that the US and Israel are hoping that the Iranians would not accept any compromise and thus would offer "justification' for military action against the country. That was indeed the case when the US was dealing with Saddam Hussein and it was clear that there was nothing the late Iraqi leader could have done to avert the US-led invasion of occupation of his country in 2003.
No doubt, the Iranians are aware of the certainty of the US-Israeli intentions and hence their tough talk and repeated warnings that any military action against Iran would be considered an act of war that would draw predictable (and unpredictable) retaliation.
At the same time, Iranian political leaders are sending signals that they are ready for diplomacy to end the dispute.
The foreign policy adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, has said it would be in Iran's interest to accept negotiations as the means to resolve the conflict while Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has spoken of a "new process."
Everyone in the Middle East and beyond is aware of the consequences of yet another military conflict in this region and is anxious to avert it. Let us hope that the new signals coming from Tehran are the forerunners of a diplomatic solution that would spare the region from further conflict, bloodshed and upheavals.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Time to reflect on realistic options
July 4, 2008
Time to reflect on realistic options
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
The claim of responsibility by the Galilee Liberation Brigades was broadcast by Hizballah’s Al Manar TV station in Lebanon.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statements without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words (However, there is no explanation why Hizbollah would stay away from claiming that it had fulfilled its pledge of revenge for the Mughniyeh killing).
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statement without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words.
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas movement and reimpose a blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Hamas's response to the attack was that it was not responsible for the action but that such assaults were the natural reaction to Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories.
There is no reason to believe that Hamas, which has demonstrated a firm commitment to the truce it agreed with Israel last month, would engage in actions that contradict its pledges. Of all people, the Israelis know it well. Hopefully, Israel would not resort to deception and use Thursday's attack as a pretext to inflict harm on the people of Gaza by reimposing its blockade of the territory.
Surely, the Israelis are wise enough not to undermine the state of relative calm on the Gaza front with actions that they know well would unfounded. It is time for all sides to reflect on their options with a view to figuring out whether confrontation or moderation is the means to work out peace, tranquillity and life in security, safety and indeed dignity for their people.
Time to reflect on realistic options
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
The claim of responsibility by the Galilee Liberation Brigades was broadcast by Hizballah’s Al Manar TV station in Lebanon.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statements without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words (However, there is no explanation why Hizbollah would stay away from claiming that it had fulfilled its pledge of revenge for the Mughniyeh killing).
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statement without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words.
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas movement and reimpose a blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Hamas's response to the attack was that it was not responsible for the action but that such assaults were the natural reaction to Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories.
There is no reason to believe that Hamas, which has demonstrated a firm commitment to the truce it agreed with Israel last month, would engage in actions that contradict its pledges. Of all people, the Israelis know it well. Hopefully, Israel would not resort to deception and use Thursday's attack as a pretext to inflict harm on the people of Gaza by reimposing its blockade of the territory.
Surely, the Israelis are wise enough not to undermine the state of relative calm on the Gaza front with actions that they know well would unfounded. It is time for all sides to reflect on their options with a view to figuring out whether confrontation or moderation is the means to work out peace, tranquillity and life in security, safety and indeed dignity for their people.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
No longer an African problem
July 3 2008
No longer an African problem
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has reportedly told African leaders to examine their own records and claims to power before seeking to sanction him for his country's recent election violence. He told fellow leaders gathered at the two-day summit of the 53-nation African Union in Sharm Al Sheikh that their claims to power were no more legitimate than his and chastised President Umaru Yar'Adua of Nigeria for having "worse elections than I did."
No wonder the other leaders who attended the summit could not move ahead with their effort to impose sanctions on Mugabe's Zimbabwe under intense Western pressure. Nor could they issue a public rebuke or even address a planned news conference, Instead, they encouraged Mugabe to enter into dialogue and form a power-sharing government with the country's opposition.
The Western governments seeking to pressure Mugabe, his spokesman George Charamba said, "can go and hang a thousand times."
However, Mugabe seemed to have made a compromise by saying he is ready to negotiate with the opposition in line with the call made by the African Union leaders, who held their Sharm Al Sheikh summit three days after Mugabe forced Zimbabweans to the polls to vote for him in a presidential runoff. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who won 48 per cent to Mugabe's 43 per cent in the initial round of voting in March, pulled out of the runoff saying he feared further violence against his people.
On Wednesday, Tsvangirai rejected dialogue with Mugabe saying conditions were not yet right for talks on forming a unity government.
Surely, he has his own reasons for adopting that position. He is insisting that the results of a first round of voting on March 29, in which he defeated Mugabe, should be the basis for talks.
Most people had expected the African Union summit to pressure Mugabe into changing his ways. However, the Zimbabwean leader's direct charge against them took the steam out of their push. Many of them are in no position to defend their policies and claim legitimate claim to the positions they hold.
Indeed, that is one of the key problems of Africa. Only a handful of the heads of state and government in the continent could justifiably defend their claims to power. Others have come to power through strong-arm tactics and exploitation of tribal rivalries. Most African leaders have seized power by force and have ruled for decades since. They are in position to point any critical finger at Mugabe since none of them would like to see their own records on rights and governance scrutinised. It is even funny that the US-led Western camp finds fault only with Mugabe while doing business as usual with other African leaders whose records are worse than the Zimbabwean leader's.
However, that does not mean that Mugabe, who has one of the worst records ever for any African ruler, should be allowed to have his way and the problem of Zimbabwe should be allowed to worsen.
There is strong international concern that Zimbabwe is nearing political and economic collapse. There has to be strong and effective international action to solve the Zimbabwean crisis since it has become clear that the people of Zimbabwe have been rendered helpless to help themselves against their own government and now it has been proved that the African Union could not help them either.
No longer an African problem
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has reportedly told African leaders to examine their own records and claims to power before seeking to sanction him for his country's recent election violence. He told fellow leaders gathered at the two-day summit of the 53-nation African Union in Sharm Al Sheikh that their claims to power were no more legitimate than his and chastised President Umaru Yar'Adua of Nigeria for having "worse elections than I did."
No wonder the other leaders who attended the summit could not move ahead with their effort to impose sanctions on Mugabe's Zimbabwe under intense Western pressure. Nor could they issue a public rebuke or even address a planned news conference, Instead, they encouraged Mugabe to enter into dialogue and form a power-sharing government with the country's opposition.
The Western governments seeking to pressure Mugabe, his spokesman George Charamba said, "can go and hang a thousand times."
However, Mugabe seemed to have made a compromise by saying he is ready to negotiate with the opposition in line with the call made by the African Union leaders, who held their Sharm Al Sheikh summit three days after Mugabe forced Zimbabweans to the polls to vote for him in a presidential runoff. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who won 48 per cent to Mugabe's 43 per cent in the initial round of voting in March, pulled out of the runoff saying he feared further violence against his people.
On Wednesday, Tsvangirai rejected dialogue with Mugabe saying conditions were not yet right for talks on forming a unity government.
Surely, he has his own reasons for adopting that position. He is insisting that the results of a first round of voting on March 29, in which he defeated Mugabe, should be the basis for talks.
Most people had expected the African Union summit to pressure Mugabe into changing his ways. However, the Zimbabwean leader's direct charge against them took the steam out of their push. Many of them are in no position to defend their policies and claim legitimate claim to the positions they hold.
Indeed, that is one of the key problems of Africa. Only a handful of the heads of state and government in the continent could justifiably defend their claims to power. Others have come to power through strong-arm tactics and exploitation of tribal rivalries. Most African leaders have seized power by force and have ruled for decades since. They are in position to point any critical finger at Mugabe since none of them would like to see their own records on rights and governance scrutinised. It is even funny that the US-led Western camp finds fault only with Mugabe while doing business as usual with other African leaders whose records are worse than the Zimbabwean leader's.
However, that does not mean that Mugabe, who has one of the worst records ever for any African ruler, should be allowed to have his way and the problem of Zimbabwe should be allowed to worsen.
There is strong international concern that Zimbabwe is nearing political and economic collapse. There has to be strong and effective international action to solve the Zimbabwean crisis since it has become clear that the people of Zimbabwe have been rendered helpless to help themselves against their own government and now it has been proved that the African Union could not help them either.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Get down from the high horse
July 1, 2008
Get down from the high horse
Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah have agreed on a prisoner exchange deal after nearly two years of negotiations. It is not the first such deal between the two sides, but it highlights the folly of Israel's belief in military action as the answer to its conflict with the Arabs.
Under the agreement, Hizbollah will release the remains of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture had triggered the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and provide information on an Israeli air force navigator who went missing while in action over Lebanon 22 years ago. In return, Israel will free five Lebanese, the remains of Hizbollah fighters and an undetermined number of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons as well as provide information of four Iranian diplomats who went "missing" in Lebanon at the height of the Lebanese civil war.
Predictably, Hizbollah hailed the deal as a victory for itself.
"The world could not achieve the Israeli goal of recovering its soldiers without the resistance dictating its terms: the release of prisoners," according to Hizbollah executive council chief Hashem Safieddin.
The agreement certainly highlights that the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in the summer of 2006 could have been averted had the Jewish state's leaders listened to reason.
Israel cited Hizbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers as the reason for having ordered a massive military blitz against Lebanon that caused the death of more than 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and some 140 Israelis, mostly soldiers and security men.
It was as if Israel was waiting for an opportunity to launch military action with a view to destroying or at least seriously weakening Hizbollah's power as a group waging armed resistance. It refused to accept repeated calls for a cease-fire and negotiations to have the two captive soldiers freed in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli jails.
Then it became clear that the Israeli political leadership was acting under American pressure not to accept a cease-fire and press ahead with military power to destroy Hizbollah, a potent power that could pose a serious threat to US and Israeli interests in the event of military action against Iran.
However, Hizbollah surprised Israel and indeed the rest of the world with its resilience and withstood 34 days of fierce military assaults that caused, apart from the civilian deaths, extensive damage to Lebanon's infrastructure. For the first time in the region's history, a war was taken to the people of Israel, forcing them to take to bomb shelters in the face of mortar attacks against their towns. Indeed, Israel seemed to have been shocked as anyone else that Hizbollah could sustain itself in a such a military campaign that pitted the group against a country deemed to be the fifth or sixth strongest in the world. And that shock led to the eventual cease-fire that came after more than a month of military action that resulted in heavy suffering for the people of Lebanon and Israel for no fault of their own.
The Lebanon experience of 2006 and the agreement it has now struck with Hizbollah should be an eye-opener for Israel that there are no military solutions to its problems with the Arabs and that it would be better off climbing down from its military high horse and sitting down to negotiations based on justice and fairness.
Get down from the high horse
Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah have agreed on a prisoner exchange deal after nearly two years of negotiations. It is not the first such deal between the two sides, but it highlights the folly of Israel's belief in military action as the answer to its conflict with the Arabs.
Under the agreement, Hizbollah will release the remains of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture had triggered the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and provide information on an Israeli air force navigator who went missing while in action over Lebanon 22 years ago. In return, Israel will free five Lebanese, the remains of Hizbollah fighters and an undetermined number of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons as well as provide information of four Iranian diplomats who went "missing" in Lebanon at the height of the Lebanese civil war.
Predictably, Hizbollah hailed the deal as a victory for itself.
"The world could not achieve the Israeli goal of recovering its soldiers without the resistance dictating its terms: the release of prisoners," according to Hizbollah executive council chief Hashem Safieddin.
The agreement certainly highlights that the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in the summer of 2006 could have been averted had the Jewish state's leaders listened to reason.
Israel cited Hizbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers as the reason for having ordered a massive military blitz against Lebanon that caused the death of more than 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and some 140 Israelis, mostly soldiers and security men.
It was as if Israel was waiting for an opportunity to launch military action with a view to destroying or at least seriously weakening Hizbollah's power as a group waging armed resistance. It refused to accept repeated calls for a cease-fire and negotiations to have the two captive soldiers freed in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli jails.
Then it became clear that the Israeli political leadership was acting under American pressure not to accept a cease-fire and press ahead with military power to destroy Hizbollah, a potent power that could pose a serious threat to US and Israeli interests in the event of military action against Iran.
However, Hizbollah surprised Israel and indeed the rest of the world with its resilience and withstood 34 days of fierce military assaults that caused, apart from the civilian deaths, extensive damage to Lebanon's infrastructure. For the first time in the region's history, a war was taken to the people of Israel, forcing them to take to bomb shelters in the face of mortar attacks against their towns. Indeed, Israel seemed to have been shocked as anyone else that Hizbollah could sustain itself in a such a military campaign that pitted the group against a country deemed to be the fifth or sixth strongest in the world. And that shock led to the eventual cease-fire that came after more than a month of military action that resulted in heavy suffering for the people of Lebanon and Israel for no fault of their own.
The Lebanon experience of 2006 and the agreement it has now struck with Hizbollah should be an eye-opener for Israel that there are no military solutions to its problems with the Arabs and that it would be better off climbing down from its military high horse and sitting down to negotiations based on justice and fairness.
Monday, June 30, 2008
A good starting point as any
June 30, 2008
A good starting point as any
A new organisation has emerged as a potential counterweight to the all too powerful and influential pro-Israeli lobby in the US, he American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The approach of the new group, J Street, is marked different from AIPAC in that it favour diplomacy over use of military force to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Also absent from the ranks of J Street, according to its founders, hawkish views that consider as impossible Arab-Israeli co-existence.
A recent poll by the American Jewish Committee found that 55 per cent of American Jews think Israel and the Arabs will never be able to live in peace, and that 82 per cent think the Arabs' are not seeking the return of occupied territories but the destruction of Israel.
Interestingly, the same poll also found that American Jews are troubled by current US foreign policy. Two-thirds said they believed the United States should not have invaded Iraq — a move that strengthened Iran and thus undermined Israel's security.
All those interested in seeing peace in the Middle East should be watching the emergence of J Street and trying to figure out whether it could be a positive influence in the effort for fair and just Arab-Israeli agreements.
It is known that AIPAC's political influence and support of hawkish US and Israeli policies have been a serious hindrance to efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. In fact, AIPAC is accepted as the most powerful lobbying group in the US and its influence runs throughout the US body politic, whether Republican or Democrat.
J Street describes itself as the political arm of the pro-peace movement and promises to "advocate forcefully'' in support of diplomatic solutions over military ones and dialogue over confrontation.
"What J Street was started to do was fill a vacuum, and that vacuum is that nobody has been a strong political voice for assertive American diplomacy in the Middle East to resolve conflict," says the group.
One of its first actions was the release of a full-page ad in the New York Times last week chastising "established'' pro-Israel organizations for their "deafening silence'' on Israel's new cease-fire with Hamas and the resumption of peace talks with Syria.
"These efforts may or may not succeed,'' the ad said. "But they are designed to enhance Israel's security, the region's stability and to bring peace closer. And they deserve our support.''
It is too early to say whether J Street would be able to really make the much-needed difference in the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Washington's open bias in favour of Israel on every issue. However, the very fact that a group like J Street has been formed — it claims a membership of 30,000 including rabbis, CEOs and several Nobel laureates — is a positive step since it affirms the existence of American Jews who do not blindly endorse whatever actions and policies followed by Israel and who believe that any Arab-Israeli peace agreement should be just and fair to all parties involved.
It is a good starting point as any. Let us keep watching.
A good starting point as any
A new organisation has emerged as a potential counterweight to the all too powerful and influential pro-Israeli lobby in the US, he American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The approach of the new group, J Street, is marked different from AIPAC in that it favour diplomacy over use of military force to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Also absent from the ranks of J Street, according to its founders, hawkish views that consider as impossible Arab-Israeli co-existence.
A recent poll by the American Jewish Committee found that 55 per cent of American Jews think Israel and the Arabs will never be able to live in peace, and that 82 per cent think the Arabs' are not seeking the return of occupied territories but the destruction of Israel.
Interestingly, the same poll also found that American Jews are troubled by current US foreign policy. Two-thirds said they believed the United States should not have invaded Iraq — a move that strengthened Iran and thus undermined Israel's security.
All those interested in seeing peace in the Middle East should be watching the emergence of J Street and trying to figure out whether it could be a positive influence in the effort for fair and just Arab-Israeli agreements.
It is known that AIPAC's political influence and support of hawkish US and Israeli policies have been a serious hindrance to efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. In fact, AIPAC is accepted as the most powerful lobbying group in the US and its influence runs throughout the US body politic, whether Republican or Democrat.
J Street describes itself as the political arm of the pro-peace movement and promises to "advocate forcefully'' in support of diplomatic solutions over military ones and dialogue over confrontation.
"What J Street was started to do was fill a vacuum, and that vacuum is that nobody has been a strong political voice for assertive American diplomacy in the Middle East to resolve conflict," says the group.
One of its first actions was the release of a full-page ad in the New York Times last week chastising "established'' pro-Israel organizations for their "deafening silence'' on Israel's new cease-fire with Hamas and the resumption of peace talks with Syria.
"These efforts may or may not succeed,'' the ad said. "But they are designed to enhance Israel's security, the region's stability and to bring peace closer. And they deserve our support.''
It is too early to say whether J Street would be able to really make the much-needed difference in the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Washington's open bias in favour of Israel on every issue. However, the very fact that a group like J Street has been formed — it claims a membership of 30,000 including rabbis, CEOs and several Nobel laureates — is a positive step since it affirms the existence of American Jews who do not blindly endorse whatever actions and policies followed by Israel and who believe that any Arab-Israeli peace agreement should be just and fair to all parties involved.
It is a good starting point as any. Let us keep watching.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Iran nuclear dispute — only a facade
Iran nuclear dispute — only a facade
By PV Vivekanand
The rather abrupt shift in media focus to the possibility of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities seems to indicate that the US is poised to use military force yet again in order to bring about "strategic" changes to serve its interests in the region.
With seven months to go before George W Bush bows out of the White House, there seems to be a growing sense of urgency for military action against Iran.
Given Washington's troubles in Iraq and its vulnerability in the region, it would seem unlikely that the Bush administration would approve or engage in military action against Iran. However, there is much more at stake than the nuclear dispute for the US to have decided to go for military action against Iran.
There is a host of compelling reasons for Washington to seek to change the geopolitical shape of Iran, beginning with the theocratic regime which the US sees as a perpetual challenge to its quest for regional dominance and a military threat to its "strategic ally" Israel.
Foremost in the minds of those hawks in Washington who orchestrated the 2001 war against Afghanistan and 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is that Iran benefited most from the US actions.
The Afghan war saw the hard-line Taliban, who were a nagging thorn on the Iranian side, being ousted from power. The invasion of Iraq removed Iran's foe Saddam Hussein from power and brought in Tehran's allies to power in Baghdad who are unable or unwilling to sever their bindings with the Iranian leadership. And it is also clear that Iran's proxy forces are indirectly engaged in the highly effective guerrilla war Iraq if only not to allow the US military to settle down there and train their guns eastwards.
Tehran has not only gained dominating influence in Iraq but is also using that clout to frustrate all American efforts to realise Washington's strategic objectives in Iraq and the rest of the region.
And the Washington hawks are painfully aware that they could be held accountable at some point, sooner than later, for their strategic failures and blunders in Iraq that led to Iran emerging as a dominating regional player at the expense of American interests.
And that is why the hawks seem to be clamouring for military action aimed at bringing about geopolitical changes that they hope would not only deprive Iran of its newfound regional dominance but also remove it as a threat and challenge to the US.
Obviously, the Washington hard-liners are hoping that the situation resulting from "regime change" in Iran would be vindicate their failures in Iraq.
Advance notice
Recent reports of Israeli preparations for military strikes against Iran seem to be intended as advance notice to prepare the international community for the US use of force to neutralise Iran.
However, a realistic assessment shows that Israel does not have the military capability to destroy all Iran's nuclear sites within a safe time span. It cannot effectively check the Iranian nuclear programme without drawing massive Iranian retaliation against US and allied interests in the region. Iranian leaders have said that they would hold the US responsible for any military action — including Israeli strikes — against their country.
In view of the finding that the Israeli air force may be too small to finish the job of bombing out Iranian nuclear installations — which experts say would take as many as 1,000 strikes to be destroyed since they are too distant, numerous and fortified — the consensus is that it has to be a joint US-Israeli operation.
Many observers in the US are convinced that the planned military operation would not be limited to crippling Iran's nuclear programme and would aim at "regime change" in Tehran by creating a situation where the people of Iran are encouraged to rise up and topple against the theocratic regime.
'Nuclear option'
Part of such action, observers argue, is the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" for the first time in history (The atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "tactical weapons," which were developed after World War II). Such weapons are supposed to have devastating results within limited areas and they would "take care" of most of Iran's underground nuclear facilities as well as defensive and offensive capabilties, according to experts.
Strengthening the argument is a growing belief that the US is edging closer to using nuclear weapons again, 63 years after it did so in Japan, in order to reaffirm its global dominance.
The American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement in 2006 expressing deep concern in this context: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for pre-emptive counter-proliferation purposes."
The society's concern is particularly relevant since Bush has refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.
At a White House press conference in April 2006, Bush was asked: "When you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
Bush replied: "All options are on the table."
Few people attach any meaning to repeated statements by Bush and other senior US officials that they want to solve the nuclear dispute with Iran through diplomatic means.
The key question now is: If the US is indeed determined to stage military action against Iran, then when could anyone expect it?
One of the re-election pledges that Bush made to his hard-line Republican camp in October 2004 was to effect "regime change" in Iran before he leaves office. That leaves us with a clear seven months from now. The rest is subject to speculation and conjecture.
By PV Vivekanand
The rather abrupt shift in media focus to the possibility of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities seems to indicate that the US is poised to use military force yet again in order to bring about "strategic" changes to serve its interests in the region.
With seven months to go before George W Bush bows out of the White House, there seems to be a growing sense of urgency for military action against Iran.
Given Washington's troubles in Iraq and its vulnerability in the region, it would seem unlikely that the Bush administration would approve or engage in military action against Iran. However, there is much more at stake than the nuclear dispute for the US to have decided to go for military action against Iran.
There is a host of compelling reasons for Washington to seek to change the geopolitical shape of Iran, beginning with the theocratic regime which the US sees as a perpetual challenge to its quest for regional dominance and a military threat to its "strategic ally" Israel.
Foremost in the minds of those hawks in Washington who orchestrated the 2001 war against Afghanistan and 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is that Iran benefited most from the US actions.
The Afghan war saw the hard-line Taliban, who were a nagging thorn on the Iranian side, being ousted from power. The invasion of Iraq removed Iran's foe Saddam Hussein from power and brought in Tehran's allies to power in Baghdad who are unable or unwilling to sever their bindings with the Iranian leadership. And it is also clear that Iran's proxy forces are indirectly engaged in the highly effective guerrilla war Iraq if only not to allow the US military to settle down there and train their guns eastwards.
Tehran has not only gained dominating influence in Iraq but is also using that clout to frustrate all American efforts to realise Washington's strategic objectives in Iraq and the rest of the region.
And the Washington hawks are painfully aware that they could be held accountable at some point, sooner than later, for their strategic failures and blunders in Iraq that led to Iran emerging as a dominating regional player at the expense of American interests.
And that is why the hawks seem to be clamouring for military action aimed at bringing about geopolitical changes that they hope would not only deprive Iran of its newfound regional dominance but also remove it as a threat and challenge to the US.
Obviously, the Washington hard-liners are hoping that the situation resulting from "regime change" in Iran would be vindicate their failures in Iraq.
Advance notice
Recent reports of Israeli preparations for military strikes against Iran seem to be intended as advance notice to prepare the international community for the US use of force to neutralise Iran.
However, a realistic assessment shows that Israel does not have the military capability to destroy all Iran's nuclear sites within a safe time span. It cannot effectively check the Iranian nuclear programme without drawing massive Iranian retaliation against US and allied interests in the region. Iranian leaders have said that they would hold the US responsible for any military action — including Israeli strikes — against their country.
In view of the finding that the Israeli air force may be too small to finish the job of bombing out Iranian nuclear installations — which experts say would take as many as 1,000 strikes to be destroyed since they are too distant, numerous and fortified — the consensus is that it has to be a joint US-Israeli operation.
Many observers in the US are convinced that the planned military operation would not be limited to crippling Iran's nuclear programme and would aim at "regime change" in Tehran by creating a situation where the people of Iran are encouraged to rise up and topple against the theocratic regime.
'Nuclear option'
Part of such action, observers argue, is the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" for the first time in history (The atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "tactical weapons," which were developed after World War II). Such weapons are supposed to have devastating results within limited areas and they would "take care" of most of Iran's underground nuclear facilities as well as defensive and offensive capabilties, according to experts.
Strengthening the argument is a growing belief that the US is edging closer to using nuclear weapons again, 63 years after it did so in Japan, in order to reaffirm its global dominance.
The American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement in 2006 expressing deep concern in this context: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for pre-emptive counter-proliferation purposes."
The society's concern is particularly relevant since Bush has refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.
At a White House press conference in April 2006, Bush was asked: "When you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
Bush replied: "All options are on the table."
Few people attach any meaning to repeated statements by Bush and other senior US officials that they want to solve the nuclear dispute with Iran through diplomatic means.
The key question now is: If the US is indeed determined to stage military action against Iran, then when could anyone expect it?
One of the re-election pledges that Bush made to his hard-line Republican camp in October 2004 was to effect "regime change" in Iran before he leaves office. That leaves us with a clear seven months from now. The rest is subject to speculation and conjecture.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Truce should not be a smokescreen
June 19, 2008
Truce should not be a smokescreen
A CEASEFIRE is supposed to take effect on Thursday between Israel and Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip with hopes that it would hold and contain tensions and check an expected Israeli military offensive against the Mediterrean coastal strip.
Egypt and Hamas, which controls the coastal strip, announced the the Egyptian-proposed ceasefire (tahadiyeh) on Tuesday and Israel officially confirmed it on Wednesday and promised to ease its blockade of Gaza next week.
The first beneficiary of the truce should be the ordinary Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip under the choking Israeli siege. Living conditions are reported to be at one of the worst points ever in the Gaza Strip and the promised easing of the Israeli blockade should be a major relief for them.
Residents of southern Israel should also be relieved since the ceasefire means an end to the daily rocket attacks against them coming from the Gaza Strip.
Hamas will be in charge of the Rafah border crossing — when it is reopened — and this should allow Gazans to secure their food and needs of basic commodities.
Israel has agreed to work separately on a a deal to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who is believed to be held by several groups, including Hamas allies.
Releasing Shalit will come only in return for freeing a large number of Palestinian prisoners.
Beyond an end to Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel and Israeli military strikes against the Gaza Strip as well as an easing of the Israeli blockade, the ceasefire deal has an impact on reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah.
It offers Hamas a political and diplomatic plus point that will also give it some leverage in dealing with Fatah. It offers Hamas, rather than Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, the power to force a cease-fire in the West Bank. Reports in the Israeli press acknowledge that if quiet is maintained in the south, Israel will have to extend the truce to the West Bank in another six months.
Abbas is expected to make his first visit to Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area last year, in an effort to negotiate an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Now he faces a politically strengthened Hamas. That is how many see the evolving situation.
However, the fact should not be overlooked that Hamas represents a major segment of the Palestinian community and it has proved its strength in legislative elections. As such, its involvement is essential in any serious and realistic effort for peace in Palestine. Fatah and other Palestinian groups have recognised it. Israel also needs to accept it and should not see the current ceasefire as a convenient and temporary arrangement that would allow it to come up with new measures to contain Palestinian resistance to its occupation of Palestinian territories.
Truce should not be a smokescreen
A CEASEFIRE is supposed to take effect on Thursday between Israel and Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip with hopes that it would hold and contain tensions and check an expected Israeli military offensive against the Mediterrean coastal strip.
Egypt and Hamas, which controls the coastal strip, announced the the Egyptian-proposed ceasefire (tahadiyeh) on Tuesday and Israel officially confirmed it on Wednesday and promised to ease its blockade of Gaza next week.
The first beneficiary of the truce should be the ordinary Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip under the choking Israeli siege. Living conditions are reported to be at one of the worst points ever in the Gaza Strip and the promised easing of the Israeli blockade should be a major relief for them.
Residents of southern Israel should also be relieved since the ceasefire means an end to the daily rocket attacks against them coming from the Gaza Strip.
Hamas will be in charge of the Rafah border crossing — when it is reopened — and this should allow Gazans to secure their food and needs of basic commodities.
Israel has agreed to work separately on a a deal to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who is believed to be held by several groups, including Hamas allies.
Releasing Shalit will come only in return for freeing a large number of Palestinian prisoners.
Beyond an end to Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel and Israeli military strikes against the Gaza Strip as well as an easing of the Israeli blockade, the ceasefire deal has an impact on reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah.
It offers Hamas a political and diplomatic plus point that will also give it some leverage in dealing with Fatah. It offers Hamas, rather than Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, the power to force a cease-fire in the West Bank. Reports in the Israeli press acknowledge that if quiet is maintained in the south, Israel will have to extend the truce to the West Bank in another six months.
Abbas is expected to make his first visit to Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area last year, in an effort to negotiate an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Now he faces a politically strengthened Hamas. That is how many see the evolving situation.
However, the fact should not be overlooked that Hamas represents a major segment of the Palestinian community and it has proved its strength in legislative elections. As such, its involvement is essential in any serious and realistic effort for peace in Palestine. Fatah and other Palestinian groups have recognised it. Israel also needs to accept it and should not see the current ceasefire as a convenient and temporary arrangement that would allow it to come up with new measures to contain Palestinian resistance to its occupation of Palestinian territories.
More than meets the eye in Shebaa Farms offer
More than meets the eye in Shebaa Farms offer
by pv vivekanand
A GRAND scheme is said to be drawn up behind the scene for an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement starting with a face-to-face meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. However, the success of the French-inspired initiative depends on many factors, including the political fortunes of Olmert, who is caught up in a corruption scandal, and whether the Israeli political and military establishments would agree to any compromise that would lead to the return to Syria of the occupied Golan Heights.
An overriding element is a suspicion that the plan aims only at removing Lebanon from the Arab-Israeli conflict and weakening Syria's position in dealing with the Jewish state.
As the first step of the initiative, Olmert has reportedly told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he was ready to withdraw Israeli troops from the Shebaa Farms and hand over the area on the slopes of the Golan Heights to the UN.
The Shebaa Farms enclave was occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as part of the Golan and as such was later recognised by the UN. Syria later said the Shebaa Farms were part of Lebanon and this offered the Lebanese Hizbollah with the justification for continued armed resistance against Israel and the group's own existence as a resistance group. Israel, which quit Lebanon in 2000 after a 17-year occupation, giving up the Shebaa Farms area now would pull the rug from under the Syrian-backed Hizbollah argument.
Rice, who received Olmert's offer on Sunday, travelled to Beirut on Monday and delivered the message to Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister-designate Fuad Siniora with an emphatic statement that the US wishes to see " an early settlement to the Shebaa Farms issue.”
Olmert's offer is said to be part of the French-led effort to bring him face to face with Assad at a Mediterranean conference in Paris in mid-July in what could prove out to be a landmark in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Olmert has not presented the Shebaa Farms offer to his coalition government. It is known that Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli military commanders are opposed to the idea because they believe that Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms would expose its military positions on the northwestern slopes of the Golan Heights to the Syrian military.
The Israeli military also says that handing over the area to the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon will extend the force’s control over South Lebanon to this strategic sector and thus offer Hizbollah freedom of action in the area.
In a broader context, returning the Golan to Syria is a highly sensitive issue for Israel since the strategic plateau accounts for the sources of more than 70 per cent of the Jewish state's water needs. Olmert would find himself under immense political pressure not only from the hawkish Likud-led opposition but also from his coalition partners against any such compromise.
However, that has not stopped him from authorising indirect negotiations with Syria.
Israeli and Syrian officials have been meeting under Turkish mediation for what is described as indirect dialogue. The next meeting is scheduled to be held next month.
It is believed that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is behind the Shebaa Farms initiative and he secured US approval of the idea during US President George W Bush's visit to Paris last week.
Under the initiative, it is reported, Israel will make a formal announcement in early July that it is ready to give up the Shebaa Farms. Subsequently, a joint US-French-Israeli statement will be issued saying Israel’s willingness to give up the Shebaa Farms is part of an overall understanding that would lead to its evacuation of the Golan.
Two French emissaries, Sarkozy adviser Jean-David Levit and office manager Claude Gueant, travelled to Damascus and presented the offer to Assad. And two of the Israeli officials who took part in the Turkish-mediated indirect talks flew to Paris on Monday to brief the French government on the outcome of their effort.
None of the parties involved has officially acknowledged the French initiative, which Sarkozy hopes would be one of the highlights of the Conference of Mediterranean States in Paris on July 13. The French leader hopes that the event will be attended by Olmert and Assad, who will also be Sarkozy's guest at the Bastille Day parade the next day. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the French parliament this week that "Assad will be sitting at the same table as Olmert" next month's Paris conference. Syria has yet to confirm it.
Earlier, Assad reportedly told the two French envoys. Levit and Gueant, that the offer withdraw from the Shebaa Farms is not enough. There has to be an explicit Israeli declaration of intention to return the Golan Heights to Syria.
Obviously, Sarkozy is hoping that the promised joint US-French-Israeli statement expected to be issued in the first week of July should satisfy Assad and clear the way for direct peace negotiations between Syria and Israel.
Israeli President Shimon Peres has called on Syria to enter direct talks, citing the example of former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, who forged a peace agreement with the Jewish state after a visit to occupied Jerusalem in 1978.
However, Assad said this month that direct peace talks with Israel were unlikely before 2009 and depended on the political future of Olmert, who has been dogged by calls for his resignation over a corruption scandal.
Assad should also be mindful that Israel could limit the practical implementation of the plan to the Shebaa Farms and thus officially end the "Israeli-Lebanese conflict" and neutralise Hizbollah. That would see Syria losing its Lebanon card and on its own grappling with Israel over the Golan Heights.
Simply put, Syria is in a far better position to deal with Israel while the Lebanon front remains active and it would be much too weak if Lebanon is removed from the equation.
As such, it is natural that Assad is careful to the point of being sceptical of the US position that Washington is pressing for an Israeli withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms. Rice told Lebanese leaders during her recent visit to Beirut that the US is stepping up its efforts into pressing Israel to evacuate the Shebaa Farms.
Rice also said Bush is determined to resolve the Shebaa Farms issue and has requested the UN to send a mission to inspect the situation on the ground there.
The key to the success of the initiative is mutual trust among the players. Washington has to take into consideration that Damascus has every reason to be sceptical of the US motivations and intentions as well as Olmert's ability to deliver on any of his promises.
Clearly, it is up to Bush and Rice to convince Assad that next month's Israeli declaration would definitely lead to a serious and meaningful process involving an honourable and dignified peace agreement that covers every aspect of the Israeli-Syrian conflict. Only then, we could expect to see Assad "sitting at the same table as Olmert" as Kouchner has promised.
by pv vivekanand
A GRAND scheme is said to be drawn up behind the scene for an Israeli-Syrian peace agreement starting with a face-to-face meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. However, the success of the French-inspired initiative depends on many factors, including the political fortunes of Olmert, who is caught up in a corruption scandal, and whether the Israeli political and military establishments would agree to any compromise that would lead to the return to Syria of the occupied Golan Heights.
An overriding element is a suspicion that the plan aims only at removing Lebanon from the Arab-Israeli conflict and weakening Syria's position in dealing with the Jewish state.
As the first step of the initiative, Olmert has reportedly told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he was ready to withdraw Israeli troops from the Shebaa Farms and hand over the area on the slopes of the Golan Heights to the UN.
The Shebaa Farms enclave was occupied by Israel in the 1967 war as part of the Golan and as such was later recognised by the UN. Syria later said the Shebaa Farms were part of Lebanon and this offered the Lebanese Hizbollah with the justification for continued armed resistance against Israel and the group's own existence as a resistance group. Israel, which quit Lebanon in 2000 after a 17-year occupation, giving up the Shebaa Farms area now would pull the rug from under the Syrian-backed Hizbollah argument.
Rice, who received Olmert's offer on Sunday, travelled to Beirut on Monday and delivered the message to Lebanese President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister-designate Fuad Siniora with an emphatic statement that the US wishes to see " an early settlement to the Shebaa Farms issue.”
Olmert's offer is said to be part of the French-led effort to bring him face to face with Assad at a Mediterranean conference in Paris in mid-July in what could prove out to be a landmark in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Olmert has not presented the Shebaa Farms offer to his coalition government. It is known that Defence Minister Ehud Barak and Israeli military commanders are opposed to the idea because they believe that Israel’s withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms would expose its military positions on the northwestern slopes of the Golan Heights to the Syrian military.
The Israeli military also says that handing over the area to the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon will extend the force’s control over South Lebanon to this strategic sector and thus offer Hizbollah freedom of action in the area.
In a broader context, returning the Golan to Syria is a highly sensitive issue for Israel since the strategic plateau accounts for the sources of more than 70 per cent of the Jewish state's water needs. Olmert would find himself under immense political pressure not only from the hawkish Likud-led opposition but also from his coalition partners against any such compromise.
However, that has not stopped him from authorising indirect negotiations with Syria.
Israeli and Syrian officials have been meeting under Turkish mediation for what is described as indirect dialogue. The next meeting is scheduled to be held next month.
It is believed that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is behind the Shebaa Farms initiative and he secured US approval of the idea during US President George W Bush's visit to Paris last week.
Under the initiative, it is reported, Israel will make a formal announcement in early July that it is ready to give up the Shebaa Farms. Subsequently, a joint US-French-Israeli statement will be issued saying Israel’s willingness to give up the Shebaa Farms is part of an overall understanding that would lead to its evacuation of the Golan.
Two French emissaries, Sarkozy adviser Jean-David Levit and office manager Claude Gueant, travelled to Damascus and presented the offer to Assad. And two of the Israeli officials who took part in the Turkish-mediated indirect talks flew to Paris on Monday to brief the French government on the outcome of their effort.
None of the parties involved has officially acknowledged the French initiative, which Sarkozy hopes would be one of the highlights of the Conference of Mediterranean States in Paris on July 13. The French leader hopes that the event will be attended by Olmert and Assad, who will also be Sarkozy's guest at the Bastille Day parade the next day. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told the French parliament this week that "Assad will be sitting at the same table as Olmert" next month's Paris conference. Syria has yet to confirm it.
Earlier, Assad reportedly told the two French envoys. Levit and Gueant, that the offer withdraw from the Shebaa Farms is not enough. There has to be an explicit Israeli declaration of intention to return the Golan Heights to Syria.
Obviously, Sarkozy is hoping that the promised joint US-French-Israeli statement expected to be issued in the first week of July should satisfy Assad and clear the way for direct peace negotiations between Syria and Israel.
Israeli President Shimon Peres has called on Syria to enter direct talks, citing the example of former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat, who forged a peace agreement with the Jewish state after a visit to occupied Jerusalem in 1978.
However, Assad said this month that direct peace talks with Israel were unlikely before 2009 and depended on the political future of Olmert, who has been dogged by calls for his resignation over a corruption scandal.
Assad should also be mindful that Israel could limit the practical implementation of the plan to the Shebaa Farms and thus officially end the "Israeli-Lebanese conflict" and neutralise Hizbollah. That would see Syria losing its Lebanon card and on its own grappling with Israel over the Golan Heights.
Simply put, Syria is in a far better position to deal with Israel while the Lebanon front remains active and it would be much too weak if Lebanon is removed from the equation.
As such, it is natural that Assad is careful to the point of being sceptical of the US position that Washington is pressing for an Israeli withdrawal from the Shebaa Farms. Rice told Lebanese leaders during her recent visit to Beirut that the US is stepping up its efforts into pressing Israel to evacuate the Shebaa Farms.
Rice also said Bush is determined to resolve the Shebaa Farms issue and has requested the UN to send a mission to inspect the situation on the ground there.
The key to the success of the initiative is mutual trust among the players. Washington has to take into consideration that Damascus has every reason to be sceptical of the US motivations and intentions as well as Olmert's ability to deliver on any of his promises.
Clearly, it is up to Bush and Rice to convince Assad that next month's Israeli declaration would definitely lead to a serious and meaningful process involving an honourable and dignified peace agreement that covers every aspect of the Israeli-Syrian conflict. Only then, we could expect to see Assad "sitting at the same table as Olmert" as Kouchner has promised.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Back to chaos?
June 18, 2008
Back to chaos?
It is disturbing to take note of signs that Bangladesh's self-styled military-backed "interim government" is easing up its campaign to clean up the country' politics. When the interim government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, took power in January 2007 and launched a crackdown against government and political corruption, Bangladeshis welcomed it with jubiliance. Since then, the interim government was able to restore some stability to the country but faces a long way ahead.
However, the government has not been able to do much to control rising prices food and other basic ccommodities and alleviate the suffering of the poor. But that has been the case with most Third World governments grappling with the record increase in international oil prices in the last 18 months.
It is against this backdrop that the interim government in Dhaka opted to release former prime minister Sheikh Hasina on parole and possibily offer a possible similar step for her rival Begum Khaleda Zia.
According to offcials, the government is reviewing the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) to allow people held on corruption charges to be given bail, and that even those convicted could be allowed to appeal and contest the election.
That is not very good news because it is widely held that Bangladeshi politics could not be cleaned up without removing corrupt and incompetent politicians from the scene and there could be no compromise whatsoever in this context.
It is known that many of the problems of Bangladesh owe their origins to the inefficiency and political acrobatics of Hasina and Khaleda, both former prime ministers, and their one-track mind to serve their party loyalists at the expense of national interests.
Neither of them, who head the two largest parties in the country, is known for focusing attention on issues of national development except to slam each other at every given opportunity. The 15 years during which they alternated power were marked by political unrest and rising corruption at every level.
Many Bangladeshis heaved a sigh of relief when they saw the interim government cracking down on the two former prime ministers and hordes of politicians and bureaucrats.
And now they are implictly told that the politicians are being allowed to stage a comeback if only to ensure participation of political parties in general elections scheduled to be held in December. The government seems to reckon that releasing the detained politicians — some 50 of the 170 political held in the crackdown have been convicted of corruption charges — and allowing them to move around freely could entice their parties to the elections.
That might indeed be the case, but that would also allow corrupt and incompetent politicians to re-enter the scene and regain their grip on the country. If that happens, then there is no hope of rescue for the people of Bangladesh, particularly that the politicians returning to power would carry with them a sword of vengeance against anyone and everyone they saw as challenging their vested interests.
Back to chaos?
It is disturbing to take note of signs that Bangladesh's self-styled military-backed "interim government" is easing up its campaign to clean up the country' politics. When the interim government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, took power in January 2007 and launched a crackdown against government and political corruption, Bangladeshis welcomed it with jubiliance. Since then, the interim government was able to restore some stability to the country but faces a long way ahead.
However, the government has not been able to do much to control rising prices food and other basic ccommodities and alleviate the suffering of the poor. But that has been the case with most Third World governments grappling with the record increase in international oil prices in the last 18 months.
It is against this backdrop that the interim government in Dhaka opted to release former prime minister Sheikh Hasina on parole and possibily offer a possible similar step for her rival Begum Khaleda Zia.
According to offcials, the government is reviewing the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) to allow people held on corruption charges to be given bail, and that even those convicted could be allowed to appeal and contest the election.
That is not very good news because it is widely held that Bangladeshi politics could not be cleaned up without removing corrupt and incompetent politicians from the scene and there could be no compromise whatsoever in this context.
It is known that many of the problems of Bangladesh owe their origins to the inefficiency and political acrobatics of Hasina and Khaleda, both former prime ministers, and their one-track mind to serve their party loyalists at the expense of national interests.
Neither of them, who head the two largest parties in the country, is known for focusing attention on issues of national development except to slam each other at every given opportunity. The 15 years during which they alternated power were marked by political unrest and rising corruption at every level.
Many Bangladeshis heaved a sigh of relief when they saw the interim government cracking down on the two former prime ministers and hordes of politicians and bureaucrats.
And now they are implictly told that the politicians are being allowed to stage a comeback if only to ensure participation of political parties in general elections scheduled to be held in December. The government seems to reckon that releasing the detained politicians — some 50 of the 170 political held in the crackdown have been convicted of corruption charges — and allowing them to move around freely could entice their parties to the elections.
That might indeed be the case, but that would also allow corrupt and incompetent politicians to re-enter the scene and regain their grip on the country. If that happens, then there is no hope of rescue for the people of Bangladesh, particularly that the politicians returning to power would carry with them a sword of vengeance against anyone and everyone they saw as challenging their vested interests.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
War of words benefits enemy
June 17, 2008
War of words benefits enemy
IT was with great relief that the people of this region welcomed the outcome of a visit that Afghan President Hamid Karzai paid to Pakistan a few months ago and the talks he held with his Pakistani counterpart Pervez Musharraf on bilateral tensions.
However, the relief stemming from signs that the two leaders understood each other's problems dealing with militancy and were ready to work with each other was short-lived. It might or might not have to do with the political upheavals in Pakistan, but today, we find Pak-Afghan tensions hitting a new peak, with Islamabad and Kabul warning each other over cross-border militancy.
Karzai warned on Sunday that Afghan security forces would be justified to attack Taliban insurgents in Pakistan, his supposed ally in the US-led "war on terror," and said such action would be legitimate self-defence.
The Afghan president was reacting to a Taliban attack on an Afghan jail, freeing some 900 prisoners, including 350 Taliban members. While he has in the post criticised the Pak government, it was the first time that Karzai threatened to send troops over the border to Pakistan.
Pakistan hit back on Monday, summoning the Afghan ambassador in Islamabad and vowing to defend its sovereignty. And both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, popular anger grew against each other, with hundreds of Afghan tribesmen rallying on their side of the frontier to voice their support for Karzai's tough stance.
Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have never been smooth, and the situation turned worse after the post-9/11 US military action that ousted the Taliban from power in Kabul and changed the political and military shape of the country with Pakistan's support.
Afghan and Western officials accuse Pakistan, which backed the Taliban until the 2001 US war on Afghanistan of failing to curb Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists based in its troubled tribal belt in the border area. They say they are also worried over recent negotiations between the Pakistani government and Taliban commanders.
The Pakistanis dismiss the charges and blame Afghanistan for failing to curb militancy on its side of the border. Islamabad also points out that it has more than 90,000 troops along the border, with 1,000 Pakistani soldiers having died fighting insurgents since 200
At the root of the conflict is the lack of mutual trust between Kabul and Afghanistan. On the Pak side of things, the new government finds it imperative to work out some form of a deal with some of the "moderate" militant elements as it seeks to consolidate its security grip on the country. That explains the dialogue between the Islamabad government and Pakistani Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud, who was named by Karzai as one of the sources of cross-border trouble for Kabul.
Kabul and Islamabad seem to overlook that the beneficiary of their war of words are militants on either side of the border. Any effective action against militants, whether Afghan Taliban or Pak Taliban or any other, depends on security co-operation by the two governments. Threatening each other would only take the two in a negative direction with little hope of success in tackling the common problem of militancy that both sides face.
War of words benefits enemy
IT was with great relief that the people of this region welcomed the outcome of a visit that Afghan President Hamid Karzai paid to Pakistan a few months ago and the talks he held with his Pakistani counterpart Pervez Musharraf on bilateral tensions.
However, the relief stemming from signs that the two leaders understood each other's problems dealing with militancy and were ready to work with each other was short-lived. It might or might not have to do with the political upheavals in Pakistan, but today, we find Pak-Afghan tensions hitting a new peak, with Islamabad and Kabul warning each other over cross-border militancy.
Karzai warned on Sunday that Afghan security forces would be justified to attack Taliban insurgents in Pakistan, his supposed ally in the US-led "war on terror," and said such action would be legitimate self-defence.
The Afghan president was reacting to a Taliban attack on an Afghan jail, freeing some 900 prisoners, including 350 Taliban members. While he has in the post criticised the Pak government, it was the first time that Karzai threatened to send troops over the border to Pakistan.
Pakistan hit back on Monday, summoning the Afghan ambassador in Islamabad and vowing to defend its sovereignty. And both in Pakistan and Afghanistan, popular anger grew against each other, with hundreds of Afghan tribesmen rallying on their side of the frontier to voice their support for Karzai's tough stance.
Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have never been smooth, and the situation turned worse after the post-9/11 US military action that ousted the Taliban from power in Kabul and changed the political and military shape of the country with Pakistan's support.
Afghan and Western officials accuse Pakistan, which backed the Taliban until the 2001 US war on Afghanistan of failing to curb Al Qaeda and Taliban extremists based in its troubled tribal belt in the border area. They say they are also worried over recent negotiations between the Pakistani government and Taliban commanders.
The Pakistanis dismiss the charges and blame Afghanistan for failing to curb militancy on its side of the border. Islamabad also points out that it has more than 90,000 troops along the border, with 1,000 Pakistani soldiers having died fighting insurgents since 200
At the root of the conflict is the lack of mutual trust between Kabul and Afghanistan. On the Pak side of things, the new government finds it imperative to work out some form of a deal with some of the "moderate" militant elements as it seeks to consolidate its security grip on the country. That explains the dialogue between the Islamabad government and Pakistani Taliban warlord Baitullah Mehsud, who was named by Karzai as one of the sources of cross-border trouble for Kabul.
Kabul and Islamabad seem to overlook that the beneficiary of their war of words are militants on either side of the border. Any effective action against militants, whether Afghan Taliban or Pak Taliban or any other, depends on security co-operation by the two governments. Threatening each other would only take the two in a negative direction with little hope of success in tackling the common problem of militancy that both sides face.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Turning clock back to chos
June 16 2008
Turning clock back to chos
It is disturbing to take note of signs that Bangladesh's self-styled military-backed "interim government" is easing up its campaign to clean up the country' politics. When the interim government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, took power in January 2007 and launched a crackdown against government and political corruption, Bangladeshis welcomed it with jubiliance. Since then, the interim government was able to restore some stability to the country but faces a long way ahead.
However, the government has not been able to do much to control rising prices food and other basic ccommodities and alleviate the suffering of the poor. But that has been the case with most Third World governments grappling with the record increase in international oil prices in the last 18 months.
It is against this backdrop that the interim government in Dhaka opted to release former prime minister Sheikh Hasina on parole and possibily offer a possible similar step for her rival Begum Khaleda Zia.
According to offcials, the government is reviewing the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) to allow people held on corruption charges to be given bail, and that even those convicted could be allowed to appeal and contest the election.
That is not very good news because it is widely held that Bangladeshi politics could not be cleaned up without removing corrupt and incompetent politicians from the scene and there could be no compromise whatsoever in this context.
It is known that many of the problems of Bangladesh owe their origins to the inefficiency and political acrobatics of Hasina and Khaleda, both former prime ministers, and their one-track mind to serve their party loyalists at the expense of national interests.
Neither of them, who head the two largest parties in the country, is known for focusing attention on issues of national development except to slam each other at every given opportunity. The 15 years during which they alternated power were marked by political unrest and rising corruption at every level.
Many Bangladeshis heaved a sigh of relief when they saw the interim government cracking down on the two former prime ministers and hordes of politicians and bureaucrats.
And now they are implictly told that the politicians are being allowed to stage a comeback if only to ensure participation of political parties in general elections scheduled to be held in December. The government seems to reckon that releasing the detained politicians — some 50 of the 170 political held in the crackdown have been convicted of corruption charges — and allowing them to move around freely could entice their parties to the elections.
That might indeed be the case, but that would also allow corrupt and incompetent politicians to re-enter the scene and regain their grip on the country. If that happens, then there is no hope of rescue for the people of Bangladesh, particularly that the politicians returning to power would carry with them a sword of vengeance against anyone and everyone they saw as challenging their vested interests.
Turning clock back to chos
It is disturbing to take note of signs that Bangladesh's self-styled military-backed "interim government" is easing up its campaign to clean up the country' politics. When the interim government, headed by former central bank governor Fakhruddin Ahmed, took power in January 2007 and launched a crackdown against government and political corruption, Bangladeshis welcomed it with jubiliance. Since then, the interim government was able to restore some stability to the country but faces a long way ahead.
However, the government has not been able to do much to control rising prices food and other basic ccommodities and alleviate the suffering of the poor. But that has been the case with most Third World governments grappling with the record increase in international oil prices in the last 18 months.
It is against this backdrop that the interim government in Dhaka opted to release former prime minister Sheikh Hasina on parole and possibily offer a possible similar step for her rival Begum Khaleda Zia.
According to offcials, the government is reviewing the Emergency Power Rules (EPR) to allow people held on corruption charges to be given bail, and that even those convicted could be allowed to appeal and contest the election.
That is not very good news because it is widely held that Bangladeshi politics could not be cleaned up without removing corrupt and incompetent politicians from the scene and there could be no compromise whatsoever in this context.
It is known that many of the problems of Bangladesh owe their origins to the inefficiency and political acrobatics of Hasina and Khaleda, both former prime ministers, and their one-track mind to serve their party loyalists at the expense of national interests.
Neither of them, who head the two largest parties in the country, is known for focusing attention on issues of national development except to slam each other at every given opportunity. The 15 years during which they alternated power were marked by political unrest and rising corruption at every level.
Many Bangladeshis heaved a sigh of relief when they saw the interim government cracking down on the two former prime ministers and hordes of politicians and bureaucrats.
And now they are implictly told that the politicians are being allowed to stage a comeback if only to ensure participation of political parties in general elections scheduled to be held in December. The government seems to reckon that releasing the detained politicians — some 50 of the 170 political held in the crackdown have been convicted of corruption charges — and allowing them to move around freely could entice their parties to the elections.
That might indeed be the case, but that would also allow corrupt and incompetent politicians to re-enter the scene and regain their grip on the country. If that happens, then there is no hope of rescue for the people of Bangladesh, particularly that the politicians returning to power would carry with them a sword of vengeance against anyone and everyone they saw as challenging their vested interests.
US has a one-track mind
June 16 2008
US has a one-track mind and it shows
by pv vivekanand
US President George W Bush is facing perhaps the most daunting challenge in Iraq as he is trying to secure a "security" agreement that would seal his de facto colonisation of the country and place it under absolute American tulelage.
As he prepares to bow out of the White House in a few months' time, Bush is hoping that the sought-for agreement could vindicate his invasion and occupation of Iraq and could be touted as one of his most impressive presidential achievements.
A UN authorisation of the US-led foreign military presence in Iraq runs out on Dec.31 and the US-Iraq deal under negotiation would replace it and legitmise the US occupation of the country.
The draft agreement prepared by the US calls for creation of some 50 military bases officially described as Iraqi but with open-ended, unfrettered and unquestioned access to the US military. It also proposes absolute US control of Iraqi airspace upto 29,000 feet and freedom to carry out any military operation in the country without referring to the Iraqi government as well as total immunity for US soldiers and contractors from Iraqi law (Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zebari said last week that the US had dropped the demand for immunity for US contractors).
Securing absolute and permanent control of Iraq was one of the key objectives of the 2003 US military action that saw Saddam Hussein being toppled and the US taking over and occupying the country.
The Bush administration had not taken into consideration many of the geopolitical realities of Iraq while it ordered the military into Iraq. Today, it finds itself caught in a worsening crisis involving political and armed resistance from Iraqis and unable to realise any of its strategic objectives of the invasion and occupation.
Therefore, it would be a major point of triumph for Bush if the Iraqi government signs the agreement, particularly before July 31 ahead of the Republican and Democratic national conventions. The Republicans are hoping that it would boost Senator John McCain's chances against Democrat Barack Obama in the November presidential elections.
However, Bush is finding the going tough as he tries to manoeuvre through Iraqi resistance to the agreement, which most Iraqis find as unacceptable because it compromises the country's sovereignty.
Most Iraqis also see the US military bases in Iraq raqi as proof that Bush invaded Iraq to gain control of its oil wealth and to establish a new permanent military presence in the Middle East.
Indeed, the draft accord has a clause which states that the US is not planning to have "permanent bases" in Iraq. It is a deliberately misleading declaration because, as senior US officials have admitted, there is no US government definition for the term "permanent bases."
Similarly, the draft also says that the US military would not use Iraqi territory to stage "offensive" operations against any other country. But that leaves the door open for "defensive" operations. Effectively, there is nothing that will stop the US to launch military strikes against any country neighbouring Iraq and label the action as defensive.
Indeed such deception fits into the US pattern of dealing with Iraq. One of the most laughable US declarations concerning Iraq came last week when Bush asserted: "Of course we are there upon their invitation." The world knows only too well that the US marched into Iraq uninvited, toppled the Saddam regime, installed own agents in key positions, organised elections under its absolute control and pulled the strings of the government that emerged from the polls.
It made the government go through the motions of legitimising its militay presence in the country by requesting the UN to approve a mandate for the US.
It could never be considered as an invitation by any stretch of imagination.
In essence, nothing that the post-Saddam Iraqi government did could be deemed legal under international conventions because the government itself was elected while the country remained under foreign military occupation.
But the Bush administration is not worried about such legalities. Its prime concern is to coerce the Iraqi government into signing the security agreement, which is formally called "status of forces agreement."
However, the Iraq prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki, who is supposedly Uncle Sam's man in Baghdad, says that negotiations on the draft agreement are at an impasse and even suggests that his government has the option of asking the US to pack up and leave the country.
Most Iraqi politicians, including many who have to depend on US support for survival, say they oppose the draft accord.
That posture is seen to be linked to the realisation that it is not "politically correct" to be seen in Iraq as supporting the US, particularly ahead of local elections scheduled to be held this year.
Iraqis familiar with the negotiations say that it will take many weeks and more likely months before the agreement is completed and the US deadline of end of July is unrealistic.
Effectively, some of the Iraqi politicians who says they oppose the draft in its present form would have no problems with accepting permanent US military presence but only after the local elections are held.
However, the rejection of the accord by Shiite leaders Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani and Moqtada Sadr as well as the minority Sunni community makes it a non-starter for the US.
But the US has not learnt its lessons in Iraq.It is determined to secure the status of forces agreement with the Iraqis no matter what. Its blatant deception and misleading statements and actions underline only that it is ready to crawl, walk, run and leap in whatever direction to get what it wants.
US has a one-track mind and it shows
by pv vivekanand
US President George W Bush is facing perhaps the most daunting challenge in Iraq as he is trying to secure a "security" agreement that would seal his de facto colonisation of the country and place it under absolute American tulelage.
As he prepares to bow out of the White House in a few months' time, Bush is hoping that the sought-for agreement could vindicate his invasion and occupation of Iraq and could be touted as one of his most impressive presidential achievements.
A UN authorisation of the US-led foreign military presence in Iraq runs out on Dec.31 and the US-Iraq deal under negotiation would replace it and legitmise the US occupation of the country.
The draft agreement prepared by the US calls for creation of some 50 military bases officially described as Iraqi but with open-ended, unfrettered and unquestioned access to the US military. It also proposes absolute US control of Iraqi airspace upto 29,000 feet and freedom to carry out any military operation in the country without referring to the Iraqi government as well as total immunity for US soldiers and contractors from Iraqi law (Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zebari said last week that the US had dropped the demand for immunity for US contractors).
Securing absolute and permanent control of Iraq was one of the key objectives of the 2003 US military action that saw Saddam Hussein being toppled and the US taking over and occupying the country.
The Bush administration had not taken into consideration many of the geopolitical realities of Iraq while it ordered the military into Iraq. Today, it finds itself caught in a worsening crisis involving political and armed resistance from Iraqis and unable to realise any of its strategic objectives of the invasion and occupation.
Therefore, it would be a major point of triumph for Bush if the Iraqi government signs the agreement, particularly before July 31 ahead of the Republican and Democratic national conventions. The Republicans are hoping that it would boost Senator John McCain's chances against Democrat Barack Obama in the November presidential elections.
However, Bush is finding the going tough as he tries to manoeuvre through Iraqi resistance to the agreement, which most Iraqis find as unacceptable because it compromises the country's sovereignty.
Most Iraqis also see the US military bases in Iraq raqi as proof that Bush invaded Iraq to gain control of its oil wealth and to establish a new permanent military presence in the Middle East.
Indeed, the draft accord has a clause which states that the US is not planning to have "permanent bases" in Iraq. It is a deliberately misleading declaration because, as senior US officials have admitted, there is no US government definition for the term "permanent bases."
Similarly, the draft also says that the US military would not use Iraqi territory to stage "offensive" operations against any other country. But that leaves the door open for "defensive" operations. Effectively, there is nothing that will stop the US to launch military strikes against any country neighbouring Iraq and label the action as defensive.
Indeed such deception fits into the US pattern of dealing with Iraq. One of the most laughable US declarations concerning Iraq came last week when Bush asserted: "Of course we are there upon their invitation." The world knows only too well that the US marched into Iraq uninvited, toppled the Saddam regime, installed own agents in key positions, organised elections under its absolute control and pulled the strings of the government that emerged from the polls.
It made the government go through the motions of legitimising its militay presence in the country by requesting the UN to approve a mandate for the US.
It could never be considered as an invitation by any stretch of imagination.
In essence, nothing that the post-Saddam Iraqi government did could be deemed legal under international conventions because the government itself was elected while the country remained under foreign military occupation.
But the Bush administration is not worried about such legalities. Its prime concern is to coerce the Iraqi government into signing the security agreement, which is formally called "status of forces agreement."
However, the Iraq prime minister, Nouri Al Maliki, who is supposedly Uncle Sam's man in Baghdad, says that negotiations on the draft agreement are at an impasse and even suggests that his government has the option of asking the US to pack up and leave the country.
Most Iraqi politicians, including many who have to depend on US support for survival, say they oppose the draft accord.
That posture is seen to be linked to the realisation that it is not "politically correct" to be seen in Iraq as supporting the US, particularly ahead of local elections scheduled to be held this year.
Iraqis familiar with the negotiations say that it will take many weeks and more likely months before the agreement is completed and the US deadline of end of July is unrealistic.
Effectively, some of the Iraqi politicians who says they oppose the draft in its present form would have no problems with accepting permanent US military presence but only after the local elections are held.
However, the rejection of the accord by Shiite leaders Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani and Moqtada Sadr as well as the minority Sunni community makes it a non-starter for the US.
But the US has not learnt its lessons in Iraq.It is determined to secure the status of forces agreement with the Iraqis no matter what. Its blatant deception and misleading statements and actions underline only that it is ready to crawl, walk, run and leap in whatever direction to get what it wants.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Unfair pressure, unrealistic hopes
June 15, 2008
Unfair pressure, unrealistic hopes
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is back in the Middle East in what is described a a fresh bid to inject impetus into sluggish Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It is her sixth visit to the region after last year's Annapolis conference where President George W Bush pledged that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be in place before he leaves office in January 2009.
Her latest trip comes amid fears of a massive Israeli invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip amid talks of a truce under Egyptian mediation and renewed contacts between Hamas and the mainstream Fatah faction led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on ending the split in the Palestinian ranks.
Obviously, Rice is under pressure from the White House to produce some concrete sign of progress in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that have made little headway.
All that the Israelis and Palestinian negotiators have done so far is to meet in the presence of US mediators. The realisation of the Bush pledge to see an agreement before he quits office seems highly unlikely. The best Bush could hope for is perhaps a declaration of intentions by the two sides that would have little realistic meaning except as a document to help the outgoing US president to triumphantly wave as one of his "great achievements" in the Middle East. Even that might not be possible, given the worsening scene in Palestine. Add to that the growing political crisis in Israel involving corruption charges against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that is threatening the survival of his fragile coalition.
That Israel found it fit to announce plans to build more settlements in Arab East Jerusalem on the eve of Rice's latest visit highlights that it attaches little importance to any of its obligations in order to create the right atmosphere for negotiations.
Still, Bush says said he is confident the two sides can resolve their conflict by the end of the year.
"I firmly believe that, with leadership and courage, a peace agreement is possible this year," Bush said in Paris on Friday.
Well, the source of such confidence seems to be a conviction that it is only a matter of time before Israel and the US would be successful in pressuring the Palestinians into signing major compromises that would make their cause devoid of substance.
Rice is on her 17th visit to the region in less than two years and she could perhaps fly here for another 17 times before leaving office, but no real progress could be made towards peace in Palestine based on Palestinian compromises of Palestinian rights.
Unfair pressure, unrealistic hopes
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is back in the Middle East in what is described a a fresh bid to inject impetus into sluggish Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It is her sixth visit to the region after last year's Annapolis conference where President George W Bush pledged that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be in place before he leaves office in January 2009.
Her latest trip comes amid fears of a massive Israeli invasion of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip amid talks of a truce under Egyptian mediation and renewed contacts between Hamas and the mainstream Fatah faction led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on ending the split in the Palestinian ranks.
Obviously, Rice is under pressure from the White House to produce some concrete sign of progress in Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that have made little headway.
All that the Israelis and Palestinian negotiators have done so far is to meet in the presence of US mediators. The realisation of the Bush pledge to see an agreement before he quits office seems highly unlikely. The best Bush could hope for is perhaps a declaration of intentions by the two sides that would have little realistic meaning except as a document to help the outgoing US president to triumphantly wave as one of his "great achievements" in the Middle East. Even that might not be possible, given the worsening scene in Palestine. Add to that the growing political crisis in Israel involving corruption charges against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that is threatening the survival of his fragile coalition.
That Israel found it fit to announce plans to build more settlements in Arab East Jerusalem on the eve of Rice's latest visit highlights that it attaches little importance to any of its obligations in order to create the right atmosphere for negotiations.
Still, Bush says said he is confident the two sides can resolve their conflict by the end of the year.
"I firmly believe that, with leadership and courage, a peace agreement is possible this year," Bush said in Paris on Friday.
Well, the source of such confidence seems to be a conviction that it is only a matter of time before Israel and the US would be successful in pressuring the Palestinians into signing major compromises that would make their cause devoid of substance.
Rice is on her 17th visit to the region in less than two years and she could perhaps fly here for another 17 times before leaving office, but no real progress could be made towards peace in Palestine based on Palestinian compromises of Palestinian rights.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
'Floating prisoners' — a world challenge
June 14, 2008
'Floating prisoners' — a world challenge
Reprieve, a UK-based group offering legal help to prisoners deemed to have been denied justice, has reported that the US is using as many as 17 American warships as floating prisons to hold detainees in the "war on terror."
The first report of the "floating prisons" came in June 2005 the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism. The updated Reprieve report includes descriptions of detentions at sea from not only those released from the US detention camp in Guantánamo — who were held during and immediately after the US military action in Afghanistan — but also those who were held more recently on US warships, particularly in the Horn of Africa.
The legal group also reports that the US is continuing the practice of "rendition" — the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another without any legal reference — despite a 2006 declaration by President George W Bush of an end to it.
According to Reprieve, the "floating prisoners" are interrogated under torturous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations. "Details regarding the operation of prison ships have emerged through a number of sources, including the US military and other administration officials, the Council of Europe, various parliamentary bodies and journalists, as well as the testimonies of prisoners themselves," says Reprieve.
According to Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s director, “the US administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers."
The US government has admitted that it is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons. For all practical and technical purposes, it is determined to deny them any legal recourse and the families of many of the detainees believe them to be dead because of their long absence after unexplained disappearance.
The "floating prisons" are yet another example of the Bush administration's disrespect for international law, particularly the Third Geneva Convention states that "prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land." But then, the Bush administration does not have a record of respecting international laws and conventions.
Such practices as summary detention and torture while denying justice to detainees are salient features of the Bush administration, which seemed to have been waiting for an event like the Sept.11 attacks to bare its teeth and unleash a campaign devoid of respect for human rights.
Reprieve is expected to release a detailed report on detentions on warships for which there is no legal precedent for for federal courts exercising jurisdiction. While the expected report would be of a source of authentic information on US practices in its self-declared "war on terror," it is unlikely to make any real difference to those held in the "floating prisons" unless the international community takes it upon itself to put an end to such practices if only not to allow other governments feel encouraged to follow suit.
'Floating prisoners' — a world challenge
Reprieve, a UK-based group offering legal help to prisoners deemed to have been denied justice, has reported that the US is using as many as 17 American warships as floating prisons to hold detainees in the "war on terror."
The first report of the "floating prisons" came in June 2005 the UN's special rapporteur on terrorism. The updated Reprieve report includes descriptions of detentions at sea from not only those released from the US detention camp in Guantánamo — who were held during and immediately after the US military action in Afghanistan — but also those who were held more recently on US warships, particularly in the Horn of Africa.
The legal group also reports that the US is continuing the practice of "rendition" — the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another without any legal reference — despite a 2006 declaration by President George W Bush of an end to it.
According to Reprieve, the "floating prisoners" are interrogated under torturous conditions before being rendered to other, often undisclosed locations. "Details regarding the operation of prison ships have emerged through a number of sources, including the US military and other administration officials, the Council of Europe, various parliamentary bodies and journalists, as well as the testimonies of prisoners themselves," says Reprieve.
According to Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s director, “the US administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers."
The US government has admitted that it is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons. For all practical and technical purposes, it is determined to deny them any legal recourse and the families of many of the detainees believe them to be dead because of their long absence after unexplained disappearance.
The "floating prisons" are yet another example of the Bush administration's disrespect for international law, particularly the Third Geneva Convention states that "prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land." But then, the Bush administration does not have a record of respecting international laws and conventions.
Such practices as summary detention and torture while denying justice to detainees are salient features of the Bush administration, which seemed to have been waiting for an event like the Sept.11 attacks to bare its teeth and unleash a campaign devoid of respect for human rights.
Reprieve is expected to release a detailed report on detentions on warships for which there is no legal precedent for for federal courts exercising jurisdiction. While the expected report would be of a source of authentic information on US practices in its self-declared "war on terror," it is unlikely to make any real difference to those held in the "floating prisons" unless the international community takes it upon itself to put an end to such practices if only not to allow other governments feel encouraged to follow suit.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Hawks on the vigil
June 13, 2008
Hawks on the vigil for bait
THERE COULD BE several explanations why Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be thumping his nose at the US with provocative/inciting comments in the nuclear stand-off. The latest was his declaration that Western threats and pressure had failed to stop Iran's nuclear programme, which which the US says involves producing atomic weapons.
"With God's help today (the Iranian nation) have gained victory and the enemies cannot do a damned thing," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday, one day after the US and the European Union said they were ready to impose more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.
Ahmadinejad definitely has an eye on the internal Iranian political front when he asserts that Western military threats and political pressure did not work with Iran and that "the Iranian nation is standing on the nuclear height."
Beyond that, he seems confident that the US would not launch military action against his country in the nuclear dispute because Washington knows that Iran could wage an intense "defensive war" that could be very damaging to the US.
Another explanation is that he believes that the hawkish camp in Washington pushing for military action against Iran has grown weak ahead of November's presidential elections. He also seems to be riding on a conviction that Israel would not opt for unilateral military action against his country.
The Iranian president could have many reasons and arguments of his own to feel himself strong and confident enough to implicitly challenge the US into launching military action. There could be many people who might share those thoughts and thus feel relieved that the region would not be subjected a new military conflict that it could ill afford. However, the thought could not be waived aside that there is an off-chance that the one-track-mind of the Washington hawks could use Iranian rhetoric as all the more reason for push for military action at a time when Republican fortunes seem to be sinking ahead of the presidential elections.
It will be in the interest of Iran and the rest of the Middle East that Iranian leaders refrain from offering the slightest pretext to the hawkish camp in the US to press their "case" for yet another disastrous military conflict in the region.
Hawks on the vigil for bait
THERE COULD BE several explanations why Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be thumping his nose at the US with provocative/inciting comments in the nuclear stand-off. The latest was his declaration that Western threats and pressure had failed to stop Iran's nuclear programme, which which the US says involves producing atomic weapons.
"With God's help today (the Iranian nation) have gained victory and the enemies cannot do a damned thing," Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday, one day after the US and the European Union said they were ready to impose more sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.
Ahmadinejad definitely has an eye on the internal Iranian political front when he asserts that Western military threats and political pressure did not work with Iran and that "the Iranian nation is standing on the nuclear height."
Beyond that, he seems confident that the US would not launch military action against his country in the nuclear dispute because Washington knows that Iran could wage an intense "defensive war" that could be very damaging to the US.
Another explanation is that he believes that the hawkish camp in Washington pushing for military action against Iran has grown weak ahead of November's presidential elections. He also seems to be riding on a conviction that Israel would not opt for unilateral military action against his country.
The Iranian president could have many reasons and arguments of his own to feel himself strong and confident enough to implicitly challenge the US into launching military action. There could be many people who might share those thoughts and thus feel relieved that the region would not be subjected a new military conflict that it could ill afford. However, the thought could not be waived aside that there is an off-chance that the one-track-mind of the Washington hawks could use Iranian rhetoric as all the more reason for push for military action at a time when Republican fortunes seem to be sinking ahead of the presidential elections.
It will be in the interest of Iran and the rest of the Middle East that Iranian leaders refrain from offering the slightest pretext to the hawkish camp in the US to press their "case" for yet another disastrous military conflict in the region.
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}