Aug.17, 2008
The deception of 'misunderstanding'
IRAN HAS responded to the UAE's rejection of its move to set up two administrative offices at the UAE's Island of Abu Mousa describing it as resulting from a "misunderstanding." One fails to see how there could be any misunderstanding when Tehran uses every opportunity to declare that the island is Iranian and refuses to accept the UAE's call for bilateral talks on the issue or placing it for international arbitration or referring it to the International Court of Justice.
According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hassan Qashqavi: "Any misunderstanding of executive measures regarding Abu Mousa Island can be resolved in bilateral talks within framework of the 1971 Letter of Agreement (Memorandum of Understanding)."
That is simply a repetition of the typical Iranian practice of stating that the dispute could be settled through direct talks with the UAE while Tehran fails to take practical action towards this goal.
It is ironic that the spokesman also found it fit to state that "Taking propagational advantage of the matter is regarded as unconstructive and against the prevailing positive spirit of relations between Iran and the Emirates."
How could it be "propagational" when the UAE is pointing out that Iran is violating the 1971 MoU by setting up offices on Abu Mousa despite the fact that does not have sovereignty over the island or even parts of it?
The UAE does not need to be reminded of the "prevailing positive spirit of relations" with Iran. It remains very much committed maintaining and nurturing those relations at all levels, as the leaders of the UAE have consistently stated and reaffirmed by the Federal National Council as recently as this week. At the same time, the UAE should not be expected to maintain silence in the face of Iran's breach of the 1971 MoU through illegal actions that violate the UAE's sovereignty of Abu Mousa. Such actions do undermine the spirit of bilateral relations and mutual trust.
The first Iranian good faith measure in this context would be dismantling of the two administrative offices it has set up on the island. Parallel to that Tehran should respond positively to the UAE's proposal that the two sides discuss the issue of Iranian occupation of the three UAE islands — Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Mousa — and work out a solution. Short of that Tehran should agree to refer the matter for international arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.
Iran's refusal to accept the UAE's open proposal could not be an emphatic affirmation of its awareness that it stands no chance of establishing any claim over the three UAE islands. Issuing deceptive statements but refusing to take practical action will not solve the problem.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Promises to keep in Nepal
Aug.16, 2008
Promises to keep in Nepal
The election on Friday of Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal – better known as Prachanda — as prime minister Nepal puts an end to weeks of political battles as a paralysis gripped the country's functioning.
It also ends months of deadlock following the
abolition of the monarchy as the successful culmination of a decade-long battle by the Maoists to overturn what they saw as a feudal structure.
It was not surprising that the Maoists won the largest number of seats in a new constitutional assembly in April elections, given that they held out an appeal to the people who had for long felt neglected and left to suffer.
The Maoists would have been much happier if they had won a majority of seats to form a government without having to strike deals with other parties.
The Maoists allied themselves with the centre-left Unified
Marxist-Leninist party and the Madheshi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to secure a simple majority for the move to make Prachanda the prime minister.
It clears the way for Nepal to start functioning. The country has been without a proper government since April 28, when the assembly voted to sack unpopular king Gyanendra and abolish the 240-year-old monarchy.
The interim prime minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, was seen by
many as the architect of the 2006 peace deal that ended the bloody
civil war, but the April elections signalled an end to his Nepali Congress Party's dominance.
The election of Prachanda — "the fierce one" — as prime minister is highly symbolic in more ways than one. Hailing from a high-caste but poor farming family, Prachanda was driven to politics by the extreme poverty he witnessed in rural Nepal. While he went on to score success in leading the Maoists in a decade-long insurgency in 2006, the school teacher-turned-revolutionary has had trouble shaking off his ruthless warlord image.
Indeed, he has abandoned his war rhetoric and won the April elections on the promise of creating a new Nepal. But his party ranks are still a source of concern. The Young Communist League — his party's youth wing — has not been disbanded, something that has to be done with urgency in order to underline that the Maoists have fully abandoned violence. They have yet to return the property seized during the conflict in line with their commitment in the peace deal.
Indeed, Prachanda begins his mission as his country faces shortages of fuel, food inflation, rising unemployment and growing crime. He also faces the task of balancing his pre-election promises with the realities on the ground. An outstanding example is his promise of land to tillers in a country where 80 per cent of the 26.4 million people live on farm income.
His affirmation that his party is not "dogmatic communists" and is committed to interaction with Nepal's immediate neighbours and the international community at large is reassuring. Hopefully, he will be able to live up to the aspirations of the people of Nepal.
Promises to keep in Nepal
The election on Friday of Maoist chief Pushpa Kamal Dahal – better known as Prachanda — as prime minister Nepal puts an end to weeks of political battles as a paralysis gripped the country's functioning.
It also ends months of deadlock following the
abolition of the monarchy as the successful culmination of a decade-long battle by the Maoists to overturn what they saw as a feudal structure.
It was not surprising that the Maoists won the largest number of seats in a new constitutional assembly in April elections, given that they held out an appeal to the people who had for long felt neglected and left to suffer.
The Maoists would have been much happier if they had won a majority of seats to form a government without having to strike deals with other parties.
The Maoists allied themselves with the centre-left Unified
Marxist-Leninist party and the Madheshi Janaadhikar Forum (MJF) to secure a simple majority for the move to make Prachanda the prime minister.
It clears the way for Nepal to start functioning. The country has been without a proper government since April 28, when the assembly voted to sack unpopular king Gyanendra and abolish the 240-year-old monarchy.
The interim prime minister, Girija Prasad Koirala, was seen by
many as the architect of the 2006 peace deal that ended the bloody
civil war, but the April elections signalled an end to his Nepali Congress Party's dominance.
The election of Prachanda — "the fierce one" — as prime minister is highly symbolic in more ways than one. Hailing from a high-caste but poor farming family, Prachanda was driven to politics by the extreme poverty he witnessed in rural Nepal. While he went on to score success in leading the Maoists in a decade-long insurgency in 2006, the school teacher-turned-revolutionary has had trouble shaking off his ruthless warlord image.
Indeed, he has abandoned his war rhetoric and won the April elections on the promise of creating a new Nepal. But his party ranks are still a source of concern. The Young Communist League — his party's youth wing — has not been disbanded, something that has to be done with urgency in order to underline that the Maoists have fully abandoned violence. They have yet to return the property seized during the conflict in line with their commitment in the peace deal.
Indeed, Prachanda begins his mission as his country faces shortages of fuel, food inflation, rising unemployment and growing crime. He also faces the task of balancing his pre-election promises with the realities on the ground. An outstanding example is his promise of land to tillers in a country where 80 per cent of the 26.4 million people live on farm income.
His affirmation that his party is not "dogmatic communists" and is committed to interaction with Nepal's immediate neighbours and the international community at large is reassuring. Hopefully, he will be able to live up to the aspirations of the people of Nepal.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Agreement for the sake of 'agreement'
August 13, 2008
Agreement for the sake of 'agreement'
A report that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is offering the Palestinians 93 percent of the occupied West Bank as part of a peace agreement could very well be an Israeli trial balloon. Given the details given in the report, it could also be genuine. The Palestinian side has denied the report.
But it is clear that there is a lot of behind-the-scene contacts between Israel and the mainstream Palestinian leadership headed by President Mahmoud Abbas. Not everyone is privy to everything. Perhaps that is why Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said the report was "baseless" and contained "half-truths used by Israelis as a test balloon so they can blame the Palestinians" if negotiations fail.
According to Israel's Haaretz newspaper, the Israeli proposal would also compensate the Palestinians with the equivalent of 5.5 per cent of the West Bank adjacent to the Gaza Strip and a route connecting Gaza to the West Bank itself. This will be in return for Israeli annexation of land that houses most of the major Jewish settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank, including Jerusalem.
The final Palestinian state would be demilitarised and without an army, according to Haaretz. However, the Palestinians are reportedly demanding that their security forces be capable of defending against "outside threats."
For the first time, the reported proposal includes an explicit Israeli reference to the Palestinian refugee problem. It contains, according to Haaretz, a complex solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, allowing some refugees from the 1948 war to return to what Israel now claims as its own territory while settling most of the 4.5 million refugees and their descendants in the Palestinian state.
Haaretz also reported that the plan has a rider: Abbas would only receive the land and the overland connection once his Fatah forces retake the Gaza Strip from the Hamas movement, which seized power in the Mediterranean strip in June 2007.
As such the proposal is only a draft to be implemented in the coming months and years, and would not immediately include the thorny issue of the future status of Jerusalem, according to Haaretz.
The report raises the prospect that the proposal could very well be the draft of a document that the US wants Israel and the Palestinians to sign before George W Bush steps down as president of the US. If the document is signed as sought by the US, then it would represent, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, the realisation of a promise that Bush made at last year's Annapolis conference that there would be a an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in place before he leaves office in January 2009. And perhaps that is why Bush himself and people close to him like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are expressing confidence that the promise would be fulfilled even after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that he would be stepping down in September.
However, waving an agreement in order to serve someone's political purposes is one thing. Having it implemented with seriousness and commitment is something else.
Agreement for the sake of 'agreement'
A report that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is offering the Palestinians 93 percent of the occupied West Bank as part of a peace agreement could very well be an Israeli trial balloon. Given the details given in the report, it could also be genuine. The Palestinian side has denied the report.
But it is clear that there is a lot of behind-the-scene contacts between Israel and the mainstream Palestinian leadership headed by President Mahmoud Abbas. Not everyone is privy to everything. Perhaps that is why Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said the report was "baseless" and contained "half-truths used by Israelis as a test balloon so they can blame the Palestinians" if negotiations fail.
According to Israel's Haaretz newspaper, the Israeli proposal would also compensate the Palestinians with the equivalent of 5.5 per cent of the West Bank adjacent to the Gaza Strip and a route connecting Gaza to the West Bank itself. This will be in return for Israeli annexation of land that houses most of the major Jewish settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank, including Jerusalem.
The final Palestinian state would be demilitarised and without an army, according to Haaretz. However, the Palestinians are reportedly demanding that their security forces be capable of defending against "outside threats."
For the first time, the reported proposal includes an explicit Israeli reference to the Palestinian refugee problem. It contains, according to Haaretz, a complex solution to the Palestinian refugee problem, allowing some refugees from the 1948 war to return to what Israel now claims as its own territory while settling most of the 4.5 million refugees and their descendants in the Palestinian state.
Haaretz also reported that the plan has a rider: Abbas would only receive the land and the overland connection once his Fatah forces retake the Gaza Strip from the Hamas movement, which seized power in the Mediterranean strip in June 2007.
As such the proposal is only a draft to be implemented in the coming months and years, and would not immediately include the thorny issue of the future status of Jerusalem, according to Haaretz.
The report raises the prospect that the proposal could very well be the draft of a document that the US wants Israel and the Palestinians to sign before George W Bush steps down as president of the US. If the document is signed as sought by the US, then it would represent, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, the realisation of a promise that Bush made at last year's Annapolis conference that there would be a an Israeli-Palestinian agreement in place before he leaves office in January 2009. And perhaps that is why Bush himself and people close to him like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are expressing confidence that the promise would be fulfilled even after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that he would be stepping down in September.
However, waving an agreement in order to serve someone's political purposes is one thing. Having it implemented with seriousness and commitment is something else.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Tough choices and high prices
Aug.12 2008
Tough choices and high prices
THE outbreak of the Russian-Georgian War over South Ossetia has led to an unexpected problem for the US in Iraq. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has announced the recall of the country's entire contingent in Iraq to return home to fight against Russia. The Georgian government has also requested the US government airlift the roughly 2,000 Georgian soldiers out of Iraq to Georgia.
Under normal conditions, the departure of 2,000 Georgian soldiers should not make much of a dent on the nearly 170,000-strong US-led coalition force in Iraq, but there are other factors that need close consideration.
The Georgian troops are based in provinces in Iraq, where they have been preventing Shiite militiamen from smuggling arms in from Iran. Their depature would create a vacuum for the US military since the Iraqi army certainly could not be counted on to take up their work (if only because most of the Iraqi army soldiers have come Shiite militias with close links to Iran).
The US does have the option to send 2,000 of its own soldiers to replace the Georgians, but that would be a break from the US practice of not posting American soldiers near the Iranian border where they could be exposed to more danger and risk than other areas of Iraq. They would be easy targets for guerrillas who are highly skilled in moving around the border area without attracting attention.
And if the US were to oblige Saakashvili by airlifting the 2000 Georgians to fight Russian soldiers in South Ossetia, then it risks the ire of Mosow, which would only see the move as unfriendly on the part of Washington.
On the other hand, the fighting skills that the Georgian troops gained while in Iraq are deemed very important in the task that face them in South Ossetia. Their combat experience and US training single them out as the best in the Georgian army, and Saakashvili is unlikely to be persuaded to drop his demand that they be sent home from Iraq.
Obviously, the Bush administration is trying a balancing trick, with on the one hand, its delicate relationship with Russia, and on the other, its relationship with Georgia.
Of course, the more Georgia, which wants to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), moves towards the US orbit, the more strained its relations with Russia.
The US military and political establishment should not but be aware of the military and political impact of a Georgian departure from Iraq. And it is unlikely that Georgia could be persuaded to send them back to Iraq after some form of solution has been found to the Russian-Georgian conflict. As such, Washington might try its hand in finding common ground that could end the military conflict in South Ossetia and thus an abrogation of Saakashvili's orders from the Georgians to return home from Iraq. The price the US might be asked to pay for Russian acceptance of a compromise could be compliance with a demand that it withdraw its support for American and Israeli companies which are seeking to reroute the flow of regional gas and oil away from Russia. Will it be worth it?
Tough choices and high prices
THE outbreak of the Russian-Georgian War over South Ossetia has led to an unexpected problem for the US in Iraq. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has announced the recall of the country's entire contingent in Iraq to return home to fight against Russia. The Georgian government has also requested the US government airlift the roughly 2,000 Georgian soldiers out of Iraq to Georgia.
Under normal conditions, the departure of 2,000 Georgian soldiers should not make much of a dent on the nearly 170,000-strong US-led coalition force in Iraq, but there are other factors that need close consideration.
The Georgian troops are based in provinces in Iraq, where they have been preventing Shiite militiamen from smuggling arms in from Iran. Their depature would create a vacuum for the US military since the Iraqi army certainly could not be counted on to take up their work (if only because most of the Iraqi army soldiers have come Shiite militias with close links to Iran).
The US does have the option to send 2,000 of its own soldiers to replace the Georgians, but that would be a break from the US practice of not posting American soldiers near the Iranian border where they could be exposed to more danger and risk than other areas of Iraq. They would be easy targets for guerrillas who are highly skilled in moving around the border area without attracting attention.
And if the US were to oblige Saakashvili by airlifting the 2000 Georgians to fight Russian soldiers in South Ossetia, then it risks the ire of Mosow, which would only see the move as unfriendly on the part of Washington.
On the other hand, the fighting skills that the Georgian troops gained while in Iraq are deemed very important in the task that face them in South Ossetia. Their combat experience and US training single them out as the best in the Georgian army, and Saakashvili is unlikely to be persuaded to drop his demand that they be sent home from Iraq.
Obviously, the Bush administration is trying a balancing trick, with on the one hand, its delicate relationship with Russia, and on the other, its relationship with Georgia.
Of course, the more Georgia, which wants to become a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), moves towards the US orbit, the more strained its relations with Russia.
The US military and political establishment should not but be aware of the military and political impact of a Georgian departure from Iraq. And it is unlikely that Georgia could be persuaded to send them back to Iraq after some form of solution has been found to the Russian-Georgian conflict. As such, Washington might try its hand in finding common ground that could end the military conflict in South Ossetia and thus an abrogation of Saakashvili's orders from the Georgians to return home from Iraq. The price the US might be asked to pay for Russian acceptance of a compromise could be compliance with a demand that it withdraw its support for American and Israeli companies which are seeking to reroute the flow of regional gas and oil away from Russia. Will it be worth it?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Blind to realities on the regional ground
Aug.11, 2008
Blind to realities on the regional ground
A report published by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reaffirms the belief that use of military force would not be particularly effective in eliminating the perceived threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons.
In the report, titled "Can military strikes destroy Iran's gas centrifuge programme? Probably not," David Albright, ISIS president and a former UN weapons inspector, lists the short-comings which include a lack of sufficient intelligence to be able to destroy all of the nuclear production sites, Iran's ability to quickly replicate whatever centrifuges are destroyed, and the likely strengthening of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's domestic standing in the wake of such an attack.
The report, co-authored by Albright, Paul Brannan and Jacqueline Shire, also reject any equivalence between a strike on Iran and the 1981 Israeli bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor, or Israel's attack on an alleged incipient reactor in Syria last year.
"This analogy is grossly misleading. It neglects the important differences between a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment programme and a reactor-based programme, and fails to account for the dispersed, relatively advanced, and hardened nature of Iran's gas centrifuge facilities," says the report. "It also ignores the years Iran has had to acquire centrifuge items abroad, often illicitly, allowing it to create reserve stocks of critical equipment and raw materials."
The release of the report came shortly before US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quelled speculation that the Bush administration had warned Israel not to attack Iran saying Israel was free to make its own decision about whether it takes military action against Iran.
"We don't say yes or no to Israeli military operations. Israel is a sovereign country," she said in response to a question from The Politico Web site as to whether she was concerned that her country would be blamed in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran.
What is clearly emerging is a picture where Israel is politically and militarily ready to strike at Iran but is waiting for the most opportune time. In the US, the neoconservatives are helping it by suggesting that Iran could not effectively retaliate for military action and therefore there is no real threat to the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and American interests in the region.
Pointedly ignored in their arguments is the realities on the ground. Few people in Washington seem to have any grasp of Iran's ability and its options to make the region a very disturbed neighbourhood in the event of any military action against it. Few people also seem to accept the argument — underlined by the ISIS report — that military action could not really cripple Iran's nuclear programme and hence there is little sense in carrying out military strikes against it.
The reasons for sidestepping the realities on the ground are also clear: The US-Israel alliance is determined to bring about "regime change" in Tehran and the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities offers the perfect smoke screen for it.
Also overlooked in the bargain is the certainty of destabilisation of the region in the event of military action against Iran. The region cannot afford to witness yet another military conflict, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq having already dealt very damaging blows against regional security and stability.
The Washington hard-liners should realise that the situation in the Middle East could get out of hand if they continue to blindly serve their Israeli masters with little care for the interests of their country and people. Those who stand to pay for their misadventures and misguided policies and actions are the people of the Middle East region.
Blind to realities on the regional ground
A report published by the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reaffirms the belief that use of military force would not be particularly effective in eliminating the perceived threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons.
In the report, titled "Can military strikes destroy Iran's gas centrifuge programme? Probably not," David Albright, ISIS president and a former UN weapons inspector, lists the short-comings which include a lack of sufficient intelligence to be able to destroy all of the nuclear production sites, Iran's ability to quickly replicate whatever centrifuges are destroyed, and the likely strengthening of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's domestic standing in the wake of such an attack.
The report, co-authored by Albright, Paul Brannan and Jacqueline Shire, also reject any equivalence between a strike on Iran and the 1981 Israeli bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor, or Israel's attack on an alleged incipient reactor in Syria last year.
"This analogy is grossly misleading. It neglects the important differences between a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment programme and a reactor-based programme, and fails to account for the dispersed, relatively advanced, and hardened nature of Iran's gas centrifuge facilities," says the report. "It also ignores the years Iran has had to acquire centrifuge items abroad, often illicitly, allowing it to create reserve stocks of critical equipment and raw materials."
The release of the report came shortly before US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quelled speculation that the Bush administration had warned Israel not to attack Iran saying Israel was free to make its own decision about whether it takes military action against Iran.
"We don't say yes or no to Israeli military operations. Israel is a sovereign country," she said in response to a question from The Politico Web site as to whether she was concerned that her country would be blamed in the case of an Israeli attack on Iran.
What is clearly emerging is a picture where Israel is politically and militarily ready to strike at Iran but is waiting for the most opportune time. In the US, the neoconservatives are helping it by suggesting that Iran could not effectively retaliate for military action and therefore there is no real threat to the US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and American interests in the region.
Pointedly ignored in their arguments is the realities on the ground. Few people in Washington seem to have any grasp of Iran's ability and its options to make the region a very disturbed neighbourhood in the event of any military action against it. Few people also seem to accept the argument — underlined by the ISIS report — that military action could not really cripple Iran's nuclear programme and hence there is little sense in carrying out military strikes against it.
The reasons for sidestepping the realities on the ground are also clear: The US-Israel alliance is determined to bring about "regime change" in Tehran and the dispute over Iran's nuclear activities offers the perfect smoke screen for it.
Also overlooked in the bargain is the certainty of destabilisation of the region in the event of military action against Iran. The region cannot afford to witness yet another military conflict, with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq having already dealt very damaging blows against regional security and stability.
The Washington hard-liners should realise that the situation in the Middle East could get out of hand if they continue to blindly serve their Israeli masters with little care for the interests of their country and people. Those who stand to pay for their misadventures and misguided policies and actions are the people of the Middle East region.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
High-stake game for Caspian oil and gas
Aug.10, 2008
High-stake game for Caspian oil and gas
Russia shows every sign of determination to evict Georgian forces from the breakaway South Ossetia province of Georgia, and it is unlikely that the US would come to the aid of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.
As of Saturday, it looked like the Russians had the upper hand in the military conflict triggered by the Georgian military's takeover of the South Ossetia capital of Tskhinvali.
The stakes are deeper than meets the eye, and from Moscow's perspective the conflict could be a turning point in Russia's push against any expansion of US influence in its neighbourhood.
At the root of the conflict is control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region. Pro-US Saakashvili has been working with Western oil companies on a plan to route oil from Azerbaijan and gas from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up with Russian networks.
Obviously, Moscow would not allow Saakashvili to do that and its way of thwarting his plans is through backing separatists of South Ossetia and neighbouring Abkhazia
Thrown into the Caucasian conflict is Israel, which has a strong interest in having Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach Turkey's Ceyhan terminal rather than the Russian network. Israel is in negotiations with Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan to have Caspian oil pumped to Ceyhan, from where it could be sent to Israel’s oil storage facilities in the Mediterranean and Red Sea. From these facilities, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean. US companies would have a major stake the project.
Obviously aware of the Russian rejection of the idea, Israel had offered Moscow a share in the project but the offer was turned down.
The next option for Israel is to strengthen Georgia to withstand any Russian pressure and this was manifested in "security" contracts with Saakashvili.
Under these contracts, some 1,000 Israeli military advisers are training the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armoured and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. In addition, Israel also sold weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems to the Georgians.
Israel has not heeded Russia's warnings against its alliance with Saakashvili saying it was only helping Georgia's defensive capabilities.
However, the mask was removed with the Georgian move into Tskhinvali. It has become clear that Israeli advisers played a key role in the Georgian army’s invasion of the South Ossetian capital on Friday. And now they are reportedly advising Saakashvili to withdraw his forces from Tskhinvali or face a military disaster against the far superior Russian forces.
A Georgian withdrawal from Tskhinvali might not be enough because Moscow, sensing its advantage, could demand that Saakashvili cut off his alliance with the Israeli plan for Caspian oil and gas in return for ending military hostilities.
One thing is clear: The Russian-backed separatist wars in South Ossetia and Abkhazia would continue to rage as long as Saakashvili refuses to abandon his US/Israel-backed plans.
High-stake game for Caspian oil and gas
Russia shows every sign of determination to evict Georgian forces from the breakaway South Ossetia province of Georgia, and it is unlikely that the US would come to the aid of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.
As of Saturday, it looked like the Russians had the upper hand in the military conflict triggered by the Georgian military's takeover of the South Ossetia capital of Tskhinvali.
The stakes are deeper than meets the eye, and from Moscow's perspective the conflict could be a turning point in Russia's push against any expansion of US influence in its neighbourhood.
At the root of the conflict is control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region. Pro-US Saakashvili has been working with Western oil companies on a plan to route oil from Azerbaijan and gas from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up with Russian networks.
Obviously, Moscow would not allow Saakashvili to do that and its way of thwarting his plans is through backing separatists of South Ossetia and neighbouring Abkhazia
Thrown into the Caucasian conflict is Israel, which has a strong interest in having Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach Turkey's Ceyhan terminal rather than the Russian network. Israel is in negotiations with Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan to have Caspian oil pumped to Ceyhan, from where it could be sent to Israel’s oil storage facilities in the Mediterranean and Red Sea. From these facilities, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean. US companies would have a major stake the project.
Obviously aware of the Russian rejection of the idea, Israel had offered Moscow a share in the project but the offer was turned down.
The next option for Israel is to strengthen Georgia to withstand any Russian pressure and this was manifested in "security" contracts with Saakashvili.
Under these contracts, some 1,000 Israeli military advisers are training the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armoured and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. In addition, Israel also sold weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems to the Georgians.
Israel has not heeded Russia's warnings against its alliance with Saakashvili saying it was only helping Georgia's defensive capabilities.
However, the mask was removed with the Georgian move into Tskhinvali. It has become clear that Israeli advisers played a key role in the Georgian army’s invasion of the South Ossetian capital on Friday. And now they are reportedly advising Saakashvili to withdraw his forces from Tskhinvali or face a military disaster against the far superior Russian forces.
A Georgian withdrawal from Tskhinvali might not be enough because Moscow, sensing its advantage, could demand that Saakashvili cut off his alliance with the Israeli plan for Caspian oil and gas in return for ending military hostilities.
One thing is clear: The Russian-backed separatist wars in South Ossetia and Abkhazia would continue to rage as long as Saakashvili refuses to abandon his US/Israel-backed plans.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
An obvious case of overstayed welcome
Aug.9 2008
An obvious case of overstayed welcome
AS EXPECTED, the Iraqi parliament has failed to agree on a provincial election law before taking a summer recess. It meant the local elections in the country's 18 provinces would not be held this year. Beyond that, however, the Iraqi parliament's inability to approve the draft law has dealt a setback to US hopes for reconciliation among Iraq's rival communities.
The draft law is among what the US sees as keys to pacifying Iraq and US President George W Bush himself had lobbied Iraqi leaders urging them to reach agreement so elections could proceed by the end of the year.
However, it was clear that Iraqi MPs would not be able to find common ground on the draft law because of conflicting positions on the very future of the country. The Kurds of northern Iraq are eyeing independence and they want the oil-rich city of Kirkuk for themselves. They want to incorporate Kirkuk into their self-ruled region Kurdistan where as most Arabs and Turkomen want the city to remain under central government control. They stayed away from voting on the election bill last month that would have established an ethnic quota system on the 41-member Kirkuk area provincial council whereas the Kurds were/are hoping to dominate the council itself through direct elections. Subsequently, President Jalal Talabani vetoed the bill saying it could not be adopted since the Kurdish MPs had not taken part in the voting. The bill was sent back to parliament with a UN-drafted compromise that proposed postponement of the Kirkuk vote while elections will be held in Iraq's 17 other provinces.
The proposal also included a reference to a constitutionally mandated referendum on the status of Kirkuk — which the Kurds have long demanded. And this was rejected by Arabs and Turkomen.
The details are not that important when seen against the backdrop the ethnic and regional political disputes that are becoming more pronounced throughout the country, with the US left unable to intervene and mediate.
The Shiites of southern Iraq are fighting each other for power despite their common relations with Iran.
The Sunni tribes of central Iraq want political control to be away from Sunni religious parties.
The Shiite-led central government cannot really exercise any effective authority in many parts of the country. And there is growing sense among all Iraqi groups that it is time for them to hammer down their stakes once and for all but without linking themselves with the US. Effectively, an alliance with the US is a minus point today for any Iraqi group and that is a reality that would increasingly haunt the occupation power in all its dealing with the Iraqis.
Indeed, the Kurds have an alliance with the US dating back to the days of the 1991 war that freed Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, but they are now refusing to make any amends to their slow but steady course towards independence. The US is caught in the middle without being really able to influence events in Iraq except in the military context and that too to a limited extent.
The Iraqi message to the US is clear, but Washington does not want to acknowledge it despite being perfectly aware that it has overstayed its welcome in the country.
An obvious case of overstayed welcome
AS EXPECTED, the Iraqi parliament has failed to agree on a provincial election law before taking a summer recess. It meant the local elections in the country's 18 provinces would not be held this year. Beyond that, however, the Iraqi parliament's inability to approve the draft law has dealt a setback to US hopes for reconciliation among Iraq's rival communities.
The draft law is among what the US sees as keys to pacifying Iraq and US President George W Bush himself had lobbied Iraqi leaders urging them to reach agreement so elections could proceed by the end of the year.
However, it was clear that Iraqi MPs would not be able to find common ground on the draft law because of conflicting positions on the very future of the country. The Kurds of northern Iraq are eyeing independence and they want the oil-rich city of Kirkuk for themselves. They want to incorporate Kirkuk into their self-ruled region Kurdistan where as most Arabs and Turkomen want the city to remain under central government control. They stayed away from voting on the election bill last month that would have established an ethnic quota system on the 41-member Kirkuk area provincial council whereas the Kurds were/are hoping to dominate the council itself through direct elections. Subsequently, President Jalal Talabani vetoed the bill saying it could not be adopted since the Kurdish MPs had not taken part in the voting. The bill was sent back to parliament with a UN-drafted compromise that proposed postponement of the Kirkuk vote while elections will be held in Iraq's 17 other provinces.
The proposal also included a reference to a constitutionally mandated referendum on the status of Kirkuk — which the Kurds have long demanded. And this was rejected by Arabs and Turkomen.
The details are not that important when seen against the backdrop the ethnic and regional political disputes that are becoming more pronounced throughout the country, with the US left unable to intervene and mediate.
The Shiites of southern Iraq are fighting each other for power despite their common relations with Iran.
The Sunni tribes of central Iraq want political control to be away from Sunni religious parties.
The Shiite-led central government cannot really exercise any effective authority in many parts of the country. And there is growing sense among all Iraqi groups that it is time for them to hammer down their stakes once and for all but without linking themselves with the US. Effectively, an alliance with the US is a minus point today for any Iraqi group and that is a reality that would increasingly haunt the occupation power in all its dealing with the Iraqis.
Indeed, the Kurds have an alliance with the US dating back to the days of the 1991 war that freed Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, but they are now refusing to make any amends to their slow but steady course towards independence. The US is caught in the middle without being really able to influence events in Iraq except in the military context and that too to a limited extent.
The Iraqi message to the US is clear, but Washington does not want to acknowledge it despite being perfectly aware that it has overstayed its welcome in the country.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
A crisis that needs an early settlement
Aug.7, 2008
A crisis that needs an early settlement
THE AGREEMENT in principle between the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif to impeach President Pervez Musharraf takes the country's political crisis to the verge of solution.
However, Musharraf is trying to play it cool. Early on Wednesday, a foreign ministry spokesman said that Musharraf had cancelled plans to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing. The spokesman did not give the reason but it was assumed that the former military ruler had cancelled his scheduled departure amid fears that he could be impeached.
A few hours later, a presidential aide that Musharraf would indeed travel to the Beijing Olympics and also meet the Chinese leadership and heads of state.
Although whether Musharraf travels outside the country or stays back is not the central issue here, the former general would definitely be reminded that it was during one of then prime minister Sharif's travels outside that he had grabbed power and imposed military rule in the country.
It was speculated after the parliamentary elections that saw a democratically elected government assuming power in the country early this year that it was only a matter of time the ruling PPP-PML-N alliance would move to oust Musharraf from power. However, Musharraf appeared to have played a game of his own and pulled the right strings at the right time so that Zardari and Sharif could not agree on how to deal with him until now. They also disagreed on the issue of reinstating judges sacked by Musharraf under emergency rule in November. Now they seem to have agreed that reinstating the sacked judges could be done easily done they succeeded in getting rid of Musharraf.
Sharif wanted the judges restored quickly, possibly through an executive order from the prime minister while Zardari tried to link their return to a package of constitutional reforms.
Reports say the two have now agreed to formally ask Musharraf to step down and to move to impeach him if he doesn't do so.
No doubt aware that he could even be put on trial after being ousted from power, Musharraf could be expected to put up a bitter fight against any move to impeach him.
It is difficult to see how he could effectively ward off the mounting pressure, particularly in view of signs that most members of the ruling coalition agree that he should step down.
The course of events could take any turn. However, Pakistan could ill-afford a protracted political crisis given that the functioning of the government is hampered, economic problems are mounting and militancy is getting out of hand in the border areas. All those involved with any sense of responsibility towards the people should move to put an end to the crisis once and for all so that they could turn their attention to the pressing economic problems and the threat of militancy that could plunge the country into total chaos.
A crisis that needs an early settlement
THE AGREEMENT in principle between the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif to impeach President Pervez Musharraf takes the country's political crisis to the verge of solution.
However, Musharraf is trying to play it cool. Early on Wednesday, a foreign ministry spokesman said that Musharraf had cancelled plans to attend the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing. The spokesman did not give the reason but it was assumed that the former military ruler had cancelled his scheduled departure amid fears that he could be impeached.
A few hours later, a presidential aide that Musharraf would indeed travel to the Beijing Olympics and also meet the Chinese leadership and heads of state.
Although whether Musharraf travels outside the country or stays back is not the central issue here, the former general would definitely be reminded that it was during one of then prime minister Sharif's travels outside that he had grabbed power and imposed military rule in the country.
It was speculated after the parliamentary elections that saw a democratically elected government assuming power in the country early this year that it was only a matter of time the ruling PPP-PML-N alliance would move to oust Musharraf from power. However, Musharraf appeared to have played a game of his own and pulled the right strings at the right time so that Zardari and Sharif could not agree on how to deal with him until now. They also disagreed on the issue of reinstating judges sacked by Musharraf under emergency rule in November. Now they seem to have agreed that reinstating the sacked judges could be done easily done they succeeded in getting rid of Musharraf.
Sharif wanted the judges restored quickly, possibly through an executive order from the prime minister while Zardari tried to link their return to a package of constitutional reforms.
Reports say the two have now agreed to formally ask Musharraf to step down and to move to impeach him if he doesn't do so.
No doubt aware that he could even be put on trial after being ousted from power, Musharraf could be expected to put up a bitter fight against any move to impeach him.
It is difficult to see how he could effectively ward off the mounting pressure, particularly in view of signs that most members of the ruling coalition agree that he should step down.
The course of events could take any turn. However, Pakistan could ill-afford a protracted political crisis given that the functioning of the government is hampered, economic problems are mounting and militancy is getting out of hand in the border areas. All those involved with any sense of responsibility towards the people should move to put an end to the crisis once and for all so that they could turn their attention to the pressing economic problems and the threat of militancy that could plunge the country into total chaos.
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
The writing on the Afghan wall
Aug.6, 2008
The writing on the Afghan wall
THE US and its Western allies continue to insist that a military victory is possible in Afghanistan even as the Taliban have staged a comeback and are steadily moving to expand their control. In strict military terms, the Taliban's strategy seems to be to cut supply lines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation from Pakistan and carve out a corridor for themselves from the Pakistani border to the Afghan capital, Kabul. It is not an easy task by any measure, but, in the meantime, the Taliban have the ability to deny the US and its allies the realisation of their objectives in Afghanistan and keep them on their toes without respite.
Instead of accepting the inevitability of defeat and seeking to end the war in Afghanistan, the US and its allies are now hinting at expanding the war to include Pakistan's border areas. If that happens, then it would be a repetition of the Vietnam war where Laos and Cambodia were dragged into the conflict when the going got tough for the US in Vietnam.
As far as the Bush administration is concerned, the task at hand in Afghanistan is to "finish the job" that was launched with the military invasion of that country in 2001 following the Sept.11 attacks. That means securing absolute control of Afghanistan with a US-friendly regime in power in Kabul and then exploiting the Central Asian corridor through the country to serve Western commercial interests.
It is highly unlikely to happen. Nearly seven years after invading Afghanistan, the US-led foreign forces are nowhere near any level of effective control of the country. If anything, they are steadily losing whatever grip that they had managed to gain on parts of Afghanistan.
UN security assessments show that one third of Afghanistan is inaccessible while almost half of the country is "high risk." Militant attacks have gone up by more than 50 per cent — when the figures so far of 2008 are compared with the corresponding 2007 figures.
Civilian casualties in the US-led campaign to eliminate the Taliban have steadily climbed in the last year, heralding with them growing Afghan hostility towards the foreign forces present in the country and their Afghan government forces.
When the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the ruling Taliban had alienated themselves from the vast majority of Afghans because of the imposition of their hard-line beliefs on the people, and thus it was relatively easy to oust the militant group from power. Since then, however, the unaddressed problems of the people and the rising number of civilian deaths have turned the situation against the US and allied forces in the country.
Opinion polls are indeed new to this part of the world and therefore findings need to be closely examined to get a sense of what is going on. A poll taken by a Canadian group in 2007 seems to be fairly accurate, judging from the methodology that it says it followed.
The survey found that 74 per cent want negotiations with the Taliban and 54 per cent would support a coalition government that included the Taliban although a majority disliked the hard-line movement. More than half — 52 per cent — want foreign forces out in three to five years in a reflection of the understanding among the Afghans that a hasty withdrawal of foreign forces would be disastrous for them in the chaotic country but also a rejection of their long-term presence.
The writing on the Afghan wall is clear: There would never a military victory for anyone in the country. The only option is to invite the Taliban and other Afghan groups into a dialogue along with other regional stakeholders such as Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and China with a view to working out a compromise that has no room for the US objectives in Afghanistan. The sole goal of the exercise should be the withdrawal of US and allied foreign forces from the country in an orderly manner that would forestall chaos breaking out after their departure.
The writing on the Afghan wall
THE US and its Western allies continue to insist that a military victory is possible in Afghanistan even as the Taliban have staged a comeback and are steadily moving to expand their control. In strict military terms, the Taliban's strategy seems to be to cut supply lines of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation from Pakistan and carve out a corridor for themselves from the Pakistani border to the Afghan capital, Kabul. It is not an easy task by any measure, but, in the meantime, the Taliban have the ability to deny the US and its allies the realisation of their objectives in Afghanistan and keep them on their toes without respite.
Instead of accepting the inevitability of defeat and seeking to end the war in Afghanistan, the US and its allies are now hinting at expanding the war to include Pakistan's border areas. If that happens, then it would be a repetition of the Vietnam war where Laos and Cambodia were dragged into the conflict when the going got tough for the US in Vietnam.
As far as the Bush administration is concerned, the task at hand in Afghanistan is to "finish the job" that was launched with the military invasion of that country in 2001 following the Sept.11 attacks. That means securing absolute control of Afghanistan with a US-friendly regime in power in Kabul and then exploiting the Central Asian corridor through the country to serve Western commercial interests.
It is highly unlikely to happen. Nearly seven years after invading Afghanistan, the US-led foreign forces are nowhere near any level of effective control of the country. If anything, they are steadily losing whatever grip that they had managed to gain on parts of Afghanistan.
UN security assessments show that one third of Afghanistan is inaccessible while almost half of the country is "high risk." Militant attacks have gone up by more than 50 per cent — when the figures so far of 2008 are compared with the corresponding 2007 figures.
Civilian casualties in the US-led campaign to eliminate the Taliban have steadily climbed in the last year, heralding with them growing Afghan hostility towards the foreign forces present in the country and their Afghan government forces.
When the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the ruling Taliban had alienated themselves from the vast majority of Afghans because of the imposition of their hard-line beliefs on the people, and thus it was relatively easy to oust the militant group from power. Since then, however, the unaddressed problems of the people and the rising number of civilian deaths have turned the situation against the US and allied forces in the country.
Opinion polls are indeed new to this part of the world and therefore findings need to be closely examined to get a sense of what is going on. A poll taken by a Canadian group in 2007 seems to be fairly accurate, judging from the methodology that it says it followed.
The survey found that 74 per cent want negotiations with the Taliban and 54 per cent would support a coalition government that included the Taliban although a majority disliked the hard-line movement. More than half — 52 per cent — want foreign forces out in three to five years in a reflection of the understanding among the Afghans that a hasty withdrawal of foreign forces would be disastrous for them in the chaotic country but also a rejection of their long-term presence.
The writing on the Afghan wall is clear: There would never a military victory for anyone in the country. The only option is to invite the Taliban and other Afghan groups into a dialogue along with other regional stakeholders such as Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and China with a view to working out a compromise that has no room for the US objectives in Afghanistan. The sole goal of the exercise should be the withdrawal of US and allied foreign forces from the country in an orderly manner that would forestall chaos breaking out after their departure.
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Dark patch in world conscience
Aug.5, 2008
Dark patch in world conscience
THE military regime in Myanmar continues to defy international conventions on human rights and rules the country with zero tolerance for political dissent and suppressing the democracy movement, persecuting ethnic minorities and imprisoning dissidents.
In effect, the regime is treating the people of Myanmar as its enemies and subjecting them to inhuman treatment.
The UN Human Rights Council said in November 2007 that at least 31 people were killed and 74 remained missing after mass anti-government protests that were violently put down by security forces who opened fire on crowds and beat people in the streets.
At least 1,850 political prisoners remain behind bars in the country.
Opposition leader and Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has been in prison or under house arrest continuously for the past five years, and on-and-off for nearly 13 of the past 19 years.
The junta committed its worst crime when it stonewalled relief efforts for the 2.5 million victims of Cyclone Nargis, which hit Myanmar three months ago, washing away entire villages and leaving more than 138,000 people dead or missing.
The military generals bent a little after coming under strong international pressure but they continue to make things difficult for UN and other international relief agencies.
And now it has been disclosed that the military regime requires cyclone survivors to pay back to the government any assistance offered.
It is against this backdrop that the UN's new human rights envoy for Myanmar is making his first visit to the country.
Not that United Nations special rapporteur Tomas Ojea Quintana, who took up his post in May, could make a real difference to the situation in the country. The junta does not have a record of respecting the UN or any other international organisation or agency.
The only means to make a difference to the people of Myanmar is through forcing the regime to step down and hand over power to a democratically elected government. The best tool to do this is economic isolation and pressure.
It took the US Treasury Department a long time before it imposed financial sanctions on companies suspected of being owned or controlled by the junta ruling Myanmar last week. These include 10 companies including two big conglomerates that each has extensive holdings in gem mining, banking and construction and are deemed to be very important to the government. It was indeed a commendable move, but the mission faces tougher hurdles.
China is the Myanmar junta's staunchest ally. It uses its clout to shield the military generals from international action. It even vetoed a move to bring Myanmar's human-rights record into the United Nations Security Council agenda this year. Surprisingly, India also has moved in to build economic bridges with Myanmar perhaps with a close eye on the growing Chinese influence with the military junta.
In any event, it is high time world governments, particularly of countries like China and India, recognised that the situation in Myanmar is a dark patch in the international conscience and could no longer be tolerated.
Dark patch in world conscience
THE military regime in Myanmar continues to defy international conventions on human rights and rules the country with zero tolerance for political dissent and suppressing the democracy movement, persecuting ethnic minorities and imprisoning dissidents.
In effect, the regime is treating the people of Myanmar as its enemies and subjecting them to inhuman treatment.
The UN Human Rights Council said in November 2007 that at least 31 people were killed and 74 remained missing after mass anti-government protests that were violently put down by security forces who opened fire on crowds and beat people in the streets.
At least 1,850 political prisoners remain behind bars in the country.
Opposition leader and Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has been in prison or under house arrest continuously for the past five years, and on-and-off for nearly 13 of the past 19 years.
The junta committed its worst crime when it stonewalled relief efforts for the 2.5 million victims of Cyclone Nargis, which hit Myanmar three months ago, washing away entire villages and leaving more than 138,000 people dead or missing.
The military generals bent a little after coming under strong international pressure but they continue to make things difficult for UN and other international relief agencies.
And now it has been disclosed that the military regime requires cyclone survivors to pay back to the government any assistance offered.
It is against this backdrop that the UN's new human rights envoy for Myanmar is making his first visit to the country.
Not that United Nations special rapporteur Tomas Ojea Quintana, who took up his post in May, could make a real difference to the situation in the country. The junta does not have a record of respecting the UN or any other international organisation or agency.
The only means to make a difference to the people of Myanmar is through forcing the regime to step down and hand over power to a democratically elected government. The best tool to do this is economic isolation and pressure.
It took the US Treasury Department a long time before it imposed financial sanctions on companies suspected of being owned or controlled by the junta ruling Myanmar last week. These include 10 companies including two big conglomerates that each has extensive holdings in gem mining, banking and construction and are deemed to be very important to the government. It was indeed a commendable move, but the mission faces tougher hurdles.
China is the Myanmar junta's staunchest ally. It uses its clout to shield the military generals from international action. It even vetoed a move to bring Myanmar's human-rights record into the United Nations Security Council agenda this year. Surprisingly, India also has moved in to build economic bridges with Myanmar perhaps with a close eye on the growing Chinese influence with the military junta.
In any event, it is high time world governments, particularly of countries like China and India, recognised that the situation in Myanmar is a dark patch in the international conscience and could no longer be tolerated.
Monday, August 04, 2008
'Amerithrax' — not a simple US affair
Aug.4, 2008
'Amerithrax' — not a simple US affair
THE death of the man described as the top suspect who terrorised the US seven years ago using anthrax-laced letters adds another dramatic twist to a bizarre tale and it leaves more questions unanswered.
When the letters surfaced in the US in what was immediately labelled as the "Amerithrax" affair in weeks after the Sept.11 attacks, it was immediately implied by US officials that Saddam Hussein and his agents were behind deadly white powder doing the rounds. It was easy for many to accept it without question, given Iraq's record of having developed chemical weapons and done research on biological weapons.
Some of the envelopes contained a letter which was laced with the anthrax toxin. The message contained a simple reference to " "09-11-01" and phrases such as "Death to Israel" and "Allah is Great."
However, as the affair developed — the powder killed five and sent numerous victims to hospitals in September and October 2001 — it became apparent that Iraq had nothing to do with it. By then, it also became clear that there was no link between Iraq and the Sept.11 attacks despite insistence to the contrary by top Bush administration officials.
It was only recently it was suggested that Bruce E. Ivins, a brilliant but troubled US Army scientist, could have been behind the "Amerithrax" affair and that he had released the anthrax to test his cure for the toxin. The central link was that all of the samples obtained in the anthrax cases in Florida, New Jersey, New York and Washington were genetically identical. It suggested that it could have come from the same source.
And now Ivins is dead in what was said to be a suicide a week after a social worker, Jean C. Duley, filed handwritten court documents saying she was preparing to testify before a grand jury. She said Ivins would be charged with five capital murders.
The Justice Department said only that "substantial progress has been made in the investigation" but said it may be able to release more information about the case soon. The department is expected to decide within days whether to close the investigation.
In June this year, the Justice Department cleared Ivins' colleague, Steven Hatfill, who had been wrongly suspected in the case. Hatfill received $5.8 million as damages.
The department's explanation that Ivans wanted to test his cure for anthrax is not deemed to be satisfactory because it does not answer many other questions.
Among those demanding a "complete accounting" of the investigation is former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, whose office received a letter containing anthrax in 2001.
He says: "It's been seven years, there's a lot of unanswered questions and I think the American people deserve to know more than they do today."
Indeed, it is not only the American people but also the rest of the world deserve to know more than what they have been told so far because there has always been suspicion that the Sept.11 attacks and the anthrax mailings were linked and the impact of the two events was felt throughout the world and many innocent people paid for them dearly.
'Amerithrax' — not a simple US affair
THE death of the man described as the top suspect who terrorised the US seven years ago using anthrax-laced letters adds another dramatic twist to a bizarre tale and it leaves more questions unanswered.
When the letters surfaced in the US in what was immediately labelled as the "Amerithrax" affair in weeks after the Sept.11 attacks, it was immediately implied by US officials that Saddam Hussein and his agents were behind deadly white powder doing the rounds. It was easy for many to accept it without question, given Iraq's record of having developed chemical weapons and done research on biological weapons.
Some of the envelopes contained a letter which was laced with the anthrax toxin. The message contained a simple reference to " "09-11-01" and phrases such as "Death to Israel" and "Allah is Great."
However, as the affair developed — the powder killed five and sent numerous victims to hospitals in September and October 2001 — it became apparent that Iraq had nothing to do with it. By then, it also became clear that there was no link between Iraq and the Sept.11 attacks despite insistence to the contrary by top Bush administration officials.
It was only recently it was suggested that Bruce E. Ivins, a brilliant but troubled US Army scientist, could have been behind the "Amerithrax" affair and that he had released the anthrax to test his cure for the toxin. The central link was that all of the samples obtained in the anthrax cases in Florida, New Jersey, New York and Washington were genetically identical. It suggested that it could have come from the same source.
And now Ivins is dead in what was said to be a suicide a week after a social worker, Jean C. Duley, filed handwritten court documents saying she was preparing to testify before a grand jury. She said Ivins would be charged with five capital murders.
The Justice Department said only that "substantial progress has been made in the investigation" but said it may be able to release more information about the case soon. The department is expected to decide within days whether to close the investigation.
In June this year, the Justice Department cleared Ivins' colleague, Steven Hatfill, who had been wrongly suspected in the case. Hatfill received $5.8 million as damages.
The department's explanation that Ivans wanted to test his cure for anthrax is not deemed to be satisfactory because it does not answer many other questions.
Among those demanding a "complete accounting" of the investigation is former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, whose office received a letter containing anthrax in 2001.
He says: "It's been seven years, there's a lot of unanswered questions and I think the American people deserve to know more than they do today."
Indeed, it is not only the American people but also the rest of the world deserve to know more than what they have been told so far because there has always been suspicion that the Sept.11 attacks and the anthrax mailings were linked and the impact of the two events was felt throughout the world and many innocent people paid for them dearly.
Friday, August 01, 2008
No real shift in US position
ug.1, 2008
No real shift in US position
SPECULATION is rife that the administration of US President George W Bush has taken a dramatic turn in its approach towards Iran and that was why the number three official in the State Department, William Burns, attended a meeting between the European Union's Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva last month. The US move caused surprise because it contradicted the stated Bush administration policy of not getting directly involved in talks with Iran on the nuclear dispute and a belief that Washington was edging towards military action against Iran.
Many theories are being forwarded to explain what American commentators call a "Rockford" (i.e. a 180 degree turn) in Washington's tactics. These include the record shoot-up in international oil prices, "realisation" of the full magnitude of possible Iranian retaliation and Bush's tactics to help John McCain succeed him as the next occupant of the White House.
However, all these theories come into play only if there is indeed a "Rockford" turn in Washington's approach to the nuclear dispute. And there is no sign whatsoever of such shift, particularly that Burns was sent to Geneva not to open any new doors but to reaffirm the US position and set a three-month deadline for Tehran to meet Washington's demands (and knowing well that Tehran would never accept those demands).
The US has not changed its position that Iran must freeze nuclear enrichment activities before substantial negotiations can take place.
The US has not abandoned its insistence that Iran must abandon control of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
The US has not given up its self-assumed right to take "pre-emptive" military action against Iran.
The US has not suspended its campaign for more punitive economic sanctions against Iran.
The US has not called off its funding for Iranian dissident groups that are trying to destabilise the government of Iran.
The US has not stopped blaming Iran for the troubles that the US military faces in Iraq.
Overall, there is no reason to see any shift in the US drive to deny Iran its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to use the nuclear issue to isolate Iran and stage military action against it in order to bring about "regime change" in Tehran and serve American/Israeli strategic interests in the Middle East.
A real shift in the US position would mean Washington being ready to engage Tehran in a "dialogue of equals" in terms of sovereign rights and decisions with no preconditions. That is definitely not happening.
If anything, fears are very much alive today that there could be a "false flag operation" that could trigger US military action against Iran. Whether Bush or McCain or Barack Obama is in the White House at that point would not make any difference because none of the three would bother to investigate and verify who pulled the strings in the operation and would only order immediate military strikes against Iran.
No real shift in US position
SPECULATION is rife that the administration of US President George W Bush has taken a dramatic turn in its approach towards Iran and that was why the number three official in the State Department, William Burns, attended a meeting between the European Union's Javier Solana and Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva last month. The US move caused surprise because it contradicted the stated Bush administration policy of not getting directly involved in talks with Iran on the nuclear dispute and a belief that Washington was edging towards military action against Iran.
Many theories are being forwarded to explain what American commentators call a "Rockford" (i.e. a 180 degree turn) in Washington's tactics. These include the record shoot-up in international oil prices, "realisation" of the full magnitude of possible Iranian retaliation and Bush's tactics to help John McCain succeed him as the next occupant of the White House.
However, all these theories come into play only if there is indeed a "Rockford" turn in Washington's approach to the nuclear dispute. And there is no sign whatsoever of such shift, particularly that Burns was sent to Geneva not to open any new doors but to reaffirm the US position and set a three-month deadline for Tehran to meet Washington's demands (and knowing well that Tehran would never accept those demands).
The US has not changed its position that Iran must freeze nuclear enrichment activities before substantial negotiations can take place.
The US has not abandoned its insistence that Iran must abandon control of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
The US has not given up its self-assumed right to take "pre-emptive" military action against Iran.
The US has not suspended its campaign for more punitive economic sanctions against Iran.
The US has not called off its funding for Iranian dissident groups that are trying to destabilise the government of Iran.
The US has not stopped blaming Iran for the troubles that the US military faces in Iraq.
Overall, there is no reason to see any shift in the US drive to deny Iran its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to use the nuclear issue to isolate Iran and stage military action against it in order to bring about "regime change" in Tehran and serve American/Israeli strategic interests in the Middle East.
A real shift in the US position would mean Washington being ready to engage Tehran in a "dialogue of equals" in terms of sovereign rights and decisions with no preconditions. That is definitely not happening.
If anything, fears are very much alive today that there could be a "false flag operation" that could trigger US military action against Iran. Whether Bush or McCain or Barack Obama is in the White House at that point would not make any difference because none of the three would bother to investigate and verify who pulled the strings in the operation and would only order immediate military strikes against Iran.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
A problem that wouldn't go away
July 31, 2008
A problem that wouldn't go away
A move by the Israeli parliament (Knesset) to se up a cross-party caucus dealing with the rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees is a positive turn. It is the first time since Israel was created in 1948 that the issue of Palestinian refugees has been given that kind of Israeli attention.
In order to emphasise the Jewish presence in Palestine, Israel for long has resorted to minimising and denying the presence of others in the region and engaging in periodic announcements of archaeological findings designed to reinforce the cooked-up theory that Palestine was always Jewish.
It even created a "historical image" that projected Palestine as largely unpopulated when Israel was created there and suggested that the land was voluntarily abandoned by its Arab residents in 1948.
For former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, there was no such thing as the Palestinians.
However, the reality that stared Israel and indeed the rest of the world in the face in the last 60 years and continues to do so is the existence of some 4.5 million Palestinians categorised as refugees. They live in camps in the Middle East and are looked after by a special UN agency created for the purpose, the UN Refugees and Works Agency (UNRWA).
It is also known and widely accepted by all — except of course Israel — that there would never be peace in the Middle East without a just and fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem — that is through the implementation of UN Resolution 194, which upholds the right of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their ancestral homes that they were forced to abandon in 1948 or to receive compensation in lieu of that right.
Of course, any respect for the "right of return" of the Palestinian refugees is a nightmare for Israel since any large-scale influx of non-Jews would demographically negate its claim as "the Jewish state."
The official Israeli line had always been a refusal to accept any responsibility for the problem and suggestions that the Palestinian refugees be settled in the countries where they reside.
The newly formed Knesset caucus includes parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, including MKs from Labour, the Likud, Shas and other parties.
The move comes at a time of parliamentary activities led by the US and Canada to rechannel funding from UNRWA toward the resettlement of some of the refugees and their descendants in other countries.
It is not clear how the Knesset group — the Caucus for the Rehabilitation of Palestinian Refugees — intends to proceed. But it says it would work with UNRWA.
Let us hope that this move reflects realistic thinking on the part of the Israeli political establishment and the acceptance that side-stepping and ignoring the Palestinian refugee problem would only impede all efforts for peace in the Middle East.
A problem that wouldn't go away
A move by the Israeli parliament (Knesset) to se up a cross-party caucus dealing with the rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees is a positive turn. It is the first time since Israel was created in 1948 that the issue of Palestinian refugees has been given that kind of Israeli attention.
In order to emphasise the Jewish presence in Palestine, Israel for long has resorted to minimising and denying the presence of others in the region and engaging in periodic announcements of archaeological findings designed to reinforce the cooked-up theory that Palestine was always Jewish.
It even created a "historical image" that projected Palestine as largely unpopulated when Israel was created there and suggested that the land was voluntarily abandoned by its Arab residents in 1948.
For former Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, there was no such thing as the Palestinians.
However, the reality that stared Israel and indeed the rest of the world in the face in the last 60 years and continues to do so is the existence of some 4.5 million Palestinians categorised as refugees. They live in camps in the Middle East and are looked after by a special UN agency created for the purpose, the UN Refugees and Works Agency (UNRWA).
It is also known and widely accepted by all — except of course Israel — that there would never be peace in the Middle East without a just and fair solution to the Palestinian refugee problem — that is through the implementation of UN Resolution 194, which upholds the right of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their ancestral homes that they were forced to abandon in 1948 or to receive compensation in lieu of that right.
Of course, any respect for the "right of return" of the Palestinian refugees is a nightmare for Israel since any large-scale influx of non-Jews would demographically negate its claim as "the Jewish state."
The official Israeli line had always been a refusal to accept any responsibility for the problem and suggestions that the Palestinian refugees be settled in the countries where they reside.
The newly formed Knesset caucus includes parliamentarians from across the political spectrum, including MKs from Labour, the Likud, Shas and other parties.
The move comes at a time of parliamentary activities led by the US and Canada to rechannel funding from UNRWA toward the resettlement of some of the refugees and their descendants in other countries.
It is not clear how the Knesset group — the Caucus for the Rehabilitation of Palestinian Refugees — intends to proceed. But it says it would work with UNRWA.
Let us hope that this move reflects realistic thinking on the part of the Israeli political establishment and the acceptance that side-stepping and ignoring the Palestinian refugee problem would only impede all efforts for peace in the Middle East.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Opportunity at hand in Tehran
July 30, 2008
Opportunity at hand in Tehran
THE ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran this week offers an opportunity for the movement to discuss the various pressing issues facing the developing world, notably the economic crises caused by soaring energy and food prices. Surely, the participating ministers are braced to review in depth various collective options that should help the countries involved in coming up with compromise solutions and means for better interaction to address common problems.
The Tehran meeting also offers a forum for NAM to explore the possibility of helping defuse the brewing nuclear dispute between Iran and the US. To start with, they could make it clear to the Iranian leadership that they do realise that the US has been resorting to deception in order to prepare the ground for military action against Iran and that they would not support Washington in this regard. At the same time, Tehran should also be told that the movement's endorsement of Iran's exercise of its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is linked to the Iranians moving to allay regional and international concerns over its nuclear programme. No country's right to exercise its international rights could be isolated from its international responsibilities.
At the outset of the Tehran meeting, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called for NAM support fir Iran's bid to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. The vote is to scheduled to be taken in the autumn. The US could be expected to fight Iran tooth and nail against the Middle Eastern country entering the UN Security Council and that is where the NAM could play a crucial role.
The NAM should meet the Iranian request and ensure that Iran enters the Security Council, a status that would help strengthen the UN-based negotiations on the country's nuclear activities and move the file back to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran's membership in the UN Security Council would also bring the country face to face with the council's resolutions on its nuclear programme.
The non-aligned ministers gathered in Tehran should tell the Iranian leadership that Iran should also reciprocate the movement's support by being flexible on regional as well as international issues within the framework of the various charters and conventions including respect for other's territorial rights and the inadmissibility of refusal to discuss bilateral disputes on the basis of international justice.
Such an all-embracing and transparent NAM approach could turn out to be a major landmark in the movement's efforts to reposition itself as the strong collective voice of the developing world.
Opportunity at hand in Tehran
THE ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran this week offers an opportunity for the movement to discuss the various pressing issues facing the developing world, notably the economic crises caused by soaring energy and food prices. Surely, the participating ministers are braced to review in depth various collective options that should help the countries involved in coming up with compromise solutions and means for better interaction to address common problems.
The Tehran meeting also offers a forum for NAM to explore the possibility of helping defuse the brewing nuclear dispute between Iran and the US. To start with, they could make it clear to the Iranian leadership that they do realise that the US has been resorting to deception in order to prepare the ground for military action against Iran and that they would not support Washington in this regard. At the same time, Tehran should also be told that the movement's endorsement of Iran's exercise of its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is linked to the Iranians moving to allay regional and international concerns over its nuclear programme. No country's right to exercise its international rights could be isolated from its international responsibilities.
At the outset of the Tehran meeting, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki called for NAM support fir Iran's bid to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. The vote is to scheduled to be taken in the autumn. The US could be expected to fight Iran tooth and nail against the Middle Eastern country entering the UN Security Council and that is where the NAM could play a crucial role.
The NAM should meet the Iranian request and ensure that Iran enters the Security Council, a status that would help strengthen the UN-based negotiations on the country's nuclear activities and move the file back to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran's membership in the UN Security Council would also bring the country face to face with the council's resolutions on its nuclear programme.
The non-aligned ministers gathered in Tehran should tell the Iranian leadership that Iran should also reciprocate the movement's support by being flexible on regional as well as international issues within the framework of the various charters and conventions including respect for other's territorial rights and the inadmissibility of refusal to discuss bilateral disputes on the basis of international justice.
Such an all-embracing and transparent NAM approach could turn out to be a major landmark in the movement's efforts to reposition itself as the strong collective voice of the developing world.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
No easy answers to impossible demands
July 29, 2008
No easy answers to impossible demands
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is under immense American pressure to move ruthlessly against his own people near the border with Afghanistan and allow foreign forces to operate out of Pakistani territory in the US-led "war against terror." But the pressure is not expected to produce the results that Washington desires because Gilani, representing a democratically elected government in a country that is trying to recover from the chaos of military rule, would not be able to deliver as demanded by the US. It would be political suicide for Gilani — or any other Pakistani politician for that matter — to hop on the US-led bandwagon in Washington's self-declared "war against terror." This reality was emphasised by the results of a poll conducted by the US-based International Republican Institute last month that Pakistanis overwhelmingly back the Gilani government's policy of favouring negotiations over military action.
Even military ruler General Pervez Musharraf, who was not bound by the imperatives of a politician in a democratic society, was careful not to go too far in his alliance with the US in the "war against terror." However, that did not stop Pakistanis from blaming the Afghanistan war and Musharraf's co-operation with the US for extremist attacks last year that killed more than 2,000 people.
Gilani's move on Sunday to take over control of the country's intelligence agencies is linked to the US pressure since the organisations are accused of involving themselves in the insurgency in Afghanistan. But that is not enough for the administration of George W Bush, who wants a no-holds-barred co-operation from Pakistan in its fight against militants.
The key point for the US is Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks in Afghanistan and the movement of militants from Pakistan across the border to Afghanistan. Surely, that point is coupled with an implied threat that the US is prepared to launch military "hot pursuit" raids into Pakistan's troubled tribal belt in pursuit of extremists.
Was it a pure accident that a suspected US missile strike on a Pakistani madrasa killed six people in a border town hours before Gilani was due to meet President George W. Bush in Washington on Monday?
Gilani did try to send a strong political message to Bush before Monday's meeting at the White House when he told the media that "it is in the interest of Pakistan to curb extremism and terrorism."
But such statements matter little to the US administration, which wants unfettered access and right of military action as it finds fit in Pakistani territory even it means the death and injury of hundreds of civilians living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal belt and untold damages to property. Washington could not be bothered to give any consideration to the political compulsions of the Gilani government as long as Islamabad is able to suppress popular sentiments, even through the use of military force if warranted.
Surely, Gilani finds himself hemmed in from all sides and has to come up with some fast answers. But the answers and actions that the US wants from him are something that he finds impossible to provide if he were to hope to maintain his political life. The best he could strike for is a little more time, but the Bush administration does not have any to spare either.
The only approach with any reasonable chance of success to address the problem is a regional effort that brings in all key players but that game could not be played under American rules.
Washington has to be bend and has to make compromises it might not want to make. But that is the only approach and the US knows the right addresses in the region to contact if and when it is ready to follow that route.
No easy answers to impossible demands
Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is under immense American pressure to move ruthlessly against his own people near the border with Afghanistan and allow foreign forces to operate out of Pakistani territory in the US-led "war against terror." But the pressure is not expected to produce the results that Washington desires because Gilani, representing a democratically elected government in a country that is trying to recover from the chaos of military rule, would not be able to deliver as demanded by the US. It would be political suicide for Gilani — or any other Pakistani politician for that matter — to hop on the US-led bandwagon in Washington's self-declared "war against terror." This reality was emphasised by the results of a poll conducted by the US-based International Republican Institute last month that Pakistanis overwhelmingly back the Gilani government's policy of favouring negotiations over military action.
Even military ruler General Pervez Musharraf, who was not bound by the imperatives of a politician in a democratic society, was careful not to go too far in his alliance with the US in the "war against terror." However, that did not stop Pakistanis from blaming the Afghanistan war and Musharraf's co-operation with the US for extremist attacks last year that killed more than 2,000 people.
Gilani's move on Sunday to take over control of the country's intelligence agencies is linked to the US pressure since the organisations are accused of involving themselves in the insurgency in Afghanistan. But that is not enough for the administration of George W Bush, who wants a no-holds-barred co-operation from Pakistan in its fight against militants.
The key point for the US is Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks in Afghanistan and the movement of militants from Pakistan across the border to Afghanistan. Surely, that point is coupled with an implied threat that the US is prepared to launch military "hot pursuit" raids into Pakistan's troubled tribal belt in pursuit of extremists.
Was it a pure accident that a suspected US missile strike on a Pakistani madrasa killed six people in a border town hours before Gilani was due to meet President George W. Bush in Washington on Monday?
Gilani did try to send a strong political message to Bush before Monday's meeting at the White House when he told the media that "it is in the interest of Pakistan to curb extremism and terrorism."
But such statements matter little to the US administration, which wants unfettered access and right of military action as it finds fit in Pakistani territory even it means the death and injury of hundreds of civilians living in the Pakistan-Afghanistan tribal belt and untold damages to property. Washington could not be bothered to give any consideration to the political compulsions of the Gilani government as long as Islamabad is able to suppress popular sentiments, even through the use of military force if warranted.
Surely, Gilani finds himself hemmed in from all sides and has to come up with some fast answers. But the answers and actions that the US wants from him are something that he finds impossible to provide if he were to hope to maintain his political life. The best he could strike for is a little more time, but the Bush administration does not have any to spare either.
The only approach with any reasonable chance of success to address the problem is a regional effort that brings in all key players but that game could not be played under American rules.
Washington has to be bend and has to make compromises it might not want to make. But that is the only approach and the US knows the right addresses in the region to contact if and when it is ready to follow that route.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Going in the wrong lane
July 28, 2008
Going in the wrong lane
AFGHANISTAN is hitting out left and right with accusations that its neighbours are responsible for the raging insurgency in the country. Parallel to charges that elements in Pakistan's military and intelligence networks were plotting attacks in Afghanistan, the new contention is that
Iran has become the main transit route for militants trying to join insurgents in the chaotic country. The charge was made by an Afghan government daily, Anis.
Tehran now finds itself charged on two counts — fuelling the anti-US insurgency in Iraq and helping the Taliban militants in Afghanistan to fight the Afghan government forces and the US-led foreign forces present there. The international forces in Afghanistan have said that Iranian weapons destined for the Taliban have been seized in the country but they have qualified that assertion saying they were unsure whether Tehran knew about the shipments. Iran, which by no means is an angel, has rejected all charges.
Granted that Iran, which is locked in a bitter nuclear dispute with the US, might have a vested interest in keeping the US-led forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan unbalanced, but the charge against it need to be supported with concrete evidence. So do the contention made by Anis other countries were lax in checking support for the Taliban-led insurgency.
According to Anis, three foreign militants, two from the Middle East and one from Turkey, were captured during a recent operation in Afghanistan and investigations of the three showed they had come via Iran.
It proves that Iran had become a "tunnel for terrorists" to Waziristan, the tribal region of Pakistan, where the militants have sanctuaries and from where they enter Afghanistan to attack foreign and Afghan forces, according to the paper.
With no bearing on the authenticity of the charges, it would also seem that there is more to the situation than meets the eye, particularly that Iran has threatened to hit US interests in the region, if the US attacked Iran in the nuclear dispute.
The fact is that Afghanistan finds itself caught in the middle of a long-term conflict of foreign and regional interests. Making things worse is the intensified Taliban insurgency in the country. Instead of blaming others for its misfortunes, Kabul would be better off determining whether it has done the right things to address the woes of its people, who are otherwise denied the basics and are encouraged to embrace militancy. Then it would come up with the finding that the people of Afghanistan at large are no better off today in terms of their daily needs than they were while the Taliban or other regimes were in power. Kabul should be demanding that the international donors live up to their pledges while also ensuring that whatever foreign aid is reaching the country is channelled to the people who are in real need. That could perhaps prove to be the starting point of a long road to recovery for the Afghan people, who at this point in time feel they have nothing to lose if they joined the insurgents.
Going in the wrong lane
AFGHANISTAN is hitting out left and right with accusations that its neighbours are responsible for the raging insurgency in the country. Parallel to charges that elements in Pakistan's military and intelligence networks were plotting attacks in Afghanistan, the new contention is that
Iran has become the main transit route for militants trying to join insurgents in the chaotic country. The charge was made by an Afghan government daily, Anis.
Tehran now finds itself charged on two counts — fuelling the anti-US insurgency in Iraq and helping the Taliban militants in Afghanistan to fight the Afghan government forces and the US-led foreign forces present there. The international forces in Afghanistan have said that Iranian weapons destined for the Taliban have been seized in the country but they have qualified that assertion saying they were unsure whether Tehran knew about the shipments. Iran, which by no means is an angel, has rejected all charges.
Granted that Iran, which is locked in a bitter nuclear dispute with the US, might have a vested interest in keeping the US-led forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan unbalanced, but the charge against it need to be supported with concrete evidence. So do the contention made by Anis other countries were lax in checking support for the Taliban-led insurgency.
According to Anis, three foreign militants, two from the Middle East and one from Turkey, were captured during a recent operation in Afghanistan and investigations of the three showed they had come via Iran.
It proves that Iran had become a "tunnel for terrorists" to Waziristan, the tribal region of Pakistan, where the militants have sanctuaries and from where they enter Afghanistan to attack foreign and Afghan forces, according to the paper.
With no bearing on the authenticity of the charges, it would also seem that there is more to the situation than meets the eye, particularly that Iran has threatened to hit US interests in the region, if the US attacked Iran in the nuclear dispute.
The fact is that Afghanistan finds itself caught in the middle of a long-term conflict of foreign and regional interests. Making things worse is the intensified Taliban insurgency in the country. Instead of blaming others for its misfortunes, Kabul would be better off determining whether it has done the right things to address the woes of its people, who are otherwise denied the basics and are encouraged to embrace militancy. Then it would come up with the finding that the people of Afghanistan at large are no better off today in terms of their daily needs than they were while the Taliban or other regimes were in power. Kabul should be demanding that the international donors live up to their pledges while also ensuring that whatever foreign aid is reaching the country is channelled to the people who are in real need. That could perhaps prove to be the starting point of a long road to recovery for the Afghan people, who at this point in time feel they have nothing to lose if they joined the insurgents.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
A clear signal from Kurdistan
July 27, 2008
A clear signal from Kurdistan
The steady and strong effort of the Kurds of northern Iraq to break away from Iraq and set up an independent Kurdistan has entered a new phase. Following the Iraqi parliament's passage of a bill concerning provincial elections — that was subsequently vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd — the Kurdistan Alliance issued a statement denouncing the endorsement. It said the federal parliament had violated the constitution by allowing a secret voting process on the bill on regional elections.
Subsequently, the alliance has also moved to expand the territory under its control.
The committee in the Kurdistan Parliament in charge of revising the Kurdistan constitution has proposed language that would formally incorporate portions of four provinces into the Kurdistan Regional Government, according to a report in the Al Hayat newspaper. The four provinces to be dismembered are Diyala, Kirkuk, Mosul and Salahuddin, on the grounds that they have Kurdish populations. The language will be presented to the KRG parliament for consideration during its August recess. The Kurdistan constitution will be voted on in a referendum.
One of the keys to understanding the Kurdish move is that Tamim — the province centred on Kirkuk — sits atop more than enough oil to support an independent Kurdish state. The Kurds are seeking to secure absolute control of Kirkuk along with its oil wealth that would be the central pillar of the economy of Kurdistan.
The move to expand the territory under Kurdish control is yet another affirmation that the conflict pitting Kurds against Arabs in Kirkuk is worsening, with Turkey throwing in its lot to defend what it considers as its interests vested with the Turkomen living in the area. Essentially, Ankara is worried that the Iraqi Kurdish move would eventually draw in Turkish Kurds and pose a threat to Turkey's territorial integrity.
It is continuing military attacks against the Turkish Kurdish rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is based on northern Iraq and stages frequent cross-border attack against Turkish targets. The latest Turkish action came on Thursday when Turkish warplanes bombed 13 Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq, with the Turkish military saying was determined to press ahead with anti-PKK operations both inside Turkey and across the border in Iraq "according to military needs."
The Kurdish Alliance is following a carefully charted game plan. At no point does it refer to an independent Kurdistan and always affirms its commitment to Iraq as a single entity. It reiterated its position in a July 23 statement which said in part:
"From the beginning of the post-Liberation political development of Iraq in 2003, the KRG has placed the interests of the wider Iraq first and foremost, and has shown a continual commitment to the principles of flexibility and compromise in order to peacefully and constitutionally solve problems created by the former Ba'ath regimes' policies."
Indeed, the Kurds have suffered a lot under the Saddam Hussein regime's reign. They have always pursued their dream of independence. With the move to expand their territorial control, they are signalling that they would not be dissuaded from their quest for an independent state of their own in Iraq, notwithstanding declarations and statements.
A clear signal from Kurdistan
The steady and strong effort of the Kurds of northern Iraq to break away from Iraq and set up an independent Kurdistan has entered a new phase. Following the Iraqi parliament's passage of a bill concerning provincial elections — that was subsequently vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd — the Kurdistan Alliance issued a statement denouncing the endorsement. It said the federal parliament had violated the constitution by allowing a secret voting process on the bill on regional elections.
Subsequently, the alliance has also moved to expand the territory under its control.
The committee in the Kurdistan Parliament in charge of revising the Kurdistan constitution has proposed language that would formally incorporate portions of four provinces into the Kurdistan Regional Government, according to a report in the Al Hayat newspaper. The four provinces to be dismembered are Diyala, Kirkuk, Mosul and Salahuddin, on the grounds that they have Kurdish populations. The language will be presented to the KRG parliament for consideration during its August recess. The Kurdistan constitution will be voted on in a referendum.
One of the keys to understanding the Kurdish move is that Tamim — the province centred on Kirkuk — sits atop more than enough oil to support an independent Kurdish state. The Kurds are seeking to secure absolute control of Kirkuk along with its oil wealth that would be the central pillar of the economy of Kurdistan.
The move to expand the territory under Kurdish control is yet another affirmation that the conflict pitting Kurds against Arabs in Kirkuk is worsening, with Turkey throwing in its lot to defend what it considers as its interests vested with the Turkomen living in the area. Essentially, Ankara is worried that the Iraqi Kurdish move would eventually draw in Turkish Kurds and pose a threat to Turkey's territorial integrity.
It is continuing military attacks against the Turkish Kurdish rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is based on northern Iraq and stages frequent cross-border attack against Turkish targets. The latest Turkish action came on Thursday when Turkish warplanes bombed 13 Kurdish rebel targets in northern Iraq, with the Turkish military saying was determined to press ahead with anti-PKK operations both inside Turkey and across the border in Iraq "according to military needs."
The Kurdish Alliance is following a carefully charted game plan. At no point does it refer to an independent Kurdistan and always affirms its commitment to Iraq as a single entity. It reiterated its position in a July 23 statement which said in part:
"From the beginning of the post-Liberation political development of Iraq in 2003, the KRG has placed the interests of the wider Iraq first and foremost, and has shown a continual commitment to the principles of flexibility and compromise in order to peacefully and constitutionally solve problems created by the former Ba'ath regimes' policies."
Indeed, the Kurds have suffered a lot under the Saddam Hussein regime's reign. They have always pursued their dream of independence. With the move to expand their territorial control, they are signalling that they would not be dissuaded from their quest for an independent state of their own in Iraq, notwithstanding declarations and statements.
Despair, frustration and quest for revenge
July 27, 2008
Despair, frustration and quest for revenge
by 'Inad Khairallah
There is an increase in the number of women suicide bombers in Iraq. The US military and Iraqi security forces say Al Qaeda now recruit women who have lost their loved ones in the crackdown waged by US and allied forces in the country. Given that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died during and after the US-led invasion of their country in March 2003, the recruiters should be finding their task easy.
In an emphatic affirmation of the alarming trend on Monday, four female suicide bombers struck, killing at least 60 and wounding over 250.
What motivates women to undertake suicide missions?
It has been found that almost all of the women suicide bombers had lost their loved ones in the ongoing insurgency and security crackdown launched by the US and allied forces. Some of them lost their entire families and had nothing to look forward to life except perhaps revenge against those whom they consider as being responsible for the disaster that befell them.
Indeed, Al Qaeda is finding the ground fertile to recruit women driven by the quest for revenge in its war against the US military, Iraqi security forces and allied groups.
US and Iraqi officers have been quoted as saying that women without education, or even those who suffer from learning disabilities, are particularly targeted by insurgent leaders.
An American military officer says: "Al Qaeda look for this type of profile, then they train them and indoctrinate them."
"They keep them locked up and tell them over and over again that if they blow themselves up, they will go to paradise," says an Iraqi officer.
Few people are referring to the reality that Iraqi women's willingness to turn themselves as martyrs is yet another manifestation of the aggressive approach adopted by the US and allied forces that has little room for human considerations. More and more women are motivated by poverty, desperation or vengeance against the US-led military and allied forces they blame for the deaths of family members.
They don't need any indoctrination. They are following the natural course of human behaviour when there is nothing left to lose and someone could be seen as directly responsible for creating that situation.
Farhana Ali, an international policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, wrote in November 2005 (www.jamestown.org):
"While conflicts and motivations vary, a woman’s decision to pursue violent action is impacted by personal experiences and outcomes. Coupled with the absence of change to her own local conflict, of which she is a part of, a woman is more apt to volunteer or be recruited for an operation to end her own suffering or that of her people.
"Suicide becomes the preferred tactic when Muslim women perceive they have no other alternative to affect change to their local environment; coupled with a heightened sense of anger, disillusionment, and despair, some women choose suicide as a way to communicate and channel their frustration. This is particularly true for those who believe there are no other social, economic, or political opportunities available to them."
The Iraq experience
We have seen vivid images of how US and allied forces storm Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and search for suspected insurgents as terrified women and children cower in a corner. Males, including teenage boys, are hauled away, detained and tortured with no justifiable reason. In most cases, they are held indefinitely with no legal recourse and no communication with their families. In some cases, they are never heard of, leading the families to believe that they are dead.
Isn't that reason enough for their families to hate the US and allied forces that they see as responsible for such a course of events?
In simple terms, had the US military been humane in its approach to the people of Iraq and treated them with dignity under a respectable code of conduct, then there would not have been a situation where US soldiers and allied forces patrolling the streets of Iraq steer clear of women wearing long dresses.
Despair, frustration and quest for revenge
by 'Inad Khairallah
There is an increase in the number of women suicide bombers in Iraq. The US military and Iraqi security forces say Al Qaeda now recruit women who have lost their loved ones in the crackdown waged by US and allied forces in the country. Given that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died during and after the US-led invasion of their country in March 2003, the recruiters should be finding their task easy.
In an emphatic affirmation of the alarming trend on Monday, four female suicide bombers struck, killing at least 60 and wounding over 250.
What motivates women to undertake suicide missions?
It has been found that almost all of the women suicide bombers had lost their loved ones in the ongoing insurgency and security crackdown launched by the US and allied forces. Some of them lost their entire families and had nothing to look forward to life except perhaps revenge against those whom they consider as being responsible for the disaster that befell them.
Indeed, Al Qaeda is finding the ground fertile to recruit women driven by the quest for revenge in its war against the US military, Iraqi security forces and allied groups.
US and Iraqi officers have been quoted as saying that women without education, or even those who suffer from learning disabilities, are particularly targeted by insurgent leaders.
An American military officer says: "Al Qaeda look for this type of profile, then they train them and indoctrinate them."
"They keep them locked up and tell them over and over again that if they blow themselves up, they will go to paradise," says an Iraqi officer.
Few people are referring to the reality that Iraqi women's willingness to turn themselves as martyrs is yet another manifestation of the aggressive approach adopted by the US and allied forces that has little room for human considerations. More and more women are motivated by poverty, desperation or vengeance against the US-led military and allied forces they blame for the deaths of family members.
They don't need any indoctrination. They are following the natural course of human behaviour when there is nothing left to lose and someone could be seen as directly responsible for creating that situation.
Farhana Ali, an international policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, wrote in November 2005 (www.jamestown.org):
"While conflicts and motivations vary, a woman’s decision to pursue violent action is impacted by personal experiences and outcomes. Coupled with the absence of change to her own local conflict, of which she is a part of, a woman is more apt to volunteer or be recruited for an operation to end her own suffering or that of her people.
"Suicide becomes the preferred tactic when Muslim women perceive they have no other alternative to affect change to their local environment; coupled with a heightened sense of anger, disillusionment, and despair, some women choose suicide as a way to communicate and channel their frustration. This is particularly true for those who believe there are no other social, economic, or political opportunities available to them."
The Iraq experience
We have seen vivid images of how US and allied forces storm Iraqi homes in the middle of the night and search for suspected insurgents as terrified women and children cower in a corner. Males, including teenage boys, are hauled away, detained and tortured with no justifiable reason. In most cases, they are held indefinitely with no legal recourse and no communication with their families. In some cases, they are never heard of, leading the families to believe that they are dead.
Isn't that reason enough for their families to hate the US and allied forces that they see as responsible for such a course of events?
In simple terms, had the US military been humane in its approach to the people of Iraq and treated them with dignity under a respectable code of conduct, then there would not have been a situation where US soldiers and allied forces patrolling the streets of Iraq steer clear of women wearing long dresses.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Removing essence from hopes for peace
July 26, 2008
Removing essence from hopes for peace
PARALLEL TO its continued drive to increase Jewish presence through building and expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank, Israel is also engaged in a disinformation campaign. Reports are on the increase that Jewish settlers in the West Bank are confronting the government's (alleged) plans to evict them from their colonies there and are warning that they would challenge any such effort. Thus, the impression that one gets is that of some 200,000 armed settlers ready to engage the army in a battle and this poses a dilemma to the government's plans to demolish "illegal" settlements as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
That assertion could not be any more distant from the truth. First of all, Israel has no plans whatsoever to demolish any settlement in the occupied West Bank. On the contrary, it is carrying out plans to expand existing settlements and build new ones, thus creating new facts on the ground that would make it all the more difficutl to work out a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians. There is indeed confrontations between the army and settlers in the West Bank, but most of them are blown out of proportion in the media with the aim of convincing the world that Israel does have a serious problem in its hands when it comes to settlements in the occupied territory.
The overall conflict over settlements buries the reality that the Palestinians face on a daily basis in the West Bank. The arrogant and humiliating — and often violent — manner the settlers treat them. They are spat at and are the subject of abuse by armed settlers at every given opportunity. Anyone who poses the slightest challenge faces the risk of being assaulted with the assailants walking off without any fear of prosecution.
The latest such incident came last week when some 150 settlers attacked Palestinian farmers in a West Bank village, damaging crops and property. The settlers set fire to agricultural fields in what was called a "a full fledged pogrom" against the Palestinians, particularly in view of the fact that Israeli soldiers present in the area did not intervene.
Israel currently has some 150 Jewish-only settlements and more than 120 "outposts" in the West Bank. The occupation authorities say that some of the "outposts" are illegal and would be removed but are doing practically nothing to this effect. Nearly 400,000 Jews live in the settlements, including colonies that were built in occupied Arab East Jerusalem.
The Geneva Conventions state that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Underinternational law, "the establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe on the rights to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.'
Israel maintains that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the Palestinian territories, a position that is endorsed and supported by the US.
The inherent Israeli argument is that there was never a Palestinian state and that the land it occupied in 1967 was from Jordan. As such, Israel not only maintains but also believes, that Jews who lived in pre-1948 Palestine have as much right as Muslims and others who lived there before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 to settle there.
Given that is the foundation of the Israeli "claim" to the West Bank, it becomes all the more clear that there would or could never be a fair and just agreement with the Palestinians. And that was what was emphasised by the disclosure on Thursday of Israeli plans to build the so-called Maskiot settlements in the Jordan Rift Valley in the occupied West Bank.
Removing essence from hopes for peace
PARALLEL TO its continued drive to increase Jewish presence through building and expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank, Israel is also engaged in a disinformation campaign. Reports are on the increase that Jewish settlers in the West Bank are confronting the government's (alleged) plans to evict them from their colonies there and are warning that they would challenge any such effort. Thus, the impression that one gets is that of some 200,000 armed settlers ready to engage the army in a battle and this poses a dilemma to the government's plans to demolish "illegal" settlements as part of a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
That assertion could not be any more distant from the truth. First of all, Israel has no plans whatsoever to demolish any settlement in the occupied West Bank. On the contrary, it is carrying out plans to expand existing settlements and build new ones, thus creating new facts on the ground that would make it all the more difficutl to work out a fair and just peace agreement with the Palestinians. There is indeed confrontations between the army and settlers in the West Bank, but most of them are blown out of proportion in the media with the aim of convincing the world that Israel does have a serious problem in its hands when it comes to settlements in the occupied territory.
The overall conflict over settlements buries the reality that the Palestinians face on a daily basis in the West Bank. The arrogant and humiliating — and often violent — manner the settlers treat them. They are spat at and are the subject of abuse by armed settlers at every given opportunity. Anyone who poses the slightest challenge faces the risk of being assaulted with the assailants walking off without any fear of prosecution.
The latest such incident came last week when some 150 settlers attacked Palestinian farmers in a West Bank village, damaging crops and property. The settlers set fire to agricultural fields in what was called a "a full fledged pogrom" against the Palestinians, particularly in view of the fact that Israeli soldiers present in the area did not intervene.
Israel currently has some 150 Jewish-only settlements and more than 120 "outposts" in the West Bank. The occupation authorities say that some of the "outposts" are illegal and would be removed but are doing practically nothing to this effect. Nearly 400,000 Jews live in the settlements, including colonies that were built in occupied Arab East Jerusalem.
The Geneva Conventions state that “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Underinternational law, "the establishment of the settlements leads to the violation of the rights of the Palestinians as enshrined in international human rights law. Among other violations, the settlements infringe on the rights to self-determination, equality, property, an adequate standard of living, and freedom of movement.'
Israel maintains that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the Palestinian territories, a position that is endorsed and supported by the US.
The inherent Israeli argument is that there was never a Palestinian state and that the land it occupied in 1967 was from Jordan. As such, Israel not only maintains but also believes, that Jews who lived in pre-1948 Palestine have as much right as Muslims and others who lived there before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 to settle there.
Given that is the foundation of the Israeli "claim" to the West Bank, it becomes all the more clear that there would or could never be a fair and just agreement with the Palestinians. And that was what was emphasised by the disclosure on Thursday of Israeli plans to build the so-called Maskiot settlements in the Jordan Rift Valley in the occupied West Bank.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Bid to be saltier than salt itself
July 25, 2008
Bid to be saltier than salt itself
AMERICAN politicians will never stop us wondering whether there is any limit to which they would go in order to please the Jewish lobby and voters by playing the Israeli card, which is a trump indeed in the game to win the White House.
The latest in that is a declaration by Republican presidential candidate John McCain that Israel faced the greatest threat in its history because of Iran while his Democratic rival Barack Obama described the Jewish state as a "miracle that has blossomed" since it was created in Palestine 60 years ago.
It was as if humility was finding new depths when Obama stated:
"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to its security, and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a ... senator or as a president, in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region."
If that was not enough, Obama, on a visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank, unequivocally stated that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.
It was all non-committal diplomacy when Obama said it was up to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate and decide whether the Holy City should should be all under Israeli control or divided with Palestinians and that it's not up to the United States to determine. Well, if that is indeed the case, let the US stop meddling with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (if there is a realistic one indeed) and remain strictly neutral and allow international legitimacy and conventions be the parameter for negotiations for peace in the Middle East.
And, not to be outdone by McCain in the Iranian context, Obama declared that "the world must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" and that "America must always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against those who threaten its people."
It was as if we were listening to the incumbent US president, George W Bush, when Obama warned pointedly that no options are "off the table" in confronting a nuclear threat from Iran. The only difference was that Obama suggested that Iran should be offered "big carrots" — something that Bush never mentioned — as well as "big sticks" and affirmed that he remained open to engaging the Iranian in dialogue, but it is an idea that we all know exists only in words.
We know that Bush is reckless enough to be ready to order military strikes against Iran in order to allay Israel's self-professed fears about Iranian intentions towards it and that McCain is right on toe behind Bush. Now, we are being repeatedly told
that Obama also favours the approach.
Indeed, Obama should but be aware that while he leads McCain in national polls back home, opinion surveys show that he may not be able to count on as wide a majority of Jewish supporters as is typical for Democrats. Polls also indicate that Israelis favour McCain over Obama on issues of Israel's "security." That should explain his anxiety to declare his eternal commitment to upholding Israel's interests and — not in so many words though — even at the expense of American interests.
The Israelis should be laughing their head off at the sight of the US presidential candidates bending backward and forward trying to be more Jewish and more Israeli than Jews and Israelis. They are confident that they would be able to make any US presidential candidate and, more importantly, whoever wins the race jump through any loops.
And here we hope as every US presidential election comes along that the new occupant of the White House would be honest to himself and his country and realise that there is something seriously wrong in continuing to provide almost unlimited political, military, financial and diplomatic support to Israel despite its refusal to abide by international law and unbridled use of military force in order to have its way.
Bid to be saltier than salt itself
AMERICAN politicians will never stop us wondering whether there is any limit to which they would go in order to please the Jewish lobby and voters by playing the Israeli card, which is a trump indeed in the game to win the White House.
The latest in that is a declaration by Republican presidential candidate John McCain that Israel faced the greatest threat in its history because of Iran while his Democratic rival Barack Obama described the Jewish state as a "miracle that has blossomed" since it was created in Palestine 60 years ago.
It was as if humility was finding new depths when Obama stated:
"I'm here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States, my abiding commitment to its security, and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner, whether as a ... senator or as a president, in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region."
If that was not enough, Obama, on a visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank, unequivocally stated that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.
It was all non-committal diplomacy when Obama said it was up to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate and decide whether the Holy City should should be all under Israeli control or divided with Palestinians and that it's not up to the United States to determine. Well, if that is indeed the case, let the US stop meddling with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (if there is a realistic one indeed) and remain strictly neutral and allow international legitimacy and conventions be the parameter for negotiations for peace in the Middle East.
And, not to be outdone by McCain in the Iranian context, Obama declared that "the world must prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons" and that "America must always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself against those who threaten its people."
It was as if we were listening to the incumbent US president, George W Bush, when Obama warned pointedly that no options are "off the table" in confronting a nuclear threat from Iran. The only difference was that Obama suggested that Iran should be offered "big carrots" — something that Bush never mentioned — as well as "big sticks" and affirmed that he remained open to engaging the Iranian in dialogue, but it is an idea that we all know exists only in words.
We know that Bush is reckless enough to be ready to order military strikes against Iran in order to allay Israel's self-professed fears about Iranian intentions towards it and that McCain is right on toe behind Bush. Now, we are being repeatedly told
that Obama also favours the approach.
Indeed, Obama should but be aware that while he leads McCain in national polls back home, opinion surveys show that he may not be able to count on as wide a majority of Jewish supporters as is typical for Democrats. Polls also indicate that Israelis favour McCain over Obama on issues of Israel's "security." That should explain his anxiety to declare his eternal commitment to upholding Israel's interests and — not in so many words though — even at the expense of American interests.
The Israelis should be laughing their head off at the sight of the US presidential candidates bending backward and forward trying to be more Jewish and more Israeli than Jews and Israelis. They are confident that they would be able to make any US presidential candidate and, more importantly, whoever wins the race jump through any loops.
And here we hope as every US presidential election comes along that the new occupant of the White House would be honest to himself and his country and realise that there is something seriously wrong in continuing to provide almost unlimited political, military, financial and diplomatic support to Israel despite its refusal to abide by international law and unbridled use of military force in order to have its way.
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}