Sept.1, 2008
Aggressive Russian bear has
US in a dangerous corner
By PV Vivekanand
THE RULES of the "superpower game" have changed, leaving the US with limited options to deal with the crisis sparked by the Georgian move to take control of the breakaway province of South Ossetia and Russia's aggressive response.
If anything, the situation is spinning out of American control, with the very essence of US-Russian relations and US policy vis-a-vis ex-Soviet republics being brought to question.
One of the last things Washington wanted was an open Russian challenge to its plans to "punish" Iran for pursuing its nuclear programme in defiance of US-led Western demand that it freeze all nuclear activities.
It is not simply that the US could no longer count on Moscow to support its campaign for a fresh wave of tough UN sanctions against Iran. Russia has tied the crisis sparked by the conflict in Georgia to its relations with the US and has brought in Iran as an important element in the equation. The scenario is no longer Georgia-specific but is linked to American forays into what the Russians consider as no-go areas for anyone but themselves and the erstwhile humiliating US treatment of the former superpower.
Mosow is reportedly threatening to supply the sophisticated S-300 missile system to Iran if Washington pursues its plans to include Russia's pro-Western neighbours Georgia and Ukraine in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is said to have made an implicit offer to this effect to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during their bilateral meeting in Dushanbe on Aug. 28, 2008.
Some reports claim that Russia has already moved some basic components of the S-300 missile system to Belarus, ready for possible transfer to Iran.
The Russian move has thrown a big spanner in the US-Israeli works against Iran because possible Iranian possession of the S-300 missile system would raise a big question mark for their plans to stage military action against Iran.
The S-300 missiles, which can track 100 targets at once and fire on planes up to 120 kilometres away, will be a major boost to Iranian defences against any air strike on its nuclear sites. They could nip any Israeli plan to stage air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and seriously complicate any US aerial bombardment.
International military experts descibe the S-300 missile as a source of "great concern" for every Western air force, including that of the US.
Effectively, the Russians are telling the Americans that "if you do not stop meddling in our areas of influence (ex-Soviet republics and former communist states in Eastern Europe), then we would supply the S-300 to the Iranians."
There is little doubt that Russia feels that "enough is enough" of American moves in its neighbourhood and is determined to push for a showdown with the US.
Further angering Moscow was the US support for independence of the ex-Serbian province of Kosovo against Russian wishes and the signing of an agreement under which the US plans to station anti-missile missiles in Poland that could "neutralise" any threat posed by Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Acutely aware of the Bush administration's Israeli-driven "strategic obsession" with Iran, Moscow is playing a very calculated game, which is leading to a foreign policy showdown ahead of presidential elections in the US.
Washington is now grappling with the question of how far it could go in supporting Georgia and proving to its others that the US is indeed a dependable ally while also ensuring that the confrontation with Russia is snuffed out.
Unless George W Bush moves to defuse the crisis, it could prove to be one of the biggest challenges facing the next US president, whether Republican John McCain or his Democratic rival Barack Obama, both of whom have declared their support for NATO membership for Georgia.
That Russia is dead serious in its confrontation with the US was made clear on several counts, including Moscow's invitation to Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and reported proposal to station advanced missiles in Syrian territory, presumably targeting Israel, the staunchest US ally in the region.
Israel, which is raring to go with military strikes against Iran, has already made amends to placate the Russians. It has suspended military assistance to Georgia and has frozen plans to set up pipelines that circumvent Russia to pump Caspian oil and gas to Turkey and from there to Israeli ports in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea for re-export.
In the immediate context, the possibility of Russia supplying the S-300 missile system to Iran could add a sense of urgency for Israeli action to "eliminate" Iran's nuclear capabilities.
The S-300 system needs about one year to be installed and turned operational and this would mean an Israeli urgency to hit Iran before it is too late.
Tehran is playing its own game by stepping up rhetoric and thumping its nose at the US and Israel.
"Any aggression against Iran will start a world war," Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, a senior Iranian military commander, said over the weekend. "The unrestrained greed of the US leadership and global Zionism... is gradually leading the world to the edge of a precipice."
It is difficult to see how the US would proceed from this point. However, it is indeed cornered and it is anyone's guess how it opts to lash out.
Monday, September 01, 2008
The only constant in the Iran equation
Sept.1, 2008
The only constant in the Iranian equation
THE US seems to have developed a loss of appetite for military action against Iran, but Israel would not let go, and Tehran is exploiting the situation to step up its rhetoric and thump its nose at those who criticise its nuclear activities. The result is a blurred scenario, with the only constant being that the region would witness a devastating conflict if the US or Israel or a combination of the two were to stage military strike of any size and nature at Iran.
There is no dearth of theories and suggestions, including one that says Israeli warplanes planned to bomb Iranian targets during the recent Russian-Georgian conflict. However, the totally unanticipated aggressive Russian response to the Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia took everyone by surprise and aborted the Israeli plan, according this theory.
Earlier, it was reported that Israel has been rehearsing for air strikes at Iran using US-controlled Iraqi territory and air space.
Another report says that a Dutch ultra-secret secret service operation underway in Iran in recent years has been halted and an agent recalled in view of “impending US plans to attack Iran” within weeks.
The operation involved infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's military industry, according to the report.
The Dutch decision came ahead of an expected US/Israel decision within weeks to attack Iran's nuclear plants with unmanned aircraft, used to avoid risking the lives of air crews and warplanes, says the report.
The "disclosure" explains why Iran has been issuing a fresh spate of warnings, the latest of which came from the country's deputy Chief of General Staff Masus Jazairi , who said that any attack on Iran would mean the beginning of a new "world war."
The Iranian tough talk is highly provocative but is deemed to come from a realisation that the US administration finds itself in a difficult situation to exercise any military option against Iran, given its raging conflict with Russia. Even before the crisis erupted in Georgia, US officials have been saying that the US military is unable to wage yet a third war following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That seems to be a fairly accurate judgment, particularly given that the US could not expect any regional support (except of course that of Israel) for military action against Iran, which has the ways and means to retaliate and make it very painful for US interests in the region.
Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper reported on Friday that preparations for Israeli military action against Iran are under way in the event that diplomatic efforts fail.
Indeed, these are only scratches on the surface of the US-Israel-Iran equation, which is a roller-coaster course. But the region remains painfully aware that Israel, which believes in the use of military might before diplomacy, is waiting for the most opportune moment to hit at Iran with little regard for the regional consequences of such action.
The only constant in the Iranian equation
THE US seems to have developed a loss of appetite for military action against Iran, but Israel would not let go, and Tehran is exploiting the situation to step up its rhetoric and thump its nose at those who criticise its nuclear activities. The result is a blurred scenario, with the only constant being that the region would witness a devastating conflict if the US or Israel or a combination of the two were to stage military strike of any size and nature at Iran.
There is no dearth of theories and suggestions, including one that says Israeli warplanes planned to bomb Iranian targets during the recent Russian-Georgian conflict. However, the totally unanticipated aggressive Russian response to the Georgian military intervention in South Ossetia took everyone by surprise and aborted the Israeli plan, according this theory.
Earlier, it was reported that Israel has been rehearsing for air strikes at Iran using US-controlled Iraqi territory and air space.
Another report says that a Dutch ultra-secret secret service operation underway in Iran in recent years has been halted and an agent recalled in view of “impending US plans to attack Iran” within weeks.
The operation involved infiltrating and sabotaging Iran's military industry, according to the report.
The Dutch decision came ahead of an expected US/Israel decision within weeks to attack Iran's nuclear plants with unmanned aircraft, used to avoid risking the lives of air crews and warplanes, says the report.
The "disclosure" explains why Iran has been issuing a fresh spate of warnings, the latest of which came from the country's deputy Chief of General Staff Masus Jazairi , who said that any attack on Iran would mean the beginning of a new "world war."
The Iranian tough talk is highly provocative but is deemed to come from a realisation that the US administration finds itself in a difficult situation to exercise any military option against Iran, given its raging conflict with Russia. Even before the crisis erupted in Georgia, US officials have been saying that the US military is unable to wage yet a third war following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
That seems to be a fairly accurate judgment, particularly given that the US could not expect any regional support (except of course that of Israel) for military action against Iran, which has the ways and means to retaliate and make it very painful for US interests in the region.
Israel's Ma'ariv newspaper reported on Friday that preparations for Israeli military action against Iran are under way in the event that diplomatic efforts fail.
Indeed, these are only scratches on the surface of the US-Israel-Iran equation, which is a roller-coaster course. But the region remains painfully aware that Israel, which believes in the use of military might before diplomacy, is waiting for the most opportune moment to hit at Iran with little regard for the regional consequences of such action.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Political guts in short supply
Aug.31, 2008
Political guts in short supply
IT surprised many why former US president Jimmy Carter was absent from the podium at last week's Democratic Party convention. Convention organisers did honour Carter with a short video clip highlighting his work with Hurricane Katrina victims and a brief walk across the Pepsi Center stage, but did not give him an opportunity to speak at the forum.
According to party officials, the treatment Carter received was the bare minimum that could be done for a former president.
It was a sharp break with the tradition of giving speech time to living former presidents, and it left a bitter taste among many Democrats.
Now it has been explained that the Democratic leadership believed that Carter's views on Israel and its occupation of Palestinian land made him undesirable to be given a prominent position at the convention.
The party leadership feared that Carter's presence on the podium would have alienated Jewish voters.
It is an emphatic reaffirmation of how the Jewish lobby is holding American politics to ransom, particularly when it comes to anything that has to do with Israel and how American politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, care little for their national interests while dealing with Israel-linked issues.
The low-profile treatment at the party convention was Carter's "punishment" for speaking out against Israel in a book he published in November 2006. In the book, he accused Israel of practising apartheid against the Palestinians.
Since then that Democrat leaders have been trying to distance themselves from Carter and to convince the Jewish lobby that he does not represent the party line.
That is the sad state of affairs in US politics where truth is sacrificed to serve Israeli interests. In Carter's case, the Israelis and their lobbyists in Washington conveniently forgot that it was under Carter's mediation that they had managed to "neutralise" Egypt in the Arab-Israeli conflict through the Camp David peace treaty of 1978.
Within American politics, the Democratic leadership opted to ignore the reality that Carter had done nothing to tarnish the party's image or damage its national interests.
The clincher here is that the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was party to denying the former president his rightful place and prominence at the party convention. Judging from his statements at the outset of his campaign for nomination, Obama appeared to be a man who would have no qualms while calling a spade a spade. That was an unfounded expectation, as the Carter case established. Obviously, Obama was in short supply when it comes to political guts. That should raise the broader question of how anyone could expect him to rise to the challenges attached to the job if he is elected president.
We in the Middle East have already abandoned all hopes that we could expect a substantiated effort for fair and just regional peace if Obama were to be elected president. And now it is time for the American people to realise that many of the political leaders of their great nation are as shallow and hollow as anyone could be while dealing with Israel, but Obama seems to have gone for the cake in damaging party idealism and interests and proving that Israel comes first no matter what.
Political guts in short supply
IT surprised many why former US president Jimmy Carter was absent from the podium at last week's Democratic Party convention. Convention organisers did honour Carter with a short video clip highlighting his work with Hurricane Katrina victims and a brief walk across the Pepsi Center stage, but did not give him an opportunity to speak at the forum.
According to party officials, the treatment Carter received was the bare minimum that could be done for a former president.
It was a sharp break with the tradition of giving speech time to living former presidents, and it left a bitter taste among many Democrats.
Now it has been explained that the Democratic leadership believed that Carter's views on Israel and its occupation of Palestinian land made him undesirable to be given a prominent position at the convention.
The party leadership feared that Carter's presence on the podium would have alienated Jewish voters.
It is an emphatic reaffirmation of how the Jewish lobby is holding American politics to ransom, particularly when it comes to anything that has to do with Israel and how American politicians, whether Republican or Democrat, care little for their national interests while dealing with Israel-linked issues.
The low-profile treatment at the party convention was Carter's "punishment" for speaking out against Israel in a book he published in November 2006. In the book, he accused Israel of practising apartheid against the Palestinians.
Since then that Democrat leaders have been trying to distance themselves from Carter and to convince the Jewish lobby that he does not represent the party line.
That is the sad state of affairs in US politics where truth is sacrificed to serve Israeli interests. In Carter's case, the Israelis and their lobbyists in Washington conveniently forgot that it was under Carter's mediation that they had managed to "neutralise" Egypt in the Arab-Israeli conflict through the Camp David peace treaty of 1978.
Within American politics, the Democratic leadership opted to ignore the reality that Carter had done nothing to tarnish the party's image or damage its national interests.
The clincher here is that the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, was party to denying the former president his rightful place and prominence at the party convention. Judging from his statements at the outset of his campaign for nomination, Obama appeared to be a man who would have no qualms while calling a spade a spade. That was an unfounded expectation, as the Carter case established. Obviously, Obama was in short supply when it comes to political guts. That should raise the broader question of how anyone could expect him to rise to the challenges attached to the job if he is elected president.
We in the Middle East have already abandoned all hopes that we could expect a substantiated effort for fair and just regional peace if Obama were to be elected president. And now it is time for the American people to realise that many of the political leaders of their great nation are as shallow and hollow as anyone could be while dealing with Israel, but Obama seems to have gone for the cake in damaging party idealism and interests and proving that Israel comes first no matter what.
Friday, August 29, 2008
How to end a losing war
Aug.29, 2008
How to end a losing war
THE world is looking for signs of a political will and inclination in the US towards ending its disastrous military presence in Afghanistan. The first impression one gets is that the US has no intention to get out of the chaotic country, given its strategic goal of having a decisive say when it comes to tapping the hydrocarbon and other natural resources of Central Asia and getting them out using Afghan territory.
However, the worsening situation in the country, the increasing number of casualties among the US-led international forces there and a dawning realisation that there could be no winners in the Afghan conflict should give rise to serious thinking in Washington about geting out.
Let us face the realities. The Taliban have definitely staged a strong comeback. They have acquired enough experience in the last seven years of fighting with the foreign forces in their country that they are now capable of mounting massive conventional attacks and inflict high casualties among the US-led occupation forces.
The Taliban-led war has spread from the south to the east and the area around Kabul, the capital. International aid agencies are reporting that insecurity is spreading to areas which were once considered stable.
The US has lost 101 soldiers so far this year compared with the 111 for the whole of last year.
In recent weeks, the Taliban staged multiple attacks on the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in which 10 newly arrived French soldiers were killed near Kabul. Their suicide bombers also hit a US base in one of the most daring attacks since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. These operations followed the killing of nine US soldiers in a single attack last month, and the freeing of hundreds of Taliban prisoners from Kandahar's main jail in a night-time raid in June.
Further complicating the scene is the rising number of civilians being killed in US air strikes that are alienating the people of Afghanistan.
The US and its allies content that alleged Pakistani links with the Taliban and the reluctance of the Islamabad government to allow its own people to be targeted for US-led armed action are behind the resurgence of the militant groups in the region. Does it mean that the US-led military forces would be able to check the insurgency, fight off the Taliban and realise the first objectives of the Afghan war — the capture or elimination of Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and other militant leaders and supporters?
That goals could not be achieved through military means unless of course the US opts to "nuke" the vast Pak-Afghan border areas.
What other options does the US have?
The only option, it is clear, is withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Afghanistan as part of a political settlement negotiated with the participation all the significant players in the country, including the Taliban, and endorsed and guaranteed by the country's neighbours and other regional powers.
The Taliban now say they are ready to negotiate but only after foreign troops have left the country. However, that is a reservation that could be overcome if there is a genuine desire on the part of the US and its allies to scrap or at least scale down
their strategic geopolitical and economic objectives in the region and to leave the Afghans alone. The rest is easy.
Any takers?
How to end a losing war
THE world is looking for signs of a political will and inclination in the US towards ending its disastrous military presence in Afghanistan. The first impression one gets is that the US has no intention to get out of the chaotic country, given its strategic goal of having a decisive say when it comes to tapping the hydrocarbon and other natural resources of Central Asia and getting them out using Afghan territory.
However, the worsening situation in the country, the increasing number of casualties among the US-led international forces there and a dawning realisation that there could be no winners in the Afghan conflict should give rise to serious thinking in Washington about geting out.
Let us face the realities. The Taliban have definitely staged a strong comeback. They have acquired enough experience in the last seven years of fighting with the foreign forces in their country that they are now capable of mounting massive conventional attacks and inflict high casualties among the US-led occupation forces.
The Taliban-led war has spread from the south to the east and the area around Kabul, the capital. International aid agencies are reporting that insecurity is spreading to areas which were once considered stable.
The US has lost 101 soldiers so far this year compared with the 111 for the whole of last year.
In recent weeks, the Taliban staged multiple attacks on the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in which 10 newly arrived French soldiers were killed near Kabul. Their suicide bombers also hit a US base in one of the most daring attacks since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. These operations followed the killing of nine US soldiers in a single attack last month, and the freeing of hundreds of Taliban prisoners from Kandahar's main jail in a night-time raid in June.
Further complicating the scene is the rising number of civilians being killed in US air strikes that are alienating the people of Afghanistan.
The US and its allies content that alleged Pakistani links with the Taliban and the reluctance of the Islamabad government to allow its own people to be targeted for US-led armed action are behind the resurgence of the militant groups in the region. Does it mean that the US-led military forces would be able to check the insurgency, fight off the Taliban and realise the first objectives of the Afghan war — the capture or elimination of Osama Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and other militant leaders and supporters?
That goals could not be achieved through military means unless of course the US opts to "nuke" the vast Pak-Afghan border areas.
What other options does the US have?
The only option, it is clear, is withdrawal of all foreign military forces from Afghanistan as part of a political settlement negotiated with the participation all the significant players in the country, including the Taliban, and endorsed and guaranteed by the country's neighbours and other regional powers.
The Taliban now say they are ready to negotiate but only after foreign troops have left the country. However, that is a reservation that could be overcome if there is a genuine desire on the part of the US and its allies to scrap or at least scale down
their strategic geopolitical and economic objectives in the region and to leave the Afghans alone. The rest is easy.
Any takers?
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Neither could afford to blink
Aug.28, 2008
Neither could afford to blink
BY formally recognising the Georgian rebel regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, Russia has signalled its determination not to back down in the stand-off with the US.
Effectively, Moscow is telling the West to rewrite Russia's name as a power at par with any other country and that it would act in the way it deems fit to protect its interests. It is declaring that it would no longer allow itself to be treated as a "third rate" power in the region.
Indeed, there could be little legitimacy to the Russian intervention in Georgia, but the US should be the last country to accuse Moscow of irresponsible action in violation of international law.
Washington has lost its moral authority, if it had any at all, to criticise the Russian action because its own behaviour in violation of international law by military intervention in other countries.
That should have been one of the key Russian considerations before it decided to intervene militarily in Georgia early this month and is following it up with determination not to let Washington browbeat it.
Moscow is implicitly raising the question to Washington that if the US could invade and occupy Iraq for whatever reasons why should Russia be pulled up for its actions aimed at protecting its interests.
Washington should not be talking about international commitments, given its established record of unilateral action and selective application of UN Security Council resolutions. The latest example of such US behaviour was Washington's recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia in February.
Russia is drawing a direct comparison between South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the one hand, and Kosovo.
As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev wrote in a commentary in Wednesday's issue of The Financial Times, in "international relations, you cannot have one rule for some, and another rule for others."
Moscow has also been incensed the Bush administration did not heed warnings that the US policy of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) expansion right up to Russia's ethnically troubled border with Georgia was provocative to Russia.
The US move to include Georgia and Ukraine as members in NATO could not but be seen as attempt to substitute a Western sphere of influence for Russian in the Caucasus, and it would have been naive to have expected Moscow to allow it.
The Georgian military move this month to bring South Ossetia under its control seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
The US-Poland agreement signed this month under which US will station anti-missile missiles in Polish territory added to the Russian frustration and anger to the point of a warning of nuclear attack against Poland.
One option left to the US and its Western allies to deal with the resurgent Russia is to isolate it. However, Moscow has already made clear that it could not care less for international isolation. On Monday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin questioned the benefits of joining the World Trade Organisation in the short-term implying that the threat of exclusion from this body will not concern Moscow. That shows the trend of thinking in Moscow.
What is indeed of concern is the possibility of a Western-Russian confrontation of some kind if only because of the realisation in Washington and indeed Moscow that neither of them could afford to blink first at this crucial juncture that could reshape post-Cold War relationships.
Surely, there are matured strategists and diplomats on both sides who realise the seriousness of the crisis and who might indeed be engaged in behind-the-scene contacts with a view to defusing it. That is perhaps the best hope.
BY formally recognising the Georgian rebel regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, Russia has signalled its determination not to back down in the stand-off with the US.
Effectively, Moscow is telling the West to rewrite Russia's name as a power at par with any other country and that it would act in the way it deems fit to protect its interests. It is declaring that it would no longer allow itself to be treated as a "third rate" power in the region.
Indeed, there could be little legitimacy to the Russian intervention in Georgia, but the US should be the last country to accuse Moscow of irresponsible action in violation of international law.
Washington has lost its moral authority, if it had any at all, to criticise the Russian action because its own behaviour in violation of international law by military intervention in other countries.
That should have been one of the key Russian considerations before it decided to intervene militarily in Georgia early this month and is following it up with determination not to let Washington browbeat it.
Moscow is implictly raising the question to Washington that if the US could invade and occupy Iraq for whatever reasons why should Russia be pulled up for its actions aimed at protecting its interests.
Washington should not be talking about international commitments, given its established record of unilateral action and selective application of UN Security Council resolutions. The latest example of such US behaviour was Washington's recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia in February.
Russia is drawing a direct comparison between South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the one hand, and Kosovo.
As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev wrote in a commentary in Wednesday's issue of The Financial Times, in "international relations, you cannot have one rule for some, and another rule for others."
Moscow has also been incensed the Bush administration did not heed warnings that the US policy of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) expansion right up to Russia's ethnically troubled border with Georgia was provocative to Russia.
The US move to include Georgia and Ukraine as members in NATO could not but be seen as attempt to substitute a Western sphere of influence for Russian in the Caucasus, and it would have been naive to have expected Moscow to allow it.
The Georgian military move this month to bring South Ossetia under its control seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
The US-Poland agreement signed this month under which US will station anti-missile missiles in Polish territory added to the Russian frustration and anger to the point of a warning of nuclear attack against Poland.
One option left to the US and its Western allies to deal with the resurgent Russia is to isolate it. However, Moscow has already made clear that it could not care less for international isolation. On Monday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin questioned the benefits of joining the World Trade Organisation in the short-term implying that the threat of exclusion from this body will not concern Moscow. That shows the trend of thinking in Moscow.
What is indeed of concern is the possibility of a Western-Russian confrontation of some kind if only because of the realisation in Washington and indeed Moscow that neither of them could afford to blink first at this crucial juncture that could reshape post-Cold War relationships.
Surely, there are matured strategists and diplomats on both sides who realise the seriousness of the crisis and who might indeed be engaged in behind-the-scene contacts with a view to defusing it. That is perhaps the best hope.
Neither could afford to blink
BY formally recognising the Georgian rebel regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, Russia has signalled its determination not to back down in the stand-off with the US.
Effectively, Moscow is telling the West to rewrite Russia's name as a power at par with any other country and that it would act in the way it deems fit to protect its interests. It is declaring that it would no longer allow itself to be treated as a "third rate" power in the region.
Indeed, there could be little legitimacy to the Russian intervention in Georgia, but the US should be the last country to accuse Moscow of irresponsible action in violation of international law.
Washington has lost its moral authority, if it had any at all, to criticise the Russian action because its own behaviour in violation of international law by military intervention in other countries.
That should have been one of the key Russian considerations before it decided to intervene militarily in Georgia early this month and is following it up with determination not to let Washington browbeat it.
Moscow is implicitly raising the question to Washington that if the US could invade and occupy Iraq for whatever reasons why should Russia be pulled up for its actions aimed at protecting its interests.
Washington should not be talking about international commitments, given its established record of unilateral action and selective application of UN Security Council resolutions. The latest example of such US behaviour was Washington's recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia in February.
Russia is drawing a direct comparison between South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the one hand, and Kosovo.
As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev wrote in a commentary in Wednesday's issue of The Financial Times, in "international relations, you cannot have one rule for some, and another rule for others."
Moscow has also been incensed the Bush administration did not heed warnings that the US policy of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) expansion right up to Russia's ethnically troubled border with Georgia was provocative to Russia.
The US move to include Georgia and Ukraine as members in NATO could not but be seen as attempt to substitute a Western sphere of influence for Russian in the Caucasus, and it would have been naive to have expected Moscow to allow it.
The Georgian military move this month to bring South Ossetia under its control seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
The US-Poland agreement signed this month under which US will station anti-missile missiles in Polish territory added to the Russian frustration and anger to the point of a warning of nuclear attack against Poland.
One option left to the US and its Western allies to deal with the resurgent Russia is to isolate it. However, Moscow has already made clear that it could not care less for international isolation. On Monday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin questioned the benefits of joining the World Trade Organisation in the short-term implying that the threat of exclusion from this body will not concern Moscow. That shows the trend of thinking in Moscow.
What is indeed of concern is the possibility of a Western-Russian confrontation of some kind if only because of the realisation in Washington and indeed Moscow that neither of them could afford to blink first at this crucial juncture that could reshape post-Cold War relationships.
Surely, there are matured strategists and diplomats on both sides who realise the seriousness of the crisis and who might indeed be engaged in behind-the-scene contacts with a view to defusing it. That is perhaps the best hope.
BY formally recognising the Georgian rebel regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, Russia has signalled its determination not to back down in the stand-off with the US.
Effectively, Moscow is telling the West to rewrite Russia's name as a power at par with any other country and that it would act in the way it deems fit to protect its interests. It is declaring that it would no longer allow itself to be treated as a "third rate" power in the region.
Indeed, there could be little legitimacy to the Russian intervention in Georgia, but the US should be the last country to accuse Moscow of irresponsible action in violation of international law.
Washington has lost its moral authority, if it had any at all, to criticise the Russian action because its own behaviour in violation of international law by military intervention in other countries.
That should have been one of the key Russian considerations before it decided to intervene militarily in Georgia early this month and is following it up with determination not to let Washington browbeat it.
Moscow is implictly raising the question to Washington that if the US could invade and occupy Iraq for whatever reasons why should Russia be pulled up for its actions aimed at protecting its interests.
Washington should not be talking about international commitments, given its established record of unilateral action and selective application of UN Security Council resolutions. The latest example of such US behaviour was Washington's recognition of Kosovo's independence from Serbia in February.
Russia is drawing a direct comparison between South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the one hand, and Kosovo.
As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev wrote in a commentary in Wednesday's issue of The Financial Times, in "international relations, you cannot have one rule for some, and another rule for others."
Moscow has also been incensed the Bush administration did not heed warnings that the US policy of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) expansion right up to Russia's ethnically troubled border with Georgia was provocative to Russia.
The US move to include Georgia and Ukraine as members in NATO could not but be seen as attempt to substitute a Western sphere of influence for Russian in the Caucasus, and it would have been naive to have expected Moscow to allow it.
The Georgian military move this month to bring South Ossetia under its control seems to have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
The US-Poland agreement signed this month under which US will station anti-missile missiles in Polish territory added to the Russian frustration and anger to the point of a warning of nuclear attack against Poland.
One option left to the US and its Western allies to deal with the resurgent Russia is to isolate it. However, Moscow has already made clear that it could not care less for international isolation. On Monday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin questioned the benefits of joining the World Trade Organisation in the short-term implying that the threat of exclusion from this body will not concern Moscow. That shows the trend of thinking in Moscow.
What is indeed of concern is the possibility of a Western-Russian confrontation of some kind if only because of the realisation in Washington and indeed Moscow that neither of them could afford to blink first at this crucial juncture that could reshape post-Cold War relationships.
Surely, there are matured strategists and diplomats on both sides who realise the seriousness of the crisis and who might indeed be engaged in behind-the-scene contacts with a view to defusing it. That is perhaps the best hope.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Washington suffers yet another setback
Aug.27, 2008
Washington suffers yet another setback
IRAN's warning that Israel is too vulnerable to Iran's longer-range missiles to dare launch a military attack against Iranian targets is indeed what could be expected under the developing scenario. It should be seen within the framework of Iranian defiance against US-led pressure on Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme and signs that Israel is building itself up for military action against Iranian nuclear installations.
The US finds itself in no position to rattle its sabres — and indeed use them — against Iran (unless of course stupidity and thickheadedness reign supreme in Washington which could never be ruled out), particularly in the wake of the rapidly escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over Moscow's intervention in Georgia.
There have also been suggestions that
An acute awareness that the Georgia conflict has tied the US hands seems to be behind the fresh tough talk emanating from Tehran against Israel entertaining any thought of military action against Iran.
"Our strategic assessment shows that if the Zionist regime took action, whether alone or with the United States, in minimal time all of its territory would be vulnerable because this country lacks strategic depth and lies within the range of Iranian missiles," the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said on Wednesday.
"Iran's ballistic capabilities are such that the Zionist regime, with all the means at its disposal, has no way of countering them," Jafari said.
"In the event of an attack against against Iran, the Israelis know that with the capabilities that the Islamic world and the Shiite world have in the region, they will suffer deadly strikes," he added.
Predictably, Israel is interpreting the warning as a threat of military action, but the world knows better than to expect the Iranians to launch its missiles at the Jewish state — if indeed it has rockets of that range — except as retaliation for an Israeli attack.
Jafari's posture underlines the weakened position that the US finds itself under. There is indeed talk of a shift in thinking in Washington against a US. military attack on Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office next January, given the still-uncertain outcome of the Georgia crisis.
On the diplomatic front also, the US faces a serious set back because the likelihood that Moscow will cooperate with US and European efforts to impose additional sanctions on Tehran through the U.N. Security Council has been sharply reduced.
Washington suffers yet another setback
IRAN's warning that Israel is too vulnerable to Iran's longer-range missiles to dare launch a military attack against Iranian targets is indeed what could be expected under the developing scenario. It should be seen within the framework of Iranian defiance against US-led pressure on Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme and signs that Israel is building itself up for military action against Iranian nuclear installations.
The US finds itself in no position to rattle its sabres — and indeed use them — against Iran (unless of course stupidity and thickheadedness reign supreme in Washington which could never be ruled out), particularly in the wake of the rapidly escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over Moscow's intervention in Georgia.
There have also been suggestions that
An acute awareness that the Georgia conflict has tied the US hands seems to be behind the fresh tough talk emanating from Tehran against Israel entertaining any thought of military action against Iran.
"Our strategic assessment shows that if the Zionist regime took action, whether alone or with the United States, in minimal time all of its territory would be vulnerable because this country lacks strategic depth and lies within the range of Iranian missiles," the head of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, said on Wednesday.
"Iran's ballistic capabilities are such that the Zionist regime, with all the means at its disposal, has no way of countering them," Jafari said.
"In the event of an attack against against Iran, the Israelis know that with the capabilities that the Islamic world and the Shiite world have in the region, they will suffer deadly strikes," he added.
Predictably, Israel is interpreting the warning as a threat of military action, but the world knows better than to expect the Iranians to launch its missiles at the Jewish state — if indeed it has rockets of that range — except as retaliation for an Israeli attack.
Jafari's posture underlines the weakened position that the US finds itself under. There is indeed talk of a shift in thinking in Washington against a US. military attack on Iran before President George W. Bush leaves office next January, given the still-uncertain outcome of the Georgia crisis.
On the diplomatic front also, the US faces a serious set back because the likelihood that Moscow will cooperate with US and European efforts to impose additional sanctions on Tehran through the U.N. Security Council has been sharply reduced.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Russian bear back with a vengeance
Aug.24, 2008
Russian bear with a vengeance
RUSSIA seems to have gained an edge in its stand-off with the US with the American ambassador in Moscow, John Beyrle, admitting that the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack in Georgia.
The admission signals a conciliatory tone after repeated Bush administration condemnations of the Russian intervention in Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia province. It comes amid reported efforts by Washington and Moscow to set up a summit between President George W. Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to address the crises in US-Russian relations.
Effectively, Ambassador Beyrle admitted that Georgia was the aggressor in South Ossetia. He said the US did not endorse Georgia’s Aug.8 attack in South Ossetia which sparked a massive Russian reaction when its peacekeepers came under fire.
He also said his country continues to support Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organisation. That is a marked departure from implicit US threats to punish Russia for its intervention in Georgia by isolating it internationally.
It would appear that Washington has come to accept that it could no longer hope to make inroads into areas that Russia considers as its spheres of influence and Moscow has drawn a red line in its international relations, notably with the US, and is determined to defend it.
Moscow has made no secret of its rejection of US unilateralism in the Balkans, planned deployments of anti-missile missile systems in Eastern Europe and expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to include former ex-Soviet republics.
And now it is clear from Russia's words and deeds that it is affirming that it would not accept to be treated anything less than equal by anyone.
By threatening to nuke Poland if it stations US anti-missile missiles in its territory and declaring that it would supply advanced weapons to Syria, which has agreed to allow Russian bases in its territory, Moscow threw the gauntlet at the US. And Washington is found wanting because it realised that the Russians are dead serious.
Ambassador Beyrle’s statement is a sign that Washington wants to freeze the deterioration in relations with Moscow before it spins out of control.
He also signalled that Washington could do business with Moscow if Russia does not pose any threat to Georgia's integrity and regime. “We have seen the destruction of civilian infrastructure, as well as calls by some Russian politicians to change the democratically-elected government of Georgia. That is why we believe that Russia has gone too far.” he said.
The disputes over whether Russia has pulled all its forces out of Georgia and who is control of some key routes in the country are not of major consequence because a new Washington-Moscow modus vivendi would and should clear the air and remove the reasons for arbitrary actions by either side. That is what Washington and Moscow should be aiming for, and it would be a major mistake for either of them to try to impose its will on the other.
Russian bear with a vengeance
RUSSIA seems to have gained an edge in its stand-off with the US with the American ambassador in Moscow, John Beyrle, admitting that the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack in Georgia.
The admission signals a conciliatory tone after repeated Bush administration condemnations of the Russian intervention in Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia province. It comes amid reported efforts by Washington and Moscow to set up a summit between President George W. Bush and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to address the crises in US-Russian relations.
Effectively, Ambassador Beyrle admitted that Georgia was the aggressor in South Ossetia. He said the US did not endorse Georgia’s Aug.8 attack in South Ossetia which sparked a massive Russian reaction when its peacekeepers came under fire.
He also said his country continues to support Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organisation. That is a marked departure from implicit US threats to punish Russia for its intervention in Georgia by isolating it internationally.
It would appear that Washington has come to accept that it could no longer hope to make inroads into areas that Russia considers as its spheres of influence and Moscow has drawn a red line in its international relations, notably with the US, and is determined to defend it.
Moscow has made no secret of its rejection of US unilateralism in the Balkans, planned deployments of anti-missile missile systems in Eastern Europe and expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to include former ex-Soviet republics.
And now it is clear from Russia's words and deeds that it is affirming that it would not accept to be treated anything less than equal by anyone.
By threatening to nuke Poland if it stations US anti-missile missiles in its territory and declaring that it would supply advanced weapons to Syria, which has agreed to allow Russian bases in its territory, Moscow threw the gauntlet at the US. And Washington is found wanting because it realised that the Russians are dead serious.
Ambassador Beyrle’s statement is a sign that Washington wants to freeze the deterioration in relations with Moscow before it spins out of control.
He also signalled that Washington could do business with Moscow if Russia does not pose any threat to Georgia's integrity and regime. “We have seen the destruction of civilian infrastructure, as well as calls by some Russian politicians to change the democratically-elected government of Georgia. That is why we believe that Russia has gone too far.” he said.
The disputes over whether Russia has pulled all its forces out of Georgia and who is control of some key routes in the country are not of major consequence because a new Washington-Moscow modus vivendi would and should clear the air and remove the reasons for arbitrary actions by either side. That is what Washington and Moscow should be aiming for, and it would be a major mistake for either of them to try to impose its will on the other.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
US won't take no for an answer
Aug.23, 2008
US won't take no for an answer
The US is engaged in a frantic effort to convince the Iraqi government to accept an agreement governing the conduct of US forces in Iraq that will be needed when the UN mandate for U.S. military operations in Iraq expires at the end of this year. That was the mission of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made a surprise visit to Iraq on Thursday and held talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.
However, Rice did not seem to have made any headway. An Iraqi spokesman described the one-on-one meeting between Rice and Maliki as "deep and direct," but added that only time will tell if a compromise can be reached.
It appears that mutual trust between the US and Iraqi government is diminishing fast after Maliki refused to budge from his demand that the US announce a strictt timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. He also insisted that US troops must be subject to Iraqi law when they're outside their bases.
The Rice trip and the Iraqi assessment of her talks with Maliki indicate that the two sides remain wide apart on the issue. That belies the claim by Iraqi and American officials they were on the brink of a security agreement.
According to officials, Maliki had demanded that US combat forces leave his country by 2010, but the agreement includes only a vague goal of having combat troops out by 2011 if conditions permit.
Again the ambiguity of such assertions by US officials indicate that Washington continues to entertain hopes that Iraq could be persuaded to sign an agreement that would allow the US to maintain permanent military presence in the country.
Maliki and other Iraqi politicians seem to have seen through the US approach. There was no ambiguity that they want the US out and are using tough words to press the demand..
"The Iraqi government wants as a sovereign country to be the master of the law in Iraq," according to Ali Al Adeeb, a Shiite MP from Maliki's Dawa party. "There needs to be a strict timetable, otherwise these forces will stay forever. Not having a timetable means they will never leave."
US won't take no for an answer
The US is engaged in a frantic effort to convince the Iraqi government to accept an agreement governing the conduct of US forces in Iraq that will be needed when the UN mandate for U.S. military operations in Iraq expires at the end of this year. That was the mission of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made a surprise visit to Iraq on Thursday and held talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki.
However, Rice did not seem to have made any headway. An Iraqi spokesman described the one-on-one meeting between Rice and Maliki as "deep and direct," but added that only time will tell if a compromise can be reached.
It appears that mutual trust between the US and Iraqi government is diminishing fast after Maliki refused to budge from his demand that the US announce a strictt timetable for the withdrawal of American forces. He also insisted that US troops must be subject to Iraqi law when they're outside their bases.
The Rice trip and the Iraqi assessment of her talks with Maliki indicate that the two sides remain wide apart on the issue. That belies the claim by Iraqi and American officials they were on the brink of a security agreement.
According to officials, Maliki had demanded that US combat forces leave his country by 2010, but the agreement includes only a vague goal of having combat troops out by 2011 if conditions permit.
Again the ambiguity of such assertions by US officials indicate that Washington continues to entertain hopes that Iraq could be persuaded to sign an agreement that would allow the US to maintain permanent military presence in the country.
Maliki and other Iraqi politicians seem to have seen through the US approach. There was no ambiguity that they want the US out and are using tough words to press the demand..
"The Iraqi government wants as a sovereign country to be the master of the law in Iraq," according to Ali Al Adeeb, a Shiite MP from Maliki's Dawa party. "There needs to be a strict timetable, otherwise these forces will stay forever. Not having a timetable means they will never leave."
Friday, August 22, 2008
The other face of US respect for media
Aug.21, 2008
The other face of US respect for media
pv vivekanand
The case of Sami Al Hajj, a cameraman for Al Jazeera Television who is back at work after more than six years as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, is a classic example of the deep hostility that Washington harbours against any media outlet that does not agree with its policies and approaches.
Hajj, 39, was the longest-held journalist in US custody at the time of his release in May. And he was the only journalist held at Guantanamo Bay, which the US claimed was used to hold the "most dangerous terrorists."
US military authorities contented that Hajj was affiliated with Al Qaeda, held him for six years and then released him without charges. There was never any explanation why he was held and why he was freed in May and flown to Sudan but shackled to the floor of the aircraft.
One could bet anything and everything that had there been the slightest trace of any evidence that Hajj had any links with Al Qaeda, then the US authorities would have thrown the book at him.
As Hajj revealed after his release, US authorities wanted him to finger a number of well-known Al Jazeera journalists as being linked to "militant" groups in the Middle East, including Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Obviously, he refused and his captors did not know what to do with him. Perhaps that was one of the reasons for his prolonged detention.
Of course, the US government has denied pressuring Hajj to denounce Al Jazeera or offering to free him if he agreed to spy on the network and argued that it would have dealt with someone higher up than "a cameraman trainee" if it wanted to silence the channel. The use of the title is important because Hajj was not a "trainee' but a full-fledged cameraman when Pakistani authorities arrested him at the border in December 2001 and turned him over to US authorities in Afghanistan January 2002. He was transferred to the US base at Kandahar and flown to Guantanamo in June 2002.
In fact, the arrest and detention of Hajj was not about Hajj himself; it was all about Al Jazeera, which has come under bitter American fire since 2001, with Bush administration officials denouncing it as a platform for "terrorists" and an anti-US propaganda machine.
Al Jazeera incurred US wrath because it called a spade a spade and was critical of US policies and Washington's bias in favour of Israel and its lopsided approach to the Middle East, particularly after the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
The US hostility towards Al Jazeera grew in intensity when the channel carried videotaped messages from Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders as well as Saddam Hussein himself. Al Jazeera's in-depth coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including footage of dead and wounded civilians as well as US military casualties that is rarely shown in the United States, made matters worse.
In essence, Al Jazeera was a thorn on the side of those dealing with the core of US policies in Washington and that explains why then administration officials like Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Douglas Faith used every opportunity to vilify the channel and demand that it be shut down.
It was an open and shut case of the US trying to silence Al Jazeera when US forces destroyed its Kabul bureau in November 2001 and its Baghdad office in April 2003, killing correspondent Tareq Ayoub. Few accepted the US explanation that the attacks were accidents.
Robert Fisk of the Independent refuted the US account of the attack in Baghdad. He wrote shortly after the attack that Mohamed Jassem Al Ali, the managing director of Al Jazeera, had sent Victoria Clarke, the US assistant secretary of state of defence for public affairs in Washington, a letter in February 2003 giving the address and the map co-ordinates of the station's office in Baghdad, adding that civilian journalists would be working in the building.
"The Americans were outraged at Al Jazeera's coverage of the civilian victims of US bombing raids," Fisk wrote. "And on 8 April .... an American aircraft fired a single missile at the Al Jazeera office — at those precise map coordinates Mr Ali had sent to Ms Clarke — and killed the station's reporter Tareq Ayoub."
Fisk added that Ali "has the painful experience of knowing that he gave the Pentagon the map coordinates to kill his own reporter."
Since then, it has also emerged that Washington had even contemplated an attack that would have destroyed the Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha but held back because of the warm relationship between the US and Qatar.
The US is holding another journalist detained in Afghanistan. Jawed Ahmad (also known as Jojo Yazemi), 22 , an Afghan reporter working for Canadian CTV who was arrested by American troops and declared an unlawful enemy combatant, while working with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at Kandahar airport on Oct.26, 2007.
The native of Kandahar, who was accused of carrying phone numbers and videos of Taliban officials, was produced before a military tribunal, which ruled that there was "credible information" to support the charges and is held at Bagram airbase.
Another prominent case was that of Bilal Hussein, an Associated Press photojournalist in Iraq who had been detained by US forces, suspected of helpin insurgents in Iraq.
Hussein was in US military detention since April 2006 until April 2008 without publicly known charges or hearings, with his captors citing "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions.
However, it was reported Hussein's has in his possession a photograph that were part of a package of 20 Associated Press photographs that won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography. It was an image of four guerrillas in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms during a US military assault on the city in November 2004. The US military alleged that Hussein took photographs synchronised with explosions, indicating he was at a location ahead of time.
The Associated Press countered that he was "simply the unlucky fellow who happened to be the photographer for the world's largest newsgathering organisation in a difficult province."
On April 14, 2008 the US military announced it would release Hussein from custody on April 16, 2008, saying only that "he no longer presents an imperative threat to security." The release came after an Iraqi judicial council found Hussein innocent of all of the charges and ordered his immediate release two years after he was "arrested" by the US military.
Indeed, the cases of Bilal Hussein and Jawed Ahmed are distinctly different from that of Hajj, but they all happen to be journalists who were arrested as they were doing their job and detained without charges. It is not that such detentions are a monopoly of the US. They occur in countries where regimes are scared of the media and want to silence them. However, the detention of journalists takes a different dimension when it involves the government of the US — a country which describes itself as absolutely committed to respecting and upholding media freedom.
The other face of US respect for media
pv vivekanand
The case of Sami Al Hajj, a cameraman for Al Jazeera Television who is back at work after more than six years as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, is a classic example of the deep hostility that Washington harbours against any media outlet that does not agree with its policies and approaches.
Hajj, 39, was the longest-held journalist in US custody at the time of his release in May. And he was the only journalist held at Guantanamo Bay, which the US claimed was used to hold the "most dangerous terrorists."
US military authorities contented that Hajj was affiliated with Al Qaeda, held him for six years and then released him without charges. There was never any explanation why he was held and why he was freed in May and flown to Sudan but shackled to the floor of the aircraft.
One could bet anything and everything that had there been the slightest trace of any evidence that Hajj had any links with Al Qaeda, then the US authorities would have thrown the book at him.
As Hajj revealed after his release, US authorities wanted him to finger a number of well-known Al Jazeera journalists as being linked to "militant" groups in the Middle East, including Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Obviously, he refused and his captors did not know what to do with him. Perhaps that was one of the reasons for his prolonged detention.
Of course, the US government has denied pressuring Hajj to denounce Al Jazeera or offering to free him if he agreed to spy on the network and argued that it would have dealt with someone higher up than "a cameraman trainee" if it wanted to silence the channel. The use of the title is important because Hajj was not a "trainee' but a full-fledged cameraman when Pakistani authorities arrested him at the border in December 2001 and turned him over to US authorities in Afghanistan January 2002. He was transferred to the US base at Kandahar and flown to Guantanamo in June 2002.
In fact, the arrest and detention of Hajj was not about Hajj himself; it was all about Al Jazeera, which has come under bitter American fire since 2001, with Bush administration officials denouncing it as a platform for "terrorists" and an anti-US propaganda machine.
Al Jazeera incurred US wrath because it called a spade a spade and was critical of US policies and Washington's bias in favour of Israel and its lopsided approach to the Middle East, particularly after the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.
The US hostility towards Al Jazeera grew in intensity when the channel carried videotaped messages from Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders as well as Saddam Hussein himself. Al Jazeera's in-depth coverage of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, including footage of dead and wounded civilians as well as US military casualties that is rarely shown in the United States, made matters worse.
In essence, Al Jazeera was a thorn on the side of those dealing with the core of US policies in Washington and that explains why then administration officials like Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Douglas Faith used every opportunity to vilify the channel and demand that it be shut down.
It was an open and shut case of the US trying to silence Al Jazeera when US forces destroyed its Kabul bureau in November 2001 and its Baghdad office in April 2003, killing correspondent Tareq Ayoub. Few accepted the US explanation that the attacks were accidents.
Robert Fisk of the Independent refuted the US account of the attack in Baghdad. He wrote shortly after the attack that Mohamed Jassem Al Ali, the managing director of Al Jazeera, had sent Victoria Clarke, the US assistant secretary of state of defence for public affairs in Washington, a letter in February 2003 giving the address and the map co-ordinates of the station's office in Baghdad, adding that civilian journalists would be working in the building.
"The Americans were outraged at Al Jazeera's coverage of the civilian victims of US bombing raids," Fisk wrote. "And on 8 April .... an American aircraft fired a single missile at the Al Jazeera office — at those precise map coordinates Mr Ali had sent to Ms Clarke — and killed the station's reporter Tareq Ayoub."
Fisk added that Ali "has the painful experience of knowing that he gave the Pentagon the map coordinates to kill his own reporter."
Since then, it has also emerged that Washington had even contemplated an attack that would have destroyed the Al Jazeera headquarters in Doha but held back because of the warm relationship between the US and Qatar.
The US is holding another journalist detained in Afghanistan. Jawed Ahmad (also known as Jojo Yazemi), 22 , an Afghan reporter working for Canadian CTV who was arrested by American troops and declared an unlawful enemy combatant, while working with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation at Kandahar airport on Oct.26, 2007.
The native of Kandahar, who was accused of carrying phone numbers and videos of Taliban officials, was produced before a military tribunal, which ruled that there was "credible information" to support the charges and is held at Bagram airbase.
Another prominent case was that of Bilal Hussein, an Associated Press photojournalist in Iraq who had been detained by US forces, suspected of helpin insurgents in Iraq.
Hussein was in US military detention since April 2006 until April 2008 without publicly known charges or hearings, with his captors citing "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions.
However, it was reported Hussein's has in his possession a photograph that were part of a package of 20 Associated Press photographs that won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography. It was an image of four guerrillas in Fallujah firing a mortar and small arms during a US military assault on the city in November 2004. The US military alleged that Hussein took photographs synchronised with explosions, indicating he was at a location ahead of time.
The Associated Press countered that he was "simply the unlucky fellow who happened to be the photographer for the world's largest newsgathering organisation in a difficult province."
On April 14, 2008 the US military announced it would release Hussein from custody on April 16, 2008, saying only that "he no longer presents an imperative threat to security." The release came after an Iraqi judicial council found Hussein innocent of all of the charges and ordered his immediate release two years after he was "arrested" by the US military.
Indeed, the cases of Bilal Hussein and Jawed Ahmed are distinctly different from that of Hajj, but they all happen to be journalists who were arrested as they were doing their job and detained without charges. It is not that such detentions are a monopoly of the US. They occur in countries where regimes are scared of the media and want to silence them. However, the detention of journalists takes a different dimension when it involves the government of the US — a country which describes itself as absolutely committed to respecting and upholding media freedom.
Oil and gas options not in short supply
Aug.22, 2008
Oil and gas options not in short supply
We could easily guess who is targeted in the ongoing focus on Iraq's oil industry, with American advisers warning that political gridlocks more than security risks are blocking the rehabilitation of the country's hydrocarbon sector.
Definitely, it is a message to the Iraqi parliament that it should move quickly to adopt a US-drafted law on the country's oil industry and grant concessions to major international players in the oil and gas sectors.
Obviously, at stake are the interests of the half a dozen or so American and European oil companies which were rubbing their knuckles in glee in anticipation of lucrative oil deals. They were hoping for open-ended deals on their terms under the draft oil law. But when it became clear that the draft bill has little chance of being adopted by the Iraqi parliament, the American advisers of the Iraqi Oil Ministry came up with a stopgap measure: Short-term technical contracts that would allow the oil companies to take their first solid step into the Iraqi oil industry.
However, the resurgent Iraqi government, mindful of the pitfalls of writing away their country's hydrocarbon wealth to the West, delayed the signing of the short-term oil service contracts with oil majors due to disagreements over payment terms and their duration. And it has also become clear that Iraq would not give companies that signed short-term contracts preferential treatment for the more sought-after long-term deals.
Now the American advisers of the Iraqi Oil Ministry, are trying to tell the Iraqi government that it is not the way to do things by issuing warnings.
But the call would not find many takers in Iraq. Politicians and community leaders in the chaotic country have become acutely aware of the Western objective of tapping their country's oil wealth while giving little to the people of Iraq.
Iraq's electricity minister, Karim Waheed, placed his finger on the pulse when he charged this week that international oil companies are trying to overcharge the war-torn country instead of helping develop its oil and gas sector.
According to Waheed, foreign oil companies had counted on Iraq's ignorance of the markets in trying to overcharge the country in a time of need.
"Some companies in those cases demanded sky-high prices for their services, thinking Iraq does not have a grasp of international financial markets. They were unpleasantly surprised when they found out we fully understand global commodity markets and global stock markets," he said.
Well, Waheed and his colleagues in the Iraqi cabinet do not need to look too far for alternatives. They could turn to the oil companies from the eastern part of the world, including China, India, Malaysia and others, which were bluntly denied the short-term contracts, and develop a healthy and mutually beneficial working relationship with them.
That approach would also fit in with the newfound independence and confidence that the Iraqi government had been asserting while dealing with the American military occupiers of the country.
Oil and gas options not in short supply
We could easily guess who is targeted in the ongoing focus on Iraq's oil industry, with American advisers warning that political gridlocks more than security risks are blocking the rehabilitation of the country's hydrocarbon sector.
Definitely, it is a message to the Iraqi parliament that it should move quickly to adopt a US-drafted law on the country's oil industry and grant concessions to major international players in the oil and gas sectors.
Obviously, at stake are the interests of the half a dozen or so American and European oil companies which were rubbing their knuckles in glee in anticipation of lucrative oil deals. They were hoping for open-ended deals on their terms under the draft oil law. But when it became clear that the draft bill has little chance of being adopted by the Iraqi parliament, the American advisers of the Iraqi Oil Ministry came up with a stopgap measure: Short-term technical contracts that would allow the oil companies to take their first solid step into the Iraqi oil industry.
However, the resurgent Iraqi government, mindful of the pitfalls of writing away their country's hydrocarbon wealth to the West, delayed the signing of the short-term oil service contracts with oil majors due to disagreements over payment terms and their duration. And it has also become clear that Iraq would not give companies that signed short-term contracts preferential treatment for the more sought-after long-term deals.
Now the American advisers of the Iraqi Oil Ministry, are trying to tell the Iraqi government that it is not the way to do things by issuing warnings.
But the call would not find many takers in Iraq. Politicians and community leaders in the chaotic country have become acutely aware of the Western objective of tapping their country's oil wealth while giving little to the people of Iraq.
Iraq's electricity minister, Karim Waheed, placed his finger on the pulse when he charged this week that international oil companies are trying to overcharge the war-torn country instead of helping develop its oil and gas sector.
According to Waheed, foreign oil companies had counted on Iraq's ignorance of the markets in trying to overcharge the country in a time of need.
"Some companies in those cases demanded sky-high prices for their services, thinking Iraq does not have a grasp of international financial markets. They were unpleasantly surprised when they found out we fully understand global commodity markets and global stock markets," he said.
Well, Waheed and his colleagues in the Iraqi cabinet do not need to look too far for alternatives. They could turn to the oil companies from the eastern part of the world, including China, India, Malaysia and others, which were bluntly denied the short-term contracts, and develop a healthy and mutually beneficial working relationship with them.
That approach would also fit in with the newfound independence and confidence that the Iraqi government had been asserting while dealing with the American military occupiers of the country.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Need to cool rhetoric
Aug.21 2008
Need to cool rhetoric,
avert revived Cold War
The Cold War seems to have been rekindled and it does not bode well for world peace and security because the tone of threats, implied and otherwise, has gone up several notches from the levels of the second half of last century.
Russia has openly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Poland if it allows the deployment of US anti-missile missiles in its territory on the pretext that it is defence against possible missile attacks from "rogue states" like Iran. It warned that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack. Russian forces would target “the allies of countries having nuclear weapons” to destroy them “as a first priority,” according to a senior Russia military commander.
However, Warsaw has gone ahead with signing an agreement with the US.
The flare-up comes against the backdrop of Russian military intervention in the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia. And Abkhazia, another Georgian separatist region, is said to be seeking Russian recognition as an independent state.
US President George Bush, who broke an international understanding when he recognised Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia only six months ago, says that "the Cold War is over… Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."
According to Bush, Russia’s military intervention in Georgia had damaged its credibility and the US stands with the people of Georgia. He called for the withdrawal of “invading forces from all Georgian territory.” Hwever, Moscow was in no mood to comply immediately. It took its own times planning and implementing the withdrawal call as part of a ceasefire it signed with Georgia.
Russian troops were said to be leaving Georgia on Wednesday, but that does not in any manner signal an end to the brewing conflict which has far larger dimensions than meet the eye.
Russia's Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn has accused Israel of arming the Georgian military with mines, explosive charges, special explosives for clearing minefields and eight kinds of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Israel has also sent trainers to help the Georgian military, something that Georgia itself has admitted. The Georgian defence minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is believed to have played a key role in building strong Israel-Georgia military relations backed by the US.
Israel has interpreted the Russian charge that it supplied weapons to Georgia as preparing the ground for selling advanced Russian weapons to Syria, particularly the advanced Iskandar missiles.
It notes that Nogovitsyn's charge came on the eve of a visit to Moscow by Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and contends that the occasion would be used to seal deals for the supply of sophisticated weapons systems not so far released to Syria by Moscow.
No doubt, the Israeli contention is linked to the Jewish state's quest for increased US military assistance to "protect" it against the "new threat" that is perceived in the alleged Russian deal with Syria.
The end result, however, will be a stepped up arms race in the Middle East. It is imperative that both Washington and Moscow immediately move to cool the rhetoric and review bilateral relations with a view to averting the dangers that lurk round the corner.
Need to cool rhetoric,
avert revived Cold War
The Cold War seems to have been rekindled and it does not bode well for world peace and security because the tone of threats, implied and otherwise, has gone up several notches from the levels of the second half of last century.
Russia has openly threatened to use nuclear weapons against Poland if it allows the deployment of US anti-missile missiles in its territory on the pretext that it is defence against possible missile attacks from "rogue states" like Iran. It warned that any new US assets in Europe could come under Russian nuclear attack. Russian forces would target “the allies of countries having nuclear weapons” to destroy them “as a first priority,” according to a senior Russia military commander.
However, Warsaw has gone ahead with signing an agreement with the US.
The flare-up comes against the backdrop of Russian military intervention in the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia. And Abkhazia, another Georgian separatist region, is said to be seeking Russian recognition as an independent state.
US President George Bush, who broke an international understanding when he recognised Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia only six months ago, says that "the Cold War is over… Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century."
According to Bush, Russia’s military intervention in Georgia had damaged its credibility and the US stands with the people of Georgia. He called for the withdrawal of “invading forces from all Georgian territory.” Hwever, Moscow was in no mood to comply immediately. It took its own times planning and implementing the withdrawal call as part of a ceasefire it signed with Georgia.
Russian troops were said to be leaving Georgia on Wednesday, but that does not in any manner signal an end to the brewing conflict which has far larger dimensions than meet the eye.
Russia's Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn has accused Israel of arming the Georgian military with mines, explosive charges, special explosives for clearing minefields and eight kinds of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Israel has also sent trainers to help the Georgian military, something that Georgia itself has admitted. The Georgian defence minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is believed to have played a key role in building strong Israel-Georgia military relations backed by the US.
Israel has interpreted the Russian charge that it supplied weapons to Georgia as preparing the ground for selling advanced Russian weapons to Syria, particularly the advanced Iskandar missiles.
It notes that Nogovitsyn's charge came on the eve of a visit to Moscow by Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and contends that the occasion would be used to seal deals for the supply of sophisticated weapons systems not so far released to Syria by Moscow.
No doubt, the Israeli contention is linked to the Jewish state's quest for increased US military assistance to "protect" it against the "new threat" that is perceived in the alleged Russian deal with Syria.
The end result, however, will be a stepped up arms race in the Middle East. It is imperative that both Washington and Moscow immediately move to cool the rhetoric and review bilateral relations with a view to averting the dangers that lurk round the corner.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
New nails in the coffin of justifications
New nails in the coffin of justifications
by pv vivekanand
IT is indeed water that flowed under the bridge by now, but a revelation that Washington concocted a fake letter purporting to show a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda exposes yet again the Bush administration's determined and deceptive one-track move towards invading and occupying Iraq more than five years ago.
It was reportedly earlier that US Vice-President Dick Cheney had ordered intelligence preparations in order to set the ground for military action against Iraq as early as Sept.14, 2001, three days after the purportedly Al Qaeda air assaults in New York and Washington.
Cheney and close neocon aides set up a new office from where they processed — "doctored" would be more appropriate — "intelligence" gathered by various US spying agencies before sending it to the White House. It is now known that every bit of false intelligence that reached the White House and other offices which mattered in Washington originated in or passed through the Cheney-run Office of Special Operations.
As such it is not difficult to accept the revelation made by Washington-based journalist Ron Suskind, who notes in his new book, "The Way of the World," that the fake letter showing an Iraq-Al Qaeda link was reported earlier but that it had been treated as if it were genuine.
The letter was supposedly written by Tahir Jalil Habbush Al Tikriti, Saddam's intelligence supremo, to the then Iraqi president.
"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001," Suskind writes. "It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, something the vice president's office had been pressing CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link."
Suskind names two people who received the order to forge the letter — Rob Richer, the CIA's former head of the Near East division and deputy director of clandestine operations and John Maquire, who oversaw the CIA's Iraq Operations Group.
Shortly after the Sept.11 attacks, Cheney himself and several other top Bush administration officials declared that there was contact between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Czechoslovakia and this was evidence that Saddam played a role in the assaults on the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC.
While the alleged link was played up prominently in the mainstream corporate media in the US and around the world, a subsequent intelligence report that belied the contention was downplayed. Cheney and neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and others continued to maintain that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were linked. The one senior official to say otherwise was then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who admitted that all talk of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam did not stand up to scrutiny.
However, the Cheney-driven build-up for war against Iraq continued at a high pitch. They were helped by their allies in London, including Lord David Owen, who made a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
By February 2003 — one month before US military tanks rolled across the borders of Iraq — more than 63 per cent of Americans were convinced that Saddam had ordered the Sept.11 attacks and posed much graver threats to their security and well-being.
We in this part of the world were left wondering how Osama Bin Laden could have had a link with Saddam. On many occasions, Bin Laden has stated that he loathed Saddam and that he held the Iraqi strongman responsible for the "tragedies" that befell the Middle East as a result of his 1990 invasion of Kuwait that brought foreign military forces to the region.
Bin Laden considered Saddam a hypocrite and unbeliever who used Islam for political purposes. He often cited Saddam's off-again, on-again ban against alcohol in Iraq as an example of how the Iraqi leader was manipulating religious edicts.
In late 1998 that Bin Laden spurned a Saddam offer of safe refuge in Iraq after US forces fired missiles at a militant base in Afghanistan following Al Qaeda attacks on two US embassies in Africa.
Former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright told the British Broadcasting Corporation in a May 2004 interview: "I never believed that Al Qaeda was involved with Saddam Hussein before. I now do think that Al Qaeda and various terrorist groups are operating within Iraq."
As could be expected, the White House and the CIA categorically denied Suskind's charge in "The Way of the World."
"The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd," Reuters quoted White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto as saying.
Former CIA Director George Tenet, in a statement distributed by the White House, said: "There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort."
Interestingly, Tenet appeared to be referring to the Office of Special Operations when he said:
"It is well established that, at my direction, CIA resisted efforts on the part of some in the administration to paint a picture of Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections that went beyond the evidence."
Suskind's revelations are indeed new nails in the coffin of all justifications for the US-led invasion of Iraq — not that the world needed them since it has been established beyond doubt that the neconservatives in Washington had for long planned military action against that country. They marked time until George Bush Junior came along as president in January 2001 and the New York and Washington assaults took place nine months later.
by pv vivekanand
IT is indeed water that flowed under the bridge by now, but a revelation that Washington concocted a fake letter purporting to show a link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda exposes yet again the Bush administration's determined and deceptive one-track move towards invading and occupying Iraq more than five years ago.
It was reportedly earlier that US Vice-President Dick Cheney had ordered intelligence preparations in order to set the ground for military action against Iraq as early as Sept.14, 2001, three days after the purportedly Al Qaeda air assaults in New York and Washington.
Cheney and close neocon aides set up a new office from where they processed — "doctored" would be more appropriate — "intelligence" gathered by various US spying agencies before sending it to the White House. It is now known that every bit of false intelligence that reached the White House and other offices which mattered in Washington originated in or passed through the Cheney-run Office of Special Operations.
As such it is not difficult to accept the revelation made by Washington-based journalist Ron Suskind, who notes in his new book, "The Way of the World," that the fake letter showing an Iraq-Al Qaeda link was reported earlier but that it had been treated as if it were genuine.
The letter was supposedly written by Tahir Jalil Habbush Al Tikriti, Saddam's intelligence supremo, to the then Iraqi president.
"The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001," Suskind writes. "It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, something the vice president's office had been pressing CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link."
Suskind names two people who received the order to forge the letter — Rob Richer, the CIA's former head of the Near East division and deputy director of clandestine operations and John Maquire, who oversaw the CIA's Iraq Operations Group.
Shortly after the Sept.11 attacks, Cheney himself and several other top Bush administration officials declared that there was contact between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Czechoslovakia and this was evidence that Saddam played a role in the assaults on the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC.
While the alleged link was played up prominently in the mainstream corporate media in the US and around the world, a subsequent intelligence report that belied the contention was downplayed. Cheney and neocons like Paul Wolfowitz and others continued to maintain that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were linked. The one senior official to say otherwise was then defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who admitted that all talk of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam did not stand up to scrutiny.
However, the Cheney-driven build-up for war against Iraq continued at a high pitch. They were helped by their allies in London, including Lord David Owen, who made a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
By February 2003 — one month before US military tanks rolled across the borders of Iraq — more than 63 per cent of Americans were convinced that Saddam had ordered the Sept.11 attacks and posed much graver threats to their security and well-being.
We in this part of the world were left wondering how Osama Bin Laden could have had a link with Saddam. On many occasions, Bin Laden has stated that he loathed Saddam and that he held the Iraqi strongman responsible for the "tragedies" that befell the Middle East as a result of his 1990 invasion of Kuwait that brought foreign military forces to the region.
Bin Laden considered Saddam a hypocrite and unbeliever who used Islam for political purposes. He often cited Saddam's off-again, on-again ban against alcohol in Iraq as an example of how the Iraqi leader was manipulating religious edicts.
In late 1998 that Bin Laden spurned a Saddam offer of safe refuge in Iraq after US forces fired missiles at a militant base in Afghanistan following Al Qaeda attacks on two US embassies in Africa.
Former American secretary of state Madeleine Albright told the British Broadcasting Corporation in a May 2004 interview: "I never believed that Al Qaeda was involved with Saddam Hussein before. I now do think that Al Qaeda and various terrorist groups are operating within Iraq."
As could be expected, the White House and the CIA categorically denied Suskind's charge in "The Way of the World."
"The notion that the White House directed anyone to forge a letter from Habbush to Saddam Hussein is absurd," Reuters quoted White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto as saying.
Former CIA Director George Tenet, in a statement distributed by the White House, said: "There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort."
Interestingly, Tenet appeared to be referring to the Office of Special Operations when he said:
"It is well established that, at my direction, CIA resisted efforts on the part of some in the administration to paint a picture of Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections that went beyond the evidence."
Suskind's revelations are indeed new nails in the coffin of all justifications for the US-led invasion of Iraq — not that the world needed them since it has been established beyond doubt that the neconservatives in Washington had for long planned military action against that country. They marked time until George Bush Junior came along as president in January 2001 and the New York and Washington assaults took place nine months later.
Days of anxiety are far from over
Aug.19, 2008
Days of anxiety are far from over
Pervez Musharraf, isolated and under fire over the past 18 months, has announced his resignation in the face of a threatened impeachment by the ruling coalition government.
It was a foregone conclusion that Musharraf would have to step down after his allies lost the parliamentary elections held in February. The ruling coalition demanded his resignation but the former army chief and firm US ally who seized power in a coup in 1999 refused to let go until Monday when it became absolutely clear that he would definitely be impeached on charges of violating of the constitution and of gross misconduct if he did not step down.
Musharraf should have seen the writing on the wall and could have taken the dignified way out earlier, but his fears that leaders of the ruling coalition — including Nawaz Sharif whom he toppled and sent into exile nine years ago — would seek to exact revenge from him after he leaves office appeared to have prevented him from quitting.
The military, which has always played a decisive role in Pakistani politics, deserves praise for remaining neutral in the conflict, leaving politics to politicians.
Had the military intervened, then it would have led to more chaos and destablisation of the country.
Musharraf's future remained uncertain on Monday, with the government unlikely to grant his request to be allowed to stay at his half-built farmhouse outside Islamabad.
It would appear that Saudi mediation led to his resignation in a deal that involves a Musharraf resignation in return for immunity against trial and/or a safe haven in Saudi Arabia.
So much for the former commando who was once seen as the saviour of Pakistan from political chaos and economic crises.
During his nine turbulent years in office and under constant threat of being targeted for assassination — the Pakistani presidency is called the world's most dangerous job — Musharraf himself insisted time and again that he was the only person who could save Pakistan.
In his announcement on Monday, Musharraf maintained that no charge against him could be proved but that the impeachment process would have plunged the country into more uncertainty. "This is not the time for individual bravado," he declared.
The best message he leaves behind is that the problems Pakistan faced could be solved if people worked together and believed in themselves.
His resignation has raised hopes that it would lead to a strengthening of the government and democracy in the country if the partners in the ruling coalition agree to settle their differences for the common cause of the people.
What is left uncertain now is the course in Pakistan of the US-led "war on terror," which depended heavily of Islamabad's co-operation under the reign of Musharraf.
In fact, the almost unreserved support that Musharraf extended to the US had led to bitter political confrontation and worsening militant violence within the country.
The leaders of the ruling coalition have their political imperatives that would not leave much room for US plans to step up its "war on terror" by staging military operations in Pakistani territory. They have already signalled that they could not and would not permit such operations.
Washington could be expected to use whatever means available to it to ensure continued Pakistani support for its war against Al Qaeda and Taliban and this spells trouble for the Pakistani government if it fails to fall in line.
Given the US approach as militancy continues to mount in the border areas, the days of uncertainty and tension have not really ended with the resignation of Musharraf. The onus is on Washington to reassure the people and government of Pakistan that they would not be turned into pawns in the games that the US plays in South Asia.
The sole assurance that has come from the US and its allies is that the transition from military rule to civilian regime came through elections and not a coup, and therefore it is a sounder basis for future action than the weakened Musharraf.
Let us all hope that the US and its allies do live up to the expectations attached to this assurance.
Days of anxiety are far from over
Pervez Musharraf, isolated and under fire over the past 18 months, has announced his resignation in the face of a threatened impeachment by the ruling coalition government.
It was a foregone conclusion that Musharraf would have to step down after his allies lost the parliamentary elections held in February. The ruling coalition demanded his resignation but the former army chief and firm US ally who seized power in a coup in 1999 refused to let go until Monday when it became absolutely clear that he would definitely be impeached on charges of violating of the constitution and of gross misconduct if he did not step down.
Musharraf should have seen the writing on the wall and could have taken the dignified way out earlier, but his fears that leaders of the ruling coalition — including Nawaz Sharif whom he toppled and sent into exile nine years ago — would seek to exact revenge from him after he leaves office appeared to have prevented him from quitting.
The military, which has always played a decisive role in Pakistani politics, deserves praise for remaining neutral in the conflict, leaving politics to politicians.
Had the military intervened, then it would have led to more chaos and destablisation of the country.
Musharraf's future remained uncertain on Monday, with the government unlikely to grant his request to be allowed to stay at his half-built farmhouse outside Islamabad.
It would appear that Saudi mediation led to his resignation in a deal that involves a Musharraf resignation in return for immunity against trial and/or a safe haven in Saudi Arabia.
So much for the former commando who was once seen as the saviour of Pakistan from political chaos and economic crises.
During his nine turbulent years in office and under constant threat of being targeted for assassination — the Pakistani presidency is called the world's most dangerous job — Musharraf himself insisted time and again that he was the only person who could save Pakistan.
In his announcement on Monday, Musharraf maintained that no charge against him could be proved but that the impeachment process would have plunged the country into more uncertainty. "This is not the time for individual bravado," he declared.
The best message he leaves behind is that the problems Pakistan faced could be solved if people worked together and believed in themselves.
His resignation has raised hopes that it would lead to a strengthening of the government and democracy in the country if the partners in the ruling coalition agree to settle their differences for the common cause of the people.
What is left uncertain now is the course in Pakistan of the US-led "war on terror," which depended heavily of Islamabad's co-operation under the reign of Musharraf.
In fact, the almost unreserved support that Musharraf extended to the US had led to bitter political confrontation and worsening militant violence within the country.
The leaders of the ruling coalition have their political imperatives that would not leave much room for US plans to step up its "war on terror" by staging military operations in Pakistani territory. They have already signalled that they could not and would not permit such operations.
Washington could be expected to use whatever means available to it to ensure continued Pakistani support for its war against Al Qaeda and Taliban and this spells trouble for the Pakistani government if it fails to fall in line.
Given the US approach as militancy continues to mount in the border areas, the days of uncertainty and tension have not really ended with the resignation of Musharraf. The onus is on Washington to reassure the people and government of Pakistan that they would not be turned into pawns in the games that the US plays in South Asia.
The sole assurance that has come from the US and its allies is that the transition from military rule to civilian regime came through elections and not a coup, and therefore it is a sounder basis for future action than the weakened Musharraf.
Let us all hope that the US and its allies do live up to the expectations attached to this assurance.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Echos in Mideast of a distant conflict
Aug.18, 2008
Echos in Mideast of a distant conflict
THE US-RUSSIAN row over the stationing of America's missile interceptors in Poland and US-Israeli military aid to Georgia is of course part of the broader scenario involving US-led efforts for decisive influence in the Russian neighbourhood.
Obviously, Moscow is determined to follow up its military intervention in Georgia with further action aimed at pulling the rug from under the US campaign for influence among countries of the former Soviet Union.
The Russian threat to "nuke" Poland underlines the seriousness with which Moscow is dealing with the situation.
Moscow officials say that Russian military planners have started redesigning the country’s strategic plans for a fitting response to the US decision to install 10 missile interceptors in Poland and to step up help for Georgia in the conflict over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
It now appears that the Middle East could become entangled in the big powers' tug of war. Moscow is said to be eyeing Poland, the Middle East, and possibly Ukraine, as the main arenas for its reprisals for the US campaign in what Russia sees as its natural sphere of influence.
According to reports in the European press, Russia is planning to build major military, naval and air bases in Syria where it could also install Iskandar surface missiles. Obviously, installing Iskandar missiles — which are extremely hard to be detected and intercepted — would be a strong message to Israel. Israeli military advisers are helping Georgia, a staunch US ally which wants to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in the conflict with Russia.
Israel, which has its own plans for Caspian oil and gas at Russia's expense, has also been selling sophisticated weapons to Tbilsi.
As part of its retaliation, Russia could also release advanced weapons systems withheld until now to Iran, mainly the S-300 air-missile defence system. That would a breach of a Russia promise made to the US before the conflict in Georgia that it would not give the nuclear-capable 200-kilometre-range Iskandar missile to Syria or the S-300 system to Iran. And thus the US-Russian conflict could turn
the Middle East into an extremely dangerous region.
Echos in Mideast of a distant conflict
THE US-RUSSIAN row over the stationing of America's missile interceptors in Poland and US-Israeli military aid to Georgia is of course part of the broader scenario involving US-led efforts for decisive influence in the Russian neighbourhood.
Obviously, Moscow is determined to follow up its military intervention in Georgia with further action aimed at pulling the rug from under the US campaign for influence among countries of the former Soviet Union.
The Russian threat to "nuke" Poland underlines the seriousness with which Moscow is dealing with the situation.
Moscow officials say that Russian military planners have started redesigning the country’s strategic plans for a fitting response to the US decision to install 10 missile interceptors in Poland and to step up help for Georgia in the conflict over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
It now appears that the Middle East could become entangled in the big powers' tug of war. Moscow is said to be eyeing Poland, the Middle East, and possibly Ukraine, as the main arenas for its reprisals for the US campaign in what Russia sees as its natural sphere of influence.
According to reports in the European press, Russia is planning to build major military, naval and air bases in Syria where it could also install Iskandar surface missiles. Obviously, installing Iskandar missiles — which are extremely hard to be detected and intercepted — would be a strong message to Israel. Israeli military advisers are helping Georgia, a staunch US ally which wants to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in the conflict with Russia.
Israel, which has its own plans for Caspian oil and gas at Russia's expense, has also been selling sophisticated weapons to Tbilsi.
As part of its retaliation, Russia could also release advanced weapons systems withheld until now to Iran, mainly the S-300 air-missile defence system. That would a breach of a Russia promise made to the US before the conflict in Georgia that it would not give the nuclear-capable 200-kilometre-range Iskandar missile to Syria or the S-300 system to Iran. And thus the US-Russian conflict could turn
the Middle East into an extremely dangerous region.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The deception of 'misunderstanding'
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.
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.
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.
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}