That is the way democracy works

Sept.7, 2008

That is the way democracy works

Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has won a sweeping victory in Pakistan's presidential election. Many in Pakistan say Zardari won by default if only because of his late wife's victory in the general elections held this year where her Pakistan People's Party came home impressively. However, that does not and should not have any bearing on the reality that Zardari won the presidency through democratic means and that is how democracy works.
Judging from the intensity of comments appearing in the Pakistani media as well as on Internet chat sites, the people of Pakistan are not sure whether their new president represents a way out of the political, economic and security crises facing them. They do hope Zardari will have more success, but they see little under the present circumstances in the country to encourage such hopes.
While the media highlighted such issues as the reinstatement of judges fired by the former military rule and the presidential election itself, it was clear that most people are really interested in issues of daily life.
Indeed, Zardari, arguably the most controversial figure in Pakistan in view of the corruption allegations against him, has proved to be a skilled politician.
For years he has been hounded by charges massive corruption and spent 11 years in prison although he has never been convicted. He pulled the right strings at the right time and place to corner former military ruler Pervez Musharraf and prompt him to resign rather than risk being impeached. And then he made room for himself to be his party's candidate for the presidency.
Zardari faces a tough mission ahead as president of Pakistan, which severe economic problems and a rampant insurgency that are threatening the country's stability. Many of his countrymean fear a return to an old-style politics of confrontation at a time when the government needs to focus all its attention to improve the economy and deal with the insurgency.
Zardari in deemed to be pro-Western and a supporter of the US-led "war against terror" and this might help him secure Washington's backing. However, he has to deal with the strong anti-American sentiments among his people and the imperatives of the country's powerful military and intelligence establishments.
The people of Pakistan — and indeed the region itself — are looking anxiously to find out whether Zardari's political skills that propelled him to the presidency includes the ability to grab the initiative and lead the country from the front out of its crises.
Zardari cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that the people of his country are pinning their hopes on him.

Golan can wait, but Tripoli can't

Sept.6, 2008

Golan can wait, but Tripoli can't


SYRIAN President Bashar Al Assad knows well that there is little sense in hoping for any breakthrough for peace with Israel before a new government is installed in the Jewish state and a new administration replaces that of George W Bush in Washington. However, that has not stopped him from continuing indirect talks with Israel and handing proposals for peace to Turkish mediators. He is seeking American participation before entering direct talks and Washington does not seem to be interested. That is only expected because nothing concrete could be expected to happen before the elections in the US and Israel.
At the same time his calculated moves have taken him far ahead in ending his country's alienation with the Europeans as evidenced in his July visit to Paris and this week's presence in Damascus of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who holds the rotating European Union presidency, for a four-way summit that included Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al Thani. who chairs the Gulf Co-operation Council, and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on stability and peace in the Middle East.
As Assad noted at the summit on Thursday, the future of peace negotiations rests on who becomes prime minister in Israel to replace scandal-hit Ehud Olmert and whether the new leader will be committed to pursuing peace with Syria. The postponement of a fifth round of indirect talks between Syria and Israel as a result of the resignation of the chief Israeli negotiator is an example of the uncertainties clouding the negotiations.
The call from Damascus on Israel to agree to return the Golan Heights to Syria and thus clear the way for an agreement has fallen on deaf ears, because there is no such idea in Israel as giving up the strategic plateau, which holds the sources of more than 70 per cent of the Jewish state's water needs. The summit recommendations are unlikely to produce any real movement for peace and stability in the Middle East, the simple reason being that Israel wants to impose its will and interests its neighbours.
More pressing than the Golan at this juncture in time appears to be the situation in northern Lebanon. Assad on Thursday accused external forces of stirring up trouble in northern Lebanon just across the border from Syria. More than 20 people have been killed in Tripoli in the last three months in sectarian fighting linked to Lebanon's broader political troubles. A separate bomb attack in August in the city killed 15 people, including 10 soldiers.
The tensions in Tripoli have clouded Lebanon's return to political stability after Qatar mediated an end to an 18-month power struggle that had paralysed the country. Something needs to be done urgently to check the situation in northern Lebanon from turning worse. Any worsening of the security situation in Lebanon will benefit no one but Israel.

The key casualty in Lockerbie — the truth

Sept.5, 2008

The key casualty in Lockerbie — the truth

By PV Vivekanand


THE so-called Lockerbie affair stemming from the bombing of an American passenger plane over a Scottish town in 1988 has always been intriguing because of many unexplained aspects of the case. Now they are revived again with Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi's son saying his country only accepted responsibility for the bombing to get sanctions lifted.
Asked if Libya accepts responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, Seif Al Islam said in a BBC interview last month: "Yes, we wrote a letter to the Security Council (in 2003) saying we're responsible for the acts of our employees, our people but it doesn't mean that we did it in fact."
He added: "What can you do? Without writing that letter, you will not be able to get rid of the sanction... I admit we played with the words. We had to, we had to, there was no other solution."
Seif Al Islam Qadhafi also states that he believed that Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed Al Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the bombing, was not responsible for the blast. The bombing killed a total of 270 people (259 aboard the flight and 11 on the ground) when Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York — a Boeing 747-121 named Clipper Maid of the Seas — blew up over the town of Lockerbie in southern Scotland.
Megrahi is serving a life sentence in Scotland after he was convicted by a tribunal made up of Scottish judges at a US base in the Netherlands in 2001 . His co-accused Khalifa Fhimah was acquitted. Megrahi filed an appeal but it was turned down despite the emergence of new evidence.
Seif Al Islam Qadhafi's statements came a few days before US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was due in Libya in the first such trip by a top US diplomat since 1953. It is anyone guess whether the Lockerbie issue would be raised during the visit although it is unlikely that either of them would want to reopen what, for all technical purposes, is a closed file despite an appeal hearing for Megrahi next year.

Prosecution case

The prosecution case was that the bombing was ordered by the Libyan government and carried out by Megrahi, who served as a Libyan intelligence agent. According to the prosecution, a suitcase containing a radio rigged with explosives was placed aboard a flight originating in Malta and headed for Germany and this eventually ended up in the cargo hold of Pan Am Flight 103 and exploded over Lockerbie.
Throughout the trial, confusing and contradictory explanations were heard and few could really make any sense of the prosecution version of the bombing because there were too many loopholes.
A Malta shopkeeper who identified Megrahi as the man who purchased a piece of wrapping cloth that was found in the debris of Flight 103 gave conflicting statements as a witness in the case. The defence argued that Megrahi was somewhere else at the time and date that the shopkeeper said he had sold the cloth to the Libyan.
The shopkeeper was wrong about the date and inaccurate in his description of the purchaser when he first spoke to investigators. It was also established that he was given a photograph of Megrahi before he identified the Libyan as the purchaser. That was highly irregular and not acceptable to any judicial authorities.
However, that did not prevent the trial court from considering his description as the foundation for the charge against Megrahi.
The sighting in Malta of a Middle Eastern man who was under suspicion of planning sabotage in Europe around the time of the Pan Am bombing was disregarded as evidence in the case.

Witness credibility

Much worse was the case of another witness, Abdul Majid Giaka, who claimed to be a defector from the Libyan intelligence service to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Giaka was a complete flop on the witness stand and could not provide any evidence to support the charges. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent who was supposed to have strengthened Giaka's testimony was also found to lack credibility.
Since then, it has been found that Giaka was working in a garage of the Libyan intelligence service and had approached the CIA purely driven by monetary considerations.
It emerged after the trial was over that CIA agents were in the courtroom when Giaka was questioned and they conferred with him before he replied. Observers at the trial were quoted as saying that they felt the man was being "coached" on how to answer the questions.
Despite all these gaps and shortcomings in evidence, the tribunal found Megrahi guilty.

Origin of the bomb

The Libyan appealed and the defence produced evidence showing that the cargo holding bay of London's Heathrow was broken in several hours before the Pan Am flight took off. The suggestion was that someone had planted the bomb-laden suitcase in the cargo bay with a New York baggage tag and that it was boarded on Flight 103 as a matter of routine.
Had the appeals court accepted the defence argument, then it would have pulled the rug from under the feet of the prosecution theory that the bomb was placed aboard as unaccompanied air baggage in Valletta, Malta, flown to Frankfurt, Germany, offloaded onto yet another plane to London and then put aboard Flight 103. There would have no case at all.
Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the bombing and became a spokesman for the relatives of British nationals killed in the crash, has repeatedly said that he is convinced that the bomb originated in London.
The alleged Libyan role in the Lockerbie affair was baffling from day one. Experts always questioned by Libya would opt for a complicated Malta-Frankfurt-London-New York route, particularly when there was always room for error, what with the transfer of a baggage containing a bomb between three planes.
The experts point out that placing the bomb on the flight in London would have been much simpler and easier.

Libya a belated suspect

According to Dr. Robert Black, professor of criminal law at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and who worked out the arrangement for trying Megrahi and Fhimah under Scottish law in the Netherlands, says that there was no evidence brought to his attention during the first two and a half years of investigations involved Libya at all.
The first suspect was the Syria-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) led by Ahmed Jibril. The theory was that the group staged the bombing at the behest of Iran, which was seeking to avenge the US downing of an Iranian passenger airliner in the Gulf in 1986 during the Iran-Iraq war.
A group of PFLP-GC operatives was arrested with bomb-making equipment and radios rigged with bombs and primed to explode at altitude just months before the Lockerbie attack. At that time, at least two US diplomatic missions in Europe had received information that militants were planning to bomb an American passenger airliner.
According to Black, there was obvious pressure to refocus the inquiry on Libya and the pressure was so intense that it could have come only from Washington and London. The campaign included tough international sanctions that were built and tightened to the point of nudging Libya to seek a compromise. That compromise was its acceptance to send Megrahi and Fhimah to the US Camp Zeist in the Netherlands for trial by Scottish judges under Scottish law.

The payoff

In 2003, Libya agreed to "take responsibility" for the bombing and to pay $10 million each to the 270 victims in three stages. The US balked at removing Libya from the list of "state sponsors of terrorism" on the agreed date, and Libya refused to pay the last part ($2 million each) to the families of the victims. Subsequently, the US and Libya worked out another deal under which Tripoli declared that it was abandoning a nuclear weapons programme and revealed details of who had provided the technology and equipment (that led to the exposure of Pakistan's Qadeer Khan as the culprit). Washington removed Libya from the "terrorism list" and reopened its diplomatic mission in Tripoli.
Today's Libya is very much in the good books of the US.
Surely, Seif Al Islam Qadhafi's declaration that Libya had nothing to do with the Pan Am bombing should have sent alarm bells ringing in the same quarters from the pressure to implicate Libya had come in the early 90s. They should indeed be alarmed because the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has concluded Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice. The panel has granted him a second appeal against his conviction and the appeal hearings are expected to start in Scotland early next year. Perhaps that would be a forum for some more of intriguing details to come out in one form or another. However, one thing is absolutely clear: The full truth of the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 which took off from London to New York on Dec.21, 1988 would never be known.



 

Backlash awaits US in Somalia

Sept.5, 2008



Backlash awaits US in Somalia


A report recently released by a a major US human rights group should serve as an eye-opener to the world on how the situation has worsened in Somalia as a result of US counterterrorism policies and support for the Ethiopian-backed Transitional Federal Government.
"US counterterrorism policies have not only compromised other international agendas in Somalia, they have generated a high level of anti-Americanism and are contributing to radicalisation of the population," says the report, entitled "Somalia: A Country in Peril, a Foreign Policy Nightmare."
The report calls for a thorough reassessment of US policy, including its support for the Transitional Federal Government and the obsession with its "war on terrorism" in Somalia.
Effectively, as it has happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, the misguided US approach — defence and intelligence operations — designed to make the US "more secure from the threat of terrorism may be increasing the threat of jihadist attacks on American interests," the report says.
In fact, the situation on the ground is far worse than it was 17 years ago, when Mohammed Siad Barre was ousted from power. Some one million have been diplaced when US-backed Ethiopian and Somalia government forces swept the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) out Mogadishu and other major cities and towns. Some 3.5 million Somalis will be dependent on humanitarian aid by the end of this year.
"The situation in Somalia today exceeds the worst-case scenarios conjured up by regional analysts when they first contemplated the possible impact of an Ethiopian military occupation," according to the report. "Over the past 18 months, Somalia has descended into terrible levels of displacement and humanitarian need, armed conflict and assassinations, political meltdown, radicalisation and virulent anti-Americanism."
The US emphasis on fighting the Islamist forces of Somalia — who are in fact seen as the best group that would stabilise the country — by supporting the
the Ethiopian offensive launched in December to protect the Transitional Federal Government has been destructive if the objective was to strengthen the "moderates" in the country. Washington's move to include the Islamist Shabaab on its list of designated terrorist groups last March not only isolated opposition moderates from their own coalition but also prompted the Shabaab intensify their militancy.
US intelligence agencies are also "running" armed militiamen nominally affiliated with the transitional government. These militiamen are answerable mainly to their US operators who could care less about their behaviour on the ground, which include murder, rape and looting, as long as they serve the purpose of fighting the Islamists and tracking suspected miltiants.
As the report highlights, the US bears a major responsibility for the worsening chaos in Somalia. Its obsession with its self-styled war on terror is producing results that are not only wrecking Somalia but also strengthening the militant threat against its own security interests in that part of Africa.

Stakes go up in Korea crisis

Sept.4, 2008

Stakes go up in Korea crisis

Reports that North Korea has started to reassemble its main nuclear facility should have come as a shock to the US, which appeared to have taken Pyongyang for granted after making the six-country disarmament-for-aid deal a few months ago.
While there is no substantiated confirmation that the North Koreans are indeed putting back into order its reactor and other plants at Yongbyon, it would appear to be a safe bet that they have started doing so, making good on threats after the United States failed to remove the country from a "terrorism" blacklist.
North Korea had indeed signalled that it was adopting a tough stand when it announced that it had suspended disabling its nuclear programme. Pyongyang issued a statement on Aug.26 saying that "the US is gravely mistaken if it thinks it can make a house search in (North Korea) as it pleases just as it did in Iraq."
Following that statement, the US State Department cautioned against getting “overly excited” about the recent increase in tensions with North Korea. The North Korean move also exposed the hollow claims in Washington that “substantive” talks with North Korea on the nuclear verification process had taken place.
For some time, it was clear that North Korea was getting increasingly angry at the intrusive verification demands on the dismantling of the programme.
Obviously, Pyongyang was expecting to pick itself up, economically and politically, after the US removes the country from the State Sponsors of Terrorism List as agreed in the six-party agreement struck this year.
Subsequently, the US attached conditions to the removal and this dealt a severe blow to North Korea's hopes. The reported reassembling of its main nuclear plant, which it disabled in late June in a dramatic gesture in the nuclear disablement process, is North Korea's way of getting back at the US and showing that it demands to be treated with respect.
Surely, the US-Russian conflict over Georgia has played a major role in prompting Pyongyang to take the decision because the Georgian crisis has weakened Washington and blunted its options.
Indeed, there would be immediate moves to convince
North Korea to reverse its move, but it is a foregone conclusion that Washington would find that the stakes have gone up dramatically when it launched fresh talks with Pyongyang.

From prison to presidency

Sept.3, 2008

From prison to presidency


IT is more or less clear now that Asif Ali Zardari would be elected president of Pakistan in three days from today. While the Sept.6 election is seen as helping end the political uncertainties in the country, a Zardari presidency is most likely to be troubled at best.
It is perhaps the most dramatic turn for Zardari, who spent 11 years in prison on charges of corruption and bribery while his late wife Benazir Bhutto served as prime minister of the country. For a long time, it looked as if he is destined to spend the rest of his life in prison before political changes based on personal imperatives and agendas in Pakistan came to his rescue.
Convictions and more cases against him were either frozen or set aside in the wake of the victory of Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party in general elections this year.
It was highly unlikely that Zardari could have even eyed the presidency had it not been for the tragic assassination of his wife shortly before the general elections.
Although Bhutto’s son Bilawal, who is finishing college education in the UK, was named as her successor at the helm of the PPP, Zardari has emerged as the de facto party leader.
It was his firm refusal to reinstate 60 judges dismissed by military ruler Pervez Musharraf last year that led to the collapse of the PPP coalition with former prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N party. That refusal was and is seen linked to Zardari's fears that Sharif might use the reinstated judges to revive the frozen corruption cases and charges against him and thus politically destroy him. He could indeed reinstate the judges after he is elected president but then it would be too late for revival of cases against him in view of the presidential immunity introduced by Musharraf.
As the date for the presidential elections comes nearer, the people of Pakistan are confused, given the stigma of corruption attached to Zardari's image, further clouded by doctors' reports that he has suffered from severe depression, dementia, and PTSD while he was in prison.
Within the party itself, there are questions about its stability, with Zardari's confidants purging many of Benazir Bhutto’s closest allies from the upper ranks of the party and reports that party workers were growing increasingly disillusioned.
The question that is being openly asked in Pakistan today is how effective and how long could Zardari function as president, given the dark clouds in his political and personal horizons. That question could not have come at a worse point in time for the country.

Never-say-die US desparate for deal

Sept.2, 2008

Never-say-die US desparate for deal


AN INTENSE US effort to get the Palestinians to sign an "interim peace agreement" before the end of the year has faltered. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has rejected the idea and is insisting on a comprehensive agreement that firmly sets out the foundations of a solution to the Palestinian problem. Abbas acted very much within his rights and political imperatives when he told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that the Palestinians could not be and would not "part of an interim or shelf agreement," least of all for the sake of pleasing the Bush administration.
Olmert's aides have made it no secret that the beleagured Israeli prime minister hoped the Palestinians would sign a document outlining any agreements reached with Israel before he leaves office next year (when his expected resignation this month takes goes into effect).
US President George Bush, who steps down in January 2009, pledged at last year's Annapolis conference that there would be an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement before the end of 2008. Desptie scepticism, the Middle East welcomed the pledge and waited for Bush deliver. Arab leaders also offered help in order to smoothen the way towards such an agreement.
However, it has become abdundantly clear since then that the Israelis and Palestinians remain wide apart of the key issues of the conflict and there is no magic wand that could produce an agreement as promised by Bush.
Frequent summit meetings and negotiating sessions have made little apparent progress on the core issues that have stymied peace efforts for decades — including borders, Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.
The Bush administration is also convinced that there could not be a real agreement between the two sides in the timeframe the US president has set. However, Bush has to show something that could be touted as a major accomplishment during his tenure as president. An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement fits the bill and Bush went for it, hoping to twist arms into producing an agreement that could be waved before the world as one of the most important achievements of his presidency. It is of little concern to Bush or an other member of his administration what the agreement actually contains or whether it remains valid after they leave office.
Indeed, Israel was and is willing to help Bush's plan, but it balked at stating clearly its vision of a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Clearly, the Israeli version of an agreement falls far too short of the minimum that the Palestinians could accept, and hence the deadlock.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat summed it up clearly when he said on Sunday: "We want an agreement to end the (Israeli) occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. President Abbas told Olmert that we will not be part of an interim or shelf agreement. Either we agree on all issues, or no agreement at all."
Effectively, the position rules out an accord by a January target date.
However, that does not mean that the US would give up the effort. Abbas could expect to find himself under increasing pressure to sign on the Israeli-dotted lines knowing well that there is little hope that anything that is included in the agreement stand any chance of being implemented.
Washington is desparate for that document and the world could bet anything that it would not give up whatever the cost until the last moment.

Russian bear corners the US hawk

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.