Unclenching the fist

February 9 2009


Unclenching the fist into an offered hand


THE Obama administration is willing to talk to Iran. That is what President Barack Obama's number two Joe Biden stated in the first landmark foreign policy speech of the new administration in his address to world leaders at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday.
While the speech contained a marked change in tone from the Bush administration, it contained few major new policy initiatives indicating that the Obama administration does not intend to shift tracks on most international issues such as missile defence in Europe, the crisis in Georgia etc.
On the Iran front, the Obama administration's position is that the options before Tehran are clear: Either it abandons its nuclear programme and its support for "terrorism," or face "pressure and isolation."
The world could only wish it was as simple as that. Washington and Tehran remain far apart on most issues, regional and international, after three decades of open hostility and the Iranian regime is unlikely to bow to either demand if only because the high moral ground that the US has adopted for itself.
Tehran's stand in the nuclear dispute is that it is exercising its right to engage in peaceful nuclear activities as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There is no concrete evidence that Iran is engaged in developing nuclear weapons as the US and Israel are alleging. However, most people around the world know that Iran would speed away in that direction when its nuclear programme reaches the right point. That is an issue of great concern to the entire region.
On the "terrorism" front, the world knows the US is referring to alleged Iranian links with the Iraq insurgency and groups like Lebanon's Hizbollah and Palestine's Hamas. Most definitely, it would be impossible for Tehran and Washington to see eye-to-eye to determine who is a "terrorist."
Indeed, a majority of the world community cannot accept the US definition of terrorism and terrorist, particularly in the Middle Eastern context. That is also a no-go area for Tehran and Washington.
Perhaps the US should give more careful attention to the position stated by Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani at the Munich conference one day before Biden spoke.
Larijani spoke of a "golden opportunity for
the United States" — implying that if the Obama administration goes far enough in conciliatory signals Tehran could positively.
Particularly interesting was Larijani's call on the US to switch "to a chess game instead of a boxing match." It meant that Tehran would be receptive to more subtle US negotiating tactics.
In a private meeting on Saturday with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana , Larijani reportedly rejected the US policy of "carrot and stick."
Clearly, the signals coming from Larijani show that his country is expecting a better fine-tuned diplomatic approach from the West than offers of blandishments coupled with threats.
Biden gave no indication that Washington had heard the Iranian message loud and clear. Instead, he and other Western leaders attending the Munich forum opted to offer an "unclenched fist" that could turn
into an extended hand if the Iranians backed down.
This is the clincher. Iran's post-revolution history shows that warnings and threats would not work with the Iranians. Military action against Iran would have unpredictable repercussions in the region and beyond — no one except Israel wants it anyway.
Surely, there should be a position between the "unclenched fist" and the "extended hand" and that could be the best the West could embrace while dealing with the Iranians.

No more high horses in Iraq

February 8 2009

No more high horses in Iraq


THE IRAQI government says that the US military is not respecting the status of forces agreement signed in December that includes a clause that calls for co-ordination with the Iraqi authorities before operations targeting Iraqis.
In one such incident, American soldiers killed and shot an Iraqi couple in their home near Kirkuk in northern Iraq and wounded their eight-year-old daughter. In another, American soldiers shot and killed an elderly Iraqi man outside Kirkuk. Whatever the circumstances under which the US soldiers opened fire, there was no consideration that exempted the US military from the requirement to co-ordinate with local Iraqi authorities.
In both cases, American soldiers simply stormed the residences of the victims and opened fire. Local police said they had no prior knowledge of the raids. Iraqi policemen who went to the scenes of attack were prevented from entering the area by American soldiers.
This a blatant violation of the provision in the status of forces agreement calling for American troops to have “full co-ordination with Iraqi authorities” ahead of any operation targeting Iraqis. The US military is continuing as if no such agreement exists and is pressing ahead with operations as the case was before the signing of the accord in December after months of haggling.
Some reports indicate that US Special Forces units are carrying out arbitrary attacks against Iraqis without informing the local Iraqi authorities. The US military commanders in the areas where the attacks took place saying that they were not informed in advance of the raids.
Whatever might be the reason, such behaviour sparks anger among Iraqis, including those who co-operate with the US military in the anti-insurgency battle in the country. That is indeed a serious challenge since the elements are in place for a full-scale resumption of a war of resistance against the US. If that happens, then out goes any chance of a US departure from Iraq as called for in the status of forces agreement.
Parallel to that consideration is the fact that arbitrary American military operations against Iraqis weaken the government of Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki. Perhaps one of the reasons for the US violation of the agreement is that the US military does not want to be bound by any restriction in its operations in Iraq.
At the same time, the US might also want to clip the wings of the Iraqi government, particularly that Maliki's party emerged as the main winner in the recent provincial elections in the country. This has boosted Maliki, who has been consistently displaying increased measures of independence that has been disturbing to the US.
Whatever the reason, whatever the circumstance, the US military needs to support the authority of the Iraqi government rather than challenge it if the Obama administration were to hope for a smooth military withdrawal from Iraq as it has promised. The region is indeed pinning hopes that the Obama administration is serious and remains committed to the pledge. We are looking forward to a US departure from Iraq and the people of Iraq gaining full control of their lives. Nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of that prized goal even if it means that the US military has to climb down from its high horse.

Israeli assault has only boosted Hamas

February 6 2009


Israeli assault has only boosted Hamas


ONE OF Israel's key objectives of its brutal 22-day assault on the Gaza Strip was to an end to Palestinian rocket attacks across the border at Israeli towns. Another goal was to weaken the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) by inflicting as much damage as possible on the residents of the area and telling them that Hamas was responsible for their suffering because of its hard-line positions.
On both counts, Israel failed despite having killed more than 1300 people and wounded thousands more and left large swathes of the territory in ruins.
The Palestinians have shown that they are still capable of firing rockets targeting Israelis across the border. Such rocket attacks continued even on Friday, one day before Hamas was to respond to proposals for a more stable ceasefire being worked out by Egypt.
On the second count — popular support for Hamas — findings of an opinion poll taken in the Palestinian territories speak for themselves. The survey has shown that Hamas would beat its main Palestinian rival Fatah by a narrow margin if elections were held this week.
Hamas would get 28.6 per cent of the vote compared with 27.9per cent for Fatah faction, according to the survey by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre.
It is a a significant improvement over past polls, which regularly show Fatah ahead despite iHamas’ 76 per cent victory in the 2006 parliamentary elections.
The opinion also showed thart Hamas enjoys considerably stronger support in the Fatah-controlled West Bank than in the Gaza Strip. It also showed Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas member, was the most trusted politician among Palestinians, well ahead of Palestinian President and Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas.
In Gaza, the poll put Hamas at 28 per cent against 33.6 per cent for Fatah. In the West Bank, the poll gave Hamas 29 per cent support against 24.5 per cent for Fatah. The balance was shared by smaller parties.
About 27.7 per cent of those questioned said they trusted Hamas, compared with 26 per cent for Fatah.
The poll makes it clear that instead of weakening Hamas as envisaged, the Israeli military assault has only given a boost to the group. This in turn translates into prompting Hamas into ruling out any compromise in its positions and adding to the already complex political givens on the Palestinian scene.
Being destroyed in the process are prospects for a negotiated Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The only constant in the equation is the reality that the only way to peace is a two-state solution in Palestine and all sides have to accept it and then work on realising this objective, making compromises that would not have any negative bearing on the just and legitimate rights of everyone concerned.

Watch out for Israeli moves

February 5, 2009

Watch out for Israeli moves


US PRESIDENT Barack Obama is signalling willingness to launch a direct dialogue with Iran. That is the message inherent in reports that his envoys had been in secret touch with Iranian officials. Indeed, both Washington and Tehran have denied the reports as untrue. However, there is definitely some movement in Washington towards softening the Bush administration’s line against talking to Iran while also toughening the US stand in the dispute over the Iranian nuclear programme.
Obama has said that “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” He has also said that the US and Iran could deal with each other with mutual respect.
There are hard-line camps on both sides. The influential and powerful Israeli lobby in Washington is determined not to allow any US-Iranian dialogue. Israel and its proxy forces in Washington are worried that any improvement in US relations with Iran would be at Israel's expense. Israeli leaders went ballistic when a senior US official simply attended a European meeting with Iran in Geneva last year. They went to the extent of accusing the Bush administration of a conspiracy against the Jewish state. That prompted Washington to clarify that the US was only restating is position to Tehran in the nuclear dispute and was not launching any dialogue with Iran.
Obama is expected to adopt a carrot and stick approach to the Iranians but he faces an uphill task because the pro-Israeli camp would challenge his every move and adopt whatever tactics it finds fit with a view to pre-empting and foiling his effort. An example is Iran's announcement this week that it launched its first satellite into orbit. This would definitely be used by the pro-Israeli lobby to warn that the US needs to pull Iran's teeth rather then seeking to settle difference with the theological regime in Tehran.
On the other side of the bargain, the hard-line "conservative" camp in Tehran is equally opposed to dialogue with the US. They believe that nothing good could ever come out of any relationship with the US. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has said he could do business with Obama, but he would also find the going tough in any move towards improved ties with the US because the Iranian hard-liners would seek to tie him down.
It is unlikely that any concrete move could come from either side towards dialogue before the Iranian presidential election scheduled to be held in June. What both sides need in the interim is confidence-building moves that would not be interpreted as capitulation on either side.
Or both sides could also wait out until the Iranians decide who should be their next president and pick up from that point.
In any event, the possibility of a US-Iran military conflagration seems to have faded. Of course, Israel is unhappy over it, and when Israel is unhappy it tends to strike out left and right. And that remains a real danger .

Iraqis shun sectarian and religious politics

February 4, 2009


Iraqis shun sectarian and religious politics

LEAKED unofficial results of the Jan.31 provincial elections in Iraq indicate that nationalists, secular parties, Sunnis, and Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's party have made mains at the expense of hard-line Shiite parties and separatist Kurds.
The final results of the elections would take a few more days to be known, with the various parties trying to form coalitions to assume power in the provincial coalitions.
The initial indications are positive for the future of Iraq because the hard-line Shiites represented by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, and the Kurdish alliance do not want a strong central government in Baghdad. They want a weak central government which would be forced into ceding a great deal of federal power to provincial confederacies such as the Kurdistan Regional Government in the north and a planned autonomous federation of several Shiite-dominated provinces in the south.
On the other hand, the Da'wa party of Maliki and the Sunni groups want a strong central government and their posture is noted as positive for Iraqi nationalism.
It is a safe assumption that Iraq, despite the low voter turnout for the provincial elections, is about to turn a major point in its post-Saddam Hussein history. The polls showed that Iranian influence in the country is weaning, given that one of the biggest losers in the voting was the pro-Iran Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. The setback for the Shiite separatist group could be partly attributed to the brutality of its Badr Brigade, which was responsible for thousands of killings since 2003.
Similarly the Kurds, who are steadily moving towards their goal of sedition from Iraq and an independent Kurdistan in the north, lost their grip of the Nineveh province. A Kurdish bloc was in power there since 2005 after the province's dominant Sunnis stayed away from voting in provincial elections. This time around, they realised the perils of boycotting polls and formed the Al Hadba party, which is said to have won 40 per cent of last week's vote.
The biggest relief is that the elections was not rigged — as opposed to the case in 2005 — in order to produce a victory for the ruling Shiite-Kurdish alliance against the Sunnis, secular Iraqis, and anti-establishment Shiites.
Of course, Maliki's Da'wa party does not belong to this category, but others in the group are ready to do business with him if he undertakes to play a fair and just game.
While we wait for the final and official results to be announced, it could be easily said that the people of Iraq are rejecting sectarian and religious politics. That is indeed one of the biggest milestones for the people of post-war Iraq. And it should also fit into the scheme of things of US President Barack Obama, if he is truly5 committed to delivering on his election promise to have the last American soldier out of Iraq in 16 months after assuming office.

Protecting ethnic minorities is a must

February 2, 2008

Protecting ethnic minorities is a must

It is not at all an easy life for the average Burmese citizen of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, under the reign of the brutal military regime there. It is much worse for the country's more than 100 unique ethnicities, whose plight has been given a fresh international focus with the recent cases of Rohingyas who are seeking an escape from persecution at the hands of the junta.
Indeed, the ethnic minorities make Myanmar, which has a population of 55 million, one of the most diverse countries in South-East Asia with a long history of conflict. There are no easy answers to the crises there, but the world has yet to take effective action to help protect the minorities of Myanmar.
The Buddhist Burman (or Bamar) people are the country's largest ethnic group and they dominate the military regime.
Myanmar's ethnic minorities, often targets of unpaid forced labour campaigns, have a record of waging long and bloody insurgencies against the military regime. The junta has always hit back with an iron hand with scorched-earth policies and relocation schemes involving entire villages.
The Rohingyas, a Muslim minority group that has been refused citizenship by the Burmese government since 1982, is the most affected by consistent persecution. Others include the Buddhist Shan, the Christian Chin and Kachin, and the mixed Christian and Buddhist Karen.
The international community has always known of the Burman-dominated regime's campaigns against the minorities, but has done little to make any difference to their misery.
With the latest tales of agony and abuse involving the Rohingya "boat people" who ended up in Thailand, Indonesia and India, the so-called civilised world finds itself facing the challenge of bringing about change in Myanmar.
Instead of tackling the challenge at its roots, the countries involved are returning the boat people to Myanmar where they definitely face more persecution, including torture and forced labour.
It is yet another stain and blemish in the international conscience. The world's approach in such cases has always been selective.
Governments and organisations conveniently look the other way when it comes to calls for effective action against countries and government that are linked to their "strategic interests." They simply want to evade their international responsibility not to tolerate abuses and violations of human rights anywhere in the world.
UN special envoy Ibrahim Gambari is visiting Myanmar this week for fresh talks with the ruling junta on initiating political reforms that would bring democracy to the country (or at least that is the stated purpose of Gambari's mission).
It is the height of arrogance and defiance of the international community as represented by the UN that the military rulers kept in the dark over his itinerary in the country until after his arrival and failed to even invite him to their remote capital in Naypyidaw during his past two missions in the country.
It was indeed a resounding expression of disgust and protest against the ineffectiveness of the UN that detained democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi refused to meet Gambari during his mission last August.
The international community, which stood by and watched the invasion and occupation of Iraq in a war based on deception, should get its act together in the case of Myanmar and do whatever it takes to end the gross abuses and violations of human rights there.

Reining in Israel — an Obama priority

February 1, 2009

Reining in Israel — an Obama priority



THERE was fear hanging in the air that Israel was planning to launch military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities after the Nov.4 presidential elections in the US and before the Jan.20 inauguration of the new president, Barack Obama. The operation did not take place because George W Bush did not have the stomach to do so in his final days at the White House, and Obama, obviously aware of the dire consequences of military action against Iran, whether Israeli, American or joint Israeli-American, had sent a strong warning against such a move. It has been reported that one of the first things he did after being elected president was to contact the then US vice-president, Dick Cheney, with a warning that the US should not launch military action against Iran and should not encourage Israael to do so. It has to understood here that Cheney had been at the forefront of the Israeli-engineered campaign for US military strikes against Iran with a view to bringing about regime change in Tehran.
Now that it failed to coax or persuade the Bush administration to stage military action against Iran, Israel is going ahead with plans for its own strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
A report says that at a recent gathering, Israeli Ambassador to Australia Yuval Rotem engaged in a "very frank" discussion about the recent Israeli war in the Gaza Strip, calling it “a preintroduction” to an attack on Iran that Israel apparently expects within the year.
Before he made the "disclosure," says the report, Rotem had ordered a cameraman to turn off his camera saying “the best thing to do is to have a very open dialogue if there are no reporters or journalists here,” adding “I am far more reserved in the way I am saying my things (on camera).”
However, Sarah Cummings, a reporter for Australia’s Seven News service, was actually present at the meeting after having been “accidentally” invited and hence the disclosure of what Rotem told the gathering.
Israel has repeatedly threatened to attack Iran.
Israeli officials have been tryingt to link the Iranian government to its brutal assault against the Gaza Strip with a lost of confusing reports.
The latest charge against Iran is that the aid ship Iran Shahed, a Red Crescent aid ship loaded with humanitarian and medical supplies for the Palestinian population, has been turned into a floating logistical headquarters for the Hamas leadership, with Hamas frogmen using fishing boats to keep them connected.
Earlier, Israel charged that the ship was carrying weapons for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip but was ordered back into international waters by the Israeli navy on Jan.13.
According to the US military, American naval forces had boarded the vessel and found arms aboard it, but could not seize them because international law did not permit such seizure. Subsequently, reports said, the ship headed for Syria.
The Israeli reports are confusing because there is no certainty of the identity of the "suspect" vessel and that more than one ship seemed to be involved. And the confusion seems to be deliberately created.
In any event, concerns are high in the region that Israel is definitely planning military strikes against Iran and its efforts to link the Iranians with the Gaza Strip are part of the build-up.
It is time for Obama to act if he were to pre-empt a course of events that would find the US submerging too deeply into yet another quagmire in the Middle East.
His first action should be to restrain Israel from launching military action against Iran and then to engage Tehran in diplomacy with a view not only to settle the nuclear dispute but also to address the host of differences between the two sides.

റിയല് ദിഫ്ഫെരെന്സ് in Iraq

January 31, 2009


Bringing out a real
difference in Iraq

Iraqis vote today in provincial elections widely seen as first real test of their country's US-engineered democracy. Whether Iraqis reject or accept peaceful transfers of power will be the first credible indication of whether departing US troops will leave behind a democratic Iraq or a failed state. That is indeed assuming that the US would indeed deliver on President Barack Obama's pledge to withdraw American military forces from Iraq.
Of course, there are many who believe that the rival groups in Iraq are merely holding their fire and practising democracy until the US military withdraws and there would be an immediate eruption of massive violence after the last American soldier leaves the country.
In the meantime, uncertainty and tension are running high in Baghdad on the eve of the provincial vote when Iraqis will vote to elect their representatives to occupy 444 seats in 14 of Iraq's 18 provincial councils. There are more than 14,000 candidates representing some 400 political groups.
It is indeed the first occasion that for the people of Iraq to accept that change can come through ballots rather than bullets.
The level of violence in the country has gone down but scores continue to be killed daily. Critical infrastructure such as supply of electricity and water remains shattered. There are still more people leaving the country than there are returning to their homes.
Still, there is indeed hope among Iraqis that the elections will bring more stability and improve their lives.
Since the late 50s, the Iraqis have seen only a series of military coups where their leaders seized power at the point of a gun. These include those who entered parliament and assumed office even after the US-led invasion in 2003. The parliamentary elections were tainted by violence that kept people from the polling booths, boycotts by some segments of the electorate and charges of
fraud and intimidation. Religious leaders supported by militiamen decided whether people should vote and whom they should elect.
Saturday's vote is crucial because most Iraqi groups are taking part in the process. Many who once fought against the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the American military are among the candidates. They are hoping that the vote would produce the changes they seek. If it doesn't then, they have declared, they would pick up their guns again.
The Iraqis need to make today's provincial elections a success so that they could take matters into their own hands and decide the future of the country. Credible elections would see many new faces emerging into the political scene and replace most of those who lived in exile during the reign of the Saddam Hussein regime. And the new faces would be in a better position to bring about real changes in the way the country is run. That is the challenge facing the Iraqi voters today.