July 24, 2008
Taking a cue from Dhaka
Bangladesh's interim government deserves to be congratulated for having completed the mammoth task of preparing what is described as a fool-proof digital voters' list ahead of elections this year.
According to the country's election commission, the list includes the identities, photographs and fingerprints of 80.5 million voters after the commission removed some 12.7 million "fake names and duplicate entries" from the old list.
Given that elections in Bangladesh are routinely marred by widespread cheating including multiple voting, wildly doctored voter rolls, intimidation and bribery, the new list signals a landmark on the way towards the restoration of democracy in the country. It is expected to make vote-rigging and vote-stealing impossible in Bangladesh, which is rated as one of the most corrupt countries.
The preparation of the list at a cost of $65 million involved some 300,000 data operators, including 25,000 army personnel. It is part of the realisation of the interim government's pledge to clean up the country's political landscape and conduct fair and free elections by the year's end. It is also the biggest digital database prepared by a developing country.
There are indeed snags and troubles facing the interim government, which is accused by the political parties of seeking to cling on to power by organising local council elections before parliamentary elections. Some of the scandal-hit political leaders — whose corrupt practices, nepotism and favouritism have already been proven — have the audacity to demand that the interim government organise parliamentary elections first and then step down and hand over power to an elected government. They are in no position to make any demand because they have deprived themselves of such rights by their corrupt governance that plunged the country into chaos and made the rich richer and the poor poorer. It is indeed refreshing that the interim authorities are refusing to be initimidated or pressured into deviating from its pleges. They have already introduced new election rules making it compulsory for political parties to register to take part, and giving voters the chance to reject all candidates if they thought none were suitable.
The interim government in Dhaka has also set an example for many countries in the developing world where vote-rigging is routine. It is time clean-headed reformists — there should indeed be some in every country — took their cue from Bangladesh and moved to streamline their electoral system.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Indian rope-trick in play
Indian rope-trick in play
by pv vivekanand
The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India has scored a resounding victory with Tuesday's parliamentary vote of confidence. Manmohan Singh, who had staked not only his future but also that of his government and party (and indeed the country), is now free to go ahead with the controversial nuclear agreement with the US.
The victory vindicates Manmohan Singh's clear determination to go ahead with the "deal" with the US even in the face of opposition from his colleagues in the Congress Party and partners in the coalition government.
At every point in the heated debate over the agreement, Manmohan Singh steadfastly maintained that deal was crucial to achieving energy security for the 1.1 billion people of India and it had no negative impact on the country's strategic military programme and its right to conduct nuclear tests.
However, it is clear that it is not a simple matter of India's energy security when seen in light of the extraordinarily secretive way New Delhi kept the details of the agreement and the brashness with which Washington pressured the Manmohan Singh government to conclude the deal.
Furthermore, the Indian government surreptitiously approached the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to secure approval for an inspection agreement it signed last year with the IAEA secretariat related to the country's to civilian nuclear reactors. That suspect approach should not have been made without approval by the Congress Party's ruling coalition partners. The government had made a promise not to move the IAEA board without considering the findings of a coalition committee on the nuclear deal set up last year.
In effect, the inspection agreement signed with the IAEA secretariat is not different from the standard safeguards agreement the IAEA signs with non-nuclear weapons states.
The finding undermines the Indian government's argument that the agreement with the IAEA is "India-specific."
According to MV Ramana, a senior analyst at the Bangalore-based Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development, "it fails to defend India's strategic autonomy as a de facto nuclear weapons state."
The secretive details of the US-India nuclear accord filtering out through the Internet — and released by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in a hurry thereafter — have pulled the rug from under New Delhi's summary argument that the agreement is heavily in favour of India's interest and it represents a magnanimous US gesture towards the country in view of its emerging status as a regional power.
The details of the actual agreement contradict provisions included the original text of the July 2005 accord signed by US President George W Bush and Manmohan Singh which assures India of "the same benefits and advantages" and the same obligations as other "states with advanced nuclear technology" — meaning nuclear weapons-states. That contradiction rejects the Indian government's argument that the agreement has no impact whatsoever on the country's military application of nuclear power.
However, the real clincher is beyond the nuclear context.
There are many ifs and buts in view of the restrictions and conditions that the US has included in the nuclear agreement that critics say are aimed at enslaving India and holding it hostage to US global strategies.
In simple terms, many say it is difficult to see India manoeuvring through the US nuclear labyrinth and still maintaining its tradition of an independent foreign policy.
MK Bhadrakumar, who served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, says: "The deal enables the US to selectively waive its embargo on dual-use technology to India, which, in turn, enables the American military-industrial complex to enter the huge Indian market as an arms supplier; and places India incrementally as an ally in the US's Asian strategies against Russia and China, or at the very least ensures against a future Russia-China-India entente cordiale." (www.atimes.com).
The nuclear agreement contains a provision where India undertakes to co-operate with the US in efforts to contain regional nuclear proliferation. That is very much relevant in the immediate context of the US-Iran stand-off where Washington could justify possible military action against Iran in the name of anti-proliferation efforts and demand Indian co-operation, critics say.
Some leftist leaders, who accuse Manmohan Singh of having "sold" his "soul" along with India to US interests, maintain that Indian territory would be used by the US to stage military action against Iran. However, it is highly unlikely, given the political experience and acumen of the Congress Party to which Manmohan Singh belongs. Any Indian government which supports and helps the US in actions aimed at defending and serving the superpower's narrow interests in this part of the world would not last for long. Popular sentiments would not allow it, and the Congress Party should but be perfectly aware of the political pitfall.
Rightists, including some leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argue that the nuclear deal irreversibly places India in the US orbit. That is indeed a laugh, given that the BJP had sought to build a strong "strategic alliance" with the US five years ago when it was in power and BJP leaders were more than willing to be part of a US-led axis that included Israel to fight "terrorism" and "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of dangerous missiles."
With the vote of confidence in his government, Manmohan Singh is now on his way to be seen as the brains behind two of the most important landmarks in India's history — sweeping reforms that turned around the country's economic fortunes in the early 90s and adopting nuclear energy as the country's mainstay source for power.
At the same time, he also risks being accused of sacrificing everything that India stood for, starting with its "non-aligned" status (which has become a hollow phrase anyway) and independent foreign and security policy. He would also be accused of firmly leading the country into the "American camp" that is hated among the "natural socialists" of the deprived classes not only in India but also around the world and of course the leftists and Muslims because of its aggressive foreign policies based on its belief in military solutions even to socially-rooted political conflicts.
Surely, Manmohan Singh and his strategic advisers could not but be aware of the delicate rope-trick facing them. That realisation gives rise to a belief that the Indian prime minister does have a pre-determined course of direction that would — hopefully — steer the country away from the pitfalls and undercurrents associated with any "strategic alliance" with the US at least until his term runs out in May 2009. What happens thereafter is anyone's guess since foreign policy has never been the determining factor for Indian voters.
by pv vivekanand
The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India has scored a resounding victory with Tuesday's parliamentary vote of confidence. Manmohan Singh, who had staked not only his future but also that of his government and party (and indeed the country), is now free to go ahead with the controversial nuclear agreement with the US.
The victory vindicates Manmohan Singh's clear determination to go ahead with the "deal" with the US even in the face of opposition from his colleagues in the Congress Party and partners in the coalition government.
At every point in the heated debate over the agreement, Manmohan Singh steadfastly maintained that deal was crucial to achieving energy security for the 1.1 billion people of India and it had no negative impact on the country's strategic military programme and its right to conduct nuclear tests.
However, it is clear that it is not a simple matter of India's energy security when seen in light of the extraordinarily secretive way New Delhi kept the details of the agreement and the brashness with which Washington pressured the Manmohan Singh government to conclude the deal.
Furthermore, the Indian government surreptitiously approached the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to secure approval for an inspection agreement it signed last year with the IAEA secretariat related to the country's to civilian nuclear reactors. That suspect approach should not have been made without approval by the Congress Party's ruling coalition partners. The government had made a promise not to move the IAEA board without considering the findings of a coalition committee on the nuclear deal set up last year.
In effect, the inspection agreement signed with the IAEA secretariat is not different from the standard safeguards agreement the IAEA signs with non-nuclear weapons states.
The finding undermines the Indian government's argument that the agreement with the IAEA is "India-specific."
According to MV Ramana, a senior analyst at the Bangalore-based Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in the Environment and Development, "it fails to defend India's strategic autonomy as a de facto nuclear weapons state."
The secretive details of the US-India nuclear accord filtering out through the Internet — and released by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs in a hurry thereafter — have pulled the rug from under New Delhi's summary argument that the agreement is heavily in favour of India's interest and it represents a magnanimous US gesture towards the country in view of its emerging status as a regional power.
The details of the actual agreement contradict provisions included the original text of the July 2005 accord signed by US President George W Bush and Manmohan Singh which assures India of "the same benefits and advantages" and the same obligations as other "states with advanced nuclear technology" — meaning nuclear weapons-states. That contradiction rejects the Indian government's argument that the agreement has no impact whatsoever on the country's military application of nuclear power.
However, the real clincher is beyond the nuclear context.
There are many ifs and buts in view of the restrictions and conditions that the US has included in the nuclear agreement that critics say are aimed at enslaving India and holding it hostage to US global strategies.
In simple terms, many say it is difficult to see India manoeuvring through the US nuclear labyrinth and still maintaining its tradition of an independent foreign policy.
MK Bhadrakumar, who served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, says: "The deal enables the US to selectively waive its embargo on dual-use technology to India, which, in turn, enables the American military-industrial complex to enter the huge Indian market as an arms supplier; and places India incrementally as an ally in the US's Asian strategies against Russia and China, or at the very least ensures against a future Russia-China-India entente cordiale." (www.atimes.com).
The nuclear agreement contains a provision where India undertakes to co-operate with the US in efforts to contain regional nuclear proliferation. That is very much relevant in the immediate context of the US-Iran stand-off where Washington could justify possible military action against Iran in the name of anti-proliferation efforts and demand Indian co-operation, critics say.
Some leftist leaders, who accuse Manmohan Singh of having "sold" his "soul" along with India to US interests, maintain that Indian territory would be used by the US to stage military action against Iran. However, it is highly unlikely, given the political experience and acumen of the Congress Party to which Manmohan Singh belongs. Any Indian government which supports and helps the US in actions aimed at defending and serving the superpower's narrow interests in this part of the world would not last for long. Popular sentiments would not allow it, and the Congress Party should but be perfectly aware of the political pitfall.
Rightists, including some leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), argue that the nuclear deal irreversibly places India in the US orbit. That is indeed a laugh, given that the BJP had sought to build a strong "strategic alliance" with the US five years ago when it was in power and BJP leaders were more than willing to be part of a US-led axis that included Israel to fight "terrorism" and "the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of dangerous missiles."
With the vote of confidence in his government, Manmohan Singh is now on his way to be seen as the brains behind two of the most important landmarks in India's history — sweeping reforms that turned around the country's economic fortunes in the early 90s and adopting nuclear energy as the country's mainstay source for power.
At the same time, he also risks being accused of sacrificing everything that India stood for, starting with its "non-aligned" status (which has become a hollow phrase anyway) and independent foreign and security policy. He would also be accused of firmly leading the country into the "American camp" that is hated among the "natural socialists" of the deprived classes not only in India but also around the world and of course the leftists and Muslims because of its aggressive foreign policies based on its belief in military solutions even to socially-rooted political conflicts.
Surely, Manmohan Singh and his strategic advisers could not but be aware of the delicate rope-trick facing them. That realisation gives rise to a belief that the Indian prime minister does have a pre-determined course of direction that would — hopefully — steer the country away from the pitfalls and undercurrents associated with any "strategic alliance" with the US at least until his term runs out in May 2009. What happens thereafter is anyone's guess since foreign policy has never been the determining factor for Indian voters.
The other side of international justice
July 23, 2008
The other side of international justice
THE ARREST of Radovan Karadzic, one of the world’s most wanted men, on Monday, 13 years after he was first indicted by the United Nations war crimes tribunal, should spark a sense of satisfaction to all of those who are interested in ensuring supremacy of international justice around the world.
Karadzic, 63, faces genocide charges for his role in the massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in Europe’s worst atrocity since World War II, and for organising the siege of Sarajevo which claimed 12,000 lives.
The UN war crimes tribunal, which says it has concrete evidence of Karadzic's guilt, has described him as the mastermind of "scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history."
Karadzic was detained by Serb forces inside the country on Monday, according to Serbian President Boris Tadic, for whom the arrest is a significant breakthrough. Serbia has faced international isolation while Karadzic and fellow war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb army commander, have remained at large. The European Union has made their hand-over a condition for any progress towards Serbia's membership in the bloc.
According to UN prosecutors, both Karadzic and Mladic and other Serbs suspected of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia were protected by Bosnian Serb nationalists. Karadzic's arrest is seen to have made possible after Serb nationalists lost power in Serbia when the pro-Western Tadic government took over last month.
Some reports speculate that those members of the Serbian security services who knew where Karadzic was hiding either passed on that information, or simply stepped aside to allow pro-Western agents to arrest him.
The replacement of the old head of Serbian intelligence, Rade Bulatovic, with a new man, Sasha Vukadinovic, must have played a significant role. says the BBC.
Karadzic led the self-proclaimed Serb administration of Bosnia in the early 1990s which resisted the country’s independence and suppressed other ethnic groups in some of the worst violence that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia.
His trial will be a very important event for the families of the victims of massacres and suppression carried out under Karadzic's directions. They have waited for his arrest for over a decade.
Technically, his arrest underlines that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that sooner or later all fugitives will be brought to justice. Still at large in the Serbian case is Karadzic's ally Ratko Mladic, who is also indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Only when he is arrested and tried would there be full accountability for the genocide at Srebrenica.
Also at large is Croatian Serb ex-rebel leader Goran Hadzic.
So far so good for Serbia and its new government, which is seeking to enter mainstream life in Europe through the EU, and for all the people in the world who want justice done.
For us in the Middle East, the arrest of Karadzic — and the ongoing effort to have Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al Bashir tried on genocide charges in Darfur — are reminders of the double standards of world powers.
Why isn't anyone blamed for the death of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as the direct and indirect result of the US invasion and occupation of their country more than five years ago? Why isn't anyone held responsible for the immense suffering that has been inflicted upon the people of Afghanistan?
Why isn't anyone blamed for the killings, summary detentions, demolition of homes and other atrocities committed against the people of Palestine who are exercising their legitimate right to resist the foreign military occupation of their land?
The other side of international justice
THE ARREST of Radovan Karadzic, one of the world’s most wanted men, on Monday, 13 years after he was first indicted by the United Nations war crimes tribunal, should spark a sense of satisfaction to all of those who are interested in ensuring supremacy of international justice around the world.
Karadzic, 63, faces genocide charges for his role in the massacre of more than 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in Europe’s worst atrocity since World War II, and for organising the siege of Sarajevo which claimed 12,000 lives.
The UN war crimes tribunal, which says it has concrete evidence of Karadzic's guilt, has described him as the mastermind of "scenes from hell, written on the darkest pages of human history."
Karadzic was detained by Serb forces inside the country on Monday, according to Serbian President Boris Tadic, for whom the arrest is a significant breakthrough. Serbia has faced international isolation while Karadzic and fellow war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb army commander, have remained at large. The European Union has made their hand-over a condition for any progress towards Serbia's membership in the bloc.
According to UN prosecutors, both Karadzic and Mladic and other Serbs suspected of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia were protected by Bosnian Serb nationalists. Karadzic's arrest is seen to have made possible after Serb nationalists lost power in Serbia when the pro-Western Tadic government took over last month.
Some reports speculate that those members of the Serbian security services who knew where Karadzic was hiding either passed on that information, or simply stepped aside to allow pro-Western agents to arrest him.
The replacement of the old head of Serbian intelligence, Rade Bulatovic, with a new man, Sasha Vukadinovic, must have played a significant role. says the BBC.
Karadzic led the self-proclaimed Serb administration of Bosnia in the early 1990s which resisted the country’s independence and suppressed other ethnic groups in some of the worst violence that followed the break-up of Yugoslavia.
His trial will be a very important event for the families of the victims of massacres and suppression carried out under Karadzic's directions. They have waited for his arrest for over a decade.
Technically, his arrest underlines that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that sooner or later all fugitives will be brought to justice. Still at large in the Serbian case is Karadzic's ally Ratko Mladic, who is also indicted for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Only when he is arrested and tried would there be full accountability for the genocide at Srebrenica.
Also at large is Croatian Serb ex-rebel leader Goran Hadzic.
So far so good for Serbia and its new government, which is seeking to enter mainstream life in Europe through the EU, and for all the people in the world who want justice done.
For us in the Middle East, the arrest of Karadzic — and the ongoing effort to have Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al Bashir tried on genocide charges in Darfur — are reminders of the double standards of world powers.
Why isn't anyone blamed for the death of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as the direct and indirect result of the US invasion and occupation of their country more than five years ago? Why isn't anyone held responsible for the immense suffering that has been inflicted upon the people of Afghanistan?
Why isn't anyone blamed for the killings, summary detentions, demolition of homes and other atrocities committed against the people of Palestine who are exercising their legitimate right to resist the foreign military occupation of their land?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Stakes too high in today's India vote
July 22, 2008
Stakes too high in today's India vote
TODAY is crucial for the future of India. The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is seeking a vote of confidence from parliament over a controversial agreement on nuclear co-operation with the US. It seemed to be touch and go yesterday, with leaders of the dominant Congress Party claiming they have secured 271 votes in the 541-seat parliament. That is only the half-way mark, and Congress hopes were pinned on "persuading" some members of opposition parties to abstain.
Indeed, it is all a game of numbers, but at stake is the political direction of the country on the international front. The issue that warranted the confidence vote today is the so-called "nuclear deal" with the US. Leftist parties, which have always ruled out "strategic co-operation" with the US, quit the ruling coalition, leaving the government with the task of mustering a majority in parliament without them. And that is what the government is trying to do today.
Critics say the nuclear agreement with the US is not desirable for India because the caveats associated with it would enslave the country to the sole superpower. Proponents argue that the only way India could be self-reliant for its energy needs is the nuclear route.
Manmohan Singh's determination to press ahead with the deal is uncharacteristic of Indian politicians because the US is not exactly the favourite country for Indian voters. It is even argued that the nuclear move with the US could cost the Congress party the next elections.
But Manmohan Singh, who is credited with switching India to the fast-track of economic development through liberal trade policies in the early 90s, does not seem to be bothered about elections: He was never directly elected to parliament in his two-decade-old public life. The Congress party took advantage of a constitutional provision that allows indirectly elected politicians to head the government and installed Manmohan Singh as prime minister.
Against that backdrop, he could be impervious to public opinion and capable of acting with decisiveness and foresight.
There is no doubt that Manmohan Singh is fully convinced that the nuclear deal is in India's interests. He expressed it clearly when he told parliament while presenting the confidence motion that "every single decision, every policy decision was taken in the fullest confidence that it was in the best interest of the people of the count
However, the bottom line is that the nuclear co-operation agreement, if implemented, will signal a dramatic shift in India's foreign police and bind the country with the US. Manmohan Singh, who is deemed to be convinced of the imperative of changing India's foreign policy, wants to make that transformation irreversible.
The elected representatives of the people of India are voting today not simply on whether the country needs nuclear power-generating plans to meet its needs of energy. They are voting on whether to change the "non-aligned" course that India had embraced for itself more than five decades ago and firm up its position in the US-led camp.
It parliament comes with a majority "yes" vote today, then would mean India sealing a "strategic partnership" with the US, whether desirable or otherwise. If it is a "no," then it would deal a severe blow to the country's efforts on the economic development front because of the paralysis that would follow in the absence of a strong and stable government.
Stakes too high in today's India vote
TODAY is crucial for the future of India. The government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is seeking a vote of confidence from parliament over a controversial agreement on nuclear co-operation with the US. It seemed to be touch and go yesterday, with leaders of the dominant Congress Party claiming they have secured 271 votes in the 541-seat parliament. That is only the half-way mark, and Congress hopes were pinned on "persuading" some members of opposition parties to abstain.
Indeed, it is all a game of numbers, but at stake is the political direction of the country on the international front. The issue that warranted the confidence vote today is the so-called "nuclear deal" with the US. Leftist parties, which have always ruled out "strategic co-operation" with the US, quit the ruling coalition, leaving the government with the task of mustering a majority in parliament without them. And that is what the government is trying to do today.
Critics say the nuclear agreement with the US is not desirable for India because the caveats associated with it would enslave the country to the sole superpower. Proponents argue that the only way India could be self-reliant for its energy needs is the nuclear route.
Manmohan Singh's determination to press ahead with the deal is uncharacteristic of Indian politicians because the US is not exactly the favourite country for Indian voters. It is even argued that the nuclear move with the US could cost the Congress party the next elections.
But Manmohan Singh, who is credited with switching India to the fast-track of economic development through liberal trade policies in the early 90s, does not seem to be bothered about elections: He was never directly elected to parliament in his two-decade-old public life. The Congress party took advantage of a constitutional provision that allows indirectly elected politicians to head the government and installed Manmohan Singh as prime minister.
Against that backdrop, he could be impervious to public opinion and capable of acting with decisiveness and foresight.
There is no doubt that Manmohan Singh is fully convinced that the nuclear deal is in India's interests. He expressed it clearly when he told parliament while presenting the confidence motion that "every single decision, every policy decision was taken in the fullest confidence that it was in the best interest of the people of the count
However, the bottom line is that the nuclear co-operation agreement, if implemented, will signal a dramatic shift in India's foreign police and bind the country with the US. Manmohan Singh, who is deemed to be convinced of the imperative of changing India's foreign policy, wants to make that transformation irreversible.
The elected representatives of the people of India are voting today not simply on whether the country needs nuclear power-generating plans to meet its needs of energy. They are voting on whether to change the "non-aligned" course that India had embraced for itself more than five decades ago and firm up its position in the US-led camp.
It parliament comes with a majority "yes" vote today, then would mean India sealing a "strategic partnership" with the US, whether desirable or otherwise. If it is a "no," then it would deal a severe blow to the country's efforts on the economic development front because of the paralysis that would follow in the absence of a strong and stable government.
Monday, July 21, 2008
The writing on the Zimbabwe wall is clear
July 21, 2008
The writing on the wall is clear
THE REPORTED decision by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's government to seize and transfer ownership of all foreign-owned firms that support Western sanctions against Zimbabwe worsens the long-running conflict between the Mugabe regime and Western governments.
According to the state-run Sunday Mail of Harare, the Mugabe government will transfer the ownership of all such companies to locals and investors from "friendly" countries. The decision seems to be already being implemented, according to the report, with the Harare government having begun auditing the ownership of Western firms in the country as part of a black empowerment drive "and to counter the possible withdrawal of investment under sanctions imposed and proposed by Britain and the US."
According to the report, the audit of foreign investments showed that 499 companies enjoyed British investments. Of these, 309 had majority shareholders in Britain and 97 were wholly owned by Britons.
The audit also found 353 firms with shareholders from other European countries.
The move follows another controversial law seeking to transfer majority ownership of foreign-owned firms to locals.
It is an understatement that Zimbabweans are living through a major economic crisis which owes its origins to the regime's policies. The inflation rate is seen at over 2.2 million per cent and the people of the country are facing chronic shortages of food and other basic needs.
The once-thriving commercial agricultural sector of the country is in ruins, about one-fourth of its 12 million people have fled and those who remain are largely dependent on foreign food aid.
Indeed, Harare blames the crisis on sabotage by enemies angry over the regime's seizures of white-owned farms for blacks but it overlooks that it was the land grab that created the problem.
On the political front, the regime is equally ruthless, with a policy of eliminating opponents. There was little legitimacy to the results of the recent presidential election from which opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew citing violence against his supporters.
Mugabe, 84, has led Zimbabwe in various capacitis since its independence in 1980 before becoming its president in 1988. He was initially hailed as a hero of African liberation, but over a period time his regime became corrupt, brutal and intolerant. And the situation has been growing worse with no sign of an end to the woes of the people of Zimbabwe.
Pressure and sanctions have not worked, mainly because of opposition to such moves by other African countries, some of whose leaders are as ruthless as Mugabe himself against political dissent. Obviously, they fear that they would also be targeted for ouster if they allowed Mugabe to be forced out by foreign powers. What they fail to see is the probability of the people of Zimbabwe rising up en masse against the regime and setting an example for their own people.
In any event, the onus is on Zimbabwe's neighbours and other African countries to persuade Mugabe to accept that it is time for him to leave the office which he occupies without legitimacy and that if he doesn't then they would not prevent others from forcing him to go.
The writing on the wall is clear
THE REPORTED decision by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's government to seize and transfer ownership of all foreign-owned firms that support Western sanctions against Zimbabwe worsens the long-running conflict between the Mugabe regime and Western governments.
According to the state-run Sunday Mail of Harare, the Mugabe government will transfer the ownership of all such companies to locals and investors from "friendly" countries. The decision seems to be already being implemented, according to the report, with the Harare government having begun auditing the ownership of Western firms in the country as part of a black empowerment drive "and to counter the possible withdrawal of investment under sanctions imposed and proposed by Britain and the US."
According to the report, the audit of foreign investments showed that 499 companies enjoyed British investments. Of these, 309 had majority shareholders in Britain and 97 were wholly owned by Britons.
The audit also found 353 firms with shareholders from other European countries.
The move follows another controversial law seeking to transfer majority ownership of foreign-owned firms to locals.
It is an understatement that Zimbabweans are living through a major economic crisis which owes its origins to the regime's policies. The inflation rate is seen at over 2.2 million per cent and the people of the country are facing chronic shortages of food and other basic needs.
The once-thriving commercial agricultural sector of the country is in ruins, about one-fourth of its 12 million people have fled and those who remain are largely dependent on foreign food aid.
Indeed, Harare blames the crisis on sabotage by enemies angry over the regime's seizures of white-owned farms for blacks but it overlooks that it was the land grab that created the problem.
On the political front, the regime is equally ruthless, with a policy of eliminating opponents. There was little legitimacy to the results of the recent presidential election from which opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew citing violence against his supporters.
Mugabe, 84, has led Zimbabwe in various capacitis since its independence in 1980 before becoming its president in 1988. He was initially hailed as a hero of African liberation, but over a period time his regime became corrupt, brutal and intolerant. And the situation has been growing worse with no sign of an end to the woes of the people of Zimbabwe.
Pressure and sanctions have not worked, mainly because of opposition to such moves by other African countries, some of whose leaders are as ruthless as Mugabe himself against political dissent. Obviously, they fear that they would also be targeted for ouster if they allowed Mugabe to be forced out by foreign powers. What they fail to see is the probability of the people of Zimbabwe rising up en masse against the regime and setting an example for their own people.
In any event, the onus is on Zimbabwe's neighbours and other African countries to persuade Mugabe to accept that it is time for him to leave the office which he occupies without legitimacy and that if he doesn't then they would not prevent others from forcing him to go.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Passing the buck will not work
July 18, 2008
Passing the buck will not work
According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organisation for Migration, almost five million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.5 million have vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million are living in Syria, and over one million refugees are living in Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf states.
The Iraqi government says that 1.2 million Iraqis were displaced before the US-led invasion and ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime because of government repression and economic hardships. Naturally, one would assume that most of them returned home after the regime was toppled. However, that does not seem to have happened. That would mean that at least six million Iraqis belong to the category of displaced, whether inside or outside the country.
The UN secretary general's representative, David Shearer, is calling for a national policy to deal with the issue, and the Iraqi government, represented by the minister of immigration and emigration, says efforts are under way to find a permanent solution for emigrants and displaced people's problems.
It is unlikely that there would be any early solution to the problem, which is compounded by security fears. Even the heavily fortified "Green Zone" in Baghdad is exposed to security risks that require a major effort that is a heavy drain on the strength of the US military occupying Iraq.
The Iraqi government say it has managed to bring back 10,000 displaced people to their residential areas, in addition to helping 5,000 physicians to return to Iraq. The figures sound simple, but even Shearer says that they cannot be heavily relied upon. The government has also warned that warned that it can’t accommodate large numbers of returns. Most of those who returned were subsequently displaced again.
The campaign of violent "ethnic cleansing" waged by the different communities in Iraq seems to be have ebbed, but that is no thanks to improved security as touted by the US military. It is because most the "ethnic cleansing" is over and many local communities are armed to defend themselves.
The problem needs to be addressed as a top priority by the government of Iraq as the international community because it heralds a major regional crisis. None of the countries hosting the Iraqi refugees, mainly Syria and Jordan, is in a position to offer even the basic facilities to its guests, most of whom live in abject poverty and misery. It is only a matter of time before their frustration explodes into unpredictable consequences. Furthermore, an entire generation of Iraqis is growing up with threadbare connections with their homeland.
Here is an excerpt from a letter that the Refugee International agency sent to US President George W Bush early this year.
"Iraqi refugees are overwhelming the basic infrastructure of Iraq’s neighbors, in particular Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, raising concerns about the potential for further destabilization of the region. Iraqis have no legal work options in most host countries and are increasingly desperate and in need of humanitarian assistance. Iraqis face challenges in obtaining food, and have trouble accessing host countries’ health and education systems. Women and children are increasingly vulnerable, and a sense of frustration, despair, and abandonment permeates communities of displaced Iraqis throughout the region."
Indeed, it is not only Refugee International but also most other refugee aid groups have underlined the US responsibility to help solve the problem.
The US, which led the invasion of Iraq and continues to occupy the country, should lead the effort to find an early solution to the crisis. It would be shear irresponsible behaviour if it continues to argue that it is a Iraqi government problem. No matter how hard the US tries to look the other way, the people of Iraq and of the Arab World at large and indeed the international community would never forget that it was the US which created the Iraq problem to start with.
Passing the buck will not work
According to the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organisation for Migration, almost five million Iraqis had been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which had fled since 2003. Over 2.5 million have vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, up to 1.5 million are living in Syria, and over one million refugees are living in Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey and Gulf states.
The Iraqi government says that 1.2 million Iraqis were displaced before the US-led invasion and ouster of the Saddam Hussein regime because of government repression and economic hardships. Naturally, one would assume that most of them returned home after the regime was toppled. However, that does not seem to have happened. That would mean that at least six million Iraqis belong to the category of displaced, whether inside or outside the country.
The UN secretary general's representative, David Shearer, is calling for a national policy to deal with the issue, and the Iraqi government, represented by the minister of immigration and emigration, says efforts are under way to find a permanent solution for emigrants and displaced people's problems.
It is unlikely that there would be any early solution to the problem, which is compounded by security fears. Even the heavily fortified "Green Zone" in Baghdad is exposed to security risks that require a major effort that is a heavy drain on the strength of the US military occupying Iraq.
The Iraqi government say it has managed to bring back 10,000 displaced people to their residential areas, in addition to helping 5,000 physicians to return to Iraq. The figures sound simple, but even Shearer says that they cannot be heavily relied upon. The government has also warned that warned that it can’t accommodate large numbers of returns. Most of those who returned were subsequently displaced again.
The campaign of violent "ethnic cleansing" waged by the different communities in Iraq seems to be have ebbed, but that is no thanks to improved security as touted by the US military. It is because most the "ethnic cleansing" is over and many local communities are armed to defend themselves.
The problem needs to be addressed as a top priority by the government of Iraq as the international community because it heralds a major regional crisis. None of the countries hosting the Iraqi refugees, mainly Syria and Jordan, is in a position to offer even the basic facilities to its guests, most of whom live in abject poverty and misery. It is only a matter of time before their frustration explodes into unpredictable consequences. Furthermore, an entire generation of Iraqis is growing up with threadbare connections with their homeland.
Here is an excerpt from a letter that the Refugee International agency sent to US President George W Bush early this year.
"Iraqi refugees are overwhelming the basic infrastructure of Iraq’s neighbors, in particular Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, raising concerns about the potential for further destabilization of the region. Iraqis have no legal work options in most host countries and are increasingly desperate and in need of humanitarian assistance. Iraqis face challenges in obtaining food, and have trouble accessing host countries’ health and education systems. Women and children are increasingly vulnerable, and a sense of frustration, despair, and abandonment permeates communities of displaced Iraqis throughout the region."
Indeed, it is not only Refugee International but also most other refugee aid groups have underlined the US responsibility to help solve the problem.
The US, which led the invasion of Iraq and continues to occupy the country, should lead the effort to find an early solution to the crisis. It would be shear irresponsible behaviour if it continues to argue that it is a Iraqi government problem. No matter how hard the US tries to look the other way, the people of Iraq and of the Arab World at large and indeed the international community would never forget that it was the US which created the Iraq problem to start with.
Spare the world lectures on rights
July 18, 2008
Spare the world lectures on rights
AMNESTY International's call for the immediate release of a Canadian citizen being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has brought attention to the brutality with which the US treats those held in detention but also the indifference to conventions on treatment of minors.
It might not be surprising to the world — which has seen the images from Abu Ghraib in Iraq — that the US authorities have little time to respect human rights when it comes to people from this part of the world. But the case of Canadian Omar Khadr takes the abuse of rights to new heights.
The torture to which Omar Khadr was subjected to at Guantanamo was exposed when a Canadian court ordered Canadian intelligence to surrender videos of the teenager being questioned. Khadr was under 15 when he was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and was 16 when the video was taken as he was being questioned by Canadian intelligence agents in 2003. Khadr, who is of Egyptian roots, is facing charges of killing an American soldier with a grenade during fighting in Afghanistan. He was taken from the battlefield badly wounded and near death.
In the video-footage released by his lawyers, then-teenage captive sobs and repeatedly cries, "Help me." That is only a scratch on the surface.
According to his own account, reported by Amnesty International, “during interrogations a bag was placed over his head and US personnel brought military dogs into the room to frighten him.” He was “not allowed to use the bathroom and was forced to urinate on himself.” Like many other prisoners, he was also hung from his wrists, and “his hands were tied above a door frame and he was forced to stand in this position for hours.” An article in Rolling Stone, in August 2006, added further details, noting that he was “brought into interrogation rooms on stretchers, in great pain,” and was “ordered to clean floors on his hands and knees while his wounds were still wet.”
If this is the way the authorities treat a teenager in Guantanamo, it does not need much imagination how they treat adults.
That is not all. The US authorities designated Khadr in November 2005 as one of 10 Guantánamo detainees to be tried by a military commission, which is "empowered" to try detainees and even pass the death sentence using secret evidence that would never be revealed to either the detainees or their government-appointed defence lawyers.
Amnesty International's argument is very clear.
"The treatment of Omar Khadr throughout his detention violates the USA’s obligations under international law, which requires that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration," it says.
"No one who was a child at the time of their alleged crime should be tried by military commissions, which have no juvenile justice provisions whatsoever," the group said. "Omar Khadr should either be repatriated and tried in Canada by an ordinary court or released."
Regardless of the charge against Khadr and of the circumstances of his capture in Afghanistan, the US authorities should have treated him like a juvenile. His age might not have made a difference to the US authorities, but it did to lawyers and human rights groups and that is why the Bush administration finds itself again facing charges of abusing the rights of a minor.
The US could perhaps argue that since it has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is free to violate the human rights of juveniles in its "war on terror." It is highly unlikely that Washington would heed the call for Khadr's release from the Bay.
But the posture surely deprives the sole superpower of the world of any right to assume the high moral ground and lecture others on how to respect human rights.
Spare the world lectures on rights
AMNESTY International's call for the immediate release of a Canadian citizen being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has brought attention to the brutality with which the US treats those held in detention but also the indifference to conventions on treatment of minors.
It might not be surprising to the world — which has seen the images from Abu Ghraib in Iraq — that the US authorities have little time to respect human rights when it comes to people from this part of the world. But the case of Canadian Omar Khadr takes the abuse of rights to new heights.
The torture to which Omar Khadr was subjected to at Guantanamo was exposed when a Canadian court ordered Canadian intelligence to surrender videos of the teenager being questioned. Khadr was under 15 when he was captured by US forces in Afghanistan and was 16 when the video was taken as he was being questioned by Canadian intelligence agents in 2003. Khadr, who is of Egyptian roots, is facing charges of killing an American soldier with a grenade during fighting in Afghanistan. He was taken from the battlefield badly wounded and near death.
In the video-footage released by his lawyers, then-teenage captive sobs and repeatedly cries, "Help me." That is only a scratch on the surface.
According to his own account, reported by Amnesty International, “during interrogations a bag was placed over his head and US personnel brought military dogs into the room to frighten him.” He was “not allowed to use the bathroom and was forced to urinate on himself.” Like many other prisoners, he was also hung from his wrists, and “his hands were tied above a door frame and he was forced to stand in this position for hours.” An article in Rolling Stone, in August 2006, added further details, noting that he was “brought into interrogation rooms on stretchers, in great pain,” and was “ordered to clean floors on his hands and knees while his wounds were still wet.”
If this is the way the authorities treat a teenager in Guantanamo, it does not need much imagination how they treat adults.
That is not all. The US authorities designated Khadr in November 2005 as one of 10 Guantánamo detainees to be tried by a military commission, which is "empowered" to try detainees and even pass the death sentence using secret evidence that would never be revealed to either the detainees or their government-appointed defence lawyers.
Amnesty International's argument is very clear.
"The treatment of Omar Khadr throughout his detention violates the USA’s obligations under international law, which requires that in all actions concerning children the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration," it says.
"No one who was a child at the time of their alleged crime should be tried by military commissions, which have no juvenile justice provisions whatsoever," the group said. "Omar Khadr should either be repatriated and tried in Canada by an ordinary court or released."
Regardless of the charge against Khadr and of the circumstances of his capture in Afghanistan, the US authorities should have treated him like a juvenile. His age might not have made a difference to the US authorities, but it did to lawyers and human rights groups and that is why the Bush administration finds itself again facing charges of abusing the rights of a minor.
The US could perhaps argue that since it has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is free to violate the human rights of juveniles in its "war on terror." It is highly unlikely that Washington would heed the call for Khadr's release from the Bay.
But the posture surely deprives the sole superpower of the world of any right to assume the high moral ground and lecture others on how to respect human rights.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Ill-founded belief, misguided approach
July 17, 2008
Ill-founded belief, misguided approach
YET another chapter in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict was closed on Wednesday with Lebanon's Hizbollah handing over the bodies of two Israeli soldiers whose capture by its fighters two years ago had sparked a devastating 34-day war.
In return for the bodies of the two soldiers, Israel is handing over the remains of 199 Palestinian
and Lebanese fighters and the five remaining Lebanese prisoners in its custody, including Samir Kantar who is the longest serving Arab prisoner behind Israeli bars. Among the remains that Israel handed over through the International Red Cross was the body of a 20-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed during a daring command attack in Israel in 1978 and who is known to her compatriots as "the bride of Palestine."
Predictably, critics in Israel are lamenting that the exchange deal gave a massive boost to Hizbollah, which will use it to promote itself as the most effective Arab group countering the Jewish state. To be sure, Hizbollah, which successfully withstood the Israeli war against them two years ago, is doing exactly that. And no one could deny the group the right to celebrate what it considers as a great victory.
The Israeli discomfort over the exchange deal highlights the importance that many Israelis attach to using every occasion of humiliate the Arabs with a view of denting their determination to resist the Jewish state's occupation of Arab territories.
That approach is reflected in every Israeli dealing with the Palestinians living under occupation on a daily basis, starting with abusing them and often spitting at them at military check-points and other forms of humiliation. It is deeply embedded in the Israeli psyche that no Arab should ever be allowed to "score" anything against the Jewish state. That psyche was dealt yet another blow on Wednesday.
"Despite the war that was waged against us and despite international pressure to reveal the fate of the two Israeli soldiers, no-one has known their fate until this moment," according to a Hizbollah official who spoke after handing over the remains of the two.
Indeed, Lebanon is celebrating. As a banner in the southern town of Naqura proclaimed: "Lebanon is shedding tears of joy," and "Israel is shedding tears of pain."
Beyond the celebrations, however, the region remembers only too well the intensity of the Israel-Hizbollah war of the summer on 2006 that claimed more than 1,000 lives in Lebanon and some 150 in Israel. Did they have to die? Was Israel unaware that it could negotiate the release of the two captive soldiers with Hizbollah rather than launch a war against Lebanon?
It is time for Israel to reflect. Its stubborn refusal to accept fairness and justice as the basis for any peace settlement with the Arabs and its arrogant belief in military power as the solution to all its problems are at the roots of the regional problem and also the reason for the absence of the sense of "security" for the people of Israel.
Ill-founded belief, misguided approach
YET another chapter in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict was closed on Wednesday with Lebanon's Hizbollah handing over the bodies of two Israeli soldiers whose capture by its fighters two years ago had sparked a devastating 34-day war.
In return for the bodies of the two soldiers, Israel is handing over the remains of 199 Palestinian
and Lebanese fighters and the five remaining Lebanese prisoners in its custody, including Samir Kantar who is the longest serving Arab prisoner behind Israeli bars. Among the remains that Israel handed over through the International Red Cross was the body of a 20-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed during a daring command attack in Israel in 1978 and who is known to her compatriots as "the bride of Palestine."
Predictably, critics in Israel are lamenting that the exchange deal gave a massive boost to Hizbollah, which will use it to promote itself as the most effective Arab group countering the Jewish state. To be sure, Hizbollah, which successfully withstood the Israeli war against them two years ago, is doing exactly that. And no one could deny the group the right to celebrate what it considers as a great victory.
The Israeli discomfort over the exchange deal highlights the importance that many Israelis attach to using every occasion of humiliate the Arabs with a view of denting their determination to resist the Jewish state's occupation of Arab territories.
That approach is reflected in every Israeli dealing with the Palestinians living under occupation on a daily basis, starting with abusing them and often spitting at them at military check-points and other forms of humiliation. It is deeply embedded in the Israeli psyche that no Arab should ever be allowed to "score" anything against the Jewish state. That psyche was dealt yet another blow on Wednesday.
"Despite the war that was waged against us and despite international pressure to reveal the fate of the two Israeli soldiers, no-one has known their fate until this moment," according to a Hizbollah official who spoke after handing over the remains of the two.
Indeed, Lebanon is celebrating. As a banner in the southern town of Naqura proclaimed: "Lebanon is shedding tears of joy," and "Israel is shedding tears of pain."
Beyond the celebrations, however, the region remembers only too well the intensity of the Israel-Hizbollah war of the summer on 2006 that claimed more than 1,000 lives in Lebanon and some 150 in Israel. Did they have to die? Was Israel unaware that it could negotiate the release of the two captive soldiers with Hizbollah rather than launch a war against Lebanon?
It is time for Israel to reflect. Its stubborn refusal to accept fairness and justice as the basis for any peace settlement with the Arabs and its arrogant belief in military power as the solution to all its problems are at the roots of the regional problem and also the reason for the absence of the sense of "security" for the people of Israel.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Key is in overhaul of thinking and policy
July 16, 2008
Key is in overhaul of thinking and policy
THE guerrilla assault that killed nine American soldiers on Sunday at a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan reaffirms that the main front in the US-led "war against terror" is not Iraq. Indeed, Iraq should never have figured in the "war against terror" because the Saddam Hussein regime was never involved in any anti-US attack anywhere in the world, least of all the Sept.11 assaults in New York and Washington.
Iraq was turned into a playground for anti-US militants as the direct result of the US invasion and occupation of that country in implementation of an agenda that had little do with the "war against terror." The repeated US emphasis that an American withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for "international terrorists" is simple deception aimed at justifying the military presence there.
The ongoing guerrilla war there is Iraq-specific and the Iraqis waging it do not have an agenda beyond the borders of their country. They are fighting a battle to end the American military presence in their country. Their is no reason to argue that Iraq would pose a direct or indirect threat to US national security.
Even as Washington hawks continue to insist that Iraq is the number one priority in the "war against terror," the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing beyond containment.
Many in the US have woken up to the reality that in his frenzy to gain control of Iraq, US President George W Bush did not maintain his focus on Afghanistan and the problem of militancy there before moving vital military resources to the Iraq front.
The biggest blunder the US made in Afghanistan was to convince itself that the problem could be solved through military means. It did not give attention to assisting the people of Afghanistan to improve their daily life while it continued its war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
As a result, most Afghans are worse off than they were before the US military action against their country in 2001 and are pushed into the arms of militant recruiters.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appears to have realised the nature of the problem. He is calling for a double-pronged approach to tackle the issue — an intensified military campaign supported by better intelligence gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to Afghanistan. That approach might or might not work, but the real key lies in a fundamental shift in Washington's thinking and policy and a better understanding of the people of this part of the world.
Key is in overhaul of thinking and policy
THE guerrilla assault that killed nine American soldiers on Sunday at a remote outpost in eastern Afghanistan reaffirms that the main front in the US-led "war against terror" is not Iraq. Indeed, Iraq should never have figured in the "war against terror" because the Saddam Hussein regime was never involved in any anti-US attack anywhere in the world, least of all the Sept.11 assaults in New York and Washington.
Iraq was turned into a playground for anti-US militants as the direct result of the US invasion and occupation of that country in implementation of an agenda that had little do with the "war against terror." The repeated US emphasis that an American withdrawal from Iraq would be a victory for "international terrorists" is simple deception aimed at justifying the military presence there.
The ongoing guerrilla war there is Iraq-specific and the Iraqis waging it do not have an agenda beyond the borders of their country. They are fighting a battle to end the American military presence in their country. Their is no reason to argue that Iraq would pose a direct or indirect threat to US national security.
Even as Washington hawks continue to insist that Iraq is the number one priority in the "war against terror," the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing beyond containment.
Many in the US have woken up to the reality that in his frenzy to gain control of Iraq, US President George W Bush did not maintain his focus on Afghanistan and the problem of militancy there before moving vital military resources to the Iraq front.
The biggest blunder the US made in Afghanistan was to convince itself that the problem could be solved through military means. It did not give attention to assisting the people of Afghanistan to improve their daily life while it continued its war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
As a result, most Afghans are worse off than they were before the US military action against their country in 2001 and are pushed into the arms of militant recruiters.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appears to have realised the nature of the problem. He is calling for a double-pronged approach to tackle the issue — an intensified military campaign supported by better intelligence gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to Afghanistan. That approach might or might not work, but the real key lies in a fundamental shift in Washington's thinking and policy and a better understanding of the people of this part of the world.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding
July 14, 2008
Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding
THE new Lebanese cabinet headed by Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora announced on Friday represents the compromise agreement reached in Qatar this year after many months of political paralysis in the country.
The 30-member cabinet includes 16 ministers representing the majority bloc led by Siniora and 11 from the opposition led by Hizbollah. The other three ministers were named by President Michel Suleiman, who exercised his prerogative to do so as contained in the May 21 Doha agreement.
Effectively, the opposition has gained veto power that would be reflected in any decision that the government takes from now on., and the new equation of power has far-reaching implications for prospects for peacemaking in the region.
Surely, the compromise was not to the liking of some, mainly the US which had tried to forestall any move that would strengthen Hizbollah arguing that the group was taking its orders from Damascus and Tehran. However, the ground support that Hizbollah has among the Lebanese, particularly after the group successfully withstood Israel's military assault against the country two years ago, helped it have its way in the political stand-off.
Predictably, the Israelis are upset because the strong Hizbollah and allied presence in the government undermines its secret designs to lure Lebanon into a "peace" agreement after giving up the occupied Shebaa Farms to UN control. The UN says the area is Syrian territory but Damascus insists it is Lebanese and this justifies the state of confrontation between Israel and Hizbollah as a Lebanese resistance group. Indeed, there are continued behind-the-scene moves for peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria. However, even if the moves are meaningful, there is little chance of any Israel-Lebanon agreement without a peace deal between Israel and Syria. The newfound strength of the Hizbollah-led opposition in the Beirut government has removed all doubts, if there existed any, that Israel could cut a seperate deal with Lebanon.
In a broader context, it is also unlikely that any concrete move would or could be made any soon towards peace in a Israel-Lebanon-Syria framework, given the complexities and regional developments involving Iran.
As Siniora declared on Friday, the government's first task is to restore confidence in political institutions and the Lebanese political system and the second is to make sure that next year's parliamentary elections will be held transparently and under a new electoral law that "guarantees justice and true representation."
Hopefully, Siniora would be able to accomplish the mission despite the contradictions in the make-up of the new cabinet.
In the meantime, what matters for the Lebanese at this point in time is stability and security. With the Hizbollah-led opposition having entered the cabinet, the tension that gripped the country since early last year and fears of renewed civil strife have faded.
At least that is what the signs in Lebanon indicate. It is then time for the Lebanese to resume the process of rebuilding their country.
Time for Lebanese to resume rebuilding
THE new Lebanese cabinet headed by Prime Minister
Fouad Siniora announced on Friday represents the compromise agreement reached in Qatar this year after many months of political paralysis in the country.
The 30-member cabinet includes 16 ministers representing the majority bloc led by Siniora and 11 from the opposition led by Hizbollah. The other three ministers were named by President Michel Suleiman, who exercised his prerogative to do so as contained in the May 21 Doha agreement.
Effectively, the opposition has gained veto power that would be reflected in any decision that the government takes from now on., and the new equation of power has far-reaching implications for prospects for peacemaking in the region.
Surely, the compromise was not to the liking of some, mainly the US which had tried to forestall any move that would strengthen Hizbollah arguing that the group was taking its orders from Damascus and Tehran. However, the ground support that Hizbollah has among the Lebanese, particularly after the group successfully withstood Israel's military assault against the country two years ago, helped it have its way in the political stand-off.
Predictably, the Israelis are upset because the strong Hizbollah and allied presence in the government undermines its secret designs to lure Lebanon into a "peace" agreement after giving up the occupied Shebaa Farms to UN control. The UN says the area is Syrian territory but Damascus insists it is Lebanese and this justifies the state of confrontation between Israel and Hizbollah as a Lebanese resistance group. Indeed, there are continued behind-the-scene moves for peace between Israel and Lebanon and Israel and Syria. However, even if the moves are meaningful, there is little chance of any Israel-Lebanon agreement without a peace deal between Israel and Syria. The newfound strength of the Hizbollah-led opposition in the Beirut government has removed all doubts, if there existed any, that Israel could cut a seperate deal with Lebanon.
In a broader context, it is also unlikely that any concrete move would or could be made any soon towards peace in a Israel-Lebanon-Syria framework, given the complexities and regional developments involving Iran.
As Siniora declared on Friday, the government's first task is to restore confidence in political institutions and the Lebanese political system and the second is to make sure that next year's parliamentary elections will be held transparently and under a new electoral law that "guarantees justice and true representation."
Hopefully, Siniora would be able to accomplish the mission despite the contradictions in the make-up of the new cabinet.
In the meantime, what matters for the Lebanese at this point in time is stability and security. With the Hizbollah-led opposition having entered the cabinet, the tension that gripped the country since early last year and fears of renewed civil strife have faded.
At least that is what the signs in Lebanon indicate. It is then time for the Lebanese to resume the process of rebuilding their country.
Part of the reason, part of the problem
July 14, 2008
Part of the reason, part of the problem
America's top intelligence official has made some interesting comments about the US-Iranian stand-off that should be heard by every American particularly that they come amid signs of US/Israeli preparations for military action against Iran.
The comments by Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, clearly indicate that the US intelligence community does not believe there is a case for war against Iran. Beyond that, however, is a clear understanding of Iran's motivations in pursuing a hard line and why the US should take into consideration Tehran's genuine security concerns. He argued for US dialogue with Iran and engaging Tehran through multilateral institutions.
Fingar, who oversaw the production of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that Iran had likely halted the development of nuclear weapons in 2003, said that Iran had reasons to feel insecure because of the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Recognising that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point" for US policy, he said. "We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure."
Part of the reason, part of the problem
America's top intelligence official has made some interesting comments about the US-Iranian stand-off that should be heard by every American particularly that they come amid signs of US/Israeli preparations for military action against Iran.
The comments by Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, clearly indicate that the US intelligence community does not believe there is a case for war against Iran. Beyond that, however, is a clear understanding of Iran's motivations in pursuing a hard line and why the US should take into consideration Tehran's genuine security concerns. He argued for US dialogue with Iran and engaging Tehran through multilateral institutions.
Fingar, who oversaw the production of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that concluded that Iran had likely halted the development of nuclear weapons in 2003, said that Iran had reasons to feel insecure because of the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Recognising that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point" for US policy, he said. "We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure."
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict
July 12, 2008
Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict
THE drums of war are getting louder, with Israeli sources revealing that Israeli warplanes are practising in Iraqi airspace and land in US airbases in the country as preparation for a potential strike on Iran.
The "revelation" follows a series of test-firing of missiles conducted by Iran that prompted Israel to threaten that it could launch pre-emptive strikes designed to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear programme which the West insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons — a charge that Tehran denies.
It goes without saying that the US would have a key role in any Israeli military strike against Iran.
The missile tests have also led to a disinformation/misinformation campaign suggesting Iran had faked some of the test-firings and questioning whether it has missiles with enough range to hit Israel.
However, such questions are not going to dissuade the US and Israel from undertaking military strikes against Iran, whose announcement of the test-firing of missiles was deemed to be a warning that it has enough missiles and launchers to keep on firing on consecutive days. Obviously, Tehran wants to talk from what it sees as a position of strength, and this has only strengthened the US and Israeli resolve for military action against Iran.
That is what is indicated by the report that Israeli warplanes are engaged in massive nocturnal activity in Iraqi airspace and several of them were spotted in American-held airbases in Iraq. The Israeli moves in Iraq follows reports of a massive exercise over the Mediterranean several weeks ago that Israeli officials described as "the dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
The latest report quoted former Iraqi military officers in the Anbar province as saying that Israeli airplanes are seen arriving during the night from the west, entering Iraq's airspace and landing on a runway near the city of Hadita. They said they believed that the jets were practising for a raid on
Iran's nuclear sites.
There is no doubt that Israel would use American bases in Iraq as a platform from which to attack Iran. In fact, it would not be much off the mark to suggest that securing an absolute military control of Iraq to allow its ally Israel to have it way in the region was one of the US objectives of the invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.
And now the region faces the prospect of further conflict and serious disruption of life if Israel and the US, individually or collectively, were to strike at Iran.
On the surface, it would appear that there is little anyone could do to check the US/Israel-Iran confrontation from worsening since both sides are determined not to have the other have its way.
However, the stakes are too high for everyone, with the region having to pay first for the chaos and crises resulting from any US/Israeli military action against Iran. Washington should be told in no uncertain terms that the region could not afford yet another military misadventure while Tehran should be told to take upon itself to stay away from provocation that would have disastrous consequences for everyone.
The US should drop its insistence that diplomacy means the other party capitulating and giving up everything. Iran should come to terms with the fact that it has the responsibility to address genuine concerns, if any, caused by its nuclear activities.
That are the bottom lines at this critical juncture in time.
Bottom lines in the slide towards conflict
THE drums of war are getting louder, with Israeli sources revealing that Israeli warplanes are practising in Iraqi airspace and land in US airbases in the country as preparation for a potential strike on Iran.
The "revelation" follows a series of test-firing of missiles conducted by Iran that prompted Israel to threaten that it could launch pre-emptive strikes designed to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear programme which the West insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons — a charge that Tehran denies.
It goes without saying that the US would have a key role in any Israeli military strike against Iran.
The missile tests have also led to a disinformation/misinformation campaign suggesting Iran had faked some of the test-firings and questioning whether it has missiles with enough range to hit Israel.
However, such questions are not going to dissuade the US and Israel from undertaking military strikes against Iran, whose announcement of the test-firing of missiles was deemed to be a warning that it has enough missiles and launchers to keep on firing on consecutive days. Obviously, Tehran wants to talk from what it sees as a position of strength, and this has only strengthened the US and Israeli resolve for military action against Iran.
That is what is indicated by the report that Israeli warplanes are engaged in massive nocturnal activity in Iraqi airspace and several of them were spotted in American-held airbases in Iraq. The Israeli moves in Iraq follows reports of a massive exercise over the Mediterranean several weeks ago that Israeli officials described as "the dress rehearsal" for an attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
The latest report quoted former Iraqi military officers in the Anbar province as saying that Israeli airplanes are seen arriving during the night from the west, entering Iraq's airspace and landing on a runway near the city of Hadita. They said they believed that the jets were practising for a raid on
Iran's nuclear sites.
There is no doubt that Israel would use American bases in Iraq as a platform from which to attack Iran. In fact, it would not be much off the mark to suggest that securing an absolute military control of Iraq to allow its ally Israel to have it way in the region was one of the US objectives of the invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.
And now the region faces the prospect of further conflict and serious disruption of life if Israel and the US, individually or collectively, were to strike at Iran.
On the surface, it would appear that there is little anyone could do to check the US/Israel-Iran confrontation from worsening since both sides are determined not to have the other have its way.
However, the stakes are too high for everyone, with the region having to pay first for the chaos and crises resulting from any US/Israeli military action against Iran. Washington should be told in no uncertain terms that the region could not afford yet another military misadventure while Tehran should be told to take upon itself to stay away from provocation that would have disastrous consequences for everyone.
The US should drop its insistence that diplomacy means the other party capitulating and giving up everything. Iran should come to terms with the fact that it has the responsibility to address genuine concerns, if any, caused by its nuclear activities.
That are the bottom lines at this critical juncture in time.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Easy option is toughest for US
July 6, 2008
Easy option is toughest for US
THERE ARE clear signs that the people of Iraq want nothing to do with the so-called status of forces agreement sought by the US and they simply want the US military to pack up and leave their country. However, the Bush administration does not want to acknowledge since it would mean admitting that it is no longer welcome in Iraq.
The status of forces agreement was actually drawn up even before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It clearly means that colonisation of Iraq was the central objective of the invasion and occupation of that country.
A majority of the people of Iraq have realised this and hence their rejection of the US-drafted status of forces agreement. Looking the other way, the US is continuing to pressure the Iraqi government to sign it regardless of whether the people of the country like it or otherwise.
The Shiite leaders of Iraq are aware of the US determination to force the agreement down the Iraqi throat and hence their call for a national referendum on the issue. Washington is bitterly opposed to the idea because it is aware that the people of Iraq would throw the draft agreement if it was put for a referendum. And that is why it is keeping the contents of the draft document a secret (although the international media have brought out the key details of the draft agreement, which, if signed, would place Iraq under the absolute political, diplomatic and military control of the US and give the US military and its contractors a free hand to behave the way they want in the country without question).
Speaking on behalf of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the supreme religious leader of Iraq's Shiites, Imam Sadreddin Al Kabandji underlined on Friday that the draft must be made public and it is unacceptable that the government and the US are negotiating it behind closed doors.
Another Sistani aide has publicly called on Baghdad not to sign the agreement..
"If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries," said Sheikh Abdul Al Mahdi Al Karbalae.
The Americans would be better off listening to the calls because Sistani and his aides are speaking the language of the people of Iraq and they represent the majority of the population.
All Iraqi parties and politicians, except the Kurds, have said they oppose the agreement. The Kurds, who seem to be moving towards carving out their own independent entity in northern Iraq, are in favour of the agreement. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, insists that the agreement would not compromise Iraqi sovereignty but that argument is a lame duck because the contents of the draft are no longer a secret.
The US faces tough options in Iraq. It could pressure the government into signing the document, but then it would alienate an overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq and that in turn would make life even more difficult for the US forces in the country.
Of course, there is an easy option, which the US does not even want to consider but which Washington would be forced to embrace sooner or later: Pack up and go home.
Easy option is toughest for US
THERE ARE clear signs that the people of Iraq want nothing to do with the so-called status of forces agreement sought by the US and they simply want the US military to pack up and leave their country. However, the Bush administration does not want to acknowledge since it would mean admitting that it is no longer welcome in Iraq.
The status of forces agreement was actually drawn up even before the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. It clearly means that colonisation of Iraq was the central objective of the invasion and occupation of that country.
A majority of the people of Iraq have realised this and hence their rejection of the US-drafted status of forces agreement. Looking the other way, the US is continuing to pressure the Iraqi government to sign it regardless of whether the people of the country like it or otherwise.
The Shiite leaders of Iraq are aware of the US determination to force the agreement down the Iraqi throat and hence their call for a national referendum on the issue. Washington is bitterly opposed to the idea because it is aware that the people of Iraq would throw the draft agreement if it was put for a referendum. And that is why it is keeping the contents of the draft document a secret (although the international media have brought out the key details of the draft agreement, which, if signed, would place Iraq under the absolute political, diplomatic and military control of the US and give the US military and its contractors a free hand to behave the way they want in the country without question).
Speaking on behalf of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, the supreme religious leader of Iraq's Shiites, Imam Sadreddin Al Kabandji underlined on Friday that the draft must be made public and it is unacceptable that the government and the US are negotiating it behind closed doors.
Another Sistani aide has publicly called on Baghdad not to sign the agreement..
"If the government signs the deal it has to preserve the interests of the people, not compromise sovereignty and not permit Iraq to be used as a base for attacks on neighbouring countries," said Sheikh Abdul Al Mahdi Al Karbalae.
The Americans would be better off listening to the calls because Sistani and his aides are speaking the language of the people of Iraq and they represent the majority of the population.
All Iraqi parties and politicians, except the Kurds, have said they oppose the agreement. The Kurds, who seem to be moving towards carving out their own independent entity in northern Iraq, are in favour of the agreement. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, insists that the agreement would not compromise Iraqi sovereignty but that argument is a lame duck because the contents of the draft are no longer a secret.
The US faces tough options in Iraq. It could pressure the government into signing the document, but then it would alienate an overwhelming majority of the population of Iraq and that in turn would make life even more difficult for the US forces in the country.
Of course, there is an easy option, which the US does not even want to consider but which Washington would be forced to embrace sooner or later: Pack up and go home.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Positive signs in a dangerous path
July 5, 2008
Positive signs in a dangerous path
IRAN'S response to proposals by Western powers to end the nuclear stand-off has come at a time when speculation is high that the US and Israel are steadily moving towards launching military action against that country.
We do not know yet how exactly Tehran has responded to the Western proposals, but its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has called the Iranian response "a constructive and creative view and a focus on common ground."
According to Western diplomats, the Western proposals, sent to Tehran by the European Union's top diplomat Javier Solana last month, would have Iran freeze its current level of enrichment capacity for a certain time period during which the European Union would refrain from floating new sanctions.
Iran could not install any new centrifuges used in enrichment, a step that can produce weapons-grade fuel, for the interim period.
We have yet to hear any Iranian official hinting that Tehran is ready to give ground on the key question of enrichment, but it is possible that Tehran might be amenable to the idea of freezing its nuclear enrichment programme at its current level.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the US endorsement of the compromise proposals given to Iran, it is difficult to swallow the argument that the Bush administration is ready to deal with the Iranian regime if it accepts the compromise.
In fact, there are only two constants in the US-Iran nuclear stand-off: The first is Tehran's insistence that it would never make any compromise over its right to develop nuclear energy as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) , and this includes nuclear enrichment. The second is the combined US-Israeli determination for military action leading to regime change in Tehran regardless of whether Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. One would even wager that the US and Israel are hoping that the Iranians would not accept any compromise and thus would offer "justification' for military action against the country. That was indeed the case when the US was dealing with Saddam Hussein and it was clear that there was nothing the late Iraqi leader could have done to avert the US-led invasion of occupation of his country in 2003.
No doubt, the Iranians are aware of the certainty of the US-Israeli intentions and hence their tough talk and repeated warnings that any military action against Iran would be considered an act of war that would draw predictable (and unpredictable) retaliation.
At the same time, Iranian political leaders are sending signals that they are ready for diplomacy to end the dispute.
The foreign policy adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, has said it would be in Iran's interest to accept negotiations as the means to resolve the conflict while Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has spoken of a "new process."
Everyone in the Middle East and beyond is aware of the consequences of yet another military conflict in this region and is anxious to avert it. Let us hope that the new signals coming from Tehran are the forerunners of a diplomatic solution that would spare the region from further conflict, bloodshed and upheavals.
Positive signs in a dangerous path
IRAN'S response to proposals by Western powers to end the nuclear stand-off has come at a time when speculation is high that the US and Israel are steadily moving towards launching military action against that country.
We do not know yet how exactly Tehran has responded to the Western proposals, but its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has called the Iranian response "a constructive and creative view and a focus on common ground."
According to Western diplomats, the Western proposals, sent to Tehran by the European Union's top diplomat Javier Solana last month, would have Iran freeze its current level of enrichment capacity for a certain time period during which the European Union would refrain from floating new sanctions.
Iran could not install any new centrifuges used in enrichment, a step that can produce weapons-grade fuel, for the interim period.
We have yet to hear any Iranian official hinting that Tehran is ready to give ground on the key question of enrichment, but it is possible that Tehran might be amenable to the idea of freezing its nuclear enrichment programme at its current level.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the US endorsement of the compromise proposals given to Iran, it is difficult to swallow the argument that the Bush administration is ready to deal with the Iranian regime if it accepts the compromise.
In fact, there are only two constants in the US-Iran nuclear stand-off: The first is Tehran's insistence that it would never make any compromise over its right to develop nuclear energy as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) , and this includes nuclear enrichment. The second is the combined US-Israeli determination for military action leading to regime change in Tehran regardless of whether Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. One would even wager that the US and Israel are hoping that the Iranians would not accept any compromise and thus would offer "justification' for military action against the country. That was indeed the case when the US was dealing with Saddam Hussein and it was clear that there was nothing the late Iraqi leader could have done to avert the US-led invasion of occupation of his country in 2003.
No doubt, the Iranians are aware of the certainty of the US-Israeli intentions and hence their tough talk and repeated warnings that any military action against Iran would be considered an act of war that would draw predictable (and unpredictable) retaliation.
At the same time, Iranian political leaders are sending signals that they are ready for diplomacy to end the dispute.
The foreign policy adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, has said it would be in Iran's interest to accept negotiations as the means to resolve the conflict while Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has spoken of a "new process."
Everyone in the Middle East and beyond is aware of the consequences of yet another military conflict in this region and is anxious to avert it. Let us hope that the new signals coming from Tehran are the forerunners of a diplomatic solution that would spare the region from further conflict, bloodshed and upheavals.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Time to reflect on realistic options
July 4, 2008
Time to reflect on realistic options
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
The claim of responsibility by the Galilee Liberation Brigades was broadcast by Hizballah’s Al Manar TV station in Lebanon.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statements without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words (However, there is no explanation why Hizbollah would stay away from claiming that it had fulfilled its pledge of revenge for the Mughniyeh killing).
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statement without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words.
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas movement and reimpose a blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Hamas's response to the attack was that it was not responsible for the action but that such assaults were the natural reaction to Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories.
There is no reason to believe that Hamas, which has demonstrated a firm commitment to the truce it agreed with Israel last month, would engage in actions that contradict its pledges. Of all people, the Israelis know it well. Hopefully, Israel would not resort to deception and use Thursday's attack as a pretext to inflict harm on the people of Gaza by reimposing its blockade of the territory.
Surely, the Israelis are wise enough not to undermine the state of relative calm on the Gaza front with actions that they know well would unfounded. It is time for all sides to reflect on their options with a view to figuring out whether confrontation or moderation is the means to work out peace, tranquillity and life in security, safety and indeed dignity for their people.
Time to reflect on realistic options
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
The claim of responsibility by the Galilee Liberation Brigades was broadcast by Hizballah’s Al Manar TV station in Lebanon.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statements without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words (However, there is no explanation why Hizbollah would stay away from claiming that it had fulfilled its pledge of revenge for the Mughniyeh killing).
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas
ISRAELI intelligence reports suggest that Wednesday's bulldozer attack in occupied Jerusalem was the work of a group aligned with Lebanon's Hizbollah. The reports say that the attack was in revenge for the Israeli killing of the Lebanese group’s military commander, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus last February, and came in line with Hizbollah leaders' pledge that the Mughniyeh killing would be avenged by unconventional means that would shock Israelis.
Thursday's attack was claimed by at least three groups, but the most credible among them appeared to be one made by a group calling itself the Galilee Liberation Brigades, which has claimed two earlier suicide attacks in occupied Jerusalem. The three attacks were carried out by lone Palestinians living in occupied Jerusalem.
Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who addressed a news conference in Beirut just hours after Thursday's attack, did not refer to the incident. He spoke only about an impending prisoner exchange with Israel and confirmed that Hizbollah would be fulfilling its end of the bargain as committed in indirect negotiations with Israel.
Obviously, Israeli intelligence believes that it was no accident that Nasrallah's press conference came shortly after the Jerusalem attack and that his “diplomatic” statement without any reference to the attack was aimed at demonstrating to his fellow Arabs and Muslims that actions spoke louder than words.
Indeed, Israel is free to interpret Hizbollah statements and actions anyway it finds fit as long as it stays away from inflicting harm on the people of Lebanon. The Lebanese have paid a bitter price for external meddling in their internal affairs and it is high time they are left alone to live in peace and rebuild their lives.
On the other end, it was unclear whether Israel would use the Jerusalem attack as a means of pressure against the Palestinian Hamas movement and reimpose a blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Hamas's response to the attack was that it was not responsible for the action but that such assaults were the natural reaction to Israel's brutal occupation of the Palestinian territories.
There is no reason to believe that Hamas, which has demonstrated a firm commitment to the truce it agreed with Israel last month, would engage in actions that contradict its pledges. Of all people, the Israelis know it well. Hopefully, Israel would not resort to deception and use Thursday's attack as a pretext to inflict harm on the people of Gaza by reimposing its blockade of the territory.
Surely, the Israelis are wise enough not to undermine the state of relative calm on the Gaza front with actions that they know well would unfounded. It is time for all sides to reflect on their options with a view to figuring out whether confrontation or moderation is the means to work out peace, tranquillity and life in security, safety and indeed dignity for their people.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
No longer an African problem
July 3 2008
No longer an African problem
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has reportedly told African leaders to examine their own records and claims to power before seeking to sanction him for his country's recent election violence. He told fellow leaders gathered at the two-day summit of the 53-nation African Union in Sharm Al Sheikh that their claims to power were no more legitimate than his and chastised President Umaru Yar'Adua of Nigeria for having "worse elections than I did."
No wonder the other leaders who attended the summit could not move ahead with their effort to impose sanctions on Mugabe's Zimbabwe under intense Western pressure. Nor could they issue a public rebuke or even address a planned news conference, Instead, they encouraged Mugabe to enter into dialogue and form a power-sharing government with the country's opposition.
The Western governments seeking to pressure Mugabe, his spokesman George Charamba said, "can go and hang a thousand times."
However, Mugabe seemed to have made a compromise by saying he is ready to negotiate with the opposition in line with the call made by the African Union leaders, who held their Sharm Al Sheikh summit three days after Mugabe forced Zimbabweans to the polls to vote for him in a presidential runoff. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who won 48 per cent to Mugabe's 43 per cent in the initial round of voting in March, pulled out of the runoff saying he feared further violence against his people.
On Wednesday, Tsvangirai rejected dialogue with Mugabe saying conditions were not yet right for talks on forming a unity government.
Surely, he has his own reasons for adopting that position. He is insisting that the results of a first round of voting on March 29, in which he defeated Mugabe, should be the basis for talks.
Most people had expected the African Union summit to pressure Mugabe into changing his ways. However, the Zimbabwean leader's direct charge against them took the steam out of their push. Many of them are in no position to defend their policies and claim legitimate claim to the positions they hold.
Indeed, that is one of the key problems of Africa. Only a handful of the heads of state and government in the continent could justifiably defend their claims to power. Others have come to power through strong-arm tactics and exploitation of tribal rivalries. Most African leaders have seized power by force and have ruled for decades since. They are in position to point any critical finger at Mugabe since none of them would like to see their own records on rights and governance scrutinised. It is even funny that the US-led Western camp finds fault only with Mugabe while doing business as usual with other African leaders whose records are worse than the Zimbabwean leader's.
However, that does not mean that Mugabe, who has one of the worst records ever for any African ruler, should be allowed to have his way and the problem of Zimbabwe should be allowed to worsen.
There is strong international concern that Zimbabwe is nearing political and economic collapse. There has to be strong and effective international action to solve the Zimbabwean crisis since it has become clear that the people of Zimbabwe have been rendered helpless to help themselves against their own government and now it has been proved that the African Union could not help them either.
No longer an African problem
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has reportedly told African leaders to examine their own records and claims to power before seeking to sanction him for his country's recent election violence. He told fellow leaders gathered at the two-day summit of the 53-nation African Union in Sharm Al Sheikh that their claims to power were no more legitimate than his and chastised President Umaru Yar'Adua of Nigeria for having "worse elections than I did."
No wonder the other leaders who attended the summit could not move ahead with their effort to impose sanctions on Mugabe's Zimbabwe under intense Western pressure. Nor could they issue a public rebuke or even address a planned news conference, Instead, they encouraged Mugabe to enter into dialogue and form a power-sharing government with the country's opposition.
The Western governments seeking to pressure Mugabe, his spokesman George Charamba said, "can go and hang a thousand times."
However, Mugabe seemed to have made a compromise by saying he is ready to negotiate with the opposition in line with the call made by the African Union leaders, who held their Sharm Al Sheikh summit three days after Mugabe forced Zimbabweans to the polls to vote for him in a presidential runoff. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, who won 48 per cent to Mugabe's 43 per cent in the initial round of voting in March, pulled out of the runoff saying he feared further violence against his people.
On Wednesday, Tsvangirai rejected dialogue with Mugabe saying conditions were not yet right for talks on forming a unity government.
Surely, he has his own reasons for adopting that position. He is insisting that the results of a first round of voting on March 29, in which he defeated Mugabe, should be the basis for talks.
Most people had expected the African Union summit to pressure Mugabe into changing his ways. However, the Zimbabwean leader's direct charge against them took the steam out of their push. Many of them are in no position to defend their policies and claim legitimate claim to the positions they hold.
Indeed, that is one of the key problems of Africa. Only a handful of the heads of state and government in the continent could justifiably defend their claims to power. Others have come to power through strong-arm tactics and exploitation of tribal rivalries. Most African leaders have seized power by force and have ruled for decades since. They are in position to point any critical finger at Mugabe since none of them would like to see their own records on rights and governance scrutinised. It is even funny that the US-led Western camp finds fault only with Mugabe while doing business as usual with other African leaders whose records are worse than the Zimbabwean leader's.
However, that does not mean that Mugabe, who has one of the worst records ever for any African ruler, should be allowed to have his way and the problem of Zimbabwe should be allowed to worsen.
There is strong international concern that Zimbabwe is nearing political and economic collapse. There has to be strong and effective international action to solve the Zimbabwean crisis since it has become clear that the people of Zimbabwe have been rendered helpless to help themselves against their own government and now it has been proved that the African Union could not help them either.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Get down from the high horse
July 1, 2008
Get down from the high horse
Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah have agreed on a prisoner exchange deal after nearly two years of negotiations. It is not the first such deal between the two sides, but it highlights the folly of Israel's belief in military action as the answer to its conflict with the Arabs.
Under the agreement, Hizbollah will release the remains of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture had triggered the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and provide information on an Israeli air force navigator who went missing while in action over Lebanon 22 years ago. In return, Israel will free five Lebanese, the remains of Hizbollah fighters and an undetermined number of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons as well as provide information of four Iranian diplomats who went "missing" in Lebanon at the height of the Lebanese civil war.
Predictably, Hizbollah hailed the deal as a victory for itself.
"The world could not achieve the Israeli goal of recovering its soldiers without the resistance dictating its terms: the release of prisoners," according to Hizbollah executive council chief Hashem Safieddin.
The agreement certainly highlights that the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in the summer of 2006 could have been averted had the Jewish state's leaders listened to reason.
Israel cited Hizbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers as the reason for having ordered a massive military blitz against Lebanon that caused the death of more than 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and some 140 Israelis, mostly soldiers and security men.
It was as if Israel was waiting for an opportunity to launch military action with a view to destroying or at least seriously weakening Hizbollah's power as a group waging armed resistance. It refused to accept repeated calls for a cease-fire and negotiations to have the two captive soldiers freed in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli jails.
Then it became clear that the Israeli political leadership was acting under American pressure not to accept a cease-fire and press ahead with military power to destroy Hizbollah, a potent power that could pose a serious threat to US and Israeli interests in the event of military action against Iran.
However, Hizbollah surprised Israel and indeed the rest of the world with its resilience and withstood 34 days of fierce military assaults that caused, apart from the civilian deaths, extensive damage to Lebanon's infrastructure. For the first time in the region's history, a war was taken to the people of Israel, forcing them to take to bomb shelters in the face of mortar attacks against their towns. Indeed, Israel seemed to have been shocked as anyone else that Hizbollah could sustain itself in a such a military campaign that pitted the group against a country deemed to be the fifth or sixth strongest in the world. And that shock led to the eventual cease-fire that came after more than a month of military action that resulted in heavy suffering for the people of Lebanon and Israel for no fault of their own.
The Lebanon experience of 2006 and the agreement it has now struck with Hizbollah should be an eye-opener for Israel that there are no military solutions to its problems with the Arabs and that it would be better off climbing down from its military high horse and sitting down to negotiations based on justice and fairness.
Get down from the high horse
Israel and Lebanon's Hizbollah have agreed on a prisoner exchange deal after nearly two years of negotiations. It is not the first such deal between the two sides, but it highlights the folly of Israel's belief in military action as the answer to its conflict with the Arabs.
Under the agreement, Hizbollah will release the remains of the two Israeli soldiers whose capture had triggered the 2006 Israeli war on Lebanon and provide information on an Israeli air force navigator who went missing while in action over Lebanon 22 years ago. In return, Israel will free five Lebanese, the remains of Hizbollah fighters and an undetermined number of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons as well as provide information of four Iranian diplomats who went "missing" in Lebanon at the height of the Lebanese civil war.
Predictably, Hizbollah hailed the deal as a victory for itself.
"The world could not achieve the Israeli goal of recovering its soldiers without the resistance dictating its terms: the release of prisoners," according to Hizbollah executive council chief Hashem Safieddin.
The agreement certainly highlights that the Israeli aggression against Lebanon in the summer of 2006 could have been averted had the Jewish state's leaders listened to reason.
Israel cited Hizbollah's capture of the two Israeli soldiers as the reason for having ordered a massive military blitz against Lebanon that caused the death of more than 1,000 Lebanese, mostly civilians, and some 140 Israelis, mostly soldiers and security men.
It was as if Israel was waiting for an opportunity to launch military action with a view to destroying or at least seriously weakening Hizbollah's power as a group waging armed resistance. It refused to accept repeated calls for a cease-fire and negotiations to have the two captive soldiers freed in exchange for Arabs held in Israeli jails.
Then it became clear that the Israeli political leadership was acting under American pressure not to accept a cease-fire and press ahead with military power to destroy Hizbollah, a potent power that could pose a serious threat to US and Israeli interests in the event of military action against Iran.
However, Hizbollah surprised Israel and indeed the rest of the world with its resilience and withstood 34 days of fierce military assaults that caused, apart from the civilian deaths, extensive damage to Lebanon's infrastructure. For the first time in the region's history, a war was taken to the people of Israel, forcing them to take to bomb shelters in the face of mortar attacks against their towns. Indeed, Israel seemed to have been shocked as anyone else that Hizbollah could sustain itself in a such a military campaign that pitted the group against a country deemed to be the fifth or sixth strongest in the world. And that shock led to the eventual cease-fire that came after more than a month of military action that resulted in heavy suffering for the people of Lebanon and Israel for no fault of their own.
The Lebanon experience of 2006 and the agreement it has now struck with Hizbollah should be an eye-opener for Israel that there are no military solutions to its problems with the Arabs and that it would be better off climbing down from its military high horse and sitting down to negotiations based on justice and fairness.
Monday, June 30, 2008
A good starting point as any
June 30, 2008
A good starting point as any
A new organisation has emerged as a potential counterweight to the all too powerful and influential pro-Israeli lobby in the US, he American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The approach of the new group, J Street, is marked different from AIPAC in that it favour diplomacy over use of military force to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Also absent from the ranks of J Street, according to its founders, hawkish views that consider as impossible Arab-Israeli co-existence.
A recent poll by the American Jewish Committee found that 55 per cent of American Jews think Israel and the Arabs will never be able to live in peace, and that 82 per cent think the Arabs' are not seeking the return of occupied territories but the destruction of Israel.
Interestingly, the same poll also found that American Jews are troubled by current US foreign policy. Two-thirds said they believed the United States should not have invaded Iraq — a move that strengthened Iran and thus undermined Israel's security.
All those interested in seeing peace in the Middle East should be watching the emergence of J Street and trying to figure out whether it could be a positive influence in the effort for fair and just Arab-Israeli agreements.
It is known that AIPAC's political influence and support of hawkish US and Israeli policies have been a serious hindrance to efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. In fact, AIPAC is accepted as the most powerful lobbying group in the US and its influence runs throughout the US body politic, whether Republican or Democrat.
J Street describes itself as the political arm of the pro-peace movement and promises to "advocate forcefully'' in support of diplomatic solutions over military ones and dialogue over confrontation.
"What J Street was started to do was fill a vacuum, and that vacuum is that nobody has been a strong political voice for assertive American diplomacy in the Middle East to resolve conflict," says the group.
One of its first actions was the release of a full-page ad in the New York Times last week chastising "established'' pro-Israel organizations for their "deafening silence'' on Israel's new cease-fire with Hamas and the resumption of peace talks with Syria.
"These efforts may or may not succeed,'' the ad said. "But they are designed to enhance Israel's security, the region's stability and to bring peace closer. And they deserve our support.''
It is too early to say whether J Street would be able to really make the much-needed difference in the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Washington's open bias in favour of Israel on every issue. However, the very fact that a group like J Street has been formed — it claims a membership of 30,000 including rabbis, CEOs and several Nobel laureates — is a positive step since it affirms the existence of American Jews who do not blindly endorse whatever actions and policies followed by Israel and who believe that any Arab-Israeli peace agreement should be just and fair to all parties involved.
It is a good starting point as any. Let us keep watching.
A good starting point as any
A new organisation has emerged as a potential counterweight to the all too powerful and influential pro-Israeli lobby in the US, he American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
The approach of the new group, J Street, is marked different from AIPAC in that it favour diplomacy over use of military force to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Also absent from the ranks of J Street, according to its founders, hawkish views that consider as impossible Arab-Israeli co-existence.
A recent poll by the American Jewish Committee found that 55 per cent of American Jews think Israel and the Arabs will never be able to live in peace, and that 82 per cent think the Arabs' are not seeking the return of occupied territories but the destruction of Israel.
Interestingly, the same poll also found that American Jews are troubled by current US foreign policy. Two-thirds said they believed the United States should not have invaded Iraq — a move that strengthened Iran and thus undermined Israel's security.
All those interested in seeing peace in the Middle East should be watching the emergence of J Street and trying to figure out whether it could be a positive influence in the effort for fair and just Arab-Israeli agreements.
It is known that AIPAC's political influence and support of hawkish US and Israeli policies have been a serious hindrance to efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. In fact, AIPAC is accepted as the most powerful lobbying group in the US and its influence runs throughout the US body politic, whether Republican or Democrat.
J Street describes itself as the political arm of the pro-peace movement and promises to "advocate forcefully'' in support of diplomatic solutions over military ones and dialogue over confrontation.
"What J Street was started to do was fill a vacuum, and that vacuum is that nobody has been a strong political voice for assertive American diplomacy in the Middle East to resolve conflict," says the group.
One of its first actions was the release of a full-page ad in the New York Times last week chastising "established'' pro-Israel organizations for their "deafening silence'' on Israel's new cease-fire with Hamas and the resumption of peace talks with Syria.
"These efforts may or may not succeed,'' the ad said. "But they are designed to enhance Israel's security, the region's stability and to bring peace closer. And they deserve our support.''
It is too early to say whether J Street would be able to really make the much-needed difference in the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict and Washington's open bias in favour of Israel on every issue. However, the very fact that a group like J Street has been formed — it claims a membership of 30,000 including rabbis, CEOs and several Nobel laureates — is a positive step since it affirms the existence of American Jews who do not blindly endorse whatever actions and policies followed by Israel and who believe that any Arab-Israeli peace agreement should be just and fair to all parties involved.
It is a good starting point as any. Let us keep watching.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Iran nuclear dispute — only a facade
Iran nuclear dispute — only a facade
By PV Vivekanand
The rather abrupt shift in media focus to the possibility of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities seems to indicate that the US is poised to use military force yet again in order to bring about "strategic" changes to serve its interests in the region.
With seven months to go before George W Bush bows out of the White House, there seems to be a growing sense of urgency for military action against Iran.
Given Washington's troubles in Iraq and its vulnerability in the region, it would seem unlikely that the Bush administration would approve or engage in military action against Iran. However, there is much more at stake than the nuclear dispute for the US to have decided to go for military action against Iran.
There is a host of compelling reasons for Washington to seek to change the geopolitical shape of Iran, beginning with the theocratic regime which the US sees as a perpetual challenge to its quest for regional dominance and a military threat to its "strategic ally" Israel.
Foremost in the minds of those hawks in Washington who orchestrated the 2001 war against Afghanistan and 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is that Iran benefited most from the US actions.
The Afghan war saw the hard-line Taliban, who were a nagging thorn on the Iranian side, being ousted from power. The invasion of Iraq removed Iran's foe Saddam Hussein from power and brought in Tehran's allies to power in Baghdad who are unable or unwilling to sever their bindings with the Iranian leadership. And it is also clear that Iran's proxy forces are indirectly engaged in the highly effective guerrilla war Iraq if only not to allow the US military to settle down there and train their guns eastwards.
Tehran has not only gained dominating influence in Iraq but is also using that clout to frustrate all American efforts to realise Washington's strategic objectives in Iraq and the rest of the region.
And the Washington hawks are painfully aware that they could be held accountable at some point, sooner than later, for their strategic failures and blunders in Iraq that led to Iran emerging as a dominating regional player at the expense of American interests.
And that is why the hawks seem to be clamouring for military action aimed at bringing about geopolitical changes that they hope would not only deprive Iran of its newfound regional dominance but also remove it as a threat and challenge to the US.
Obviously, the Washington hard-liners are hoping that the situation resulting from "regime change" in Iran would be vindicate their failures in Iraq.
Advance notice
Recent reports of Israeli preparations for military strikes against Iran seem to be intended as advance notice to prepare the international community for the US use of force to neutralise Iran.
However, a realistic assessment shows that Israel does not have the military capability to destroy all Iran's nuclear sites within a safe time span. It cannot effectively check the Iranian nuclear programme without drawing massive Iranian retaliation against US and allied interests in the region. Iranian leaders have said that they would hold the US responsible for any military action — including Israeli strikes — against their country.
In view of the finding that the Israeli air force may be too small to finish the job of bombing out Iranian nuclear installations — which experts say would take as many as 1,000 strikes to be destroyed since they are too distant, numerous and fortified — the consensus is that it has to be a joint US-Israeli operation.
Many observers in the US are convinced that the planned military operation would not be limited to crippling Iran's nuclear programme and would aim at "regime change" in Tehran by creating a situation where the people of Iran are encouraged to rise up and topple against the theocratic regime.
'Nuclear option'
Part of such action, observers argue, is the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" for the first time in history (The atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "tactical weapons," which were developed after World War II). Such weapons are supposed to have devastating results within limited areas and they would "take care" of most of Iran's underground nuclear facilities as well as defensive and offensive capabilties, according to experts.
Strengthening the argument is a growing belief that the US is edging closer to using nuclear weapons again, 63 years after it did so in Japan, in order to reaffirm its global dominance.
The American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement in 2006 expressing deep concern in this context: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for pre-emptive counter-proliferation purposes."
The society's concern is particularly relevant since Bush has refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.
At a White House press conference in April 2006, Bush was asked: "When you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
Bush replied: "All options are on the table."
Few people attach any meaning to repeated statements by Bush and other senior US officials that they want to solve the nuclear dispute with Iran through diplomatic means.
The key question now is: If the US is indeed determined to stage military action against Iran, then when could anyone expect it?
One of the re-election pledges that Bush made to his hard-line Republican camp in October 2004 was to effect "regime change" in Iran before he leaves office. That leaves us with a clear seven months from now. The rest is subject to speculation and conjecture.
By PV Vivekanand
The rather abrupt shift in media focus to the possibility of military action against Iran's nuclear facilities seems to indicate that the US is poised to use military force yet again in order to bring about "strategic" changes to serve its interests in the region.
With seven months to go before George W Bush bows out of the White House, there seems to be a growing sense of urgency for military action against Iran.
Given Washington's troubles in Iraq and its vulnerability in the region, it would seem unlikely that the Bush administration would approve or engage in military action against Iran. However, there is much more at stake than the nuclear dispute for the US to have decided to go for military action against Iran.
There is a host of compelling reasons for Washington to seek to change the geopolitical shape of Iran, beginning with the theocratic regime which the US sees as a perpetual challenge to its quest for regional dominance and a military threat to its "strategic ally" Israel.
Foremost in the minds of those hawks in Washington who orchestrated the 2001 war against Afghanistan and 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq is that Iran benefited most from the US actions.
The Afghan war saw the hard-line Taliban, who were a nagging thorn on the Iranian side, being ousted from power. The invasion of Iraq removed Iran's foe Saddam Hussein from power and brought in Tehran's allies to power in Baghdad who are unable or unwilling to sever their bindings with the Iranian leadership. And it is also clear that Iran's proxy forces are indirectly engaged in the highly effective guerrilla war Iraq if only not to allow the US military to settle down there and train their guns eastwards.
Tehran has not only gained dominating influence in Iraq but is also using that clout to frustrate all American efforts to realise Washington's strategic objectives in Iraq and the rest of the region.
And the Washington hawks are painfully aware that they could be held accountable at some point, sooner than later, for their strategic failures and blunders in Iraq that led to Iran emerging as a dominating regional player at the expense of American interests.
And that is why the hawks seem to be clamouring for military action aimed at bringing about geopolitical changes that they hope would not only deprive Iran of its newfound regional dominance but also remove it as a threat and challenge to the US.
Obviously, the Washington hard-liners are hoping that the situation resulting from "regime change" in Iran would be vindicate their failures in Iraq.
Advance notice
Recent reports of Israeli preparations for military strikes against Iran seem to be intended as advance notice to prepare the international community for the US use of force to neutralise Iran.
However, a realistic assessment shows that Israel does not have the military capability to destroy all Iran's nuclear sites within a safe time span. It cannot effectively check the Iranian nuclear programme without drawing massive Iranian retaliation against US and allied interests in the region. Iranian leaders have said that they would hold the US responsible for any military action — including Israeli strikes — against their country.
In view of the finding that the Israeli air force may be too small to finish the job of bombing out Iranian nuclear installations — which experts say would take as many as 1,000 strikes to be destroyed since they are too distant, numerous and fortified — the consensus is that it has to be a joint US-Israeli operation.
Many observers in the US are convinced that the planned military operation would not be limited to crippling Iran's nuclear programme and would aim at "regime change" in Tehran by creating a situation where the people of Iran are encouraged to rise up and topple against the theocratic regime.
'Nuclear option'
Part of such action, observers argue, is the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" for the first time in history (The atomic bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "tactical weapons," which were developed after World War II). Such weapons are supposed to have devastating results within limited areas and they would "take care" of most of Iran's underground nuclear facilities as well as defensive and offensive capabilties, according to experts.
Strengthening the argument is a growing belief that the US is edging closer to using nuclear weapons again, 63 years after it did so in Japan, in order to reaffirm its global dominance.
The American Physical Society, representing 40,000 members of the profession that created nuclear weapons, issued a statement in 2006 expressing deep concern in this context: "The American Physical Society is deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states and for pre-emptive counter-proliferation purposes."
The society's concern is particularly relevant since Bush has refused to rule out using nuclear weapons against Iran.
At a White House press conference in April 2006, Bush was asked: "When you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"
Bush replied: "All options are on the table."
Few people attach any meaning to repeated statements by Bush and other senior US officials that they want to solve the nuclear dispute with Iran through diplomatic means.
The key question now is: If the US is indeed determined to stage military action against Iran, then when could anyone expect it?
One of the re-election pledges that Bush made to his hard-line Republican camp in October 2004 was to effect "regime change" in Iran before he leaves office. That leaves us with a clear seven months from now. The rest is subject to speculation and conjecture.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Truce should not be a smokescreen
June 19, 2008
Truce should not be a smokescreen
A CEASEFIRE is supposed to take effect on Thursday between Israel and Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip with hopes that it would hold and contain tensions and check an expected Israeli military offensive against the Mediterrean coastal strip.
Egypt and Hamas, which controls the coastal strip, announced the the Egyptian-proposed ceasefire (tahadiyeh) on Tuesday and Israel officially confirmed it on Wednesday and promised to ease its blockade of Gaza next week.
The first beneficiary of the truce should be the ordinary Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip under the choking Israeli siege. Living conditions are reported to be at one of the worst points ever in the Gaza Strip and the promised easing of the Israeli blockade should be a major relief for them.
Residents of southern Israel should also be relieved since the ceasefire means an end to the daily rocket attacks against them coming from the Gaza Strip.
Hamas will be in charge of the Rafah border crossing — when it is reopened — and this should allow Gazans to secure their food and needs of basic commodities.
Israel has agreed to work separately on a a deal to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who is believed to be held by several groups, including Hamas allies.
Releasing Shalit will come only in return for freeing a large number of Palestinian prisoners.
Beyond an end to Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel and Israeli military strikes against the Gaza Strip as well as an easing of the Israeli blockade, the ceasefire deal has an impact on reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah.
It offers Hamas a political and diplomatic plus point that will also give it some leverage in dealing with Fatah. It offers Hamas, rather than Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, the power to force a cease-fire in the West Bank. Reports in the Israeli press acknowledge that if quiet is maintained in the south, Israel will have to extend the truce to the West Bank in another six months.
Abbas is expected to make his first visit to Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area last year, in an effort to negotiate an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Now he faces a politically strengthened Hamas. That is how many see the evolving situation.
However, the fact should not be overlooked that Hamas represents a major segment of the Palestinian community and it has proved its strength in legislative elections. As such, its involvement is essential in any serious and realistic effort for peace in Palestine. Fatah and other Palestinian groups have recognised it. Israel also needs to accept it and should not see the current ceasefire as a convenient and temporary arrangement that would allow it to come up with new measures to contain Palestinian resistance to its occupation of Palestinian territories.
Truce should not be a smokescreen
A CEASEFIRE is supposed to take effect on Thursday between Israel and Palestinian groups in the Gaza Strip with hopes that it would hold and contain tensions and check an expected Israeli military offensive against the Mediterrean coastal strip.
Egypt and Hamas, which controls the coastal strip, announced the the Egyptian-proposed ceasefire (tahadiyeh) on Tuesday and Israel officially confirmed it on Wednesday and promised to ease its blockade of Gaza next week.
The first beneficiary of the truce should be the ordinary Palestinian people living in the Gaza Strip under the choking Israeli siege. Living conditions are reported to be at one of the worst points ever in the Gaza Strip and the promised easing of the Israeli blockade should be a major relief for them.
Residents of southern Israel should also be relieved since the ceasefire means an end to the daily rocket attacks against them coming from the Gaza Strip.
Hamas will be in charge of the Rafah border crossing — when it is reopened — and this should allow Gazans to secure their food and needs of basic commodities.
Israel has agreed to work separately on a a deal to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who is believed to be held by several groups, including Hamas allies.
Releasing Shalit will come only in return for freeing a large number of Palestinian prisoners.
Beyond an end to Palestinian rocket attacks against southern Israel and Israeli military strikes against the Gaza Strip as well as an easing of the Israeli blockade, the ceasefire deal has an impact on reconciliation talks between Hamas and Fatah.
It offers Hamas a political and diplomatic plus point that will also give it some leverage in dealing with Fatah. It offers Hamas, rather than Palestinian President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, the power to force a cease-fire in the West Bank. Reports in the Israeli press acknowledge that if quiet is maintained in the south, Israel will have to extend the truce to the West Bank in another six months.
Abbas is expected to make his first visit to Gaza since Hamas seized control of the area last year, in an effort to negotiate an agreement between Fatah and Hamas. Now he faces a politically strengthened Hamas. That is how many see the evolving situation.
However, the fact should not be overlooked that Hamas represents a major segment of the Palestinian community and it has proved its strength in legislative elections. As such, its involvement is essential in any serious and realistic effort for peace in Palestine. Fatah and other Palestinian groups have recognised it. Israel also needs to accept it and should not see the current ceasefire as a convenient and temporary arrangement that would allow it to come up with new measures to contain Palestinian resistance to its occupation of Palestinian territories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Iraq counter](http://a href="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html" img src="http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/images/iraqdeaths.gif" alt="Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator" width="150" height="150" border="0" /a){kind=link}