When it announced that it was giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama last month, the Nobel Committee praised the president for his efforts on climate change. It also said in its citation that, with Mr. Obama now in office, a "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position" and "dialogue and negotiations" are the preferred instruments for conflict resolution.
This commendation raises concerns for many observers, including me, who believe in American exceptionalism, and who agree with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that we are the "indispensable nation." Preserving and defending our values at home and promoting them abroad are essential to protecting our national interests. Others--particularly opponents of the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq--disagree and welcome a correction to what they perceive as the zeal and excesses of the Bush administration.
Regardless of where you stand, it should be clear that multilateralism isn't always the best approach and that the idea that the United States is merely one among many equal nations doesn't take into account the unique role the U.S. can play in world affairs.
Nowhere is this clearer than in Bosnia, where, in the early 1990s, a country and its people were under attack and on the brink of destruction. As the situation deteriorated, the U.S. demurred, and Europe took ownership of the crisis. Speaking for the European Community, Luxembourg Foreign Minister Jacques Poos famously declared, "The hour of Europe has dawned." Unfortunately, that was an hour of passivity and noninterventionism, and it turned into years of carnage and the worst European genocide since World War II. The slaughter ended only when the U.S. led a NATO military campaign to halt the violence.
Today, Bosnia is again under threat. This time the threat is not from the brutality and immediacy of genocide. Rather, it is a more subtle menace: the prospect of a state weakened to the extent that it dissolves; leaves its people in separatist, monoethnic conclaves; loses all hope for democratic development; and validates ultranationalism. This is happening not on battlefields, but at the negotiating table. It is happening because, rather than strengthening state powers and drawing the recalcitrant Bosnian Serbs back into Bosnia, representatives of European Union member nations led by former Bosnia chief negotiator Carl Bildt are walking back parts of the 1995 Dayton Agreement that had put an end to the three-and-a-half year war that had torn the country apart. More at the link. Why would it not surprise me that the current administration doesn't really have a clue where Bosnia is and what could happen there?
As a series of bomb blasts began to occur in Pakistani cities prior to the launch of the army operation in South Waziristan, a demonstration in Karachi by parties that claim religion as their raison detre underscored some key conflicts Pakistan faces: the requirements of justice under due process of law versus tribal, extra-judicial punishments; tensions between the elected civilian government and the establishment; and conflict between a long-standing foreign policy versus new domestic compulsions.
The demonstration symbolised the two options ahead: the long road towards becoming a modern, progressive democratic nation or descent into the retrogressive order envisioned by the Taliban and their supporters.
Ostensibly railing against proposed changes in the controversial Blasphemy law, speakers slammed the Kary Logar Bill and its supporters such as Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and Pakistans ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani. The speakers supported the armed forces stand against the Bill (which was subsequently signed into law, drafted by American legislators for the American, not the Pakistani government, to approve).
The traditional nexus between the religious right and the military is no secret. Superficial divisions surfaced after the army, under General Musharraf, took a U-turn on its traditional pro-jihadi stand following the cataclysmic events of 9/11, but the bond remains strong. They share notions about defending Pakistans ideological frontiers and the real enemy (India), and a distaste for democracy (especially the Pakistan Peoples Party).
These views found echo in the cacophony of knee-jerk protests against the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act, 2009. Those who went against the tide were dismissed as American lackeys although the military (annoyed at being by-passed this time) has for decades taken far huger amounts of aid than are in prospect now, with various undisclosed conditions, leading to repercussions that reverberate today. But conditionalities were unacceptable when the aid went to social sectors under civilian rule education, health and energy. The Act was in the works for nearly two years, since before this government took over the result of sustained efforts by various people, not least Benazir Bhutto, to make America realise it must deal with elected representatives. It is a belated response to the long-standing and justified criticism of past policies of supporting military governments in Pakistan, as acknowledged by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama.
Washington is obviously and understandably keen that American taxpayers money is not used for illegal and dangerous activities, as any accountable, elected government would be (a good lesson for Pakistanis to learn). The wording of the Act, even after the explanatory note, makes it more difficult to repeat past mistakes. Pakistan must now ensure that the U.S. itself sticks to this commitment and vice versa concerns based on past betrayals.
The alternative to this enhanced partnership is a continued one-dimensional (security-based) relationship with America at the expense of democratic institutions in Pakistan, and continued mediation by countries like Saudi Arabia with even more dangerous vested interests and agendas. Such agendas have directly contributed to a rise in religious extremism, sectarianism and misogyny in Pakistan, and restrictions on how Pakistan deals with other (Muslim) countries. The Pakistan armys protest proved to be a storm in a teacup as some had predicted, but the tantrum did get it more direct military aid prior to the ground offensive in South Waziristan. It also makes it difficult for the civilian government to take any credit for restarting the economy and for creating a political consensus against the militants.
The demonstration against Kary Logar illustrated the irrationality and anti-Americanism that triggered the anti-Bill wave. Speakers accused America of using the Bill (President Obama had not yet signed it into an Act) to amend the Blasphemy law though several Islamic scholars and jurists have recommended a review and even repeal for the sake of justice and humanity, the essence of Islam.
Ideally, of course, Pakistan should not require aid. This is hardly realistic after decades of dependence, but still a long-term goal to aspire for. Another goal to aspire for is for the civilian government to control the army, and not the other way around.
Pakistans armed forces need to focus on the fight against the militants. Public sympathy is swinging in the armys favour but it will take a lot more to weed out elements sympathetic to the Taliban/Al Qaeda from the ranks of those who were until recently handlers for their jihadi partners. The armed forces are also still struggling to regain the credibility they lost during the Musharraf years (hence General Kayanis stance after taking over as the Chief of the Army Staff, that no army person would meet politicians without due clearance). But old habits die hard, as evidenced by the politics played during the Shahbaz Sharif-led long march and by the covert midnight meeting of Shahbaz Sharif with the COAS, which hardly conformed with the due process for such meetings laid out by the Defence Ministry.
The daring attack and siege of the General Head Quarters (GHQ) rallied opinion around the men in uniform. Confusingly, this includes religious right-wing parties linked to the very forces the army is pitted against (not so confusing when one remembers the generals who termed the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan as true patriots after they offered to fight India in the post-Mumbai attack fallout).
These patriots are now attacking targets everywhere, hard or soft. Their ideological brethren in other organisations are mounting attacks in neighbouring countries most recently, Iran and Afghanistan. Rather than be defensive and deny the complicity of Pakistan-based actors in such attacks, the government and the army need to accept this possibility, plan preventive measures, and charge, try and punish those who are arrested. They need to be on the same page and work together for the direction Pakistan needs to move towards. This goes for pro-democracy elements in civil society, too.
Pakistan joined this war at someone elses behest and with someone elses money decades ago. But right now, the entire country is the battleground and the entire population a potential target, as underlined by the despicable attack on the Islamic University in Islamabad. Pakistan cannot win it with a half-hearted anti-jihadi stance that sees fit to use good Taliban against bad Taliban, and unless the establishment (army-bureaucracy-intelligence agencies) removes its traditional anti-India blinkers.
(Beena Sarwar is a Karachi-based freelance journalist and documentary filmmaker
Posted by: john frum ||
10/24/2009 07:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
Suleiman Haddad wrote that peace is almost impossible, and urged the U.S. and the international community to pressure Israel to implement the U.N. resolutions. Otherwise, he said, "the region will face difficult choices, and resistance will be the only [possible] option for the Arab and Palestinian people..."
Haddad went on to distinguish several groups within the Arab world: "Some," he wrote, "have accepted a mistaken and unacceptable formula of peace with Israel for no reward, while others are still hesitating between moving ahead and withdrawing [from previous agreements]. [These people] need to take a decision, [and] we call upon them, in the name of justice, history, and the millions of shahids who have fallen since 1948, not to sacrifice the [Arab] cause.
"There is yet another group who is now standing up and calling out loud not to relinquish a single [Arab] right or a single grain of soil. This group knows that the Arabs have given more than is possible, and that their consent to [a Palestinian state] within the 1967 borders is a concession that we never imagined we would give. [But even] this concession has been rejected by the enemy that has come from the ends of the world to occupy our land, kill our people, and defile our holy places while uttering lofty [slogans] about [its] rights. This enemy believes that peace will only be achieved through the muzzle of the gun, [and] we are informing it today that we too have become convinced that peace will only be achieved through the muzzle of the gun..."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
"peace will only be achieved through the muzzle of the gun..."
Power, peace- indistinguishable with these types. Short answer- Obama has a communications director he can loan you.
"Al-Thawra editor As'ad 'Aboud called on the Arab countries not to be fooled by the Western attempts to portray Iran as the Arabs' enemy, and to realize that the real enemy is Israel. He wrote: "A confrontation [with Israel] is inevitable, because they leave us no choice. Every day they continue the settlement, the Judaizing [of Jerusalem], and the crimes against Al-Aqsa. There are always more shahids, more prisoners, more arrests, and more crimes. Who stands against all these, and how?
"In light of the glad tidings of [intra-]Palestinian reconciliation that Khaled Mash'al has brought us, a third Palestinian intifada may be possible.
Or not, considering that Abbas has called for elections to take place because the reconciliation kind of fell through.
Considering the failure of all the Arab efforts towards peace, perhaps we must make the [Palestinian] cause once again an Arab and Muslim cause.
Go for it. See what happens with Bibi Netanyahu as prime minister.
"In light of our legitimate desire to preserve our rights, our culture, our Palestine and our Al-Aqsa, [we must understand that] Iran is a real power that does not hide its solidarity with those who acknowledge our rights, and does not hide [the fact] that it has no intention to attack, in any way, the countries of the region or any one of these countries.
"I am sure that all the countries in the region, and all the Arab and Muslim countries, understand the danger, and realize that the source of danger is not Iran's missiles or nuclear facilities, but rather Israel..."
"Quick! Feed Israel to the crocodile before it notices the rest of us!!"
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
HMMMMM, HMMM, DIALECTISM = PRAGMATISM > wwhell, we have the mainly MUSLIM NEAR EAST, ADRIATIC + CASPIAN, going nukulaar peaceably; whilst CENTRAL ASIA is being "ink blotted", i.e. differentiated SOVEREIGN OR AUTONOMOUS PRO-ISLAMIST enclaves are being forcibly carved out from the COLD WAR NUC MAJOR STATES OF RUSSIA, CHINA, + INDIA, likely intended to unite at a time later.
The editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Tareq Al-Homayed, wrote in an editorial titled "Iran -- Terrorism Returns Home":(1) "The Iranian regime raised its voice in condemnation of terrorism and cast accusations against the West following the suicide bombing that targeted Revolutionary Guards leaders and others in the Sistan-Baluchistan province, near Iran's border with Pakistan. [But] we could say here that terrorism has returned home, i.e. to Iran...
"The Iranians [have] tried to use extremist groups in our region in order to realize the Islamic Revolution's goals, whether [these groups] are Al-Qaeda or other similar groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. [Moreover,] Iran was a stopover [for fighters] on the way to joining Al-Qaeda, [as reported by] some members who surrendered themselves recently in Riyadh, such as Fawwaz Al-Otaibi. In fact some of those who [passed] through Iran to join Al-Qaeda in Pakistan or Afghanistan [have] admitted that people wearing [Iranian] security uniforms facilitated their journey through Iran!...
"The second lesson to be learned from this suicide operation, for which the Iranian group Jundallah [has] claimed responsibility, is the danger of tampering with the sectarian issue... [This] issue, which Iran has exploited and continues to exploit in our region, blew up in the face of the Mullah regime, and did so violently...
"Exploiting terrorism for political or security reasons, and tampering with sectarianism, is fire that burns the hands of all of those who play with it and exploit these issues. This is what we have seen with regards to all the conflicts in our region for [many] years.
"The [October 19, 2009] suicide operation that took place in Iran clearly involved two matters that usually please Iran -- suicide operations and the sectarian dimension. These are two issues from which we have suffered a great deal in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan and even in Lebanon, Yemen, and Egypt -- and of course the list goes on!"(
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
An editorial in the Saudi daily Al-Watan accused Iran of destabilizing Arab countries by supporting Al-Qaeda and by instigating sectarian conflict: "...Whatever harms the Arabian Peninsula and the Arab Gulf has an impact on the rest of the countries of the region, [and] if a country like Iran thinks itself safe from [the dire effects of] the deterioration of stability in the region, then it is wrong. Hence, it must reassess its policy on the security of the Arabian Gulf and Arabian Peninsula, and stop trying to destabilize the countries of the region. This is now clear to any reasonable person.
"Those who follow the events have identified Iranian intervention in some of the Gulf countries, as well as in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen. [This intervention] is carried out by means of agents from [Iran's] Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Basij, and the Iranian intelligence apparatuses, who use their resources and abilities to destabilize the countries of the region. The internal war in Yemen [between the Houthis and the government] is nothing but the result of Iranian meddling, for Iran's political and media support of the rebellious and destructive Houthi forces has become as plain as day.
"Concurrently with these irresponsible Iranian moves, the Iranian propaganda [apparatuses] are not ashamed to cast accusations at the Saudi Kingdom. We would like to ask Iran, and its filthy writers and spokesmen, a few questions: Who is it that drives the Lebanese to argue and quarrel, and works day and night to delay the formation of their government? Who is it that supplies the suicide bombers and gunmen with ammunition and explosives? Who is it that poisons the minds of the Iraqis with sectarian [hatred], when they were once loving brothers?
"Who is it that has begun to divide the countries of the [Gulf] Cooperation Council along sectarian lines, encouraging certain sectarian parties and groups to clash with their governments? Who is supporting the Houthis in Yemen with weapons and money, and boosting their confidence so that they clash with their state, after brainwashing them with the revolutionary ideology of Qom? Who has occupied the UAE islands? Who is flaunting imperialist dreams and wants to annex Bahrain? Who has harassed the pilgrims in Mecca and the visitors in Medina with strident cries, marches, and the blocking of roads? Who is now supporting Al-Qaeda and sheltering its leaders? Who has conspired against Egypt, and honored its terrorists by naming streets in Tehran after them?(3) Last but not least, who has turned the region's security, stability and peace into a bargaining chip [in its maneuvers] vis-à-vis America and the West, as part of a political struggle whose slogan is 'the nuclear bomb may turn into an all-out war?'
"Clearly, it was the fingers of Iran and its secret organizations that ignited fitna [civil war] between the Arab Sunnis and Shi'ites. [It is the Iranians] who are currently working to undermine the political unity of some Arab states, and it is they who are spreading and supporting terrorism. The Iranian mouthpieces, which are intended to revive hatred, racism, sectarianism, and violence, must stop spreading their poison in our nation.
"Moreover, the capabilities that [Iran now] utilizes to generate fear and conflict within the Arab societies must [instead be channeled] to benefiting the Iranian people -- which is bearing a serious economic burden. Though the Iranian propaganda and intelligence apparatuses attempt to create [various] farces to distract [the world] from the role [Iran] is playing in undermining the security, stability and peace [of the region], they will fail to insult the intelligence of the Arab and Islamic peoples -- for [these peoples] know that Iran's fingers, [which are busy] reigniting dormant conflicts, can be seen as plain as day."(
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
Who is now supporting Al-Qaeda and sheltering its leaders?
This is the most sense I have ever heard coming from the Saudis. Maybe they could be enlisted to defend the Muslim lands from Iranian intervention?
The Al-Quds Al-Arabi article states: "Sukariyya is certain that Israel cannot possibly agree to peace, and this is for objective reasons, the most important of which is that peace would prevent it from launching preemptive military strikes, at which it has excelled for decades, and whose purpose has always been to crush the resistance and generate crises. Moreover, if Israel enters the peace process as a small state in its present boundaries, it will forever be a hostage in the hands of the U.S. Therefore, the Israelis want peace, but [only] after they [attain their goal of] the 'greater Israel' -- because in its present dimensions, Israel cannot ensure its safety...
"[As for] Syria, Sukariyya says that it wants peace [too], but as part of [a general] Arab [agreement] and not in a separate framework. He adds that the understandings recently [reached] by Syria and Saudi Arabia will help to prevent normalization between the Arab world and Israel. [According to him,] Syria's rallying to the support of the resistance in Lebanon, and [its] occasional [attempts] to direct the activity [of the resistance], [are part of] a defensive strategy which is crucial for Syria, while Syria's stance on normalization [with Israel], on the [Arab peace] initiative, on the negotiations [with Israel], and even on peace are [only] tactical bargaining chips. Since, for obvious reasons, Syria cannot [conduct] a confrontation through direct resistance, it has opened [its] border with Iraq to all the resistance fighters of Al-Qaeda, even though it does not share their ideology. [As for Hizbullah, Syria] supports it because it is the only resistance [force] that is present in Lebanon, in the area closest to Israel..."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
