Masthead graphic based on a painting by Gudrun Thriemer.

Hot Topic

Loading...
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Syed Jamal Asifkhel, "Over a dozen wounded as police fire on anti-NATO protestors," RAWA, June 14, 2008.

NATO officials claimed eliminating five Taliban insurgents and a woman in an operation but locals accused the foreign troops of killing 15 civilians including six children.


GARDEZ: More than a dozen protestors suffered injuries as police fired to disrupt a peaceful demonstration against NATO operations in the southeastern province of Paktia, residents and officials said on Saturday.

Hundreds of residents of the Zurmat district took to the streets Saturday morning to denounce what they called irresponsible NATO sweeps in the restive province. The demo largely remained peaceful in demanding an end to collateral damage in inaccurate military operations.

Lashing out at a NATO bombardment of a civilian house in the Shamalzai area of the district two days back, the demonstrators chanted full-throated slogans denouncing Afghan and foreign forces.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, June 16, 2008

Tom Coghlan and Colin Freeman, "How Taliban Sprang 450 Terrorists From Kandahar's Sarposa Prison In Afghanistan," Sunday Telegraph, June 15, 2008.

Taliban-driven getaway minibuses were waiting nearby with engines running.


With the latest outrage, the insurgency has shown that its ability to stage 'spectaculars' is undiminished by setbacks in the field.

Overlooking the dusty road into one of Afghanistan's most lawless cities, the newly-painted guard towers of ­Kandahar's Sarposa prison are supposed to be a reminder to local people of how justice has finally come to town.

In recent years, coalition ­officials have spent millions turning the 60-year-old building into a showcase facility for Afghanistan's new government, issuing guards with crisp new uniforms and giving them lessons on how to treat their charges humanely.

Rather less attention, however, seems to have been spent on the jail's most basic function – security.

Yesterday, Sarposa's entire population of 1,100 inmates – including murderers, bandits and about 450 hardened Islamic militants – was enjoying freedom after an audacious Taliban attack engineered one of the biggest mass jail breaks in history.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 29, 2008

Tauseef Zahid, "Pakistan: Talibans and Geo-politics of Afghanistan," PakPoint Network, May 29, 2008.

The United States is approaching a paradigm shift regarding its policies toward Afghanistan and Pakistan because Washington has reached the conclusion that Pakistan is unable and/or unwilling to control the situation with the Taliban. The Bush administration is thus pressing ahead with a new policy of denying the Taliban sanctuary in Pakistan. This new policy is not constrained by concerns regarding Pakistani stability.

Background

Pakistan in many senses is an example of how absence of sincere leadership and solid vision results in loss of identity and direction for the nation. Once the direction is lost, outcome is the very purpose for that nation’s existence being lost. Quick glance at the history of Indo-Pak shows how Muslims of South-East-Asia are reduced to Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh etc from a position they collectively once enjoyed as rulers.

Whether Muslims acted at times as conquerors or governors when they made entry to the region from Sindh or from Khyber, with time the loss of direction open the way for the colonialism by Britain and other European powers, who divided the world into their sphere of influence, the continuation of their legacy meant creation of new nation-states out of Ottoman Caliphate, using vicious divide and rule.

The intensified movement for Pakistan by ‘Muslim’ League post-Khilafat movement was another attempt by the Muslims to make sense of their politics in the region and find that direction. The mixture of nationalism with Islam, demand of Kashmir as integral part of Pakistan but forsaking Delhi who until middle of eighteenth century was their capital and the division of India around artificial borders drawn in Whitehall in the form of Durand Line or Red-Cliff award made sure that the region will remain unstable strategically and politically artificial.

[...]

Last week, US in a bid to sabotage Waziristan Peace accord made a naked aggression by resorting to strike missiles on the Pakistani village of Damadola. As per the media reports more than 14 Muslims died while many were injured. America had committed such blatant aggressions more than three dozens times earlier within Pakistani territory killing hundreds of Muslims. In the last American attack on Damadola 80 students of the madressa died that also severely damaged the earlier Peace Accord. And at a time when again a Peace Accord is on card after the exchange of prisoners, America want to sabotage this agreement. However, after the martyrdom of our citizens, the masses strongly demand that the government immediately respond to this unprovoked American missile attacks in a blow for blow.

[...]

Now

The only way to stabilise the region in Pakistan favor is to expel NATO from Afghanistan. Islamabad then should work to help create a Pakistan friendly government in Afghanistan but unlike in the past, leaving Taliban government to its own devices, this time Pakistan should work to stabilise the government by taking part in infrastructure rebuilding, schools, training of civilians, bureaucracy and military. This would allow a long term partnership between the two countries. Eventually Pakistan should work to create a union between the two countries as fundamentally people of both lands share a common belief.

Islamabad must work to take leadership in the region moving towards Eurasia. A survey supported by the US Department of Homeland Security and conducted by the University of Maryland between December 2006 and February 2007, revealed that the majority of Muslims in Pakistan held a goal “to unify all Islamic countries into a single Islamic state or Caliphate”.

Countries bordering Afghanistan i.e. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are ruled over by the brutal dictators. Any sincere move by Pakistan which put forward the case for Islam is going to give Pakistan a leading role in the region. This would mean not only gaining leadership from Indian, Bangladeshi, and Chinese Muslims located in the Xingjian province and liberating the Afghan Muslims from occupation but also long term stability in the region.

Pakistan must move away from protecting her interests half heartedly. The policy of training militants in the region, ‘slow bleeding’ of India and supporting US and Talibans side by side is an outdated and dangerous strategy with no use in the present reality. With Khilafah system in place, the systems of Islam, will allow the Muslims of the region to unite politically, gain representative government which is only accountable to its citizens with independent judiciary and the ownership of energy and food resources to its people rather than to few capitalist.

Read the whole article here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 01, 2008

Busy time for Afghanistan, Headlines for the week of April 21-28, 2008.

Not long ago Russia offered help to NATO in Afghanistan. That story broke a couple of weeks ago. It was the week Dick Cheney was in the Middle East preaching the gospel of nonviolence. That's like the Marquis de Sade preaching chastity.

NATO claims control over ¾ of Afghanistan. NATO spokesperson Mark Laity said on Wednesday (AFP Apr 23 08) dismissed the “perception” that violence is spreading in Afghanistan, saying that most of the insurgency's attacks occur in just 25% of the country.

Meanwhile, this weekend in Kabul, Afghan President Hamid Karzai survived an assassination attempt amid a hail of rockets and bullets during the nation's biggest annual military parade. The event was meant to showcase the Afghan army's growing strength. Among the dead were a 10-year-old child and a member of parliament.

Tanker trucks blown up in Pakistan

The Taliban have begun targeting Torkham. Back on March 20, a convoy of 40 oil tankers supplying NATO forces was destroyed in a series of explosions in a parking lot at Torkham.

Danes and Dutch close embassies in Afghanistan

Danish and Dutch Foreign Ministry officials announced on Wednesday [Reuters 23 April 2008] that both countries have moved all the staff from their embassies in Kabul to secret locations because of concern about security.

The Danes have also moved staff out of its embassy in Algeria since Danish newspapers reprinted an old cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad earlier this year as a protest against a plot to murder the cartoonist

The Netherlands has also moved its embassy in the Pakistani capital Islamabad to a hotel because of concern about security following the release of an anti-Koran film, entitled Fitna, by a Dutch anti-immigration lawmaker named Geert Wilders.

Dutch public still divided over Afghanistan

“According to a poll by Maurice de Hond, 49 per cent of respondents oppose the Dutch engagement in Uruzgan, while 46 per cent support it. Afghanistan has been the main battleground in the war on terrorism.” (Angus Reid Apr 23 08)

Musharraf and China

On Monday (Apr 14 08, see Bhadrakumar Apr 19 08), Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf urged Chinese and Russian to help in stabilizing Afghanistan during an address to students at Beijing's Tsinghua University.
Musharraf

“expressed the hope that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) could play a role in stabilizing Afghanistan. He added, 'If the SCO can come along, then we would need to ensure that there is no confrontation with NATO.' SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan as full members and Iran and Pakistan as 'observers' “

Bhadrakumar also refers to “the sensational revelation by erstwhile Northern Alliance leaders about their ongoing contacts with the Taliban.” See also =>

Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Hillier cuts bait. Is politics next?

Back in February Rick Hillier tried to mute debate on the Afghanistan mission by saying, “"I'm not going to stand here and tell you that the suicide bombings of this past week have been related to the debate back here in Canada, but I also cannot stand here and say that they are not."

At KCR, they laughed when I said that sounded like a man running for office. But doesn't it have that ring? Now “Canada's top soldier” is hanging up his spurs.

If he seems to be quitting while he's ahead, that may be attributing more success to the mission in Afghanistan than it deserves. That same month, Manley recommended that Canada ask for 1000 troops and some helicopters to help with operations in the south. Easier said than done.

Still, Canada brought its request for an additional 1000 troops and some helicopters to Bucharest and tried to sell the unpopular war with a self-righteous tone. We just want everyone else to pull their weight.

This against the background of testimony by NATO commander US General Dan K McNeill before the Senate Armed Services Committee (Stout and Shanker NYT Feb 6 08), that official American military counterinsurgency doctrine would require well over 400,000 allied and Afghan security troops in Afghanistan – eight times more than were on the ground at the time.

Australia joined Canada in declaring that it was doing more than its fair share. More recently, Bulgaria offered an indeterminate increase in troops, Denmark agreed to provide 3 or 4 helicopters. South Korea pulled out engineering and medical units in December 2007 and has been resisting an American request that they deliver a 200-300 member Provincial Reconstruction Team, an accompanying security unit, and a police unit to train local police. Canadian media pundits have decided that 700 is close enough to 1000 to declare success.

Hillier is no dummy, which means that he is not fooled by this hyperventilated PR bluster. Or by the line that extension of the mission to 2011 was a success. He probably also noticed that Russia will be providing what is arguably the most reliable supply line into Afghanistan albeit for non-military goods.

Something red may have been wrung from the NATO turnip, but the blood is coming from real soldiers, of which there is no possibility whatever of there ever being enough. Nor has the debate back home been silenced.

Canadian troops in Kandahar, it now seems, will be reinforced with Americans, likely from the 101st Airborne. Greater involvement of the US in the south means more civilian casualties, more prisoner abuse, greater corruption in the justice system, and whole hog pursuit of the unpopular, unsuccessful and unnecessary poppy eradication program.

These are difficult times for people who have seen the US as a beacon of democracy and human rights.

With discussions about sending troops into Pakistan and Iran likely beyond his influence, Hillier may try to “sell the mission” at home for a while. But I'm still betting that he will try to use his charisma where it is in shortest supply.

It's hard to imagine a shorter supply of charisma among the celebrity class than right there inside the Canada-US-Israel-NATO imperial alliance where Sarkozy is what passes for someone really sexy. Al Capone would probably get higher approval ratings, and he's dead. The time comes in any career when that is an advantage.

But Hillier still has some juice. His departure from this august company will create that “giant sucking sound” we hear about when a vacuum suddenly becomes the inescapable reality.

My guess is that he will run as a Conservative from Nfld. Good thing for Harper there probably won't be a leadership convention before the Liberals finally fail to avoid an election. Maybe the Liberals...
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Media faillure: variations on a theme


Feature

This morning on World Report we review several of the week's top stories from a larger perspective in order to glimpse, if we can, the motions of an agenda, a double standard, a general theme at work. Coverage of the NATO meeting in Bucharest, Romania, for example, portrayed Putin as aggressively “winning” one round and losing another while at least one important agreement was almost swept under the rug. A unique perspective on one of the week's most overtold story, the Free Tibet protests, comes from an unexpected source. At the same time, one of several stories of importance for Canadians was crowded to the margins. In Kinshasa, the new Congolese government finished its review of mining contracts negotiated by the previous corrupt dictatorship, and a Canadian company takes center stage.


Those stories in a few minutes, but first,

NATO in Bucharest

On Friday, the Times Online of London wrote of “Russia's new abrasiveness” and declared Putin “the winner on points” when the alliance declined to admit Georgia and Ukraine into membership.

For the CBC as for the NYT, the key story was France's decision to send 700 new troops. (NYT Apr 3 08)

Third and last was the decision to go ahead with missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. This was generally scored as a 2-to-1 victory over the abrasive Russians.

Another piece of the NATO story of potentially much greater importance in practical terms nearly escaped notice altogether. Back on March 6, James Blitz of the Financial Times had briefly reported that Russia had been talking to western governments about the possibility of allowing goods destined for the mission in Afghanistan to be transported across Russian territory.

This is important for several reasons. A substantial part of the supply line for NATO troops in Afghanistan comes through the Pakistani port of Karachi. Figures range from 45 percent to 80 percent. Even the low end of that range is a lot, especially considering recent concerns about the stability of Pakistan.

The US has been evicted from its base in Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan has shown some displeasure at the American base on its soil by raising the rent.

Although the public debates moral questions about wars halfway around the globe, the practical problems of maintaining a 10,000 mile supply line are considerable. It is probably an exaggeration to say that without Karachi the war effort would collapse, but it would certainly become considerably more expensive.

While we may doubt the wisdom of Russia getting involved again in Afghanistan—have they learned their lesson or not?--still their offer to provide a supply route through their territory can hardly be portrayed as abrasive or unfriendly.

As far as I could tell, the CBC didn't portray it at all. Neither did CTV. But Ben O'Hara Byrn at the Global National has this 17 second report, briefly quoting UN Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Global: There was a breakthrough today on Afghanistan.

NATO: Russia and NATO have embarked upon a common, joint effort to help Afghanistan.

Global: Russia agreeing to allow some NATO force supplies to be shipped across its territory to Afghanistan avoiding more dangerous routes used now.

Meanwhile, Uri Avnery, the 80-something Israeli peace activist weighed in on how to frame the Tibet-China clashes that have so preoccupied the western press since March 10.

Avnery sees the clash between the Tibetans and the Chinese as a liberation struggle.

“Like everybody else, I support the right of the Tibetan people to independence, or at least autonomy. Like everybody else, I condemn the actions of the Chinese government there. But unlike everybody else, I am not ready to join in the demonstrations.

"Why? Because I have an uneasy feeling that somebody is washing my brain, that what is going on is an exercise in hypocrisy.”

This is not the place to reproduce Avnery's whole argument. You can read his article on the World Report blog or go directly to Gush Shalom.

He recognizes the CIA involvement, sees Tibet as a token in a game being played out between the superpower in decline and the superpower on the rise. But what about other liberation struggles and separation movements.

“...what is really bugging me,” he says, “is the hypocrisy of the world media. They storm and thunder about Tibet....as if the Tibetans are the only people on earth whose right to independence is being denied by brutal force...”

What about the Kurds or the inhabitants of Western Sahara whose territory is occupied by Morocco? What about the Basques or the Corsicans off the coast of France? Or the Chechnyans? What about the Serbs of Kosovo? Or the demands for separation by French-Canadians or Scots, or by Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia?

Ah, the issues in Georgia are not so simple as the reports from Bucharest would suggest.

Avnery asks, “What makes the blood of one Tibetan redder than the blood of a thousand Africans in East Congo?” The answer to that question may be gold, or diamonds, or coltan—maybe even copper.

Back in July 2007, the Halifax Initiative reported that the US government’s Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), Canada's tax-supported Export Development Corporation, and the European Investment Bank were ready to back the Tenke Fungurume copper project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

The Tenke project encompasses one of the largest copper-cobalt deposits in the world. The majority share is held by the US company Freeport McMoRan (formerly Phelps Dodge) and Canada’s Tenke Mining.

"In May, the government of the DRC announced its intention to revisit mining contracts signed over the past decade, during the war and under the transitional government in place until last year’s national elections. The review process, which got underway on June 18, responds to concerns raised in various audits, independent studies and a DRC parliamentary commission report, regarding the fairness and legality of the contracts. Organizations including the World Bank have cited concerns about mining contracts in the Congo, including: a lack of transparency in the negotiation and awarding of deals, undeclared conflicts of interest, the inclusion of ill-defined “management” fees and other questionable payments, a failure to properly assess Congolese assets and contributions to the deals, and the inclusion of disadvantageous terms to the Congolese government." (Halifax Initiative Jul 11 07).

Well, the government's review came out this March. The commission found that during the transition process (2003 - 2006) one third of the Congo was sold off to foreign companies without any discernible benefit to the Congo; that 4542 mining titles had been dispensed to 642 companies; that 90 percent of exports from DRC are either illegal or unregulated.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. A summary of another eight key findings can be found on the World Report blog. But that is just the background for the bigger story, the East Congolese blood Avnery refers to.

Médecins Sans Frontières-Suisse has noted that since 2003, between 30 and 500 patients reported sexual assaults each month in Ituri. Panzi general hospital in Bukavu, South Kivu's capital, admits at least 10 victims of sexual assault daily, an average of 3,600 cases a year, according to its director, Denis Mukwege Mukengere. Since 2000, an estimated 16,000 victims of rape, some suffering from obstetric fistula, have been treated at the hospital.

That is to say nothing of killings, of internally displaced, of the new wheat fungus Ug99 (stem rust), of soaring food and fuel costs. The DRC is a country whose multiple wars were forced off the international stage by Afghanistan. That brings us just about full circle to the 700 new French troops for Afghanistan.



The KCR programme selection committee has approved a proposal to move World Report to a 30-minute format for next season. More interviews, more viewpoints, more special features.

In case you miss it, you can download an mp3 of the World Report broadcast in any one of several different ways depending on what is convenient for you. This week for the first time the World Report podcast is now available on iTunes. Go to iTunes dot com and enter Kootenay Coop Radio into the Search field and you should see icons for 10 KCR shows now available on iTunes. World Report continues to podcast for your personal use from radio4all dot net. Both sites allow you to get a free subscription updated each time a new show is posted. If you use an iPod or iTunes reader, subscribe from the iTunes site. If you use live bookmarks or a reader application radio4all will do the trick.

If you'd rather read than listen, text versions and reader comments are often available on the information-rich World Report blog at worldreport dot see jay elle wye dot net.


Don't forget the poll question. What do you see as the most urgent security issue? This question will run until the end of the current season on April 27. As I've mentioned before, it's not a scientific survey, but the answers are revealing. So far, no one who has answered the poll question has chosen terrorism, gun crime, HIV/AIDS or avian flu as the most urgent threat.

My thanks to Dave Embry KCR's podcasting technician who sees to it that the most recent show makes it onto iTunes; to Jon Steinman of Deconstructing Dinner for spearheading the iTunes podcasting project of KCR's Spoken Word Collective; and to Rik Logtenberg for pulling it all together on the new KCR website which is developing in his capable hands. Thanks to Kate Cormie at Sidewinders Coffee Company for their sponsorship of the World Report question of the day, and to Amber Hieb at CHLY in Nanaimo, BC and Mike Cannon at WNRB in Wasau, Wisconsin who rebroadcast World Report.

If you rebroadcast World Report, I'd like to learn more about your show and your station.

Feel free to comment or suggest a story. If you have information we should know about send your plain brown envelope to Box 767, Nelson, British Columbia Canada V1L 5R4 Attention: World Report or email to worldreport (alloneword) at sea jay el wai dot net.
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 10, 2008

Russia may cooperate with NATO in Afghanistan

The return of a multipolar world order as the King of the Hill inevitably loses its unique position is surprising only because of its speed under the Bush regime. This week, Russia offered "a significant level of practical cooperation" to NATO in Afghanistan. The offer comes at a time when the alliance is having difficulty persuading its members to provide combat troops in Afghanistan and the long-touted success of the mission in Kosovo is in question.

According to a report by James Blitz in the British online publication Financial Times, "Moscow and Brussels are working on a plan that would allow non-military material – such as clothing, food and petrol – to cross Russia by land" (Mar 6 08).

The proposal by Dmitri Rogozin, Russia’s new ambassador to NATO, has been followed up by "intensive talks between NATO and Russian officials on the precise routes to be used."

Serious consideration was also given last year to the Azerbaijan radar proposal. (See RFE/RL Jun 8 08) Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed using the Gabala radar station as an alternative host for elements of a US missile defence system planned for central Europe, which Russia sees as a threat to its security.

Brigadier General Patrick O'Reilly, deputy director of the US Missile Defence Agency, led a six-person team on "a technical visit to get a tour of the facility" (Space War Sep 16 07).

A day later, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, Director of the Missile Defense Agency, admitted that the Russian system would be useful as a way to alert the rest of the missile-defense system to an Iranian attack and to help focus it, but that it could not replace the function of the American radar.

The new Russian proposal to NATO comes at a time when the continued existence of the alliance is under discussion. Coalition operations receive most of their personnel and supplies through the Pakistani port of Karachi. Estimates vary from 40 to 80 percent, either of which is significant.

Russian diplomats say the new supply routes would have to pass through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, which are being consulted on the move.

In July 2005, the US was officially evicted from the Karshi-Khanabad air base, known as K2, in Uzbekistan. After the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and a further similar US-instigated uprising in Kyrgyzstan, the Uzbek government decided to rid itself of the chief provocateur. There had already been massive demonstrations probably inspired by the US. The Uzbek government, which has a terrible human rights record, had killed a number of the protesters.

Human rights haven't improved since the Americans were thrown out, but there hasn't been a significant level of social unrest either.

Unfortunate as that no doubt is for Uzbek human rights advocates, the change to multipolarity is indicated by Russia's negotiation of a deal with NATO that could not even be considered with the US.

Russia and NATO share an interest in curbing "terrorist" activities along Afghanistan's northern border.


Creative Commons License


This article is published by James Terral under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge, wholly or in part, with attribution and for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. Commercial media must contact World Report worldreport (at) cjly dot net for permission and fees. Some postings on this site are published under different terms.
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, March 02, 2008

Kosovo, Kurdistan and the future of NATO

The future is not bright for the NATO alliance and its service of Washington's imperial energy strategy. The Canadian left still sometimes hauls out the 70's plan to "get out of NATO." But there may be good reasons to propose a more orderly retreat and devolution of the outdated coalition. These to articles present recent parts of the picture that are not commonly discussed in the context of NATO. This is the beginning, not the conclusion, of that discussion.

William Lind, "On war #252: Fools rush in," Defense and the National Interest, February 27, 2008.


...The latest Balkan fools are the United States and the European Union, which have rushed in to recognize what Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica rightly calls the “fake state of Kosovo.” Why is it a fake state? Because there are no Kosovars, only Serbs and Albanians. Each group seeks to unite Kosovo with its homeland, historic Serbia or Greater Albania. An independent Kosovo has the half-life of a sub-atomic particle.

The action of the U.S. and the E.U. in stripping Serbia of Serbs’ historic homeland is both a crime and a blunder. It is a crime, first, because no one, not even the U.N., has a legal right to dismember a sovereign state, and second, because the narrative used to justify the illegal action is a lie. The stated justification is that the Serbs, under Slobodan Milosevic, were ethnically cleansing Kosovo of Albanians. As German courts have established, there was no ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo until NATO started bombing Serbia. After NATO launched its unprovoked attack on Serbia (Mrs. Albright’s splendid little war), the Serbs dumped the Albanians on NATO’s doorstep as a vast logistics spunge. That wasn’t terribly nice, but when you are a very small country fighting all of NATO, you do what you can. Ironically, after Serbia was forced to capitulate when Russia withdrew her support, NATO blithely presided over the ethnic cleansing of two-thirds of Kosovo’s Serbs by the Albanians.

In international affairs, blunders are worse than crimes, and two of the blunders contained in the recognition of Kosovo are likely to have consequences. The first is the creation of an irredenta, which guarantees another Balkan war. Serbia will never accept the wholesale alienation of one of her provinces. Like France after 1871, her whole policy will focus on recovering her lost territory as soon as the moment is ripe.

The second blunder is further alienating Russia, this time in a way she cannot ignore. If the U.S. and the E.U. are blind to the ghost of 1914, Russia and Serbia are not. The fact that Russia went to war to protect Serbia then puts pressure on Moscow to do so again, lest the Putin government look weak domestically as well as abroad....


Read the whole =>


Pepe Escobar, "A long road from Kosovo to Kurdistan," Asia Times online, February 28, 2008.

[This article is full of detail about both Kosovo and the Kurds, Iraq, Turkey and the US/NATO. -jlt]

"The precedent of Kosovo is a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries. [The Americans] have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face."
- Russian President Vladimir Putin

[...]

The ongoing saga revolves around two crucial, interrelated facts on the ground: Pipelineistan and the empire of 737 (and counting) US military bases in 130 countries operated by 350,000-plus Americans. In short: it revolves around the trans-Balkan AMBO pipeline and Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, the the largest US base built in Europe in a generation.

[...]

Washington and the three European Union heavyweights (France, Germany and Britain) have applauded Kosovo's independence. But this core of the self-described "international community" is caught in silent scream mode when confronted with the possibility of independence for Flanders in Belgium, northern Cyprus, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia, the Basque country in Spain, Gibraltar - not to mention Indian Kashmir (the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, JKLF, is already making some rumblings), Tibet, Taiwan, Abkahzia and South Ossetia (both in Georgia and both Russia-friendly), Palestine and Kurdistan. Northern Kosovo itself - totally Serbian-populated - and western Macedonia also don't qualify to become independent. ... Small, contrarian EU countries like Slovakia, Romania and Cyprus were imperially overlooked.

[...]

Blowback, in this case, may be long in coming, but Washington is bound to taste it. Turkey will clinch an oil deal with Russia and will buy Iranian gas and co-exploit Iranian oil in the Caspian. As for Iraqi Kurds - seeing red against both Washington and Ankara - more than ever they won't stop dreaming of becoming the new Kosovo, on their own terms....


Read the whole article =>


Creative Commons License


This article is published by James Terral under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge, wholly or in part, with attribution and for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. Commercial media must contact World Report worldreport (at) cjly dot net for permission and fees. Some postings on this site are published under different terms.


For example, this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. World Report makes this material available in order to advance understanding of the issues by reporting, reviewing, and criticizing relevant public statements.

Canada's Copyright Act specifies in sections 29.1-29.3 that “fair dealing for the purpose of criticism, review, or news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv)broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 14, 2008

India OK to test nuclear weapons: US ambassador

This week the US Ambassador clarified a crucial question about India's nuclear program. At the same time, division within the Conservative caucus over Canada's position on the nuclear deal between India and the US may still be the most charged issue to fight an election on, but opposition parties don't appear to have a clue. Stay tuned to find out the real meaning of "step up to the plate."

Is it just me? Or is has the pace of events, especially those that suggest a coming apart at the seems, been picking up in the new year?

Just to get you in the mood, I've added a new polling question to the blog. Are you ready? It goes like this: Which of the following do you see as the most urgent security threat? nuclear attack? or climate change? peak oil? economic dependence on the US? the end of commercial fisheries? what about media concentration? or the demise of corporate agriculture? remember terrorism? a pandemic such as HIV/AIDS or Avian Flu? Gun crime? or civil unrest? It's a list that could go on, but that seemed like a good place to stop. Polls on the World Report blog aren't intended to provide big, statistically valid results. But they are helpful for what they tell me about your thoughts and opinions. And I hope that they help to open discussion up to more than just the one or two possibilities typically reported in the traditional media.

Contributing to that increase in the pace of events is Harper's apparent belief that he and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates can, with the help of the press, spin NATO's lack of enthusiasm for its mission in Afghanistan as a lack of resolve or courage or even adequate training to fight a counterinsurgency like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan--which the US has handled so well.

Some of this has been said before. Way back in March of 2006 during the course of a review of the subject, World Report suggested that "the War in Afghanistan and Canada's role in it are clearly experimental." Early that same year, a senior British officer put a sharper point on it. Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was the second most senior officer responsible for training Iraqi forces, publicly accused the US Army of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism and of being ill suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations. (Guardian Jun 2 06)

It was an observation that could easily have been taken to apply equally to the mission in Afghanistan, had anyone been listening.

But that was then. The truth about the Afghanistan mission now, if polls are to be believed, is that even among the NATO allies who provide the most troops, there is nothing you could call popular support for the war. In Britain, Canada, the Netherlands and even Poland, governments may be enthusiastic, but the people are divided. Unlike Americans and Canadians, Europeans have seen enough long and devastating wars fought on their soil, and many of them are sick of it. That, and not the lack of backbone, may be the reason why a war half a world away against a host of organizations, most of which pose no threat to anyone more than to the foreigners who have invaded their homeland, may be why raising the troop levels required has been such a hard sell.

Moreover, the increased pace of events in South Asia is outstripping the ability of governments to formulate even inadequate policy. The conflict is now generally understood to include Pakistan. But not for John Manley and his Independent Panel. Manley and the Harper government just want an additional 1000 troops.

General Dan K McNeill, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, [did say] at a Pentagon briefing Wednesday that the military mission is “under-resourced.” However, he also said that a counterinsurgency campaign, along the lines of US doctrine, would require more than 400,000 NATO and Afghan troops. NATO troops currently total about 40,000.... The Afghan national army has roughly another 60,000.... (Kaplan Slate Feb 8 08).


This too has been said before.

Musharraf made it clear in 06 when he visited Canada that there were too few troops, that the Soviets had lost with nearly three times as many including a large contingent of neighbouring Islamic troops, and that it was time to step up the diplomacy. He and the British made some deals with village leaders in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US and NATO did little to make those agreements work, paving the way for the current instability in Pakistan, and, in Helemand Province, some of the worst fighting the British have encountered since WWII (according to a British General in charge of operations there).

Manley, it seems, is still operating on the outdated concept that insurgents use Pakistan for training and rest. In 2006, however, there was an insurgency on both sides of the border, and the one in Pakistan has cost many more lives than had NATO operations in Afghanistan. At that time, the insurgency was limited to the countryside, which was where it had started against the Russians, too. But in recent months, at least on the Pakistan side of the border, the insurgency has spread to the cities like Islamabad, Swat, and more recently Karachi. According to the World Security Institute, the Serena Hotel bombing in Kabul on January 18 may signal a similar development on the Afghanistan side of the border.

Robert Fisk spent part of his long and illustrious journalistic career sneaking back and forth across the same border during the Soviet occupation. He quotes Mohamed Ziarad, then, in 1979, the Governor of Jalalabad. As the mujahedin were closing in on his city, Ziarad explained, "It is the bandit groups [meaning the mujahedin] that are the problem and the dispossessed landlords who had their land taken from them by our Decree Number Six and they are assisted by students of imperialism [i.e., the CIA]. These people," he said, "are trained in camps in Pakistan. [Sounds familiar.] They are taught by the imperialists to shoot and throw grenades and set off mines.... [also familiar] We tried to make sure that all men and women had equal rights and the same education," [familiar again] he said. But we have two societies in our country, one in the cities and one in the villages. The city people accept equal rights but the villages are more traditional" (Fisk Great War 93).

At the time, the Soviet war in Afghanistan was widely referred to in the west as "another VietNam." Reading Fisk's version of those events today, NATO's war in Afghanistan seems almost like another--well, another Afghanistan.

Maybe the American primaries contribute to that feeling of an accelerated pace of events. CBC, which sent Peter Mansbridge and Heather Hiscox across the line to cover the California primary, reports on voters' excitement, but I think it's desperation. CNN's special item called "Elections 2008" has been running daily since January 2007. Is it possible that under the circumstances, the secular mind views elections as a kind of salvation?

Contributing to the nuclear flavour in much of this pandemonium is the first suicide bombing inside Israel by Hamas since August 2004. It took place last week in Dimona. The Dimona reactor produces plutonium for Israel's nuclear weapons program. Israel, Pakistan and India are the only countries that have not signed the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Last week, in an interview with CNN-IBN David Mulford, the US Ambassador to India, clarified for anyone who doubted it that the pending US-India nuclear deal will allow the testing of nuclear weapons.

According to a Canadian Press story (February 9 2008) he said, "It's very clear that India is free to do as it wishes with regard to future testing."

Stephen Harper, after his election in 2006, said he viewed the possibility of nuclear cooperation between Canada and India "with some degree of caution," a view he re-iterated in May 2006 when John Howard, then Prime Minister of Australia, was visiting Canada.

Between those two meetings (March 15, 2006), the Pak Tribune wrote from Islamabad that Harper had told Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz that “Canada adhered to the policy of nuclear non-proliferation."

True to form, Harper went on to inform Aziz that the "former government of Canada had inked a deal [on] civilian nuclear technology transfer with India," which his government considered to be "controversial” and said that it “would be reviewed."

That controversy within the Conservative caucus may still be the most divisive--and the most important--issue to fight an election on, but the opposition parties don't appear to have a clue.

As a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Canada still gets a vote on whether or not to allow the agreement between the US and India.

In 2007 (Oct 22) ExpressIndia quoted Canadian Foreign Affairs spokesperson Bernard Nguyen as saying "Canada is considering the proposed exemption for India from the Nuclear Suppliers Group guidelines in accordance with Canadian interests and principles."

Note how much of the information about this issue comes from India and Pakistan and how little from Canada.

"Canada's current nuclear non-proliferation policy and multilateral commitments prohibit nuclear cooperation with India, at this time," Nguyen said.

It is worth mentioning that Canada also supplied the reactor and half the fuel India diverted for its first nuclear explosive.

This week's Canadian Press story notes that “The agreement would reverse three decades of American anti-proliferation policy by allowing the US to send nuclear fuel and technology to India, which has been cut off from the global atomic trade by its refusal to sign nonproliferation treaties and its testing of nuclear weapons.”

The deal, commonly referred to as a “civilian cooperation agreement,” is the most recent in a series of assaults by the Bush Administration on the existing non proliferation architecture, beginning with abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on June 13, 2002 and including deployments and proposed depolyments of ballistic missile defence systems in the US, Japan, Poland and the Czech Republic.

"It is unlikely that this deal will be offered again to India," Ambassador Mulford warned. But “unlikely” doesn't mean it's a promise.


Creative Commons License


This article is published by James Terral under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge, wholly or in part, with attribution and for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. Commercial media must contact World Report worldreport (at) cjly dot net for permission and fees. Some postings on this site are published under different terms.


For example, this site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. World Report makes this material available in order to advance understanding of the issues by reporting, reviewing, and criticizing relevant public statements.

Canada's Copyright Act specifies in sections 29.1-29.3 that “fair dealing for the purpose of criticism, review, or news reporting does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer's performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv)broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

FEATURE
"Iran at the IAEA: Sidelining ElBaradei" September 18, 2007.

There is a power struggle going on inside the International Atomic Energy Agency about how to handle Iran's nuclear programme. ElBaradei is calling for a double time-out, but the US wants more sanctions.

This week, we pause our review of the past year to consider a crucial development regarding the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The story begins with an innocuous headline from the South African government's information site: “South Africa commends Iran's new stance on nuclear programme.”

The World Report blog is designed more as a research tool than an archive. At the top a news ticker called Hot Topic links the top five results of a Google news search for key words that I decide. I wanted to see how news organizations around the world are covering the controversy about Iran's nuclear program. So for the last few weeks, Hot Topic has been set to look for “Iran nuclear.”

More specifically, I was looking for something I call a “contextual refrain.” News of the day usually reports some incremental development in a story that may go on for months or even years. So the writer has to bring readers who have not been following from the beginning up to speed.

Normally, the day's news event only takes a few paragraphs to describe. Then, after all the direct quotes from key players, comes a sentence or two—no more than a paragraph—that puts the day's development in a context.

For instance, if the story concerns the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we are usually reminded at this point that he has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

This is important for two reasons. First, it sets the context. In doing so, the writer chooses, from among many options, the particular context in which he or she wants us to view this character in the story. In this case, it's a black hat for Mahmoud.

The writer who tells us that Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the map rarely tells us that he was trained as an engineer, that he grew up in a poor family, that he was a municipal politician before he got into national politics, that he was elected and may stand for re-election in 2009—any one of which would depart from the straight demonization that is common.

Context is the key to meaning and tone. Once you can spot the bad guys, the rest of the story will fall into place.

Second, the contextual refrain is important because it is frequently repeated, not just once or twice but literally thousands of times, both vertically and horizontally.

By vertical repetition, I mean that any time a big news organization—Canadian Press, Reuters, CNN—publishes a story, verbatim repetition by hundreds of local newspapers--and often on radio and TV—is the norm.

More relevant to the mind-numbing power of the contextual refrain--is horizontal repetition. The story about Ahmadinejad yesterday, as the one last week and, in fact, for several years now, very likely will remind you, not that he is elected, or an engineer or from a poor family, but that he has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Given the emotionally charged nature of the subject, I should come clean and admit that I already had a good idea of what I was looking for. I thought I had seen a contextual refrain about Iran's nuclear program but only because I recognized in my consciousness the onset of a stupor that comes from relentless repetition. Foul play was likely, but I had to be sure.

So I set the ticker and waited.

That's when the story South African snagged my attention.

Not everyone realizes South Africa's importance in the nuclear story.

First, South Africa developed a significant number of nuclear weapons during the 70s and 80s, but dismantled them before a black government could take power. It is the first and only country so far to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme.

Second, in 1998, South Africa and seven other middle powers formed the New Agenda Coalition. NAC sought from the nuclear weapon states "a clear commitment to the speedy, final and total elimination of their nuclear weapons." Slovenia withdrew later that year under pressure from the US, UK, and France. (Rauf Action plan 01)

Third, and most recently, “a South African court sentenced Mr Gerhard Wisser to an 18-year suspended jail sentence and three years correctional supervision after entering into a plea-bargain agreement with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for his involvement in the AQ Khan Network.”

So when South Africa welcomed the working plan concluded between Iran and the IAEA on August 21, I stopped to read.

It was a long story.

The IAEA Board of Governors had been meeting in Vienna on Wednesday. All was not well, and stories were mixed about what happened inside the meeting.

According to Arms Control Today, the US and several European governments were unhappy with the working plan and “vowed” to undermine it by asking the Security Council for a third round of sanctions.

The Global Security Network said, ““...the United States and other Western nations today agreed grudgingly to allow the initiative a chance to succeed (see also GSN, Sept. 10).



Enter Abdul Minty, South Africa's Ambassador to the IAEA.

Referring to Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, Minty told reporters that "The actions by the Security Council are to reinforce the authority of the board and the agency and are therefore by their nature not intended to be punitive."

Minty also expressed South Africa's support for the statement of the Director General in which he called for a 'double time-out' of all enrichment related activities and of sanctions, thereby providing a window of opportunity for the resumption of these negotiations.

In a statement unlikely to be repeated in the Canadian or American press, Minty praised Iran for “providing information to the agency, which has already enabled the agency to resolve some of the outstanding issues.”

I did not find the paragraph I was looking for—the contextual refrain in the South African statement.

Oddly, I did find it in a China View story (Sep 13 07), one of several state-owned publications. It goes like this” quote “"The United States and other Western countries have accused Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons under a civilian cover, but Iran denies the accusation, saying it just wants to generate electricity." endquote

By the same token, the US and Britain are hardly credible sources of information about who has a covert nuclear programme and who doesn't.

Scott Ritter, the Chief UN Weapons Inspector from 1991 to 1998 stated publicly numerous times before the invasion in 2003 that Iraq had no significant weapons of mass destruction.

Western resistance to ElBaradei's “safeguards approach” recalls relentless attempts following the invasion to discredit and marginalize another UN Weapons Inspector and former chief of the IAEA, Hans Blix.

Yet, rigorous inspections were a reliable path to disarmament. And the inspectors have been reliable sources of information. In fact, it was Blix and his team who blew the whistle on the phony letter about the purchase of 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger.

Another piece of the larger picture is the first paragraph of Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty states that

“Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”


It must also be said that in 2003, Iran admitted that it had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years. The secrecy violated its obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty and created a storm of controversy and suspicion that it was intent on developing nuclear weapons.

Article VI of the NPT is a bit of context especially worth noting. It reads as follows: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

This simple commitment by the nuclear weapons states to eliminate their nuclear weapons is rarely mentioned when our press is busy reporting on the progress of the evil Iranian nuclear programme.

Yet Article VI is so critical to practical nonproliferation, that the Middle Powers Initiative responded to the breakdown of the 2005 NPT Review Conference by creating the Article VI Forum. The Forum “brings together like-minded countries to explore, develop and implement the legal, political and technical elements required for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear weapons free world.”

The Middle Powers Initiative is a campaign by a network of international citizen organizations. It is chaired by Douglas Roche, a former Alberta Senator and Canadian ambassador for disarmament. This July, Roche wrote an article for the Hill Times urging Canada “to get U.S. tactical nuclear weapons out of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Turkey.... Canada cannot have it both ways: [he said] to support the elimination of nuclear weapons through the NPT, and also support NATO's continued nuclear weapons.”

But the disarmament theme is far from a central item for nuclear weapons states trying to sideline ElBaradei's working plan with Iran.

As Roche points out,
the United States plans to rebuild every weapon in its nuclear stockpile and install new components to make weapons lighter and more rugged to improve the consistency of their explosive yield and to improve the accuracy of their delivery. Russia is carrying out research and missile tests of state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems and is developing new warheads for its most recent silo-based and mobile missiles. France is planning the deployment of new warheads whose concept was tested in 1995-96 on new versions of its cruise and submarine-launched missiles. The British Parliament recently voted to replace its Trident system, which would ensure nuclear weapons capabilities well into the second half of the 21st century. China is currently replacing its force of 20 silo-based long-range missiles with a longer-range variant.


We have a long way to go, and Iran is the least of our problems.


Creative Commons License


This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Licence.

Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Barnett Rubin, "Saving Afghanistan," Foreign Affairs, January/February 2007.

"Even as Afghan and international forces have defeated insurgents in engagement after engagement, the weakness of the government and the reconstruction effort -- and the continued sanctuary provided to Taliban leaders in Pakistan -- has prevented real victory." [Western leaders have seized on the "sanctuary provided to Taliban leaders in Pakistan" as the essence ofthis, and have chosen to ignore that Rubin sees the weak Afghan government and the weak reconstruction effort as equally effective in "preventing real victory." -jlt]

Rethinking Afghanistan

"A mere course correction will not be enough to prevent the country from sliding into chaos. Washington and its international partners must rethink their strategy and significantly increase both the resources they devote to Afghanistan and the effectiveness of those resources' use. Only dramatic action can reverse the perception, common among both Afghans and their neighbors, that Afghanistan is not a high priority for the United States -- and that the Taliban are winning as a result."


Main points

Rubin supports the military response to terrorism and does not believe that the war is already lost. He repeats the view that Washington appeases Pakistan as a supporter of the cross-border insurgency and that "the future of NATO depends on its success in this first deployment outside of Europe."

But he also points out what would have been required and what is still required to bring about even so much as a chance of success.

"Unless the shaky Afghan government receives both the resources and the leadership required to deliver tangible benefits in areas cleared of insurgents, the international presence in Afghanistan will come to resemble a foreign occupation -- an occupation that Afghans will ultimately reject."



"...in the 2001 Afghan war, the U.S.-led coalition merely pushed the core leadership of al Qaeda and the Taliban out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan, with no strategy for consolidating this apparent tactical advance."


"Disrupting command and control -- not preventing 'infiltration,' a tactical challenge to which Pakistan often tries to divert discussion -- is the key to an overall victory." [See Richards for argument counter to this. 4GW organizations do not rely on command and control in the same way that Western-style military organizations do. In particular, Shazhad points out that the Afghan insurgency has practically no command and control in this sense. -jlt]


"The two fatal weak points in Afghanistan's government today are the Ministry of the Interior and the judiciary. Both are deeply corrupt and plagued by a lack of basic skills, equipment, and resources."

"...many community leaders accuse the [Afghan] government itself of being the main source of abuse and insecurity."


Pakistan

"On September 19, 2001, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told his nation that he had to cooperate with Washington in order to 'save Afghanistan and Taliban from being harmed'; accordingly, he has been all too happy to follow the Bush administration's instructions to focus on al Qaeda's top leadership while ignoring the Taliban. Intelligence collected during Western military offensives in mid-2006 confirmed that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was continuing to actively support the Taliban leadership, which is now working out of Quetta, the capital of Baluchistan Province, in western Pakistan."

"With US assistance, Pakistan developed a capacity for covert asymmetric jihadi warfare, which it eventually used in both Afghanistan and Kashmir."


"The civil war seemed to come to an end with the 1988 Geneva accords, which provided for the withdrawal of Soviet troops (while allowing continued Soviet aid to the communist government in Kabul) and the end of foreign military assistance to the mujahideen. But the United States and Pakistan, intent on wiping out Soviet influence in Afghanistan entirely, ignored the stipulation that they stop arming the resistance. The result was a continuation of the conflict and, eventually, state failure."


"With Islamabad's help, the Taliban established control over most of Afghanistan by 1998, and the anti-Taliban resistance -- organized in a 'Northern Alliance' of feuding former mujahideen and Soviet-backed militias, most of them from non-Pashtun ethnic groups -- was pushed back to a few pockets of territory in the northeast. As their grip over Afghanistan tightened, the Taliban instituted harsh Islamic law and increasingly allied themselves with Osama bin Laden, who came to Afghanistan after being expelled from Sudan in 1996."


"It took 9/11 to force Washington to recognize that a global terrorist opposition was gathering strength -- using human and physical capital that the United States and its allies (especially Saudi Arabia) had supplied, through Pakistan's intelligence services, in pursuit of a Cold War strategic agenda."


Pakistan's "deep penetration of Afghan society and politics enables it to play the role of spoiler whenever it chooses." [Rubin sees Pakistan sort of like Syria in Lebanon. -jlt]



"To defend Pakistan from ethnic fragmentation, Pakistan's governments have tried to neutralize Pashtun and Baluch nationalism, in part by supporting Islamist militias among the Pashtun. Such militias wage asymmetrical warfare on Afghanistan and Kashmir and counter the electoral majorities of opponents of military rule with their street power and violence."


"...in order to prevent the United States from allying with India [after 911], Islamabad acquiesced in reining in its use of asymmetrical warfare, in return for the safe evacuation of hundreds of Pakistani officers and intelligence agents from Afghanistan, where they had overseen the Taliban's military operations."


Points of interest

"An April 1978 coup by communist military officers brought to power a radical faction whose harsh policies provoked an insurgency. In December 1979, the Soviet Union sent in its military to bring an alternative communist faction to power, turning an insurgency into a jihad against the invaders."


"The strength and persistence of the insurgency cannot be explained solely by the sanctuary the Taliban enjoy in Pakistan. But few insurgencies with safe havens abroad have ever been defeated. The argument that poverty and underdevelopment, rather than Pakistani support, are responsible for the insurgency does not stand up to scrutiny: northern and western Afghanistan are also plagued by crime and insecurity, and yet there is no coordinated antigovernment violence in those regions."


"Community leaders complain forcefully about judicial corruption, which has led many to demand the implementation of Islamic law, or sharia -- which they contrast not to secular law but to corruption. One elder from the province of Paktia said, 'Islam says that if you find a thief, he has to be punished. If a murderer is arrested, he has to be tried and executed. In our country, if a murderer is put in prison, after six months he bribes the judge and escapes. If a member of parliament is killed ... his murderer is released after three to four months in prison because of bribery.' Enforcement by the government of the decisions of Islamic courts has always constituted a basic pillar of the state's legitimacy in Afghanistan, and the failure to do so is turning religious leaders, who still wield great influence over public opinion, against the government."


"Crop eradication puts more money in the hands of traffickers and corrupt officials by raising prices and drives farmers toward insurgents and warlords. If Washington wants to succeed in Afghanistan, it must invest in creating livelihoods for the rural poor -- the vast majority of Afghans -- while attacking the main drug traffickers and the corrupt officials who protect them."

"Some in Washington have accused critics of the effort in Afghanistan of expecting too much too soon and focusing on setbacks while ignoring achievements. The glass, they say, is half full, not half empty. But the glass is much less than half full -- and it is resting on a wobbly table that growing threats, if unaddressed, may soon overturn."


Negotiations

"The Bush administration failed to provide those Taliban fighters who did not want to defend al Qaeda with a way to return to Afghanistan peacefully, and its policy of illegal detention at Guantánamo Bay and Bagram Air Base, in Afghanistan, made refuge in Pakistan, often with al Qaeda, a more attractive option." [Failure similar to de-Baathification. The Bush Administration doesn't pursue a policy that includes negotiation as an integral or even an eventual part of achieving a workable peace. -jlt]

"Washington should reverse the Bush administration's policy of linking as many local conflicts as possible to the global 'war on terror' and instead address each on its own terms." [The peace movement should challenge the practice of linking as many local conflicts as possible to American imperialism and instead address each on its own terms. Any strategy must address the core concerns of the participants. Rubin proposes turning the border region into a zone of cooperation rather than conflict. -jlt]

"The United States and its allies should encourage the Afghan government to open a domestic debate on the sensitive issue of recognition of the Durand Line in return for guarantees of stability and access to secure trade and transport corridors to Pakistani ports....Washington should ask India and Afghanistan to take measures to reassure Pakistan that their bilateral relations will not threaten Islamabad. If, as some sources claim, the Taliban are preparing to drop their maximalist demands and give guarantees against the reestablishment of al Qaeda bases, the Afghan government could discuss their entry into the political system.

"Creating a reasonably effective state in Afghanistan is a long-term project that will require an end to major armed conflict, the promotion of economic development, and the gradual replacement of opium production by other economic activities."

Barnett R. Rubin is Director of Studies and a Senior Fellow at New York University's Center on International Cooperation and the author of The Fragmentation of Afghanistan. He served as an adviser to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General at the UN Talks on Afghanistan in Bonn in 2001.

Digg This

Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Peter Graff, "Taliban repel British assault in south Afghanistan," Reuters, December 5, 2006.

GARMSER, Afghanistan (Reuters) - British Marines attacked a Taliban-held valley in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday but withdrew after a ferocious counterattack that withstood air strikes and artillery fire, witnesses said.

One Royal Marine was killed and a second wounded during the battle, the UK Helmand Task Force (UKTF) said.

Scores of soldiers ran across a bridge over the Helmand River under a full moon shortly before daybreak and began sweeping south through wheatfields in the south of the province, the opium center of the world's major producer.

A Reuters cameraman said the Marines initially faced only sporadic resistance but when they advanced, Taliban fighters launched a ferocious, organized riposte with heavy weapons and tried to outflank the British troops.

The fierce resistance illustrated the challenges facing the NATO troops in Afghanistan where they are trying to subdue well-armed Taliban and other militants bolstered by profits from a record opium crop, according to Afghan and foreign officials.

Major Andy Plewes, who led the Royal Marines of Zulu Company 45 Commando, on the assault, said the soldiers had expected resistance: "What we didn't know was how strong it was."

"We don't currently have enough forces in the area to hold ground completely and that has to be done by Afghan security forces," he told a Reuters reporter with the Marines.

The 32,000-strong force NATO-led International Security Assistance Force took over command of the war against the Taliban from U.S.-led forces in October and has launched a string of offensives.

British casualties have been mounting since ISAF took over command of operations in southern Afghanistan at the end of July. Britain has lost 41 soldiers since the Taliban government was toppled in 2001, the bulk of them this year.

The British forces, who make up the bulk of NATO forces in Helmand, opened fire from light armored vehicles and engaged small groups of guerrillas with mortars and machine guns.

Afghan police and soldiers have so far held just the bridgehead and the short road at the north end of the valley, criss-crossed by networks of ancient canals that make Helmand fertile enough to produce a third of the world's opium crop.

BARRAGES OF AIR STRIKES

The Taliban withstood barrages of air strikes from Apache helicopters, 500 pound bombs dropped by B1 bombers and withering cannon fire from A-10 attack jets before the British finally withdrew after a 10-hour battle.

The Taliban fighters, who say they have the expertise to defeat the strongest army, had dug sophisticated networks of trenches often leading from compound to compound.

This year has seen the worst fighting since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban's strict Islamist government in 2001. About 4,000 people have died, a quarter of them civilians.

The alliance troops were deployed to aid reconstruction and to help Afghanistan's government by build stability. But they have been increasingly drawn into battles with the Taliban and other militants in the opium poppy-growing south.

Tuesday's assault was the latest in a series of battles by British forces around the bridgehead.

Major Plewes said he considered the assault a success as they had cleared out areas near the "D.C.," a tiny strip of road and ruined buildings on the eastern side of the Helmand River.

But without more Afghan troops to hold the ground there was little hope of doing much more.

"In the mean time we have to try to provide as much as security to the D.C. as possible," said Plewes.

© 2006 Reuters

Digg This

Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content