Obama’s Middle East challenge
Thursday, 30 Apr, 2009
PRESIDENT Barack Obama meets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a time when a huge gulf divides Washington and Tel Aviv over the Palestinian question. Since the Clinton days America has remained committed to the two-state solution; so has Israel. The declaration of principles, signed by Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in September 1993, provided for a sovereign Palestinian state by April 1999. The roadmap unveiled by George Bush Jr visualised the emergence of an independent Palestine “by 2005”. The document signed at the Annapolis summit in November 2007, to which Israel is a signatory, laid down a timetable for a Palestinian state to come into being by the end of 2008. All these plans fell victim to Israeli hubris with tacit American support. Now Mr Netanyahu, who sabotaged the DoP during his first term as prime minister, has repudiated the two-state concept. In fact, he made it clear to Mr Obama’s peace envoy George Mitchell that Israel would not resume peace talks unless the Palestinian Authority recognised Israel as a Jewish state. He also has a super hawk foreign minister in Avigdor Lieberman, who believes that the Jewish settlements pose no threat to the peace process. He himself believes that the Palestinians should be given self-rule on half of the West Bank under Israeli supervision.
The meeting between the US president and the Israeli prime minister next month is being projected by the western media as the toughest for the American president, for it is likely to produce “fireworks”. One hopes this does not prove a joke at the Palestinians’ expense, with the president of the sole superpower on one side and the leader of a state like Israel on the other. Having indicated a positive change in his policy towards the Muslim world, President Obama has no choice but to make it clear to Mr Netanyahu that America stands by the two-state solution and Israel has no right to reject what has been time and again affirmed by the UN, America, the European Union and Israel itself. Any other results would merely mean Mr Obama’s abject surrender to the pro-Israel lobby.
************************************************** ********
Help the displaced
Thursday, 30 Apr, 2009
EVEN the conservative estimates are staggering. The UN’s World Food Programme is working with a figure in the region of 600,000 but it is believed that the number of internally displaced persons in the NWFP and the tribal belt could be as high as one million. Poor civilians have been caught in the crossfire between militants and security personnel, and also been used as human shields by the Taliban. Hundreds of thousands have fled Waziristan, Bajaur, Darra Adamkhel, Swat, Kurram, Orakzai, Mohmand and now Buner and Lower Dir. Those fortunate enough to escape are living in appalling conditions in refugee camps or seeking shelter with relatives, often of straitened means. The government is right in asking for international assistance for these victims of the conflict raging in northern Pakistan. That said, its own track in providing succour to the displaced is anything but encouraging. Granted that Islamabad and the government in Peshawar have much on their plate vis-ŕ-vis the fight against militancy. But it is imperative that people in dire need are taken care of by the state. Failure to do so will breed more resentment which will be readily tapped by the Taliban. If abandoned by the state, children and youth who have grown up in conflict zones and now have no options may easily choose to side with the militants. That way they will gain an identity and a form of respect in certain circles. And they won’t go hungry either.
Take what happened in Bajaur which is to date perhaps the only real success story in the battle against the Taliban. Residents were promised a massive rehabilitation and reconstruction programme but little activity has been seen on the ground. This inaction could have severe repercussions. Already refugees from Bajaur have turned violent at the Jalozai camp in Nowshera because of the state’s failure to create conditions that would facilitate their return. How can these impoverished people be expected be move back to Bajaur when their houses have been destroyed and little is left of local infrastructure?
The government has to stop dragging its feet on this tinderbox issue. The scale of the problem is only going to increase if the recent operations in Dir and Buner are part of a wider, sustained strategy. Most Pakistanis applaud the government for finally taking a stronger line against the militants. But they do so from the comfort of their homes. The displaced who are forced to flee the theatre of battle may have a different take on the matter.
************************************************** ********
Changing tide?
Thursday, 30 Apr, 2009
FIRST Lower Dir, now Buner — the Pakistan Army has taken on the militants spilling out from Swat and acted to restore a modicum of the state’s writ in the two districts. After the army’s wait-and-watch policy in those areas allowed the militants to fan out and caused alarm, if not panic, within the country and internationally, it seems that the army has finally gotten serious about stamping out militancy. But much depends on what happens next in the days and months ahead. Evicting the militants from Lower Dir and Buner is not enough; Swat is the epicentre of militancy in the Malakand Division and the militants there, led by Maulana Fazlullah, have shown scant interest in abiding by the peace deal that was brokered by Sufi Mohammad of the TNSM. More generally, the militants in Swat themselves feed off the networks of militancy in Fata and Punjab and there can be no lasting peace anywhere until a credible national anti-militancy strategy is developed.
For that, there are certain developments on the political and military fronts that must first occur. Politically, the Pakistan Army has made it clear that it wants the politicians to develop a consensus on using the military option. In the case of Lower Dir and Buner, it is perhaps for the first time that consensus has been present and the army has duly acted. What made the political consensus possible were two factors: one, Sufi Mohammad’s rant against the entire existing political set-up in Pakistan; and, two, the attempt by Swat militants to grab more territory after the promulgation of the new Nizam-i-Adl regulation, which was the militants’ only self-professed goal. But the stomach for a prolonged military confrontation does not appear to exist, and the politicians may yet thwart an expansion of the military operation into Swat and elsewhere.
Second, the security establishment needs to once and for all rid itself of the notion that there is a role for non-state actors in our national security policy. Perhaps more than anything else feeding the national confusion on the militancy problem is the continuing belief that not all militants are bad, that some are ‘controllable’ and that some are simply uninterested in ever turning their guns on the Pakistan state. But reality suggests otherwise: ideology, the survival instinct and sometimes purely tactical considerations have created interconnections between the various militant groups to the point where it makes little strategic sense to try and defeat one set without acting against the others. Note that the threat to the media in Swat is all-encompassing: don’t oppose the ‘Taliban’ and their ‘positive’ impact on ‘society’. The message: we are one, we are coming and don’t stand in our way. Would that the state demonstrated the same resolve and unanimity.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - Middle East
Thursday, 30 Apr, 2009
Excellent 100 days
TODAY is the actual Day 100 of Obama’s presidency. Is it different from the 99th day, or rather, the 101st day in office? Not really. Some are calling it ‘flimsy journalistic conceit’ and a purely symbolic day, an artificial milestone for journalists to indulge in stocktaking. But whatever the arguments for and against marking this day out, Barack Obama has every reason to celebrate the media glare he is getting as part of the celebrations. The reason is that the historians’ verdict is out on his 100 days in office….
President Obama, in both the scope of his legislative achievements and the groundwork he has done for future policy changes, has done more in his first 100 days in the White House than any [president] since Franklin D Roosevelt…. He has worked sincerely to deliver on the promise of change he has made to the nation and the world; he has restored to his country much of the international authority and goodwill it lost heavily during his predecessor’s rule. Moreover, one of the most remarkable decisions taken by Obama … is sure to be remembered as one of huge historical significance: the release of secret memos relating to the torture of terrorist suspects that was sanctioned by Bush’s administration. The US public too has expressed satisfaction [with] his performance, which has been proved through opinion polls…. —(April 29)
Baghdad blues
IRAQ was being hailed as a success, amid dramatic improvement in security after years of spiralling violence leading Washington to approve a withdrawal timetable for its forces. However, the renewal of violence sends out fresh signals that internal security is more fragile than assumed, though the danger was anticipated in military circles. The latest outburst of violence was a double suicide attack carried by two female bombers at a Shia shrine in northern Baghdad that killed more than 70 people…. The concern in the US over the sudden turnaround in security in Iraq was visible as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprise visit to Baghdad on Saturday to show commitment to the stability of the Iraqi nation….
The message was meant for the insurgents [and] to counter the widespread speculation that the US had been lulled into as violence and terrorist attacks dropped dramatically under a new counter-insurgency plan that was implemented under Gen Petraeus…. Even while Iraq enjoyed relative peace and stability, sporadic insurgent attacks were expected as the phased withdrawal of US forces … is expected to start this summer — with most troops, except the 50,000 reserve force — to leave by the end of 2010.The present situation shows the insurgents’ capability of obtaining explosives and bypassing security forces to conduct their operations…. — (April 26)