The United Nations is exactly the right body to lead the resolution of the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The UN was midwife at the birth of Israel and carries a responsibility to find a just end to a terrible conflict. The Palestinian move to seek UN recognition is a historic development and , like the Arab Spring, provides an opportunity for all sides to make moves that will heal long running sores.
When thinking about the potential for resolution of the Palestinian Iraeli conflict both in terms of those two entities and in terms of wider international relations it is important to understand what gave birth to the problem.
In essence it was collective international guilt about the Jewish Holocaust and the determination of Jews to have a safe historical homeland that drove the creation of Israel out of the land of Palestine. While the British and others were key players it was the UN through resolution 181(11) in 1947 that partitioned Palestine into an Israeli Jewish state and an Arab Palestinian state.
There is in fact a strong argument that the current Palestinian request that the UN recognise their statehood is merely asking the UN to acknowledge something it has already granted by way of UN resolution 181(11)
This is not a minor matter. In essence the UN general assembly through 181 has already in fact determined by international law the boundaries of Israel and Palestine. It is now time that the UN sought to find a way to have this will realised in a way that provides justice for all parties. Indeed the Palestinians have every right to call on the UN to help resolve a problem that it in part created.
One of the problems with the UN imposed partition of 181 was that Arab states rejected the partition. This was understandable at that time. Palestinians must no doubt have taken the view that they were not responsible for the Holocaust but were being told they must forfeit half their lands for a Jewish homeland - a hard and bitter pill to swallow.
The world has moved on though and Israel is a reality. It was right that the call for a homeland for the Jewish diaspora was heeded, but the international community has failed to live up to its responsibility to heal the damage that was caused , not least to the Palestinains, in the process.
Israel is now faced by acute challenges as a result of the Arab Spring. For a long time it has been able , with some justification, to point to its neighbours as violent repressive dictatorships and to highlight the miltary and terrorist threats against it. All of this was true, but it also provided cover for land grabs through the development of illegal settlements that attempted to change the reality on the ground.
There is much anger among Muslims in the Middle East about this behaviour but the Palestinian case was only ever damaged by its association with terror. I wrote a long time ago on this and suggested that when Muslims and Arabs moved from extremism to democracy they would find the cause of resolving the Palestinian injustice very greatly strengthened. So it comes to pass it seems.
The West has rightly thrown some weight behind demends for freedom in the Middle East and North Africa. Now the Palestinians ask for their own justice. How can that in conscience be rejected? It can't., but can resolution for Palestinians be achieved while not damaging Israel? I believe it can.
There are Arabs in Israel. Not, by some accounts, always viewed as equal citizens but nevertheless part of the state. There are of course Jewish settlers who are living in settlements in Palestine and protect themselves with guns. Finally, there are generations of Palestinians who like the Jewish Diaspora yearn for their homeland even as Israel resists the inclusion of this diaspora in a settlement.
So here is a thought. Imagine with me if you will that the parties can be brought to agree ( by some divine intervention perhaps?) that they will return to the 1947 partition as the basis for their settlement and that the refugee diaspora issue is to also be addressed.
Now here is the crunch. Each of the peoples here wants its own religiouslyt informed state but also has people of its own who feel that their home or place is in the other state. Now imagine that both states guarantee to all parties the fair and equal treatment of both peoples in both states.
The next step in a resolution would be for Isreal to give up an agreed portion of its settlements. Importanly the villages and homes would be left intact. These villages should then house some of the Palestinian diaspora as part of the solution to that problem. Israel might be seen as paying a price in agreeing this but she would of course be reminded that those settlements were in any event illegal.
The remaining Jewsish settlers in their settlements would then become citizens of the Palestinian state. A state which would legally and in practice guarantee the rights of all citizens of whatever religion. The same rights and guarantees would apply to Arab citizens and returnees in Israel. To work this would need both states to develop a good framework for bi-partite relations based on their mutual self interest in good inter-community relations. ( Jerusalem is of course a particular but solvable issue)
It goes almost ( but not quite) without saying that any settlement constructed on this kind of approach would be impossible without the clearest possible acceptance both by the Palestinians and other Muslim states of Israel's right to exist without rancour or conflict. This would be the ultimate payoff for Israel and worth, what for them will seem like sacrifices. Israel will finally be a safe Jewish homeland and have neighbours with whihc it builds productive realtions.
Pie in the sky? Perhaps; but major changes are abroad in the Middle East and in such times major opportunities arise and must be grasped by statesemen who desire to be the agents of resolution and peace.
The Palestinians have made an astute move going to the UN to highlight the issue of their status even as other Muslims demand their freedom and democracy. The UN has the responsibility to treat their demands with great consideration and not to lightly dismiss them. At the same time the UN also has a responsibility to safeguard the Israeli state. The Arab Spring and the Palestinian UN move has shaken the dice and its now game on for change. The important question is wether politicians who represent the Palestinian and Israel peoples can be astute enough to grab the chance of just resolution and be bold and imaginative enough in finding solutions, with the help of the UN.
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Showing posts with label middle east. Show all posts
Sep 16, 2011
Aug 25, 2011
Libya and the prospect of post-Islamist reform and renaissance
If the events over the last months in the Middle East have been an Arab Spring then the final days of the revolution in Libya may prove to be a period of April thunderstorms and showers - something you wouldn't want to be caught up in but a sign , nevertheless, that summer is on its way.
As popular revolutions have rolled through Arab countries, some in the West have been doom-sayers; urging us to stick with the devils we know, those crazed dictators who murdered their own people, rather than embracing the people who were rising to throw of the yoke of tin-pot tyrants.
Some of this anxiety was understandable. Extremist Islamism has been a destructive force around the world inspiring terrorism that has casued death and destruction to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
But one thing became clear as these revolutions sputtered into life - while people were drawing inspiration and identity from their Islamic religion they were not rising up in order to demand Islamist solutions. They have on the contrary raised calls for political freedoms that have great resonance in the democratic world.
Suddenly the old argument that Arab populations are unsuited to democratic governance started to seem a little hollow. These people were now demanding a say in running their countries and they werent it seemed demanding to be ruled by Mullahs.
The Libyan revolution has been the most bloody and posed a challenge to players on the world stage. There seems little doubt that the US led Nato intervention prevented a massacre of the rebellious east of Libya but it has come at a cost - and not just in money.
Only a minority of NATO countries actually put their shoulder to the wheel and participated in the action in Libya and NATO as a result will soon need to be re-thought. Is there a point in having members of a military alliance who stand on the sidelines when things get tough?
The more important issue though is the revolutionary upsurge among Arab peoples across North Africa and the Middle East that has bubbled up in recent months like champagne from an uncorked bottle. The pent up frustrations of people living under dictatorial regimes finally burst out in revolutionary mass demonstrations that have profoundly shaken the former status quo. In Arab countries and in North Africa people now know that they have the potential through mass action to assert their right to democracy and freedom in the face of autocratic regimes.
This is all still a strange experience for many in the West, not least those who viewed Islam and Arab nations in particular as being culturally incompatible with notions of democracy and freedom. They observed Islamism in action and it was almost invariably hostile, violent, intolerant and anti-democratic.
But there is now another possibility - that we are seeing the emergence of something we might call post-Islamism were people want islamically informed states but states which are not Theocracies and which are more pluralistic and tolerant than we have come to expect from many Islamic countries in that part of the world.
They may of course emerge with more restricted freedoms than we now associate with democracy but that doesnt mean that such countries could not be decent neighbours and essentially controlled by their peoples.. Many European countries have been religiously informed democracies in their past..
Equally significant changes may also take place in the way that we in the West view the Israeli Palestinian conflict. If Islamic nations in the Middle east and North Africa show themselves capable of taking a democratic path then Israel will find less excuse for its policy of suppressing the Palestinians by controlling and annexing their land.
These recent and ongoing revolutions have shown that there is a real appetite for freedom and democracy on the arab "street" and oppressive Islamist theocracies now seem by no means the only or even the most likely alternative to oppressive dictatorships.
On that view it is possible, just possible, that we might be seeing the first twinkling of a sort of combined Arab reformation and enlightenment - a time when democracy and rationality flower , a time of renaiscance, albeit in countries which are fundamentally Islamic.
That would be a huge step forward , not only for the people in those countries but for all of us.
Much depends on Libya and the Libyan people now. If the Libyan people can overcome these final bloody days and hold their untiy through what will no doubt be very difficult months ahead then the prospects for such a benign Islamic renaissance seem good.
As popular revolutions have rolled through Arab countries, some in the West have been doom-sayers; urging us to stick with the devils we know, those crazed dictators who murdered their own people, rather than embracing the people who were rising to throw of the yoke of tin-pot tyrants.
Some of this anxiety was understandable. Extremist Islamism has been a destructive force around the world inspiring terrorism that has casued death and destruction to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
But one thing became clear as these revolutions sputtered into life - while people were drawing inspiration and identity from their Islamic religion they were not rising up in order to demand Islamist solutions. They have on the contrary raised calls for political freedoms that have great resonance in the democratic world.
Suddenly the old argument that Arab populations are unsuited to democratic governance started to seem a little hollow. These people were now demanding a say in running their countries and they werent it seemed demanding to be ruled by Mullahs.
The Libyan revolution has been the most bloody and posed a challenge to players on the world stage. There seems little doubt that the US led Nato intervention prevented a massacre of the rebellious east of Libya but it has come at a cost - and not just in money.
Only a minority of NATO countries actually put their shoulder to the wheel and participated in the action in Libya and NATO as a result will soon need to be re-thought. Is there a point in having members of a military alliance who stand on the sidelines when things get tough?
The more important issue though is the revolutionary upsurge among Arab peoples across North Africa and the Middle East that has bubbled up in recent months like champagne from an uncorked bottle. The pent up frustrations of people living under dictatorial regimes finally burst out in revolutionary mass demonstrations that have profoundly shaken the former status quo. In Arab countries and in North Africa people now know that they have the potential through mass action to assert their right to democracy and freedom in the face of autocratic regimes.
This is all still a strange experience for many in the West, not least those who viewed Islam and Arab nations in particular as being culturally incompatible with notions of democracy and freedom. They observed Islamism in action and it was almost invariably hostile, violent, intolerant and anti-democratic.
But there is now another possibility - that we are seeing the emergence of something we might call post-Islamism were people want islamically informed states but states which are not Theocracies and which are more pluralistic and tolerant than we have come to expect from many Islamic countries in that part of the world.
They may of course emerge with more restricted freedoms than we now associate with democracy but that doesnt mean that such countries could not be decent neighbours and essentially controlled by their peoples.. Many European countries have been religiously informed democracies in their past..
Equally significant changes may also take place in the way that we in the West view the Israeli Palestinian conflict. If Islamic nations in the Middle east and North Africa show themselves capable of taking a democratic path then Israel will find less excuse for its policy of suppressing the Palestinians by controlling and annexing their land.
These recent and ongoing revolutions have shown that there is a real appetite for freedom and democracy on the arab "street" and oppressive Islamist theocracies now seem by no means the only or even the most likely alternative to oppressive dictatorships.
On that view it is possible, just possible, that we might be seeing the first twinkling of a sort of combined Arab reformation and enlightenment - a time when democracy and rationality flower , a time of renaiscance, albeit in countries which are fundamentally Islamic.
That would be a huge step forward , not only for the people in those countries but for all of us.
Much depends on Libya and the Libyan people now. If the Libyan people can overcome these final bloody days and hold their untiy through what will no doubt be very difficult months ahead then the prospects for such a benign Islamic renaissance seem good.
Feb 16, 2011
Iran regime seeks conflict as distraction from protests
Reports suggesting that Iran may be about to try to send warships through the Suez Canal to Syria have produced a predictable angry and threatening response from Israel. This is entirely what the Iranian regime is looking for - conflict with Israel which will distract from the protests in Iran.
The Iranian regime tried to claim that the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt were Islamist revolutions inspired by Irans own Islamist revolution but nothing could be further from the truth. The revolts started as protests against economic and social conditions but quickly morphed into wider demands for an end to autocracy and demands for democratic freedoms. The revolts had an Islamic flavour of course - that is to be expected and is not an unreasonable thing in countries which are essentially Islamic. But the slogans of the revolutions were not Islamist - people were not on the streets demanding that the dictatorship of Mubarak be replaced by a dictatorship of the Mullahs.
In a dictatorship as tightly controlled as Iran though the religiously minded autocrats thought that they could fool their own people by claiming that the Pan Arab revolutionary atmosphere supported their own Shia Islamist world view. The Iranian regime immediately started a campaign of misinformation and intimidation intended to frighten the pro-democracy movement in Iran from attempting anything similar to what as happened in Egypt.
The Iranian thugocracy has perhaps even less scruples than the Mubarak regime. They are likely to be less troubled by firing on their own citizens given their shameful record of executing dissidents.
There is a wind blowing in the Middle East though that can't be stopped. People clearly are fed up with autocracies of any form and they want the freedom to express their views and choose their own rulers. They want freedom from the threat of secret police and religious police.
The regime is showing signs that it is worried by the protests and there are calls for the leaders of the opposition movements to be executed. Protesters are being decried as agents of foreign powers and the media is under tight control with little access for foreign journalists. The Iranian regime is wheeling out all the same tired tactics that dictatorships do when their people revolt and cry "enough" !
Not only should we expect the Iranian regime to be more violent in its response but we should not be surprised when we hear them take actions which provoke conflict with Israel and the West. The regime will be desperate to create headlines for its people which give them something to rally around other than calls for proper democracy. It's in that context that Iran is now perhaps about to send ships through the Suez Canal.
The regime will figure that whatever the outcome it will gain. If Israel responds firmly and harshly then the regime will have a cause to rally the Iranian people. If Israel does not respond then Iran has shown that it can exert naval; power and influence in the Mediterranean right next door to Israel.
The Iranian regime tried to claim that the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt were Islamist revolutions inspired by Irans own Islamist revolution but nothing could be further from the truth. The revolts started as protests against economic and social conditions but quickly morphed into wider demands for an end to autocracy and demands for democratic freedoms. The revolts had an Islamic flavour of course - that is to be expected and is not an unreasonable thing in countries which are essentially Islamic. But the slogans of the revolutions were not Islamist - people were not on the streets demanding that the dictatorship of Mubarak be replaced by a dictatorship of the Mullahs.
In a dictatorship as tightly controlled as Iran though the religiously minded autocrats thought that they could fool their own people by claiming that the Pan Arab revolutionary atmosphere supported their own Shia Islamist world view. The Iranian regime immediately started a campaign of misinformation and intimidation intended to frighten the pro-democracy movement in Iran from attempting anything similar to what as happened in Egypt.
The Iranian thugocracy has perhaps even less scruples than the Mubarak regime. They are likely to be less troubled by firing on their own citizens given their shameful record of executing dissidents.
There is a wind blowing in the Middle East though that can't be stopped. People clearly are fed up with autocracies of any form and they want the freedom to express their views and choose their own rulers. They want freedom from the threat of secret police and religious police.
The regime is showing signs that it is worried by the protests and there are calls for the leaders of the opposition movements to be executed. Protesters are being decried as agents of foreign powers and the media is under tight control with little access for foreign journalists. The Iranian regime is wheeling out all the same tired tactics that dictatorships do when their people revolt and cry "enough" !
Not only should we expect the Iranian regime to be more violent in its response but we should not be surprised when we hear them take actions which provoke conflict with Israel and the West. The regime will be desperate to create headlines for its people which give them something to rally around other than calls for proper democracy. It's in that context that Iran is now perhaps about to send ships through the Suez Canal.
The regime will figure that whatever the outcome it will gain. If Israel responds firmly and harshly then the regime will have a cause to rally the Iranian people. If Israel does not respond then Iran has shown that it can exert naval; power and influence in the Mediterranean right next door to Israel.
Feb 12, 2011
Egypt and Algeria : the same but different?
After the successful overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt there are now signs that Algeria is going to be the next Arab country to see mass demonstrations for democratic reform. Algeria like Egypt is a police state, riddled with corruption and governed under ong standing state of emergency laws. Today there are reports of a large anti-government protest in the capital Algeria.
Chanting "no to the police state" and "Bouteflika out" thousands of demonstrators were initially outnumbered by riot police and struggles broke out.
Pro-democracy demonstrators in Algeria can look to their colleagues in Egypt for lessons on how to conduct an inclusive non-violent revolution of course but the conditions in each country are perhaps not identical.
Unlike Egypt, Algeria has a recent history of extensive political violence and has in the past been on the brink of having a democratic system. In 1991 an Islamist group won the first round of democratic elections but the military stepped in and cancelled the next stage of the elections. The ensuing Islamist insurgency and Algerian civil war saw the death of around 160,000 people over the next decade.
In the context of such recent large scale and deadly internal conflict a generally restrained response from the regime is much less certain than it was in Egypt. The pro-democracy movement in Algeria will know that they have a huge hill to climb if they are to persuade the Algerian people to set aside their real fear of widespread political violence.
It will be interesting to see in the coming days if the pro-democracy movement in Algeria can create the sort of momentum that ultimately toppled the Mubarak regime.
Chanting "no to the police state" and "Bouteflika out" thousands of demonstrators were initially outnumbered by riot police and struggles broke out.
Pro-democracy demonstrators in Algeria can look to their colleagues in Egypt for lessons on how to conduct an inclusive non-violent revolution of course but the conditions in each country are perhaps not identical.
Unlike Egypt, Algeria has a recent history of extensive political violence and has in the past been on the brink of having a democratic system. In 1991 an Islamist group won the first round of democratic elections but the military stepped in and cancelled the next stage of the elections. The ensuing Islamist insurgency and Algerian civil war saw the death of around 160,000 people over the next decade.
In the context of such recent large scale and deadly internal conflict a generally restrained response from the regime is much less certain than it was in Egypt. The pro-democracy movement in Algeria will know that they have a huge hill to climb if they are to persuade the Algerian people to set aside their real fear of widespread political violence.
It will be interesting to see in the coming days if the pro-democracy movement in Algeria can create the sort of momentum that ultimately toppled the Mubarak regime.
Feb 11, 2011
The rebirth of Egypt
Truly amazing scenes of joyous celebration are still going on in Egypt following the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak a few hours ago. The Egyptian people have every cause to celebrate the overthrow of a dictator through a revolution that they conducted with great dignity and unity. They were an inspiration to many people.
It is easy living in a western democracy to fail to understand what it must be like for people who have lived under the rule of dictators for generations. The fear of the secret police has evaporated now in Egypt as the people place their faith in a temporary army council which, it seems, will run the country on an interim basis.
Given the conduct of the army so far there is hope that the army will stay true to the clear expressed will of the people and that it will help guide the country to free elections and democracy.
The members of the regime may yet try more tricks though. There will be those in Egypt who feel their livelihoods or wealth threatened by the collapse of the regime and they will look for ways to retain influence. It may not be impossible for example that we will see characters like Suleiman backed by the former ruling NDP party re-emerge and contest elections. These natural right wingers may yet find a future accommodation with equally right wing conservative Muslim religious groups. That seems an unlikely pairing in the short to medium term but not so unlikely in the longer term.
The future political balance of the country is coming under the control of the Egyptian people now - which is where it should be. Their choices will have consequences for relations within the Middle East and beyond. Whatever those effects are though other countries will happily now at least need to deal with Egypt in future as a fellow democratic state - a nation reborn in a January revolution.
It is easy living in a western democracy to fail to understand what it must be like for people who have lived under the rule of dictators for generations. The fear of the secret police has evaporated now in Egypt as the people place their faith in a temporary army council which, it seems, will run the country on an interim basis.
Given the conduct of the army so far there is hope that the army will stay true to the clear expressed will of the people and that it will help guide the country to free elections and democracy.
The members of the regime may yet try more tricks though. There will be those in Egypt who feel their livelihoods or wealth threatened by the collapse of the regime and they will look for ways to retain influence. It may not be impossible for example that we will see characters like Suleiman backed by the former ruling NDP party re-emerge and contest elections. These natural right wingers may yet find a future accommodation with equally right wing conservative Muslim religious groups. That seems an unlikely pairing in the short to medium term but not so unlikely in the longer term.
The future political balance of the country is coming under the control of the Egyptian people now - which is where it should be. Their choices will have consequences for relations within the Middle East and beyond. Whatever those effects are though other countries will happily now at least need to deal with Egypt in future as a fellow democratic state - a nation reborn in a January revolution.
Feb 10, 2011
Mubarak still in denial
Massive crowds which had gathered in Tahir Square in Cairo had been celebrating wildly in anticipation that Hosni Mubarak was about to announce that he was stepping down. The crowds this evening were among the largest that have yet been seen during 17 days of historic protest. All the signs seemed to be pointing to a resignation and the probability that the army would take a temporary role during the transition.
Instead, as the crowds listened in anticipation,. Mubarak simply confirmed his previous statement that he would not stand in the future elections. In a patronising speech in which he called the people his "children" he threw sops to the Egyptian people. He said he would transfer some powers to the vice president Suleiman and that he would support the amendment of some parts of the constitution.
There was no mention of the role of the newly announced army council however so it remains uncertain what role this body will now play in the crisis. One possibility is that the army is preparing a clamp down of course but it is also possible that what we are seeing are cracks emerging among the power blocks in the country.
It was easy to foresee what the reaction of the crowds of Egyptians would be. What had been a scene of festivities and celebration turned within minutes to a scene of unbelievable disappointment and anger.
This revolution has reached a very critical point. It is becoming abundantly clear that Mubarak will only go if he is abandoned by the army and if they play a role in removing him in support of the peoples demands.
The protesters again face critical decisions - how can they wind up the pressure further on the regime without giving the regime cause to instigate suppressive actions against them. It is at such points in revolutions that people in their anger may decide for example to try to storm the presidential palace or to take over the state media. These actions remain open to the protesters but there is the risk of course that this type of strategy may merely set off another train of violence.
Mubarak proved one thing with his speech tonight though. There is no fool like an old fool.
Instead, as the crowds listened in anticipation,. Mubarak simply confirmed his previous statement that he would not stand in the future elections. In a patronising speech in which he called the people his "children" he threw sops to the Egyptian people. He said he would transfer some powers to the vice president Suleiman and that he would support the amendment of some parts of the constitution.
There was no mention of the role of the newly announced army council however so it remains uncertain what role this body will now play in the crisis. One possibility is that the army is preparing a clamp down of course but it is also possible that what we are seeing are cracks emerging among the power blocks in the country.
It was easy to foresee what the reaction of the crowds of Egyptians would be. What had been a scene of festivities and celebration turned within minutes to a scene of unbelievable disappointment and anger.
This revolution has reached a very critical point. It is becoming abundantly clear that Mubarak will only go if he is abandoned by the army and if they play a role in removing him in support of the peoples demands.
The protesters again face critical decisions - how can they wind up the pressure further on the regime without giving the regime cause to instigate suppressive actions against them. It is at such points in revolutions that people in their anger may decide for example to try to storm the presidential palace or to take over the state media. These actions remain open to the protesters but there is the risk of course that this type of strategy may merely set off another train of violence.
Mubarak proved one thing with his speech tonight though. There is no fool like an old fool.
Egypt Mubarak regime crumbles
The Egyptian revolution now appears to have achieved an unstoppable momentum with breaking news that Mubarak may be about to announce today that he is stepping down. This will be a momentous step forward for the pro-democracy revolution if it is true - but the devil will be in the details of any announcement.
In my previous I wondered if the protesters had the fortitude and staying power to outlast Mubark in the staring contest that appeared to be developing. The pro-democracy protesters in Egypt have never failed to inspire us and the Egyptian people though.
Far from seeing the protests fade away in the face of superficial concessions by the regime it seems that the protests have if anything gained new momentum in recent days. The protesters have also shown some adaptability as they found new targets such as the parliament building. Other groups in Egyptian society are now coming out and making a stance in support of the protests. There are reports today of doctors and nurses joining the protests as well as strikes by various groups of transport and other workers. This is a peoples revolution which is increasingly drawing to itself all sectors of Egyptian society in a mighty roar for freedom.
The regime has given concession after concession in the face of this pro-democracy revolution but there had until now been little which concretely changed the fact that Egypt continues to be an undemocratic autocracy. Nevertheless, the fact that the regime has felt the need to be seen to make concessions is an indication that it has no real answer to this popular uprising.
Now it seems that the revolution may be about to wring real change out of the regime.
There remain grave dangers of course. Today's shifts appear to have coincided with the emergence of a military council which now seems likely to emerge as the interim source of authority in the country. The people have placed great faith in their army and the hope must be that the army will not betray that trust but will help guide the country towards a functioning democracy. The risk is that what will emerge is an army led regime - a sort of generals council which continues to hold the country in an autocratic rule.
There are hopeful signs though with announcements seemingly coming from the army that the people should expect announcements that the demands of the people will be met.
For Egyptians believe in freedom and democracy these are momentous times but they must remain watchful and ensure that this revolution is not hijacked by interest groups intent on replacing one authoritarian regime with another. At this stage though one must remain hopeful of a good outcome for this revolution as far as the Egyptian people are concerned.
Others will remain unsettled and deeply disturbed by these events. A democratic Egypt which challenges the status quo over Gaza and the Palestinians will be a real challenge for Israel. If it has sense it will seize the opportunity and try to ride the wave of democratic change in the Arab world.
These events also pose major challenges for other dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. The Iranian regime which at first tried to co-opt this revolution as some sort of Islamist revolution is now clearly worried. Not long ago it faced its own popular freedom movement and events in Egypt seem likely to give support and legitimacyacy to pro-democracy activists in Iran. China too faced its own pro-democracy challenges which it brutally suppressed and it too has clearly been worried as it has tried to suppress the flow of news about the Egyptian revolt within China.
We live, as the saying goes, in interesting times. Interesting but wonderful times - for those that hope that people around the world can secure their rights to freedom and democracy.
In my previous I wondered if the protesters had the fortitude and staying power to outlast Mubark in the staring contest that appeared to be developing. The pro-democracy protesters in Egypt have never failed to inspire us and the Egyptian people though.
Far from seeing the protests fade away in the face of superficial concessions by the regime it seems that the protests have if anything gained new momentum in recent days. The protesters have also shown some adaptability as they found new targets such as the parliament building. Other groups in Egyptian society are now coming out and making a stance in support of the protests. There are reports today of doctors and nurses joining the protests as well as strikes by various groups of transport and other workers. This is a peoples revolution which is increasingly drawing to itself all sectors of Egyptian society in a mighty roar for freedom.
The regime has given concession after concession in the face of this pro-democracy revolution but there had until now been little which concretely changed the fact that Egypt continues to be an undemocratic autocracy. Nevertheless, the fact that the regime has felt the need to be seen to make concessions is an indication that it has no real answer to this popular uprising.
Now it seems that the revolution may be about to wring real change out of the regime.
There remain grave dangers of course. Today's shifts appear to have coincided with the emergence of a military council which now seems likely to emerge as the interim source of authority in the country. The people have placed great faith in their army and the hope must be that the army will not betray that trust but will help guide the country towards a functioning democracy. The risk is that what will emerge is an army led regime - a sort of generals council which continues to hold the country in an autocratic rule.
There are hopeful signs though with announcements seemingly coming from the army that the people should expect announcements that the demands of the people will be met.
For Egyptians believe in freedom and democracy these are momentous times but they must remain watchful and ensure that this revolution is not hijacked by interest groups intent on replacing one authoritarian regime with another. At this stage though one must remain hopeful of a good outcome for this revolution as far as the Egyptian people are concerned.
Others will remain unsettled and deeply disturbed by these events. A democratic Egypt which challenges the status quo over Gaza and the Palestinians will be a real challenge for Israel. If it has sense it will seize the opportunity and try to ride the wave of democratic change in the Arab world.
These events also pose major challenges for other dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. The Iranian regime which at first tried to co-opt this revolution as some sort of Islamist revolution is now clearly worried. Not long ago it faced its own popular freedom movement and events in Egypt seem likely to give support and legitimacyacy to pro-democracy activists in Iran. China too faced its own pro-democracy challenges which it brutally suppressed and it too has clearly been worried as it has tried to suppress the flow of news about the Egyptian revolt within China.
We live, as the saying goes, in interesting times. Interesting but wonderful times - for those that hope that people around the world can secure their rights to freedom and democracy.
Feb 8, 2011
Where now for the Egyptian revolution?
Last week, after the heroic fight against Mubarak's violent thugs, it seemed that the peoples revolution might have gained an unstoppable momentum that would lead to his swift departure. This outcome appeared more likely as the US government appeared to be further nuancing it's earlier stance and appeared to be signaling a desire to see Mubarak's swift departure.
As a new week dawned things started to look a little less certain however. This is the nature of revolutions - their course is only predictable with hindsight. The Mubarak regime dug in and adopted what at first sight appear to be contradictory actions. These actions however bought it some breathing space.
In the face of intense international criticism they called back their violent thugs and their crude attempt to create chaos and violent instability. At the same time they had unleashed a major assault on the media in an attempt to control the flow of news about the revolution. This was coupled with a mixture of soothing noises about change, suggestions that the revolution was narrowly supported and a mixture of threats and appeasement via the state controlled media. The regime was in effect trying to buy itself time and this strategy appears to have worked for now.
It is a strategy that also wrong footed the US. Towards the end of last week the US assessment was, no doubt, that events were spiralling and that the quick departure of Mubarak would lead to a less not a more volatile situation. As the regime has dug in though, the US stance of last week perhaps began to look to the US government like it might leave them on the wrong side of events. What if Mubarak and the regime managed to hang on in a situation where the US had apparently been calling for him to go? What then for their relationship with this regime? Such calculations have no doubt fuelled the slight softening of the stance of the US in recent days.
Whatever the position of the US though this revolution still belongs to the Egyptian people. Taking their protests at face value it seems clear that the position of all the groups involved - including the Muslim Brotherhood - is that they want to see a change to a democratic state - one in which there is freedom of association, freedom of the press, free speech and a freedom to take part on political activity.
The big question now for the protesters must be how best to achieve this overall aim. Is it possible that the slogan "Mubarak must go now" might actually compromise this larger and more significant aim?
I am beginning to conclude that it might. Mubarak is a stubborn and proud man and it looks unlikely that he will step down unless there is a sea change in the way the protests are being conducted. That could only mean entering a new period of revolutionary activity - trying to take over state institutions for example such as the State TV or occupying the Presidential palace or an all out strike. The problem with that strategy would be that this would play into the regimes hands. It seems unlikely the army would stand by and do nothing faced with events escalating in that way. This approach is an option for the protesters but if they were to choose that course then the end of last week was probably the flood tide for that too happen. They may not now have sufficient momentum to adopt that kind of strategy.
So what would I do in their place? I think at this stage their best course is not to call for Mubarak to actually go but rather to present a series of demands that in practice prevent the regime from conducting itself as a dictatorship during the period leading to free elections.
I think the protesters should begin to focus on changes to the way the system works which ensure that Egyptians can exercise free speech, free assembly and political activity from here on in. If they can achieve significant interim changes then they can in effect make Mubarak and the regime irrelevant and incapable of stopping change. Such demands would be legitimate and it would be very difficult for the regime to justify refusing such demands.
There is no doubt that Mubarak is going to leave power one way or another. The protesters arguably would now be better raising their sights and focusing on the bigger and longer game here. Mubarak is perhaps now a distraction.
The real issue is that Egyptians need their freedoms guaranteed and protected by the state and it is changes in this area that should be the priority. This may not have the symbolic value that Mubarak's departure would have but these types of changes will in the long run do much more to ensure that the Egyptian people achieve their aim of a free democracy.
The difficulty with this strategy of course is that it is much easier to rally people around simple slogans such as "Mubark must go now" than it is around more complex messages. Therein lies the condundrum for this revolution. A simple slogan more easily mobilises the people but may well not achieve the real aims of the revolution.
Update: The Egyptian regime appears to have offered some further concessions and "sweeteners" - Some reports suggest that Suleiman has said that there will be no attempt to track down and persecute the pro-democracy protestors ( get it in writing guys !). The regime is also trying bribery by announcing significant wage rises for public sector workers. On the other side the protestors are maintaining more mementum than some had feared might be the case this week - another very large rally underway in Tahir square today. Can they keep it up and outlast the regime?
Feb 3, 2011
Regime in Egypt claims black is white
In his speech, Mubarak tried to claim that his presence was necessary in order to ensure that Egypt didn't descend into chaos and then, as if to prove his point, his supporters unleashed an incredible assault on the democracy movement shortly afterwards. This was a blatant attempt to convince other citizens that the country was at risk of violent chaos because of the demonstrations.
Today the recently appointed puppet Suleiman gave a long interview on Egyptian TV and tried to suggest that he and the regime were shocked by the violence and that they would track down the instigators. If they wish to do this they might start by rounding up the Egyptian police who were clearly orchestrating much of the violence. The pro-democracy protesters managed to capture many of these thugs and were able to identify them by their ID cards.
Clearly aware that it was losing the public relations battle due to the presence of the worldwide media and the live streaming of TV images of the violence the regime has unleashed its thuggish followers against the media itself. ABC World news has compiled a list of reporters and journalists who have been subject to assaults in Egypt and it is clear that these are not isolated incidents but part of an organised and systematic attempt to drive the media from the streets and prevent them reporting what is happening.
Suleiman today tried to claim that while the pro-democracy protesters had legitimate demands that were being listened to they were also being influenced by unnamed outside forces. This was a clear attempt to fire a shot across the bows of other governments who have demanded an end to the violent anti-revolutionary actions.
According to Mubarak and his regime only they can defend Egypt from the chaos that we have seen -despite the fact that they are the direct cause of this chaos. Clearly the Egyptian government wants the world and its own people to believe that black is white. We aren't fooled.
Update: Some interesting links about the Egypt revolution. I'll update this further as I spot good links this evening.
Pro-democracy headgear !
White House now condems systematic assaults on journalists
Mubarak camp tries to associate journalists with Jews
Christians protect Muslims in prayer amid chaos
I must note that Aljazeera's coverage of the events in Egypt has been exemplary and it's no wonder that the Mubarak regime are singling Aljazeera out for particular attention.
Jan 25, 2009
Gaza Appeals stupid BBC says no
At times it seems that if there is a banana skin to slip on the BBC will find it. Like some old time slap stick comic the BBC seems to lurch from one custard pie in the face to the next, leaving it looking more ridiculous with every bizarre decision that it's editors and producers make. The most recent bizarre decision by the BBC editors is to refuse to broadcast an appeal aimed at alleviating some of the suffering of people in Gaza following the recent Israeli military action. This refusal has stirred up yet more controversy about the way the BBC conducts it's business.
The appeal is being organised by the Disasters Emergency Committee, a well respected body that co-ordinates appeals on behalf of charities. The BBC claims that it would not be appropriate for it to broadcast the appeal because it would risk being seen as compromising it's impartiality.
What is so bizarre is that the BBC has frequently been accused of being somewhat anti-Israeli in the tone of it's standard news output. At times it has appeared rather less inclined to investigate the commitment of groups like Hamas to violence than it has to showing Israeli aggression.
But that is a separate issue on which there are opinions on both sides. The appeal for Gaza is a simple straightforward humanitarian appeal. Even the majority of those who think that Israel was justified in responding to Hamas rocket attacks would accept that there is great humanitarian need in Gaza. Few would object to the broadcasting of an appeal. Broadcasting such an appeal clearly risks nothing in terms of BBC impartiality.
It is simply one more bizarre decision by a corporation that appears to have senior managers who look increasingly incapable of taking reasonable common sense decisions.
The appeal is being organised by the Disasters Emergency Committee, a well respected body that co-ordinates appeals on behalf of charities. The BBC claims that it would not be appropriate for it to broadcast the appeal because it would risk being seen as compromising it's impartiality.
What is so bizarre is that the BBC has frequently been accused of being somewhat anti-Israeli in the tone of it's standard news output. At times it has appeared rather less inclined to investigate the commitment of groups like Hamas to violence than it has to showing Israeli aggression.
But that is a separate issue on which there are opinions on both sides. The appeal for Gaza is a simple straightforward humanitarian appeal. Even the majority of those who think that Israel was justified in responding to Hamas rocket attacks would accept that there is great humanitarian need in Gaza. Few would object to the broadcasting of an appeal. Broadcasting such an appeal clearly risks nothing in terms of BBC impartiality.
It is simply one more bizarre decision by a corporation that appears to have senior managers who look increasingly incapable of taking reasonable common sense decisions.
Jan 19, 2009
Hamas claims hollow victory and defies Gaza truce
In a further demonstration, if one were needed, of the cynical and violent nature of Hamas they are now claiming that the recent conflict in Gaza was a "victory" and that they will rearm. The claim of victory rings hollow of course. It makes as much sense as if the Georgians had claimed victory after the Russians recently invaded and destroyed their military.
A representative of the Hamas Islamic group's armed wing is reported to have said that Hamas would rearm. As part of it's claims of victory the group is downplaying the number of fighters that it lost in the conflict. Abu Obeida, a spokesman for the Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades claimed "the martyrdom of 48 Qassam fighters" was a holy victory.
He also dismissed attempts to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza which was a declared aim of the war and is part of the truce expectations.
"Do whatever you want. Manufacturing the holy weapons is our mission and we know how to acquire weapons," he said.
Israel has claimed that up to 500 Hamas members were killed during it's military action.
As I suggested in a previous post it is clear that Hamas sought the Gaza conflict, although it seems likely that they did not anticipate that Israel would launch the scale of attack that has raged for the past three weeks.
Having brought this disaster down on the heads of Palestinians in Gaza Hamas has no choice of course now but to try to present the outcome as some sort of victory. In some senses they have of course achieved advances. They have had the outrage against Israel around the world that they sought. The issue of the opening of the crossings is on the agenda. The Muslim world is enraged against Israel.
Hamas will count these as gains and the suffering and loss of it's citizens will be set as an unfortunate but necessary cost in the ongoing struggle against Israeli oppression.
Expect to see more rockets and suicide bombings in the coming months because it is clear that Hamas remains an organisation that lacks any vision for a way out of this conflict other than by violence.
The most likely scenario will be that at the end of their week truce they will announce that Israel has not withdrawn sufficiently and the rockets will start again.
A representative of the Hamas Islamic group's armed wing is reported to have said that Hamas would rearm. As part of it's claims of victory the group is downplaying the number of fighters that it lost in the conflict. Abu Obeida, a spokesman for the Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades claimed "the martyrdom of 48 Qassam fighters" was a holy victory.
He also dismissed attempts to stop weapons smuggling into Gaza which was a declared aim of the war and is part of the truce expectations.
"Do whatever you want. Manufacturing the holy weapons is our mission and we know how to acquire weapons," he said.
Israel has claimed that up to 500 Hamas members were killed during it's military action.
As I suggested in a previous post it is clear that Hamas sought the Gaza conflict, although it seems likely that they did not anticipate that Israel would launch the scale of attack that has raged for the past three weeks.
Having brought this disaster down on the heads of Palestinians in Gaza Hamas has no choice of course now but to try to present the outcome as some sort of victory. In some senses they have of course achieved advances. They have had the outrage against Israel around the world that they sought. The issue of the opening of the crossings is on the agenda. The Muslim world is enraged against Israel.
Hamas will count these as gains and the suffering and loss of it's citizens will be set as an unfortunate but necessary cost in the ongoing struggle against Israeli oppression.
Expect to see more rockets and suicide bombings in the coming months because it is clear that Hamas remains an organisation that lacks any vision for a way out of this conflict other than by violence.
The most likely scenario will be that at the end of their week truce they will announce that Israel has not withdrawn sufficiently and the rockets will start again.
Dec 29, 2008
Israel Gaza Violence - Hamas fires its big guns
It looks certain that the upsurge in violence which followed the failure to renew the Israeli Hamas ceasfire will now spill bloodily into the New Year. As the bodies of Hamas militiamen and Palestinian civilians pile up in mortuaries in Gaza it looks increasingly likely that Isreal intends to follow up the waves of airstrikes with some form of ground offensive.
In a short term military view the Israeli air strikes have been more effective than some previous air strikes that Israel has undertaken. This is because on this occasion Hamas had little warning that the strikes were coming. In previous episodes Israel telegraphed its actions and Hamas was able to evacuate its facilities. The Israelis appear to have learned from this and the first wave of strikes this time caught Hamas before it could evacuate its compounds. In the short term Israel has struck a significant but not decisive blow at Hamas.
Hamas however is and was hungry for conflict with Israel. This is the core of its reason for existing - to fight the Israeli State and the occupation. No one in Hamas is likely to be stupid enough to believe that Qassam rockets fired into Israel will alter the occupation or bring about the end of the containment of Gaza.
The firing of rockets into Israel has only one purpose for Hamas and that is to provoke the very reaction that Israel is now embarked on. For the leadership of Hamas the broken bodies of the victims of Israeli bombs are a more powerful weapon for its cause than any rocket fired into Israel. As the dead mount up in Gaza then the outcry against Israel rises not only around the world but in particular in the Arab and Islamic states. This is meat and drink for Hamas. It needs the world to be outraged against Israel for only in this way can it seek to apply political pressure against Israel and raise the costs of Israels continued control over the Palestinians and their land.
The rockets fired into Israel were merely the first salvo that Hamas fired, they are small arms fire. The big guns that Hamas is now deploying are the bodies of dead Palestinian civilians.
In a short term military view the Israeli air strikes have been more effective than some previous air strikes that Israel has undertaken. This is because on this occasion Hamas had little warning that the strikes were coming. In previous episodes Israel telegraphed its actions and Hamas was able to evacuate its facilities. The Israelis appear to have learned from this and the first wave of strikes this time caught Hamas before it could evacuate its compounds. In the short term Israel has struck a significant but not decisive blow at Hamas.
Hamas however is and was hungry for conflict with Israel. This is the core of its reason for existing - to fight the Israeli State and the occupation. No one in Hamas is likely to be stupid enough to believe that Qassam rockets fired into Israel will alter the occupation or bring about the end of the containment of Gaza.
The firing of rockets into Israel has only one purpose for Hamas and that is to provoke the very reaction that Israel is now embarked on. For the leadership of Hamas the broken bodies of the victims of Israeli bombs are a more powerful weapon for its cause than any rocket fired into Israel. As the dead mount up in Gaza then the outcry against Israel rises not only around the world but in particular in the Arab and Islamic states. This is meat and drink for Hamas. It needs the world to be outraged against Israel for only in this way can it seek to apply political pressure against Israel and raise the costs of Israels continued control over the Palestinians and their land.
The rockets fired into Israel were merely the first salvo that Hamas fired, they are small arms fire. The big guns that Hamas is now deploying are the bodies of dead Palestinian civilians.
Jul 26, 2008
Obama and McCain - Exiting from Iraq
US presidential hopefuls Barak Obama and his GOP (Republican) rival John McCain are still each trying to get the clinch hold over the other in relation to foreign policy and Iraq. The odd thing is though that it seems likely that neither will be able to deliver the Coup de Grace over this issue. Why?
Well the fact is that whether you supported the war or not, whether you supported the surge or not, whether we are left, centre or right, our interests lie in seeing a constructive end to this traumatic episode for the Iraqi people.
Arguments that still rage over the rightness or wrongness of the war, its legality or otherwise, will continue for years. It is currently popular to view the war as wrong and an error. The bare facts though are that the US deposed a dictator by invasion. They then let the occupied country slip from their control; for which Rumsfeld, who forced the US military to scale back early troop commitments, should be hung. The consequence was to let ethnic, sectarian and tribal tensions boil in a country which then had no national government and where Iraq's own army and police force had been swept away.
Belatedly the US government took its post invasion responsibility to Iraq more seriously, but not until the country had become so lawless that the Sunni group Al Qaeda had found a sweet home there for its poisonous brand of terroristic Islamo-fascism. A series of terrorist bombs and murders pushed a country already in turmoil to the verge of a Sunni-Shia civil war.
When the surge was proposed most anti-war commentators, inluding Obama, said it would not work. Get the troops out now was their cry.
Whatever the arguments about the war, on this they were wrong. The levels of violence in the country have reduced significantly and there have been some signs of internal political progress.
This has brought about a situation where the next US president will be the one who ends the occupation, be he a Republican or a Democrat. Whichever of these candidates is elected there is an inevitability that the occupation is in its last phases.
Barak Obama grudgingly accepts that the surge has worked but claims that even knowing this he doesn't think he was wrong to oppose it. A strange position. Equally strange is the sight of John McCain failing to make any impression on his opponent on this issue.
Obama as he clarified his position talks about a 16 month withdrawal. Bush meanwhile talks of "time horizons".
Success in Iraq now means trying to leave a country which is as stable as possible, which has democratic processes and where local forces of order , Army and police, are able to maintain security. It means Iraq becoming a country which is able to start using its oil wealth to support its own development.
This will not happen under endless occupation and so the occupation, sooner or later, must end. The improved and hopefully improving security situation provides a window of opportunity for managing a successful exit which must not be wasted. In that sense we have an outer limit for the "time horizon". Any unduly extended continuation of the occupation will risk strengthening any arguments for insurgency.
Equally, precipitous withdrawals from countries which are not under local control risks descent into anarchy and civil war.
The forces of instability, Sunni terrorists, gangster elements and Shia militias would only benefit from precipitous withdrawal. At the same time the compromises necessary for political reconciliation in Iraq will only come through the pressure of an impending end to occupation. The national Iraqi government will gain from the earliest withdraw timetable but only if it is consistent with it having real control of the country at the time of the exit.
So any withdrawal must be neither too far away nor too soon given the current state of events.
So both candidates are bit right and a bit wrong on Iraq. The reality is that the next US president, if he wants to manage to success, will have to manage an exit which begins no earlier than around 12 months from now and which is substantially concluded no more than than say 24 months from now.
Obama may have plucked his original 16 month figure from out of thin air but he landed lucky and finds himself within the time window for managing exit to success, albeit very much at the nearer end of it. McCain faces the same impetus of events but, concerned about the risks of public promises of specific dates, chooses to be non-specific about a time frame.
Obama's "16 month exit" policy is a very risky one, but remaining vague about exit intentions is not an option at this point either. The end of the occupation of Iraq must come and the next President must manage it.
Both candidates are right and wrong in equal measure. Obama was wrong about the surge but right that the present improvements must be given impetus. He lands lucky with his 16mths because the pace of improvement is such that conditions might, just might , be conducive to successful exit at that point. Hopefully the man, in office, would be flexible enough to adjust his date commitment in the light of actual events, if necessary.
McCain was undoubtedly right in his support for the surge. He was right earlier to be cautious about giving specific withdrawal dates. But the success of the very policy that McCain supported and that Obama opposed gives an impetus to the Iraq affair which means that talk of dates and time horizons for exit is unavoidable. This plays into Obama's current position. Obama though remains unable to fully capitalise on this because of his ill-judgment over the surge.
So the candidates will continue to toss and turn on the Iraq war issue and the management of the US exit but neither looks likely to make the other cry "uncle" over Iraq.
Well the fact is that whether you supported the war or not, whether you supported the surge or not, whether we are left, centre or right, our interests lie in seeing a constructive end to this traumatic episode for the Iraqi people.
Arguments that still rage over the rightness or wrongness of the war, its legality or otherwise, will continue for years. It is currently popular to view the war as wrong and an error. The bare facts though are that the US deposed a dictator by invasion. They then let the occupied country slip from their control; for which Rumsfeld, who forced the US military to scale back early troop commitments, should be hung. The consequence was to let ethnic, sectarian and tribal tensions boil in a country which then had no national government and where Iraq's own army and police force had been swept away.
Belatedly the US government took its post invasion responsibility to Iraq more seriously, but not until the country had become so lawless that the Sunni group Al Qaeda had found a sweet home there for its poisonous brand of terroristic Islamo-fascism. A series of terrorist bombs and murders pushed a country already in turmoil to the verge of a Sunni-Shia civil war.
When the surge was proposed most anti-war commentators, inluding Obama, said it would not work. Get the troops out now was their cry.
Whatever the arguments about the war, on this they were wrong. The levels of violence in the country have reduced significantly and there have been some signs of internal political progress.
This has brought about a situation where the next US president will be the one who ends the occupation, be he a Republican or a Democrat. Whichever of these candidates is elected there is an inevitability that the occupation is in its last phases.
Barak Obama grudgingly accepts that the surge has worked but claims that even knowing this he doesn't think he was wrong to oppose it. A strange position. Equally strange is the sight of John McCain failing to make any impression on his opponent on this issue.
Obama as he clarified his position talks about a 16 month withdrawal. Bush meanwhile talks of "time horizons".
Success in Iraq now means trying to leave a country which is as stable as possible, which has democratic processes and where local forces of order , Army and police, are able to maintain security. It means Iraq becoming a country which is able to start using its oil wealth to support its own development.
This will not happen under endless occupation and so the occupation, sooner or later, must end. The improved and hopefully improving security situation provides a window of opportunity for managing a successful exit which must not be wasted. In that sense we have an outer limit for the "time horizon". Any unduly extended continuation of the occupation will risk strengthening any arguments for insurgency.
Equally, precipitous withdrawals from countries which are not under local control risks descent into anarchy and civil war.
The forces of instability, Sunni terrorists, gangster elements and Shia militias would only benefit from precipitous withdrawal. At the same time the compromises necessary for political reconciliation in Iraq will only come through the pressure of an impending end to occupation. The national Iraqi government will gain from the earliest withdraw timetable but only if it is consistent with it having real control of the country at the time of the exit.
So any withdrawal must be neither too far away nor too soon given the current state of events.
So both candidates are bit right and a bit wrong on Iraq. The reality is that the next US president, if he wants to manage to success, will have to manage an exit which begins no earlier than around 12 months from now and which is substantially concluded no more than than say 24 months from now.
Obama may have plucked his original 16 month figure from out of thin air but he landed lucky and finds himself within the time window for managing exit to success, albeit very much at the nearer end of it. McCain faces the same impetus of events but, concerned about the risks of public promises of specific dates, chooses to be non-specific about a time frame.
Obama's "16 month exit" policy is a very risky one, but remaining vague about exit intentions is not an option at this point either. The end of the occupation of Iraq must come and the next President must manage it.
Both candidates are right and wrong in equal measure. Obama was wrong about the surge but right that the present improvements must be given impetus. He lands lucky with his 16mths because the pace of improvement is such that conditions might, just might , be conducive to successful exit at that point. Hopefully the man, in office, would be flexible enough to adjust his date commitment in the light of actual events, if necessary.
McCain was undoubtedly right in his support for the surge. He was right earlier to be cautious about giving specific withdrawal dates. But the success of the very policy that McCain supported and that Obama opposed gives an impetus to the Iraq affair which means that talk of dates and time horizons for exit is unavoidable. This plays into Obama's current position. Obama though remains unable to fully capitalise on this because of his ill-judgment over the surge.
So the candidates will continue to toss and turn on the Iraq war issue and the management of the US exit but neither looks likely to make the other cry "uncle" over Iraq.
Feb 13, 2008
Iraq political progress - the first glimmer of success?
Iraq Baghdad: In a potentially significant development Iraqi MPs have finally made progress in breaking the political impass in Iraq by passing three important laws. The move comes after delays and brinkmanship between rival factions in the Iraqi parliament.
Speaker Mahmoud Mashhadani had earlier complained that the chamber was being paralysed by distrust between the factions in the parliament and a day after the assembly was adjourned amid calls for dissolution.
Three laws were bundled into one package in a move designed to appease each of the main groups and ease the passage of the legislation; which sets a budget, provides limited amnesty for detainees, and defines the relationship between Baghdad and Iraqi local authorities.
Local Authory elections will now be able to be held with teh passing of the legislation.
Each of the three main groups had different interests. The Kurds main concern was to see the budget passed. For Sunni Arabs the amnesty was a priority. Shia Muslimswere concerned to see progress on provincial elections.
US ambassador Ryan Crocker called the passing of the three elements "very significant accomplishments" and Washington will be particularly pleased with the move as these issues were part of the 18 political reconciliation benchmarks set by Washington.
The $48bn state budget is long overdue and should have been passed before the end of last year. The budget is financed mainly through oil revenues.
An estimated 25,000 detainees, held in US and Iraqi prisons,will benefit from the amnesty providing they have not been charged with or convicted of violent crimes.
The move comes after a period of pressure from Washington which has been frustrated by the seeming inability of the Iraqi body politic to capitalise on the political opportunities created by the surge.
There had been concern that, although US troops had succeeded in bringing some control over the violence, aided by the awakening process and by the Shia militia ceasfire, there had been insufficient reconstruction, redevelopment and political effort to help further stabilise the situation.
This again throws the spotlight on the current US primary season where both Obama and Clinton are giving a populist message that they will pull troops out quickly. Interestingly it may be this very message that is pressuring the Iraqi body politic to now make progress. Which is not to say that it would make any sense to actually pull the troops out precipitously of course.
Iraqis must hope that politicians in the US may yet hold their nerve over the Iraq situation because the prospect of the US leaving with some measure of success now appears like a glimmer at the end of what has been a long dark tunnel.
Speaker Mahmoud Mashhadani had earlier complained that the chamber was being paralysed by distrust between the factions in the parliament and a day after the assembly was adjourned amid calls for dissolution.
Three laws were bundled into one package in a move designed to appease each of the main groups and ease the passage of the legislation; which sets a budget, provides limited amnesty for detainees, and defines the relationship between Baghdad and Iraqi local authorities.
Local Authory elections will now be able to be held with teh passing of the legislation.
Each of the three main groups had different interests. The Kurds main concern was to see the budget passed. For Sunni Arabs the amnesty was a priority. Shia Muslimswere concerned to see progress on provincial elections.
US ambassador Ryan Crocker called the passing of the three elements "very significant accomplishments" and Washington will be particularly pleased with the move as these issues were part of the 18 political reconciliation benchmarks set by Washington.
The $48bn state budget is long overdue and should have been passed before the end of last year. The budget is financed mainly through oil revenues.
An estimated 25,000 detainees, held in US and Iraqi prisons,will benefit from the amnesty providing they have not been charged with or convicted of violent crimes.
The move comes after a period of pressure from Washington which has been frustrated by the seeming inability of the Iraqi body politic to capitalise on the political opportunities created by the surge.
There had been concern that, although US troops had succeeded in bringing some control over the violence, aided by the awakening process and by the Shia militia ceasfire, there had been insufficient reconstruction, redevelopment and political effort to help further stabilise the situation.
This again throws the spotlight on the current US primary season where both Obama and Clinton are giving a populist message that they will pull troops out quickly. Interestingly it may be this very message that is pressuring the Iraqi body politic to now make progress. Which is not to say that it would make any sense to actually pull the troops out precipitously of course.
Iraqis must hope that politicians in the US may yet hold their nerve over the Iraq situation because the prospect of the US leaving with some measure of success now appears like a glimmer at the end of what has been a long dark tunnel.
Oct 14, 2007
Violence in Iraq
Levels of violence in Iraq appear to have continued to drop in recent weeks although you would perhaps not have realised this from reports in the mainstream media. This does not of course suite the agenda of those who are determined to damn every move by the US administration and those whose only cry is "troops out now".
If you want to check out a generally fair and accurate picture of the changing face of violence in Iraq over the surge period then its worth looking at Iraq Body count. If you check their graph of weekly deaths you will note that there has been a steady downward trend in levels of violence during 2007 ( despite periods of upsurge within that.)
In fact their graph would appear to indicate that, in terms of the trend, the violence peaked sometime during the end of 2006 to early 2007. There seems to have been a slow but steady down trend during 2007 from that peak. (There were periods within that trend which showed a marked increase).
What is particularly striking is the dip in levels of violence over the past month or two - taking the average level it would seem back to 2004 levels.
None of this is an argument that the current levels of violence are acceptable of course. Far from it.
The US was culpable in letting the genie of Iraqi violence out of the bottle by failing to adequately control the country after the invasion and by an over zealous de-baathification process, the complete disbandment of Iraqi army and the destruction of civilian organisations.
Nevertheless anyone with Iraq's best interests at heart would have to acknowledge that the combination of the surge, sunni groups moving against Al-qaeda in Anbar and elsewhere and the standing down of the Mehdi army have resulted in a significant reduction of violence.
A window of opportunity has now opened up within which the resolution of the problems of Iraq may just be possible. Resolution will of course not mean the immediate achievement of a society free from violence, gangsterism and fundamentalism. It may mean that some containment of these destructive forces is possible - enough at least to allow proper civil society to begin operating again.
Achieving a settlement of this type in Iraq is not ultimately within the gift of the US though. In this sense they cannot "win" the peace. All that can be done is to exert some control over the violence and hope that the Iraqi's themselves and their elected politicians and leaders will take the path of conciliation and peace and that their neighbours will support this process. The alternative is a return once more to the awful levels of bloodshed we saw in 2006 and early 2007.
If you want to check out a generally fair and accurate picture of the changing face of violence in Iraq over the surge period then its worth looking at Iraq Body count. If you check their graph of weekly deaths you will note that there has been a steady downward trend in levels of violence during 2007 ( despite periods of upsurge within that.)
In fact their graph would appear to indicate that, in terms of the trend, the violence peaked sometime during the end of 2006 to early 2007. There seems to have been a slow but steady down trend during 2007 from that peak. (There were periods within that trend which showed a marked increase).
What is particularly striking is the dip in levels of violence over the past month or two - taking the average level it would seem back to 2004 levels.
None of this is an argument that the current levels of violence are acceptable of course. Far from it.
The US was culpable in letting the genie of Iraqi violence out of the bottle by failing to adequately control the country after the invasion and by an over zealous de-baathification process, the complete disbandment of Iraqi army and the destruction of civilian organisations.
Nevertheless anyone with Iraq's best interests at heart would have to acknowledge that the combination of the surge, sunni groups moving against Al-qaeda in Anbar and elsewhere and the standing down of the Mehdi army have resulted in a significant reduction of violence.
A window of opportunity has now opened up within which the resolution of the problems of Iraq may just be possible. Resolution will of course not mean the immediate achievement of a society free from violence, gangsterism and fundamentalism. It may mean that some containment of these destructive forces is possible - enough at least to allow proper civil society to begin operating again.
Achieving a settlement of this type in Iraq is not ultimately within the gift of the US though. In this sense they cannot "win" the peace. All that can be done is to exert some control over the violence and hope that the Iraqi's themselves and their elected politicians and leaders will take the path of conciliation and peace and that their neighbours will support this process. The alternative is a return once more to the awful levels of bloodshed we saw in 2006 and early 2007.
Oct 3, 2007
BBC and Iraq violence- No news is good news
When it comes to Iraq it seems that the BBC motto is "No news is good news". Anyone who has been closely following the US surge strategy ( still referred to by the BBC as the "so-called surge") will have been aware that overall levels of violence had begun to plummet over the last month or so. Not that you would have known this very easily from reading the BBC website.
The BBC had been charting the progress of violence during the surge period but appeared for no obvious reason to stop charting the violence as soon as there appeared to be signs of a significant reduction in violence. See BBC Iraq violence chart. That was a few weeks ago. It has been obvious in the ensuing weeks that the violence had continued to be at a much lower level. Given how big a story Iraqi violence has been on the BBC and how often they have made it a subject of online debate you would think that they would see the significant drop in the violence as a big story. But no. There has been hardly a cheep from the BBC about it.
Today scanning the site I finally found an article buried away in the Iraq "latest news" list with the title "Iraq violent death rates plunge". However the story is given no prominence. This is despite the fact that the number of Iraqi civilians killed per month in bombings and shootings has fallen to the lowest level this year and that the figure for Sept was half the level that it was for August. US casualities were the smallest in a single month since July 2006.
Is the BBC biased? Hmm What do you think?
Ayrshire Blog
The BBC had been charting the progress of violence during the surge period but appeared for no obvious reason to stop charting the violence as soon as there appeared to be signs of a significant reduction in violence. See BBC Iraq violence chart. That was a few weeks ago. It has been obvious in the ensuing weeks that the violence had continued to be at a much lower level. Given how big a story Iraqi violence has been on the BBC and how often they have made it a subject of online debate you would think that they would see the significant drop in the violence as a big story. But no. There has been hardly a cheep from the BBC about it.
Today scanning the site I finally found an article buried away in the Iraq "latest news" list with the title "Iraq violent death rates plunge". However the story is given no prominence. This is despite the fact that the number of Iraqi civilians killed per month in bombings and shootings has fallen to the lowest level this year and that the figure for Sept was half the level that it was for August. US casualities were the smallest in a single month since July 2006.
Is the BBC biased? Hmm What do you think?
Ayrshire Blog
Aug 7, 2007
Back and raging: Brit army to abandon interpreters
The Ayrshire blog has had a quiet spell recently. This was in part due to dear old Google who for some reason decided that this was a spam blog. Now anyone who has actually read a spam blog will know one when they see one. Typically they are mostly ads and the little content they contain is frequently copied from elsewhere. So it was a bit of surprise to find this blog tagged by Google as a Spam blog.
So there was little choice but to just sit back and wait until Google reviewed this blog and decided that it was indeed kosha and not spam. So there you are. Back to having to feed the old blog monster with words.
Two things caught my attention recently. One was an item on a radio program from a journalist who at one point used to write an opinion column for the Glasgow Herald. Apparently there is a well know syndrome for new columnists who hit "the wall" after about three months of writing a column. It seems that most people have about three months worth of opinion in them. After that? Well they kind of dry up or end up repeating themselves.
It got me thinking - this blog is certainly more than three months old so maybe I have avoided "the wall" - but there's always the possibility that I just end up endlessly repeating myself.
Another interesting comment in that program was that the act of writing an opinion column meant that the journalist always had to have an opinion or a strong view on events and issues. They felt this carried over into their private lives and they found themselves taking stances on things that they wouldn't normally have taken a strong opinion on.
Is this a problem for me? Well not really - I have always been an opinionated bugger.
Talking about strong opinions I have just read a piece in The Times that suggests that the British Army will abandon Iraqi interpreters when it pulls out of Basra. This of course will for many of them amount to a death sentence.
I was speechless when I read this and find it difficult to express how angry this makes me. These men risked life and limb helping our soldiers and we propose to abandon them? This is so utterly despicable and morally indefensible that its hard to know where to begin in criticising it. If this is indeed what happens then we will carry the shame of such an act for many many years.
So there was little choice but to just sit back and wait until Google reviewed this blog and decided that it was indeed kosha and not spam. So there you are. Back to having to feed the old blog monster with words.
Two things caught my attention recently. One was an item on a radio program from a journalist who at one point used to write an opinion column for the Glasgow Herald. Apparently there is a well know syndrome for new columnists who hit "the wall" after about three months of writing a column. It seems that most people have about three months worth of opinion in them. After that? Well they kind of dry up or end up repeating themselves.
It got me thinking - this blog is certainly more than three months old so maybe I have avoided "the wall" - but there's always the possibility that I just end up endlessly repeating myself.
Another interesting comment in that program was that the act of writing an opinion column meant that the journalist always had to have an opinion or a strong view on events and issues. They felt this carried over into their private lives and they found themselves taking stances on things that they wouldn't normally have taken a strong opinion on.
Is this a problem for me? Well not really - I have always been an opinionated bugger.
Talking about strong opinions I have just read a piece in The Times that suggests that the British Army will abandon Iraqi interpreters when it pulls out of Basra. This of course will for many of them amount to a death sentence.
I was speechless when I read this and find it difficult to express how angry this makes me. These men risked life and limb helping our soldiers and we propose to abandon them? This is so utterly despicable and morally indefensible that its hard to know where to begin in criticising it. If this is indeed what happens then we will carry the shame of such an act for many many years.
Apr 5, 2007
Evening Times betrays family request for privacy.
From the start of the crisis involving the capture by Iran of 15 sailors and marines the family of Danny Masterton, from Muirkirk in Ayrshire, have made it clear that they don't want to talk to the press and that they wanted some privacy. By and large the press have respected this although there was the usual garnering of quotes from neighbours, "best friends" and local politicians. All that is to be expected.
Ayrshire folk will have been delighted at the news that Danny Masterton (and the others) have now been freed. What is less delightful is that a newspaper such as The Glasgow Evening Times has chosen to print details of a family health crisis that Danny will become aware of now that he has returned. It is disgraceful that the Glasgow Evening Times has chosen to print such details when the family have, throughout this episode, made it very clear that they wish their privacy. For this reason we have chosen not to put a link here to the article in question and we ask that you don't " Google" it out of a sense of curiosity.
What we should all do is simply let Danny know that everyone is glad to hear that he is back safe and wish him and his family all the best for the future.
Ayrshire folk will have been delighted at the news that Danny Masterton (and the others) have now been freed. What is less delightful is that a newspaper such as The Glasgow Evening Times has chosen to print details of a family health crisis that Danny will become aware of now that he has returned. It is disgraceful that the Glasgow Evening Times has chosen to print such details when the family have, throughout this episode, made it very clear that they wish their privacy. For this reason we have chosen not to put a link here to the article in question and we ask that you don't " Google" it out of a sense of curiosity.
What we should all do is simply let Danny know that everyone is glad to hear that he is back safe and wish him and his family all the best for the future.
Apr 4, 2007
British sailors will be released tomorrow
Danny Masterton the Ayrshire Marine and the other 14 British sailors and marines are to be released on Thursday following a surprise announcement by the Iranian president Armedinejad.
Throughout this crisis there have appeared to be different factions operating within the Iranian regime but overall the Iranians have milked this affair for all it is worth. In particular the dramatic and somewhat unexpected announcement of the release appears designed to play to those who are more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Iranian regime. On the BBC Have Your Say there were many messages thanking the Iranians and one poster - somewhat losing their ability to reason - even suggested that Amedinejad be given the Nobel Prize!
Nevertheless when all is said and done the release is to be welcomed and does open the door slightly to an easing of relations between Iran and the West. No doubt the Iranians hope is that this will gain them some sympathy in the ongoing crisis over their attempts to develop their nuclear technology. This remains to be seen. A great deal of caution will still need to be exercised in dealing with this unpredictable regime. However we should welcome the fact that for the moment dialogue has become more productive and constructive.
Throughout this crisis there have appeared to be different factions operating within the Iranian regime but overall the Iranians have milked this affair for all it is worth. In particular the dramatic and somewhat unexpected announcement of the release appears designed to play to those who are more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Iranian regime. On the BBC Have Your Say there were many messages thanking the Iranians and one poster - somewhat losing their ability to reason - even suggested that Amedinejad be given the Nobel Prize!
Nevertheless when all is said and done the release is to be welcomed and does open the door slightly to an easing of relations between Iran and the West. No doubt the Iranians hope is that this will gain them some sympathy in the ongoing crisis over their attempts to develop their nuclear technology. This remains to be seen. A great deal of caution will still need to be exercised in dealing with this unpredictable regime. However we should welcome the fact that for the moment dialogue has become more productive and constructive.
Mar 30, 2007
Ayrshire Royal Navy man held in Iran
Danny Masterton, 26, a Marine from Muirkirk, Ayrshire is one of the 15 Royal Navy personnel still held in Iran after their capture in the Gulf last week according to local reports.
An MOD statement released on behalf of the family said it was a "distressing" time but thanked relatives, friends and colleagues for their support.
The UK has consistently denied claims that the sailors and marines were in Iranian waters.
Recent reports suggest that Iran has now offered to let UK officials visit the captured Royal Navy personnel, who were seized after boarding a vessel and returning to their boats.
However Iran's foreign minister has said that the stand-off can only be resolved if the UK admits that the RN troops were in Iranian waters. UK defence officials on Wednesday showed satellite data proving they were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when seized.
The Ministry of Defence said it was aware of press reports naming Mr Masterton as the Scottish marine among those captured, but would not confirm his identity.
The family have asked that their privacy is respected.
BBC Scotland reports that Danny was a keen member of the Boys' Brigade from a young age.
Jim Currie, of Muirkirk Boys' Brigade, reportedly told them "The best thing Danny did was to go into the marines. It gave him something to look forward to in life. Unfortunately, he didn't expect this type of thing to happen."
Danny is sadly now caught up in a game being played by the Iranian regime which is seeking to use this incident to humiliate the UK government and armed forces. The fact that the Iranians changed the reported position where they captured the sailors and marines - after it was pointed out that this was inside Iraq waters - shows that this is a crisis that has been manufactured by Iran.
Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, from Shropshire, has already been shown apologising for being in Iranian waters and two letters from her have been released. Today there are reports that another British serviceman has apologised for "trespassing" in Iranian waters, in a broadcast on Iranian television. It seems clear that the Iranians intend to milk this situation for all it is worth.
This of course takes us back to the central problem in regard to Iran and the Iranian regime. Is this a country that can be trusted with nuclear development and trusted when it states that it will not develop nuclear weapons? The answer must be a resounding no. This is a country after all who's leader Ahmadinejad is essentially a holocaust denier. We can only hope that the international community takes a lesson from this incident and unites in efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.
An MOD statement released on behalf of the family said it was a "distressing" time but thanked relatives, friends and colleagues for their support.
The UK has consistently denied claims that the sailors and marines were in Iranian waters.
Recent reports suggest that Iran has now offered to let UK officials visit the captured Royal Navy personnel, who were seized after boarding a vessel and returning to their boats.
However Iran's foreign minister has said that the stand-off can only be resolved if the UK admits that the RN troops were in Iranian waters. UK defence officials on Wednesday showed satellite data proving they were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when seized.
The Ministry of Defence said it was aware of press reports naming Mr Masterton as the Scottish marine among those captured, but would not confirm his identity.
The family have asked that their privacy is respected.
BBC Scotland reports that Danny was a keen member of the Boys' Brigade from a young age.
Jim Currie, of Muirkirk Boys' Brigade, reportedly told them "The best thing Danny did was to go into the marines. It gave him something to look forward to in life. Unfortunately, he didn't expect this type of thing to happen."
Danny is sadly now caught up in a game being played by the Iranian regime which is seeking to use this incident to humiliate the UK government and armed forces. The fact that the Iranians changed the reported position where they captured the sailors and marines - after it was pointed out that this was inside Iraq waters - shows that this is a crisis that has been manufactured by Iran.
Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, from Shropshire, has already been shown apologising for being in Iranian waters and two letters from her have been released. Today there are reports that another British serviceman has apologised for "trespassing" in Iranian waters, in a broadcast on Iranian television. It seems clear that the Iranians intend to milk this situation for all it is worth.
This of course takes us back to the central problem in regard to Iran and the Iranian regime. Is this a country that can be trusted with nuclear development and trusted when it states that it will not develop nuclear weapons? The answer must be a resounding no. This is a country after all who's leader Ahmadinejad is essentially a holocaust denier. We can only hope that the international community takes a lesson from this incident and unites in efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
