US and Middle East

S P SETH

Since his re-election, the Obama administration has sought to reactivate its Middle East diplomacy to help create some measure of stability and progress in this highly volatile region. And the focus is on three aspects. The first is to create momentum for an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue that might eventually lead to a two-state solution. The second US initiative is intended to restore Turkish-Israeli amity, so badly sundered with the killing in 2010 of nine Turkish peace activists in an Israeli commando raid on a Turkish vessel, carrying relief supplies for the beleaguered Gaza strip under Israeli blockade. And the third, the most important and crucial at the present time, is the worsening Syrian crisis.

Regarding the first, President Obama’s recent Israeli visit, his first official trip to that country, was intended more to sooth relations with the Netanyahu government. The personal chemistry between Obama and Netanyahu didn’t work at all through the former’s first term, and Obama was keen to rekindle the traditional coziness between the two countries. During his visit, he re-emphasized US commitment to Israel’s security, and the two leaders were shown to be pretty much at ease with each other.  Since then, John Kerry, Obama’s new Secretary of State, has been engaged in shuttle diplomacy to push talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

It is important to note that this new push incorporates Israeli demand for talks without preconditions. Which means that Israel wouldn’t be required to halt settlement activities in the occupied territory, that has been and still is Palestinian Authority’s demand for resumption of peace talks with Israel. The US has also prevailed on Arab States to modify an earlier initiative requiring Israel to commit to the pre-1967 borders between Israel and Palestine in return for its recognition by all Arab League states. Under the reported new modified formula, the Arab League might agree to mutual land swaps between Israel and Palestine to facilitate an eventual two-state solution. It would mean that Israel might get to retain much of its settlements, with token transfer of some land to Palestine. It would be hard to imagine the PA falling for this, considering the likely popular backlash from its people.

In the case of Turkey, ever since Recep Tayyip Erdogan became Prime Minister, the government has become supportive of the Palestinian cause. This is particularly noted in its opposition of the inhumane Israeli policy of blockading Gaza and reducing the territory’s about 1.7 million people to a bare existence. Which has created some criticism of Israeli policy internationally, leading in 2009 to the dispatch of a peace flotilla headed towards Gaza carrying supplies for its beleaguered residents. This also included a Turkish vessel. Israel regarded this as a provocative act designed to break its blockade of Gaza, leading its commandos to raid the Turkish vessel killing 9 Turkish peace activists.

Turkey demanded an apology, which Israel refused. During his recent visit to Israel, President Obama persuaded Netanyahu to apologize, which he did in a phone call to the Turkish Prime Minister, Erdogan. Though this has broken the ice between the two countries, the sticky issue of compensation for the 9 Turks killed, as well as the question of Israeli blockade of Gaza, remains to be sorted out. The US is keen on resolving the strained Turkish-Israeli relations, both being its close allies. Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and Israel reckons itself as US’ advanced guard in the Middle East. And both are currently involved directly or indirectly in the Syrian crisis, with Turkey helping the Syrian rebels to overthrow the Bashar regime.

That brings us to Syria, where the situation is getting ever more complicated and dangerous by the day. The Lebanese Shia group has openly joined the battle on behalf of the Assad regime.  According its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, “ It is our battle and we are up to it.”  With the Hezbollah fighting for Bashar’s cause, the Syrian regime has been able to evict the rebels from the strategically important town of Quasayr on the Syrian-Lebanese border. That brings the Syrian conflict right into Lebanon. Its northern city of Tripoli was already experiencing sectarian Sunni-Shia tit-for-tat, which now is further heightened.  A few rockets have also hit the Hezbollah-dominated areas in Lebanon.

In the meantime, the US-Russian initiative to convene an international conference in Geneva this month to find a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis is in trouble. The conference might be postponed for next month, if it were to eventuate at all in the near future. The European Union’s lifting of the arms embargo on weapons supplies to the rebels created another complication, drawing criticism from Russia. At the same time, Russia’s decision to fulfill, what it calls, contractual obligations to continue supplying arms to the Assad regime, has been condemned by the US and its allies, particularly the supply of sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems. And has brought a strong response from Israel, threatening to target any such weapon systems. Which, in turn, has drawn a strong counter-response from Bashar al-Assad in an interview with Hezbollah TV, threatening to take the battle into Israel. In other words, the situation in Syria is taking a much more sinister form of a regional conflagration.

Lately, the regime has gained an upper hand on the battlefield, with the help of the Hezbollah, having evicted the rebels from Qusayr, where they had been entrenched for nearly one year. Which has raised its morale, raising hopes of regaining more territory, under rebel control, and re-establishing the Assad regime’s writ all over the country.

Things might change, though, if the US were to step in directly on the rebels’ behalf, as President Obama is under great pressure internally and externally. This will, of course, further widen the Syrian crisis with international ramifications. So far, President Obama has resisted, being reluctant to enter another Middle Eastern war when its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so disastrous. He told a press conference last year, “The notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military--- that hasn’t been true in the past, and it won’t be true now.”

And he revealed his political and moral dilemma in an interview this year with The New Republic when he said, “How do I weigh tens of thousands who‘ve been killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being killed in the Congo.” At a more practical level, though, there is such a thing as limits on US power that is already overstretched. In any case, we will soon find out if Obama is able to resolve his dilemma.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au 

Syria and chemical weapons

S P SETH

The US is under concerted pressure from its allies to jump into the Syrian civil war on behalf of the rebels. It is already supporting the overthrow of the Bashar al-Assad regime in all sorts of ways, just short of indiscriminate supply of arms to the rebels. Indeed, the CIA is involved in facilitating the supply of US arms through third parties, like Qatar, Jordan, Turkey and so on. But after its bitter experiences of the Afghan and Iraq wars, it is sensibly keen to avoid another quagmire in Syria, though it is difficult to say if it will stick to that resolve. The US is deeply worried about the direction that a post-Assad Syria might take.

This was reflected in President Obama’s recent talks at the White House with the visiting emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamid bin Khalifa al Thani. President Obama said that their two nations had been discussing the best way to remove Assad and “strengthen an opposition that can bring about a democratic Syria that represents all people and respects their rights.” The US, like Qatar, and most Arab countries, plus Turkey, are committed to remove Assad but what will replace him is the key issue?

Whether or not the US gets directly involved, by way of supplying arms directly to the rebels, will be influenced greatly by the credible evidence about the alleged use by the regime of chemical weapons. Britain and France appear inclined to this view, as do the Arab countries supporting rebels. The Assad regime, on the other hand, is accusing the rebels of using chemical stuff. It has dismissed the allegation against it as a “barefaced lie”.

Israel too has chipped in to accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons. According to General Itai Brun, chief of research and analysis for the Israeli army’s military intelligence division, “To the best of our professional understanding, the regime used chemical weapons against fighters in a series of incidents in recent months.” Elaborating, he said, “The dilated pupils, the frothing at the mouth and other signs testify, in our view, to the use of liquid chemical weapons, apparently sarin.” But there is no concrete evidence to support this.

Indeed, according to John Kerry, US Secretary of State, Prime Minister Netanyahu was unable to confirm reports of Syria’s use of chemical weapons in his phone call to the Israeli leader. Similarly, the US Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, said in Cairo, after meeting Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, that, “When I was in Israel, they did not give me that assessment.” And he added, “This is a serious business and you want to be as sure as you can be on these kinds of things. Suspicions are one thing, evidence is another.”

But the Obama administration remains under intense pressure, internally and externally, to act directly against the Assad regime. Internally, powerful Republicans like, John McCain, a former presidential candidate, favours the Libyan model of establishing safe operational corridors for rebels to operate, a no fly-zone and arming the rebels. He has invoked Obama’s warning that if the Assad regime were to use chemical weapons against its people (as they have done, according to him), it will constitute a “red line” for US intervention. Within the US intelligence community too, there is growing belief with “varying degrees of confidence” that the regime did use chemical weapons.

 Externally, the United Kingdom and France too seem to believe that the Assad regime, most likely, used chemical weapons last month in Aleppo and outskirts of Damascus. And now Israel has come out with its assessment about the regime’s culpability.  But one has to be very careful about Israeli intelligence. Even the US, its protector and ally, is not persuaded by it. At the best of times, Israel’s bonafides are suspect on issues relating to the Middle East. And what is happening in Syria today is probably the worst of times in that region.

For the most part, apart from bombing, as it did the other day, suspected weapons supplies for Hezbollah in Lebanon, and occasional shooting across the Golan Heights, Israel has so far largely stayed out of the Syrian civil war. It would suit Tel Aviv to see its enemies, both the Syrian regime and the rebels, tear out themselves in a fratricidal war. As for any preference between the two, it would probably incline towards the Assad regime that had kept a lid on the Syrian tinderbox that is now blowing up. What has then led Israel to come out with its intelligence assessment on the use chemical weapons?

An important, if not compelling, reason is that it is extremely worried about the safety of the vast stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria. It is, therefore, very keen for collaborative action, led by the US, to secure these stockpiles. Up until recently, Syria’s chemical weapons have been fairly secure. With the Syrian situation becoming unstable by the day and the regime on the back foot, it is feared that they might be tempted to use them as a last resort. If the claims about the recent use of sarin gas are true, then it is a serious portent of things to come.

However, in the shifting sands of the Syrian political and military landscape, were these weapons to fall under control of the rebels, considering that the most effective elements among them are now the jihadist groups, the question of securing chemical weapons would become even more crucial. For Israel, right on Syria’s borders, some preemptive action to stop the rebels from laying their hands on such explosive material might become necessary.

Israel also fears that, in its dying days, the Assad regime might seek to transfer some of these stocks to their Lebanese ally, Hezbollah. Israel and Hezbollah have some serious unresolved business between them. Israel had mounted a major invasion of Lebanon in 2006 inflicting death and destruction. The subsequent reconstruction and rebuilding work was done with considerable financial help from Iran. From Israel’s viewpoint, any military action designed to secure chemical weapons will further weaken and/or overthrow the Assad regime. Which will rupture the nexus between Iran, Syria and the Hezbollah. The US and its allies in the west and the Middle East share this strategic objective about the removal of the Assad regime. But as Hezbollah has come out to support the Assad regime with its own volunteers and militia, this will further plunge the Middle East into an even wider and bigger disaster.

In this situation, Israel is keen that the matter of chemical weapons in an unstable Syria be resolved, with or without real proof of their use by the regime or the rebels. However, securing the weapons is not going to be easy because they are scattered all over the place. Any large-scale military action to secure them might result in large explosions and scattering of the poisonous gases affecting friends and foes, as well as large-scale casualties among the civilian population. Besides, to keep them safe and secure will require stationing ground troops that would have the smell of the Afghan and Iraqi quagmire which the United States would very much like to avoid. In other words, there are no easy choices in Syria.

 Note: This article was first published in Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Obama, Israel and Palestine

S P SETH

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is seeking to restart talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in West Bank.  This will be Obama administration’s new initiative in its second term to move the Palestinian issue forward. Its initiative in the first term was a disappointment and indeed created a rift between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government in Israel. President Barack Obama’s recent visit to Israel was, therefore, essentially designed to fill in the cracks in US-Israel relations that emerged during his first term. Indeed, the cracks started to emerge soon after Obama’s Cairo speech in 2009 when he sought to build bridges with the Islamic world where US’ unquestioning support for Israel has been and is a major irritant. Israel was not impressed, apparently because Obama initiative was taken without prior clearance from Tel Aviv.

After that it was all downhill, particularly when the US sought to pressure the Netanyahu government to halt further settlement activity in the occupied territory to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians for a two-state solution. Netanyahu and his government reacted angrily and petulantly, seeking to mobilize the US Jewish lobby and powerful pro-Jewish political cabal, cutting across party lines, to damage Obama’s presidential position. So much so that, throwing away all political discretion and diplomatic decorum, prime minister Netanyahu virtually adopted the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in the last year’s election as Israel’s preferred choice as US’ president.

Despite that Obama was re-elected, primarily because he got the overwhelming support of the country’s minorities. One thing Obama learnt during his first term was that, even if he personally wanted to push forward the two-state solution to resolve the Palestinian question, he was at odds with majority of the US political establishment of all political persuasions except on Israel’s terms. Which meant that Israel wouldn’t be required to halt settlements, thus continuing to grab more Palestinian territory. Israeli veto on the US’s internal political processes on the Palestinian question was also obstructing the Obama administration’s legislative agenda over a whole range of other issues.

Faced with this situation, the Obama administration in his second term has decided to put the Palestinian question in the hard to tackle basket, thus removing an important obstacle to relations with Israel and its US lobby. It will still try, as is evident from John Kerry’s diplomatic initiative, but by accommodating Israeli sensitivities. And that was on display during the highly choreographed Obama visit to Israel. It was full of bonhomie between Obama and Netanyahu, with Obama going all out to recommit the US to Israel’s security, continuation of its $3 billion annual military aid to Israel and much more.

On the other hand, Obama’s West Bank trip of a few hours was more like an excursion without any serious purpose. It is not that he completely ignored the Palestinian question, but he seemed to put Palestine (an Israeli-occupied territory), and Israel, the occupying state, on an equal moral basis. For instance, he reportedly urged Israelis and Palestinians to resume peace talks without any pre-conditions. In doing he seemed to be endorsing Israeli demand for talks without any restriction on settlement activities, even though an end to further Israeli settlements in the occupied territory is the essence of any forward movement on the Palestinian question.  Such occupation is internationally recognized as illegal. Therefore, without a commitment on Israel’s part, at the very least, to halt further settlement activity, any negotiations on a two-state solution is a charade and a reward for continued Israeli aggression. In other words, Kerry’s initiative is treading a very slippery slope.

Even as Israel talks of negotiations without any pre-conditions, it nonetheless puts its own pre-conditions, such as the right to continue building illegal settlements, recognition of its claim as a Jewish state and de-militarization of any future Palestinian state. In other words, a downsized Palestinian state will be a Balkanized entity with the South African apartheid-era Bantustans, crisscrossed by Israeli checkpoints and overseen by the Israeli army.

Having abandoned any worthwhile US role in pressuring Israel to work towards a two-state solution, President Obama now hopes that Israeli people, at some point, will come to realize that it is in their own interest to have a peaceful Palestinian state co-existing with a secure Israel. This is how he put it to a gathering of Israeli students during his visit. Highlighting the unjust and untenable situation as it exists today, he said, “It is not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It is not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; to restrict a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or to displace Palestinian families from their home.”

Assuring Israelis of unwavering US commitment to their country’s security, he made the point though that, “The only [sustainable] way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.” And he added, “The only way to truly protect the Israeli people is through the absence of war, because no wall is high enough, and no Iron Dome is strong enough, to stop every enemy from inflicting harm.” Which is true enough. But if Obama believes that his fine sentiments will galvanize Israeli people into a sudden realization of making peace with the Palestinians, he is either living in an unreal world or simply seeking to sidetrack the Palestinian question. If Israel were thinking long term, it must realize that, with or without the US, it would need to make peace with its Arab neighbours. And without peace with the Palestinians that would remain elusive. Will John Kerry be able to bring home this realization? It would seem very unlikely.

As Noam Chomsky, described by some as “America’s most-prominent self-hating Jew”, when asked recently by a questioner if Israel would still exist in 50 years, said: “Israel is following policies which maximize its security threats… policies which choose expansion over security policies which lead to their [Israeli] moral degradation, their isolation, their delegitimation…. And very likely ultimate destruction. That’s not impossible.” 

It is a pity that Jews, once one of the world’s most persecuted people, are blinded by their false sense of power, military or otherwise. As a result President Obama felt helpless and has entrusted the Palestinian issue to the good sense of the Israeli people, that hasn’t been in sight over many decades now. The recent tensions in West Bank over the death in Israeli prison of a prominent Palestinian, and the killing of two Palestinian teenagers, would seem to suggest more of the same. While one wishes John Kerry all the success in his new mission, the odds are stacked against him because of Israel’s obduracy.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

Iraq war retrospective: ten years on

S P SETH

The 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil were a traumatic experience for the country. The subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, where the attack originated with al-Qaeda intent on starting a jihad against the United States, was at the time considered by many countries as an understandable response. But to include Iraq as a target in March 2003 because of some supposed terrorist link between the al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein regime was a difficult sell internationally because there was no real evidence to back it up.

But that wouldn’t stop the then-President George Bush and his cabal to sex up the plan to attack Iraq because, perversely, the 9/11 tragedy was too good an opportunity to miss to get rid of Saddam Hussein who, it was believed, should have been done with the first time around after his defeat in the first Gulf War in early nineties. George Bush’s prominent lieutenants Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, vice-president and defense secretary respectively, who were also part of his father Bush senior’s administration, weren’t too happy about this unfinished business. What an achievement it would be for the son, Bush junior, to complete what his father didn’t or couldn’t do, especially when, according to reports, his father didn’t regard him as too bright when he was growing up! Besides, as George Bush said at the time about Saddam Hussein that he “is the guy who tried to kill my dad.” That alone might have been enough to start the Iraq War in 2003. But more work was needed to make a plausible case internationally.

At one time Saddam Hussein’s regime was building a nuclear reactor that the Israelis had seen fit to blow up in 1981.  After Iraq was virtually destroyed during the first Gulf War and was subjected to one of the most stringent sanctions regime, with a no-fly zone over much of the country, Saddam’s Iraq was in no position to revive its nuclear program. But the Bush regime still managed, with the then British Prime Minister Tony Blair a faithful follower, to build up a case of sorts that Saddam was building up weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that he would unleash on his people and the neighbours. The UN Security Council was approached to approve a resolution for military invasion of Iraq. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cautioned against it, as their inspectors hadn’t been able to find any credible evidence that Iraq was headed in that direction. Having failed to get the Security Council’s authorization for invading Iraq, the United States decided to go ahead any way with, what was called, the ‘coalition of the willing’ that included US allies, including Australia --- no surprises there.

However, after Iraq was run over and still the US couldn’t find even a trace of nuclear activity under Saddam Hussein, they had to create some sort of a moral case to invade Iraq. No problem there because Saddam Hussein was said to be an evil ruler and the world needed to be rid of such evil. Certainly Saddam Hussein was a despot and a tyrant, and had used mustard gas to kill thousands of his people, mostly Kurds, in the northern Iraqi town of Halabja in 1988. But the question that pops up is: why didn’t the US act against him when he was doing these monstrous things to his people? There are even suggestions that he got his mustard gas and other nerve agents from the US and other western countries. Indeed, at one time, Saddam Hussein was the US’s preferred despot during his long and bloody war with Iran in the eighties with US encouragement and arms.

Another reason for getting rid of Sadaam Hussein was that it was necessary to create a model democracy in Iraq for the region. The debate in the US at the time in the conservative political establishment had bemoaned the lost decade of the nineties after the US supposedly had won the Cold War—a questionable thesis, though. It was, therefore, necessary for the US under the Bush administration to establish its leadership of the world as a benign new imperial power with a mission to spread democracy, as the US understood it. The Afghan and Iraq wars provided opportunities to unveil a new America to inspire awe and respect. And it made sense, according to this version, because what was good for the United States was also good for the world. And once this was understood, the Middle East will be secured for the foreseeable future for its oil supplies and for Israel’s security with all the countries in the region, including the Palestinians, getting the message that the US reigned supreme with no ifs and buts.

We now know that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan followed this neat script. The US is still mired in Afghanistan with plans to withdraw by end-1914. How this disengagement process will unfold, with what disasters during and after that withdrawal, is anybody’s guess? But we know that after years of US military engagement in Iraq, the post-war situation in that country is a horrible mess with ongoing sectarian killings, and bombs rocking the country every now and then. The Iraqi Kurds now have their own virtual state, and the Sunnis feel excluded from the new Shia-majority political dispensation. There are divisions and schisms even within the Shia political establishment.

The post-war Iraq, that was supposed to become a model democracy for the region, is in a state of political flux rocked by brutality and violence. With civil war raging in neighbouring Syria, it is slowly but surely getting drawn into that country’s intractable mess. The al-Qaeda in Iraq is reportedly helping its counterparts in Syria, and Iran is said to be using Iraqi air space for ferrying arms to Assad’s Syria. The US is unhappy with the Iraqi government for allowing its air space for Iranian arms flights to Syria. It is ironic that the United States that went to war to ‘save’ Iraq is finding that country ending up under its Iranian enemy’s political influence.

It won’t be surprising if Iraq were to become the next regional flashpoint of Sunni Arab rage (particularly of Saudi Arabia and its allied kingdoms) against Shia Iran, with the US inevitably drawn on their side, particularly on the nuclear question that will also satisfy Israel. In this sense, the Iraq war might not yet be really over as it has so many sideshows to play out. With 300,000 lives lost and cumulative cost of $ 4 trillion to the US treasury (according to a new US study) for the Iraq and Afghan wars, it has been a dark period for the US and terribly de-stabilizing for the region.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au 

Syria: no end in sight for people’s sufferings

S P SETH

The sufferings of Syrian people during the country’s ongoing civil war seem endless. Both sides, rebels as well as the Bashar al-Assad regime, are tone deaf to the plight of their own people. With over 70,000 dead, a million refugees in neighbouring countries and internally displaced people approaching the 4-million mark, it is a country where future has no meaning. And the prospect seems to be of even more bloodshed.

According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the Assad regime has weakened and can now count only on the loyalty of 50,000 troops down from 220,000 at the start of the country’s civil war. John Chipman, the Institute’s director-general, reportedly said, “The cumulative effect of defections, desertions, battlefield losses and damage to morale will weigh heavily in determining the outcome of the conflict.” Notwithstanding that, the regime still has overwhelming superiority in heavy weaponry and aerial warfare that gives it an edge against the rebels.

An important component of the Syrian situation is the oxygen it is getting from external factors. It is no secret that Assad regime is getting significant arms supplies from Russia. Regionally, it is getting arms and other help from Iran. Without such help, it would not be able to last. On the rebel side, they are getting arms and financial help from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, other Gulf kingdoms and Turkey.  

The US and European countries are pitching for the rebels and providing them with considerable assistance, though there is some reluctance so far to provide lethal weapons. Their reluctance is dictated by the fear that these weapons might fall into the wrong hands as some rebel groups reportedly have links with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Despite this, the United Kingdom and France appear poised to break ranks with other members of the European Union and might, in the near future, start funneling arms to the rebels. As for the US, there are already reports that the CIA is playing a role in weapons supplies to rebels through Qatar and other regional countries.  An effective mechanism to vet these supplies falling into al-Qaeda linked groups is still a worry, though the CIA is said to be playing a role in this as well.

One such group causing utmost concern is the Al-Nusra Front with its 5,000 highly motivated fighters and links with al-Qaeda in Iraq. So much so that the US placed it on its terrorism blacklist in December. It has been very effective in fighting the Assad regime and reportedly has set up a religious council to administer rebel-controlled areas in eastern Syria, apparently to create an Islamic order based on Sharia law. The US’ attempts to isolate it from other elements of the rebel forces do not seem to have worked because for most of them their immediate priority is to bring down the Assad regime, and the Al-Nusra Front is making a strong contribution to this end.

Al-Nusra Front is the kind of jihadist organization that worries the west. As British foreign secretary, William Hague, said recently, “Syria today has become the top destination for jihadists anywhere in the world.” He added, “We cannot allow Syria to become another breeding ground for terrorists who pose a threat to our national security.” And he has some reasons to worry, with reports that hundreds of British passport holders, some already known to British authorities, have travelled to Syria to fight against the Assad regime. It looks like Syria might be turning into another Afghanistan as a centre for terrorism.

And here is the conundrum. There is a fear that if the west doesn’t effectively help the opposition in Syria, and that will mean supplying arms to the rebels, its leadership is likely to be taken over by jihadist elements. On the other hand, if they do supply arms and these weapons fall into jihadist hands, the extremists with al-Qaeda ties will come on top to rule if and when Assad regime is overthrown. It is increasingly a Catch-22 situation. In any case, King Abdullah of Jordan, with his country hosting a large number of Syrian refugees as well as ferrying arms to the rebels, recently warned that Assad regime was doomed and an Islamic fundamentalist state was likely to emerge—not a palatable option between an existing murderous regime and the purveyors of hate and sectarian violence.

In the midst of a recent controversy about the use of a poison gas killing 25 people near Aleppo, with both the Syrian regime and the rebels accusing the other of using it, there is even more vigorous demand for greater arms assistance to rebels. Britain is reportedly supplying hundreds of chemical weapons detection and protection kits for Syrian rebels. And President Obama has warned the Assad regime of crossing the ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons against its people.

One effective way to neutralize the Assad regime’s advantage in aerial warfare will be to put up a “no flying zone” over Syria, as was done in Libya. But in this case, with Russia and China against it, there is a clear danger of further widening the conflict in the Middle East. In other words, the situation in Syria is getting worse because of its external ramifications involving the region and major international players.

Already the Syrian war is spilling into Lebanon, with sectarian killings as well as Hezbollah’s involvement in support of the Assad regime. At the same time, Israeli-occupied Golan Heights is emerging as a flashpoint with Israel making noises about a determined response to any cross border spill. It recently destroyed a machine-gun post in Syria, alleging that two Israeli patrols had come under fire from across the ceasefire line in the Golan Heights.

Turkey is deeply involved on the rebel side. A recent meeting in Istanbul of the Syrian opposition chose a naturalized US citizen (of Syrian descent), Ghassan Hitto, as interim prime minister to create a semblance of an alternative government. But the reported resignation of Mouaz al-Khatih, president of the mainstream Syrian opposition coalition days after Hitto was chosen as interim prime minister, only betrays further disunity among the rebels’ leadership. The recent unseating of the Assad regime from the Arab League in favour of the Syrian opposition might look like a gain for them, but such symbolic gestures are unlikely to resolve the rebels’ greatest weakness, which is their lack of unity and coordination.

Syria is turning into a series of military enclaves under different rebel groups. It is difficult to imagine that an opposition interim government, lacking any real authority and control over rebel groups, will become any more credible than the existing situation. So far, the situation remains stalemated. Which means more hell for the country’s civilian population.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au 

Arab winter of despair 

S P SETH

The Arab Spring is turning into a long winter of despair. Tunisia, the country where it all started and was making some headway, is in trouble with the murder of a prominent opposition leader who was a strong and vocal critic of the country’s Islamist government. Chokri Belaid, head of the left-wing Democratic Party, was recently shot outside his home. He was a human rights activist and was reportedly receiving daily threats to his life for his criticism of the ruling party, al-Nahda, for its tolerance, if not encouragement, of violence by Islamists. Even though Tunisia’s prime minister has strongly condemned the murder, the protest rallies against the government are blaming the ruling party for the violence in the country of which Belaid is the most prominent political victim. The night before he was killed, Belaid told Tunisian television, “There are groups inside al-Nahda inciting violence… all those who oppose al-Nahda become the targets of violence.” He was obviously not expecting it to happen to him the very next day.

Tunisia, the first Arab country to overthrow its despotic ruler and that too without much bloodshed, was a trigger as well as a role model of sorts for other Arab countries. It looks like that might not be the case any more as Tunisia struggles to make a peaceful transition to democracy.

Just as in Tunisia, Egypt is also undergoing a continuing political crisis. There too, the country’s Islamist government is pitted against liberal/secular forces and minority groups. Add to this the country’s activist women groups protesting against sexual assaults for participating in the protests, it would appear that nothing much has really changed in two years after the revolution that brought down Mubarak.

The protests against President Morsi of the Freedom and Justice Party, the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, started with his assumption of emergency powers late last year to rush through the country’s new constitution with almost all the opposition members absenting the assembly in protest. It was not a smart move if the Muslim Brotherhood were keen to create national consensus over a document that would chart the way forward for a new Egypt emerging out of revolutionary catharsis. Even though the constitution was passed in a referendum, the voter turnout of about 30 per cent was pitifully low to make it a credible exercise.

The point is that the concerted attempt by the Muslim Brotherhood to use the country’s nascent and emerging democratic process for a power grab, to push its Islamist agenda and to silence the opposition, will never work by turning almost half of the country in a perpetual mode of protests. The National Salvation Front of secular, liberal, minorities and women’s groups that indeed pioneered the revolution against the Mubarak dictatorship, are refusing to be silenced by Muslim Brotherhood.

The protest rallies in the Tahrir Square and elsewhere in the country against, what many regard as, usurpation of their revolution by the Muslim Brotherhood, are a testimony to this. At a time when the country is in all sorts of troubles, its prime minister has the luxury of making innate and stupid comments reportedly blaming young mothers of being responsible for the spread of diarrhea among infants because they don’t take care of their personal hygiene and don’t keep their breasts clean.

Why have things gone so wrong in Egypt? The simple answer is that the Muslim Brotherhood has been shifty about shared commitment to the revolution. They were late in rallying around and even then maintained a distance of sorts from other protesters against the Mubarak regime. And when they came around, they sought to assure the revolutionary movement that they were not in it for the power grab. For instance, the Brotherhood spokesmen first said that they would only contest 20 per cent of the parliament’s seats, gradually increasing their share to fighting for the majority of seats.

They had also said they wouldn’t put up a candidate for the presidential election. Because, as one of their spokesmen reportedly said, “We want to send a message to every party to make them realize that Islamists are not seeking to dominate power.” They will be, “Participating, not dominating.” But they did precisely that with Morsi winning presidency in a tight contest between a former Mubarak-era prime minister, Shafik, who still garnered 48.3 per cent against Morsi’s 51.7 per cent. They had also let it be known that they would collaborate with Christians and secularists. But we know that they railroaded the assembly into approving their constitution against the opposition’s wishes.

Even as the secularists were being assured that the revamped Muslim Brotherhood was much more collaborative, Morsi had emphatically said that, “I swear before God…, regardless of what is written in the constitution, Sharia will be applied.” No wonder there is a large trust deficit about the Brotherhood as far as other parties are concerned. And unless the Brotherhood takes some cogent and concrete steps to bridge that deficit, they will continue to be a highly divisive political force thus inviting popular protests, even turmoil, in the country. With the economy in free fall, and the country increasingly ungovernable, the romance of the revolution is degenerating into street brawls and worse.

While Tunisia and Egypt seem to be going backward, Libya—another country in the orbit of Arab Spring--- doesn’t appear to be making much headway. It is true that Gaddafi, who ruled the country for nearly 40 years with an iron hand, is now no more and Libya is better for it. It has held elections and now has a civilian government. But it is also true that the country’s new civilian government is not terribly effective, which sometimes make Libya look like a disparate collection of militias with their own agenda and writ. There is resistance to any kind of central control. At the same time, some of the militant Islamists and terrorists are keen to turn the country into an Islamic haven. The country’s border with some of its African neighbours is highly porous with all sorts of Islamist militants, drug runners and gun runners further complicating the picture.

The Arab Spring is proving disastrous for Syria, with a bloody stalemate between the Bashar al-Assad regime and an assorted collection of rebels; with one group, Jabhat al-Nusra, even branded terrorist by the United States. The recently formed national alliance of the rebel groups is not proving any more effective than before. It is still anybody’s guess how the Syrian tragedy, which has already cost an estimated 70,000 lives, will be resolved because both sides, the Bashar regime and the rebels, appear determined to fight it out.

The Arab Spring that started with so much promise and hope is becoming more like a saga of utmost despair. One good thing, though, has come out of the sweeping Arab revolution. Which  is that people have lost fear of their regimes and will not submit to arbitrary rule. And that is bound to be good in the future.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au

What lies ahead for Afghanistan?

S P SETH

Those looking for a breakthrough in Afghanistan might find some encouragement in the reported statement recently in Paris by two senior Taliban representatives after attending a two-day conference of Afghan parliamentarians, opposition leaders and government officials, organized by a research institute. It said that the Taliban weren’t “seeking an exclusive right to power.” And added, “We want an all-Afghan, inclusive government.”

But for that transition to happen, they want direct talks with the US, refusing to negotiate with the Afghan government, which they regard as a “puppet administration”. The statement also reportedly said that, “Foreigners and the Kabul administration are not interested in peace.” In that case, what is the point of direct talks with the US when they wouldn’t be interested in peace?

Another problem is that the Taliban refuse to accept the current Afghan constitution because it was “written under the pressure of B-52 warplanes in 2004.” They want a constitution based on “the Islamic principles, national interests, and historical gains.” Which could mean anything and everything or nothing. In other words, whether in terms of the recent declaration of the Taliban representatives in Paris or other utterances here and there, there is nothing concrete to go by to bring about national reconciliation for a new political order, following the American withdrawal towards end-2014.

The Taliban seem sure of two things--- that they don’t want to deal with the Karzai government, and that they want the US-led foreign forces out of Afghanistan. By failing to win the confidence of the Afghan people, the Karzai government sometimes makes the Taliban look good by sheer default.  The government came to be seen increasingly as a US creation propped up with foreign troops. Even when elections were held to give it a measure of legitimacy, they lacked credibility and, sometimes, the electoral process was simply rigged. At the same time, the US military presence didn’t provide much security for the long-suffering Afghan people nor did it improve the country’s economic situation by way of development and employment. On top of it all, the Karzai government’s corruption became legendry. Even the Americans have found Karzai a difficult customer both on account of widespread corruption enveloping his inner circle and the lack of governance.

In a recent article in the New Yorker, Dexter Filkins is scathing about the Karzai government. He writes, “President Hamid Karzai’s government is largely a collection of criminal networks, which are allowed to thrive in exchange for their support.” He adds, “One bit of American military jargon that is actually useful: Vertically Integrated Criminal Enterprise or VICE. It’s a term that officers use to describe the Afghan government.” Not that the US has acquitted itself with much credit.  Their own contractors have been deep into shady deals and projects. “The fact is that,” as Filkins points out, “after twelve years and four hundred billion dollars, the Americans have built very little that is likely to stand on its own after they depart.” Which is a terrible indictment of the US policy in Afghanistan. As for Karzai, “… the local joke goes [he] will leave Kabul before the Americans do.”

The Americans are now at a stage where they want to get the hell out of Afghanistan, without making it look like a total disaster. Therefore, they are training an Afghan military and police force of about 250,000 to take over the combat role when the US leaves by end-2014. So far, with about two years left, the Afghan force is hardly ready to fill in the vacuum and, at times, is turning on its trainers. According to a Pentagon report, only one of the 23 brigades of Afghan army is battle ready. And, according to the report, “… the [Taliban] insurgency remains adaptable with a regenerative capacity. It retains the capability to emplace substantial numbers of improvised explosive devices and conduct high profile attacks.”

The Afghan government has reportedly been promised $4 billion annually to support the new force over several years, as well as an unspecified civilian aid program. But this is based on the assumption that Afghanistan will remain a going concern with a US-allied government.

 Which is a tall assumption, considering the fragility of the situation. It would seem more likely that the US and its allies will disengage after a period and Afghanistan will descend into chaos, fragmentation and civil war. The US will likely expand its program of drones’ bombing the tribal areas bordering Pakistan and Afghanistan to snuff out terrorism as they are doing in Yemen and Somalia.

Some believe that the Taliban will simply step into the vacuum, created by the US withdrawal, to re-establish their control over Afghanistan, possibly with Pakistan’s help. That might be the case but I wouldn’t bet on it. First, the Taliban are more feared than respected. And they will have quite a job on their hand to win the hearts and minds of people, especially after Afghan cities have been “corrupted” by exposure to western capitalist and cultural influences, like education, particularly of girls, and the daily diet of television. Second, the Taliban is not a monolithic entity. It has its divisions and tribal rivalries that have deepened since the US invasion of the country.

Third, however much Pakistan might like to mould Afghanistan in the post-US withdrawal period to serve its strategic interests, its capacity is limited. In the Afghan drama, Pakistan is as much a puppeteer as it is a puppet played by the Taliban. And at home, Pakistan’s army is pitted against Pakistani Taliban with its fraternal links to their Afghan brothers. Therefore, Afghanistan and Pakistan are intricately enmeshed.

Fourth, even though the Pashtuns constitute a majority of the Afghan population, the country has sizeable other ethnic entities who will fight out any Taliban control. Therefore, even if the Taliban were to eventually establish their domination of the Pashtun areas of the country, its Tajik, Uzbek and other groups will likely revert to autonomous rule plunging the country into civil war and chronic instability. And they will have the support of some external powers in this.

In other words, it doesn’t look like Afghanistan will have much peace after the US withdrawal. Which is rather sad because the Afghan people very badly need peace and unity.

Note: This article was first published in th Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au