Egypt: revolution stymied

S P SETH

With the former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak dying (reported clinically dead at one point), his systemic legacy looks like continuing. Nothing much has changed so far except that the generals, appointed by Mubarak, now rule the country. The generals’ grab for power for, what might be, an indefinite period is likely to plunge Egypt into further uncertainty. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has dissolved the recently elected parliament and arrogated to itself the task of the final approval of the constitution as and when it is drafted at their behest. They were happy to be rid of Mubarak when he became the symbol of all that was wrong with the country. In the process they (the military) became the darlings of the people with the slogan that the army and the people were one. In giving Mubarak a nudge into oblivion, they managed to save the system with their berths intact as the country’s rulers.

But it was not as simple as that as the military council was soon to find out. When the military council’s first attempts to formalize their role as the country’s arbiters brought out protesters once again into Tahrir Square, they made a tactical retreat by allowing the holding of parliamentary elections; resulting in the overwhelming victory of the Islamist parties with Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis garnering about 70 per cent of the seats.

The presidential contest that followed apparently gave Mohamed Morsi, the Brotherhood’s candidate of the Freedom and Justice Party, a narrow victory.  Ahmed Shafiq, a former air force chief and Mubarak’s last premier, did quite well at 48 per cent to about 52 per cent of Morsi, reflecting sharp polarization with a large section of the people going for the old order. Fearing that the military council might play politics with the election results by declaring Shafiq as President-elect, the Freedom and Justice Party made a pre-emptive announcement of having won the election. Whether or not Morsi is declared the official winner and the first popularly elected President of the country, the army has in any case pre-empted him of any real powers by dissolving the parliament and taking over the executive, legislative and constitutional powers for an indefinite period. Morsi, as President, will be a titular head with the military council fielding real power.

What it means is that Egypt’s revolution has been stymied. And the country is likely to be plunged into a power struggle between the Muslim Brotherhood and the army; in some ways reminiscent of the confrontation between the two since the days of the then Colonel Nasser who, with the help of some of his fellow military officers, had overthrown the monarchy in the fifties. The Muslim Brotherhood, with its roots going back to 1928 when it was founded by Hassan al-Banna, has a track record of taking on the powers that be, first in an anti-colonial role and subsequently against the military rule of Colonel Nasser and his successors, Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak. They were mercilessly persecuted, tortured and thrown into prison until Mubarak was satisfied that they were tame enough to be tolerated under strict internal security watch.

 When the Tunisian contagion--with its dictator Ben Ali fleeing to Saudi Arabia-- spread to Egypt and became the Arab Spring, the Brotherhood initially had difficulty believing that the anti-Mubarak upsurge was for real. They dithered before joining the Tahrir Square crowds. And at times, after Mubarak was overthrown, the Muslim Brotherhood seemed like becoming cozy with the military council to advance their political ambitions. Peter Hessler, in an article in the New Yorker, reveals this based on his conversations with Nader Omran, a spokesman for the Freedom and Justice Party, political wing of the Brotherhood. Omran told Hassler that the only problem was assuring the military council that it could make a “safe exit”. In other words, “They need to have some guarantees, but they have to first step down.” The Brotherhood felt close to gaining power on the basis of a deal with the generals.

And that is where the Brotherhood’s calculations have come unstuck, as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is not for retiring, with or without guarantees. The country seems set for the power struggle between the military and the Muslim Brotherhood, the latter projecting itself as the legitimately elected power centre further reinforced with the popular revolution that brought down Mubarak. But with the Ahmed Shafiq side claiming victory too, the picture is becoming murky giving the army enough scope to manipulate events to its advantage. The Muslim Brotherhood is mobilizing their supporters in Tahrir Square to continue the revolution that has been thwarted by the old system.

However, the Brotherhood made some important errors during the course of the revolution that has damaged its image of moderation and inclusiveness it sought to cultivate. For example, having promised not to field a candidate for presidential election, they went back on it, as power seemed within their reach. This has tended to polarize the Egyptian people as testified by the close presidential election results, admittedly unofficial but based on returns from polling booths. They even started to hobnob with the military council to achieve their political ambitions. Indeed, at times, they seemed keen to go out of their way to publicize their Islamic credentials. For instance, Morsi reportedly said at one point that, “ I swear before God …, regardless of what is written in the constitution, Sharia will be applied.”

There is nothing wrong with them proclaiming their Islamic credentials but it doesn’t gel with the spirit of the revolution that sought to build a broad church (to use an expression) where proponents of civil society, including women and minorities, played a lead role. The Brotherhood was a latecomer. The result is that the initial enthusiasm and fervour of the much-heralded Arab Spring might have waned; though the new crowds at Tahrir Square seem to reflect a sort of unity in diversity. But the Brotherhood, by their overweening political ambitions, managed to compromise the revolution. To take an example, the Coptics (the Egyptian Christians) who participated in the anti-Mubarak upsurge, are not too keen on the Brotherhood taking over the reins of power.  

Peter Hessler, in his New Yorker article, captures the essence of disillusionment with the Brothers. He writes, “Last fall, people often described them as honest and hardworking, but by the end of April, when the Presidential campaign officially began, it was hard to find anybody who openly supported Morsi. Comments were scathing; the Brothers were liars; they had made a mess of parliament; they cared only about their own interests…”

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces will have quite a fight on their hands if Ahmed Shafiq is made President. But even with  Morsi as the winner, the country is likely to remain in a state of recurring strife as the elected President will have virtually no powers.

The question is: will the Brotherhood be able to forge a broad revolutionary church to carry on the revolution? That will remain to be seen because they haven’t been inclusive so far.

 Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times

Israeli occupation of Palestine

By S P SETH

A group of us, here in Sydney, were discussing a book that traces the travails of a Jewish family spread out in Austria and France during WW11. It is a very poignant story told with great sympathy, compassion and understanding by the author several generations down the family line. Luckily for this family, it escaped what many Jews suffered in a holocaust engineered by Hitler’s Germany. In the midst of this discussion, some one raised the question: has it ever bothered the successive governments in Israel that the same (Jewish) people who have been one of the most persecuted in history are now dishing it out to the Palestinians? The Palestinians have been displaced, bombed, terrorized, hunted, blocked, balkanized and what not and Israel still manages to do it all with a clear conscience as if the Palestinians were the initiator and perpetrator of all the historical pogroms, including Holocaust, that the Jews suffered; when all this happened and was done to them in Europe.

It is a cruel travesty of history that the victims (the Jews) are now the perpetrator of crimes against humanity on people (the Palestinians) who, historically, have had nothing to do with the persecution of Jews. Still, they have been deprived of their homeland. They are now living under Israeli occupation in what little is left of their homeland. And even that too is coveted by Israel, with Jewish settlements springing all around them, parceling their land into Bantustans of the South African apartheid era.

In an era when the question of human rights is sought to be made a central issue of international politics, Israel is the only country that still manages to flout them with impunity. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and Gaza (blockaded and bombed) are illegal under international law. But, in the case of the Israeli usurpation of Palestinian lands, international law apparently has no validity, with Israel able to interpret and twist it to its requirements. For instance, some of the European countries recently criticized another bout of occupation settlements that Israel is building which are patently illegal, but Israel simply dismissed their objection as “partial, biased and one-sided depiction of realities on the ground.”

There is a method behind this madness. It is two fold. First, it is meant to create new ground realties as a fait accompli. Second is to make existence for the Palestinians so miserable and horrible that they might have no option but to leave to create more ghettos in neighboring Arab countries. After all, Israel denied for quite a long time (some still do) the existence of a Palestinian entity and identity. They wanted to squeeze them out (it still remains the ultimate goal) to seek a ghettoized existence in other Arab lands.

But so far it has worked only partially.  The underlying policy though remains the same, with the Israeli Arabs also coming under a tightening regime of a discriminatory legal dispensation for them. Indeed, the siege mentality enveloping the Israeli state, despite being the strongest country in the Middle East and enjoying the protection of the world’s most powerful country (the United States) is such that it sees enemies everywhere. As David Shulman, Professor of Humanistic Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes in an article titled, Israel in Peril, “… Like many Israelis, he [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] inhabits a world where evil forces are always just about to annihilate the Jews, who must strike back in daring and heroic ways in order to snatch life from the jaws of death.” And he adds, “I think that, like many other Israelis, he is in love with such a world and would reinvent it even if there were no serious threat from outside.”

Shulman is spot on about this enveloping psychology of the state of Israel where the existence of the country and the Jewish people is always on the line, requiring preventive and pre-emptive action. Commenting on the policy of Jewish settlements in the occupied territory, Shulman says, “ By now, a huge portion of the West Bank has, in effect, been annexed, perhaps irreversibly, to Israel. No state can be constituted on the little that remains…” Still, the Netanyahu Government continues to invite the Palestinian Authority for “unconditional” talks on the two-state solution. It is a cruel joke that Israel keeps playing on the Palestinians, knowing that a two-state solution in truncated Palestine with non-contiguous territory, and under overall Israeli control, is an insult to the Palestinian people.

Tony Judt, historian and essayist, characterized as a self-hating Jew, and once a great admirer of the kibbutz-loving Israeli experiment as a “social-democratic paradise of peace-loving, farm-dwelling Jews…” was later turned off by his experiences in the country. And he came to see in Israel “ a Middle Eastern country that despised its neigbours and was about to open a catastrophic, generation-long rift with them by seizing and occupying their land.”  How true it is and getting worse by the day, with the Palestinians copping the lot with graffiti in some places calling “Death to the Arabs”, and “Arabs to the gas chambers” as reported in a recent article in the New York Review of Books by Jonathan Freedland.

The question is: how long will Israel be allowed to exercise their sense of entitlement and perpetual victimhood at the expense of the Palestinians? The answer obviously is: as long as the United States and its European allies will continue to indulge Israel. The United States’ political system is held hostage to the Jewish lobby in that country. So much so that Netanyahu has had the temerity to lecture, snub and demand answers from President Barack Obama because of the political and economic weight of the Jewish lobby.

As for Israeli society, according to Peter Beinhart, “… the Netanyahu coalition [and its social foundation] is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism.”

It is a depressing picture for the Palestinians and the only way for things to change is, one, by pressure from the United States and, two, for the Arab world to unite on the issue of justice and freedom for the Palestinians. On both counts; there is not any significant movement. And such impotence and indifference on the part of world tends to simply reinforce the Israeli view that, if they continue on their course, the fait accompli of their occupation will acquire the stamp of legality.

 David Shulman writes in the New York Review of Books that the system that underpins Palestinian Bantustans “… someday, as happened in South Africa…will inevitably breakdown.”  Furthermore, “To prolong the occupation is to ensure the emergence of a single polity [with] necessary progression to a system of one person, one vote.” In that case, Israel must face the likelihood that “unless the Occupation ends, there will also, in the not so distant future, be no Jewish state.”

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times 

Carnage in Syria

By S P SETH

The carnage in Syria looks like never ending. The recent grisly scenes of battered corpses posted on the internet is the worst of its kind since the uprising began March last year. The deaths of over 100 civilians, including 49 children and 32 women, add to the mounting death toll of over 10,000 and rising. It all happened in Houla, a township in Homs province. Apparently, the military was trying to wrest control of this town from the rebels. After doing their bit of pounding the town with heavy artillery, the pro-regime militia was left to finish the job. And they went about it with their customary brutality.  The army seems to be forgetting, though, that, despite the heavy price they are paying, the rebels are not deterred. Therefore what worked for Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez al-Assad, in 1982 when he unleashed unrestrained brutality in Hama killing upwards of 10,000 people, is not working in 2012.

There are two reasons why it is not working. First: the rebellion is much more widespread this time. The military is, therefore, overstretched. Second: the Arab Spring, that has overwhelmed much of the Arab world, inspires the rebel movement in Syria. Its success in Tunisia and Egypt had its contagion effect in Syria. The Bashar regime might, therefore, need to rethink its strategy of violent repression as the only course before the upsurge in Syria reaches a point of no return, if it is not already happened.

Not surprisingly, the killings in Houla have created even greater outrage internationally, leading the UN Security Council to condemn the “outrageous use of force against the civilian population”; calling on both the government and the rebels to end violence. The Security Council statement was issued after Russia was accommodated in not apportioning all the blame on the Assad regime. According to the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, both sides in the Syrian conflict “had a hand” in the deaths. He maintained that, “The guilt has to be determined objectively. No one is saying that the government is not guilty, and no one is saying that the armed militants are not guilty.” Which the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, then visiting Moscow, didn’t dispute though he made the point that “… it [the regime] has the primary responsibility for such violence.” In other words, Russia and China stand in the way of a Security Council resolution for international intervention in Syria to stop killings.

Of course, the US and its allies might decide to intervene without a UN resolution but this seems unlikely. Even though they are vociferous in their condemnation of the Syrian atrocities, none has so far shown any appetite for armed intervention. Calling it a “vicious assault… on a residential neighborhood” the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said that: “… the United States will work with the international community to intensify our pressure on Assad and his cronies, whose rule by murder and fear must come to an end.” France is simply making plans to host a Friends of Syria meeting, while Britain said it was in urgent talks with allied countries on “a strong international response.”

In the US, President Obama is in the midst of an election campaign for another term. One of the selling points of his campaign is that, under him, the US is disengaging from its military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. That advantage will be nullified if the US were back in another bloody conflict, this time in Syria. And this could even be bloodier than Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another reason is that President Obama only recently made an important decision to shift the focus of US strategic policy to the Asia-Pacific region. During the last decade when the US has been preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, China has made important inroads into Asia-Pacific region to the detriment of US power and interests. Another US shift to the Middle East, this time in Syria, will only further fortify China’s strategic advantage. Third: the US global overreach in the last decade, if not before, has significantly contributed to the country’s indebtedness, thus making another military adventure an unlikely proposition. The US’ European allies are in an even worse situation economically.

Obviously, the Bashar regime is aware of these constraints of the western countries that gives it some leverage in a very tight situation.

Therefore, as long as Russia and China do not join the US in the Security Council for concerted international action  (a combination of armed de-stabilization and comprehensive sanctions), the regime might be able to prolong its life. So far, Moscow is proving a tough nut to crack with its considerable economic and strategic stakes in Syria.

There is some suggestion that Russia might be persuaded to buy a Yemen-like compromise where its unpopular president was sent into exile, leaving the rump of his government intact. In Yemen, though, both Saudi Arabia and the United States had considerable political and economic leverage to swing the deal. But this is not the case in Syria. If applied to Syria, this would mean that Bashar and his cronies will go into exile leaving rest of the system and structure unchanged. Russia will thus continue to have strategic primacy in the country, where it will be business as usual minus Bashar and few of his close cohorts.

Will Russia fall for it? It seems unlikely except as part of a wider strategic deal in which Russian political, strategic and economic interests worldwide, seen as threatened by the US and NATO, are assured. For instance, Russia is very angry over the stationing of US missiles in its strategic backyard, in Poland and elsewhere, as part of a defense system against a perceived Iranian nuclear threat. It also fears that the United States and its allies are seeking to politically destabilize the Putin regime by fomenting and encouraging anti-Putin rallies in Russia. Russia has also incorporated parts of the neighboring Georgian territory following a border war between the two countries some time ago. It would like legitimization of that from the US. Moscow also wants to join the World Trade Organization to reap trade benefits, and the list goes on. And it probably would also want some assurances against military attack on Iran by Israel and/or the US. It is a long list and hence difficult to be tied down to the Syrian situation.

Despite all the humane concern for carnage in Syria, the international power brokers have their own agenda. The US, for instance, would like to break the close links between Iran and Syria, and their perceived disruptive role in the region.

As for a Yemen-like solution for Syria, it will be difficult to sustain even if it were feasible. The two situations are quite different. First: Syria is much more diverse in terms of its ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. And the Bashar regime, though unpopular with the Sunni majority, has the support of the minorities, and a good section of its trading and middle class.

Its Christian population, though not enamored of the Bashar family dictatorship, are still thankful for its social and religious liberalism. They are free to practice their rituals and social modes.  And they are afraid of the alternative of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood, as they see it.

Second: the regime is not subject to outside dictates, perhaps not even from Russia. Its power base in the army and the country’s Alawite political class remains intact. Therefore, it might still have enough life to keep going. However, unless the Bashar regime relents on its policy of killing its own people, it might only be a matter of time before it too becomes history. But that doesn’t mean the country’s mysery will be over any time soon. A prolonged civil war might make it even messier and bloodier.

Note: This article was first published in the Daily Times

            Syrian conundrum           

S P SETH

The situation in Syria has reached a dangerous stalemate, with or without Kofi Annan. The Arab Spring seems to have hit a hard rock in that country where the regime, though unpopular with majority of the Syrian people, has some advantages. First: the country’s minorities and its business class are afraid of the alternative to the Bashar al-Assad regime. The alternative of a chaotic Sunni political order, with the likely domination of the Muslim Brotherhood or a variation of it after a deadly civil war, sends shivers down the collective spine of the Alawites (the ruling Shia sect), Christians, Kurds and other small communities. In other words, the Bashar regime has the core support of about 30 per cent of the population and they are standing by it; even though the al-Assad dynasty has a lot of blood on their hands. His father, Hafez al-Assad and the country’s dictator for 30 years, brutally crushed a rebellion in Hama in 1982 with an estimated 10,000 people killed. Which kept the deadly peace in Syria for 30 years. Bashar succeeded his father in 2000 after his death. And the son is repeating his father’s known prescription of quelling a rebellion through brutal force but it doesn’t seem to be working so far.

 Second: Bashar is not as isolated as media reports seem to suggest. He has Iran behind it, and Iraq is a friendly neighbor. The Hezbollah in Lebanon, with their veto on the Lebanese political system, are likely to keep that country out of any anti-Bashar regional coalition. And Russia and China are refusing to line up behind the US and Europe in the UN Security Council for any kind of military intervention to bring down the Bashar regime.  They are cautious this time because the Security Council resolution on Libya, which China and Russia supported, was overinterpreted by the US and Europe to bring down the Gaddafi regime. However, in the face of mounting civilian killings, reported to be over 9,000, they have been pressuring Damascus to do something tangible to resolve the situation. The Bashar regime has announced some initiatives to liberalize the country’s polity but it is all come too little too late. The Kofi Annan’s initiative has their support, including a Security Council resolution to send unarmed civilian monitors to ensure that both sides maintain the ceasefire enjoined on them. But whether it will last remains problematic. In other words, it is a messy situation with no prospect of any real breakthrough.

The Bashar regime also has the advantage of an almost complete control of the government and the armed forces. True, there are some defections from the army but the core of the military remains loyal. And in the government, there is virtually no defection of its diplomats, intelligence community and politicians. This is in stark contrast with Libya where the institutions became quite porous as the rebellion took hold.  The Syrian rebels, on the other hand, are quite divided. Besides, they have no liberated area to operate from. They don’t have anything like Benghazi, as was the case with the Libyan rebels. They are, therefore, counting on outside material help to advance their cause, which, in the present situation, is hard to come--- in any case not on the scale that Libya received.

Syria, though, remains under considerable international pressure and it might not be able to get away with its killing spree. At the same time, without effective international material support and intervention on the rebels’ behalf, they are in no position to topple the Bashar regime. It is not a totally isolated regime, as we have seen. The Israeli silence on the Syrian situation is telling. And by their silence they seem to be favoring the Assad regime. And it is understandable, from their viewpoint, because they would rather have the Bashar regime rule and control Syria rather than a radicalized and Islamic Syria at odds with them. They have had enough of the Arab Spring for their liking.

In this stalemated situation, it is not surprising that the international community is banking so much on Kofi Annan’s mission. And there has been progress of sorts with a unanimous UN Security Council Resolution (including Russia and China) authorizing the dispatch of unarmed civilian monitors. It puts even more pressure on the regime. The Bashar regime might continue to dig its heels but if it is unable to decisively prevail politically and militarily, its position is likely to become untenable.

 Internally: it might create cracks in the military. Though there is no visible sign of any unrest in the higher military command, the possibility of a military coup cannot be entirely ruled out with the successor regime inclined to make a political deal. Second: with the regime unable to ensure stability and security, it might start to lose the support of the minorities and business community keen to explore alternatives with the rebels. Third: the continuing violence, unrest and international sanctions are bound to seriously damage the country’s economy and hollow out the country. It might, therefore, become difficult for the Bashar regime to sustain military operations against the rebels for much longer. It has already been over a year since the unrest began, and the army is overstretched being shifted from one place to another. One cannot, therefore, rule out a sudden collapse at some point of time. Predictions about any outcome are only guesswork. But one thing is for sure that Syria is headed for a bloodbath with or without the Bashar regime from sectarian conflict.

At this point it is pertinent to point out the irony of the Gulf kingdoms, led by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, playing an important rallying role against Syria, considering their own human rights records in their respective kingdoms—hardly an example worth emulating. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is constantly engaged in crushing the Shia population in its oil-bearing eastern province. And, with its fellow potentates of other Gulf countries, is helping Bahrain to do the same with its Shia population.

There are two reasons for this. First: Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council are in the vanguard role to prevent Iran from playing an important/dominating role in the region. And Syria happens to be Iran’s close regional friend. Saudi Arabia and its fellow kings fear that an Iranian foothold in any Arab country will encourage Shiite disaffection and rebellion in their midst. Second: Syria is ruled by an Alawite (a Shia sect) minority killing Sunni rebels. It, therefore, has a sectarian ring to it, with Riyadh as protector of the Sunni population. 

What is being perpetrated in Syria by the Bashar regime is disgusting and repugnant. But with countries like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf rulers and their partners in the Arab League taking on them the mantle of promoting human rights and democracy, is distasteful, to put it mildly. 

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

Afghan imbroglio

By S P SETH

Some of the recent events in Afghanistan might as well be the script for a horror movie. We have the spectacle of US soldiers urinating on corpses of their Taliban enemy, burning copies of Koran and, the most recent dastardly act of, an American soldier systematically breaking into some Afghan homes and killing family members, including women and children, without any rhyme or reason. The killings are said to be the random acts of a lone US soldier. But try telling this to the Afghan people who detect a pattern in US cruelty with no respect for Afghan lives.

Whatever the explanation, the damage is done with the US headed for exit from Afghanistan, sooner rather than later. The US, in any case, was already looking for a dignified exit by 2014 but that might not be happening now. The Taliban has suspended its tenuous contacts with the US in Qatar, with no new interlocutors in sight in such a charged atmosphere. And Karzai has asked the US to confine its troops to major bases, with a corresponding lull in counter-insurgency operations and nation building tasks for the period ahead. Of course, Karzai doesn’t want to be left behind the Taliban in voicing displeasure and frustration with the US. It is increasingly becoming an untenable situation for the US and NATO military presence in Afghanistan, and how it is sorted out would remain to be seen.

If history is any guide, the British had an awful time in the 19^th century with their recurrent military expeditions into Afghanistan. In 1841, its entire force of 16,500 perished but for one soldier. The Soviet Union’s experience in 1980s was equally ignominious, eventually leading to a humiliating withdrawal after many casualties and lost morale. With some luck the US might stage a more orderly withdrawal and without total humiliation.

Ever since the US surge of 2009 with some initial successes, the military operations in Afghanistan have largely been a holding operation to contain the Taliban. The other two elements of the US strategy---to secure the interior and foster nation building ---have not made much headway. The Taliban were always around, making tactical retreat here and there, with people collaborating with them either out of fear or loyalty. As for raising the new Afghan national army and police forces with funding and training from the US and allies, they are proving highly porous riddled with Taliban influence and volunteers.

Since the US hasn’t really succeeded in creating a popular national Afghan counter-force to the Taliban, the prognosis for the country is for more chaos and bloodshed after the US withdrawal. Because of the Karzai government’s virtually total dependence on US armed presence and funding, it might not take long for the entire edifice to collapse with the new Afghan army splintering into groups fighting for competing power contenders or operating free-lance.

The Karzai government has very little popular support in the country for two good reasons. First: it is seen as American creation and imposition. And second: it is corrupt to the bone. And no matter what Karzai does, now and then, to attack US acts and behavior in Afghanistan, he lacks credibility. And the time is coming when his contradictory, but ineffectual politics of playing all sides of the game, might land him in an awful lot of trouble with no escape hatch.

On surface it might seem that the Taliban will be able to reclaim their lost kingdom in Afghanistan. Earlier they had come on top in the civil war that ensued after the Soviet withdrawal. They had three advantages at that time. First: they had, by and large, a clean image as being free of corruption. Second: after the mayhem of the civil war and lawlessness, their commitment to enforce strict Islamic rule found favor with many Afghans. And third: they had Pakistan’s support for its own strategic reasons, particularly to have a dependent and reliable Afghan regime for, what came to be known, as “defense in depth” against India.

Let us see how far these factors still favor the Taliban. They still are relatively clean compared to the Karzai regime that has become synonymous with corruption. They are likely to have a problem, though, with enforcing strict Islamic rule after the relatively liberal social mores that have developed in some cities, even if they are benefitting only a small class. The limited start to the education of girls is one example. There is also some relaxation of restrictions on entertainment, as with music, films and television. All this is counter to the Taliban precepts and practice, though they are capable of brutal repression.

They still have Pakistan’s support, with their leadership reportedly sheltering in Pakistan. Whether they will do Pakistan’s bidding, when in power, is another thing. It would seem that their rise to power in Afghanistan, after the Soviet withdrawal, did more harm to Pakistan than any good. For one, Pakistani Taliban have been an outgrowth of the Taliban in Afghanistan, with disastrous consequences for the country. Second, their sheltering and support of the al Qaeda leadership, blamed for the 9/11 bombing of the US targets, made Pakistan the witting or unwitting theatre of the US war against Afghanistan. The consequences for Pakistan of all this are still playing out.

In any case, any possible Taliban ascendancy in the post-US Afghanistan is unlikely to bring lasting peace and unity to Afghanistan and, by implication, to Pakistan. At best the Taliban might become dominant in the Pushtun region of the country, setting in motion another civil war against other ethnic and sectarian communities. The Pashtuns, the largest community at 42 per cent, are not the majority. And the Taliban have virtually no support among other sizeable groups of Afghans. The Tajiks are reportedly the second biggest at 27 per cent, followed by Hazaras and Uzbeks at 9 per cent each, with small communities of Aimak (4 per cent), Turkmens (3 per cent) and Baloch (2 percent).

When Afghanistan had some stability under King Zahir Shah, it functioned as a loose coalition of diverse tribes, clans, sects and ethnic groups operating basically as autonomous groups. The overthrow of the King in 1973 by his cousin, Prince Daud, started a chain of events that has meant a continuing state of instability and warfare to this day. Which doesn’t mean that the solution lies in bringing back monarchy. What it means is that any system that tends to centralize authority in Kabul, be it under the Taliban or whatever, will simply prolong Afghan agony. There is need for a flexible and accommodative political dispensation with tolerance in diversity. The Taliban are hardly the kind for a process of national reconciliation and unity, with their ideological and religious rigidity. Not only will they prove divisive in Afghanistan but are likely to plunge even Pakistan further into confusion and chaos.

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

Iranian Nuclear Threat?

By S P SETH

Every country has its demons and they are particularly handy when rallying people against an enemy. Iran is such a demon with Israel, the US and the west. It even sprung up at a recent forum on Australian TV, when Iran’s perceived nuclear threat was the subject of a discussion among the participants. Some high profiled Israeli participants argued that it was not only a threat to Israel but also the world at large. The general argument, spoken or unspoken, is that the “mad mullahs” ruling Iran have no respect for human rights and hence not subject to any rational concern for humanity. They will, therefore do anything to advance their agenda. Of course, the threat to Israel from Iran’s nuclear program, the argument goes, is the greatest as it has threatened to wipe out Israel from existence. Though Tony Judt, a “self-hating Jew” as his fellow Jews would call him, questioned this Israeli formulation. He reportedly said that “the fear that Israel could be wiped off the face of the earth…” is not a genuine fear. In his view, it is politically calculated rhetorical strategy.

The question, though, is: how is Iran’s so far non-existent nuclear weapons a threat, when Israel has enough nuclear bombs to not only wipe out Iran but also all its Arab neighbors, if it chose to do so? But that is never the question. It is stated as a fact that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and it will hardly wait to wipe out Israel from the face of the earth. Therefore, before it might even happen Israel has to preemptively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Letting Iran become a nuclear power is even more dangerous than the old cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union where nuclear threat was contained through mutual deterrence. Because, as Jonathan Freedland argues in a recent column in the Guradian: “But an Iran-Israel nuclear stand-off would not be like the US-Soviet containment of the cold war, with its lines of communication and negotiated military doctrines underpinning a stable detente. There is no such communication or mutual understanding between Iran and Israel.” Therefore, if Iran were to become a nuclear power: “ The Middle East and the world would be on a hair-trigger to nuclear war.”

These are self-serving arguments that portray Iran as a demon of sorts not bound by any notion of rationality and morality. Writing in the Guardian, Professor John Mueller, author of the book Atomic Obsession, observes, “Iran’s leadership, though unpleasant in many ways, is not a gaggle of suicidal lunatics.” And he warns that, “ If Iran wants to develop a nuclear weapon, the only way it can be effectively stopped is invasion and occupation, an undertaking that would make America’s costly war in Iraq look like child’s play…”

However, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has reportedly said, “We are not seeking nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic of Iran considers possession of nuclear weapons a sin…and believes that holding such weapons is useless, harmful and dangerous.”

The point to make, though, is that any country acquiring nuclear capability can graduate to making a bomb if it puts its mind and resources to it. But, even then, it is not an easy task spread over a number years involving miniaturization of weapons and the appropriate missile technology and capability. By any reckoning Iran is nowhere near it. The 20 per cent enrichment claim, recently made by Iran, even if true, falls way short of the required enrichment capacity of about 90 per cent.

The available intelligence, despite all the scaremongering, doesn’t support that Iran is moving to acquire nuclear bombs. Even the Obama administration, having first exaggerated the Iranian nuclear threat, is now seeking to dissuade Israel from its preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear installations. Indeed, as David Patrikarakos writes in the London Review of Books, “ While railing against the iniquity of international institutions [including the International Atomic Energy Agency], Iran… at no point has suggested that the system itself is wrong, merely that it is unfairly weighted against the developing world.” He adds: “The Islamic Republic does not seek to overthrow the international order but to be accorded what it believes is its proper place within it.” In other words, Iran refuses to be demonized or treated as a pariah state-- its fate since the 1979 revolution.

It is already under one of the most comprehensive sanctions regimes designed to cripple its economy. And Israel is openly threatening that it will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the next couple of months if the present sanctions regime doesn’t work. Such Israeli bellicosity is even starting to worry the United States, even though it is in agreement with Israel about the dangers of a nuclear Iran and, as President Obama keeps saying that all US options are open to prevent Iran from doing this. In this US presidential election year, the Republican contenders are outdoing each other in espousing Israeli hard line against Iran.

But the Obama administration and the US military brass are now urging and pleading with Israel not to light the fuse lest it all goes haywire. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff recently warned that an Israeli “strike [on Iran] at this time would be destabilizing”, a euphemism to denote that things could get out of control. Indeed, the view in the US intelligence and military community, is that bombing Iran, as Lieutenant General David Deptula (retired) has said “ain’t going to be that easy.” The New York Times also quotes Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, as saying that air strikes capable of seriously setting back Iran’s nuclear program are “beyond the capacity” of Israel.

The Israeli Government will be fully aware of these limitations, as it has even been warned against this course by some of its former top intelligence operatives. But the entire stratagem seems meant to create a situation where the US would have no option but to be sucked into another war in the Middle East started by Israel. If that were to happen, the US might find itself facing a situation worse than its ill-fated military attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. In its present weakened economic situation, with hefty cuts in defense expenditure over the next ten years, another military adventure will be disastrous for the United States, not to speak of the misery it will inflict on Iranian people. As for Israel, with a progressively weakened US strategic shield, its Iranian adventure might be a case of one adventure too many.

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

2012: Defining Year for the US

By S P SETH

The year 2012 will be, in so many ways, a defining time for the United States. It is the year of the presidential election that will show if the election as President of a black American in 2008 was simply an aberration. It is true that Barack Obama hasn’t performed well as President and could lose the election because of his lackluster record. But to lose against any of the present list of Republican contenders, none of them a stand out as a future president will, not insignificantly, be due to his racial identity. Which would mean that much of the self-congratulation many American liberals heaped on their country as having entered the post-racial phase of its history after Obama’s election might simply turn out to be false.

As it is, nearly 50 per cent of the prisoners in US jails are black, even though they constitute only about 13 percent of the population. In a review of some books on US’s racial divisions, Anthony Lewis writes in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books: “One analyst reckons that 32 per cent of black boys born in 2001 would spend part of their lives in prison, state or federal.”

The New Year is important for the US in another way. Which is: will the US be able to arrest its economic decline? Apart from its mountain of debt at about $15 trillion, about 100 per cent of its GDP, the consequences of its precarious economy in human terms are frightening. For instance, 25 million people are reportedly either unemployed or do not have enough work to get by, not to speak of those who have simply stopped looking for work in frustration. About 47 million people are living on food stamps. We are talking here of the world’s richest country. In a country of 300 million people, such statistics are staggering. And if this steep slide is not arrested and reversed, the US might be faced with serious social unrest. Already, the Occupy Wall Street movement is morphing into different categories of people’s protest.

On top of it, the country’s politics is becoming increasingly fractious. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has brought any meaningful governance to a virtual halt. So much so that they brought the country to near bankruptcy by refusing to raise, till the last moment, the country’s debt ceiling. Even as the country is facing the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s depression, the political elites are refusing to face the reality of the US’ changing situation. Such denial is indeed an important reason why the country continues to be in such a state of disarray politically and economically. This mismatch between reality and rhetoric is a serious problem.

And it is also reflected in the US’ global policies. True, the US is still the strongest military power in the world. But as Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, all the military power in the world cannot win insurgencies without popular support of the local people on the ground. The shift to drone attacks against terrorist targets in Pakistan and elsewhere in the world might eliminate some top leaders, but the collateral damage in terms of civilian casualties is much greater. If the goal is to rally local people against terrorists and insurgents, the civilian casualties from drone attacks is certainly the wrong way to go about it.

The point is that the US is in a pretty difficult spot, despite its military prowess. Even after spending a trillion dollars on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (the total cost, to include all related expenses, is estimated at over $3 trillion), it is going nowhere. In Iraq, for instance, where the US has pulled out its troops, the country looks like descending into a sectarian civil war. And in Afghanistan, where it is proposing to pull out by 2014, Washington is now seeking a peaceful way out by making contacts with the Taliban. They, in turn, insist on a prior US military withdrawal for meaningful talks.

Still, Washington claims that both Iraq and Afghanistan have been worthwhile military enterprises—the first for bringing democracy in the country, and the second for destroying the al Qaeda bases, and introducing elements of stability and democracy. However, Iraq is now left to its own devises to deal with a turbulent internal situation. In Afghanistan, the process is still fluid and it is anybody’s guess if it will get better or worse as the US starts its withdrawal process to 2014.

Even as Iraq and Afghanistan are still suffering from the ravages of US military invasions, another hot spot is emerging with Iran now targeted for refusing to abandon its nuclear program. The US and its European allies are seeking to choke off Iran’s economic lifeline by targeting its oil exports. Countries seeking to import Iranian oil will face penalties. In effect, it will amount to an economic boycott of Iran to force it into abandoning its nuclear program. Tehran has responded by threatening to close off the Strait of Hormuz, thus blocking a vital waterway for a quarter of the world’s oil supplies. This will impact disastrously on global economy, already in a precarious situation.

The US, in turn, has made clear that its Navy will continue its task of ensuring freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. If both Iran and the US are serious about their intentions, then it doesn’t require a genius to work out that this could mean military confrontation between the two countries in the year of presidential elections in the United States. The year 2012 will thus be pivotal in regard to how the US and West will deal with Iran. Hopefully, they both are playing a game of bluff and brinkmanship. But these things have a way of getting out of control sometimes. The US has said a number of times that all the options to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions are on table.

Another issue that is seriously complicating the US relations with the Islamic world relates to the Palestinian question. The US has quashed the Palestinian quest for recognition of its statehood through the Security Council. Instead, it is forcing another round of talks this year between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Since Israel is refusing to stop further encroachments into the West Bank and Jerusalem through its settlement activities, there doesn’t seem any hope that these talks will go anywhere. It is just a diversion intended, probably, to scuttle any further movement of political unity between the Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank Palestinian authorities. In this year of presidential elections, the US political establishment of both the Democratic and Republican sides will be, even more than usual, seeking to please the country’s powerful Jewish lobby. Therefore, on this score, the US relations with the Muslim world are unlikely to make any headway.

The unfurling of a new US defense strategy to focus more on China’s rise in Asia-Pacific is likely to further complicate Sino-US relations this year. Even for a secure and assured superpower this is a long list of challenges in the New Year. But the US is no longer in that position, racked as it is with economic and political problems at home and abroad.

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