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 

Egypt’s state of despair

S P SETH

One would expect that the referendum on the draft constitution would usher in a new democratic era in Egypt. But that is not going to happen. Ever since the Egyptians brought down Hosni Muabark, their dictator, who presided over Egypt’s destiny for three decades, the country is struggling to find a new path to democracy. The referendum on the constitution is making that transition even more difficult and painful.

In fact, President Mohammed Morsi’s gamble to assume sweeping powers to rush through a newly drafted constitution for popular referendum, brought the country to near chaos, with Tahrir Square once again the centre of popular demonstrations. Though Morsy later rescinded his decree under popular pressure, he refused to rescind the referendum on the constitution. Most of the opposition members of the constituent assembly had boycotted the drafting process, fearing that it was being rushed to produce a draft that negated the inclusive spirit of the Egyptian revolution to empower women, youth, minorities and the population at large around its new secular polity.  With the ruling Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party rallying its supporters for counter demonstrations, it looked like the country was in free fall.

The Morsi camp had calculated that the constitution, drafted by a predominantly Islamist assembly, would pass easily and that would give his party the stamp of popular approval for their policies. And that might not happen because there is significant opposition to it. The draft constitution is opposed as much as for its creeping Islamization as for its ambiguity on minority rights and human rights in general. The opposition, therefore, objects both to its substance as well the process by which Morsi has sought to push it through.

The process by which Morsi assumed sweeping powers, supposedly to promote democracy by putting the draft constitution to popular referendum is preposterous. Once the executive authority, in this case President Morsi, decides by decree to suspend or supersede established institutions, such short cuts can easily be replicated in future to circumvent normal constitutional channels. In other words, this was not an auspicious start for Egypt’s new democracy. No wonder, there was determined opposition to Morsi doing away with democratic processes to promote democracy.

Not only that the draft constitution had virtually no input from parties and groups other than the Islamists, the unseemly haste with which the referendum was pushed through, with very little time for any public debate, was against the norms of democratic functioning. Morsi needs to guard against becoming identified, like the fallen dictator Hosni Mubarak, as the symbol and personification of all that continues to be wrong with Egypt.

It is true that Morsi was voted President in the first ever-popular election in Egypt’s history. But he won by a very narrow margin, taking only 51.7 per cent of the vote against the Mubarak-era prime minister and a former air force commander, Ahmed Shafiq. In other words, the country is highly polarized. Another fact worth noting is that the voter turnout at the presidential election was quite low at 43.4 per cent. More than 50 per cent of the eligible voters didn’t care to vote either way, suggesting disillusionment or indifference with the political process being unfurled.

There are two reasons for this. First, the attempts by the army to manipulate the system by entrenching its over-riding power and interests seemed to suggest that the old system was likely to prevail minus Mubarak. Second, even as the army was trying to subvert the emerging democratic process, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists were resurrecting religion (both as a matter of faith and political tool) to create an over-arching political presence. Which threatened the minorities, many women, liberals and secular elements that were in the forefront of Egypt’s revolutionary upsurge that brought down Hosni Mubarak. It appeared that the Islamists for their obscurantist ends were hijacking the revolution. Many people simply lost interest and seemed to be opting out by not voting at all. And many others decided to vote for the remnant of the Mubarak era, Ahmed Shafiq, than Morsi of the Brotherhood. They certainly didn’t like the Brotherhood usurping power in the name of democracy.

It was sad that the revolution had reached this point. And for this the Brotherhood must bear responsibility. They have never made a secret of taking the country into a faith-based (Islamic) direction, notwithstanding the fact that the revolution was actually pioneered by liberal elements, with women and the country’s Christians playing a prominent role. According to Human Rights Watch, Article 36 of the constitution promises to ensure equality between men and women as long as it does not conflict with “the rulings of Islamic Sharia”. There is this underlying message that the society will be reconfigured on Islamic principles. Considering that the Brotherhood and Salafists had dithered and only reluctantly, towards the end, decided to jump in on the revolutionary bandwagon, the usurpation by them of a broad-based revolutionary movement is not a good start.

It wouldn’t be easy, though. First, even if the constitution is adopted, it will face myriad challenges of vote rigging, the absence of international monitors, the stacking of the drafting panel and so on. Therefore, it will always suffer from a certain sense of legitimacy that comes from a country reconciled after a tumultuous popular upsurge.  And that is not going to happen with a large and diverse part of the population feeling that the Islamists had hijacked the revolution.  Such irreconcilability, in the midst of the country’s economy tottering, is likely to crystallize into Morsy replacing Hosni Mubarak as the hated symbol of all Egypt’s problems, past and present. If that were to happen, the regime will become increasingly dependent on the army like Mubarak was, taking things back to where it started. It would appear that Egypt is set to remain in a perpetual state of strife for the foreseeable future.  The Arab Spring in Egypt looks like turning into a long winter of discontent.

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