Israel remains above law

S P SETH

Israel is one of the few countries in the world that can get away with murder. It has evicted, killed and occupied Palestinian lands and still able to pronounce that they are the real victims. Of course, they (the Jews) have been among the most persecuted people in the world, as evidenced by the holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany. But to somehow punish the Palestinian people for something they had nothing to do with—the persecution of Jews--- is twisted history. The argument that the present day Israel and the contiguous Palestinian land is traditional Jewish homeland and the Jews have only returned to what had always belonged to them tends to turn logic upside down. By this logic, the Palestinians and Arabs were occupiers of traditional Jewish homeland and by evicting them from it where they have lived for centuries, Israel was simply righting the wrong done to them. Therefore, Israel is within its right to occupy the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem. Much of the world was not convinced of Israel’s twisted logic, and regarded Israel’s expanded system of settlements on Palestinian territory as illegal. But Israel has got away with it because the US vetoed Security Council resolutions in the past that might have resulted in some concrete international action against Israel, such as sanctions of some sorts.

When Barack Obama came to power, he wanted to improve relations with the Islamic world and made this pitch in his 2009 Cairo speech. And the Obama administration followed it up by seeking to find a solution to the Palestinian issue by pushing the two state formulae, with Israel and Palestine living peacefully along each other. Which required, to begin with, a halt to new Israeli settlements, but the Israeli government responded only with more of the same. Later, when John Kerry, became the US secretary of state under the Obama administration, he worked hard to promote a peaceful settlement based on the two state formulae, with Tel Aviv only hating him for his mission as it exposed its real intention of creeping annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem to frustrate any hope of statehood for Palestine.

As Bob Carr, a former Australian foreign affairs minister has written in a Sydney Morning Herald article, “…”Thirty-five per cent [of new settlements] are now being approved deep in the territory everyone sees as an ultimate Palestinian state.” At the rate the settlement activity is preceding there will be no scope for a viable Palestinian state. Whatever is left or will be left of Palestine will be covered with more observation posts, checkpoints and periodic army raids to test the effectivenes of occupation—in many ways an apartheid state with Palestinian population held to ransom. The Israeli argument that a Palestinian state will be a security hazard has no validity, first, because Israel is the most powerful state in the region and, second, Palestinians are offering a demilitarized state without an army with western peacekeepers to oversee within their borders. As Carr rightly points out, “It is hard to imagine more explicit security guarantees.”

Israel is mad with the Obama administration for not vetoing the recent Security Council resolution declaring the Israeli settlements illegal and allowing it to be adopted by abstaining on it. Indeed, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes that it was done at the behest of the US, regarding it as an act of betrayal. Netanyahu reportedly said at a cabinet meeting that, “From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.” John Kerry, the US secretary of state denied the Israeli charge of collusion and said that, “The US did not draft or originate this resolution. Nor did we put it forward.” He added, “It was drafted by Egypt… which is one of Israel’s closest friends in the region, in coordination, with the Palestinians and others.” Under pressure from Israel and President-elect Trump, the Egyptians though backed off leaving New Zealand and others to put it up for a vote in the Security Council for adoption. Which was duly done, with the US abstaining. For New Zealand’s principled initiative, Netanyahu threatened Auckland reportedly calling it an act of war. Israel’s arrogance is insufferable, but the international community has lived with it so long and, most likely, will still have to put up with it despite the Security Council resolution.

This is simply because Israel has powerful protectors like the United States. During its eight years, the Obama administration sought to facilitate a diplomatic solution based on a two-state solution. But it didn’t succeed faced with Israel’s intransigence and belligerence and Netanyahu’s open defiance of US efforts, including undisguised contempt for President Obama and secretary of state Kerry. The Obama administration put up with all this because Israel has a powerful political lobby across the board in the US that any administration might cross at its peril. Now that Obama is leaving the presidency, his administration has made a last ditch effort to save Israel from Netanyahu and its ultra right allies. Israel hopes that, over time, their occupation of Palestine will become an accepted and normalized part of international reality.  And they might be right since they are getting away with it so far, though the latest resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal might suggest that it might not be forever.

But Israel is not worried since they have the unstinted support of the incoming President Donald Trump and his key policy advisers. Trump had urged a veto of the Security Council resolution and in the event that it was adopted, he tweeted for Israel to “stay strong” until his inauguration. Indeed, he mocked the UN as “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time.” In other words, the incoming Trump administration might take steps to crimp UN’s role by reducing/withholding its funding. Where Israel is concerned, it is above international law going by the Trump administration’s unquestioned support for it. 

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au    

    

Turkey’s dilemma under Erdogan

S P SETH

An interesting recent development about the multifaceted Middle Eastern crisis was the “Moscow Declaration” in which Russia, Turkey and Iran suggested that they could become the guarantors of a Syrian peace deal. That begs the question: what kind of deal it might be? So far, a political solution mooted at different times by the rebel groups/jihadis and supported by the US and its allies have involved the removal of Bashar al-Assad and his coterie as a precondition, though there hasn’t been any clear alternative to what might follow. Russia has indicated in the past that they are not committed to Assad and his regime per se but, in the absence of any clear alternative, the Syrian regime remains the only effective force on the ground to fight extremists and terrorists of all hues. Iran is clearly committed to Assad regime, while Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are aiding and abetting forces fighting to bring down the Syrian regime. Interestingly, the “Moscow Declaration” has been followed by a ceasefire between Damascus and some rebel groups brokered by Russia and Turkey, but Iran, though a signatory to the tripartite declaration, is not in the picture. Which is telling but that is another story. In any case, the ceasefire is already faltering.

Turkey’s activist role as a broker and guarantor needs some explaining. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was, from the beginning of the Syrian crisis in 2011, all for bringing down the Assad regime. Now that it has become a party to the “Moscow Declaration”, it would appear that it might not now be as committed to Assad’s removal as before, because both Moscow and Tehran do not seem to be considering a political deal contingent on that.

Turkey finds itself in a bind because Erdogan’s attempt to revive his country’s role as a successor of sorts to the Ottomans has run into all sorts of problems because the events in the Middle East have developed a momentum and trajectory of their own. And in the meantime, Ankara is now beset with problems of its own which it imagines might require some deft politicking. The Erdogan administration is imagining an existential threat for the government and the country from two sources. First is the Kurds, both inside Turkey and outside, in northern Syria, where they have virtually carved out an autonomous region with Kurdish YPG fighters proving to be the most effective force on the ground against IS. They have operated as US’ virtual ally, supported and backed by it with aerial operations against IS.

Ankara is unhappy with the virtual alliance between the US and Kurdish YPG fighters, as it regards them as terrorists because of their presumed links with Turkey’s Kurdish PKK movement that has been fighting for autonomy for the majority Kurdish populated southeastern region of the country. Ankara fears that an autonomous/independent Kurdish region in northern Syria will be a magnet for its own Kurdish minority. It is trying to deal with it at two levels. First, it has put its Kurdish-majority region under a total security clamp down with almost all Kurds seen as harbouring separatist designs, leading to large scale arrests and shut down of normal civilian life. And this seems to have contributed to some terrorist incidents blamed on the PKK and/or IS.

While Turkey is dealing with its internal Kurdish problem, it is also seeking to confront Kurdish YPG fighters who have carved out an autonomous Kurdish region across the border in Syria. To this end, it has been seeking to convince the US to drop its support of YPG in favour of Turkey undertaking to take up the fight against IS, which it has done in places. At the same time, Turkey’s President Erdogan has told the US emphatically that, “We will not allow the formation of a new [Kurdish] state in northern Syria.” In other words, the US might, at some point, have to choose between Turkey and the Kurdish YPG group in its fight against IS.

Erdogan’s Turkey has been feeling let down/ignored by the Obama administration for all sorts of reasons and is hoping that the incoming Trump administration might be more responsive to its concerns. And he has already made a pitch by highlighting the success of Turkish military action against IS, which Trump regards as the main danger. Erdogan reportedly said that Turkish troops were about to advance to IS’ de facto capital in Raqqa and has suggested joint action with the US against its stronghold but, with the proviso, that the incoming administration would prevent Kurdish forces from participating in such an operation. In other words, Turkey is willing to become the main fighting force against IS, if the US would ditch YPG and the Kurds. At the same time, Erdogan’s dalliance with Moscow is banking on presumed Putin-Trump special relationship with focus on IS as a common enemy.

Another of Erdogan’s problem and paranoia arises from the presumed existential threat from the self-exiled Turkish cleric, Fetthullah Gulen, a former Erdogan ally. His Hizmet movement is believed to be running a parallel administration infiltrating all branches of the state encompassing bureaucracy, police, judiciary and even military. The recent failed military coup to overthrow the Erdogan government was allegedly inspired and engineered by the Gullenists, with their leader Fathullah Gulen somehow doing it all through remote control from his exile in Pennsylvania in the US. Erdogan demanded that Gulen should be handed over to Turkey and since the US authorities weren’t convinced with the evidence from Turkey about his involvement, Ankara came to believe the worst about the US in the matter.

Following the failed coup, the Erdogan administration has gone on a wild hunt to arrest thousands of suspected conspirators in military and across the board in other branches of the administration. Which has evoked considerable criticism in the west of heavy handedness with declaration of emergency to smother all kinds of opposition and criticism of the Erdogan government. And it is designed to institute a virtual Erdogan dictatorship. This is making Erdogan increasingly estranged from the US and its western allies. And he is looking for some leverage from forging a new path. Therefore, when the Russian ambassador was recently shot by an off-duty police man unhappy with Moscow’s Syrian intervention, Erdogan had no qualms about putting the blame fairly and squarely on Gulen’s Hizmet movement, apparently seeking to have Russia as an ally when the US is proving so ‘difficult’. But Moscow has so far not taken Erdogan’s bait by turning the Gulen affair into a new cold war issue. Which shows how desperate Erdogan is becoming, whether he is dealing with the Gullenists and/or the Kurds.  

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

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au 

Who is behind the Middle Eastern mayhem?

S P SETH

Britain’s flamboyant and controversial foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, landed himself into trouble recently by blaming Saudi Arabia and Iran for the continuing mayhem in the Middle East through their proxy wars in the region. For this he earned the rebuke of his prime minister, Theresa May, who pointedly disowned her foreign minister’s remarks by saying that this was not the British government’s position. But, for once, Johnson was broadly correct about his diagnosis of the malady that has overtaken the region.

But truth, as they say, is a casualty of war, which is equally true of what is happening in the Middle East. The row over Johnson’s outspoken remarks after footage was published of his comments to the Mediterranean Dialogue in Rome where he lumped Saudi Arabia, a key British ally, and Iran by raising concerns about “puppeteering” in the region by these two countries fighting “proxy wars”. To quote Johnson, “There are politicians who are twisting and abusing religion and different strains of the same religion to further their own political objectives.” Elaborating, he said, “That’s why you’ve got the Saudis, Iran, everybody, moving in and puppeteering and playing proxy wars.”

The problem, though, is that like regional heavyweights, Saudi Arabia and Iran, outside players like Britain, the United States and others are playing their own proxy games to maintain and perpetuate their own strategic, economic and political interests. For instance, Saudi Arabia is a lucrative market for British arms exports and Johnson’s comments threaten an important segment of British economic interests, apart from putting the entire relationship with Saudi Arabia and Gulf kingdoms in jeopardy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mrs May’s spokesman said that, “The foreign secretary… will have the opportunity [during his Saudi visit] to set out the government’s position ”, which apparently would mean contradicting, if not apologizing, for his remarks.

Johnson is right that regional powers like Saudi Arabia and, to a lesser extent, Iran are playing proxy wars. Indeed, by promoting Wahhabi orthodoxy through funneling money and setting up madrasas all over the world, Saudi Arabia has become the fountainhead of fundamentalist Islam, which is the main source of different brands of jihadi/terrorist networks. And outside powers, like the US, Britain and their western allies, for their own strategic, economic, political and power imperatives, have indulged Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries by turning a blind eye to their political games and indeed encouraging them with intelligence sharing and weapons supplies to continue on their course. If it were any country other than Saudi Arabia, with 15 of its citizens involved in 9/11 terrorist attacks, the US would have chased it to the end of the world. But Saudi Arabia still continues to be the United States’ major strategic partner in the Middle East.

In this sense, the United States and its allies must bear a large share of the blame for the way the Middle East has turned into a quagmire for all concerned, with innocent civilians at the receiving end of mass casualties and large scale displacement. In his book, The Terror Years: From al-Qaeda to the Islamic State, Lawrence Wright, pulls no punches when he writes, “America’s involvement in the Middle East since 9/11 has been a long series of failures. Our own actions have been responsible for much of the unfolding catastrophe. The 2003 invasion of Iraq by US and coalition partners stands as one of the greatest blunders in American history.”

And that is from where things started to go wrong and nothing seemed to work. The subsequent hopeful scenario of the Arab Spring that might have created a new and constructive outlet failed miserably, only highlighting and reinforcing the lack or absence of any new path. It was back to the future with the return of a new version of Hosni Mubarak dictatorship, this time with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as the new Egyptian dictator heartily supported financially and politically by the Saudi monarchy. At another level, the Arab Spring-inspired rebellion in Syria led to unparalleled brutality by the Bashar al-Assad regime, the rebels, and jihadis of all sorts. And this is where it becomes murkier with Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf regimes arming and financing rebels/jihadis of their choice with the US chipping in with their own “vetted” rebel groups, though at times it was not clear who was who as their ideological and political boundaries were often blurred.

Faced with such multiplicity of forces, the Bashar al-Assad regime seemed like loosing control, with some major population centres like Aleppo, Idlib and so on falling to the rebels. It was at this point that concerted rescue operations to save the Assad regime were mounted by Iran and Hezbollah, later joined by Russia in September 2015. And now, the Assad regime is on top over vast swathes of devastated landscape, with nearly half of its population displaced and close to half-million dead.

And in the midst of it all was the emergence of the monstrous IS that is regarded by the US and its allies as, probably, the biggest threat and needing a concerted effort to roll it back and hopefully destroy it. And that is where most energy is concentrated with a coalition of forces, supported by US aerial operations, to evict it from Mosul. But despite large Iraqi forces, Iran-sponsored militias, and Kurdish peshmerga, backed by heavy US aerial bombardment, it is proving to be a slow process. Hence, the Middle Eastern cauldron continues its destructive course, with not much hope in the foreseeable future.

Now returning to Lawrence Wright’s book referred to earlier, which has been reviewed well by Ahmed Rashid, he points out how the book omits an important aspect of the jihadist/terrorist issue in South Asia where, in some ways, it all started from. To quote Rashid, “Today al-Qaeda in South Asia is largely made up of Pakistani extremists who protect Zawahiri [Osama bin Laden’s successor] as he hides out on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. During the past two years the Pakistani army has driven out many terrorist groups who have targeted local populations, but it has not attempted to suppress the Punjabi groups fighting India or the Afghan leadership of the Taliban.”

Rashid adds, “Pakistan’s lame explanation for continuing to tolerate such terrorist groups is that they defend Pakistan against Indian aggression and excessive Indian influence in Afghanistan.”  Rashid would have liked Wright to discuss this “kind of evasive policy” to create a clearer picture. In other words, terrorism is a multifaceted problem, with no clear solution in the foreseeable future.

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.

Contact. sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au   

Iraq’s never-ending woes

S P SETH

Much is expected from the battle for Mosul in Iraq. It is hoped that if Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, is liberated from IS, that will significantly curb a new kind of terrorist menace that it represents. Ever since IS dramatically captured some important Iraqi towns and declared a caliphate, it became the centre for foreign jihadis who flocked to fight under its flag. They did so for all sorts of reasons, such as social alienation, discrimination, and isolation and to restore lost Islamic pride and glory from perceived western humiliation of the Islamic world, most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq.

IS-proclaimed caliphate thus became the rallying point for many Muslim youth looking for adventure, for righting historical wrongs and to have a sense of power by creating fear through grotesque killings, particularly in western countries like France and Belgium. IS encouraged alienated and angry Muslim youth in western countries to serve the cause in whatever way, including by individual acts of violence in countries of their residence and/or targeting events where people congregated for sports, entertainment avenues and so on. If the battle for Mosul is won, it is likely that the pace and number of random and ‘lone wolf’ attacks will increase in the targeted western countries and elsewhere to keep up IS brand.

But here, it is important to point out that all through the Middle East cauldron where the US-led coalition have sought to enforce their writ, the military victory was the easy part, though it might not be as easy against IS in Mosul where they are dug in to fight to the finish, because many of them might not have anywhere else to go. And their defenses are multilayered from hidden explosives of all kinds like explosive-laden trucks, suicide bombers, blowing up oil installations to create mushroom clouds to interfere with US aerial bombing and whatever else might be feasible.

IS has known about the Iraqi counter-offensive for quite some time and they had enough time to work out their strategy to impede and frustrate the attack. But they are arrayed against forces with tremendous firepower backed by the US aerial bombardment. It would appear that IS might not be able to hold on for too long and would need to disperse into smaller and more mobile guerilla units, requiring the Iraqi coalition of regular Iraqi forces, Iranian-backed Shiite militia and Kurdish peshmerga fighters to be in a state of constant readiness. There will be enough mayhem caused by suicide bombing in towns like Baghdad, already hit hard by such explosions.

However, in some ways, the bigger challenge will come after IS has been pushed out of Mosul. And that challenge will be to hold together the fractious Iraqi coalition, as their interests do not converge apart from putting together a common front, as far as possible, against IS. For instance, Iraq’s Kurds already have an autonomous state, virtually independent of the federal government. And they would like it to become a reality. But Iraq’s Shia government as well as its Shia population are not inclined to see the country split.

The Iraqi government wants to limit the Kurdish peshmerga forces’ role in the liberation of Mosul to the outskirts of the city. Indeed, the Kurdistan Regional Government’s prime minister, Nechirvan Barzani, had said that the peshmerga would play a “central role” in the liberation of Mosul, which has a minority Kurdish population. Iraq’s Shiite government, on the other hand, would like peshmerga to withdraw from Mosul as soon as the battle would be over. The role of Shiite militias is also highly controversial, because of Iran’s involvement and backing. It is controversial regionally from Sunni governments, as well as within Iraq among its minority Sunni population.

Mosul is a majority Sunni city, and the record of Iraq’s Shiite government under its former prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was atrocious for its treatment of the Sunnis generally. The compact the US had forged with Sunni tribal chiefs during 2006-7 against the al Qaeda insurgency in Iraq had helped to virtually eliminate the movement at the time. As part of a general understanding with the Iraqi Shia regime, these Sunni units were to become integral part of the regular Iraqi forces, which didn’t eventuate because the Baghdad regime was against it. Instead, they went out hunting for Sunnis and in the process tortured and killed a good number, thus destroying the nebulous compact that was designed to create a cohesive Iraq.

And it was out of this that IS emerged and managed in 2014 to capture some major Iraqi towns, like Mosul, creating the outline of an expanded caliphate. They seemed to have the passive support/submission of much of the Sunni population against the backdrop of the atrocities of its Shia government. As the Iraqi coalition forces have advanced towards Mosul, it is increasingly emerging that IS had outlived its welcome and the residents of the liberated villages are relieved that they might not have to live under IS rule.

There are, however, two problems here. First, will the advancing Shiite forces regard the civilian Sunni population with suspicion? Second, as they start the screening process, will it turn into a general witch-hunt, leading to torture and killings? Therefore, any military victory, unless it is followed up by a comprehensive policy of social and political inclusion, is likely to make things worse because of the fractious nature of the Iraqi coalition on the ground with their competing and contradictory agenda, apart from a shared enemy in IS.

As if the Sunni-Shia sectarianism, compounded by the Kurdish component, weren’t enough, Turkey is threatening to jump into the fray demanding a role in the military operations and final disposition of Iraq’s fate. It is demanding a determining role for three reasons. First, it seeks to become the protector of the Sunnis as well as the small Turkmen population of Mosul’s 1.5 million people. Turkey is also keen to be in the fray to neutralize and, possibly, contain Shia Iran’s perceived dominant influence over Baghdad.

However, Iraq is dead set against Ankara’s self-appointed role in the region. Its prime minister has even threatened war with Turkey if its troops and armour were heading in Mosul’s direction. The US has tried to justify a role for Ankara to pacify the situation but there is no resolution. In other words, we have a situation potentially where the emerging Iraq-Turkish confrontation is likely to make an already difficult situation a lot more volatile.

The second reason for Turkey is that it wants to be in the region to keep a lid on Kurdish ambitions overlapping with the separatist/insurgent PKK Kurdish movement in its southeastern region. In the wake of the failed military coup in Turkey, Erdogan government is going after Turkey’s legitimate predominantly Kurdish political party, HDP, which has 59 seats in the Turkish parliament. But these members have been deprived of their parliamentary immunity and are being rounded up for alleged links with PKK.

The third reason is that Turkey under Erdogan, especially after the failed military coup, appears keen to establish historical claim to the region from the Ottoman times when its far flung Middle Eastern territories were carved out under an Anglo-French agreement following WW1.

If one looks at the complex interplay of forces in Mosul, any hope about the future seems bleak, to put it mildly. 

Note: The article was first published in the daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au