AMID the gloom surrounding the future of the world’s forests comes some assurance that the situation might not be that bad after all.
Adopting a new technique for measuring the state of the world’s forests, an international team of researchers suggests the world could be approaching a “turning point” from deforestation. Forests cover 30 percent of the world’s total land area, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
The world’s trees store 283 gigatonnes of carbon, 50 percent more than there is in the atmosphere. The 13 million hectares that are cleared each year have left conservationists and nature enthusiasts seriously pondering the fallout on global warming.
In a departure from the almost exclusive focus on the size of a forest area, the new study includes such other components as biomass and the amount of carbon stored. When the researchers applied this technique to data from the FAO’s Global Forest Assessment report, they discovered that forest stocks had actually expanded over the past 15 years in 22 of the world’s 50 most forested nations.
They also showed increases in biomass and carbon storage capacity in about half of the 50 countries. However, the data also revealed that forest area and biomass were still in decline in Brazil and Indonesia, home to some of the world’s most important rainforests.
From the lucrative international timber trade to the growing demand for farmland and firewood, economics has fueled deforestation. The study focuses primarily on the status of forests in relation to the problems of atmospheric pollution.
The wider imperative of conserving flora and fauna – many on the brink of extinction -- requires emphasis on strengthening natural habitats and local ecosystems. Safeguarding the hydrologic cycle and preventing soil erosion and landslides, too, require attention on specific regions and factors beyond biomass and the amount of carbon stored.
Tempting as it is to be complacent, the latest findings should encourage greater efforts towards strengthening sustainable forest cover.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Global Graft And Poverty Predicament
Transparency International’s 2006 Corruption Perceptions Index has underscored the traditional poverty-corruption nexus. A composite ranking that draws on multiple expert opinion surveys that poll perceptions of public sector corruption in 163 countries, this year’s index is more exhaustive than its predecessor’s.
As in the past, impoverished countries dominate the cluster of countries considered most corrupt, with
Theoretically, TI’s definition of corruption – the abuse of public office for private gain – encompasses a wide range of activities, many of which go beyond financial considerations. Cultural variations, moreover, tend to preclude the establishment of universal standards. Some societies may be more tolerant of practices others consider unacceptable.
In some countries, public apathy at the endurance of corruption may have contributed to a grudging acceptance. Reassuringly, TI does not encourage the use of its indicators as a condition for aid disbursements. Yet the international donor community, exasperated by the misappropriation of aid money, would be tempted to ignore TI’s stipulations. Amid a growing list of countries competing for international assistance, nations at the bottom of the TI index are at a conspicuous psychological disadvantage.
International organizations like TI, in partnership with civil society organizations and the media within countries, have thrust the anti-corruption campaign to the forefront of national priorities. Concerted and sustained action toward holding governments accountable to their commitments on transparency and good governance would contribute.
The people living in countries at the bottom of the TI index are already victims of the corruption and misrule perpetrated by their governments. They must not be punished further by efforts – well meaning – to restrict their access to international assistance.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Sri Lanka: Warriors Or Peacemakers?
Are Sri Lanka’s main belligerents at war or at peace?
The question has become more important after Sri Lanka’s ruling party and the opposition agreed to work together towards a political settlement to the island’s bloody ethnic fighting which has claimed more than 60,000 lives.
Welcome as the development is, it only covers one of the country’s two major protagonists.
The Tamil Tigers’ suicide bombings on navy targets earlier this month, which killed nearly 100 sailors, made it difficult to believe that they were preparing to meet with government representatives in Geneva later in the month.
The ferocity of the Sri Lankan air force’s bombing campaign in the east raised similar doubts about the definition of peacemaking the Colombo government has adopted.
The peace process launched four years ago, after 28 years of civil war that claimed over 60,000 people, seemed promising. The 2002 ceasefire – the pivot of the peace process – lies in tatters. More than 1,000 people have died since violence surged in April. Some 220,000 have been displaced, mostly Tamils and Muslims in the north and east of the country, where the Tamil Tigers are fighting for an independent homeland.
It is easy to blame President Mahinda Rajapakse for the dissipation of conciliation. After all, he won power last year after taking a hard line against the conciliatory former premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, the man with whom he sealed that unity accord this week.
Rajapakse, to be sure, exploited Sinhalese fears that Wickremesinghe concessions to the rebels risked splitting the country. Yet Tamil Tiger leader Velupillai Prabhakaran seemed fed up with the peace process long before Rajapakse arrived on the scene.
The Tamil Tigers launched violent attacks while Wickremesinghe was in office. By preventing pro-Wickremesinghe Tamils from casting their ballots in last year’s election, Prabhakaran virtually ensured Rajapakse’s triumph.
Despite the latest peace moves, Colombo is said to be planning to double defense spending to $1.3 billion next year. The rebels, for their part, have been warning in every way they can that conciliation cannot mean capitulation.
The best hope for peace is that neither side wants to be the first to announce a return to a full-scale war.
The question has become more important after Sri Lanka’s ruling party and the opposition agreed to work together towards a political settlement to the island’s bloody ethnic fighting which has claimed more than 60,000 lives.
Welcome as the development is, it only covers one of the country’s two major protagonists.
The Tamil Tigers’ suicide bombings on navy targets earlier this month, which killed nearly 100 sailors, made it difficult to believe that they were preparing to meet with government representatives in Geneva later in the month.
The ferocity of the Sri Lankan air force’s bombing campaign in the east raised similar doubts about the definition of peacemaking the Colombo government has adopted.
The peace process launched four years ago, after 28 years of civil war that claimed over 60,000 people, seemed promising. The 2002 ceasefire – the pivot of the peace process – lies in tatters. More than 1,000 people have died since violence surged in April. Some 220,000 have been displaced, mostly Tamils and Muslims in the north and east of the country, where the Tamil Tigers are fighting for an independent homeland.
It is easy to blame President Mahinda Rajapakse for the dissipation of conciliation. After all, he won power last year after taking a hard line against the conciliatory former premier Ranil Wickremesinghe, the man with whom he sealed that unity accord this week.
Rajapakse, to be sure, exploited Sinhalese fears that Wickremesinghe concessions to the rebels risked splitting the country. Yet Tamil Tiger leader Velupillai Prabhakaran seemed fed up with the peace process long before Rajapakse arrived on the scene.
The Tamil Tigers launched violent attacks while Wickremesinghe was in office. By preventing pro-Wickremesinghe Tamils from casting their ballots in last year’s election, Prabhakaran virtually ensured Rajapakse’s triumph.
Despite the latest peace moves, Colombo is said to be planning to double defense spending to $1.3 billion next year. The rebels, for their part, have been warning in every way they can that conciliation cannot mean capitulation.
The best hope for peace is that neither side wants to be the first to announce a return to a full-scale war.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Either Way, Kim Jong-il Wins
Was it or wasn’t it? Did Kim Jong-il test a nuclear weapon and set off tremors seismologists in different countries measured so wildly differently?
Or did the eccentric North Korean leader mix tons of TNT with a cocktail of components intended to throw all those machines off course?
For Kim, at least, it makes no difference. Even before an official confirmation, critics were competing with one another to denounce North Korea’s brazen defiance of international opinion.
The rare admirer – like Iran – was no less effusive in praising the world’s last Stalinist outpost for standing up to the Americans.
When – or, more appropriately, if – it becomes conclusively known what triggered the tremors, what does the world do?
Repeat the same ritual of condemnations that would have lost its efficacy? Or simply withdraw the criticism should it be confirmed that Kim fooled the critics?
And Iran? Obviously it has the least to lose from any revelation that Kim’s nukes are a dud?
What if the test was for real? President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad would have an opportunity to reiterate support for Kim’s defiance of America laced with mockery of the primitiveness of the sole superpower’s mastery of the seismology. (And thereby encourage Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to step in with his two cents?)
If Kim is insane, as some have suggested but most seem to believe, he makes a poor job of proving it.
Remember the missile test he conducted a couple of months ago? That prompted even the Democrats to position themselves as ardent champions of President George W. Bush’s missile defense program ahead of the November mid-term elections.
Those tests forced many to wonder how a government that can’t afford to feed its people pursue advanced defense programs through purchases on the black market?
If Kim kept his people hungry to save money for the nuclear and missile programs, then how could North Koreans still endure the pristine form of a system that has become a relic of human monstrosity in the rest of the world?
But how many people recall that the missile tests had failed? Either way, Kim wins.
Or did the eccentric North Korean leader mix tons of TNT with a cocktail of components intended to throw all those machines off course?
For Kim, at least, it makes no difference. Even before an official confirmation, critics were competing with one another to denounce North Korea’s brazen defiance of international opinion.
The rare admirer – like Iran – was no less effusive in praising the world’s last Stalinist outpost for standing up to the Americans.
When – or, more appropriately, if – it becomes conclusively known what triggered the tremors, what does the world do?
Repeat the same ritual of condemnations that would have lost its efficacy? Or simply withdraw the criticism should it be confirmed that Kim fooled the critics?
And Iran? Obviously it has the least to lose from any revelation that Kim’s nukes are a dud?
What if the test was for real? President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad would have an opportunity to reiterate support for Kim’s defiance of America laced with mockery of the primitiveness of the sole superpower’s mastery of the seismology. (And thereby encourage Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to step in with his two cents?)
If Kim is insane, as some have suggested but most seem to believe, he makes a poor job of proving it.
Remember the missile test he conducted a couple of months ago? That prompted even the Democrats to position themselves as ardent champions of President George W. Bush’s missile defense program ahead of the November mid-term elections.
Those tests forced many to wonder how a government that can’t afford to feed its people pursue advanced defense programs through purchases on the black market?
If Kim kept his people hungry to save money for the nuclear and missile programs, then how could North Koreans still endure the pristine form of a system that has become a relic of human monstrosity in the rest of the world?
But how many people recall that the missile tests had failed? Either way, Kim wins.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The Stalin Connection
The latest flare-up in the troubled ties between Russia and Georgia may have subsided somewhat after Tblisi handed over four Russian military officers it had detained on espionage charges to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The next eruption may come any time.
Relations between the two former Soviet republics have taken a turn for the worse since the Rose Revolution catapulted pro-Western President Mikhail Saakashvili into power almost three years ago.
Moscow, which strenuously seeks to keep most of its fellow former Soviet states within its sphere of influence, believes a recalcitrant Georgia could sent the wrong message across the ‘near abroad’. It has been particularly swift and sweeping in its retaliation against Georgian transgressions, compared to those of other ex-Soviet constituents.
Describing the arrest of its soldiers as ‘state terrorism,’ Russia has cut off air, rail, bus, sea and postal communications, and has declined to purchase Georgian parts for locomotives. It is threatening further economic sanctions and stopping remittances from the more than 300,000 Georgians working in Russia.
Georgia, for its part, accuses Russia of backing the secessionist movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of its effort to keep the small nation in its firm grip. The Saakashvili government has been able to defy Moscow because it is confident of winning American support if push came to shove.
Admittedly, the stakes in region are significant for the West. Georgia and Azerbaijan form a gateway linking the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea and are vital for the control of Central Asia’s massive fossil resources. Georgia's location is vital to NATO’s ability to secure the Black Sea region. For the United States, Georgia provides a platform to project power toward the Middle East.
Yet the Georgian president may have overplayed his hand this time. NATO’s refusal to be drawn into the dispute, along with a realization of the possible negative fallout of an escalation on Georgia’s local elections, may have persuaded Saakashvili to relent.
Yet the essential question remains. Why is Moscow so sensitive in its dealings with Georgia? Could there be a psychological dimension? After all, Joseph Stalin, the most dreaded Soviet leader whose legacy today’s Russia endures, was a Georgian.
Relations between the two former Soviet republics have taken a turn for the worse since the Rose Revolution catapulted pro-Western President Mikhail Saakashvili into power almost three years ago.
Moscow, which strenuously seeks to keep most of its fellow former Soviet states within its sphere of influence, believes a recalcitrant Georgia could sent the wrong message across the ‘near abroad’. It has been particularly swift and sweeping in its retaliation against Georgian transgressions, compared to those of other ex-Soviet constituents.
Describing the arrest of its soldiers as ‘state terrorism,’ Russia has cut off air, rail, bus, sea and postal communications, and has declined to purchase Georgian parts for locomotives. It is threatening further economic sanctions and stopping remittances from the more than 300,000 Georgians working in Russia.
Georgia, for its part, accuses Russia of backing the secessionist movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia as part of its effort to keep the small nation in its firm grip. The Saakashvili government has been able to defy Moscow because it is confident of winning American support if push came to shove.
Admittedly, the stakes in region are significant for the West. Georgia and Azerbaijan form a gateway linking the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea and are vital for the control of Central Asia’s massive fossil resources. Georgia's location is vital to NATO’s ability to secure the Black Sea region. For the United States, Georgia provides a platform to project power toward the Middle East.
Yet the Georgian president may have overplayed his hand this time. NATO’s refusal to be drawn into the dispute, along with a realization of the possible negative fallout of an escalation on Georgia’s local elections, may have persuaded Saakashvili to relent.
Yet the essential question remains. Why is Moscow so sensitive in its dealings with Georgia? Could there be a psychological dimension? After all, Joseph Stalin, the most dreaded Soviet leader whose legacy today’s Russia endures, was a Georgian.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
NATO’s Afghan Test
When NATO stepped out of its regional jurisdiction in 2003 to lead the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, those running the organization had no illusions about the gravity of their task.
In its first military mission outside the Euro-Atlantic region, the North Atlantic Alliance faces a formidable opponent in a resurgent Taleban. NATO’s objectives are to assist the government of President Hamid Karzai in its efforts to rebuild and stabilize the country. Initially, NATO was present in the north and west of the country, as well as in the capital city, Kabul. However, at the end of July, NATO forces took over control from American troops in southern Afghanistan – the homeland of the Taleban, ousted from power by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.
Since taking over military operations in southern Afghanistan, NATO has encountered fierce resistance from Taleban fighters. Attacks on NATO troops have increased and casualties have mounted on both sides. The insurgents are showing an offensive capacity that has caught NATO by surprise.
They have economics and geography on their side. The southern-most provinces -- particularly Kandahar and Helmand -- are the principal areas of drug production. Moreover, the region borders the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Blood ties are no doubt thicker. Pakistan, moreover, has been less enthusiastic in its anti-Taleban campaign than in its drive against Al Qaeda.
All this has precipitated a sense of disquiet among many European governments, something that would surely grow as casualties mount. A recent request by senior NATO officials for more troops met a lukewarm response. Only Poland agreed to provide 1,000 soldiers, who won’t be available before February. Moreover, they are not expected to patrol the southern provinces.
There is a lot at stake for NATO in Afghanistan. Success in defeating the Taleban and in securing the government of President Karzai could set the stage for further global operations. Yet NATO is already committed in many operations around the globe, including Kosovo and Iraq. With new hot spots emerging regularly, mobilizing additional personnel and assets would prove to be a huge challenge. Much depends on the outcome in Afghanistan.
In its first military mission outside the Euro-Atlantic region, the North Atlantic Alliance faces a formidable opponent in a resurgent Taleban. NATO’s objectives are to assist the government of President Hamid Karzai in its efforts to rebuild and stabilize the country. Initially, NATO was present in the north and west of the country, as well as in the capital city, Kabul. However, at the end of July, NATO forces took over control from American troops in southern Afghanistan – the homeland of the Taleban, ousted from power by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.
Since taking over military operations in southern Afghanistan, NATO has encountered fierce resistance from Taleban fighters. Attacks on NATO troops have increased and casualties have mounted on both sides. The insurgents are showing an offensive capacity that has caught NATO by surprise.
They have economics and geography on their side. The southern-most provinces -- particularly Kandahar and Helmand -- are the principal areas of drug production. Moreover, the region borders the Pashtun areas of Pakistan. Blood ties are no doubt thicker. Pakistan, moreover, has been less enthusiastic in its anti-Taleban campaign than in its drive against Al Qaeda.
All this has precipitated a sense of disquiet among many European governments, something that would surely grow as casualties mount. A recent request by senior NATO officials for more troops met a lukewarm response. Only Poland agreed to provide 1,000 soldiers, who won’t be available before February. Moreover, they are not expected to patrol the southern provinces.
There is a lot at stake for NATO in Afghanistan. Success in defeating the Taleban and in securing the government of President Karzai could set the stage for further global operations. Yet NATO is already committed in many operations around the globe, including Kosovo and Iraq. With new hot spots emerging regularly, mobilizing additional personnel and assets would prove to be a huge challenge. Much depends on the outcome in Afghanistan.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
A Coup And A King
The calmness with which Thais responded to this week’s military coup must not lull the generals into complacency. Cleaning up the mess they accused Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of creating would require a degree of determination and dexterity few juntas in history have been able to muster.
To be sure, Thaksin was one of Thailand’s most popular and successful politicians. He emerged when the country really needed a strong-willed leader in the aftermath of the 1997-98 East Asian financial crisis. Thaksin presided over the resurgence of what has certainly become one of Asia’s most formidable economies.
Although he continued to command the loyalty of rural Thais, Thaksin’s style alienated his political opponents and urban voters. Sustained protests in Bangkok and other cities against the premier’s alleged financial irregularities involving his billion dollar family fortune compelled Thaksin to hold early elections. An opposition boycott and technical hitches subverted the vote. Under sustained pressure from the streets earlier this year, Thaksin had made a clear pledge to quit power. However, he remained firmly in the saddle.
Amid the polarization, King Bhumibol Adulyadej appealed for restraint and reason. Although Thais had experienced 17 coups since the 1930s, the prospect of another one was hardly on many people’s minds.
Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, the army chief, insists his takeover enjoys the blessings of the widely revered monarch. Bhumibol’s silence over the crisis suggests that may be the case. But for how long?
Gen. Sonthi has pledged to hand over power to a civilian administration as soon as possible. But, then, no military ruler has insisted he was in for the long haul. Once an interim government is in place and fresh elections are held in a year under a new constitution, the army will have to return to the barracks. The legitimacy as well as the viability of the process would ultimately depend on the degree of cooperation Thai political parties extend to the military leaders.
To be sure, Thaksin was one of Thailand’s most popular and successful politicians. He emerged when the country really needed a strong-willed leader in the aftermath of the 1997-98 East Asian financial crisis. Thaksin presided over the resurgence of what has certainly become one of Asia’s most formidable economies.
Although he continued to command the loyalty of rural Thais, Thaksin’s style alienated his political opponents and urban voters. Sustained protests in Bangkok and other cities against the premier’s alleged financial irregularities involving his billion dollar family fortune compelled Thaksin to hold early elections. An opposition boycott and technical hitches subverted the vote. Under sustained pressure from the streets earlier this year, Thaksin had made a clear pledge to quit power. However, he remained firmly in the saddle.
Amid the polarization, King Bhumibol Adulyadej appealed for restraint and reason. Although Thais had experienced 17 coups since the 1930s, the prospect of another one was hardly on many people’s minds.
Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, the army chief, insists his takeover enjoys the blessings of the widely revered monarch. Bhumibol’s silence over the crisis suggests that may be the case. But for how long?
Gen. Sonthi has pledged to hand over power to a civilian administration as soon as possible. But, then, no military ruler has insisted he was in for the long haul. Once an interim government is in place and fresh elections are held in a year under a new constitution, the army will have to return to the barracks. The legitimacy as well as the viability of the process would ultimately depend on the degree of cooperation Thai political parties extend to the military leaders.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
A Long-Running Love-Hate Saga
The attack on the American Embassy in Damascus has fixed the spotlight on the complicated relations between the two countries. The preeminent Arab rejectionist during decades of US-driven Middle East peacemaking, Syria has always benefited from one odd American ability: the juxtaposition of its antipathy for the Baathist regime with its eagerness to cultivate it as a serious partner.
American secretaries of state hardly complained when they were left waiting for hours in Damascus for an audience with the wily Hafez Al Assad. American presidents easily took time off in Vienna or Geneva from their extended global travels to meet the Syrian leader.
During the first Gulf War, Assad’s tacit support for the US-led campaign to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait played a major part in granting the mission the legitimacy of Arab support. There is reason to believe that a Syrian-Israeli peace treaty might have been pulled off had Assad lived a little longer.
Bashar Al Assad’s elevation to the presidency brought a whiff of optimism. The generational newness the new leader brought to his job could only benefit the relationship. Bashar Assad’s eye for the change sweeping the world around Syria could only precipitate those much needed reforms.
But Bashar not only retained the old guard his father carefully cultivated, he also shed few of the repressiveness of the regime. Still, many rosy-eyed analysts remained hopeful that the former ophthalmologist would come out with a modern vision for the region. There is considerable speculation that an initiative toward formal Syrian-Israeli peace may be in the works at this very moment.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Syrian authorities for their handling of the embassy attack, and expressed her condolences for the death of the Syrian security officer. A press statement from the Syrian Embassy in Washington was hardly conciliatory. “It is regrettable that US policies in the Middle East have fueled extremism, terrorism and anti-US sentiment,” it said. That must have been posturing, given the kind of pressure Damascus is from Washington. US officials didn’t seem too bothered by Syria’s roughness either.
Listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Syria continues to figure high in the imperatives of Washington’s Mideast diplomacy. Unofficial sources suggest that Syria has dramatically expanded the extent of its cooperation with the US-led war on Al Qaida in recent years.
We are told this cooperation included the reported US submission of questions for an al-Qaida figure in Syrian custody in 2002; Syria’s 2003 arrest of Al Qaida couriers allegedly carrying $23.5 million; and Syrian support for Lebanese security activities against Al Qaida-linked groups in 2003 that prevented attacks on US interests and the US ambassador to Lebanon.
In public, the mood continues be one of defiance. The US withdrew its ambassador to Damascus following the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al Hariri in February 2005. Early reports from a UN probe into the killing implicated top Syrian officials – perhaps even Bashar Assad – in the murder plot. Lebanese popular pressure forced Syria to pull its troops from its neighbor.
Syria, together with Iran, sprung back into action this year through its Hezbollah proxy. Syrian support for Hezbollah during the massive Israeli attacks may even have erased some of the Lebanese people’s hostility.
Doubtless, the US and Syria have a mutual interest in preventing the rise of militant Sunni Islam. Washington, on the other hand, would love to drive Damascus and Teheran wide apart in the larger regional scheme of things.
Although some American officials, in the afterglow of Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, called for regime change in Syria, the US seems to have been chastened – and not just by the Iraq quagmire. Washington knows that sudden convulsion could create a political vacuum the Muslim Brotherhood could exploit. Thus the love-hate relationship continues.
American secretaries of state hardly complained when they were left waiting for hours in Damascus for an audience with the wily Hafez Al Assad. American presidents easily took time off in Vienna or Geneva from their extended global travels to meet the Syrian leader.
During the first Gulf War, Assad’s tacit support for the US-led campaign to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait played a major part in granting the mission the legitimacy of Arab support. There is reason to believe that a Syrian-Israeli peace treaty might have been pulled off had Assad lived a little longer.
Bashar Al Assad’s elevation to the presidency brought a whiff of optimism. The generational newness the new leader brought to his job could only benefit the relationship. Bashar Assad’s eye for the change sweeping the world around Syria could only precipitate those much needed reforms.
But Bashar not only retained the old guard his father carefully cultivated, he also shed few of the repressiveness of the regime. Still, many rosy-eyed analysts remained hopeful that the former ophthalmologist would come out with a modern vision for the region. There is considerable speculation that an initiative toward formal Syrian-Israeli peace may be in the works at this very moment.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Syrian authorities for their handling of the embassy attack, and expressed her condolences for the death of the Syrian security officer. A press statement from the Syrian Embassy in Washington was hardly conciliatory. “It is regrettable that US policies in the Middle East have fueled extremism, terrorism and anti-US sentiment,” it said. That must have been posturing, given the kind of pressure Damascus is from Washington. US officials didn’t seem too bothered by Syria’s roughness either.
Listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, Syria continues to figure high in the imperatives of Washington’s Mideast diplomacy. Unofficial sources suggest that Syria has dramatically expanded the extent of its cooperation with the US-led war on Al Qaida in recent years.
We are told this cooperation included the reported US submission of questions for an al-Qaida figure in Syrian custody in 2002; Syria’s 2003 arrest of Al Qaida couriers allegedly carrying $23.5 million; and Syrian support for Lebanese security activities against Al Qaida-linked groups in 2003 that prevented attacks on US interests and the US ambassador to Lebanon.
In public, the mood continues be one of defiance. The US withdrew its ambassador to Damascus following the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Al Hariri in February 2005. Early reports from a UN probe into the killing implicated top Syrian officials – perhaps even Bashar Assad – in the murder plot. Lebanese popular pressure forced Syria to pull its troops from its neighbor.
Syria, together with Iran, sprung back into action this year through its Hezbollah proxy. Syrian support for Hezbollah during the massive Israeli attacks may even have erased some of the Lebanese people’s hostility.
Doubtless, the US and Syria have a mutual interest in preventing the rise of militant Sunni Islam. Washington, on the other hand, would love to drive Damascus and Teheran wide apart in the larger regional scheme of things.
Although some American officials, in the afterglow of Saddam Hussein’s overthrow, called for regime change in Syria, the US seems to have been chastened – and not just by the Iraq quagmire. Washington knows that sudden convulsion could create a political vacuum the Muslim Brotherhood could exploit. Thus the love-hate relationship continues.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The Blair Ditch Project
Even in the midst of the most serious revolt against his leadership, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has held his ground. Although he does not intend to go on and on forever, Blair has always insisted, he cannot and will not offer a deadline for this departure because that would paralyze the government and the ruling Labour party. In his latest remarks on the subject, the prime minister has merely shortened his vision of incumbency. He certainly has disappointed those who see Labour’s renewal clearly rooted in an immediate change of leadership.
The punditocracy has long affirmed the profound extent to which Blair has lost control of his party. For Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and Blair’s presumptive successor, those sustained utterances must have made the wait excruciatingly long. Amid reports of a shouting match between Blair and Brown, precipitated by the resignation of at least eight junior ministers, the chancellor chose to put up a public appearance of loyalty to his boss. Hours before Blair announced he would quit within the next 12 months, Brown told reporters that any decision on a departure should certainly be Blair’s to make. Behind that façade of fealty, Brown emphasized how much higher he regards his obligations to the party – no doubt a subtle suggestion to the premier.
In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, when Blair’s downhill slide accelerated, factional infighting was a luxury Labour could afford. With the Tories in almost perpetual disarray and the Liberal Democrats struggling to expand their base, Labour leaders knew voters had no alternative to putting up with an accumulation of scandals and double dealing in the ruling party.
In March, Blair sounded confident enough to suggest he might have made a “strategic” mistake by promising to step down before the next general election. Since then, the Tories’ remarkable gains in the local elections have intensified pressure on the prime minister. Now that he has made a more explicit commitment to step down, can Blair count on Brown’s full support for the remainder of his agenda? More importantly, can all this bitterness allow Brown to maintain an ability to implement the party agenda and to lead a united Labour to another electoral victory?
The punditocracy has long affirmed the profound extent to which Blair has lost control of his party. For Gordon Brown, the chancellor of the exchequer and Blair’s presumptive successor, those sustained utterances must have made the wait excruciatingly long. Amid reports of a shouting match between Blair and Brown, precipitated by the resignation of at least eight junior ministers, the chancellor chose to put up a public appearance of loyalty to his boss. Hours before Blair announced he would quit within the next 12 months, Brown told reporters that any decision on a departure should certainly be Blair’s to make. Behind that façade of fealty, Brown emphasized how much higher he regards his obligations to the party – no doubt a subtle suggestion to the premier.
In the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, when Blair’s downhill slide accelerated, factional infighting was a luxury Labour could afford. With the Tories in almost perpetual disarray and the Liberal Democrats struggling to expand their base, Labour leaders knew voters had no alternative to putting up with an accumulation of scandals and double dealing in the ruling party.
In March, Blair sounded confident enough to suggest he might have made a “strategic” mistake by promising to step down before the next general election. Since then, the Tories’ remarkable gains in the local elections have intensified pressure on the prime minister. Now that he has made a more explicit commitment to step down, can Blair count on Brown’s full support for the remainder of his agenda? More importantly, can all this bitterness allow Brown to maintain an ability to implement the party agenda and to lead a united Labour to another electoral victory?
Saturday, September 02, 2006
MADness On Iran
Now that Iran has used the latest United Nations deadline on its controversial nuclear program to reassert its legal right to enrichment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the international community is mulling those elusive additional options.
The question is stark. Can anything stop Teheran, bolstered by growing oil revenues as well as the triumph of its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, over Israel, from accomplishing its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons?
There probably was a time when the mullahs’ unpopularity had sustained the democracy movement. Now the democrats either support Iran’s nuclear program or are too afraid to challenge it. US troops on both flanks – Afghanistan in the east and Iraq in the west – have not deterred the theocracy. The Islamist revolution of 1979 has won a new lease on life that may keep it going for another generation.
Considering America’s dismal standing in the world, China and Russia would probably have blocked Washington’s efforts in the Security Council even without their commercial interests in Iran. The Europeans want to maintain the two-year-old fiction called dialogue with Teheran.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be the preeminent rabble-rouser in the region. What he says is certainly what Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini thinks. Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, wasn’t taken too seriously in Washington when he was in office. A tourist who happens to be a former president of Iran would hardly amount to much in Washington. In any case, the world wasn’t really sure whether Khatami genuinely was a reformer or just masquerading as one at a time when the Islamic regime was facing its worst crisis on the streets and in the central bank.
In public, the urgency of continued dialogue with Iran will continue to be stressed internationally. For a country in its 28th year amid empty talk of rewards and penalties, a sudden change of behavior would be irrational.
A little Cold War-type behavior would be in order -- specifically mutual assured destruction. Ahmadinejad wants to nuke Israel and wipe it off the map. Israel can use its nukes to deter the Iranian president. Ahmadinejad probably would like to nuke America too, but he hasn’t said so. As for the Europeans, he knows he would have, in the words of a perceptive observer, to nuke the Little Satan and Big Satan before targeting the Middle Satan. That’s the stick.
Iran essentially wants security guarantees and recognition as a legitimate regional power. The US can provide that carrot. A Shah-era anointment of Iran as the regional cop is not irrational as it might sound. Voices in favor of engaging with Teheran have grown in influential Washington circles. Moreover, Shiite Iran would prove an important ally against Bin Ladenism and other radical manifestations of anti-Americanism occurring from the rival Sunni Islamists.
The question is stark. Can anything stop Teheran, bolstered by growing oil revenues as well as the triumph of its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, over Israel, from accomplishing its ambitions to acquire nuclear weapons?
There probably was a time when the mullahs’ unpopularity had sustained the democracy movement. Now the democrats either support Iran’s nuclear program or are too afraid to challenge it. US troops on both flanks – Afghanistan in the east and Iraq in the west – have not deterred the theocracy. The Islamist revolution of 1979 has won a new lease on life that may keep it going for another generation.
Considering America’s dismal standing in the world, China and Russia would probably have blocked Washington’s efforts in the Security Council even without their commercial interests in Iran. The Europeans want to maintain the two-year-old fiction called dialogue with Teheran.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be the preeminent rabble-rouser in the region. What he says is certainly what Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini thinks. Ahmadinejad’s predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, wasn’t taken too seriously in Washington when he was in office. A tourist who happens to be a former president of Iran would hardly amount to much in Washington. In any case, the world wasn’t really sure whether Khatami genuinely was a reformer or just masquerading as one at a time when the Islamic regime was facing its worst crisis on the streets and in the central bank.
In public, the urgency of continued dialogue with Iran will continue to be stressed internationally. For a country in its 28th year amid empty talk of rewards and penalties, a sudden change of behavior would be irrational.
A little Cold War-type behavior would be in order -- specifically mutual assured destruction. Ahmadinejad wants to nuke Israel and wipe it off the map. Israel can use its nukes to deter the Iranian president. Ahmadinejad probably would like to nuke America too, but he hasn’t said so. As for the Europeans, he knows he would have, in the words of a perceptive observer, to nuke the Little Satan and Big Satan before targeting the Middle Satan. That’s the stick.
Iran essentially wants security guarantees and recognition as a legitimate regional power. The US can provide that carrot. A Shah-era anointment of Iran as the regional cop is not irrational as it might sound. Voices in favor of engaging with Teheran have grown in influential Washington circles. Moreover, Shiite Iran would prove an important ally against Bin Ladenism and other radical manifestations of anti-Americanism occurring from the rival Sunni Islamists.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Living With Chavez
From his stride and stridency, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is increasingly looking like the standard-bearer of the International Left his detractors have long claimed he has hungered for.
Chavez’s recent visits to Russia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Angola and China clearly reflected the resoluteness of his quest for global influence. If he gets that temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council, you can expect the Chavez to amplify his attitudes and approach.
Of late, a growing number of realists have sought to play down the substance of the Chavez phenomenon. His incessant anti-American rhetoric may actually be driven by political compulsions at home. And his ability to hold America hostage by cutting off oil sales? Probably considerable. Yet recognition of that threat has given some way to a realization that the United States imports only about 12 percent of its petroleum needs from Venezuela. The United States, on the other hand, accounts for more than half of Venezuela’s oil receipts.
Chavez’s announcement last week of plans for a six-fold increase in oil sales to China over the next 10 years might have more bark than bite. For one thing, China currently imports only about two percent of its oil needs from Venezuela. Moreover, there are geographical and technical challenges to overcome before the trickle becomes a flow. Even if Caracas-induced pain were to bite the Americans, they could perhaps expect to get palliatives elsewhere. Chavez the economic threat might not be one worth losing sleep over.
What about Chavez the politician? The Venezuelan president has been achieving growing political influence in his neighborhood and other parts of the developing world. With anti-Americanism set to become the stock in trade for the foreseeable future, Chavez can expect to count on an expanding constituency.
Oil profits have funded Venezuela’s multibillion-dollar arms purchases from Russia, including jet fighters, military helicopters and assault rifles. As a former military man who still needs to nurture sections of that constituency, the imperative of re-equipping the armed forces cannot be overlooked, especially if it also means boosting Venezuelans pride in themselves. The downside, of course, is that Chavez operates in an environment where belligerency can break out at extremely short notice.
From another standpoint, the outlook is more assuring. The United States has lived with Cuba’s Fidel Castro for almost five decades. There should be few reasons to doubt its ability to coexist with his anointed successor.
Chavez’s recent visits to Russia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Angola and China clearly reflected the resoluteness of his quest for global influence. If he gets that temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council, you can expect the Chavez to amplify his attitudes and approach.
Of late, a growing number of realists have sought to play down the substance of the Chavez phenomenon. His incessant anti-American rhetoric may actually be driven by political compulsions at home. And his ability to hold America hostage by cutting off oil sales? Probably considerable. Yet recognition of that threat has given some way to a realization that the United States imports only about 12 percent of its petroleum needs from Venezuela. The United States, on the other hand, accounts for more than half of Venezuela’s oil receipts.
Chavez’s announcement last week of plans for a six-fold increase in oil sales to China over the next 10 years might have more bark than bite. For one thing, China currently imports only about two percent of its oil needs from Venezuela. Moreover, there are geographical and technical challenges to overcome before the trickle becomes a flow. Even if Caracas-induced pain were to bite the Americans, they could perhaps expect to get palliatives elsewhere. Chavez the economic threat might not be one worth losing sleep over.
What about Chavez the politician? The Venezuelan president has been achieving growing political influence in his neighborhood and other parts of the developing world. With anti-Americanism set to become the stock in trade for the foreseeable future, Chavez can expect to count on an expanding constituency.
Oil profits have funded Venezuela’s multibillion-dollar arms purchases from Russia, including jet fighters, military helicopters and assault rifles. As a former military man who still needs to nurture sections of that constituency, the imperative of re-equipping the armed forces cannot be overlooked, especially if it also means boosting Venezuelans pride in themselves. The downside, of course, is that Chavez operates in an environment where belligerency can break out at extremely short notice.
From another standpoint, the outlook is more assuring. The United States has lived with Cuba’s Fidel Castro for almost five decades. There should be few reasons to doubt its ability to coexist with his anointed successor.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Malaysia: An Opening For Anwar
Anwar Ibrahim, the disgraced former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, must be marveling at the sudden auspiciousness that seems to be coming his way. Tensions have escalating between former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad and his designated successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
As a one-time Mahathir heir apparent, Anwar knows the price of insubordination. During the Asian financial meltdown nine years ago, Anwar suggested Malaysia should follow the International Monetary Fund’s road to recovery. That was something Mahathir had no patience for. Once Anwar fell out of Mahathir’s favor, he careened on a relentless course of legal woes ranging from sodomy to slush funds.
Abdullah, who replaced Anwar as Mahathir’s designated successor, was careful not to ruffle the boss’s feathers. Even after he rose to the top job three years ago, Abdullah continued to extend more than palpable deference. The assurance of office seems to have inspired Abdullah to make his own mark on Malaysia. He scrapped one of Mahathir’s pet projects -- a bridge between Singapore and Malaysia – triggering a war of words between the two.
Abdullah benefits from the fact that the ruling United Malays National Organization is divided on the bridge issue. Mahathir, for his part, understands how Abdullah has squandered much of his political capital through delays in implementing the anti-corruption policies he had once pledged. In this cleavage, Anwar sees a clear opportunity for his Keadilan party.
Although he was cleared of his sodomy conviction, Anwar is banned from standing for party office or for parliament until April 2008. Abdullah could use him to consecrate his final rupture with Mahathir and his power base.
If Abdullah is as serious as he sounds, he may be willing to pay the full price by lifting the ban on Anwar’s political activity. The whole realignment is likely to proceed slowly and quietly. If Anwar’s legal travails have taught him one thing, it is the virtue of patience.
As a one-time Mahathir heir apparent, Anwar knows the price of insubordination. During the Asian financial meltdown nine years ago, Anwar suggested Malaysia should follow the International Monetary Fund’s road to recovery. That was something Mahathir had no patience for. Once Anwar fell out of Mahathir’s favor, he careened on a relentless course of legal woes ranging from sodomy to slush funds.
Abdullah, who replaced Anwar as Mahathir’s designated successor, was careful not to ruffle the boss’s feathers. Even after he rose to the top job three years ago, Abdullah continued to extend more than palpable deference. The assurance of office seems to have inspired Abdullah to make his own mark on Malaysia. He scrapped one of Mahathir’s pet projects -- a bridge between Singapore and Malaysia – triggering a war of words between the two.
Abdullah benefits from the fact that the ruling United Malays National Organization is divided on the bridge issue. Mahathir, for his part, understands how Abdullah has squandered much of his political capital through delays in implementing the anti-corruption policies he had once pledged. In this cleavage, Anwar sees a clear opportunity for his Keadilan party.
Although he was cleared of his sodomy conviction, Anwar is banned from standing for party office or for parliament until April 2008. Abdullah could use him to consecrate his final rupture with Mahathir and his power base.
If Abdullah is as serious as he sounds, he may be willing to pay the full price by lifting the ban on Anwar’s political activity. The whole realignment is likely to proceed slowly and quietly. If Anwar’s legal travails have taught him one thing, it is the virtue of patience.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Guenter Grass: Courage In Contrition
Former Polish President Lech Walesa wants German writer Guenter Grass to give up his honorary citizenship of Gdansk for having served in the Waffen SS. A seasoned left-wing campaigner and pacifist, Grass this weekend shocked the world by admitting he had been in the notorious elite force that underpinned one of the most abominable regimes known to humanity
Until now, it was only known that the Nobel Prizewinner had served as a soldier and was wounded and taken prisoner by US forces.
Grass was born in 1927 in Gdansk, then known as Danzig, the birthplace of Walesa's Solidarity movement, which began the final phase of the battle against Soviet communism. The Waffen SS was the combat arm of Adolf Hitler's notorious elite force, which expanded to nearly one million members during World War II.
The SS had a reputation for brutality toward soldiers and civilians in Nazi-occupied Europe. It ran the death camps in which millions of people - mostly Jews - were murdered.
For someone who wrote an acclaimed anti-Nazi novel -- The Tin Drum – Grass’s decades of silence smacked of dishonesty. Walesa, a Nobel peace laureate and honorary citizen of Gdansk, was right when he said the German author would never have received the honor had it been known he was in the SS.
Yet it is equally true that the world would not have known of Grass’ SS role had he not had the courage to acknowledge it. Burdened by this silence, Grass finally chose to speak. He told the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that he had been drafted at the age of 17 into an SS tank division and had served in Dresden. Few details of his service are known other than that he had served in the Frundsberg Panzer Division after failing to get a posting in the submarine service. This much we know: Grass was no Heinrich Himmler.
Clearly, Grass has suffered immensely in silence for his dark past. The latest revelation certainly casts a shadow on his legacy. His contrition – courageous in no small measure – should count for something.
Until now, it was only known that the Nobel Prizewinner had served as a soldier and was wounded and taken prisoner by US forces.
Grass was born in 1927 in Gdansk, then known as Danzig, the birthplace of Walesa's Solidarity movement, which began the final phase of the battle against Soviet communism. The Waffen SS was the combat arm of Adolf Hitler's notorious elite force, which expanded to nearly one million members during World War II.
The SS had a reputation for brutality toward soldiers and civilians in Nazi-occupied Europe. It ran the death camps in which millions of people - mostly Jews - were murdered.
For someone who wrote an acclaimed anti-Nazi novel -- The Tin Drum – Grass’s decades of silence smacked of dishonesty. Walesa, a Nobel peace laureate and honorary citizen of Gdansk, was right when he said the German author would never have received the honor had it been known he was in the SS.
Yet it is equally true that the world would not have known of Grass’ SS role had he not had the courage to acknowledge it. Burdened by this silence, Grass finally chose to speak. He told the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that he had been drafted at the age of 17 into an SS tank division and had served in Dresden. Few details of his service are known other than that he had served in the Frundsberg Panzer Division after failing to get a posting in the submarine service. This much we know: Grass was no Heinrich Himmler.
Clearly, Grass has suffered immensely in silence for his dark past. The latest revelation certainly casts a shadow on his legacy. His contrition – courageous in no small measure – should count for something.
Friday, August 04, 2006
The Plot Thickens In Cuba
Even the most inveterate critic of the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba must find the silence emanating from Havana disturbing. Raul, the brother to whom Fidel transferred his powers to five days ago, is yet to make a public appearance. Were the dancers in Miami premature or prescient?
Has Raul gone into hiding in an elaborate attempt to identify and liquidate rivals in an effort to consolidate power? Or has a third element, possibly from within the armed forces, taken over the island nation that has vexed nine American presidents? If so, who might that be?
It seems easier to believe that Fidel is dead than to accept that Raul has been overthrown. For someone close to 80, surgery for gastrointestinal bleeding carries significant risks. Dr. Castro’s personal lifestyle may have raised the threshold several notches.
Raul, on the other hand, is understood to have the strong backing of the Cuban military. According to his hagiography, Raul played a central role in the revolution. More conspicuous is the fact that he has served as defense minister for most of the past half century. And, moreover, he is the senior-most vice-president. However, it was precisely on Raul’s strength within the military that he has long been assumed the heir apparent. It’s a different matter if someone more ambitious within the armed forces has emerged without the legions of Cuba watchers around the world knowing him.
President George W. Bush recently signed a report of the Committee for Assistance to a Free Cuba, stating America’s intention to undermine a Castro-to-Castro transition of power. But, now, the White House is probably the most anxious constituency outside Cuba to see that Raul finally emerges in full control.
Bush understands how easily chaos in Cuba can convulse Miami. The president’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush, already has enough on his plate in the form of the November elections. The Guantanamo Bay crisis, moreover, could take on separate – and potentially more serious – dimensions.
Bush’s worries don’t stop there. If Raul fails to appear, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez could feel further emboldened to take up from where Fidel left. Unless, of course, Fidel appears on TV to announce his return to work.
Has Raul gone into hiding in an elaborate attempt to identify and liquidate rivals in an effort to consolidate power? Or has a third element, possibly from within the armed forces, taken over the island nation that has vexed nine American presidents? If so, who might that be?
It seems easier to believe that Fidel is dead than to accept that Raul has been overthrown. For someone close to 80, surgery for gastrointestinal bleeding carries significant risks. Dr. Castro’s personal lifestyle may have raised the threshold several notches.
Raul, on the other hand, is understood to have the strong backing of the Cuban military. According to his hagiography, Raul played a central role in the revolution. More conspicuous is the fact that he has served as defense minister for most of the past half century. And, moreover, he is the senior-most vice-president. However, it was precisely on Raul’s strength within the military that he has long been assumed the heir apparent. It’s a different matter if someone more ambitious within the armed forces has emerged without the legions of Cuba watchers around the world knowing him.
President George W. Bush recently signed a report of the Committee for Assistance to a Free Cuba, stating America’s intention to undermine a Castro-to-Castro transition of power. But, now, the White House is probably the most anxious constituency outside Cuba to see that Raul finally emerges in full control.
Bush understands how easily chaos in Cuba can convulse Miami. The president’s brother, Governor Jeb Bush, already has enough on his plate in the form of the November elections. The Guantanamo Bay crisis, moreover, could take on separate – and potentially more serious – dimensions.
Bush’s worries don’t stop there. If Raul fails to appear, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez could feel further emboldened to take up from where Fidel left. Unless, of course, Fidel appears on TV to announce his return to work.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Between Hope And Fear In The DRC
AS PART of its largest peace mission ever, the United Nations on Sunday oversaw one of the world’s most ambitious experiments in democracy. Millions of eager voters lined up outside schools and community centers across the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), formerly known as Zaire, to elect a president and parliamentary representatives.
The run-up to the DRC’s first multiparty election in over 40 years was gripped by fears of an upsurge in violence. After all, until four years ago, the DRC was a battleground for domestic armies as well as soldiers from a half-dozen other African countries.
Although the war has formally ended, thousands of rebels and soldiers continue to terrorize the people. The transitional government, comprising former warring factions, was dysfunctional. The former rebel armies continue to pillage and feud over control of mines and other resources in the country the size of Western Europe.
However, fears of mass attacks on polling stations proved unwarranted. There were isolated attacks on the electoral commission in East and West Kasai provinces, strongholds of the opposition Union for Democracy and Social Progress, which boycotted the polls. A voting station was set on fire the night before the polls. After the balloting ended, rampaging youths in one town destroyed 52 polling stations.
In the end, as the Israeli-Hezbollah fighting grabbed the international spotlight, DRC voters took another bold step to end a war in which nearly 4 million may have died. International institutions played an impressive role. The U.N. force numbers 17,500, and its election administration has spent more than $400 million raised from international donors. The European Union, which provided much of that funding, dispatched its own force of 2,000 to help with security.
There is palpable apprehension inside the DRC and abroad that the world is using the election to ratify the rule of President Joseph Kabila, who has served since his father, Laurent, was assassinated in 2001. In this heated atmosphere, armed factions that stand to lose power may trigger fresh violence. Ominous sounds are already being heard. Three of the DRC’s vice-presidents, including two former rebel leaders, challenged Kabila. If the losers are unwilling to accept the results of this round of voting the DRC could find itself in a new spiral of violence.
Even if a clear and unchallenged winner emerges, the international community cannot afford to pull out of the DRC and hop into the next crisis zone. The country needs a sustained campaign to reform and train the other tools of statecraft – the bureaucracy, judiciary, army and its newly elected legislators. With so much invested in the peace process and so much promise already evident, the DRC project must be followed through to its logical end.
The run-up to the DRC’s first multiparty election in over 40 years was gripped by fears of an upsurge in violence. After all, until four years ago, the DRC was a battleground for domestic armies as well as soldiers from a half-dozen other African countries.
Although the war has formally ended, thousands of rebels and soldiers continue to terrorize the people. The transitional government, comprising former warring factions, was dysfunctional. The former rebel armies continue to pillage and feud over control of mines and other resources in the country the size of Western Europe.
However, fears of mass attacks on polling stations proved unwarranted. There were isolated attacks on the electoral commission in East and West Kasai provinces, strongholds of the opposition Union for Democracy and Social Progress, which boycotted the polls. A voting station was set on fire the night before the polls. After the balloting ended, rampaging youths in one town destroyed 52 polling stations.
In the end, as the Israeli-Hezbollah fighting grabbed the international spotlight, DRC voters took another bold step to end a war in which nearly 4 million may have died. International institutions played an impressive role. The U.N. force numbers 17,500, and its election administration has spent more than $400 million raised from international donors. The European Union, which provided much of that funding, dispatched its own force of 2,000 to help with security.
There is palpable apprehension inside the DRC and abroad that the world is using the election to ratify the rule of President Joseph Kabila, who has served since his father, Laurent, was assassinated in 2001. In this heated atmosphere, armed factions that stand to lose power may trigger fresh violence. Ominous sounds are already being heard. Three of the DRC’s vice-presidents, including two former rebel leaders, challenged Kabila. If the losers are unwilling to accept the results of this round of voting the DRC could find itself in a new spiral of violence.
Even if a clear and unchallenged winner emerges, the international community cannot afford to pull out of the DRC and hop into the next crisis zone. The country needs a sustained campaign to reform and train the other tools of statecraft – the bureaucracy, judiciary, army and its newly elected legislators. With so much invested in the peace process and so much promise already evident, the DRC project must be followed through to its logical end.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Al Zawahiri Again. Where’s Bin Laden?
The most striking aspect of Al Qaeda’s deputy leader Ayman Al Zawahiri’s latest video broadcast is its relative freshness. It took only two weeks after Israel began its attacks on Lebanon and Gaza for Al Zawahiri to warn, via the Arabic satellite TV channel Al Jazeera, of a massive response.
Al Qaeda could not remain silent in the face of a “Crusader war,” Al Zawahiri states, adding that it saw “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.” Events in Lebanon and Gaza showed the importance of the battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.
More revealing is the following: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a ceasefire agreement... It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq.”
Clearly, the tenor of the text suggests that it was written after the scale and severity of the Israeli attacks triggered international calls for a ceasefire – which makes the video even newer.
Over the past two years, Al Zawahiri has released many his statements in the form of videos. His boss, Osama bin Laden, uses audio statements. Does this mean Al Zawahiri has a greater ability to move around?
On the other hand, could bin Laden’s reliance on old video or still pictures suggest that his appearance has declined lately? If so, he certainly would not want to give the impression of weakness or infirmity to the faithful. Or is the Al Qaeda chief relying on the audio format to reduce the chances of Western intelligence tracking his location?
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda tapes, once recorded, ostensibly had to cross a complicated distribution network. The obvious risks inherent in physically transporting the tapes to a broadcast outlet may have delayed their eventual transmission. More recently, Al Qaeda appears to have chosen to transmit its tapes directly via the Internet. The easy availability of equipment, coupled with improvements in high-speed access, may have assured faster dissemination of audio and video.
But if these technological advances have worked for Al Zawahiri, couldn’t they do the same for bin Laden?
Furthermore, the Al Qaeda chief might have considered issuing this particular statement himself, especially considering the firmness with which his organization has underscored the international dimensions of jihad.
Or maybe bin Laden has undergone plastic surgery or any other such alteration in his physical appearance to avoid detection – in which case a video appearance would make little sense.
Al Qaeda could not remain silent in the face of a “Crusader war,” Al Zawahiri states, adding that it saw “all the world as a battlefield open in front of us.” Events in Lebanon and Gaza showed the importance of the battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, he added.
More revealing is the following: “The war with Israel is not about a treaty, a ceasefire agreement... It is rather a jihad for the sake of God until the religion of God is established. It is jihad for the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine, as well as every land that was a home for Islam, from Andalusia to Iraq.”
Clearly, the tenor of the text suggests that it was written after the scale and severity of the Israeli attacks triggered international calls for a ceasefire – which makes the video even newer.
Over the past two years, Al Zawahiri has released many his statements in the form of videos. His boss, Osama bin Laden, uses audio statements. Does this mean Al Zawahiri has a greater ability to move around?
On the other hand, could bin Laden’s reliance on old video or still pictures suggest that his appearance has declined lately? If so, he certainly would not want to give the impression of weakness or infirmity to the faithful. Or is the Al Qaeda chief relying on the audio format to reduce the chances of Western intelligence tracking his location?
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Al Qaeda tapes, once recorded, ostensibly had to cross a complicated distribution network. The obvious risks inherent in physically transporting the tapes to a broadcast outlet may have delayed their eventual transmission. More recently, Al Qaeda appears to have chosen to transmit its tapes directly via the Internet. The easy availability of equipment, coupled with improvements in high-speed access, may have assured faster dissemination of audio and video.
But if these technological advances have worked for Al Zawahiri, couldn’t they do the same for bin Laden?
Furthermore, the Al Qaeda chief might have considered issuing this particular statement himself, especially considering the firmness with which his organization has underscored the international dimensions of jihad.
Or maybe bin Laden has undergone plastic surgery or any other such alteration in his physical appearance to avoid detection – in which case a video appearance would make little sense.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Royal Thai Democracy
THAIS have once again had the opportunity to reflect on their good fortune in the person of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The world’s longest reigning monarch has ended a long spell of political uncertainty by setting new elections for October 15.
Bhumibol, a constitutional monarch in the truest sense, emerged to end the political impasse created by the outgoing prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The expensive snap poll Thaksin held three months ago had been invalidated by Thailand’s constitutional court, casting a shadow on the country’s political future.
To be sure, Thaksin’s decision to seek a fresh mandate fell within his constitutional prerogative. A huge corruption scandal involving the premier and his family had fueled months of street protests against his policies.
As a democratically elected premier, Thaksin had every right to hold the April 2 elections, since governing had increasingly become difficult. Moreover, the protests consuming the Thai capital and other urban centers could not obscure the massive support Thaksin continues to enjoy in countryside.
Much time, money and political capital could have been saved had the opposition parties participated in the snap elections and campaigned to defeat Thaksin. But the Democrat, Chart Thai and Mahachon Parties boycotted the election, arguing that it was unfairly set to favor the prime minister.
Although his Thai Rak Thai Party won the election, Thaksin had to step down under the combined pressure of an incomplete mandate and continuing opposition protests.
Since then the country has been plunged into a political stalemate for months, without a functioning parliament and run by a caretaker government. The king had asked the nation's top three courts to work out a solution for the crisis.
While the subversion of the democratic process was undoubtedly a source of much concern, the fact that political developments could take their own course under a sagacious monarch testifies to the maturity Thailand’s democracy has attained.
Until the early 1990s, Thailand’s military – with its long record of coups and other acts of direct political interference – was capable of stepping into the vacuum democrats had created.
The new elections are an opportunity for Thailand’s political parties to make a clean break from their record of squabbling. Thais can continue to rely on the monarchy’s wisdom to sail through crises. But they do expect their politicians to exhibit the commitment and resolve needed to consolidate the democratic process.
Bhumibol, a constitutional monarch in the truest sense, emerged to end the political impasse created by the outgoing prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra. The expensive snap poll Thaksin held three months ago had been invalidated by Thailand’s constitutional court, casting a shadow on the country’s political future.
To be sure, Thaksin’s decision to seek a fresh mandate fell within his constitutional prerogative. A huge corruption scandal involving the premier and his family had fueled months of street protests against his policies.
As a democratically elected premier, Thaksin had every right to hold the April 2 elections, since governing had increasingly become difficult. Moreover, the protests consuming the Thai capital and other urban centers could not obscure the massive support Thaksin continues to enjoy in countryside.
Much time, money and political capital could have been saved had the opposition parties participated in the snap elections and campaigned to defeat Thaksin. But the Democrat, Chart Thai and Mahachon Parties boycotted the election, arguing that it was unfairly set to favor the prime minister.
Although his Thai Rak Thai Party won the election, Thaksin had to step down under the combined pressure of an incomplete mandate and continuing opposition protests.
Since then the country has been plunged into a political stalemate for months, without a functioning parliament and run by a caretaker government. The king had asked the nation's top three courts to work out a solution for the crisis.
While the subversion of the democratic process was undoubtedly a source of much concern, the fact that political developments could take their own course under a sagacious monarch testifies to the maturity Thailand’s democracy has attained.
Until the early 1990s, Thailand’s military – with its long record of coups and other acts of direct political interference – was capable of stepping into the vacuum democrats had created.
The new elections are an opportunity for Thailand’s political parties to make a clean break from their record of squabbling. Thais can continue to rely on the monarchy’s wisdom to sail through crises. But they do expect their politicians to exhibit the commitment and resolve needed to consolidate the democratic process.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Condi’s Element Of Surprise
Clearly, the rest of the world seems to believe Israel’s disproportionate response to the Hezbollah-Hamas kidnappings is President George W. Bush’s fault. The real bad news is that the White House seems to believe that, too.
President Bush has decided to dispatch Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to convey Washington’s interest in scaling down the conflict. Not to the extent, though, of forcing Israel to declare a unilateral ceasefire. This is wise.
Equally prudent is the Bush administration’s move to present Rice’s journey as a prelude to her visit to Rome where she will meet with Arab officials at an international conference on Lebanon.
The obvious question: If a ceasefire or any similar initiative is off Rice’s agenda, then why bother to visit the region at all. The element of surprise.
Admittedly, Israel and the United States have been closely coordinating efforts to give the Israeli military sufficient time to carry out their offensive against Hezbollah.
What Rice’s visit would do is create the perception of active U.S. engagement. This might seem disingenuous to the president’s critics. But it is a brilliant way of discouraging other entities from stepping in. Once Israel achieves its military objectives against Hezbollah, it could be expected to goad the Bush administration toward formulating a cease-fire.
Hezbollah is banking on its ability to spring surprises on Israel and the United States. But every move is directed from Damascus and Teheran. If Condi can leave the Iranians, Syrians and the Hezbollah equally baffled over what American might be up to next, we’re all for it.
President Bush has decided to dispatch Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to convey Washington’s interest in scaling down the conflict. Not to the extent, though, of forcing Israel to declare a unilateral ceasefire. This is wise.
Equally prudent is the Bush administration’s move to present Rice’s journey as a prelude to her visit to Rome where she will meet with Arab officials at an international conference on Lebanon.
The obvious question: If a ceasefire or any similar initiative is off Rice’s agenda, then why bother to visit the region at all. The element of surprise.
Admittedly, Israel and the United States have been closely coordinating efforts to give the Israeli military sufficient time to carry out their offensive against Hezbollah.
What Rice’s visit would do is create the perception of active U.S. engagement. This might seem disingenuous to the president’s critics. But it is a brilliant way of discouraging other entities from stepping in. Once Israel achieves its military objectives against Hezbollah, it could be expected to goad the Bush administration toward formulating a cease-fire.
Hezbollah is banking on its ability to spring surprises on Israel and the United States. But every move is directed from Damascus and Teheran. If Condi can leave the Iranians, Syrians and the Hezbollah equally baffled over what American might be up to next, we’re all for it.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Bush’s 1st Veto: Good Economics, Better Ethics
For the first time in his five-year-old presidency, George W. Bush has used his veto – against federal funding for stem-cell research. How could something that enjoyed wide support from Democrats and Republicans finally break Bush’s reluctance to use a prerogative previous presidents have employed with abandon.
Moreover, which part of the debate forced Bush to describe the Senate vote as having “crossed a moral boundary?
Supporters claim stem cells can turn into any kind of cell in the body and may prove to be
extremely useful medically, for example in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer’s. They argue that the most promising research into such cells has come from using human embryos. Now that infuriates the religious right.
Bush has said he would allow federal funding for research only on already existing colonies, or “lines”, of embryonic stem cells. By a large margin—63 to 37—senators voted to expand federal funding for research on new lines.
Several prominent Republicans supported the bill, which passed 63- to 27. Majority leader Bill Frist, a medical doctor, and John McCain, both seen as presidential candidates in 2008, were for the bill.
The politics are clear. Opinion polls suggest that stem-cell research is popular. So the Democrats are virtually united in the matter. In the GOP, too, strong alliances have been forged. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Nancy Reagan, who watched her husband suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, were united in asking the president to sign the bill.
Did Bush – rumbling along the final years of his presidency – veto the bill merely because he felt he could afford to dispense with political considerations? Or was his move intended to bolster the Republicans’ image ahead of November’s midterm poll. Americans would be more likely to admire Republican lawmakers who stood up to
a president of their own party.
Or maybe Bush has long grappled with some serious questions. Perhaps the promise of embryonic stem cells is overrated. If they can offer greater prospects of breakthrough than the existing lines of cells, then why aren’t private-sector investors rushing in with cash?
Economics must have given way to ethics. Might a flood of unintended consequences ensue? For instance, would cash-strapped women be encouraged to get pregnant simply to produce and sell embryonic stem cells?
Take that a step further. What if cost-cutters flooded the developing world for their raw materials? Compassionate conservatism rings with enough pejoratives. There’s no room for genetic colonialism.
Moreover, which part of the debate forced Bush to describe the Senate vote as having “crossed a moral boundary?
Supporters claim stem cells can turn into any kind of cell in the body and may prove to be
extremely useful medically, for example in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease, spinal-cord injuries and Alzheimer’s. They argue that the most promising research into such cells has come from using human embryos. Now that infuriates the religious right.
Bush has said he would allow federal funding for research only on already existing colonies, or “lines”, of embryonic stem cells. By a large margin—63 to 37—senators voted to expand federal funding for research on new lines.
Several prominent Republicans supported the bill, which passed 63- to 27. Majority leader Bill Frist, a medical doctor, and John McCain, both seen as presidential candidates in 2008, were for the bill.
The politics are clear. Opinion polls suggest that stem-cell research is popular. So the Democrats are virtually united in the matter. In the GOP, too, strong alliances have been forged. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Nancy Reagan, who watched her husband suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, were united in asking the president to sign the bill.
Did Bush – rumbling along the final years of his presidency – veto the bill merely because he felt he could afford to dispense with political considerations? Or was his move intended to bolster the Republicans’ image ahead of November’s midterm poll. Americans would be more likely to admire Republican lawmakers who stood up to
a president of their own party.
Or maybe Bush has long grappled with some serious questions. Perhaps the promise of embryonic stem cells is overrated. If they can offer greater prospects of breakthrough than the existing lines of cells, then why aren’t private-sector investors rushing in with cash?
Economics must have given way to ethics. Might a flood of unintended consequences ensue? For instance, would cash-strapped women be encouraged to get pregnant simply to produce and sell embryonic stem cells?
Take that a step further. What if cost-cutters flooded the developing world for their raw materials? Compassionate conservatism rings with enough pejoratives. There’s no room for genetic colonialism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)