Halliburton’s Orange Juice Dividend

Now that the Americans and Iranians have sat down on the same table for the first time since the Shah’s overthrow 30 years ago, expectations of an orange juice dividend have soared. The breadth of the Baghdad conference was designed to create the atmospherics so that both sides could calibrate their sips with their semantics.
Is it too much to expect a moderating influence on Iraq? Probably not. The moment Saudi King Abdullah played peace-broker between Hamas and Fatah, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad was itching to fortify the other Muslim flank. Now we have the Shia and Sunni patriarchs in full play. Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman Al Zawahiri had to step in with his audio message. No wonder Halliburton feels safe enough to relocate its headquarters to Dubai.
The game may have just begun. The Saudis and Iranians aren’t about to squander this chance at regional supremacy. With King Abdullah locked in his own battle with Al Qaeda, a resurgence of Shia power in Iraq is the last thing he needs. Ahmedinejad won’t countenance losing that influence so painstakingly built in Iraq. With Saddam gone, the more ex-Baathists have a good chance of returning to some level of influence if they can fully and verifiably prove their ability to restrain – if not end – their part of the insurgency. Compromise is everyone’s compulsion. It’s probably the prospect of some sanity entering the region – and not the urgency to avoid congressional subpoenas – that led Halliburton to decide to relocate its headquarters to that tiny patch of opulence between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

U.S. Surge Aimed At Iran

It looks like the Bush administration has lost trust in all Iraqi Shiites. At least that’s what U.S. troops have shown by detaining the son of top Iraqi Shiite politician Abdel Aziz al-Hakim on Feb. 23 as he was returning from Iran.
The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the elder Hakim’s organization, is an ally of the United States. By most accounts, it is also the most pro-Iranian of all Iraqi Shiite factions. It also has an allied militia called the Badr Organization, thought to be Iran’s main proxy in Iraq.
Ammar al-Hakim, a senior leader of SCIRI and the secretary-general of a charitable foundation the group runs, was returning from Iran via the Badrah border crossing in the southeastern governorate of Wasit. U.S. sources believe Ammar is involved in transferring money and weapons on behalf of Iran to Iraqi Shia. Moreover, he could also be spying on the United States.
In any case, Ammar’s arrest underscores the strain that seems to have set in relations between the Bush administration and its closest Iraqi Shiite ally. So far, American forces have gone after the radical al-Sadrite Bloc and its armed wing, the Mehdi Army.
An escalation of this crisis could shove SCIRI further into the Iranian camp. Furthermore, it could spur an alignment of anti-U.S. Shiite groups that have been fighting against each other.
Vice President Dick Cheney’s comments in Australia provide another insight into what could be happening. By drawing Iran closer into the Iraq conflict, could the Bush administration be intending to expose the ruling mullahs to wrath of Iraqi Sunnis? With the Iranians caught in their own Iraqi quagmire, maybe that full-blown U.S. attack on Iran might not be needed. Bush’s surge may be intended for Iran.

The Tories’ Blair

Is David Cameron going to be Britain’s new savior? That’s what one opinion poll seems to show. Cameron, who was elected 14 months ago to lead the Tories out of a long-standing inertia, has performed reasonably well relative to his bumbling predecessors. More importantly, he has revived the image of the Conservatives, who never seemed to have the capacity to gain from Labour’s progressive decline.
An opinion poll conducted by the Guardian newspaper shows Cameron winning 42 percent support for the post of prime minister against 29 percent by Labour’s Gordon Brown.
Tony Blair’s designated successor doesn’t seem to be able to distance himself from the current government’s performance. With Blair taking his long farewell, moreover, Brown might not have enough time to emerge as his own man in time in time for the next elections.
The Tories, over the past decade, have found themselves where Labour was during the Thatcher-Major years. Until, of course, Blair came around. It might be premature to equate today’s Cameron with the Blair of 1997, but you get the idea.
The Conservatives’ 13-point lead over Labour, in the Guardian poll, represents their highest since their 1992 victory. For now, let this piece of statistic tell its story.

A New Holy Roman Empire?

With the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome approaching, the European Union is once again revved up by the idea of a formal constitution.
A union of some of the world’s most powerful and industrialized nations, the EU is integrating with the rest of the world economically and politically. In coming this far, the union has shed a lot of the continent’s history of carnage and convulsions. It is worth recalling that a key propellant of the Rome Treaty was the urgency to stop Europe’s internecine wars.
A common market, free trade area, open borders are but aspects of integration. A full-fledged constitution would formalize the quest for commonness gripping the continent as well as the aspirations of quarters beyond.
Eighteen of the 27 member states have ratified the draft constitution. Britain, the Czech Republic and Poland want a new, slimmed-down mini treaty. French and Dutch voters have altogether rejected it in referendums held over a year ago.
Creating a permanent president and foreign ministry, the logical culmination of full union, would be as arduous as working out the precise schedule for the entry of Turkey as a member.
Less palpable, though, is the suspicion that the European project is some kind of Catholic conspiracy. After all, four of the six original countries were mainly Catholic and most of the founding fathers were devout believers. Furthermore, European Christian Democracy is rooted in Catholicism. It is perhaps no accident that Catholic newcomers such as Spain and Portugal have found it easier to adapt to the EU than have Protestant members such as Britain or Sweden.

National Sovereignty: Sacrosanct Again?

The Chinese and Russians have put the world on notice. Domestic denial of democracy and human rights is not a threat to international peace and security. So the U.N. Security Council had better stay out of Myanmar.
What business did the United States have pushing through a resolution it knew it couldn’t back up – diplomatically or militarily? John Bolton’s departure as ambassador deprived Washington the ability to even mount an effective rhetorical defense.
For the first time since the 1970s, Beijing and Moscow have forged a front to challenge the United States. They didn’t unite so audaciously before the resolutions preceding the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq four years ago. China, for its part, had begun abstaining from key votes, exhibiting a pragmatism that allowed others to interpret in their own ways. The Russians, never shy about projecting their national interests over international questions, saw the veto as one of the last remaining symbol of their superpower status and were determined to use it.

Why Myanmar?
Ever since the military junta in Yangon invalidated Aung San Suu Kyi’s massive electoral victory and threw her into jail, the world has been able to do little else than stand by. China, a key ally, provided diplomatic cover.
Myanmar’s neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, no great models of democracy themselves, were fed up with American lectures on morality. They granted Myanmar membership of the regional organization and cushioned the regime from international pressures.
The Nobel Peace Price didn’t get Suu Kyi anywhere. The vast reserves of natural gas have made the junta the darling of China and India. Had New Delhi gotten that vaunted Security Council privilege, it might have vetoed the U.S. resolution too.
Admittedly, the Russians and Chinese could defend Myanmar so openly because there was little cost in doing so. The United States wasn’t about to severe ties with Moscow or Beijing over that Asian outpost. Nor could Washington be expected to ignore the Security Council and launch a military expedition to turn Myanmar into a beacon of democracy and human rights.
Yet it would be wrong to consider the Sino-Russian alliance as an aberration. The two governments are the staunchest defenders of national sovereignty, for their own reasons. Neither wants U.N. missions in Tibet or Chechnya.
In building this façade of virtue, Beijing and Moscow have read the American public’s mood very well. After the Iraq debacle, democracy and human rights are extremely unlikely to rouse Americans into any form international intervention. Let there be no mistake, this reaffirmation of the sanctity of national sovereignty was carefully planned.

The Good News Pinochet Missed

Most Pakistanis support their military regime, according to a recent survey. And their neighbors, Indians, too, seem quite fascinated themselves.
The Thai generals seem to be enjoying similar admiration. Someone should have polled Thais.
What could this entail for the rest of the world? Are military regimes back in fashion as bulwarks against other authoritarian entities. Could the Iraqi and Afghan armies be deemed guarantors of stability?
In places outwardly too refined for the military to directly control the levers of power, the generals could probably back their own parties and politicians. After all, it was the Army Times editorial and collective criticisms from retired generals that sealed Donald Rumsfeld's fate long before the Democrats captured Congress from the GOP.
Turkey is a case where the military guarantees democratic stability -- as long as the politicians avoid injecting religion into statecraft. With Iran dead-set on acquire nuclear weapons, maybe the generals could emerge as an acceptable and modernist alternative to the mullahs.
Perhaps more and more retired generals could contest elections in places other than Israel.
The philosophical dimensions, too, could become clearer. If a state feels it needs institutionalized coercive powers to defend itself against adversaries, maybe the same force could be used to protect itself from within.
The saddest part of this survey is that poor Pinochet couldn't live to hear this.

Bicycling Our Way Out Of Iraq

[H]istorians will look back and say, “How come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat?” That’s what they'll be asking.

It was one of those moments when Bush truly bared his soul.
Ever since the Democrats won the congressional elections last month, Bush has been bending over backward and running as fast as he can to accommodate the opposition. Bits and pieces of the Iraq Study Group leaked to the press gradually piled pressure on the White House. He even praised the Baker-Hamilton recommendations with scant regard to the morale of the military risking their lives and limbs in Iraq, although he was careful to rebuff some of them.
Was the commander in chief becoming the cut-and-run chief by proxy? Was legacy becoming more precious to Bush than victory in a war he staked his entire presidency on? Was he using the election results to trade America’s national security for securing his place in history?
If the Bush we saw Thursday is what we’re going to see over the next two years of his presidency, then there still is hope for those who believe in the genuineness of the Iraq war.
The premise of the WMD threat proved to be wrong. The democracy project is faltering to the point of failure. Saddam Hussein may have redeemed himself in the eyes of some of his most scathing critics. Yet there is one purpose of the Iraq war that Bush should have been candid about from the start: Oil-linked national security.
America can still withdraw from Iraq in humiliation. The plunge in the morale of the world’s most powerful military may not spell doom for the country. Isolationism can be accepted as a policy option once again. The Islamofascists may even leave us alone. But what are we going to do about oil?
The Democrats and the environmental kooks aren’t going to let us drill in Alaska or anywhere else. Even if they did, could the American economy sustain the price of oil? Would American consumers be prepared to pay $5 per gallon at the pump?
There’s a way to find out. Maybe Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democratic brigade should bicycle their way to the new session of Congress next year. The Republicans who have gone into hibernation after the ISG report became public would want to join in in a true bipartisan spirit. Then ordinary Americans, consumed by guilt over our consumption of cheap oil ensured through the death, destruction and debris we inflict half a world away, may catch the habit.
If that happens, we could then rejuvenate the bicycle industry through federal subsidies – boosting employment. A fortress America fortified by a missile defense system would do us good, barring, perhaps, that giant asteroid we might miss.
Maybe we should pull out of Iraq.

Not Out Of The Woods Just Yet

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.

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 Haiti at the very bottom of the list. Developed countries are deemed the planet’s cleanest, with Finland, Iceland and New Zealand tied on the top spot. On closer observation, the poverty-corruption linkage may not appear so conclusive. At No. 20, the United States fares somewhere close to Chile. At No. 45, Italy provides a more compelling case of the prevalence of corruption in the absence of poverty.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.