Just Foreign Policy News
July 7, 2010
Hamas Lawmaker: Gaza Flotilla Did More Than 10,000 Rockets
Who now doubts that strategic nonviolent action can transform the politics of the Israel/Palestine conflict? Not Hamas parliamentarian Aziz Dweik, the Wall Street Journal reports: "When we use violence, we help Israel win international support," said Aziz Dweik, a leading Hamas lawmaker in the West Bank. "The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets." What might happen if Muslim-majority nations demanded that the US stop subsidizing Israeli settlements in the West Bank that even the Israeli government says are illegal? What might happen if they backed the boycott of corporations explicitly linked to the Israeli occupation?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/hamas-lawmaker-gaza-floti_b_637791.html
Viral IDF dancing video unwittingly reveals reality of occupation in Hebron
Adam Horowitz notes at Mondoweiss that this video of Israeli soldiers dancing in Hebron – which has been viewed on youtube more than a million times – unintentionally reveals a picture of the Israeli occupation that most Americans don’t know about. Why is the street deserted? Because Palestinians are forbidden to use it; though it was formerly a major Palestinian commercial street; though the Israeli government agreed to re-open the street under the Oslo accords.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIehtCNgvrQ
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/07/viral-idf-dancing-video-unwittingly-reveals-reality-in-hebron.html
South of the Border, scheduled screenings:
Oliver Stone’s documentary shows you the South America the New York Times doesn’t want you to see.
http://southoftheborderdoc.com/in-theatres/
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Your financial support allows us to educate Americans about U.S. foreign policy and to create opportunities for Americans to advocate for U.S. policies that are more just.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Israel’s new list still prohibits much of what Gazans say they need most – construction materials to rebuild the territory, McClatchy reports. Among the prohibited items announced Monday were insulation, many types of cement, steel cables of any thickness and construction forms. "Even if Israel fulfills its promise to expand capacity at Kerem Shalom we will still be meeting only 70 percent of the ordinary needs of Gaza for import. That doesn’t take into account the massive need for tens of thousands of truckloads of construction materials to rebuild Gaza and accommodate natural growth," said Sari Bashi, director of the Israeli legal advocacy group Gisha.
2) Oxfam welcomed the Israeli government’s announcement that it will allow more items to enter Gaza. But what Palestinians in Gaza need most is to rebuild their economy, Oxfam says. This can be achieved only if it is possible for exports to leave Gaza. Oxfam also expresses concern that the Israeli announcement does not allow imports of reconstruction material such as cement for the civilian population.
3) Writing in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne takes issue with DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse’s attack on RNC chair Michael Steele for criticizing the war in Afghanistan. Dionne notes that 3/5 of House Democrats voted for McGovern’s amendment to require a timetable for withdrawal. "The reaction to Steele from some Democrats sounded like Dick Cheney," said McGovern. "Democrats need to understand that our base is increasingly uncomfortable with this war."
4) Writing in the Huffington Post, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank and Republican Rep. Ron Paul say they are united in demanding that substantial cuts in military spending be included in any future deficit reduction package. They pledge to oppose any proposal that fails to do so.
5) Around Kandahar, growing numbers of citizens are turning away from the new Afghanistan’s corruption-plagued justice system to an ancient means of resolving disputes that is overseen by the Taliban, the Christian Science Monitor reports. Some go because they’re Taliban partisans, most others because the Taliban have something to offer that the government of Afghanistan so far does not: Fast, generally impartial justice from a court that doesn’t demand bribes for its services.
6) The Indian Army deployed on the streets of the disputed province of Kashmir, seeking to quell weeks of angry street protests, the New York Times reports. The protests, aimed at forcing India to withdraw its paramilitary forces from the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley, have raged for weeks, killing at least 13 people. Separatist leaders led huge marches on Tuesday, and three people were killed when paramilitary forces opened fire.
7) Facing a decision on a proposed pipeline to bring Canadian crude oil to the US, the Obama administration is confronting growing resistance from politicians who oppose the project, the New York Times reports. Last month, 50 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton expressing concerns about the pipeline. "This pipeline is a multibillion-dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available," said Rep. Waxman. Canadian oil sands are expected to become America’s primary source of imported oil this year.
Afghanistan
8) NATO pilots mistakenly attacked Afghan soldiers, killing five of them, the New York Times reports. The Afghan soldiers were preparing an ambush against the Taliban.
Iran
9) Iran said in a letter to the EU it’s ready for talks on Iran’s nuclear program but that the EU must first guarantee there would be no threats against Iran, AP reports. President Ahmadinejad set three conditions for an eventual resumption of talks, saying countries who want to participate should make clear whether they oppose Israel’s atomic arsenal, whether they support the Nonproliferation Treaty and whether they want to be friends or enemies with Iran. However, he said, participation in the talks was not contingent on the answers.
Iraq
10) The top American military commander in Iraq said U.N. peacekeeping forces may need to replace departing U.S. troops in the nation’s north if a feud between Arabs and Kurds continues through 2011, AP reports. A U.N. force might offer both the Iraqi leadership and President Obama a politically palatable alternative to an ongoing U.S. presence, AP says.
Venezuela/Haiti
11) In Haiti, Venezuela has built electricity plants, open-air markets, homes and healthcare clinics, the Miami Herald reports. Often working in conjunction with Cuba, Venezuela is pumping millions into agricultural programs and is loaning the government money to refurbish the airport in Haiti’s second city, Cap Haitien. "During this crisis, they have given us an enormous amount of help and we are grateful for that – just as we are with the help from others in the international community," said Haiti’s Finance Minister.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) With Obama meeting Tuesday, Israel eases Gaza blockade
Sheera Frenkel, McClatchy Newspapers, Mon, Jul. 05, 2010
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/05/97027/with-obama-meeting-scheduled-israel.html
Jerusalem – Israel on Monday announced a major change in the way it will manage the country’s controversial blockade of the Gaza Strip, a move Israeli officials hope will ease tensions with the Obama administration on the eve of a visit to Washington by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
[…] "Gaza will now receive a greater variety of goods, and in greater quantity," said Eli Shaked, head of Kerem Shalom, Israel’s main border crossing with Gaza.
In recent weeks, Israel has allowed the number of trucks entering Gaza to grow from 100 per day to more than 150, he said. The goal is to have 250 trucks entering Gaza with goods within a few weeks, he said.
The new list, however, still prohibits much of what Gazans say they need most – construction materials to rebuild the territory still scarred by a three-week Israeli offensive 18 months ago that was aimed at stopping Hamas-sanctioned rocket attacks on the Israeli towns.
Among the prohibited items announced Monday were insulation, many types of cement, steel cables of any thickness and construction forms. Also prohibited were fertilizers and all manner of seacraft, from boats to JetSkis.
Humanitarian organizations serving Gaza said that even with increased truck traffic and the new entry regime, the blockade would remain crippling.
"Even if Israel fulfills its promise to expand capacity at Kerem Shalom we will still be meeting only 70 percent of the ordinary needs of Gaza for import. That doesn’t take into account the massive need for tens of thousands of truckloads of construction materials to rebuild Gaza and accommodate natural growth," said Sari Bashi, director of the Israeli legal advocacy group Gisha.
She pointed out that while Israel had lifted restrictions on consumer goods, it maintained a ban on many construction materials and goods that could be used for industrial purposes. In order for Gazans to develop an independent economy they needed both, she said, as well as a lifting of the ban on goods to be exported.
"If the US approves what’s currently being offered on the table – more ketchup and margarine – then we are not fulfilling what the international community is demanding, which is the ability for people in Gaza to engage in normal economic activity," said Bashi.
Col. Moshe Levy, a senior Israeli Defense Forces official who handles the Gaza area, said that while Israel would ease its ban on raw materials for Gaza’s manufacturing sector, there were no plans to allow Gaza factories to begin exporting goods on a large scale. Israel also will maintain its naval blockade, allowing goods to arrive only by land.
Omar Shaban, a Gaza-based economist, estimated that Gaza needs 3 million tons of cement and 600,000 tons of steel just to rebuild damage from Israel’s military offensive and to account for natural population growth. "To do business, Gaza needs all crossings to be operating fully for two years, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, just to make up for what happened in the past three years and cater to natural growth," Shaban said.
2) Israeli Government’s Statement on Gaza blockade
Oxfam International, 5 July, 2010
http://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/reactions/israeli-government-statement-gaza-blockade
Oxfam welcomes the Israeli government’s announcement that it will allow more items to enter Gaza. This is a step in the right direction. However, what Palestinians in Gaza need most is to rebuild their economy. This can be achieved only if it is possible for exports to leave Gaza – which can be done while ensuring respect for the legitimate security considerations of Israeli authorities.
We are also concerned that the Israeli Government announcement does not allow imports of reconstruction material such as cement for the civilian population. Expanding the inflow of materials for civilian projects that are under international supervision (UN) is a positive step, but its ultimate impact will likely be reduced due to bureaucratic delays.
There must also be mechanisms to allow for movement of people into and out of the Gaza Strip, including between Gaza and the rest of the occupied Palestinian territory.
We must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The blockade is a man-made crisis which condemns Palestinians in Gaza to poverty and deprives them of the possibility of giving their children hope – whether it be for greater educational opportunities or for a dignified future.
At Oxfam, we see skilled Palestinians in Gaza asking to take part in our cash-for-work programmes because they have been unable to provide for their families since the beginning of the blockade. These are people who used to employ dozens of others on their fishing boats or in their small businesses. The blockade needs to be fully lifted to enable Palestinians to engage in productive, dignified work. That would help restore hope in the future for Gazans and it would be an important step on the road to peace.
3) Let Steele speak
E.J. Dionne Jr., Washington Post, Thursday, July 8, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703189.html
It’s easy to understand why Democrats want Michael Steele to stay in the news. The Republican National Committee chairman is a wonderful distraction, a constant source of gaffes, laughs, clarifications and denials.
But Steele recently scored a victory of sorts, even though you wouldn’t know it from the coverage: His comments on Afghanistan got Democrats to recite GOP talking points from the Bush era. Of course, those can be turned against anyone in either party who dares to question the direction of the war.
The most incendiary words came from the indefatigable Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic National Committee spokesman, who accused Steele of "betting against our troops and rooting for failure in Afghanistan."
Woodhouse added: "It’s simply unconscionable that Michael Steele would undermine the morale of our troops when what they need is our support and encouragement."
I have some empathy for Woodhouse, who must be weary of dealing with the other side’s demagoguery day after day. He probably couldn’t resist giving Republicans a taste of their own medicine. But this is dangerous stuff in a democracy and particularly perilous from a party that, less than two years ago, rightly insisted it could oppose the Bush administration’s foreign policy on thoroughly patriotic grounds.
And Woodhouse’s statement came shortly after 60 percent of House Democrats – 153 in all – voted for an amendment sponsored by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and two of his colleagues that would have required President Obama to present a plan by April for the "safe, orderly and expeditious redeployment" of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
The amendment, which drew support from nine Republicans, would also have allowed for a vote in Congress to stop additional war funding if withdrawal does not start by next July, when the administration has said it would begin reducing forces in Afghanistan.
It’s thus not surprising that one person who took issue with Democrats who piled on to Steele was McGovern. "The reaction to Steele from some Democrats sounded like Dick Cheney," he said in an interview. "Democrats need to understand that our base is increasingly uncomfortable with this war."
[…] But the issue here is less about Afghanistan than about dissent in time of war. Even if Steele was just popping off, he had a right to offer his opinion without being accused of undermining our troops or "rooting for failure."
Some of our greatest leaders, from Abraham Lincoln to Robert F. Kennedy, courageously stood up against wars in their day. Steele is no Lincoln and he is no Kennedy, but as an American, he enjoys the same rights they had. "It is not enough to allow dissent," RFK said. "We must demand it." If members of Kennedy’s party don’t remember this, who will?
4) Why We Must Reduce Military Spending
Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul, Huffington Post, July 6, 2010
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney-frank/why-we-must-reduce-milita_b_636051.html
As members of opposing political parties, we disagree on a number of important issues. But we must not allow honest disagreement over some issues to interfere with our ability to work together when we do agree.
By far the single most important of these is our current initiative to include substantial reductions in the projected level of American military spending as part of future deficit reduction efforts. For decades, the subject of military expenditures has been glaringly absent from public debate. Yet the Pentagon budget for 2010 is $693 billion – more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. Even subtracting the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, military spending still amounts to over 42% of total spending.
It is irrefutably clear to us that if we do not make substantial cuts in the projected levels of Pentagon spending, we will do substantial damage to our economy and dramatically reduce our quality of life.
We are not talking about cutting the money needed to supply American troops in the field. Once we send our men and women into battle, even in cases where we may have opposed going to war, we have an obligation to make sure that our servicemembers have everything they need. And we are not talking about cutting essential funds for combating terrorism; we must do everything possible to prevent any recurrence of the mass murder of Americans that took place on September 11, 2001.
Immediately after World War II, with much of the world devastated and the Soviet Union becoming increasingly aggressive, America took on the responsibility of protecting virtually every country that asked for it. Sixty-five years later, we continue to play that role long after there is any justification for it, and currently American military spending makes up approximately 44% of all such expenditures worldwide. The nations of Western Europe now collectively have greater resources at their command than we do, yet they continue to depend overwhelmingly on American taxpayers to provide for their defense. According to a recent article in the New York Times, "Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism. Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella."
When our democratic allies are menaced by larger, hostile powers, there is a strong argument to be made for supporting them. But the notion that American taxpayers get some benefit from extending our military might worldwide is deeply flawed. And the idea that as a superpower it is our duty to maintain stability by intervening in civil disorders virtually anywhere in the world often generates anger directed at us and may in the end do more harm than good.
We believe that the time has come for a much quicker withdrawal from Iraq than the President has proposed. We both voted against that war, but even for those who voted for it, there can be no justification for spending over $700 billion dollars of American taxpayers’ money on direct military spending in Iraq since the war began, not including the massive, estimated long-term costs of the war. We have essentially taken on a referee role in a civil war, even mediating electoral disputes.
In order to create a systematic approach to reducing military spending, we have convened a Sustainable Defense Task Force consisting of experts on military expenditures that span the ideological spectrum. The task force has produced a detailed report with specific recommendations for cutting Pentagon spending by approximately $1 trillion over a ten year period. It calls for eliminating certain Cold War weapons and scaling back our commitments overseas. Even with these changes, the United States would still be immeasurably stronger than any nation with which we might be engaged, and the plan will in fact enhance our security rather than diminish it.
We are currently working to enlist the support of other members of Congress for our initiative. Along with our colleagues Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Walter Jones, we have addressed a letter to the President’s National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which he has convened to develop concrete recommendations for reducing the budget deficit. We will make it clear to leaders of both parties that substantial reductions in military spending must be included in any future deficit reduction package. We pledge to oppose any proposal that fails to do so.
In the short term, rebuilding our economy and creating jobs will remain our nation’s top priority. But it is essential that we begin to address the issue of excessive military spending in order to ensure prosperity in the future. We may not agree on what to do with the estimated $1 trillion in savings, but we do agree that nothing either of us cares deeply about will be possible if we do not begin to face this issue now.
5) Dent In Afghanistan War Strategy: Why Kandahar Locals Turn To Taliban
The key to success in the Afghanistan war, Sen. John McCain said yesterday, is Kandahar. But despite efforts under way to improve governance, locals say they prefer the Taliban’s quick justice to corrupt local courts.
Dan Murphy, Chistian Science Monitor, July 6, 2010 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0706/Dent-in-Afghanistan-war-strategy-Why-Kandahar-locals-turn-to-Taliban
Kandahar, Afghanistan – As he took command of the Afghanistan war this weekend, Gen. David Petraeus wrote to NATO troops of building "a brighter future for a new country in an ancient land."
But around Kandahar, the Taliban’s heartland and what Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona called Monday the "key to success or failure" in the war, growing numbers of citizens are turning away from the new Afghanistan’s corruption-plagued justice system to an ancient means of resolving disputes that is overseen by the Taliban.
Some go because they’re Taliban partisans, most others because the Taliban have something to offer that the government of Afghanistan so far does not: Fast, generally impartial justice from a court that doesn’t demand bribes for its services.
The phenomenon is part tradition – local mullahs have been adjudicating disputes between farmers and small businessmen for centuries.
But it’s also evidence of a government that has so far failed to deliver the governance that is crucial to success of America’s strategy in Afghanistan, according to its advocates. They are well aware that it was the predatory behavior and corruption of local warlords in the early 1990s that drove many Afghans, seeking honesty and an end to anarchy, into the arms of the Taliban.
Kandahar – and Afghanistan more generally – is far from the state of collapse that prevailed then. But the fact that citizens are turning voluntarily to the Taliban’s parallel government in a city and province that is now the focus of a massive US and Afghan military buildup is a reminder of the limits of arms alone in defeating the insurgency.
"I don’t like our current government at all, and I don’t really like the Taliban, either. But I can either spend months in the government court and pay bribes, or I can go to the Taliban and have the matter settled in one day," says Rahmatullah, who helps manage a construction site on the plains outside Kandahar where Al Qaeda once maintained training camps. "It’s an easy choice to make."
He says he returned home in 2004, after almost 20 years in Pakistan, with optimism about the government of President Hamid Karzai. But he says he’s lost faith. "In the government areas, there are warlords everywhere and all the police have their hands out."
[…] Rahmatullah, who asked that his full name not be used, contrasts his recent experience with the government court in Kandahar city with that of a property dispute that he took to the Taliban three months ago. Disputes over land in deeply rural Afghanistan are as common as summer sunshine after more than 30 years of war that have destroyed documents and encouraged land grabs from owners that fled the fighting.
The disputed land near the village of Marwais had led to fistfights among family members. The disagreement was threatening to turn even more violent, and the Taliban reached out to Rahmatullah and his cousin, the main parties, promising an impartial hearing.
He and his cousin agreed, and were invited to an ad hoc Taliban court in a ruined farmhouse, where a panel of five mullahs guarded by two gunmen reviewed their documents, consulted the stacks of books on Islamic jurisprudence at their elbows, and after about an hour found in Rahmatullah’s favor. "My cousin wasn’t happy about it at first," he says. "But the Taliban mullahs convinced him that to take my land was a sin, and that he’d go to hell for it. They eventually satisfied him."
There is an element of coercion for some participants in the Taliban court process. The Islamist group has sent threatening letters to men who have refused to participate. Locals say that most people comply since the group still carries out assassinations inside the city, particularly in its crowded bazaar.
Still, Rahmatullah says, in most cases it’s a matter of being practical. As evidence, he brings up an inheritance dispute over another piece of land with his brother that’s currently before the Kandahar district court.
He says he has paid about $1,400 in bribes so far to a clerk in the court that he suspects is also extracting cash from his brother, playing the two sides off one another.
"It’s been months and we still don’t have a result. It’s disgusting," he says. "I’ve told all my friends and relatives to use the Taliban courts."
[…]
6) Indian Army Deployed to Calm Unrest in Kashmir
Lydia Polgreen, New York Times, July 7, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/world/asia/08kashmir.html
New Delhi – The Indian Army deployed on the streets of the disputed province of Kashmir on Wednesday, seeking to quell weeks of angry street protests that have convulsed through the valley. The protests, aimed at forcing India to withdraw its paramilitary forces from the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley, have raged for weeks, killing at least 13 people and paralyzing life in the region, which is claimed by both India and Pakistan.
[…] Demonstrations in the streets of towns and cities across Kashmir are a regular feature of the summer months in the valley, but they have become particularly heated in recent weeks in the wake of allegations that police and soldiers brutalized civilians. Police and paramilitary forces have fired on groups of stone-throwing youths, and television news channels carried broadcasts of Indian forces firing directly into crowds of protesters.
The state government has struggled to maintain order. Kashmir’s chief minister, Omar Abdullah, has called for calm but has been criticized for what many analysts see as taking too passive a course. Separatist leaders led huge marches in the streets of Srinagar on Tuesday, and three people were killed when paramilitary forces opened fire.
[…]
7) Lawmakers Oppose Canadian Pipeline
Elisabeth Rosenthal, New York Times, July 6, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/science/earth/07sands.html
Facing a decision on a proposed pipeline to bring Canadian crude oil to the United States, the Obama administration is confronting growing resistance from politicians who oppose the project or, at the very least, urge further study before approval.
The massive pipeline, known as Keystone XL, would allow Canada to export an additional 1.1 million barrels a day of oil to the United States. The United States currently imports 1.9 million barrels a day from Canada. Canadian oil sands are expected to become America’s primary source of imported oil this year.
While Canadian oil represents a plentiful source of fossil fuel from a friendly neighbor, it poses environmental dilemmas: much of Canada’s oil is extracted from oil sands in a process that releases higher levels of heat-trapping gases than conventional oil drilling in the United States. In addition, extracting oil from oil sands – also called tar sand – damages the local environment by creating toxic sludge ponds and destroying large areas of boreal forest.
Last month, 50 members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressing concerns about the pipeline. Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, reiterated those concerns in a letter released by his office on Tuesday.
"This pipeline is a multibillion-dollar investment to expand our reliance on the dirtiest source of transportation fuel currently available," he wrote in the letter, dated last Friday. "While I strongly support the president’s efforts to move America to a clean energy economy, I am concerned that the Keystone XL pipeline would be a step in the wrong direction."
[…]
Afghanistan
8) NATO Airstrike Accidentally Kills 5 Afghan Troops
Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Abdul Waheed Wafa, New York Times, July 7, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/world/asia/08afghan.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – In a devastating case of friendly fire, NATO pilots who did not realize that Afghan soldiers had laid a trap for Taliban militants on the ground beneath them mistakenly attacked the soldiers as they lay in wait, killing at least five of them, Afghan officials said.
The attack in the Andor District of Ghazni Province, about 100 miles southwest of Kabul, suggested a lack of communication between NATO troops giving orders to the aircraft and Afghan forces on the ground who were trying to capture or kill militants who hold sway in part of the district known as Rahim Khiel.
The Afghan soldiers "had made an ambush for the enemy" when they were attacked early Wednesday morning, said Gen. Zahir Azimi, the spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Defense.
General Azimi said the "air force" had "bombarded" the Afghan soldiers; a NATO official later said a helicopter had fired a single rocket into the formation of Afghan troops. "We condemn this incident," General Azimi said. "Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened, but we hope this would be the last one."
[…]
Iran
9) Iran sends EU letter on conditions for nuke talks, The Washington Post, July 6, 2010
Nasser Karimi, Associated Press, Tuesday, July 6, 2010; 8:51 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070600967.html
Tehran, Iran – Iran said in a letter to the European Union that it’s ready for talks on the country’s nuclear program but that the EU must first guarantee there would be no threats against Tehran, state TV reported on Tuesday.
The TV said the letter was sent by Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, to EU’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, detailing Tehran’s conditions for the talks.
It followed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s announcement a week ago in which he said Tehran would not hold such talks until late August, to "punish" the West for the latest U.N. sanctions imposed on Iran. The EU and the U.S. have also imposed their own, additional and tougher sanctions against Iran to curtail its nuclear program.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad accused world powers of approving the latest sanctions to give them the upper hand in talks over the issue.
He also set three conditions for an eventual resumption of talks, saying countries who want to participate should make clear whether they oppose Israel’s purported atomic arsenal, whether they support the Nonproliferation Treaty and whether they want to be friends or enemies with Iran. However, he said, participation in the talks was not contingent on the answers.
Jalili’s letter reiterated those three points and stressed that the EU must make it clear whether the talks will be aimed at "interaction and cooperation, or hostility and confrontation." It was a reply to Ashton’s invitation to Jalili for talks in early June.
[…]
Iraq
10) AP Interview: Odierno eyes UN forces for Iraq
Lara Jakes, Associated Press, Tuesday, July 6, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601459.html
Baghdad – The top American military commander in Iraq said Tuesday that U.N. peacekeeping forces may need to replace departing U.S. troops in the nation’s oil-rich north if a simmering feud between Arabs and minority Kurds continues through 2011.
A U.N. force might offer both the Iraqi leadership and President Barack Obama a politically palatable alternative to an ongoing U.S. presence to prevent ethnic tensions from descending into war. Although occasional bombings by Sunni extremists on Shiite targets grab the headlines, many observers believe the Kurdish-Arab dispute is the most powerful fault line in Iraq today.
Gen. Ray Odierno brought up the possibility of a U.N. force during an interview with The Associated Press. He observed that there is no immediate end in sight to the yearslong dispute between Arabs and Kurds, who have managed an uneasy political dance under American supervision since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
"That’s something that has to be worked out," Odierno said, discussing potential options to defuse hostilities if a pilot program to bring Kurdish troops into the Arab-dominated Iraqi army fails. "If we have not integrated, we might have to think of some other mechanism," he said. "I don’t know what that is yet. Is it a Chapter 6 U.N. force? I don’t know."
Chapter 6 of the United Nations charter refers to peacekeeping duties like investigating and mediating disputes.
[…]
Venezuela/Haiti
11) Venezuela major donor of assistance to Haiti
Jim Wyss, Miami Herald, Mon, Jul. 05, 2010
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/05/v-fullstory/1716791/venezuela-major-donor-of-assistance.html
Venezuela’s first flag was stitched together on the shores of Haiti in 1806 before being carried across the Caribbean by revolutionary hero Francisco de Miranda. Ten years later, Latin America’s founding father, Simón Bolívar, would set sail from Haiti loaded with guns and Haitian soldiers on his way to liberate much of South America from the Spanish.
It’s a historical debt that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez says his country will never be able to repay. But in the wake of Haiti’s devastating earthquake, the South American nation seems bent on doing just that.
Venezuela has pledged more than any other single nation for Haitian hurricane relief – at a time when it is facing problems of its own, including an energy-sapping drought, debilitating inflation and food shortages.
The morning after the Jan. 12 earthquake – as the ground still buckled with aftershocks – Venezuela was the first nation to respond, landing a military plane loaded with food and Haitian medical students. Two weeks later, Venezuela became the first country to forgive Haiti’s foreign debt, erasing $395 million it owed under a subsidized fuel program.
Then, at the international donors conference in March, Venezuela raised eyebrows and questions about creative accounting when it pledged $2.4 billion to Haiti’s relief efforts. That was more than the United States ($1.2 billion), the European Union ($1.7 billion) and the World Bank ($399 million).
Asked about the wisdom of spending abroad while belts tighten at home, Venezuela’s ambassador to Haiti, Pedro Antonio Canino, said charity doesn’t obey the laws of economics.
"You could say that about any country in the world," he said. "Even the doctors from the United States that are here, you could tell them: ‘Why are you in Haiti if we need you back home?’ We recognize that we are not alone in the world, that there are countries with massive needs that require our help."
[…] In Haiti, Venezuela has built electricity plants, open-air markets, homes and healthcare clinics. Often working in conjunction with Cuba, Chávez is also pumping millions into agricultural programs and is loaning the government money to refurbish the airport in Haiti’s second city, Cap Haitien.
"It’s a relationship that works," Haitian Finance Minister Ronald Baudin said. "During this crisis, they have given us an enormous amount of help and we are grateful for that – just as we are with the help from others in the international community."
[…]
–
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.