Just Foreign Policy News, December 6, 2011
Washington Post Fixes Headline That Claimed Iran Has a Nuclear Weapons Program
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
I) Actions and Featured Articles
* Update: Washington Post Fixes Headline That Claimed Iran Has a Nuclear Weapons Program
Nearly a thousand people responded to our alert asking people to contact the Washington Post Ombudsman to complain about a Washington Post headline that claimed as fact that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. You can see the original screen capture on our alert:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/wapofactcheck
The Washington Post Ombudsman investigated our complaint, and the headline has been fixed. It now says, "Iran’s quest to possess nuclear technology." Thanks to everyone who took action! You can see the new headline here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/irans-quest-to-possess-nuclear-weapons/2011/11/07/gIQAEZaZvM_gallery.html
Dominic Tierney: Prepare for War: The Insane Plan to Outlaw Diplomacy with Iran
Writing in the Atlantic, Dominic Tierney takes aim at a provision of the the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 that would restrict the ability of U.S. diplomats to meet with their Iranian counterparts.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/prepare-for-war-the-insane-plan-to-outlaw-diplomacy-with-iran/249478/
Video – Jeff Merkley: It’s Time to End the War in Afghanistan
Senator Merkley’s Senate speech introducing his amendment calling on the President to expedite U.S. military withdrawal in Afghanistan, which the Senate passed by voice vote.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/01/1041574/-Pushing-to-End-the-War-in-Afghanistan
Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an effective counterweight.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
II) Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) A team of neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute says they believe there’s a real chance Western efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will fail, in which case the US would have to lead an international effort to contain Iran and deter it from using its nuclear weapons capability, Josh Rogin reports for Foreign Policy.
Their report works under the assumption that Iran is working to build a nuclear weapon now and could complete one before the 2012 U.S. presidential election, after which it would continue to build nuclear weapons at a rapid pace, Rogin says. The report also assumes that the Obama administration is unwilling to go to war with Iran before November 2012 over the issue, and that even a limited strike by Israel would not achieve a full destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. A goal of the report is to highlight the high costs of a deterrence and containment strategy compared to the costs of taking "stronger actions" now to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, the neoconservatives say. Sen. Mark Kirk says the deterrence and containment strategy are too costly and too uncertain.
2) Most voters remain convinced that the US should never have invaded Iraq in March 2003 and believe all U.S. troops should be brought home by the end of this month as planned, says Rasmussen Reports. 29% of Likely U.S. Voters believe that the US should have become involved in Iraq. 55% say America never should have gotten involved.
3) A growing number of skeptics say the deployment of the National Guard to the border with Mexico is an expensive and inefficient mission that has made little difference in homeland security, the Washington Post reports. Critics of the deployment include budget hawks, who say it is a waste of money, and residents along the border, who say they are tired of seeing armed troops in their back yard.
In an August report on the costs and benefits of an increased role for the Defense Department along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Government Accountability Office told Congress that it takes three people to do the job of one: two Guard soldiers to spot an illegal crosser and one federal agent to catch him. "We pointed out that it is not a very efficient use of manpower," said Davi D’Agostino, a director at the GAO.
4) President Obama issued a memorandum directing U.S. agencies to look for ways to combat efforts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality, the New York Times reports. The new initiative holds the potential to irritate relations with some close U.S. allies that ban homosexuality, including Saudi Arabia, the Times notes. The State Department’s human rights report said that in Saudi Arabia, "sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is punishable by death or flogging."
Israel/Palestine
5) The failure of the supercommittee to reach a deficit-reduction deal could cost Israel $250 million a year, the Jewish Daily Forward reports. The Forward suggests that AIPAC has kept quiet about the cuts in aid to Israel out of fear that if Congress exempted aid to Israel from the sequester, there would be a public backlash.
Afghanistan
6) In a letter to the Washington Post, a former U.S. diplomat who served in Afghanistan argues that it is the U.S. policy of forced centralization of authority in Kabul, rather than cross-border operations from Pakistan, that fuels the Afghan insurgency. [Like many who make this point, Clark Rumrill actually understates the case by saying that Afghanistan isn’t like the U.S., since the system imposed by the US-backed Afghan constitution is actually *more* centralized than the U.S. system in that it allows the President to appoint governors, an arrangement that people in Alabama and Utah would likely take strong exception to – JFP.]
7) Two key parties are absent from the Bonn conference on Afghanistan: the Afghan Taliban and Pakistan, writes D. Parvaz in Al Jazeera. Parvaz notes that Lakhdar Brahimi, former UN special envoy to Afghanistan, has called the exclusion of the Taliban from the 2001 Bonn conference on Afghanistan [which led to the drafting of the current Afghan constitution – JFP] the "original sin" of Western policy in Afghanistan after 2001.
Iran
8) The EU is becoming skeptical about slapping sanctions on imports of Iranian oil out of fear that the sanctions could take down Italy, Spain and Greece, Reuters reports. "Maybe the aim of sanctions is to help Italy, Spain and Greece to collapse and make the EU a smaller club," one trader joked.
"The likely increase in oil prices that would result from a ban would be felt by all (European) oil refiners, not just those that are big customers for Iranian oil," ratings agency Fitch said last week. An oil industry source in Greece, which mostly relies on Iranian oil, said: "Greece can’t be put with its back to the wall."
Kashmir
9) Violence in Kashmir has died down, leaving many Kashmiris wondering why quite so many Indian troops are still there under laws that grant them vast powers, the New York Times reports. Kashmir’s Chief Minister Omar Abdullah says the mainly Muslim people of his state deserve to see a "peace dividend," in the form of a partial, limited withdrawal of the rules that allow soldiers the right to shoot to kill, with virtual immunity from prosecution. But India’s leaders have rebuffed the Kashmiri minister’s request.
That has left Abdullah wondering whether the Indian government has the political will to achieve a lasting peace in Kashmir, where tens of thousands of people have died since 1989, and ultimately with Pakistan, the Times says.
Current law gives the army widespread power to search houses, arrest people without warrants and detain people without time limits, the Times says. As a result of the impunity it grants, the armed forces routinely torture suspects, Human Rights Watch says, calling the law a "a tool of state abuse, oppression and discrimination."
Haiti
10) Nobel peace laureate Oscar Arias has advised Haitian President Michel Martelly that it would be an "error" to restore the disbanded army, AP reports. The Haitian army was disbanded in 1995 because of its history of abuse. Arias pointed to Costa Rica and Panama as countries that disbanded their armies and enjoy peace and prosperity.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) What happens the day after Iran gets the bomb?
Josh Rogin, Foreign Policy, Monday, December 5, 2011 – 5:51 PM
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/05/what_happens_the_day_after_iran_gets_the_bomb
A team of conservative policymakers and thinkers believes that there’s a real chance that Western efforts to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon will fail, in which case the United States would have to lead an international effort to contain Iran and deter the Islamic Republic from using its nuclear weapons capability.
Experts at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative Washington think tank, have spent the last six months thinking about how the United States should respond to a nuclear-armed Iran. They are getting ready to release an extensive report tomorrow detailing a comprehensive strategy for dealing with that scenario, entitled, "Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran."
"The report is very much an acknowledgement of the very real possibility of failure of the strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and any responsible party should recognize that failure is an option. There’s been a huge disservice done by all who have spent their lives in denial of that possibility," AEI Vice President Danielle Pletka told The Cable in a Monday interview. "Whenever you devise a strategy for what happens before a country gets a nuclear weapon, you should have a strategy for what happens after they get one as well."
Pletka will unveil the report on Tuesday morning at an event with Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), and fellow AEI experts Tom Donnelly, Maseh Zarif, and Fred Kagan. The project brought together Iran experts of all stripes to brainstorm what would be needed to create the maximum level of confidence that, if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon, it would not decide to use it.
"While there can never be certain deterrence, Cold War presidents often had confidence that the United States had sufficient military power to support a policy of containment through a strategy of deterrence; for most of the period they felt that deterrence was assured," the report states. "It is worth repeating Dean Acheson’s basic formulation: ‘American power would be employed in stopping [Soviet aggression and expansion], and if necessary, would inflict on the Soviet Union injury which the Moscow regime would not wish to suffer.’ Assured deterrence began with assured destruction of the Soviet regime."
Pletka said that while the geopolitical environment is now different, the basic goal of U.S. policy is the same — to create a situation whereby Iranian leaders would credibly believe that any nuclear attack would mean the end of their regime. But Pletka doubts whether this administration has the stomach for such a stance.
"Take out Soviet and Moscow from Acheson’s quote, and sub in Iran and Tehran. Are we willing to inflict on Iran injury which the Tehran regime would not wish to suffer? I doubt it," Pletka warned. "There’s no question that a country can be deterred from using a nuclear weapon, the only question is if there is the will to put those tools in place."
The report works under the assumption that Iran is working to build a nuclear weapon now and could complete one before the 2012 U.S. presidential election, after which it would continue to build nuclear weapons at a rapid pace. The report also assumes that the Obama administration is unwilling to go to war with Iran before November 2012 over the issue, and that even a limited strike by Israel would not achieve a full destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
"Strategically, Iran’s leaders would be foolish to wait until after November 2012 to acquire the capability to permanently deter an American attack on their nuclear program," the report states. "Sound American strategy thus requires assuming that Iran will have a weaponized nuclear capability when the next president takes office in January 2013. The Iranians may not test a device before then, depending, perhaps, on the rhetoric of the current president and his possible successor, but we must assume that they will have at least one."
[…] For Donnelly, part of the report’s value is that it highlights the high costs of a deterrence and containment strategy compared to the costs of taking stronger actions now to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
"Deterrence and containment are the default mode for the people who are not up for going to war, but we wanted to point out that this was not a cheap or easy alternative, which is the way a lot of people make it sound," Donnelly told The Cable in an interview.
At Tuesday’s event, Kirk will make the argument that the deterrence and containment strategy are too costly and too uncertain to depend on. His speech will be entitled, "If Iran gets the bomb…"
"Today, the Islamic Republic of Iran is on the march to nuclear weapons. And if this brutal, terrorist-sponsoring regime achieves its goal — if Iran gets the bomb — we, the United States of America and freedom-loving nations around the world, will have failed in what could be our generation’s greatest test," Kirk will say, according to excerpts of his speech provided to The Cable.
"Iran remains the leading sponsor of international terrorism — a proliferator of missiles and nuclear materials — a regional aggressor — and an abuser of human rights. We cannot afford to risk the security of future generations on a policy of containment."
2) 55% Say U.S. Should Never Have Been Involved in Iraq
Rasmussen Reports, Tuesday, December 06, 2011
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/55_say_u_s_should_never_have_been_involved_in_iraq
[…] Most voters remain convinced that the United States should never have invaded Iraq in March 2003 and believe all U.S. troops should be brought home by the end of this month as planned.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% of Likely U.S. Voters believe, looking back, that the United States should have become involved in Iraq. Fifty-five percent (55%) say America never should have gotten involved, an even more negative assessment than we found in February.
3) National Guard deployment on U.S.-Mexico border has unclear results
William Booth, Washington Post, December 5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/national-guard-deployment-on-us-mexico-border-has-mixed-results/2011/11/21/gIQAly6qXO_story.html
Hidalgo, Tex. – President Obama’s decision last year to send 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border may have been smart politics, but a growing number of skeptics say the deployment is an expensive and inefficient mission that has made little difference in homeland security.
Critics of the deployment include budget hawks, who say it is a waste of money, and residents here along the border, who say they are tired of seeing armed troops in their back yard.
State Department officials worry that the domestic use of U.S. troops increases the perception that the border is militarized, while Chamber of Commerce boosters say the National Guard presence sends the message that the American side of the border is a dangerous place, though it is not. Crime statistics show that the border is one of the safer regions in the country.
Most of the criticism of the deployment focuses on its costs and benefits. The 1,200 National Guard troops have helped Border Patrol agents apprehend 25,514 illegal immigrants at a cost of $160 million – or $6,271 for each person caught.
"As a mayor, I am not going to say we don’t want more security. But as a taxpayer? I would say something different," said John David Franz, mayor of Hidalgo, in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley.
[…] Under pressure from governors in the southwestern border states, Obama ordered the deployment, dubbed Operation Phalanx, in July 2010 amid a federal showdown in Arizona over a controversial new law targeting illegal immigrants. Members of Congress – Democrats and Republicans alike – also pushed the president to deploy the Guard, saying they feared that spillover violence from Mexican drug cartels would overwhelm the 2,000-mile frontier.
While citizens might imagine the National Guard patrolling the muddy cane breaks along the Rio Grande in search of drug cartel incursions, many of the troops instead serve as stationary observers, a kind of neighborhood watch with M-16s, often perched 30 feet in the air in skyboxes, portable watchtowers the size of phone booths.
Other troops work the telephones and computers in back offices, as clerks in camouflage.
According to rules of engagement set by the Pentagon, Guard troops are not allowed to pursue, confront or detain suspects, including illegal immigrants, or investigate crimes, make arrests, stop and search vehicles, or seize drugs. Nor do they check Mexico-bound vehicles for bulk cash or smuggled weapons headed to the drug cartels.
"We are the eyes and ears, mainly. We do not have a law enforcement role," said Maj. Gen. Hugo E. Salazar, head of the Arizona National Guard, who said that his 560 soldiers in Arizona mostly act as an "entry identification team," watching the border fence.
When the Guard troops spot suspicious activity, they radio Border Patrol agents, who make the apprehensions and drug seizures. "We don’t chase anybody," Salazar said.
[…] "With all due respect, the job of the National Guard is not being a Border Patrol agent or customs inspector," said Monica Weisberg-Stewart, the owner of Gilberto’s Discount House in downtown McAllen, Tex., and chair of the Texas Border Coalition’s security committee. "We don’t want to see them in McAllen," she said. "No offense."
[…] In an August report on the costs and benefits of an increased role for the Defense Department along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Government Accountability Office told Congress that it takes three people to do the job of one: two Guard soldiers to spot an illegal crosser and one federal agent to catch him.
"We pointed out that it is not a very efficient use of manpower," said Davi D’Agostino, a director at the GAO.
Though there has been a spectacular surge in gruesome killings in Mexico, where more than 43,000 have died in drug violence since late 2006, there is little evidence of spillover into the United States.
The National Guard is working the border at a time when arrests of illegal crossers have fallen to historic lows and the number of Border Patrol agents has soared.
There are now 18,152 Border Patrol agents stationed along the southwestern border, up from 9,100 in 2001. Apprehensions of illegal crossers have fallen by two-thirds, from a high of 1.6 million in 2000 to 447,731 last year. This year’s tally is expected to be lower still, reaching levels not seen since the early 1970s.
Border Patrol officials concede that their agents struggle with boredom and to stay awake.
"At a time when apprehensions have plummeted, it is increasingly hard to justify the Guard deployment," said Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and now a director at the Migration Policy Institute. "With such an enormous investment in our Border Patrol, it is a valid question to ask: Is this just politics?"
[…] "I would thank them warmly for their valuable service, send them home and invest the millions saved in better inspections at the ports, beefing up international efforts to target cartel leaders and getting the Treasury Department . . . into action" to go after cartel money launderers, said Terry Goddard, a former Arizona attorney general.
[…]
4) U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights Abroad
Helene Cooper and Brian Knowlton, New York Times, December 6, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/united-states-to-use-aid-to-promote-gay-rights-abroad.html
Washington – The United States will begin using American foreign aid to promote gay rights abroad, Obama administration officials said on Tuesday.
President Obama issued a memorandum directing American agencies to look for ways to combat efforts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality.
The new initiative holds the potential to irritate relations with some close American allies that ban homosexuality, including Saudi Arabia.
[…] The directive comes after the Parliament in Uganda decided to reopen a debate on a controversial bill that seeks to outlaw homosexuality, a move that could be expanded to include the death penalty for gay men and lesbians. That bill had been shelved earlier this year amid widespread international condemnation.
"I am deeply concerned by the violence and discrimination targeting L.G.B.T. persons around the world," Mr. Obama said in the memorandum, referring to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, "whether it is passing laws that criminalize L.G.B.T. status, beating citizens simply for joining peaceful L.G.B.T. pride celebrations, or killing men, women and children for their perceived sexual orientation."
Specifically, Mr. Obama said in the memorandum that the State Department would lead other federal agencies to help ensure that the government provides a "swift and meaningful response to serious incidents that threaten the human rights" of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people abroad.
It was not immediately clear whether that would mean a cut-off of American aid to countries that target the gay community, but it suggests that American agencies will have expanded tools to press foreign countries that are found to abuse the rights of gays, lesbians and others.
Based on findings in the State Department’s latest annual human rights report, several countries, including several vital American allies, could face increased pressure over their treatment of gays and others.
The report said that in Saudi Arabia, under Sharia law as interpreted in the country, "sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is punishable by death or flogging. It is illegal for men ‘to behave like women’ or to wear women’s clothes and vice versa."
The law in Afghanistan "criminalizes homosexual activity, but authorities only sporadically enforced the prohibition," the report said. And in Pakistan, homosexual intercourse is a criminal offense, though rarely prosecuted.
Homosexuality is accepted in most of Europe. In India, the law permits consensual sexual activities between adults. In China, according to the report, "no laws criminalize private homosexual activity between consenting adults," and "homosexuality was decriminalized in 1997 and removed from the official list of mental disorders in 2001."
The annual State Department rights reports already provide one tool for influencing foreign treatment of gays and lesbians, through the "shaming" function of those reports. Mr. Obama’s memorandum called for similar, separate annual reports on treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
[…] The presidential memorandum said that federal agencies engaged abroad had been directed to "combat the criminalization of L.G.B.T. status or conduct abroad; protect vulnerable L.G.B.T. refugees and asylum seekers; leverage foreign assistance to protect human rights and advance nondiscrimination; ensure swift and meaningful U.S. response to human rights abuses of L.G.B.T. persons abroad; engage international organizations in the fight against L.G.B.T. discrimination."
[…]
Israel/Palestine
5) Israel Faces $250 Million Slash in Aid
AIPAC Keeps Quiet as Supercommittee Collapse Triggers Cuts
Nathan Guttman, Jewish Daily Forward, December 02, 2011
http://www.forward.com/articles/147213/
Washington – The failure of the supercommittee appointed by Congress to reach a deficit-reduction deal on the federal budget could cost Israel a cool $250 million a year.
For the first time in decades, Israel could be facing a reduction in United States aid, due to automatic across-the-board budget cuts scheduled to take effect in January 2013 as a result of the supercommittee’s failure.
Despite this dire forecast, Israel’s strongest defender in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has yet to publicly speak out against the cuts. Sources say that the Israel advocacy lobby may fear a backlash if Israel is singled out for special treatment in the face of broad cuts favored by both Democrats and Republicans.
The November 21 announcement by members of the congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that they had failed to reach agreement on a plan to cut the national debt by $1.5 trillion over the next decade set in motion an automatic process called sequestration.
It requires Congress to make cuts, divided equally between defense and nondefense spending, in order to reach the required debt reduction.
In practice, this means an estimated 8% to 9% cut in all government budget items, except some social safety net programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Cuts are scheduled to kick in during January 2013 and will be in place for nine years. Government agencies will not have discretion over where to impose the cuts, and all programs will be subject to an equal budget reduction.
Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by Israel and the United States, Israel is scheduled to receive $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing in fiscal 2013. The financing is used primarily for the purchase of American-made defense systems. The MOU is subject to congressional appropriation, meaning that it would be overruled by the across-the-board cuts.
Although the aid is used for military needs, it comes under the State Department budget and is therefore seen as a nondefense-spending program under the sequestration rules. According to current estimates, Israel faces a cut of roughly $250 million a year beginning in 2013 and continuing at the same level until 2021.
[…] The lobbying of AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups has ensured that aid to Israel is safe even in times of austerity and that Israel receives preferred terms, such as early disbursement of the annual aid and the right to spend nearly a quarter of the money on local defense products.
[…] The lobby, however, has yet to issue any memo or talking points regarding the looming sequestration and its potential impact on American aid to Israel. In part, this reflects the problem facing supporters of Israel as they experience the challenge of across-the-board cuts.
Singling out Israel as being immune to any cuts at a time when all other government programs will face painful cuts may be useless at best, or even counterproductive.
[…]
Afghanistan
6) The wrong answer to the Afghan problem
Clark Rumrill, Letter to the Washington Post, December 5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-wrong-answer-to-the-afghan-problem/2011/12/02/gIQAoEcuXO_story.html
[Rumrill was second secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul from 1966 to 1969.]
In his Dec. 1 op-ed, "How the U.S. can win in Afghanistan ," former ambassador Ronald E. Neumann made a ruinous mistake in assessing the situation in that country – he thought like an American.
In particular, he assumed a centralized solution to the conflict. He wrote, "The United States relied on building Afghan forces to handle the remaining violence." But political power in Afghanistan is geographically dispersed, and the central government has always been weak. Providing Kabul with an effective army and security forces, steps that seem perfectly sensible to Americans, are a revolutionary threat to local power. In the name of improving security, we blindly threaten the centuries-old balance between Kabul and the provinces.
We live with national institutions such as the Supreme Court, Social Security, federal taxes and a common language that, as a practical matter, do not exist in Afghanistan. It is the feared, and revolutionary, imposition of central authority, rather than cross-border operations from Pakistan, that fuels the Afghan insurgency.
Our culture misleads us.
7) Bonn talks on Afghanistan: Doomed to fail?
Without Pakistan and the Taliban at the table, most observers believe conference on Afghanistan will have little impact.
D. Parvaz, Al Jazeera, 06 Dec 2011
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/20111259246173661.html
Ten years ago, an international conference on Afghanistan in Bonn, Germany, set out to plan the future of the recently invaded country. Goals were set for the transfer of power in Afghanistan, as well as for security and for the development of institutions to uphold human rights.
A decade on, as yet another conference to plan the the future of the country convenes in the same German city, Afghanistan’s future remains uncertain.
The country’s economy is far from stable, and its domestic security is rocked by regular explosions and assassination attempts targeting members of President Hamid Karzai’s inner circle.
Moreover, despite the big names and plenitude of national delegations, two parties are notably absent from ‘Bonn II’.
Neither the Taliban, who in recent months have been making their way back into Afghan politics via fragile peace talks, or Pakistan, a major influence on Afghanistan’s affairs, which is still fuming over a NATO air strike which left 24 of its soldiers dead earlier this month, have chosen to attend.
It remains to be seen if, and how, the latest conference on Afghanistan will improve the country’s situation, but the absence of both parties, both crucial to security and stability in Afghanistan, does not bode well.
While the Taliban fell just days after the 2001 Bonn conference, its critics point to the freezing out of the group from the talks as a major blunder, something Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN special envoy to Afghanistan, referred to as the "original sin".
[…]
Iran
8) EU thinks twice about Iran oil ban
Nidhi Verma and Dmitry Zhdannikov, Reuters, Tue Dec 6, 2011, 7:16am EST
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-iran-oil-idUSTRE7B50OP20111206
New Delhi/London – The European Union is becoming skeptical about slapping sanctions on imports of Iranian oil, diplomats and traders say, as awareness grows that the embargo could damage its own economy without doing much to undercut to Iran’s oil revenues.
Oil accounts for 50 percent of Iranian budget revenues, and those arguing for sanctions say they can deprive Tehran of billions of dollars and derail what the West sees as Iran’s attempts to build a nuclear bomb.
But diplomats and oil industry insiders say Europe may calculate that even a small rise in oil prices as a result of an introduction of an EU-de embargo would more than compensate Tehran for any losses from being obliged to re-route displaced to Asia at discounted prices.
"Maybe the aim of sanctions is to help Italy, Spain and Greece to collapse and make the EU a smaller club," one trader joked.
The remark reflects the growing unease that EU sanctions would hit hardest some of the continent’s weakest economies, because Iranian oil provides the highest share of their needs, not to mention the rest of the bloc.
"The likely increase in oil prices that would result from a ban would be felt by all (European) oil refiners, not just those that are big customers for Iranian oil," ratings agency Fitch said last week.
An oil industry source in Greece, which mostly relies on Iranian oil, said: "Greece can’t be put with its back to the wall."
The threat to Iran’s oil exports and fears about a possible military strike on its nuclear facilities have helped keep oil prices above $100 a barrel despite sluggish global growth and a gradual return of Libyan oil supplies.
[…] Supporters of sanctions say an EU ban would not amount to a supply disruption. Iranianoil displaced from Europe would flow to China, displacing existing sources of Chinese oil towards Europe. They say Beijing, as Iran’s buyer of last resort, would then have the leverage to drive a hard bargain on prices.
However, calculations by U.S. research firms and traders show the discount could be as small as a couple of percentage points.
Sanctions critics say the regime of Iraqi former dictator Saddam Hussein was able to withstand sanctions for years.
"What’s going to happen now is talks with the Saudis, Chinese, Koreans and Indians. Although the political will to impose the sanctions are there, they would only be effective if all the above players helped out — not followed the sanctions but co-ordinated their response," said a Western diplomat.
Saudi Arabia, the only oil nation with spare capacity, faces a tough choice. Shipping more oil to Europe to replace lost Iranian barrels could mean ceding promising Asian markets to Iran, its political foe.
[…] "To make sanctions effective, the Europeans would have to go to the Chinese to ask them not to take more oil," said a senior oil executive, who added that he did not expect sanctions to take place at least until the second quarter of 2012, when seasonal demand eases.
EU politicians have said a decision is unlikely before January at the earliest.
However, industry sources say China has repeatedly shown it is ready to absorb any incremental cheap supplies, especially given that Iran has offered no concession to China or any other buyers in negotiations underway for prices for 2012.
"Plants will be very happy to take more," said one source at China’s Sinopec, Asia’s largest refiner. "It’s definitely good news to Chinese plants if that’s the case."
Kashmir
9) Violence wanes in Kashmir, but India maintains tight military grip
Simon Denyer, Washington Post, Tuesday, December 6, 6:05 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/violence-wanes-in-kashmir-but-india-maintains-tight-military-grip/2011/11/29/gIQAlqS0YO_story.html
Srinagar, India – For more than a decade it was seen as one of the world’s most dangerous nuclear flashpoints, its Himalayan valleys flooded with hundreds of thousands of Indian troops battling a separatist, Islamist insurgency backed by neighboring Pakistan.
But with relations slowly improving between South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals India and Pakistan, the insurgency is slowly fading away. That has left many Kashmiris wondering why quite so many Indian troops are still here – under laws that grant them vast powers.
With violence on the wane, Kashmir’s Chief Minister Omar Abdullah says the mainly Muslim people of his state deserve to see a "peace dividend," in the form of a partial, limited withdrawal of the rules that allow soldiers the right to shoot to kill, with virtual immunity from prosecution.
The request would cover only two districts where the Indian army does not even conduct operations. Casualty rates due to the militancy are half of what they were last year, and under 5 percent of what they were a decade ago, officials say.
But India’s leaders have rebuffed the Kashmiri minister’s request, with the army and defense ministry insisting on maintaining broad powers.
It has left the 41-year-old Abdullah wondering whether the Indian government has the political will to achieve a lasting peace in Kashmir, where tens of thousands of people have died since 1989, and ultimately with Pakistan. The dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir lies at the heart of their long enmity and has fueled two of their three wars.
"At some point in time we have to have the courage to take what appear to be risky decisions, with the belief that this is an important component of a peace process," Abdullah said.
If New Delhi cannot even agree to this, "how are you going to resolve the overall Kashmir issue, that is going to require much tougher decisions?" he asked.
The controversial law gives the army widespread power to search houses, arrest people without warrants and detain people without time limits. As a result of the impunity it grants, the armed forces routinely torture suspects, Human Rights Watch says, calling the law a "a tool of state abuse, oppression and discrimination."
Indian soldiers have also been accused of killing innocent civilians in Kashmir while claiming they were militants, sometimes just to claim the monetary rewards that come with successful operations.
Although the army says every allegation is properly investigated, human rights groups say the law, known as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, is routinely used to block prosecutions.
Many Kashmiris have concluded that it is the Indian army, not their democratically elected leaders, who really run Kashmir. "All the time India says it wants to solve Kashmir politically, but in fact it wants to maintain the situation militarily," said religious and separatist leader Mirwaiz Umar Farooq.
The long rivalry over Kashmir has become a cancer that spreads instability throughout the region. Pakistan uses allegations of human rights abuses by Indian troops in Kashmir to help justify its claim to the territory.
In 2004, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh set up a commission to review the law and promised to abide by its conclusions. Yet when it concluded the law be repealed, the recommendations were ignored.
[…] Three of the past four summers have included repeated, violent protests reminiscent of the Palestinian intifada, with demonstrators throwing stones and police responding with live fire.
Yet political experts here say Kashmiris might still respond positively if New Delhi would only trust them – especially at a time when the idea of joining Pakistan holds less attraction than it used to, such are the problems just across the border.
"If Kashmiris were left on their own they would prefer to be part of India, but in a situation of dignity and with a certain degree of autonomy and freedom," said Noor Ahmed Baba, the head of the political science department at Kashmir University. "If you respect people, then possibly they will be with you emotionally, but if you suppress people they will never be with you."
[…]
Haiti
10) Nobel Laureate: Haiti pres’s army plan an "error"
Trenton Daniel, Associated Press, December 6, 2011
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZM1eU1XXJXPSzQFOjP6LMzsvdsw
Port-au-Prince, Haiti – Nobel laureate Oscar Arias has advised Haitian President Michel Martelly that it would be an "error" to restore the disbanded army, according to a letter delivered to presidential offices on Monday.
In the two-page letter dated Nov. 28, the two-time president of Costa Rica tells Martelly that armed forces in the region have records of thwarting progress and quashing democratic values, and that the $25 million Martelly has proposed for the new military should be invested in education, health and strengthening other institutions.
"I seek not to show disrespect for the sovereignty of a sister nation, but simply to share advice I see written on the wall of human history," Arias wrote in the letter shared with The Associated Press. "In Latin America, most armies are enemies of development, enemies of peace and enemies of freedom."
The Haitian army was disbanded in 1995 because of its history of abuse, a move that was applauded by Arias’ own foundation.
[…] In his letter, Arias turns to history to show why he believes Haiti doesn’t need an army. He notes how Costa Rica was once bordered by two countries with dictatorships but its absence of an army, he wrote, allowed the nation to be viewed as an ally.
And since 1995, when Costa Rica’s neighbor, Panama, disbanded its army, the two nations have shared "the most peaceful border in the world," wrote Arias, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his peacemaking efforts in Central America.
"It is not by chance that these two countries also have the most successful economies in Central America, because the money we once spent on our armies is (now) invested in the education of our children and the health of our citizens," Arias wrote.
[…]
–
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. The archive of the Just Foreign Policy News is here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews