Just Foreign Policy News
April 12, 2010
Support the work of Just Foreign Policy:
Please donate what you can to support our work.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html
Call Congress Against the War in Afghanistan
Urge your Representative to: oppose the war supplemental, support a military withdrawal timetable, and support peace negotiations. The Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121. When you’ve completed your call, you can report the result by following this link:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/543
If you can’t get to a phone today or tomorrow, you can write here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/civilians
U.S. Military Still Lying About Special Forces Night Raid in Afghanistan
Regardless of whether U.S. Special Forces removed bullets from the bodies of the Afghan women they just killed, as charged by the victims’ relatives – and if they did, what their motivation was for doing so – spreading the story that the women’s bodies had been found "tied up" and "gagged," as NATO did in a Feb. 12 press release still posted on its web site, if that was not true, would meet any disinterested observer’s definition of the word "coverup."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/us-military-still-lying-a_b_532364.html
Highlights of the Afghanistan Debate
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/video/housedebate
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Afghan President Karzai has threatened to delay or even cancel NATO’s planned summer offensive in Kandahar after being confronted in Kandahar by elders who said it would bring strife, not security, to his home province, the Times of London reports. As he was heckled at a shura of 1,500 tribal leaders and elders, he appeared to offer them a veto over military action. "Are you happy or unhappy for the operation to be carried out?" he asked. The elders shouted back: "We are not happy." "Then until the time you say you are happy, the operation will not happen," Karzai replied.
2) U.S. troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing as many as five civilians and wounding 18, the New York Times reports. Hundreds of demonstrators blocked the road with burning tires for an hour and shouted, "Death to America" and "Death to infidels." The Kandahar governor called for the commander of the military convoy who opened fire to be prosecuted under military law. A survivor who identified himself as the bus driver said he did not violate any signal from the troops. "I was going to take the bus off the road," the man said. "We don’t feel safe while traveling on the main highways anymore because of NATO convoys."
3) A new IDF military order coming into force this week would enable the deportation of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank, Amira Hass reports in Haaretz. The first Palestinians likely to be targeted under the new rules will be those whose ID cards bear home addresses in Gaza, those who lost residency status, and foreign-born spouses, Hass writes. Israeli civil courts have occasionally prevented the expulsion of these groups from the West Bank. But the new order puts them under the sole jurisdiction of Israeli military courts. The Hamoked Center for the Defense of the Individual urged the military to delay the order.
4) Iran called Saturday for Iraqi leaders to include Sunnis in the new Iraqi government, the New York Times reports. Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, suggested that any successful coalition would have to include Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiya political alliance, which drew its support largely from Iraqi Sunnis. Qomi said Iraqiya had asked to visit Iran for political consultations, and his government had responded that its "doors are open." A spokesman for Iraqiya, Fattah al-Shehaikh, confirmed that the political alliance would send a delegation to Iran within two days. "Iran’s stand regarding the Iraqiya list has changed lately after Iraqiya sent messages to Iran to assure the Iranians that Iraq’s territory will not be used by the Americans to attack Iran," Shehaikh said.
5) Days before the assassination in Washington of former Chilean Defence Minister Orlando Letelier, Secretary of State Kissinger rescinded State Department instructions to U.S. ambassadors in Latin America to warn the region’s military regimes against carrying out "a series of international murders", according to documents released by the National Security Archive, Jim Lobe reports for Inter Press Service. Peter Kornbluh, the NSA’s senior analyst on Chile, believes that if the warning had been delivered, it could deterred the terrorist bombing in Washington that killed Letelier and his colleague Ronni Karpen Moffitt of the Institute for Policy Studies, as well as hundreds of disappearances and killings of dissidents carried out by the intelligence services of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil.
Iran
6) A large majority of Iranian lawmakers, angered over the Obama administration’s new nuclear weapons policy that conspicuously makes Iran a possible target, urged their government to formally complain to the UN in a petition that called the US a warmonger and threat to world peace, the New York Times reports. Under the new US policy Obama renounced the development of new atomic weapons and ruled out the use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear-armed states. But countries would be spared a US nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the NPT. Iran would therefore not be protected. [As the NPT preamble notes, threatening other countries with force – let alone nuclear weapons – is a violation of the UN Charter. Iran disputes the US claim that Iran is not in compliance with the NPT – JFP.]
Afghanistan
7) On May 2-4, the Afghan government will invite 1,200 to 1,400 people to Kabul, including elders from every provincial district, along with parliament members, women, and members of civil society, for a "peace jirga" to discuss a framework for peace, writes Trudy Rubin in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Major Taliban leaders aren’t invited, but the conference will consider how to reconcile with them in the future. [Some press reports have said that Mullah Baradar, the top military official of the Quetta Shura Taliban, had agreed to attend the peace jirga prior to his arrest in Pakistan – JFP.] The peace jirga isn’t meant to negotiate with top Taliban officials, but to set the stage for future talks, Rubin writes. U.S. officials have long insisted it was unwise to pursue reconciliation with senior Taliban leaders so long as the insurgents think they are winning. But events are moving swiftly, propelled by the (incorrect) belief that the US will depart in 2011, so swiftly that Afghan – and U.S. military – officials believe it’s no longer possible to separate "reintegration" of low-level fighters from "reconciliation" with senior Taliban leaders. The assembly will also discuss "what people expect from the government, the international community, and NATO forces" Karzai’s national security adviser said. Presumably, it could discuss when those troops should leave, Rubin notes.
Kyrgyzstan
8) Russia has positioned itself as a supporter of democratic reform in Kyrgyzstan, while the US is increasingly viewed in Kyrgyzstan as a cynical bully, backing a corrupt, abusive leader, the Washington Post reports. Opponents of President Bakiyev have long accused the US of refraining from criticizing his record of political repression out of fear of losing access to the Manas air base. The new Kyrgyz administration has thanked Russia for ratcheting up economic pressure on Bakiyev in the months before this week’s protests and for publicly describing his government as ridden with corruption and nepotism.
Bolivia/Ecuador
9) The State Department has decided to deny both Bolivia and Ecuador funding assistance to deal with climate change, apparently as punishment for opposing the Copenhagen agreement, the Washington Post reports. David Waskow, climate change program director for Oxfam, challenged the decision. "No one can question that poor people in Bolivia and Ecuador are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts. We should be making these decisions based on the merits of which communities need our support," Waskow said. "If you want to build confidence and trust among developing countries, this would not be the way to do it."
Egypt
10) After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, President Bush pushed Egypt hard to become less authoritarian, saying that moderation was a key to eradicating terrorism, the Washington Post reports. But later, Bush eased up on that campaign, and there has been little sign President Obama has restored it. "There is no pressure of any kind on the Mubarak regime," said the general coordinator of the 6th of April democracy movement. "This has made the security services more brutal." Obama wants to see free elections "in which the Egyptian people can have confidence," said Tamara Cofman Wittes, deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. "The promotion of democracy and human rights is a priority."
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, Threatens To Block Nato Offensive
Stephen Grey, Times of London, April 11, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7094217.ece
Kandahar – The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has cast doubt over Nato’s planned summer offensive against the Taliban in the southern province of Kandahar, as more than 10,000 American troops pour in for the fight. Karzai threatened to delay or even cancel the operation – one of the biggest of the nine-year war – after being confronted in Kandahar by elders who said it would bring strife, not security, to his home province.
Visiting last week to rally support for the offensive, the president was instead overwhelmed by a barrage of complaints about corruption and misrule. As he was heckled at a shura of 1,500 tribal leaders and elders, he appeared to offer them a veto over military action. "Are you happy or unhappy for the operation to be carried out?" he asked. The elders shouted back: "We are not happy."
"Then until the time you say you are happy, the operation will not happen," Karzai replied.
General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander, who was sitting behind him, looked distinctly apprehensive. The remarks have compounded US anger and bewilderment with Karzai, who has already accused the United States of rigging last year’s presidential elections and even threatened to switch sides to join the Taliban.
[…] Senior commanders and diplomats emphasise, however, that success would depend on action by Karzai to eliminate corruption and set up a form of local government.
Nato’s plans envisage political manoeuvres, from a purge of provincial leadership to the creation of precinct councils, to tackle the roots of the Taliban rebellion. The aim is to wrest power from so-called warlords – including the president’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai.
With the Afghan president increasingly regarded as "gone rogue", hopes of such action were fading. One US official said after the shura that Karzai had proved neither a reliable ally nor popular with his own people: "He can rail against the West all he likes – no one wants him to look like a foreign puppet. The trouble is, his erratic speeches are matched by erratic actions. That’s why this tension is undermining the offensive."
[…] On the streets of the city this weekend there appeared to be little or no support for a Nato push in the province. "Look what happened in Marjah," said one local government official in Kandahar, referring to the last US offensive launched in February in central Helmand province. "The US controls the place by day but the Taliban control it by night. What is the point? If you help the government, you will be murdered."
At a popular coffee shop in the city centre, Khaled, a medical student from Kabul, said the influence of the Taliban was creeping back into the area. "A Nato offensive here will not help," he added.
[…]
2) Civilians Killed as U.S. Troops Fire on Afghan Bus
Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Taimoor Shah, New York Times, April 12, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/asia/13afghan.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – American troops raked a large passenger bus with gunfire near Kandahar on Monday morning, killing as many as five civilians and wounding 18, and sparking anger in a city where winning over Afghan support is considered pivotal to the war effort.
The American-led military command in Kabul called the killings a "tragic loss of life" and said troops fired not knowing the vehicle was a bus and believing that it posed a threat to a military convoy clearing roadside bombs from a highway.
The deaths triggered a vitriolic anti-American demonstration, infuriated officials and appeared likely to harm public opinion on the eve of the most important offensive of the war, in which tens of thousands of American and NATO troops will try to take control of the Kandahar region, the spiritual home of the Taliban, this summer.
Hundreds of demonstrators poured into the area around a station where the damaged bus was taken on the western outskirts of Kandahar. They blocked the road with burning tires for an hour and shouted, "Death to America" and "Death to infidels" while also condemning the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, according to people in the area.
The Kandahar governor, Tooryalai Wesa, called for the commander of the military convoy who opened fire to be prosecuted under military law. "If you want to stop the bus, it should be shot in the tires," Mr. Wesa said. "Why shoot the people inside?"
Mr. Karzai, whose relationship with the United States has been particularly fraught in recent weeks, called the shooting "unjustifiable" and said that "firing on a passenger bus is against the NATO commitment to save civilian lives."
While the military confirmed the shooting, there were disputes over details, including the number of dead, the relative positions of the convoys, and whether the troops who fired on the bus had first shot flares and warned the driver to stay back.
The killings were the latest deadly case of what the military calls "escalation of force," in which troops guarding military convoys or checkpoints gun down Afghans perceived as a threat because they have come too close or are traveling too fast. Deadly force is supposed to be used on encroaching vehicles only after warning shots, flares or other tactics.
Despite a drop in overall civilian deaths from American and NATO forces, checkpoint and convoy shootings have not declined, worrying commanders who believe such killings turn Afghans against the occupation. More than 30 people have been killed and 80 wounded in these cases since last summer, but not one of the dead was found to have been a threat, military officials say.
The shooting in Kandahar occurred just after daybreak, as the bus was taking scores of passengers to Nimruz Province, said Zalmy Ayoubi, a spokesman for Governor Wesa. Two people who had been on the bus said that an American convoy 60 to 70 yards ahead opened fire as the bus began to pull to the side of the road to allow another military convoy to pass from behind.
"An American convoy was ahead of us and another convoy was following us, and we were going to pull off of the road, and suddenly the Americans opened fire," said one, Nida Muhammad, a passenger who suffered a shoulder wound. "We were not close to them, maybe 60 yards away from their convoy," Mr. Muhammad said. A helicopter came for some wounded, he said. "This bus wasn’t like an a suicide bomber, and we did not touch or come close to the convoy," he said. "It seems they are opening fire on civilians intentionally."
The two convoys and the bus were on the main highway in Sanzari, about 15 miles west of Kandahar city. The windows on one side of the bus were shot out.
Governor Wesa and his spokesman both said five civilians had been killed , and 18 wounded. Mr. Wesa blamed American forces and said a dozen of the wounded were in serious condition. If the casualty toll is correct, it would imply that troops may have fired scores of rounds.
[…] A military spokeswoman confirmed that a y convoy traveling westward, in front of the bus, had opened fire, but said the second convoy was traveling east toward passenger bus. She also said the driver of the passenger bus was killed.
However, a survivor identified himself as the driver and said he did not violate any signal from the troops. "I was going to take the bus off the road," said the man, Mohammed Nabi. Then the convoy ahead opened fire from a distance of 60 to 70 yards. "It is a huge bus full of passengers, and if they think we were a suicide bomber, we are sad that the Americans have killed innocent people," he said. "We don’t feel safe while traveling on the main highways anymore because of NATO convoys."
[…]
3) IDF order will enable mass deportation from West Bank
Amira Hass, Haaretz, 11/04/2010
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162075.html
A new military order aimed at preventing infiltration will come into force this week, enabling the deportation of tens of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank, or their indictment on charges carrying prison terms of up to seven years. When the order comes into effect, tens of thousands of Palestinians will automatically become criminal offenders liable to be severely punished.
Given the security authorities’ actions over the past decade, the first Palestinians likely to be targeted under the new rules will be those whose ID cards bear home addresses in the Gaza Strip – people born in Gaza and their West Bank-born children – or those born in the West Bank or abroad who for various reasons lost their residency status. Also likely to be targeted are foreign-born spouses of Palestinians.
Until now, Israeli civil courts have occasionally prevented the expulsion of these three groups from the West Bank. The new order, however, puts them under the sole jurisdiction of Israeli military courts.
The new order defines anyone who enters the West Bank illegally as an infiltrator, as well as "a person who is present in the area and does not lawfully hold a permit." The order takes the original 1969 definition of infiltrator to the extreme, as the term originally applied only to those illegally staying in Israel after having passed through countries then classified as enemy states – Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
The order’s language is both general and ambiguous, stipulating that the term infiltrator will also be applied to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, citizens of countries with which Israel has friendly ties (such as the United States) and Israeli citizens, whether Arab or Jewish. All this depends on the judgment of Israel Defense Forces commanders in the field.
The Hamoked Center for the Defense of the Individual was the first Israeli human rights to issue warnings against the order, signed six months ago by then-commander of IDF forces in Judea and Samaria Area Gadi Shamni.
Two weeks ago, Hamoked director Dalia Kerstein sent GOC Central Command Avi Mizrahi a request to delay the order, given "the dramatic change it causes in relation to the human rights of a tremendous number of people."
According to the provisions, "a person is presumed to be an infiltrator if he is present in the area without a document or permit which attest to his lawful presence in the area without reasonable justification." Such documentation, it says, must be "issued by the commander of IDF forces in the Judea and Samaria area or someone acting on his behalf."
The instructions, however, are unclear over whether the permits referred to are those currently in force, or also refer to new permits that military commanders might issue in the future. The provision are also unclear about the status of bearers of West Bank residency cards, and disregards the existence of the Palestinian Authority and the agreements Israel signed with it and the PLO.
[…] The fear that Palestinians with Gaza addresses will be the first to be targeted by this order is based on measures that Israel has taken in recent years to curtail their right to live, work, study or even visit the West Bank. These measures violated the Oslo Accords.
According to a decision by the West Bank commander that was not backed by military legislation, since 2007, Palestinians with Gaza addresses must request a permit to stay in the West Bank. Since 2000, they have been defined as illegal sojourners if they have Gaza addresses, as if they were citizens of a foreign state. Many of them have been deported to Gaza, including those born in the West Bank.
[…]
4) Iran Wants Sunnis In Iraqi Politics
Rod Nordland, New York Times, April 10, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html
Baghdad – Iran, which has acted as a major power broker in Iraqi politics, called Saturday for Iraqi leaders to include Sunnis in the long-overdue new government and said Shiites would have to form an alliance with them for that to happen. The statement was a major shift in Tehran’s stance toward Iraq. Iran, Iraq’s huge Shiite neighbor, has always advocated and actively encouraged a Shiite-dominated governing alliance.
It was not immediately clear what prompted Iran’s shift – or why it occurred now. With negotiations deadlocked a month after Iraq’s parliamentary election, it seemed a pragmatic recognition of the success of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, whose coalition includes some Sunni parties and won a plurality of parliamentary seats. It also suggested some distancing from the current prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, whose relations with Iran have not always been smooth.
The shift in Iran’s stance is likely to be a blow to Mr. Maliki’s aspirations to lead a Shiite alliance in forming a government, but a press adviser to the prime minister, Ali al-Moussawi, played down its significance. "The prime minister’s stand is also that everybody must be included in the government," Mr. Moussawi said.
In announcing the new policy, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, suggested at a news conference here that any successful coalition would have to include Mr. Allawi’s Iraqiya political alliance, which won a narrow plurality of the parliamentary seats in the March 7 elections, thanks to votes from Sunnis and secular Iraqis.
Both Mr. Allawi and Mr. Maliki have ruled out any coalition with each other, although Mr. Maliki has made efforts to woo away some of the Sunni parties in Mr. Allawi’s Iraqiya alliance – so far without success.
Mr. Qomi said Iraqiya had asked to visit Iran for political consultations, and his government had responded that its "doors are open." Mr. Allawi had previously been critical of his major opponents for going to Iran immediately after the elections, seeking Tehran’s help in negotiating a new government.
A spokesman for Iraqiya, Fattah al-Shehaikh, confirmed that the political alliance would send a delegation to Iran within two days, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Rafie al-Issawi. "Iran’s stand regarding the Iraqiya list has changed lately after Iraqiya sent messages to Iran to assure the Iranians that Iraq’s territory will not be used by the Americans to attack Iran," Mr. Shehaikh said.
Ambassador Qomi said: "We are supporting and encouraging the participation of all the parties, but this is an internal Iraqi thing. It is only consulting, no more."
Mr. Qomi said any coalition had to be "comprehensive" and had to include Sunnis. He added that Iraqiya had clearly become the voice representing the Sunnis, and while he did not explicitly say so, he was apparently suggesting that Iraqiya should be brought into an alliance with one of the Shiite groups.
[…] During a visit to the Iranian Embassy last week, the Sunni vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, buttonholed the Iranian ambassador. "Help us in the Iraqiya list to be a part of forming a government," Mr. Hashemi was overheard saying to Mr. Qomi at the end of the meeting, after most reporters left. The Iranian ambassador nodded but did not respond.
[…] "The Islamic Republic of Iran has played an active role in encouraging the conduct of the election and encouraging Iraqis to participate actively in the election," Mr. Qomi said. Now, it was only natural that it was encouraging efforts to form a government, the Iranian ambassador said. He said Iran had good relations with all factions in Iraq, "including especially good relations and cooperation with the brothers from the Sunni community."
"This is a real change in Iran’s stand regarding Iraq," said Ghassan al-Attiya, an Iraqi political analyst based in London. "The Iranians want to have a role in Iraq similar to the role of Syria dominating Lebanon. Because they don’t want any political instability in the next few months that would make the Americans reconsider their withdrawal, they want to avoid Sunni discontent."
[…]
5) Kissinger Rescinded Warning Against Condor Assassinations
Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service, 10 Apr
http://ipsnorthamerica.net/news.php?idnews=2986
Washington – Five days before the assassination in downtown Washington of former Chilean Defence Minister Orlando Letelier, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger rescinded instructions to U.S. ambassadors in Latin America’s Southern Cone to warn the region’s military regimes against carrying out "a series of international murders", according to documents released by the National Security Archive (NSA) here.
Kissinger "has instructed that no further action be taken on this matter", reads a declassified Sep. 16, 1976 cable sent by Kissinger’s office from Zambia, where he was travelling at the time, to his assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, Harry Shlaudeman.
The "matter" in question concerned instructions sent under Kissinger’s name to U.S. ambassadors to Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay Aug. 23, 1976, to make a formal demarche to the leaders of their host governments regarding Washington’s "deep concern" about reports it had received of "plans for the assassination of subversives, politicians and prominent figures both within the national borders of certain Southern Cone countries and abroad".
The Aug. 23 cable ordered the ambassadors to warn to the highest possible officials that such plans – part of a secret, Chilean-led intelligence collaboration among the Southern Cone’s military regimes known as Operation Condor – would "create a most serious moral and political problem".
When Washington’s ambassador in Montevideo, Ernest Siracusa, balked at the directive, Shlaudeman explained to Kissinger in a memo one week later that the instructions were designed "to head off …a series of international murders that could do serious damage to the international status and reputation of the countries involved".
Kissinger’s Sep. 16 cable, which, along with the others, are posted at the NSA’s website, fills in some key gaps in the chain of events leading up to the car bomb assassination of Letelier and a colleague, Ronni Karpen Moffitt, while they were driving to work at the Institute for Policy Studies less than two kilometres from the White House Sep. 21, 1976.
[…] In particular, it settles a controversy – played out most dramatically in the 2004 resignation of the senior Latin America specialist at the most influential U.S. foreign-policy journal, Foreign Affairs – over a Sep. 20, 1976 directive by Shlaudeman to his deputy, William Luers, to "instruct the (U.S.) ambassadors (in the region) to take no further action" on the Aug. 16 instructions. The cable noted that "there have been no reports in some weeks indicating an intention to activate the Condor scheme".
Both the Sep. 20 and Aug. 16 cables were previously released by the NSA, a non-profit group founded in 1985 and supported by private foundations.
"The Sep. 16 cable is the missing piece of the historical puzzle of Kissinger’s role in the action, and inaction, of the U.S. government after learning of Condor assassination plots," said Peter Kornbluh, the NSA’s senior analyst on Chile. "We know now what happened: the State Department initiated a timely effort to thwart a ‘Murder Inc.’ in the Southern Cone, and Kissinger, without explanation, aborted it," he said.
[…] "The Kissinger cancellation on warning the Condor nations prevented the delivery of a diplomatic protest that conceivably could have deterred an act of terrorism in Washington, D.C.," noted Kornbluh, author of "The Pinochet File: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability".
Some analysts, including Kornbluh, believe that a strong U.S. warning of the kind pushed by Shlaudeman’s bureau also could have discouraged hundreds of disappearances and killings of dissidents carried out by the intelligence services of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil, among others, as part of Operation Condor.
[…]
Iran
6) Iranian Anger Rises Over Obama’s Revised Nuclear Policy
Nazila Fathi, New York Times, April 11, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/world/middleeast/12iran.html
A large majority of Iranian lawmakers, angered over the Obama administration’s new nuclear weapons policy that conspicuously makes Iran and North Korea possible targets, urged their government on Sunday to formally complain to the United Nations in a petition that called the United States a warmonger and threat to world peace.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini, also spoke out against the Obama administration’s revised nuclear policy. In remarks reported by the Fars News Agency, the ayatollah said the United States is a "sinister government and cannot be trusted."
The Iranian reactions to Mr. Obama’s revised policy, which was issued last Tuesday in Washington in what is known as the presidential Nuclear Posture Review, appeared timed to coincide with the start of an international summit meeting hosted by Mr. Obama starting Monday, during which other world leaders will be talking about curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
[…] Under the new American policy articulated by Mr. Obama, he renounced the development of new atomic weapons and ruled out the use of nuclear arms against non-nuclear-armed states. But, he said, countries would be spared an American nuclear response only if they are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran and North Korea would therefore not be protected and be potential targets.
In Tehran, 220 lawmakers in the 290-seat Assembly responded to the new American nuclear weapons policy by signing a petition Sunday urging the Foreign Ministry to file a complaint with the United Nations against the United States as a "threat against international peace," the Parliament Web site reported.
[…]
Afghanistan
7) Afghanistan’s Peace Jirga Is Confusing, But It’s A Start
Trudy Rubin, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sun, Apr. 11, 2010
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/90552609.html
Kabul, Afghanistan – While the war of words winds down between U.S. officials and President Hamid Karzai, preparations are going on for a "peace jirga" that could help end the real war.
On May 2-4, the Afghan government will invite 1,200 to 1,400 people to Kabul, including elders from every provincial district, along with parliament members, women, and members of civil society, to discuss a framework for peace.
Major Taliban leaders aren’t invited, but the conference will consider how to reconcile with them in the future. What no one can predict is whether Karzai is capable of using the jirga to pressure Taliban leaders to give up their guns.
The jirga – a consultative assembly – is a traditional Afghan means for trying to arrive at a societal consensus. Karzai promised to hold a peace jirga in his inaugural address and Afghans want him to do so.
"People are desperate for peace," says Masoom Stanekzai, Karzai’s national security adviser, who has a key role in the planning. "We’ve had a positive response from people living under the insurgency or under the government."
Indeed, I’ve talked with groups of bearded elders from provinces where the Taliban has a strong presence who are eager for the jirga. So, too, are many residents of this dusty, shabby capital with its rutted streets, open air shops, and smattering of glassy low-rise buildings; they fear a U.S. exit will spark a power struggle like the one that reduced the city to rubble in the mid-’90s.
Yet there is much confusion about the purpose of the peace jirga. It isn’t meant to negotiate with top Taliban officials, but to set the stage for future talks.
Part of the confusion stems from Karzai’s grand talk of reconciliation with Taliban leaders. Contrary to rumor that talks have been ongoing, little has happened so far.
Karzai has declared he wants to meet Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar (who has shown no interest). The Afghan president’s brother Qayum sent messages to Omar’s top military commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, (who was arrested recently in Karachi). But no talks were held.
Indeed, all Afghan efforts to generate talks have so far been very preliminary, with little impact. That includes a recent visit to Kabul by representatives of the most "buyable" Taliban leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
U.S. officials have long insisted it was unwise to pursue reconciliation with the "Big T" so long as the insurgents think they are winning. Senior U.S. military officials have worked with the Karzai government to design a program of reintegration for mid- and low-level Taliban officials, which they hoped would lessen the fighting.
Yet events are moving very swiftly in the region, propelled by the (incorrect) belief that the Americans will depart in 2011, so swiftly that Afghan – and U.S. military – officials believe it’s no longer possible to separate reintegration and reconciliation. "We can’t wait until military operations are over," Stanekzai told me in his cramped office. "We have to move on all fronts."
So the jirga aims to shape a peace process the entire country can support by giving all political and ethnic groups a say in its design. "We don’t want a peace that undermines the rights of some" including women, Stanekzai told me. "The jirga is about rallying broad support behind the whole policy."
The goals are tempered, not grandiose. First, the assembly will be asked to endorse a government plan for reintegration of insurgents, funded in part, by an international trust fund.
And, second, it will lay ground rules for any peace talks. "Some felt the jirga must invite insurgent leaders" to take part now, Stanekzai said, but the organizers felt it was too early. Before any talks with the Taliban, he added, it’s necessary to create a peace movement that opposes violence.
Stanekzai expects the jirga will support the Afghan government’s three basic principles for talks: Participants must break ties with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups; accept the constitutional process for any political change; and recognize that peace must not undercut the rights of major groups in this complex country. "We don’t want to go back to the [1990s] era of the Taliban," Stanekzai says.
The assembly will also discuss "what people expect from the government, the international community, and NATO forces" Stanekzai added. Presumably, it could discuss when those troops should leave.
This all sounds fine in principle but the devil is in the details. No one knows whether delegations will be truly diverse or free to air their grievances against the government. Nor do we know whether the assembly will set up a follow-on body with a clear mandate to develop a peace process.
However, if the assembly can begin a national dialogue about peace that stresses power sharing and nonviolence, it could convince some insurgent groups that there are options to fighting. That could lead to openings for broader reconciliation.
The jirga might be hot air, or it might be momentous, but we won’t know until the Afghans start talking. That’s why U.S. officials should do everything possible to support this process, even if they can’t be certain where it will lead.
Kyrgyzstan
8) In Kyrgyzstan Chaos, Russia Burnishes Its Image
Philip P. Pan, Washington Post, Saturday, April 10, 2010; A10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040905354.html
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan – In a remarkable role reversal, Russia has positioned itself as a supporter of democratic reform and the protests that toppled this nation’s autocratic president, while the United States is increasingly viewed here as a cynical bully, backing a corrupt, abusive leader who refuses to resign.
Those perceptions, expressed by ordinary people as well as members of the opposition coalition now in control of most of Kyrgyzstan, have been fueled by Moscow’s quick embrace of the new government and Washington’s more cautious response – and it could spell trouble for a U.S. air base here critical to the NATO campaign in Afghanistan.
Opponents of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who has gone into hiding in the nation’s south, have long accused the United States of refraining from criticizing his record of political repression out of fear of losing access to the Manas air base. Now they are asking why the Obama administration has yet to endorse their interim government – and whether such hesitation might embolden Bakiyev to attempt to retake power by force.
At the same time, the new Kyrgyz administration has thanked Russia for ratcheting up economic pressure on Bakiyev in the months before this week’s protests and for publicly describing his government as ridden with corruption and nepotism. In remarks that might surprise Russia’s own hard-pressed democratic opposition, several members of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s ruling party have called for Kyrgyzstan’s interim leaders to undertake political reforms.
"They must take extreme measures to liberalize the political system, guarantee media freedom, including to opposition outlets, and enable the normal development of businesses," said Alexei Ostrovsky, chairman of a Russian parliamentary committee, echoing demands that are often directed at the Kremlin.
When mass protests toppled corrupt governments in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan in what became known as the "color revolutions" several years ago, Russia was linked to the ousted leaders while the United States backed the protesters. But Washington’s relationship with Bakiyev and the fatal shooting of a Kyrgyz truck driver during a U.S. security check in 2006 have left the public here deeply skeptical of the United States.
Thousands gathered in Bishkek’s central square Friday to mourn the 76 people killed when Bakiyev’s security forces opened fire on protesters two days ago, and sentiment in the crowd seemed firmly against Washington, with rumors spreading that American weapons had been used in the shootings. Many asked why Washington has not publicly repudiated Bakiyev the way the Kremlin has. "If the U.S. government covers up for Bakiyev or his supporters, we’ll know and assume that the United States had something to do with his crimes," said Erkin Dosumbayev, 42.
In an interview Friday, the leader of the transitional government, Roza Otunbayeva, said bluntly that Washington had made its occupancy of the Manas air base a higher priority than support of the Kyrgyz people. "We’re not just a developing country in any part of the world but a part of the former Soviet Union," she said. "You came to us to help us build democracy, and then just one day, you put your hands over your mouth just to have a base."
"In the most dramatic days of our lives, we never got any support and words of sympathy," she added. "Papers were closed. Journalists have been killed. . . . We had very difficult days."
Otunbayeva, a former diplomat considered a proponent of Western ideals, acknowledged that U.S. officials had raised concerns with Bakiyev behind closed doors. She said, however, that such "silent diplomacy" didn’t work and accused the U.S. ambassador, Tatiana C. Gfoeller, of placing too much emphasis on maintaining ties with Bakiyev’s family. By contrast, she said, the Russian government – and Putin, in particular – issued "very, very strong" criticism of Bakiyev. "This was striking for us," she said.
Putin offered economic aid to Otunbayeva in a phone call Thursday, all but recognizing her government less than a day after it was established. But she said the most senior U.S official to speak to her has been the deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Bishkek.
Some members of her government have complained, contrasting that treatment with the swift, high-level U.S. support that Bakiyev received in 2005 when he ousted his predecessor in the mass protests known as the Tulip Revolution. But others more sympathetic to Washington have said the situation is different because Bakiyev has refused to resign.
[…]
Bolivia/Ecuador
9) Bolivia, Ecuador denied climate funds
Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, April 9, 2010
http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/post-carbon/2010/04/bolivia_ecuador_denied_climate_funds.html
You can decide to boycott the Copenhagen Accord – but that comes at a price. For Bolivia, that’s $3 million; for Ecuador, it’s $2.5 million.
Bolivia emerged as one of the most vociferous critics of the U.S.-brokered climate deal last December, arguing that the political deal aimed at establishing a global trading system for greenhouse gas emissions amounted to an assault by capitalist countries on poor ones. Bolivian president Evo Morales has organized his own climate conference, which will take place later this month.
Ecuador, for its part, submitted a letter on Jan. 31 stating that it "will not join" the agreement, unlike 122 other countries who have either signed on or have pledged to endorse it.
Both nations were in line for funding under the Obama administration’s Global Climate Change initiative. The State Department’s congressional budget justification for fiscal year 2010 included a request for $3 million for Bolivia and $2.5 million, according to administration officials, but Congress pared down the $373 million for U.S. AID climate change assistance programs to $305.7 million.
After reassessing the budget, State has decided to deny both Bolivia and Ecuador climate assistance. Since all these funding decisions are subject to congressional concurrence, the process is not complete, but it clearly reflects administration policy.
"There’s funding that was agreed to as part of the Copenhagen Accord, and as a general matter, the U.S. is going to use its funds to go to countries that have indicated an interest to be part of the Accord," said U.S. special climate envoy Todd Stern in an interview. He added this policy test was "not categorical," so some nations that declined to sign on could still obtain circumstances.
But David Waskow, climate change program director for Oxfam America, challenged Stern’s reasoning. "No one can question that poor people in Bolivia and Ecuador are extremely vulnerable to climate change impacts. We should be making these decisions based on the merits of which communities need our support, not some other factors," Waskow said. "If you want to build confidence and trust among developing countries, this would not be the way to do it, especially in light of the fact that we haven’t yet passed a climate change bill."
Egypt
10) Political stirrings in Egypt, a land of little change
Janine Zacharia, Washington Post, Saturday, April 10, 2010; A11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/09/AR2010040905163.html
Cairo – "Change" is not a word often associated with Egypt. Ruled since 1981 by President Hosni Mubarak, this country of about 80 million turns more like an aircraft carrier than a Mini Cooper. Activists have found that trying to amend restrictive laws is like navigating Cairo’s traffic – painfully slow.
And yet, for the first time in nearly three decades, there is real uncertainty over whether Mubarak, now 81 and ailing, will seek reelection. With a presidential contest scheduled for 2011, it is possible he will promote his son Gamal as a candidate, but many others are loudly clamoring for an end to the ruling party’s monopolistic rule.
Perhaps most surprising is the degree to which young democracy activists, old-time liberals, Communists, workers’ rights activists and the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood have all begun to rally around an unusual icon, Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in their quest to usher in a post-Mubarak Egypt.
[…] It appears unlikely that ElBaradei, the 2005 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, will mount an open challenge to Mubarak, his son Gamal, or whomever the ruling party nominates. He has refused to join an existing party and says that he will seek the presidency only if lawmakers first approve a detailed list of reforms.
How the coming months unfold in Egypt is of enormous importance to the United States, which relies on Egypt as a partner in regional matters such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and as a political leader. After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush pushed Egypt hard to become less authoritarian, saying that moderation was a key to eradicating terrorism.
But later in his presidency, Bush eased up on that campaign, and there has been little sign that President Obama has restored it. Mubarak advisers say they do not feel strong pressure, from outside or within.
[…] Egypt is still ruled by a decades-old emergency law that the leadership says is needed to prevent terrorism, but that is also used to thwart the growth of political challengers. Among other things, the law prohibits gatherings of more than five people without a permit. "Whichever criteria you look at shows that freedom has significantly deteriorated during the past five years," said Essam el-Erian, a top Muslim Brotherhood member who was released from prison this week after a two-month detention for being part of an illegal organization.
"We may differ on details, or references and ideologies, but this doesn’t mean we can’t cooperate," Eryan said of the admiration that his group and others have expressed for ElBaradei. "We agree on comprehensive political and constitutional reform."
ElBaradei said he didn’t plan any of the mania that has surrounded him since he returned to Egypt – he didn’t come home intending to become the opposition’s savior. His recent visitors have included Mohammed Saad al-Katani, the head of the Muslim Brotherhood’s de facto parliamentary faction, as well as representatives of the 6th of April movement, a mostly youth-led pro-democracy group that led a rally in Cairo on Tuesday at which about 90 people were arrested.
"There is no pressure of any kind on the Mubarak regime," said Ahmed Maher, 29, general coordinator of the 6th of April movement. "This has made the security services more brutal."
[…] The Obama administration allocated $1.3 million this year for unregistered Egyptian civil society groups, a slight increase over 2008, the last year of the Bush administration. Obama wants to see free elections "in which the Egyptian people can have confidence," said Tamara Cofman Wittes, deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. "The promotion of democracy and human rights is a priority."
[…]
–
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.