Just Foreign Policy News
April 4, 2011
*Action: Urge Congress to Bar Ground Troops in Libya
Michigan Rep. John Conyers wants to explicitly prohibit U.S. ground forces from being introduced into Libya. Urge your Representative to support him.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/nogroundtroops
Background – Conyers: Congress Should Bar U.S. Ground Troops From Libya
For Congress to reassert its war powers requires an initiative that can attract majority support. The passage of Conyers amendment would reaffirm Congressional war powers, block an escalation to the use of ground troops in the future, and open political space for a negotiated resolution of the conflict.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/libya-ground-troops_b_844550.html
Surprise War for Regime Change in Libya is the Wrong Path
Our contribution to a dialogue at Foreign Policy in Focus.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/surprise_war_for_regime_change_in_libya_is_the_wrong_path
Kate Gould: International Crisis Group warns against ‘Cast Lead II’
The International Crisis Group warned the recent escalation of air strikes on Gaza and rocket attacks into Israel has created "the conditions for a rapid deterioration toward the kind of clash to which neither side aspires, for which both [Israel and Hamas] have carefully prepared, and from which they will not retreat quickly."
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/international-crisis-group-warns-against-cast-lead-ii.html
April 12: Global Day of Action Against Military Spending
http://demilitarize.org/
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
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians or face a UN vote in September welcoming the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, the New York Times reports. The UN move would mean Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow UN member. "We are facing a diplomatic-political tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of and that will peak in September," said Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister. Diplomats involved in the issue say most countries – more than 100 – are expected to vote yes, meaning it will pass.
In the Haaretz newspaper on Thursday, Ari Shavit, a political centrist, drew a comparison between 2011 and the 1973 war. He wrote that "2011 is going to be a diplomatic 1973," because a Palestinian state will be recognized internationally. "Every military base in the West Bank will be contravening the sovereignty of an independent U.N. member state."
2) Two sons of Qaddafi are proposing a resolution to the Libyan conflict that would entail pushing their father aside to make way for a transition to a constitutional democracy under the direction of his son Seif, the New York Times reports. Rebels, US and European powers have so far insisted on a more radical break. "This is the beginning position of the opposition, and this is the beginning position of the Libyan government," a diplomat said. "But the bargaining has yet to commence."
3) Saudi officials say they gave their backing to Western air strikes on Libya in exchange for the US muting its criticism of the authorities in Bahrain, the Telegraph reports.
4) Turkey said it was seeking to broker a ceasefire in Libya, Reuters reports. Having criticized Western air strikes, Turkey subsequently backed NATO taking over the mission, with the express objective of halting attacks on civilians and securing a ceasefire, Reuters says.
5) No one following the record of air power should be surprised that Kadafi’s army remains apparently uncowed, writes Patrick Cockburn in the Los Angeles Times. The 1999 NATO air campaign against Serbia is often cited as a turning point. But damage to the Serbian army deployed in Kosovo was limited, and the cease-fire terms accepted by Serbia after the bombing were almost identical to those accepted by Serbia before the war. Neither did air power in Afghanistan destroy the Taliban.
Libya
6) Internal conflicts and unclear authority among Libya’s rebels could jeopardize requests for foreign military aid and recognition, the New York Times reports.
7) U.S. officials are becoming increasingly resigned to the possibility of a protracted stalemate in Libya, with rebels retaining control of the eastern half of the divided country but lacking the muscle to drive Gaddafi from power, the Washington Post reports. US officials say such a deadlock could dramatically expand financial and military commitments by the US. A stalemate could mean an open-ended mission for NATO.
8) A rebel spokesman said a NATO airstrike killed 13 rebel fighters outside Brega, the New York Times reports. An ambulance driver said bodies were so badly burned and mangled he could not determine the exact number. The deaths underscored the dangers faced by Western allies as they rely on airstrikes, the Times says. The potential for such mistakes could be mounting: Qaddafi loyalists are increasingly using equipment similar to the rebels.
Afghanistan
9) Some U.S. officials say Karzai has played a damaging role in the protests over Koran burning in Afghanistan, the Washington Post reports. They say his initial statement condemning Jones four days after the March 20 Koran burning was provocative and informed many Afghans of an event not widely known and helped mobilize public anger toward the US. Afghan officials say the U.S. response came late and has been insufficient. Some Western officials acknowledge it was naive to think that a Koran burning in Florida could remain unnoticed. "We have missed an opportunity to really condemn the burning of Koran as soon as it happened," a Western diplomat said.
Egypt/Iran
10) Egypt’s foreign minister said Egypt is ready to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran, signaling a shift in Iran policy since the fall of Mubarak, Reuters reports. Iran and Egypt severed ties in 1980.
Bahrain/Iraq
11) The violent suppression of the uprising in Bahrain has become a rallying cry in Iraq, where the US war overturned a Sunni-dominated power structure much like the one in Bahrain, the New York Times reports. Iraqi officials are quick to criticize what they see as a double standard toward the Arab uprisings in the policies of the US. "We thought it was excellent when President Obama said, ‘Mubarak, you have to go,’ " said Jabr al-Zubaidi, the former finance minister who is now a member of Parliament. "We didn’t hear that with Bahrain."
Yemen
12) U.S. and Yemeni officials say the US has now quietly shifted positions and has concluded that Yemen’s president must be eased out of office, the New York Times reports. While US officials have not publicly pressed Saleh to go, they have told allies they now view his hold on office as untenable, and they believe he should leave. It is not clear whether the US is discussing safe passage for Saleh and his family to another country, but that appears to be the direction of the talks, the Times says.
"We are really very, very angry because America until now didn’t help us similar to what Mr. Obama said that Mubarak has to leave now," said Tawakul Karman, a leader of the antigovernment youth movement. "Obama says he appreciated the courage and dignity of Tunisian people. He didn’t say that for Yemeni people."
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) In Israel, Time for Peace Offer May Run Out
Ethan Bronner, New York Times, April 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html
Jerusalem – With revolutionary fervor sweeping the Middle East, Israel is under mounting pressure to make a far-reaching offer to the Palestinians or face a United Nations vote welcoming the State of Palestine as a member whose territory includes all of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
The Palestinian Authority has been steadily building support for such a resolution in September, a move that could place Israel into a diplomatic vise. Israel would be occupying land belonging to a fellow United Nations member, land it has controlled and settled for more than four decades and some of which it expects to keep in any two-state solution.
"We are facing a diplomatic-political tsunami that the majority of the public is unaware of and that will peak in September," said Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister, at a conference in Tel Aviv last month. "It is a very dangerous situation, one that requires action." He added, "Paralysis, rhetoric, inaction will deepen the isolation of Israel."
With aides to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thrashing out proposals to the Palestinians, President Shimon Peres is due at the White House on Tuesday to meet with President Obama and explore ways out of the bind. The United States is still uncertain how to move the process forward, according to diplomats here.
Israel’s offer is expected to include transfer of some West Bank territory outside its settlements to Palestinian control and may suggest a regional component – an international conference to serve as a response to the Arab League peace initiatives.
But Palestinian leaders, emboldened by support for their statehood bid, dismiss the expected offer as insufficient and continue to demand an end to settlement building before talks can begin.
"We want to generate pressure on Israel to make it feel isolated and help it understand that there can be no talks without a stop to settlements," said Nabil Shaath, who leads the foreign affairs department of Fatah, the main party of the Palestinian Authority. "Without that, our goal is membership in the United Nations General Assembly in September."
Israeli, Palestinian and Western officials interviewed on the current impasse, most of them requesting anonymity, expressed an unusual degree of pessimism about a peaceful resolution. All agreed that the turmoil across the Middle East had prompted opposing responses from Israel and much of the world.
Israel, seeing the prospect of even more hostile governments as its neighbors, is insisting on caution and time before taking any significant steps. It also wants to build in extensive long-term security guarantees in any two-state solution, but those inevitably infringe the sovereignty of a Palestinian state.
The international community tends to draw the opposite conclusion. Foreign Secretary William Hague of Britain, for example, said last week that one of the most important lessons to be learned from the Arab Spring was that "legitimate aspirations cannot be ignored and must be addressed." He added, referring to Israeli-Palestinian talks, "It cannot be in anyone’s interests if the new order of the region is determined at a time of minimum hope in the peace process."
The Palestinian focus on September stems not only from the fact that the General Assembly holds its annual meeting then. It is also because Prime Minister Salam Fayyad announced in September 2009 that his government would be ready for independent statehood in two years and that Mr. Obama said last September that he expected the framework for an independent Palestinian state to be declared in a year.
Mr. Obama did not indicate what the borders of that state would be, assuming they would be determined through direct negotiations. But with Israeli-Palestinian talks broken off months ago and the Middle East in the process of profound change, many argue that outside pressure is needed.
Germany, France and Britain say negotiations should be based on the 1967 lines with equivalent land swaps, exactly what the Netanyahu government rejects because it says it predetermines the outcome.
[…] While the Obama administration has referred in the past to the 1967 lines as a basis for talks, it has not decided whether to back the European Union, the United Nations and Russia – the other members of the so-called quartet – in declaring them the starting point, diplomats said. The quartet meets on April 15 in Berlin.
[…] The Palestinians say the settlements are proof that the Israelis do not really want a Palestinian state to arise since they are built on land that should go to that state. "All these years, the main obstacle to peace has been the settlements," Nimer Hammad, a political adviser to President Abbas, said. "They always say, ‘but you never made it a condition of negotiations before.’ And we say, ‘that was a mistake.’ "
[…] Efforts are still under way to restart peace talks but if, as expected, negotiations do not resume, come September the Palestinian Authority seems set to go ahead with plans to ask the General Assembly to accept it as a member. Diplomats involved in the issue say most countries – more than 100 – are expected to vote yes, meaning it will pass.
[…] Mr. Shaath said Israel would then be in daily violation of the rights of a fellow member state and diplomatic and legal consequences could follow, all of which would be painful for Israel.
In the Haaretz newspaper on Thursday, Ari Shavit, who is a political centrist, drew a comparison between 2011 and the biggest military setback Israel ever faced, the 1973 war. He wrote that "2011 is going to be a diplomatic 1973," because a Palestinian state will be recognized internationally. "Every military base in the West Bank will be contravening the sovereignty of an independent U.N. member state." He added, "A diplomatic siege from without and a civil uprising from within will grip Israel in a stranglehold."
2) 2 Qaddafi Sons Are Said To Offer Plan To Push Father Out
David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times, April 3, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/africa/04libya.html
Tripoli, Libya – At least two sons of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi are proposing a resolution to the Libyan conflict that would entail pushing their father aside to make way for a transition to a constitutional democracy under the direction of his son Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, a diplomat and a Libyan official briefed on the plan said Sunday.
The rebels challenging Colonel Qaddafi as well as the American and European powers supporting them with air strikes have so far insisted on a more radical break with his 40 years of rule. And it is not clear whether Colonel Qaddafi, 68, has signed on to the reported proposal backed by his sons, Seif and Saadi el-Qaddafi, although one person close to the sons said the father appeared willing to go along.
[…] A diplomat familiar with the proposal, however, said discussions remained in the initial stages. Despite the evidence of deep internal discontent, Colonel Qaddafi appears to believe that rebellion against him is a foreign conspiracy of Islamist radicals and oil-hungry Western powers attempting to take over Libya, the diplomat said. And the rebels, who have set up their own provisional government, continue to insist on the exit from power of Colonel Qaddafi and his sons.
"This is the beginning position of the opposition, and this is the beginning position of the Libyan government," this diplomat said. "But the bargaining has yet to commence."
[…] Noting that the United Nations resolution authorizing the air strikes also precludes the deployment of ground troops, the diplomat familiar with the proposal backed by the two sons said he wondered how the fighting could end without a negotiated solution. "They will continue until the ammunition is finished, this stupid fighting along the highway," the diplomat said.
Proposals and counterproposals for a cease-fire exchanged between the Qaddafi forces and the rebels appeared deadlocked as well, the diplomat noted. "For Qaddafi a cease-fire means everyone should cease firing but the Qaddafi forces should stay where they are," the diplomat said. "But for the rebels it means that the Qaddafi forces should withdraw."
[…]
3) Bahrain hardliners to put Shia MPs on trial
Bahrain is facing renewed turmoil after regime hardliners began preparations to put on trial Shia legislators accused of backing protests.
Adrian Blomfield, Telegraph, 30 Mar 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/bahrain/8416953/Bahrain-hardliners-to-put-Shia-MPs-on-trial.html
The kingdom’s parliament effectively stripped 11 MPs from the Wefaq party – a quarter of the legislature’s sitting members – of their immunity from prosecution, signalling a further hardening of the ruling family’s position.
Western human rights activists also accused the regime of torturing wounded protesters being held in a hospital in the capital Manama.
Bahrain has declared martial law and called in troops from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states to quell protests that have left at least 24 people dead.
Saudi officials say they gave their backing to Western air strikes on Libya in exchange for the United States muting its criticism of the authorities in Bahrain, a close ally of the desert kingdom.
[…]
4) Turkey to sound out Libyan sides on possible truce
Tulay Karadeniz, Reuters, Mon Apr 4, 2011 2:17pm GMT
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE7330EZ20110404
Ankara – Turkey said it was seeking to broker a ceasefire in Libya as an envoy from Muammar Gaddafi’s government arrived in Ankara on Monday, with representatives of the Libyan opposition also expected in the coming days.
"Today’s meeting with Libya government official is very important," Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a news conference following the arrival of Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Abdelati Obeid "Turkey will continue to do its best to end the sufferings and to contribute to the process of making a road map that includes the political demands of Libyan people," Davutoglu said.
Davutoglu said Turkey was also in contact with the opposition’s National Council, and expected representives to visit Ankara "in the coming days".
A Turkish Foreign Ministry official said both sides had "conveyed that they have some opinions about a possible ceasefire".
"We will talk and see if there is common basis for a ceasefire," the official said.
Obeidi had delivered a message to the Greek government in Athens on Sunday that Gaddafi wanted to end the conflict between his army and the rag-tag rebel forces, which have been backed by Western air power.
[…] Having criticised a Western coalition for unleashing air strikes on Gaddafi’s forces last month, Turkey subsequently backed NATO taking over the mission, with the express objective of halting attacks on civilians and securing a ceasefire.
[…] Aside from having sizable commercial and trading interests, Turkey has strong historical ties with Libya, which had been part of the Ottoman Empire prior to World War One.
Erdogan’s government has responded to the upheaval caused by an eruption of pro-democracy movements round the region by advising Middle East leaders to reform in order to meet the demands of their people.
Many young Arabs look to Erdogan’s AK Party as an example of a Muslim party making democracy work within a secular framework.
5) The Limits Of Air Power
Wars cannot be won with precision bombings alone. NATO’s air war against Serbia is often touted as a success, but even that took longer than predicted and the cease-fire terms were unchanged.
Andrew Cockburn, Los Angeles Times, April 3, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cockburn-libya-20110403,0,4737116.story
No one following the record of air power as an instrument of national whim should be surprised that Moammar Kadafi’s army remains apparently uncowed, even driving Libyan rebels back in headlong retreat despite an onslaught of NATO bombs and missiles. In fact, history is repeating itself in more ways than one.
The very first bombing raid ever occurred almost 100 years ago on Nov. 1, 1911, when an Italian airman hand-dropped four 4.5-pound bombs on forces defending Tripoli against Italian invaders. This momentous event went down well with the press: "Italian Military Aviator Outside Tripoli Proves War Value of Aeroplane," headlined the New York Times. But it had little effect on the fighting, thus commencing a pattern of disappointment that has recurred with monotonous regularity in subsequent conflicts, irrespective of advances in technology. Precision bombing, touted as an instrument of victory in World War II and Vietnam, turned out to be anything but, leaving the wars to be decided by foot soldiers on the ground.
The 1999 NATO air campaign against Serbia is often cited as a turning point in this sorry narrative. Despite the fact that it lasted 11 weeks rather than the three days predicted by NATO commanders, not a single U.S. serviceman was killed. Furthermore, the attacks ended when the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, agreed to withdraw from Kosovo, thus permitting the return of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanian refugees freed from the threat of Serb persecution. Not only had the operation apparently vindicated liberal interventionists in the Clinton administration, but it also indicated that at long last, air power alone could win a war.
Subsequent inquiry gravely tarnished this shining example. The Serbian army deployed in Kosovo had been the principal target of bombs and missiles, yet at the end of the conflict allied military observers were surprised to see Serb formations withdrawing in good order, morale and equipment apparently intact. And despite contemporary official claims that more than 300 tanks had been destroyed, the actual number, according to sources on the command staff and an internal Air Force study, was 14. Most strikingly of all, the cease-fire terms were almost identical to those accepted by Milosevic before the war.
Nevertheless, the rapid eviction of the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001 appeared to refute the doubters finally and unequivocally. A combination of very precisely guided bombs and missiles, deployed in conjunction with unmanned surveillance drones and select teams of Special Forces target designators on the ground, were deemed to have destroyed large numbers of enemy and routed the rest. Dangerously, this rapid triumph convinced then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that his preference for brief campaigns waged with few troops and high-tech precision weaponry had been totally vindicated, with disastrous consequences on planning for the invasion of Iraq.
As it turned out, the Taliban had not been destroyed (the number of wounded left by its retreating forces was tellingly small). For the most part, they stood down when their sponsor, Pakistan’s ISI intelligence agency, ordered a tactical retreat. In more recent years, the Taliban has steadily re-extended its grip over much of Afghanistan despite constant and heavy air assault.
None of these salutary qualifications appear to have had much effect on air power enthusiasts in the current administration, particularly those veterans of the Clinton years who cherish warm, if inaccurate, memories of the Kosovo campaign. So the hard lessons will have to be learned all over again: Jet fighters flying at 15,000 feet – standard altitude in these conditions – have great difficulty spotting targets such as tanks, especially when they make some effort to hide or camouflage themselves. Additionally, in the last week, forces loyal to Kadafi have reportedly taken to moving in pickups identical to those used by the rebels, rendering the task of airborne targeteers even more difficult.
[…]
Libya
6) Rebel Leadership in Libya Shows Strain
Kareem Fahim, New York Times, April 3, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/africa/04rebels.html
Benghazi, Libya – With the rebels’ battlefield fortunes sagging, the three men in charge of the Libyan opposition forces were summoned late last week by the ad-hoc leadership of their movement to a series of meetings here in the rebel capital.
The rebel army’s nominal leader, Abdul Fattah Younes, a former interior minister and friend of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi whom many rebel leaders distrusted, could offer little explanation for the recent military stumbles, two people with knowledge of the meetings said.
Making matters worse, the men could hardly stand one another. They included Khalifa Heftar, a former general who returned recently from exile in the United States and appointed himself as the rebel field commander, the movement’s leaders said, and Omar el-Hariri, a former political prisoner who occupied the largely ceremonial role of defense minister. "They behaved like children," said Fathi Baja, a political science professor who heads the rebel political committee.
Little was accomplished in the meetings, the participants said. When they concluded late last week, Mr. Younes was still the head of the army and Mr. Hariri remained as the defense minister. Only Mr. Heftar, who reportedly refused to work with Mr. Younes, was forced out. On Sunday, though, in a sign that divisions persisted, Mr. Heftar’s son said his father was still an army leader.
As the struggle with Colonel Qaddafi threatened to settle into a stalemate, the rebel government here was showing growing strains that imperil its struggle to complete a revolution and jeopardize requests for foreign military aid and recognition.
[…] There have been several hopeful signs. Experts on oil and the economy have joined the rebel ranks, and a spokesman prone to delusional announcements was quietly replaced. Police officers appeared on the streets of Benghazi this week, in crisp new uniforms. Despite the dismal progress on the battlefield, thousands of Libyan men still enthusiastically volunteer to travel to the front every week.
Still, many decisions remain shrouded in secrecy and are leaked to Libyans piecemeal by a few rebel leaders who seem to enjoy seeing themselves on Al Jazeera, the satellite news channel. And with each day that Colonel Qaddafi remains in power, the self-appointed leaders of the rebel movement face growing questions about their own legitimacy and choices.
After the Benghazi meetings, a screaming match broke out when Mr. Heftar’s supporters berated a rebel leader for choosing Mr. Younes to lead the army. A young lawyer, Fathi Terbil, who helped start the uprising, was reduced to running around trying to separate people. Watching the argument, Wahid Bugaighis, who was recently appointed to oversee oil interests, said the tumult was the inevitable result of Colonel Qaddafi’s long dictatorship. Even so, he was cautiously hopeful. "At least they’re not shooting each other," he said, before security guards escorted a reporter away from the scene.
On Sunday, the military shake-up seemed to be under review again. An adviser to the rebels said they were now consulting field commanders as a way of determining who should lead the army.
[…] Many rebels have never met two of their most prominent leaders: Mahmoud Jibril, an exiled former government official, and Ali al-Essawi, the former Libyan ambassador to India. Mr. Jibril, a well-regarded planning expert, has not returned to Libya since the uprising began, spending some of his time meeting overseas with foreign leaders. The two sit on a rebel executive council, one of several governing structures that the rebels refuse to call a government.
Calling it one, they say, might alienate opposition figures in western Libya and promote fears about a civil war.
[…]
7) Stalemate in Libya increasingly viewed as a likely outcome
Joby Warrick and Liz Sly, Washington Post, Friday, April , 9:07 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/stalemate-in-libya-increasingly-viewed-as-a-likely-outcome/2011/04/01/AFxt1uJC_story.html
U.S. officials are becoming increasingly resigned to the possibility of a protracted stalemate in Libya, with rebels retaining control of the eastern half of the divided country but lacking the muscle to drive Moammar Gaddafi from power.
Such a deadlock – perhaps backed by a formal cease-fire agreement – could help ensure the safety of Libyan civilians caught in the crossfire between the warring sides. But it could also dramatically expand the financial and military commitments by the United States and allied countries that have intervened in the six-week-old conflict, according to U.S. officials familiar with planning for the Libyan operation.
[…] U.S. analysts have concluded that Gaddafi will likely not step aside voluntarily, despite recent defections by top aides. Nor is he likely to be driven anytime soon from his Tripoli base, where he has surrounded himself with highly paid fighters and tribal kinsmen who remain fiercely loyal, the officials said.
One likened the current conflict to an evenly matched football game, with two sides skirmishing over a few yards in midfield. "Neither side seems capable of moving the ball down the field," said the U.S. official. "It is also true that neither side has endless resources."
A stalemate could mean an open-ended mission for the coalition of NATO and Arab countries now enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya, increasing both the financial and political costs for the participants. But analysts are increasingly confident that Gaddafi can be largely contained within a divided Libya, unable to significantly threaten his neighbors and gradually weakening over time.
"He remains a danger . . . but over time he could be squeezed," said a second U.S. official familiar with intelligence assessments. While it is possible that Gaddafi could be assassinated or overthrown, he maintains an elaborate, multilayered personal security system that has protected him for decades. "By all accounts he is very paranoid, and he will fend for his own survival," the official said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates did not mention such an outcome when he was asked in congressional testimony Thursday about likely results.
[…] Anthony Cordesman, a defense and security analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Gaddafi’s internal support would likely "erode from the margins," as tribal leaders and military commanders peel off despite his ability to pay them. But the prospects are nearly as grim for his opponents, a rebel force with "no discipline, no communications and no intelligence, and at best an improvised logistics and supply chain."
"You can’t fix those things quickly or easily," he said.
With their proposal for a cease-fire, Libyan rebels appeared to acknowledge their inability to prevail militarily.
[…]
8) NATO Airstrike Reportedly Kills Rebels in Libya
Kareem Fahim and C. J. Chivers, New York Times, April 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/africa/03libya.html
Benghazi, Libya – A NATO airstrike near the battlefront in eastern Libya killed 13 rebel fighters outside the pivotal port city of Brega, a rebel spokesman and wounded fighters said Saturday.
Badly burned survivors described scenes of carnage, with the fighters killed in a flash, as a cluster of rebel vehicles were lifted off the ground and then landed in fiery wrecks.
The deaths underscored the dangers faced by Western allies as they rely on airstrikes to push back the forces of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and revealed the anxieties of the rebel leadership, which fears what would happen if the airstrikes stopped.
The rebel leaders quickly called the strike an error and blamed the inexperience of their fighters. "It’s a mistake," said Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, the rebel’s main spokesman, speaking at a meeting of the leaders, many of whom watched with grim faces as news of the airstrike was broadcast on Al Jazeera television. "Nothing has changed."
A survivor said he believed that the airstrike had been intended for Qaddafi forces, and that the allies had bombed the wrong target because a rebel fighter had fired a heavy machine gun into the air.
The potential for such deadly mistakes could be mounting: the Qaddafi loyalists are increasingly using equipment similar to the rebels’, including pickup trucks fitted with machine guns or rocket launchers, making it difficult for even the combatants to recognize their enemies.
[…] Another fighter, Ibrahim Fahim al-Oraybey, 19, who had been riding in a pickup with a machine gun mounted on the back, said he saw a shepherd who lost both arms in the blast. Mr. Oraybey was also wounded, with burns on his face, back and shoulders. On Saturday, surgeons amputated his right leg below the knee.
An ambulance driver who arrived at the scene about an hour after the strike said he found only the blackened remains of four trucks and eight or nine bodies so badly burned and mangled by the explosion that he could not determine the exact number. "I saw the fire, and the bodies, eight or nine bodies," said the driver, Ahmed al-Ginashi. "They were totally burned."
[…]
Afghanistan
9) Karzai’s role in protests over Koran burning again reveals divide with U.S.
Joshua Partlow, Washington Post, Monday, April 4, 2:49 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-the-koran-burning-protests-karzai-provacateur-or-pacifier/2011/04/04/AFtfmYdC_story.html
Kabul – On the second day of last week’s deadly riots in Kandahar, around the same time that a gas canister exploded in a police booth set ablaze by protesters outside the governor’s office, Afghan President Hamid Karzai picked up the phone and called the mullah.
He told Maulvi Habibullah, a Kandahar imam and a leader of the protests, that 10 days earlier, he had condemned in the strongest terms the Rev. Terry Jones’s decision to burn a Koran in a small Florida church on March 20, according to Karzai’s aides.
The news surprised Habibullah – "Did you really do that, Mr. President?" he said, according to one aide – and the imam agreed to urge his followers to calm down. "After the call, things got better, and people went home," the aide said. Habibullah could not be reached for comment.
In the presidential palace’s version of events, Karzai has been a concerned leader taking an active part in restoring order, amid four days of mob violence and clashes with the police that have left at least 21 people dead and about 150 wounded in cities across Afghanistan.
But many U.S. and other Western officials in Afghanistan say Karzai has played a more damaging role. They say that his initial statement condemning Jones four days after the March 20 Koran burning was provocative and that it informed many Afghans of an event that was not widely known and helped mobilize public anger toward the United States.
Throughout the crisis, Karzai has repeatedly pushed the issue, calling for Jones’s prosecution, even though the burning of holy books is not a crime in the United States, and for Congress to join in his condemnation.
As soon as Karzai issued his initial public condemnation, said one NATO official in Kabul, "you knew that this could really be bad."
[…] Afghan officials also have expressed frustration. They say that the U.S. response came late and has been insufficient and that this episode could have been prevented. "How can they talk about freedom of expression when it comes to burning the Koran?" one palace official said. "Afghanistan’s on the brink, and it’s about to explode."
Some Western officials acknowledge that it was naive to think that a Koran burning in Florida could remain unnoticed. "We have missed an opportunity to really condemn the burning of Koran as soon as it happened," the Western diplomat said. "We all thought, genuinely, that it would just go unnoticed. Karzai did notice."
[…] When Jones burned the Koran on March 20, the event made little news in the United States or abroad. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari condemned the act two days later, followed by Karzai on March 24. During Friday sermons eight days later, the wider Afghan public took up the issue, and the protests began.
"This is a very religious Islamic country, and the president is the leader of this Muslim country," said Waheed Omer, a Karzai spokesman. "The president saw it as his moral and religious duty on behalf of the Afghan people to condemn this.
"People would have been informed anyway. This was something that would not have kept a low profile in a country like Afghanistan," he said. "The president’s primary concern was not to prevent this information from getting to the people of Afghanistan."
Egypt/Iran
10) Egypt ready to ‘open new page’ in relations with Iran
Egyptian Foreign Minister Elaraby meets Iranian official Amani, says people in both countries ‘deserve mutual relations reflecting their history and civilization’.
Reuters, 22:08 04.04.11
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/egypt-ready-to-open-new-page-in-relations-with-iran-1.354074
Cairo is ready to re-establish diplomatic ties with Tehran after a break of more than 30 years, Egypt’s foreign minister said on Monday, signaling a shift in Iran policy since the fall of President Hosni Mubarak.
"The Egyptian and Iranian people deserve to have mutual relations reflecting their history and civilization," said Foreign Minister Nabil Elaraby after meeting Iranian official Mugtabi Amani.
It was the first publicly announced meeting between officials from both countries since Mubarak was toppled on Feb. 11, handing power to the army.
Shi’ite Muslim Iran and mainly Sunni Egypt severed ties in 1980 following Iran’s Islamic revolution and Egypt’s recognition of Israel. Both have competed for influence in the Middle East.
Egypt has long been an ally of the United States and Israel but since Mubarak was toppled there have been signs of warming ties between Cairo and Tehran. "Egypt is open to all countries and the aim is to achieve common interests," Elaraby said, adding that Cairo welcomed "opening a new page with Iran".Amani carried a message from Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, who welcomed Egypt’s initiative.
[…]
Bahrain/Iraq
11) Shiites in Iraq Support Bahrain’s Protesters
Tim Arango, New York Times, April 1, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/middleeast/02iraq.html
Baghdad – The violent suppression of the uprising in Bahrain has become a Shiite rallying cry in Iraq, where the American war overturned a Sunni-dominated power structure much like the one in place in Bahrain.
Ahmad Chalabi, an erstwhile American partner in the period before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and a Shiite member of Parliament, on Friday denounced what he called a double standard in the Western powers’ response to the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East – particularly in Bahrain, where a Sunni minority dominates a vast and restive underclass made up of his Shiite brethren. "They called for international action in Libya," Mr. Chalabi said in a meeting hall on the grounds of his farm outside Baghdad. "But they kept their mouths shut with what is happening in Bahrain."
The Iraqi Parliament briefly suspended its work to protest Bahrain’s crackdown on largely peaceful protesters, and the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, also a Shiite, recently said in an interview with the BBC that the events in Bahrain could unleash a regional sectarian war like the one that menaced Iraq just a few years ago.
In the Shiite-dominated south, there have been calls to boycott goods from Saudi Arabia, a Sunni monarchy that sent troops to support the Bahraini government. Followers of the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr have taken to the streets to support the demonstrators in Bahrain. And, perhaps most notably, members of the marjaiya, the top Shiite leadership in the holy city of Najaf – usually silent on political matters – have spoken out, including at Mr. Chalabi’s event on Friday, when a Najafi cleric said, "We have tears in our eyes, and our heart aches."
Mr. Chalabi, in an interview, said it was the first time the marjaiya in Najaf had participated in a political event.
In contrast, few Sunnis have been vocal about Bahrain, and Sunni preachers during Friday Prayer have not made it a rallying cry in the way their Shiite counterparts have. In Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, some have criticized the politicians who are making an issue of Bahrain. In response to the crisis, the authorities in Bahrain have suspended flights to and from Iran and Iraq, the countries in the region with the largest Shiite populations.
Several hundred people – members of Parliament, clerics, Bahraini opposition figures – attended the gathering for Mr. Chalabi’s nascent organization, the Popular Committee in Iraq to Support the People of Bahrain.
[…] One Sunni who did attend the gathering was Salah al-Bander, a British citizen originally from Sudan and a former Bahraini government adviser who gained prominence five years ago with a written exposé describing the systematic oppression of Bahrain’s Shiite population. The episode became known as "Bandergate."
"In Bahrain, it is largely viewed as a Shia uprising," he said in an interview. "It’s not true. Some Sunnis are among the detainees."
[…] Other officials here are also quick to criticize what they see as a double standard toward the Arab uprisings in the policies of the United States, which still has nearly 50,000 troops throughout Iraq. "We thought it was excellent when President Obama said, ‘Mubarak, you have to go,’ " said Jabr al-Zubaidi, the former finance minister who is now a member of Parliament. "We didn’t hear that with Bahrain."
In response to calls for a tougher stance on Bahrain, James F. Jeffrey, the American ambassador to Iraq, told reporters, "We are concerned of course with anything that can trigger any sort of sectarian outbreak or disagreement, discord, diplomatic struggle, or even worse, throughout the region." He said Bahrain’s crisis should be resolved "on the basis of dialogue, engagement, no violence on either side, to work towards a more democratic and free system."
Yemen
12) U.S. Shifts To Seek Removal Of Yemen’s Leader, An Ally
Laura Kasinof and David E. Sanger, New York Times, April 3, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/world/middleeast/04yemen.html
Sana, Yemen – The United States, which long supported Yemen’s president, even in the face of recent widespread protests, has now quietly shifted positions and has concluded that he is unlikely to bring about the required reforms and must be eased out of office, according to American and Yemeni officials.
The Obama administration had maintained its support of President Ali Abdullah Saleh in private and refrained from directly criticizing him in public, even as his supporters fired on peaceful demonstrators, because he was considered a critical ally in fighting the Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda. This position has fueled criticism of the United States in some quarters for hypocrisy for rushing to oust a repressive autocrat in Libya but not in strategic allies like Yemen and Bahrain.
That position began to shift in the past week, administration officials said. While American officials have not publicly pressed Mr. Saleh to go, they have told allies that they now view his hold on office as untenable, and they believe he should leave.
A Yemeni official said that the American position changed when the negotiations with Mr. Saleh on the terms of his potential departure began a little over a week ago. "The Americans have been pushing for transfer of power since the beginning" of those negotiations, the official said, but have not said so publicly because "they still were involved in the negotiations."
Those negotiations now center on a proposal for Mr. Saleh to hand over power to a provisional government led by his vice president until new elections are held. That principle "is not in dispute," the Yemeni official said, only the timing and mechanism for how he would depart.
It does remain in dispute among the student-led protesters, however, who have rejected any proposal that would give power to a leading official of the Saleh government.
[…] It is not clear whether the United States is discussing a safe passage for Mr. Saleh and his family to another country, but that appears to be the direction of the talks in Sana, the capital.
For Washington, the key to his departure would be arranging a transfer of power that would enable the counterterrorism operation in Yemen to continue.
[…] Among Yemenis, there is a feeling that there is a race against the clock to resolve the political impasse before the country implodes. In addition to the security concerns, Yemen faces an economic crisis.
Food prices are rising; the value of the Yemeni currency, the rial, is dropping sharply; and dollars are disappearing from currency exchange shops. According to the World Food Program, the price of wheat flour has increased 45 percent since mid-March and rice by 22 percent.
[…] The criticism of the United States for failing to publicly support Yemen’s protesters has been loudest here, where the protesters insist the United States’ only concern is counterterrorism.
"We are really very, very angry because America until now didn’t help us similar to what Mr. Obama said that Mubarak has to leave now," said Tawakul Karman, a leader of the antigovernment youth movement. "Obama says he appreciated the courage and dignity of Tunisian people. He didn’t say that for Yemeni people."
"We feel that we have been betrayed," she said.
Hamza Alkamaly, 23, a prominent student leader, agreed. "We students lost our trust in the United States," he said. "We thought the United States would help us in the first time because we are calling for our freedom."
[…]
–
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