Lhadon Tethong is a Tibetan woman who was raised in Canada but has travelled to China to mark the one-year countdown to the Beijing Olympics. She is blogging from the country as part of her continuing effort to push for Tibetan independence. Follow her progress here.
Update: she has been detained by police.
The International Crisis Group has published a report on a strategy for peace in Sudan. While essentially calling on the nation’s government to implement the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the group makes several worthwhile recommendations.
What caught my interest the most is that the first one is for the government to cease harassment of journalists. I know this is navel-gazing, but they list the removal of media restrictions ahead of releasing political prisoners. It’s all lumped in to one paragraph but the way it is structured perturbs me.
I support a free media and recognise the role it plays in exposing human rights abuses and corruption. However, I would rank freeing those jailed for their political beliefs ahead of us journos. Am I right or wrong? Are they matters of equal importance, reflecting aspects of the same crackdown?
Regardless, the report is worth a read and can be found here.
There was yet more sabre rattling in south Asia this morning when Pakistan testfired a nuclear-capable cruise missile.
The Babur Hatf VII missile hugs the ground to avoid radar and has a range of 700km (enough to reach the Indian capital New Delhi). It isn’t the first time it’s been tested, so this probably marks further refinement of the system.
Pakistan and India have competed on weapons technology for years, most significantly with the testing of nuclear weapons by both sides. After an attack on the Indian parliament in 2001, blamed on Pakistan, led to a military build-up along the border, a nuclear exchange seemed probable.
India vowed not to use nukes first but said it could take a “bomb or two or more … but when we respond there will be no Pakistan” (go here for more of the tough guy rhetoric). Thankfully cooler heads prevailed and there was a climbdown. Now the neighbours notify one another in advance of any missile tests.
Pakistan has an established policy of military development, as much to deter any would-be invader as to showboat. That the Babur Hatf can carry nuclear warheads is significant, but it can carry conventional explosives as well and its design means it can be used to carry out devastating, unstoppable strikes.
Nuclear technology, in the US at least, has progressed to the point that uber-accurate strikes can obliterate an enemy’s heavy military while causing only a few casualties.
Pakistan’s latest test must be seen in the context of domestic politics, its long rivalry with India and, to an extent, raising its regional and international profile. India will feel under little pressure to respond with a test of its own but its smaller neighbour has shown it won’t go away and is not complacent with its hardware.
There may also be anti-Taliban publicity in all of this, although given Pakistan’s test history I don’t think this is a major factor. Certainly some US politicians have been crowing about tackling militants in Pakistan — notably Rudy Giuliani, who seems to think America is fighting a war in Pakistan.
However, I think it’s worth seeing the missile test as pro-government publicity in a time of dubious internal security. The Red Mosque incident has left many shaken, and President Musharaff’s run-ins with the chief justice caused mass protests and violence in the streets.
Now, though, he can point to tangible success on his nation’s behalf. He can say to his electorate: “This is what we can achieve while I’m in office”. Perhaps not in those words, but the sentiment will be there.
This latest posturing is highly unlikely to destablise the region — but it serves as a warning that conflicts do not go away overnight, and the technology that can be unleashed if relations worsen dramatically.
Israel has released 250 (carefully selected) Palestinian prisoners in a bid to bolster Mahmoud Abbas.
The ex-inmates are almost all from Abbas’ Fatah group, with a few from smaller organisations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. None are from Hamas — releasing a Hamas prisoner would have defeated the purpose of the exercise.
All the men signed a document promising not to take part in violence against Israel. I imagine a good many probably will — it’s a good sign when you read quotes like this:
Amjad Namura, 24, of Hebron, who was freed after serving half of a four-year sentence, said he was happy to comply with any agreement signed off by Abbas.
“We are with the decisions of the president no matter what. Whatever Fatah tells me to do I will do it,” he said.
There are always one or two nutjobs/fanatics in every group so some will have to be watched very carefully, even if none of those released were actually involved in attacks on Israelis.
It is a solid gesture from Israel to shore up Abbas, who has seen the Palestinian territories split in two. Unfortunately, it won’t give him the momentum to take power back from Hamas, which is governing a de facto state in the Gaza Strip.
What the release — and the looming early legislative and presidential elections — will do is cement the divide. Hamas won the parliamentary elections last year and in all likelihood will simply ignore any new vote. Ismail Haniyeh has yet to acknowledge having been replaced as Palestinian prime minister, so why should his party colleagues acknowledge they’ve lost their seats?
Calling new elections, which is an understandable enough course of action, runs the risk of legitimising the break-up of Palestinian territory. This is dangerous because although Gaza cannot economically survive on its own, that doesn’t mean it won’t continue to exist outside the control of centralised authority.
Both sides have repeatedly said they do not want to split. Unfortunately reality and ambition are often two very distinct entities. A commenter on my International Analyst article raised the possibility of a multinational force going in to Gaza, but that is a very remote possibility.
Abbas is about to take one of the biggest gambles of his life. For the sake of peace in the Middle East, let’s hope it pays off.
Russia has pulled out of a key European arms treaty.
The Conventional Forces in Europe treaty was signed between the Soviet Union and NATO in 1990 and limits the signatories’ deployment of tanks, heavy artillery and combat aircraft.
Russia has threatened to pull out of it in the past because of US plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe. The move means it can deploy as many troops and weapons as it likes along its borders; it has complained there are too many limits on moving troops within its territory despite security concerns.
This is a political act. Presidential elections take place next year and this is a good way to get citizens motivated.
The missile programme is key to what has happened, but it is not the only factor.
The treaty was amended in 1999 to reflect the break-up of the Soviet Union, but part of the revised deal was that Russia would withdraw troops from parts of Georgia and Moldova with Russian-speaking majorities. It has not. NATO members haven’t ratified the treaty (although Russia has) because of this.
According to BBC, it will be 150 days before Russia’s move takes effect. The country will no longer allow military inspections or give details of its deployments.
Russia has become increasingly assertive under Vladimir Putin. After years of economic decline and shrinking global standing a boom from oil wealth has given the country new confidence. The great Russian bear has re-awoken and is flexing its muscles.
But its wealth under Putin has come with the erosion of democratic liberties. To put it bluntly, the nation is a political basket case and has been for many years.
By focusing on a target outside Russian borders — or in this case two, the old Cold War reliables of NATO and the United States — legislators can deflect from internal problems.
Withdrawal from the CFE raises the spectre of old conflicts and sparks fears of new ones. While essentially a move to curry favour with the Russian electorate and raise the nation’s profile internationally, it does not imply a new Cold War looms.
However, nobody can predict who Putin’s successor will be. That is why these diplomatic issues must be resolved soon. Failure to do so will only widen the schism between Russia and NATO/the US. Who knows where that will lead?
George W Bush is on increasingly shaky ground. Not only has Congress voted to pull US troops out of Iraq by April 1, 2008 (though he will veto this), but members of his own party are turning against him.
It’s about time.
He has been a disaster for the Middle East. It will take years to repair the damage his administration has done to the region, if that is even possible. Only the Australian defence minister has been forthright enough to admit his country is in Iraq for oil — it would be so refreshing for the US (and Britain) to at least admit this is a factor in keeping them there.
I won’t sit here and pretend a US withdrawal from Iraq will solve everything overnight. It’s scary to think of the future that awaits the Middle East once the occupation ends. A shambles of a nation bordering seven countries… It is worrying that Iraq is ahead of Somalia on the failed states index, as Somalia has essentially been an anarchy for years.
For a vision of where Iraq may be headed based on experiences in Basra, check out this report from the International Crisis Group.
I feel obliged to point out that, according to this map at least, much of the country is under Iraqi government control. However, it does not indicate if control is total, nominal etc. Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki says his nation’s army and police are capable of maintaining order once the US leaves. It is important for Iraq’s self-esteem as a country and the credibility of al-Maliki’s government that they do.
That the US military has begun arming Sunni militia to fight al-Qaida in Anbar province is tacit acceptance that an American victory is impossible. Not only that, it could allow old local grudges to be settled and set the scene for well-armed militias to rule the roost once coalition forces leave.
Bush has made much of the “liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein” and the “return of sovereignty to the Iraqi people” (quotes from this transcript). Liberation from a man the US helped put in power and whom the CIA assisted during the Iran-Iraq war.
Unfortunately Iraqis have used this liberation to catch up on decades of sectarian conflict which was oppressed under Saddam (and it is not the first country where this has happened).
I am not for one second saying that Saddam’s leadership was a good thing. Although relatively stable compared to its successor state, his was a brutal regime and many thousands of people suffered under it.
However, many thousands have suffered in a democratic Iraq. There have been months when as many civilians died as did during the whole of the conflict in Northern Ireland (c. 3,500). America does not have a good track record of encouraging or forcing regime change: just think of Chile, Cambodia and Guatemala.
It was natural that, in the power vacuum following Saddam’s fall, local groups would work to secure their vested interests. Hence the formation of an Iraqi parliament along sectarian lines (and feel free to leave a comment if I’m missing something here).
A fragmented Iraq is a dangerous thing, as it invites external actors. For example, Turkey has 200,000 troops along the border with Iraqi Kurdish territories. I have already written about what could come of this (here and here). Iran must also be looking at the situation, particularly given the history between it and Iraq.
To argue that the move by Republican senators Richard Lugar and John Warner (linked to in the first paragraph) isn’t significant because they have not set a date for the withdrawal of armed forces would be to miss the point — it underscores divisions within Bush’s party and a wider opposition to the war in Iraq.
It would require Bush to re-seek authorisation for the war, authorisation he has had since 2002. Although it would still be up to the president to pull out of Iraq, he would have to submit revised plans by October 16. These plans, the senators urge, would include “a drawdown or redeployment of forces”.
Bush wants to keep things as they are until the US commander in Iraq, General Petraeus, delivers his report in September — and Petraeus, using Northern Ireland as an example, has said countering an insurgency could take ten years or more.
Reports on Iraq are not worth waiting for. This week saw one by the Bush administration that said the Iraqi government had made satisfactory progress toward eight of 18 benchmarks, unsatisfactory progress on eight more and mixed results on the others. You can read the report here.
“I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must,” Bush has said.
There comes a time in every man’s life when he must realise he can not win. This is surely the time for Bush. A withdrawal plan must be put in place as soon as possible.
Would the situation in Iraq be any different if it was a force of UN peacekeepers? The UN is not the greatest organisation in the world but its cordial relations with Hezbollah in Lebanon demonstrates it has the capacity to sink substantial roots in the region.
It seems Bush is not the only US official with his head in the sand. Writes Anne Flaherty of AP:
At a news conference Friday (July 13), the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, said the number of battle-ready Iraqi battalions able to fight independently has dropped from 10 to six in recent months despite an increase in U.S. training efforts.
Pace said the readiness of the Iraqi fighting units was not an issue to be “overly concerned” about because the problem was partly attributable to losses in the field.
“As units operate in the field, they have casualties, they consume vehicles and equipment,” Pace said.
Hang on for just one moment please. Did he just say the loss of four battalions wasn’t something to be “overly concerned” about? A battalion can have hundreds of soldiers (I’m unsure of the exact make-up of an Iraqi battalion, but such a unit in the US army has 300-1,000 as far as I know).
That four battalions — lost either through attrition or lack of resources — can no longer act independently is not something that should be dismissed as a matter of no consequence. Their country needs them. I hope they are rebuilt and back in the field as soon as possible — for Iraq’s sake.
I invite your comments and observations.