The Zeitgeist Politics

Global Politics with a focus on The Middle East

Pakistan gets surveyed III: No major surprises

with 3 comments

Welcome to another edition of Pakistan gets surveyed! This time, its via the folks at Gallup Pakistan. The survey was conducted for the Gilani Research Foundation (not to be confused with the current Prime Minister of the country, Yousuf Raza Gilani).

The survey of 2700 people, conducted last week, proves the same old points.

51% of people surveyed support the current military operation in South Waziristan, while they also don’t think this is a Pakistani problem – 35% blame the USA and 31% blame the Pakistani government and politicians. Only 25% blame the Taliban. Though the way the question was framed was rather ridiculous too.

Gallup 03-11-09_Page_2

Oddly enough, when asked whose war this was, 39% responded that it was America’s war, while 37% thought it was Pakistan’s. Now if only they had included a question on that other great bone of contention, the Kerry-Lugar/Berman bill..

Previous posts about surveys on Pakistan:

Written by Saba Imtiaz

November 5, 2009 at 12:30 am

Hillary backpedals over settlement praise, Goldstone Report is buried in Congress

with 2 comments

Hillary Clinton. Photo: AP.

In Israel-related news, the media today had to make a decision over what was more relevant. Do we report on Hillary Clinton’s furious back-pedalling over her statements regarding the fairly irrelevant, and existent in name only, peace process? Or do we instead report on US Congress predictably landslide-voting to bury the Goldstone Report, the irrelevance of which seems to be growing by the day? Predictably, the media felt that a foreign policy gaffe by the Secretary of State was an opportunity too good to pass up, and happily plumped for the former. And why not? Didn’t anyone else think that Clinton falling all over herself to appease AIPAC was amusing? As in, depressingly amusing, but hey this is Israel-Palestine we’re talking about, it’s always going to be somewhat morbid amusement.

So Clinton says to Al-Jazeera in Morocco:

“I think, as you know, President [Barack] Obama clearly said he wanted to see an end to settlement activity,”

“That had never been requested prior to any negotiation entered into by any representative of either the Palestinians or the Israelis.”

After her trip to Morocco, Clinton flew to Cairo to deal with the aftermath of her gaffe committed in previous days, to talk to “Egyptian leaders” as the Star Tribune reports. VOA reports that she’s meeting Uncle Hosni.

The NZ Herald has the following to say:

Clinton’s comments in Jerusalem appeared to reflect a realisation within the Obama Administration that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government will not accept a full-scale settlement freeze and that a partial halt may be the best lesser option. Her appeal seemed designed to make the Israeli position more palatable to the Palestinians and Arab states.

But the ever-present question begs. If the settlements are illegal, and if the Obama administration ‘unequivocally’ opposes them, then why can’t the Obama Administration put more pressure on the Netanyahu Government to halt them entirely. There has been precious little evidence of any real pressure on Netanyahu, in fact Bibi, and other pro-settlement folk, have been glowing with pride over his constant ‘victories’ over Obama. So why bother saying that you’re against something ‘unequivocally’ but do nothing tangible to actually stop it? Ah yes, well, that’s called empty rhetoric, ladies and gentlemen, and Obama’s Administration seems to be very good at it… until now when the rhetoric spills over into weird fawning, as Clinton’s statements the other day indicate. What Clinton terms ‘positive reinforcement’ to the rest of us looks like diplomatic genuflection.

As per the words of the Hillary, “We need to work together in a constructive spirit toward this shared goal of a comprehensive peace.” Indeed, the Netanyahu Government’s spirit has been very constructive – constructive of settlements in the Occupied West Bank, not sure how ‘comprehensive’ the peace is going to be though, unless the Palestinian residents of the West Bank are simply built over with cement.

Oh and about that Goldstone report? Yeah Congress voted 344-36 to bury that baby, something that Mondoweiss called “Pyongyang-style”. That linked post also contains a list of the “Nays” in case you’re American and want to write a letter to your local congressman congratulating him or her for possessing some modicum of cojones. I believe Gregg from The Majlis, who live-blogged the debate from Congress, pretty much sums up how the rest of us feel about this vote.

But it’s not all bad news, folks. Mondoweiss:

My sources tell me that the total of 36 No’s and 22 voting Present is actually a giant improvement over, say, the Lebanon votes that typically were in the 400 range, Yes-wise.

Progress!

Written by alexlobov

November 4, 2009 at 3:12 pm

Morbid Monday: Rawalpindi & Lahore Motorway attacked

with one comment

Today is the first of the month – a day where people get salaries, plan for the month ahead, pay bills, pay their children’s school fees.

Today on the Lahore-Islamabad Motorway, a couple of suicide bombers detonated their jackets near the police checkpost on the Babu Sabu interchange. The attack happened after the two were stopped. The attack saw both suicide bombers killed. 15 people are reportedly injured, which includes several police officers. The attackers are reported to have been less than 20 years old.

The Motorway also saw an attack on October 24, when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-laden car near the Lillah interchange, killing one police officer.

Today in Rawalpindi, Pakistan - a planted bomb exploded suicide bomber detonated a bomb laden motorcycle, killing 30 people and injuring 40.  25 people (this is an unconfirmed number as the death toll keeps rising) and injuring 30. Eyewitness reports gathered by Pakistani news channels say that there were several military officers who were at the National Bank of Pakistan collecting their salaries, and that the blast took place in the parking lot. The area is one of those ‘highly sensitive’ ones – the Pearl Continental hotel was next door and the Army’s General Head Quarters a few kilometers away. Schools have been closed in the city.

Today in Pakistan, the Government is obsessed not with the security situation in the country, not with the military operation in Waziristan, but with aid conditions in the Kerry-Lugar/Berman bill and the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance.

Today in Rawalpindi and Lahore, as families try and get news and innocent people die and are injured, as news channels scramble for visuals, as the empty condemnations from political leaders pour in, as the country’s ever-increasing sense of fear grows, everything is in short supply: leadership, effective governance, security and stability.

Written by Saba Imtiaz

November 2, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Road to regression: the Israel-Palestine peace process

with one comment

Why can't we all be friends? (AP Photo/ Rina Castelnuovo, Pool)

Why can't we all be friends? (AP Photo/ Rina Castelnuovo, Pool)

Ah, the peace process. Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, China and Tibet, Syria and Israel. So many countries, so many statements, such little action.

This morning’s yawnworthy/WTF news of the day (depending on your state of mind) news are the lack of political developments on the Israel/Palestine front. Hillary Clinton asked Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to go ahead with negotiations without the precondition that Israel stop building settlements. Abbas said no, Netanyahu comes off as sounding – in the American press – as the benevolent man who wants peace but can’t talk to anyone who sets any conditions.

We’re not just back to square one here folks, we’re regressing back in time. One of these days I’m just going to paste an old news item from the ’90s, replace the names and it’ll be as accurate.

Parting note: today’s must read on Israel and US relations - Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz: America, stop sucking up to Israel.

Written by Saba Imtiaz

November 1, 2009 at 10:40 pm

Abdullah Abdullah withdraws from Afghan runoff

leave a comment »

Abdullah Abdullah

Abdullah Abdullah: Living on a prayer? (AFP photo SHAH MARAI/AFP/Getty Images)

Most certainly not a surprise, but here we go: Hamid Karzai’s contender for the presidential election run-off in Afghanistan, Abdullah Abdullah, has withdrawn from the race, citing (yes, no surprise there either) the lack of transparency in the election process:

““I will not participate in the Nov. 7 election,” Abdullah said, because a “transparent election is not possible.””

Now while that leads Hamid Karzai home free to rule over Afghanistan again, there are several questions that arise. Firstly, should the run-off even happen if it isn’t going to prove anything? The Karzai camp says yes, that the “process has to complete itself.” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a rather baffling statement yesterday, comparing the Afghanistan elections to the American one.

We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward.  I don’t think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election. It’s a personal choice which may or may not be made.

Alright then.

Have just been watching a BBC report. Their corr espondent said that the UN et al are going to try and close ranks and avoid a run off. The Afghan Election Commission is expected to deliver a statement soon and the issue will most likely be referred to the Supreme Court, which will then try and create some measures to halt the election process and declare Karzai president.

The second problem – and this is a much more deeply rooted, yet another problem in the series of issues with the administration of Afghanistan – that eight years onwards from the US invasion, there is still no system in the country that would deliver an effective form of government. This election has been marred with massive fraud, a row in the UN the candidates bickering, et al. It seems like a futile exercise to wish for the governments that invaded the country in the first place to step up and fix the problems they created, stop supporting those involved in creating those problems (like Karzai’s erstwhile brother, ahem), but there needs to be an end to the madness.

Thirdly, how much legitimacy will the Karzai government have? Little to none. Support? The same. So how does the US plan to deal with this – other than doing what they usually do, i.e. put on a forced smile and pretend that it’s all in the name of democracy? We’ll just have to see.

Written by Saba Imtiaz

November 1, 2009 at 7:35 pm

Syria – Israel peace talks to resume?

with one comment

Much has been made of Syria’s President Bashar al Assad’s statement that he would like to see peace talks resume between Israel and Syria. Of course, the mind wanders and wonders: who exactly will be brokering this? If Turkey is cooling its ties with Israel, I doubt that they will step in again between the governments of both countries. The new broker could have been Croatia, whose president has been speaking to both parties, but Netanyahu wants to talk directly to Syria now.

If it does ever get down to the negotiating table, the real question will be of the Golan Heights. As an editorial in Ha’aretz points out today while slyly cutting Netanyahu down for “setting preconditions under the guise of opposing the setting of preconditions”:

The Israeli approach to relations with Syria needs to be managed from the end to the start, and the end is a vision of regional peace between Israel and its neighbors. In parallel to efforts to reach a permanent settlement with the Palestinians and without hurting their interests, Israel must seek peace with Syria in the context of Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967: full and secure peace in return for complete withdrawal. Those who do not want such a deal will seek to undermine it using arguments of procedure.

And across the border from Syria and Israel, its been 15 years since Jordan and Israel signed a peace treaty. The date went unnoticed until US President Barack Obama referred to it, and Naseem Tarawnah at The Black Iris puts it best:

Jordan and Israel’s Inspiring Peace

“As we work with Arabs and Israelis to expand the circle of peace, we take inspiration from what Jordan and Israel achieved fifteen years ago, knowing that the destination is worthy of the struggle.” – US President, Barack Obama on the 15th anniversary of the Jordan-Israel peace treaty. Monday, October 26, 2009. [source]

After all that has happened in the occupied territories and even in Jordan these past 15 years later: does anyone feel inspired?

http://www.black-iris.com/2009/10/29/verbatim-jordan-and-israels-inspiring-peace/

Written by Saba Imtiaz

October 30, 2009 at 4:24 pm

Dial three for terror in AfPak: Kabul and Peshawar attacked

with 2 comments

afghanistan_pakistan I can’t recall a single day – for weeks and months now – that wasn’t accompanied with news of attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But today – even by the terribly low expectations one has of a day free of news that makes you want to kill yourself – has been a horrible, horrible, horrible day.

Kabul saw two attacks this morning: One, on a UN guesthouse in Kabul, that was a deadly raid that saw six UN staff members being killed amongst the 12 casualties (three of which include the attackers) as the attackers stormed the house after being embroiled in a gunbattle with UN guards.  The second, was rockets being fired at the Serena Hotel, which houses press personnel and is close to Karzai’s residence. The Taliban took responsibility for both attacks, citing that it was an ‘assault on the presidential election’.

The third attack took place in Pakistan in Peshawar - a city that has seen a number of attacks in the past few weeks alone, a number of which have happened during / before Friday prayers. A car bomb exploded in Meena Bazar – said to be around 120 KGs of explosives – and killed 87 people, injuring over a 150.The visuals from the scene are horrifying: shops set on fire and a building collapsed, trapping people under the rubble. The death toll literally rose within hours – from 3 to 10 to 14 to 40 and above – and women and children are reported to form the major part of casualties.

UPDATED: The death toll has reached 104. Meanwhile Al-Qaeda and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan have denied any responsibility for the attack.

On a side note, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on her first visit (as Secretary) to Pakistan today.

Afghanistan

The sun isn't shining on AfPak - Kabul's skyline today (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

On a personal note, I don’t think I have ever been so scared to live in Pakistan. I have lived through the best and the worst of times in this country but the cloud of fear has never loomed so heavily. And I have thought several times before that we had reached the bottom of the pit and it couldn’t get any worse – but every day we seem to fall a little deeper in. It has gotten to the point where when I imagine the country’s map, I see a big sign that says ‘CLOSED FOR LIFE’ hanging on it. And I cannot seem to get this song to stop playing constantly in my head.

Written by Saba Imtiaz

October 28, 2009 at 10:27 pm

Border crossing fun: Iran and Pakistan

leave a comment »

A group of Iran's Revolutionary Guard members look at the pictures of  their commanders and colleagues, who were killed in Sunday's suicide bombing in southeastern Iran, during a funeral ceremony in Tehran.  (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

A group of Iran's Revolutionary Guard members look at the pictures of their commanders and colleagues, who were killed in Sunday's suicide bombing in southeastern Iran, during a funeral ceremony in Tehran. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

UPDATED: Pakistani news channel Aaj TV is reporting that the Iranian guards have been released on a directive from the Ministry of Interior.

Our friends from our beloved neighbouring country are here! But why couldn’t they just have lined up for a visa like everyone else? Or is everyone misreporting?

News agencies are reporting that eleven members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps have been arrested in Pakistan for illegally crossing over into the country. The Revolutionary Guards were detained in Mashkel and the police has seized two vehicles and is investigating.

Meanwhile, the IRGC is denying that they entered the country. According to Press TV:

Reacting to the report, head of the public relations office of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps

Brigadier General Sharif told Press TV that the detainees were not members of the IRGC.

“That part of the report related to Sepah [IRGC] lacks credibility and is not true,” Brig. Gen. Sharif said on Monday.

Another informed source told a Press TV correspondent that those arrested were Iranian border police who were hunting down fuel smugglers.

“In line with efforts to fight fuel smugglers, a number of Iranian border police forces chasing fuel smugglers entered Pakistani soil by mistake,” he explained.

This comes in a series of several back-and-forth statements from Iran and Pakistan on the Jundullah issue - the group that attacked the IRGC on October 18 and killed 42 people.  Following the attack, Iran called for Pakistan to hand over the Jundullah leader to the country – a request which Pakistan said they couldn’t really help with because they believe Rigi is in Afghanistan. Obviously, this is all on-the-record stuff so I have no idea what the Pakistanis told the Iranians. Iran’s interior minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar was in Islamabad last week to reiterate the same and there have been reports that the Revolutionary Guards want to launch an operation to find Rigi themselves.

Now if the reports of the Revolutionary Guards being detained is true, we can expect to see an official reaction from Pakistan (along the lines of sovereignty et al), but this could also be a sign that given that Pakistan is busy with Waziristan, they’ve asked Iran to deal with the problem themself.

Of course, it really could just be the forces fighting the fuel smugglers…

Written by Saba Imtiaz

October 27, 2009 at 3:05 am

Irani & Israeli representatives discuss Nuclear Weapons

with 4 comments

“]”]Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pictured in the Natanz plant [Photo credit: AP]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pictured in the Natanz plant [Photo credit: AP

According to several eyewitness accounts and confirmed on the Israeli side, Iran & Israel had a rare face-to-face meeting at diplomatic level, at an Australia-brokered (K-Rudd Win!) conference in Cairo last month. News broke as an Egyptian official who witnessed it said said that Israel had been represented by former foreign minister Shlomo Ben Ami and Iran by its envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

“During the first session Ben Ami and Soltanieh spoke,” he said, asking not to be named.
“We had round-table discussions … then there were cross-table discussions. It was rather polemical, with accusations.

“Soltanieh said the Iranians do not have a (nuclear) bomb and do not want the bomb but the Israelis said that was not true,” the official said, adding that he did not know if the Israelis and Iranians had also met bilaterally on the sidelines.

“This is not the first time (Israelis and Iranians have had contact) but I believe this is the first time they are present at this level of representation,” he said.

In one exchange, Mr Soltanieh asked Mr Zafary-Odiz: “Do you or do you not have nuclear weapons,” Haaretz said, citing unidentified participants in the meeting. The Israeli smiled but did not respond, the newspaper said.

Mr Soltanieh insisted Tehran did not hate Jews, although it opposed Zionism, the newspaper said. [The Australian]

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think this is the first time since the Revolution that Iran & Israel have had talks at this level, how very interesting. Seems Iran is under pressure indeed. There has also been a lot of reporting about the recent talks between Iran, the international community and the IAEA. There are rumours flying around that an agreement with the Obama Administration over a resumption of diplomatic ties and an easing of sanctions will be reached, along with a presumable curtailing of the nuclear programme. While details are still fuzzy as they are being ironed out, I will ask you to consider the following things:

1. Pressure on the Iranian Government:

Since the disputed election in June, there has been mounting domestic pressure, along with mounting international pressure, on the Khamenei/Ahmadinejad government. An agreement that saves face for Iran and eases sanctions would presumably be a major coup and help to add legitimacy for the pair. I believe commentators are underestimating just how complicated the ’saving face’ element is going to be, considering how steadfast the rhetoric from Ahmadinejad has been about not giving an inch to the international community over Iran’s right to nuclear power and uranium enrichment. Moreover, if the Iranian public considers the development of nuclear weapons forthcoming, as much of the international community does, then an agreement not to do so would mean allowing Israel to remain the Middle East’s only nuclear power. Nevertheless, if this is ironed out, it could mean a shoring up of the Government and a severe blow to hopes of internal regime change still presumably carried by Washington. Though, just how realistic these hopes were to start with is, of course, also questionable.

2. How much trust can be put into this government

One would expect that, in the absence of rigorous and regular inspections, Iran could still continue to make progress on uranium enrichment, albeit at a slower pace. Considering that the current climate of relations between Iran and the international community is not exactly one of goodwill, and considering the regime’s burgeoning influence internationally (in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan for example), it wouldn’t take much to surmise a level of deceit in any agreement Iran makes to actually halt uranium enrichment.

3. What about an Israeli first strike?

While Iranian deceit can be expected, Israel would have its hands tied. Again, I suggest that chances of an Israeli strike on Iran have been exaggerated. A strike would require agreement from the Obama Administration, and considering how much pressure Obama is under over Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, such an agreement would be very unlikely. Equally, I have a feeling Obama is looking for an excuse for real leverage over Israel on the Palestinian question and the question of settlements. Frustrated already by stonewalling from Netanyahu, Israel would not want to anger its superpower backer any further by striking unilaterally. Also, considering the current unresolved controversy over the Goldstone Report, Israel is not exactly in unquestionable good graces with the international community. A unilateral strike on Iran, even without an agreement over nuclear capabilities, would always be a very risky venture for Israel given the shakiness of its current reputation.

Having said this, Israel is, at least publicly, not happy about this detail. Ehud Barak slammed the deal, and a high-level representative of the EU has stated in pretty strong words (snarky, even) that Israel has no part in these negotiations:

A senior European Union official told Israeli officials this week that Israel is not privy to the details of the exchanges between Iran and the Western countries regarding its nuclear program. “You do not understand the extent to which you are not in the picture. You do not know how much you do not know and what is happening in Iran,” he said.

Accordingly, a number of senior Israeli officials backed the European official’s statements by saying that the release of the draft of an agreement with Iran caught Israel by surprise. [Haaretz]

Ouch!

So all those things considered, I think an agreement is forthcoming and it will probably involve the shipping of nuclear fuel to France via Russia for enrichment, and then its return to Iran in the form of fuel rods. Let’s wait for the details and see what happens, a final deal is expected some time Friday.

Written by alexlobov

October 23, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Goldstone speaks, goes on the defensive

with 7 comments

You would have been under a rock if you hadn’t noticed the veritable storm of controversy surrounding the Goldstone Report since its release. Justice Goldstone himself has not been under said rock, and he’s also noticed the fairly rhetorical manner in which his report is being attacked. His first and foremost challenge to critics: read the bloody thing! The man has a point, the Obama administration has denounced the report in strong words, and assisted Israel with its diplomatic offensive to have the report ignored. Most are assuming that the US will use its veto on the Security Council to make sure the report is not accepted (if Russia or China, both of which have come out in opposition to the report, don’t get there first, though admittedly Russia did back it in the UNHRC).

Lebanon’s Daily Star has a good round-up of the choice quotes from the al-Jazeera interview Justice Goldstone gave:

“I have yet to hear from the [Barack] Obama administration what the flaws in the report that they have identified are,” South African former international war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone told Al-Jazeera television.

“I would be happy to respond to them, if and when I know what they are,” added the jurist…

“I’ve no doubt, many of the critics – the overwhelming majority of critics – have not read the report,” he said, adding that the criticism had become personal. [Daily Star]

You can view the full interview here.

One other thing that struck me about the interview was Goldstone’s continued preambles of “As a Jew…”, it strikes me because it gives an idea of how deeply personal the attacks have been. I’m sure Justice Goldstone and his family have suffered a great deal in these past few weeks, what with their commitment to Israel and Jewishness questioned, as well as their very humanity and ethnic identity denied. I think the criticism from some members of the Zionist lobby has been a fairly nasty piece of work indeed.

Goldstone also wrote a piece that appeared in Jerusalem Post and Guardian’s comment-is-free, in it we have the same entreatments to read the report rather than go into personal attacks, also an interesting bit of rebuttal from him regarding the dismissal of the UNHRC’s recommendation to have the report looked at on the basis that its members have questionable human rights records themselves:

Israel and its courts have always recognised that they are bound by norms of international law that it has formally ratified or that have become binding as customary international law upon all nations. The fact that the United Nations and too many members of the international community have unfairly singled out Israel for condemnation and failed to investigate horrible human rights violations in other countries cannot make Israel immune from the very standards it has accepted as binding upon it.

Indeed, the Human Rights record of its members should not be used to mask the question at hand, if Israel committed war crimes in Gaza then it should be properly investigated and brought to justice for doing so. Questioning the human rights records of members such as Angola, Nigeria and Egypt as a reason to have the Council’s recommendation ignored does more to harm Israel’s reputation. Israel, claiming to be a bastion of democracy and law, should be striving to exceed such expectations, not compare itself to countries with Human Rights records severely blighted already.

All-in-all I find Goldstone’s defense to be adequate, well-reasoned and somewhat alarming. It is not too much to ask that if the report be criticised, then it should be properly read and the sections of the report with which issue is taken to be pointed out. Stonewalling it without even addressing it is not a constructive thing to do.

Written by alexlobov

October 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm