Afghanistan Steps Deeper into Security Quagmire

The attempt on President Hamid Karzai's life in the heart of the capital city of Kabul by suspected Taliban militants underscores the growing pessimism about security in the country. If the April 27 attack is anything to go by, Taliban militants are increasing their influence all across the country. Soon after the attack, the Taliban claimed responsibility saying its aim was to show that it could strike from the capital. The message is clear - the Taliban has reached the capital.It was not long ago that US President George W. Bush pledged to "smoke" the terrorists "out of their holes" in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. However, almost seven years after he declared a war on terrorism, Taliban militants, once driven out of Kabul by the US with the help of the Northern Alliance, have shown that they can carry out a well-coordinated attack even against the president in his turf.Given the security situation and the incompetence of the Karzai regime, the latest attack is unlikely to take anybody by surprise. Critics of the US' Afghan invasion long ago warned that Washington could not win over the Taliban with its muscle power.Even after seven years of counter-insurgency operations with perhaps the most sophisticated weapons, the Afghan government and its "international allies" are still struggling to ensure security to the citizens staying outside Kabul. Acute poverty and security threats from the Taliban have forced the citizens, mostly in the south, to shift their loyalty to the insurgents. The government's failure to reach out to the people and take care of their basic needs has driven the Afghans away from Kabul, which is largely perceived as a puppet establishment of Washington.According to the United Nations, 78 of 376 districts in the country are Taliban strongholds where the government's security apparatus is totally non-functional. Government officials agree that there is a growing gap between the government and the people that is being exploited by the Taliban. The government is unable to even carry out reconstruction work in the south as Taliban militants frequently attack government forces and often kidnap aid workers.The Kabul attack shows that the militants are no longer hiding in their "holes" in the Tora Bora Mountains waiting for their opportunity to strike against the foreign troops. They are out in the streets, targeting the supporters and the top leadership of the government - the same strategy the militants used against the Soviet troops in the 1980s. If they succeed in creating a permanent internal security threat among the citizens, they would have won the first part of the battle.This poses serious doubts about the counter-insurgency strategy of the NATO-led international troops. Last year, more than 8,000 people died in violence related to insurgency, and there were 160 suicide attacks. Kabul, where a large number of international troops are stationed, has been considered relatively calm since the American invasion. However, with the latest attack, the militants have shattered the security claims of the government. The ability of the militants to get so close to Karzai with weapons shows that they had inside help.The growing concern over the failure of the Afghan strategy was visible when Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov made it clear at the recent NATO summit in Bucharest that NATO alone could not ensure security in Afghanistan. According to him, apart from the NATO and the US, major powers like China and Russia and also the Central Asian republics should be allowed to play a larger role in Afghanistan. It however still remains unclear whether the US would be ready for a realignment of troops in Afghanistan. Russia, on the other side, has so far been reluctant to get involved in Afghanistan though it has strong interests in Central Asia.A paradigm shift in the western governments' Afghan policy is inevitable, as the situation gets worse day by day. It is already clear that the puppet government in Kabul, even with the support of the international troops, is not capable of quelling the insurgency. The rise of Sunni Islamists in Afghanistan is in nobody's interest. To prevent such a catastrophe, the international community should ensure wider cooperation and consider all possible options.

(John Stanly; written for Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) April 30, 2008)

On Food Crisis ( a letter sent to Jinoy and other comrades)

Jinoy,

This is just the continuation of the debate. You must be remembering an article by Fidel Castro on the Bush admin's energy policy, published on Granma almost one year back. Castro's article was timely written when Brazil's "socialist" president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva visited Washington to clinch a bio-fuel agreement with the Bush admin. Your magazine (Down to Earth) had published one Lead soon after, unless I am mistaken. One year after, we have got all of our international magazines running cover stories and news papers leading debates on the global food crisis. I am not saying that the bio-fuel policy alone is responsible for the crisis. Rather, my focus is on the resource crunch. One argument from the free marketist bloc is that the scarcity of resources and subsequent high prices have eventually led to conservation and innovation. I remember reading somewhere recently about how people a couple of centuries back switched to kerosene from whale oil to fuel lamps. They argue the technological advancement, clean production of electricity, desalination...etc would ultimately help us overcome the resource crunch. Is it so? The criticisms against capitalist mode of production and the free-market driven consumption spree were always rejected as moralist arguments by many among us (including myself). Now Stiglitz warns that if the markets continue their free-run, the world will soon become unviable. Newstatesman asks how did the rich starve the world (http://newstatesman.com/200804170025)? The World Bank warns of riots for food in future. The international press is concerned of the "empty bellies (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/world/americas/18food.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin). Your magazine has also run a cover sty on the same issue (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/section.asp?sec_id=9&foldername=20080415). Perhaps my friends from science background could help me understand this better? We have seen several changes in the Capitalist development pattern in the past. After the great economic depression, they stood for more regulation and welfarism. We had Keyenes. And in 1970s, with Reagan and Thacher coming to the helm, we witnessed a radical overhaul in the world economy. Now the Wall street economists argue for more regulations, but only to save the monetary institutions and corporate majors. This is what somebody critically said abt neoliberalism, Capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. Is it so?

stanly

Left bounces back in business

A spectre is haunting the capitalist Germany now. The spectre of eastern communism. It’s been almost three decades now since the Berlin Wall was brought down & West Germany triumphed over the East. Throughout this long period, the mainstream German political parties, be it the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Liberal Free Democrats (FDP), the Social Democrats (SPD) or the Greens, collectively treated the children of East German communism as pariahs. Did they succeed in their effort? Yes, but only until some members of the erstwhile East German Communist Party reinvented themselves in a changed political landscape through the formation of a new political outfit.

The Left Party, daring the de facto political untouchability, set out a fresh campaign, which eventually started producing results. When the results of the Feb. 24 Hamburg state election were out, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU lost absolute majority in the state, which simply endorsed the shift of political Centre to the Left. The CDU won 42.7% of popular votes down from the 47% it bagged in 2004. CDU’s main rival SDP scored 34%, 4% higher than the 2004 figure. The most interesting performance is that of the Left Party which is set to enter the Hamburg Parliament for the first time with 6.5% of the votes. Hamburg result was just the continuation of what happened in the state of Hesse in January. The Christian democrats lost absolute majority in Hesse as the Left Party, along with the Social Democrats, emerged as a crucial player. When the Left Party bagged some seats in the 2005 general elections, both the conservatives & the Social Democrats joined hands together to deny any national relevance to the communists.

That cooperation led to the formation of Volksparteien – the CDU and SPD alliance – which has now become a liability for both the parties. The SPD, which earlier ruled out any kind of alliance with the Left, has now changed its tone, expressing willingness to have an informal power sharing agreement at state levels. In Hesse, they started efforts to win the outside support of the Left. SPD chairman Kurt Beck has backed the move. On the other side, Hamburg’s conservative mayor Ole von Beust is now hoping to retain power by winning the support of the Greens. The Left knows that the current political impasse in the country could not be solved without taking them into the mainstream political process. Today or tomorrow, it has to happen. After all, it is election season in Germany. And the spectres seem to be on their way back.

(John Stanly, Published in Business & Economy, 20/03/2008)

The Obama phenomenon!

When could he deliver? So ask Americans who see a potential president in Barak Hessein Obama, a senator from Illinois and a charismatic contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. They wrote him off at the beginning, saying the 47-year-old “inexperienced” Illinois senator could not even pose a potential threat to the former first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton. But, as things stand today, Obama’s popularity is surging day-by-day cutting across the community lines. He has won eight of the nine primaries and caucuses held since Super Tuesday on February 5, while his experienced rival could take only one victory (New Mexico). He has won by much larger margins, both in black and white dominated states. Now more and more corporate houses are ready to pump money into the Obama campaign. The identity politicians and black academia are also fuelling the political debate, although Obama has so far kept himself away from racially-focussed campaigning. Furthermore, his keyword, Change, seems to have shaken up the Democratic campaign as more and more party activists see him as a vibrant better option than Hillary, who is indirectly dubbed as a status-quoist by the Obama camp. So the stage is set for the Illinois senator? Not exactly. Despite Obama’s surging popularity, he is unlikely to win enough number of pledged delegates before the August national convention of the Democratic Party. If neither Obama nor Clinton wins 2,025 delegates, necessary to take the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7, the 795 democratic insiders, known as Super-Delegates, would elect the candidate. Since the Super-Delegates are not bound by the popular will, they could pick up anybody who enjoys greater influence within the party.

The Super- Delegates (the country’s Democratic governors, Democratic members of the Congress and the high-ranking party officials) were instituted in 1982 in order to give the elite more control over the common activists. Sensing the danger lurking in the August convention, the Obama campaign has already called on the Super- Delegates to follow the popular opinion. So far, Clinton has got the support of more Super-Delegates than Obama. However, a majority of them, including influential Democrats like Al Gore, haven’t opened their mind. In such a complex, emotional scenario, in which a black Democrat is moving past his rival, the wife of a two-time president, could the Democratic leadership override the popular opinion? Wouldn’t that traumatise the entire Democratic party in the November presidential race? Recent events indicate that the wind has changed its direction. Veteran Vietnam war hero John McCain will be the Republican candidate. The senior leaders of the Democratic party seem to have realised that the party cannot go against the ground level activists. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has publicly admitted this. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” said Pelosi in an interview last week, giving enough indication that she would support Obama. Furthermore, veteran black Representative John Lewis, snubbed Hillary last week to declare his support for Obama. Yes, Obama is gaining momentum. If his own party elite don’t block him, he might emerge as potential rival to Republican challenge.

John Stanly (Published in Business and Economy, 06,03, 2008)

Is Tibetan Lama Movement Feudal?

I was talking with a friend over the recent violence in Tibet. She also seemed to be obsessed with the "worst human rights records" of the "communist China" and the sympathy towards the Lama Movement. Nancy Pelosy and her fellow Americans certainly looked great in the photographs with the Dali Lama which speaks a great deal of the cultural richness of Tibet. Do we like to see Tibetans as mere cultural dolls forever? I was asking myself. Below is a letter appeared on Newstatesman.

stanly

The Tibetans that have the biggest voice are from the rich, the nobilities, the religious, the lamas. Does any body hear from the poor class and peasants who are the silent majority and benefit from the Chinese government minority policies. Traditionally they worked like slaves for the rich, the powerful and the lamas. Their minds were controlled by religion not to complain. Now the hollywood kind such as Richard Gere came to find meanings from Dalai Lama. Tibet is viewed as so sureal, so enlightened, local Tibetans are viewed not in human terms. They don't seem to need to eat or to live a material life, but just to exist to entertain the hollywood kinds. The media has been led down this path too. When did you see a good report about ordinary life of common Tibetans, whether their lives fare better or worse than ten or twenty years ago, or for that matter sixty years ago when they were ruled by the lamas. The Tibetan culture is fascinating, but when is the media going to treat the Tibetans in the coverage like ordinary human beings, that they need to make a living, to deal with normal human desires, to move up in the economic ladder. If the media thinks that they don't need all these and they are happy, then the media has been pickled by the lamas deeper and longer than theTibetans.

As for China's Olympics, that is no big deal. All the great nations' olympics have been boycotted, US's in 1984 Los Angeles, USSR's in 1990 Moscow. If you are boycotted in Olympics, that means you have arrived, you have made it.

I understand the point you are talking about. Of course it is a matter of concern. But could u tell, why the ambiguity remains about the people of Tibet? Who is hiding the real life there? I don’t think it is the Dalai Lama. If China was an open structure and the situation is like as we fear, do u believe that the Lama would get such a wide support throughout the world? If the situation is worse because of the Budhist monks, the only force that keeps it hiding is the Communist Govt in china.

And while we call Lama a feudal lord, we must be very careful. You may be aware how the Forbes magazine called Castro a millionaire. Let it be an open system first. Then the rotten things will come out naturally. Even it is Lama or the Communist China.

Deepak Chandran

If Forbes magazine calls Fidel Castro a millionaire, why shd I be "more careful" while calling the Lama Movement feudal? We all know that Fidel was an autocrat. A radical autocrat, who earned the love and reverence of the youth and the left-leaned people across the world. If he's a millionaire, we don’t need to hide it.

I would agree that China, like any previous Leninist country, is a closed society. Many people hate China for the same reason. I was just wondering whether the "global sympathy" towards the Lama Movement is by any chance insulated from this hatred! The international press is very sensitive whenever it reports the Lamas, the elite Tibetans.. I would disagree with you at one level. We have plenty of literature abt the neoliberal turn China engineers and the authoritative brutalities of the communist govt though it is a closed system. So, being politically closed might not stop revealing the other side of the Tibetan sty, I think.

I was also going thru some literature these days abt Tibetan feudalism (which, according to many historians) lasted till early 1950s) and cultural nationalism, the ideological pillar of the Lama Movement. And I would like to continue this exploration a bit further

stanly

Earning love and reverence become irrelevant when a revolutionist become a millionaire through the power he has been given by the people to serve them. Any way that is not the case here. Forbes called Fidel a millionaire by counting the investments Cuba had in their public sector companies and other governmental enterprises. It can only be taken as a conspiracy. It is a tool of capitalist. When we call some one as a feudal we have to make sure we are not using the same tool that makes ant to an elephant. I am not telling he is not a feudal, but in a state where every thing is hidden how I can believe the stories the govt is telling. Let them keep the system open. And more over, what the new companies are doing in china. And what about the party? I dont think Lama is a bigger feudal than them. First of all they must become a open society.

In cuba, many electronic items can not be used as people in the other part of the world do. But they never hide it. They openly tell that there is a mammoth shortage of power due to the sanctions by US. So they keep a regulation on electronic items including computer to serve their hospitals, govt offices and their productive systems. Why we can not see such a straight forward business in china.

Frankly speaking for a sympathy towards communism if we start supporting china it will be another crime towards humanity. And more over I dont keep any sympathy towards communism, unless it doesn't represent the real problem of human kind.

Deepak Chandran

I think our debate gets stuck in one larger question. What shd be the future model of governance in China? Whether it shd remain a one-party ruled authoritarian country or an "open society" perhaps in the same lines of Russia , right? I definitely keep a sympathy towards communism for a variety of reasons. First of all, I believe that it has the potential to change the world, to change the life of the masses, to change the course of history. I know you will have thousands of examples from history to point out the brutalities and the authoritarian course of the communist regimes, right from the Soviet Union to Cuba. But that doesn't prevent me from keeping my sympathy, not towards China nor to Cuba, but to the ideology alive, given the historical context.
In Castro's case, you yourself say that he was called a millionaire by the Forbes magazine counting the asset of the nationalised resources. You call it a propaganda. Castro, like any of the Communist forefathers, was an autocrat. Not even a single communist head of the state has betrayed the dictatorial tendencies of the "proletarian regime", unless I am mistaken. So the question is the fundamental one, which many of the Marxists have been working on at least for the last couple of decades. And I really doubt that it will have a single answer, like what the western liberals argue. Shd that be based on the grand notion of "human kind" which u mentioned? Who is going to "open" the Chinese society? Deepak, the problem with many of us is that we think we could replicate history in all the pockets of the world. If X is "free" Z shd also be "free" (the term is highly relative). Two decades after the disintegration of the USSR, we understand that Russian society remains as closed as it used to be, but sans a Communist Party.

I am afraid that we dont touch upon the history of Tibet. Not even a single Western government is ready to support the government-in-exile of the Tibetans. But everybody seems to be very sympathetic towards the "Tibetan cause". My question is that whether this policy, or position is insulated from the larger hate-China stand or a notion-based historical one? We think the Lamas represent millions of Tibetans. Was the recent upsurge was a political movement or an ethnic attack on the Han Chinese group? China's authoritarian political identity itself does not infuse sympathy into my political beliefs towards the Lamas. That's what I am saying. I am against cultural nationalism. I dont mind calling them feudal either though i would also disagree with the Chinese mainland over a number of issues.

stanly



I was also trying to gather some information of the Tibet movement lately.

a) I think it is a well documented fact that the theocratic state called Tibet was one of the most backward regions on earth, prior to Chinese invasion. Feudal Tibet, in which most of the cultivable lands were occupied by monastery, Dalai lamas were enjoying the unquestionable power for centuries. It has also been documented that there was an instituted condition of slavery and the penile code contains various forms of corporal punishments ( which has also been admited by Dalai Lama). Whatever Dalai Lama is, he is surely not a symbol of freedom. The word "invasion" itself is a bit tricky, because, many parts of the pre -second world war China was ruled by a bunch of feudal war lords. One can also argue that the whole China is "occupied".
Please see the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Criticism

b) All the communist governments now exist were formed during last century, when the idea of democracy was still infantile. It came as a historic experiment to provide something better than the then existing democracy, where a privileged few were still getting all. I think, at present any serious political movement cannot go further without recognizing the spread of democratic values. Many things in China cannot be accepted by anyone. But any analysis won't be complete without seeing incidents on a larger canvas. One has to see the developments in th context of economic and political antagonism of developing countries like china and India towards USA. The blatant involvement of CIA in Tibet is a well documented thing now, as its involvement in Cuba.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwu5qYosTo0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2iaIcoHBl4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJYamwYSe2M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviSTNWRgHU&feature=related
There are interviews ( can be seen in this video ) of former CIA operatives, one of them happily admits that the Tibet operation was really good because it cost them very less ( all the "man power" were Tibetans) and they made a big menace for the Chinese govt. The CIA involvement was also been admitted by the exile Tibetan govt. officials.

Recently Dalai Lama accused Chinese govt. for bringing more Chinese people to Tibet in order to make Tibetans a minority on their own territory (sounds like Raj Thakrey). But the census data will show that about 93% of population are still Tibetans and there is a large number of Tibetans working and living elsewhere in China just as in any other country where people migrate to other parts of country looking for better living. Critics point out that this is an attempt of Lama to give the issue a racist color and make another Bosnia out of China.

Unfortunately the western media seems to be hiding many of these facts. They are so keen to color Lama as a spiritual leader and symbol of freedom
Raghunath C

There may not be much difference in arguments. But let me clarify my point once again in detail.

There surely is an obstacle in our debate, not only on the future model of Chinese govt, but also our understanding what really is communism. As Stanly mentioned we have a number of experiences and examples to go through. In Russia, certainly it was a power of change towards the society and the life of common man. That time it was not only in Russia, but all over the world Russian revolution give a great hope of change. That hope was that of common men to change their horrible life to a comfortable one. That is the key element, that to give a comfortable life to the common man, what we expect from a revolution and a communist regime. If my understanding is true, before the revolution in Cuba there was a communist party there and it was against the revolution. After the revolution Fidel and other comrades identified themselves that their questions as a continuation to those fundamental questions what Marx has risen. In china, the party has earned enough to be considered as billionaire corporate. I don't know much about Russia. But it is not difficult to understand from the infrastructure of communist parties of china and India that in Russia also it may not been different. There is no need of a single person to accumulate money using power, but doing the same by a party also is enough to call as an evil.

Cuba still keep a high note because, to consider Fidel as a millionaire Forbs has to count the asset of the public enterprises. But if they are doing the same in china the asset of the communist party alone will be enough. It is not just a matter of assets; sometimes having wealth can be natural. But from the recent history we can see the situation of farmers in China is clearly different from that of the party. In Cuba the party could provide a better life to their common man and still doing that. A Michael Moor can go there and could take a picture called 'sicko' to open up the fake side of American imperialist system. They have shown a great way of agriculture to the world where there is no need of any Monsanto. What is there like that china can convey to their common man and to the rest of the world. Millions of tons of industrial wastes of the global corporates! Nothing more !!! They allow the entire international corporate to come and exploit and torture their people, providing a system with no labor laws and regulations. I was talking about this difference all the time.

The communist parties them self identify as the authority to talk about communism throughout the history. There was a period where they called Fidel a CIA agent. I tell this just to mention the irrelevance of labels. The fundamental thing is that whether they address the questions Marx once aroused in the society which are still relevant. They are relevant not because a Marx raised them, but it addresses the fundamentals of economics and politics from the point of view of a common man. As far as I am concerned, who does address these fundamental thoughts is only relevent. If it is party I will be with them and when they fail to do so, there is no point in defending them.

Specifically speaking the issues in China, as I mentioned before, things are not transparent without a reason. If they can achieve at least a silly thing on the sake of this autocracy, one can have support the rulers. But unfortunately that is not the case. So, I think keep the society open first, let the people see the world beyond china. And let them learn that Lama is a Feudal Lord. And let them reject him if he is the same as those articles say.

What we see and learn about Tibet through Wikipedia, youtube, google etc. are not accessible to Chinese people(google.cn is allowed). What does it mean? Being the biggest Feudal, the action of the Chinese govt against Lama never is justifiable. It is just like the way US is talking about Cuba for not having a democratic system while they are supporting monarchs throughout the world.

It is true that the Tibetan land was very poor even before Chinese invasion. And still it remains the same. Who is responsible? Lama or Chinese govt. Our country also was not rich and forward before the independence. If it is not developed now whom we will blame, the land lords or the govt.

I thought of talking to Chinese students here at this point. I am not sure what they tell are completely true or not. But I think it is worth to hear what they have to tell.

Initially when the people's republic of china was established, the inner-Mangolia and Tibet were given autonomy. But it lasted for only a few years. That time they were allowed to use their own local language (As our malayalam, tamil etc.). But latter the govt restricted to use them and declared Chinese as the only official language. Even though other languages can be used to speak (!!!) they were not allowed it to use for official purposes. A farmer in inner-Mongolia cannot use their language scripts to write the address on a letter to his son living some other part of inner-Mongolia. Many people of these region still dont know the chinese language. Many Chinese are telling the govt was not interested on Tibet or inner-Mongolia for a long Period. When the govt identified the Tibetan and Mongolian land have tourist and industrial interests (also some other) they tried to access the land. But the people in Tibet don't like the changes in nature due to religious reasons also the mongoliangs for some thir own reasons (That may be the reason of recent issue). The govt tried to send people from the main land to Tibet and inner-Mongolia to defend their stands. When other people comes, the govt help and other benefits restricted only to the new comers. It is because the govt notification and other official helps are accessible only to them due to the Chinese language. I think that may be the reason the Tibetans and Mongolians oppose the migration. Let me tell that I didn't gone through the links provided by Raghu. Let me do it latter and I will discuss it with the Chinese students here and let you their impression on it.
Deepak

Back to square one!

President Bush wrapped up his Israel trip last week, visiting the Mt. of Beatitudes in Jerusalem where Jesus is believed to have said “blessed are the peace-makers” & ruins of the biblical city Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee. Quite symbolical a start is for a man who has waged two ugly wars in the name of fighting terrorism. Given the past seven years in power, nobody would doubt Bush’s ability to make rhetoric on all the issues, whether it is the domestic economy, ‘war on terror’ or the West Asian peace process. Does his recent visit to the Holy Land mean anything other than a damage control exercise organised by conservatives in the White House?

Well, before the November 2007 Annapolis peace conference, observers had issued sceptical notes against Bush’s diplomatic gambling. Invariably, American presidents in their last year in power, use soft hands in dealing with the West Asian conflict. And now, it’s Bush’s turn. After holding talks with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Abu Mazen in Ramalla, West Bank, Bush challenged the “sceptics” saying, “I believe it’s going to happen that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office.” Is it as easy as taking a decision to bomb a weak Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad? Many experts would disagree. Speaking to B&E, the Director of Gulf Studies Programme at JNU, Prof. Gulshan Dietl said, “Bush’s political clout is weaning tremendously. This visit is a theatre set for his own personal history.

Not only that, the leaders who have to reach an agreement are domestically too weak to take any decision. So, this visit is not going to change anything in the ground.” Two months after Annapolis, it’s obvious that the US & Israel are unlikely to take any step beyond their conventional understanding of the national identity of Palestinians. All this is happening amid reports that Israel, with the tacit support of the PA, would attack and reoccupy the Gaza strip, which has been under the control of Hamas since last June. Hamas on the other side declared, “The only dialogue with the enemy will be with rifles & rockets.” If Israel is going to do that, the entire region would be plunged into a civil war. Even if the PA, by any chance, reaches a political agreement with Israel, as years go by, the number of “core issues” only goes up, not down.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy, 7/2/2008)

Confining peace to conferences!

Peace has always been a mirage in West Asia. The region has seen as many wars as conferences for peace. Therefore, a peace meet itself would hardly kindle hopes for the war-ravaged people in the region. Yet, the November 27 peace conference that took place in Annapolis Naval Academy, Maryland, gained much attention, despite West Asia watchers’ repeated warnings to avoid high expectations. What makes Annapolis so different? First of all, it signals a change in President George Bush’s West Asia policy. Till now, the Bush Administration refused to invest its political capital in the Arab-Palestinian conflict. Ever since the electoral victory of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Bush, along with his European allies, took a ‘Boycott Hamas’ stand. His Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched her shuttle diplomacy only after Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen sacked Hamas from power & appointed a new puppet government. White House & the European capitals understood that this was the moment to isolate Hamas & to go ahead with a conciliatory Abu Mazen. Most of the Arab countries, including Syria, turned up to attend the Annapolis meet. Both the Palestinian & Israeli representatives issued a joint declaration which promised to bring peace by December 2008. “The Annapolis conference did produce one achievement: for the first time in seven years, the Israelis and the Palestinians plan to hold regular negotiations on fundamental issues that divide them,” Greg Myre, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute & a former New York Times correspondent told B&E.

But for achieving long-lasting peace, both parties need to compromise. “Israelis and Palestinians need to negotiate peace directly, under the US-UN—Arab-international umbrella. What is likely, however, is that, it will be left to next US administration to complete this process. I would expect — and one can only hope — that the next US Administration will not do what the Bush Administration did and abandon the Israeli and Palestinian people,” Hady Amr, Director of the Brookings Doha Centre told B&E.

Both Abu Mazen & Olmert look weaker in their respective domestic politics. A weak leader at home is unlikely to take strong decisions. Although the Olmert Government has promised to halt the construction of settlement houses in the West Bank, the Jewish hawks are seemingly determined to block any attempt to dismantle the settlements. Moreover, contentious issues such as border of the prospective Palestinian state, status of Jerusalem & refugees remain untouched.

Still, some would still say, something is better than nothing.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy on 27/12/2007)

Thumping win for Putin’s politics

When the Soviet Union collapsed in early 1990s, the West was busy preaching lessons of liberal democracy to Russians. America’s ‘triumph over the evil empire’ was celebrated as the greatest moment of 20th century liberalism. Sixteen years down the line, where does Russia stand in global democratic industry? Not impressive, if one goes by standards of Western democracies. Well before the December 2 Parliamentary elections, liberal press had warned that President Vladamir Putin, who is leaving Kremlin in March, would use the results to tighten his grip over Kremlin. Despite widespread international campaign against Putin, his United Russia party emerged victorious with 315 seats, 14 seats more than the 2/3rd majority needed to pass constitutional amendments. The only opposition, United Russia would face in the Houses would be Communists. Putin had defeated the liberal opposition parties, Yabloko & the Union of Right, well before the elections, by increasing, the minimum requirement of percentage of total votes, for having a seat in Duma, to 7%.

“In the election campaign, the Unified Russia declared that it was a referendum on Putin’s policies. The “referendum” proved that Russians back Putin & his policies. However, it has not helped Russian democracy in general. Rather, it exposes the facets of Russian political system,” Sidorenko Alexy, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told B&E. Putin, with huge majority in the Parliament, is more powerful now. He has already declared that he would step down in March 2008. What’s in his mind is unknown. But everybody knows that, after investing this much political capital in the parliamentary elections, he’s unlikely to give up his influence in Russian politics.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy on 27/12/2007)

Crack begin to appear in fortress

For almost a decade, the Venezuelan Opposition hasn’t known what a victory is, at the national level. They played all the tactics, right from boycotting elections to staging a coup against the elected president. On the other side, President Hugo Chavez grew in strength. The more the Opposition attacked him, the stronger he became. This was the domestic scene for the last nine years. Yet, the divided Opposition managed to defeat Chavez’s ambitious constitutional reforms by a narrow margin in the December 2 referendum. Chavez sought a series of reforms including letting the President run for re-election indefinitely. The reforms, in his words, would have sped up Venezuela’s transformation into a socialist country. However, many of his supporters, who gave him a victory in the December presidential elections last year, did not turn up to vote ‘yes’ for their Leftist President. Speaking to B&E, Dr. Shannon K. O’Neil, a Latin American expert at the Council of Foreign Relations, said, “This is the first setback for Chavez. Nevertheless, he still maintains substantial power – control of the presidency, the Congress, the courts, most of the media, and most of the local & regional governments. He has significant decree powers, so many of the issues he tried to pass through the referendum could potentially be passed through the pro-Chavez legislature.” The referendum has sparked off a new debate across the US. Is it the beginning of the end of Chavezism in South America? Certainly not in the near future at least, he still has the capacity to withstand setbacks.
John Stanly (published in Business and Economy on27/12/2007)

She’s back in the race

Former US President Bill Clinton called Barack Obama a “kid” ahead of the Nevada Caucus. His wife & Democratic contender for presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, said that electing Obama would tantamount to electing “another Bush” to the White House. On the eve of the Caucus, the Hillary camp complained that their supporters in the state’s unions were threatened by the union leaders, who backed Obama. The Obama backers hit back saying they received many telephone calls, which made continuous references to “Barack Hussein Obama.” Nevada saw it all. Still, Obama, the charismatic Illinois Senator who changed the entire arithmetic of Democratic contest, could not defeat the former first lady in Nevada.

What went wrong for Obama? He failed to keep up the hype, set by his own media managers, as the campaign spread to other parts of the country. His vulnerability to attract different demographic votes was visible in New Hampshire & Nevada. Although the Obama camp, having understood this fact, attacked the Clintons, saying they haven’t done much for the Hispanic community, it failed to pay. The Hispanic groups, the growing number of Democratic supporters, voted for Clinton in large numbers. She could also walk away with women votes as Obama managed to retain support of the blacks. Obama’s stunning Iowa victory has started to fade away with his straight losses in New Hampshire & Nevada.

“The Clinton-Obama contest is a fascinating showpiece of American political theatre. In addition to the male/female and black/white aspects, the personalities embody a contrast, few other countries embrace that of new v/s old & change v/s continuity. I cannot think of any country apart from the USA where political experience is an electoral liability. The two leading contenders for the democratic nomination, embody these observations, and Obama is praised for his strong commitment to “change” without defining what this means while Clinton emphasises her “experience” without convincingly demonstrating that she has any. It’s American, it’s “show business”, and it’s exciting, even if somewhat primitive,” Dr. Robert


McGeehan, an associate fellow at Chatham House, told B&E. The next Obama-Clinton fight will be on January 26 in South Carolina where the black community is crucial factor. Though the black voters were loyal to the Clintons since the first presidency of Bill, this time, according to the polls, Obama is more popular among them. A victory on Saturday is crucial for Obama to go to the Super Tuesday campaigns with confidence. Obama hasn’t so far played his racial cards vigorously, which many analysts say is a “strategic error.” Would he take them out in pretty American style? Well, let’s wait and see.

John Stanly (published in Business and Economy, 7/2/08)