Category: War

keeping status quo.

On Iran and peace:

Whatever the case, the Israeli notion making the rounds these days that Arab fears of Iran might be the foundation for an alignment of interest is almost certainly wrong.  While some of the crustier Arab leaders might be tempted, Arab publics will want nothing to do with it.  Nothing would unite Arab opinion faster than an Israeli attack on Iran. The only thing which might change that would be serious movement towards a two state solution, for which the Obama administration has powerfully and consistently called. A rapid, fair Israeli-Palestinian peace deal would transform the situation and dramatically reduce the appeal of any Iranian message of “resistance.” That seems unlikely at the moment, given the platform of the Israeli government and the divided Palestinian political scene, but without it the Israeli fantasy of an alliance against Iran will remain a fantasy.

cemented.

As meningitis spreads in the Kalma refugee camp,

Al-Bashir, meanwhile, says he does not want a freezing of the case, but its complete cancellation. “Whoever wants us, don’t go the Security Council or the ICC. Whoever wants us, come here directly,” he proclaimed at one of the many rallies he has held since the warrant was issued.

Alex de Waal, a Sudan expert at the New York-based Social Science Research Council, said Khartoum is not “looking for a compromise right now.”

“They are calling the bluff … Now that the international community fired their big shot, what else can they do? Add more charges?” he said.

colluding with ‘evil’

Canada is not flawless, by no means, but this is a disappointment. And yet – and I hate to say it – no surprise.

It adds that Britain, with a number of countries, has sent interrogators to Guantánamo Bay in a further example of what it says “can be reasonably understood as implicitly condoning” torture and ill-treatment, adding that the US was able to create its system for moving terror suspects around foreign jails only with the support of its allies.

…

It identifies the UK, along with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Georgia, Indonesia, Kenya, Macedonia and Pakistan, as states that have provided “intelligence or have conducted the initial seizure of an individual before he was transferred to (mostly unacknowledged) detention centres in Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Thailand, Uzbekistan … or to one of the CIA covert detention centres, often referred to as ‘black sites’”.

The rhetoric of ‘evil’ and ‘terrorism’ pushed Canada over the edge: clearly there existed – and exists – the option to not participate in such types of illegal activities. Why did we choose the other route?

in the near future, darfur.

Self-defense to genocide?

My hunch is that Mr. Bashir’s calculation is twofold. First, he hopes that if there’s enough suffering in Darfur, the United Nations Security Council will approve a one-year delay in the court’s proceedings (he miscalculated, for that won’t happen). Second, he has long wanted to get rid of aid workers in Darfur, partly because they are the world’s eyes and ears there.

As pointed out by Kristof, here’s a section of what Gen. Merrill McPeak, the former Air Force chief of staff and a co-chairman of the Obama presidential campaign, suggests in an op-ed:

Air power plays a central role in Bashir’s military strategy, so establishing a no-fly zone remains the most promising initiative to halt the atrocities in Darfur. During her Senate confirmation hearing, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that such a proposal was under consideration. As a practical matter, imposing control over Sudanese airspace must involve NATO and European Union allies, in particular France, which has a suitable airfield at Abeche, in eastern Chad. Allied air forces could and should provide much of the force structure, principally fighter aircraft, but a U.S. contribution — especially of aerial refuelers and command-and-control aircraft — would be essential. About a squadron of each type of aircraft would be more than enough to end the impunity Sudanese military aviation now enjoys.

And and an interesting article on the “Making Sense of Darfur” blog criticizing aid agencies for failing to prepare for this day – their expulsion. While the focus should be initially on the tragedy unfolding because of al-Bashir, the author has a point. This was inevitable, aid agencies should have been initiating – as much as possible – the necessary structures for self-sufficiency. However, for those on the ground, do such options exist? Is there a means of ensuring this self-sufficiency considering the environmental and political setbacks?

The first impulse of the media and international community has been to focus on the urgent need for aid to continue. But I think many people should consider why aid needs to continue so desperately, despite years of work and billions of dollars invested. How can it be that after 28 years of being there (as one organisation proudly states), 2.2 million people are dependent on international aid agencies for basic needs? For me, this is the real tragedy. Speaking to a very senior and respected African activist, he tells me that life in a camp is generally like being in prison: in most camps there is no farming, no jobs – no way to be self sufficient in the least; the lack of security outside the camp makes it impossible to leave; while aid workers come and go, people live in these camps for many, many years.

….

In 1987 a group of organisations worked with displaced communities in a town called Yei in South Sudan, completely cut off from aid: “There was little hope of receiving much in terms of food or other humanitarian aid: road access was blocked by the rebels and limited to military-escorted convoys every few months”. They agreed the only way to truly help communities was to encourage them to grow food wherever possible, help them to run their own medical and education services themselves, and support them to govern themselves in their traditional manner. Compared to camps in the nearby town of Juba, where malnutrition, alcoholism, divorce and delinquency were rife, communities in Yei resumed an almost normal life, providing for themselves, educating their children and caring for their sick. Although Yei was a displaced camp, it was unrecognisable as such. It was from this experience that AAH-I emerged.

stifled.

I was just talking to my neighbor about the movie Waltz With Bashir. While he’s Israeli, he’s been reluctant to watch it. The conversation shed some light on self-denial: blocking memories of violence to ignoring the present. My roommate tells me that his Israeli roommates in Berlin watched the news only once a day and usually with a blind eye to events in Israel; the filmmaker featured in Waltz With Bashir managed to wipe away all his memories of the massacres. This ‘inculcation’ must also help develop an unnatural level of tolerance for violence.

Since living in Uganda, I’ve gotten a better idea of what revisiting history can do. It’s a matter of opening – then healing – old wounds; of building bridges between oppressive state and oppressed citizens; it’s a matter of assigning and taking responsibility for atrocities. Beyond Juba is a committee proposing a sort of Truth and Reconciliation Commission dealing with violence in the country since the 1960s. We’re talking about much more than the Lord’s Resistance Army in the North, but also the violence done under Amin and Obote, for example. There’s a possibility that the current generation – through education and dialogue – can be saved from adopting the same ethincally intolerant attitudes their parents were socialized into.

in shatila and sabra.

I just finished watching Waltz With Bashir. What a powerful account of the Shatila and Sabra massacres of Palestinians during the Lebanese civil war. It was easy to appreciate the truth behind the distortion of memory caused by trauma; an unwillingness to believe it ever happened.

And these young kids, traumatized at the ages of 19 and 20, able to pursue their lives later but constantly – unconsciously – bound up in these memories. This is like Israel today: I met several young Israelis who had just finished their military service when traveling in Eastern Africa. While they had not participated in the civil war or lived a similar atrocious experience, they were scarred by the flyovers of Hezbollah areas, going in to shoot at targets during the day; partying in Tel Aviv in the evenings.

For a country which calls itself righteous in its beliefs, this is particularly disturbing: the trend of corrupting and forcefully engaging young Israelis into their mentality. If this is what’s necessary for its survival – as many argue – is it worth it? Is it worth having thousands of young men and women inculcated into this mentality of “emergency state” and engaged in violent behavior and thoughts from such a young age? How can you expect to produce sane leaders, whose goals are not affected  by this deep and disturbing socialization process?

pending.

If you want hour-by-hour updates on the situation in Darfur, add Rob Crilly on Twitter. Or, check out some of his blog posts. Here’s an update on the aid situation where everything has ground to a halt. And, his article in the Times.

summary.

Interesting points from a reader:

The decision of the International Criminal Court to indict Sudan’s president Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, murder and forcible displacement of peoples (but not genocide due to lack of evidence) in the Darfur crisis opens a can of worms. First, his retaliatory gesture of expelling humanitarian aid organizations leaves over two million refugees vulnerable to hunger and disease and further violence. The question still remains whether they would be better off by insisting on the indictment, or by using it as a threat to put pressure on him to change his policies.

The ICC’s decision to prosecute could still be overruled by the UN Security Council (France, Russia, China and Britain might do that if al-Bashir ends the war in Darfur and allows the refugees return home.) But, ironically, the United States, which has not even joined the ICC, rejects such action lest it undermine the court’s deterrent effect. And some international aid organizations have avoided taking a stand, fearing to jeopardise their position on the ground. Moreover, some African and Arab states dismiss the ICC’s decisions, apparently rejecting the application of international law in the case of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. So this first the indictment against a sitting president is not as clear as one might have hoped it would be.

If only I could put it so coherently. I’m still undecided: while I appreciate decisive action, and I think we really need it in terms of Darfur, unless this ICC indictment actually serves as much needed pressure on Al-Bashir to change, what sticks are left? Will the UN Security Council ensure that the follow-up is swift and coherent militarily? As Kristof suggested, should Al-Bashir continue hemming chaos in Darfur,  would the US consider blowing up some of their planes from a nearby military base? Another stick. In either case, can we justify the added pain caused by aid pull-out? It remains to be seen.

in khartoum.

Al-Bashir, presumably reacting to the indictment, has banned a multitude of aid agencies from the Darfuri region. Those supporting the ICC – and Western nations in the favorable position to help – need to pick up the slack and protect Darfuris from further pain caused by the backlash. As Kristof puts it,

So now President Obama and other leaders — hello, Gordon Brown, you there? — need to back up the I.C.C. arrest warrant and push to reverse the expulsion of aid workers, while working with Arab countries like Qatar that want to help.

Glad I wasn’t the only one thinking that. On the other hand, as good news has it, the ICC does have it’s upside:

Intriguingly, Khartoum is full of rumors that the handful of leaders just below Mr. Bashir are thinking of throwing him overboard to save themselves. We can encourage that by making it clear that Sudan will pay a price if the killings continue.

Should we want the ICC to be seen as a positive force in the realm of ending atrocities (like what’s happened in Northern Uganda and what’s happening in Darfur), decisive action must quickly follow the indictment. However, naturally, there’s this tiny issue:

As a legal expert for New York-based Human Rights Watch, Richard Dicker, noted this week, the “Achilles heel” of the ICC is that it has no police force to carry out its warrants … Instead, the Hague-based ICC depends on governments, mainly those of the suspects it indicts, to enforce its wishes.

alternatives in sudan.

If you’re incensed that the indictment didn’t contain the word ‘genocide’, more information here. I’m not: crimes against humanity and war crimes, even though not as ‘symbolically’ powerful will get the ‘job’ done. And, they’re easier to prove.

Next, the infernal peace vs. justice debate continues. Rob Crilly brings up the ever-famous example of Kony’s fear of the ICC and the fact that this may have back burned potential peace talks forever  between the Ugandan government and the rebels. This might be partially true: considering LRA work in Congo, I’d say there were not ready to make peace at all. As rebels, they’ve cornered themselves: they can’t return to their own communities; they have a future in nothing else than warfare. The ICC indictment might have put on some added pressure, but, it looks like it would have been next to impossible to get them to agree to a long-term peace plan regardless.

As for Darfur, one part I’m concerned about is that the Sudanese government doesn’t seem to be a reliable peace-making partner. Particularly with violence increasing over the past few years in Southern Sudan, where there’s supposed to be a working peace deal, and the current government treatment of Darfuris – with Al-Bashir at the head of the Khartoum regime, is peace even a possibility? In which case, kicking him out and trying Round 2 might be more plausible. However, the possible retailiation against Darfuris is real. The recent expulsion of aid organizations does not bode well.

When I think of a compromise instead of an indictment – perhaps working with Al-Bashir (facing added pressure from Eastern countries and oil trading partners) for a peace deal and then supporting a free and fair election, it seems impossible. Al-Bashir enjoys the support of the most powerful players in the region. He’s not ready to give it up. Violence is inevitable.

Regardless, now that the indictment is confirmed, are we ready to act decisively, as the West, who, in a sense, represents the ICC, and take on the burden of having indicted Al-Bashir, potentially prompting worse war crimes and concrete genocidal actions?

All this must be taken with a grain of salt, after all, time will tell and I’m no expert. I’m just concerned that all these ‘Western’ countries supporting international justice are not going to act when it comes time to defend the indictment, and defend the Darfuris themselves from the indictment.

losing friends.

Well, if this is true, getting the “regime change” shouldn’t be too difficult.

Bashir’s troubles are mounting. His staunchest supporters are backing away, slowly. China is deeply concerned that its oil investments will be put at risk by Bashir’s continued warmongering. Arab states have similar concerns about their huge investments in Sudan’s oil-fueled economic boom. Egypt in particular sees Bashir as a liability. His regime supported the assassination attempt against President Hosni Mubarak in 1995, backed Saddam Hussein in the two Gulf wars, and now is fully behind Hamas in Gaza.

What’s the next step? And who fills the power-vacuum in Sudan should Bashir come crashing down?

imperial ambitions.

Spent the larger part of the day on a bus to and fro Ottawa. Skies are blue; rivers frozen; and Canada is flat, flat, flat. Another hour in the Ismaili Imamat Embassy being interviewed by Aga Khan Canada. I am exhausted. In between, I spent the bus ride reading Chomsky’s book “Imperial Ambitions.” A breath of fresh air in the realm of paranoid, uber-complicated academics. I’ve taken out some of my favorite, most relevant bits:

As Chomsky says, the US has consistently demonized those they are threatening. In other words,

As Franklin points out, it’s consistently the case that the people who are about to exterminate us are the ones who are under our boot. We’ve got our boot on their necks, and that means they’re about to exterminate us (p. 165).

This type of genocidal rhetoric seems more familiar to Milosevic’s Serbia, less so the U.S.A. Viva La Vida.

Lyndon Johnson said plaintively, “There are three billion people in the world and we have only two hundred million of them. We are outnumbered fifteen to one. If might did make right they would sweep over the United States and take what we have. We have what they want.” That is a constant refrain of imperialism. You have your jackboot on someone’s neck and they’re about to destroy you … The same is true with any form of oppression. And it’s psychologically understandable. If you’re crushing and destroying someone, you have to have a reason for it, and it can’t be, I’m a murderous monster. It has to be self-defense. I’m protecting myself against them. Look what they’re doing to me. Oppression gets psychologically inverted: the oppressor is the victim who is defending himself. (p. 167).

A few other highlights, this one mentioned the ridicule behind hyper-religious America:

The teaching of evolution, which is just normal in every other country, is extremely difficult here. And it has been for a long time. I remember when my wife was in college in the late 1940s. She was taking a sociology course, and I remember her telling me that the instructor said, “The next section is going to be on evolution. You don’t have to believe this, but you just ought to know what some people think (p. 186).

And last, but not least, a thunderous statement, inverting our ‘traditional’ knowledge of failed state:

The United States is basically what’s called a “failed state.” It was formal democratic institutions, but they barely function. So it doesn’t matter that approximately three fourths of the population think we ought to have some kind of government-funded health care system. It doesn’t even matter if a large majority regards health care as a moral value. When commentators rave about moral values, they are talking about banning gay marriage, not the idea that everyone should have decent health care. (p. 198).

And then, though it’s hard to stick to this truth with all that’s around,

Many of the basic institutions of our society are totally illegitimate. Do corporations have to be controlled by management and owners and dedicated to the welfare of shareholders instead of being controlled by the people who work in them and dedicated to the community and the workers? It’s not a law of nature (p. 201).

in central asia.

In my search for vital information on Central Asia, I stumbled across more threats of violence spreading in all poor regions of the world. This is absolutely nothing new: just hard to swallow when dug up in concentrated amounts. See impending instability in Tajikistan.

Not surprisingly, of course. First of all, the country sits in the middle of a political and social hot bed, both on a geostrategic (bordering China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekhestan) and ethnic level. The country, economically, depends primarily on returns from nationals working for a pittance in the surrounding regions. Many also depend on revenue from helping traffic cocaine out of Afghanistan. There’s some export of cotton and aluminum; which basically means that a small hiccup in the world economy can be felt. Hence, the recession spells worse and worse news. Unfortunately (or perhaps for the better), they aren’t doted with significant oil or gas resources, just a bit of coal.

In any case, the lengthy history of the region – and the vaguely romantic sounding names describing the peaks of the country’s mountain tops – makes this worth the research.

And, just received in my email inbox, Niall Ferguson now peppering Foreign Policy with bad omens. No more axis of evil:

The bad news for Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, is that he now faces a much larger and potentially more troubling axis—an axis of upheaval. This axis has at least nine members, and quite possibly more. What unites them is not so much their wicked intentions as their instability, which the global financial crisis only makes worse every day. Unfortunately, that same crisis is making it far from easy for the United States to respond to this new “grave and growing danger.”

There Will be Blood.

Niall Ferguson is a fabulous author and his book, “The War of the World: History’s Age of Hatred” is a great starting point. He was interviewed for today’s Globe and Mail on the recession. His “There Will be Blood” comment stole the title, understandably.

“There will be blood, in the sense that a crisis of this magnitude is bound to increase political as well as economic [conflict]. It is bound to destabilize some countries. It will cause civil wars to break out, that have been dormant. It will topple governments that were moderate and bring in governments that are extreme. These things are pretty predictable.”

As he says, the above is a pretty basic assessment. But, here comes a key observation:

“The question is whether the general destabilization, the return of, if you like, political risk, ultimately leads to something really big in the realm of geopolitics. That seems a less certain outcome. We’ve already talked about why China and the United States are in an embrace they don’t dare end. If Russia is looking for trouble the way Mr. Putin seems to be, I still have some doubt as to whether it can really make this trouble, because of the weakness of the Russian economy. It’s hard to imagine Russia invading Ukraine without weakening its economic plight. They’re desperately trying to prevent the ruble from falling off a cliff. They’re spending all their reserves to prop it up. It’s hardly going to help if they do another Georgia.”

“I was more struck Putin’s bluster than his potential to bite, when he spoke at Davos. But he made a really good point, which I keep coming back to. In his speech, he said crises like this will encourage governments to engage in foreign policy aggression [emphasis added]. I don’t think he was talking about himself, but he might have been. It’s true, one of the things historically that we see, and also when we go back to 30s, but also to the depressions 1870s and 19980s, weak regimes will often resort to a more aggressive foreign policy, to try to bolster their position. It’s legitimacy that you can gain without economic disparity – playing the nationalist card. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of that in the year ahead.

And to defuse the weight of the above:

“Property ownership is something that our societies, particularly English-speaking societies, seem to be drawn towards. The notion that the majority of people should own their own homes dated from the 30s. It didn’t really become a reality until the 50s. We’ve sort of pushed the home ownership rate up to what seems to be its maximum, and beyond. It will clearly come down. The lesson of the subprime crisis is that you shouldn’t give mortgages to people who can’t afford them. Duh …”

And, while it looks up for Canada, perhaps not the same elsewhere:

But the good news is only as good as this: the United States, which is Canada’s biggest trading partner, is not going to suffer as badly as many other economies around the world. And that means that from Canada’s point of view, it’s not standing right on top of the biggest fault lines in the global system. The biggest fault lines in the global system are in Asia. They may also be in Eastern Europe. That’s where things are going to be really unpredictable.”

As I mentioned with Bosnia, the recession can only aggravate ethnic tensions still simmering after the war. Which, in retrospect, was not that long ago. Moreover, areas like Kosovo are wholly dependent on international aid. The area has little to no industry; a shaky government populated with Kosovo Liberation Army ex-soldiers; and an aggressive Serbian government to the North. Aid is bound to decline over the coming years; hard-work is bound to unravel as weak countries fight for a piece of the global pie (unsuccessfully), and poverty will be on the up.

However, Ferguson seems pretty confident that we’re not heading towards a WWIII, so perhaps it’s time to stay positive, celebrate, and, as Bush might have put it, go shopping!