Only Politics

Achieving diplomatic solution to Afghanistan’s political and security problems is no mean task, particularly when there is an involvement of several individuals and groups vying for poltical space and control. Tell this to Michael Semple and Mervyn Patterson, the expelled western diplomats from Afghanistan, and you stand a very good chance of getting a similar point of view. The two senior diplomats, one an Irish and the other a Briton are set to leave the country they had been working in for the past decade after being accused of negotiating with the Taliban in the Helmand province. Well, it is clear from various reports that the two diplomats were engaged in talks with the fundamentalists, but what is not yet certain is the manner of those negotiations. It is true that the Afghan government would not get involved in peace talks with an organisation that is waging a war in the country and killing both governmental troops and NATO forces. But the complication is aroused when there is a clear mandate for engaging liberal Taliban leaders into the reconciliation process and if this was the motive for the diplomats in Helmand, there is no point in expelling them. But analysts are pointing towards a different agenda on the part of the Hamid Karzai government in expelling Mr.Semple and Mr.Patterson. They are indicating to the fact that President Karzai is feeling a growing strain in how to deal with the Taliban in the Afghan reconciliation process. Many consider Asadullah Wafa, the Helmand governor, as an Afghan hawk who would hate to see the Taliban in the negotiating table even if they represent the more moderate elements within the fundamentalist organisation. Infact the initial complaint about the work of the diplomats in the province came from Mr.Wafa, who sources say, had warned them not to talk with the Taliban. The expulsion, without any centralised enquiry, could be seen as an attempt by President Karzai and governor Wafa to assert their authority on the political vacuum created by the retaking of Helmand from the Taliban by British NATO forces. Source Link: Independent Image Link: Dailymail

One interpretation of Benazir Bhutto’s killing is that it is the work of Al Qaeda. True, even Laden’s hand has owned responsibility. But, is it the end of the story? Perhaps, no. The Pakistan observers who are aware of the deceit and machiavellian nature of the country’s politics are not satisfied with this simplistic explanation. They logically are refusing to swallow the Bush-Musharraf line on the assassination. It may be true that Al Qaeda killed Benazir. But in collaboration with whom? ISI is the name that easily springs to mind. The infamous Pakistani Intelligence Agency has played a major role in developments in the country for many years. It has many faces. While on one hand, it co-operates with the US in the fight against terror, on the other, it has old links with the Taliban and radical Islamists since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Of late, it is acting according to the agenda set by Musharraf. Does getting rid of Benazir gives Musharraf more options to extend his rule? He has definitely got rid of one of the major threats to his power. Her killing has endeared Musharraf even more to the Bush administration, making him even more indispensable. The question arises, why did Al Qaeda go all-out to eliminate Benazir, and not Nawaz Sharif? — Is it because, she had openly called for rooting out Islamic fundamentalism from the country? Sharif is a protege of the Saudis, who feel more comfortable with his friendship with the radical Islamist groups in Pakistan. Sharif, hence, is less of a threat to Al Qaeda. If the Pakistani army feels Musharraf has become dispensable, there may be another army coup! One must remember that the present Army Chief, General Ashfaq Kiyani comes from the ISI. Hence, we see there are wheels within wheels, where the political scene of Pakistan is concerned. Image Independent

Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki has come up with some good news for the Americans. The Iraqi government will release many of the prisoners (not those belonging to the Al Qaeda, of course) presently in the country’s jails. The idea is to foment better ties between the Shias and Sunnis. But, such cosmetic measures will not be enough to make much of a difference. Many issues remain unresolved. Maliki’s government has done nothing to encourage the return of Baathists, who have become untouchables after Saddam’s fall, into the government and security agencies. No measures have been taken in the direction of passing an oil-sharing bill, which would address the question of sharing of oil revenues between the various communities. The Maliki government is still seen as a Shia government and the Sunnis remain aloof and sullen. The arming of Sunnis in Anbar province by the US has only facilitated the formation of a strong well-equipped Sunni fighting force. Shia strongman Moqtada al Sadr is maintaining a studied silence. He has called on his fighters to lay low and wait for the US ‘surge’ to subside. In fact, things are expected to come to a boil after the US force-levels fall to their earlier levels. The subdued Al Qaeda will then come back with a vengeance. Unless Maliki does something to get the Sunnis and Kurds on board his ship, clashes between the communities will resume. The Kurds remain intransigent as ever. They are striking deals with foreign companies, independently of Baghdad. If the PKK-Turkish clashes escalate, the consequences will undo whatever good the US occupation has achieved since 2003. The coming year is going to be a make-or-break year for Iraq. Image USATODAY

Despite of widespread poverty and illiteracy African countries are more interested in battles and genocides. If there is possibility of an Islamist group acquiring political power in a country its non-Islamic neighbour will be on the tenterhooks. The possibility of a threat from an Islamic militia was reason enough for Ethiopia to invade Somalia in December 2006. After a year in Somalia, the Ethiopian forces are in a dilemma and cannot move away from the war fronts. This has caused the worst ever-humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa. Besides the conflicts in Somalia, the Ethiopian government is bogged down with a rebellion from the Ogaden National Liberation Front in the Somali region of Ethiopia. The US in establishing its political hegemony in the world has walked into the African conflict by siding with the Ethiopian government. Despite official denial from the US, it is nonetheless true that the American government provided arms and ammunitions to the Ethiopian army to kill Islamist leaders in Somalia. The United States has always played double standards and had supported invasions of Islamic countries trampling the sovereignty of nations on the plea of fighting Islamic terrorists on one hand while paying lip service to the democratic idols on the other hand. It had been 16 years since Somalia had a national government. If the Ethiopian troops remain in the country, there is no possibility of the national Somalian government under President Abdullahi Yusuf controlling the country. Such preposterous activity by a poor African country in trying to control an impoverished neighbour will only accelerate Islamic terrorism world wide as we have seen happen in Iraq and Afghanistan. In such a crisis, it is always felt whether the UN should step in. The Ethiopian government has urged the UN to bring in an international peacekeeping force in Somalia but the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has rightly put down the offer. Instead of keeping the fellow citizens of Somalia in war fatigues, it is imperative to bring the country’s Federal Government and its opposition together to a peaceful settlement. The worst sufferers from this crisis is the ordinary people of Somalia and over 600,000 people have been rendered homeless and fighting hunger and diseases in the refuge camps. When will the African countries realize that the incessant wars are only impoverishing them further? Source:BBC Image:rastafari speaks

the government of Pakistan has given a sudden twist in the murder theory of Benazir Bhutto. The government has confirmed it that Benazir Bhutto was not assassinated but died in an unfortunate accident. According to Javed Cheema, spokesperson, Information minister, Pakistan, Bhutto was hit hard by the lever of the sunroof of her vehicle when she suddenly went down after hearing the gunshots fired and the explosion of suicide bombing. Cheema also showed, in a press conference, the last visuals of Benazir when she was standing out through the sunroof of her vehicle and waving her hands to the people standing near the car. He described the possible chains of incident as when Mohtarma heard the gunshots in her left side, she tried to go down inside the car all of a sudden, which was a bulletproof vehicle, and then she got a fracture in the right side of her head when a lever near the right side of the sunroof hit her right side of head. Cheema also distributed the copies of the photograph of lever in which he claimed there was a sign of bloodstain. He also claimed that the doctors found no bullet injury, no splinter injury and no any other sign of injury on her body in the external postmortem. She was in coma when security guards brought her to the hospital after the incident. He also claimed that Benazir’s husband Asif Ali Jardari denied giving permission for the postmortem of her body so doctors did not attempt it. As far as the gunshots and the suicide bombings were concerned, Cheema also claimed that the security officials had taped the conversation between two al-Qaeda leader and he distributed the copies of the transcript of the conversation in which both were congratulating each other on their success. He tried to establish the theory that al-Qaeda was behind the attempt to kill her. Now, here are some points or loopholes in the ‘lever theory’ – # Previous reports had claimed that five bullets were fired and hit her in chest and neck, now the Pakistani government has claimed that three bullets were fired and none of the bullets hit her body. # After such a high-profile murder, why did the doctors not attempt to conduct postmortem? # Why did the ‘no autopsy’ report come out only after burial? # Pakistani government said there was a skull fracture, how did they find the skull fracture as the main cause of her death without conducting any postmortem. # Is formal permission from close relatives needed to conduct autopsy in such high-profile murder case? # What was the need to wash the spot immediately after the assassination? The question remains the same – ‘Was it a plotted murder or just an unfortunate accident?’ Via media reports

Over the past few months Malaysia’s religious tolerance and secularity is being tested from various sources. Last month the capital Kuala Lumpur saw violent street protests by ethnic Tamils who alleged the ruling Malay Muslim majority of following a social and political intolerance towards the minorities. Malaysia is considered to be one of the most tolerable countries which allow religious freedom and the multi-ethnic cosmopolitan nature of the country certainly proves that. But according to many analysts, some hardline Islamic elements have made their ways into the government and their main motive is to increase the supremacy of the Malay Muslims. In yet another blow to Malaysian religious tolerance, the Malaysian Catholic Herald, a publication by and for Catholics in the country, has been told by the government not to publish its Malaysian language edition if it continues to use the word ‘Allah’ to mean God. Sounds absolute ludicrous! In Malaysia the word ‘Allah’ is used as a common language to mention all forms of Gods. This is nothing but an attempt to make Islam exclusive to Muslims. Hey we are living in the age of globalisation and technology. Everybody has the right to practice and preach anything so long it does not abuse fundamental religious beliefs. Islam does not disallow other people of different faiths to utter the word ‘Allah’. This is an attempt to divide a trouble free society that for ages has coexisted peacefully. To some experts the governmental decree has come as a total surprise. For years Malaysians of all faiths have used the word ‘Allah’ without any protest in sight. So what made the administration of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmed Badawi suddenly realise the need to separate the word ‘Allah’? May be some of the policymakers inside the government do not know their country’s religious history. Far more surprising is the fact that this government came to power promising to promote its own brand of moderate Islam. May be it should have a rethink for the newest step of ‘moderate Islam’, if it is at all the motive, would certainly lead to unwanted tensions. Source Link: BBC Image Link: Romantika

Those volatile days of the early nineties are past when Russians were struggling to come to terms with a new national identity far different from the Soviet era. The country was disintegrating into pieces with severe and deadly infighting taking priority over national reconciliation. Well, let us put that history to bed and face up to a new resurgent Russia with dramatic political and economical turnaround from those dark days of nineties. Ask any Russian, young or old, you stand a great chance in getting the same answer to the question, who is responsible for this turnaround. The dominant answer is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the President of the Russian Federation. The short-statured yet muscular former KGB officer with a black belt in judo proved a master statesman during his eight-year reign of his beloved country. Russians have never felt more united since the days of Stalin, Khurschev, etc. Supporters of President Putin consider him to be a reformist with old and popular Soviet values deeply ingrained in him whereas critics, including the United States and the European Union believe the outgoing President to be a revivalist of the old iron-clad closed Russian society with no respect for democratic reforms. But that is what immense popularity sometimes does. One needs to understand the fact that Vladimir Putin inherited an unstable Russia from a largely ineffective late former President Boris Yeltsin and the country at that critical time needed a strong leader in the form of the current President. Yes, there remain certain questions of Russia’s domestic political reforms and the country is being viewed as a one-party state with Putin’s United Russia the dominant political institution. Coming onto international relations of Moscow, particularly with Washington, President Putin has hardly agreed with President Bush over the latter’s meddling into Russia’s internal affairs and his international policies including the democratisation of Moscow’s neighbours. If we go into the words of Henry Kissinger, the former American Secretary of state, Russia is not a dictatorial state according to him. He seems to have a lot of respect for President Putin given the work he has done to revive Russian nationalism and society although Mr.Kissinger does not consider the current Russian political system to be democratic by Western standards. But maybe ordinary Russians are more comfortable to this system given Putin’s immense popularity ratings. Now, let us discuss a little bit about how Russia would react to the departure of Vladimir Putin. Although it is clear that the country would see a Putin loyalist at the helm of the Kremlin in the form of Dmitry Medvedev, there is a possibility of an imminent power struggle with a multi-billion dollar fortune at stake within Putin’s own loyalists. But this is a speculation which could only be proved after the President’s handover of power. Image Credit: Imageshack Source: TIME

The man seen enjoying the luxuries of life in the image above is not some sheik in Saudi Arabia. He is a radical Islamist in a Moroccan prison. It is not that the government of the country has gone soft on terror or that it has kowtowed to the jihadists. Suspected radicals are given a treatment that would make American guards at Guantanamo Bay beam with approval. It is what these terror-men do after they settle down in prisons that has the authorities worried the world over. The inmates manage to contact their collaborators outside and spread the tortures they suffered during interrogation. Al Qaeda has even prepared a manual for its incarcerated followers. It teaches them how to exert pressure authorities through hunger strikes and protests. In Muslim countries, this builds up public opinion in their favor to such an extent that Moroccan authorities have been forced to provide better facilities for ultra-Islamists in the prisons. Even of enjoying the company of wives or concubines! The time in prison is spent on improving their fundas of the mad ideology espoused by Osama bin Laden. Other hitherto normal Muslims in the gaol are introduced to the ideology and converted. Some Middle East and European countries are using tit-for-tat tactics. The radical Muslim prisoners are exposed to the company of moderate Islamic prisoners and imams. The idea is that their influence will wean them away from the path of jihad. But more often than not the jihadists go free after serving their term and they are soon back in the business of terror. What to do about it? One option would be the one opted for by Indian security forces in Kashmir. After the Indian government was forced to release Masood Azhar in exchange for the hijacked Indian Airlines passengers in 1999, it decided on a policy (not official, of course) to take no prisoners in Kashmir, but to kill them during encounter. Of course this works only in situations where law-enforcement agencies confront terrorists during action. It would not be possible to kill all jihadists arrested on mere suspicion. The problem is tricky! Image NYTIMES

It is difficult to assess just who is dictating whom in the long running bitter feud between the Colombian government and FARC rebels. With the hostage release efforts as good as over, both the parties are blaming each other for the blemish, which is certainly to increase the frustration for the families of the hostages. The role of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in this humanitarian deal would also come into question, after he failed to influence the leftist guerillas in handing over the three hostages. There are two theories to the suspension of the release of the hostages. Firstly, if one takes the side of the pro-US Colombian government, he or she would argue that the rebels are playing with the government and for fear of identity disclosure are not ready to go ahead with this delicate mission. Furthermore, Bogota is not comfortable with Venezuela’s leftist President taking a lead role in the mission. Many think that for sheer socialistic political gains in a non-socialist Colombia, President Chavez is taking a forefront in his efforts to go ahead with the release deal, he himself might not be sure of pulling it off. As expected, Hugo Chavez has blamed the hardline Alvaro Uribe government of killing the deal. Clearly, it may seem to many that President Chavez and the FARC are playing with Colombia’s public opinion in a bid to isolate President Uribe in his own country. On the other hand, given Alvaro Uribe’s extreme policies against the FARC, the rebels are not comfortable with the mission, given a large Colombian army mission in the region. The pro-Chavez and leftists feel that the onus is on the Colombian government to ease its military operations in order to let the deal go through. Maybe, President Uribe is not comfortable with the hostage release as it could potentially jeopardize the popularity of his military operations against the FARC and if the deal does get through President Chavez would have a lot of supporters within the Colombian population and that is bad news for pro-Washington Uribe. But, for the sake of humanity, both the parties should come out with a constructive plan to free the hostages. This is not the time to think of personal gains. Image: Reuters Source: BBC

The daily discriminations ordinary Palestinians face at the hands of the Israeli authorities are worrisome. Since the Palestinian Intifada began in 2001, the Israelis have virtually followed a distinctive policy of separation between them and the poor Palestinians, who have to entirely depend on jobs in Israel. Let us take the example of the ‘Forbidden Road’ on Route 443, where the Palestinians are not even allowed to set foot on their ancestral soil because of security reasons! Absolute ludicrous! Yes, there are threats of Hamas and Islamic Jihad on Israeli citizens, but there is just no justification for segregating the whole community causing great troubles to the ordinary Palestinians. Can this be denied as “racism”? According to the human rights organization, B’Tselem, Israel restricts Palestinian travel on 41 roads and sections of roads throughout the West Bank, totaling around more than 700 kilometers of roadways! Palestinians wanting to use the roads would need special permits from the Israeli authorities, which is sometimes an impossible task. Permit rejections are done verbally with no written explanations mentioning the reasons for such rejections. This is totally unlawful. Many analysts say that the ‘Forbidden Roads’ policy is in operation for a number of years now, yet there are no legal sets of rules and regulations in place in writing for the implementation of such policies. It is clear Tel Aviv does not want an international uproar over the issue. Whenever writing on the Israeli-Palestinian issues, undoubtedly, I get the feeling of mentioning the Annapolis conference, where both the parties agreed to take forward the peace process, politically known as the ‘Roadmap’. Coming into 2008, with no signs of any peace initiative till date, I doubt the necessity of such peace meetings. Wake up world! Have some sympathy on the poor Palestinians. Do some thing to stop Israel’s ‘Apartheid’. Image: 4blacksheep Source: Independent