[Peace-discuss] Just Foreign Policy News, December 1, 2006
Robert Naiman
naiman.uiuc at gmail.com
Fri Dec 1 21:15:52 CST 2006
Just Foreign Policy News
December 1, 2006
National Call-In to Congress, Monday, December 4
With Congressional Democrats meeting December 5 on Iraq and the Iraq
Study Group report to be released the following day, peace groups are
asking people to call their representatives in Congress on Monday,
December 4. Ask your representative and senators to support a
timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops and bases from Iraq
and to support US talks with Iran and Syria. The Congressional
switchboard is 202-225-3121.
No War with Iran: Petition
More than 25,800 people have signed the Peace Action/Just Foreign
Policy petition. Please sign/circulate if you have yet to do so:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/iranpetition.html
Just Foreign Policy News daily podcast:
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/podcasts/podcast_howto.html
Summary:
U.S./Top News
Writing in the Wichita Eagle Mark Weisbrot and Robert Naiman of
Just Foreign Policy say the US government should adopt the
commonsense policy of talking to Syria and Iran. With the election of
a new Congress and building momentum in Washington for such talks,
now is the time the public should tell their representatives to
support talks.
Next Wednesday, the Iraq Study Group will recommend withdrawing
nearly all U.S. combat units (with the exception of a "quick strike"
force) from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving behind troops to train,
advise and support the Iraqis, reports the Washington Post citing
anonymous sources. This recommendation would come with the caveat
that combat units need not be withdrawn if commanders face
"unexpected conditions."
Despite the victory of Democrats in a midterm election seen as a
referendum on the war, rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is
becoming less likely, argues the New York Times in a news analysis.
Leading Democrats and the Iraq Study Group are endorsing longer
timelines or vague timelines for withdrawal and President Bush
expresses opposition to any withdrawal. One commentator pointed out
that it may be difficult to justify the continuing deaths of U.S.
soldiers once it is clear that the U.S. is going to withdraw
eventually, just to make that withdrawal slower.
In joint press conference with President Bush yesterday, the New York
Times reports that Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki said the Iraqi
government would be ready to take over Iraqi security forces and more
substantial security operations by June. President Bush and his aides
seemed to indicate that control over those forces would be passed on
more quickly than previously planned, though they did not say when.
At the press conference, President Bush adamantly rejected a quick
pullout of U.S. forces as al-Maliki said the decision on withdrawal
was up to the American government.
Sources indicate the President Bush did not pressure al-Maliki
directly to crackdown on ally Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia, the
Mahdi Army, reports the Washington Post.
The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S.
reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give
priority to Shiites and Kurds, reports the Washington Post citing
anonymous administration officials. The proposal reflects the
conclusion of some officials that reconciliation is now unlikely and
that the U.S. risks alienating the majority Shiites.
At the U.S.-backed Forum for the Future, which was held in Jordan and
whose official purpose was democracy promotion, a Saudi official said
democracy cannot be imposed and at least one attendee questioned the
democratic credentials of the U.S., reports the Washington Post.
Iraq
Iraqis were unimpressed by the results of the summit meeting
between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki in Jordan,
reports the New York Times. This is further indication, according to
the reporter, of a widespread loss of faith in the elected
government's ability to turn things around.
Similarly, other Arab observers were left wondering, "Is that all?"
after the summit, according to the New York Times. There is a
perception that the summit produced no results and that Bush was
condescending toward al-Maliki.
The leaked National Security Agency memo on Iraq Prime Minister
al-Maliki show that the Bush administration is not facing up to
reality, according to a Boston Globe editorial. This is particularly
true when it argues that al-Maliki should be willing or able to
oppose his powerful ally Moqtada al-Sadr. Americans must now decide
how slowly or quickly to reduce troops in Iraq.
Iraq's Interior Ministry has formed a special unit to monitor news
reporting in Iraq, take legal action on stories they say are false,
and disseminate news they say is true. A spokesman said their target
is "fabricated and false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong
picture that the security situation is very bad."
Lebanon
Hezbollah and its allies, including a popular Christian
politician, have called for a huge sit-in in downtown Beirut aimed at
toppling the pro-Western government, the New York Times reports.
Palestine
After meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State, the Palestinian
president said unity talks between his Fatah movement and Hamas, the
party of the prime minister, have broken down. American, Israeli, and
Palestinian officials said Abbas could seek to dismiss the Hamas
government and call for elections, probably with American and Israeli
support, though there is no clear legal mechanism to do so.
The executive committee of the Fatah-dominated Palestine Liberation
Organisation has called on Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh
of the rival party Hamas to resign, Reuters reports.
Iran
Bush administration officials are growing fed up with the lack of
progress in the UN Security Council reaching agreement on sanctions
on Iran, the New York Times reports. An anonymous administration
official said they may push for a vote on a resolution if no
agreement is reached before the end of the year.
Somalia
Suicide bombers targeting the weak transitional government killed
5 people, the New York Times reports. Inter Press Service recently
reported that the Bush administration is pushing a U.N. Security
Council resolution to exempt a proposed African "peace support" force
from a longstanding arms embargo on Somalia. Experts say that could
spark a wider war in the Horn of Africa. Ethiopian troops are now in
Somalia to back up the government.
Mexico
Felipe Calderón was sworn in as the new Mexican president today,
after forcing his way into a Legislative Palace marked by physical
fighting between his conservative party and the party of Andres
Manual Lopez Obrador, reports the New York Times. Obrador was
declared the loser by the courts in a election marked by allegations
of fraud this summer. Obrador is leading a mass protest in Mexico
City, and his supporters have vowed not to allow Calderón to govern.
Venezuela
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is expected to win reelection by
a wide margin in Sunday's vote, reports the Christian Science
Monitor.
Turkey
A trip to Turkey by the king of Saudi Arabia is the latest sign
that Turkey is turning more toward the Middle East and away from the
West, writes Suzan Fraser for the Associate Press. The article fails
to note the central role that the largely secular and pro-Western
military plays in Turkish politics.
Sri Lanka
The defense secretary of Sri Lanka narrowly escaped being killed
in a bomb blast that the government blamed on the Tamal Tigers rebel
group, according to Reuters.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Talking to Iran, Syria Key to Middle East
Mark Weisbrot and Bob Naiman, Wichita Eagle, November 28, 2006
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/16110113.htm
Why should our government talk to Iran and Syria? The real
question is: Why shouldn't it?
It costs nothing to do so, and there's good reason to believe it
might help facilitate the orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from
Iraq, so we don't have to leave Vietnam-style, lifting off the
embassy in a helicopter.
Talking to Iran and Syria could also help resolve concerns about
Iran's uranium enrichment program, and help persuade Palestinian and
Lebanese groups allied with Iran and Syria to rely more on politics
and less on violence in advancing their aims. In 2003, Iran offered
to negotiate with the United States on these issues but was rebuffed
by Washington.
By refusing to talk, our government appears to our allies in Europe
and the Middle East like the Groucho Marx character in "Duck Soup" --
so driven by ego that we are willing to start wars because we fear
that others don't want peace.
But most Americans are against such a stance. This applies to Iran as
well as Iraq. A recent poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates
published in Newsweek found that 54 percent of respondents oppose
airstrikes against military targets and suspected nuclear sites in
Iran, while 76 percent believe the United States should not send
ground troops to take control of the country.
Even inside the Beltway, momentum is building for U.S. talks with
Iran and Syria. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group is
expected to recommend doing so when it issues its report in December.
Robert Gates, President Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as
defense secretary, has written in favor of engaging Iran.
But the Bush administration is still cool toward these commonsense
moves toward dialogue. This is a crucial time for Americans to speak
up. The election of a new Congress provides an opportunity for a new
approach.
If members of Congress hear consistently from their constituents that
it's time for serious talks with Iran and Syria -- on all issues in
dispute and without preconditions -- it could help turn U.S. policy
in the Middle East away from war and toward diplomacy.
2) Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout of Combat Troops by '08
Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, December 1, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001175.html
The bipartisan Iraq Study Group plans to recommend withdrawing
nearly all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008 while leaving
behind troops to train, advise and support the Iraqis, setting the
first goal for a major drawdown of U.S. forces, sources familiar with
the proposal said yesterday.
The commission plan would shift the U.S. mission in Iraq to a
secondary role as the fragile Baghdad government and its security
forces take the lead in fighting a Sunni insurgency and trying to
halt sectarian violence. As part of major changes in the U.S.
presence, sources said, the plan recommends embedding U.S. soldiers
directly in Iraqi security units starting as early as next month to
improve leadership and effectiveness.
The call to pull out combat brigades by early 2008 would be more a
conditional goal than a firm timetable, predicated on the assumption
that circumstances on the ground would permit it, according to the
sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the
commission's report will not be released until next week. But panel
members concluded that it is vital to set a target to put pressure on
Iraqi leaders to do more to assume responsibility for the security of
their country.
…
The panel included a significant caveat for the 2008 goal for
troop withdrawals by recommending that commanders should plan to pull
out combat units by then unless "unexpected developments" make them
decide that such a move would be unwise, the sources said. Still,
they said, the plan would put the onus on U.S. commanders to try to
meet the goal or explain why they failed to.
Pulling out combat units would not mean the end of the U.S. military
involvement in Iraq, which could continue in a different form for
years. The withdrawal would be partially offset by an influx of
advisers, trainers and embedded troops. The number of such troops now
stands at roughly 5,000 and should be quadrupled to about 20,000, the
group's plan says, according to a source. The commission envisions
leaving at least several thousand quick-strike U.S. combat soldiers
to protect all those other American troops.
Although it was not clear how many U.S. troops would be left in Iraq
by 2008, some people knowledgeable about the commission's
deliberations have said that it might be possible to reduce the force
of 140,000 to half by then. "There'll still be a presence there that
will be significant just because of the nature of embedded forces,"
said one of the sources familiar with the commission's report. "It
won't be what we have now, I'll tell you that."
3) Idea of Rapid Withdrawal from Iraq Seems to Fade
David E. Sanger, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01assess.html
In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq,
one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats' victory this
month in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of a
rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are signaling that too rapid an American
pullout would open the way to all-out civil war. The bipartisan Iraq
Study Group has shied away from recommending explicit timelines in
favor of a vaguely timed pullback. The report that the panel will
deliver to President Bush next week would, at a minimum, leave a
force of 70,000 or more troops in the country for a long time to
come, to train the Iraqis and to insure against collapse of a
desperately weak central government.
Even the Democrats, with an eye toward 2008, have dropped talk of a
race for the exits, in favor of a brisk stroll. But that may be the
only solace for Mr. Bush as he returns from a messy encounter with
Iraq's prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
In the 23 days since the election, the debate in Washington and much
of the country appears to have turned away from Mr. Bush's
oft-repeated insistence that the only viable option is to stay and
fight smarter. The most talked-about alternatives now include renewed
efforts to prepare the Iraqi forces while preparing to pull American
combat brigades back to their bases, or back home, sometime next
year. The message to Iraq's warring parties would be clear:
Washington's commitment to making Iraq work is not open-ended. [This
"clear" message may not be understood quite that way by those warring
parties, many of whom are trying to drive Washington out of Iraq
because they believe the occupation is bad for the country, not
"making Iraq work" - JFP.]
Yet if Mr. Bush's words are taken at face value, those are options
still redolent of timetables — at best, cut-and-walk. Standing next
to Mr. Maliki on Thursday in Amman, Jordan, Mr. Bush declared that
Iraqis need not fear that he is looking for "some kind of graceful
exit out of Iraq." But a graceful exit — or even an awkward one —
appears to be just what the Iraq Study Group, led by James A. Baker
III and Lee H. Hamilton, tried to design in the compromise reached by
Republicans and Democrats on the panel on Wednesday.
The question now is whether Mr. Bush can be persuaded to shift course
— and whether he might now be willing to define victory less
expansively.
"What the Baker group appears to have done is try to change the
direction of the political momentum on Iraq," said Stephen P. Cohen,
a scholar at the Israel Policy Forum. "They have made clear that
there isn't a scenario for a democratic Iraq, at least for a very
long time. They have called into question the logic of a lengthy
American presence. And once you've done that, what is the case for
Americans dying in order to have this end slowly?"
…
In statements on Thursday, Democrats from former President Bill
Clinton to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the incoming
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to agree
that hard timelines could invite trouble. Nonetheless, some areas of
potential conflict with Mr. Bush seem clear.
"I think that what's clearly being implied in the study group's
report is what some of us have been saying for a while," said Senator
Jack Reed, a hawkish Democrat from Rhode Island with a military
record, which has made him a spokesman for the party on Iraq. "A
phased redeployment — one that begins in six months or so — is where
we need to head. And what's different now is that redeployment has
become the consensus view," save for inside the White House. "The
debate is at what pace."
4) Bush, in Meeting on Iraq, Rejects a Quick Pullout
John M. Broder and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01prexy.html
President Bush on Thursday rejected the idea of a quick troop
withdrawal from Iraq, even as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of
Iraq said his country's forces would be ready to take over
substantial security responsibility by next June.
Mr. Bush, at a news conference with Mr. Maliki after a meeting in
Jordan, directly referred to reports the day before that the
bipartisan Iraq Study Group would recommend to him next week that the
United States begin a substantial troop pullout in the near future.
Some analysts have suggested that the report could offer a
face-saving way for Mr. Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, but he
adamantly rejected that view.
"I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington
mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq," the
president said. "This business about a graceful exit just simply has
no realism to it whatsoever."
The study group is said to be shying away from recommending a firm
timetable, and it envisions a force of 70,000 or more American troops
in Iraq for some time to come. And despite a Democratic election
victory this month that was strongly based on antiwar sentiment, the
idea of a major and rapid withdrawal seems to be fading as a viable
option.
Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi leaders have given optimistic projections
before about the strength of local forces and their ability to
control the insurgency and the sectarian warfare. But senior Bush
administration officials and American commanders continue to say that
creating a competent Iraqi military from scratch will take an
intensive training effort and years to accomplish.
…
"I can say that Iraqi forces will be ready, fully ready to receive
this command and to command its own forces, and I can tell you that
by next June our forces will be ready," Mr. Maliki told ABC News
after meeting President Bush in Jordan.
He said that the president had assured him that he was not preparing
to remove American forces any time soon and that he would provide
additional training and support for the Iraqi military. He said any
decision on American troop withdrawals was up to the Bush
administration.
…
In their news conference, the two men appeared to be on the same
page. During his appearance with Mr. Maliki, Mr. Bush offered to
speed up the transfer of command of Iraqi forces to the Iraqi
government. Mr. Maliki is under pressure at home to demonstrate more
independence from the United States, but Americans, as well as Sunni
Arab politicians in Iraq, have been concerned that the Iraqi troops
would be used by the Shiite government against the Sunni populace.
5) Bush Rejects Troop Reductions, Endorses Maliki
Michael Abramowitz and Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post,
December 1, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113000067_pf.html
Asked whether he would disarm militias such as the Mahdi Army of
Moqtada al-Sadr, an anti-American Shiite cleric, Maliki, himself a
Shiite, said: "Definitely. And the government is doing that with all
militias, with no exception. There will be only the arms for
government troops."
Sadr is seen as perhaps the single most powerful political leader in
Iraq. The Mahdi Army is the largest and most violent of Iraq's
private Shiite militias, and Sadr's supporters make up one of the
biggest blocs in the Iraqi parliament. Although the Sadr bloc played
a pivotal role in making Maliki prime minister, its members walked
out of parliament and the cabinet on Wednesday in protest of Maliki's
meeting with Bush.
During their news conference, Bush declined to answer directly a
question about whether he urged Maliki to distance himself from Sadr.
Bush said that after he and Maliki discussed the "political
situation" in Iraq, he came away "reassured" by the prime minister's
determination to hold to account those who break the law -- "whether
those people be criminals, al-Qaeda, militia, whoever."
Asked whether he would break with Sadr, Maliki did not answer
directly, noting that Sadr's faction is only one part of his ruling
coalition and that all those participating in the government bear
responsibilities.
"I do not talk about one side or the other," he said. "I'm talking
about a state; I'm talking about law; I'm talking about commitments.
And this should apply to all the partners who have chosen to
participate in the political process."
According to Iraqi sources familiar with the meetings, Bush did not
press Maliki to take stronger action against Sadr or the Shiite
militias, which U.S. commanders in Baghdad have repeatedly called the
principal impediment to restoring order in Iraq.
6) U.S. Considers Ending Outreach to Insurgents
Robin Wright, Washington Post, December 1, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001710.html
The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S.
reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give
priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the
government, according to U.S. officials.
The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash
White House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the
ambitious U.S. outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S.
officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation
efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shiite majority and
leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq,
according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal.
Some insiders call the proposal the "80 percent" solution, a term
that makes other parties to the White House policy review cringe.
Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's 26 million people.
Until now, the thrust of U.S. policy has been to build a unified
government and society out of Iraq's three fractious communities. U.S.
officials say they would not be abandoning this goal but would
instead leave leadership of the thorny task of reconciliation to the
Iraqis. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of
the sensitive nature of the deliberations.
The proposal has met serious resistance from both U.S. Ambassador
Zalmay Khalilzad and military commanders in Iraq, who believe that
intensive diplomatic efforts to bring Sunni insurgents into the
political process are pivotal to stabilizing the war-ravaged country,
the sources said.
Khalilzad, who has spearheaded U.S. outreach to the Sunni leadership,
has developed a long list of steps to accommodate Sunni concerns,
from a possible amnesty to changes in the hydrocarbon law that
distributes oil wealth, which is located mainly in Shiite and Kurdish
regions. Critics argue that he might be able to broker an agreement,
but they question whether it would hold, according to sources close
to the discussions.
Opponents of the proposal cite three dangers. Without reconciliation,
military commanders fear that U.S. troops would be fighting the
symptoms of Sunni insurgency without any prospect of getting at the
causes behind it -- notably the marginalization of the once-powerful
minority. U.S. troops would be left fighting in a political vacuum,
not a formula for either long-term stabilization or reducing attacks
on American targets.
A second danger is that the United States could appear to be taking
sides in the escalating sectarian strife. The proposal would
encourage Iraqis to continue reconciliation efforts. But without U.S.
urging, outreach could easily stall or even atrophy, deepening
sectarian tensions, U.S. sources say.
A decision to step back from reconciliation efforts would also be
highly controversial among America's closest allies in the region,
which are all Sunni governments. Sunni leaders in Jordan, Saudi
Arabia and the Persian Gulf sheikdoms have been pressuring the United
States to ensure that their brethren are included in Iraq's power
structure and economy.
7) Mideast Nations Skeptical of Pro-Democracy Summit
Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, December 1, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100384.html
The official purpose of the third annual session of the
U.S.-backed Forum for the Future was to promote democracy around the
world. But there were no plans for a joint statement on universal
freedoms, since efforts to compose such a missive at last year's
forum meeting dissolved into bickering.
Instead, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised the host
country, Jordan -- a moderate Arab monarchy eager to curry favor with
the United States -- and cited King Abdullah's "campaign of reform
and tolerance." She did not mention Russia, officially a co-host of
the meeting, which under President Vladimir Putin has backtracked on
democracy, curtailed the media and cracked down on the ability of
non-governmental organizations to operate freely.
Arab leaders, skeptical of the Forum since its inception, offered
their own commentaries. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told
the gathering that democracy can not be imposed, according to a Saudi
official, and cited Africa as an example of where Western notions of
democracy have led to turmoil and conflict.
With the Bush administration's push to promote Middle East democracy
beset by setbacks in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories,
such ironies were as prevalent as the spectacular Dead Sea views
available from the conference center.
"The whole scenario is full of contradictions and a lot of double
standards," said Salam Mansour, executive director of a Cairo-based
democracy youth group. "Some people don't recognize the U.S. as a
full democracy."
Iraq
8) Having Pinned Little Hope on Talks, Many Iraqis Appear to Be
Beyond Disappointment
Kirk Semple, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html
Even if Sana al-Nabhani had cared about the summit meeting in
Jordan on Thursday between Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and
President Bush, she would not have been able to watch the news. As
usual, Iraqis went without electricity from the national grid for
most of the day and she could not find any gasoline to run her
personal generator.
Told by a reporter later in the day about the meeting's outcome, Ms.
Nabhani, a 34-year-old homemaker, scoffed: "Is that all? Was that
even worth the fuel consumed by their airplanes?"
Her dismay was common among Iraqis who managed to follow the news on
Thursday. So was a range of other emotions that probably would not
hearten Mr. Maliki or Mr. Bush, including disappointment,
indifference and despair.
For many, the talks promised little and delivered less and reaffirmed
a widespread loss of faith in the elected government's ability to
turn things around.
9) As the Talks on Iraq Conclude, Arabs Wonder, Is That All?
Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01arab.html
For days, Arab governments lobbied against any American opening to
Iran, Jordanians planned protests against President Bush and
politicians braced for a possible announcement of a timetable for
withdrawal from Iraq.
But as the summit meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister
Kamal Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq concluded Thursday morning, the Arab
world was left dumbfounded that nothing had come of it.
…
Mr. Bush sought to counter rumors of tensions with Mr. Maliki,
calling him "the right guy for Iraq" while emphasizing his role as
the leader of a sovereign nation. "He has shown courage in the last
six months," Mr. Bush said.
Yet many Arab analysts saw Mr. Bush as managing Mr. Maliki. At one
point he encouraged Mr. Maliki to call on members of the Iraqi news
media and told him "good job!" as the news conference drew to a
close.
"There's an inherent contradiction in the discourse," said Fares
Braizat, an analyst at Jordan University's Center for Strategic
Studies and Fulbright fellow in Washington.
While Mr. Bush sought to emphasize that Washington was helping Mr.
Maliki achieve Iraqi goals, Mr. Braizat said, he appeared to be
guiding Mr. Maliki and at times twisting his arm. "Ultimately, he was
dictating to him what to do," he said.
The sessions ultimately proved disappointing for Arab nations, Mr.
Braizat said. "The meeting showed that Bush cared about the game, but
he did not know how to make the right moves," he said. "There were no
tangible results." And results, he said, were what Arab leaders were
looking for.
10) Bush's Man in Iraq
Editorial, Boston Globe, December 1, 2006
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2006/12/01/bushs_man_in_iraq/
Events surrounding Bush's meeting with Maliki hardly inspire
confidence that the president is ready to face nasty realities in
Iraq. A leaked memo to Bush from National Security Adviser Stephen
Hadley said, "Maliki is either ignorant of what is going on,
misrepresenting his intentions, or . . . his capabilities are not yet
sufficient to turn his good intentions into action."
Behind this questioning of Maliki's performance is an obtuse
assumption that he should be willing or able to move decisively
against the anti-American Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Maliki was
able to become prime minister only as a result of his political
alliance with Sadr. If Sadr's followers in Parliament were to desert
Maliki, his government would fall or he would have to form a coalition
with the main Shi'ite rival to his own Dawa party, the Supreme
Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq . Dawa, the Supreme Council,
and the Sadrists are all anti secular and supported by the theocratic
regime in Iran.
…
Only by refusing to face reality could Bush believe that in the
midst of Iraq's vicious sectarian vendetta he could convince Maliki
to abandon Sadr and build "an alternative political base" for "a
nonsectarian national movement," as Hadley's memo proposes. There are
no serious possibilities at present for a non-sectarian government in
Iraq.
Iraqis need security above all. They may need cooperation from
neighbors and some continued training and military support from the
United States, but ultimately, they will have to end their sectarian
warfare their own way. Americans must now decide how slowly or
quickly to reduce the role of foreign forces in that conflict.
11) Iraq Ministry Forms Unit to Monitor News
Associated Press, November 30, 2006
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/16134140.htm
Iraq's Interior Ministry said Thursday it had formed a special
unit to monitor news coverage and vowed to take legal action against
journalists who failed to correct stories the ministry deemed to be
incorrect.
Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the ministry, said the
purpose of the special monitoring unit was to find "fabricated and
false news that hurts and gives the Iraqis a wrong picture that the
security situation is very bad, when the facts are totally
different." [This suggests that the ministry's official view of
reality is very different from that of most observers of Iraq. – JFP]
He said offenders would be notified and asked to "correct these false
reports on their main news programs. But if they do not change those
lying, false stories, then we will seek legal action against them."
…
The spokesman said the ministry had a large public relations staff
and said they should be contacted by the media to "get real, true
news."
Lebanon
12) Hezbollah Calls for Rally to Grip Beirut
Michael Slackman, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01lebanon.html
Hezbollah and its political allies said Thursday that they
intended to occupy the center of this city beginning Friday with a
huge sit-in that they said would last as long as it took to force the
government to resign.
Appearing on Hezbollah's television station, Al Manar, the group's
leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, called for a peaceful sit-in to
topple the government because, he said, it "has failed to fulfill its
promises and achieve anything significant."
The sit-in would be the most volatile escalation in what has turned
into a political death match between the pro-Syrian, pro-Iranian
Hezbollah and its adversaries, the pro-Western March 14 alliance,
which leads the current government. The government is already fragile
and barely holding on after six ministers allied with Hezbollah
resigned.
In a televised speech, Prime Minister Fouad Sinoria blamed Hezbollah
for dragging all of Lebanon into a war with Israel and for the "heavy
price" the country paid. He said that his government would not
resign, and that Hezbollah and its allies were looking to "overthrow
my cabinet, Lebanon's legitimacy, Lebanon's Constitution and to turn
Lebanon into a battlefield for regional conflicts."
"I am going to stay in office and defend democracy and independence,
and we will not be scared by their threats or terrorized by their
threats," he said.
Sheik Nasrallah called on the people of Lebanon to join the protest,
which he said would begin at 3 p.m. and continue uninterrupted until
there was a new government. He has demonstrated his ability to draw
tens of thousands of followers into the streets. He will also be
aided by his ally Gen. Michel Aoun, who is considered the most
popular Christian political leader in the country.
Palestine
13) Abbas Says Palestinian Unity Talks Have Reached an Impasse
Helene Cooper, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01diplo.html
Talks to form a Palestinian unity government are at a dead end,
the Palestinian Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, said Thursday,
ensuring that the Bush administration's plan to start pushing hard
for a Middle East peace initiative will stay in a deep freeze for
now.
Mr. Abbas gave his grim assessment about the state of talks between
his Fatah faction and Hamas, the militant faction that controls the
Palestinian government, after a one-hour meeting with Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice in Jericho, in the West Bank. And while this
is the second time Mr. Abbas has declared the unity talks dead — he
did so in October, and talks resumed this month — there was a sense
of defeat at the press briefing, which Mr. Abbas conducted with Ms.
Rice.
…
The United States and European governments have said they will
continue to boycott the Palestinian government and withhold aid from
it until there is a change to a government with which they can do
business. That would mean the resignation of the current Hamas
administration, which came to power nine months ago in an election,
and an agreement on a political program that at least could be
interpreted to mean an acceptance of the West's three conditions:
recognition of the right of Israel to exist, the rejection of
violence and an acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian
initiatives. [The article does not mention Palestinian tax dollars
being illegally withheld by the Israeli government, although it is
cited correctly by the Reuters article below. - JFP]
…
American, Israeli and Palestinian officials said options included
dissolving the Palestinian government and calling for elections. But
it is unclear whether the Palestinian constitution allows for such a
step and how it could be brought about.
The United States and Israel would welcome the dissolution of the
Hamas-led government, particularly if new elections showed that
Palestinians had become fed up with Hamas and voted out its
representatives. But Hamas unexpectedly won the previous
parliamentary elections, ousting Mr. Abbas's Fatah party.
President Bush offered his support to Mr. Abbas. The Palestinian
leader, he said, "deserves the support of the world and he deserves
support in peeling his government away from those who do not
recognize Israel's right to exist."
14) Top PLO Body Calls on Palestinian PM to Resign
Reuters, December 1, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120100519.html
The executive committee of the Fatah-dominated Palestine
Liberation Organisation has called on Palestinian Prime Minister
Ismail Haniyeh of the rival party Hamas to resign.
"The executive committee asks Haniyeh to resign to pave the way for
the formation of a new government," committee member Samir Ghosheh
told Reuters on Friday.
Hamas won Palestinian elections in January, defeating Fatah, but has
been unable to govern effectively because its refusal to recognise
Israel led to an aid cut-off by Western powers and a freeze on the
handover of tax receipts by Israel.
…
Efforts to form a replacement government are under way, the main
options being for Abbas to dismiss the Hamas-led government and form
another, or to call a national referendum on whether new elections
should be held.
"The executive committee will discuss all the options and will take a
final decision in three or four days," when Abbas returns from a trip
to Gaza, Ghosheh said.
The executive committee wants Haniyeh to quit before decisions are
taken on the next step. It cannot force him to resign, but its call
is likely to put further pressure on him to step aside as efforts are
made to replace his administration.
Haniyeh left the Gaza Strip this week on a foreign tour and is not
expected to return to the Palestinian territories for at least a
month, possibly only in January.
Iran
15) Dissent Weakens Coalition Pressing Iran on Nuclear Program
Helene Cooper, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01iran.html
After months of missed deadlines, threats and counterproposals in
the effort to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions, the fragile coalition
of six world powers that has been facing down Tehran may be about to
splinter.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sounded fed up Thursday with
Russia's refusal to sign on to the list of United Nations Security
Council sanctions the United States would like to see enacted against
Iran.
A senior administration official in Jordan with Ms. Rice said the
United States would soon be ready to force the issue by calling for a
vote.
"Unity is not an end in itself," Ms. Rice told reporters, in answer
to a question about whether the United States was willing to
sacrifice a tough sanctions resolution in order to keep the Russians
on board. "I'm all for maintaining unity, but I'm also all for
action."
…
A new draft resolution under consideration at the United Nations
has dropped all mention of sanctions against Iran's first nuclear
power plant at Bushehr, American and European diplomats said. The
United States had initially proposed including Bushehr on the list of
programs to single out, but Russia, which has been helping build the
power plant with the Iranians, objected.
…
A senior Bush administration official said that if the six powers
could not come to an agreement on the sanctions resolution before the
end of the year, the United States would seek to put a resolution up
for a vote in a bid to force Russia to take a public stance.
Somalia
16) Five Killed in Somalia Suicide Blast
Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/africa/01nairobicnd.html
Suicide bombers, including possibly a veiled woman, attacked the
transitional government of Somalia on Thursday, killing at least five
people and edging the country even closer to war.
According to witnesses, three cars packed with explosives drove to a
checkpoint on the outskirts of Badioa, the central Somali city where
the transitional government is based, and the bombers blew themselves
up as police officers searched their cars. Some witnesses reported
seeing a veiled woman in one of the cars.
The transitional government immediately blamed the Islamic forces
based in Mogadishu who control much of Somalia and aspire to rule the
entire country.
…
Currently, there are at least several hundred Ethiopian troops on
Somali soil and possibly thousands in a bid by Ethiopia to shore up
the weak transitional government against the growing strength of the
grass-roots based Islamic movement.
Mexico
17) Mexico Swears in New Leader, Quickly
James C. McKinley, Jr., New York Times, December 2, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/world/americas/02mexicocnd.html
It was not pretty, but Felipe Calderón, the new president of
Mexico, managed to take the oath of office in Congress today, while
leftist lawmakers whistled and catcalled and the losing leftist
candidate staged a huge protest march down the central avenue of the
capital.
Mr. Calderón and members of his conservative National Action Party
defeated attempts by the leftist Democratic Revolution Party to block
the entries to the Congress. With his own partisans crowding the
dais, the new president and his predecessor, Vicente Fox, were
spirited in by bodyguards through a door near the front of the
chamber at 9:50 a.m.
Mr. Calderón quickly took the oath of office, and Mr. Fox handed over
the traditional presidential sash and left the chamber. The entire
ceremony lasted four minutes.
All the while, opposition politicians blew whistles and held up
banners suggesting Mr. Calderón was "a traitor to democracy."
Earlier in the day, fisticuffs and pushing matches broke out between
right-wing and left-wing lawmakers as they jockeyed for position in
the chamber, with leftists trying to obstruct the entranceways and
the conservatives ringing the dais and podium.
Never before in modern Mexican history has a president been sworn
under such chaotic and divisive conditions.
The courts determined Mr. Calderón, 44 years old, won the election
last July 2 by about 240,000 votes out of 41 million ballots cast.
But his principal rival, Andrés Manuel Lopéz Obrador, has insisted
that the official results are tainted and has never conceded defeat.
[A full recount was never conducted, and the results of a limited
recount never fully released. The Center for Economic and Policy
Research documented inconsistencies in the election data. – JFP]
Venezuela
18) Venezuela's Chavez Nears a Victory Fed by Free Stew
Sara Miller Llana, Christian Science Monitor, December 1, 2006
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1201/p01s04-woam.html
Odalys Ibarra has lived in the same home - a decrepit, two-bedroom
brick house that she shares with 10 others - her entire life.
Yet these days, on her walk home up the steep slope of El Valle, one
of the poorest neighborhoods in this capital city, she passes a free
medical clinic staffed with Cuban doctors, a supermarket that sells
discounted rice and tomato sauce, and a state-funded kitchen that
prepares and gives out free meat stew and cookies - programs called
"missions" that are the cornerstone of President Hugo Chávez's
domestic policy.
While Mr. Chávez's strident anti-Americanism has caused ripples
abroad - calling President Bush the devil and supporting leftist
candidates and leaders throughout Latin America, as well as
befriending Iran and North Korea - those with the power to vote him
into another six-year term this Sunday care more about his social
missions than his international mediations.
After eight years at the helm of Venezuela - having withstood a coup
attempt, a national oil strike led by his opponents, and a recall
referendum in 2004 that he easily won - Mr. Chávez is poised to
prevail in the 2006 presidential election on Sunday. The latest
state-funded poll by the US firm Evans/ McDonough puts him 19 points
ahead of his only opponent, Manuel Rosales, a career politician and
governor of the oil-rich western state of Zulia.
Venezuelans are bitterly divided over Chávez's ideology, but they can
agree on one thing: Many will vote for him Sunday because the
billions he has poured into literacy programs, free food, and doctor
visits have proved a potent enticement.
Turkey
19) Saudi King's Trip to Turkey As Latest Sign of Turkish Shift to
Middle East
Suzan Fraser, Associated Press, November 30, 2006
King Abdullah is in Turkey – the first visit here by a Saudi
monarch in four decades, a development many see as an example of
Turkey shifting its foreign policy focus from the European Union
toward the Middle East.
…
The prime minister visited Qatar, Bahrain, and Pakistan this year.
In February, he hosted Khaled Mashaal, the political leader of the
Palestinian militant group Hamas. The next month, Erdogan became the
first Turkish leader to address a meeting of the Arab League. And he
recently condemned Israel's attacks on Lebanon in deeply emotional
terms.
The Saudi king's visit is seen as a move to tighten economic,
strategic and political ties between the two nations.
Sri Lanka
20) Sri Lanka President's Brother Escapes Bomb Blast
Reuters, December 1, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-srilanka-bomb.html
Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse's brother, who is also the
island's defense secretary, narrowly escaped a suspected suicide bomb
attack in the capital on Friday, officials said.
Two security force personnel were killed by the blast in central
Colombo and 12 people were wounded, officials said.
The president's office said Gothabaya Rajapakse was unhurt. It blamed
the attack on a Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) suicide
bomber.
-
Patrick McElwee
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming
U.S. foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the
majority of Americans.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list