Our Announcements
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.
Posted by admin in Foreign Policy on December 9th, 2012
The writer is a former ambassador.
At the level of the common man there has never been much interest in what is happening in Iran. For that matter, among the well off too, there’s little curiosity about the possible impact of developments in Iran on our polity or that of the region. When I asked someone, well read on world developments, ‘How’s Iran?’ without batting an eyelid, he replied, ‘Well, a better place to visit than here, but not as good as Turkey,’ a response which illustrated complete disinterest and ignorance of the turmoil that has gripped Iran.Perhaps one reason why Iran gets scant coverage in our media, in contrast to the morbid interest in whatever happens in India, is that there is no real enthusiasm among the overwhelming number of our populace for the Iranian connection. We share a religion but really little else, whatever our history and culture buffs may say.And if historically the two countries were closely interlinked all that seems eons ago and, frankly, neither has worked hard to draw closer to the other, certainly not since the Iranian revolution. That’s a pity because developments in Iran will impact powerfully on Pakistan and far more so than what is ever likely to happen in Delhi.The revolution, for example, not only transformed Iran but also Iran-Pakistan relations. From being close allies we became mere acquaintances and during the Afghan jihad fought a fairly intense proxy war.Moreover, although we didn’t realise it at the time, the domestic impact of the Iranian Revolution on Pakistani society was even more profound. All of a sudden we became a battle ground for the perennial struggle between the Shia and Sunni groups, with Saudi Arabia backing the latter and Iran the former and that battle has intensified and turned bloodier as the years have passed. However that merits a separate discussion. Here I will focus on the possible repercussions of the current standoff between the US and Iran over the nuclear issue.Consider that sanctions imposed on Iran are exacting a heavy toll on the everyday life of the populace and the economy. The value of the Iranian rial has fallen by 40 percent; prices of commodities are doubling, in some cases, by the day; medicine and food stocks are low and are not being replenished as fully or as quickly as needed and the government is finding it hard to sell its oil. In fact, already there are isolated reports of children suffering on account of lack of medicines. However, Iran is not bending.If the US-Iran standoff drags on, the most obvious fall out will be the arrival of Iranian refugees fleeing hunger, although that need not be more than a trickle because of the distances involved. However, if war breaks out followed by the kind of saturation bombing of Iran, which some predict will be necessary to destroy Iran’s well protected nuclear installation and the supporting infrastructure, then the number of those fleeing will rapidly escalate.However, what Pakistan has to fear more from an American/Israeli onslaught on Iran is not so much the presence of refugees but the angry reaction of Pakistan’s own large Shia population in whose hearts Iran has a very special place.Already incensed by the regime’s failure to protect them from being slaughtered by what most Shias now say are Saudi sponsored Wahabi extremists at home, or to bring the murderers to justice, there is every chance they will vent their spleen against the government and demand that Pakistan denounce the UN sanctions regime, break off relations with the US and open the borders with Iran to enable them to go to Iran and help fight the aggressors.And, in the mayhem that will ensue, sectarian killings may surge. Actually the whole thing may take on an ugly sectarian hue. Pakistan, therefore, has more interest than most in what transpires between the US and Iran in the weeks and months ahead. So will there be war?What is certain is that an encircled Iran has to defend itself. No other power will come to its aid. Thus the rationale for the pursuit for a nuclear option by Iran is not a product of the paranoid fancies of the mullahs. Finding themselves in a similar position in relation to the Arabs, the Israelis went nuclear. And so did Pakistan, when confronted by giant India. In a rare moment of insight, a US State Department official also conceded: “Any government in Iran, even a secular western-oriented one, would continue the quest for nuclear weapons” (October 2003).And why not? To Iran’s east is Pakistan, dominated by an establishment that is in hock to the west and considered an unreliable friend of Iran. To the south, on the peninsula of Qatar, is the US Central Command, with hundreds of planes, thousands of missiles and a whole fleet of vessels, including aircraft carriers, prowling the waters of the Persian Gulf. In the west is nuclear armed Israel; and in the north is Russia. Worse, near Iran’s borders in Afghanistan are thousands of American troops and special service forces, fully equipped to spring into action at the given signal.It would be strange, therefore, if Iran sought to strengthen its position and, if not actually build nuclear weapons, then acquire the option to do so within a fairly short time. Iran has seen how non-nuclear Iraq was invaded and flattened by the US, whereas nuclear armed North Korea was left alone. In fact, rather than threaten North Korea, like it has Iran, the US is eager to talk to Pyongyang.For the US, control of the oil spigots of Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran is an imperative need. So too, safeguarding of 20 percent of world oil supplies which flow through the Strait of Hormuz. The US has trillions of dollars to lose each year if the price of oil rises, as it could if the control of oil were in the purview of a hostile Iran because that would not only wreck the American/western economy but bring about an apocalyptic change in America’s style of living. And one way of preventing that disaster is to eliminate the Iranian regime for which America now has a pretext and UN support. Surely, say the erstwhile Bush neo cons, it’s a prospect too alluring to pass up.Significantly, the US has ramped up its demands on Iran. Claiming that on one occasion Iran had indeed deceptively withheld data (for which it made amends) Washington wants to be completely reassured about the safety of Iran’s nuclear programme. Actually, it wants nothing less than the complete cessation of all nuclear activity, including a dismantling of the already established facilities. In other words, if you cut out the spin, nothing Iran does or the guarantees Iran offers will suffice and no matter what inspection regime Iran accepts, Iran’s entire nuclear programme has to be demolished.For Israel, on the other hand, the issue is exclusively the possession by Iran of nuclear weapons. Israel is determined to remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East and will not be thwarted. Israel has completed all preparations for an attack on Iran. The recent Israeli engineered fracas in Gaza was to test Israel’s anti-missile system (Iron Dome) in battle conditions and also, lest Hamas teams up with Iran in a war, to destroy Hamas’s cache of Iranian supplied rockets which it has largely accomplished.The very opposite goals of the protagonists, and the fact that a Pentagon advisor in 2006 said: “The White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran and that means war,” prompted Seymour Hersh to opine that a war is inevitable.Whether or not that happens and even if the prospects are not as bleak as Hersch suggests, our media would be rendering a service if it keeps the public informed about the goings on and the wavering possibility of war. If nothing else, it will help us brace for the impact.And if historically the two countries were closely interlinked all that seems eons ago and, frankly, neither has worked hard to draw closer to the other, certainly not since the Iranian revolution. That’s a pity because developments in Iran will impact powerfully on Pakistan and far more so than what is ever likely to happen in Delhi. The revolution, for example, not only transformed Iran but also Iran-Pakistan relations. From being close allies we became mere acquaintances and during the Afghan jihad fought a fairly intense proxy war.
Posted by admin in Uncategorized on December 5th, 2012
Thinking Aloud : All the king’s horses — Razi Azmi
It is hard to see how Israel can continue to defy the world and persist in its policy of aggression, annexation and occupation, even with US support. The vote count and the writing are on the wall
“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall/ Humpty Dumpty had a great fall/ All the King’s horses and all the King’s men/ Could not put Humpty Dumpty together again.”
Substitute just a few words in this popular children’s rhyme, “Israel” for “Humpty Dumpty”, “separation wall” for “wall”, and “USA” for “King”, and what you get is history in the making. November has been a bad month for the ‘bullyboy’ of the Middle East and what I am now inclined to describe as his sidekick, the world’s lone — increasingly lonely and decreasingly powerful — superpower.
Correspondingly, it has been a good month for Palestine, no matter the 160 or so lives lost and the infrastructure destroyed in the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. Both Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) have reason to rejoice. If Hamas won a significant military and political victory by its successful resistance to Israel’s military might, the PLO won a resounding diplomatic victory by attaining a non-member observer-state status in the UN.
The vote in the UN General Assembly was 138 in favour and only nine against. The international community overwhelmingly and emphatically said yes to Palestine despite vehement Israeli opposition and relentless US pressure. The list of the seven countries that supported the Israeli-US position makes for very sorry reading: Canada, the Czech Republic, Panama, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.
Such prominent western-bloc (non-Muslim) nations as France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Portugal and Ireland voted for the resolution, besides Russia, China, Japan, New Zealand and 124 others. All the (staunchly Catholic) South American countries voted in support (except Colombia). Even such dependable American allies as the UK, Germany and Australia abstained rather than vote against.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “The decision at the United Nations will change nothing on the ground. It will not advance the establishment of a Palestinian state. It will delay it further.” Denigrating the vote as “meaningless”, Mr Netanyahu accused Mr Abbas of spreading “mendacious propaganda” against Israel in a “defamatory and venomous” speech. Defamatory and venomous? Mahmood Abbas? Judge for yourself.
Speaking at the UN, Mr Abbas said, “We did not come here seeking to delegitimise a state established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the state that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine.” The world was being asked to undertake a significant step in the process of rectifying the “unprecedented historical injustice” inflicted on the Palestinian people since 1948, the Palestinian president added.
In comments to the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigor Lieberman went so far as to threaten the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority if it went to the UN.
And what does Washington think of this historic vote? US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice said: “Today’s grand pronouncements will soon fade and the Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little about their lives has changed save that the prospects of a durable peace have only receded.”
Lest you have not noticed Ms Rice, the Palestinian people have woken up every morning, 6,636 mornings to be exact, since the much-heralded Oslo Peace Accords signed under your government’s auspices in Washington on September 13, 1993, to find themselves under the boot of the Israeli army and at the mercy of armed Jewish settlers. And thanks mainly to the financial, military and diplomatic support that your country provides to Israel.
Even the former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert sounds more fair-minded than Ms Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who called the vote “unfortunate and counterproductive”. Mr Olmert wrote, “I see no reason to oppose it.”
Perhaps Mac Deford, a retired US foreign service officer writing in the Global Post, is right in wondering why the US “bother[s] to have embassies in the Arab World any more …since our diplomacy consists primarily of…blindly supporting whatever Israel wants at whatever cost to our strategic interests in the Arab world.”
Assured of the US policy of letting Israel get away with anything, a mere one day after the UN vote the Israeli cabinet authorised the construction of 3,000 more housing units in the occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and commenced zoning and planning in the highly sensitive and contentious E-1 area of East Jerusalem. And to inflict immediate financial pain on the Palestinians, Israel seized $ 120 million of this month’s tax money that belongs to Palestine.
Although it might seem like the behaviour of the street bully who bashes a child and then damages his bicycle too to show its anger, there is a method to this madness. While the world talks, the UN votes, Europe ‘deplores’ and the US ‘disapproves’, Israel grabs more and more Palestinian land. Lest the world has not taken notice of his actions, Mr Netanyahu also thundered: “No matter how many hands are raised against us there is no power on earth that will cause me to compromise on Israel’s security.” This from the prime minister of a country with a population of 7.6 million (a quarter of whom are non-Jewish Arabs), ranked 97th in the world, about the same as Eritrea, Togo or Laos, and a GNP of $ 237 billion (world ranking: 52), less than a third that of Taiwan ($ 875 billion), less than half that of Egypt ($ 519 billion) or Pakistan ($ 488 billion), even less than Bangladesh ($ 283 billion). What is more, he threatens Iran, with a population of about 80 million and a GNP of $ 990 billion!
It is hard to see how Israel can continue to defy the world and persist in its policy of aggression, annexation and occupation, even with US support. The vote count — and, may I add, the writing — are on the wall. The Palestinian flag is flying in the United Nations. Transcending political, religious, racial and ethnic differences, the international community has spoken with a very strong voice, a far stronger voice than the one that had said yes to the founding of the state of Israel in 1947. That vote was 33 for and 13 against (with 10 abstentions).
The writer is a former academic with a doctorate in modern history and can be reached at [email protected]