Buried in a one-sentence statement by the Saudi Press Agency on March 27 was the surprise announcement that Prince Nayef had been appointed second deputy prime minister of the Kingdom. The move places a man with strong opposition to Western initiatives as the potential successor to King Abdullah, only led by the ailing Prince Sultan. At a crucial time where the U.S.-Saudi partnership is necessary for the region, it is expected that a King Nayef would deal a significant blow to any of the reformist potential that King Abdullah has embraced.
Since King Fahd's death in 2005, Abdullah has at least taken steps to pander to the West and presented a possibility of a Saudi Arabia that can fit into a modern world. Last July, King Abdullah opened the World Conference for Dialogue in Spain, which was held after his meeting in November 2007 with the Pope at the Vatican. Despite the meetings being a great deal of extravagant media/public relations "fluff", Abdullah opened himself up to criticism from his Muslim critics. Al-Qaida has shown King Abdullah and the Pope walking together in its propaganda, however it should be noted that while the meetings occurred, Saudi Arabia remains an Islamic state that forbids the public practice of any religions other than Islam. The Sunni-Shi'a divide still remains strong in the country, so the likelihood of imminent religious reforms remains unlikely.
Freedom of religion is just one aspect of what a democratic Saudi Arabia would look like. While it remains in doubt that Abdullah will commit to any reform as King, it is virtually nonexistent that a King Nayef would further any potential democratic changes.
Just prior to the March announcement, Nayef was quoted as saying that Saudi Arabia did not need women serving in Parliament or elections. In short, how undemocratic can you be to oppose women's rights and elections universally? Progress regarding either aspect on any level would have been an encouraging sign that Saudi Arabia is looking to develop its role in the global community, rather than pull itself into obscurity. With the Iranian influence expanding on a global scale, Saudi Arabia has failed to increase its influence on a regional and global scale at a rate proportionate to Iran. One would assume that King Abdullah would see that in the long-term, Iran will eclipse Saudi Arabia for the once heated battle over who has the most influence over the Middle East. In short, Prince Nayef has experience over ruling the Kingdom as Interior Minister, but is ill-equipped to the dealings on a global scale.
Furthermore, as the War on Terrorism remains a vital aspect for Middle East policy in the near future, the U.S.-Saudi partnership must be upheld by any Saudi monarch. There is no doubt that the Interior Ministry remains the most significant branch of the government to confront terrorism in the Kingdom, but Prince Nayef is plagued by extreme doubt over his effectiveness overseeing such operations. In a June 22, 2004 hearing, Sen. Charles Schumer (NY-D) urged then Secretary of State Colin Powell to demand that Prince Nayef be replaced with "with someone more credible and committed to fighting terrorism." These calls came after reports surfaced that Prince Nayef's Interior Ministry security forces assisted in the kidnapping and murder of Paul Johnson-an U.S. contractor residing in the Kingdom. Sen. Schumer's demand cited Prince Nayef's lengthy history of aiding terrorists and interference of investigations.
"Prince Nayef Ibn Abd Al-Aziz is the supervisor general of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Al Quds Intifadah, an organization that has provided families of Palestinian suicide bombers with millions of dollars through specially designated bank accounts. In 2002, a single Saudi Arabian telethon raised about $112 million for this purpose.
In November of 2002, Prince Nayef told Ain-Al-Yageen, another Saudi newspaper, that Zionists were responsible for the 9-11 attacks despite that fact that Saudi Arabia has admitted that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. In addition, Prince Nayef [deletion] single-handedly prevented the trial of 13 Saudis indicted for killing 19 Americans in the bombing of the Khobar Towers by refusing to turn the men over to the United States. More recently Prince Nayef claimed that Zionists were behind the murder of six western contractors in Saudi Arabia and stated that "Al Qaeda is backed by Israel and Zionism."
In short, there is no person more ill-fit to govern Saudi Arabia then Prince Nayef. Given that a government report last year found that Saudi Arabia remains the leading sponsor of terrorism, there should be no expectation of any enhanced measures under Nayef's rule. If he has failed to crack down on it under his position as Interior Minister (held since 1975), it is likely that any existing measures would be scaled back. With his history of "blame the Jews" and his strong held Wahhabist views, Saudi Arabia will withdraw from global initiatives and lose any reformist views. Perhaps there is no better way to summarize what Saudi Arabia will look like than to quote Prince Nayef himself from a 2006 speech.
"Unless we face reality with truth, courage, and evidence, and if we do not stop all the transgressors who are trying to distort Islam with their claims of reform and their corrupt progress - this will be dangerous. These people have been tempted by the West, and have been employed in its service. We are familiar with their relations with foreign elements. We are fighting them and will continue to fight them, and we will cut off their tongues."
9-11-01
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Pakistan's role in regional stability
As President Obama laid out his plan for Afghanistan last week, the potential for regional violence originating from Pakistan continued to remain a defining issue in the War on Terror. Inside its borders, Pakistan remains a breeding ground and haven for jihadist groups as the government has lost any legitimacy in "the battle for Pakistan's soul" that President Zardari wrote about last September. Pakistan's military has failed to crackdown on militant activities, and with the effective breakaway of parts of the tribal areas to Taliban sympathizers, the Zardari administration has failed the world.
Monday's attack targeting a police academy in Lahore was the second major attack in the country within days, following the bombing of a mosque along the Khyber Pass, and reminded the world of how volatile the situation remains. The attack revealed the vulnerabilities of the forces expected to conduct counter terror operations, yet also served as a reminder of how the War on Terror in Pakistan has become a lazy slogan for President Zardari to beg the West for money.
The simple fact remains that Monday's attack should not have happened, and Pakistani intelligence was more than likely either complicit or unaware of any plot. Baitullah Mehsud's Tehrik-e-Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack. Mehsud has been sought since an arrest warrant was issued exactly one year ago for his masterminding of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Her assassination left the PPP in search of a presidential candidate, eventually namingZardari, her widower.
Upon the PPP's election into power, the new government sought to negotiate with groups spreading violence in the country, including Mehsud's. The results of such talks can now clearly be seen on the countless casualty lists from domestic attacks. No peace has been achieved, and the handover of the Swat valley to Taliban sympathizer Sufi Mohammad will yet again serve as a reminder that terrorism is simply whatjihadists see as a means to gain their authority.
Pakistan remains in denial of its role for spreading violence. The first finger pointed for any major attacks within Pakistan comes from Interior Minister Rehman Malik to "foreign elements." See this article after the police academy siege. Hours later, the commander of Pakistan's Tehrik-e-Taliban Baitullah Mehsud claimed responsibility and Malik, as usual, was forced to correct his misstatement. The empty hand begging for Western "aid" continues to remain extended, with no formidable successes to provide examples that Pakistani forces are willing, or even capable, of fighting terrorism. Prior to Monday's attack, President Zardari opted to take the typical politician route and make excuses for his administration's failure:
"In a rare interview with Sky.com, Zardari vowed to make Pakistan a better and stronger country in the near future, and adding it can still win its struggle against terrorism.
He announced that the battle to counter terrorism is now Pakistan’’s war.
Zardari however, said it would require more help from the United States and Britain to overcome the menace.Putting side the international community's claims that Islamabad has been poured-in with aid and assistance, Zardari said: We haven”t received a dollar. Until then, we don”t have the tools to fight."
Perhaps President Zardari is referring to the U.S. announcement in January that it was cutting money from the Coalition Support Fund. The U.S. deducted nearly $55 million from the previous $156 million figure provided. After the Obama administration laid out its plan for economic aid in Pakistan being linked to the country's performance in fighting terrorism, Prime Minister Gilani whined that "Pakistan has already done enough." The War on Terror will not be won through military strength alone, but blank checks will not contain the ideas that jihadist groups seek to implement.
As politicians throughout the world question the war on terror, people are dying. It is time for Pakistan to quit outsourcing this struggle and adopt it as its own. U.S. drone strikes should not be the only War on Terror that President Zardari can speak of, yet they are the only forcescombating terrorism inside Pakistan. How many people will have to die before it is seen that terrorist groups are not just crazed maniacs seeking to kill people, but they have an agenda that they seek to establish through fear and bloodshed? Terrorism is a means to an end, and so long as that end is out of reach, this cycle of violence will continue to plague everyone in Pakistan.
-----
Just a brief side note, I wish this was an April Fool's joke. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrookeannounced today that the State Dept. intended to surge counter terror funding for Pakistan.
"He said the administration backed a measure sponsored in the House that would create economic opportunity zones along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.Another bill – sponsored by House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman HowardBerman and top two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – would triple aid for Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for five years."
Monday's attack targeting a police academy in Lahore was the second major attack in the country within days, following the bombing of a mosque along the Khyber Pass, and reminded the world of how volatile the situation remains. The attack revealed the vulnerabilities of the forces expected to conduct counter terror operations, yet also served as a reminder of how the War on Terror in Pakistan has become a lazy slogan for President Zardari to beg the West for money.
The simple fact remains that Monday's attack should not have happened, and Pakistani intelligence was more than likely either complicit or unaware of any plot. Baitullah Mehsud's Tehrik-e-Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack. Mehsud has been sought since an arrest warrant was issued exactly one year ago for his masterminding of the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Her assassination left the PPP in search of a presidential candidate, eventually namingZardari, her widower.
Upon the PPP's election into power, the new government sought to negotiate with groups spreading violence in the country, including Mehsud's. The results of such talks can now clearly be seen on the countless casualty lists from domestic attacks. No peace has been achieved, and the handover of the Swat valley to Taliban sympathizer Sufi Mohammad will yet again serve as a reminder that terrorism is simply whatjihadists see as a means to gain their authority.
Pakistan remains in denial of its role for spreading violence. The first finger pointed for any major attacks within Pakistan comes from Interior Minister Rehman Malik to "foreign elements." See this article after the police academy siege. Hours later, the commander of Pakistan's Tehrik-e-Taliban Baitullah Mehsud claimed responsibility and Malik, as usual, was forced to correct his misstatement. The empty hand begging for Western "aid" continues to remain extended, with no formidable successes to provide examples that Pakistani forces are willing, or even capable, of fighting terrorism. Prior to Monday's attack, President Zardari opted to take the typical politician route and make excuses for his administration's failure:
"In a rare interview with Sky.com, Zardari vowed to make Pakistan a better and stronger country in the near future, and adding it can still win its struggle against terrorism.
He announced that the battle to counter terrorism is now Pakistan’’s war.
Zardari however, said it would require more help from the United States and Britain to overcome the menace.Putting side the international community's claims that Islamabad has been poured-in with aid and assistance, Zardari said: We haven”t received a dollar. Until then, we don”t have the tools to fight."
Perhaps President Zardari is referring to the U.S. announcement in January that it was cutting money from the Coalition Support Fund. The U.S. deducted nearly $55 million from the previous $156 million figure provided. After the Obama administration laid out its plan for economic aid in Pakistan being linked to the country's performance in fighting terrorism, Prime Minister Gilani whined that "Pakistan has already done enough." The War on Terror will not be won through military strength alone, but blank checks will not contain the ideas that jihadist groups seek to implement.
As politicians throughout the world question the war on terror, people are dying. It is time for Pakistan to quit outsourcing this struggle and adopt it as its own. U.S. drone strikes should not be the only War on Terror that President Zardari can speak of, yet they are the only forcescombating terrorism inside Pakistan. How many people will have to die before it is seen that terrorist groups are not just crazed maniacs seeking to kill people, but they have an agenda that they seek to establish through fear and bloodshed? Terrorism is a means to an end, and so long as that end is out of reach, this cycle of violence will continue to plague everyone in Pakistan.
-----
Just a brief side note, I wish this was an April Fool's joke. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrookeannounced today that the State Dept. intended to surge counter terror funding for Pakistan.
"He said the administration backed a measure sponsored in the House that would create economic opportunity zones along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.Another bill – sponsored by House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman HowardBerman and top two members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – would triple aid for Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for five years."
Friday, March 20, 2009
The danger of generalizing terrorism
As several measures of legislation are being reversed and established in terror cases in the U.S. under the new administration, we are effectively facing a major dilemma that could resurface in the imminent future. Rewind back to September 12, 2001, when using the word terrorist captured the atrocities committed the day previous. That day we saw jihad from a radical Islamic element, which used our way of life against us.
Under the Obama administration's brief two months in office, the future of identifying international terrorists and those with links seems to be rewinding back to the pre-9/11 days full of murky labels that fail to address the criminal elements that drive global terror organizations. While many of the politically-driven critics look to suggest that such maneuvers will reduce law enforcement's capabilities to stop the next mass-casualty attacks, there is a far more dangerous potential.
Over the past few months, several outlets have reported the FBI's attempts to monitor the Somali community in Minneapolis. This effort was established shortly after a suicide bombing in Somalia was orchestrated by Shirwa Ahmed, a missing Somali-American from Minnesota. It was soon discovered that several groups of young men from specifically the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center. The mosque has denied any links and condemned suicide bombings as a whole.
However, the alarming concern should be that there are at least a dozen young men who travelled abroad to support jihad in Somalia from our country. How will the international community perceive our ability to fight terrorists when Americans are perpetrating attacks overseas? This is a crucial moment as Al-Qaida is thrusting more of its abilities into Somalia yet again, evidenced by Osama bin Laden's March 19 recording and Ayman Zawahiri's February 2009 video. It is expected that Al-Shabaab, already ideologically linked with bin Laden, will pledge ties in the near future to Al-Qaida.
There is a dangerous problem posed to us here in the U.S. as to whether or not we can win the War on Terror. Simply put, the international support for combating terror will diminish drastically if more American citizens surface as perpetrators of terrorist acts abroad. We can not ask of other countries what we can not effectively do. Somalia is breeding a new wave of jihad yet again, and Al-Shabaab has been active in threatening the U.S. as well as most recently denouncing the new government in the country. With a potential active recruiting cell operating domestically, the future for Al-Shabaab to be the active global cell for Al-Qaida could render severe consequences in the global War on Terror and undermine the U.S. ability to pioneer counter terror initiatives.
Under the Obama administration's brief two months in office, the future of identifying international terrorists and those with links seems to be rewinding back to the pre-9/11 days full of murky labels that fail to address the criminal elements that drive global terror organizations. While many of the politically-driven critics look to suggest that such maneuvers will reduce law enforcement's capabilities to stop the next mass-casualty attacks, there is a far more dangerous potential.
Over the past few months, several outlets have reported the FBI's attempts to monitor the Somali community in Minneapolis. This effort was established shortly after a suicide bombing in Somalia was orchestrated by Shirwa Ahmed, a missing Somali-American from Minnesota. It was soon discovered that several groups of young men from specifically the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center. The mosque has denied any links and condemned suicide bombings as a whole.
However, the alarming concern should be that there are at least a dozen young men who travelled abroad to support jihad in Somalia from our country. How will the international community perceive our ability to fight terrorists when Americans are perpetrating attacks overseas? This is a crucial moment as Al-Qaida is thrusting more of its abilities into Somalia yet again, evidenced by Osama bin Laden's March 19 recording and Ayman Zawahiri's February 2009 video. It is expected that Al-Shabaab, already ideologically linked with bin Laden, will pledge ties in the near future to Al-Qaida.
There is a dangerous problem posed to us here in the U.S. as to whether or not we can win the War on Terror. Simply put, the international support for combating terror will diminish drastically if more American citizens surface as perpetrators of terrorist acts abroad. We can not ask of other countries what we can not effectively do. Somalia is breeding a new wave of jihad yet again, and Al-Shabaab has been active in threatening the U.S. as well as most recently denouncing the new government in the country. With a potential active recruiting cell operating domestically, the future for Al-Shabaab to be the active global cell for Al-Qaida could render severe consequences in the global War on Terror and undermine the U.S. ability to pioneer counter terror initiatives.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The complicated chance of peace in Gaza
As the Israeli operation continues in Gaza and President-elect Obama is poised to confront his first major international crisis, the hope to resolve the situation still remains in dismal prospects. The real dilemma to this operation is how to resolve the situation and insure that the circumstances that brought us to this are erased. Without a strong targeting by the international community on the Palestinian Authority and its responsibilities as a government body, the situation will undoubtedly fall into the cycle of repetition as soon as this crisis stops.
This situation is not solely a Palestinian vs. Israeli conflict, but will ultimately lead into the cycle of internal strife amongst Fatah and Hamas. In a computed analysis mapping Hamas' action, the findings were quite interesting. The findings, courtesy of Aaron Mannes and the University of Maryland, conclude:
"Perhaps the most interesting finding was that certain attacks, such as kidnappings and property attacks on Palestinians, tracked with internal Palestinian conflict. Although it occurred after the data was collected, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit occurred during the Hamas-Fatah civil war. Another round of Hamas-Fatah fighting is likely in the West Bank, so more of these kinds of actions should be expected."
As stated previously in all my prior posts, the ultimate threat is the destabilization of the Palestinian Authority. As predicted, Hamas said on January 9 that the term of Mahmoud Abbas had expired and he "is no longer president." The overall rhetoric from the group seemed to challenge Abbas, coming just short of naming a successor. Once again, this potential for two Palestinian administrations seems to hinder the opportunity for diplomacy and prepares the route for a Hamas-Fatah civil war.
Once again, this potential conflict virtually prohibits the ability of Abbas' Fatah-led security forces to crack down on Hamas. Without the Palestinian government's ability to control portions of its territory, the attacks from Gaza will continue.
This is when the opportunity for an international force, similar to the French-led UNIFIL forces in Lebanon, could provide a potential for peace. As Walid Phares has proposed, the presence of an international force inside Gaza would present a step in the right direction for the people of Gaza. With the network of tunnels inside the territory, the movement of weapons has not diminished under Operation Cast Lead and will only be halted when ground troops are present. The positioning of a UN-force can administer aid and ultimately advocate the lifting of the Gaza blockade, acting as an advocate for the citizens of Gaza caught amidst the conflict.
As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza escalates, the time for action is now. A clear understanding must be made by all international partners, that Hamas can not be recognized as a political organization as it clings to violence. So long as violence comes out there Hamas, there must be a united effort to reduce its terrorist capabilities and to promote democracy amongst the parties involved in Palestinian politics.
Since the Hamas takeover and the placement of the Israeli blockade, the moderates in Gaza have fought to have their voices heard. Many see Hamas responsible for crippling their lives, yet their voices are not in the media. This is the opportunity to hand the stage to the moderates in Middle East affairs, who openly challenge the ideas that breed this senseless cycle of violence, yet we choose to ignore them.
"[Saudi] Prince Bandar bin Sultan said that the Hamas leaders promised, on the day after their election, to persuade their followers within three months that recognition of Israel [was necessary]. Why not surprise Omar Suleiman next month by fulfilling this promise? [The Hamas leaders] are undoubtedly afraid of their followers – [specifically,] of a faction within the Al-Qassam Brigades – and therefore they should be advised by Roosevelt's [saying] about political courage, namely, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." A political movement must first of all serve the interests of the people. Is it in their best interest to remain without a state, hungry and besieged... just because their leaders have lost their political courage? Hamas is at an important crossroads that requires it to shake itself and reshape itself, in order to meet the challenges faced by its people..."
This situation is not solely a Palestinian vs. Israeli conflict, but will ultimately lead into the cycle of internal strife amongst Fatah and Hamas. In a computed analysis mapping Hamas' action, the findings were quite interesting. The findings, courtesy of Aaron Mannes and the University of Maryland, conclude:
"Perhaps the most interesting finding was that certain attacks, such as kidnappings and property attacks on Palestinians, tracked with internal Palestinian conflict. Although it occurred after the data was collected, the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit occurred during the Hamas-Fatah civil war. Another round of Hamas-Fatah fighting is likely in the West Bank, so more of these kinds of actions should be expected."
As stated previously in all my prior posts, the ultimate threat is the destabilization of the Palestinian Authority. As predicted, Hamas said on January 9 that the term of Mahmoud Abbas had expired and he "is no longer president." The overall rhetoric from the group seemed to challenge Abbas, coming just short of naming a successor. Once again, this potential for two Palestinian administrations seems to hinder the opportunity for diplomacy and prepares the route for a Hamas-Fatah civil war.
Once again, this potential conflict virtually prohibits the ability of Abbas' Fatah-led security forces to crack down on Hamas. Without the Palestinian government's ability to control portions of its territory, the attacks from Gaza will continue.
This is when the opportunity for an international force, similar to the French-led UNIFIL forces in Lebanon, could provide a potential for peace. As Walid Phares has proposed, the presence of an international force inside Gaza would present a step in the right direction for the people of Gaza. With the network of tunnels inside the territory, the movement of weapons has not diminished under Operation Cast Lead and will only be halted when ground troops are present. The positioning of a UN-force can administer aid and ultimately advocate the lifting of the Gaza blockade, acting as an advocate for the citizens of Gaza caught amidst the conflict.
As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza escalates, the time for action is now. A clear understanding must be made by all international partners, that Hamas can not be recognized as a political organization as it clings to violence. So long as violence comes out there Hamas, there must be a united effort to reduce its terrorist capabilities and to promote democracy amongst the parties involved in Palestinian politics.
Since the Hamas takeover and the placement of the Israeli blockade, the moderates in Gaza have fought to have their voices heard. Many see Hamas responsible for crippling their lives, yet their voices are not in the media. This is the opportunity to hand the stage to the moderates in Middle East affairs, who openly challenge the ideas that breed this senseless cycle of violence, yet we choose to ignore them.
"[Saudi] Prince Bandar bin Sultan said that the Hamas leaders promised, on the day after their election, to persuade their followers within three months that recognition of Israel [was necessary]. Why not surprise Omar Suleiman next month by fulfilling this promise? [The Hamas leaders] are undoubtedly afraid of their followers – [specifically,] of a faction within the Al-Qassam Brigades – and therefore they should be advised by Roosevelt's [saying] about political courage, namely, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." A political movement must first of all serve the interests of the people. Is it in their best interest to remain without a state, hungry and besieged... just because their leaders have lost their political courage? Hamas is at an important crossroads that requires it to shake itself and reshape itself, in order to meet the challenges faced by its people..."
-Arab scholar Lafif Lakhdar
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The 2008 Arab-Israeli conflict
As I posted previously, the potential for the Israeli-Hamas battle to become much bigger is the greatest threat to international relations at this time. This is not just a battle between Palestinians and Israelis, but much bigger. This is an opportunity for Iran to secure its nuclear program and divert attention away from its unregulated nuclear program. However, the nuclear program is not the main concern now but rather the terror links that made this war possible.
The number one concern should be in the coming weeks, when Hamas could make good on its promises to disregard Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen. The already intense Fatah-Hamas divide could turn into bloodshed, with Palestinian factions warring against each other in the middle of a conflict with Israel. The question then turns to who the international community can talk with, Hamas' president or Abu Mazen? If this conflict is a direct result of Hamas, it would make sense to deal with Hamas, but it is important that the terror group is not given legitimacy through any talks.
This threat cripples the ability to resolve the situation. There will only be a loser, and it will be the Palestinian people. What could develop will be a civil war between Palestinian factions while at the same time engaging Israel. If the Fatah-Hamas conflict flares up, the potential for innocent bloodshed will increase drastically and the international community will be faced with the cries to intervene. Countries will be forced to take sides in a battle between terrorist groups masked as political forces, and the outcome will not be a resolution but rather another ceasefire.
As the world watches the crisis unfold in the Middle East, the potential for the worst to come true seems to be everpresent. I hope the Palestinian Authority can hold its power, but that answer could emerge in nearly a week. This crisis is plagued by the many changes occurring on the world stage, most notably President-elect Obama set to swear-in on January 20. Only time will tell where the situation will turn next, but looking at the trend of recent similar situations, this one will get alot worse.
The number one concern should be in the coming weeks, when Hamas could make good on its promises to disregard Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen. The already intense Fatah-Hamas divide could turn into bloodshed, with Palestinian factions warring against each other in the middle of a conflict with Israel. The question then turns to who the international community can talk with, Hamas' president or Abu Mazen? If this conflict is a direct result of Hamas, it would make sense to deal with Hamas, but it is important that the terror group is not given legitimacy through any talks.
This threat cripples the ability to resolve the situation. There will only be a loser, and it will be the Palestinian people. What could develop will be a civil war between Palestinian factions while at the same time engaging Israel. If the Fatah-Hamas conflict flares up, the potential for innocent bloodshed will increase drastically and the international community will be faced with the cries to intervene. Countries will be forced to take sides in a battle between terrorist groups masked as political forces, and the outcome will not be a resolution but rather another ceasefire.
As the world watches the crisis unfold in the Middle East, the potential for the worst to come true seems to be everpresent. I hope the Palestinian Authority can hold its power, but that answer could emerge in nearly a week. This crisis is plagued by the many changes occurring on the world stage, most notably President-elect Obama set to swear-in on January 20. Only time will tell where the situation will turn next, but looking at the trend of recent similar situations, this one will get alot worse.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
A tragic failure of negotiations
Many critics say that the Middle East is a region that will remain at war, plagued by conflicts that can not be resolved. Just as things looked on the rise from the region, the six-month ceasefire with Hamas ended. In an instant, the temporary peace exploded. All the boasting of Israeli ministers on the ceasefire's success disappeared with a fresh volley of rockets.
While many may see this as another example of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is a much bigger event that has the potential to escalate into a catastrophic crisis. The situation has the potential to sink the region into an intensified permanent state of conflict.
Many experts are beginning to assert that the attacks seem to be fairly well-timed, and with the statement from Hizbullah, that responsibility may ultimately lay inside Tehran. With a fresh U.S. administration set to take control, Israel and Syria having had talks mediated by Turkey (now cancelled due to the Israeli airstrikes), and the Arab world again focused on its hatred for Israel, the only real winner is Iran.
There are two major components to watch for in the coming month as the situation continues.
1) What role will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his party, Fatah, address the threat of Hamas?
It is important to remember that Hamas took power of Gaza from Fatah in June 2007. This separation of forces and animosity between the two sides could ultimately intensify the Fatah-Hamas divide if Fatah attempts to intervene. Abbas' presidency is in question already by Hamas, and any action could destroy the Palestinian leadership.
2) How will the Arab world react to the situation?
Needless to say, the Arab world is already blasting Israel for the action. Any military support to Hamas by the Arab world could instigate another Arab-Israeli conflict, which would ultimately involve Hizbullah. With Hizbullah's arsenal increased several times over, it is likely that even the Israeli military would remain stretched by having to confront multiple threats at the same time. The ultimate test to international affairs will be to keep Arab countries isolated and to keep the crisis between Israel and Hamas.
The situation is assuredly a nightmare one at best. It was a matter of time until this happened. A six-month cease-fire only set up this situation. Hamas increased its weaponry, just like Hizbullah after the 2006 conflict. As soon as the cease-fire was over, whether on its own will or under influence by Iranian leadership, Hamas took its weaponry and used it. Now, amidst all the impending transitions in the U.S. and Israel, it appears there is a crisis that has emerged and will dominate the headlines for sometime.
While many may see this as another example of the Arab-Israeli conflict, this is a much bigger event that has the potential to escalate into a catastrophic crisis. The situation has the potential to sink the region into an intensified permanent state of conflict.
Many experts are beginning to assert that the attacks seem to be fairly well-timed, and with the statement from Hizbullah, that responsibility may ultimately lay inside Tehran. With a fresh U.S. administration set to take control, Israel and Syria having had talks mediated by Turkey (now cancelled due to the Israeli airstrikes), and the Arab world again focused on its hatred for Israel, the only real winner is Iran.
There are two major components to watch for in the coming month as the situation continues.
1) What role will Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his party, Fatah, address the threat of Hamas?
It is important to remember that Hamas took power of Gaza from Fatah in June 2007. This separation of forces and animosity between the two sides could ultimately intensify the Fatah-Hamas divide if Fatah attempts to intervene. Abbas' presidency is in question already by Hamas, and any action could destroy the Palestinian leadership.
2) How will the Arab world react to the situation?
Needless to say, the Arab world is already blasting Israel for the action. Any military support to Hamas by the Arab world could instigate another Arab-Israeli conflict, which would ultimately involve Hizbullah. With Hizbullah's arsenal increased several times over, it is likely that even the Israeli military would remain stretched by having to confront multiple threats at the same time. The ultimate test to international affairs will be to keep Arab countries isolated and to keep the crisis between Israel and Hamas.
The situation is assuredly a nightmare one at best. It was a matter of time until this happened. A six-month cease-fire only set up this situation. Hamas increased its weaponry, just like Hizbullah after the 2006 conflict. As soon as the cease-fire was over, whether on its own will or under influence by Iranian leadership, Hamas took its weaponry and used it. Now, amidst all the impending transitions in the U.S. and Israel, it appears there is a crisis that has emerged and will dominate the headlines for sometime.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
U.S.-Syrian relations on the horizon?
During a trip this week, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter stated that he believed under the incoming Obama administration "the situation will improve between the United States and Syria after we have a new president." This type of rhetoric remains in line with Syrian President Assad's commitment to pursue talks with the U.S. once a new administration had been set. Now, the Bush administration is in its final month and prepares to hand off to President-elect Obama.
Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.
There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:
"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."
The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.
With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.
Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.
Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:
"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."
History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.
Syria has increasingly expressed interest in Western relations, specifically through French President Sarkozy. As Syria continues to pledge "peace talks" with the West and Israel, it is important to remember the true face of Syrian politics led by President Bashar Assad.
There is the Valentine's Day assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiik Hariri in 2005. Almost four years later, the circumstances of the bombing remain veiled. Just this week, the lead investigator into the incident told investigators that the blast remains solvable. David Bellemare has not gone so far as the first investigator, Detlev Mehlis, who wrote in the commission's first report:
"...there is converging evidence pointing at both Lebanese and Syrian involvement in this terrorist act."
The Mehlis report suggests that figures in both Lebanese and Syrian intelligence had knowledge of the attack. The report called on Syrian cooperation investigating the attack, specifically accusing some of the 400 persons interviewed of giving misleading statements. With answers pending in the probe, it is clear that there still remains a great deal of work in explaining Syria's hand in promoting violence throughout the Middle East.
With Syria playing ally to Iran in the war for Middle East influence against Saudi Arabia and Egypt, it is unlikely that any dramatic concessions will come as Iran will cling to its major backer. Since its conception in 2006, the group Fatah al-Islam in Lebanon has been a topic of major controversy in the region. The group, sympathetic to Al-Qaida objectives, has been subject to major debate as to who backs it. Syria has accused Saudi Arabia of founding the group to counter the Shiite power of Hizbullah. Many reports contradict such a claim, linking Syrian intelligence to the group. This could contribute to the inaction that Syria has taken to combat the group until last month when Fatah al-Islam's leader, Shaker al-Abssi, was declared dead in a gun battle with Syrian forces.
Al-Abbsi had a curious history with Syrian authorities. After being arrested in 2000, al-Abbsi spent three years in a Syrian prison for weapons smuggling charges. He then traveled to Iraq and became an associate of Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. A Jordanian court had sentenced al-Abbsi to death in 2004 for the killing of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002. However, al-Abbsi had remained elusive after the Nahr al-Bared seige in Lebanon that killed more than 200 in the Palestinian refugee camp in 2007. It was not until September, when Syria arrested al-Abbsi's daughter, that efforts began to increase against the leader of Fatah al-Islam.
Only until the September bombing in Damascus did Syria reveal any efforts to pursue members of the group, specifically the group's leader. Such spontaneous action has contributed to speculation that al-Abbsi was no longer in line with Syrian objectives and was taking the group in his own direction. The level of pressure that Syria has placed on the group has previously been nonexistent, begging many questions as to why there has not been a precedent of operations targeting the membership of Fatah al-Islam. When writing about Syrian actions against Fatah al-Islam, Walid Phares wrote:
"Some Terrorism commentators in the West and in the US spoke of an “elusive Fatah al Islam.” Unfamiliar with the Levantine nature of the phenomenon, those commentators still struggle with what they describe as “speculation” over the group’s “real motives,” as if they haven’t captured the equation behind Fatah al Islam. First, they conclude that this group can’t have ties to Damascus because the Syrian regime executed four members of the group. Ironically, the news came from the Syrian intelligence itself, which means that the Assad regime can go as far as killing operatives to intimidate the rest of the group, and on top of it, “sell” the news to the world as an “an anti al Qaeda” activity, which by the way would be bought by US officials."
History is taught because it has a unique way of repeating itself. While attempting dialogue with Syria, the U.S. should recall the consequences of failed alliances in the Middle East. I hope Assad is sincere in his objectives, but he has provided little besides mere talk when it comes to abandoning the Iranian regime and terror ties. Actions speak louder than words, and Syria should continue to combat terrorism inside its own country before looking outward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)