President Obama's Middle East policy speech of the 19 May was forward-looking in that it referred to the pre-1967 border as the point of reference. But when he talked of the swaps to be arrived at by Israeli-Palestinian talks, and when one sees the repeated standing ovation to the Israeli Prime Minister when he addressed the US Congress on 23 May and said that Israel would stick to the present border and the occupied territories, the future of that policy looks very dim indeed.
We will, however, shift our ground a little bit and take a look at what Mahatma Gandhi said about the Arab-Jewish question in the hope that it may bring in some freshness of thinking to the current crisis.
Gandhi was a man of unusual far-sightedness. Years before India's independence he was aware of its far-reaching consequences for the still dependent nations of Asia and Africa. On the Arab-Jewish question he published his views at least on four occasions.
The first was an interview to "The Jewish Chronicle" in the latter half of 1931 when he was at London to attend the 2nd Round Table Conference convened by the British government. He was saying that 'In South Africa I was surrounded by Jews'. On the current problem he said, 'I can understand the longing of a Jew to return to Palestine, and he can do so if he can without the help of bayonets, whether his own or those of Britain. In that event he would go to Palestine peacefully and in perfect friendliness with the Arabs.'
That set the tone for others. In November 1838, almost on the eve of the World War, he wrote a small article on "The Jews". He says 'My sympathies are all with the Jews...They have been the untouchables of Christianity.' It will be recalled that he was immersed in the untouchability question in India itself. But he continues that 'it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.' Then comes 'The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract... if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun...They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs'.
His interest in the Arab-Jewish problem was sustained after the World War, as he could not trust the British intentions, and his country, India, was also in danger of being divided along the religious line as was Palestine. He wrote in his note "Jews and Palestine" in July 1946 that '...they(the Jews) have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism. Their citizenship of the world should have and would have made them honoured guests of any country'. And finally in early May 1947, when the division of India was about to be decided, he said when the Reuter asked him the solution to the Palestine problem, 'If I were a Jew, I would tell them:"Don't be so silly as to resort to terrorism, because you simply damage your own case which otherwise would be a proper case"'. And continued, 'They should meet the Arabs, make friends with them, and not depend on British aid or American aid or any aid...'. Gandhi's concept of a modern state is a multi-religious one, and he has insisted on it since he wrote Hind Swaraj in 1909. On this basis he rejected the two-nation theory to deny the division of India along religions.
Gandhi's close Jewish friend Hermann Kallenback visited India in 1937 and 1939 to sound him if he would be willing to mediate between the Arabs and the Jews, but the attempt ended in failure(see Simone Panter-Brick,Gandhi and the Middle East Jews, Arabs and Imperial Interests).
It is sixty years after Gandhi's death, and aren't some of his ideas still worth looking at?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Bob Woodward, Obama's Wars, 2010
This is the story of the Obama Administration's decision-making on Afghanistan in the autumn of 2009.
Afghanistan had been closely linked to Pakistan in the mind of the people so that the two were together called 'AfPak'. But Pakistan has been given a negative assessment in connection with the US operations in Afghanistan. Some called it 'a dishonest partner of the U.S. in the Afghanistan War'. She is 'the patron and the victim and the safe haven (of the terrorists) all at the same time'. Her peculiar relationship with India was also recognized. People said that 'Pakistan worried more about being encircled by India than being underminded by extremists inside its borders', that 'What Pakistan doesn't want, as a matter of faith, is a unified Afghan government that is led by a Pashtun sympathetic to India' like President Karzai. But at the same time the US did not hesitate to give 'weapons, trade deals and money' to President Zardari of that country.
Mr.Obama, the newly elected President, has 'campaigned on providing Afghanistan with more troops', although he was against the case for Iraq. But, surprisingly, there was no coherent strategy for Afghanistan. There was only a demand by the US commander there for 40,000 more troops. Therefore Obama called the full meeting of the NSC, the 'war cabinet', 9 times in all from September to November, 2009, to work out a strategy.
The uniformed people headed by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed the demand, and they were joined by both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. The Vice-President and other, mostly civilian, advisers were against it. No viable options were in sight even at the 8th meeting, which led one participant to think 'that Obama had perhaps underestimated the extent to which he had inherited George W.Bush's presidency-the apparatus, personnel and mind-set of war making'. One more meeting, and finally Obama decided on sending 30,000, and to start withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011. The cost of this would be $30 billion.
Obama's leadership was apparent throughout those meetings. It was he who asked at the very first meeting 'did we really have to win a civil war in Afghanistan?', since the core goal for the US is 'defeating al Qaeda in order to protect the homeland'. 'I want an exit strategy' was what he said at the 6th. At the 8th he stated 'Our goal...is to deny the Taliban the ability to threaten to overthrow the Afghan state and provide safe haven to Al Qaeda'. Those words became the most important part of the final decision dated 29 November. On the same occasion he complained that the military plan for sending 40,000 'compromises our ability to do anything else'.
While talking of the safe haven in Pakistan, most members had FATA(Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas) like Waziristan in mind. In reality the action against the Al Qaeda leader took place at a different place in Pakistan. But the core goal was achieved. It is time the US started thinking of withdrawing, all the more so as the time indicated by Obama, July 2011, is just round the corner.
Afghanistan had been closely linked to Pakistan in the mind of the people so that the two were together called 'AfPak'. But Pakistan has been given a negative assessment in connection with the US operations in Afghanistan. Some called it 'a dishonest partner of the U.S. in the Afghanistan War'. She is 'the patron and the victim and the safe haven (of the terrorists) all at the same time'. Her peculiar relationship with India was also recognized. People said that 'Pakistan worried more about being encircled by India than being underminded by extremists inside its borders', that 'What Pakistan doesn't want, as a matter of faith, is a unified Afghan government that is led by a Pashtun sympathetic to India' like President Karzai. But at the same time the US did not hesitate to give 'weapons, trade deals and money' to President Zardari of that country.
Mr.Obama, the newly elected President, has 'campaigned on providing Afghanistan with more troops', although he was against the case for Iraq. But, surprisingly, there was no coherent strategy for Afghanistan. There was only a demand by the US commander there for 40,000 more troops. Therefore Obama called the full meeting of the NSC, the 'war cabinet', 9 times in all from September to November, 2009, to work out a strategy.
The uniformed people headed by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, backed the demand, and they were joined by both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. The Vice-President and other, mostly civilian, advisers were against it. No viable options were in sight even at the 8th meeting, which led one participant to think 'that Obama had perhaps underestimated the extent to which he had inherited George W.Bush's presidency-the apparatus, personnel and mind-set of war making'. One more meeting, and finally Obama decided on sending 30,000, and to start withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011. The cost of this would be $30 billion.
Obama's leadership was apparent throughout those meetings. It was he who asked at the very first meeting 'did we really have to win a civil war in Afghanistan?', since the core goal for the US is 'defeating al Qaeda in order to protect the homeland'. 'I want an exit strategy' was what he said at the 6th. At the 8th he stated 'Our goal...is to deny the Taliban the ability to threaten to overthrow the Afghan state and provide safe haven to Al Qaeda'. Those words became the most important part of the final decision dated 29 November. On the same occasion he complained that the military plan for sending 40,000 'compromises our ability to do anything else'.
While talking of the safe haven in Pakistan, most members had FATA(Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas) like Waziristan in mind. In reality the action against the Al Qaeda leader took place at a different place in Pakistan. But the core goal was achieved. It is time the US started thinking of withdrawing, all the more so as the time indicated by Obama, July 2011, is just round the corner.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Poll on Article 9, 2011
Before proceeding to Obama's Wars, however, I would like to discuss the possible wider impact of the US exit policy from Afghanistan, particularly in connection with Japan. With the withdrawal of her troops from Afghanistan, the US will be in a position to divert a considerable sum of money earmarked for the military to raising the standard of living of her own people. But that is her problem and I will not go into that. What I would stress here is that the US military bases in Japan will no longer be needed as the bases for waging wars(whether Obama's or otherwise) in the Middle East or South Asia(Afghanistan is now a member of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation and as such a South Asian country). This is a splendid opportunity for the US military exit from Japan as well.
As for the often talked-about need to defend Japan, contrary to the warning that is coming from inside and outside that Japan is in danger of being invaded given the present fighting level of her Self Defense Forces(SDF), nothing of that sort has happened or is likely to happen. This is particularly notable as, if some country or countries are keen on doing so, this is a wonderful opportunity of doing so when Japan has been greatly weakened by the triple disaster.
I have already introduced the letter and the spirit of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, renouncing war and disowning fighting forces, in these columns. Here is an indication of how the Japanese people feel about the article at present. I am quoting an opinion poll on the Asahi newspaper of 3 May, the Constitution Day, 2011. To the question if the Constitution needs to be amended, 54% of the respondents said yes and 29% said no. But to the question if the Article 9 needs to be amended, only 30% said yes and 59%, 8% more than in 2005, said no. Those who said yes to the former question were almost equally divided on the latter one. Interestingly, at a meeting on that day called by those who wanted to amend the Constitution, the main theme was not the Article 9. They said that the lack of an emergency clause in the Constitution was responsible for the poor management of the crisis in the initial stages of the triple disaster. The earthquake and the tsunami were natural disasters, but, as I said, the nuclear plant disaster was a man-made one. Those people single-mindedly want to have the Article 9 deleted, and they have no qualms about making use of anything available.
Back to the subject, the US military exit from Japan will be welcome, not least because the billions which are being transferred from Japan to the US every year for nothing will be used for reconstruction, and the carrier George Washington with its two nuclear reactors will be out of sight. The whole of East Asia and the Western Pacific will instantly appear more peaceful. Even the American general public may not be aware of the bases and money and George Washington. They will surely rejoice to have their sons and daughters in their thousands safely back home.
As for the often talked-about need to defend Japan, contrary to the warning that is coming from inside and outside that Japan is in danger of being invaded given the present fighting level of her Self Defense Forces(SDF), nothing of that sort has happened or is likely to happen. This is particularly notable as, if some country or countries are keen on doing so, this is a wonderful opportunity of doing so when Japan has been greatly weakened by the triple disaster.
I have already introduced the letter and the spirit of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, renouncing war and disowning fighting forces, in these columns. Here is an indication of how the Japanese people feel about the article at present. I am quoting an opinion poll on the Asahi newspaper of 3 May, the Constitution Day, 2011. To the question if the Constitution needs to be amended, 54% of the respondents said yes and 29% said no. But to the question if the Article 9 needs to be amended, only 30% said yes and 59%, 8% more than in 2005, said no. Those who said yes to the former question were almost equally divided on the latter one. Interestingly, at a meeting on that day called by those who wanted to amend the Constitution, the main theme was not the Article 9. They said that the lack of an emergency clause in the Constitution was responsible for the poor management of the crisis in the initial stages of the triple disaster. The earthquake and the tsunami were natural disasters, but, as I said, the nuclear plant disaster was a man-made one. Those people single-mindedly want to have the Article 9 deleted, and they have no qualms about making use of anything available.
Back to the subject, the US military exit from Japan will be welcome, not least because the billions which are being transferred from Japan to the US every year for nothing will be used for reconstruction, and the carrier George Washington with its two nuclear reactors will be out of sight. The whole of East Asia and the Western Pacific will instantly appear more peaceful. Even the American general public may not be aware of the bases and money and George Washington. They will surely rejoice to have their sons and daughters in their thousands safely back home.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
An Exit Policy from Afghanistan
Mr.Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, appeared on the BBC's HardTalk to talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He said the US and Pakistan are in a crisis situation, as it is difficult to believe that Pakistan did not provide support system to Osama bin-Laden while he was hiding in Pakistan. Discussing how the Pakistan government was covering the terrorists he said that when he brought up the problem of Pakistan Taliban with the former President of Pakistan, the President said, "Pakistan Taliban? Give me their names, give me their phone-numbers".
Mr.Obama, after a prolonged discussion with his National Security Council, gave his decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in addition to the 68,000 already deployed there. The US goal in Afghanistan was redefined as 'to deny safe haven to al Qaeda and to deny the Taliban the ability to overthrow the Afghan government'. This was on 29 November 2009. The process that he arrived at the decision has been vividly described in Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars, 2010. I hope to come back to this book in these columns sometime soon.
The decision is essentially that of an US exit policy from Afghanistan. But it does not take into account a situation created by Osama's death, in a sense a US victory. Granting that the US Afghan war was based on her right of self defense after 9/11, although this writer is of the opinion that there must have been other alternatives for the US, and if so all the more as the al Qaeda should be their principal target, this is the moment the US could terminate the war in Afghanistan. What about the Taliban, Pakistan, and the Afghan government, then?
On the same day that Mr.Khalilzad appeared on the TV, the Prime Minister of India visited Afghanistan, for the first time in six years. This is in accordance with a traditional thinking of regarding Afghanistan as India's strategic depth, and as such must have been terribly irritating to Pakistan which also looks at Afghanistan in the same way.
Both India and Pakistan should discard the old way, because it is the way of their perennial collision. They are thus divided and ruled by, shall I say, an invisible hand. The crucial question in Afghanistan is how to raise the standard of living for the masses. For this the funds should be diverted from aiding the government notorious for its corruption to the non-governmental works of the type people like Dr.Nakamura Tetsu are doing(see column for 28 January 2011). I believe Mahatma Gandhi was probably at his best when he wrote at the beginning of a short note entitled "Work instead of Alms" in 1939 that 'To those who are hungry and unemployed God can dare reveal Himself only as work and wages as the assurance of food'. This must be the surest way of fighting terrorism.
Mr.Obama, after a prolonged discussion with his National Security Council, gave his decision to send 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in addition to the 68,000 already deployed there. The US goal in Afghanistan was redefined as 'to deny safe haven to al Qaeda and to deny the Taliban the ability to overthrow the Afghan government'. This was on 29 November 2009. The process that he arrived at the decision has been vividly described in Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars, 2010. I hope to come back to this book in these columns sometime soon.
The decision is essentially that of an US exit policy from Afghanistan. But it does not take into account a situation created by Osama's death, in a sense a US victory. Granting that the US Afghan war was based on her right of self defense after 9/11, although this writer is of the opinion that there must have been other alternatives for the US, and if so all the more as the al Qaeda should be their principal target, this is the moment the US could terminate the war in Afghanistan. What about the Taliban, Pakistan, and the Afghan government, then?
On the same day that Mr.Khalilzad appeared on the TV, the Prime Minister of India visited Afghanistan, for the first time in six years. This is in accordance with a traditional thinking of regarding Afghanistan as India's strategic depth, and as such must have been terribly irritating to Pakistan which also looks at Afghanistan in the same way.
Both India and Pakistan should discard the old way, because it is the way of their perennial collision. They are thus divided and ruled by, shall I say, an invisible hand. The crucial question in Afghanistan is how to raise the standard of living for the masses. For this the funds should be diverted from aiding the government notorious for its corruption to the non-governmental works of the type people like Dr.Nakamura Tetsu are doing(see column for 28 January 2011). I believe Mahatma Gandhi was probably at his best when he wrote at the beginning of a short note entitled "Work instead of Alms" in 1939 that 'To those who are hungry and unemployed God can dare reveal Himself only as work and wages as the assurance of food'. This must be the surest way of fighting terrorism.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Some Reflections on the Death of Osama-bin-Ladin
Nearly a decade ago the US started waging a war against the Al-Qaida in the name of collective self-defence. She could have taken a different road to cope with the 9/11disaster. But once she chose that course the killing of the Al-Qaida leader is a logical end. But it is not the end of everything. Two questions come foremost in my mind.
First where is Pakistan in this picture? It is reported that the target is within one third of a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy. Moreover, after the operation the coptor or coptors with the body on board flew almost the entire distance across the country to a US carrier in the Arabian Sea. It would be natural to ask if Pakistan knew this, if not beforehand then simultaneously. And even more so in view of the 30-odd year history of the Al-Qaida which was closely linked with the Pakistan military, also the ruler of the country for much of the time.
A distinguished Western diplomat has just said on the TV that the West needs Pakistan for the coming operations against the Al-Qaida and the Taliban both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But one would like Pakistan to be not just a tool in such operations, not simply anti-Indian and in that sense Islamic fundamentalist, but a more democratic and people-friendly and less socio-economically hierarchical country. That will be the way Pakistan can contribute to the stability and prosperity of the whole Asia.
Second, how will the other nations react to the event? Mr.Obama said that the world is now safer, and hopefully so. At the same time the Western countries seem to be alerted, and rightly so. However, we will also remember that in many countries the fundamental rights have been suppressed in the name of fighting international terrorism. Similarly many countries, Japan not excluded, under the same pretext have increased their military budget, thus diverting precious funds from the social sectors badly in need of them. The event should lead to de-militarization and de-nuclearization, and then we can talk of a really safe world.
It seems that in the Arab countries which have seen democratization there is not much cry for revenge, which is interesting and heart-warming. It would have been radically different before the "Arab Spring", and the then regimes would have seen a good reason for repression. Is the Hammas an exception in crying for a revenge? This writer would like to take it as a reaction to the US which is not able to bring about peace because of her pro-Israeli attitude. Hammas or no Hammas, whoever has won a popular election should have been recognized as a legitimate political force to talk to.
First where is Pakistan in this picture? It is reported that the target is within one third of a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy. Moreover, after the operation the coptor or coptors with the body on board flew almost the entire distance across the country to a US carrier in the Arabian Sea. It would be natural to ask if Pakistan knew this, if not beforehand then simultaneously. And even more so in view of the 30-odd year history of the Al-Qaida which was closely linked with the Pakistan military, also the ruler of the country for much of the time.
A distinguished Western diplomat has just said on the TV that the West needs Pakistan for the coming operations against the Al-Qaida and the Taliban both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. But one would like Pakistan to be not just a tool in such operations, not simply anti-Indian and in that sense Islamic fundamentalist, but a more democratic and people-friendly and less socio-economically hierarchical country. That will be the way Pakistan can contribute to the stability and prosperity of the whole Asia.
Second, how will the other nations react to the event? Mr.Obama said that the world is now safer, and hopefully so. At the same time the Western countries seem to be alerted, and rightly so. However, we will also remember that in many countries the fundamental rights have been suppressed in the name of fighting international terrorism. Similarly many countries, Japan not excluded, under the same pretext have increased their military budget, thus diverting precious funds from the social sectors badly in need of them. The event should lead to de-militarization and de-nuclearization, and then we can talk of a really safe world.
It seems that in the Arab countries which have seen democratization there is not much cry for revenge, which is interesting and heart-warming. It would have been radically different before the "Arab Spring", and the then regimes would have seen a good reason for repression. Is the Hammas an exception in crying for a revenge? This writer would like to take it as a reaction to the US which is not able to bring about peace because of her pro-Israeli attitude. Hammas or no Hammas, whoever has won a popular election should have been recognized as a legitimate political force to talk to.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Mayor of Minami Soma
Dr.Kanno belongs to Miyagi Prefecture, and is not involved in the nuclear accident. The other Japanese taken up by the Time, however, is very much in the accident. He is 55-year old Mr.Sakurai Katsunobu, the Mayor of Minami Soma city lying north of the now notorious first Fukushima nuclear plant. With the help of YouTube he said that '"With the paltry information given by the government and TEPCO(the electric company), we are left isolated...and are being forced into starvation"'. And 'His plea resonated across the world, leading many to ask how a country so celebrated for efficiency had failed its most vulnerable citizens'. Elsewhere Mr.Sakurai says that out of the usual population of 70,000 of his city only 40-45,000 are there now, and of the children of the school-going age only 30%. In his view the local residents themselves should be put in a position to think how to reconstruct their region and to carry it out. Only then they will feel joy and pride of the work, thus recovering their heart severely damaged by the triple disaster, including the quake and the tsunami and the nuclear plant.
Unlike the first two, the nuclear accident is a man-made disaster. The company, and for that matter the government also, has ruled out a situation where the plant is deprived by the above-mentioned first two of the supply of electricity both from inside and outside for a long time. The cooling mechanism has also been damaged.
It is not clear yet what has been damaged by the quake and what by the tsunami. It is apparent that they have not got with them a manual to cope with this kind of emergency. In short they have not invested in the safety, and this in spite of repeated warnings referred to earlier.
So Fukushima is now placed on the same Level 7 in the gravity of the situation as the Chernobyl explosion of 1986. But what is worse here is that while there was only one reactor at Chernobyl, or for that matter at the Three Mile Island accident, at the first Fukushima three out of six reactors are causing trouble.
The TEPCO has made public a road-map according to which a decision will be taken at the end of six to nine months from now if the evacuees can go home, if the homes have not been damaged, and how soon. It is difficult to know how many evacuees are there as the result of the nuclear accident, but the number from the triple disaster combined at the moment is still 126,000 as of 1 May. What is making the evacuation matter worse is that the government has decided to move about 10,000 persons from the several communities lying northwest of the 20-km radius. It is obvious that the radioactive fallout does not depend on the concentric circles, and the decision has come rather late.
We depend 25% or so of our energy on the nuclear reactors, but this is a remarkable though painful opportunity to rethink on it. Probably no other country is more unfit to depend so much on nuclear energy. Many if not all of our fifty-plus reactors are built on quake-prone regions. Or rather no part of the country is quake-free. Has anybody already said that we have dropped our own nuclear bomb upon us?
Unlike the first two, the nuclear accident is a man-made disaster. The company, and for that matter the government also, has ruled out a situation where the plant is deprived by the above-mentioned first two of the supply of electricity both from inside and outside for a long time. The cooling mechanism has also been damaged.
It is not clear yet what has been damaged by the quake and what by the tsunami. It is apparent that they have not got with them a manual to cope with this kind of emergency. In short they have not invested in the safety, and this in spite of repeated warnings referred to earlier.
So Fukushima is now placed on the same Level 7 in the gravity of the situation as the Chernobyl explosion of 1986. But what is worse here is that while there was only one reactor at Chernobyl, or for that matter at the Three Mile Island accident, at the first Fukushima three out of six reactors are causing trouble.
The TEPCO has made public a road-map according to which a decision will be taken at the end of six to nine months from now if the evacuees can go home, if the homes have not been damaged, and how soon. It is difficult to know how many evacuees are there as the result of the nuclear accident, but the number from the triple disaster combined at the moment is still 126,000 as of 1 May. What is making the evacuation matter worse is that the government has decided to move about 10,000 persons from the several communities lying northwest of the 20-km radius. It is obvious that the radioactive fallout does not depend on the concentric circles, and the decision has come rather late.
We depend 25% or so of our energy on the nuclear reactors, but this is a remarkable though painful opportunity to rethink on it. Probably no other country is more unfit to depend so much on nuclear energy. Many if not all of our fifty-plus reactors are built on quake-prone regions. Or rather no part of the country is quake-free. Has anybody already said that we have dropped our own nuclear bomb upon us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)