Century Foundation: Obama’s Russia investment recouped in canceled missiles
Investment Recouped in Canceled Missiles
by Jeffrey Laurenti
President Obama’s conservative critics have carped about his Russia “reset,” his moves toward nuclear build-down, his hesitant opening to Iran, and the supposedly insipid sanctions he squeezed out of the Security Council on Iran’s nuclear program this week. They sneered at his Nobel Peace Prize last fall, saying it was an award for rhetoric since he had produced no results.
Where, they have demanded, is the beef?
Today there is a very big beef delivery from the Moscow policy stockyards, one that will feed speculation in policy circles from Washington to Tehran. The Russians have canceled the long-planned sale of S-300 missiles to Iran.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted June 9th, bans the sale of heavy weapons systems to Iran, including “missiles and missile systems.” While the S-300 missile sale to Iran was a cash cow for Russia’s hard-pressed military industries, President Dmitri Medvedev agreed these sanctions had to bite in order to prompt Iranian officials to recalibrate their nuclear posture.
Despite Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s public bravado, the canceled missiles are not flies he can casually swat away. Iran has very much wanted a modernized missile defense system to protect its nuclear facilities against possible attack. It now knows it cannot get them till those nuclear facilities are under strict international supervision and its enrichment of nuclear fuel is checked.
The suspended sale will not immediately change Iran’s nuclear policy. But it underscores that Iran’s self-isolation on the issue carries costs that are not trivial. As Tehran begins to absorb this new reality, the United States should seek direct talks with the Iranians on both the nuclear file and the broader range of American-Iranian relations. The sanctions, of course, are not an end in themselves, but a wake-up call to invigorate the politics of diplomacy.
Medvedev’s collaboration on fencing in Iran’s nuclear program could only happen because Barack Obama’s far-reaching transformation of U.S. foreign policy has cleared away the toxins that years of aggressive unilateralism had built up in America’s international relations.
The symmetry between the suspended missile sale and Obama’s cancellation of the Bush administration’s ill-conceived antimissile system in Poland is not coincidental.
Obama’s patient investment in rebuilding the bilateral relationship with Russia, his administration’s scrupulous respect for international obligations and rejection of double standards, and the president’s embrace of nuclear weapons phaseout have all been crucial to this telling step in reducing nuclear dangers.
The beef is real. Well done.
———————–
Jeffrey Laurenti
Senior Fellow anD
Director, Foreign Policy Programs
The Century Foundation
41 East 70th StreeT
New York, New York 10021 USA
Tel.: +1 (212) 535-4441 ext. 339
E-mail: laurenti@tcf.org Web: www.tcf.org
Weekend June 4th amNew York reported about the thousands of mourners that carried the nine coffins in Istanbul. The youngest killed was 19-year old Troy, New York State, Turkish-American high-school student Farkan Dogan. His father praised him for “dying in a just cause – God is great.”
On Sunday June 6th Fareed Zakaria on CNN/GPS preached WORDS – NOT GUNS and was not shy to state that Turkey is also playing a new and dangerous game before interviewing An important Turkish Ambassador – perhaps the real mastermind of The Newest Turkey. He is the personal advisor to the Prime Minister of Turkey.
Fareed said: Once an ally of Europe it is (Turkey) now playing games that are enemy more then friend, but Fareed was trying to understand the Turkish position and expressed also that during the Bush Administration, Turkey was treated heavy-handedly and expected to be an ally in Iraq. The Turks bulked. That is how friend became enemy.
Fareed looked at the “Quartet – US, UN, EU, Russia – and with Tony Blair in charge said that the best effort is to work with the Palestinians in order to prepare them for Statehood. Israel ifs fully responsible for the security of its citizens and has full right to protect them but is also to see that life is not made impossible in Gaza. In the end, it is up to Senator Mitchell to navigate for the evolution of a two-State hope.
The question about the blockade is semantics Fareed and Blair concluded – Israel has the duty to protect itself against weapons and arms that come into Gaza but rural life must return to Gaza. There are objects and materials needed to rebuild agriculture that should be allowed in.
The Palestinians can see that there are good things that happen in the West Bank, but Gaza is left out. People in Gaza have to understand that there is a better way then what Hamas is offering them now.
Tony Blair – on TV – refused to answer a value question saying that he knows Israel values the relations with Turkey.
There is a chance we get to a better way for a bottom up approach in Gaza, as in Palestine Blair said, once you get an alignment between the achievements on the ground and the hopes – there may then be a way for Peace. The Turkish Foreign Minister went to Jeddah for the Islamic Conference to discuss Gaza. As we wrote already, we know that Jordan with Saudi money may try to figure the incentive, the first time, that is after 60 years, for the people in Gaza to cooperate in a more peaceful way.
Ambassador Ahmet Davutgglu, came on the program and started by claiming a comparison to the piracy of the coast of Somalia, and asking what are we to do? Fareed did not take this bait and if I were that Turkish Minister I would have walked off – but he did not. He reacted saying that this is not between Turkey and Israel but between Israel and the World and Israel does not want an international inquiry. The man looked like a snake-oil salesman and we envision that as main strategist of the new Erdogan geopolitics, he actually knows very well what he is after – no simple bumbler here.
{Ambassador Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy advisor to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, visited Washington, March 17-21, 2009, to discuss critical developments in the Middle East before President Obama’s visit to Turkey on April 6-7, 2009. During his visit Davutoglu stated that “The U.S. and Turkey is at the historical moment that both countries have similar views at almost all issues.” Davutoglu underlined that Turkey is becoming a strategic location for regional energy infrastructure and further suggested “from now on, everyone sees the strategic importance of Turkey that increases as the days pass” (Anadolu Ajansi, March 19) http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cach… tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34754 }
“Israel is standing up for one soldier that was captured by Hamas, what did they expect from us after killing nine of our people?”
Fareed reminded him that one student had also American citizenship and that the US could make a request regarding its citizen. To which the Ambassador said that Turkey has contacts with the US on this matter. Also, there is a Human Rights Council in Geneva that should take this up but Israel just said they will not cooperate. Did our citizens violate Israeli territory? No! There was even a Nobel Prize Winner on the boat he further said – the list of the passengers can prove they were not terrorists.
For decades Israel and Turkey were allies – i myself mediated between Olmert and Syria. What happened he said was the change in Israel politics. Are you having problems with Prime Minister Netanyahu asked Fareed? His answer came that last Thursday he was supposed to meet with P.M. Netanyahu on negotiations with Syria, but on Monday this happened and they attacked the convoy. This can go on in circles – why then did Turkey organize the flotilla’s leading ship?
Fareed asked to the point: There are many people that believe you, as the architect for moving Turkey away from Western Policy? To that he gave a long list of Turkey’s work with the West – Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Balkans, etc. only two weeks ago we had a Peace Conference in Istanbul he said. We are not trouble makers at all – he sad.
Following the interview – Fareed Zakaria had also two Jewish opponents – it was Republican Elliot Abrams versus Democrat Peter Beinart – but whatever policy differences they may have with each other, nobody was saying anything positive about Turkey’s recent activity though the door to future more positive intervention is left open.
Abrams, with a long track record on Middle East negotiations, under several US Presidents, made it clear that there is no International community that Israel can trust in the post-”Zionism is Racism” UN vote. In the light of this there is no way Israel can rely on the UN. Beinart said that he is not going to defend the Turkish action, but 90% of the water in Gaza is not drinkable – and to this both sides can agree that something must be done -HURRAY!
————
Having reported on the above, let me add that we get mail regarding our effort at honesty in this debate. The most interesting came from Russia and had Russian text, though I would guess it originated with Russian speakers living now in Israel.
Please have a look at the video, and without prejudging what the Turks could actually achieve, we can nevertheless wipe out the last few weeks when thinking of their credibility. We will get back to this point in next posting.
Why Did God Create Atheists?
If God is real, and religious believers can perceive him… why is anyone an atheist?
AlterNet / By Greta Christina / June 5, 2010 | http://www.alternet.org/story/147098/why…
This is a question I always want to ask religious believers. (One of many questions, actually. “What evidence do you have that God is real?” and “Why are religious beliefs so different and so contradictory?” are also high on the list.)
If God is real, and religious believers are perceiving a real entity… why is anyone an atheist? Why don’t we all perceive him? If God is powerful enough to reach out to believers just by sending out his thoughts or love or whatever… why isn’t he powerful enough to reach all of us? Why is there anyone who doesn’t believe in him?
It seems to be a question that troubles many believers as well. At least, it troubles them enough that they feel compelled to respond. And as atheism becomes more common and more vocal, this compulsion to respond seems to be getting more common and more vocal as well.
I’ve seen a couple of religious responses to this question. Neither of which is very satisfactory. But they keep coming up… so today, I want to take them on.
– –
Open Your Heart To Me, Baby
For more traditional believers, the answer to why atheists exist is simple: Atheists have closed our hearts to God. God has reached out to atheists — but we don’t want to believe. We want to pursue a selfish and sybaritic life, and don’t want to obey God’s laws (so say the real hard-liners)… or we’ve been hurt by life or by religion, and we’re rejecting God out of anger (so say the marginally more compassionate believers). But it’s important that we have free will — so we have to be free to reject God as well as to accept him. God can’t force us to believe. That would be cheating.
Uh huh.
See, here’s the problem with that.
Or rather, here’s a whole set of problems.
For starters: This idea is totally unfalsifiable. There’s no way to prove that you honestly gave religion a chance. Until we develop the technology to accurately record the inside of somebody’s head and play it back in somebody else’s, there’s no way to prove that atheists are sincerely open-minded and willing to consider religion.
Atheists can say a hundred times, “Really, I’m telling you, I’ve looked at this carefully, I’ve meditated on it, I’ve examined the evidence, I’ve studied lots of different religions… and I just don’t find any of it convincing.” We can ask believers to give us good evidence or arguments for God. We can point out the pain and distress many of us went through when we let go of our beliefs — pain and distress that this “You’ve just closed your heart to God” trope seriously trivializes. We can even go out on a limb and point to the kinds of evidence that would convince us we were mistaken (something just about no religious believers are willing to do). But since we can’t demonstrate the state of our minds and hearts, believers can always say, “You aren’t sincere. Your mind and heart are closed.”
There’s no way to prove that they’re wrong. It’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Which makes it an entirely useless one. If there’s no possible way to show that your hypothesis is false, there’s no way to know whether it’s true.
What’s more, the “You’ve hardened your heart against God” trope is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. No matter how many times we gave God the old college try… we clearly haven’t tried hard enough. I mean — we don’t believe! If we’d tried hard enough, then obviously we’d believe! The fact that we don’t believe is proof that we haven’t tried hard enough. Q.E.D. (It’s a fairly entertaining logical fallacy, actually: a unique blend of moving goalposts and circular reasoning. I’m kind of impressed.)
And then, of course, we have the niggling little problem of self-deception and rationalization.
The human mind is very prone to believing what it already believes. It’s very prone to believing what it’s been prompted to believe. And it’s very prone to believing what it wants to believe. Rationalization is a deeply hard-wired part of how the human mind works, and while it’s a surprisingly important part — among other things, it enables us to get on with our lives without being totally paralyzed — it’s something we always need to keep in mind when we’re deciding if the things we believe are really true.
So if the only way to believe something is to try really, really hard? If what it takes to believe something is to “open your heart” — i.e., to put yourself in a state of suggestibility and wishful thinking?
That’s not a very good sign that this something is true.
Quite the contrary.
If we care about whether the things we believe are true — if we want to be sure that we’re not just fooling ourselves into believing what we already believe or what we want to believe — then the times we’re trying really hard to convince ourselves of something? Those are exactly the times we should be most skeptical. That’s not when we should be opening our hearts. That’s when we should be on our guard.
The reality for me, and the reality for a whole lot of atheists? I am open to my mind being changed. Heck, I used to be a believer. I used to be more than just open to the idea of God — I used to believe in God. (Or something that I was willing to call God.) In fact, it was my willingness to change my mind, my openness to reconsidering new possibilities, that led me to let go of my religious beliefs in the first place. And if someone can give me some really good reasons to change my mind back again, I will.
But “You just have to open your heart” is not a good reason. It’s an unfalsifiable argument — nothing I do can prove that I’m sincerely open to the God hypothesis. Its goalposts can be moved forever — no matter how carefully I’ve considered religion, people can argue that I need to consider it just a little more. And it’s basically a defense of wishful thinking as some sort of positive virtue. (Besides, nobody’s ever given me a good reason why I should open my heart to their particular god: why I should open my heart to Jesus instead of to Allah, or Ganesh, or the Goddess, or that blue peacock god some people worship in northern Iraq.)
“You just haven’t opened your heart” is clearly a terrible explanation for why God would allow atheists to exist.
Are there any better ones?
I Love You Just The Way You Are
There is another religious response to the puzzling question of why there are atheists. And unlike the unfalsifiable, goalpost-moving, “let’s treat people like pariahs for wanting to be careful that the things they believe are true” hostility of “You haven’t opened your hearts,” it’s a response that typically comes from more progressive, tolerant, pluralistic believers.
It’s this: “God doesn’t care if you’re an atheist.”
“As long as you’re a good person,” this idea goes, “as long as you love other people and try to do right by them, God’s fine with you. God doesn’t need your worship or your praise, or even your faith. God loves atheists, too. He doesn’t care whether you believe in him.”
Yeah. See, here’s the problem with that.
God may not care whether I believe in him. But I do.
I want to understand the world. I care about reality, more than I care about just about anything. If there really is a God who created everything, who guided the universe and the process of evolution so conscious life could come into being, who animates all life with his spirit — I bloody well want to know about it. I don’t want to be flatly wrong about one of the hugest questions humanity is faced with. In my years as an atheist writer, I keep asking believers again and again, “Do you have some evidence for your belief? If you do, please tell me about it. I want to see it.” And I’m not being snarky, or baiting them into a debate I know they can’t win. (Well… not mostly.) If I’m wrong about this, I sincerely want to know.
Why does God deny me that knowledge? Why does he give it to some people, and not others?
And maybe more to the point:
If there really were a loving creator of the universe who animates all life including my own, and from whom all that is good and valuable about the world emanates, I wouldn’t want to be alienated from him. I’d want to be connected with him. (Her. It. Them. Whatever.)
Especially the touchy-feely God that the progressive, tolerant, pluralistic believers believe in. There are certainly plenty of gods I wouldn’t worship even if I thought they were real — the God of fundamentalist Christianity is a sadistic nutjob, and even if he existed I wouldn’t give him the time of day. But the warm, gentle, “source of all life/ force of goodness and love in the universe” God that progressive believers believe in? Sure, I’d want to know him. I’d have some serious questions for him — why is there suffering, why is there evil, why can’t the Cubs win a goddamn pennant to save their lives — but I’d happily have a beer with the guy. We could be friends. I mean, he’s the source of all life, the force of goodness and love in the universe. Of course I’d want that in my life. Why on earth wouldn’t I?
If God exists… then why isn’t he reaching out to me? Isn’t it cruel of him to reach out to some people but not to others? (Not to mention the manipulative game-playing he seems to be doing, where he reveals himself in wildly different and even contradictory ways to different people, and then sits back while they duke it out over which one is right.) Why does he manifest in some people’s hearts, but not in others? Why is he being such a passive-aggressive jerk?
Let me be very clear about this: I am entirely happy to be an atheist. I’m not one of these whiny, moody, “I wish I could believe” atheists that so many believers think is the only valid kind of atheism.
I am tickled pink to be an atheist. I won’t pretend that I didn’t lose a form of comfort when I left my beliefs — but I gained so much in return that the loss is a clear bargain. And the comforts I have now are far more comforting… since they’re built on a foundation of reality.
I don’t have the constant nagging feeling in the back of my head that my beliefs are just wishful thinking, and that I’ve built my philosophy on a foundation of sand. I’m persuaded that God does not exist, and that’s just ducky with me.
But I’m happy with my atheism because I’m persuaded that it’s correct. I’m happy not feeling God in my life because I’m persuaded that God doesn’t exist.
If God really existed, I sure as heck would want to know about it.
So why don’t I?
If God really exists — why don’t I know about it?
As an atheist, I have some really good answers for why people believe in God even though he doesn’t exist. The human mind is prone to numerous cognitive errors — and many of those cognitive errors make people susceptible to religion.
We tend to see intention, even where no intention exists. We tend to see patterns, even where no pattern exists. We give excessive weight to personal emotional experience, and aren’t good at applying critical thought to those experiences.
We don’t have a good intuitive understanding of probability, and tend to think events are more improbable than they really are.
We tend to believe what authority figures tell us. We tend to believe what we’re taught as children. We tend to believe what people we know and trust tell us.
We’re reluctant to question the things that everyone else in our social group believes. Etc., etc., etc. People believe all sort of things that aren’t true… and from an atheist/ materialist viewpoint, that makes perfect sense. Atheism is not even a little inconsistent with the belief in gods who don’t exist.
But the belief in God is very much inconsistent with the existence of atheists. I have yet to see a religious believer give a good answer for why God exists — but not everyone experiences him or believes in him. I have yet to see a good answer for why God bestows the experience of his existence (however inconsistently and contradictorily) onto some people — but not onto others. I have yet to see a good answer for why God is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good — or even anything close to all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good — and still isn’t perceived by everybody.
Does anybody have one?
(And if you say “Mysterious ways,” I’m going to scream.)
The Sixth and I Synagogue has informed us that the room is no longer available on May 20. Instead, the event will be held at the Sixth and I Synagogue on Monday May 24 at 12:00.
United Nations Association – National Capital Area,
Foundation for Middle East Peace,
Am Kolel Jewish Renewal Center, Peace Cafes,
Sixth and I Historic Synagogue and
Washington Interfaith Alliance for Middle East Peace
invite you to a lecture by:
Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox, Jr.
President, Foundation for Middle East Peace
“The Middle East Conflict in the Modern Era”
NEW DATE: Monday May 24, 12-2:00pm
Sixth and I Synagogue
600 I Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20001
(near Gallery Place Metro stop)
Ambassador Wilcox is the President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, a Washington D.C. based non-profit organization devoted to fostering peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Amb. Wilcox retired in 1997 after 31 years in the U.S. Foreign Service.
Free admission. Light refreshments will be provided.
info at fmep.org“ href=”mailto:info@fmep.org?subject=RSVP%20sixth%20and%20I%20synagogue” target=”_blank”>RSVP to fmep.org
A noticeable irritation can be sensed in Washington. After months of investing in a new UN Security Council resolution and an escalation of the conflict and apparently winning agreement among the permanent members of the council for such a measure two emerging powers had the audacity to intervene and find a solution. Brazil and Turkey should keep their expectations low, however, because there will not be any thank you party for them in Washington anytime soon.
Only two days after the announcement of the Brazilian-Turkish brokered deal with Iran that would see 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium shipped out of the country, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a Senate panel that the United States and its partners seeking new sanctions against Iran have come up with a draft proposal for a new round of penalties. UN Ambassador Susan Rice held a press conference at the UN today unveiling the new resolution.
A day earlier, State Department spokesman PJ Crowley spoke dismissively about the Brazilian-Turkish deal. “The United States continues to have concerns about the arrangement. The joint declaration does not address core concerns of the international community,” Crowley said, “Iran remains in defiance of five U.N. Security Council resolutions, including its unwillingness to suspend enrichment operations.” Crowley then went on to link the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) deal with the Security Council demand for a suspension of Iran’s enrichment activities. “Public statements today suggest that the TRR deal is unrelated to its ongoing enrichment activity. In fact they are integrally linked,” he said.
These developments have taken many observers by surprise. Linking the TRR deal to suspension of enrichment is a new component it was the White House itself that decided last year to go forward with a deal to swap Iran’s LEU for fuel rods without a suspension in order to throw back Iran’s break out capability.
Furthermore, the earlier justification for the sanctions push was a reaction to Iran’s failure to accept the swap proposal presented to it in October 2009. Administration officials stated on numerous occasions that sanctions would only be pursued if the diplomatic track failed to produce results. Sanctions would be needed to get Iran back to the table and to convince them to accept the deal.
Analysis: Washington Had Sudden Change of Heart The sudden change of heart in Washington is particularly surprising mindful of the fact that the three objections Iran lodged against the 2009 TRR deal that the LEU needed to be shipped out in one shipment, that the swap would take place outside of Iran, and that the fuel rods would be delivered to Iran nine to twelve months have now all been withdrawn. Iran has agreed to the terms the US insisted on.
This may explain Namik Tan’s, the Turkish Ambassador to the US, comments to the Associated Press, “We have delivered what they were asking for..If we fail to get a positive reaction it would be a real frustration.”
But there are several factors that can shed light on Washington’s apparent reluctance to take yes for an answer.
First, the Senate and the House are in the final phase of sending a broad sanctions bill to the President. The bill has several problems from the White House’s perspective, including its limitations of Presidential waivers as well as the impact it will have on US allies who will be subjected to these sanctions.
Progress on the UN Security Council track has in the past few months been an important instrument to hold back Congress’s own sanctions push. With Congress eager to sanction Iran, particularly now when the Brazilian-Turkish deal conceivably could derail or delay the UN sanctions track, the Obama administration feels the need to pacify the Congressional sanctions track by accelerating the UN sanctions track.
Second, the Brazilian-Turkish deal explicitly recognizes Iran’s right to enrichment and would, as a result, eliminate the option of pursuing the zero-enrichment objective. While most analysts agree that the zero-enrichment objective simply isn’t feasible, the White House has kept its options open on this issue. It has neither publicly confirmed it as a goal, nor rejected it. This, it has been argued, would provide the US with leverage. Even if it no longer is America’s red line, it can still be America’s opening position in a negotiation, the argument reads.
Does Washington’s Reservations Hurt Obama’s Attempt to Assert DC Diplomacy? Third, there is a sense in the Obama administration that after the events of last year, a nuclear deal with Iran could only be sold domestically if Iran is first punished through a new round of sanctions. Only after a new round of sanctions would there be receptivity in Washington for a nuclear agreement with Iran. Hence, any nuclear deal that comes before a new round of sanctions would complicate the Obama administration’s domestic challenges. A deal without punishment even a good deal simply wouldn’t be enough.
Understandably, Washington’s reaction to the Brazilian-Turkish deal has created some apprehension in the international community. The Obama administration has worked diligently to overcome the credibility gap America developed with the international community under President George W. Bush. One element of this effort was to utilize diplomacy as a premier tool of US foreign policy.
Punitive measures such as war or sanctions would no longer be the instruments of first resort. But the reaction to the Brazilian-Turkish deal may undo some of the progress the Obama administration has achieved with the international community. Washington’s lack of appreciation for the breakthrough may fuel suspicions of whether sanctions are pursued to achieve success in diplomacy, or whether diplomacy was pursued to pave the way for sanctions and beyond.
Washington has become used to the 65 year old structure of 5 super-powers as embedded in the UN Security Council – all of them sitting on the bomb and sharing among themselves the MAD concept – the Mutual Assured Destruction idea behind the nuclear warfare impossibility.
But there are newcomers in the world – some of them harboring also a potential of non-state actors that may serve other gods then the self styled Permanent 5. Our website looks here at India and Brazil (that could even speak, maybe, for the ALBA group) at the potential positive side of the need to restructure that 5 decision holders club. Then come Turkey, the potential new leader of the Islamic world, and South Africa – as an imaginary stand-in for Africa. These two States are less trusted by Washington, and we can see why.
The original concept of moving the LEU out of Iran was to move it to Russia. That was part of the old club structure and Washington can buy it – but Turkey is another fish swimming in another world. This fish may not fly in Washington and our website has its own problems with the OIC. These problems are not with Turkey as such – it is with the company Turkey keeps now – Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and yes – Iran also. If it has to be an Islamic country – would Washington be now inclined to look at Indonesia instead? Whatever the outcome of such more extended analysis – it becomes clear that the structure of the P5 and the not yet consolidated EU, are the real problems at the Top-of-the-World small table of Nations.
————————————
The Objectives of an Islamic Turkey are clearly displayed in the material for the upcoming OIC Foreign Ministers meeting in Dushanbe May 18-20, 2010.
In his Statement at the 37th CFM in Dushanbe, Ihsanoglu calls on OIC Member States to urge their Representatives in International Forums to Respect the Agreed upon Voting Pattern
The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, called on the OIC Member States to urge their representatives in international forums to stay the course in respecting the voting pattern agreed upon by the OIC official meetings, or by the OIC groups abroad. He said this at the opening of the 37th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) of the Organization of Islamic Conference being held in Dushanbe, Republic of Tajikistan from 18 to May 20, 2010.
Ihsanoglu said that the Conference is “the first of its kind to be held in one of OIC Member States from Central Asia, which joined our ranks after achieving their independence. We warmly welcome them, and pin the hope that the five Muslim sister countries, given their glorious past in enriching Islamic civilization, will become a driving force to strengthen our organization and consolidate Islamic solidarity”.
On the situation in Palestine and Al-Quds Al-Sharif, he noted that “the situation is going from bad to worse since the coming to power of the Israeli radical right-wing parties. Those parties came with a declared agenda to confiscate the maximum of the Palestinian occupied territories, building settlement on them, and completing the judisation of the holy city of Al-Quds. The new situation calls for a firm and united stand on the part of all Muslim countries, before it is too late.”
The Secretary General congratulated the Islamic Republic of Iran on the agreement signed on Monday, 17 May 2010, concerning Iran’s nuclear program through the mediation of Turkey, Brazil and the wisdom of Iran and said “I wish that this agreement is a tool towards achieving peace and security in the Middle East.”
He added that the OIC General Secretariat took the initiative in drawing up the OIC draft Plan of Action for Advancement of Women (OPAAW), which was deliberated by Member States and adopted by the last Council of Foreign Ministers session. In the same vein, the Council has also approved the establishment of a Women Development Organization to be based in Cairo. He expressed his confidence that “the draft statute of the organization will be adopted by the present meeting. Another Ministerial Conference on Women’s Role in Development of OPIC Member States, will also be held in Iran during this year, while similar activities took place concerning youth and children.”
The Secretary General emphasized that during the past few years, and in a bid to stem the tide of Islamophobia, he undertook direct contacts with many members of Western Foreign Ministers and approached senior officials, academics and intellectuals in Europe and the United States. Among those contacted are Foreign Ministers of Switzerland, France, Germany, Denmark, Spain, United Kingdom, USA, Finland and Holland. These efforts also included ranking officials of the relevant International Organizations in the West. Among those addressed, are the European Union, the Organization of the Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Human Rights Institutions, UNESCO, Research Centres, and fora of dialogue among civilization based in the West, and UN “alliance of civilization” with which we have concluded a Memorandum of Understanding.
Ihsanoglu suggested convening of a high level ministerial meeting to evolve an Islamic plan for interaction with the West regarding Islamophobia, and “defending our just causes and in facing up to the mounting hate wave against Islam. I also suggest that the question of Islamophobia be included in all member states’ interactions with their Western counterparts.”
The OIC Secretary General concluded his statement by stating that the progress and achievements achieved so far were only possible due to OIC Member States’ trust, wise guidance and sound decisions and resolutions in the OIC. He promised to “stay the course, redouble our efforts and deepen our dedication to work diligently on all levels and in all fields. The present international context in which we act is not easy. It is crammed and riddled with hardships, adversity and challenges.” He also noted that “the only arm in our hands is our unity, loyalty to our causes, and the solidarity that we display here whenever we take common decision or action. But above all and what remains more paramount is our profound belief in our Ummah, its greatness and strength and in its bright future.”
OIC Council of Foreign Ministers holds 37th Session in Dushanbe, Republic of Tajikistan from 18 to 20 May 2010
Dushanbe, capital of the Republic of Tajikistan is hosting the Thirty-seventh session of the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) from 18 to 20 May 2010. The President of the Republic of Tajikistan H.E. Emomali Rahmon, graced the opening ceremony of the Conference and delivered an address.
Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu addressed the opening session of the Conference and presented a report on the activities of the General Secretariat over the previous year. He also reported on the OIC’s positions on various issues on the agenda, set out the prospects of the coming year, including its challenges and how to confront them.
This session is very significant as since the establishment of the OIC forty years ago, this is the first time the Council session is held in one of the republics of Central Asia. These countries gained their independence in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union, thus launching their activism in the Muslim world.
On this occasion, a brainstorming session would be held on the topic “Central Asia and the Islamic World: Strategic Vision for Solidarity.” The discussion will be based on a concept paper prepared by the General Secretariat highlighting the tremendous contributions of the Central Asian region in building the Islamic culture and civilisation, including its stock of potentials and the challenges it faces in the light of its resources and capabilities.
Being held under the theme: “Joint Vision for Greater Security and Prosperity for the Muslim World,” this session is also significant because it is being held at a defining moment considering the rapid developments of various political issues: Indeed; the Palestinian cause and Al-Quds issue top the meeting’s agenda, and so does Israeli-Arab conflict.
The OIC Foreign Ministers will equally discuss a number of dossiers, notably the situation in Iraq, Jammu and Kashmir, the situation in Somalia and Afghanistan, solidarity with the Republic of the Sudan, the situation in Cyprus and Kosovo, and the OIC future role in maintaining security and keeping peace as well as resolving conflicts in the Member States. The CFM will also consider the situation of Muslim communities in non-member States.
Additionally, Islamophobia and the ways to combat it and the need to extirpate hatred and the defamation of Islam will also figure on the CFM’s discussion table. The OIC General Secretariat will on the occasion distribute the Third Report of the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia.
In the economic sphere, discussions will dwell on economic and trade cooperation and the ways of boosting trade exchange up to 20 per cent by 2015 in line with the target set by the OIC Ten-Year Program of Action (TYPOA). The CFM will also explore the best ways and means likely to help support science and technology and academic institutions.
This CFM Session carries distinct significance, as it will examine the completion of the establishment process of an independent permanent commission of human rights. It will also take note of the establishment of an OIC Department for Family Affairs to be created within the General Secretariat, and will approve the draft rules governing the observer status at the Organization. It will likewise approve the draft statute of the Organization for Women Development in the Member States.
Certainly, these issues highlight the paradigm shift unraveling in the OIC through the importance it attaches to women, family, human rights issues, and good governance in keeping with TYPOA stipulations.
In the information field, the CFM will consider the issue of restructuring the OIC media institutions, especially the International Islamic News Agency (IINA) whose restructuring has been completed, and the restructuring of the Islamic States Broadcasting Union (ISBU) whose restructuring is on its way to finalization.
Given that the OIC celebrated in the past year its 40th anniversary, the General Secretariat will present a report on the celebrations to the CFM.
It is worth noting that the issues figuring on CFM agenda were discussed during the 33rd Meeting of the Islamic Commission for Economic, Cultural and Social Affairs (ICECS) and the Senior Officials Meeting both convened at the General Secretariat in Jeddah, over 29-31 March 2010, and 12-14 April 2010, respectively.
UN elects rights violators to Human Rights Council.
Edith M. Lederer The Associated Press May 13, 2009
Seven countries accused of human rights violations, including Libya, Angola and Malaysia, won seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council in an uncontested election Thursday.
The U.N. General Assembly approved all 14 candidates for the 14 seats on the 47-member council by wide margins despite campaigns by human rights groups to deny countries with poor rights records the minimum number of votes needed.
All 14 countries easily topped the 97 votes required from the 192-member world body. Libya, which currently holds the presidency of the General Assembly, received the lowest number of votes — 155 — while Angola got 170 and Malaysia 179.
In addition to these three countries, human rights groups criticized the poor rights records of Thailand, Uganda, Mauritania and Qatar which also won seats.
The seven other countries that won seats were Maldives, Ecuador, Guatemala, Spain, Switzerland, Moldova and Poland.
Iran withdrew from the race on April 23 after facing strong global opposition for severe human rights abuses including the government’s crackdown on opposition supporters.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said it was “notable … that Iran’s bid fell short.”
Human rights groups and other non-governmental organizations also successfully opposed the election of Iran and Venezuela in 2006, Belarus in 2007, Sri Lanka in 2008, and Azerbaijan in 2009.
The 14 countries elected Thursday will serve three-year terms starting June 19 on the Geneva-based council, which was created in March 2006 to replace the U.N.’s widely discredited and highly politicized Human Rights Commission.
The council, however, has also been widely criticized for failing to change many of the commission’s practices, including putting much more emphasis on Israel than on any other country.
The United States voted against the council’s creation during the Bush administration but reversed its position and won a seat last year after President Barack Obama took office.
Rice cited “some progress” since the U.S. has been on the council, noting its approval of a “milestone” resolution on freedom of expression, its investigation of last year’s massacre and rapes in Guinea, and adoption of stronger resolutions condemning rights violations in Congo, Myanmar, Somalia and Sudan.
“We remain committed to strengthening and reforming this council,” Rice told reporters. “We hope that the new council’s composition for the most part will provide us with partners — not all but most — with whom we can work constructively.”
The NGO Coalition for an Effective Human Rights Council said the failure of U.N. regional groups to put forward competitive slates deprived the General Assembly of the opportunity to elect the most qualified countries.
“Those who want the council to improve have to commit themselves to competitive elections and be willing to compete themselves for a seat,” said Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, a coalition member.
“Without competitive elections,” she told AP, “we’ll continue to see states that don’t meet the qualifications set by the General Assembly getting seats like Libya, Angola and Malaysia.”
Under the resolution that established the council, members are expected to “uphold the highest standards” of human rights and “fully cooperate” with it.
Hillel Neuer, executive director of Geneva-based UN Watch, which heads a coalition of 37 human rights organizations that campaigned for the U.S. and European Union to defeat Libya’s candidacy, said that “by electing serial human rights violators, the U.N. violates its own criteria as well as common sense.”
“Choosing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to judge others on human rights is a joke,” Neuer said in a statement. “He’ll use the position not to promote human rights but to shield his record of abuse, and those of his allies.”
————-
International Scandal: Reactions Mount to
Libya’s Election to UN Human Rights Council
Global Media Cite UN Watch Campaign Against Qaddafi
The shock of Libya’s election to the UN Human Rights Council last Thursday continues to reverberate around the globe.
In Europe, the France 24 news channel reported today that the UN’s elevation of the Qaddafi regime “has been met with outrage the world over and is echoed on the web.” Berlin’s Morgen Post, Germany’s second most-read daily newspaper, called it a “success for Muammar Qaddafi,” and reported that “human rights groups are appalled.” Switzerland’s20 Minuten, the country’s most widely read daily, noted that Libya continues to hold Swiss hostage Max Göldi, and that some consider the UN council “a cartel of perpetrators” that makes sure nothing that could potentially harm their power is even discussed much less decided.”
In America, the Associated Press headlined their story, “UN elects rights violators to Human Rights Council.” The New York Daily News criticized the fact that “America failed to raise a voice in condemnation.” The New York Daily Sun commented that “There was little the American ambassador here, Susan Rice, could do today to stop the General Assembly from voting Libya and other known rights abusers for a seat on the Human Rights Council, but instead of expressing outrage, she chose to praise the United Nations’s least praiseworthy body.” See stories below.
All of these articles cited UN Watch’s leadership of the international Stop Qaddafi campaign.
“…The organization UN Watch has not hidden its anger over the result of the vote. This NGO had been campaigning for a long time, trying to mobilize heads of state to stop the election of Libya, a country with little respect for human rights…” - ”Thai web users bear witness to the violence that has rocked Bangkok,” France 24, May 17, 2010.
“…Eine Gruppe von 37 Menschenrechtsgruppen hatte Libyen und Gaddafi schwere Vergehen vorgeworfen und schwere Schäden für das UN-Gremium gesehen. ‘Bei der Wahl eines Landes, das ständig die Menschenrechte verletzt, verletzen die Vereinten Nationen ihre eigenen Werte, ihre eigene Logik und ihre eigene Moral,’ sagte UN-Watch-Chef Hillel Neuer. – “Gaddafi zieht in UN-Menschenrechtsrat ein,” Berliner Morgenpost, May 16, 2010.
“…Die 47 Mitglieder werden aus kontinentalen Gruppen gewählt. Afrika und Asien sind mit je 13 Sitzen vertreten. Lateinamerika und die Karibikstaaten verfügen über acht, Osteuropa über sechs Sitze und Westeuropa sowie die restlichen Staaten über sieben. Die Nichtregierungsorganisation UN Watch untersucht die Aktivitäten und Beschlüsse der UNO, insbesondere des Menschenrechtsrats…’” - Daniel Huber, ”Warum der zweifelhafte rat blind ist,” 20 Minuten, May 15, 2010.
“‘…Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva based NGO, UN Watch, headed a diverse global coalition of 37 human rights groups that fought to defeat Libya’s candidacy, with appeals urging the US and the EU to lead an opposition campaign. Unfortunately, that campaign fell on deaf ears. Following Libya’s election, Neuer said: ‘By electing serial human rights violators, the U.N. violates its own criteria as well as common sense. Choosing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to judge others on human rights is a joke… he’ll use the position not to promote human rights but to shield his record of abuse, and those of his allies’…”- Arsen Ostrovsky, “Libya elected to UN Human Rights body,” Frum Forum, May 14, 2010.
“…Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, dismissed the results, saying, ‘What we have this year is a farce. We have elections without competition. That makes no sense. We have countries like Libya that have atrocious human rights records…’” - Antoine Blua, “Rights Groups Dismayed Over Libya’s Election To UN Human Rights Council,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, May 14, 2010.
With hardly a whisper of protest by the United States, the UN General Assembly yesterday bestowed a seat in the world body’s Human Rights Council to Moammar Khadafy’s Libya.
Which is worse? That the vote was a landslide for Libyan membership? Or that America failed to raise a voice in condemnation? We’ll pick silence by the U.S. because it showed a disturbingly tolerant attitude by the globe’s primary hope for moral leadership.
The assembly gave 155 of 188 ballots to a country where speaking your mind can be a capital offense, while also electing other tyrannies – Angola, Qatar, Mauritania and Malaysia – by even larger margins.
U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice lamely sighed that the Human Rights Council “remains flawed,” and she declined to say whether she had voted against Libya.
Before the vote, she predicted that “a small number of countries whose human rights record is problematic … are likely to be elected.”
Libya isn’t “problematic.” It’s a horror. Now it joins such kindred spirits as China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia on the 47-member council, which spends most of its energy ranting about Israel as it averts its eyes from real human rights horrors – human trafficking, genocide, genital mutilation – that occur anywhere else.
According to UN Watch, a nongovernmental monitor, the council now has a 60% majority of member countries that are not free or democratic. Which is all the more reason the U.S. should have spoken out rather than continue down President Obama’s futile path of obsequiously trying to reform the council from within.
dfds
- ”Unspeakable silence: U.S. stands by as Libya wins seat on UN rights council,” NY Daily News, May 14, 2010.
“…La Libia di Muammar Gheddafi e la Thailandia, insanguinata da rivolte e repressioni, sono state elette oggi, assieme ad altri dodici Paesi, al Consiglio dei diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite, suscitando le veementi critiche di organizzazioni non governative come UN Watch e Freedom House. Secondo Hillel Neuer, responsabile dell’organizzazione UN Watch, ‘scegliere il dittatore libico Muammar Gheddafi per giudicare altri sui diritti umani è una barzelletta…’” - “Diritti Umani: Libia-Thailandia elette consiglio ONU Ginevra; ONG furenti, Gheddafi e’ Barzelletta. Iran in commissione donne,” ANSA, May 13, 2010.
“…Immediatamente i rappresentanti delle organizzazioni non governative come Un Watch e Freedom House sono insorte contro la decisione ridicolizzandola: ‘Scegliere il dittatore Muammar Gheddafi per guidicare altri sui diritti umani è una barzelletta dichiara Hillel Neuer direttore di Un Watch . Le elezioni senza competizione non hanno senso…’” - Giampaolo Pioli, “Gheddafi beffa tutti: garante dei diritti umani; Il Rais conquista un’ambita poltrona all’Onu,” ANSA, May 13, 2010.
“According to a press release from UN Watch, a Geneva based non-governmental organization, ‘to date, the council has adopted 40 censure resolutions, of which 33 have targeted Israel… Out of nine emergency sessions that criticized countries, six were against Israel’...“ – UN Watch quoted in Ben Evansky, “Libya wins seat on UN Human Rights Council,” Fox News, May 13, 2010.
“…A coalition of 30 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) based in Geneva had called on the US and the European Union to block Libya, which received 115 votes. Those NGOs criticized other countries including Thailand and Malaysia for failing to respect human rights, but Thailand received 182 votes and Malaysia 179 votes. ‘To see Libyan dictator Col Moammar Qaddafi judge others on human rights will turn the UN council into a joke,’ said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch in Geneva…’” - ”Libya, Thailand among newly elected Human Rights Council members,” Deutsche Presse Agentur, May 13, 2010.
U.S. envoy praises U.N. council on human rights as Libya is seated
Benny Avni
May 13, 2010
There was little the American ambassador here, Susan Rice, could do today to stop the General Assembly from voting Libya and other known rights abusers for a seat on the Human Rights Council, but instead of expressing outrage, she chose to praise the United Nations’s least praiseworthy body.
Ms. Rice couldn’t even bring herself to condemn Libya’s specific human rights record or even tell reporters how America voted in the General Assembly, where 155 of the 192 members deemed the Colonel Gadhafi tyranny fit to sit in judgment of other countries’ human rights record.
The game, it turns out, was rigged, 14 countries having run for 14 available seats on the 47-member Geneva-based rights body. They were all pre-selected by regional groups, some of which include a plurality of countries that care little about human rights violations within their own borders. For countries that do, there was little recourse other than voting against the most flagrant violators and publicizing their opposition.
“As you know, having covered this institution for a while, the United States doesn’t reveal for whom we vote,” Ms. Rice told a reporter who asked about how she had voted on Libya and other rights violators like Mauritania, Angola, Qatar, Thailand, and Malaysia, who secured their new council seats. “I’m not going to sit here and name names,” Ms. Rice said.
Libya received the fewest number of votes in today’s secret ballot, and diplomats say most Western countries likely withheld support. Is Ms. Rice acting the tactful diplomat, assuming that criticizing Libya now would prevent unnecessary Geneva clashes later? Is she trying to maintain the careful balance that Washington has tried to strike of late in its relations with Tripoli?
Either way, Ms. Rice oddly declined to oppose publicly Libya’s council seat. An American diplomat told me that keeping a secret U.N. ballot secret was a long tradition that both Republican and Democrat administrations hold dear.
But in 2003, in a similar circumstance, America openly and publicly fought against Libya’s chairmanship of the Commission on Human Rights. It was that public American fight against Mr. Gadhafi that led enough U.N. members to recognize how ill-suited the Commission was for dealing with human rights. It also hastened the demise of that futile body.
Locked in several other struggles with the Bush Administration, Secretary General Annan, in office at the time, proposed forming a new rights body, and the Human Rights Council was born in 2006.
The American envoy at the time, Ambassador Bolton, warned that the new body was no real improvement and predicted that it will soon prove even worse than its predecessor. The Bush administration voted against the Council’s establishment, declined to run for a seat, and withheld funding from it.
As soon as President Obama acceded, Ms. Rice lobbied for a change of course. America soon joined and cheered the Human Rights Council even as the Council resumed its Israel-bashing, including the establishment of the Goldstone Commission to assure Israel’s condemnation for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Geneva also maintained its failure to address seriously flagrant violations anywhere else, including in Sudan, North Korea, Sri Lanka or Burma or to air the stifling of rights in places like China, Egypt, Cuba or Saudi Arabia.
America “joined the Human Rights Council a year ago because we feel very firmly that the promotion and protection of human rights internationally is a core value of the United States and a fundamental cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy,” Ms. Rice told reporters.
She acknowledged that the council “has not lived up to its potential, and remains flawed,” but also insisted that “it is preferable to work from within to shape and reform a body with the importance and potential of the Human Rights Council, rather than to stay on the sidelines and reject it.”
Rights organizations like U.N. Watch and Freedom House warn that the election of members like Libya dilutes the power of those who care about human rights. In today’s council, democracies hold only 40% of the seats — down from 49% last year.
So even as in New York Ms. Rice says that she’s making inroads in her struggle against Human Rights Council proposed resolutions like a ban on “defamation of religion,” there’s now a better chance that in Geneva such a resolution — which clearly violates America’s First Amendment — will sail through.
———————-
Above just says that there is nothing new under the UN moon. In effect, today, Monday, May 17, 2010, I peeped into the room where the discussion on the Non-Proliferation-Treaty was going on, and heard with my own ears how the delegate from Iran was waxing that the way the text is warded it does not guarantee that terrorists will not get hold of nuclear material. Iran wants much more stringent language. With my eyes I saw how the chair, in very nice and diplomatic language, thanked Iran for its intervention smilingly. Only at the UN reality has no base to stand on!
The different levels of demeaning a woman in the Islamic world:
Burqa is a most complete body-cover – the covering of the eyes may or may not be also required.
Hijab is a legal term in Islamic law – “curtain” or “cover” that covers everything except face and hands in public.
Niqab is just a veil – least offensive.
Khimar is a headscarf or veil as mentioned in the Quran. This is the way women should cover themselves as per the Quran.
———————-
ADC (The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee) Congratulates Rima Fakih as Miss USA 2010
Washington, DC | May 17, 2010 | www.adc.org | The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) extends its wholehearted congratulations to Ms. Rima Fakih of Dearborn, Michigan, who was crowned Miss USA 2010 on May 16th at the Planet Hollywood Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada.
——
You can read more about Ms. Rima Fakih, who is of Lebanese descent, by visiting the links to the following articles:
Last night, Rima competed against 50 other contestants, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Rima will go on to compete for the title of Miss Universe this summer. She will spend the next year traveling the globe to promote the Miss Universe organization.
——
ADC President, Ms. Sara Najjar-Wilson, stated that, “we are very proud of Rima Fakih. She is a very intelligent as well as a very beautiful young woman. We are elated by her success, and are confident that she will honor all Americans in representing the United States in the Miss Universe Pageant.”
——
Rima, who is 24-years old, is a graduate of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, earning a degree in Economics and Business Management. She began competing in beauty pageants while in college, as a way to earn scholarship money. After her reign, Rima aspires to attend law school.
——
ADC wishes Rima much success and happiness as Miss USA, and extends to her continued best wishes in all her future endeavors. (so does our website - www.SustainabiliTank.info)
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), is non-profit and non-sectarian and is the largest Arab-American civil rights organization in the United States. It was founded in 1980 by former Senator James Abourezk to protect the civil rights of people of Arab descent in the United States, and to promote the cultural heritage of Arabs.
——-
ADC has 38 chapters nationwide, including chapters in every major city in the country, and members in all 50 states.
The Gulf states are conducting an appeasement policy toward Tehran while with increasing dread they helplessly follow the nuclear crisis, epitomized by Iranian determination and aggression in the face of American weakness.
In the last few weeks we witnessed a number of acrimonious exchanges between the Gulf states and Iran following the exposure of an Iranian clandestine network in Kuwait and renewed tension between the UAE and Iran over the continuous occupation by Iran of three islands belonging to the UAE. An Iranian spokesperson said that the Emirates states belonged to Iran and when the time came, they would come under Iran’s control.
The official Iranian news agency warned the Gulf states against pursuing confrontation: “There is no lion in the region save for the one that crouches on the shore opposite the Emirate states. He guards his den which is the Persian Gulf. Those who believe that another lion exists in the vicinity (meaning the U.S.) – well, his claws and fangs have already been broken in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine.”
It is Qatar, which hosts large American military bases, that maintains the most cordial relations with Iran. Qatar is also influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the fact that the Brotherhood members are Sunni, they have elected at this juncture to support Iran in its conflict with the United States.
The provocative naval maneuvers that Iran continues to conduct are indeed intended as a warning to the United States and Israel, but they also convey a clear message to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states: “We are here alongside you and we have massive power. Do not dare to provoke us.”
The Impotence of the Gulf States
Relations between Iran and the Gulf states are more strained than ever. Iran is issuing threats and working non-stop to undermine their stability. It repeatedly declares that these countries are part of its historic territory and it will take them over at the appropriate time.
In the meantime, Iran is exploiting their territory and services to circumvent the sanctions that were already imposed on it over the last two years. Straw companies were established in Dubai and apparently in Bahrain and Kuwait as well to purchase sophisticated products on Iran’s behalf that were needed to advance its nuclear program. The banks in these countries also provide a smokescreen for illicit transactions and money-laundering by Revolutionary Guard leaders. The Gulf states are aware of what is going on, but in the meantime, they are conducting an appeasement policy toward Tehran – even if they themselves have no confidence in it. All this is occurring while with increasing dread they helplessly follow the nuclear crisis, epitomized by Iranian determination and aggression in the face of American weakness.
Iranian Subversion and the Gulf States
The tension level in the region has increased in recent days as once again a measure of Iranian subversion in the Gulf states came to light.1 In Kuwait a spy network acting on behalf of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards was uncovered; it intended to establish the infrastructure in anticipation of a takeover of the country: to incite the Shiites against the regime, establish sleeper cells to act when the time came, and provide support for illicit economic activity.2
This time parliament members insisted that Kuwait not back down from confronting Iran, and the attorney general has already submitted an indictment to the courts. Kuwait, located between Iraq and Saudi Arabia on the Gulf shore, is considered a stable and moderate country, with close ties to the United States. It provides strategic depth and a lifeline for the American army in Iraq. American soldiers on their way to and from Iraq pass through Kuwait, and the U.S. Army’s weapons and munitions are funneled via Kuwait.
Tension with the Emirates over the Occupied Islands
The confrontation between Iran and the United Arab Emirates escalated as UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan compared the continuous occupation by Iran of three islands belonging to his country to “the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands.”3 Iran conquered these islands (Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb) during the time of the Shah in 1971, the year that the Emirates gained independence from British rule. In recent years Iran has settled the islands and established military camps there. The rulers of the Emirates, on the other hand, continue to reiterate their demand that Iran restore the islands or agree to international arbitration. Iran refuses. The issue is also on the Arab League agenda, and at every senior-level conclave the demand to restore the islands to their legal owners is emphasized.
Iran Responds to Kuwait with Derision and Menace
The Iranian response to Kuwait and the UAE was as brutal as ever. Iran totally denied that spies acting on its behalf were operating in Kuwait and warned the entire regional media “not to take lightly their responsibility to publish credible information and particularly [avoid] baseless information.” This affair recalls the exposure of a Hizbullah cell in Egypt whose members were placed on trial and sentenced to long prison terms.4 In this case, Hizbullah conceded its guilt, but explained that the intention was to assist Hamas in Gaza against Israel. Nevertheless, everyone knows that Hizbullah was operating in the service of Iran to strike at Egyptian stability.
In a response to the declaration by the UAE foreign minister, the charge’ d’affaires of its embassy in Iran was summoned to the Foreign Ministry where he was read a protest, whose main points were that “the Iranian people considered itself aggrieved by the foreign minister’s declaration and that the response to these declarations would be severe.” An Iranian spokesperson even said that the Emirates states belonged to Iran and when the time came, they would come under Iran’s control.
The Lone Lion in the Gulf
With these incidents in the background, the official Iranian news agency published a notice warning the Gulf states against pursuing confrontation in the following picturesque language:
There is no lion in the region save for the one that crouches on the shore opposite the Emirate states. He guards his den which is the Persian Gulf. Those who believe that another lion exists in the vicinity (meaning the United States) – well, his claws and fangs have already been broken in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine. No good can be expected of him or his hunting sorties. Today he is counting the days until he finds a way out that will allow him to escape by the skin of his teeth. Iran, the Emirates, and the other countries in the region will remain, by dint of geography, neighbors forever.5
This is indeed an interesting and realistic expression of the condition in the region as long as the West does not alter its weak policy.
A Rise in the Level of Escalation with Bahrain
Iranian confrontation with Bahrain made recent headlines when the director of the Bahraini anti-drug trafficking apparatus, Mubarak bin Abdallah al-Marri, said at a regional conclave in Riyadh that Iran operated directly to smuggle drugs into Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and that both countries had thwarted many smuggling attempts by sea in Iranian vessels coming from Iranian territory.6 A year ago, one of Khamenei’s advisors announced that Bahrain was the 14th district of Iran, an announcement that triggered severe responses in the Arab world. Egyptian President Mubarak immediately flew to Bahrain to express his support. Intermittent reports are published about Iranian subversion in Bahrain with the assistance of Shiite citizens who constitute about 60 percent of the population.7
It is to be recalled that the Bahraini authorities produced intelligence for the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s that Iran was behind a subversion campaign to overthrow the Bahraini government. In 1995, Tehran acquired a new incentive: the U.S. upgraded its naval presence in Bahrain to become the headquarters of the newly-created U.S. Fifth Fleet. Successful Iranian subversion in Bahrain would also have a major strategic consequence by forcing the withdrawal of the U.S. Navy from its main base in the Persian Gulf, just as Iran seeks to establish itself as the hegemonial power of the entire region.
Qatar – The Odd Man Out in Its Support of Iran
It is precisely Qatar, which hosts large American military bases, that maintains the most cordial relations with Iran. This policy apparently derives from the desire of Qatar’s ruler, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa, who is engaged in a protracted dispute with Saudi Arabia, to flaunt his independence as compared with the other Gulf states which efface themselves before Saudi Arabia. Qatar is also influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood, which maintains a large and influential presence there. Despite the fact that the Brotherhood members are Sunni, they have elected at this juncture to support Iran in its conflict with the United States.
Two years ago, the Qatari ruler invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to a summit meeting of the Gulf Cooperation Council without informing his colleagues, who expressed their displeasure. He also sent his chief of staff to Tehran to examine options for military cooperation.8 During Israel’s Gaza Operation, he even convened an Arab summit, together with Syria, that called for severing relations with Israel, thus arousing Mubarak’s ire.
The Qatari shift occurred right after the Bush administration released its 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran that suggested the Iranians had suspended key aspects of their nuclear weapons program back in 2003. From the perspective of the Persian Gulf states, this was the first indication that they might not be able to rely on U.S. determination to block Iran’s quest for regional hegemony, and the Qataris sought a rapprochement with Iran instead.
Oman, situated astride the exit from the Persian Gulf, attempts to maintain balanced relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran, and recently refused to join a convention for a monetary union of Gulf states.
Saudi Arabia’s Plight
Saudi Arabia, the largest Sunni state and the caretaker of Islam’s holy places, is worried. Despite the fact that it has expended prodigious sums on the purchase of American weapons and equipment, its small army is incapable of deterring or even contending with Iran. It is doing its utmost to assist Sunni forces struggling against the spread of the Shiite wave under the baton of Iran, as we have witnessed in Iraq, Lebanon, and most recently in Yemen with the Houthi revolt that is supported by Iran. Eastern Saudi Arabia, where the country’s largest oil reserves are located, contains a sizable Shiite minority. Their incitement by Iran could trigger a civil war and inflict mortal damage on Saudi oil resources and exports, the cornerstone of the Saudi economy and the royal family’s power.
At this stage, although Saudi Arabia is in the same camp with Egypt versus Iran, Riyadh prefers to maintain relative calm in its communications, to avoid provocation and aggravated tension, in the belief that its friend the United States will protect it. Yet Saudi-owned media outlets openly admit the magnitude of the Iranian threat. For example, Abd al-Rahman al-Rashed, director-general of the Saudi Al-Arabiya network, wrote in the Saudi London daily Asharq al-Awsat that nuclear weapons in Iran’s hands would help it dominate the Middle East region through subversion: “We fear the logic of the current regime in Tehran, which spent the country’s funds on Hizbullah, Hamas, the extremist movements in Bahrain, Iraq and Yemen, and the Muslim Brotherhood, and supported every extremist in the region. The Ahmadinejad regime aspires to expansion, hegemony, and a clear takeover on the ground, and to do this he needs a nuclear umbrella.”9
Given the failed attempts by the West to impose sanctions on Iran, and the voices emerging from Washington that diplomacy is the way to solve the crisis and that the military option is off the table, Ahmedinejad has nothing to fear, at least at the current stage. He feels he can advance his subversive plan and strike at the countries of the region. The provocative naval maneuvers that Iran continues to conduct are indeed intended to deter the United States and Israel, but they also convey a clear message to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states: “We are here alongside you and we have massive power. Do not dare to provoke us.” Meanwhile, the United States offers no response.
* * *
Notes
1. Iran has trained secret networks of agents across the Gulf states to attack Western interests and incite civil unrest in the event of a military strike against its nuclear program, a former Iranian diplomat has told the Sunday Telegraph. Trained by Iranian intelligence services, they are also said to be recruiting fellow Shias in the region, whose communities have traditionally been marginalized by the Gulf’s ruling Sunni Arab clans. The claims have been made by Adel Assadinia, a former career diplomat who was Iran’s consul-general in Dubai and an adviser to the Iranian foreign ministry. Colin Freeman, “Iran Poised to Strike in Wealthy Gulf States,” Sunday Telegraph (UK), March 4, 2007.
2. In the wake of the arrests, Bahraini authorities said they had arrested a Bahrain national suspected of links to the Kuwait spy operation. “Gulf Leaders Back Kuwait in Alleged Iran Spy Case,” AFP, as reported in Asharq al-Awsat, May 12, 2010.
7. While it’s unclear whether the Kuwaiti cell indeed extended to Bahrain and the UAE, Bahrain has also been subject to subversive activities in recent years. On the eve of the Gaza war of 2008-2009, the Bahraini authorities announced the arrest of a group of Shia militants who had received training in Syria, accusing them of planning terrorist attacks during Bahrain’s national day celebrations. As for the UAE, it followed Kuwait’s lead by deporting foreigners, especially Lebanese Shia. Starting in summer 2009, scores of Shia were suddenly expelled. Tony Badran, “The Shape of Things to Come with Iran,” Now Lebanon, May 13, 2010, http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=167522.
9. L. Barkan, “Reactions in the Gulf to Tension over Iranian Nuclear Issue,” MEMRI, April 8, 2010.
* * *
The writer, a former Israeli ambassador to Egypt and Sweden, is a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. This essay reflects the view of the author alone.
Iran to ship uranium to Turkey in nuclear deal.
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, AP, May 17, 2010
TEHRAN, Iran -Iran agreed Monday to ship most of its enriched uranium to Turkey in a nuclear fuel swap deal that could ease the international standoff over the country’s disputed nuclear program and deflate a U.S.-led push for tougher sanctions.
The deal was reached in talks with Brazil and Turkey, elevating a new group of mediators for the first time in the dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities. The agreement was nearly identical to a U.N.-drafted plan that Washington and its allies have been pressing Tehran for the past six months to accept in order to deprive Iran — at least temporarily — of enough stocks of enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon.
The United States had no immediate comment, but Germany greeted the news with caution.
The key question is whether the agreement fulfills the demands that the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency has made of Tehran, German government spokesman Christoph Steegmans said.
Steegmans noted that the point remains whether Iran suspends enrichment of nuclear material at home, raising a possible sticking point since the agreement reaffirmed Tehran’s right to enrichment activities for peaceful purposes.
The heart of the deal is a swap in which Iran would send abroad most of its low-enriched uranium and in return received fuel rods of medium-enriched uranium to use in a Tehran medical research reactor that produces isotopes for cancer treatment.
But for months, Iran has haggled over the terms, making counterproposals that were repeatedly rejected by the U.S. and its allies. With the deal announced Monday, Tehran seems to have agreed to almost all of the original terms. However, making the deal with Turkey and Brazil may have been more palatable, allowing Iran to argue that it did not bend to American pressure.
“It was agreed during the trilateral meeting of Iranian, Turkish and Brazilian leaders that Turkey will be the venue for swapping” Iran’s stocks of enriched uranium for fuel rods, Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on state TV.
Washington has cited the Iranians’ intransigence against the original deal as proof of the need for new U.N. sanctions.
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said the new deal meant Iran was willing to “open a constructive road.”
“There is no ground left for more sanctions or pressure,” he told reporters in Iran, according to Turkey’s private NTV television.
Monday’s deal was announced after talks between Brazil’s president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran.
The main difference from the U.N.-drafted version is that if Iran does not receive the fuel rods within a year, Turkey will be required to “immediately and unconditionally” return the uranium to Iran.
Iran feared that under the initial U.N. deal, if a swap fell through, its uranium stock could be seized permanently.
The process would begin one month after a final agreement is signed between Iran and its main negotiating partners, including the United States and the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Iran dropped an earlier demand for the fuel exchange to happen in stages and is now willing to ship abroad its nuclear material in a single batch. It also dropped an insistence that the exchange happen inside Iran as well as a request to receive the fuel rods right away.
The U.N. draft has a gap of about a year to allow time for the rods to be manufactured in France.
While kept under international supervision in Turkey, the uranium would still be considered Iranian property until Iran receives the fuel rods, said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Iranian Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi, who is also the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, called Monday’s deal historic.
The United Nations has already imposed three rounds of financial sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. The process is key to concerns over its program, because it can produce either low-enriched uranium needed to fuel a nuclear reactor or the highly enriched uranium needed to build a warhead. Iran says its program is entirely peaceful and says it has a right to enrich uranium for reactor fuel.
The fuel swap deal on the table since October was touted as a way to reduce tensions and ensure Iran cannot build a bomb in the short term. The material returned to Iran in the form of fuel rods cannot be processed beyond its lower, safer levels. Iran needs the fuel rods to power an aging medical research reactor in Tehran that produces isotopes for cancer treatment.
Under the agreement announced Monday, Iran will ship most of its enriched uranium — about 2,600 pounds, or 1,200 kilograms — to Turkey to be kept under U.N. and Iranian supervision. In return, it will get fuel rods containing uranium enriched to higher levels needed for the research reactor, Mehmanparast said.
Iran first reached out to Turkey and Brazil in its efforts to avoid tougher U.N. sanctions for its refusal to stop enriching uranium altogether. Both countries are non-permanent members of the Security Council.
Monday’s deal was signed by the foreign ministers of the three countries.
Iran says its enrichment program is only for peaceful uses, such as producing fuel for nuclear power plants.
Mehmanparast said a letter will be sent to the IAEA within a week to pave the way for a final agreement.
“Should they be ready, an agreement will be signed between us and the group,” he said, referring to the U.S., France, Russia and the IAEA.
A month later, the uranium — currently enriched to a level of 3.5 percent — would be sent to Turkey, where it would be stored under IAEA and Iranian supervision, Mehmanparast said. The fuel rods would contain material processed to just under 20 percent.
Enrichment of 90 percent is needed to produce material for nuclear warheads.
—
Associated Press writer Suzan Fraser contributed to this report from Ankara, Turkey.
—
Online:
The agreement — http://www.mfa.gov.tr/17-mayis-2010-tari…
———————————–
Global Commentary and Think-Tank Analysis (Best of U.S., UK, and Israel):
Iran Creates Illusion of Progress in Nuclear Negotiations – Glenn Kessler
By striking a deal to ship some of its low-enriched uranium abroad, Iran has created the illusion of progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real compromise. (Washington Post)
See also A Sham Deal with Iran – Bronwen Maddox
Brazil and Turkey claim to have pulled off a triumph in persuading Iran to freeze the heart of its nuclear program. But this is almost certainly a sham deal – and one that, dangerously, will undermine the drive to bring new sanctions against Tehran. (Times-UK)
Changing the Paradigm of U.S. Assistance to Egypt: Alternatives to the “Endowment” Idea – J. Scott Carpenter
Recently leaked documents detail an exchange between Washington and Cairo regarding the future of U.S. economic assistance to Egypt, indicating that the Obama administration has welcomed Cairo’s idea of ending traditional assistance in favor of creating a new endowment, “The Egyptian-American Friendship Foundation.” This idea has a long, checkered history and, if implemented, will be bad for both American taxpayers and the Egyptian people. The administration should work with Egypt to craft alternatives that advance common objectives, including democratic reform. (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)
The agreement between Tehran and Ankara is a nice achievement for the Iranians that will somewhat delay the international sanctions against them and provide an alibi for the Russians and Chinese to maintain excellent economic ties with Tehran.
Every time Iran feels that it’s approaching the point of no return in respect to Security Council or EU decisions on sanctions, it comes up with a “new initiative” and announces that it will in fact accept the international community’s conditions. Yet when it actually needs to sign an agreement, it presents new conditions.
The Iranians agreed and reneged on this kind of arrangement eight times. Indeed, this is just part of the ongoing ritual of Iranian maneuvers aimed at buying time in order to get as close as possible to the bomb.
Iran said it would send 1,200 kg. of low-enriched uranium to Turkey within a month, and no more than a year later get back 120 kg. enriched from somewhere else abroad. This makes even less sense than the flawed October deal. In the intervening seven months, Iran has kicked its enrichment activities into higher gear. Its estimated total stock has gone to 2,300 kg. from 1,500 kg. last autumn, and its stated enrichment goal has gone to 20% from 3.5%.
If the West accepts this deal, Iran would be allowed to keep enriching uranium in contravention of previous UN resolutions. Removing 1,200 kg. will leave Iran with still enough low-enriched stock to make a bomb, and once uranium is enriched up to 20% it is technically easier to get to bomb-capable enrichment levels.
Only last week, diplomats at the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran has increased the number of centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium. According to Western intelligence estimates, Iran continues to acquire key nuclear components, such as trigger mechanisms for bombs. Tehran says it wants to build additional uranium enrichment plants. The CIA recently reported that Iran tripled its stockpile of uranium last year and moved “toward self-sufficiency in the production of nuclear missiles.” Monday’s deal will have no impact on these illicit activities.
CAIRO, Apr 27, 2010 (IPS) – Europe’s appetite for renewable energy and a shifting tide in domestic energy policies could turn North Africa into major exporter of solar power by the end of the decade.
“North Africa has all the right ingredients for producing the cheapest kilowatt hour of solar energy,” says Amr Mohsen, CEO of Lotus Solar Technologies, a Cairo-based solar technology firm. “We’re finally starting to see conditions align for harnessing this potential.”
{We also wonder if a scientific cooperation between Egypt and Israel could help not only project energy but also project peace – this from SustainabiliTank editor}
Small projects using photovoltaic (PV) panels are moving ahead rapidly, but work has been slow on large concentrated solar power (CSP) projects that experts say are needed to overcome the region’s dependence on fossil fuels.
CSP projects use mirrors to concentrate the sun’s heat, and produce steam that drives electrical generators. The technology is scalable and without the high capital costs associated with large-scale PV deployment.
The first CSP projects in North Africa are expected to begin operation by the end of the year. Algeria’s 150 MW power plant at Hassi R’Mel is scheduled to go online in October, followed by Egypt’s 140 MW plant at Kureimat and Morocco’s 450 MW plant at Ain Beni Mathar.
The three integrated solar combined cycle (ISCC) power stations will feed steam generated by a solar field into the stream of a gas-fired plant to drive a turbine that produces electricity. The hybrid design was selected because the shared turbine and equipment lowers capital costs, while the gas-fired unit compensates for fluctuating power output from the solar arrays, which generate electricity only during daylight hours.
Critics charge that the low solar fraction — between four and 15 percent — undermines the value of these projects as commercial models. Officials counter that successful operation will pave the way for larger, dedicated solar plants to follow.
“Our (ISCC) plant at Kureimat is a pilot project,” says Khaled Fikry, head of research and development at Egypt’s National Renewable Energy Authority. “We will gain technical experience that we will use to build more power plants that utilise pure solar capacity.”
Sunny skies and large tracts of underutilised desert land make North Africa an ideal location for low-cost power generation, a 2007 study by the German Aerospace Centre concluded. Harnessing the solar energy falling on just 6,000 square kilometres of desert in North Africa would “supply energy equivalent to the entire oil production of the Middle East of 9 billion barrels a year,” the report said.
European investors have cued in to the region’s untapped potential. Two ambitious schemes envision the construction of a series of solar fields in the Sahara desert that would export surplus electricity to Europe via high voltage transmission lines.
The Desertec project is a 400 billion euro private sector initiative that aims to tap renewable energy sources in North Africa to satisfy 15 percent of Europe’s electricity demand by 2050. Up to 80 percent of the electricity generated, mostly by CSP power stations, would be used by domestic consumers. The remaining 20 percent would be transported to buyers in Europe.
The Mediterranean Solar Plan, a flagship project of the Union for the Mediterranean (a union of European countries with others that border the Mediterranean Sea) follows a similar model. The project will invest over 40 billion euros to build solar facilities and purchase their output to help Europe achieve its goal of 20 percent renewable energy use by 2020.
“A lot of momentum has been added through the activities of these initiatives,” says Kilian Baelz, an expert in renewable energy finance. “They have really made North African governments think again about how to implement renewable energies.”
—-
Tunisia launched a 2.7 billion dollar scheme in October 2009 that is targeting a 22 percent reduction in the country’s demand for conventional energy sources by 2016. The Tunisian Solar Plan funds over 40 renewable energy projects and introduces subsidies on solar panels.
—-
Morocco, which imports 97 percent of its fossil fuel needs, recently unveiled a 9 billion dollar project to produce 2 GW of solar power by 2020. Five solar power stations will generate nearly 40 percent of the country’s total installed power.
—-
North African governments are also looking to dismantle oil and gas subsidies that have undermined the adoption of renewable energies.
“Subsidising fossil fuels is putting a very high burden on the finances of these countries,” says Hani El-Nokraschy, vice-chairman of Desertec’s supervisory board. “Even if they are self-producers of oil or gas, they have the chance to generate the electricity they need from the sun and sell the fuel they would have burned on the world market for a higher profit.”
—-
He estimates that with subsidies removed, CSP has already achieved grid parity. While benchmark Brent crude oil stands at about 85 dollars a barrel and is expected to rise in the coming years, economies of scale are driving down the cost of solar power.
“The price of electricity from CSP power stations is equal to the price of electricity of burning oil at 50 dollars per barrel,” El-Nokraschy tells IPS. “And by doubling production you would get a 10-20 percent cost reduction.”
—-
Governments cannot afford to wait. El-Nokraschy says North Africa must install at least 100 GW of exportable renewable energy capacity by 2050 to reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions. Failure to do so would — if predictions about global warming are correct — result in a plus 2.0 degree Celsius rise in global temperature, leading to severe weather and a rise in sea levels.
“This would be catastrophic and would cost us much more than the price of building enough CSP to prevent it,” he adds.
OIL TALKS: The neighbors, which fought a fierce war in the 1980s, are in negotiations over future oil and gas drilling plans.
Officials from Iran and Iraq have begun talks over possible future oil and gas drilling in Iraq, Iran’s official IRNA news agency reported.
“We are currently involved in negotiations with Iraqi officials in regard to beginning oil drilling operation in Iraq and we are trying to set up an office in Iraq,” IRNA quoted Heidar Bahmani, an official of the state-owned National Iranian Drilling Company (NIOC), as saying in a report late on Sunday.
“We are awaiting the Iraqi government’s positive response,” he added.
Bahmani said Iran was able to compete with established foreign entities from the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China in Iraq’s oil and gas sector.
Relations between the neighbours were strained when a small contingent of Iranian troops moved into an oilfield inside Iraqi territory in December, raising the Iranian flag over an inactive oil well.
The dispute, which Tehran called a “misunderstanding”, ended in January when troops withdrew after talks between the two countries’ foreign ministers.
Iran and Iraq, which share a border of almost 1,500 km (900 miles) fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.
Iraq will become the world’s largest oil-producing nation in “six or seven years”, according to oil minister Hussain Al Shahristani.
The official told Reuters that Baghdad is seeking to raise capacity to 12 million barrels per day (bpd) in that timeframe, which he believes will help the country negotiate its future oil quotas with OPEC.
“We can’t find a reason to prevent Iraqi production becoming higher than any other OPEC state or even states outside OPEC,” said Al Shahristani.
“We expect that to happen in the next six to seven years with co-ordination and agreement with other OPEC producers,” he said.
Iraq is currently exempt from OPEC quotas, although the country is raising its exports significantly, which the organisation believes could depress the oil price.
“Iraq has been deprived of having a fair export level over the last years, during which we were not able to produce or export oil while other states got benefit from this and were able to export at higher levels,” Al Shahristani said.
“Opec should put into consideration Iraq’s need for oil revenues to rebuild its economy and country. Iraq has a definite need for these revenues.”
Local news agency Aswat Al Iraq said that oil revenues were up to $4.5bn in December.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, supermajor BP’s chief executive, Tony Hayward, indicated that it was not impossible that Iraq could lift its production to 10 million bpd in a decade’s time.
However, Hayward told The Times newspaper that the realities of the challenges of execution on the ground and the need to build capability on the ground mean things will happen “a little slower than all of us are perhaps planning for today”.
By Louis Charbonneau Friday, April 23, 2010, Reuters
From the UN – Iran has withdrawn its bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council amid growing criticism of what one advocacy group said on Friday was Tehran’s “appalling human rights record.”
U.N. diplomats told Reuters that Iran had informed other Asian delegations that it withdrew its candidacy for a seat on the 47-nation council based in Geneva that is responsible for monitoring rights around the globe.
One Western diplomat said that Tehran had pulled out after it became apparent that it might not secure enough votes to win a seat, which would have embarrassed Iran when council elections take place next month.
Iran told the so-called Asia group of U.N. states that it was dropping out “in the interest of solidarity with the rest of the group,” the diplomat said.
Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director for the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said that “mounting global opposition has forced them out of the race.”
Hicks welcomed what she described as a clear condemnation of Iran’s “appalling human rights record.”
In December 2009, the U.N. General Assembly condemned Iran for a violent crackdown on protesters after presidential elections last year that Iran’s opposition says were rigged.
Human Rights Watch has criticized the process of electing members to the U.N. rights council. Often the five regional groups — Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe and other states — have uncontested ballots for their allotted seats.
“This shows that when there’s a choice, it makes a difference,” Hicks said.
With the withdrawal of Iran, there are no longer any contested ballots, she added. The countries running for the four Asian seats are Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar and Thailand.
The elections will take place during a meeting of the General Assembly on May 13.
Last year the United States successfully campaigned for a seat on the Human Rights Council, a body the previous U.S. administration had shunned as anti-Israeli and soft on a number of authoritarian governments.
U.S. President Barack Obama’s position is that it would be better to try to change the often criticized Human Rights Council from within, U.S. officials say.
——————
The issue of notorious human rights abusers sitting in judgment of others on UN human rights bodies has been a source of consternation for decades. The 2003 election of Libya to the chairmanship of the Human Rights Council’s predecessor body, the UN Commission on Human Rights, was a key factor driving the push to abolish the Commission in favor of the new Council in 2005.
The failure of Iran’s bid, after aggressive lobbying in New York, African capitals (Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in Zimbabwe this week), and elsewhere, is “a big embarrassment for them,” the official continued. It “seems to be a mark of their isolation and broad distaste for their human rights record.”
Iran’s bid to be a member of the UN rights body was strongly opposed by Iranian and global human rights activists, including by Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi who wrote a letter opposing Tehran’s bid.
“It’s a step in the right direction for countries to take into account candidates’ human rights records in deciding who to support for the Council,” said Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs.
The U.S., UK, and France are currently mounting an aggressive international diplomatic push to try to get a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iran.
No to Iran on the Human Rights Council!
By Ali Akbar Mousavi
Friday, April 23, 2010
In a brazen move, considering Iran’s appalling record when it comes to systematic human rights violations, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government has asked to be considered this May for membership in the United National Human Rights Council. Most nations opposed the Islamic Republic’s first request for membership in 2006. Since then, the human rights situation in Iran has only worsened, catastrophically. Why would Iran make such a request?
As a former member of the Iranian Parliament, active in the area of prisoners’ rights for many years, and later as a civil society activist and political prisoner who witnessed and felt the consequences of the government’s illegal conduct directly, I can provide some insight.
The Ahmadinejad government’s treatment of social movements by students, laborers, women, teachers, ethnic and religious minorities, and political and civil organizations has exponentially worsened over the last four years. Activists’ demands for their rights and justice have led to arrests, mistreatment, abuses, and prosecution in substandard and illegal judicial proceedings, without regard for Iran’s laws or its international obligations. This has all been reported by the abused citizens and groups that have monitored the mistreatment.
Iranian students who voiced the slightest criticism have been imprisoned or barred from continuing their education, and many university professors have been dismissed or barred from teaching.
Political prisoners are still mistreated and some have even been tortured to death. Many are deprived of even the basic rights that Iranian laws stipulate for ordinary prisoners and dangerous criminals. Many face serious danger in prisons due to old age or illness.
Iranian women who demand equal rights have been accused of attempting to overthrow the Islamic Republic, and many of them face arrest and imprisonment as a result of criminal charges brought against them by the government.
Teachers and workers who establish or join labor syndicates and unions to try to improve their wages have been accused of rioting. Many are in prison, and an even larger number have lost their jobs, while their professional organizations have been banned.
Members of the Bahai faith have been persecuted and prosecuted. Even followers of Shiite Islam, Iran’s official religion, have not been safe. Several independent religious leaders and clerics, maraje’ (or sources of religious reference) have been restricted in their activities, and Gonabadi Sufi dervishes have been beaten and detained.
It has become commonplace for Iranian civil activists and artists to be barred from traveling abroad, without any legal or judicial reason being provided. Even the former president, Mohammad Khatami, was barred from traveling to a conference in Japan last week.
The government violates human rights with unfettered impunity. This includes the murders in the past year of innocent protesters. People who speak out about they abuse they have suffered are ignored. Warnings and reports by national and international human rights organizations have gone unheeded. In fact the Iranian government has attempted to avert criticism: In February, it submitted false statements in a report about its record to the Human Rights Council. The government has also shown a lack of will in promoting justice or confronting those who ordered and carried out orders to torture and rape prisoners – even though Parliament acknowledged the crimes.
Another abysmal note on Iran’s human rights record is capital punishment. Iran has the second-highest rate of executions worldwide and continues to execute those convicted of crimes committed when they were under the age of 18.
Iran also has one of the worst international records when it comes to banning publications and imprisoning journalists. The country has become the biggest prison for journalists who have not committed any crime other than reporting events. The sitting Cabinet now holds the worst record of banning publications and censoring the press.
These are only some examples that attest to the worsening situation of human rights in Iran, particularly in the aftermath of the 2009 presidential elections. The Iranian government has no justification to seek membership in the newly formed UN Human Rights Council. It clearly is seeking membership in a blatant effort to deflect attention away from its actions, and to escape being held accountable to the Iranian people for its abuses.
Electing this Iranian government to the Human Rights Council after its brutal crackdown since the presidential elections would be a complete mockery of those who have suffered at its hands. I refer to the families who lost loved ones during the protests; to the victims of torture and rape; and to all those whose rights have been violated, particularly the millions of people who have participated in protests during the past few months to object to this very same government.
The international community, especially the Islamic countries, should refuse to acknowledge Iran’s request. Instead, they should work to limit the reach of this government that continues to violate the rights of its own people in the name of Islam.
Ali Akbar Mousavi was a member of the Iranian Parliament during the period 2000-2004 and is a prominent human rights defender. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR. ……. Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb
—————————————–
HRW Press
- Human Rights Watch
UN: Iran’s Withdrawal From Seeking Council Seat a Victory for Rights
Contested Races Needed in All Regions to Improve Human Rights Council Membership
(New York, April 23, 2010) – Iran’s withdrawal from the race for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council is a victory for human rights and those who seek a stronger UN human rights body, Human Rights Watch said today. However, further improvements to the council’s membership require giving states a choice of candidates in all regions, Human Rights Watch said.
“Iran saw the writing on the wall in the face of mounting global opposition over its abysmal human rights record,” said Peggy Hicks, global advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Iran’s withdrawal shows that international pressure can work to improve the council’s membership.”
Iran had declared its candidacy for the Human Rights Council in February, and was one of five states from the UN’s Asia regional group running for election this year for the four seats from that regional group. The other declared candidates are Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar, and Thailand. The UN General Assembly will elect 14 new members to the council on May 13, 2010.
Under the UN General Assembly resolution that established the Human Rights Council in 2006, council members are expected to “uphold the highest standards” of human rights. Yet the General Assembly had adopted a resolution last December expressing “its deep concern at serious ongoing and recurring human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The resolution followed condemnations of the human rights situation in Iran by the General Assembly on close to a yearly basis since 1985. A group of prominent Iranian human rights defenders, including the Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, had publicly opposed Iran’s candidacy for the council.
“Iran’s bid for a council seat provided a spotlight on the widespread human rights abuses in Iran, including the severe repression following last June’s elections,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “We hope that the Iranian government will now focus its efforts on improving its human rights qualifications for membership.”
Human Rights Watch said that it continues to be concerned about the lack of competition among the states for seats on the Human Rights Council.
With Iran’s withdrawal, the Asia regional group is left with what is known as a “clean slate” since there are only four candidates for the four seats reserved for Asia in this election. In fact, for the first time since the council was formed in 2006, all five regional groups are poised to put forward “clean slates” in the annual membership elections.
The Eastern European group had put forward a competitive slate in every election until this year, but Croatia recently withdrew, leaving only Poland and Moldova running for two seats on the council. The Western European and Others Group is putting forward Switzerland and Spain this year for its two open seats. It also offered no competition in 2009, when New Zealand withdrew its candidacy after the United States entered the race.
The Africa group has run a clean slate every year except 2009, and this year has endorsed Angola, Libya, Mauritania, and Uganda for the region’s four seats. The Latin American and Caribbean group had a competitive slate in the first council elections, but has had a clean slate in every election since, and this year is putting forward only Ecuador and Guatemala for the region’s two open seats.
In past years, successful campaigns have been mounted to defeat the candidacies of Belarus (2007), Sri Lanka (2008), and Azerbaijan (2009) for council membership when those candidates ran on competitive slates.
“When states are given a choice, there is a real chance to use the elections to put states with better human rights records on the Human Rights Council and make states with poor human rights records think twice about competing,” Hicks said. “States that care about human rights should push to ensure competitive elections in all regions and should compete themselves for seats on the council.”
FROM THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE NEWSLETTER – issue 16 – of April 21, 2010:
——–
OIC Secretary General receives the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Ms. Navanethem Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights called on the Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu at the OIC Headquarters in Jeddah on 19 April 2010 as part of her visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In welcoming the guests, the Secretary General appreciated the confident, objective and impartial manner in which the High Commissioner had performed the difficult task with a sincerity of purpose since the assumption of the important office.
The Secretary General informed the High Commissioner that the OIC was on the verge of establishing an Independent Permanent Commission on Human Rights. The statute of the Commission was near finalization and likely to be entered into force following adoption by the forthcoming Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) due to be held in Dushanbe next month. He emphasized that the establishment of the Commission must be viewed as a landmark event and a most positive development in the four-decade long history of the Organization. Briefing the High Commissioner on the OIC Human Rights Commission, the Secretary General expressed the hope that the establishment of the Commission will introduce a paradigm shift within the OIC in the way universal human rights and freedoms flow together with Islamic values to offer a coherent and strong system aimed at facilitating the full enjoyment of all human rights in the OIC Member States. The High Commissioner congratulated the Secretary General on the prospective establishment of the Commission and assured full support of her Office in its formative phase. She also thanked Secretary General for his leadership and contribution to the successful outcome of the Durban Review Conference and indicated her hope for a continued cooperation with the OIC in the future.
The meeting afforded the opportunity of exchange of views on the whole range of issues pertaining to the OIC’s engagement with the Office of the High Commissioner and ended with the agreement to continue to build on the cooperation and coordination between the two Organizations.
—————————————
OIC Secretary General addresses the Nuclear Disarmament Conference in Tehran
OIC Secretary General Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu participated in the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament held in Tehran on 17 April 2010 upon the invitation of Manouchehr Mottaki, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In his address to the Conference OIC Secretary General highlighted the support of the OIC towards nuclear disarmament and elimination of other weapons of mass destruction and reiterated his call for the resolution of proliferation through political and diplomatic means within the framework of international law, relevant multilateral conventions and the United Nations Charter. He further indicated the fact that progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, in all its aspects, was essential to strengthen international peace and security.
Prof. Ihsanoglu also underlined the OIC’s position on the need to respect the inalienable right of developing countries, including that of Iran, to engage in the research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He also indicated the OIC’s support for the establishment in the Middle East of a nuclear-weapon-free zone for the sustainability of peace, security and stability in the Middle East as a part of comprehensive agreement in line with the Arab Peace Initiative.
On the occasion of the Conference, OIC Secretary General also had bilateral meetings with President Ahmedinejad, Vice President Dr. Salehi and Foreign Minister Mottaki. During these meetings, the OIC Secretary General and his counterparts discussed further contribution of Iran to the OIC activities and exchanged views regarding the issues occupying the agenda of the Organization.
————————————
OIC countries – Calendar of Meetings:
April 22-24: Fifth Forum of Businesswomen in Islamic Countries – Cairo, Egypt.
April 24-25: Technical Meeting of Experts on the Ranking of Universities in the Islamic World – Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
May 2-3: Expert Group Meeting on ‘Achieving Food Security in member States in Post-crisis World – IDB headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
May 3-4: 2nd Meeting of the Development and Cooperation Institutions (DCIs) of Member States – Abu Dhabi, UAE.
May 8: Workshop on ‘Business in Social Responsibility’ – Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
May 10-12: 26th Meeting of the Follow-up Committee of COMCEC – Turkey.
May 16-17: Exhibition and Conference on Science and Technology parallel to 37th Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) – Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
May 18-20: 37th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) – Dushanbe, Tajikistan.
The Politics of UN Human Rights Council and Iran’s Candidacy. The candidacy of Iran, with its ever-increasing human rights abuses record, for the UN Human Rights Council is comparable to electing apartheid South Africa to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, says Elahe Amani. The Islamic Republic of Iran, in a provocative act, has announced its candidacy for the United Nation Human Rights Council, a UN organization based in Geneva. The candidacy of Iran comes at a time that during the last 10 months, Iranians are experiencing one of the darkest periods of human rights violations since 1979 revolution. The candidacy of Iran for the UN Human Rights Council is comparable to electing apartheid South Africa to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination or to awarding the US for humane treatment of detainee’s right after the world was shocked with pictures revealing sexual torture and humiliation of naked prisoners.
The UN Human Rights Council seats are allocated by the regional groups, not by the level of their adherence to human rights standards. The regional groups and the number of their seats are African Group, 13 seats; Asian Group, 13 seats; Eastern European Group, 6 seats; Latin American and Caribbean Group, 8 seats; and Western European and Others Group, 7 seats. To be elected to a seat on the UNHRC for a three-year term, a state must achieve the support of the majority of the members of the General Assembly, i.e. at least 97 votes and council members may seek only one time immediate re-election. While the US voted against the establishment of the UNHRC and boycotted the Council during the Bush Administration, during his first year of presidency, President Obama reversed the previous policy, joined the UNHRC, and proposed to reform it from within by being “engaged” in the UN Human Rights Council.
The current vacancy for the Asia Group is only four, with Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Qatar and Thailand having announced their candidacies. The winners will be chosen by secret ballot within a UN body on May 13th.
While the four other contenders from Asia group are not necessarily better qualified candidates and do not have a significantly better human rights records, Iran’s human rights violations remains more dire in the three areas of death penalty and torture, freedom of expression, & freedom of religion.
Iran’s election to the United Nation Human Rights Council in 2010, the year during which Iranians have endured heightened human rights violations by Iran’s state and non-state actors, will not only shatter the hopes of the Iranian people for recognition and support from the global community in the struggle for civility, rights, and dignity, but also compromises the credibility of UNHRC.
The United Nation Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a relatively new inter-governmental entity within the UN System and is a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly. It was established on March 15th, 2006 with an overwhelming vote of the UN General Assembly to replace the dysfunctional, heavily criticized Human Rights Commission. The hope was to build a more credible UN Human Rights entity after the UN Human Rights Commission lost the respect of the global community. The 47-nation United Nation Human Rights Council replaced the 53-country UN Human Rights Commission. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan welcomed what he called an “historic resolution… that gives the United Nations a much-needed chance to make a new beginning in its work for human rights around the world.”
At Iran’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in Geneva on February 15, 2010, the head of Iran’s delegation, Mohammad Javad Larijani, remorselessly disregarded all the atrocities documented by human rights defenders, journalists, NGOs, and credible human rights global organizations. He blatantly rejected almost all the recommendations by other states for the remediation of human rights violations in Iran. The Iranian proverb saying “daste peesh migireh ke pas nayofteh” ( Instead of admitting one’s fault blame it on someone else or deceitfully dock the responsibility) precisely sum up the strategy of Islamic Republic of Iran in global and regional organizations.
In a world that aspires to uphold civility and respect for human rights, one would expect that the election of new members to the UN Human Rights Commission would involve the trust of member states to a given country for carrying on the mission of Human Rights Commission. The key question is: would Iran be able to carry the mission of UN Human Rights Council? Would the consistent lack of respect for international bodies and mechanisms deter other states from trusting Iran to further the goals of the UNHRC or the regional politics of countries will open the door to membership of Iran in UNHEC?
Since 2005, the human rights situation in Iran has dramatically worsened. In the aftermath of theIranian elections on June 12, 2009, the human rights situation has deteriorated even further. Torture, rape, systematic arrests, and imprisonment are usual occurrences. According to Iranian Nobel Peace Laureate, Shirin Ebadi, Iran currently has the distinction of having the world’s highest per capita record of public hangings and executions, with the number almost quadrupling since 2005. A report published by Amnesty International on March 30th, 2010, states that Iran accounts for 388 of at least 714 executions worldwide. Amnesty International highlights in its 2009 Report that the Islamic Republic is “one of a tiny minority of states where juvenile offenders continue to be executed.”
In February 2010, the United Nation Human Rights Council condemned the “unjust suppression of innocent Iranian citizens” following last year’s presidential elections. The execution of child offenders, the use of death penalty against political opponents, the violence against women, the discrimination and the lack of freedom of expression, as well as the prosecution of religious and ethnic minorities, are among some of the gross violations of human rights in Iran.
It should be noted that no United Nation Human Rights Council official has visited Iran since 2005, with numerous requests from special investigators remaining unanswered. In its annual review of human rights practices around the world, Human Rights Watch (HRW) cited Iran as a country that “openly harasses and arbitrarily detains human rights workers and other critics.” HRW documented violence against peaceful protesters, detention of human rights defenders, as well as abuse and torture in Iran’s illegal detention centers.
For the Iranian people, it is disheartening to see civility, rights, and dignity being used as a tool in the hands of states and global forces to further their agendas; it is disheartening to see the disconnect between the words and deeds, to see the states who claim the tall order of taking stand against globalizations and militarization rendering support to the Islamic Republic of Iran, a country with gross violations of human rights. These states should vote objectively, hear the suppressed voice of Iranian people, and not play deaf and blind to the grave violations of human rights in Iran.
The history of UN human rights organizations demonstrates that their ability to carry out the mandates and to promote and protect all human rights depend overwhelmingly on the commitment of its members to mission and goals of the organization. The election of 14 new members on May 13th 2010 provides an opportunity to ensure (within the existing limitations i.e. lack of full adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by any state) that only states that have demonstrated relatively more commitment and effective action to protect human rights will be elected to the vacant seats of the UNHRC.
Member states of UN General Assembly should set aside the politics, particularly regional politics, from qualifying candidates for membership in UNHRC and vote objectively based on the human rights record of the candidates.
Erdogan Calls Israel ‘Threat’ to Peace: Turkish premier’s remarks further strain countries’ alliance as analysts ponder nation’s foreign-policy leanings. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424…
Marc Champion (Wall Street Journal) April 8, 2010
Relations between Turkey and Israel took a further battering Wednesday when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described Israel as “the principal threat to peace” in the Middle East.
In response, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We are interested in good relations with Turkey and regret that Mr. Erdogan chooses time after time to attack Israel.”
At a recent meeting of foreign-policy analysts in Istanbul held by the Turkish Policy Quarterly, Israeli and Turkish analysts agreed that the alliance those two countries built on shared security concerns in the 1990s is probably unsalvageable. But a report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group released Wednesday said the belief Turkey is turning away from the West is “incorrect.” It noted that Turkey’s trade with Europe continues to outweigh its trade with the Middle East by a wide margin, and EU membership remains its core goal.
Erdogan shows no sign of backing down from his opposition to imposing harsher sanctions on Iran, which together with his tough rhetoric on Israel and support for Hamas in Gaza have brought him popularity in many parts of the Middle East.
Israel, Gaza tensions: Why Egypt helps maintain the blockade.
Simmering tensions – due in part to a long-standing blockade of the territory – are escalating toward another Israel Gaza standoff. Often overlooked is Egypt’s role in the blockade.
Israel today threatened a second Gaza war if Palestinian militants do not cease the rocket attacks that have increased as discontent simmers over a long-standing blockade. But while Gazans, supported by international human rights activists, have lambasted Israel for the blockade, often overlooked is the accessory role of neighboring Egypt.
Egypt has also kept its border with Gaza largely closed, despite the intense public anger it arouses here and throughout the Muslim world.
The move is motivated by regional rivalries and international alliances, say analysts. Egypt doesn’t want to take the pressure off Israel, which it holds responsible for running Gaza. At the same time, Egypt has an interest in weakening militant Islamist group Hamas, which rules the territory. And many suspect that US pressure plays into Egypt’s participation in the blockade, though Egypt denies this.
Emad Gad, an analyst at the government-funded Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, boils the issue down to Egypt’s opposition to Hamas.
“Hamas is part of another coalition in the region – the Iran, Syria, Hezbollah coalition,” he says. “Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. And Hamas is trying to minimize the Egyptian role in the Palestinian cause.”
Under these circumstances, he says, Egypt has little reason to end the blockade.
When and why the blockade started
Israel began restricting the flow of goods into Gaza when Hamas captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006. After Hamas wrested control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah in 2007, Israel tightened the blockade, allowing only a trickle of basic goods into the coastal enclave through the five entry points it controls.
Egypt followed suit, keeping the Rafah crossing mostly closed. It opens the border only to allow special shipments of medical supplies into Gaza and to allow some Palestinians to leave, most for medical treatment.
Egypt last year allowed more than 7,000 tons of medical equipment into Gaza and about 75,000 Palestinians to leave the territory, says Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki, who disputes labeling the border as “closed.”
But under the blockade, Gaza has experienced shortages of basic goods, and building supplies needed for reconstruction after Israel’s offensive there last year are almost impossible to come by. Most of the goods used in Gaza are now smuggled in through tunnels on the Egyptian border.
In December, Egypt began building a new subterranean wall along the border, designed to extend about 60 feet below the surface and block the smuggling tunnels that bring weapons but also basic trade goods into Gaza that for the past four years have been a crucial safety valve to reduce pressure on commodity prices in Gaza.
Playing the blame game
Egypt’s main line of defense for closing the border is to pass responsibility to Israel. Egypt considers Gaza under Israeli occupation, and therefore under international law it is Israel’s duty to provide Gazans with their basic needs – not Egypt’s. Allowing goods through Rafah would take the pressure off Israel to end the blockade.
————————————————————————————–
Foundation for Middle East Peace, Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation & Middle East Institute.
1761 N Street NW, Washington, DC 20036
invite you to a presentation and discussion with
Yezid Sayigh
Professor of Middle East Studies
King’s College, University of London
Geoffrey Aronson
Director of Research and Publications
Foundation for Middle East Peace
Hamas Today
Thursday April 15, 12-2:00pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC
Professor Sayigh and Mr. Aronson will discuss where Hamas stands after three years of governing Gaza and the tensions between their role as a resistance movement and a governing body. The speakers will also discuss the feasibility of reintegrating the two systems of government in Gaza and the West Bank and where the greatest challenges will be in that process.
Yezid Sayigh is Professor of Middle East Studies at King’s College, London. Currently he is on leave, and senior fellow with the Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University, and visiting scholar with the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard Universty. He was Assistant Director of Studies at the Centre of International Studies, Cambridge (1994-2003), and headed the Middle East program of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He was an adviser and negotiator in Israeli-Palestinian talks in 1990-1994 and since 1999 has provided assistance to the Palestinian Authority with reforms and permanent status negotiations. He is the author of the essential Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement 1949-1993 (Oxford Univ. Press).
Geoffrey Aronson is the Director of Research and Publications at the Foundation for Middle East Peace and the editor of the Foundation’s bimonthly publication, The Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories. He is a journalist and historian who has published widely on international affairs and a former fellow at the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University. He is the author of Israel, Palestinians and the Intifada: Creating Facts on the West Bank” and From Sideshow to Centerstage: U.S. Policy Towards Egypt.
The obvious here is – can one talk Peace without talking also to Hamas, this while clearly understanding that it might be impossible to talk Peace in the Middle East with Hamas.
As such we feel it is important to talk with anyone who claims he understands Hamas so it becomes evident if there is indeed an argument that without Hamas there is no Peace in the Middle East.
We have taken the position that Hamas embodies the mirror image of the extreme right in Israel – so there is communication between the two opposing extremes to peace – this even without verbal exchanges but only the meeting of the minds as shown by proof of action.
The fact that Hamas rules in Gaza and Fatah rules in Ramallah has created a de-facto two unit Palestine – the first is Rejectionist, and does not want to talk Peace, and the other-part of Arab settled territory was doing the heavy lifting in Peace negotiations but was held back by the Rejectionists.
The two professors that will discuss the situation under the aegis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace are thus obligated to say why a provisional three State solution is not the best step in the right direction if they are unable to vouch in the foreseeable short term that it is possible to end at least the rejectionist attitude on the Arab side before tackling the same on the Israeli side. After all – the Israelis are those that hold the material advantage by holding onto the land – so they have to see at least the willingness to sit at a common table first cleared with the Arab side.
If the two Professors cannot provide ideas on this, the meeting can still be seen as a success because it showed that talk alone does not produce ideas. If there are forthcoming ideas then we will be ready to say – go for the Two State solution directly.
“HOLD ME back!” is a part of Israeli folklore. It reminds us of our childhood.
When a boy has a scuffle with a bigger and stronger boy, he pretends that he is going to attack him any moment and shouts to the spectators: “Hold me back, or I am going to kill him!”
Israel is now in such a situation. We pretend that we are going to attack Iran at any moment and shout to the entire world: “Hold us back or…”
And the world does indeed hold us back.
IT IS dangerous to prophesy in such matters, especially when we are dealing with people not all of whom are wise and not all of whom are sane. Yet I am ready to maintain: there is no possibility whatsoever that the government of Israel will send the air force to attack Iran.
I am not going to enter into military matters. Is our air force really capable of executing such an operation? Are circumstances similar to those that prevailed 28 years ago, when the Iraqi reactor was successfully destroyed? Is it at all possible for us to eliminate the Iranian nuclear effort, whose installations are dispersed throughout the large country and buried far below the surface?
I want to focus on another aspect: is it politically feasible? What would be the consequences?
FIRST OF ALL, a basic rule of Israeli reality: the State of Israel cannot start any large-scale military operation without American consent.
Israel depends on the US in almost every respect, but in no sphere is it more dependent than in the military one.
The aircraft that must execute the mission were supplied to us by the US. Their efficacy depends on a steady flow of American spare parts. At that range, refueling from US-built tanker aircraft would be necessary.
The same is true for almost all other war material of our army, as well as for the money needed for their acquisition. Everything comes from America.
In 1956, Israel went to war without American consent. Ben-Gurion thought that his collusion with the UK and France was enough. He was vastly mistaken. One hundred hours after telling us that the “Third Kingdom of Israel” had come into being, he announced with a broken voice that he was going to evacuate all the territories just conquered. President Dwight Eisenhower, together with his Soviet colleague, had submitted an ultimatum, and that was the end of the adventure.
Since then, Israel has not started a single war without securing the agreement of Washington. On the eve of the Six-day War, a special emissary was sent to the US to make sure that there was indeed American agreement. When he returned with an affirmative answer, the order for the attack was issued.
On the eve of Lebanon War I, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon rushed to Washington to obtain American consent. He met with Secretary of State Alexander Haig, who agreed – but only on condition that there would be a clear provocation. A few days later there just happened to be an attempt on the life of the Israeli ambassador in London, and the war was on.
The Israeli army’s offensives against Hezbollah (“Lebanon War II”) and Hamas (“Cast Lead”) were possible because they were cast as part of the American campaign against “Radical Islam”.
Ostensibly, that is also true for an attack on Iran. But no.
BECAUSE AN Israeli attack on Iran would cause a military, political and economic disaster for the United States of America.
Since the Iranians, too, realize that Israel could not attack without American consent, they would react accordingly.
As I have written here before, a cursory glance at the map suffices to indicate what would be the immediate reaction. The narrow Hormuz Strait at the entrance of the Persian (or Arabian) Gulf, through which a huge part of the world’s oil flows, would be sealed at once. The results would shake the international economy, from the US and Europe to China and Japan. Prices would soar to the skies. The countries that had just begun to recover from the world economic crisis would sink to the depths of misery and unemployment, riots and bankruptcies.
The Strait could be opened only by a military operation on the ground. The US simply has no troops to spare for this – even if the American public were ready for another war, one much more difficult than even those of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is even doubtful whether the US could help Israel to defend itself against the inevitable counter-stroke by Iranian missiles.
The Israeli attack on a central Islamic country would unite the entire Islamic world, including the entire Arab world. The US, which has spent the last few years laboring mightily to form a coalition of “moderate” Arab states (meaning: countries governed by dictators kept by the US) against the “radical” states. This pack would immediately become unstuck. No Arab leader would be able to stand aside while the masses of his people were gathering in tumultuous demonstrations in the squares.
All this is clear to any knowledgeable person, and even more so to the American military and civilian leaders. Secretaries, generals and admirals have been sent to Israel to make this clear to our leaders in a language that even kindergarten kids can understand: No! Lo! La! Nyet!
IF SO, why has the military option not been removed from the table?
Because the US and Israel like it lying there.
The US likes to pose as if it can hardly hold back the ferocious Israeli Rottweiler on its leash. This puts pressure on the other powers to agree to the imposition of sanctions on Iran. If you don’t agree, the murderous dog could leap out of control. Think about the consequences!
What sanctions? For some time now, this terrifying word – “sanctions” – has been bedeviling everybody on the international stage. They are going to be imposed “within weeks”. But when one inquires what it is all about, one realizes that there is a lot of smoke and very little fire. Some commanders of the Revolutionary Guards may be hurt, some marginal damage inflicted on the Iranian economy. The “paralyzing sanctions” have disappeared, because there was no chance that Russia and China would agree. Both do very good business with Iran.
Also, there is very little chance that these sanctions would stop the production of the bomb, or even slow it down. From the point of view of the Ayatollahs, this effort is the prime imperative of national defense – only a country with nuclear arms is immune from American attack. Faced with the repeated threats by American spokesmen to overthrow their regime, no Iranian government could act differently. The more so since during the last century, the Americans and the British have repeatedly done exactly that. Iranian denials are perfunctory. According to all reports, even the most extreme Iranian opponents of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad support the acquisition of the bomb and would rally behind him if attacked.
In this respect, the Israeli leadership is right: nothing will stop Iran’s endeavor to obtain a nuclear bomb except the massive employment of military power. The “sanctions” are childish games. The American administration is talking about them in glowing terms in order to cover up the fact that even mighty America is unable to stop the Iranian bomb.
WHEN NETANYAHU & Co. criticize the inability of the American leaders to act against Iran, they answer in the same coin: you, too, are not serious.
And indeed, how serious are our leaders about this? They have convinced the Israeli public that it is a matter of life and death. Iran is led by a madman, a new Hitler, a sick anti-Semite, an obsessive Holocaust-denier. If he got his hands on a nuclear bomb, he would not hesitate for a moment to drop it on Tel Aviv and Dimona. With this sword hanging over our heads, this is no time for trivial matters, such as the Palestinian problem and the occupation. Everyone who raises the Palestinian question in a meeting with our leaders is immediately interrupted: Forget this nonsense, let’s talk about the Iranian bomb!!
But Obama and his people turn the argument around: if this is an existential danger, they say, please draw the conclusions. If this matter endangers the very existence of Israel, sacrifice the West Bank settlements on this altar. Accept the Arab League peace offer, make peace with the Palestinians as quickly as possible. That will ease our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and free our forces. Also, Iran would have no more pretext for war with Israel. The masses of the Arab world would not support it anymore.
And the conclusion: If a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem is more important to you than the Iranian bomb, the matter is clearly not really so critical for you. And that, with all due modesty, is my opinion, too.
THE DAY before yesterday a correspondent of Israel’s popular Channel 2 called me and asked, in a shocked voice: “Is it true that you have given an interview to the Iranian news agency?
“That’s true,” I told her. The agency mailed me some questions about the political situation, and I answered.
“Why did you do this?” she asked/accused.
“Why not?” I replied. That was the end of the conversation.
And indeed, why not? True, Ahmadinejad is a repulsive leader. I hope that the Iranians will get rid of him, and assume that this will happen sooner or later. But our relations with Iran do not depend on one single person, whoever he may be. They go back to ancient times and were always friendly – from the time of Cyrus until the time of Khomeini (whom we provided with arms to fight the Iraqis.)
In Israel, the portrayal of Iran nowadays is a caricature: a primitive, crazy country, with nothing on its mind but the destruction of the Zionist state. But it suffices to read a few good books about Iran (I would recommend William Polk’s “Understanding Iran”) which describe one of the oldest civilized countries in the world, which has given birth to several great empires and made a remarkable contribution to human culture. It has an old and proud tradition. Some scholars believe that the Jewish religion was profoundly influenced by the ethical teachings of Zoroaster (Zarathustra).
Whatever the rantings of Ahmadinejad, the real rulers of the country, the clerics, conduct a cautious and sober policy, and have never attacked another country. They have many important interests, and Israel is not among them. The idea that they would sacrifice their own glorious homeland in order to destroy Israel is ludicrous.
The simple truth is that there is no way to prevent the Iranians from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Better to think seriously about the situation that would be created: a balance of terror like the one between India and Pakistan, the elevation of Iran to the rank of a regional power, the need to start a sober dialogue with it.
But the main conclusion is: to make peace with the Palestinian people and the entire Arab world, in order to draw the rug from under any Iranian posture of defending them from us.
————–
We wonder if another conclusion would not also be – push on North Korea so the world realizes that even several nuclear bombs do not bring safety to a rogue regime. It was the failure on North Korea that gave us Ahmedi-Nejad. Even China and Russia understand that.
————-
And the push that is authored by the Turkish head of OIC – as per the following we see that it is the building of Synagogues on what the Muslims think of as Islamic territory - not just Palestinian. It is Judaization they stand up against – the Palestinians are incidental sufferers. That is what caused the 1948 war and all that followed. What about Christian Palestinians? Those are clearly further complications that call for Arab States guarantees for end of hostilities in name of religion.
from the Organization of the Islamic Conference Newsletter 13 (April 3, 2010):
Ihsanoglu cautions on the dangerous situation in Al-Quds
The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu has stressed that the City of Al Quds is going through difficult times, threatened by an imminent danger, the first of its kind since the 11th century war of the crusades.
Speaking at the twenty-second session of the Arab Summit, held in Sirte, Libya on 27 March 2010, the Secretary General added that a full-blown Judaization process is on in Al Quds. This takes the form of synagogue construction, expulsion of Arab and Muslim populations from the City, and the destruction of its historical and cultural identity. What Israel is doing is flagrant violation of international law and international humanitarian law, said the Secretary General.
Ihsanoglu warned that this violation could trigger strong waves of disturbances and violence across the world. In the face of this situation, the Secretary General announced that he had addressed communication to international officials concerning Al Quds, drawing their attention to the implications of Israeli practices.
Ihsanoglu underscored the importance of huge financial support for the vital sectors of the City and the need to counter the inflow into Israel of Jewish funds used for the construction of settlements and confiscation of unoccupied lands with a view to Judaizing them.
The Secretary General also announced that the OIC has taken initiatives to mitigate the suffering of the Gaza people following the heinous Israeli aggression of the City. In this regard, he reviewed the efforts made by the OIC in coordination with the OIC Ambassadorial Group in Geneva to dispatch a fact-finding mission to Gaza and the subsequent release of the Goldstone report.
The Secretary General concluded his statement with a reference to the efforts the OIC is making to address the situations in Iraq, Somalia and Sudan. In this regard he recalled the international donors’ conference on the development and reconstruction of Darfur recently convened by the OIC in Cairo.
OIC Secretary General welcomes HRC Resolution on Palestine, urges full and immediate implementation
The OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu commended the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for adopting on 26 March 2010 during its 13th Session in Geneva, a new resolution on Palestine, under the sponsorship of the OIC and the League of Arab States, which requested Israel to pay reparations to the Palestinians for the losses and damages that they suffered during the Israeli military offensive into the Gaza strip in January 2009.
Significantly, this Resolution calls for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to explore and determine the appropriate modalities for the establishment of an escrow fund for the provision of reparations to the Palestinians who suffered loss and damage as a result of unlawful acts of Israel during the military operations conducted from December 2008 to January 2009.
The OIC Secretary General has also welcomed the adoption of another resolution by the UN Human Rights Council condemning Israel’s continued construction of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. The resolution which was sponsored by the OIC and the League of Arab States, reaffirmed that the expansion of the Israeli settlements was not only in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant United Nations resolutions, but also undermined the efforts of the international community to advance the Middle East peace process.
The Secretary General called for full and immediate implementation of the resolutions, affirming that it will bring hope to the Palestinian people and push forward the efforts of the international community to advance the Middle East peace process.
East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian Territory Occupied in 1967
OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu rejected Netanyahu’s recent statement on Al Quds Al Shareef (Jerusalem). The Secretary General reaffirmed that East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, that the settlements built on Palestinian lands are illegal and constitute a flagrant violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Ihsanoglu also strongly condemned the decision of the Israeli government to build new settlement units in the centre of Sheikh Jarah District in East Jerusalem. The Secretary General called on the Quartet and the international community to compel Israel to stop all forms of settlement activities and violations aimed at isolating the City and changing the Arab and Islamic character of Al Quds Al Shareef.
Obama Sanctions Strategy on Iran Complicated by Congress.
Analysis by Jim Lobe, on Terra Viva of IPS
WASHINGTON, Apr 4 (IPS) – President Barack Obama is hoping that
relatively quick approval by the U.N. Security Council of a new round
of sanctions against Iran will relieve growing pressure on Capitol
Hill to take stronger measures against Tehran. But those hopes are
likely to be disappointed after lawmakers return from their Easter
recess in two weeks when the powerful “Israel Lobby” is expected to
make a major push for the imposition of tough unilateral sanctions
which both houses of Congress approved earlier this year.
The lobby’s efforts to build momentum behind the sanctions push at
last week’s annual conference of its most influential organisation,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), were largely
derailed as a result of the still-unresolved contretemps over U.S.
demands that visiting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu freeze
new settlement construction in Arab East Jerusalem.
Instead of focusing public and Congressional attention on the
“existential” dangers posed by a nuclear Iran as had been planned, the
conference was consumed instead by what many analysts called the worst
crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations in at least two decades. But even
before the conference closed, the lobby’s more-hawkish constituents -
particularly pro-Likud neo-conservatives – raised the volume on their
demands that Washington take much stronger unilateral action against
Tehran, of which the adoption of the toughest possible sanctions was
to be the bare minimum.
“To begin, senior administration officials should stop downplaying the
viability of a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iranian nuclear
facilities,” wrote Michael Makovsky, foreign policy director of the
Bipartisan Policy Centre (BPC) who worked for Pentagon chief Donald
Rumsfeld during George W. Bush’s first term, in the San Francisco
Chronicle.
Washington should also “beef up (the) U.S. naval presence” in the Gulf
and, “(i)f necessary, the U.S. Navy could then blockade Iran to
enforce sanctions on gasoline imports passed by both houses of
Congress,” he urged.
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, citing Obama’s repeated
declarations that a nuclear Iran was “unacceptable” to the U.S.,
compared the president’s current alleged passivity to the failure of
France and Britain to stop the Nazis from occupying the Rhineland in
1936.
In fact, the administration appears to have made progress in rallying
international support behind a new round of sanctions against Iran
since the first of the year, the time set by Obama last May for moving
towards sanctions if Iran failed to respond positively to U.S.
conditions, especially those related to Tehran’s nuclear programme,
for improved relations.
In a press briefing with visiting French President Nicolas Sarkozy
Tuesday, Obama expressed hope that a new Security Council sanctions
regime “would (be) in place in weeks,” rather than months, although he
admitted Washington did not yet have “unanimity” among key members.
In what they depicted as a breakthrough, however, U.S. officials
disclosed that China, considered the main obstacle to new U.N.
sanctions, had agreed for the first time to consider specific measures
during a conference call with senior foreign ministry officials from
the so-called P5+1 countries – the five permanent Council members,
including the U.S. and China, plus Germany – Wednesday morning.
U.S. and other western diplomats are also pressing hard on two
non-veto-wielding Council members, Turkey and Brazil, both of which
have publicly questioned the usefulness of sanctions, to at least
abstain on any final vote.
The administration believes that such a demonstration of unity in the
Security Council could well succeed in persuading Tehran to reconsider
its refusal until now to accept previous P5+1′s proposals for curbing
its nuclear programme. If not, it would set the stage for even tougher
multilateral action later this year.
Key Congressional leaders, including Democrats, however, are not as
optimistic. Some believe that whatever measures are eventually
approved by the Security Council, they will fall far short of the
“crippling sanctions” that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised
last year and that, in their view, would be essential to force a
reassessment in Tehran.
Indeed, in its efforts to rally support for a new sanctions regime,
Washington reportedly dropped several key provisions from a draft
resolution circulated in March, including sanctions that would deny
Iran access to international banking services, capital markets and to
international airspace and waters for its commercial trade.
In order to gain the widest possible consensus, the resolution is
expected to be watered down further before it comes to a vote, which
the administration hopes could come as early as this month but could
well be delayed until June.
And while the administration has argued for patience in carrying out
its strategy of increased multilateral pressure on Iran over the
course of the year, many lawmakers want to be seen as doing something,
particularly with the approach of the mid-term elections in November
when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and one-third of
the Senate will be up for grabs.
Republicans, whose views on the Middle East are largely shaped by
their pro-Likud neo-conservatives and Christian Zionist
constituencies, are pressing for the strongest possible sanctions.
Democrats are torn between their loyalty to Obama on the one hand and
their political need for support of Jewish voters and donors – who are
widely, if increasingly mistakenly, perceived as backing Netanyahu -
on the other.
Jewish donors, some of whom are reportedly deeply concerned by the
recent contretemps between Obama and the Israeli leader, are believed
to make up between 25 and 50 percent of the Democratic Party’s major
contributors, according to the “Hill” newspaper.
Both houses have passed legislation that would sanction companies of
third countries that do business with Iran, particularly in the energy
and telecommunications sectors. The two bills must now be reconciled
by a “conference committee”, which is likely to meet very soon after
the recess ends, before they can be sent to Obama for signature into
law.
The administration is arguing that imposing unilateral sanctions
before the Council acts would threaten the multilateral consensus it
is building with its European partners to get a strong U.N.
resolution.
“We want to make sure we don’t send wrong messages before we get
everyone signed up on what we can achieve internationally,” Clinton
warned lawmakers recently.
The administration has also argued that Obama should be given the
authority to exempt from punishment any companies from other nations,
such as China, that he deems are cooperating with Washington’s Iran
policy – a position that has been harshly criticised by Republicans
and some Democrats close to AIPAC.
Moreover, according to the administration, sweeping sanctions of the
kind included in the two house bills – as opposed to more-targeted
measures aimed at key figures and institutions in the regime, notably
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – could weaken the
still-feisty opposition Green Movement.
If the Council approves new sanctions this month, according to some
Congressional staff, Democrats will be more inclined to rally behind
the administration’s appeal for patience. But if U.N. action appears
unlikely before June, Congress is much more likely to force the issue.
Monday, 22 March, 2010
12:30 p.m.
Dag Hammarskjöld Library Auditorium
H.E. President of the UN General Assembly , H.E. Prime Minister of Tajikistan
H.E. Jan Eliasson
Chair of WaterAid Sweden, Former President of the UN General Assembly,
Former Foreign Minister of Sweden
With almost 884 million people lacking access to safe drinking water, and over 2.6 billion people, or almost 39 per cent of the world’s population, living without improved sanitation facilities, the issue of water is critical for tackling today’s challenges related to health, food security, and sustainable development.
To promote the International Decade for Action, “Water for Life 2005 – 2015”, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a special high-level interactive dialogue on water and its implications for the Millennium Development Goals, climate change, disasters, peace and security.
This high-level dialogue provides an important input to the preparatory process for the Summit on the Millennium Development Goals to be held on 20-22 September 2010, and feeds into the High-Level International Conference on water to be hosted by Tajikistan in June 2010.
General Assembly President Ali Treki, General Assembly President Ali Treki, Prime Minister Oqilov, and WaterAid Sweden Chair Jan Eliasson will brief the press on the significance of water-related issues and highlight the urgent need for action to fulfill international commitments on water by 2015.
————————-
The problem with the above press conference, which is part of the daily UN Spokesperson’s Briefing to the Press, is that the UN General Assembly President is Ali Treki, the Foreign Minister of Libya who was declared practically non-person by the Schengen countries, so he is unwelcome to Europe {a President of the UNGA – mind you – no less}, and Oqil Ghaybulloyevich Oqilov, Prime Minister of Tajikistan, just recently host to Ahmedi-Nejad of Iran, and whose country is turning into a pro-Iranian satellite. The fact that the UN water conference will be held in Tajikistan must have to do something with the push for legitimization by some of the world’s less palatable regimes.
That leaves the Honorable Jan Eliason, a friend from the days he served at the UN, and a friend of humanity, the only person worthwhile on that UN panel. We say this with full knowledge that water and climate change are indeed main problems for Libya and Tajikistan, but we just do not believe that the other two speakers on that dais have shown politically real interest in this topic.
We are curious what journalists will show up and how far can questioning be allowed by the UN, and by the UN General Assembly, Spokesmen.
————————-
Monday 04 January 2010 President Ahmadinejad lays wreath at Ismail Samani’s statue
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad laid wreath at the statue of Ismail Samani a former king here on Monday.
President Ahmadinejad arrived in Dushanbe Monday morning for a two-day stay in Tajikistan.
After welcome ceremony held by Tajikistan’s Prime Minister Oqil Oqilov, Ahmadinejad started talks with his Tajik counterpart Imomali Rakhmon.
During the talks, the two presidents signed three memoranda of understanding, two documents on cooperation and a statement on expansion of bilateral relations.
Later in the day, Ahmadinejad is planned to deliver speech to a group of resident Iranians at Ibn Sina Hospital, built by Iran’s private sector in the country. He is also due to inaugurate an Iranology center in the Tajikistan’s medical university.
——
Saturday 09 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad ends Central Asian tour
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad left Turkmenistan for Iran Wednesday afternoon at the end of his two-nation tour to the Central Asia region.
The Iranian president was officially seen off by his Turkmen counterpart Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov.
He was in Turkmenistan to attend the inaugural ceremony of the first phase of Iran-Turkmenistan’s second gas pipeline project.
The 182-km pipeline was inaugurated by the Iranian and Turkmen presidents earlier on Wednesday.
President Ahmadinejad was in the region on a three-day visit which had brought him earlier to Tajikistan.
He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials.
A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capitals.
—–
Saturday 09 January 2010
President Ahmadinejad returns home
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concluded his two-nation tour to the Central Asian region and arrived in Tehran on Wednesday afternoon.
Upon his arrival, the Iranian president was welcomed by Supreme Leader’s Advisor for International Affairs Ali Akbar Velayati, 1st Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as well as a number of high ranking officials and ministers.
Speaking to reporters at the airport, President Ahmadinejad described his visits to Tajikistan and Turkmenistan as very fruitful and promising.
He discussed major bilateral, regional and international developments with senior Tajik and Turkmen officials.
A number of agreements were also signed by Iranian officials and their Tajik and Turkmen counterparts for promotion of bilateral cooperation between Tehran and the two Central Asian capital cities.
—–
Saturday 09 January 2010
President: World’s fate to be decided in Middle East.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that world’s destiny will be decided in the Middle East.
“Iran and Syria should in a joint mission establish new world order based on monotheism, justice and humanity,” President Ahmadinejad told Syrian parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Abrash.
He said the world is on verge of big developments and the tyrannical systems are fading.
“Iran and Syria shoulder a crucial role in present juncture and their cooperation should further expand,” he added.
The 30-year resistance of Iran and Syria is almost close to the victory stage, said the President, adding, “Resistance of nations, including Iran and Syria, has thwarted all the conspiracies of the imperialistic system in the political, economic, military and ideological domains.”
The President went on to say that construction of the wall of separation in the occupied lands and of the steel war in Gaza all show the Zionist regime’s vulnerability. “The US government too will have to end up its interventions in the region and get its forces out of there.”
Al-Abrash said in return that expansion of relations and cooperation among Muslim states, including Iran and Syria, has nullified enemy conspiracies.
He said that Iran and Syria will as before move in the front of perseverance and campaign against global arrogance.
————————————
For more information and the full programme of the day, please see: www.un.org
By CAROLINE BOIN, The Japan Times online, Saturday, March 20, 2010
LONDON — The 18th annual World Water Day (March 22) offers the same old problems and rejects the practical solutions. On Monday, 1 billion people will, as usual, spend the day without clean water and a third of humanity without adequate sanitation. As usual, some 3.5 million men, women and children will die from related diseases this year. Yet many nongovernment organizations and politicians still prefer ideology to ideas, spurning what the private sector delivers to the world’s poor.
Activists often claim to be defending the poor from profit-maximizing corporations. But this has more to do with dogma than reality. Given that less than 10 percent of world water management is private, it is hard to see how they can blame corporations for poor supply.
In fact, it is governments that mismanage water and misallocate it to political cronies and powerful lobbies such as farmers. The poor, in rural areas or slums, are left unconnected and unable to do much about it. Anti-privatization groups keep repeating that water should be provided by government but ignore that government has been the worst enemy of the poor.
On another tack, the World Development Movement and similar groups claim that the private sector has done little for the poor, having connected only three million people in developing countries over the past 15 years. But this figure excludes Latin America and Southeast Asia where private water management — and the number of people getting water — has boomed since the 1990s. In Argentina, for example, privately managed areas got lower water prices, more connections and a drop in infectious diseases and child deaths.
Activists have further misrepresented private supply by focusing on multinationals while ignoring the small-scale water vendors who get water to people whom governments have abandoned. In many African cities, they sell plastic water sachets to passersby, while in Paraguay 500 aguateros supply nearly half a million people using tankers and piped water.
A World Bank researcher found in 1998 that “in most cities in developing countries, more than half the population gets basic water service from suppliers other than the incumbent official utility.” Country surveys suggest that the situation has changed little since then.
The World Health Organization, like activists, disregards these “informal” water vendors, bottled water and tankers. It refuses to consider them as “improved water sources” as they are unregulated, unpredictable and allegedly incapable of serving a mass market.
But to the hundreds of millions of people who rely on them, there is nothing incapable about private water providers. For many, they are the difference between life and death.
Informal water vendors come in all types, but they all provide water for profit. Their clients are among the most poorly prepared to pay to protect their families from disease and to put their time to better use than searching for clean water.
The success of these private water services throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia disproves the claim that the poor are too poor to pay for water and that the private sector has no incentive to serve them. In fact, the poor often pay more for water than those in prosperous areas with “formal” supplies. A World Bank survey of South American cities found that, on average, trucked water costs four to 10 times more than the public network’s price. In Kibera, the Nairobi slum of about 1 million people, jerry-can water sells at four times the average price in Kenya.
Activists who accuse the private sector of putting profits before people should realize three things. First, water vendors would stop providing water and sanitation if they did not make a profit. Second, governments are largely to blame for the higher prices because they constrain or outlaw private supply. Finally, people buy from vendors willingly, often with a choice of suppliers.
Water is severely under-priced in China, at around a third of the world average. As a consequence 300 million rural people have no safe drinking water. Where vendors do operate, people are prepared to pay up to 10 times the connected cost.
The theme of this year’s World Water Day is quality, so legalizing the work of water vendors should be a priority. They could then own sources, land and infrastructure, get credit and expand operations, serving more people at cheaper rates with cleaner water. It is these small-scale ventures — not empty government promises — that can quickly improve water supplies for the poor.
Caroline Boin is a project director at International Policy Network, London, which focuses on economic development.
Wed, May 19, 2010
